No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/21/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Pz Final Agenda PacketAGENDA 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, March 21, 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, March 21, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, April 18, 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. 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 February 7 Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 2. Addition to the Land Use Code – Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding a change to the Land Use Code. This item involves parkway landscaping in single family housing developments where approved development plans specify turfgrass in the parkways (the strips of land between street curbs and detached sidewalks). Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Clark Mapes 3. Waterglen PUD Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D This is a request for a one-year extension, to March 15, 2014, of the approved Waterglen Planned Unit Development (PUD) Self-Storage, Final Plan. The self- storage property is located in the northeast corner of the approved and developed Waterglen PUD that is located at the northwest corner of Interstate 25 & East Vine Drive. The property is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Applicant: Nathan Winterfield, 1027 Vista Grande Drive, Colorado Springs, CO. 80906 Staff: Ted Shepard E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following item: 4. 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code – Division 3, 4 and 5 – Urban Agriculture This request for a Recommendation to City Council to update the Land Use and Municipal Code includes the following objectives: 1. Establishes an urban agriculture licensing system that addresses neighborhood compatibility concerns raised during the outreach process instead of requiring urban gardens to go through a full development review process; 2. Allows farmers markets in more zone districts in the City; Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Lindsay Ex 5. Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 This is a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street and in their place, construct five, three story multi-family buildings, combining the two lots for a 1.48 acre site. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District and is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. Applicant: Chuck Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd., 7302 Rozena Street Longmont, CO 80503 Staff: Courtney Levingston 6. Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017 This is a request for an eleven unit multi-family infill redevelopment project. As proposed, the two existing homes located at 705 and 715 Remington Street would be demolished and replaced with two multi-family buildings. The historic home at 711 Remington Street would remain and be rehabilitated, containing a two bedroom unit. The site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer Zone District. Applicant: Jeff Hansen, Vaught Frye Larson Architects, 401 Mountain Avenue, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff: Courtney Levingston F. Other Business G. Adjourn Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing Minutes February 7, 2013 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 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Elmore, Hart, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Buchanan, Levingston, Virata, Stanford, Barnes, Wray, Albertson-Clark, and Sanchez-Sprague Chair Smith said hearing attendees and described the following processes: • Citizen participation is an opportunity to present comments on issues not on the meeting agenda. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discuss in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members. Public input follows. • At the time of public comment, Chair Smith asked that individuals wishing to speak come to the podium, state their name and address, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. • The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Smith asked if the board, staff, or audience if they wanted to pull any items from the consent agenda. No one did. Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Land Use Code (LUC) Amendments Related to Ecological Value of Non-Native Trees, Tree Mitigation Radius, and Clerical Changes Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the minutes from the December 14, 2012 Special Hearing and the December 20, 2012 Hearing, Land Use Code Amendments Related to Removal of Election Signs, and Land Use Code Amendments Related to Ecological Value of Non-Native Trees, Tree Mitigation, and Clerical Changes. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP #1200036 3. Eastside/Westside Character Study _______ Project: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan # 1200036 Project Description: This is a request for a mixed-use redevelopment of the existing Foothills Fashion Mall. As proposed, the project contains a commercial/retail component, a commercial parking structure and 800 multi-family dwelling units on 76.3 acres. The site is zoned C-G, General Commercial and is located within the Transit- Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD). Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said the project proposes to deconstruct portions of the existing Foothills Fashion Mall and renovate the original structure, for a 388,084 square foot, one-level, enclosed shopping mall. In addition, various free standing buildings including the Commons at Foothills Mall buildings, the Shops at Foothills Mall buildings, The Plaza at Foothills Mall, The Corner Bakery, Christy Sports and the Youth Activity Center building would all be deconstructed. Eight new retail buildings are proposed along South College Avenue, ranging from 9,300 square feet to 31,715 square feet in size. Internal to the site, five new retail buildings are proposed to be located northwest of the existing enclosed mall. These five buildings range from 7,636 square feet to 12,000 square feet in size. To the southwest of the existing mall, four new restaurants are proposed ranging in size from 8,088 square feet to 14,000 square feet as well as a new, two story 24,000 square foot Foothills Activity Center to replace the Youth Activity Center. A new 86,754 square foot entertainment and theater building is proposed, located southeast of the new restaurants. The large east green area and smaller west green plazas anchor the pedestrian network. The commercial component provides a total of 3,581 parking spaces via a six level, 84,663 square foot parking structure and surface parking spaces. The project proposes 800 multi-family residential units distributed among five buildings that will include a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom units. The unit mix would be divided in the following manner: 59 studio units; 395 one-bedroom; 319 two-bedroom and 27 three-bedroom, for a total of 1,173 bedrooms. For the residential component, 1,422 parking spaces are proposed via three separate Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Page 3 subterranean structures (858 spaces), an above ground structure on lot 6 (472 spaces) and 92 open surface parking stalls located on lot 3. Moving along Stanford Road from north to south, Buildings 1A and 1B are primarily three stories in height transitioning down to two stories on the north elevations; Buildings 2 and 3 are four story buildings and Building 4 is a five story residential building wrapping a parking structure on the northwest corner of Stanford Road and East Monroe Drive Staff recommended approval of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan and all but one of the five Modification of Standard requests to Section 3.8.7 subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval by City Council of the vacation of the public right-of-way portion of Foothills Parkway via a separate procedure. 2. Successful completion of off-site wetland mitigation via a separate agreement with the City. 3. Detailed elevations of the entertainment/theater building must be provided at time of Final Plan, clearly illustrating compliance with the applicable Large Retail Establishment standards of Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code. 4. A west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road must be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. 5. If electronic message centers with full color capability are installed, that the method of display can only be a single color at a time as per Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(c). See verbatim transcript at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php for more information on proceedings for this topic. _______ Project: Eastside/Westside Character Study Project Description: This is a request for recommendation to City Council of a package of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown. Recommendation: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council regarding an Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. Members Kirkpatrick (Conflict of interest) and Hatfield left the meeting. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Ms. Sanchez-Sprague reported the only information received since the work session has been a read- before memo from staff, and Ordinance with two options, and a floor area ratio table. Senior City Planner Pete Wray This item consists of a package of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N- C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown. Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Page 4 This package was developed largely by the consulting firm of Winter and Company, with review and assistance by staff and was based on a wide range of public input by residents and other interested citizens, keeping the original project goal in mind. Wray stated this item would amend the Land Use Code to implement the Eastside/Westside Character Study. He stated staff provided five recommendations at the City Council work session which included: promoting the existing design assistance program, expanding notification for variance requests, creating a new design handbook or guidelines, adjusting measurement methods, and addressing building massing and solar impacts with new design tools. Council directed staff to proceed with implementation of those five strategy options, including assessing potential changes to the floor area ratio standard. Wray stated the public process for this phase three implementation included a series of public meetings in January and will include a series of Boards and Commissions recommendations, with the Planning and Zoning Board being the first. Council will be considering the item, for First Reading, on February 19, 2013. He reviewed the two Ordinance options as presented by staff. Option A reflects a package of revised standards, including a revision to the existing floor area ratio standard formula. Option B retains the existing floor area ratio standard. The standards included in both options are: expansion of the notification distance for zoning requests from 150 feet to 500 feet, a slight reduction to the existing maximum floor area ratio standards and an adjustment to the measurement method for calculating the maximum permitted floor area, an adjusted measurement method for the height of a new wall along a side lot line, an adjustment to the side wall height standards for solar access, and new design standards for front and side facades for larger new homes. Wray reviewed case studies in which the proposed and existing standards were applied. Option B would retain the existing floor area ratio formula. Public Input Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, commended staff for work on the item and stated the Board of Realtors is opposed to changes to the floor area ratio standards. He stated the floodplain issue needs to be addressed regarding height standards so as to avoid a doubly punitive situation. He suggested an exemption or separate process for those who are required to raise their homes due to floodplain location. He requested consideration that the pattern book not be put off until 2014. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, opposed the proposed changes. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, stated residents who live in these neighborhoods generally supports the trend of these proposed changes. She stated zoning request notifications need to be expanded and sent earlier. She stated large homes should be built in other areas of the city and these neighborhoods should be protected. Kathy Konen, 121 North Sherwood Street, supported the ability of families to build homes as they wish and stated the neighborhoods need to keep growing in order to stay viable. She opposed the proposed changes. Susan Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Court, noted the previous package of Code changes for this area, from 2010, was repealed by City Council. She questioned whether the current study used a broader perspective to understand character, larger context and compatibility, and threshold for change in these neighborhoods. She expressed concern that the proposed floor area ratio standards have not been thoroughly discussed. Ms. Froseth stated that the exact issues that led to the citizen’s initiative in 2011 to overturn the original guidelines are part of this proposal. She suggested standards should be Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Page 5 developed to promote existing neighborhood character while still allowing for beneficial change. She stated the new proposed floor area standards are against the citizen initiative. Glen Konen, 121 North Sherwood Street, stated floor area ratios do not define a neighborhood and opposed the proposed changes. Gina Jannett, 730 West Oak, stated a strong majority of residents and land owners in these neighborhoods believe there are problems due to scrape-offs and expansions that result in large, tall houses that loom over neighbors. She stated the proposed floor area ratio changes have been in response to citizen concerns. She supported Option A of the Ordinance in order to retain the character of these neighborhoods. End of Public Input Wray stated Council directed staff, in the spring of 2011, to examine the issues associated with the largest new construction and additions within the two neighborhoods. A key part of the process was identifying strategy options that will best address the issues associated with the largest construction examples. Wray stated staff determined the application needed to be applied on a limited basis within the neighborhoods and the two zoning districts based on established thresholds. He stated the original staff recommendation was to not include the floor area ratio changes as the team felt the package of other design standards sufficiently addresses the issues. However, it is included on the list of viable tools to limit house size, as per Council’s request. Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager, stated stormwater staff has collected data since October 1, 2007 for the Old Town 100-year floodplain, which predominately covers portions of the Westside neighborhood and a small portion of the Eastside. In that time period, there have been four new homes that were built in that floodplain. Those four were required to elevate their finished floor a minimum of eighteen inches above the 100-year flood elevation. There were a total of fourteen structures within the floodplain that had additions. Those additions are typically required to elevate a minimum of six inches above the 100-year flood elevation. Board Questions Member Hart stated all parties seem to want to protect the neighborhoods with the only issue being the floor area ratio. He questioned why the floor area ratios need to be amended. Abe Barge, Winter and Company, replied participants throughout this process have expressed a desire for basically the same thing. The issue of the floor area ratio tool comes down to a choice about how far it’s appropriate to go in terms of addressing the objectives and issues that were identified as part of the public process to promote compatibility. Option A most thoroughly addresses the issues and objectives with the change in floor area ratio; Option B may be seen as not going far enough in terms of addressing the issue of overly large homes. Board Discussion Member Hart stated the solar access regulation would shift the burden from the property on one side of a home to the property on the other side, and the floor area ratio reduction would not have aided that property owner at all. Member Campana stated not everyone agrees that preserving the character of the neighborhood is what the argument is about. The main part of the problem is a lack of basic, considerate architecture. He opposed the floor area ratio changes. He expressed concern that the late start time of the meeting diminished citizen input and noted two Members left as well. Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Page 6 Member Carpenter expressed appreciation for Option B. She stated good design has nothing to do with square footage; however, there are some problematic large construction examples. She suggested recommending adoption of Option B and noted residents in Old Town have often selected that area because they do not want HOA restrictions. She supported moving forward with design guidelines rather than standards more quickly than perhaps originally planned. Member Campana stated he could support Option B with revisions, but could not support Option A. Member Carpenter stated the Board should continue the item, but that is not an option given it will go to Council either way. Chairman Smith supported the changes brought forth to the work session, other than the floor area ratio change. He stated a well-designed large house is preferable to a poorly-designed small house. The proposed Code changes, other than the floor area ratio issue, go far in accomplishing good design. He stated he would support recommending Option B, but would not have supported Option A. Member Carpenter noted the importance of sending a recommendation to Council and stated, though not ideal, Option B offers changes that are close to being complete. Chairman Smith stated compatibility does not necessarily equal uniformity. Diversity of the housing stock in Old Town is what makes it resilient and attractive. Member Carpenter noted diversity in housing has historically been part of Old Town. Member Elmore expressed appreciation for the solar access regulations. She supported Option A, stating it would not preclude or prevent people from desiring Old Town. Member Carpenter made a motion to recommend to City Council the adoption of Option B. Member Hart seconded the motion. Member Campana supported the increased notice area change and asked about the point of reference for determining a floor. Barge replied, in theory it is to the ceiling or rafter. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator, replied the seven and a half foot measurement, only applies to the second story in a detached accessory building. In the main house, the seven and a half foot measurement isn’t mentioned; it is the total square footage of the floor area, regardless of the ceiling height. In a detached building, you only count that portion of the second floor that has a ceiling height of seven and half feet or greater. Barnes stated that one current problem is that if someone builds a one-story house with a tall vaulted ceiling, it may appear like a two-story house; however, it is currently considered one story. The proposed change would count floor area when the distance between the floor and the rafter directly above it is greater than fourteen feet. Member Campana asked how massing and articulation would be reviewed. Barnes replied the Zoning Department reviews plans against the Land Use Code. Submittal requirements will need to include additional information regarding surrounding properties. The motion passed 4:1 with Member Elmore dissenting. Other None Planning & Zoning Board February 7, 2013 Page 7 The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair SPECIAL HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, February 7, 2013 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan, PDP #120036 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 7, 2013 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant Kristin Kirkpatrick Courtney Levingston, City Planner Gino Campana Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Gerald Hart John Hatfield Emily Elmore 2 1 CHAIRMAN ANDY SMITH: The first item will be the Foothills Mall Redevelopment 2 PDP. And, before we start with the staff report, I just wanted to ask the audience to remember 3 that this is specifically a Land Use Code issue that we’re dealing with tonight. I know that there 4 are other issues related to this topic, specifically eminent domain, that…it would be a waste of 5 time. It’s inappropriate, really, for our discussion this evening because that is nothing that this 6 Board will take into consideration tonight or at any time in the future. And so, I’d just…if you 7 have comments about the eminent domain piece, I would recommend that you do not waste your 8 time on them. Yeah, and you’ll have plenty of opportunity to address the City Council, as I 9 imagine many folks will. So, with that let’s go ahead and get a staff report please. 10 MS. COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: Yes, Mr. Chair. This is a request for a mixed-use 11 redevelopment of the existing Foothills Mall. As proposed, the project contains a commercial 12 component, a retail component, a commercial parking structure, and eight hundred multi-family 13 dwelling units on 76.34 acres. The site is zoned General Commercial and is located within the 14 Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. The site is also located within the Midtown 15 Urban Renewal Plan Area, and City Plan identified this area as a targeted activity center. 16 As proposed, the following needs to be deconstructed: parts of the existing mall, the 17 Youth Activity Center, the Shops at Foothills Mall, the Commons at Foothills Mall, Christy 18 Sports, Corner Bakery, Tres Margaritas, and the Plaza at Foothills Mall. In its place, eight free- 19 standing retail buildings along South College Avenue are proposed. There’ll be five free- 20 standing retail buildings internal to the site and four new restaurants southeast of the enclosed 21 mall. There’ll be a new theater entertainment component, a six-level commercial parking 22 structure. The existing Youth Activity Center will be deconstructed and a new youth activity 23 center called the Foothills Activity Center will be constructed on-site. There’ll be five multi- 24 family buildings, eight hundred units, along Stanford Road. These multi-family buildings will 25 have associated parking structures. 26 In terms of multi-modal connectivity, there’s a twelve-foot wide shared pedestrian and 27 bicycle path along South College Avenue. There’ll be three new Transfort bus stops, one south 28 of East Foothills Parkway, one along East Foothills Parkway, and one north of East Monroe 29 Drive on the west side of Stanford Road. Additionally, Monroe Drive is to be restriped from 30 four lanes down to a two to accommodate new bike lanes. Internally, there’ll be…pavement 31 markings for bicycle connectivity throughout the site. 32 New retail along South College Avenue: the existing Larimer Canal Ditch will be 33 relocated in a box culvert and aligned along South College Avenue. There’s three access points 34 along South College Avenue…this is existing…two are proposed. And there’ll be eight new 35 buildings along South College Avenue and they range from 9,302 square feet in size to 31,715 36 square feet in size. The new internal retail is located on Lot 11, Block 11 and Lot 10, Blocks 37 10A, 10B, 9A and 9B. That’s located northwest of the existing mall site. These retail buildings 38 frame the proposed East Green Amenity. There’ll be four new restaurants proposed. They range 3 1 from 8.088 square feet in size to 14,000 square feet in size. These will be two levels and this on 2 Block 1G and 1H. This is an elevational example of the 14,000 square foot restaurant building. 3 A new Foothills Activity Center is proposed to replace the existing Youth Activity 4 Center. The proposed building is about 22,000 square feet in size, will range about fifty-seven 5 feet tall. And, the City Recreation Department is currently working with the applicant to get 6 more of the details of the operational characteristics nailed down. The theater entertainment 7 component is on Lot 7, Block 7. The theater is two levels and two tenants. Those tenants have 8 not been identified at this time by the applicant. Sixty-four feet is the max height, and the 9 average height is about forty-four feet. 10 The commercial parking structure: it’s about 64,663 square feet total, six parking levels, 11 1,477 spaces. It’s about seventy-five feet in height and it does contain covered bike parking on 12 the ground level. 13 In terms of the multi-family residential, eight hundred units are proposed along Stanford 14 Road, that’s 1,173 bedrooms. There’s four subterranean parking structures on buildings 1A, 1B, 15 2 and 3, and on building 4, Lot 6, the units wrap an above-ground parking structure for a total of 16 1,422 residential parking spaces provided by the development. For multi-family residential, we 17 have these as three stories transitioning down to two stories as they approach the abutting single- 18 and two-family lots to the north. Building 2 is proposed to be four stories, as well as building 3, 19 and building 4 is five stories in height. 20 The applicant also submitted a sign package request with this Project Development Plan 21 and associated modifications. They requested two of the ground signs proposed to be located 22 along South College Avenue for a number of directional signs, and a secondary entry sign is 23 proposed to be located within the interior of the site. The Land Use Code contains regulations 24 that govern the size, height, location and design requirements for signs on private property. All 25 of the other signs that the applicant has proposed comply with the applicable standards of our 26 Code. For a modification of standards, the Board can grant one if they find that A) the 27 modifications are not detrimental to the public good, and B) one of the criteria outlined in the 28 Land Use Code is being met. A summary of those criteria are: it can be…they meet the standard 29 equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard, the modification would 30 substantially alleviate a city-wide concern or result in a substantial benefit to the city, and 31 complying with the Code would render the project practically infeasible. Third is exceptional 32 physical site conditions cause complying with the Code to result in exceptional hardship. 33 Number four, the modification is nominal and inconsequential in context with the larger plan and 34 continues to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code. 35 The first modification request is to allow signs that do not have street frontage. The plan 36 proposes ten directional signs throughout the site, that’s that turquoise color right there, and then 37 two monument ground signs. These signs don’t have street frontage because this…East Monroe 4 1 Drive is vacated, existing. It’s a private drive and so the sign would be right there. And then 2 this…and it’s also located right here on the to-be-vacated Foothills Parkway. So, those wouldn’t 3 have street…public street frontage. The directional signs are located throughout the site and 4 those don’t have street frontage. Staff recommends approval of this modification of standards 5 request because we feel that it is nominal and inconsequential when taken in context of the larger 6 project development plan. They’re also necessary in terms of providing safe and adequate 7 vehicular circulation throughout the site. 8 The second modification request to allow more than one ground sign per lot. So, as we 9 said there are ten 23.5 square foot vehicular directional signs throughout the site. These signs 10 aren’t visible from the street. The Code considers any sign larger than four square feet counting 11 toward the one ground sign per lot regulation. This seventy-six acre redevelopment could be 12 considered unique and not allowing these directional signs can be considered a hardship, because 13 as we explained before, it is necessary for adequate vehicular connectivity. 14 The third modification request is to allow two digital, that’s electronic message center, 15 signs to be displayed in full color. Full color digital signs are allowed as long as the message is 16 displayed one color at a time. The applicant submitted a modification request; however, the 17 modification request cannot be justified based on those specific criteria outlined in the Code. 18 Staff is recommending denial of this modification. 19 The fourth modification to allow digital signs larger than fifty percent of the sign 20 face…so these are these two large digital signs that are along South College Avenue, one north 21 of Foothills Parkway, one north of East Monroe Drive. As proposed, the digital sign is 22 comprised of sixty-four percent of the total sign area. We feel that this promotes the general 23 purpose of the standard equally well or better than a sign that is double in size with the additional 24 graphics, and that this could be considered nominal and inconsequential when considered in 25 context of the entire development plan. 26 The fifth modification request, to allow more than one digital sign per street per 27 development. The Code allows one digital sign per street and/or development, and a minimum 28 of a hundred foot spacing. As proposed, on College Avenue, these two signs are 1,164 feet 29 apart. The College Avenue frontage of the project is approximately 1,850 feet, and that’s greater 30 than most commercial development we see, if not all, in Fort Collins. We consider this…we 31 think that it could be considered nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of 32 the entire development plan. This is a very large site, and it also could be considered a hardship 33 because of the unique situation of the large site. 34 So, we’re recommending that all but one of the modification requests are approved, and 35 they have satisfied the modification criteria justification as outlined in the Code. That would be 36 to allow signs that do not have street frontage, allow more than one ground sign per lot, allow 37 digital signs to exceed fifty-percent of the sign face, and to allow digital signs to be located 1,164 5 1 feet apart along South College Avenue frontage. However, staff does recommend denial of the 2 modification request to allow the two full-color digital signs. 3 Overall, staff recommends approval of the Project Development Plan subject to five 4 conditions. The first condition of approval would be proper vacation of Foothills Parkway. 5 Currently Foothills Parkway is a public street until right about this lightning bolt right here, and 6 that’s Mathews Street. As proposed, Foothills Parkway would be a private drive owned by the 7 applicant. The vacation of a public street is a separate process that can only be approved by City 8 Council and not this Project Development Plan. Therefore, the condition of approval is 9 recommended. 10 The second condition of approval is for off-site wetland mitigation. Currently, the 11 project proposes realigning Larimer Canal No. 2 in a box culvert along South College Avenue. 12 The ECS identified 0.15 acres of wetlands formed at the base of the Larimer Canal No. 2. Per 13 the Code, the wetlands have to be mitigated replacing the ecological value. The Poudre River 14 corridor is the location of the proposed off-site wetland mitigation, and, as a condition of 15 approval, staff recommends that off-site wetland mitigation agreement must be executed with the 16 City, by the developer. 17 The third condition of approval would be to construct a right turn lane on Horsetooth at 18 Stanford Road. Currently, a west-bound right turn lane at Horsetooth and Stanford Road doesn’t 19 exist and the number of turning vehicles identified in the traffic study meets the Larimer County 20 Urban Area Street Standards for criteria for when a right-turn lane must be provided. A 21 condition of approval is recommended ensuring the construction of a west-bound right turn lane 22 on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the 23 project. 24 A condition of approval is regarding the entertainment theater design. The Land Use 25 Code has specific standards in Section 3.5.4 addressing the design of new retail buildings greater 26 than 25,000 square feet in size. As proposed the theater entertainment building is about 86,574 27 square feet. The applicant has indicated to us that the final designs and the tenants are not 28 finalized at this time, so staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to 29 illustrate full compliance with the provisions of the Section 3.5.4 at time of final plan. 30 The final condition of approval is regarding the digital sign, full color. If the proposed 31 electronic message center signs with full color capability are to be installed, then the method of 32 display can only be a single color at a time, per the Code. And that’s a recommendation of 33 approval if we move forward. And, that concludes my staff presentation. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you, appreciate it. Angelina, I forgot to ask the 35 magic question at the beginning. Have there been any written comments received since our 36 worksession? 6 1 MS. ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes, there’s been several comments…they’re 2 all in a file…I won’t name them by…there were several citizen comments, yes. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Let’s move to the applicant presentation. 4 Please, if you could state your name and address for the record and sign in please. How many 5 folks on your team will be addressing the Board, making your presentation? 6 MS. CAROLYN WHITE: Mr. Chairman, we just have two for the formal presentation, 7 but we do plan to introduce the rest of the team so you know who all’s here for technical 8 questions for later. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Please proceed. 10 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, City staff, members of the public, 11 my name is Carolyn White, I’m land use counsel for the applicant on the PDP that’s before you 12 tonight. On behalf of Walton Foothills, which you might also hear referred to as Alberta, who is 13 one of the principal partners in Walton Foothills, we respectfully request your approval of the 14 PDP submitted to you tonight. We are in agreement with staff on everything in the staff report 15 and that was presented by Ms. Levingston, with one exception, and that is, of course, the fifth 16 modification on the sign package in which we would request that you approve the modification 17 allowing the two full-color LED signs. Later on in our presentation, we’ll go through that in 18 more detail with you and explain how we think it meets the modification criteria. 19 This project, which we’re pleased to present to you tonight, was designed to meet three 20 different layers of criteria. The first layer of criteria, of course, is Fort Collins City Plan and Fort 21 Collins Land Use Code. At a minimum, anything for you to approve obviously has to meet those 22 criteria, and as you’ll see as we go through the presentation, there are a number of places in the 23 plan where this project specifically achieves some of the goals outlined in the City Plan. 24 Additionally, the project has to meet everything in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, which sets 25 forth specific goals for this particular property and what’s trying to be achieved here. And then, 26 finally, obviously, this project has to meet the standards of quality that this particular developer 27 sets for themselves, and market demand. And so, everything that you’ll see tonight in terms of 28 the vision and how it’s proposed to execute this project, is designed to satisfy all three levels of 29 those criteria. 30 Our presentation tonight is going to be Don Provost, principal of Alberta and in Walton 31 Foothills, outlining for you the vision and a variety of the specific public amenities and 32 community benefits involved in this project. I’m going to come back and talk a little bit about 33 the specific legal criteria and about the City Plan, and then of course we have our entire team 34 here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you 35 tonight, and with that I’d like to introduce Don Provost. 7 1 MR. DON PROVOST: Thanks Carolyn. Good evening and thank you for the 2 opportunity to be before you this evening. As Carolyn mentioned, my name is Don Provost, I’m 3 the founding principal of Alberta Development Partners, founded the company twenty-one years 4 ago down in Denver. Lived down in Denver, raised my family there, I have four young children 5 and a wife who attended Colorado State University. It’s a very exciting time for us to come 6 before you this evening and present what we’re terming the “reimagining of Foothills.” It’s an 7 incredible opportunity and we don’t take it lightly. I’d like to give a big thanks to Courtney for 8 covering the significant issues in great detail, we’ve enjoyed working very much with her and the 9 City staff as we’ve…many, many issues that we’ve had to reach resolution from, and as you 10 see…excuse me…from her conclusion this evening, we’ve only got the one issue out of 11 everything involved in a massive project like this that we want to continue to have dialogue on 12 this evening. 13 You can see on the slide there, we’ve assembled a best-in-class team to execute this 14 project, most of which are here this evening, here to answer any questions that come up that are 15 technical in nature or require an answer from the professional that executed that work product. 16 This is the site plan, I think you saw a brief shot of it in Courtney’s presentation…orient 17 you guys, College Avenue right here, the existing…can you move around on that, Adam, for 18 me? College Avenue…move on with the cursor…the main mall in the center of the site, the 19 residential on the eastern boundary, the cinema right there, the east plaza with the restaurants 20 right there, the west plaza on the other side as you go. The reimagined Foothills is driven by 21 what we’re terming “sophisticated Colorado contemporary architecture,” which, along with 22 pedestrian-friendly shops, restaurants, and community gathering spaces, will transform this 23 property into the dominant retail destination in Northern Colorado. Next slide. 24 That’s the existing mall, and I’ll get to that in a minute when we talk about what’s staying 25 and what’s going. Courtney did a good job of that, but I want to elaborate a little further. This is 26 a slide that represents College Avenue and the urban edge shops that get established and create a 27 whole different character and edge, and feel and presentation along College Avenue. Very, very 28 important to set a new direction and set a new approach and vibrancy for this asset. 29 This is a rendering of the new entrance to the Foothills Mall. The existing entry is 30 geographically located where you see it there, so it doesn’t physically move. What changes is, as 31 you can see, the architecture. Big, bold moves in height and glass, colors, materials. We wanted 32 the project to take on a very…you know, again, sophisticated Colorado progressive architecture. 33 But, at the same time, balance it and measure it with, you know, stones and woods and very 34 warm and comfortable materials that are reflective of the Colorado character and nature of this 35 project. This would be a summer evening at, you know, probably 7:30, 8:00 in the evening, 36 fountains, plazas, retail on both sides. We’ve got a restaurant commitment on what would be the 37 right side of this drawing. Other retailers, best-in-class retailers on either side. And, as you see, 38 what we’ve done, is we’ve flanked either side of the mall…you can start to see, with retailers 8 1 who will have exterior entrances as well as interior entrances from the outside. So, very much 2 activating the outside of the mall. Typically, you’ll see a mall and it’ll just be a big wall and you 3 won’t have any activation from the outside, so we’ve taken great care to activate the outside of 4 this space, what we’re calling the west lawn. And, on the other side, you’ll see in a minute, the 5 east lawn. 6 Here’s the east lawn with the entertainment cinema complex in the background. In the 7 foreground, again, same, you know, warm summer Colorado evening, restaurants flanking both 8 side. A lot will be two-story, some with patios and rooftop decks. And then this is a very large 9 lawn space that’ll accommodate everything from concerts in the park to street fairs, art fairs, an 10 ice skating pond that’ll be put in place in the winter time. Not an ice skating rink, but more of a 11 free-form pond you’d see up in Canada…and, wanted to do something different than a rink with 12 boards on it. It’ll be very large and have an ice skate rental hut, and hot chocolate and all that 13 good stuff, again, just to create a great community gathering spot. The theater will be a premium 14 screen theater serving, you know, food and beverage, and first run movies. Next slide. 15 This is a vision of the interior of the mall. That’s the existing Macy’s entrance…if you 16 stood in the mall today and stood in the same spot and looked down at the Macy’s, you’d see that 17 but you wouldn’t see everything else around, so Macy’s entrance gets redone. The entire inside 18 of the mall gets redone, for all intents and purposes, it will appear as if we have torn down the 19 mall and rebuilt it, although we’re leaving the mall up while we do this construction. All new 20 clear story glass along the side, new ceiling treatments with natural wood, custom light fixtures, 21 stone tile flooring treatments, soft seating areas with carpet and plants and there’ll be a raised- 22 platform coffee bar at center court, free wi-fi throughout the project, a lot of great amenities. 23 This is basically at center court of the mall, so where you just were, you were looking 24 down to the left, now you’re looking out and you can see in the background the east lawn, the 25 theater out there. So, you’re peering through a big wall…a big window wall of glass to let in the 26 natural light. It’s also a fireplace that transitions both the indoor and outdoor space there. Again, 27 large soft seating areas, raised the height of the structure significantly, very strong use of wood, 28 very light, very airy, very warm. Again, introducing glass, clear story glass so we have a lot of 29 natural light which minimizes the need for, at least during the daytime hours, for incandescent 30 lighting. 31 We are a big believe in all of our projects of distinctive amenities. In this project, we’ll 32 have a variety of those amenities, including grand fountains which will be located on the west 33 lawn, dancing fountains on the east lawn, the great lawn, the skating pond, the peer-though 34 fireplace, several pavilions throughout the project, parks and concierge services…will also be 35 multiple valet parking service locations throughout the project, both on the east lawn and the 36 west lawn areas of the project. 9 1 Some detail on the community improvements, the bike path, the MAX BRT, working 2 with staff with respect to underpass and CDOT, and a lot of other folks are involved, but I think 3 we’re getting pretty good consensus there on executing that. Pedestrian connectivity throughout 4 the site, we’ve got a slide here in a minute that we can go through on that. Foothills Activity 5 Center, I think it’s important to note that, right now, there’s a Youth Activity Center on the site, 6 in the far corner of the site, that’s in an old building that’s more of a re-use situation. What we 7 said is, what can we do to not only make that a much better experience for the youth, that they’re 8 using is now, and expand those programs, but let’s just not stop there, let’s do, and let’s change 9 the name from Youth Activity Center to Foothills Activity Center, and create that space within 10 our campus at twenty…what is it, 22,000 square feet?...23,000 square feet, it’s significantly 11 larger than the existing facility and will be programmed and run by the Parks and Recreation so 12 we want to, you know, let them…so imagine a, you know, kind of a best-in-class health club 13 with meeting rooms and flex spaces and so forth to accommodate those type of events, as well as 14 providing a, you know, a great resource for the community at a much greater scale than exists 15 today. 16 The east and west lawns are very important, because those are large spaces that are 17 essentially dedicated public spaces that have a lot of flexibility, streets that can be shut down to 18 accommodate street fairs, 5K runs, a lot of other events that are very, very important for creating 19 an iconic, you know, Northern Colorado asset here that’ll be a legacy asset for many, many, 20 many years. 21 This is a graphic that reflects, and it’s in your package…look at the bike path, the MAX 22 BRT…next. The pedestrian connectivity, we’ve taken great care to have pedestrian connectivity 23 as well as bike connectivity. I think Courtney went through some of the, you know, some of the 24 connectivity along College Avenue with the twelve-foot wide sidewalk, bike/ped walk, as well 25 as the restriping and narrowing of certain streets and roads both external and internal to the 26 project. There’s also some three hundred bike rack spaces contained within the commercial…a 27 hundred and…how many are covered? One forty are actually covered in the parking structure, 28 so they’re underneath so if it’s a, you know, if it happens to be a cool day or you think it’s going 29 to snow or rain, you can lock your bike up underneath, or…be a more protected conditioned 30 environment. And then the residential has, again, all meeting your Code, has, I think 1,100 or so 31 additional bike racks. The pedestrian connectivity along College Avenue, again, the twelve-foot 32 bike path, shared bike lanes on Foothills Parkway, and the dedicated bike paths on Monroe, as 33 well as new pedestrian count-down timers and so forth. Again, taking great care along our 34 frontage to execute all, kind of best practices today when it comes to bike/ped and crossings and 35 pedestrian and bike safety interacting with vehicles. 36 Sustainability…our friends had a long-term commitment to sustainability, having infused 37 it in many of our projects from LEED certified buildings and LEED certified parking structures, 38 and so on and so forth, clearly we appreciate the leadership position Fort Collins has taken along 39 those lines and want to not only comply with…I think a great, kind of leadership position as I 10 1 said, but also enhance that. For example, here are some of the….a list of a few of the things 2 we’re doing with, you know, obviously natural light, low wattage long-life LED down lights, 3 reuse of demolition materials, significant water quality control devices that don’t exist, including 4 bioswales, electric car charging stations…you know, planning for the future. I know some 5 people do have electric cars now, but more will have them as time goes on, so providing that as 6 an amenity. Work with staff on tree mitigation, wetlands mitigation, expansive green spaces, as 7 well as others. 8 Okay, so this is…and Courtney did a good job with this with her graphic, but, what’s 9 staying, what’s going, what are we rebuilding. This is the existing mall right here, and on the 10 rear here, you’ve got Mervyn’s, which comes down, the east concourse comes down, and then 11 you’ve got a bunch of perimeter buildings that also come down to create the site plan that we 12 showed earlier. There’ll be material enhancements to all of the entries of Macy’s, so Macy’s will 13 essentially look like a new department store anchor, they’ll have new entries, new landscaping, 14 new sidewalk, everything gets reconditioned here. Macy’s is also going to invest significant 15 money on the inside of their store. Part of the negotiations with them and the trade is we’re 16 going to make some exterior improvements; they’re going to make some interior improvements 17 to enhance their offering to the public. We think that’s very important to get department store 18 anchors to commit on both ends, not just us, you know, cleaning up the outside of their stores. 19 Traffic…Courtney didn’t have any issues with traffic. We submitted a traffic study that 20 staff has reviewed and approved. I think this is an important graphic that shows current mall 21 conditions and then, the current mall as stabilized in the center there, if the mall was stabilized at 22 least like it was fifteen years ago, that was the traffic that was being generated in the heyday, and 23 then our proposed redevelopment’s traffic generation. So, in the heyday, the mall generated 24 traffic pretty close to exactly where the traffic is going to be when we complete our project. 25 Talk about a few other things…the graphic on the screen is not necessarily referenced 26 here, but ditch realignment…we’ve reached an agreement, I think, with the City and the ditch 27 company on a design for what’s called the existing Larimer No. 2 ditch. The ditch will be placed 28 in a box culvert as Courtney said, and we’re working on a document to memorialize that 29 agreement. Water quality and drainage, this is a 1972 era mall, and back in that time, there was 30 no such thing really as detention or water quality control, so we’re obviously bringing that up, 31 you know, to 2013 standards and retrofitting the entire site to modern standards for water quality 32 control and detention. 33 Construction phasing, we’ve worked out a phasing plan with Macy’s and existing tenants 34 that are going to remain operating in the mall to minimize disruption as much as we can. It’s 35 going to be an active construction site with a lot of things going on, but we do plan on keeping 36 the mall open. Macy’s wants to stay open, several retailers in the mall want to stay open that are 37 there right now and are being relocated in the merchandising plan, so we’re very anxious to keep 38 it open and will encourage tours of…by the public, elementary schools, whoever wants to tour to 11 1 do hardhat tours as we’re building it to kind of have the community involvement as its going 2 through its regeneration. 3 Finally, signage, and as you heard from Carolyn, we’re…again, we’ve had a great 4 working relationship with staff. We believe, obviously, that signage is a critical component of a 5 project of this scale and scope, and economic significance. And, at seventy-five acres, we’re not 6 a one-acre Walgreens on the corner, this is…you know, a major regional economic driver and we 7 believe the site is very deep, tenants on the east side have no visibility from College Avenue, 8 very difficult without extensive signage, and particularly LED signage that we believe, if 9 programmed correctly and at the highest level of design standards and best practices that exist 10 today, is something that this project should receive a variance on, and we appreciate your 11 consideration and dialogue associated with the signage on this project. 12 With that, I’m finished, I’m going to turn it back to Carolyn, she’s going to go over a lot 13 of criteria and modifications that are more Code-based. Thank you very much, look forward to 14 speaking to you later. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 16 MS. WHITE: Good evening, Carolyn White again, land use counsel for the applicant. 17 So, I’m just going to briefly cover how this project complies with the standards that are your 18 measuring guideline for considering this project. Obviously, it has to comply with all of the 19 applicable general development standards in Chapter 3 of the Code, except with any 20 modifications as noted, and we’re going to talk about the sign modification, and then it also has 21 to comply with all the relevant standards in the zone district and, as Courtney mentioned, this is 22 in the General Commercial zone district and so it has to comply with those in Chapter 4, Section 23 20 related to General Commercial. Next slide please. 24 Our submittal illustrates and the staff report indicates, and we concur with the staff 25 report, that it does in fact comply with all of the applicable standards. I’m not going to go 26 through all of them; I just want to highlight a couple of key ones for you. Next slide please. 27 So, I’m going to talk briefly about the modifications relative to signage. I’m going to 28 briefly mention the alternative compliance we have submitted relative to lighting, and talk about 29 the special height review that we have requested. I’m going to go a little bit out of order, if I 30 may, and talk about the special height review on this slide because I don’t have a separate slide 31 illustrating that. We do have several structures included in the project that are greater than forty 32 feet, and therefore it is subject to special height review under 3.5.1 in the Code. We did conduct 33 that special height review with staff, we submitted graphics illustrating perspectives from the 34 surrounding buildings, architectural renderings, and also comparisons showing the shadow study 35 as required in 3.5.1 on special height review. Staff report concluded, and we agree, that there 36 really is no negative impact as a result of several of the structures being slightly higher than forty 37 feet. And, it has to do in part with the fact there are already several very large mass and bulk 12 1 structures in, on, and around the site, including the mall itself, the nearby Marriott hotel, and so 2 forth. And, it also has to do with the articulation and the architectural enhancements that were 3 provided relative to the individual residential buildings. And so, if you have questions about that 4 and you want to go into further detail, we certainly are prepared to do that, I just wanted to 5 mention it briefly that we do have a special height review here. Next slide. 6 So, there are five separate modifications requested relative to the sign package. Four of 7 them we are in agreement with staff on, I’m not going to spend a lot of time detailing those. I 8 want to focus mostly on the fifth one, where we do have a disagreement with staff and we’d like 9 to ask you to approve the two full-color LED signs. I just want to mention the only area where 10 we disagree is the full-color part. The presence of the signs, the fact that there are two of them, 11 the size of them, all of those are things that we have requested modifications for and that staff 12 has concurred that the modifications are justified under the provisions of the Code. 13 So, these are the five different types of modifications requested relative to signage. We 14 do have a few signs that are located on lots that do not have street frontage. Really, they do not 15 have public street frontage, they have street-like drive frontage because the drives internal to the 16 site will be private drives, but they will otherwise be just like a regular street. For that reason, 17 and also for the other reasons I’m going to articulate in a minute about the overall modifications, 18 we feel that this is a very nominal and inconsequential deviation from the provisions of the Code. 19 We also have several lots that have more than one ground sign, and the reason for that has a lot 20 to do with the fact that this is a seventy-seven acre site, it’s very deep from College Avenue to 21 the east side, and there are going to be tenants located on this site that are going to be on the far 22 side of the site away from College Avenue. And, ensuring visibility and way-finding for this site 23 is going to be a really critical component of its success overall. 24 And then, finally, the two single-sided LED signs. Your Code says only one per lot. As 25 was mentioned by Courtney, this lot is eighteen hundred feet long along its street frontage, and 26 since the sign spacing requirement is a hundred feet, and we have the two signs eleven hundred 27 feet apart, we and staff are in agreement that having more than one sign is justified given those 28 circumstances. 29 And then, finally, the signage size. We could meet this criteria by making those signs 30 larger, and that, as pointed out by staff, would not make them more effective or more attractive, 31 or really meet the intent here, and so the slight deviation from the fifty percent rule is also 32 appropriate as to those signs. 33 And then, finally, we have the issue of full color instead of monochromed. Next slide 34 please. So, this slide, and I know it’s small and hard to read so I’m going to summarize for you 35 what it says. This is trying to explain how these sign modifications meet the criteria in your 36 Code. As was presented earlier, in order to approve a modification, you have to show that it’s 37 not detrimental to the public good, plus one of the other four criteria. We believe it meets 13 1 actually three of those criteria, for some of the reasons that I already mentioned. Namely that 2 this is a really unique site, there are not that many infill sites of this size in Fort Collins, and in 3 particular, it is a retail site which is exceedingly deep. It’s seventy-seven acres, it’s a long 4 distance from the College Avenue, which is the principal entrance and the principal visibility, to 5 the eastern side of the site. And, as Don Provost mentioned, one of the goals here is to attract 6 some of the best in class retailers, and many of those retailers are not going to consider this site 7 unless they can be assured that they have adequate visibility from College Avenue, and that 8 they’re going to be able to communicate with their potential customers who are travelling up and 9 down College Avenue. That’s one of the reasons this is such a great site, is because of the traffic 10 on College Avenue, but it doesn’t work if you can’t communicate with that travelling public 11 that’s going up and down on College Avenue. 12 Another issue relative to this signage is, as identified in the Midtown Urban Renewal 13 Survey…Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Conditions Survey, one of the fundamental problems of 14 the site as it presently exists, is way-finding and pedestrian connectivity and traffic flow. Right 15 now, as designed, it doesn’t really flow properly, it doesn’t work the way a large site like this 16 should work. One of the things we’re doing is totally redesigning how the streets and the 17 pedestrian access works, putting better sidewalks, more sidewalks. But another way we’re 18 addressing that is with a very complete program of way-finding signage that is integrated into the 19 overall signage program. So, the idea is to make sure that wherever you are on the site, you can 20 recognize where you are and how to get to where you want to be. And, in order to do that, we 21 need to deviate from some of these requirements in the Code, like having the no street frontage, 22 having more than one sign, and having several signs that are located on streets that aren’t really 23 streets. 24 I want to assure you that, overall, this sign package has no compromises whatsoever in 25 aesthetics or quality, and the complete sign package was submitted in your packet. We also, if 26 you want to look specifically at any of the signs, we can put those slides up there for you. In 27 particular, with respect to the full color LED, there are many tenants for whom, you know, this is 28 sort of the…this is the wave of the future, this is the trend of communicating digitally. And, in 29 order to describe their offerings to the public, particularly as they may change over time, these 30 full color LED signs are incredible important to certain tenants in the marketplace. It also 31 provides an opportunity to advertise community events, communicate with the public about 32 what’s happening on the east lawn and the west lawn, farmer’s markets, tree lighting, et cetera. 33 Limiting these signs to only one color, as required by the Code, really doesn’t take advantage of 34 all the opportunities provided by this technology and really limits the ability to communicate 35 those offerings appropriately to the public. So, we would ask you to approve that fifth 36 modification as well. Next slide. 37 This is…Courtney already showed you this slide, this is a blow-up indicating where each 38 of those signs is located, and as I said, if you want to go into more detail about any of the 39 particular signs, we can certainly do that for you. Next slide. 14 1 Our alternative compliance regarding lighting wasn’t mentioned earlier in the staff report. 2 Your Code requires full cut-off for all the lighting. In lieu of full cut-off, what we propose to do 3 is provide these glowing luminaires that are enclosed and glow in a different way. And, the idea 4 is to meet the intent of the requirement in the Code by having lighting that doesn’t spill over and 5 doesn’t create a negative impact on adjacent properties, doesn’t create dark sky problems, but 6 still provides sufficient light for safety and way-finding in and throughout the site. So, the 7 lighting that has been designed for this project is a very subtle, very aesthetically pleasing 8 lighting. It’s not specifically full cut-off, it’s really just an alternative way of meeting the same 9 intent. And, again, if you want more detail than that, we can certainly go into it and provide it. 10 Finally, I just want to mention briefly all of the different ways in which this project 11 complies with and furthers the goals set forth in City Plan. This is just a summary of some of 12 them. If you pull up City Plan on your computer and you just search on the term Foothills Mall, 13 you will be going and clicking for days. This is a property that is prominently featured 14 throughout City Plan because it’s so central to the midtown corridor. There are a number of 15 goals set forth in City Plan that talk about how critical it is to, number one, ensure that this 16 property redevelops, and number two, ensure that when it does redevelop, it does so in a way that 17 achieves some of these overall goals for the City, like providing pedestrian connectivity along 18 College Avenue, providing connectivity to the MAX BRT station on the Mason corridor, and 19 otherwise upgrading the site to meet what the current standards are. We didn’t get into a lot of 20 the details, but, you know, this project was built at a time when there were not requirements in 21 the Code for on-site water quality and detention. All of those things are going to be upgraded 22 with this project to meet the current Code requirements for water quality and detention. That’s 23 part of the goal of City Plan is to overall, over time, have all the properties in the City retrofitted 24 to meet the current Code and standards in terms of environmental quality, aesthetic design, and 25 so on. 26 A couple that I just want to highlight on here, incorporating public spaces and community 27 facilities. This project takes great pains to incorporate the public spaces, the east and west lawn, 28 the Foothills Activity Center, some of the other public features that Don Provost mentioned 29 earlier in his talk. Next slide please. 30 And then, finally, I’ll just mention the number of times that City Plan talks about this 31 property as being a priority project, a catalyst property in a targeted infill and redevelopment 32 area. This project is an opportunity to meet all of those goals set forth in City Plan. So, for that 33 reason, we ask you to approve our PDP and we ask for your specific approval of the fifth 34 modification relative to the full color LED signs. With that, our entire team stands ready to 35 answer any questions you may have and thank you for your time and attention tonight. We 36 appreciate the opportunity to present this project to you. 15 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Alright, Courtney? Courtney and colleagues…let’s 2 see here, wanted to probably see if there was anything that you would have in response to what 3 we just heard from the applicant. Anything specific? 4 MS. LEVINGSTON: I believe Peter Barnes, our Zoning Administrator, would like to 5 provide a response to the applicant’s presentation as it relates to the LED full color signs. 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Perfect, thank you. Peter? 7 MR. PETER BARNES: Thank you. With regards to formulating a recommendation on 8 the modification request for the full color digital display, the electronic message center signs, 9 staff believed that the applicant hadn’t shown that they satisfied the criteria, the four criteria 10 necessary for modifications…the equal to or better than, nominal and inconsequential, the 11 hardship standard, or the community benefit. The applicant in their narrative had stated that 12 these signs would…the design of their signs would create a precedent for other developments 13 and that these events…and they indicated that they have destinations and events going on in the 14 site that the public would not be able to adequately be informed of with the constraints of 15 monochrome displays. In 2011, City staff conducted extensive public outreach, public meetings 16 regarding the issue of updating our digital sign regulations. There was a lot of discussion about, 17 do we restrict signage to what previously was allowed, where you could only use yellow, blue, 18 green, or amber, or white as colors, and you could only use one at a time, or should we open it up 19 to the whole range of colors available, and if we do that, should it be full color where you can 20 display multiple colors at any one time. The determination was made by City Council that the 21 Code should be changed to allow people to use multi-color, or full-color display capable signs, 22 but only, again, display your message one color at a time. Therefore, they were no longer 23 restricted to the four or five colors previously, they could use any color they wanted, but the 24 background had to be displayed in one single color and the message in a different single color at 25 a time. We believe that it would be detrimental to the public good given the outreach and the 26 effort that was put forth in 2011 with regards to digital signs. And this application involves 27 balancing established values, aesthetics, the built environment, and economics with the 28 provisions that one should not be at the expense of the other. One of the purposes of the Land 29 Use Code is to ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing 30 neighborhoods and allowing full color displays when there aren’t any others allowed within the 31 community, and there certainly aren’t any allowed in this particular neighborhood, we feel would 32 be insensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood, and would be detrimental to the 33 public good in that it could be setting a precedent for other developments to come in and seek 34 similar modifications. 35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. Does the Board…any Boardmembers have questions for 36 Peter? No? 16 1 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I do. Peter, could you give us a little bit 2 of background about why Council made that determination in 2011? 3 MR. BARNES: There were a lot of factors that were taken into consideration throughout 4 the course of that study. You have issues of how often messages can change, the design of signs. 5 The sign code is…and community survey after community survey over the course of the years, 6 the sign code is recognized as one of the top three components of the City Code that 7 enhances…contributes to the enhancement of the city streetscapes. And, as these signs become 8 more popular, and they proliferate along College Avenue and on the other arterial streets…as 9 you’re driving down the street, you’ll have multiple signs on all sides of the street competing for 10 the motorists’ attention. And, if they’re all in different colors, multiple colors at the same 11 time…one over here is changing, and then five seconds later another one over here is 12 changing…so the, part of the reasoning for not allowing the multi-color displays was because of 13 that potential for signs to be changing as you’re driving down the street and you have these signs 14 more often in the future. And, so we were taking one step at a time as we amended our Code 15 with regards to digital signs. 16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, and can I ask one more? Have we 17 received additional requests for modification of this sign standard for full color in the past? 18 MR. BARNES: No, the Code change has only been in…the new Codes have only been in 19 place for fourteen months. Part of that, they were…we had the monochrome only in just those 20 four or five colors, and at that time, too, during that period of six or seven years, we did not have 21 any modification requests. 22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any questions for Peter? Specific? Peter, one last thing. We 24 have a couple new Boardmembers that weren’t present when we did that whole exercise on sign 25 code changes. And, if you can, can you maybe be specific in describing to everybody here what 26 the outreach process was. I mean, kind of the time, how many folks, and just talk a little bit 27 more specific about the outreach process, how often you met with us, how often you went to 28 Council. Just be a little more specific, if you don’t mind. 29 MR. BARNES: Okay, I’ll try and do that. The…as I mentioned, we did this study in 30 2011, and it took almost the entire year. We started early in the year, we had an on-line survey, 31 we had good participation in that, we had it on our website, on Facebook, and other electronic 32 media. We had numerous public meetings, we had other meetings with the sign industry, with 33 the business community, with the Chamber of Commerce, I don’t know how many worksessions 34 we had with the Planning and Zoning Board, we had a worksession with the City Council…at 35 least one worksession with the City Council, and then of course there was the Planning and 36 Zoning Board hearing where the Planning and Zoning Board considered the Code changes and 37 made a recommendation to City Council, and then two readings at City Council. 17 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Board before we 2 get to public testimony? Doesn’t have to be specific to Peter about sign code change, it could be 3 anything for staff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 4 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: I’m curious…we’re working on the 5 underpass over to the Mason corridor. Courtney, where are we in that process, when are we 6 looking at that going in? Just more detail. 7 MS. LEVINGSTON: Last week we met with the ditch company and the applicant to talk 8 about alignment. The ditch company was very much in favor of a west alignment, that is the one 9 that would have the underpass. But, they are also in favor of realigning on the east of College 10 Avenue in a box culvert. So, they are okay with both situations. They would prefer the west 11 alignment which is west of South College Avenue. We met with the ditch company…Rick 12 Richter, our City Engineer, is in conversations with CDOT right now discussing the frontage 13 road and aligning the ditch in a box culvert under the frontage road. It’s a very complicated 14 process with a lot of different entities involved, and it’s taking a significant amount of staff time 15 to assist in facilitating this process. 16 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, would that be going in…I mean are you 17 anticipating that it would be going in with the reopening of the mall, or?... Do you have any way 18 to know that? 19 MS. LEVINGSTON: If it is to move forward, I would…I’m not sure exactly what the 20 timeline, the construction timeline, of that would be. Marc, do you have any…no. 21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Emily? 23 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Courtney, regarding the Youth Activity Center, 24 during the worksession, I thought that that was going to remain like the same use, for the youth 25 specifically. But then during the applicant presentation, it sounded like it was going to become a 26 general community center…maybe I misheard it, could you clarify that for me? 27 MS. LEVINGSTON: The applicant is working with our Recreation Department; we have 28 Bob Adams and Marty Heffernan here from the Recreation Department. They are currently in 29 discussion about operations, programming, specifics relating to the Youth Activity Center, or the 30 Foothills Activity Center as it would be called. Once again, we’re still working at nailing down 31 those details with the applicant. I think the programming would be, from what I understand from 32 Bob, it would be similar to the existing programs and would have youth programs. 33 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I guess a head nod isn’t enough, thank you. 18 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let’s do this then, if there’s no real pressing issues, more 2 questions, we’ll come back to asking a lot more questions I think of staff. Let’s make sure we 3 give the public an opportunity to address the Board on this issue. Again, raise your hand, if you 4 don’t mind, if you are going to address the Board on this issue. Okay, so here’s how we’ll do 5 it…is, we have two microphones, if you would line up at the microphones and please…I’m 6 going to give each person three minutes to speak to the Board. Please state your name and 7 address for the record and sign in. I’m going to have to remind you again…we’re not talking 8 about eminent domain tonight. I would save those comments for the appropriate venue and time, 9 and that would be City Council at some point soon I imagine. So, please go ahead and step on 10 up, three minutes, and then we’ll alternate. Please, there should be a sign in right there. So, if 11 you would, sign in your name and address. I’m not sure, is it on the clipboard by chance, or is it 12 just a free floating sheet? Okay, alright, yeah, so go ahead, and if you don’t mind is…make your 13 comments, when you’re done making your comments, then go ahead and sign in and then we’ll 14 jump to the other side and they’ll do the same thing and we’ll go back and forth and we’ll get 15 through all this. So, go ahead, sir, please. 16 MR. TOM CLEVINGER: Thank you. My name is Tom Clevinger, my address is 712 17 Oxford Lane, Fort Collins. I’m speaking in favor of the proposal. The reason I’m speaking in 18 favor…I believe the economic impact for the City of Fort Collins would be very significant, and 19 increased revenue for the City is always necessary, and this project looks like it would certainly 20 help add to that. My major issue with this is to provide, possibly, if it is feasible in the plan, to 21 ensure that there’s an opportunity for some shuttle service between the rapid MAX bus service 22 and the mall development. I saw that there was plenty of provision for traffic of automobiles, 23 traffic for pedestrians, but I didn’t hear any discussion with respect to a shuttle service. With an 24 increasingly aged population, I think taking advantage of what we have coming with the rapid 25 MAX bus service and the mall development, some provision ultimately for shuttle service to the 26 development of the mall would be very significant and help ensure the mall’s success. Thank 27 you very much. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Did he sign in? Mr. Clevinger, sir? Very good, we 29 run a tight ship around here and we’ve had people steal the sign in sheet and everything. We 30 can’t have that. Please go ahead. 31 MS. ANN HUTCHISON: Good evening, my name is Ann Hutchison, 402 Riddle Drive 32 in Fort Collins. I’m also the Executive Vice-President of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of 33 Commerce. I’m here this evening to speak in favor of the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. The 34 vision shared by Alberta is pretty fantastic for Fort Collins and will absolutely make sure that we 35 return to being a leader in retail in northern Colorado. As well, we’re pleased to see that this 36 becomes a kick-starter project that will also solidify the redevelopment of the entire midtown 37 corridor. There’s tremendous value in the fifteen hundred construction jobs as well as the 38 thousand permanent jobs, and will absolutely add to the economic vitality of our community. 39 We especially appreciate the fact that Alberta is willing to invest their money and their effort 19 1 here in Fort Collins and are very much looking forward to the return of Foothills as a destination. 2 Last comment would be on digital signs, as a reminder, one of the threats during that 3 conversation was elimination versus full color. We landed at one color, full color is not a 4 horrible thing, and in fact the Chamber was in favor of full color digital signs during that 5 conversation, but negotiated back to single color of any kind in order to move that conversation 6 ahead. So, I’m hopeful that you’ll be thoughtful in considering that full color request. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. And Ann, you signed in, right? Alright, perfect. Sir, 8 go ahead. 9 MR. TOM TUCKER: I signed in. Good evening, my name is Tom Tucker, I live at 3019 10 Stanford, which is just the north side of the mall, and I’m speaking against the proposal as it 11 stands now. And the main reason, it deals with the eight hundred units of residential 12 development which is going to have eleven hundred and seventy-three bedrooms, which on 13 average is going to have one car per bedroom. So you’re going to have, approximately, four plus 14 trips per day per car…say five thousand additional trips, automobile trips, per day, from those 15 eight hundred units. And, as we…look at the proposal as it stands, there’s not a through…easy 16 through traffic motion from those developments to College Avenue. And, what appears to me is 17 going to happen is there’s going to be a lot of traffic going onto Stanford and Swallow, and my 18 concern is that we’re just across, north of Swallow on Stanford, we’re going to see a big increase 19 in traffic. That’s a four-way stop now, at a minimum it needs a traffic…traffic signal. But, my 20 main concern is I think we need some sort of plan where those eight hundred units can travel 21 across their seventy-three acres to College Avenue, which is the main thoroughfare through that 22 area. So, I would urge you to table or postpone this proposal until they can address better traffic 23 flow. Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam? 25 MS. ROXANA (NO LAST NAME PROVIDED) Hi, I’m Roxana, 512 East Monroe 26 Drive, D-414, and I’m opposed to the development as it stands also, and again because of the 27 eight hundred apartments. And I think, originally it was four hundred, which isn’t quite as much 28 congestion, but with eight hundred, it changes the face of the development resulting in the traffic, 29 noise, effect on the surrounding property values, and the elevation of the buildings. I live just 30 east of where they’re going to be building the apartment buildings, and it’s essentially going to 31 block out our view of the mountains. So, that’s my thoughts. Thank you. 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 33 MS. ROXANA: And I’m signed in. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks, appreciate it. Mam, please, go ahead. 20 1 MS. ELLEN EDWARDS: Hi, my name is Ellen Edwards, my address is 3121 Swallow 2 Place, and I live just to the east of Stanford. I too am opposed to the residential units, mainly 3 because of the traffic. I think they’re talking about this being a huge activity hub, and adding 4 fourteen hundred, maybe more, cars…it just kind of takes it over the top. There was also 5 mention about possibly races going on, and road closures, and that just adds to my argument of 6 the residential units. I too…I assume that I’ll be losing my view of Horsetooth, but I also assume 7 that as long as they’re abiding by the Land Use Code, that’s not an argument for me to go to. 8 But, I am opposed of that many residential units, and I think it’d be best if that wasn’t a piece of 9 the component that we’re talking about. Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Ms. Edwards, I want to make sure I understood. 11 You specifically mentioned races, meaning vehicle races? Running races? 12 MS. EDWARDS: I think that’s what he was talking about…he mentioned that there 13 could be road closures. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, well, we’ll make sure that gets addressed from staff, I just 15 wanted to clarify. When you said races, I was thinking like Grand Prix, and…very different. 16 MS. EDWARDS: No, my argument is residential units will just take it way over the top. 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. Sir, go ahead. 18 MR. JASON SPECINER: My name is Jason Speciner, I live at 3008 Phoenix Drive here 19 in Fort Collins. I, too, like the last three speakers, live literally a stone’s throw away from the 20 mall as it currently stands, but I stand here in favor of the development plan. Having lived here 21 for thirteen years, in my current house for the last seven, I honestly have watched this mall kind 22 of just dwindle down, and I think we’re all realizing that it is a great opportunity that the 23 development presenter has given us to revitalize the area. As far as the signs go, this is a new 24 issue that I learned about tonight, but in reality, I just don’t think that a single color sign is 25 something that’s necessary, given the fact that, you know, we look at our signs here, even in the 26 presentation, we have three or four shades of blue as one example. And, on the street, you know, 27 presenting a message that a retailer might, that might go into that space and help this 28 development, I think something that is full color seems worthwhile and seems like something 29 that could be done. So, thank you. 30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, mam? 31 MS. JULIA SENESAC: Good evening, Julia Senesac, 1520 Hearthfire Drive. Members 32 of the Board, I am a thirty-three year resident of Fort Collins, property owner, business owner, 33 parent, and former director of Board of Education. I bring that up because I want to recognize 34 how important it is to hear the voices in the room; everyone deserves to have their opinion heard. 35 Ultimately though, we have to make a decision that’s based on the public good. And this plan is 21 1 on the public good. This plan is key to the economic future of Fort Collins, it’s key to 2 redevelopment and revitalization of midtown, and we’re losing revenue, tax revenue, every day 3 that this mall is not operating up to capacity. And, we saw from the traffic studies how things 4 have dropped off. Also, I have actually done events as a promoter, in the mall, for many years, 5 and I will tell you that the signage issue is very important, as people cannot find Foothills Mall. 6 Now, I understand we’re going to get new signs, but I don’t believe that the difference in the 7 single color or the multi-color is going to be an issue that is a detriment to the community. We 8 need to let people know what we’ve got there. And, you know, having tried to put on a couple of 9 events recently in the community, I will also say that public space is at a premium, especially in 10 the summer months, so I think that the lawn and open space area will be highly used. I’m very 11 excited about a revitalized Youth Activity Center, and gosh, I’d love a new movie theater too. 12 So, you know, I think that the plan brings a lot to the table for the community and benefits that 13 we will all receive, and I can only state categorically that I am very much in support of it, and I 14 think that it is integral to the economy and health of our community. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, sir, go ahead please. 16 MR. CASEY LIPOK: Hello, my name is Casey Lipok, I live at 3407 Stover Street, just 17 east of the mall. I’m in favor of this proposal and the development, and the multi-use of the units 18 for residential don’t really bother me that much because it’s going to increase, I think, property 19 values in that whole area. You know, the traffic might be the only issue in that regards. But, in 20 terms of signage, I’ve been a business owner, had retail business, and fifty percent off main 21 street is fifty percent of your business. Now, in this digital age, overstimulation is an 22 understatement. I mean, we’ve…if you look at the images, imagery, that we have to deal with 23 on a daily basis, you have a fraction of a second to catch a customer’s eye. I understand you 24 don’t want it to look like Vegas, or College to start looking like the Vegas strip, but if these 25 things...signage is done tastefully, being a retailer especially if you’re a larger retailer, will 26 probably be more apt to come in there if they have a way to present their message or their 27 store…how to be able to get the people to come in on that back side of the mall, because it is a 28 huge complex. So, those are the only things I really wanted to address. Thanks. 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please. 30 MR. CURT BEAR: My name is Curt Bear, and I live at 611 Laporte Ave, and I’m also 31 the Vice-President of the South Fort Collins Business Association right now. And, I guess I 32 would say, as a representative of the SFCBA, in general, we’re very much in favor of a 33 redevelopment. We’ve seen the plan and I would say that I, and most of the members…I’m not 34 going to say it’s unanimous, but most everybody thinks that this is the right plan for the job. The 35 community benefit is large, and especially the revitalization of the corridor, south of Prospect 36 and all the way down to Harmony. That’s part of our mission indeed. A couple of things I 37 would say, just as a citizen, because I haven’t bounced these other ideas off…but, as far as the 38 signage is concerned, I would agree with the sentiments expressed previously. We’ve all seen 22 1 nice full color LED signs and we’ve seen them directly, and I would disagree actually with 2 staff’s assessment that that wouldn’t be a hardship in what is very much a competitive 3 environment to get world-class retailers to come to your world-class mall. I think that could be 4 considered a hardship. And, also there’s a community benefit to having very well-lit signage. Is 5 it a competitive advantage against the other stores around? Perhaps, but they’re not really 6 competing in the same fashion anyway. This is a…it’s a one in a town kind of a project, and I 7 think if the Code isn’t changed, I think a variance should be granted. Lastly, on the health club, 8 just as an economist by training, if it’s a youth activity center I think that’s great. I would not 9 speak in favor of a use that competes directly with for-profit, privately run health clubs, per se, 10 and receives a subsidized ability to do so, because I think that is harmful, generally speaking, to 11 do those kinds of things. So…those are a few of my comments. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead. 13 MR. SEAN CARLSON: Sean Carlson, 6326 Richland Avenue in Timnath, and I just 14 wanted to show my support as a manager who’s been at the Foothills Mall for the past six years. 15 I think that the revitalization is essential to growth in Fort Collins. I wish it would have 16 happened a long time ago, personally. I think that we’ve lost a lot of business south of our 17 borders here in Fort Collins, this is a way to get it back and it’s crucial that we go with the 18 redevelopment that they’re pointing towards us. There again, some of the other people have 19 touched on the sign. As a business operator, the signage would be very important for me to 20 move into this type of mall. There is a very much lack of signage in the existing situation. I’ve 21 had numerous customers have to call me to find out where the mall is, which is not saying much, 22 being as they were driving past it on College Avenue. So, other than that, I just thank you for 23 your time. 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, mam, please go ahead. 25 MS. DONNA CLARK: Yes, I’m Donna Clark and the address is 350 East Horsetooth, 26 and I am here representing the Fort Collins Marriott, Director of Sales and Marketing, and we are 27 definitely in favor of the new mall. Currently, the Fort Collins Marriott is undergoing a full 28 renovation. Our owners have chosen to put twelve million dollars into that property to revitalize 29 it, and having the mall as another project to revitalize would thrill us to death. We work on large 30 conferences coming into Fort Collins, and right now we don’t even mention the mall. It’s 31 actually a negative to be sitting next to it. On the issue of signage, we actually have people that 32 stay at our property and can’t find the mall right now. So, as far as signage going in, I think you 33 need to do it well. The full color I think would be an enhancement to the area. And, economic 34 development…we are actually losing tax dollars right now because of conferences and tourism 35 looking at the center of Fort Collins saying, great hotel, great you guys are putting a lot of money 36 into it, but shopping and restaurants around it are in bad shape. So, we are definitely in favor. 37 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, sir, please go ahead. 23 1 MR. TOM BALCHAK: Good evening Chairman Smith and the rest of the Planning and 2 Zoning Board, thank you for your continued service. I’m Tom Balchak, I live at 2925 Clay 3 Basket Court in Fort Collins. I’ve been a resident of the city since 1980 and I’ve seen a lot of 4 development and I’ve seen a lot of redevelopment, and I’m in favor of this particular 5 development. The mall, like Old Town, is not only a center of commerce, but as a community 6 gathering place, and a place to celebrate culture. My experience has been in education for a 7 number of years, and at one time I was the Poudre School District fine arts coordinator. We have 8 a tremendous relationship with the mall in terms of displaying schools’ art from fifty-two 9 different schools. And so, for me, this is not only about bricks and mortar, but continuing a 10 value and an ethic in the community that brings parts of the community together and has a 11 physical space in order to do it. Maybe uniquely, during the holiday season I have…during the 12 last two years spent seventy-four days at the mall, and looking at things from a unique 13 perspective, and so I have noticed very closely, physically, what’s happening in the mall. Being 14 located in an area that was, this year, closed, and moving to a different area, and it’s not just the 15 physical structure of the mall, but the people that are attracted to the mall. And, there’s a great 16 deal of excitement in this community that I was able to discern from that experience, about 17 possible redevelopment. And so, for me, this is about the future. And I had an opportunity to 18 look and to see the future of Fort Collins in many children’s eyes, and the fact that a youth center 19 is going to continue to be part of this speaks volumes about the values not only of the folks at the 20 current mall, but it looks like the people who would like to continue to see the development. 21 And, so, in conclusion, I’m in support of a venue that will enhance both commerce and culture. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 23 MS. LAURIE RADCLIFF: My name is Laurie Radcliff, I live at 830 Benthaven Street in 24 Fort Collins, and a lot of what I was going to say has been said, so I’ll try not to talk too long, 25 but…I grew up here and I love Fort Collins, I’m proud to be from Fort Collins. I went to 26 California to go to school, lived there for about twenty years, and just recently moved back about 27 five years ago. I’m very glad to be here, but this mall project, even living, you know, away for 28 many years and visiting, you know, constantly. This mall project has been a thorn in my side, 29 personally, for like twenty years, because, you know, I have memories of my mom and I driving 30 to Denver to shop, and you can multiply that by about a thousand now. I mean, I know people 31 that are constantly driving to Denver so that they can go to Anthropologie and J. Crew and Ann 32 Taylor and Williams Sonoma and Pottery Barn, and all these things that are in most modern 33 malls now. And, like other people have said here, that is a giant missed opportunity for this 34 town. And, just as a lot of people were kind of upset when, you know, Centerra opened, and a 35 lot of people were kind of like, you know, saying…well, I’m not going to shop out there because 36 that revenue is going to Loveland and it should be coming to Fort Collins, so I’m going to shop 37 in Fort Collins. I think that this is sort of a similar situation. I’m kind of tired of, you know, so 38 many dollars going to, you know, being infused in Denver’s economy that could be kept right 39 here in town, and you know, the revitalization aspect of it is just, you know painfully obvious to 24 1 me. So, I think that there’s a lot of details, you know, that maybe need to be worked out to make 2 this happen, but I’m absolutely in favor of this project. I think the city needs it. I think that 3 there’s a lot of cities around the country that might like to say, you know, gosh, I wish we had 4 better shopping here, I wish we had a big, beautiful, amazing mall. That’s not an uncommon 5 thought of a lot of people around the country. It’s just that what makes Fort Collins unique is not 6 a lot of cities around the country could necessarily sustain a mall of that nature, but Fort Collins 7 can, I’m absolutely a thousand percent convinced of that, and, you know, having lived in Los 8 Angeles and seen, you know that’s the land of the big, beautiful mall. I feel like there’s a hole in 9 our community that we don’t have a mall of better standard in this town and, you k now, like I 10 said, I’m very happy to be back here. I’m so proud to be a resident of Fort Collins, and I want to 11 be proud of the mall too. I mean, that’s a huge part of our community and our economy, and I 12 think that, you know, it’s time for this missed opportunity to be done away with. It’s time to 13 make some changes and bring us the mall that we need. So, that’s it, thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Mam, please go ahead. 15 MS. AMY OLSON: Good evening, my name is Amy Olson, and I live at 3015 Cortez 16 Street, which is kiddy-corner to the mall. My kids and I, and my husband frequently walk over 17 to the mall just to see what’s going on and then I get them out, let them run around a bit. 18 My…well, I can recognize that a lot of time and a lot of attention has been paid to the actual 19 retail and business aspect of the mall, it seems as though not quite as much attention has been 20 paid to the residential. And, my concern with that is that, it seems as though as many units as 21 possible are trying to be put onto the site. Which, for the long term doesn’t have an impact so 22 much on the people who are coming to the mall, spending their money, and going away. But, for 23 those of us who live in the area and who walk and who look out our windows, especially the 24 elderly who live directly to the east of that, it may pose more of an impact. So, I would actually 25 request that this be approved but with the condition that they follow plan B as their option, which 26 they submitted as part of their planning objectives, which was four hundred and forty-six units as 27 opposed to the eight hundred. That gives them the element of a transition between the business 28 and the residential that exists, but it doesn’t have as great an impact on the surrounding existing 29 residential units. Also on Stanford, that has been transitioned into a major bus drop-off and pick- 30 up area and there are quite a few people who park in that now languishing parking lot and use the 31 bus services, and so one thing to keep in mind is where is that parking going to occur once we 32 have several individuals parking along Stanford, because there isn’t enough on-site parking for 33 an average of 1.26 spots per unit, even though we have three-bedroom units being planned. One 34 last observation is that the apartments…their elevations are gorgeous, they’re absolutely 35 beautiful, they’re something that we hope to see, and that, you know, emulates a lot of what we 36 appreciate about Denver. But, in looking at the character that exists within the neighborhood, 37 they don’t really tie in, it’s not really a transition, it’s more of a…this is the mall, this is the mall 38 property, you have met the edge. So, I would almost ask that some more effort go into the 39 architectural aspects of those elevations so that they do incorporate a bit more of the 25 1 development in the surrounding area. The ‘70’s, while they are definitely characteristic, are not 2 completely awful. There’s a lot of stuff coming back, very retro, and I would actually encourage 3 the architects to kind of incorporate some of that so that the apartments are actually more of a 4 transitional element. Thank you very much for your time. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments, mam, please go ahead. 6 MS. CYNTHIA EICHLER: Good evening, we appreciate your time with all of us this 7 evening. My name is Cynthia Eichler, my residence is 1520 Alcott Street in Fort Collins. For 8 full disclosure, I should also let you know, I am the General Manager of the shopping center. So, 9 I come with a dual hat on this evening. I’ve live in our community for seventeen years. Every 10 day, I have gone to the mall…you know, worked hard for our community. We recognize the 11 impact, daily, that we provide and influence in our community. On the flip side of that, every 12 soccer game I go to, every basketball game I go to, church, or grocery store for the last six or 13 seven years, people approach me and say, when are we going to do something about the mall? 14 Well, today is that day. We’re very, very fortunate that we are able to be here with you all today. 15 I want to note that this really is the right project at the right time with the right developer. We 16 are looking at an infill project that has a wonderful balance of residential and retail, 17 entertainment and dining. As I’ve sat through meetings for years now, I get feedback based on 18 what people would like to do at the center, how they would like to gather, and how they would 19 like to interact. We want to compliment what is the fabric of Fort Collins and there is no bigger 20 champion, I would tell you, on College Avenue, for that particular statement. Visibility is key. 21 We often, as some of the other folks mentioned, have folks who call us from their cell phone 22 going, where is the mall? I just went by Horsetooth…well, better signage will help us 23 accomplish that. We are really looking to elevate the way-finding mechanisms on property. We 24 do think that the color signage is important, we don’t think…as some of our other folks have 25 mentioned, that it’s too far of a stretch. We’d like to provide best class, best in service, and feel 26 that is one way to help deliver that. As a community, I just think that we’re very fortunate to 27 have a private entity who is willing to invest in our community. I think you all have probably 28 had several opportunities, as I have, to just be out and about in town and have those same 29 requests, and we think now is the time really to do that. We ask for your consideration, we ask 30 for the approval on the signage, we welcome the considered…the additional input, we think 31 that’s very important, too, and we appreciate everyone that has come to provide input, 32 perspective, and we ask them to continue that too. So, we appreciate your time this evening. 33 Thank you so very much. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 35 MS. LAURIE BORTHWICK: Hello, my name is Laurie Borthwick. I live at 212 Linda 36 Lane, which is one block north of ARC, the ARC. My concern is, listening to everyone talking 37 about the glowing reports they have about what a mall would bring, I agree with a lot of those 38 statements. I think that the mall is long overdue for an overhaul. And, the added retail value is 26 1 wonderful; however, I think the thing that everybody has talked about, how great the mall is, and 2 how much that needs to be revamped, and very few people are talking about the portion of the 3 proposal that involves the eight hundred plus units of apartments. So, I have a huge concern, as 4 several of the others have, that, yeah, the mall is great, but what’s the impact of eight hundred 5 apartments. I think the original proposal of two to four hundred units is much more reasonable. 6 As it is, I have a sister who worked as a paramedic for many years, and she talked about how 7 difficult it is for emergency vehicles to even get down College to attend to people who are 8 needing emergency aid. And adding in the extra traffic that would be involved with eight 9 hundred apartments, I think is endangering lives of the elderly in that community across from the 10 mall, because of the added impact of the traffic. So, I would urge you to not just consider the 11 mall as a great proposal…yes, we need to do something with the mall, but the portion of the 12 proposal that talks about the apartment units is really critical, and the traffic and the emergency 13 response crews. Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Sir, please go ahead. Ms. 15 Borthwick, did you sign in? Excellent, thank you. 16 MR. DAVID SILVERSTEIN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning 17 Commission, I’m David Silverstein, principal with Bayer Properties. It’s always nice to be in 18 Fort Collins, and this is certainly not the first time that I’ve appeared before your Board. On 19 many occasions, going back to 2005 and 2006, I had the opportunity to come to you to discuss 20 our plans for Front Range Village. My company owns and develops Front Range Village. I 21 stand before you tonight with full appreciation of the City’s desire, the City’s need to address the 22 situation at Foothills Mall. I agree with you, Carolyn, it’s critical for redevelopment. It’s also, 23 no doubt…however, I do come before you tonight respectfully requesting that you take a pause 24 to examine more closely whether this is truly the appropriate redevelopment plan for the mall, 25 taking into account certain facts and circumstances which exist today in your city and region. I 26 also stand before you tonight as your partner. The development of Front Range Village would 27 not have been possible without our establishment of a public-private partnership, a partnership 28 which included my commitment to build a beautifully-designed project with wonderful 29 architecture and landscaping, our commitment to bring new retail to your city, to curb the 30 outflow of sales tax revenue to your sister cities, to increase employment in your city, and to 31 stabilize and improve the long-term tax base for the city. Our commitment also included the 32 donation of land for a new library facility. This partnership resulted in our investing over a 33 hundred million dollars in the development, and millions in public infrastructure improvements. 34 Results of such investment include generating over seven million in property taxes during the 35 last six years, and seventeen million in sales tax revenue for your city during the last five years. 36 We invested millions in public improvements with the hopes of recouping such investment 37 through the establishment of a public improvement fee. Under the present plan that’s being 38 presented to you tonight, you the City actually becomes our competitor. I’ve heard the term best 39 in class used a lot tonight. I stood before you in 2005, 2006, 2007 trying to tell you that we were 27 1 coming here to bring best in class, and that is what we’ve worked diligently to do over the last 2 six years. Recognize, though, that we have, and you have an issue in northern Colorado. It’s a 3 shallow retail market. You have Centerra, you have Front Range Village, and now you have a 4 proposal that’s come before you…may I ask for a little more time, I’ve come 2,000 miles, so can 5 I speak for a few more minutes? 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You may. How long do you think? 7 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Two to three minutes, no more. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’ll give you two minutes, is that okay? 9 MR. SILVERSTEIN: Two and a half? 10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Two and a quarter…go ahead. 11 MR. SILVERSTEIN: We have an interesting retail climate here, let’s face it. That’s 12 what we’ve been working on doing at Front Range Village for the last six years, is bringing best 13 in class. There’s a reason malls haven’t been built in the last five, six years. There’s a reason 14 infill malls haven’t been built in the last five or six years. We, too, are trying to curb the outflow 15 of sales tax revenue. We, too, are trying to bring best in class to your city. So, I ask for you to 16 consider the impact of trying to support that amount of new retails on what it has to a 17 development that came to your city and invested the kind of dollars that we have. We are a 18 partnership, and we’ve had very little discussion about how we relate with one another. I can tell 19 you there’s already a conflict…Alberta is talking to our retail, our leasing agents are talking to 20 their retail. We’re going after the same retailers. How do we co-exist? It’s a question that I 21 can’t answer tonight, but I know this…you know, it’s a difficult one to proceed with, knowing 22 that we have put our faith into your community. We’ve invested in your community and we 23 enjoy being here. So, I ask you just to take a minute to reflect on what we have done, what 24 we’ve tried to do, what we continue to try to do. And, we’re about to embark on bringing 25 seventy thousand square feet of new retail to your city as part of the Main Street. The Main 26 Street was constructed with the eye towards bringing the lifestyle retailer to Fort Collins. 27 Williams Sonoma, Nordstrom Rack, I’ve heard these names mentioned. They’re only going to 28 bring one store. We’d like for them to be at Front Range Village. I’m sure Don would like them 29 to be at the mall. How do we resolve the conflict without dialogue? Without dialogue? So, I 30 ask you take that into account as you move forward. Thank you. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Mam, please go ahead. 32 MS. JUDY VIGIL: Yes, I’m Judy Vigil, at 2804 Tulane. I just wanted to say that I think 33 this is wonderful because it was really sad watching the Foothills East mall kind of just go down, 34 down, down, and I’ve got to say, is, of course I’m thrilled because I’m from the generation of a 35 century mall. And how thrilled Fort Collins was to get that little mall…you know with the King 28 1 Soopers and….Montgomery Wards and the little tiny theater that was in there. So, this is great. 2 So, thank you very much. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Mam, please go 4 ahead. 5 MS. CARRIE GILLIS: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, my 6 name is Carrie Gillis, I live at 8020 Park Hill Drive, Fort Collins. A couple of stores you left 7 out: Hestead’s, Music Land, the turtles in the middle…used to climb on those too. I was born at 8 Larimer County hospital, pre-PVH. I’m not going to tell you how old I am, but I’m older than 9 dirt. I remember when Foothills Mall went in and my grandma would take me there. I can’t 10 wait for this project to come back. In speaking about different retailers as the gentleman spoke 11 before, I love capitalism, that’s why I live in United States of America. Bring it on. I fully 12 support the new mall, I’m excited for it. I run five different businesses here in the city of Fort 13 Collins alone, one is retail. I’m clambering for tenants as well. I think capitalism is alive and 14 well. Thank you very much. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Mam, please go ahead when 16 you’re ready. 17 MS. MELISSA MORAN: Hello, good evening everyone. My name is Melissa Moran 18 and I live at 5640 Hummel Lane in Fort Collins. I’ve been here since 1995 I believe, and I 19 would have to say that, arguably, I hold the most interesting position of all the speakers tonight. 20 I have worked for the City of Fort Collins, I have worked for Foothills Mall, and for the past five 21 years, I have had the distinct pleasure of working for Bayer Properties as the General Manager of 22 Front Range Village. And, I wasn’t going to speak tonight, but I just couldn’t help myself I 23 suppose. What I would be opposed to is the variance for the signage. Agreeably, Foothills Mall 24 would be an asset to the community. As a community member, I can say that. But I believe that 25 there are many other businesses in Fort Collins that are also a very, very strong asset to this 26 community, that contribute to the sales tax that is generated in this community. And, you know, 27 our development is also a hundred acres that’s located on Harmony Road, and there are many 28 others like us who, you know, would certainly benefit from enhanced signage. So, I suppose 29 tonight, what I’m requesting, and I know I’m probably not using all of the correct technical 30 language that you guys use, but I would suggest not a variance to the Code, but perhaps an 31 alternate to the Code. Thank you. 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, thanks for your comments. Mam? 33 MS. DEBBY TAMLIN: Good evening, I’m Debby Tamlin, I live at 1210 Kirkwood, 34 which is not a neighbor to the project. However, I’m a real estate broker here that specializes in 35 retail, and I was the one that stripped out the old mall, Century Mall, and brought Whole Foods 36 and the retailers that are new to Fort Collins in that project about…I don’t know, probably 37 twenty years ago now. And, I’m speaking in favor of the project. I know we’re going after a lot 29 1 of the same retailers, but you know what? Fort Collins retail is on the map. When I make my 2 phone calls to lease my space, the big box guys know who we are, know that we’ve got great 3 projects. They’re looking for the best competitive deal and, the more we all talk, the better our 4 retail gets, the more successful we have in Fort Collins for keeping our dollars here at home. 5 And, I wholeheartedly would love to see the mall redone. Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? This will be your 7 last opportunity to address the Board on this issue. So, if you think you might even possibly at 8 some point want to address the Board about the mall issue, now would be that time. Anyone? 9 Alright, alright. Real quick, I’ve got one question from a Boardmember…so we’re closing the 10 public testimony section. Just so it’s on the record. But, got one question from a Boardmember 11 from one of the residents. Do you want to go ahead? 12 BOARDMEMBER GINO CAMPANA: Actually it was for you, Melissa. At the end, 13 your statement was, you prefer an alternate rather than a modification, I’m not quite sure I 14 understand that. But, if you wouldn’t mind, just going to the mic when you respond please. This 15 is not typical, us asking questions. I just want to make sure I capture your comment. 16 MS. MORAN: And, forgive me if I don’t fully understand the process. That is quite 17 possible. What I heard tonight is that there is…that what Foothills is requesting is a variance to 18 the sign code for their specific project, and what I am suggesting is that, if there is simply a 19 variance to their specific project that is not provided to other retail developments in the area, I 20 would prefer that other retail developments of that same size and magnitude also be offered the 21 opportunity to have enhanced signage on their property to draw additional customers into their 22 development. 23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: So, a signage code is what you’d prefer? 24 MS. MORAN: Yes, I suppose that…that is probably correct. 25 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: And, signs such as what they’re asking for, is that 26 something that you think has prevented you from getting retailers because you don’t have it? 27 MS. MORAN: I think that, if you ask very many businesses in this community whether 28 or not the signage is comparable to other communities in Fort Collins…and, while, as a 29 community member I do appreciate the beauty of Fort Collins, so please note that. But, if you 30 look at other communities within Colorado, and as well as outside of Colorado, there is 31 significantly more signage that can enhance retail signs, or enhance retail sales, excuse me. So, I 32 would argue that, yes, the sign code as it currently exists in this manner, is very much prohibitive 33 to doing business in Fort Collins. 34 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, thanks a lot. 30 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, with that, we’re going to take a quick intermission, or 2 recess, if you will. And we will come back at five minutes after. 3 (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, welcome back to the February 7 th 4 , 2013 Special Hearing 5 of the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board. Right now, we are in the middle of 6 consideration of the Foothills Mall redevelopment project, development plan, PDP #120036, and 7 we had just finished with the public testimony component of our hearing tonight and, at this 8 point, the next part of our hearing will be hearing from the applicant…a response to the public 9 testimony. Is the applicant team ready to respond? Alright, please step forward…and, again, if 10 you would state your name for the record and for our reminder. 11 MR. PROVOST: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and council members. My name is 12 Don Provost with Alberta Development Partners and we certainly appreciate the public input that 13 occurred this evening and we heard the concerns regarding, what we perceive the two biggest 14 issues, and they’re interrelated…the multi-family and some concerns about the density of the 15 multi-family, and traffic related issues around that. Certainly there was a lot of other issues, and 16 signage being one them which Carolyn will finish up with here, but thought it’d be important for 17 me to address those two issues. 18 We spent as much time, and have spent as much time, and will continue to spend a 19 significant amount of time, on the residential component of this project, as we did the 20 commercial. As you can see from the project, it is a significant amount of residential with a 21 variety and diversity of housing types. We’re going to have everything from a four- and five- 22 story wrap product, which is very dense, but encloses the parking within the structure…we’re 23 going to have three-story, you know walk-up product, we’re going to have what would be 24 traditionally considered brownstone, or townhome type product, all for rent product. So, we’re 25 going to have a variety of housing types, and it also provides a great transition, we believe, from 26 the existing neighborhood to the commercial property. So, we think that’s a very, very strong 27 design tenant of our project. We spent significant time evaluating the traffic, I’m going to have 28 Chris Foshing come up in a minute and give a more technical explanation on the traffic, but the 29 residential traffic is only sixteen percent of total new traffic on Stanford, so it’s not as big of 30 impact as people think when you look at the raw data. And, the current infrastructure is more 31 than adequate to support the traffic that gets added by our project. So, again, just to summarize 32 and reiterate, we spent a lot of time, had three public meetings that we set out on our own to 33 have, and took the input and looked at different product types and sizing of the residential, and 34 again, will continue to work on making that residential component the best it can be within this 35 project. With that, I’m going to turn it over to Chris Foshing and he’s going to speak more 36 specifically about the residential traffic impact. 37 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 31 1 MR. CHRIS FOSHING: Good evening, for the record, I’m Chris Foshing with the firm 2 of Felsburg Holt and Ullevig, we’re located at 6300 South Syracuse Way in Centennial. I want 3 to shed a little light on the residential, and the traffic, and Stanford Road…that was a comment 4 that came up a number of times. You know, first of all, I want to point out that the residential 5 component, as it relates to the entire project and trip-making of the entire project, it’s only 6 sixteen percent. So, the non-residential uses are clearly generating, you know, much more than 7 the eight hundred units of the residential. Another point here that I want to make…when you 8 look at the site plan that’s on the screen, the residential uses…each of those blocks are inward 9 facing, I’ll say…access to the parking for the residential is all served by an internal spine road, 10 the same spine road that the retail uses are going to use as well. There’s not access directly onto 11 Stanford. So, when you look at the site plan and you…might imagine the routing of some of the 12 trips that the residential would generate, and where they might go, and how they might get to 13 College…Monroe is one attractive route to get to College, especially for those who live maybe in 14 the southern blocks of the residential area. For those living in the northern blocks, potentially a 15 route to College is, you know, the east-west, sort of the extension of Foothills Parkway that ties 16 into Mathew and Swallow. So, you know, to think that all of this traffic is just automatically 17 going to dump onto Stanford is not correct; however, I’m not here to say its zero either, I mean 18 Stanford is a road that’s going to come into play in terms of serving the development. 19 And, just trying to keep it general, you know, the traffic studies get into a lot of detail, I 20 want to try to keep this a little more general. You know, Stanford serves on the order of three to 21 four thousand vehicles per day, currently, and we’re estimating that with the demolition of the 22 mall, and the implementation of this project, that it could increase up to about fifty-five hundred, 23 plus or minus depending on where you are. So, there’s increases…Stanford will feel some 24 increases in traffic as a result. But, even at fifty-five hundred vehicles per day, that’s a volume 25 that’s still within the realm of a two-lane, collector kind of road, like Stanford. And, that’s still 26 less traffic that what Swallow serves today. Swallow serves around the order of seven thousand 27 vehicles per day. So, we’re not seeing this as an issue. And, maybe one other point…just maybe 28 a correction on what Mr. Provost had said here just previously, the residential traffic component, 29 as part of that fifty-five hundred, plus or minus, we’re projecting onto Stanford Road, the 30 residential makes up a little over twenty percent of that, or so. Just to give you some perspective 31 on what we’re talking about with the residential. So, hopefully that sheds a little more light on 32 the whole residential questions that have come up. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Got a question for you. 34 BOARDMEMBER GERALD HART: I don’t understand that at all. It looks, from the 35 site plan, that each one of the residential blocks has a major access, with the possible exception 36 of 1A and 1B, onto Stanford Road. That’s the vast majority of the residential. Now, total 37 residential generation is what…just under five thousand trips a day. Are you assuming that the 38 people in lots 4, 5, and 6 would go through the mall to get to College as opposed to go up to 39 Swallow and go up Monroe? 32 1 MR. FOSHING: We’re assuming they’re going to spread out. They are still going to use 2 Stanford. And, when I talk about access onto the internal spine road, when they’re coming out of 3 their parking area, out of the parking structure, they are on that internal spine road. 4 BOARDMEMBER HART: That’s correct, and the shortest distance between two points 5 is to Stanford Road…Stanford Road…from what I can see from the site plan here. 6 MR. FOSHING: Well, if one wants to get to College…let’s go with the southern block, 7 just to kind of, you know, help explain what I’m trying to get across. 8 BOARDMEMBER HART: I think they would go to Monroe, they would turn onto 9 Monroe. 10 MR. FOSHING: They would go onto Monroe, yes. 11 BOARDMEMBER HART: But there’s the remaining lots 3, 4 and 5…yeah 3, 4, and 5. 12 They’re going to more than likely head north and go to Swallow and go up to College that way, I 13 mean that seems to be the path of least resistance. 14 MR. FOSHING: I agree with you, but not all of them. You know, and that’s why I’m 15 trying to make the point that not everybody is going to turn onto Stanford, but I’m not here to say 16 nobody’s going to turn onto Stanford. Stanford is definitely going to see an increase in traffic as 17 a result of the overall development. And, again, the residential piece, collectively the eight 18 hundred units, could comprise over twenty percent of the total traffic that Stanford serves. 19 BOARDMEMBER HART: In your traffic impact study, what did you indicate the traffic 20 volumes…ADTs, not peak hours, ADTs would be at Stanford and Swallow? 21 MR. FOSHING: Yeah, the traffic study did not get into a whole lot of the ADTs…the 22 traffic study focused very much on peak hour numbers, primarily because when we calculate our 23 little functional measure called level of service, it’s based on peak hour traffic. But, 24 what…again, I’ll kind of, you know, the numbers with respect to Stanford…today were in the 25 three to four thousand vehicle per day range. We’re projecting it could increase to about fifty- 26 five hundred, plus or minus. 27 BOARDMEMBER HART: I guess I’d like to check with staff later on that and see what 28 their response is. Thank you. 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gerry, do you want to do that right now? 30 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yeah, has staff got any comment on that? 31 MR. WARD STANFORD: Good evening, Ward Stanford with the City of Fort Collins 32 Traffic Operations. Yes, we do believe that traffic will go to Stanford, no doubt. We do believe 33 it will also disperse throughout the location. There’s five signalized intersections around the 33 1 mall…certainly to get onto the larger roadways, which is going to carry most of the people away 2 from the area, that’s going to be some of the prime points to go. There’s also five non-signalized 3 accesses to the surrounding roadways, not including Stanford…five others that do not intersect 4 Stanford. And so, there’s going to be two new right-in, right-outs onto College. There’s two 5 unsignalized accesses onto Swallow, there’s Monroe and others. Do we believe people will use 6 it? Yes, because we see distribution of traffic based on convenience, also, as a part of traffic 7 stream. As the difficulty to access roadways grows, they will look for other alternatives, and in 8 that we do believe that Stanford will get somewhat regulated on that. Plus, as we look at the 9 overall volumes of that increase…if you somewhat break them down by time; they were saying 10 that the residential is going to add about four hundred and fifty additional trips in the hour. Take 11 that as two locations. Say it all goes to Stanford, and they where does it go? Fifty percent goes 12 north, fifty percent goes south. So, about two hundred and twenty-five trips during that hour. 13 Now that’s…take that, divide that by sixty minutes, that’s seven and half cars a minute. Let’s 14 say they all come out in the half-hour, okay, that’s fifteen cars a minute. And, if you want to put 15 all four hundred and fifty…say they all come out in the last fifteen minutes, that’s thirty cars a 16 minute. Now, will that be a problem at some of those unsignalized intersections? Yes. Will that 17 create the desire by people to disburse to other locations? Yes. And, certainly in the morning 18 traffic, probably much more than the evening from the standpoint of…there’s no other traffic in 19 the mall. The roads are pretty much to their use. So, we do see a distribution taking place and a 20 lot of good opportunities to make access to the main roads easier than going to…all the traffic 21 going to Stanford. 22 BOARDMEMBER HART: So, fundamentally…on looking at the traffic impact 23 study…both…level of service is B at both Swallow and, I guess it’s…and Monroe, right? I 24 guess that’s… 25 MR. STANFORD: Yeah, hardly anything was less than a C. 26 BOARDMEMBER HART: And, that’s acceptable? 27 MR. STANFORD: Yes, yeah, that’s quite good. 28 BOARDMEMBER HART: And, the current level of service is probably A? 29 MR. STANFORD: They were…they didn’t change much, they were good level of B, 30 some of them had a movement that changed to a C. But, that’s pretty minor and quite good. 31 BOARDMEMBER HART: Okay, thank you. 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks. Does any Boardmember want to continue in this vein of 33 discussion, about the…we can come back to it. Okay, let’s continue with the applicant’s 34 response. Ms. White, please. 34 1 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, once again, Carolyn White, land use counsel for 2 the applicant. I’m going to address the principal issue of signage, which was a big topic of 3 conversation. But, first I want to just answer three specific questions that were asked during the 4 public comment that we want to make sure you have the answer to. One of the questions was 5 about when will the underpass be built. And, Ms. Levingston did allude to the fact that we have 6 two alternative configurations we’re looking at. Both are acceptable to staff, both are acceptable 7 to the applicant, both are acceptable to the ditch company, it’s just a question of whether the 8 third party approval, such as CDOT, that are required will allow one versus the other. As soon 9 as that’s resolved, whichever one is chosen…whichever route is chosen, will be built at the same 10 time as the mall. So, I just want to make that clear. 11 There was a question about the programming at the Foothills Activity Center, and what’s 12 going to go on there. By and large, the programming for that is going to principally be dictated 13 by Fort Collins Parks and Rec because they are the ones who’ve expressed the desire to work. It 14 will be expanded from what it is today, certainly, but one of the principal expansions is going to 15 be the availability of community meeting rooms for things like Boy Scout meetings, counseling, 16 events and so on. There’s really not an intent to dramatically change it or to compete with 17 private health clubs or anything like that, but just to provide some additional, more modern 18 facilities for the community. And then the last question was about car races. Just to be clear, 19 what was being referred to was 5K foot races…that there might be the opportunity to do things 20 like that on the property, not…you know, Nascar racing or anything like that. 21 So, then back to the issue of signage, and I’m going to speak just specifically right now to 22 the full color signage versus…the full color digital versus single color digital, because I think 23 that’s where the issue really boils down to. I personally participated in that process in 2011. I 24 attended all but one of the public meetings, all of the public hearings in front of this body and in 25 front of City Council. During that time, I never heard any public testimony from a member of 26 the public saying that they had a concern that full color signage would create negative visual 27 impact in the community, and I didn’t see any written comments to that effect either. Now, it’s 28 been a long time since I looked at that stuff, maybe there’s something in there. But, by and 29 large, it wasn’t about the public having an uprising of concern about full color. And, I think you 30 heard that loud and clear tonight in the public testimony that the difference between full color 31 and monochrome, as it relates to digital, is not a big issue for the public, and it is really more and 32 more common when you talk about this high quality, high resolution LED technology. It looks 33 much better in full color than it does in monochrome. So, I want to mention that there was a 34 comment suggesting that this type of signage should be made available to other projects. And, 35 certainly on behalf of this applicant, they would have no objection to that. And, if planning 36 commission wants to revisit the sign code and look at the issue of carving out an exception for 37 full color for similarly situated projects over a certain size, there would be no objection on the 38 part of this applicant. 35 1 However, what’s before you tonight is specifically the modification that was requested 2 for this project for this particular sign package. And, with respect to that, we believe that we 3 have demonstrated that it meets the criteria for a modification. It is not detrimental to the 4 public good, I think you heard that loud and clear from the public testimony tonight, and it meets 5 several of the factors when all you need is one, to approve a modification; namely, that the site 6 constraints require it, there is a unique physical consideration of the site, that’s the criteria that 7 staff refers to as the hardship criterion, and there’s also the issue of, it addresses a significant 8 community need. We’ve talked a lot about how the redevelopment of this project is going to 9 accomplish some significant community goals, and, in order to accomplish those goals, we need 10 to ensure that this project has the best chance for success in the marketplace. And, one of the 11 ways to do that is to try to address the concerns about visibility and communicating with the 12 market, with the general public, and the passersby on College Avenue. So, we would ask you to 13 approve that modification and, certainly if you subsequently wanted to address a carve out, you 14 would find us testifying in support of that. So, with that, we thank you very much for your 15 attention to this issue and to the details of this project, and of course we still have all our 16 consultant team available to answer any additional questions you may have. 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. I know we’ll have some questions from the 18 Board for the applicant team, and also for staff. So, does anybody have any questions they want 19 to start off on…I’ve got a few, but go ahead and fire away. Emily? 20 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I did have just a couple questions. The first 21 was…the notion to change the name from the Youth Activity Center to the Fort Collins Activity 22 Center…was that…whose idea was that I guess? 23 MR. PROVOST: Good evening, Mr. Provost again. The name that we’re proposing is 24 the Foothills Activity Center, not Fort Collins Activity Center…but, again, to tie in with the 25 project. And, we just thought that would reflect the greater breadth of the services we’re going 26 to be able to offer. As we said, more community gathering rooms, and…as we mentioned as 27 well, there’s still dialogue going on with Parks and Rec on exactly how that’s going to get 28 programmed, and obviously the scale is much larger, and it’s still being designed. But, it’s not 29 going to be a youth activity center, right? We think there’s a broader use, a broader community 30 outreach that’s associated with that. So, we thought that name change was more in keeping with 31 what the end product is going to be. 32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, was Parks and Rec on board with that as 33 well? 34 MR. PROVOST: I don’t know, I haven’t had that specific discussion with Parks and Rec. 35 Is Parks and Rec here somewhere? 36 MR. MARTY HEFFERNAN: Hello, I’m Marty Heffernan with Community Services, 37 City of Fort Collins, which includes Parks and Recreation. So, we are fine with the name 36 1 change. We’re actually very pleased with the facility that’s being offered, much nicer, larger 2 facility than the one that’s going away. We do intend for it to serve the youth of Fort Collins, as 3 it has…the current facility does. But, actually given the size and the components that we think 4 are going to be in the facility, it will be more of a full-service recreation center that will have a 5 focus on youth. But, with the gymnasium being replaced, and actually probably being larger, the 6 programming that that allows, plus the meeting rooms and the other spaces that we have for early 7 childhood classes and a variety of other classes to serve the whole community, it’s going to be 8 sort of like…just a scaled down full-service recreation center. But, it will not be a health club 9 and it will not compete against the full service health clubs that are in town. It‘s really just 10 another place for us to offer the same programs that we currently do, and so we don’t have a 11 problem with the name, we just need a…we’ll have conversations with the developer in the 12 future to work out the details. 13 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you for that. The next one is for Peter 14 Barnes. The applicant made a comment about being involved with the process to do the…with 15 the signage, and she said that there wasn’t a lot of citizen input against it. But, it seemed as if, 16 when you presented, that there was a lot of citizen input against multi-color signs, so can you 17 clarify that? 18 MR. BARNES: There was a lot of citizen input in the process. It certainly was not 19 unanimous, it was pretty evenly split as to…when you look at all of the aspects of the code that 20 we were proposing, the brightness, the frequency of change, the color range…we did hear from 21 people who thought we shouldn’t have any digital signs at all. There were a lot of those. And 22 then there were others who thought what we had currently was fine, and shouldn’t mess with it. 23 And then there was a lot that thought we should open it up to full color, and all of the other 24 things that…more frequent changes rather than once every sixty seconds, thing like that. So, 25 there were a lot of comments on all sides. 26 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I want to… 28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I follow down the sign path, while we’re on it? 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Certainly. 30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I don’t know much about digital signs, other than I 31 think they are quite expensive. Is the kind that you would purchase if it was to be one color at a 32 time the same that would be able to allow a full color display if our code were to change in the 33 future? 34 MR. PROVOST: Thank you for the question. Yes, I mean…I think they are very 35 expensive. We’ve done them in other projects and certainly we would probably, you know, 37 1 make an election at that time on what we envision. We don’t want to put it in and it’s twenty 2 years from now, that’s not a very good return on your investment to spend fifty thousand dollars 3 on digital signage you never get to use, when we could just have a single color board there and 4 spend five thousand dollars. We haven’t made that election. I just want to add maybe one 5 caveat to what Carolyn said…add that, you know, I’m a big believer that projects of economic 6 significance, like our project, like Bayer’s project, should have a different dispensation when it 7 comes to this issue, and that’s why we’re here advocating for this position. And, as Carolyn 8 said, we’d support, if you wanted to evaluate it in a…separate forum with respect to an overall 9 change…projects of X hundred thousand square feet could have that type of signage. Because, I 10 don’t believe it’s appropriate to have every retail establishment along College to have a digital 11 sign. Then you will have that issue, right, of just…sign pollution. But, projects of economic 12 significant, certainly ours, certainly Bayer’s…but as Carolyn mentioned, what’s before you 13 tonight is our submittal and our request for a variance, and we would support a change to the 14 code of projects of economic significance as well. 15 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: So, just to clarify, you…it would be two different 16 signs that you would purchase, if we only allowed you to do the one color? 17 MR. PROVOST: Yes, we probably would. 18 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I want to ask a question, if I can, about the connection…oh, go 20 ahead, we’re staying on signs. 21 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: It’s funny how this sign has become a very popular 22 topic tonight when there’s such a huge project before us with so many details, but…I sat through 23 all the discussions as you brought up to the Board in 2011, and certainly saw the pictures from 24 the ‘70’s and what College Avenue looked like with the signs all over, and Zoning and Peter, 25 you guys have done a phenomenal job cleaning that up and establishing a great sign code. And, 26 we supported not having multiple color and the frequency, and the code we have today. Having 27 said that, there was a couple full color signs that I think were installed and were grandfathered in, 28 that now that I’ve had some time to look at it and drive by it, they aren’t as bad as I thought they 29 were going to be…that’s one point. And, the second point is, having leased properties myself, 30 signage is a huge condition of tenants. And, when you have a property like Bayer’s or like the 31 Foothills Mall redevelopment, and you have tenants that could potentially be in the project and 32 don’t have that frontage, some additional signage along College probably makes a little more 33 sense than allowing every single retailer along College Avenue have a full color sign. So, I just 34 want to share a little bit of my thoughts on that with you guys as we’re pondering this project. 35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any more questions right now regarding signs, for staff or the 36 applicant? Alright, I want to shift gears just a little bit. I wanted to talk about the rendering we 37 have, I guess, of the bike path to the MAX BRT. And, I want to get a better understanding, 38 1 perhaps, of the capacity and the connections from the mall, through the underpass, out to 2 McClelland. One thing, before I even get into some of that, is just…there was one citizen that 3 asked about shuttle. Could the applicant speak to whether or not a direct shuttle has been 4 considered between the mall and, say, the BRT station? 5 MR. PROVOST: Sure, yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. We have not considered a shuttle. 6 We’ve worked tirelessly with the City staff to provide the pedestrian connection from the 7 corridor. It’s a great comment, we should probably look into that and look into the viability of a 8 shuttle, the cost of a shuttle, and whether, you know, what the ridership would be. There are 9 studies we can do, clearly, if we want to, you know, spend a half a million dollars to move ten 10 people, that’s probably not a very good investment. You know, it’s a capital investment up front 11 as well as an operating investment as you can appreciate. But, if the ridership would show, you 12 know, five hundred people an hour, or whatever it would show, that would be a good investment 13 to bring people into our shopping center and it would be something to consider. So, based on 14 that comment, I’ve made a note. We’re going to look into that and talk to staff and see what the 15 viability of that is or isn’t, because it’s running a short distance…more of a capital cost than an 16 operating cost, but we’ll definitely look into that. 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. You know, along those lines, I don’t know if there 18 would be some opportunity to be creative with some type of a partnership perhaps with 19 Transfort, you know, where, you know, using their equipment, and subsidizing, or if just, you 20 know, the greater numbers would necessitate. But, you know, I think that the citizen raised a 21 good point. 22 MR. PROVOST: It’s a great point, and definitely perhaps there’s vehicles that are, maybe 23 beyond their useful life in Transfort’s world, right, in the distances they have to travel, but 24 they’re still well-maintained vehicles and new vehicles are being brought on line, that we could 25 use some of those vehicles that would reduce capital cost and work out some type of partnership 26 there. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. And, now to…I think, talking about this 28 connection, this bike path to the MAX BRT. Want to get a better sense, and if this was 29 addressed in the presentation and I didn’t catch it, I apologize, but I just want to get a better 30 sense of how certain that it, as far as it being acquired, and also just the dimensions of that. Is it 31 supposed to be bike, ped…how wide, and just some of the character of that path. 32 MS. LEVINGSTON: From staff or the applicant? 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Whoever knows the answer. 34 MS. LEVINGSTON: Well, I’ll take a stab at it. The…it’s a multi-use path. It is twelve 35 feet wide. I know in the worksession, I said a ten foot…I misspoke. It is twelve feet in width. 39 1 And, it runs along the South College Avenue frontage. It would be a multi-use shared path. 2 That is…what was the second part of your question, I’m sorry. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I was trying…I mean, the access has been established. I mean, 4 it’s certain that this will…you know, whether it’s acquisition of right-of-way or some agreement, 5 but that is certain that this is kind of the alignment? 6 MS. LEVINGSTON: Oh, yes, for the multi-use path? Yes, that is certain that this is an 7 aspect of the project development plan approval. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, and then the…and then at its western terminus, how does it 9 connect with McClelland? Would it just touch McClelland, does it actually go under 10 McClelland? Just to get a sense of…because the bike trail, as I understand it is on the west side 11 of McClelland. And so, I wanted to see how direct, safe, and I forgot what the third criteria that 12 we use for those type of connections, but…how it would connect with the bike trail. 13 MS. LEVINGSTON: If I may, can I punt that… 14 MR. CLIFF POINTER: Good evening, my name is Cliff Pointer, I am the project civil 15 engineer. The…what you’re looking at on the screen…does this work? There we go…College 16 Avenue runs along this area right here. What you’re seeing in red here is the relocation of the 17 irrigation ditch. The pedestrian path that we’re currently, you know, working hard with CDOT, 18 other property owners…you know, the City is being instrumental in this too, is the existing 19 underpass that is here, we’re going to convert it into a…you know, a well, presentable, attractive 20 pedestrian underpass along with a direct connection to the mall property which would…this is 21 Foothills Parkway right here, so it basically would be just south of Foothills Parkway. This land, 22 this strip of land here which is currently controlled by several other property owners, but the…it 23 contains the irrigation ditch, would become fully boxed. The irrigation ditch would stay there 24 but be underneath of it. The walk would be on top of it at grade. It would be somewhere in the 25 neighborhood of ten to twelve foot wide based on the results of the structural engineering and 26 stuff that we have to do with the existing underpass. It connects to the BRT route along 27 McClelland right at the bridge to an existing sidewalk system that it being improved, I believe, as 28 part of the BRT project. There’s one already there, but I believe it’s actually getting a little 29 wider. And then it’s…the distances are shown to the next closest station. I believe we’re like 30 nine hundred feet to the Swallow station up. So, it would be a direct east-west connection to the 31 BRT. 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, I lost you a little bit on how it actually would perform at 33 McClelland. There is…I mean is it…did I hear you say it goes under? 34 MR. POINTER: The ditch would be completely enclosed under an existing bridge that 35 runs under McClelland and then go right into a box culvert. So, what you would see is actually 40 1 nothing, you would be at grade. You wouldn’t even see the ditch. So, it would be a sidewalk 2 connection, as like a T connection. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, so at McClelland, that trail would…would there be any 4 signalization? I’m most interested in how folks on that trail would get across McClelland to 5 access the north-south BRT system. And, I’m still not clear on that. 6 MR. POINTER: The best way to do it would be to either decide which way you wanted 7 to go…which station you wanted to go to, and then you would turn. Because there is no stop 8 proposed here on McClelland. So, the best way to do it would be to come up, turn either right or 9 left. Most people, I’m assuming, are going to go to the Swallow station, which is roughly nine 10 hundred feet to the north. And then, if they have to cross, they’ll cross there at the station, at the 11 Swallow intersection, at the existing pedestrian connections that are there. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, now…maybe you don’t know this, maybe staff 13 would. What type of…what is the connection or the crossing look like? So, if somebody were 14 to go north on the east side of McClelland to try to get to the Swallow BRT station, how safe is 15 that crossing across McClelland? Does anybody know? 16 MR. STANFORD: I’ll take a stab at this. I’ve dealt with the BRT project in the stations, 17 and their operation. The station at Swallow is, as he was saying, the only station between 18 Horsetooth and Drake. There isn’t sidewalk facilities and stuff on the west side of McClelland 19 through that area, because it’s adjacent to the ditch, and quite a distance away from the adjacent 20 neighborhoods. There is sidewalk on the east side of McClelland, but at this point, I couldn’t tell 21 you if that was continuous. There’s businesses along there, and other building and facilities. I 22 know there’s various areas of sidewalk, just because of being out there, but I won’t say I’ve 23 walked the whole area between these two points…between Swallow and Foothills, to know if 24 there is a continuous sidewalk. And, actually, what width and stuff it is…that I don’t know. The 25 crossings, when they go to and from the bus, would be done at Swallow. That’s where our ped 26 crossings and our signals will be to move from the east side, or the west side, excuse me, of 27 McClelland over to the east side. There won’t be other places to do that as, one, there’s no 28 sidewalk on the west side to take people. 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. 30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I follow up on that? Ward, to follow in that 31 same vein, if you were a pedestrian who chose to stay on the twelve-foot multi-use path that goes 32 north along College, at the end of the property line, it looks on the aerial like there is a sidewalk 33 in between where the mall’s property line ends and where Swallow starts, is that correct? So, if 34 you were a pedestrian and you chose, instead of taking the underpass to keep on College and 35 then take a left at Swallow, is there a continuous infrastructure to be able to safely get there? 41 1 MR. STANFORD: There is…yes, there is. There’s sidewalks on both sides of Swallow, 2 as I recall, from College westward to McClelland. They go along the Ed Carroll, and then the 3 facilities, the businesses there on the south side of Swallow also. 4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, Kristin thanks. Any other questions in this vein we want to 6 ask of the applicant or staff? Yeah, yeah, okay, thank you, appreciate it. 7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I’ve got one more related to pedestrian 8 connectivity. Last week when you came to us at worksession, there was the modification for a 9 five-foot sidewalk and there has been a new rendering I understand for an eight-foot sidewalk 10 instead? 11 MS. LEVINGSTON: The applicant did provide us with an exhibit after the Planning and 12 Zoning Board worksession, and that was included in your packet, and that has an eight-foot 13 sidewalk around the perimeter of the theater building, so it is meeting the standard. And, it 14 eliminated the need for the modification of standard. 15 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, were we able…I apologize if I didn’t catch 16 that in our update that we just got, but were they able to keep the landscaping that they had 17 originally proposed in that rendering as well? 18 MS. LEVINGSTON: It appears as though they will be able to keep the landscaping as 19 proposed. 20 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I’m really excited about that because I walked 21 around all week with a stroller thinking five feet is not going to work. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I know we’ve got a 23 bunch so who wants to go next. Anything, Jennifer, go ahead. 24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, I’m going to switch a little bit to part of the 25 residential. And, I think it may be in here somewhere Courtney, but if you can explain it a little 26 bit better to me, what’s going on. I’m concerned about lot three and the parking that is going to 27 be…where you’re going to be parking, and with lights going towards the residences that are 28 there. Is that…am I reading this right? 29 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes, as proposed, there is a six-foot wood cedar fence and then 30 evergreen trees, and those will be transplanted from other locations on the site so they’ll be 31 mature evergreen trees, evergreen landscaping, and a six-foot cedar fence to block at least 32 seventy-five percent of the car lights on to the adjacent properties. 33 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 42 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Who else has questions? Emily, you have some questions you 2 want to hit? 3 BOARDMEMBER EMILY ELMORE: Someone referred to a plan for less residential, 4 do we have a…is there like an example of that? 5 MS. LEVINGSTON: That plan was not submitted with the project development plan. 6 That previous plan was part of a preliminary design review, and that was prior to the formal 7 project development plan submittal. 8 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: So, does staff have…the one that came forward, is that 9 because staff recommended that amount of residential, or was it just because that’s what the 10 applicant wanted? 11 MS. LEVINGSTON: That is what the applicant chose to submit. 12 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Does staff have an opinion about scale, or number of 13 units? I’m new here, I don’t know if you’re allowed to have an opinion… 14 MS. LEVINGSTON: In terms of…they both comply with the Land Use Code. 15 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay. 16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Courtney, just for the record, would you be willing 17 to talk about some of the transition elements between the existing residential and the newly 18 proposed residential? 19 MS. LEVINGSTON: As proposed, the project is three stories on the lot…I believe lot 20 three, units 1A, 1B, and then it transitions down to two stories right as it curves, in that area, 21 when it approaches the single-family and two-family units. And, that setback is about twenty- 22 five feet from the closest point of the building to the property line. And then you have that two- 23 story transition and then it goes to three story. 24 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And my understanding is that they’re transplanting 25 mature trees as well? 26 MS. LEVINGSTON: Correct. 27 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And then, do you mind talking about the ones that 28 are off of Stanford Road. Just because I think that was a concern that people have. 29 MS. LEVINGSTON: Building…lot four, building two is four stories, it’s about fifty- 30 three and a half feet tall, two hundred and twenty-two units, three hundred and five bedrooms, 31 and the subterranean parking will have three hundred and fifty-four spaces. This is the east 32 elevation. The applicant did submit a special height review as part of the project development 43 1 plan, and as proposed, the views…the staff finds that the views aren’t significantly impacted due 2 to the existing grade, and the existing structures in the area already blocking some of the views 3 of foothills. Lot five, building three, four stories, that’s fifty-four feet tall, two hundred and 4 sixteen units, two hundred and ninety-nine bedrooms, and that has three hundred and sixty-six 5 subterranean parking spaces. That’s a character elevation below as well. And, lot six, building 6 four, that’s on the corner of Stanford and Monroe, that’s five stores, about sixty-five and a half 7 feet tall, two hundred and twenty-four units, that’s three hundred and thirty-nine bedrooms. And, 8 the parking structure that the units are wrapped around is three hundred and eighty-five parking 9 spaces. 10 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we do have a visual that illustrates a bit of the 11 perspective as viewed from the existing residential, if the commission would like to see that. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Please. 13 MS. WHITE: If you’d like, I can get one of the consultants who’s better able to speak to 14 this than I am to tell you what you’re looking at. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Please, yeah, if you don’t mind. And, we should note that 16 someday we ought to invest in a much larger screen, and a couple of them. 17 MR. BRIAN MCFARLAND: Hi, I’m Brian McFarland with Alberta Development. 18 What you see here is the perspective behind the existing two-story office building, I believe 19 that’s the Plaza building, and then below that is from the same point of view…the rendering of 20 what you’ll see with the current site plan building configuration. 21 BOARDMEMBER HART: What block is that? 22 MR. MCFARLAND: Three. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Jennifer? 24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How many stories are the apartments that are across 25 Stanford from this? Do you know Courtney? 26 MS. LEVINGSTON: They’re four stories. 27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Do you have any renderings of blocks four, five, or 29 six? Or, sorry, I meant perspectives, not renderings, I know that we just went through those. 30 MS. LEVINGSTON: They were provided in the packet. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, yeah…but you don’t have a slide? Okay, so we’ll dig a 32 little bit here if you don’t mind the shuffling. In the meantime, Gerry? 44 1 BOARDMEMBER HART: I just have…I just want to get an answer. So, fundamentally, 2 the mass and the height of these buildings comply with the code and the staff is comfortable with 3 the articulation and the changes in elevations, even though they’re only conceptual, that they’ll 4 comply with the code? 5 MS. LEVINGSTON: We feel that the project development plan, as proposed, 6 demonstrates significant…or sufficient compliance with the Land Use Code. 7 BOARDMEMBER HART: Okay, thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gino? 9 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: When we…when we sit up here and we review a 10 project that is one building, last month we did Discount Tire, and we scrutinized every bush and 11 brick and window and…everything on it, and spend hours going back and forth, and then we get 12 a project that’s larger like this and, based on just sheer volume, there’s no way we could ever 13 drill down to that level. Understanding that a developer may not have elevations completed on 14 all the buildings on a project of this size, usually you try to capture general character of the 15 buildings in the PDP. And then as buildings are being submitted for permit, is there a 16 mechanism in place that you guys then doublecheck against Chapter 3 on the detail and the 17 elevations of those buildings? I know, from my experience, we usually submit, again, 18 conceptual elevations, what we think these buildings are going to look like, but you might get a 19 unique tenant that wants it to be different, and then we would do minor amendment after minor 20 amendment on every building. Help…maybe I think it would help the entire Board if we 21 understood that process a little bit better, and give us some comfort in dealing with just the sheer 22 volume of buildings and the lack of the ability to really drill down on that detail on every 23 building. 24 MS. LEVINGSTON: Once the project is approved, typically the applicant will submit for 25 final plan. From the time that the applicant submits for final plan to the first round of final plan 26 review, that’s a month, because the engineering, the elevations, everything, the details, are 27 submitted and we go over it with a fine-toothed comb, so to speak, in ensuring that, if there is a 28 minor amendment, that that minor amendment still is complying with the Land Use Code. 29 After…it’s typical for applicants to go through two or three rounds of final review prior to 30 recording the mylars. Once they’re ready to record their mylars, the Director of Community 31 Development and Neighborhood Services signs off saying that these plans to comply with the 32 Land Use Code as proposed on the mylars, and they’re recorded. 33 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: So, again, just process-wise, we have a project 34 development plan here tonight. We obviously have some elevations presented…by the time it 35 goes to the final development plan and it approved, it’ll have some refined renderings and 36 buildings on it, and then once they submit for building permit on each one of those buildings, 45 1 there’s one last check then to see if that building elevation is in compliance with the final 2 development plan, is that right? 3 MS. LEVINSGSTON: That is correct. 4 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: And, if it isn’t, then it would go through a minor 5 amendment process? 6 MS. LEVINGSTON: Correct, it would be a major or minor amendment. The difference 7 is, basically, is it a major change in character or a minor change in character than the approved 8 development plan. 9 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: This is a pretty typical process for larger projects. You 10 kind of have two options, one would be an overall development plan, then coming back in with a 11 project development plan on each building, or a project development plan like this and then 12 having to deal with, potentially, minor amendments at a later date. 13 MS. LEVINGSTON: That is correct. 14 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, just wanted to share that with everybody. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Good point, thanks. What other questions, Gino? 16 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Well, as long as I’m being long-winded here, along 17 those same lines, typically, a developer would come in and phase a project of this size and not 18 deliver hundreds of thousands, half a million square feet of commercial all at one time…or eight 19 hundred DUs of apartments at one time. Is there a phasing plan conceptualized? I realize you 20 probably don’t have anything formalized yet, but…that might also help deal with…as a 21 community, as a Board we can’t really take into consideration economics. We’re held to our 22 Land Use Code at this level, but we heard comments tonight about economics. And, as a city, 23 having two large destination retail locations competing, which they obviously would, and 24 question of whether or not the market is substantial enough for two centers. It might help if you 25 explain, you know, philosophy on phasing and delivering product, so everyone understood that a 26 little bit better. 27 MR. PROVOST: Sure, there will only be one phase on the commercial side. Everything 28 you see that’s commercial will get built at one time and will open at one time. We believe the 29 market is vibrant, we believe the market is deep, we believe that we can lease every square foot 30 that we have on this plan. We’ve had incredible initial interest from tenants that have always 31 wanted to be in Fort Collins, but haven’t had a compelling enough project for them to locate in, 32 and the fact that we’re delivering this project at this location with the unique nature of…still a 33 large commitment to a traditional interior mall, you know, nearly two hundred thousand square 34 feet of traditional interior mall space, represented and reimagined for 2013, and combined with 35 the outdoor lifestyle components that, nowhere on this site, are you further than a block away 46 1 from the interior of the mall. Wherever you’re at on this site, you’re a block away from being in 2 a conditioned environment. Whether it’s a very warm day, or a very chilly day, or all of a 3 sudden a storm rolls in and it’s raining, it’s a very unique opportunity for us to deliver a project 4 that covers both the indoor and outdoor component in such a very strong fashion and probably 5 weights it equally…doesn’t go all outdoor air or go all indoor, you know, given this climate 6 where we’ve got nine to ten months of great sunshine and weather in the shoulder seasons, we 7 wanted to be able to take advantage of that. So, the commercial will be built in a single phase. 8 The residential will be built in multiple phases. You know, we’ll probably build two 9 product types at once, so say that could be two hundred and fifty to three hundred and fifty units, 10 lease that up, start construction, so you’ll probably have two or three phases of residential. One 11 quick comment on the density and some initial plans that we were evaluating. Early on, in any 12 project, you start going through a variety of analysis and studies and cycles of plans, and we’ve 13 probably had, you know, thirty or forty different plans on this site as we tried to fine-tune it and 14 craft the greatest optimal plan. The reason the residential density has increased from what 15 maybe some early discussions represented, was because of the demand. There’s a huge demand 16 in this market. There’s a story that we heard from a friend who has a veterinary student up here 17 in the graduate program, and relocated here from California to attend the veterinary school. 18 Couldn’t find a place to rent, had the capacity to pay, could not find, you know, a good place to 19 rent. That’s great because this market is very healthy from a jobs perspective. But, as we did our 20 studies, and you see the variety of product types that you saw up there, we think there’s very, 21 very deep demand. This site doesn’t accommodate it, but there’s probably, in this corridor, 22 demand for two or three thousand units of residential to satisfy the demand. New best in class 23 product, you know, these units will range, you know, we’re not going to have any student 24 housing per se, unless it’s, you know, graduate students or professors, but clearly, there’s thirty 25 thousand students two miles from here and all the support that goes with that. But, there’s also a 26 very active adult community, so we’re not going to have retirement housing or senior housing, 27 per se, but every product that we deliver will have full floor elevators. So, whether it’s a three- 28 story product, four-story product, two-story product, full floor elevators to provide for that 29 transition in case somebody, you know, wants to have an elevator component to their building, 30 versus a traditional garden-level walk up. So, we see the demand spreading across a variety of 31 renter pool types. On our project we did in Denver at Southglen, two hundred and two luxury 32 apartments, I could have never guessed the level of demand we had across the spectrum from 33 civil engineers who are single who wanted to live there, to folks renovating their house who are 34 living in a short period of time, to active adults who decided to sell their home, downsize, wanted 35 to stay in the community, you know, wanted to stay active, have access to their social groups, 36 their churches, and so on and so forth. So, we see the demand being very wide ranging and 37 we’re going to deliver a variety of different product types, so that’s why the units count has gone 38 up, because we think the demand is there. We also think it’s a great element of mixed-use. 39 Clearly, to sit there and say, we’re not making a shallow commitment to the residential 40 component here, we’re making a deep commitment to the residential component. And, when 47 1 you talk about traffic, when you put this amount of residential here, you come back at the end of 2 the day and you park in your garage here, and if you were…if it’s a nice day and you rode your 3 bike to work and you get back, you don’t have to ever get back in your car. You can walk right 4 across the parking lot and go grab something to eat, go to a movie, go walk around the mall, go 5 pick something up. So, it’s a very unique environment, we’d rather, I think, encourage 6 that…encourage the density, maximize the opportunity we’re creating. Because this is a 7 situation, too, where you have a one-time opportunity to impact this real estate and create a 8 legacy, and we think it would be a shame to have the impact be two hundred and fifty or three 9 hundred units, when long term, twenty, thirty years from now, people look back and go, man, 10 that was really smart to put that density there in the core of the city…the proximity to the 11 University, the proximity to the transportation infrastructure, the new BRT that’s going in…it all 12 lines up really well with a lot of the things you guys have been doing here in your long-range 13 planning for this to come in and sit there, and take advantage of all this other infrastructure. 14 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I agree with you that it’s a very sincere attempt at 15 bringing residential component to your project, and I think it’s a great idea, and I support that 16 aspect of it. I’m a little surprised that you would go and build out the entire…I mean you didn’t 17 respond the way I thought you would. I thought you would pad it out and build buildings as you 18 could secure leases, like most developers do. 19 MR. PROVOST: You’ve got a couple unique sets of circumstances here, right. You’ve 20 got an interior mall, and you can’t really renovate half of a mall, or seventy-five percent of a 21 mall, it’s kind of an all or nothing bet. So, you make the all or nothing bet up front on that, and 22 we have significant demand in that space, you know, there’s existing retailers that we’re going to 23 preserve their tenancy there, and they do very well despite, you know, the condition of the mall 24 and it’s co-tenancy. Be very additive to that with new retailers to the market, then, you know, 25 we have a theater commitment, so you build the theater. We have, you know, very deep 26 restaurant commitments right now, so that, you know, the east lawn is shaping up and is leased. 27 Clearly, I’m not in the business of building vacant retail space and hoping I lease it. Then you 28 go to the west lawn, the front, we have nearly all of that space engaged in active discussions and 29 negotiations. Then you go along College Avenue, and very deep demand there, in fact we’ve 30 kind of held off on aggressively pushing the leasing there because that’s the easy space to lease, 31 versus let’s go back and do this…and those buildings also are, you know, six to eight month 32 construction durations versus, you know, fifteen to eighteen month full construction duration 33 when you have asbestos remediation and new structural components, as well as all the 34 architectural finishes that need to go into the interior mall. And, all of the surrounding horizontal 35 infrastructure, which is massive and significant, that needs to go on. So, it’s not, you know, in a 36 developer’s world, would you love to be able to phase and have things eighty, ninety percent pre- 37 leased…but, given the nature of the beast, here, you’re pretty much stuck with this all in 38 commitment. Now, we wouldn’t be making that commitment, our capital partners wouldn’t be 48 1 making that commitment, if we didn’t have significant leasing activity, right, because we’re not 2 going to make the all-in bet if we didn’t think we could lease the mall. 3 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, thanks. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Emily, go ahead. 5 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: I have a few questions, you might not want to sit down. I 6 guess, regarding the residential, had you guys thought about doing a vertical mixed-use and 7 maybe doing like restaurant on the main floor, at all? 8 MR. PROVOST: We did, excuse me, we did, and have some initial studies, have 9 elevations, very pretty pictures of doing that, but it involved de-malling the property, so we tore 10 down the mall. Left Macy’s, drove a street through, introduced a grid, starting building, you 11 know, vertical blocks with retail, first level with podiums to put residential above. That’s going 12 very far out on the risk spectrum, that’s about as far out as you can go, because there’s your all- 13 in bet, day one on not only the retail but the residential. When we came back and started talking 14 to the market, doing our consumer survey research, and talking to residents, it became very 15 apparent that there was a huge, huge affinity for the enclosed mall. And, we heard it from the 16 retailers we were talking to as well. So, when we did that, we were, you know, you’re essentially 17 leaving that structure there, so it became much harder to introduce on the project some true 18 vertical mixed-use. So then we said, how do we still kind of infuse that urban character, that 19 urban nature, and so that’s why we went and upsized the residential and created more…as you 20 saw from those elevations, more of an urban feel, urban grid, you know, less surface street 21 parking, put the parking subterranean, put the parking within the structure, so kind of get that 22 feel without having to go vertical above the retail. 23 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay, thank you. Also, is the project feasible if it is only 24 four hundred units? 25 MR. PROVOST: Is the project feasible? 26 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Financially feasible, does it work for you guys? 27 MR. PROVOST: I haven’t studied it, to be honest. I would say that it…you know, 28 what’s the yield perspective on the change, is it fifty basis points, a hundred basis points 29 different? It would be significant…it would be significant, would we still do it? I couldn’t 30 answer that, I think there’s a compelling reason to keep our zoning request where it’s at. 31 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay. Also, had you guys considered any community 32 gardens in the residential component? 33 MR. PROVOST: We haven’t, but we’d be happy to. We have a big vision book, we 34 didn’t go through it, I didn’t want to turn this into a four-hour hearing, but it’s turning into one, 49 1 but we have a big vision book where we have dog parks and we have a lot of other elements that 2 are introduced on the project, but we’d love to talk about community gardens, particularly up 3 here. I think there’d be a huge adoption of that. 4 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Okay, and then last question is regarding green building. 5 Had you…are you going to do any, like, green building implements, low-flow toilets or anything 6 like that? 7 MR. PROVOST: Yeah, all of that’s…you know, obviously we’ll meet all of your 8 standards, and we’ll also explore a lot of other items, low-flow toilets and so on and so 9 forth…are very beneficial to us from an operating cost standpoint and a water standpoint, water 10 reuse standpoint in all of our retail. Another unique thing that you don’t see in a lot of these 11 projects, and I was just at our trustee meeting at ICSC, and there was a big debate going on 12 among all of us, among some great, great guys in the industry…you know, from Don Wood at 13 Federal, and the guys at Acadia, and they’ve all, for the most part, sold off their residential or 14 partnered with somebody to execute the residential. We’ll execute this residential, we’re not 15 going to sell off this residential. We’re not residential developers in the context…I’m not going 16 to show up here, you know, next year, with a twenty-acre site somewhere I’m just doing 17 residential. We believe in retail-dominated mixed-use, retail-dominated residential as a part of 18 that. We’ve gotten very good at it, and we look forward to executing it ourselves and owning it. 19 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing I wanted to…and this may not be for you, I’m going to 21 make a comment for staff. Or, maybe actually you could answer a question, Mr. Provost, 22 regarding the handicap parking. The code requires forty-six handicap parking spaces, and that is 23 for the commercial I believe. You guys are doing seventy-six, and I’m wondering, did the 24 market push you that way…I mean was it…because here’s the loaded question in this…it maybe 25 is something for our staff to think about going forward, is that if their market study determined 26 that this type of a project required seventy-six, quite a bit more than the minimum, maybe we 27 need to go back and look at the standard. Maybe times have changed, and I’m just seeing what 28 they know that we don’t know. 29 MR. PROVOST: Sure, I don’t think we know anything more than you know, or the staff 30 knows. I think it’s a distribution issue. When you look at a project of this unique character and 31 nature where you’ve got a lot of different entry points, to provide convenient access for 32 handicap, you end up, you know, distributing it around. And, when you look at all the different 33 retail buildings out along College, out front, east lawn, west lawn, theater, within the parking 34 structure, Macy’s, new anchors, right, when you distribute it all around and you end up with a 35 count. Were we trying to solve to seventy-six because the market was telling us something? Not 36 necessarily, but we also, I think, had a belief that we wanted to make sure there was adequate 50 1 handicap parking distributed evenly around the project so you didn’t get somebody stuck having 2 to park over there when they really wanted to go there. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. And, this is probably for staff, actually, 4 truly. This…in the residential buildings…want to talk about size. The largest one, building 5 three, is five hundred and fifty-four feet long. And, I want to try to…I mean it’s…what other 6 buildings in town are comparable? Just to get an idea. 7 MS. LEVINGSTON: In terms of length? 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I mean, could you think of any off-hand? Capstone? 9 MS. LEVINGSTON: I didn’t do that analysis, in terms of comparative buildings, so I 10 could get back with you, but I’m unsure of that analysis of a comparative building in length in 11 Fort Collins. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, I just thought…I mean, maybe…and a lot of time, we…and I 13 should have asked that last Friday so I didn’t put you on the spot, I apologize. Any other 14 questions from the Board? Any other questions at all. Do you guys want to move into 15 deliberation and move forward? Alright. Go ahead, anyone. 16 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I think…I’m ready to make some motions, so if you 17 guys want to deliberate, I’m happy to do that, otherwise, I think we can move on to motions. 18 Yeah, if you’ve got comments, we should hear that first, John. 19 BOARDMEMBER JOHN HATFIELD: The only comment I have is, we’ve read a lot of 20 stuff here, we’ve got a lot of information we’ve absorbed, and I’m agreeable with what staff says 21 about this. I’m in favor of the development and the overall development plan as such. I’m also 22 in favor of approving all five of the modifications. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks, anyone else? Who else has comments before we get a 24 motion? 25 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Mr. Chair? As you think about your motions, 26 I think you should take each modification as a separate motion, and then after you’ve gone 27 through all the modifications, take the plan itself as another motion. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. I want to make one comment, just because we had 29 one gentleman fly out here, two thousand miles, to come talk to us. And, I don’t want your 30 comments…for you to think that your comments were ignored. We have a very specific and 31 narrow criteria upon which this Board must evaluate proposals. Competitive nature is, and 32 existing business relationships with the City, are not in our purview. And, so, you know, we 33 can’t even say there’s merit to it or not. But, simply that there are, like I said, just very strict 34 considerations that we must adhere to, and competitive nature is just not one of them. So, I just 51 1 want to make sure that…thanks for coming out and thanks for your project and for coming out 2 two thousand miles to talk to us. And, I hope that you get some time to talk with the folks who 3 really would have some impact on that, being City Council. Any other comments, anybody? 4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I would just say that I think you guys did a great 5 job being really sensitive to the values of our city and to the vision that we’ve set, both with the 6 midtown corridor study, our upcoming BRT, and our City Plan overall. I think that your efforts 7 with bike and pedestrian connectivity in the greet spaces and the sharrows…I think that they’re 8 all really great and speak to our character, so that you for doing so. 9 BOARDMEMBER HART: And I guess I’ll add mine, I think this project is key to the 10 mid-corridor development, and I think that it’s put together very well, and I think the city will 11 benefit greatly from it. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Who else? 13 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, well, I’m going to second what Andy said, thank 14 you for coming out and telling us your thoughts, and I agree with Andy, we can’t really take it 15 into consideration, but I do want to thank you for your investment that you made in our 16 community, and you’ve got a fantastic project. I also would like to thank your team, and what 17 you guys have pulled together here. I’m shocked that a project with this complexity only has 18 five modifications being requested, because it’s a very large, complex project, and the only thing 19 I’ve been hearing is how willing you guys have been to work with our City staff and trying to 20 converge on a great project. And, I’m looking forward to seeing what takes place there. I joked 21 about it because I live with three women, four women, three daughters…so you could cost me a 22 tremendous amount of money, right, by having this great mall. But, with that being said, 23 normally we would take the modifications first, and we would review each one of those, and then 24 once that it done, we would look at the project development plan. And, so, I would make a 25 motion that we approve the first modification for PDP #120036, based on the modification not 26 being detrimental to the public good and that it is nominal and inconsequential. 27 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: I second. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Discussion? 29 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: One of the things you need to do in your 30 motion, besides the motion needs to contain the allegation it’s not detrimental to the public good, 31 and then you pick one of the four, which you did, but there also needs to be a statement of how 32 come it’s nominal and inconsequential, and you can use the logic of the staff report for that if 33 you wish, I think you just should make that a part of your motion. 34 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: May I suggest that…we would support that 35 modification with 3D of the staff report. Will that work? Who seconded that? 52 1 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Do I need to re-second? So seconded. 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay…I think a few of us are digging in. Any discussion in the 3 meantime? 4 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Just to help out everyone else on the Board here, while 5 I’ve got you all lost, there’s a staff report that was specific just to the modifications…I think that 6 came out today, that I’m using, is that alright…and I’m…first modification is section three of 7 that on page three. 8 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: And 3D, that you were referring to, is on page 9 five of that staff report… 10 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: It’s one page five in staff’s evaluation of the first 11 modification request. We received a huge volume of paper, and so it doesn’t surprise me that 12 we’re… 13 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And some of it this morning… 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Seventy-five pages today. 15 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: But, staff did a great job on separating the 16 modifications…thank you for doing that. 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, any discussion? Roll call, please. 18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore? 19 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes. 20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 21 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 23 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 24 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 26 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 27 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 28 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 53 1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, the first request for a modification has passed. 4 Another motion? 5 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, so I’m going to move on to section four of the 6 same staff report, page five, which refers to the second modification. Again, this is for PDP 7 #120036, with regards to no more than one ground sign per lot. And, I make a motion that we 8 approve that modification as well…go back to my notes here…based on the fact that the 9 modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that, again, it’s nominal and 10 inconsequential and we could use the reasoning for that…the how come, as Paul says, would be 11 4D of the staff report on page seven. 12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Second. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Discussion? Roll call, 14 please. 15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 16 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 18 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 20 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 22 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore? 26 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes. 27 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, anybody else? 54 1 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Well, we were rolling pretty good, but this next one is 2 probably one we’re going to have some dialogue on, and so…I might make a suggestion that we 3 skip modification number three for right now, if that’s okay with everyone, and go to the fourth 4 modification. So, with regards to the fourth modification, which is on page ten of the staff 5 report, section six, and it is the size of the electronic message center being limited to not more 6 than fifty percent of the sign face, I would like to make a motion that we approve that 7 modification as well, because it would not be detrimental to the public good and, again, it’s 8 nominal and inconsequential and justify it with the staff evaluation on page eleven, which is 6D. 9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Second. 10 CHARIMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Any discussion? Roll call 11 please. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 13 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 15 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 17 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore? 21 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes. 22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 24 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 26 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Does anyone else want to try one of these? I’m going 27 to be spent by the time we get through these modifications. Okay, fifth modification…page 28 twelve of the staff report, section seven, has to do with no more than one electronic message 29 center or sign per street…development. And, again, this is PDP #120036. I’d like to make a 30 motion that we approve that as well. The modification would not be detrimental to the public 55 1 good. It’s nominal and inconsequential, and the reason would be the staff evaluation, which 2 would be on page fourteen, 7D on page fourteen. 3 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we have a first and a second on that. Any discussion? Roll 5 call, please. 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 9 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 11 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore? 13 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes. 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 15 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 17 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright. 20 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Now we get to do a little work. Some discussion on 21 this. I think this is a unique situation, I think, ultimately we want someone to have a vision, step 22 up, make an investment, and then be successful. And, if we’re hindering that success by not 23 allowing them to be competitive throughout other markets via signage, I think that would be 24 silly. And, I think this is a unique situation because it’s such a large project. I think there’s 25 others in town that are large projects, and although I supported our sign code…tonight, I had to 26 reevaluate that, and I think this is a situation where we may want to see that take place. I don’t 27 want to see those types of signs all the way down College Avenue and Harmony, I don’t want to 28 see the Vegas strip, but I think to be competitive, and to gain the attention of somebody driving 29 by, of businesses that are interior of the project, it probably makes sense. 56 1 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Well, I agree, Gino. The situation is, you know, every 2 project is appraised and approved on its own merits, and if there’s other businesses that want a 3 variance for their sign codes, they can come before the Board and request it also, I would 4 presume, or the City Council, whoever they have to do. So, they’ve requested this modification 5 in their overall plan, and I think it’s…I agree with the principal behind it that it would be good, 6 and certainly would be in favor of the public good. 7 BOARDMEMBER HART: I see this somewhat similar. These are large-scale projects, 8 they have multiple businesses. This is not a single lot with a single, or just a few businesses in it. 9 And, in order to get the message out to the public, I think it’s important to have those tools 10 available for the commercial enterprise. I don’t really want to see these things flashing off and 11 on and that kind of thing…so, is there any ability to control how they actually operate? 12 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Actually, a lot of our dialogue on the sign code 13 was...revolved around timing, and, Peter maybe you want to elaborate a little bit, or can 14 we…involve….? 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Absolutely, I think it’s useful. 16 MR. BARNES: Yes, as I mentioned earlier, when we proposed changes to the digital sign 17 regulations, many components went into that. Intensity of illumination, the duration that a 18 message could stay prior to it changing…there were all kinds of time intervals looked at. The 19 code that was in place previously was once every sixty seconds, and we felt that was pretty good, 20 and City Council and others agreed so the code that’s currently in place says that a message can’t 21 change more often than once every sixty seconds, so it has to remain static for at least sixty 22 seconds. Some businesses who use these signs do change every sixty seconds. Others elect to 23 maybe change it less frequently. Once a half hour, once an hour, or even longer. So, it’s 24 possible to adjust that time. 25 BOARDMEMBER HART: Would that be dependent upon the message the business was 26 trying to get out? Does that change… 27 MR. BARNES: No, no matter what image they want to display or what their message is, 28 the code says it cannot change more frequently than once every sixty seconds. So, you’re not 29 going to see these flashing and changing and blinking very often, it’s when you get a lot of them 30 up and down the streets of the city that you can see them changing at different times, even 31 though one sign might not change more often. 32 BOARDMEMBER HART: I think it’s critical that we limit the size…or….make sure 33 there’s large scale projects and multiple businesses, if these things are approved. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And so, Peter, there would also…I mean, all the other restrictions 35 on lit signs, brightness, for instance, those would all remain. 57 1 MR. BARNES: Yes, we have pixel spacings, to try and get as sharp an image as possible, 2 minimum pixel spacing requirements. They’re not proposing to vary any of those requirements. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. 4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, nothing changes but the colors, from our sign 5 code. 6 MR. BARNES: That’s correct, well… 7 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: If we grant this variance. 8 MR. BARNES: The other modification, well there are two other modifications that you 9 just approved, one is to allow the two signs as opposed to one, and then the other is to allow each 10 of those two signs to be larger…to take up more than fifty percent of the area of the side of that 11 sign. 12 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: But, as far as each of the signs that we’re talking 13 about on this modification, the only thing we’re changing is the colors, the number of colors that 14 they can have? 15 MR. BARNES: That’s correct. 16 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, and I would agree with Gerry that we probably 17 ought to just send this to staff, that we maybe need to look at changing the code in such a way 18 that we…that this doesn’t proliferate all the way up and down College, but that we’re talking 19 about just large scale projects like these that have stores inside the mall…that kind of thing, 20 rather than…it doesn’t make sense to me to have people asking for modifications every ten 21 minutes. 22 MR. BARNES: Well, as part of…when City Council adopted the current Ordinance in 23 December of 2011, one of the conditions on that is that we…staff…present to them at the end of 24 this year, a report on how those code changes…how effective they’ve been. So, we could 25 certainly include a statement to that effect. 26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, great. 27 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I would agree and I think that it would be really 28 important for us to identify the criteria of what makes for a large project, because every shopping 29 center also has businesses that are hidden off of the roadway. And I think that we would want to 30 be really careful about making sure that it is an exception, but an equitable exception. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? I’m going to disagree on this. I do believe that, 32 after we went through that big process, that it was so fresh that…I’m not sure if I can be 33 totally…I think the burden of proof is pretty high when we talk about whether or not something 58 1 is detrimental to the public good. And so, I think that we’re talking about something that’s not 2 necessarily unique to the site. And so…I can read through some of these, the secondary criteria 3 where we’re talking about substantially alleviating existing defined problems, and the project 4 does that…the sign pack…getting into some of these…you know, or actually looking at whether 5 or not the proposed modification is truly minimal when considering the overall context of the 6 proposed project…probably. But, detrimental to the public good, after we just went through this 7 process, I’m not convinced that it’s not, especially when we weren’t willing to do it at that point, 8 and the City Council certainly wasn’t willing to do it at that point, because of what they viewed 9 to be community character and just the best interest of the community aesthetics. I, personally, 10 would feel comfortable doing this. I wasn’t real comfortable with some of the things we were 11 talking about when we were doing the sign code, and this is one piece of it. But, I think that I 12 like to have that burden of proof, when it comes to the public good, be pretty high. And so, 13 there’s some time between now and when we’d actually be putting shovels in the ground, and I 14 would prefer to recommend that we not approve this request, and that we do go and create a level 15 playing field and establish what those criteria are for larger shopping centers or larger projects, to 16 be able to have color signs. And, so that perhaps at that point, there’d be a minor or major 17 amendment…or maybe not even necessary…well, they would have to, but, at that point, to then 18 to be able to have the opportunity to do that the right way at the same time competitors might 19 also, about the same time, be able to go back through and do that. I just think that it’s more of a 20 level playing field and that it is more of a public good. And, to be honest, this was a piece that 21 kind of came in late…and, so that I’m not sure if the whole lot of the public had an opportunity 22 to respond to this. So, it’s hard to say that this doesn’t…you know, this doesn’t harm the public 23 good. So, just to be safe I think that we…you know, I would be okay with it, but I think a 24 different process. 25 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, how would you propose we do that, Andy? I 26 mean, would you want to continue this piece, do you want to put it in as a….? 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, I think that…I mean…it’s…I’m okay being the sole 28 dissenting vote on it. I think we vote it, and we give them their approval, for sure, but I’m…you 29 know…it doesn’t have to be unanimous for them to get it, and so, I’m just saying that that’s 30 where I’m saying, you know, no, I’m not comfortable with it being presented in the timing that it 31 was and stand alone, and I think the public good is not being served well, and I’d like to see 32 us…quickly, knowing how this is going to go tonight, revisit this, perhaps, if staff is agreeable, 33 with Council direction, to open up that discussion, again, about full color, because now there will 34 be, probably a sign that’s going to be full color. And, so that opportunity should be afforded to 35 other projects that have…you know…similar criteria that we don’t know about. So, there’s my 36 piece. Anyone else? 37 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yeah, so is the thought that…well, I guess you’re 38 thinking that it still might get approved whether you vote for it or not, but, like, if, yeah, so the 39 good chance is it would still get approved. I’m thinking out loud…thank you. I would tend to 59 1 agree, I feel like there was a lot of input from the citizens regarding signage, so I don’t feel super 2 great about the colored sign on my own. I probably don’t really have an opinion on it, but given 3 that information, I feel inclined to not approve it…so… 4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Andy, I think that I would prefer your approach as 5 well. 6 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: So, are we going to have a motion and the affirmative 7 and take a vote on it? 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, we got one. Any other discussion? 9 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: We don’t have a motion on this yet. No, I haven’t 10 made a motion on this yet…we’re still dialogueing (sic) on it, and I respect your opinion, and I 11 think we would end up at the same point, I mean we could go through that process. I mean, 12 obviously we are going to have to reevaluate our thoughts on the sign code for these colored 13 signs, especially with larger projects. I’m just trying to think of, process-wise…probably the 14 project has enough time, if the code was going to change, and then a modification wouldn’t even 15 be necessary. But, there’s no guarantee…these guys…I’m seeing heads nod and they want a 16 vote. So, I’ll make a motion. Let’s see if I can get this correct here. I’ll make a motion that we 17 approve the third modification, to Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(c) to allow a full color electronic message 18 center for PDP #120036. This modification is five on page seven, and I’ll support that 19 modification based on…I do not believe it is detrimental to the public good, and I believe it is a 20 unique…it is unique situation, unique property. Now, the how come. 21 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Are you using the hardship standard, 22 then…the uniqueness of the property and the imposition…the Code imposes an undue hardship? 23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. The reason why is, when you have 73.6 acres, or 24 75 acres, or 77…I’ve heard a couple tonight, and you have these street-like private drives 25 throughout your entire project, you don’t have the luxury of getting the same visibility in signage 26 as if this was all street frontage along, say, College Avenue. So, although these guys are 27 investing their own private money in the horizontal infrastructure, their tenants really are at a 28 disadvantage and they are at a disadvantage of getting visibility to those tenants. So, I do 29 believe, due to the shape of the property and the size of the property, there is a unique hardship. 30 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I’ll second that. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, first and a second. Any further discussion. 32 BOARDMEMBER HART: I think what Andy has proposed would be a cleaner system, 33 but I think these people make a valuable case for their particular project, which leads me to 34 conclude that our sign code needs to be changed. 60 1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Agreed. 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other comments? Roll call, please. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 4 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore? 8 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: No. 9 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 10 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 11 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 12 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No. Alright, so we’ve got the request…actually all the requests 17 approved…modifications. So, let’s move on to the entrée, right? Gino, you’re on a roll. 18 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Now, I can suggest that you have…I’m 19 looking at the wrong staff report because it’s got this redline and strikeout in it, but there are five 20 conditions, I think the fifth condition goes off, does it not? Because the modification was 21 approved. 22 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I make a motion that we approve the Foothills Mall 23 Redevelopment Project Development Plan PDP #120036, based on the findings and facts 24 included in our staff report on page twenty-two, section eight, and, based on the conditions that 25 are also included in our staff report, one through four, on page twenty-three. 26 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Seconded. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, any discussion? I just want to say that it’s exciting to be 28 able to take part in this process and, you know, to have, you know, we’ve had a lot of votes in 61 1 eight years, and none were bigger than this, you know, I mean, really, this is as big as it gets. 2 And, there is…you know, there’s something exciting about a mall, I mean, you know, I worked 3 in that mall back in college twenty years ago, and it was, you know, Christmas time, very lively. 4 And, so, I can just, you know, this project has done very well, it’s presented very well, it’s 5 emphasized pedestrian and bike connectivity very well, it makes MAX something, you know, 6 very viable, and so, you know, I’m going to like the fully colored sign package, you know, I 7 just…I’m very, very intense about the process, as much as I am about the product, and I think 8 that’s kind of my responsibility sometimes as the Chair. So, I’m just excited to be able to see 9 this thing get going and I’m very excited for the future of our community here pretty quick, 10 seeing some neat things happening, and some legacy projects. So…any other comments? 11 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I agree, I can’t even remember the last time I was in the 12 mall, frankly, and I’m really excited to see what you guys do and bring this vision forward. And, 13 I lost a lot of sleep over the last couple of days pouring through this design, trying to see if I 14 could find a soft spot, and I think it’s a well-designed project. I look forward to seeing it more 15 forward and get built out, and taking part in it. Maybe I’ll run in that 5K race, too, that you guys 16 are going to have. 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? Emily? 18 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Maybe you could get Nascar just to sponsor…just for fun. 19 I’m excited that it feels like more than a shopping experience, it feels like the ability to 20 congregate and hang out and…I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Europe, and I love that about 21 Europe, that there’s places to just go and just be, so I really, really am looking forward to that 22 about this, in addition to the residential. So, thank you for it. 23 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Well, I was going to hold out and see if I couldn’t do 24 some extortion for which stores I want in there, but…I’m hoping it’ll go our way, and I’m very 25 excited about it too, it’s really time, we need it for the midtown corridor as well. Thanks. 26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? 27 BOARDMEMBER HART: Other than saying I think this is really going to be the catalyst 28 to restore midtown, and I’m really looking forward to it, and, knock on wood, hope works. 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? 30 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I just wish you good luck. 31 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: I also thought, if you do do a shuttle, you could put a 32 colored sign on it. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further discussion? First and second on the floor. Roll call 34 please. 62 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 2 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Elmore? 4 BOARDMEMBER ELMORE: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 6 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 8 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 9 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 10 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 11 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield? 12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. 13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 14 BOARDMEMBER SMITH: Yes. Alright, so we just passed the Foothills Mall PDP. Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes February 21, 2013 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 6:10 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Elmore, Hart, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Excused Absence: Hatfield Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Lorson, Ex, Bolin, Levingston, Stanford, Holland, Langenberger, Olson, Hilmes-Robinson, and Sanchez-Sprague Chair Smith said in an effort to make the process a little more citizen friendly he would provide background on the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen participation – an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not specifically listed on the meeting agenda. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and questions by board members, staff comments and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position and he encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda and noted that staff had requested that Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies be continued to another date. . Citizen participation: None Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 2 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the January 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Mitsubishi Dealer (2712 S. College) Major Amendment, # MJA120007 3. Lot 1, Nix Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment, # MJA130001 3A. Planned Development Overlay District Pilot Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the January 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing, the Mitsubishi Dealer Major Amendment (# MJA120007), Lot 1, Nix Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment (#MJA130001) and the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot. Member Elmore seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 4. Fort Collins LDS Temple Project Development Plan (PDP), # PDP120029 5. Link-n-Greens PDP, # PDP130001 7. 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia PDP and Addition of Permitted Use, # PDP120026 8. Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies – staff requested the topic be continued to another date. 9. LUC (Land Use Code) – Student Housing Action Plan Phase I 10. LUC – Vested Rights _______ Project: Fort Collins LDS Temple Project Development Plan, # PDP120029 Project Description: This is a request for a 30,389 square foot Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) Temple on a 15.69 acre site at the southeast corner of South Timberline Road and Trilby Road. With this Project Development Plan, the site will be subdivided into two blocks and two out lots, with the subject development only occurring on lot 1, block 1. Currently, the majority of the site is undeveloped; however there is an existing single-family residence on the southwest portion of the site. This structure, including the associated gravel access drive off of Timberline Road, will be removed prior to construction. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said currently, the majority of the site is undeveloped; however there is an existing single-family residence on the southwest portion of the site. This structure, including the associated gravel access drive off of Timberline Road, will be removed prior to construction. In addition to the new LDS Temple, the project proposes a new 3,052 square foot single family residence (parsonage) on Lot 1, Block 1 for the Temple President. A 1,500 square foot maintenance building is also proposed east of the Temple parsonage. Access to the LDS Temple and associated residence is from two points on newly constructed extension of Majestic Drive, which will align with the existing Majestic Drive to the west. With this project, Timberline Road will be improved in terms of widening, additional turn lanes and providing new sidewalks. The proposed land uses, place of worship and single family residential, are permitted uses in Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 3 the Urban Estate (U-E) Zone District. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development standards of Article 3 and Urban Estate district standards of Article 4 of the Land Use Code (LUC) with the exception of the submitted Modification of Standards requests, which Staff recommends approval. The U-E district limits maximum building height to 3 stories. The LDS Temple building is designed as one and a half story with the use of a pitched roof. The ridge of the Temple roof is at approximately 31 feet above the finished floor elevation and the height is 39 and ½ feet to the base of the tower. A central tower and steeple topped with a sculpture (gold angel) extends to a height of 112 feet. Section 3.8.17(C) of the LUC exempts monuments, ornamental towers, spires and steeples from height regulations. Levingston reported the site is not within migratory wildlife corridor. The Ecological Characterization Study addendum concludes site lighting will not impact migratory or resident bird movement. Levingston reported the applicant has requested modifications to the following standards: Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Allowing some ornamental trees in parking lot landscape islands in addition to canopy shade trees and Section 3.8.11(C)(2) – Allowing a 6 foot tall fence in the front yard of the LDS Temple. The applicant will provide 4-5 Chanticleer pear trees in a few landscape islands. She believes the landscape plans complies equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard. The applicant proposes a 6 foot wrought iron fence due to their unique security needs. Levingston believes the fence will not create a tunnel effect along the public streets and meets the standard equally well than a plan that complies with the standard because of the visual continuity and translucence of the wrought iron fence. Staff recommends approval of the LDS Temple Project Development Plan and the associated modification of standard requests. Applicant Presentation Ken Merritt, Landmark Engineering, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provided site vicinity context information as well as existing site condition and plans for landscape (including tree removal, relocation, and the addition of 104 new trees). He described on and off-site public roadway improvements and the overall temple site plan/land use. He described the results of a temple shad and shadow analysis. Ben Schreider, Architectural Nexus, described the architectural design and colors. He described the lighting system for the campus and on the steeple. He reported any lighting after 11 p.m. would be for security purposes only. Public Input Jon Anderson, 1230 Paragon Place, said he’s opposed to the project. He thinks it does not comply with the hard fought Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan. He believes it will dramatically impact the Fossil Creek Corridor and various nature areas and view shed. He’d like to see the plan modified to make it consistent with the surrounding community. Brian, 2333 Dolan Street, said he lives in the Westchase community. He’d like to welcome the LDS community but he believes their proposal is not coherent with community compatibility standards. His views will be impacted. He thinks 112 feet is too high for a building in south Fort Collins. He proposes the tower be shorted if the steeple is exempt from requirements. He also wondered if we want lighting until 11 p.m. John Siegmund, 2660 Silver Mist Lane, said he lives adjacent to the site. He has no objection to the temple per se. It’s the height that bothers him. It’s not commensurate with other places of worship in the community. It’ll obstruct the view corridor. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 4 Victoria Dunn, 1903 Falcon Ridge Drive, said she’s in favor of the project. She thinks it’s the perfect site. Chris Kelly, 2209 Harvest Street (Westchase), said she’s got concerns about the traffic. She thinks the city has not considered the overall plan for Trilby—it’s being done piecemeal. She asked that the project be delayed until that is addressed. She’s also concerned about the height of the tower and lighting until 11 p.m. Jack Dunn, 1903 Falcon Ridge Drive, said he’s lived in the neighborhood for some time. He’s in favor of the project. He’s got more concern about 5 three story buildings that will house 300 people being proposed nearby. He doesn’t think the temple will contribute as much to traffic as compared to other developments being proposed. Brad Saunders, 6320 Treestead Road (Westchase), said he’s lived in that neighborhood 7 years. He’s in favor of the building. He thinks it’ll be a great addition to their neighborhood. He has no problem with the high steeple and he appreciates their effort to mitigate its impact. He thinks it’ll be a landmark for the future. Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway (Westchase), is opposed to this project. He read into the record a handout he submitted as an exhibit. It spoke to UE (Urban Estate) uses, Colorado Revised Statutes legislative intent, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan incorporation into City Plan, and provisions of the Land Use Code that might conflict with other laws and how the more specific standard shall govern or prevail. He does not think it’s an appropriate use of the property. Wendy Cleverly, 6209 Treestead Ct. (Westchase), said she supports the submitted plan. They’ve enjoyed the open fields but knew eventually the fields surrounding their neighborhood would be developed. Since this project was proposed they’ve received notices about the future development of more than 700 homes. She believes the LDS temple will have less impact on traffic during peak travel times than if the property were developed for residential purposes. Kyle Cleverly, 6209 Treestead Ct. (Westchase), said he represents a number of neighborhoods and requested they stand to indicate they support his comment in support of the project. About 15 people stood. He said they share a common opportunity to live and raise their families and have a common understanding of the importance of how communities influence the quality of their lives. As residents, they appreciate the vision outlined by the city in its long term plan. They support the LDS Temple Plan because it is compatible with the city’s vision. They want to make sure their section of the city is recognized as more than a sea of rooftops. The temple will add to their foundation and add to that unique design and identity. They believe the temple will pay for its share of development – they will make much needed improvements to the roadways and make travel safer for all that navigate through that area. He said City Plan with its collaborative and community based approach – inclusive and accessible to all – has been their experience through this process. They have seen their feedback incorporated and it is different from what was initially proposed – they thanked the developers for that. Suzanne Saunders, 6320 Treestead Road (Westchase), said she’s in favor of this project. She thinks the temple will bring positive, lasting beauty to the neighborhood. Some of the necessary improvements to the Timberline/Trilby intersection will occur with this project. This will be the beginning of essential road improvements on Timberline Road. Nicole Huntsman, 2303 Westchase Road, said her family specifically chose Westchase and a lot of that had to do with the temple coming in. She thinks the temple is a better alternative to residential or commercial improvements on that site. She’s in favor of the project. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 5 Matt Huntsman, 2303 Westchase Road, said their concerns about the temple were quickly alleviated. He walked the area and the feeling he got was one of it’s a place of peace. He thinks it will enhance the neighborhood. John Trone, 6327 Westchase Road, said he objects to the variance to the street alignment of Carmichael. He also objects to the fence variance. He thinks a 4 foot fence is adequate for security. He thinks the steeple at 112 feet is quite high in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. He said if the steeple houses mechanical systems, given the additional use it is not really a steeple, would not fall under the federal exemptions for steeples. Mark Anderson, 6632 Majestic (Paragon Estates), said getting out onto Timberline at Majestic Drive is very difficult especially in the morning. He was wondering if it is possible to put a traffic light there. Chair Smith we’ll have staff respond to that. Jon Smith, 2025 Kona Drive (Paragon Estates), said he lives at the corner of Majestic and Timberline. His concern is noise and traffic as the street gets widened and there’s more traffic. He spends a lot of time in his back yard and he’s not looking forward to the increased noise. Evan Kelley, 2209 Harvest Street, said he’s lived in the Westchase area for 6 plus years. He said he’s been on board since the project was first proposed. There have been some great changes but there’s been a slight mission creep. The size of the temple has slowly grown and although the steeple has decreased from earlier projections, it is going to be at a much higher level than anything in their region. He’s also concerned about the simultaneous development along the Timberline corridor. He has concerns not only for vehicular traffic but for pedestrian traffic especially children using the one light to get to school. End of Public Input Applicant Response Ken Merritt said there were some concerns expressed about the steeple blocking vistas. The tower and steeple are 25 feet square and certainly do not create great obstructions to the views to the west. He said with regard to the lighting of the Angel Moroni, it’s very subtle lighting on the ridges of the steeple itself. The amount is what a standard streetlight would produce. Merritt said there were some comments about the 112 foot height at the edge of the city and its use and its proximity to the Fossil Creek area. This property is in the northeast portion of the Fossil Creek area and as such it’s in that plan. What better place to put a facility such as this than at the crossroads of two major arterial roads (Timberline and Trilby). Merritt said with regard to comments this was not a place of worship and not allowed in the UE district. He said the purpose of this temple is for the highest place of worship in the LDS Church and churches area an allowable use in that zone.. Merritt said with regard to traffic, were this property to be developed as residential in the UE district (2 units per acre), it would create 55-65 units. Those homes with such low development yields would not have the financial capability of affording the vast number of improvements being proposed. He said this is a catalyst project. Member Campana asked what was proposed as the initial height of the steeple. Merritt said initially it was 120-125 feet. Campana asked if they could consider lowering it. Merritt said they feel like they’ve made considerable concession by lowering it to 112 feet. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 6 Member Campana asked if they would consider turning the lights down earlier than 11 p.m. Merritt said the city code reads the lighting must be reduced from 100% to 50% one hour after closing. Activities take place until approximately 10 p.m. From 10-11 p.m. people are leaving and staff will be doing be closing up. Member Hart said he heard concerns related to the height of the tower. If they lowered the tower, could they then lower the height of the spire? Do they need that full distance from 37 to 87 feet for the tower? Merritt said the tower and the spire are one and the same. Ben Schreider said the right tower and spire effort consumed close to 6 months and resulted in 40 different versions. It’s been a huge part of the development. They wanted to know what would work best with the building without being too short. Schreider said there was also respect for the fact that it wasn’t open ended. Member Hart if there was some religious significance to be able to see the statue from all parts of the area. Schreider said it definitely is part of the experience. It is a key part of the vernacular of an LDS temple. He said there is not a hard set requirement that tells him all the areas from which it should be experienced from. Member Carpenter asked for more of an idea of the colors and materials. Schreider said it’s a lighter, off-white beige color. Staff Response Member Campana asked Traffic Systems Engineer Ward Stanford about the potential for a light at Timberline and Majestic. Stanford said it does not have nearly enough traffic coming and going to warrant a traffic signal. It’s too close to Trilby (an arterial) to put a signal in with quality results. The two will interfere with each other in a negative manner. Stanford said right now they probably have a little bit of delay mornings and evenings but they don’t have much of delay during the day. Because Timberline has more traffic they would get the bulk of time should a signal be installed there. They would have a delayed wait every cycle of the day. They would no longer have the freedom to make some of those okay to proceed decisions on their own. Member Hart said it seems some people think traffic from the church will be a cause of traffic congestion. Hart said he concluded from the Traffic Impact Study that traffic on both Timberline and Trilby will be impacted less than 5-10%. Stanford said that’s accurate. Their peak hour analysis shows they’ll be adding about 130 vehicles -- approximately 2 cars a minute during a peak hour to Timberline traffic and about 25 cars during a peak hour to Trilby. Their high use is anticipated during the latter part of the week. It’ll be even smaller during regular work days. Member Kirkpatrick said one of the individuals who testified mentioned that Carmichael had a deviance from what was originally proposed in the Master Street Plan. Stanford said the property would not allow them to make the last 40-50 feet of proper offset and they asked Traffic to look at that. He said their offset as proposed is to the positive -- it’s not creating opposing left turn conflicts. They’ll be turning away from each other sooner. Traffic did not see that as a safety concern or a detriment to the great good. Board Questions Member Elmore asked the applicant if the purpose of the tower height is so people can see the angel from the gardens and not to capacitate the air handling system. Merritt said its purpose is to keep proper proportion and to provide visual connectivity to the tower and the steeple. He said they took advantage of trying to lower the principal structure by utilizing the internal volume of the tower for air handling. It’s by no means its sole purpose. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 7 Member Elmore said that someone had mentioned if there was an air handling system in the tower that might change the functionality of the tower and therefore make it not federally exempt. Merritt said the city’s code exempts towers, belfries, steeples, and special architectural elements from the building height regulation. Member Elmore asked staff to speak to the comment related to how the project would negatively affect the Fossil Creek area. Senior Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said in the Board’s Attachment 16 on page 13 of the Ecological Characterization Study; there’s a pretty good map on how the natural areas surround this site. Essentially the natural area on this site is southwest of Paragon Estates – the Fossil Creek Wetland Natural Area. The next closest natural area is to the east (east of Kechter Farm). It is a dedicated conservation easement as a part of the Fossil Lake Ranch development. With regard to the gentlemen who spoke to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan is that is a Natural Areas document – it’s a long range visioning document of the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. It doesn’t apply to private land development outside of a natural area. Member Campana asked about LUC Section 3.8.1(7) (C) and exempting heights of towers, spires and steeples. He asked about the intent of the code. Campana said the height restriction in the UE is 3 stories; he’d like to understand how you can nearly triple that. Levingston said a steeple doesn’t normally have the mass that a building would and would not have the same impact on the adjacent properties. Chair Smith asked Deputy City Attorney to speak to the federal provisions for a religious facility as relates to the proposal before the Board. Eckman said the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is a federal regulation. It provides that no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person including a religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates a compelling governmental interest and that the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. He said this act has been eroded over the years by court decisions but it still has some important meaning. The Federal 10th Circuit says no substantial burden can be found when the incidental effects of otherwise lawful government programs make it more difficult to practice certain religions but have no tendency to coerce individuals to act contrary to their religious belief. Eckman said from what he’s heard with respect to the height of the tower, steeple and angel – the height itself does not have to be a certain height to conform to their religious tenants. Eckman said the same thing with the lighting. He didn’t hear that the lighting has to be on until 11 p.m. for any particular religious reason. He doesn’t think the Board would run afoul if a condition is imposed. In LUC Section 3.5.1 (J) – the operational compatibility standards where the Board has the ability to limit light intensity and hours of full illumination to make the project more compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Member Kirkpatrick asked Eckman about the comment relative to in Urban Estate places of worship is not an appropriate use. Eckman said it’s a permitted use in the Urban Estate zone. Levingston said on page 3 of the staff report, there’s a definition (in Article 5) for a place of worship. At Kirkpatrick’s request Levingston read that section for the individual who raised that concern. Member Carpenter asked about the up lights on the angel and it’s comparison to street lights. She said street lights are not 112 feet into the air and aren’t they down facing? Levingston said street lights are downward facing and the illuminates that come from them would be more than that is proposed on the top of the steeple. Member Carpenter asked if the tower was lit from the inside. Are there windows in the tower and are they lit? Merritt said yes there are stain glass windows and they will be lit from the inside. Schreider said it will not be a shining out beacon type lighting. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 8 Member Campana asked about the two modifications – one is the height of the fence. He asked Levingston to explain the intent of the standard. Levingston said the intent of this standard is to prevent large, opaque fences to dominate front yards, preventing the building to have a visible relationship to the public street as well as to avoid creating a tunnel effect. The Applicant provided a unique security analysis of the proposed use.. The use of a 6 foot wrought iron fence in this application would not be detrimental to the public good and could be considered equal to or better than providing a non- translucent, solid four foot fence while meeting a unique security need. Member Hart how long the fence would be. Levingston said it would encompass the entire building. Hart asked how far the fence is set back from the property line. Levingston says it ranges from 35 to 50 feet. Campana said he thinks that’s important to know it’s not 2 feet off the sidewalk. Member Campana asked about the 2nd modification -- modification for the trees/islands. Levingston said the intent of this standard is to create adequately shaded areas in parking areas. The applicant is providing Linden trees (canopy shade) in the majority of the landscape islands and meets the standards’ intent. The intent of the proposed parking lot landscaping requirement of canopy trees are met equally well by providing 4 - 5 Chanticleer Pear ornamental trees in approximately three landscape islands along the internal drive aisle, as they also provide shade. She said the utilization of ornamental trees in selected landscape islands is not detrimental to the public good and could be considered meeting the standard equally well in an alternative design concept utilizing only Linden trees. Board Discussion Member Campana said the structure is a regional temple and pretty significant for our community. He says we’re fortunate to potentially have this as a part of our city. It’s a beautiful building and in his opinion the applicant has gone above and beyond the Land Use Code in design, layout and landscaping. He looks forward to seeing it be built out. Member Carpenter said she agreed. She still is having some ‘heartburn’ about the tower and the up lighting on it. It is something very different than what we’ve had before. She thinks it’s going to be obtrusive to the whole neighborhood. What concerns her are is the up-lit reflective surface, the height is high, and the tower windows make it even more obtrusive. Member Kirkpatrick said the staff report indicates street lights have 6300 lumens and that the steeple lights are 1238 lumens. Does that help? Carpenter said her concerns are the reflective surface and the up light as well as its height. Member Hart was concerned about the height and the lighting. He’s still not too sure about the lighting. He said the pictures shown do not appear to be significant at all. Maybe there’s a way to turn the tower lights off while keeping the lights on the statue near closing hours. Member Kirkpatrick sees how a tower of this size is very different from what’s in the neighborhood now. She likes the diversity from the churches in her neighborhood – bells at noon and lighting at night. She thinks it adds to the fabric and the safety of a neighborhood. We’ve been very intentional in our LUC in trying to create mixed uses in neighborhoods. She thinks this is a great addition to what is really a sea of houses. Member Elmore agrees. She appreciates the applicant’s work and the neighbor’s feedback. Chair Smith asked the applicant for their thoughts on not lighting the tower after 10 p.m. Schreider said that’s open for discussion. Currently it is 50% lighting at 10 p.m. and shut off at 11 p.m. There would be a slight concern about losing the light at 10 – with the lower building lit it gives you an odd architectural feature. He said the reflective nature is so much different than looking up at a light bulb source. He said it’s a completely different experience in that you’re not seeing the source. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 9 Member Campana said he could certainly support a compatibility condition related to lighting and the hours they’re operated. Carpenter said that would make her a lot more comfortable. Campana said it doesn’t appear that due to religious reasons the lights on at 11 p.m. Kirkpatrick, Elmore and Smith said they could support that. The applicant said they agreed to tower and steeple 50% at 9:30 p.m. with black out at 10 p.m. The rest of the building will be governed by code in place. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said the application shows the lighting on the building will go out at 11 p.m. He believes that should be made clear as to when the lights go out. Chair Smith agreed. Schreider said that condition does not change – after 11 p.m., it’s strictly for security. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification related to Section 3.2.1(E) (5) (c) for Fort Collins LDS Temple, PDP120029 with regard to the canopy trees and the landscape islands based on the fact that it is not detrimental to the public good and because it promotes the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard. The intent of the proposed parking lot landscaping requirement of canopy trees are met equally well by providing 4 - 5 Chanticleer Pear ornamental trees. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification related to Section 3.8.11(C )(2) for Fort Collins LDS Temple, PDP120029 with regard to fences and walls based on the fact that it is not detrimental to the public good and because it promotes the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard The intent of the standard is to prevent large opaque faces dominating front yards and preventing the building from having a relationship to the public street as well as to avoid a tunnel effect. This fence as it is set back from the street with its wrought iron character will meet the standard. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins LDS Temple, PDP120029, based on the findings and facts included in the staff report on page 18 with the condition that the lighting on the tower and steeple will be turned off at 10 p.m. The balance of the building will be turned off at 11 p.m. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Chair Smith said the applicant has done a good job of following the criteria in the LUC -- being very sensitive to the neighborhood context, architecture, and operations. He thinks it’s interesting to consider proposals for what he would regard to be a grand civic project. He’ll support it. The motion passed 6:0. _______ Project: Link-n-Greens PDP, # PDP130001 Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for the Link- n-Greens property. This area consists of 101.5 acres and is generally located at the southwest corner of East Lincoln and South Lemay Avenue. The Cache la Poudre River is the southern boundary and the majority of the western boundary of the P.D.P. The Poudre River Trail is located on the property within an easement. The project is zoned C-C-R Community Commercial – Poudre River District, and the proposed uses are permitted in this zone district at this location. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 10 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Jason Holland said The Link-n-Greens P.D.P. is being established to accommodate a new campus for Woodward. As a large employer, Woodward intends to develop a campus of office, manufacturing, and testing facilities. The campus will include a collection of buildings with parking areas served by private drives. In conjunction with the campus, a retail and commercial center is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the site on Lot 3. The combined building footprint is projected to be 944,400 square feet in buildings ranging from one to three stories. A river restoration area of approximately 31 acres is also proposed. Phasing for construction of all portions of the P.D.P. could occur over a five to thirty year time frame depending on market activities for differing uses. The following summarizes key factors that are specific to the Woodward Link-n-Greens P.D.P.: • The project plan is divided into Phase One and Future Phases. Phase One includes the core components of the Woodward operations, and is shown on the plans with a higher level of detail than the future development areas. The river restoration area shown on Lot 4 includes approximately 29 acres and is also shown in greater detail. • Future areas are shown with sufficient detail to establish a basic framework that demonstrates compliance, with remaining required detail deferred to subsequent submittals. Holland said key considerations were to accommodate the Woodward use and to mitigate impacts of development with transition from core operations to edges and treatment of the project perimeter. He said the main service areas are interior to the site, 400 feet from Lincoln Avenue. The area will be gated and screened with temporary landscape screening in Phase 1 to soften views of main service areas. The site’s existing natural habitats and features are largely contained with areas immediately adjacent to the Poudre River. River restoration is proposed with application of performance standards in LUC Section 3.4.1(E) (1). The 300 foot buffer may be reduced or enlarged provided that a quality buffer is achieved. Overall there will be 28.7 acres proposed instead of the 23.4 acres that would result from the 300 foot buffer. The proposed buffer will range from 210 to 600 feet. They will reconnect with original floodplain providing different landscape heights that allow for more species diversity, reinforce the historical oxbow flow, and relocate the Poudre River Trail away from the river corridor allowing for great species diversity. Holland said the Coy/Hoffman Barn and silos will remain. The milk house will be moved and that action has received the full support of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Holland said the standard requires direct connections for all modes of travel. It is a unique property and use with private drives proposed. Six feet wide internal sidewalks are provided sufficiently linking buildings, parking, streets, and the River Trail. Staff recommends 15 foot public access easement along the west property boundary. That mitigates impact of large single user with no internal street system. It satisfies alternative compliance standards for larger parking lots that exceed maximum quantity and satisfies the requirement for an 8 feet wide direct connection that is safe, direct and convenient. Member Hart asked if the internal sidewalks were accessible by the public. Holland said they are intended for use by employees. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 11 Holland said the applicant requested two modifications: 1) 4.20(D) (3) (a) (1) Height/Mass: A Modification of Standard is requested for Buildings D and E. Buildings D and E, located on Lot 3, are proposed to be two stories. These buildings are required to step down to one story directly abutting the natural area protection buffer. 2) 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) Parking Lots: A Modification of Standard is requested to address the requirement that buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are located in either: 1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the River, or 2) side yards. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) A 15 feet wide public access easement shall be provided along the western property boundary to accommodate a future trail connection from Lincoln Avenue to the Poudre River Trail. 2) This project shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and emergency services by complying with Article 9, Fire Department Access and Water Supply, of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 9 of the City Code. 3) The design for the double left turn lane for southbound Lemay Avenue to eastbound Mulberry Street shall be designed with this project (included as a part of the final approved utility plan set) and the right-of-way needed to accommodate this design shall be dedicated on the final plat. The double left turn lane shall be built with the 2nd Phase of the project or whichever Phase of the project triggers it. 4) The final design of the utility infrastructure and any associated easements, other than for Phase 1 for which final design and easements shall be included as a part of the Final Development Plan documents, shall be provided, approved, and accepted concurrent with and prior to the approval of the minor amendment(s) for each additional phase(s), building(s) and/ or prior to the start of any construction work on these items. 5) As part of Phase One, this project is required to obtain FEMA approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) in order to update the floodplain maps. 6) A variance to allow hazardous material critical facilities in the 100-year floodplain prior to approval of the LOMR was granted by the Water Board on January 17, 2013. This project is required to comply with all conditions set forth in the floodplain variance. 7) In the river restoration area, wetland plugs shall be required for landscape installation at a standard interval of 18-24" on-center, depending on the species, and never to exceed 36" on center. Broadcast seeding can be used to supplement the installation of the plugs. Applicant Presentation Carolyn White, land use counsel for the applicant, said their presentation will include comments by Rocky Scott, Woodward Director of Corporate Affairs, Angie Milewski of BHA Design, and comments by her on legal criteria. They’ll conclude with remarks about phasing and construction schedules. She said the applicant is NewMark Merrill Mountain States, the contract purchaser of the property. Woodward is here as the assignee or subcontract of NewMark Merrill Mountain States. Woodward will be the principle user of the property. She said they are asking for approval of the PDP with two modifications and two alternative compliances, and three variances from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LUCASS). They will also be requesting the removal of one condition of approval recommended by staff. They will explain why they believe that condition is not appropriate at that time. Rocky Scott, Woodward Director of Corporate Affairs, spoke of Woodward’s 58 year history in Fort Collins, their mission to enhance global quality of life and sustainability by optimizing energy use through improved efficiency and lower emissions. They work to turn down the ‘carbon meter’. They’re Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 12 considering this site which is the most difficult yet one of the most interesting. They’re proud of their team and the hundreds of hours put into this project. They appreciate city staff’s efforts for the good of the community and which allows Woodward to meet their objectives. He believes the result is a high quality product. Angie Milewski, BHA Design, said she will be talking about the planning aspects of the project. She reported on the companies who participated on their development team including many local vendors. She described the Woodward campus including the commercial area along Lemay. The plan is consistent with the Overall Development Plan approved by the board in September 2012. Milewski said the river restoration goals are • Reconnect the Cache La Poudre River to its floodway • Enhance (restore) the natural ecological characteristics of the site consistent with the goals of the Cache la Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan Update • Allow enhanced views and connections to the existing historic barn site Milewski reviewed graphics with the site layout and its’ association with the river. She described where the Woodward buildings will be set and provided elevations of the buildings. She indicated which buildings would be built in Phase 1 and which Lincoln and Lemay Avenue improvements would be made with Lincoln improvements interim pending an anticipated street design. She showed how the project is in compliance with Plan Fort Collins and the Lincoln Triangle Area. Carolyn White reviewed the Board’s approval criteria and how this project meets that criteria both overall for the approval of the PDP, the specific modifications, alternative compliances, and variances they are requesting. White said the project is in compliance with the ODP, the LUC and the Poudre River. She believes the modifications/alternative compliance is not detrimental to the public good and promotes purpose equally well or better than the standard. She also believes the project addresses important community needs and that the site has exceptional physical conditions. The two modifications being requested are: 1. 4.20(D) (3) (a) (1) Height/Mass: A Modification of Standard is requested for Buildings D and E. Buildings D and E, located on Lot 3, are proposed to be two stories. These buildings are required to step down to one story directly abutting the natural area protection buffer. The applicant would like to request a modification of standard 4.20(D)(3)(a)(1) – Community Commercial – Poudre River District (C-C-R) Building Height/Mass to allow two (2) stories rather than one (1) adjacent to the river buffer area in order to allow for this more compact and varied development pattern adjacent to the river buffer in the commercial area. 2. 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) Parking Lots: A Modification of Standard is requested to address the requirement that buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are located in either: 1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the River, or 2) side yards. The applicant would like to request a modification of standard 4.20(D) (3) (a) (2) – Community Commercial – Poudre River District (C-C-R), Parking Lots, in order to allow for this campus- based parking configuration. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 13 White said the applicant requested alternative compliance for: 1. Section 3.2.2(K) (2) (a) parking ratio for non-residential uses. The applicant believes 100-acre site bounded by arterial streets north and east, and by the Cache la Poudre River on the south and southwest leaving only the northwest portion adjacent to other developed lots and ‘front yards’ and ‘side yards’ as the standard references not really present on this site. Additionally, they’d like the board to consider the number of employees occupying the building or land use (total 1700 at full build out), number of expected customers or clients availability of nearby on-street parking (if any), availability of shared parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding land uses (if any), the provision of purchased or leased parking spaces in a municipal or private parking lot meeting the requirements of the city, trip reduction programs (if any), other factors that may be unique to the applicant's development request. Parking is not speculative. It is the amount Woodward reasonably believes, based on its experience at its existing campus, will be required to serve its members and customers. 2. Section 3.2.1(D) (4) tree species and minimum sizes. The applicant said the PDP proposes a variation and reduction in the minimum tree and shrub sizes set forth in code. She said within the river restoration area only they propose a variation and reduction in the minimum tree and shrub sizes to accomplish a more natural condition rather than the uniform minimum sizing required by the standard. She said sizes and species proposed with the alternative compliance plan are similar to those used in other City restoration projects and include a combination of trees, container trees and shrubs, flats and plugs. The minimum sizes will be observed throughout the balance of the project. White said the three technical variances from LCUASS have been requested. They are: length of deceleration for auxiliary lanes (160 feet from the required 275 feet – their traffic engineer in their traffic report explained why it is still safe to have 160 feet) and intersection spacing on Lincoln Avenue (there is simply not enough room available to accommodate). Standards say between 460 and 660 feet. They are proposing 435 feet (450 feet from center line to center line) to align them with the streets on the other side.), and increasing maximum length of curb radii from 20 feet to 30 feet at intersection entrances (Woodward needs to accommodate larger trucks than the standard). The recommendations are supported by staff. They agree with the staff report except for the one condition which they will be asking the board to change. A 15 feet wide public access easement shall be provided along the western property boundary to accommodate a future trail connection from Lincoln Avenue to the Poudre River Trail. Request this condition be eliminated. – One existing trail connection and two new proposed trail connections provide adequate public access. – Existing trail connection from the west, via the InSitu parking lot. – Two new trail connections from the commercial area in the southeast corner of the property. – No perimeter fence, to encourage integration and openness; BUT still have need for security. – Site carefully designed to ensure maximum openness and access, while creating ability to maintain security where needed. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 14 – Trail access in this location will contravene this intention and encourage the public to park in parking lots in close proximity to secure operations. Woodward asks that the Planning Board remove this condition. They do not object to providing connections to trail but they’d like a balance between providing connections and the security needs for Woodward. Board Questions Chair Smith said there was a second condition. White said if he’s speaking of the condition related to the design and dedication of the right-of-way for the double left turn lane on Lemay; they have had discussions with staff about the wording of that condition and conceptually they’ve reached agreement about what is intended there. She said if they have a chance to confer with staff they are prepared to withdrawn their objection to that condition. Chair Smith asked about the trail connection at InSitu. Is that a permanent, formal, dedicated trail connection with public parking? Holland said it is not --there is no public access easement there and it is not set up to be a trail spur. Smith asked if InSitu could say no more would the public access via the park on the north side be eliminated. Holland said yes. Member Kirkpatrick asked how far the Buckingham Park connection is from the proposed easement on the west side. Holland indicated where two public trail connections were located. Holland indicated a number of connections points with distances of 1300, 1950, 2580, and 4600 feet. Chair Smith asked for the basis on why it was a condition of approval. Holland said while it appears to come from left field, staff has had to move very quickly to meet deadlines. At some point they just had to put their pens down, write the staff report, and get everything to the board in a timely fashion. They have been talking about that connection from day one. They have really been trying to figure out what type of sidewalk and trail connection is appropriate for this site. It’s a big and complex project and this is just one thing that has come down to the wire. Staff does not completely agree that the project without the trail connection meets the LUC standards. Member Hart said he’s never noticed a great deal of activity coming from east to west on Lincoln. As a user of the trial, he’s seen more going east from downtown. He wonders how much of demand there is for trail access along Lincoln. Does staff have any idea about that? Holland said it’s good to plan for the future and this project is definitely going to be a catalyst for the area. He said this is a textbook mid- block standard connection given the length of the Poudre River Trail there. He thinks it can be absorbed into the site plan and into the landscape buffer required along the west property line along that parking area. They thought it would be a pretty benign request and that it wouldn’t impact Woodward’s operations. Public Input Heather Wolhert said she represents the actual owners of the 100 acre Link-n-Greens property. Her family has owned most of that property since 1862. They are in support of this project. She doesn’t think they will find another buyer that will give this much time, this much energy, and this much money and commitment to put all that together to save it from the past and project it into the future. It will make Fort Collins profitable, beautiful, and viable. This area of town needs to be improved. This is the catalyst that can make this part of Fort Collins amazing. It would be a shame to lose this opportunity due to a bicycle connection on the west side because there’s plenty of access. Please let this project go forward. Ashley Stiles, 6549 Spanish Bay Drive, said she’s in support of this project. Woodward is a great steward and this project should not be held up. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 15 Michael Bello, 2309 Sunstone Drive, said he’s in support of the project. He asked if not Woodward, who else would you want to have. He thinks they are a great corporate citizen offering premium employment. They are also offering to bring a Class “A” development to our city. Please vote to support this project with the requested modifications so we don’t lose this company’s expansion to another city. Anne Hutchinson, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, said she lives at 402 Riddle Drive. The Chamber is in support of the PDP. This is really a legacy opportunity for the community. This decision will encourage new job growth and vibrancy on this property. We need to be flexible in finding solutions to make it happen. Their solutions are elegant in their simplicity. She thinks their requests are reasonable and allow them to prosper on this site. It’s critical to our long term economic well-being and Woodward is exactly the kind of corporate partner we want to have. She asked that the Board support this plan. Rich Shannon, 2906 Silverwood, said he supports this project. Like Member Hart he wonders if there’s enough demand on the trail to warrant a connection on the west side. There have been numerous proposals on this site over the years. None have come to fruition. In hindsight, we can be awfully grateful as a community that none of those did in fact get to the approval point. This is an incredibly unique land use and an incredibly valuable opportunity for the community. Sharie Grant, 1455 Freedom Lane, said she’s a 30 year resident of Fort Collins. She definitely supports this project and she underscores all the positive comments that have been made. She encourages the Board’s support. Ray Martinez, former Mayor, said he unquestionably supports this project. He also speaks on behalf of the South Fort Collins Business Association. He said Woodward has a proven track record. Given their site at Drake and Lemay, he doesn’t think we’d have to worry about how well they’ll take care of the proposed location and the Poudre River. He thinks their requests are reasonable and will help them make it right. Connie Dohn, 1701 Serramonte Drive, said she’s a local business owner. She urges the board to approve the PDP as presented. Infill are some of the most expensive and difficult projects to develop. She thinks the components of the project are well received by its neighbors. She appreciates Woodward’s commitment to open space and the river fits with the community’s vision. She thinks everyone present agrees for the economic health of the community this project should be approved. End of Public Input Applicant Response Carolyn White said with regard to the condition of approval related to design of the double left turn lanes, they have confirmed that they will withdraw their objection to that condition. She said they are only really just talking about the 15 foot sidewalk condition right now. She said another concern they have about that condition is an actual dedication of land has to be reasonably related to the needs, demand, and use created by the project. It has to be roughly proportional to that need. They don’t think the trail would meet those criteria. There are also some design reasons. This is not a textbook use nor does it fit with this use. Angie Milewski said the use is a campus with high security needs. They’ve worked to design the site in a way that’s much more open. Security has been addressed where their needs are highest. She said there are other connections in this location – they are making lots of very deliberate connections for the public especially on the east side where it integrates well with the campus plan. They ask that this condition needs tobe removed so they can help provide a balance between connections and the security needs of this special use. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 16 Board Questions Member Elmore asked about the new trail (Poudre River Trail on the western side) and its relationship to the parking lot. Milewski compared the current to the proposed trail alignment. Milewski said they are committing to perimeter buffering of the parking lot. The PDP shows a continuous landscape buffer (minimum 20 feet width) around the entire parking area – along Lincoln on the north, along the west edge and between Woodward parking and the trail. Member Elmore asked about plans for the barn. Milewski said the intent is to retain the barn and silos on the site. They have been integrated into the campus. They are right outside the office areas. They have discussed (but have not committed fully) to it becoming a conference space or an outdoor meeting space. They’d like to adaptively reuse them. Member Elmore said she noted in the staff report that the Link-n-Green PDP is consistent with the Parks and Recreation Plan. Is this plan proposing additional bike and pedestrian connections? Milewski said Holland had a diagram. Basically today it’s a golf course fenced on the south from the trail edge and there are no connections through the site. She said the applicant is proposing providing very deliberate connections from their main entry on Magnolia. Milewski indicated a number of connections from the site. Board Discussion Member Campana said he’s pretty excited about what he’s seen. He thinks it takes a company like Woodward to turn all the challenges into opportunities. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification to LUC Section 4.20(D) (3) (a) (1) Height/Mass because it would not be detrimental to the public good. The plan provides substantial enhancements to the natural area buffer adjacent to the proposed buildings. The proposed landscape canopy adjacent to the buildings provides transition and helps reduce the massing of the buildings. The plan as proposed for Lot 3 with two stories provides a more varied edge along the buffer than would a plan that would result from a strict interpretation of the standard that would provide larger one story building footprints along the Poudre River. The second finding of fact is that it would be nominal and inconsequential. Additionally, the motion is supported by the Findings of Facts noted on page 24 of the revised staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification of standard to LUC Section 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) to allow the parking lots between buildings and the river because it will not be detrimental to the public good and the modification will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard due to the extensive landscape buffers that are intended to screen parking lots and vehicle use areas when viewed from the river equally as well as would the regular standard based on a finding of fact on page 25 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Chair Smith said based on the applicant’s rationale he does support the applicant’s request to remove the condition of approval. Member Kirkpatrick said she feels differently about it as a bike/pedestrian production person primarily from a connectivity standpoint and not so much from a trail connection standpoint. She said if you look at ‘brewery row’ and other places people would like to see. If we’d be able to get to Lemay, perhaps it is not the most desirable option for having that connectivity mid-block on Lincoln. She said she’s happy to be a lone dissenting voice but that is why she is voting against that request. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 17 Member Campana said he’s intention is to make a motion approving the PDP with conditions 2-7 and leaving that condition out. He asked Kirkpatrick if she’s okay with that. He said he thinks connectivity is extremely important but he also thinks the overall experience of meandering through what might be a one mile stretch along the new trail system is good. He doesn’t think a 1300 foot stretch on Lincoln will provide ease of access to what you can easily get with the connection that’s already there. Member Kirkpatrick said she would disagree from a human behavior standpoint. She said she is in full support of the PDP but on the record she thinks we should have a connection. Member Campana made a motion to approve the Link-n-Green Project Development Plan, # PDP130001 based on the findings and facts included on pages 24 and 25 of the staff report with conditions number 2 – 7 listed on page 26 and 27 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Carpenter said she’s delighted with the work that has been done to improve the river (one of our greatest city assets). She said it is fun to get a project this good and to be able to say yes to it. Chair Smith said that with eight years on the board, he hasn’t had a better or easier project to approve from his homework and analysis perspective. We’ve asked tough questions getting us to this point. The applicant’s team has done an outstanding job of being able to achieve a truly triple bottom line solution for our community. They could have focused totally on the economic development component but the ecological enhancements to the river corridor are huge. The social benefits to the downtown and points north are also huge. He said he doesn’t know how long it will be before they have an opportunity to look at something this significant. He said the redevelopment of the mall could not occur without a project like this with the primary jobs it will generate. In this past two week period, the board has been a part of doing some great things for Fort Collins. He’s very excited about being able to vote yes on this. Member Campana said staff deserves kudos. He’s heard nothing but great things about how staff has worked with Woodward on this project. He knows it’s been a condensed schedule. It’s remarkable that a project of this scale on the Poudre River with zero opposition underscores the fact that it was a coordinated team effort. Member Hart said for the two months he’s been on the board, he’s probably done a lot to help the community. He cares about Fort Collins and its quality of life. We cannot have a high quality of life without high quality employment and Woodward is number one in that area. He’s really happy that we’re able to move forward with this. Member Elmore said she’d like to echo how much she’s been impressed by the development team, especially the environmental staff who’ve put together the river restoration project. The motion passed 6:0. _______ Project: LUC – Vested Rights Project Description: This is a request to make a recommendation regarding whether to amend the Land Use Code Section 2.2.11(c), to allow for a Large Base Industry to request limited vested rights not to exceed twenty-five (25) years, in accordance with an approved Planned Development Plan (PDP) and prior to the approval of a final plan. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 18 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Laurie Kadrich said the request is to make a recommendation on whether to amend the Land Use Code (LUC) to allow for a large base industry (as defined in Article 5) to be able to request a limited vested right not to exceed 25 years in accordance with an approved Project Development Plan (PDP) prior to approval of a final plan. The reason for that is often times with a large scale industry plan this type of development rarely takes place at one time. It’s more of a phased development plan. Kadrich said it has to be a project that has invested over $100,000,000 into the community either in land or assets. It can’t be the corporate value of a company. By allowing the vesting to occur for a longer period of time (whether built in 3 years or 10 years), it provides insurance the proposal as described at the time of the PDP will be built in accordance with the approved plan. Public Input None Board Questions Deputy City Attorney Eckman said there is one wording change he’d like to suggest. He said 4 or 5 lines down in the red language, he’d like to recommend “…not to exceed twenty-five (25) years to complete the final plan” to “ be changed to …not to exceed twenty-five (25) years to submit the final plan”... Eckman said it’s not a vested right in the statutory sense (3 years to complete the public infrastructure to a final plan). The State’s vested rights act gives municipalities the right to extend that by a legislative (ordinance) act for a period not to exceed 25 years. The idea is to give these large based industries the ability to have an extended period of time not to exceed 25 years to move forward with their PDP without having to worry about code changes that might make the PDP obsolete. Eckman said Woodward is a perfect example of a project that might merit a longer period of time. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council to update Section 2.2.11(C) of the Land Use Code regarding the vested rights for certain project development plans and plats as presented in the ordinance to the Board with the change that they’ll not to exceed 25 years to submit final plans. Member Hart seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. _______ Member Kirkpatrick left the dais due to a conflict. Project: 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia PDP, # PDP120026 Project Description: This is a request for a convenience retail store (without fuel sales) on a .436 acre site at the northwest corner of West Magnolia Street and South College Avenue at 112 West Magnolia Street. The proposed building will be one story, 32 feet in height, and contain approximately 4,139 square feet. The property is located in the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict of the Downtown Zone District. Because the proposed use, convenience retail sales, is not permitted in the zone district an Addition of Permitted Use is required and is requested in conjunction with the Project Development Plan. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 19 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Addition of a Permitted Use and the Project Development Plan. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said the request for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) was evaluated and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4. The APU is proposed in conjunction with a Project Development Plan (PDP), which complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration; • The relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards and; • The relevant standards located in Division 4.16, Downtown (D) – Canyon Avenue Subdistrict, of Article 4 – Districts. Levingston reviewed the project location, specifications, the landscape plan, the south and east elevations, a rendering. She said one of the proposed tenants, 7-Eleven, is defined by the Code as a convenience retail store and convenience retail stores are not specifically listed as a permitted use in the Canyon Avenue Sub-district of the Downtown Zone. The applicant has applied for an Addition of a Permitted Use (APU). APU criteria is: such use is appropriate in the zone district; such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district; does not create any “adverse impacts” more than normally resulting from other permitted uses; not specifically listed as a “Prohibited Use”; compatible with surrounding area (LUC 3.5.1); and would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff recommends approval of the 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia, Addition of a Permitted Use and Project Development Plan. Applicant Presentation Alicia Rymer, 7 Eleven, said she’d like to speak about the company and the direction they’re heading. They started in 1927 as an ice house and market in Oakwood, Texas. Over the years they have strived to become more than a convenience store. She showed slides of downtown Denver and Boulder stores where they strive to bring fresh food, grocery, and convenience items to students, workers and local residents. She described the proposed site plan and reviewed in detail the multi-tenant building elevations. Rymer said benefits to the community are: quality development with character that fits into surrounding community, business system provides information needed to tailor merchandise set to surrounding neighborhood, bringing needed convenience, fresh food, grocery and services to you, tax dollars, potential for local business owner & 10-15 jobs, 24 hour good neighbor, and community outreach. Public Input Susan Kirkpatrick, 210 W. Magnolia, #430, said she’s both a homeowner and business owner (Savory Spice Shop at 123 N. College) in the vicinity of the proposed 7-Eleven. She’s said she’s a former city council member and mayor and appreciates the board’s time as volunteers in service to the community. She urged them to deny the petition for the Addition of Permitted Use because the addition of that use to the downtown district would undermine the very purpose of the district. This parcel is one of the few flat ground in-fill properties in the downtown core. The burden is on the developer to meet the community standards. This proposal for a convenience store doesn’t merit alteration in the Downtown District’s framework. She asked that the board uphold the integrity of the Downtown District. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 20 Kirkpatrick said the Downtown District provides a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses. The development standards for this district are intended to encourage a mix of activities in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale, and a pedestrian oriented character. She said a major focus of City Plan is to increase in-fill development to support a mix of land uses and provide opportunities to grow and diversify the economy throughout the community. She said the developer has offered a picture of a reasonably attractive façade for this important location but fundamentally the use fails to achieve compliance with permitted use in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 1.3.4 because it fails to be a quality development that maintains a sense of history. If fails to diversify the economy. Kirkpatrick said two other convenience stores are within easy walking distances of the parcel. Additionally, the Safeway is easy access from the parcel. That is where she shops. Her neighbors at Urban Living Lofts have provided other written testimonies to the board about their concerns about the proposed use. She said she was a member of City Council when they added a section on convenience store spacing to the LUC. Convenience stores were proliferating in the 1980s. When she learned of this 7-Eleven proposal for the corner of College and Magnolia, she was sad to learn that their changes only applied to convenience stores that offered gasoline. It was certainly her intention to limit the proliferation of this type of land use. She does not see that having 3 with the same type of land use within a 4 block area in the Downtown District achieves the vision expressed for this special part of the city. She said coincidentally they own property in downtown Denver and she’s familiar with the 7-Eleven stores there. Their situation is quite different – there are no grocery stores in the vicinity of the convenience stores. She asked the board to please deny the petition of the developer to add 7-Eleven as a permitted use. John Kessenich, 210 W. Magnolia, # 340, said he lives one block from the proposed site. He’s concerned about the store being on the pathway when people leave the bars. It’s a pedestrian walkway that gets pretty crazy about mid-night to 1 a.m. He thinks it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and provide a stopping place rather than continuing on home. He’d like to hold out for a business that would be healthier for the neighborhood. End of Public Input Applicant Response Alicia Rymer said she’d like to reiterate they are not a convenience store. They are different than their competitors because of their ‘business system’. They have an urban market concept. It is essentially a smaller grocery store. They offer the exact same amenities and products you find in a grocery store. She said the building they propose is complimentary to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. It is a two-story, multi-tenant retail space and is a quality architectural product that will fit into the downtown area. Staff Response Levingston said the LUC defines a convenience store as a retail store containing less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area which sells every day goods and services which may include without limitation ready-to-eat food products, groceries, over the counter drugs and sundries. Pursuant to that definition, this is classified as a convenience retail store and that is why we are here today for the Addition of Permitted Use. Board Questions Member Carpenter said she understood at work session that this was not a two-story building that there is not a second floor. Levingston said this is a one-story building. It’s built to visually look like a two- story. She said the drop ceiling is going to be installed at 14 feet. Levingston said the second story will Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 21 not be finished out. The intent behind the two story design was to increase compatibility with the downtown area. Chair Smith said in the report he read, the second floor is finished to take a second floor tenant such as a small office use some time in the future. Is it engineered to have a second floor tenant? Rymer said it will be engineered to potentially finish out ta second story at some future date. They’ve elected to finish out only the 1st floor because of issues related to Fire Code (elevator, stairs, etc.) and because it compromises the 1st floor space. Member Hart said if the ceiling is 14 feet and the roof at 24 feet, will there be enough room to complete a second floor. Rymer said they could drop the 1st floor ceiling to 10 feet if they need to. Member Elmore asked if Ms. Rymer was familiar with the 7-Eleven at Prospect and Overland. Rymer said yes. It’s more of a convenience store because there are not as many pedestrians in that area. It would be a different product assortment. Member Elmore said because there is another 7-Eleven so close to the proposed site, how do you differentiate so people don’t think it’s the same thing. Wouldn’t you cannibalizing the other store? Rymer said they’ve done extensive studies and based on population densities, they feel the two stores will survive and thrive. Member Hart said the board received written comments focused on the hours of operation and how it exceeded the hours of business in that area. Rymer said most of their stores are open 24 hours a day. They sell convenience and their business system requires that. They’ve found it’s better and safer because it’s a 24 hour watchful eye for the neighborhood. They have less crime incidences reported at their 24 hour stores. They do have a few stores in Utah that are not 24 hours and there are actually more incidents there when the lights are not on. Member Campana asked what zone district this is. Levingston said it’s the Canyon Avenue Sub-district. He said it appears that convenience retail stores without fuel sales and convenience shopping centers are not allowed while grocery stores and supermarkets are. He said as we urbanize and increase density downtown, we may want convenience shopping to take place there. Can staff tell him why they’re not included? Levingston said speaking with Chief Planner Ted Shepard he was not aware of the specific reason for not including them. Board Discussion Member Carpenter said she’s uncomfortable with this. She thinks that there’s a reason convenience retail sales were not allowed in the downtown zone district. She thinks with an Addition of Permitted Use here we are losing the chance to put something here that is a good fit with the Downtown District. The faux 2nd story does really work for her. When you hear we can’t fit things in for fire code to make a second story, it makes her uncomfortable. She believes the Downtown District was well thought out and it makes her uncomfortable to talk about an addition of permitted use such as this in this zone. Member Hart said he shares Member Carpenter’s concerns. He also has some serious reservations about compatibility with the neighborhood – not so much the adjacent buildings but the overall area. In terms of LUC Section 3.5.1(D), he doesn’t think it complies at all with privacy considerations in this area. The 24 hour operation is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Member Campana is feeling the same way. He thinks convenience stores are okay downtown and he loves the idea of an urban market as we increase density. The 24 hours a day, however, is hanging him up. He’s just not certain with the limited amount of available space downtown on College Avenue that we couldn’t do better. He’s going to struggle with using an APU on this design. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 22 Member Elmore said she’s in agreement with her colleagues. With Safeway right across the street, she’s having problems seeing the need. With a vacant lot right there and with neighborhood compatibility issues, she just can’ approve it. Member Campana said the applicant is selling it as a downtown urban market for convenience and then they’re putting in a parking lot. It might be better if it was designed as the market on the hill in Boulder. Chair Smith said one of their greatest responsibilities is to uphold and defend somewhat the Comprehensive Plan. There are a lot of places in town where the Comp Plan does not speak as specifically as it does about downtown. That process that we went through to create sub-districting in the downtown was for a good reason. It’s a delicate balance and takes a lot of intention to get it to where it is. Smith said he’d like to adhere to the criteria for the Addition of a Permitted Use and if an applicant can come in and meet them we’re okay. Smith said the characteristics of some of the other allowed uses for the Canyon Sub-District are a bit different primarily because of the parking field. He doesn’t think the applicant has demonstrated that they’ve met that higher burden of proof that he thinks is required. He doesn’t think that this use conforms to the basic characteristics of the sub-district zone. He said to reject what is the Comp Plan would actually be detrimental to the public good. He will not be supporting the Addition of Permitted Use request. Member Campana said he’d feel a lot better about the design if the site was utilized more and the parking lot was gone – it would truly be an urban market and operated to hours similar to Safeway. Chair Smith made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the request for the Addition of a Permitted Use. The reason for denial was the use proposed does not conform to the basic characteristics of the sub-zone district and the other permitted uses to this sub-zone to which it is added. Also, because it is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan which is very specific to the downtown, it would, in fact, be detrimental to the public good. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:0. Member Hart made a motion to deny the 7-Eleven at College and Magnolia PDP, # PDP120026 because it is not a permitted use. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5:0 _______ Member Kirkpatrick returned to the dais. Project: LUC (Land Use Code) – Student Housing Action Plan Phase I Project Description: This is a request related to the Student Housing Action Plan Phase I near term Land Use Code amendments related to compatibility between multi-family development and existing neighborhoods. Recommendation: Staff requests approval. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 23 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Seth Lorson said reviewed the following action items. SHAP Action Items Phase 1: 1. Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones. 2. 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. 3. 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. Lorson said changes suggested to improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones are: landscape buffering, setbacks for vehicular use areas, building size compatibility, and land use transition. Lorson said to amend MMN district development standards and LUC Section 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the setback from single- and two-family dwelling. Staff believes multi-family requires a buffer yard instead of a “setback” and we need to clarify intent to enhance compatibility. They would add definitions for buffer yards and passive open space. Lorson said to amend the LUC Section 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. In addition, parking areas increase 4+ bedroom minimum parking requirements from 2.5 to 3 spaces per unit, remove the TOD (Transit Oriented District) exception, and mitigate impacts created from greater intensity. With regard to site elements, expand amenities that the decision maker may require in 4+ bedroom developments and mitigate impacts created from greater intensity. Public Input None Board questions Chair Smith said there were a couple of suggestions by a resident (Nick Haws) that he thought were worth considering. He asked Lorson what were his thoughts relative to those suggestions. Lorson said he suggested making the structures a different in size in figure 7b. Smith asked about figure 6. Haws (in his email) said it implies the new structure be the size of the surrounding historic structures and the code speaks more to the architectural design and not the size and scale that’s currently drawn. Haws said he believes figure 6 sets the stage for future controversy. Smith said he sees some validity in that because showing a new building slightly larger than a surrounding building might make sense. Lorson said he appreciates what Haws is alluding to. The drawing is quite rudimentary. It’s still showing a larger structure than the ones that are around it. Lorson said what the figure does is articulate the building in the module size of the existing buildings surround it to engage the pedestrian with a similar scale than what exists. Lorson said it is using architectural elements and massing to try to meet the same scale. Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 24 Member Campana said the staff report has those figures switched. On page 6 we have figure 6 building patterns with the big blocks crossed out and a new sketch on the bottom. Lorson said when it says figure 6, that’s switching figures for the existing figure 6 and figure 7. Lorson said the way it reads on page 6 and 7 of the staff report and the ordinance is accurate. Campana said when he heard we were going to make code changes and start adding diagrams that say “do this / not this”; he was envisioning more pictures or at least something not quite so rudimentary. Is there a reason why we keep going back to this? Lorson said they exist in the code. Campana said he thinks it would be a great idea to have real life examples. Lorson said at this point, we didn’t dig all the way into being able to put those in. They’ve identified low hanging fruit. They’d be happy to look into more figures. Campana said when he creates design guidelines for neighborhoods, he uses actual photos. Is there some legal reason we can’t do that in the Land Use Code? Maybe we can go to different states so someone who lives in Fort Collins doesn’t see their house as what not to do. Director Kadrich said with regard to the Board’s comments about actual photos, it is a discussion they’ve been having in the context of historic preservation compatibility issues. They’re exploring how they can provide better design guidelines. As they work more on that, they may be able as suggested to substitute with photographs. Board Discussion Member Kirkpatrick said she has some reservations about taking out the exemption for TOD. She thinks the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone is specifically intended to do exactly that and has the parking requirements as one of its primary tenants. Part of the reason we may be considering that is because most of the developments that have come in have been building parking anyway. She thinks we should still not be requiring it. She said right now we don’t have our transportation system fully built out so we’re still seeing parking. Her hope is that once we have a fully functioning transportation system with MAX, enhanced robust travel corridors, and ridership increases; we are going to have more people utilizing our transit system for their transportation needs. She thinks it’s early to be making that decision. She thinks we would be inhibiting what we’re hoping to see if we exempt the TOD Overlay Zone. Chair Smith said he fully agrees with her. He would hate to see us get weak knees when we’re talking about the positive benefits of the overlay district and what it’s trying to encourage. He thinks you can water it down until you no longer have a TOD and that’s pointless. Member Hart said he has a slightly different point of view. He thinks many of the people who will be living in the TOD may not use vehicles on a daily basis but they still have a place to park. When you have three bedroom apartments with three students, you’re probably going to need 3 or 4 parking places. The cars may only move on weekends but they need a place to put their cars. He said near the university there is no parking for residents. He fully supports TOD and having the transit system move people around but there is still a problem of people bringing cars to town. Member Kirkpatrick said they absolutely do but there are many ways to address that issue. If we’re regulating in our LUC that you have to have parking, we’re not incentivizing with a robust tool kit like CU (University of Colorado) with car shares or external parking. She said she lives by campus and can appreciate the issues. She said she also went to school at CSU and she had a car. Member Campana said they’ve all supported TOD but while we’re in transition, it’s really uncomfortable to add dwelling units without adding parking. He’s not sure what developers would do. He thinks if it were him he’d limit his 4 bedroom units if he didn’t have a place to park cars. He thinks it waters down Planning & Zoning Board February 21, 2013 Page 25 our vision of having a TOD that functions properly. He’s thinking our recommendation should remove that. Member Hart said he doesn’t feel so strongly what we’re going to do affects what done because if places don’t have parking, then people won’t go there. The market will determine it in the end. Chair Smith said the project (outside the TOD) at Olive and Mathews was a missed opportunity given the innovation ways they were trying to address parking. Member Kirkpatrick said had it been in the TOD and we had parking requirements, we wouldn’t have been able to approve something like that. Member Carpenter said she thinks that project, while innovative, failed because of the neighbors who don’t want cars parked in front of their house and blocking their driveways. You really have to balance it and until we really get to where we have a city in which you don’t have to have a car, we’re going to have to make these kinds of compromises. Chair Smith said with progress being made on MAX stations, we’re very close to seeing TOD gain traction. He said there’s this idea that 4 bedroom units are terrible and how can you restrict them – let’s burden them down with a little extra cost. Member Kirkpatrick said she thinks ‘our job’ is to be stewards of the community’s long term vision. It’s easy to get weak knees in the short term for political reasons but the Board is charged with making sure that we achieve the vision we’ve set in City Plan. This is definitely not getting us there. Member Elmore said she concurs. She really appreciates the comment that if we make compromises now, then we don’t incentivize creativity. Member Campana said he thinks we can do better as a city just educating and raising awareness with the TOD. He said he’s touring colleges with his daughter. At CU the message is leave your car at home. He thinks we can do a better job and encourage CSU to give a like message. Member Campana made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve the Student Housing Action Plan Phase I with the exception of the modification on page 12 of the staff report and page 3 of the ordinance as amended striking out “with the exception of dwelling units containing 4 or more bedrooms which must comply with required parking minimums contained in 3.2.2(K) (1) (a)”. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Member Hart said he will vote for this in the hope it works. The motion passed 6:0. Other The meeting was adjourned at 12:28 a.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair PROJECT: Addition to the Land Use Code – New Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding a minor change to the Land Use Code. This item is a necessary follow-up to the new Streetscape Standards adopted by City Council on February 26, 2013. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the standards on consent at their November 2012 hearing. This item involves parkway landscaping in single family housing developments where approved development plans specify turfgrass in the parkways (the strips of land between street curbs and detached sidewalks). These residential parkways are part of the City-owned right-of-way, but abutting property owners are responsible for parkway landscaping, with the exception of trees, per Municipal Code. This item adds a new process for amending parkway landscaping in approved development plans. Background: A number of neighborhoods have development plans that specify turfgrass in parkways. There have been instances of individual homeowners wanting to change the landscaping from turfgrass to xeriscape landscaping -- that is, to mulched planting beds, to use less water than turfgrass and perhaps to reduce maintenance. The new Streetscape Standards clarify the City’s approach to such requests, and this Land Use Code change is a necessary related item. The new Parkway Landscaping Amendment is fitted to the scope and nature of the issue, and is fully consistent with the adopted Streetscape Standards. Currently, for a homeowner to request a change to approved parkway landscaping, a Minor Amendment is required. The Minor Amendment process has a $350 fee, which is ill-fitted to the scope of homeowner changes to parkways. It is suitable for plan changes involving a larger scale and scope. Land Use Code Change – Add Parkway Landscaping Amendment Process March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 2 The proposed process is called “Parkway Landscaping Amendment”, and staff will administer a new lower fee of $50 or less. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the proposed addition to the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Land Use Code Ordinance (Pending Legal Review) ORDINANCE NO. , 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2.2.10 OF THE LAND USE CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH (D) PERTAINING TO PARKWAY LANDSCAPING AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, as a part of the Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives, the City Council has adopted certain amendments to the Streetscapes Standards as contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards; and WHEREAS, a provision in the Streetscapes Standards amendments provides for the ability of an abutting lot owner to apply for a streetscape amendment regarding the parkway landscaping adjacent to a lot; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Code presently does not make provision for a parkway landscaping amendment process and the Land Use Code should be amended to accommodate for such parkway landscaping changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to amend the Land Use Code to provide a mechanism for parkway landscaping amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2.2.10 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (D) which reads in its entirety as follows: (D) Parkway Landscaping Amendments. Amendments to parkway landscaping in any approved development plan may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director. No public hearing need be held on an application for a parkway landscaping amendment. Such amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the Fort Collins Streetscape Standards, Appendix C, Section 6.1 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Appeals of the decision of the Director regarding the approval, approval with conditions or denial of parkway landscaping amendments of any approved development plan shall be made in accordance with subsection A(4) of this Section. Attachment 1 Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this ___ day of ____, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the ___ day of ____, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the ___ day of ____, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Revised 3/20/13 PROJECT: Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D APPLICANT: Nathan Winterfield 1027 Vista Grande Drive Colorado Springs, CO. 80906 OWNER: Nathan Winterfield 1027 Vista Grande Drive Colorado Springs, CO. 80906 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a one-year extension, to March 15, 2014, of the approved Waterglen Planned Unit Development (PUD) Self-Storage, Final Plan. The self-storage property is located in the northeast corner of the approved and developed Waterglen PUD that is located at the northwest corner of Interstate 25 & East Vine Drive. The property is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with condition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Final Plan, as previously approved, continues to comply with the applicable general development standards in Article Three. The Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Final Plan complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is an infill project, as part of a previously approved PUD under the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS), which provides a complementary and supporting land use that serves a neighborhood. As set forth in Article Four, Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, enclosed mini-storage facilities are permitted in the LMN, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review, provided that they are located on property adjoining the railroad property abutting and parallel to East Vine Drive, and are located within 500 feet of such railroad property. Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 2 The existing Waterglen neighborhood is to the west and south of the mini-storage facility property, Interstate 25 is to the east of the property, and the Larimer & Weld Canal and undeveloped properties are to the north of the property. Although the location of mini-storage facilities is limited with the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, there is still a significant need for this type of facility in Waterglen because the majority of the homes feature only one-car garages. Therefore, the presence of a mini- storage facility, when built, remains a substantial benefit to the neighborhood. It would also serve as additional buffer for the residential uses from the highway. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: LMN, E; Waterglen PUD, undeveloped land E: I; undeveloped S: LMN; Waterglen PUD W: LMN; Waterglen PUD The property was annexed as part of the Vine Business Park Annexation in October, 1987. The property was platted as Tract W (Waterglen Self-Storage) of the Waterglen PUD that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in November, 1998. A development plan for the mini-storage facility was approved at the same time. The property was replatted as Waterglen Self-Storage, a Replat of Tract “W” of the Waterglen PUD, on March 15, 2004. A revised development plan for the mini-storage facility was approved at the same time. The Director approved, on February 22, 2007, a one-year extension to the Waterglen Self-Storage Replat that was approved March 15, 2004. Based on this extension, all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) must be completed no later than March 15, 2008. The Current Planning Director approved, on February 12, 2008, an additional one-year extension to the Waterglen Self-Storage Replat that was originally approved March 15, 2004. A one-year extension to March 15, 2008 was previously granted. Based on this second extension, all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) must be completed no later than March 15, 2009. Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 3 The Director is authorized to grant extensions for two successive periods of one-year each. Any additional one-year extensions may be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board approved, on February 19, 2009, a one-year extension to the Waterglen Self-Storage Replat, per Section 2.2.11(D)(4) to March 15, 2010. The Board approved, on March 18, 2010, a one-year extension per Section 2.2.11(D)(4) to March 15, 2011. The Board approved, on March 18, 2011, a one-year extension per Section 2.2.11(D)(4) to March 15, 2012. The Board approved, on April 19, 2012, a one-year extension per Section 2.2.11(D)(4) to March 15, 2013. 2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions This section states that extensions for two successive periods of one-year each may be granted by the Director, upon finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article Three and Zone Districts Standards as contained in Article Four at the time of the application for the extension. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning Board, upon finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article Three and Zone District Standards as contained in Article Four at the time of the application for the extension, and that the applicant has been diligent in constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to Section 2.2.11(D)(3), though such improvements have not been fully constructed. Section 2.2.11(D)(3) Term of Vested Right states, in part, that: “Within a maximum of three (3) years following the approval of a final plan or other site specific development plan, the applicant must undertake, install and complete all engineering improvements (water, sewer, streets, curb, gutter, street lights, fire hydrants and storm drainage) in accordance with city codes, rules and regulations.” With regards to the Waterglen Self-Storage site, the one street impacting this site (Waterglen Drive) is in place; water and sanitary sewer mains are in place around the site; curb, gutter and public sidewalk are in place along Waterglen Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 4 Drive adjacent to the site; street lights are in place along Waterglen Drive; and, necessary storm drainage improvements are in place. These improvements constitute due diligence to date. Engineering improvements still lacking to fully vest the development plan are: • A new fire hydrant and new water main to the hydrant on the south side of the property. • A new fire hydrant and new water service to the hydrant at the north end of the property. • A new water service and meter at the north end of the property. • A new sanitary sewer service running south to north within the property. • Remove existing curb cut into the property from Waterglen Drive. Replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk in this location. • Add new curb cut and driveway into the property in different location from existing. These public improvements are all on the Waterglen Self-Storage site or associated with the project itself. They are specific to this site and are not needed until the project is constructed. The surrounding neighborhood is not dependent on the improvements that are not yet completed. Also, the current owner has spent the last year working diligently to obtain capital for the construction of Waterglen Self-Storage. He has now acquired financing and will be able to begin construction of the outstanding engineering improvements, and possibly the self-storage facility, this summer (2013). Staff is recommending a condition of approval that states: The property owner shall acquire issuance of the necessary building permit(s) Development Construction Permit no later than July 13, 2013 to enable work to begin on the construction and installation of the following engineering improvements related to the Waterglen Self-Storage facility: o A new fire hydrant and new water main to the hydrant on the south side of the property. o A new fire hydrant and new water service to the hydrant at the north end of the property. o A new water service and meter at the north end of the property. o A new sanitary sewer service running south to north within the property. o Remove existing curb cut into the property from Waterglen Drive. Replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk in this location. o Add new curb cut and driveway into the property in different location from existing. Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 5 As a minimum, these improvements must be completed no later than March 15, 2013 to achieve full vesting of the final development plan. A Replat of Tract “W” of the Waterglen PUD, was approved on March 15, 2004. A revised development plan for the self-storage facility was approved at the same time. The (Current Planning) Director has previously granted two (2) successive one (1) year extensions; the first extending the Final Plan approval to March 15, 2008; and, the second extending the Final Plan approval to March 15, 2009. An additional one-year extension was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on February 19, 2009 and was granted, extending the Final Plan approval to March 15, 2010. An additional one-year extension was considered by the Board on March 18, 2010 and was granted, extending the Final Plan approval to March 15, 2011. An additional one-year extension was considered by the Board on March 18, 2011 and was granted, extending the Final Plan approval to March 15, 2012. An additional one-year extension was granted on April 19, 2012 extending Final Plan approval to March 15, 2013. The owner/developer of the property is requesting a one-year extension to March 15, 2014. 3. APPLICANT’S EXTENSION REQUEST The applicant requests an additional one-year extension in order to complete Waterglen Self Storage Replat PUD #71-93D until March 15, 2014. According to the applicant, the last year has been spent working diligently to obtain capital for the construction of Waterglen Self Storage. 4. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Waterglen PUD Self-Storage Final Plan, as previously approved, continues to comply with the applicable general development standards in Article Three. Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 6 5. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS A. Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District Enclosed mini-storage facilities are permitted in the LMN - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zoning District, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board review, provided that they are located on property adjoining the railroad property abutting and parallel to East Vine Drive, and are located within 500’ of such railroad property. The purpose of the LMN - District is: • “Intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing. The housing is combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood; and • to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods, including a variety of housing choices, which invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this district shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” Typically, Low Density Neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial Center at its core. A neighborhood shall be considered to consist of approximately 80 to 160 acres, with its edges typically consisting of major streets, drainageways, irrigation ditches, railroad tracks and other major physical features. This one-year extension request to March 15, 2014, for the Waterglen PUD Self- Storage Facility complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is an infill project, as part of a previously approved PUD under the Land Development Guidance System, which provides a complementary and supporting land use that serves a neighborhood. The existing Waterglen neighborhood (477 homes on 165 acres) is to the west and south of the mini-storage facility property, Interstate 25 is to the east of the property, and the Larimer & Weld Canal and undeveloped properties are to the north of the property. Although the location of mini-storage facilities is limited with the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, there is still a significant need for this type of facility in Waterglen because of the nature of the majority of the homes. Almost all of the single- family homes have a one-car garage and, because of the prevailing high water table, no Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 7 basements. The presence of a mini-storage facility, when built, remains a substantial need and benefit to the neighborhood. It would also be a preferable land use on property directly abutting Interstate 25 and would serve as additional buffer for the residential uses from the highway. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Final Plan, as previously approved, continues to comply with the applicable general development standards in Article Three. B. The Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Final Plan complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is an infill project, as part of a previously approved PUD under the Land Development Guidance System, which allows for a complementary and supporting land use that serves a neighborhood. As set forth in Article Four, Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, enclosed mini-storage facilities are permitted in the LMN, subject to a Planning and Zoning Board review, provided that they are located on property adjoining the railroad property abutting and parallel to East Vine Drive, and are located within 500’ of such railroad property. The existing Waterglen neighborhood is to the west and south of the mini-storage facility property, Interstate 25 is to the east of the property, and the Larimer & Weld Canal and undeveloped properties are to the north of the property. Although the location of mini-storage facilities is limited with the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997, there is still a significant need for this type of facility in Waterglen because of the nature of the majority of the homes. The presence of a mini-storage facility remains to be a substantial benefit to the neighborhood. It would also serve as additional buffer for the residential uses from the highway. C. The request for extension satisfies Section 2.2.11(D)(4) Extensions. With regards to the Waterglen Mini-Storage site, the one street impacting this site (Waterglen Drive) is in place; water and sanitary sewer mains are in place around the site; curb, gutter and public sidewalk are in place along Waterglen Drive adjacent to the site; street lights are in place along Waterglen Drive; and, necessary storm drainage improvements are in place. These improvements constitute due diligence to date. Engineering improvements still lacking to fully vest the development plan are: • A new fire hydrant and new water main to the hydrant on the south side of the property. • A new fire hydrant and new water service to the hydrant at the north end of the property. Waterglen PUD Mini-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D March 21, 2013 - Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing Page 8 • A new water service and meter at the north end of the property. • A new sanitary sewer service running south to north within the property. • Remove existing curb cut into the property from Waterglen Drive. Replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk in this location. • Add new curb cut and driveway into the property in different location from existing. These public improvements are all on the Waterglen Mini-Storage site or associated with the project itself (see attached Exhibit A). They are specific to this site and are not needed until the project is constructed. The surrounding neighborhood is not dependent on the improvements that are not yet completed. However, the current owner has spent the last year working diligently to obtain capital for the construction of Waterglen Self-Storage. D. The Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Final Plan is compatible with, and complements, the surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Waterglen PUD Self-Storage, Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D, to March 15, 2014 with the following condition of approval: The property owner shall acquire issuance of the necessary building permit(s) Development Construction Permit no later than July 13, 2013 to enable work to begin on the construction and installation of the following engineering improvements related to the Waterglen Self-Storage facility: o A new fire hydrant and new water main to the hydrant on the south side of the property. o A new fire hydrant and new water service to the hydrant at the north end of the property. o A new water service and meter at the north end of the property. o A new sanitary sewer service running south to north within the property. o Remove existing curb cut into the property from Waterglen Drive. o Replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk in this location. o Add new curb cut and driveway into the property in different location from existing. PROJECT: Urban Agriculture APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 2012, staff was approached by several citizens with requests to update the Land Use Code with respect to urban agriculture land uses currently being practiced or desired to be practiced within the City of Fort Collins. While City Plan has several policy and principle statements that highlight the City’s desire to promote local food production and encourage urban agriculture, the Land Use Code has not been updated in relation to these new practices with the exception of the Chicken Ordinance passed in 2008. For example, having a community garden or market garden, two prominent practices associated with urban agriculture, would require an Addition of a Permitted Use in all but two of the City’s twenty-five zone districts. Since the project’s initiation, staff has conducted extensive public outreach, including a project website, an online survey (611 responses), a public open house (95 attendees), several focus group discussions with local farmers as well as Homeowners Associations, the Larimer County Humane Society, and presentations and discussions with seven City Boards and Commissions. The urban agriculture project includes the following objectives: 1. Establishes an urban agriculture licensing system that addresses neighborhood compatibility concerns raised during the outreach process instead of requiring urban gardens to go through a full development review process; 2. Allows farmers markets in more zone districts in the City; 3. Amends the Municipal Code regulations regarding animals in the following ways: a. Scales the number of chickens allowed on a lot based on lot size, allows ducks to be raised, and adjusts the space requirements for chickens and ducks to four sq. ft.; b. Allows two dwarf or pygmy goats per household for milk production (must meet minimum space and humane condition requirements, as with the allowance of chickens); and c. Updates the beekeeping Ordinance (adopted in 1989) to reflect hive styles currently used and allows for nucleus colonies to be kept for a longer timeframe. Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 2 d. Clarifies that farm animals are not allowed to be “at-large,” similar to domestic animals such as cats and dogs. Each of these objectives is further described in this staff report, along with the outreach and research staff has conducted to support the proposed amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to urban agriculture, with the following condition: 1. The City Manager allows a six month grace period for all existing urban agriculture land uses to be permitted at no cost. The Board is not required to make a recommendation on Municipal Code changes dealing with urban agriculture. Staff has included this information as background for the Board to understand the full scope of proposed new regulations. DISCUSSION: In response to requests from the community, work began in summer 2012 to identify ways for the Land Use Code to reflect urban agriculture land uses currently practiced in Fort Collins. Currently, the Land Use Code only allows these uses as a primary use on the land in t of the City’s twenty-five zone districts (farm animals are allowed in the River Conservation, Residential Foothills and Urban Estate districts and agricultural activities are allowed in the River Conservation and Public Open Lands districts). This project is in alignment with the City Plan Principle SW 3, which states, “The City will encourage and support local food production to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic, and social benefits.” Extensive public outreach, including a project website, an online survey (611 responses), a public open house (95 attendees), several focus group discussions with local farmers, Homeowners Associations, the Larimer County Humane Society, and discussions with seven City Boards and Commissions have occurred since the project was initiated. Staff also benchmarked existing City regulations with other similar communities, including Austin, Portland, Seattle, Steamboat Springs, Denver, and Wheat Ridge. Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 3 Throughout the outreach process, citizens have requested that urban agriculture be allowed in all zone districts and that additional farm animals be allowed to be raised in the City, e.g., allow for more chickens based on lot size, and allow for ducks and goats to be raised as well. Each of the three objectives, listed in the Executive Summary above, associated with achieving these goals are described in detail below. Objective 1: Create an alternative to the development review process for urban agriculture land uses Problem Statement: While the Land Use Code allows for the cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers as an accessory use in all zone districts, Agricultural Activities, as a principal use on the land is only permitted in the RC (River Conservation) and POL (Public Open Lands) zone districts. In all other zone districts, an Addition of a Permitted Use would be required for these uses to be the principal use on a parcel. Thus, while City Plan indicates the City will “encourage and support local food production,” the Land Use Code is acting as a obstacle to these types of land uses. Research and Outreach: At the onset of the project, staff initiated a focus group discussion with existing producers and farmers within the City to assess what practices are already occurring in the City and what additional practices are desired. Staff also organized focus groups with homeowners associations, Realtors and interested citizens to assess any concerns they might have with allowing these uses in additional zone districts. Staff also conducted an online survey and a public open house to assess the broader community’s perspectives on these issues. The online survey found that almost 96% of the 611 respondents supported allowing both market and community gardens in more areas (or all districts) across the City. Many respondents identified the societal benefits from allowing gardens as positive attributes of allowing more gardens, such as increased neighborly interaction, food security, and food access. When asked to identify what concerns were associated with community or market gardens, respondents identified the following primary concerns: • Nuisances such as noise, odor, traffic and visual impacts (34%); • No concerns (19%); Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 4 • Chemicals, including the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides (15%); • Overregulation (8%); and • Food Safety (6%). Staff benchmarked the existing regulations regarding urban agriculture land uses against five other communities and found that the Land Use Code was outdated in comparison to what other communities allow. Every community researched had standards associated with the urban agriculture practices, but none required the projects to go through the full development review process. The standards proposed for the urban agriculture license are designed to address the primary concerns identified by the public. Proposal: Create an urban agriculture licensing system that allows urban agriculture to be practiced throughout the City while ensuring neighborhood compatibility. If adopted, urban agriculture will be a permitted use in all zone districts, subject to the licensing requirements set forth in Section 3.8.31 of the Land Use Code. Staff is proposing an urban agriculture licensing system that allows for urban agriculture land uses, such as community gardens, market gardens, Community Supported Agriculture and other urban farming practices, in all zone districts within the City. This licensing system creates a process for these land uses to be permitted without requiring the uses to go through development review, which could prove prohibitive for achieving the City Plan principle of encouraging local food production. During the open house, attendees expressed support for not requiring the full development review process for these land uses, but they were also concerned about the licensing system. In general, attendees felt that these land uses should not be regulated at all. Staff believes that by having a licensing system for these land uses, it will provide an opportunity for a dialogue between the City and the producers to discuss other City regulations that must be adhered to, e.g., floodplain regulations, while also ensuring that neighborhood compatibility is achieved in the process. For example, one of the proposed standards includes that a neighborhood meeting and notice may be required if urban agriculture is proposed in a residential district or if the land use exceeds a certain size. This requirement is discretionary (the Director has the authority to require the neighborhood meeting) as every urban agriculture land use is different. While some of the existing Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 5 producers expressed concerns around the neighborhood meeting requirement, other citizens at the open house expressed support for this requirement as it would give them an opportunity to work with the producer to ensure their concerns were addressed. Staff is also proposing various amendments to the Land Use Code definitions (Division 5) to acknowledge these types of land uses, and to acknowledge that urban agriculture licenses do not apply to private gardens. In addition, the urban agriculture definition will explicitly state that plant nursery or greenhouses must be accessory to the principal use (urban agriculture); if these uses become principal uses, then they would be categorized as plant nursery or greenhouses under the Land Use Code and subject to different zone district standards. Implications of this Proposal: One policy question for the Board to consider is that, if this licensing system is enacted, urban agriculture land uses will be exempt from development review requirements. This means that urban agriculture land uses will not be required to plat or improve the local street frontage in front of their operations. Platting and development requirements would only be triggered if a principal building, e.g., a retail store, were proposed on the site. Depending upon how long the urban agriculture license is held, this could transfer the costs of improving local streets to the taxpayer. Starting up a local farm is not a capital-intensive business and requiring urban agriculture to be processed through development review could prove prohibitive to these land uses. As City Plan does encourage these types of land uses, it is staff’s finding that processing these land uses through a licensing system is the right step for encouraging these uses while still addressing the neighborhood concerns associated with allowing urban agriculture in more zone districts. However, staff does recommend that this issue be closely monitored and continuously assessed, e.g., through the Annual Land Use Code updates, to determine if the process is still suitable. Objective 2: Allows farmers markets to be permitted in additional zone districts Problem Statement: Farmers markets are currently limited to the following zone districts: Downtown, River Downtown Redevelopment, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Limited Commercial (except in the Riverside Area), and in the Harmony Corridor in neighborhood or community centers. In all of these zone districts, farmers markets are subject to a Type I (Administrative Hearing) review. In the public outreach process, citizens requested staff to examine if farmers markets could be allowed in more zone districts. Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 6 Research and Outreach: The results of the online survey illustrated that 94% of the survey respondents supported allowing farmers markets in more locations in the City. Concerns regarding allowing this land use in more zone districts included increased noise, traffic and parking issues as well as overregulation of vendors and the potential for diluting the market. In staff’s benchmarking analysis, staff found that allowing farmers markets in all commercial zone districts (currently allowed) is consistent with other communities. However, other communities, such as Portland and Denver, are also allowing these land uses in mixed-use areas. Proposal: Staff is proposing that farmers markets be allowed, in addition to the existing zone districts, in the LMN (Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) and MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) zone districts. However, staff is recommending that these uses be allowed only if located within a neighborhood center, park, or central feature or gathering place to ensure that the traffic and other nuisance issues, as identified through the survey, are minimized. Staff is also proposing that farmers markets be allowed in the HMN (High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood) district, which is limited in its geographic extent and would not likely pose the same concerns as in the other zone districts. Objective 3: Scale the number of chickens allowed on a lot based on lot size, allow ducks and miniature goats to be raised, update the beekeeping standards, and clarify that farm animals cannot be “at-large” Problem Statement: In 2008, City Council passed an Ordinance allowing for up to six chicken hens per lot within the City limits, requiring 2 sq. ft. per chicken and that coops be setback 15’ from the property line, among other standards aimed at achieving compatibility and protecting animal welfare. Since that time, 153 chicken licenses have been granted and only one citation has been issued. From the early discussions with producers and interested citizens, staff was asked to explore if additional chickens could be allowed and other animals, such as ducks and goats, could also be permitted within the City. Research and Outreach: The online survey results show that 90% of the survey respondents supported scaling the number of chicken hens based on lot size, allowing ducks to be combined with the allowable number of chickens, and allowing goats. Concerns about allowing this land use in more zone districts included increased noise and odor, a lack of enforcement, having more animals at large, and ensuring humane conditions for the animals. Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 7 In staff’s benchmarking analysis, staff found that Denver allows up to eight chickens or ducks, combined, and two dwarf goats on any City lot without a zoning permit. If residents would like additional animals, then a zoning permit and notice to neighbors is required. Denver requires 16 sq. ft. per chicken or duck and 130 sq. ft. per dwarf goat. Steamboat Springs allows for up to five chicken hens per lot; a permitting process is available for increasing the number of animals. Steamboat Springs also allows between two-three goats on all City lots and 200 square feet is required per goat. The Enforcement Officer in Steamboat Springs indicated that their spacing requirements exceed what a goat really needs and that Denver’s standards are more appropriate. In certain zone districts, two to five goats are allowed per half acre of land instead of being limited to three. In Portland, anyone can keep a total of three or fewer chickens, ducks, doves, pigeons, pygmy goats or rabbits combined without a permit. If they wish to exceed that number, then a permit and neighbor notification is required. Other communities include Colorado Springs, which allows up to 10 fowl as a use by right, and Seattle, which allows three animals per lot (including cats, dogs, chickens, and goats) if 20,000 square feet is available and four additional animals per each additional 5,000 square feet. In addition to public outreach, staff has had numerous meetings with staff from the Larimer County Humane Society (Animal Control), who handles the enforcement and licensing side of allowing chickens. Animal Control staff have indicated that increasing the number of chickens based on lot size and allowing ducks presents no concerns, as allowing chickens within the City has been fairly successful, i.e., there haven’t been significant problems. Initially, Animal Control was concerned about allowing goats as they are not equipped to manage full-size goats. In addition, they were concerned about how well goats are really working in the other communities. Animal Control staff contacted their counterparts and found that goats have presented no problems in other communities. One Animal Control staff member in Denver noted that allowing dwarf goats “seems to have greatly increased the goodwill from the public and has not greatly affected the calls for service or complaints from the neighborhoods.” Proposal: Regarding chickens and ducks, staff initially proposed that the number of chickens allowed be scaled to the size of the lots and that ducks be allowed within that scaled number. During the open house, attendees requested that staff scale the number of chickens and ducks similar to what Denver has proposed. Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 8 Based on further discussions with Animal Control, staff is now proposing the following scaling structure for chickens and ducks based on lot size: • Less than ½ acre – up to eight chickens and/or ducks, combined (this would allow everyone in the City to have up to eight chickens and/or ducks, similar to the City of Denver); • Between ½ acre and 1 acre – up to twelve chickens and/or ducks; and • More than 1 acre – 6 chickens and/or ducks per each additional ½ acre above a one-acre lot size, however, when more than twelve chickens and/or ducks are requested, then all abutting property owners must be notified prior to the issuance of a license to ensure compatibility with the neighbors. Regarding space requirements for chickens and ducks, numerous resources have documented that ducks need 4 sq. ft. per animal to thrive. In addition, based on staff discussions from an enforcement perspective, it was determined that increasing the size of poultry coops required for chickens and ducks would be more easily managed if 4 sq. ft. per animal was provided instead of 2 sq. ft. per chicken and 4 sq. ft. per duck. In addition, as humane conditions were one of the concerns of the survey respondents, staff is recommending that the regulations regarding the keeping of chicken hens and ducks stipulate 4 sq. ft. of spacing per animal. In regards to goats, staff is proposing that two pygmy or dwarf (African Pygmy and Nigerian Dwarf breeds) goats be allowed per lot in the City. As goats are herding animals, a minimum of two goats is required to prevent nuisances. Staff is also proposing, based on the feedback from Steamboat Springs staff and from additional research, that a minimum of 150 sq. ft. be provided per goat allowed, for a total of 300 sq. ft. Additional standards to ensure compatibility, e.g., a 15’ setback from any property line and having adequate fencing, and humane conditions are outlined in the draft Municipal Code Ordinance. With regard to bees, numerous citizens requested that the requirement that hives be only Langstroth-style hives be removed, since it is an antiquated standard. Numerous other communities, including Larimer County, regulate beekeeping based on movable comb hives. Staff is recommending that the hive requirement be updated to reflect more recent best practices and require movable comb hives instead of Langstroth-style hives. In addition, citizens have requested additional time to dispose of or combine nucleus colonies. Instead of 30 days to dispose of or combine the colony, staff is recommending allowing residents up to 60 days. Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 9 The Municipal Code Ordinance also clarifies that farm animals may not be “at- large,” similar to the requirements for cats, dogs and other domestic animals. Finally, staff is proposing to City Council that a one-year review of the Municipal Code changes be reported to City Council to assess if allowing additional numbers and kinds of animals has been successful and if any additional changes need to be made to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Fees A question that has arisen during the public process is what the City would charge for an urban agriculture license. As there are many urban agriculture land uses already in place throughout the City, staff would recommend that a 6-month grace period be applied to the licenses so that all existing urban agriculture land uses can be “grandfathered” into the City. The purpose of the grace period would be two-fold: first, it would allow for all existing gardens within the City to be permitted at no cost. Second, the grace period would allow City staff to track the time it takes to process the applications and calculate the appropriate fee to charge based on actual time. Staff expects that the fee would not exceed $100/application or 4 hours of staff time. The current fee for a chicken license is $30/license. Based on preliminary discussions with Animal Control, their staff had indicated that fees for pygmy/dwarf goats may be higher, as the requirements from Animal Control may be greater from an enforcement perspective. These fees will be finalized after adoption by City Council. Additional Concerns Not Addressed with these Code Changes During the public outreach process, interested citizens and farmers requested that other issues be addressed, including allowing hoop houses (temporary greenhouses with frames made of conduit, PVC, or wood covered by polyurethane) within the City without a building permit and allowing other farm animals on any lot within the City, if the lot size allows and humane conditions are met. Staff has begun researching these issues but is not yet ready to bring forward any Code changes or policy direction to address them. Instead, staff would propose that these changes be addressed in future phases, addressing how best to achieve the broader City Plan objectives. It should be noted that farm animals are currently permitted in three zone districts (Urban Estate, River Conservation and Residential Foothills). Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 10 Staff also recognizes that some concerns still remain about allowing any additional animals within the City limits and would propose, similar to what was done when the Chicken Ordinance was passed, that a review of the code changes be conducted one year after adoption to assess the success of the code changes and if any additional changes need to be made. It is also important to reiterate that staff is not proposing any changes related to an individual’s right to have a private garden. Private gardens are currently allowed under the Land Use Code and the urban agriculture licensing system would not apply to these land uses. Instead, it would apply to urban agriculture land uses that are the principal use on a lot in the City of Fort Collins, unless those uses were already approved under the development review process, in which case, a license is not needed. Finally, existing regulations allow for the cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers as an accessory use in all zone districts. One aspect of urban agriculture is selling the produce from your own lot to nearby neighbors through a seasonal produce stand. Staff polled the community about this existing allowance in the Land Use Code, and the results of the online survey illustrated that 87% of the survey respondents supported allowing produce stands in residential areas. Concerns regarding allowing this land use in more zone districts included increased noise, traffic and parking issues and ensuring that the visual quality of the neighborhood is preserved. In staff’s benchmarking analysis, staff found that Denver and Wheat Ridge allow produce stands from products grown on-site but that they typically restrict hours of operation and overall site cleanliness, e.g., remove the produce stand when it is not in use. However, as 87% of the respondents supported continuing to allow this land use, and Neighborhood Services and Zoning staff have reported no complaints regarding these land uses, staff is not proposing any changes to this allowance at this time. Still, as Fort Collins is an urban community, staff will continue to monitor this standard to assess if having produce stands in residential neighborhoods becomes a nuisance, and if it does, present standards to mitigate those impacts. PUBLIC OUTREACH: As discussed above, extensive public outreach has led to the formation of the proposed code changes before the Board. These outreach efforts included the following: • April 2012 o Planning and Zoning Board Work Session and Hearing – Project Kick-off Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 11 • June 2012 o Interested Citizens Kick-off Meeting – 25 individuals attended from the farming, gardening, non-profit community as well as interested citizens • July 2012 o Project website launched o Meeting with the Chamber Legislative Affairs Committee o Planning and Zoning Board Work Session o Interested Citizens Meeting – 10 individuals attended from the HOA and Realtor community as well as interested citizens o Project email list created – currently almost 370 members • August 2012 o Meeting with the Fort Collins Housing Authority Development Committee o Landmark Preservation Commission • September 2012 o Meeting with the Natural Resources Advisory Board o Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board o Meeting with the Senior Advisory Board o Online survey launched (611 responses when the survey closed in December) o Media article in the Coloradoan announcing the launch of the survey o Memo sent to the Community Development Block Grant Commission • October 2012 o Planning and Zoning Board Work Session • January 2013 o Focus group with local farmers to review the proposed regulations o Media article in the Coloradoan announcing the public open house o Public Open House – 95 attendees • March 2013 o Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • Future Outreach Efforts and Hearings o City Council Work Session (April 23) o City Council First and Second Reading (to be determined) Land Use and Municipal Code Revisions – Urban Agriculture March 21, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 12 During each meeting with the City Board or Commission, staff presented the overall direction of the project and requested feedback. All Boards were generally supportive of the project’s goals. The main concern discussed in the various meetings, similar to the online survey, was ensuring neighborhood compatibility was maintained when allowing these additional uses. A summary of the meeting notes from the public open house and the “at-a-glance” results from the online survey are attached to this staff report. The full survey results (approximately 215 pages) are available online, as well as additional meeting notes, via the project’s website: www.fcgov.com/urbanagriculture. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to urban agriculture, with the following condition: 1. The City Manager allows for a grace period of six months from the licensing fee so that all existing urban agriculture land uses can be permitted at no cost. The Board is not required to make a recommendation on Municipal Code changes dealing with urban agriculture. Staff has included this information as background for the Board to understand the full scope of proposed new regulations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Land Use Code Ordinance 2. Draft Municipal Code Ordinance (will be provided if available prior to Hearing) 3. Initial focus group meeting notes with farmers, producers and interested citizens 4. Initial focus group meeting notes with homeowners association representatives, realtors, and interested citizens 5. Meeting notes from the Public Open House 6. “At-a-glance” Online Survey Results 7. Public Comment pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 1 Pending Legal Review ORDINANCE NO. ___, 2013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE BYTHE ADDITION OF PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO URBAN AGRICULTURE WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City Plan Safety and Wellness Vision, which includes the aspirational goal of access to healthy, locally grown or produced food; and WHEREAS, City Plan contains numerous policies supporting local food production, including Principle SW3 which directs staff to encourage and support local food production to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic, and social benefits; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the Planning and Zoning Board’s 2013 Work Program, which calls for City staff to update the Land Use Code to reflect urban agriculture land uses currently practiced and desired to be practiced in the City, City staff has proposed certain Land Use Code changes to allow for these practices while also ensuring that neighborhood compatibility is achieved; and WHEREAS, City staff has vetted these proposed changes through focus groups with local farmers, interested citizens, and homeowners association representatives, and through a project website, an online survey and a public open house; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the proposed Land Use Code changes regarding urban agriculture and have recommended to the City Council that they be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: . . . ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 2 Pending Legal Review Section 1. That Division 3.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 3.8.31 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3.8.31 Urban Agriculture (A) Applicability. These standards apply to all urban agriculture land uses, except those urban agriculture land uses that are approved as a part of a site-specific development plan. (B) Purpose. The intent of these urban garden supplementary regulations is to allow for a range of urban agricultural activities at a level and intensity that is compatible with the City’s neighborhoods. (C) Standards. (1) License required. Urban agriculture land uses shall be permitted only after the owner or applicant for which the garden is proposed has obtained an urban garden license from the City. The fee for such a license shall be the fee established in the Development Review Fee Schedule. If active operations have not been carried on for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months, the license shall be deemed to have been abandoned regardless of intent to resume active operations. The Director may revoke any urban agriculture license issued by the City if the holder of such license is in violation of any of the provisions contained in Subsection (2) below, provided that the holder of the license shall be entitled to the administrative review of any such revocation under the provisions contained in Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code. (2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use, provided that all of the following conditions are met: (a) Mechanized Equipment. All mechanized equipment used in the urban agriculture land use must be in compliance with Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code regarding noise levels. (b) Parking. Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off- street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to accommodate all parking demands created by the use. (c) Chemicals and Fertilizers. Synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be applied only in accordance with state and federal regulations. All chemicals shall be stored in an enclosed, locked structure when the site is unattended. No synthetic pesticides or herbicides may be applied within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 3 Pending Legal Review (d) Trash/compost. Trash and compost receptacles shall be screened from adjacent properties by utilizing landscaping, fencing or storage within structures and all trash shall be removed from the site weekly. Compost piles and containers shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from any property line when urban agriculture abuts a residential land use. (e) Maintenance. An urban agriculture land use shall be maintained in an orderly manner, including necessary watering, pruning, pest control and removal of dead or diseased plant materials and shall be maintained in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code. (f) Water conservation and conveyance. To the extent reasonably feasible, the use of sprinkler irrigation between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. shall be minimized. Drip irrigation or watering by hand may be done at any time. The site must be designed and maintained so that any water runoff is conveyed off-site into a city right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affecting downstream property. (g) Identification/contact information. A clearly visible sign shall be posted near the public right-of-way adjacent to an urban agriculture land use that includes the name, contact information of the garden manager or coordinator, and if synthetic pesticide or herbicide is used, the sign shall also include the name of the chemical and the frequency of application. The contact information for the garden manager or coordinator shall be kept on file with the City. All urban agriculture signs must comport with Section 3.8.7 of this Land Use Code. (h) If produce from an urban agriculture land use is proposed to be distributed throughout the City, the applicant must provide a list of proposed Food Membership Distribution Sites in the application. (i) Floodplains. If urban agriculture is proposed within a floodplain, then a Floodplain Use Permit is required in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. (j) Additional Impact Mitigation. Measures such as landscaping, fencing, or setbacks to mitigate potential visual, noise, or odor impacts on adjoining property may be required by the Director. There shall be no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line of the parcel where the urban agriculture land use is conducted. Where an urban ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 4 Pending Legal Review agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a minimum setback of five (5) feet between the operation and the property line. (3) Notice. At the time of an initial application, mailed notice, posted notice, and a neighborhood meeting are required if an urban agriculture land use is proposed within a residential zone (N-C-L, N-C-M, U-E, R-F, R-L, L- M-N, M-M-N, H-M-N, N-C-B, R-C and P-O-L) or if the urban garden exceeds 0.5 acres in size. Such notice and neighborhood meeting shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of this Land Use Code. Additional notice and a neighborhood meeting may be required by the Director at the time of license reissuance. Section 2. That Section 4.1(B)(1)(a) and 4.1(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.1 RURAL LANDS DISTRICT (R-U-L) . . . (a) Agricultural Uses: 1. Agricultural activities. (ba) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Farm animals. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 3. That Section 4.2(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.2 URBAN ESTATE DISTRICT (U-E) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 5 Pending Legal Review 2. Accessory uses. 3. Farm animals. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 4. That Section 4.3(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.3 RESIDENTIAL FOOTHILLS DISTRICT (R-F) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 5. That Section 4.4(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.4 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-L) . . . (b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 6. That Section 4.5(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 6 Pending Legal Review DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (L-M-N) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Urban agriculture . . . Section 7. That Section 4.5(B)(2)(c)3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.5 LOW DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (L-M-N) . . . 3. Neighborhood centers consisting of at least two (2) of the following uses: mixed-use dwelling units; retail stores; convenience retail stores; personal and business service shops; small animal veterinary facilities; offices, financial services and clinics; community facilities; neighborhood support/ recreation facilities; schools; child care centers; open-air farmers markets; and places of worship or assembly. . . . Section 8. That Section 4.6(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (M-M-N) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Urban agriculture. . . . ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 7 Pending Legal Review Section 9. That Section 4.6(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 7 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVISION 4.6 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (M-M-N) . . . 7. Open-air farmers markets, if located within a park, central feature or gathering place. . . . Section 10. That Section 4.7(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 4.7 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, LOW DENSITY DISTRICT (N-C-L) . . . (b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space. 2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space. 3. Accessory uses. 4. Urban agriculture. Section 11. That Section 4.8(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.8 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT (N-C-M) . . . (b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space. 2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space. 3. Accessory uses. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 8 Pending Legal Review 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 12. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT (N-C-B) . . . (b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space. 2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space. 3. Accessory uses. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 13. That Section 4.10(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.10 HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (H-M-N) . . . (b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings 2. Urban agriculture. Section 14. That Section 4.10(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 8 which reads in its entirety as follows: DIVISION 4.10 HIGH DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (H-M-N) . . . 8. Open-air farmers markets. . . . ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 9 Pending Legal Review Section 15. That Section 4.13(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.13 PUBLIC OPEN LANDS DISTRICT (P-O-L) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 16. That Section 4.14(B)(1)(a) and 4.14(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.14 RIVER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (R-C) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Urban agriculture. . . . (2) The following uses are permitted in the R-C District subject to administrative review: … (d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Farm animals. 2. Agricultural activities. . . . ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 10 Pending Legal Review Section 17. That Section 4.16(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.16 DOWNTOWN (D) . . . (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the D District subject to basic development review: (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Urban agriculture. (ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29- 644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi- family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. . . . Section 18. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.17 RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (R-D-R) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 11 Pending Legal Review 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 19. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.18 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-C) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 20. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.19 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL – NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT (C-C-N) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. … Section 21. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 12 Pending Legal Review DIVISION 4.20 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL – POUDRE RIVER DISTRICT (C-C-R) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 22. That Section 4.21(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.21 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G) . . . (1) The following uses are permitted in the C-G District, subject to basic development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan: (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Urban agriculture. (ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 13 Pending Legal Review . . . Section 23. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.22 SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-S) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 24. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.23 NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT (N-C) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 25. That Section 4.24(B)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.24 LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-L) . . . (1) The following uses are permitted in the C-L District, subject to basic development review: ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 14 Pending Legal Review (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Urban agriculture. (ab) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (bc) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997, and which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. . . . Section 26. That Section 4.26(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.26 HARMONY CORRIDOR DISTRICT (H-C) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 27. That Section 4.27(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 15 Pending Legal Review DIVISION 4.27 EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT (E) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 28. That Section 4.28(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: DIVISION 4.28 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I) . . . (a) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings. 2. Accessory uses. 3. Outdoor vendor. 4. Urban agriculture. . . . Section 29. That the definition “Agricultural activity” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: Agricultural activity shall mean farming, including plowing, tillage, cropping, installation of best management practices, seeding, cultivating or harvesting for the production of food and fiber products (except commercial logging and timber harvesting operations); the grazing or raising of livestock (except in feedlots); aquaculture; sod production; orchards; Christmas tree plantations; nurseries; and the cultivation of products as part of a recognized commercial enterprise. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 16 Pending Legal Review Section 30. That the definition “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: . . . (2) Development shall not include: . . . (d) the use of any land for the purpose of growing plants, crops, trees and other agricultural or forestry products; for raising or feeding livestock (other than in feedlots); for other agricultural uses or purposes, or for the delivery of water by ditch or canal to agricultural uses or purposes, provided none of the above creates a nuisance, and except that an urban agriculture license is required in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this Land Use Code. . . . Section 31. That the definition “Farm animals” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Farm animals shall mean animals commonly raised or kept in an agricultural, rather than an urban, environment including, but not limited to, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, cattle, llamas, emus, ostriches, donkeys and mules; provided, however, that chicken hens, numbering six (6) or fewer, and ducks based on the lot size thresholds outlined in Chapter Six, Section 4-117 of the Municipal Code, and two (2) pygmy or dwarf goats shall not be considered to be farm animals. Section 32. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Food membership distribution site” which reads in its entirety as follows: Food membership distribution site shall mean a site where a producer of agricultural products delivers them for pick-up by customers who have pre- purchased an interest in the agricultural products. Section 33. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Urban agriculture” which reads in its entirety as follows: Urban agriculture shall mean gardening or farming involving any kind of lawful plant, whether for personal consumption, sale, and/or donation, except that the term urban agriculture does not include the cultivation, storage, and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers produced on the premises in accordance with Section 3.8.1 of this Land Use Code. Urban agriculture is a miscellaneous use that does not include “plant nursery and greenhouse” as a principal use and that is subject to licensing in accordance with Section 3.8.31 of this Land Use Code. ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE pending/LUC urban gardens 3-4-13 17 Pending Legal Review Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this __ day of_____, A.D. 2013, and to be presented for final passage on the _____ day of _____, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the _____ day of _______, A.D. 2013. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 URBAN AGRICULTURE June 19, 2012 Interested Citizens Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 1 of 3 Project: Urban Agriculture Stakeholder Discussion June 19, 2012 4:00-6:00 p.m. at 215 N Mason, Community Room Draft Meeting Notes Attendees: Andrea Sauer Ginny Sawyer Karen McManus Beth Sowder Michael Baute Kristin Kirkpatrick Erich Stroheim Deryn Davidson Mary Miller Seth Lorson Joel McClurg Lindsay Ex Brigitte Schmidt Chuck Cotherman Shari Due Ria Burgos Aaron Rice Lesa Graber Hill Grimmett Karin Livingston Dennis Stenson Gregg Doster Elisa Doster Eva Cassel Ragan Adams Megan Phillips Notes: Each attendee introduced themselves and their interest in the topic. Lindsay Ex presented on the purpose of the meeting and how numerous efforts throughout the City support local food production. Kristin Kirkpatrick with CanDo presented on the relationship between local food production and health. All of these presentations are available online. A summary of the questions asked and responses provided is as follows: Notes: What urban agriculture practices are currently happening? - Bees - CSAs ATTACHMENT 3 URBAN AGRICULTURE June 19, 2012 Interested Citizens Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 2 of 3 - Community Gardens - Neighborhood Supported Agriculture (NSA) - Farmers’ Market - Donation Gardens - Neighborhood Shares (barter system) - Farm Stand (residential) o Plant starts o food - Commercial Stand (at other retail stores) - Value-added products (kitchens) o Do not have enough commissary kitchens or access to them. - Gleaning (left-over products after farms have been picked; items that are not going to be used) - Communal Gardening - School gardens - Do we need a central database? - Compost facilities - Church gardens - Farm to school programs - Animals o Miniature goats o Ducks o Worms o Chickens o Horses (Manure) o Rabbits (food) - Water retention for irrigation - Greenhouses - Cold frames - Fish production o Issue: fish getting into native waters. o Scale? What practices do you want to see happening in the City? - Legalize what we’re already doing. - Land and water from a governmental initiative o Unused land (parks, medians, vacant lots) - Tax incentives for farmers. o All levels of government. o Obtain land. - City donations for neighborhood gardens - Farm required to feed a development - HOAs overridden for farms - Water price structure providing priority for gardens ATTACHMENT 3 URBAN AGRICULTURE June 19, 2012 Interested Citizens Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 3 of 3 - Allowing more intense growth/bees/chickens per size of lot. - Central database for this information - Clear building standards for greenhouses/cold frames - Allow community gardens and markets in all zone districts - A central year-round market - Less farmers’ markets so farmers can thrive o If you lose farmers’ markets you will lose demand. - No central market (anything) - City get out of the way. - Facilitate an easier system for ag. - Greenhouse/cold frame clarity and communication in the system. - Meat. Slaughter! - Define community gardens in LUC. - Increase chickens to 8. - Cottage Food Act o Exemptions to FDA/health dept., value-added, rules for selling. o Farmers’ markets, out of house, not at commercial stores. - Local food stands… o Community building v. nuisance - Goats. - Fear of further restrictions from our efforts. - We already have municipal laws for animal nuisance. - Pigs. Probably not, they stink. - City owned property for food production? o Commercial? (Grow Forth) o Individual? o Community? o Non-profit? o Subsidized? o Incentivize? - Land Access - Detention Ponds - Food Trees - Rooftop gardens - You-Pick it - Edible landscapes There was a brief discussion naming of the effort. These ideas included: Growing Local Food Systems Local Urban Food System Community Sustainable FC Food ATTACHMENT 3 URBAN AGRICULTURE July 24, 2012 Stakeholders Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 1 of 5 Project: Urban Agriculture Stakeholder Discussion July 24, 2012 4:00-6:00 p.m. at 215 N Mason, Community Room Meeting Notes Attendees: Rich Fisher Ginny Sawyer Jack Daniels Beth Sowder Mel Hilgenberg Kristin Kirkpatrick William Bevil Deryn Davidson Garry Steen Lindsay Ex Michael Abbott Hill Grimmett Mike Salza Chris Washa Kathy Cerkoney Bill Porter Notes: Each attendee introduced themselves and their interest in the topic. Lindsay Ex presented on a classification of the different urban agriculture practices and how City Plan and numerous efforts throughout the City support local food production. Hill Grimmett with Be Local Northern Colorado presented to the group about the economic, social and environmental benefits of local food production. Kristin Kirkpatrick with CanDo presented on the relationship between local food production and health. All of these presentations are available online. A summary of the questions asked and responses provided is as follows: Question: How many community gardens are there in Fort Collins? Response: We know there are a lot of gardens, but we don’t have the data on exactly how many gardens. There are numerous entities working on compiling these data. Question: Is there a database of all of these efforts? Response: Home Grown is trying to catalogue these efforts. We’ve heard from others about a need for a database. Question: What changes a use from principal to accessory? Response: The answer to this question isn’t necessarily black and white. Here’s an example: if I have a private garden at my house, then my house is clearly the principal use because if you took the house away, I wouldn’t likely be gardening there. However, if I allowed a ATTACHMENT 4 URBAN AGRICULTURE July 24, 2012 Stakeholders Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 2 of 5 community garden to develop on a portion of my three-acre lot, if the house were removed, then the community garden would likely still stay. Question: Why does the question regarding principal versus accessory use need to be answered? Response: It determines the review process required. For example, having a market garden or a community garden as a principal use on a lot right now would only be allowed in four of the twenty-five zone districts. If you wanted to go through what’s called an “Addition of a Permitted Use” process to have a community garden in a zone where it wasn’t permitted as a principal use, then that proposal would need to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff is currently examining and soliciting feedback as to whether or not these types of uses should be allowed in more zones and not require Planning and Zoning Board review. Question: What animals are allowed here? Response: The City Code allows up to six chicken hens on a lot. The keeping of insects, such as bees, is regulated in the City Code and two hives are allowed per lot. The Land Use Code also allows farm animals to be raised in certain zone districts, such as the Urban Estate, Residential Foothills, Low Density Residential, River Conservation, and the Rural Lands zone districts. Question: What are the rules for chicken coops, greenhouses, etc? Response: Structures less than 120 square feet and under 8 feet tall do not require a building permit. If larger than that, codes require plans submitted that conform to the prescriptive standards outlined in the Building Code or for a Colorado-licensed structural engineer to stamp the plans and submit them for review. Discussion: There was a general discussion on the health and safety aspects of food production. Staff highlighted and Hill Grimmett explained the Cottage Food Act that allows for certain types of food production, e.g., jams and jellies, to not have the same licensing requirements from the Health Department as other types of food production. For more information, see this FAQ on the Food Cottage Act: www.cdphe.state.co.us/cp/CottageFoodFactSheetGuidance_revc_%20041312.pdf. Question: Do we need the same building permit requirements for hoop houses as we do for greenhouses? Response: Staff can talk with the Building Department about this issue. Other communities have changed their regulations for hoop houses, so this is something that can be explored. Comment: The water issue is huge. We need to make sure we use water productively, e.g., on gardens. We need more education about using land for gardens and not necessarily for grass. Public lands could be used for this. Comment: A small percentage of the overall water usage in our area actually goes for lawns. Comment: However, we should encourage/require more responsible use of water. ATTACHMENT 4 URBAN AGRICULTURE July 24, 2012 Stakeholders Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 3 of 5 Question: What about the use of greywater? Is water harvesting allowed? Response: Staff is working to get a better understanding of this issue, as it has come up numerous times in our discussions. What we can say is that the use of greywater is regulated at numerous levels. As a starting point, please see this fact sheet from the Cooperative Extension Service at CSU: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/natres/06702.html/. Question: What about how much it costs for folks to install water taps? Response: It is our understanding that the cost to permit a water tap is approximately $14,000 for a ¾” pipe. Some have suggested that the City should look into reducing these fees for agricultural producers, as it is a defined community need. Comment: The cost should be cheaper for agricultural producers. I don’t’ think we could start a community garden if we had to come up with $14,000 for the water tap permit. Comment: I don’t think we should subsidize water tap fees for any specific user group; it would just raise the rates for everyone else in the City. Question: What about giving a reduced metering rate for agricultural users? I would be happy to pay more to water my lawn than for someone to raise vegetables. Response: This is something that can be discussed. Comment: I’ll just reiterate that I don’t think we should be subsidizing water rates for anyone in our community. If fees are separated/different per user group, then we can’t check to see if the fees are acceptable. Question: What about the HOA rules associated with gardening? Can they limit where I garden on my property? Can they prohibit me from having chickens? Response: Right now, City Codes do not prohibit you from gardening in your front yard. When Council adopted the Chicken ordinance in 2008 (Ordinance No. 72, 2008), Council did not vote to override Homeowners Associations if the HOAs chose to exclude chickens from the lands governed by that HOA. In this vein, staff is currently proposing that any ordinances adopted would not override existing HOA rules. This means that HOAs can enforce their covenants regarding urban agriculture and choose not to allow front yard gardens, chickens or other animals, etc. However, the City adopted a Resource Conservation Ordinance in 2003 that does not allow HOAs to restrict conservation efforts such as clotheslines (located in back yards), odor-controlled compost bins, xeriscape landscaping, solar/photo-voltaic collectors (mounted flush upon the roof), or require that a portion of a lot be planted in turf grass. Comment: I like that HOAs should have the option to determine their own covenants (numerous participants agreed). Comment: I think the City could help to educate HOAs though and help to dispel some of the myths around these types of land uses especially when HOA members are considering gardens. ATTACHMENT 4 URBAN AGRICULTURE July 24, 2012 Stakeholders Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 4 of 5 Question: Is gardening considered to be a conservation effort? Response: We’re not sure there are data available to answer that question. Question: Are bees really a big issue? Response: Bill Porter (Larimer County Humane Society) hasn’t seen a problem with them. One of the attendees raises bees and suggested that the concerns can be overstated. Question: What about chickens? Have they been a problem? Response: Bill Porter responded that chickens really haven’t been a problem in Fort Collins. Zero citations have been issued since 2008. The biggest issues are education surrounding the fact that you cannot have a rooster and the setbacks associated with coops. Question: What about peacocks or turkeys? Response: Right now, we haven’t seen any communities that have suggested turkeys or peacocks. We didn’t hear, during our discussion with the group of farmers in June, that this was a desired practice. Bill Porter commented that they are very noisy animals and numerous participants agreed. Peacocks or turkeys are not being proposed at this time to allow. Question: Where can you find the zoning map for what’s allowed where? Response: http://www.fcgov.com/zoning. Question: What about goats or pygmy goats? What are their potential problems? Response: One participant commented that they can be smelly and noisy. Another participant suggested that goats should be allowed because we shouldn’t tell people what they can do on their property; let’s let neighbors work out these types of issues between themselves. HOAs will likely regulate this issue as well. Another participant made a note about property values as it relates to farm animals. Comment: HOAs will regulate a lot of this. But, I do wonder if HOA covenants need to be updated to reflect these new land uses as well. Question: Staff asked the group what they felt about market gardens and residential farm stands and being allowed in more places? Response: In general, folks favored allowing these efforts in more zone districts and letting the market determine where they were feasible. Someone noted that the stands shouldn’t be left up when not in use. Another noted that it would be great if everyone would walk and bike to the stands instead of driving. Another commented that the more stands the better as it allowed better access to local fresh food and healthier lifestyles could results. Question: What about street vendors? Do we need to define these types of uses? Response: The City just went through an extensive effort for mobile vendors and a lot of these uses would likely be classified as mobile vendors, e.g., the farm stands. We can work on providing better clarification surrounding these issues. ATTACHMENT 4 URBAN AGRICULTURE July 24, 2012 Stakeholders Discussion on Urban Agriculture Page 5 of 5 Comment: We need to make sure the regulations around business licenses and mobile vendors are clear and easy for folks to use. Comment: Farmers markets should be allowed in all zones, however the market supports it. Question: What about using public lands for gardens? Response: The group discussed the use of park land, Natural Areas land, land owned by the Land Bank, etc. as potential options. This discussion is likely outside the scope of the Land Use Code changes this effort is discussing, but staff knows this discussion is occurring with numerous departments. Comment: Other communities have had fruit trees that are sponsored by certain community members and they have to pick them. If they aren’t maintained, then they are cut down. The incentive programs the City has are great, including the xeriscaping and other rebates and the mulch provided. Having incentives around this topic would be great too. For more information, please see our website at fcgov.com/urbanagriculture. ATTACHMENT 4 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 Topic Area: Presentation and Overall Comments Is a home occupation license required if selling at a second location? When does a home occupation license apply? Staff Response: After the open house, staff has removed all references to a home occupation license, as the Land Use Code already allows for the cultivation, storage and sale of crops, vegetables, plants and flowers produced on the premises. Thus, a home occupation license will not be required if citizens wish to sell produce from their home, though a sales tax license is still required. Please look into allowing hogs, sheep, milking cows and increasing the number of animal allowed Staff response: We are still researching the questions surrounding hoop houses and scaling the number of farm animals allowed based on lot size, but these issues may need to be addressed in a phase two of proposed changes. But, we do know that these issues are concerns, and we will highlight them during the upcoming hearings. Would the terminology of registration (instead of licensing) be more palatable? Staff response: The use of licensing for urban agriculture in the City would be consistent with the existing Land Use Code. In addition, as staff is proposing specific standards associated with urban agriculture land uses, the term licensing indicates that the applicants (gardeners and farmers) agree to adhere to those standards, just as with a driver’s license where you agree to obey the speed limit, etc. Is $100 too much for the license? Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City. This will also give staff the opportunity to evaluate how much time it takes to process an urban agriculture license, e.g,. if the time it takes is 4 hours, then the cost will be approximately $100 (or $25/hour), but if the time is less, then so will the cost. Increase the minimum chicken limit to 8 and increase the number threshold based on size of lot Staff response: Based on the feedback from the open house, staff is now proposing that lots less than ½ acre be allowed up to 8 chickens. For lots between ½ and 1 acre, up to 12 chickens would be allowed. Over 1 acre, an additional 6 chickens would be allowed per ½ acre, but residents wishing for more than 12 chickens will also be required to contact their abutting property owners prior to receiving a license, to ensure that neighbor concerns are addressed. What takes precedence if there is a conflict with HOA rules? Staff response: When Council adopted the Chicken ordinance in 2008 (Ordinance No. 72, 2008), Council did not vote to override Homeowners Associations if the HOAs chose to exclude chickens from the lands 1 Staff Note: This comments were captured both verbally, during the presentation, and from the feedback cards from the open house. If we’ve incorrectly captured any of your feedback or missed any feedback, please contact Lindsay Ex at lex@fcgov.com or 970.224.6143 to fix these errors or emissions. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 governed by that HOA. In this vein, staff is currently proposing that any ordinances adopted would not override existing HOA rules. This means that HOAs can enforce their covenants regarding urban agriculture and choose not to allow front yard gardens, chickens or other animals, etc. However, it should be noted that the City adopted a Resource Conservation Ordinance in 2003 that does not allow HOAs to restrict conservation efforts such as clotheslines (located in back yards), odor-controlled compost bins, xeriscape landscaping, solar/photo-voltaic collectors (mounted flush upon the roof), or require that a portion of a lot be planted in turf grass. Urban agriculture should be specified in zoning Staff response: These proposed changes would allow urban agriculture in all zone districts, subject to the licensing requirements. Please examine water resources and their needs for larger food system issues Staff response: This is a larger issue than can be addressed by these code changes, but staff also understands that there is a larger effort underway to address these concerns. Water resources efforts/prioritization should be used to support food production rather than lawn watering Staff response: See response above. What requires a building permit? Do farming structures or greenhouses require a building permit? Examine the wind load, snow loading, etc. for greenhouses Staff response: A building permit is required when a building exceeds 120 square feet or 8 feet in height. Yes, farming structures and greenhouses require a building permit. Staff has initiated discussions with the Building Department regarding these concerns and will continue to research if these requested changes are feasible. Please contact the Building Department at 970.221.6760 with specific questions. Please examine mosquito spraying: concerns over the health of produce and who is contracted to spray and their requirements Staff response: This is a larger issue than can be addressed by these code changes. Staff would suggest contacting Parks staff with these questions (phone number is 970.221.6660). What are the different standards between a community garden and market garden versus a farm? What distinguishes one from another? Staff response: All community gardens, market gardens and farms acting as a principal use on the land will be regulated under the urban agriculture licenses. The key issue is whether or not the garden or farm is the main use on the property; if it is, a license will be required under the current proposal. For example, one church member asked if their community garden required an urban agriculture license. Because the community garden is clearly subordinate to the church, an urban agriculture license is not required. Staff is also working on a graphic to depict these differences for increased clarity. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 Topic Area: Gardens and Farms Water allocation and priority over other city needs - sod farming, construction - is a huge concern now. Without consideration there will be no local food to offer to the community. Staff response: See similar responses above. Water concern: In cases of drought and City curtailment of lawn watering, could market gardens/farms apply for an exemption? Staff response: Staff has contacted our Water Conservation Coordinators regarding this question, and the restrictions on no watering between 10 am and 6 pm only apply to turf. Thus, urban gardens and farms will not be restricted in the same way residents are. Please note that we are putting into our standards for urban agriculture licenses that farmers should minimize their water usage during 10 am and 6 pm, from a conservation perspective, but we also understand sometimes this is the best time to water your crops, e.g., in establishing new plants or reviving ones that are not thriving. I would make this (the neighborhood meeting) optional, in other words, make the meeting contingent upon neighbors' requests for a meeting. Staff response: A neighborhood meeting is proposed to be at the discretion of the Director and would be required if compatibility issues with surrounding neighbors were of concern. For example, one farmer indicated they are on a 4-acre lot and the surrounding lots are either vacant or also farmed; it is unlikely a neighborhood meeting will be required. However, if a new urban agriculture land use were proposed in the middle of existing neighborhood, a neighborhood meeting could be required. Do not create licensing hassle, as it will discourage gardeners/farmers from both starting gardens and complying with City standards Staff response: The licensing system is meant to be a middle ground between no regulations, which would not address the concerns raised in the public outreach process, and the full development review process, which would trigger infrastructure improvements. The standards proposed include best practices that many existing farms are already following and are not meant to be a hassle but instead a way to ensure compatibility with the land uses surrounding the urban agriculture land use. To promote urban ag, do NOT spray over community with pesticides (mosquito spraying) Staff response: See similar response above. Allow structures for year round growing Staff response: See similar response above. Instead of a license why not land stewardship classes? Staff response: See similar response above. Associated cost is a barrier to low-income families/neighborhoods Staff response: Staff will work with the Economic Health Department to see if these barriers can be overcome; this is most likely to be addressed after the proposed regulations go to City Council for first and second reading. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 This is fine. Most market farmers already do this and we need to be part of a city (license). The hoophouse limitations are extremely prohibitive. Why not require a notice of warning with any type structure, like we have with horses? Staff response: Thank you for your feedback. Please see the response above related to hoop houses and green houses. Attempting to provide local sustainable food for the community will potentially be negatively affected by restrictions and limitations. A licensing fee, plus permits, supplies, labor, time, water, etc. only makes this less of a possibility for many families and individuals who see "farming" as their only option to providing food for themselves and others in their community. Staff response: See similar responses above. Grandfather in all existing farms as an urban agriculture space Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City. Promotes support & buy-in from neighbors Staff response: Thank you for your feedback. Urban Gardens in existence before 2007? Should be grandfathered (exempt from licensing) Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City. Mandate/encourage bicycle parking with urban agriculture - take holistic environmental approach Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. Staff can work on adding this concern to the proposed code changes. No licensing or review for growing food Staff response: See similar response above. Greatly approve of reducing the licensing process and expenses of new urban ag projects, if this is the intent of licensing versus development review. Existing projects would benefit from grandfathering or grace period spoken of Staff response: Staff is proposing a six-month grace period, which would allow all existing urban agriculture land uses to be “grandfathered” into the City. On a smaller scale farm/garden especially in a urban area, food safety should be a concern. Outside chemicals impact food safety. What is the current safety regulations around this already? Staff response: Staff would encourage residents to contact the Larimer County Health Department regarding food safety concerns, as their department manages food safety at the local level. They can be reached at 970.498.6775. Encourage gardeners to bike & walk by not providing parking Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. Staff can work on adding this concern to the proposed code changes ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 I am for making neighbors reasonably comfortable and urban ag for everyone. I am against increasing fees and legislative burden on producers. Neighborhood meetings seem like a positive way to create dialogue and improve neighborly buy-in. Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. The needs of low-income families and the working poor need to be better represented. I realize the City needs to recoup costs, but we also have a moral obligation to the poor. Can't we find the funds in licensing from someplace else? Staff response: Staff will work with the Economic Health Department to see if these barriers can be overcome; this is most likely to be addressed after the proposed regulations go to City Council for first and second reading. What is your point? --Playing? --Really developing sustainable food strategies? --Allowing people to support themselves? Staff response: The intent of the code changes is to ensure that the Land Use Code is in alignment with City Plan (that has policy and principle statements regarding the support of local food production) both when and where appropriate. Only certain or no chemicals should be allowed Staff response: Staff is proposing that if a garden or farm uses synthetic pesticides or chemicals, that the type of chemical and frequency of application shall be placed on the garden sign, so that residents may be aware of any spraying that may occur. Why is "urban farm" not a category here? Not all persons growing for sale in the City are taking food to market. CSAs are not markets. Staff response: Thank you for your feedback. Staff has amended the categories to include community gardens, market gardens, CSAs, etc. under the one category of urban agriculture. CSA doesn't turn a profit, keeps day job -- where does that fall in? Staff response: If the CSA is a principal use on the land, then a license would be required. Whether or not the owner has a day job is not considered. If other HOA overrides (clothes line, xeriscaping, etc.) are largely centered around the freedom to practice sustainability, this should not be subject to HOA rules. As stated in the comprehensive plan, it is the City's responsibility to actively encourage sustainable practices Staff response: See similar responses above. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 Topic Area: Animals There are many properties within the city limits that are greater than 1/4 acre that should have the ability to be more like a farm than just a backyard garden. What if a family wants to feed themselves with eggs but would also like to raise broilers and have more than enough space? Also, more animals should be able to be on the land like pigs, sheep, alpacas, etc. Staff response: Based on the feedback from the open house, staff is now proposing that lots less than ½ acre be allowed up to 8 chickens. For lots between ½ and 1 acre, up to 12 chickens would be allowed. Over 1 acre, an additional 6 chickens would be allowed per ½ acre, but residents wishing for more than 12 chickens will also be required to contact their abutting property owners prior to receiving a license, to ensure that neighbor concerns are addressed. Staff is still researching whether additional animals being allowed in the City. A pig is an extremely helpful animal for urban agriculture for "cleaning up" food waste and making it productive. Please consider including hogs. Staff response: Please see response above. Land/acres or more should be addressed. We have 3 acres and can support much more than 12 chickens and 2 goats. We would like option to have other animals i.e. cow, sheep, pig, alpaca, llama, donkey. Why only chickens and goats? Staff response: Please see response above. If this becomes subject to HOA rules, there will be few animals in residential HOA controlled areas. City rules must overrule HOA Staff response: Please see similar responses above. I am pro regulating humane conditions for urban animals because they have no ability to speak for themselves. I like the idea of urban animal licensing to again protect animals. I would like to see more animals allowed for greater spaces. Also for dairy animals some checklist of basic safety guidelines initialed and signed. Also eventually some nuisances (animal noises) will lead to a greater acoustic environment Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above. Excellent idea to register or license animals -- to decrease epidemics (ex: avian flu) important to know where birds are located Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. Let’s scale farm animals per sq ft/acre all the way up past 1/2 acre as there are many pieces of "farmland" in the city that have not been grandfathered in as a farm. Let’s include pigs, sheep cows. Two miniature goats on an acre of weeds/pasture are not enough. This is an incredible time to really make a great change. Let’s take an adult step, not a baby step. Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 There needs to be required workshops on poultry/goat care & nutrition Staff response: Thank you for this feedback. The Larimer County Humane Society has literature/educational materials regarding raising chickens; similar materials will be developed for the other animals. In addition, staff has contacted the Sustainable Living Association to discuss the potential for these workshops. Staff will continue to work with the community to ensure these resources are provided. Rather than talk about lot size (which has a house/garage/driveway on it too...) could recommend coop and yard space be included in the concept? Staff response: Coop size and yard space are also included. Basing the scaling on lot size is designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighbors. Will the license fee need annual renewal? Staff response: An annual renewal is not proposed. Take into consideration if they have other animals already - horses for example Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, right now, the Municipal Code does not analyze animals from a more holistic perspective such as this, as no problems have arisen that staff is aware of. If problems or concerns arise, then additional standards can be proposed. Chickens only require 4 square feet per bird. I would think more than 6 hens per 1/4 acre would be reasonable Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, see similar responses above for how the proposed code changes have changed since the open house. I have 14 extremely happy laying hens on 1/4 acre Staff response: Please contact the Larimer County Humane Society to get back into compliance with the City’s regulations. Requiring licensing fees for goats will make them less accessible to low-income families, thereby working against the intended benefits of urban agriculture. Staff response: The licensing fees go directly to the Larimer County Humane Society, which handles the enforcement of these regulations. As noted above, staff will continue to work with other City Departments and organization to see how local food production for low-income families can be made more accessible. You need to allow more of land that is for farming and is not within a residential area; 6 in residential area is okay. Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, allowing more land for farming in the City is outside of the scope of these code changes, but is being addressed in other efforts. Should be a limit of 8 (not six) poultry on up to 1/4 acre. Six is not enough. Denver allows 8. More than 1/2 acre limit should be much higher. Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above that addresses this feedback. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE Open House Feedback1 What about more than 1/2 acre? You should consider the USDA requirement for animals that equate 1 cattle with so many pigs, etc. 12 Chickens do not equate to 1 horse (also allowed on 1/2 acres in some areas) Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above that addresses this feedback. A milking cow can thrive very well on an acre of land Staff response: Thank you for this feedback, and please see similar response above that addresses this feedback. ATTACHMENT 5 URBAN AGRICULTURE ATTACHMENT 6 URBAN AGRICULTURE ATTACHMENT 6 URBAN AGRICULTURE From: Barbara Wilson To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Fort Collins Land Use Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:17:57 PM Dear Lindsey Ex: I am writing to you regarding Fort Collins Land Use and the changes currently under discussion/consideration in Fort Collins. First, as you will see by my return address, I am not a resident of Fort Collins and in fact am not a resident of Colorado. I have, over the past several years, spent a fair amount of time in Fort Collins as my daughter enrolled at CSU, graduated and changed residency from PA to CO. I do have to admit, that although her father and I are unhappy that she has not chosen to return "home" to PA, we too find much to love about Ft Collins and the wonderful community to be found there. While my daughter was living off campus and providing her own meals I became aware of CSA's through my employment at Haverford College here in PA. Our students had arranged with CSA's in Lancaster County, PA (Amish farm country) for students and staff at my place of employment opportunity to purchase shares. Good, chemical free, locally sourced food for the shareholder and support for local small farms .. . .win/win. Which made me wonder if such a thing was nationwide and perhaps in CO where I could connect my daughter locally with wholesome food and allow her to meet people and form friendships so needed by a young woman far from home. We found just such a place in Fort Collins, signed my daughter up for a working share and she spent the last growing season working and forming friendships at the Happy Heart Farm and obtaining wonderful produce which greatly enhanced the quality of her diet. I was able to spend a morning harvesting and meeting the folks Caitlin talked about during calls home and felt that she had in fact found a community to which she felt connected. She has graduated from CSU, found full time employment in town, has purchased park passes, is doing volunteer work locally, attends a local church, and is really becoming an active member of the Fort Collins community. She has renewed her membership at HHF for the coming growing season and looks forward to both the produce and continued friendships there. I understand that people that live in community with one another must compromise, adapt to changing needs, incorporate new technologies as community evolves. The area I live in has little open space and we are to the point that even parking lots are unavailable for local farmers markets due to lack of parking for local businesses. Here in suburban Philadelphia an entire neighborhood was condemned for a new highway but not until after decades of lawyers and courts. (The Blue Route in PA was initially proposed in the 1920's and not opened until the 1990's although construction began in the 60's.) What I would offer is that one should never sacrifice wonderful elements of the community with a broad brush stroke. There are definitely organizations/family farms/historic buildings worth preserving in their original state. Grandfathering zoning and other provisions aimed at preserving parks, farms, open spaces should be done thoughtfully, but should be done in any and all cases possible. I don't have a stake in the Fort Collins area Land Use decisions, but it will impact my ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE daughter and her ability to enhance and maintain her newly formed connections to her chosen new home. I would urge Fort Collins to look to other, more developed communities and learn from their accomplishments and failures. While other areas may not have the same challenges (you have a lack of water while we are now required to incorporate water retention features and limit impervious surfaces on residential properties due to storm water flooding) there is much in common and I would counsel maintaining farms contained within the more urban areas of your community with as little restriction to their operations as possible for the betterment of the members who are enriched by their presence. Once lost, these treasures are impossible to resurrect. They are part, along with your Old Town, parks and trails and wonderful parking lot farmers markets what makes Fort Collins the place that drew my daughter away from home. In addition, having lived in a condominium community, I would add that I've experienced folks joining a community and as opposed to valuing the elements of the community structure, history and perhaps "idiosyncrasies" which make it unique, immediately set out to change, limit, restrict that community which they chose to join. If you are experiencing broken down tractors left to decay in fields, neglected animals and use of toxic pesticides those are certainly reasons to legislate and regulate behavior. If you have new members who have differing expectations but clearly were aware of existing conditions when they joined a community, there should be value and weight given to the needs of those who have been contributing members of the community prior to their arrival. (We opted to leave our condo community when the color of our draperies was regulated and we received a fine for air drying pool towels on our own balcony.) I would add that although my daughter is currently renting I would not be at all surprised should she be in the market for a property in the not too distant future where she would be able to keep a couple horses, have a chicken coop and perhaps a goat and definitely a small garden. I do believe the fact that that would be possible in Colorado where it would not be in the area in which she grew up was a significant factor in her decision to live in your sunny state. By all means ensure the safety of both residents and animals and insist upon reasonable maintenance standards of community and personal gardens! Please also do all that you can to support those who are operating in a responsible manner so that they are allowed to continue using their properties for gardening and farming according to their current practices. Thank you for letting me add my voice. With best regards, Barbara Wilson 606 Upper Gulph Road Strafford, PA 19087 ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE From: Laurie Rochardt To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Letter Regarding Proposed Urban Ag Land Use Code Changes Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:34:05 PM Dear Ms. Lindsey Ex: I am writing today regarding the proposed Urban Agriculture changes in Fort Collins. Firstly, thank you for being the contact person on these proposed changes, listening to our viewpoints, being prompt on responses and in general being open to feedback on these changes! I am hoping that you can forward and/or share this letter to the appropriate parties including the other planning members and city council members for the meeting this Thursday February 21, 2013, and again this is greatly appreciated. As I review the proposed agriculture changes, I am grateful that this conversation has begun and changes being proposed/made, as urban agriculture is an important part of our community in Fort Collins as a whole. There are many urban farms in and on the outskirts of the city that make up a large part of the culture of Fort Collins, and I think personally it’s one of the major factors that makes our city so unique! The community, networking, and the comradery among the farmers here, not to mention the passion, sweat, and justice represented, is remarkable and something to be commended! A year ago I went to Happy Heart Farm, a local CSA, to look for an apprenticeship so that I could learn how to farm. It’s part of my larger vision that I start an urban CSA, and I had only heard good things about Happy Heart so that’s why I chose to go there to learn. Little would I come to find out that Happy Heart Farm is so much more than a farm per se, but a place for sharing and promoting stories, art, music, joy, gratitude, love, food, passion for health and education, personal growth, a supportive and growing community, and gaining a sense of “belonging” or as Dennis Stenson calls it a “welcoming home”. I am truly grateful that I found Happy Heart and all people involved including the farmers, apprentices, members, neighbors, and countless others. After apprenticing and volunteering for the farm, being involved with fundraisers that directly support feeding families who are in need of food, and building community and countless friendships through the farm, it has been an invaluable experience, much more than “learning how to farm”. This is what I envision for our future, humanity’s future. This is how we truly take care of one another! This is how we live from our heart space, in service, gratitude, kindness, compassion, and love! In fact, being a part of this community of people has completely changed my experience in Fort Collins for the positive! After attending the meeting on January 31st and reviewing the proposed changes it was only natural to be excited and concerned with these changes. While I appreciate the proposed changes, I think that there are some major issues unaddressed for these farms. The first unaddressed issue is the lack of protecting the current farms that are already in business and serving the community. One of the proposed changes relates to existing farms go through a licensing process so that they can be grandfathered in without fees, however they would have to go through a licensing process in order to achieve that status. While the proposed “licensing process” is pretty vague, and unsure of how it differs with the traditional development review process, this process seems to not have the ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE farmers in mind first. Having to do extra paperwork and for farmers not grandfathered in, having to pay extra fees, may be a burden on the farmers involved, especially for not-for- profit run farms. In addition, I believe there are larger and more important issues that should be addressed more rapidly such as water usage, availability, and conservation (imperative for farming and growing food); allowing for growing structures such as greenhouses and hoop houses for season extension and greater growing efficiency (especially since growing season for these structures is currently underway and supports a large part of the main growing season by providing a place to start transplants and a place for growing food to share with members earlier than the traditional growing season); and animal interfaces for farms that have already been established and wish to grow their farm to include farm animals with the support of surrounding community members (providing more food options to the community than a traditional vegetable share such as milk, meat, and eggs). I think these pressing issues need to be addressed as soon as possible to allow for the peace of mind that farms/farmers are supported, and for the progress of urban agriculture in Fort Collins altogether. Again I just wanted to express my gratitude for bringing the issues of urban agriculture to the “table” so that effective change can happen in our city! I am optimistic that we can make the necessary changes to allow for farming to grow and progress in Fort Collins so that everyone may benefit from the healthy food being grown locally! Thank you for your time and reviewing my letter! Sincerely, Laurie Rochardt Citizen of Fort Collins, Colorado :) ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE From: vanette starr To: Lindsay Ex Subject: please read liz...for urban organic farming and other issues to protect colorado and fort collins!!! Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 10:38:04 AM Vanette L Starr 3200 Stanford #B107 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-309=4534 City and County of Fort Collins CO Attention LIZ RE: Zoning for Urban Agricultural Land Use Code and Organic Farming with Happy Heart Farms. I thank you for the opportunity to speak up about my experience with the “Feeding the Families Program” and assisting in the growth and support to the Happy Hearts Farm Family! Because Dennis and Baylee Stenson had truly taken me in, when I was beaten and down, and almost instantly, warmly welcomed me into the HHF family; I am now on the road to physically healing as well as feeling like I am part of something much bigger than I have ever been, before…and that’s the truth. I spent many years gaining education to enjoy a career in Interior Design, and had hoped that I would have a family there…but it ended up being just like everything else in our society, a way to make a living and working for a big corporation, who rarely recognized me for more than the number my social security #, and the work I provided for them. Here at the Farm, I’ve been so fortunate to find the kind of experience that is only imaginable and ONLY available, because of the vision of some very hard working and compassionate individuals, starting over 25 years ago! This family of wonder and light, I’ve found in this magic healing place, has been in the making for many years, which we now call Happy Hearts Farm. Not only do we, as participants and co-growers, get to learn how to assist the plants as they are hand seeded, cultivated, replanted in the earth, nurtured and the crops hand weeded and finally, gently, harvested. All the while bio-dynamically fed, these crops are kept healthy and hardy without the use of harsh chemicals, found in more traditional agro American farming, which were killing me, because I no longer had the healthy metabolic system to be able to break down those horrific “growth” chemicals that are found in commercially grown foods, any longer. It’s almost as if, we as consumers, have been saying to the commercial non organic growers, that it was okay to poison us with the “new” 20th century farming, thereby receiving an “agent orange affect” right here in our own lands and without any reasoning due to any war, what so ever, just by consuming the poisoned vegetation, which came from our fully developed 1st world country? We can no longer continue to raise our food and consume it, in such a barbaric manor and hope to survive…we have been allowing our current food industry to poison us…slowly for most, but much quicker, for those who were compromised from birth with metabolic disorders or digestive dysfunction, in the first place. ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE Dennis and Baylee, of Happy Hearts Farm, along with their 12 other community co-operative farmers, who work together to make each season’s growth cycle, collectively, something far more than just the food the farm delivers, but has the added benefit of healing our bodies, minds and spirits, through food that is grown RIGHTLY, in the first place, as well as creating a sense of community, pride and togetherness! We have also cultivated a sense of innate compassion for one another, and empathy for those, who also need nurturing, support and healing, by welcoming others in with open arms! As we continue to grow in size and in our community presence, we too also need to get out every year and make a drive for those who are still not eating well, and who have family members that are sick from the poisons that are found in the regular stores food choices, and to offer education of the difference between the food that’s offered in the grocery stores versus the food that’s grown and infused with love and grace. Through our education program, Dennis and Baylee have shown so many grade schoolers, graduate students or CSU agro-graduate scholars, city volunteers, and those who are part of the Feeding the Families Program, like myself, to become a part of something that is so much bigger than the sum of its parts! Out whole, which is greater than its sum of the parts is a shining example for many other communities around the world, as we are treating our planet with respect and love, as well as believing in ourselves in knowing we deserve so much more than what we were putting in our bodies, prior to being educated at HHF’s! This farm has become and proven there is a new way to live, grow and commune with the earth, together, collectively, a new way to truly enjoy and celebrate life together, by partnering with one another towards a stronger force than we ever thought possible! To our amazement, I/We are remembering how to nurture the Earth, the end users and the community, itself, by gleaning a whole new “old school” way. We are re-remembering how to treat our food, our land and ourselves with a whole new respect, so that what we put in our food, becomes the love and respect, we put into the bodies! So, we truly have learned, we are what we eat, after all!!!! Since we are treating our Earth, our plants, our community with respect, we are able to give others the same gift, thereby paying it forward. I’ve always loved that concept and have used it in many ways, in my life, but never more than here, at the Farm. With great gratitude, we also get to help nurture and assist the owners and their family, our community neighbors and the added benefit is that we have, now, come to know complete strangers we might never have met, as our close friends, our family at Happy Heart, through this beautiful program and it’s wonderful example of a way to live! As for my personal story, I had become a “disabled person” living off the social welfare and social security system, five years ago, as a “special reward” (*just add sarcasm*) for eating and living the filthy American Agrarian way to feed; the food was and is littered with synthetic and dangerous pesticides, herbicides, DDT’s, and worst of all petroleum products, which predictable destroy all of our endocrine systems; and all the other chemicals, which we now know to destroy our nervous systems, the delicate balance of our endocrine systems and our digestive systems, yet, is so critical to keeping our bodies alive, healthy and well. Yes, while that “NEW INDUSTRIALIZED SYTEM of Agriculture” (*more sarcasm necessary, here*), made our farmers wealthier, and initially, gained our country notoriety. For a while, with ideas which started out as “animal husbandry” and soon became ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE mainstream agricultural practice of late, which systematically destroying soil, then moving onto another patch to deplete and destroy the next patch of land…year after year…decade after decade, we believed that the almighty dollar was not only driving the economy but “helping feed the hungry”. In the end, and perhaps to our own detriment, at this time, we have now learned that doing it the easy and quick way, has only raised the rates of disease, higher, and caused damage to our Mother Earth, which may be healed over time, but it will take a whole lot of villages, like that of Fort Collins and the protection it provides for our organic community gardening, to stand up and say, “lets to do the right things, in raising our food and care for our land and our people, despite the fact that initially it may cost us more time, resources, etc..!” We are the stewards of this land and its seeds, and we have allowed the Monsanto’s and other organizations out to gorge themselves on all the money they can get their hands on, to pervert what food should have been, to the detriment of all of us once healthy individuals, in order to butcher anything that might have looked like a healthy living. However, over the last ten years, I began to get sicker and sicker, first with what is now one of the most common diagnosis, Fibromyalgia, but also secondary diabetes as well as metabolic disorders. All of these illnesses are quickly on the rise, one has to ask, is this coming from the contaminated water supplies and the agricultural lands, which we were entrusted to take care of? My illness started out with headaches and what appeared to show up as allergic reactions to unknown sources of something, though with every test, nothing specific could be found. That was because they were testing for naturally occurring resources, rather than contaminated foods, chemicals in the food sources and water, and the air that was being sprayed every single season with horrible chemicals we would never just spray directly on our food, yet, farmers were told to do so, and that it was safe, for decades! Since I have been a recipient of the Feeding the Family Program, for the last three summers, I can truly say, I’ve not only felt I’ve been a part of a real dream, something that resembles true passion for healing, and felt the desire of making these dreams come true; even better, I have been able to heal my own body from decades of abuse with the hidden chemicals in the foods and water, we were told were safe, and it wouldn’t have been possible without HHF, and their vision and desire to educate and change how things are done, at the local level. Because I was so very ill, in fact almost paralyzed, and my ability to think was vastly limited, and I just so happened to run into Happy Heart’s organization program grant writer, Claudia Demarco, back in 2009, I was educated about how the program was going to work once it was up and running, how the dynamic growing of the vegetation is produced without chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, and so on…I was so thrilled to find a true farm home without chemicals on their food, that I knew was killing me, I began to tell everyone I knew! I was amazed that I could pick up such high quality, truly naturally grown and veggies that were painstakingly grown the right way from seedling to harvest and that my body had begun to realize an own amazing healing! I was so ill when I began eating these perfectly nurtured and hand grown food products, that I couldn’t even keep my food down, little lone, have the ability to cook a small meal for myself; I was somewhat paralyzed and or too weak to do so. So, I truly started with putting all the veggies and fruits into a blender and adding other healthy foods, so that I could get the natural enzymes as well as the vitamin and minerals, that my body desperately needed. That ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE was the only way I could keep the food down. This inability to keep my food down was due to all the years of devastating chemicals found on the foods, so called “whole foods”, at the regular grocery stores. After just three, five months per year of each growing season, I have gone from being partially paralyzed, having a hard time staying awake, problems with neuro functions, issues with my endocrine system, problems with thinking clearly, and so on… I was unable to function for more than a day or two in a row, without having to go back to bed for several days, at a time! I am now able to say, with great pride and gratitude that this wonderful quality organic food that Happy Hearts Farms puts out, I am now feeling healthier and more able to be part of this world again. I can trust in the fact that we aren’t cutting corners at Happy Hearts Farms, since I’ve actually gotten on my hands and knees to become part of the soil and the seedlings, putting them in the ground, watching them grow and mature, and taking pride in the little that I was able to do for the Farm, myself! Because there are so many other like minded growers in the Fort Collins area, Happy Hearts Farms have started a co-operative of Healthy Happy Organic Growers, who also offer their foods at such a wonderful price, well as for me and my family, we cant afford to not eat these carefully dynamically and organically grown herbs, veggies, fruits, and other amazing foods! Fort Collins and neighboring towns, have been so fortunate to be able to fill our digestive systems with the highest quality nutritional foods, as well as enjoy some of the best community shared events, together, that I believe we and other communities like Fort Collins should count themselves so fortunate, every day! We need the backing and protection of the city counsel and all of Fort Collin’s constituents to provide legislation and zoning, so that the direction of what HHF and many other farms like them have started, can continue to grow. I’ve also gotten to become part of other projects related to the farm, such as raising funds for the Feed the Family Project, and offer my own special gifts for those like myself or those who couldn’t other wise afford the highest of quality SYNERGISTICALY GROWN VEGETATION through the use of age old farming techniques with a new technological twist in order to see to it that many of the Less Privileged and/or Disabled individuals, like myself, might have the chance to be a part of a wonderful organic community farming family. I feel as if I should pay my physically gained wealth of health forward, so that others may experience the healing and growth, as well as the education and support that is offered here at the Farm. When I was too sick and too ill to pick up my foods, I’ve inevitably found a wonderful soul, at the farms, who was able to pay it forward to me, when I was in need, and I try to do the same, as I get healthier and healthier! I’m not completely out of the woods with my health challenges, since it took so many years of poor eating and drinking habits to get me here, it will likely take years to get my body fully healthy again, but I am counting my blessing for now. Also, I’ve felt honored to be able to assist in the annual raising funds that goes on at HHF’s, in order to keep this operation, of this magnitude, going year after year; I enjoy doing the marketing on behalf of the many of the events and projects that impassioned owners, Dennis and Baylee offer, year round. With these opportunities, I find my gratitude growing, as well. I simply ask that the City of Fort Collins, continues to offer small farm organizations like this one at HHF, that are trying to keep their foods clean and pesticide free, as well as share their education of how to do this kind of farming with the rest of the community, without any encumbrances from big corps and big business to get in their way. We should always ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE consider what the course of our actions will have in the long run, including the actions of the City of Fort Collins on small organic farms and families who want to grow their own organic foods in their own small lots, without encumbrances of pollution and ground water contamination. Please consider this, as you have the opportunities to pass on the Fracking opportunities, that are all the sudden arising right around our own city…the poisons that come off those systems alone and into our ground waters, pose great health problems to our own state, counties, and cities! Please Read: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/endocrine.introduction.overview.php Thank you in advance for listening and reading to my opinion and story! Vanette Starr Vanette L Starr 970-308-4534 Email: vanettelstarr@yahoo.com "Someday, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, we will have discovered fire." Teilhard de Chardin "Love alone can unite living beings so as to complete and fulfill them... for it alone joins them by what is deepest within themselves. All we need do is imagine our ability to love, developing it until it embraces the totality of men and the earth." Teilhard de Chardin We are one, after all, you and I. Together we suffer, together exist, and forever will recreate each other. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE From: Andrew Sachs To: Lindsay Ex Cc: dennisstenson@aol.com Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - Hearings Postponed Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:27:55 PM Dear Lindsay, Thank you for your efforts to amplify our sacred agriculture and beloved farm community through municipal means. I see this as an incredible opportunity to put Fort Collins on the map of communities working towards resilience. The time is now for municipalities to step up and recognize their responsibility to protect the last bastions of hope for our world and our children. Without farms there is no food, and without food we cannot grow and thrive. Protecting small farmers from corporate agriculture is the most valuable action any city can take to ensure the prosperity of future generations. I moved to Fort Collins almost two years ago after graduating from Prescott College in Prescott Arizona with degrees in both Environmental Studies and Cultural and Regional Studies (similar to cultural anthropology). My senior project work took place in East Africa in a small village in Uganda. My goal was to share my education and resources with rural villagers, and through consensus based decision-making, engage in open-systems processing. This required us to look at the bigger picture, to understand where we have been, where we are now, and where we'd like to go. In a few short months we were able to transform a five acre plot of largely mono-cropped bananas, into a 35-plant permaculture site with integrated swales for water retention, rainwater catchment for domestic use (a huge step for women, as they were usually the ones traveling miles to fetch water), composting areas, integrated goat, chicken, and cow management, solar-electric phone charging, and a general store set up to sell produce from the farm. After a year in Fort collins I travelled to Uganda again to see the growth and prosperity of that initial capital investment (no more than $2000) and community participation. I felt a sense of community there that I had yet to feel in the states. I was ready to leave the states for a long time. Then I found Happy Heart Farm. For the first time I have a sense of belonging in the United States. Through my apprenticeship at Happy Heart, I have not only learned the incredible value of medicinal quality food, but feel part of a community that nurtures and supports my needs and desires. In short, I now feel at home here, and a new world of possibilities is now at my finger tips. I see a greater vision of happy heart and other farms in this community becoming cultural bridges for people in other farms all over the world to come and share resources and collaborate on a global scale. If I could bring people from Uganda to the states, Happy Heart is where I would bring them first. We truly have an opportunity here to show ourselves and the world that we value community and health, unlike the corporate agriculture giants like Monsanto that are actively trying to make small farms like Happy Heart disappear. This opportunity to protect our sacred agriculture is arguably one of the most important steps in the evolution of humankind. Thank you Lindsay for representing our community. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. Best, ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE Andrew P.S. Please push to grandfather-in the farm! :) On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: > Good morning everyone, > > > > I wanted to let you all know that we are running into a timing issue > regarding completing all of the work in Council’s adopted work plan that was > adopted two years ago (after the last election). As Council agreed to follow > this work plan, projects not identified 2 years ago are being postponed, and > the urban agriculture changes are one of those projects. It’s so important > to note that this does not diminish the importance of the work we are all > doing on this effort, but instead to honor the Council’s commitment to the > community in completing the work they agreed to complete. > > > > So, what does this mean for our effort? It means that instead of a hearing > on February 21 with the Planning and Zoning Board, we are now planning to go > to the Planning and Zoning Board on March 21. We have not received an > official date for the Council hearings yet, but I am expecting that we will > be before Council in late April/early May. The good news is that this should > give the urban agriculture item more time with the Planning and Zoning Board > in March (there are 7 other items on their agenda in February!) and that > this additional time will also give us more time for discussion with the > community to start addressing other concerns that have been brought up, > e.g., we can start working in earnest on the discussions with the Building > Department on hoop houses. > > > > Also, several folks have asked if the draft Ordinances including the > proposed changes can be sent out. As the Ordinances are still in legal > review, I’ve compiled a document that includes a summary of all of the > changes we are proposing to date (see attached). I cannot emphasize enough > that this is still a DRAFT summary of changes and this is subject to > additional feedback from all of you as well as from the Planning and Zoning > Board and City Council. Thus, if you have additional changes or comments, > please do send them my way! We’re always open to your thoughts and feedback. > > > > Thanks to all of you for your efforts to date on this project, and I look > forward to continuing to work with all of you as this project moves forward. > > > > Cheers, > Lindsay > > > > P.S. I’m also attaching the documents from the open house, including the > presentation, the boards we presented, and the meeting notes we captured. > I’m hoping to get all of this information up on the website ASAP as well. > ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE > P.P.S. As always, please feel free to let me know if you would like to > unsubscribe from this email list. > > > > > > Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. > > Senior Environmental Planner > > CDNS | City of Fort Collins > > lex@fcgov.com > > 970.224.6143 > > > > ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE From: Tina Lamers To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: Urban Agriculture: Thank you, quick update, and a request Date: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:38:33 PM Lindsay, I don't have my own farm, but have been a part of Happy Heart CSA for a number of years. My interest in primarily to make sure that the new rules going into effect won't hurt farms such as Happy Heart which have been around a long time and are a valuable part of the community. The issue of Hoop Houses is one that comes to mind in this regard. Dennis and Bailey, the owners of Happy Heart, do a lot of work to help provide vegetables to those in our community who cannot afford to buy their own. Please make sure they are able to continue this work and all the other good things they do to provide food for many of us in the area. Best regards, Tina Lamers On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning everyone, I want to thank everyone who was able to come to the open house last Thursday and those that have contacted me individually – we had 95 people at our open house, which is quite the turnout! We very much appreciate your feedback in this process. What is changing as a result of your feedback: As a result of the feedback you all provided last Thursday, staff is working on the following issues: · Proposing to increase the number of chickens/ducks allowed based on lot size and at the following scales: o Less than ½ acre – up to eight chickens and/or ducks, combined (this would allow everyone in the City to have up to eight chickens and/or ducks, similar to the City of Denver) o Between ½ acre and 1 acre – up to twelve chickens and/or ducks o More than 1 acre – 6 chickens and/or ducks per each additional ½ acre above a one-acre lot size. · Being clearer on the defining lines between private gardens, gardens that require a home occupation license, and those gardens that the City would classify as an urban garden (which includes CSAs, community gardens, and urban farms, etc.). Please note that if you do have a business in the City of Fort Collins, every ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE business is required to have a sales tax license (in addition to any additional requirements, such as a home occupation license). For more information on this issue, please click here. · Have a grace period, or a window of time, where anyone who has an existing urban garden could fill out the license application and be approved as an urban garden without having to pay the $100 fee to “grandfather” in all of the existing gardens we already have in the City. · Making changes to the bee-keeping standards, such as removing the requirement that all hives be Langstroth type hives to instead more simply require hives with removal frames. · We are still researching the questions surrounding hoop houses and scaling the number of farm animals allowed based on lot size, but these issues may need to be addressed in a phase two of proposed changes. But, we do know that these issues are very big concerns, and we will highlight them during the upcoming hearings. So, thank you everyone for all of your feedback last night – we are going to update the website by the end of the week with all of the comments that were made during the open house. If you didn’t have a chance to attend, we are in the processing of converting the boards that we had folks commenting on to .pdf documents on the website and this will also be up on the website by the end of the week, so please feel free to check that information at www.fcgov.com/urbanagriculture. Request for the Farmers and Gardeners on this email list: For all of the farmers and gardeners on this list, can you answer a couple of questions for us: · When did you establish your farm? · Approximately how much street frontage is associated with your farm? We’re trying to collect this data in advance of the February 21st Planning and Zoning Board meeting, so if you could respond by this Friday, we would greatly appreciate it! What’s Next? As you know, these proposed standards and licensing process will now move forward to the Planning and Zoning Board and onto City Council. Again, here are the upcoming Hearing dates: Planning and Zoning Board – February 21 ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE · · City Council First Reading – March 5 · City Council Second Reading – March 19 If you are unable to attend one of the hearings, please feel free to send in written comments on the proposed regulations. I will include all of these written comments in the packets to the Planning and Zoning Board. Thank you again for all of your help to date in addressing this important issue, and have a great rest of your day! Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 P.S. As always, if you would like to be removed from this email list, please let me know! ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE From: Deanna O"Connell To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Urban Agriculture Land Use code changes Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:17:40 PM Hello Lindsay, Just wanted to check in on the Urban Ag issue. I will admit that I am not as involved with local government as I would like to be- caught up in busy-ness, family etc. This issue, however, is very important to me. I have been a CSA member at Happy Heart Farm for many years. It has been such an enriching part of my life in Fort Collins. It has given my children a place to see where food comes from, and to meet the people who plant and harvest this food. It is an amazing community of good people as well as a model of beautiful, healthy locally grown food. I meet so many children through my work who have no idea where various fruits and vegetables come from. They are used to everything coming in a can or from the freezer. This "processed" way of life is lending to poor health and obesity in our society. I LOVE taking these kids to the farm - it is so eye- opening and inspiring to see how they immediately gain confidence and a connection to the earth - and to their own bodies. Happy Heart Farm and any other farm that can provide any part of the above is an example of going in the right direction in our city and our society. (Happy Heart just happens to have all parts right!). I believe so thoroughly that they are the model that our city...and country needs to go to as a solution to many problems facing us in health and community. They are a national example to all CSA's and we are so fortunate that they are here in Fort Collins. I hope the city government supports this model with Land Use Codes to help all thrive who are willing to put their time and effort into this difficult path - for the good of many. I personally decided to get out of my busy life and support what I believed in by helping support "Friends of Happy Heart Farm" - where we get fresh Happy Heart veges to low income families, invite them to be a partner in the generous community and educate them on how to use the veges in recipes etc. I believe firmly that this is where the health of our children can begin to improve and take a different direction than where it is currently headed. It is right here in our back yards - and the more yards, spaces and people who can be involved - the better for the health and well-being of all. I appreciate you reading this and urge you to not let this very important issue slip through the cracks - when is has such profound long-term potential benefits for so many people in Fort Collins. Please call me with any questions - professionally or personally about this issue. Warm regards, Deanna O'Connell Registered Dietitian Health Coach 970-214-7783 Linked In Profile ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE ATTACHMENT 7 URBAN AGRICULTURE 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 DT: March 20, 2013 TO: Members of the Planning and Zoning Board TH: Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services FM: Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner RE: Read-Before Memo: Urban Agriculture Land Use Code Changes A brief presentation regarding the Urban Agriculture Land Use Code changes was given to the Board at the March 15, 2013 Worksession. During the Work Session, Board Members had several questions regarding the proposed regulations for which staff is providing additional feedback. These topic areas include the urban agriculture license, the proposed grace period, and the proposed Municipal Code regulations regarding animals (which are presented for information only). Additional public comments are also included. Urban Agriculture License Several Board Members questioned the need for a license for urban agriculture land uses. While the survey respondents were largely in support of allowing urban agriculture in more zone districts, concerns were raised regarding compatibility with existing land uses e.g. screening, noise, traffic etc. Staff has also learned that many producers are unaware of City regulations, such as building permit requirements, floodplain use permit requirements, etc. In addition, licensing will allow for staff to enter the urban agricultural land uses onto the FCMaps service, which could prove useful for identifying a community garden or farm from which to purchase produce. The licensing also allows for staff to work with the farmers to discuss the best management practices, or standards, outlined in the proposed Section 3.8.31 of the Land Use Code. In sum, staff believes having a licensing system allows for early dialogue with producers regarding compatibility, so that impacts can be proactively minimized, the opportunity to provide information regarding City regulations, and the ability to track these land uses over time. If the Board wishes to remove the licensing requirement, there are existing examples of communities that have enacted standards without a license. Boulder has similar standards to Urban Agriculture Land Use Code Changes March 20, 2013 Page 2 those proposed but does not require a license. Thus, existing examples of other options are available to the Board. Grace Period During the Work Session, several Board Members suggested increasing the grace period from six months to twelve months to allow more time for existing farmers to get licensed. Board Members expressed a desire for the grace period to include time outside of the growing season to ensure urban agriculture land users enough time to go through the licensing process. As per this feedback, if the Board supports the licensing process, staff recommends the following condition: 1. The City Manager allows a six twelve month grace period for all existing urban agriculture land uses to be permitted at no cost. This is because urban agriculture land uses already exist throughout the City and there have not been concerns raised with these existing uses. Animals The Board asked several questions regarding the proposed Municipal Code changes, including the following: • Concerns that when the chicken ordinance passed in 2008 individuals attested to the fact that only chicken hens were desired to be raised and not other animals typically found only on a farm. o Staff response: During the May 15, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board discussion on chickens, concerns were raised that allowing six chickens is a stepping stone to allowing other animals and that chickens do not belong in the urban environment. Former Board Member Schmidt indicated that it was a first step from which a track record could be developed to determine if future changes would or would not be acceptable. Per staff’s conversation with the Larimer County Humane Society and the Board’s discussion with their representative, Bill Porter, during the Work Session, allowing chicken hens has appeared to be a “non-issue” from an animal control perspective. To date, 153 licenses have been issued with only one citation issued. . Staffs analysis of other communities shows that allowing ducks and goats have not caused problems. Staff has heard that the community is ready to take this next step and develop a track record regarding these additional animals and is proposing that abutting neighbors be notified in writing if the license is request is for more than 12 chickens (only permitted on lots greater than one acre in size). Although some citizens voiced a desire for larger farm animals, Staff does not feel this is an appropriate step at this time. - 2 - Urban Agriculture Land Use Code Changes March 20, 2013 Page 3 • Are miniature goats ornamental or are they truly for local food production? o Staff response: According to the Nigerian Dwarf Goat Association, these goats can produce up to two quarts of milk per day or more. The National Pygmy Goat Association claims similar production levels. These production levels are similar to full-size goats. Staff’s recommendation to allow pygmy goats instead of full- size breeds is related to the Humane Society’s capacity to manage any goats that might require Animal Control. Additional Public Comment Since the Work Session five additional letters have been received from members of the public.. These letters are from the following individuals: • Hill Grimmett, on behalf of Be Local Northern Colorado, • Gary Carnes, • Brigitte Schmidt, • Margo Ervin, and • Justin Reynier. In her letter to the Board, Ms. Schmidt has requested that the Ordinance be amended as follows: 3.8.31(C)(2)(b) Parking. Urban agriculture land uses shall provide additional off-street vehicular and bicycle parking areas adequate to accommodate all parking demands created by the use. Ms. Schmidt indicated that other land uses in the City are not required to accommodate all potential parking demands and that this land use be treated similarly. Staff concurs with this request and, unless the Board directs staff differently, will make this change prior to First Reading with City Council. - 3 - March 14, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO Dear Board Members: I am writing concerning the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations, since I am unable to attend the hearing on March 21. Speaking both for myself and for Be Local Northern Colorado, being proposed. I believe that these changes will allow progress in the urban agriculture arena, which has become a very important part of the local food I believe the results will include better access to healthy food and positive economic impacts for the food producers and for our economy. be seen by most people as allowing and encouraging positive developments and tr community. More local food production equates with better quality of life. I would also like to commend Lindsay Ex and all the member on this proposal. They did a great job of re and in working to balance a variety of con Thank you. Sincerely, Hill Grimmett Executive Director 215 West Magnolia #204 Fort Collins, CO 80521 together we’re building a sustainable economy I am writing concerning the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations, since I am unable to attend Speaking both for myself and for Be Local Northern Colorado, I strongly support the changes I believe that these changes will allow progress in the urban agriculture arena, has become a very important part of the local food “movement” in the last several years. he results will include better access to healthy food and positive economic impacts for the food producers and for our economy. In addition, these changes to the Land Use Code will be seen by most people as allowing and encouraging positive developments and tr More local food production equates with better quality of life. ld also like to commend Lindsay Ex and all the members of the planning team who worked They did a great job of reaching out to lots of people in various constituencies and in working to balance a variety of concerns. 215 West Magnolia #204 Fort Collins, CO 80521 together we’re building sustainable economy I am writing concerning the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations, since I am unable to attend I strongly support the changes I believe that these changes will allow progress in the urban agriculture arena, in the last several years. he results will include better access to healthy food and positive economic impacts for In addition, these changes to the Land Use Code will be seen by most people as allowing and encouraging positive developments and trends in the anning team who worked aching out to lots of people in various constituencies From: Lindsay Ex To: "gcarnes@earthlink.net" Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:04:24 AM Gary, Thank you so much for clarifying your thinking – I really appreciate that. I now understand that you are concerned about how we protect urban agricultural land uses in a more permanent sense within the City limits. That’s a much bigger discussion that these Land Use and Municipal Code changes can address, but it’s an important discussion nonetheless. Currently, there is some discussion about the formation of a local food cluster, which would be a group of folks committed to this issue beyond what regulations the City does or does not have. Would that be something you or the organization you reference would be interested in engaging with? If so, I can pass on that information to the folks that are organizing this discussion. Let me know! Lindsay From: gcarnes@earthlink.net [mailto:gcarnes@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:52 PM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Lindsay, Looking long-term there should be some protection by the community of open areas which are suitable for urban agriculture. Unless protected, these areas will likely be lost to development and the community would become less and less sustainable. Current land owners could voluntarily opt for urban agriculture zoning or in some cases the City might even pay for down-zoning. I haven't researched the city's sustainability policies but this is very basic - healthful, environmentally and socially beneficial and minimizing energy necessary to transport food. There are many cities around the world where community gardens are in the midst of communities easily accessible from nearby homes. I think is good to be able to garden in all zones, however, I think it is as or more important to protect prime urban agriculture lands as resources for future community gardening. I am a member of an organization which would support or advocate such protection. Thanks, Gary Carnes -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay Ex Sent: Mar 13, 2013 8:35 AM To: "'gcarnes@earthlink.net'" Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Hi Gary, Instead of creating a separate zone for urban agriculture, the current proposal allows urban agriculture (subject to the licensing requirements, see page 2 of the attached document) in all zone districts. When we asked the community, through the online survey and the public open house, as well as in other forums, folks indicated support for having these types of uses in all zone districts, so that is what staff is proposing. I hope that addresses your concern – can you let me know if I can be of further help? Thanks, Lindsay 224-6143 From: gcarnes@earthlink.net [mailto:gcarnes@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:18 PM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Lindsay, Any thoughts on creating an Urban Agriculture zoning classification? With future community development, many CSA and other community gardens may be squeezed out and leave us in a less sustainable situation. I realize that such zoning might involve down-zoning in some cases and necessary compensation. Thanks, Gary Carnes -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay Ex Sent: Mar 11, 2013 3:41 PM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Good afternoon everyone, I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with Daylight Savings Time! Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council Chambers I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st . The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the urban ag items, I’ve attached them to this email. Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official recommendation on the Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture licensing system, allowing farmers markets in more zone districts, and allowing urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal Code changes that relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes related to this topic during the hearing. Also, if you cannot make it to the hearing, but would like to submit comments to the Board, you can submit written comments up until the afternoon of the hearing. However, if you know you are going to submit written comments, if you can provide them to me as soon as possible, it’s always helpful to get them to the Board sooner rather than later. City Council Work Session – April 23 at 6:00 pm – Council Information Center (adjacent to Council Chambers) Also, I wanted to let you all know that this item has been scheduled for a Work Session with City Council on April 23rd . While there is no public testimony during Work Sessions, please feel free to attend this meeting. We expect that a formal hearing before Council will be scheduled shortly after the Work Session. Thanks again to everyone for your help and feedback throughout this process! Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 P.S. As always, please let me know if you would like to be removed from this mailing list. P.P.S. If you haven’t seen this video yet, where goats yelling sounds just like humans, it will make for some good, late afternoon humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=PpccpglnNf0. From: Margo Ervin To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:17:25 PM Hi Lindsay, I can't attend the hearing but I wanted to submit a written comment: Hello, My name is Margo Ervin and I recently moved to the WaterLeaf neighborhood near Water's Way Park. I would love to think that one day our park could become a true community center (not just for the kids), bringing together all the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods to meet each other, eat together, and support our local farmers and gardeners in a market of our very own. This would greatly improve the quality of Fort Collins residential life and provide employment opportunities for small businesses like food and beverage carts and subsequent tax revenue. It's easy to see the beneficial impact it would have on so many of us. I hope you agree. Thanks, Lindsay! Margo Ervin On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: Good afternoon everyone, I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with Daylight Savings Time! Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council Chambers I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st . The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the urban ag items, I’ve attached them to this email. Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official recommendation on the Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture licensing system, allowing farmers markets in more zone districts, and allowing urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal Code changes that relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes related to this topic during the hearing. Also, if you cannot make it to the hearing, but would like to submit comments to the Board, you can submit written comments up until the afternoon of the hearing. However, if you know you are going to submit written comments, if you can provide them to me as soon as possible, it’s always helpful to get them to the Board sooner rather than later. City Council Work Session – April 23 at 6:00 pm – Council Information Center (adjacent to Council Chambers) Also, I wanted to let you all know that this item has been scheduled for a Work Session with City Council on April 23rd . While there is no public testimony during Work Sessions, please feel free to attend this meeting. We expect that a formal hearing before Council will be scheduled shortly after the Work Session. Thanks again to everyone for your help and feedback throughout this process! Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 P.S. As always, please let me know if you would like to be removed from this mailing list. P.P.S. If you haven’t seen this video yet, where goats yelling sounds just like humans, it will make for some good, late afternoon humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0. From: Justin Reynier To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Date: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:47:49 AM Lindsay Ex and the Planning and Zoning board, I thank you all for taking time to address this very important issue. We all love Fort Collins and it is a truely special place because of the people in our community. We have an incredible opportunity to take a step in a positive direction which will help support many current and many future businesses. To have a healthy vibrant community there is nothing more crucial than healthy food. I am not talking about Whole Foods or Sprouts but food from our friends who are growing right here in this community. I work at Happy Heart Farm and it has been a true blessing every step of the way in being a part of the community of great friends and wonderful people who I have met through the farm. Food brings us all together whether its Super Bowl Sunday or if we are pulling weeds across from friends. I know there is a base foundation for supporting local farmers. The majority of our community does not support local farms or do they know where there food comes from. I love that the city is working with the community to increase the amount of food that we can grow here in town. Many of us are already leading by example and with positive progressive bold steps we can lead this community as well as show other towns across this country that we can sustain ourselves with our own efforts. We do not need to rely on food from halfway around the world, we can grow right here. We are using so much water and energy growing grass in our front yards while we live in a high windy desert. We need to focus and use our limited water in wise ways. Supporting local farms and supplying them with the water that is needed is far more important than green grass. Green grass is only seasonal is this part of the world. There are many properties in this city that are larger than ¼ acre. I propose that we create a separate zoning for properties wishing to be a farm. Lets do the logical thing and call a farm a farm. Lets not over regulate. Over regulation does not leave room for freedom, freedom for individuals to use their creative abilities to come up with new ideas and think outside of the box. Some of us want goats. Not two miniature goats but enough that we can mow pastures and milk them. Some of us want sheep, hogs, and cows. This can be done so that it is pleasant for everyone in the community. It is not the end of the world even if there is a wif of some dung, after all on the right day we can smell the feedlots of Greeley. Lets not stop us from growing food and raising animals because there are some that are scared and resistant to change. We need a change. The food our children and friends eat does not have the same nourishing qualities that it should. We can lead and show the next generations that there is sustainability in raising your own food. Lets take a large step together and really shift forward. Yes we are modeling ourselves after other communities in the U.S. but lets go above and beyond and let the people do what needs to be done so that we can have a healthy farm system. There will be times when more chickens will be necessary or that ducks will aid in controlling insects, or that sheep can be used to eat weeds, while providing meat for winter stews. Grandfather in Happy Heart Farm and all the others who wish to be pioneers and lead this community forward in a healthy positive way. This is the right thing to do. There are beautiful properties in town that are not all pavement and cookie cutter homes. Lets keep some of the old culture in tact here in Fort Collins. I know that what the farmers are doing in town is good and we want nothing more that to have total support from everyone. We want to provide the best quality food to everyone. Lets keep the dollars in Fort Collins by increasing the number of local business growing good. Together we can make a larger difference. I thank you once again for taking time to address this very important issue. After all it is the food we eat that becomes the bones and our bodies in which we live. Healthy food equals healthy people. Thank you for your time. Please do reach out to myself and all who are interested in working to create a strong system so that all can thrive. Justin Reynier justin.reynier@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: Good afternoon everyone, I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with Daylight Savings Time! Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council Chambers I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st . The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the urban ag items, I’ve attached them to this email. Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official recommendation on the Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture licensing system, allowing farmers markets in more zone districts, and allowing urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal Code changes that relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes related to this topic during the hearing. Also, if you cannot make it to the hearing, but would like to submit comments to the Board, you can submit written comments up until the afternoon of the hearing. However, if you know you are going to submit written comments, if you can provide them to me as soon as possible, it’s always helpful to get them to the Board sooner rather than later. City Council Work Session – April 23 at 6:00 pm – Council Information Center (adjacent to Council Chambers) Also, I wanted to let you all know that this item has been scheduled for a Work Session with City Council on April 23rd . While there is no public testimony during Work Sessions, please feel free to attend this meeting. We expect that a formal hearing before Council will be scheduled shortly after the Work Session. Thanks again to everyone for your help and feedback throughout this process! Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 P.S. As always, please let me know if you would like to be removed from this mailing list. P.P.S. If you haven’t seen this video yet, where goats yelling sounds just like humans, it will make for some good, late afternoon humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0. From: Schmidt,Brigitte To: Lindsay Ex Subject: RE: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:33:58 AM Hi Lindsay, I read through all the Urban Ag stuff and it looks very good. I presume that is 8 total--chickens/ducks, not 8 chickens and 8 ducks. The other thing is in the section on parking it says must accommodate 'all' parking. I think that is unfair since we don't require too many other things in the City to accommodate 'all' parking needs. So I would suggest taking that out and leaving it with just 'accommodate parking.' Maybe Paul won't like that and you can think of another way to put it. My two cents. Thanks, Brigitte From: Lindsay Ex [lex@fcgov.com] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:41 PM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Urban Ag Update - P&Z Hearing and Council Work Session Good afternoon everyone, I hope everyone is enjoying the sunshine later in the day that has come with Daylight Savings Time! Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – March 21 at 6:00 pm – Council Chambers I’m sending out a friendly reminder that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the proposed Urban Agriculture regulations next Thursday, March 21st . The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and this item is the first discussion item on the agenda. For the full agenda documents, please see here: http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. If you would just like the urban ag items, I’ve attached them to this email. Please note that the Planning and Zoning Board will only make an official recommendation on the Land Use Code changes (creating the urban agriculture licensing system, allowing farmers markets in more zone districts, and allowing urban agriculture in all zone districts) and not the Municipal Code changes that relate to animals. However, staff will be presenting the full suite of changes related to this topic during the hearing. Also, if you cannot make it to the hearing, but would like to submit comments to the Board, you can submit written comments up until the afternoon of the hearing. However, if you know you are going to submit written comments, if you can provide them to me as soon as possible, it’s always helpful to get them to the Board sooner rather than later. City Council Work Session – April 23 at 6:00 pm – Council Information Center (adjacent to Council Chambers) Also, I wanted to let you all know that this item has been scheduled for a Work Session with City Council on April 23rd . While there is no public testimony during Work Sessions, please feel free to attend this meeting. We expect that a formal hearing before Council will be scheduled shortly after the Work Session. Thanks again to everyone for your help and feedback throughout this process! Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Senior Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 P.S. As always, please let me know if you would like to be removed from this mailing list. P.P.S. If you haven’t seen this video yet, where goats yelling sounds just like humans, it will make for some good, late afternoon humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpccpglnNf0. PROJECT: Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 APPLICANT: Mr. Chuck Bailey Catamount Properties, Ltd. 7302 Rozena Street Longmont, CO 80503 OWNER: Carlson Residential 210 Hollyhill Lane Denton, TX 76205 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street and in their place, construct five, three story multi-family buildings, combining the two lots for a 1.48 acre site. The project proposes 57 units to be divided among one, two and three-bedroom apartments for a total of 97 bedrooms. Parking would be in the rear with 58 spaces gaining access off of Springfield Drive. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District and is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Multi-family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with development standards of the N-C-B Zone District and with the applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code. After additional information was presented by the Applicant to the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding the existing single family home at 1305 South Shields Street, the property was re-reviewed and found not to be individually eligible for Local Landmark designation and is allowed to be demolished under the provisions of the Municipal Code and Land Use Code. Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board The proposed three story multi-family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context by its’ complementary architectural design featuring Craftsman architectural detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent single-family homes to the south and west. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential with free-stall barns and farm character); S: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential and Bennett Elementary School); E: H-M-N—High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (existing commercial); W: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential neighborhoods) In late 2011, the home located at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for Local Landmark designation by the Landmark Preservation Commission Chair and the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, under the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code. At that time, this decision was not appealable to City Council. Additionally, the Historic and Cultural Resource Section of the Land Use Code (Section 3.4.7) protected the home from being demolished, however the Applicant was still requesting to move forward with the redevelopment application and question of the demolition of the home came before the Planning and Zoning Board in 2012 not as a proposed development plan, but as two stand-alone requests for the modification of standards to Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Board denied the stand-alone modification requests and the Applicant appealed the decision to City Council in April, 2012. The City Council upheld the Board’s denial decision, and instructed Staff to revisit the determination of eligibility section of the Municipal Code. In summer of 2012, changes were made to the Municipal Code relating to the determination of Local Landmark eligibility process. In September 2012, the Applicant provided new information to the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding the home at 1305 South Shields Street and in October, 2012 the Commission overturned the previous determination that the home was individually eligible for Local Landmark Designation (please see page 5 of the attached Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board minutes from October, 2012). As the residence at 1305 South Shields Street is no longer eligible for Local Landmark Designation, it can be demolished, as proposed. West Central Neighborhood Plan The proposed project is located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (Adopted, 1999). The West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (WCNP) identifies the subject parcels as a redevelopment area on page 2 of Chapter 3. For WCNP identified redevelopment areas, the predominant uses (in this case single-family) are not considered to be the most appropriate for the future and have potential for selective conversion to more efficient uses. Moreover, the WCNP continues on to state that, “the area along the west side of Shields Street,… are candidates for redevelopment in a manner that allows conversion from (single-family) residential to multi-family residential.” The WCNP calls for redevelopment to create a buffer for the single-family residential neighborhoods to the west from Shields Street. The proposed Project Development Plan is an appropriate redevelopment of the area, and creates buffer in conformance with the adopted policies of the West Central Neighborhood Plan. 2. Compliance with Article Four- Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Standards: As previously mentioned, the site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). The purpose of the N-C-B Zone District is: “…intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.” To the east of the site is a commercial area and Colorado State University; to the west is primarily single family residential. The proposed project fits the intent and purpose of the N-C-B Zone District. A. Section 4.9(B) - Land Use In the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer zone district, the review and decision making body for multi-family housing projects are governed by the number of dwelling units and the residential net density. The proposed land use is considered multi-family and is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The net area of the PDP is 1.45 acres. As 57 units are proposed, the density is 39.3 dwelling units per net acre. Since the PDP contains more than four dwelling units in one building, at a density of more than 24 dwelling units per net acre, the land use is permitted, subject to review and a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.9(D) - Density Page 3 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board The N-C-B zone district permits a building to contain an amount of square footage that equals the lot area, which in this case is 64,828 square feet. The proposed square footage combined total is 39,281 square feet, thus complying with the standard. Additionally, the Land Use Code requires there to be a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .33 on the rear 50 percent of the lot, or in this case, 10,433 square feet. The project proposes 10,272 square feet in the rear 50 percent of the lot, for a .325 rear Floor Area Ratio, meeting the standard. C. Section 4.9(D)(6) - Dimensional Standards PDP provides a lot width of approximately 400 feet, meeting the minimum N-BC-B lot width requirement of 50 feet. The project utilizes a contextual front yard setback of 30 feet. The contextual setback provision of Section 3.8.19 states that regardless of the minimum front setback requirement imposed by the zone district standards (in this case 60 feet for areas within the West Central Plan neighborhoods), Applicants are allowed to use a contextual front setback. The setback of the abutting home to the west at 1201Springfield Drive is 30 feet. Therefore, the project meets setback requirements. The PDP provides a 15 foot 5 inch rear yard setback from the property to the south, meeting the minimum requirement of 15 feet. The PDP provides a 76 foot side yard setback along the west side property line and a 27 foot setback along the east property line. This complies with the standard that the side yard setback be a minimum of five feet for the first 18 feet of height and then one additional foot for each two feet of height thereafter. With a building height of 40 feet, the 22 feet over the baseline of 18 feet requires 11 additional feet of side yard setback. The 16 feet consists of five feet plus 11 feet to accommodate a 40 foot high building. The building is three stories in height thus not exceeding the maximum allowed of three stories in height for the N-C-B zone district. D. Section 4.9(E)(1) - Building Design Since the buildings are rectilinear, all exterior walls are constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines. The primary entrances of the buildings are oriented to Springfield Drive. The entrances are enhanced by porches with overhangs. Page 4 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board The proposed roof pitches for the buildings are 5:12, meeting the minimum roof pitch of 2:12 and within the maximum roof pitch of 12:12. The front elevation features a variety of treatments creating a well- articulated appearance. E. Section 4.9(E)(5) – Site Design In the N-C-B District, permanent off-street parking areas cannot be located any closer to a public street than the distance of the setback of the building and the street. The parking stall furthest to the north is setback approximately 40 feet from the property line and Building 1 is set back 30 feet, satisfying the standard. 3. Compliance with Applicable Article 3 - General Development Standards: As illustrated by the previous section, the N-C-B zone contains numerous specific standards. Where N-C-B Zone District standards of Article Four are more specific or stringent, they prevail over the less specific or stringent standard that may be found in the General Development standards of Article Three, except in the case of the contextual setback regulations. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1(C) & (D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The PDP provides full tree stocking and foundation shrubs around the perimeter of the buildings. Existing crabapple trees will be retained. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) – Minimum Species Diversity This standard requires that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen) will exceed the allowable 25 percent of the total number of trees on the landscape plan. The landscape plan proposes 59 new trees, and no more than 15 can be of one species. The most of any one species is the Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry, with 15 trees, complying with the standard. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) – Water Conservation Standards Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the Carriage House Apartments PDP landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees and moderate water use plant materials where practical. An automatic, underground irrigation system will be designed to address specific needs of different plan species, soil conditions, as well as the Page 5 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board slope and aspect of the different hydrozones. An irrigation plan will be provided by the Applicant concurrently with their building permit application. The water budget chart provided by the Applicant calls out that the average water usage for the site is 13.48 gallons per square foot, under the maximum 15 gallons per square foot permitted. The project meets the water conservation standards. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The perimeter of the projects’ vehicular use area will be effectively screened from the residential uses to the south and west with a combination of plant material featuring evergreen trees and a 6 foot tall wood fence, meeting the requirements of this standard. E. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. This standard requires that existing trees be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. The City Forester conducted an on-site meeting with the Applicant and determined a mitigation schedule. Currently, there are 57 trees existing on this site. For this project, 19 trees will be protected (in place) and 43 trees will be removed. Of these 43 trees to be removed, 15 trees that are proposed to be removed require mitigation. These trees have a mitigation value of 23 trees. The Applicant is providing 28 upsized trees, meeting the mitigation requirement. F. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and Parking, The site is an infill location surrounded by existing development including Colorado State University to the northeast. A new 6 foot attached sidewalk will be constructed along Springfield Drive and a new 6 foot detached sidewalk will be constructed along South Shields Street before joining the existing attached sidewalk along Shields Street. The buildings will feature connecting walkways out to Springfield Drive. In terms of pedestrian connectivity to off-site destinations, there are existing crosswalks at the Prospect Road and Shields Street and Elizabeth Street and Shields Street signalized intersections. Additionally, there is a striped crosswalk (across Shields Street) with a pedestrian signal at Lake Street. The project meets connectivity requirements. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities This standard requires multi-family residential is required to provide 1 bike parking space per bedroom with a minimum of 60% of these spaces enclosed. The PDP proposes 97 bedrooms and requires 58 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. As proposed, the project provides 103 bicycle parking spaces total. Of these spaces, 59 bike parking spaces are Page 6 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board enclosed, located within the building, and 44 spaces will be distributed among 4 exterior fixed bicycle racks. H. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) – Parking Lots – Required Number of Spaces This Section of the Code states that Multi-family dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone have no minimum parking requirements. The project provides 58 parking spaces, thus meeting the Land Use Code requirement. The intent of removing the minimum parking requirements in the TOD was to alleviate a barrier to redevelopment in the area, and to reflect the fact that multi-modal travel options were available or planned for those areas. The removal of minimum parking requirements in the TOD was not meant to remove the entire obligation for development-related parking. Instead, the provision was intended to recognize that the need for parking should be a market-based decision based on specific project needs, the surrounding context, and available travel options and facilities. If Carriage House Apartments was held to the required minimum number of spaces as it would be elsewhere in Fort Collins (non-TOD), then a total of 96 parking spaces would be required. Instead, 58 parking spaces are provided and supplemented with both interior and exterior bike parking for 103 bikes. The site is served by Transfort route 19 and a bus stop will be located 20 feet directly east of Building 4. The proposed project encourages alternative modes and further reinforces fundamental polices of City Plan. The table below illustrates how the proposed project compares to existing projects located in the TOD in terms of parking provided. Comparative Parking Analysis for Multi-Family Projects located within the TOD Overlay Zone Project Name Location Units Bedrooms Parking Spaces Provided Parking Required if Not in TOD Pura Vida Apartments 518 W. Laurel 52 units 20 1-bd 16 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 100 49 spaces 90106 spaces Flats at Oval 306 W. Laurel 47 units 12 1-bd 19 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 96 571 spaces 102 83 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Willow Street Lofts 214 Willow 24 units 2 1-bd 22 2-bd Total: 46 35 spaces 42 spaces Proposed: Carriage House Apts. 1305- 1319 S. Shields 57 units 29 1-bd 16 2-bd 12 3-bd Total: 97 58 spaces 96 spaces As illustrated by the table above, the data would suggest that the market response is to provide one parking space per dwelling unit in the TOD. I. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking The code requires 3 handicap parking spaces for projects that provide 51- 75 total parking spaces. The Carriage House Apartments PDP meets the required three handicapped accessible spaces, including one van accessible space. J. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The Applicant submitted a photometric plan and the proposed site lighting complies with the requirements set forth in this section of the Land Use Code. Site lighting will feature down-directional, fully shielded, cut-off fixtures that are consistent in character with the craftsman bungalow style architecture proposed. Public street lighting has been factored into the lighting plan to avoid redundancy. K. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures The proposed trash collection/recycling enclosure satisfies the Land Use Code requirements. A new trash enclosure is proposed on the southwest corner of the site and is approximately 250 square feet in size on a concrete slab. As proposed, the enclosure will be 6 feet in height, constructed of masonry pilasters and cedar lumber. L. Section 3.4.7(F)(5) – Historic Landscaping Existing on-site, there are Crabapple trees along the south side of Springfield Drive, that the City Forester estimates to be around 100 years old. As such, these Crabapple trees will be preserved. M. Section 3.5.1 – Building Project and Compatibility This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the established architectural character and context of the general area. The standard also states that where the architectural character is not definitively established, new projects should establish an enhanced Page 8 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board standard of quality. Moreover, the compatibility standards of this section require that the characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the larger context of the surrounding area. The Land Use Code offers the following definition of the term “compatibility”: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The definition of compatibility is unique as no single element of the compatibility definition is essentially equivalent to a compatibility litmus test; rather it is a contextually driven notion and is derived based on circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The proposed buildings are three-stories (40 feet tall) in height and are compatible with single family homes on Springfield Drive to the east and the two-story (28 feet tall) single-family homes to the south on Bennett Road. The height of the project, in tandem with its location on an arterial, provide an appropriate and compatible transition from the high traffic and commercial east of Shields Street to the adjacent single-family neighborhoods to the west. Instead of one large, massive multi-family structure, the PDP responds to the existing residential character to the north, south and west, by breaking up the project into five smaller buildings that are articulated with front porches assisting with the project blending in with the existing streetscape composition. The architectural character borrows from the Craftsman Bungalow vernacular of the area and sets an enhanced standard of quality for future projects. The primary building material is horizontal lap siding with the inclusion of stone and brick at the base. The buildings are appropriately articulated, further breaking up each building’s mass, as they read more like large single-family homes. Detailing features such as hip and gable roofs, accented window trim and timber brackets enhance the architectural character and reinforce the compatibility of the project with the area. N. Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition Page 9 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board This standard requires that compatibility be achieved by consideration of scale, form, materials, color, buffer yard and operational standards. Staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to neighborhood compatibility and pertinent issues related to scale, form, materials and color have been addressed. As previously stated, it is important to note that there is no one single standard in the Land Use Code that would be equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of “Compatibility” (above) specifically states that it “…does not mean the same as.” Rather, the Code further breaks the issues down. The PDP has been evaluated by these standards and the PDP is found to be in compliance. O. Section 3.5.2(C) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking This standard requires that every front façade with a primary entrance shall face the public street (smaller than an arterial) and be within 200 feet of a connecting walkway, to the extent reasonably feasible. Buildings 1 – 4 face Springfield Drive and feature porches with entrances and connecting walkways out to the public sidewalk along Springfield Drive. In the case of Building 5, the building has a connecting walkway to the sidewalk along Shields Street. The PDP meets the standards. P. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) memorandum was provided as part of this Project Development Plan. Since the site is close to campus, the standard practice of a 25 percent trip reduction was taken into account for utilization of multi-modal transportation options. The Shields Street and Springfield Drive intersection will operate acceptably based on adopted level of service standards. The TIS shows that the existing single family homes on site generate 28 daily trip ends and the trip generation for Carriage House Apartments is calculated at 204 daily trip ends. While the traffic on Springfield Drive will increase to the west of the site, it is still commensurate with that expected on a local street. Nevertheless, the project meets the City’s level of service standards. In addition, the PDP is in an area in which a pedestrian and bicycle Level of Service evaluation is required. In terms of pedestrian connectivity and level of service, there are existing crosswalks at the Prospect Road and Shields Street and Elizabeth Street and Shields Street signalized intersections. Additionally, there is a striped crosswalk (across Shields Street) with a pedestrian signal at Lake Street. The TIS shows that the Page 10 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board City’s levels of service standards for both pedestrians and bicycles are met. Overall, the Traffic Study concludes that with this project, the future level of service at the Springfield Drive and Shields Street intersection will be acceptable. Q. Section 3.6.5 – Transit Facilities Standards This standard requires new developments to accommodate existing and planned transit routes by providing transit stops and associated facilities. The site is served by Transfort Route 19 on Shields Street with both north and south service. Transfort Route 3 provides northbound service on Shields Street. Both Route 19 and 3 serve the CSU Transit Center. Route 19 runs every 60 minutes year-round and every 30 minutes at AM and PM peak periods during the school year. The PDP provides a Transfort bus stop concrete pad along South Shields Street. The project meets the standards of this Section. R. Section 3.8.30 – Multi-family Dwelling Development Standards Multi-family developments located in the TOD Overlay Zone are specifically exempt from the mix of housing unit types requirement, access to park, central feature or gathering place requirements and the building requirements. The multi- family buildings are not exempt from meeting the block or design standards. S. Section 3.8.30(D) – Block Requirements The block requirements mandate multi-family developments to feature a series of blocks, made up of public streets, private streets or street-like private drives, no more than 7 acres in size. The PDP is only 1 block with buildings fronting along Springfield Drive and South Shields Street. The site is 1.48 acres, satisfying the requirements. Section 3.8.30(F) – Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings This Section of the LUC addresses architecture and site design as it relates to multi-family developments. Moreover, this Section is intended to promote variety in multi-family buildings and enhance visual interest, reinforcing architectural elements. (1) 3.8.30(F)(1) – Orientation and Setbacks This standard states that setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single and two-family dwellings is 25 feet. There is an Page 11 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board abutting single-family home to the south at 1321 South Shields Street. This standard is not applicable because the N-C-B District standards contained in Article 4 would govern the rear/side setback due to Section 3.1.2. This Section states that, “In the event of a conflict between a standard or requirement contained in Article 3 and Article 4, the standard in Article 4 shall prevail.” The N-C-B District requires a 15 foot setback in this instance. The project provides a 15 foot 5 inch setback and meets the requirements. (2) 3.8.30(F)(2)– Variation Among Repeated Buildings These standards require developments containing between 3 – 5 buildings to provide two different building designs with two different muted, color palettes. The project meets this standard by the two different “green” and “white” designs. The green buildings contain 13 and 14 units while the while buildings are smaller and contain 10 units. The green buildings are a total of 8,092 square feet and the white buildings are 7,699 square feet. (3) 3.8.30(F)(4)– Entrances The project provides covered entrances that are visible from Springfield Drive and South Shields Street, meeting the standard. (4) 3.8.30(F)(5)– Roofs The two building designs employ traditional forms such as hip and gable roofs with articulation and accent brackets. Both building designs have low pitches, reflecting the Craftsman style. The secondary roofs transition over the second story balconies. The PDP meets the standard. (5) 3.8.30(F)(5)– Facades and Walls Each multifamily building is articulated with projections and covered entries, assisting with dividing the façade into human-scaled proportions similar to adjacent single family dwellings. There are no blank walls. The PDP complies with the standards. 4. Compliance with Applicable Article Two, Administration: A. Section 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29, 2012. A summary of this meeting is attached. Discussion centered around the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods to the west and south, and the number of parking spaces. Page 12 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In reviewing the request for Carriage House Apartments PDP, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Multi-family dwelling units are a permitted use in the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable provisions of Article Four, District Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan #PDP120035. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan (architectural elevations included) 2. Landscape Plan 3. Tree Mitigation Plan 4. Plat 5. Planning Objectives 6. Traffic Study 7. Minutes from October 10, 2012 Landmark Preservation Commission. 8. Notes from the October 29, 2012 Neighborhood Meeting 9. Citizen Comments Page 13 SITE SPRINGFIELD DR. SOUTH SHIELDS ST. BENNETT RD. BENNETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEL MAR ST. WESTWARD DR. CITY PARK AVE. SOUTH SHIELDS ST. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY W. PITKIN ST. JAMES CT. 1/2 MILE W. PROSPECT RD. W. ELIZABETH ST. UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OWNER'S CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. OWNER (SIGNED) DATE THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF A.D., 20 BY (PRINT NAME) AS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. NOTARY PUBLIC ADDRESS PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS DAY OF , 20 . DIRECTOR OF PLANNING GENERAL NOTES REFER TO UTILITY PLANS FOR LOCATION OF STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES. REFER TO THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION OF PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. REFER TO THE PLAT FOR LOT AREAS, TRACT SIZES, EASEMENTS, LOT DIMENSIONS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, OTHER EASEMENTS, AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLOTTED IN ONE PHASE. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS WILL CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ALL HANDICAP PARKING SPACES AND RAMPS ARE TO BE VERIFIED WITH CIVIL ENGINEER FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONSIDERATIONS. HANDICAP PARKING SPACES SHOULD SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1/48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTS SHOULD SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS TO BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTION AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES. PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE WITH DOWN-DIRECTIONAL AND SHARP CUTOFF LUMINARIES, AND SHALL COMPLY WHT ALL CITY OF FORT COLLINS LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS TO BE FULLY SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. ALL SIGNS UTILIZED WILL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SIGN CODE. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TRESS PROVIDING THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT SHALL BE NO MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN 1. C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C PDP 6 5 PDP 6 8 7 PDP 6 PDP 6 6 PDP 5 2 PDP 5 3 PDP 5 4 1 PDP 5 PDP 6 2 1 PDP 6 PDP 6 4 PDP 6 3 BLDG 1 11,080 SF (GREEN) 13 UNITS BLDG 2 10,540 SF (WHITE) 10 UNITS BLDG 4 10,540 SF (WHITE) 10 UNITS BLDG 5 10,540 SF (WHITE) 10 UNITS TRASH/ RECYCLING REAR 50% OF PROPERTY REAR 50% OF PROPERTY 30' - 0" 16' - 7" 44' - 7" PROJECT SIGNAGE PDP 7 1 LOCATION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES, PARKING & SIGN BLDG 2 GARDEN LEVEL 100' - 0" BLDG 2 LEVEL 1 110' - 3" BLDG 2 LEVEL 2 120' - 6" BLDG 2 LEVEL 3 130' - 9" BLDG 2 GRADE 107' - 6" BLDG 2 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 2 GARDEN LEVEL 100' - 0" BLDG 2 LEVEL 1 110' - 3" BLDG 2 LEVEL 2 120' - 6" BLDG 2 LEVEL 3 130' - 9" BLDG 2 GRADE 107' - 6" BLDG 2 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 2 GARDEN LEVEL 100' - 0" BLDG 2 LEVEL 1 110' - 3" BLDG 2 LEVEL 2 120' - 6" BLDG 2 LEVEL 3 130' - 9" BLDG 2 GRADE 107' - 6" BLDG 2 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 2 GARDEN LEVEL 100' - 0" BLDG 2 LEVEL 1 110' - 3" BLDG 2 LEVEL 2 120' - 6" BLDG 2 LEVEL 3 130' - 9" BLDG 2 GRADE 107' - 6" BLDG 2 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" TYP. 6' - 0" 2" 4" BLDG 1 LEVEL 1 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 2 117' - 9" BLDG 1 LEVEL 3 128' - 0" BLDG 1 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 1 BASEMENT 97' - 3" BLDG 1 LEVEL 1 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 2 117' - 9" BLDG 1 LEVEL 3 128' - 0" BLDG 1 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 1 BASEMENT 97' - 3" BLDG 2 GRADE 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 1 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 2 117' - 9" BLDG 1 LEVEL 3 128' - 0" BLDG 1 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 1 BASEMENT 97' - 3" BLDG 1 LEVEL 1 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 2 117' - 9" BLDG 1 LEVEL 3 128' - 0" BLDG 1 MAX HEIGHT 147' - 6" BLDG 1 BASEMENT 97' - 3"  ®               ®                      3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 - - 03/06/2013 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW STREET ELEVATION VIEW PDP 7 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - SPRINGFIELD DRIVE - STREET ELEVATION SCALE: NTS Cream Paint White Building Sage Paint Green Building Chestnut Stain Green & White Brown Roof Green & White Tan Paint White Building Mushroom Paint Green Building Red Brick Green Building Natural Stone White Building Spring� eld Drive South Shields Street PDP 3 1" = 20'-0" CARRIAGE  HOUSE  PLANT  LIST  03/05/13 KEY COMMON  NAME BOTANICALL  NAME QTY. SIZE RMKS. MITIGATION SHADE  TREES APA Autumn  Purple  Ash Fraxinus  americana  'Autumn  Purple' 3 3"  cal. B  &  B upsized  for  mitigation GSL Greenspire  Littleleaf  Linden Tilia  cordata  'Greenspire' 2 3"  cal. B  &  B upsized  for  mitigation SKY Skyline  Honeylocust Gleditsia  triacanthos  inermis  'Skyline' 2 3"  cal. B  &  B upsized  for  mitigation TOTAL 7 7"  TOTAL ORNAMENTAL  TREES ABS Autumn  Brilliance  Serviceberry Amelanchier  x  grandiflora  'Autumn  Brilliance' 15 6'  ht. multi-­‐stem CP Chanticleer  Pear Pyrus  calleryana  Chanticlear 8 2"  cal. B PDP 3A 1" = 20'-0" ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4' TO ANY GAS LINE CLOSER THAN 6' TO ANY WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINE, AND NO CLOSER THAN 10' TO ANY WATER OR SEWER MAIN. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS AND 15' BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. SHRUBS ARE NOT TO BE PLANTED WITH 4' OF ANY WATER OR SEWER MAINS. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD TO MAINTAIN THE ABOVE CLEARANCES. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. LANDSCAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT, ESCROW, OR A PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 125% OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INSTALLATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTINGS IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. LANDSCAPING WITH PUBLIC ROW AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. ALL LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITIES, WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREA TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH A 3" LAYER OF SPECIFIED MULCH OR COBBLE OVER WEEK BARRIER. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 1/8" X 4" STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD. IRRIGATED TURF TO BE SODDED WITH REVEILLE BLUEGRASS. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS EXISTING TREES MARKED FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPACT OVER THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING TREES. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SIDEWALKS AND PAVING LEVELS SHOULD BE CONTOURED SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID DAMAGE. ROOT CUTS FROM EXCAVATION SHOULD BE DONE RAPIDLY. SMOOTH FLUSH CUTS SHOULD BE MADE. BACKFILL BEFORE THE ROOTS HAVE A CHANCE TO DRY OUT AND WATER THE TREE IMMEDIATELY. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION , ALL PROTECTED TREES SHALL HAVE ORANGE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING ERECTED, WHICH AS A MINIMUM ARE SUPPORTED BY 1" X 1" OR SIMILAR STURDY STOCK, FOR SHIELDING OF PROTECTED TREES, NO CLOSER THAN 6' FROM THE TRUNK OR 1/2 OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICH EVER IS GREATER, WITHIN THIS PROTECTION ZONE, THERE SHALL BE NO MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, DEBRIS, FILL OR CUT UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY FORESTER. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A 4" DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORS OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD ROW AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE 'RIBBON OFF', RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN NOTE (5) ABOVE. THIS N00°29'45"E EAST LINE OF THE SE 1 4 OF SECTION 15 (BASIS OF BEARINGS) N89°00'15"W 401.00' N00°29'45"E 128.77' N72°33'45"E 96.49' S89°00'15"E 241.36' S27°41'31"E 29.64' S00°29'45"W 142.00' SOUTH SHIELDS STREET (ROW VARIES) (PER REC. NO. 94076770, 94038384 & GLENWOOD COMMONS PUD) SPRINGFIELD DRIVE (60' ROW) (PER THE WESTERN HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION) JAMES COURT 9' UTILITY EASEMENT 12' ADDITIONAL ROW TO BE DEDICATED BY THIS PLAT 6' UTILITY EASEMENT 50.45' L1 L2 6.13' N00°29'45"E 164.29' 46.04' PARCEL NO. 97154-00-020 OUTLOT A, BENNETT ROAD BUNGALOWS (UNPLATTED) LOT 16 BENNETT ROAD BUNGALOWS LOT 15 BENNETT ROAD BUNGALOWS LOT 64 WESTERN HEIGHTS 15' SETBACK LINE LOT 1 62,991 sq. ft. 1.446 ac. 12.00' 6.00' 304.76' 9.00' N89°00'15"W 39.00' 977.88' FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP LS 30462 FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP LS 30462 FND #4 REBAR DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE DENVER PHONE: 303.861.5704 3003 LARIMER STREET FAX: 303.861.9230 DENVER, COLORADO 80205 WWW.OZARCH.COM December 19, 2012 Mr. Ted Shepard Chief Planner Community Developer and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Reference: Carriage House Apartment Homes, 1305- 1319 S. Sheilds, Fort Collins, CO Statement of Planning Objectives Dear Mr. Shepard: We are pleased to submit the Project Development Plan for Carriage House Apartment Homes, a proposed student apartment community. The development is located at the addresses of 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street at the site of (3) existing residences at the southwest corner of Springfield Drive and South Shields Street. The property is currently located in the NCB zone with a TOD overlay. The neighborhood character includes multi-family condominium buildings, single family homes and limited commercial uses. We have outlined below the key elements of our proposal. Demolition Plans: The property is currently occupied by existing one and two story wood frame homes. The proposal includes the demolition of existing structures that have been deemed non-historical. Program and Unit Mix: Our proposal includes five (5) multi-family apartment buildings comprised of two (2) different footprints and elevation styles. There are two (2) 'Green Buildings' containing 14 units each, and three (3) 'White Buildings’ which have 10 units each. The new buildings are two different heights. The ‘White Building’ is three (3) stories over a garden level and the ‘Green Building’ is three (3) stories over a basement. The five (5) buildings combined will contain (57) apartment homes broken out as follows: • Twenty-nine (29) 1-Bedroom dwelling units, thirteen (13) of these are garden level (below grade) • Sixteen (16) 2-Bedroom dwelling units, two (2) of these are garden level (below grade) • Twelve (12) 3-Bedrooms dwelling units • Ninety-seven (97) total bedrooms Accessibility: The buildings abide by Appendix M: Colorado Title 9 Article 5 – standards for accessible housing. With 57 total units we have to meet 24 Accessibility points. We have completed this with 2 Type A units worth 6 points each, and 4 Type B units worth 4 points each for a total 28 points. The buildings, as proposed, contain a combination of both Type A and Type B units per the current codes. Parking: The project site is located within the NCB zone with a TOD overlay, thus no parking is required per the current codes. Despite this zoning, we are working towards maximizing the amount of parking that we can have on this site. We currently have 34 standard spaces, 25 compact spaces and 3 ADA spaces for a total of 62 on-site parking stalls. Enclosed bicycle 12.19.2012 Page 2 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx storage is required on this site. We have provided 59 enclosed spaces within the building structures (we have 97 bedrooms total, so this equates to over 60% of the bedrooms having a storage space under the roof), and additionally, we have located a minimum of 40 fixed bicycle racks outside throughout the site for easy access. Site Plan: The concept of the site design is to allocate the density into structures that are more compatible with the square feet of homes. We have endeavored to maintain space between the buildings as well as gracious set-backs consistent with the adjacent lots. The proposed site layout places the front facades of the buildings toward Springfield to relate to the neighborhood context. We have designed the buildings to have front porches which face the street and to create an inviting sense of arrival. The placement of the buildings and the scale we have developed them at is consistent with intent of the principals and policies outlined in the city plan document which seeks to create a strong streetscape. Our front setback is contextual to the 1201 W. Springfield home immediately to the West, which we have measured at thirty feet. The subject property building façades along Springfield are currently thirty-one feet (31’-0”) from our property line. Our side yard setback is set to fifteen feet (15’-0”) from S. Shields street and our structures are fifteen feet (15’-0”) from the neighboring lot to the South on S. Shields. Building Design and Materials: The architecture is sensitive to the neighborhood context and all of the building facades are well articulated. The style of the buildings is reminiscent of the ‘shingle/ craftsman style’. In this architecture, there is a richness to the material pallet and a sense of crafted details that give a sense of scale to the buildings. The massing of the buildings use traditional forms such as hip and gable roofs, heavy grounded bases, timber bracket details and cozy covered front-porch features. We have used a variety of materials and colors to enhance the articulated facades, creating different textures within a well thought out composition. It is the intent that the two types of buildings are different in their look and material composition, yet that they blend together into one streetscape composition. We have carefully selected a variety of materials to ensure this. These include the following: • White Building: We have designed this building to have a natural color Sunset Stone base with a non- combustible siding in two styles and colors. The stone will be similar to Dakota Stone from Masonville which is used on many buildings in the city. We have both a horizontal lap siding and a shingle siding at the accent gables and are suggesting a pallet in buff or taupe tones to blend with the natural stone. Additionally, we have a combination of stained rough-sawn wood timbers and non-combustible stained fascia boards for the building railings, trim and accent brackets. The roof is made up of simple asphalt shingles and is low in pitch to reflect the craftsman style. • Green Building: This building has a brick base in dark red tone and also has a combination of a non- combustible siding in two styles and colors. We have both a horizontal lap siding and a shingle siding at the accent gables and are suggesting a pallet in green tones to contrast with the red brick colors similar to the buildings on the campus of CSU. Additionally, we have a combination of stained rough-sawn wood timbers and non-combustible stained fascia boards for the building railings, trim and accent brackets. The roof is asphalt shingles and is low in pitch to reflect the craftsman style. Landscape and Hardscape: The landscape is important to our proposal as well. The site has a beautiful row of Orchard trees to the North along Springfield. We have endeavored to keep these trees and have designed them into the site plan. Additionally, we meet the codes required for landscaping in this zone district with our plan. It is also an important design idea of our proposal that the buildings each have a ‘walk’ that attaches to the sidewalk on Springfield and creates a path to the front porches of each structure. This will be lit with residential style sidewalk lamp post and will create a neighborhood feel. To the North along the parking lot, we will have walks leading to each building and connecting to the parking. Between these walks will be landscape areas with a combination of grass, bushes and trees. 12.19.2012 Page 3 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx Neighborhood Concerns: We have held two neighborhood meetings to inform the community about our plans on this site. The concerns that the neighbors have brought up include the following: • Our design proposal at our first neighborhood meeting was to site 1 large building on the site. After much resistance from the neighbors we are proposing 5 separate buildings. The layout of the buildings on the site will relate to the adjacent single family homes and keep in characteristic of the neighborhood. • Height of the buildings – we have kept the buildings under the 40’ height limit and have reduced the height of the ‘White Building’ to the West so that the project massing steps down a few more feet to the neighbor on that side. • Parking – the neighbors were concerned about residents parking on the street in front of their homes. We have strived to park as many cars onto our site as possible to help keep what we can on our property. We have also provided ample bike racks for the residents. We feel with the location of this property, many of the residents will take public transportation or walk to their destinations. • During our second neighborhood meeting we received comments about the location of our trash enclosure. We have listened to the neighbors and have moved the trash enclosure away from the neighboring properties and located it to the South West of building one. This location is convenient for the tenants as well as the trash truck to enter and exit the site. • We have talked closely with our neighbor to the West and have discussed how to berm up the hill between the property line and our parking to provide a nice landscape buffer. Trees will be located on this berm to help buffer the properties. We will have a six foot high fence along the West and South properties lines to help separate the properties and block the headlights of the cars in the parking lot. Planning Objectives: The City Plan design attributes are listed in the following policies below are the objectives that we have strived to address in this submittal. Policy EH 4.1 -Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas • This development is located on the corner of Springfield Drive and South Shields street which falls into the targeted infill area. The run down houses on the site will be replaced with new houses to connect to the surround neighborhood and offices neighboring the project. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). • The city encourages higher density in locations on transit lines and where existing infrastructure existing. The higher density housing located on this site is in close proximity to the university for easy access for tenants Policy LIV 6.1 -Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas • Expand underutilized parcels that are surrounded by existing residential development. The multi family development will add more dwelling units to the area while reflecting the neighborhoods character. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing • The development provides 57 units and 97 bedrooms to help add to and maintain an adequate supply of multi- family units. Policy LIV 7.7 –Accommodate the Student Population • This development helps to bring more apartments to the area and place students into appropriate housing types versus neighboring single family homes located near the university. Policy LIV 10.1 -Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets 12.19.2012 Page 4 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx • No new streets will be built to complete this development. The existing streets will be enhanced by abiding to the latest ROW standards and incorporating existing trees on the site to enhance the new sidewalks. Policy LIV 22.1 –Vary Housing Models and Types • The development consists of 5 buildings that incorporate the detail of craftsman style architecture. The variation in details, colors, balconies and roofs bring a variation to the streetscape. The style of building reflects similar styles located in the neighborhood. Policy LIV 22.2 - Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design • The project has developed 5 multi-family homes versus 1 large building on the site. Each building has its own carriage style street lamp post leading up to the buildings front porches. These characteristics reflect the neighboring single family homes. Policy LIV 43.3 - Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns • The corner of South Shields and Springfield is an ideal site to support transit supportive development patterns. We are located near transit and close to bike trails for the apartment users to have easy access to. Policy T3.4 -Travel Demand Management • Our site is located close to the University which will help manage development in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence West Central Neighborhood Design Attributes Policy PD 4 - Pedestrian priority areas along the site will have new sidewalks with wider widths to make safer pedestrian traffic around the site and through it. Policy F7 - Endorses higher density near the University. Our site is in close proximity to the campus as well as has connections to transit and bike lines to encourage a safe site for student housing. HO 4 - Encourages multi-family development in deteriorated properties close to CSU which is what our project is doing. Future Housing Needs (B) - Encourages small scale apartment buildings to reflect with the surrounding buildings Housing Design (B) – Our development is in close proximity to CSU and will be student apartments which are encouraged to be 3 stories or more. With our project along Shields street and near other residential we thought that 3 stories was the appropriate scale for the site and to maximize student housing that is desired. Project Data: Below is the relevant project data for this submittal: • Applicant: Catamount Properties, Ltd 7302 Rozena Drive Longmont, CO 80503 Charles Bailey • Project Name: Carriage House Apartment Homes • Address: 1305- 1319 S. Sheilds Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 12.19.2012 Page 5 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx • Zoning: NCB with TOC overlay • Site Area: 64,828 SF (1.48 AC) • Gross Building area: 39,281 SF is less than 64,828 SF • Rear Site (back 50%) Area: 10,272 SF is less than (.33 of 31,614 SF = 10,433 SF) • Proposed Density: 38.5 DU/AC with 57 units • Proposed Height: Buildings do not exceed 40’-0” max height limit • Building Setbacks: Springfield – Front setback is contextual at 30’-0”. Side and Rear are set at 15’-0” • Proposed Building Coverage: 15,927 SF • Proposed Parking and Drives Coverage: 17,334 SF • Proposed Open Space/Landscape Coverage: 26,215 SF • Parking: 62 spaces total are located on the site • No new streets are a part of this proposal • Open space is calculated as 40.4% of the site. • There are no wetlands or other natural features that are impacted by this development. • The development will be maintained by the ownership group and a professional management company. • No commercial use is proposed on the site. We look forward to reviewing our project development plan submittal in greater detail with you. If you should have any questions or need additional information do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, Rebecca Stone, AIA, Principal OZ Architecture of Denver, Inc 3003 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303-861-5704 East Mulberry Corridor Plan Harmony Corridor Plan I-25 Subarea Plan North College Corridor Plan Prospect Road Streetscape Plan South College Corridor Plan Downtown Plan East Side Neighborhood Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Northside Neighborhoods Plan Northwest Subarea Plan West Side Neighborhood Plan West Central Neighborhoods Plan 00.0.25 511.52 Miles © Subarea Plans These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Growth Management Area Subarea Plans Printed: March 03, 2011 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES Structure Plan. In areas termed “low density mixed use district,” acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections along arterial streets during the peak hours, is defined as level of service F, which is considered to be normal in an urban environment. The Shields/Springfield intersection operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Figure 3 shows the site plan for Carriage House Apartments. Carriage House Apartments will consist of 57 apartment units (97 beds). Carriage House Apartments will be marketed toward CSU students. Access to Carriage House Apartments will be via a driveway on Springfield Drive. Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used as the reference document in calculating the trip generation. Persons (beds) was used as the trip generation variable. Since this site is close to the Colorado State University campus, a reduction (25%) was taken for the apartment trips that are expected to walk or bike to and from this site. Table 2 shows the trip generation for Carriage House Apartments. This trip generation was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. The trip generation for Carriage House Apartments is calculated at: 204 daily trip ends, 27 morning peak hour trip ends, and 31 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Using the cited reference document, the three single family homes generates: 28 daily trip ends, 2 morning peak hour trip ends, and 3 afternoon peak hour trip ends. It is expected that the proposed Carriage House Apartments will generate more traffic than the existing land use. One of the single family homes has direct access to Shields Street, a four-lane arterial street. The Shields Street access will be closed. Removing direct access to an arterial street is viewed as favorable from a traffic operations perspective. In addition to this, the number of driveways on Springfield Drive will be reduced to one and located approximately 400 feet from Shields Street. The trip distribution for this site is shown in Figure 4. The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the site generated traffic assignment of Carriage House Apartments. Figure 6 shows the short range (2017) background peak hour traffic at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2017) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. The counted traffic was increased at the rate of 1 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2017) background peak hour operation at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The Shields/Springfield intersection will operate acceptably with the existing control and geometry. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Level of service F is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Figure 7 shows the short range (2017) total peak hour traffic at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Table 4 shows the short range (2017) total peak hour operation at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Calculation forms are provided in DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES Appendix E. The Shields/Springfield intersection will operate acceptably during the peak hours. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Level of service F is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Figure 8 shows the short range (2017) geometry at the Shields/Springfield intersection. This is the existing geometry at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Traffic on Springfield Drive will increase slightly to the west of this site. However, it will be commensurate with that expected on a local street. The Carriage House Apartments site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Carriage House Apartments. The Carriage House Apartments site is located within an area termed as “pedestrian district,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories except street crossing, which is B. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Carriage House Apartments: 1) the Colorado State University Campus area and residential area to the east of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site, 3) the residential neighborhood to the north of the site, and 4) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site. There are small commercial components in destination areas 1, 3, and 4. It is not likely that there would be much pedestrian affinity between the residents of Carriage House Apartments and the residential neighborhoods in the area. There are crosswalks at the Prospect/Shields and Elizabeth/Shields signalized intersections. There is a striped crosswalk, across Shields Street, at the Shields/Lake intersection. This crosswalk has a pedestrian signal. Currently, there are sidewalks adjacent to the site along Shields Street and Springfield Drive. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Carriage House Apartments. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are two bicycle destinations: Colorado State University Campus and Bennett Elementary School. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. This site connects directly to bike lanes on Shields Street, which achieves level of service B, as shown in Appendix F. Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 3 and 19, which serve the CSU Transit Center. It is expected that transit level of service will be acceptable. It is concluded that, with development of Carriage House Apartments, the future level of service at the Shields/Springfield intersection will be acceptable. The recommended geometry is shown in Figure 8. The level of service for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes will be acceptable. SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields Springfield Drive AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 4/24 1103/1278 7/12 760/1227 6/13 21/21 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield EB LT/RT C F (stop sign) SB LT A B TABLE 2 Carriage House Apartments Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartments 97 Beds Eq. 272 Eq. 7 Eq. 29 Eq. 26 Eq. 14 25% Reduction for Alternative Modes 68 2 7 6 3 Total 204 5 22 20 11 Springfield Drive TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street SITE 10% 45% 45% Springfield Drive AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 2/9 2/9 10/5 10/5 1/2 4/18 2/1 20/10 Site Access Springfield Drive AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 4/25 1159/1343 7/13 799/1290 6/14 22/22 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield WB LT/RT C F (stop sign) SB LT/T B B TABLE 4 Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield WB LT/RT D F (stop sign) SB LT/T B B Springfield/Site Access WB LT/T A A (stop sign) NB LT/RT A A Springfield Drive AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 6/34 1159/1343 9/22 799/1290 16/19 32/27 28/36 1/2 11/38 4/18 2/1 20/10 Site Access Springfield Drive SHORT RANGE (2017) GEOMETRY Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street Site Access - Denotes Lane APPENDIX A 1 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX B 6 7 APPENDIX C 8 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Recent Am Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 6 21 4 1103 760 7 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 7 25 5 1298 894 8 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1557 451 902 0 0 0 Stage 1 898 - - - - - Stage 2 659 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 103 556 749 - - - Stage 1 358 - - - - - Stage 2 476 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 102 556 749 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 102 - - - - - Stage 1 358 - - - - - Stage 2 473 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 0 0 HCM LOS C A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 280 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.837 - 19.5 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.006 - 0.113 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.019 - 0.379 - - 9 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Recent PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 13 21 24 1278 1227 12 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 15 25 25 1345 1348 13 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2078 681 1361 0 0 0 Stage 1 1355 - - - - - Stage 2 723 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 46 393 501 - - - Stage 1 205 - - - - - Stage 2 441 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 44 393 501 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 44 - - - - - Stage 1 205 - - - - - Stage 2 419 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 66 0.2 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 97 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.567 - 66 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.05 - 0.412 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.159 - 1.7 - - 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 11 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Intersection type Commercial corridors Mixed use districts Low density mixed use residential All other areas Signalized intersections (overall) DE*DD Any Leg EEDE Any Movement EEDE Stop sign control (arterial/collector or local— any approach leg) N/A F** F** E Stop sign control (collector/local—any approach leg) N/A C C C * mitigating measures required ** considered normal in an urban environment 12 APPENDIX D 13 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Background AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 6 22 4 1159 799 7 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 7 26 5 1364 940 8 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1636 474 948 0 0 0 Stage 1 944 - - - - - Stage 2 692 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 92 537 720 - - - Stage 1 339 - - - - - Stage 2 458 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 91 537 720 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 91 - - - - - Stage 1 339 - - - - - Stage 2 455 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 20.7 0 0 HCM LOS C A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 262 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.033 - 20.7 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.007 - 0.126 - - HCM Lane LOS B - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.02 - 0.425 - - 14 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Background PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 14 22 25 1343 1290 13 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 26 26 1414 1418 14 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2184 716 1432 0 0 0 Stage 1 1425 - - - - - Stage 2 759 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 39 373 470 - - - Stage 1 188 - - - - - Stage 2 423 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 37 373 470 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 37 - - - - - Stage 1 188 - - - - - Stage 2 400 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 88.6 0.2 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 82 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.113 - 88.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.056 - 0.516 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.177 - 2.215 - - 15 APPENDIX E 16 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Total AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 16 32 6 1159 799 9 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 19 38 7 1364 940 11 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1642 476 951 0 0 0 Stage 1 946 - - - - - Stage 2 696 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 91 535 718 - - - Stage 1 338 - - - - - Stage 2 456 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 90 535 718 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 90 - - - - - Stage 1 338 - - - - - Stage 2 452 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 29.6 0.1 0 HCM LOS D A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 202 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.064 - 29.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.01 - 0.28 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.03 - 1.098 - - 17 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Total PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 19 27 34 1343 1290 22 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 22 32 36 1414 1418 24 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2209 721 1442 0 0 0 Stage 1 1430 - - - - - Stage 2 779 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 38 370 466 - - - Stage 1 187 - - - - - Stage 2 413 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 35 370 466 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 35 - - - - - Stage 1 187 - - - - - Stage 2 381 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 130 0.3 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 75 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.367 - 130 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.077 - 0.722 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.248 - 3.385 - - 18 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Site Access & Springfield Short Total AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 28 1 4 11 2 20 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 0 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 33 1 5 13 2 24 Number of Lanes 1001 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 34 0 57 34 Stage 1 ---- 34 - Stage 2 ---- 23 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1578 - 950 1039 Stage 1 ---- 988 - Stage 2 ---- 1000 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1578 - 947 1039 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 947 - Stage 1 ---- 988 - Stage 2 ---- 997 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 1.9 8.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 1030 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.288 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.025 - - 0.003 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.077 - - 0.009 - 19 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Site Access & Springfield Short Total PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 36 2 18 38 1 10 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 0 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 42 2 21 45 1 12 Number of Lanes 1001 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 44 0 130 43 Stage 1 ---- 43 - Stage 2 ---- 87 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1564 - 864 1027 Stage 1 ---- 979 - Stage 2 ---- 936 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1564 - 852 1027 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 852 - Stage 1 ---- 979 - Stage 2 ---- 923 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 2.4 8.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 1008 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.333 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.013 - - 0.014 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.039 - - 0.041 - 20 APPENDIX F 21 SCALE: 1"=500' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields 22 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Pedestrian district Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification Directness Continuity Street Crossings Visual Interest & Amenities Security Minimum A A B A A 1 Actual A A B A A CSU/residential to the east Institutional/ Residential Proposed A A B A A Minimum A A B A A 2 Actual A A A A A Residential to the west Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum A A B A A 3 Actual A A A A A Residential to the north Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum A A B A A 4 Actual A A A A A Residential to the south Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum 5 Actual Proposed Minimum 6 Actual Proposed Minimum 7 Actual Proposed Minimum 8 Actual Proposed Minimum 9 Actual Proposed Minimum 10 Actual Proposed 23 SCALE: 1"=500' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields 24 Bicycle LOS Worksheet Level of Service – Connectivity Minimum Actual Proposed Base Connectivity: C B B Specific connections to priority sites: Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification 1 Colorado State University Institutional B B B 2 Bennett Elementary School Institutional B B B 3 4 25 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 10, 2012 Minutes Council Liaison: Wade Troxell (970-219-8940) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission adopted Resolution No. 3, 2012, recommending that Council approve Fort Collins Landmark District Designation for the Whitcomb Street Historic District. The Commission determined the eligibility of 1305 South Shields Street, finding the house to not be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. The August 8, 2012 minutes were approved as corrected. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:45 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were John Albright, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Dave Lingle, Belinda Zink, Ron Sladek, and Pat Tvede. Sondra Carson was absent. Staff present were Historic Preservation Planners Josh Weinberg and Karen McWilliams, CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich, City Attorney Paul Eckman, City Planner Courtney Levingston, and Nina Lopez, Staff Support. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORTS: None. COMMISSIONER MEMBERS’ REPORTS: Mr. Ernest reported that on October 5, 2012, Mr. Frick, Mr. Weinberg, Ms. Zink and Mr. Ernest attended History Colorado’s Preservation Commission Training Workshop, for Certified Local Governments. He obtained the latest historic preservation economic impact report as well as other publications for the Commission members. One presentation he attended concerned preservation as a sustainability tool and another one addressed evaluating defensible historic district boundaries. At the National and State Register levels, boundary “donut holes” are frowned upon and are usually disallowed, and boundaries are continuous although sometimes irregular. Savannah Jamison of the City and County of Denver gave a presentation about project software Denver is currently using to do a survey of historic properties, which may be useful to Fort Collins. Mr. Weinberg spoke with Patrick Eidman, Preservation Planner for the State Historical Fund, about giving a future presentation to the Commission regarding the economic and sustainability reports. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Sladek made a motion to approve the August 8, 2012 minutes, as amended, with Brenda Zink corrected to Belinda Zink. Motion passed (8-0). 1 PUBLIC INPUT: None Mr. Sladek proposed a brief break until 6:00 p.m. to keep to the posted schedule. PROPOSED WHITCOMB STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT – FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION Mr. Sladek asked for clarification as to whether tonight’s hearing is limited to discussing the resolution that was drafted or could the Commission discuss the application itself. Mr. Eckman said the application could be discussed and changes could be made to the resolution if they chose. Staff noted that the code excludes some changes to the boundary; it can be reduced or modified but not increased without beginning the process anew. Mr. Sladek explained the hearing procedures. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Weinberg gave a brief project description and stated the request is for the Commission to take official action on the proposed Whitcomb Street Historic District and to approve, reject, or modify the proposed district, and to make a recommendation to City Council. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Kevin Murray submitted a compact disk (marked Exhibit 1) with information about the development of the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street and the influence of architect Montezuma Fuller. The information on Fuller was already included in the Commission’s packets, so he did not repeat it. He presented slides showing the history of the development of the 100 block. The changes in this block reflect the development of Fort Collins prior to WWII. Mr. Murray pointed out the brick houses existing in the block prior to 1897; that, as depicted on the original town plat, building lots faced onto Meldrum, Sherwood and Whitcomb, but did not face onto Mountain Avenue; and that Abner Loomis broke with this pattern and built his homes to face onto Mountain Avenue. Additionally, by 1906, the four frame houses on the east side of the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street had been built, as did the Landmark house on the corner of Mountain and Whitcomb. By 1906, people no longer required barns and large gardens, so lots were beginning to be subdivided, and one Mountain Avenue lot had already split off its rear section for a Whitcomb Street home. In the 1930s, additional lots were split, as people needed less land and more money. Many important individuals, including Loomis, Fuller, Stewart Case, and Arthur Garbutt were all involved with the neighborhood. The large majority of property owners in the Whitcomb Street Historic District want to preserve their neighborhood. The demolition of the historic house at 122 South Whitcomb demonstrated the changes that can easily occur without protection. The applicants would like to preserve their neighborhood, and in doing so save some of our collective history. STAFF COMMENTS: None PUBLIC COMMENT: Catherine Costlow, 121 S. Whitcomb Street and her husband oppose a historic district. She summarized her letter to the Commission. They respect the historic nature of properties and for that reason chose to live in Old Town. In this area they could work on their house, restore it, and try to honor its integrity to the best of their financial capability, without having to deal with subdivisions, covenants, and rules. Their neighbors are trying to use government to limit their property rights. They asked that the designation not occur without unanimous consent of all the people on the block. Mr. Murray responded that he knows the Costlows and they are nice neighbors. Having regulations to keep the community a certain way might make some feel their individual rights are being stomped on. He sees drastic changes happening around them. Development pressures include their zoning, which allows for duplexes. PDOD has included their area, and if that becomes an overlay district there is a possibility for drastic change even quicker. Commercial development also is moving west. These are the reason they are applying for designation, to enable them to keep their neighborhood. He feels that designation is protective, versus taking away. He felt this will help their properties, and allow them to have a better lifestyle. Nancy York lives at 130 S. Whitcomb, built in 1889 and purchased by her parents in 1938. She grew up in the neighborhood and has a deep affection for it. The new house at 122 S. Whitcomb that is being built is taller, wider, longer and quite different from the others. At the corner of Mountain and Whitcomb, the owner has taken the house down to its studs, enlarged the house, and faced it to Mountain Avenue. Next to the alley on Mountain Avenue is a lot whose house was scraped from it and about a year ago, for commercial use. She felt that their neighborhood is being threatened. She understands that historic designation means that any significant alteration of her home’s exterior requires permission through the LPC. Her impression is that it is not an arduous process and that the LPC is reasonable. She appreciates that the Costlows do not want anyone telling them what to do. The block deserves a certain level of preservation and she is hoping the district designation is approved. COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATION: The Commissioners took time to read newly received letters and emails. Letters from Catherine and David Costlow, John and Amy Volckens, Veronica Lim, Nancy York, and Scott Hickman will be entered into the record. PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued): Virginia Cross owns two of the houses, at 129 S. Whitcomb and 612 W. Oak, and lives in one of them. She read her letter (marked Exhibit 2). Old Town Fort Collins is becoming more desirable as a residence location. Demolition of older homes is becoming more common, to provide lots on which to build new custom homes. Preservation is important to maintaining neighborhoods and to Fort Collins’ history, and it is necessary to have landmark designation for their neighborhood. Heather Manier, 125 S. Whitcomb, stated some of her neighbors have had their homes individually designated. She found that no one likes dealing with the City. She wants the 3 historic designation to go through, but is concerned that it is at the whim of those on the board. She read her letter (marked Exhibit 3). She wants the recognition and protection of historic zoning to protect their way of life, their neighborhoods, their community, and the stability of the local economy. This collective heritage is their responsibility and it is the LPC’s responsibility to protect it. Although Catherine and Dave do not agree with them, she knows that they do care about their house and the block. The National Trust for Historic Preservation states that districts tend to have ten to twenty percent more valuable prices than similar homes not in historic districts. Suzanne Murray of 117 S. Whitcomb summarized her letter (marked Exhibit 4). She is concerned with the growth and change from the comprehensive City Plan and how policies that are in place are not always followed. She stated that historically significant buildings, sites, and structures downtown and in the community should be preserved, and asked the LPC to recommend the approval of the South Whitcomb Local Landmark District. Robert Bailey, 1306 W. Mountain Avenue read Veronica Lim’s letter (marked Exhibit 5) in support of the proposed historical district. Ms. Lim wants to preserve the historic character of this neighborhood and prevent any further demolition of the homes here. Mr. Sladek noted that of the eight letters received or read this evening, six are in favor of and two opposed to the designation of the district. STAFF COMMENTS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER’S DISCUSSION: Mr. Sladek commended those who put the nomination together as it was a massive undertaking and a huge amount of work, and was done well. He suggested changes to improve the quality of the nomination. The Statement of Significance was brief and could be improved if more information contained in the body of the document was added to each of the areas of significance. Both upper middle class and middle class are used to describe the neighborhood; perhaps choose one. The Montezuma Fuller information is compelling, especially the architectural analysis and the historical discussion about why these homes might have been designed or inspired by Fuller; however, the information is tenuous. On the first page of the nomination he felt it would be helpful to mark the list of addresses as contributing or non-contributing to the district. Mr. Ernest recommended Mr. Sladek’s suggestions be followed to improve the nomination not only for the nomination but also for local history archives, as the information would be very useful. Mr. Ernest’s own research showed that before 1910 Arthur Garbutt, a cousin of the family, was an architect with Fuller before he left in 1910 to Cheyenne. One would presume that Fuller may have had a hand in the design of these houses, although it is not conclusive. Discussion continued regarding Mr. Sladek’s suggestions. Nothing needs to be changed before the Commission votes, as this is not an issue of the validity of the arguments which are present in the document. Staff noted that this is the applicants’ document. Additionally, a Statement of Significance is usually a summary of the more in-depth information; it is not meant to be all inclusive. Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the proposed South Whitcomb Street local landmark district including 601 West Mountain and 612 West Oak under Section 14-23 of the City Code with the proviso that Contributing or Non- Contributing be posted after each address and exclude Montezuma Fuller information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Frick. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that Section 14-23, cited by Ms. Tvede, references only the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Review. The code section to cite would be Chapter 14, Article 2, “Designation Procedure;” or more specifically, Section 14-26, “Findings and Recommendations of the Commission.” Ms. Tvede amended the motion from Section 14-23 to Section 14-26, accepted by Mr. Frick. Motion passed unanimously (7-0). The Commission clarified with Mr. Eckman that a separate motion is not needed on the Commission’s resolution to City Council, which was, de facto, contained within this motion. The motion and resolution will be forwarded to City Council. The Commission took at short break. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGNATION AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK, 1305 SOUTH SHIELDS STREET, FORT COLLINS – CHUCK BAILEY, CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES Mr. Sladek again explained the hearing procedures for new arrivals to the meeting. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Kadrich explained that the appeal process is new to the Code and this specific property was heard by prior commissions related to a determination of eligibility and appealed through the Planning and Zoning process. As a result, the Ordinance was changed to allow the Commission to hear a determination of eligibility and allow for the staff to have a list of independent reviewers to do a more in-depth review of the property for the Board’s consideration. Mr. Weinberg stated this property has been reviewed multiple times for its eligibility as a Fort Collins Landmark. The City hired an independent expert in historic preservation per the new revised code, Robert Autobee from Morgan Angel Associates, to evaluate the property according to Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. APPLICANT COMMENTS: Chuck Bailey of Catamount Properties has been seeking an amenable solution to saving the house but felt the house was not eligible and the solution is demolition. Part of the report was produced by the neighbors and was a component of rendering a decision by the Steve Dush, former CDNS director and the Chairman. There were errors and 5 inconsistencies in that report when he presented to the Planning Commission and City Council last spring but, unfortunately, there was not an appeal process in place at that time. The History Matters report describes the home as being a Tudor revival but the Morgan Angel report disputes that. The Gebau Structural Engineering report describes renovations to the 1305 residence which morphed it from a small worker’s cottage into what it is today by way of four separate additions. The Morgan Angel report declares there is no historical integrity to the home, corrects the ownership timeline, and disputes any idea that someone of historical importance lived in the home while they accomplished important deeds. He noted it is not eligible on the National Standards but also not in the Fort Collins Standards either. STAFF RESPONSE: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Joel Rovnak, Ph.D., Colorado State University, stated that his letter is included in the Commissioners’ packets and went on to clarify that the two independent determinations of historic eligibility were prepared and designated by this Commission prior to the submission of Dr. Anstey’s report. They were not made at all on the determination on the basis of that report. On reviewing the report both prior to its submission and subsequently, there was no statement that Dr. Carlson lived in the house while he was president of the University of Wyoming. It is clear the disposition of Dr. Carlson’s inhabitance of that house limits it to the time of his raising and marriage. That is the limit of the historic aspect regarding his residence there. Any efforts to construe the History Matters report in other ways regarding the history are mistaken. APPLICANT RESPONSE: The History Matters report erroneously states that Dr. Carlson lived with his wife and children at 1305 South Shields Street from 1954 to 1968. He moved out of the home once he married and this information is clarified in the Morgan Angel report. STAFF RESPONSE: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Closed COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek stated that the Commission must make a determination of eligibility in light of the new architectural survey report prepared by Bob Autobee of Morgan Angel. They must determine whether the building and the property exhibit an adequate degree of architectural integrity and an adequate degree of significance to merit its being eligible. The new information was received after December 2011 from reports by Morgan Angel, Rogue Architecture, and Gebau Structural Engineer and this information did not have any influence on the previous determination. The request includes two survey forms; the one by Dr. Anstey of History Matters which was done prior to November 2011 and the subsequent one prepared by Bob Autobee of Morgan Angel. Mr. Autobee’s finding is that the property is not eligible for designation. This is a reversal of the earlier conclusion and is based on both the historical association with the occupant of the home and with the architecture. The eligibility is specifically for the house at 1305 South Shields. Dr. Anstey’s report stated that Dr. Carlson lived at 1305 South Shields Street from 1954 to 1968, until he went to the University of Wyoming. Subsequent to that, the Rogue Architecture and the Morgan Angel reports state that Dr. Carlson lived at 1301, not 1305. If Dr. Carlson’s significance in history is tied to a specific property, the weight of evidence seems to indicate he was at 1301, not 1305 from 1954-1968. Mr. Autobee stated both homes have been in the Gilkison and Carlson family for almost ninety years. Much of his documentation is based on a phone call with Susan Ward who is William and Beverly Carlson’s daughter. In her memory and what she was told by the family is that they lived in both places. Her parents begin their marriage in 1301 South Shields but later moved to the chicken coop or secondary structure at 1305. Part of the problem in early documentation of the site is that there was confusion about where 1301 and 1305 were at, but also early City directories had errors. Mr. Autobee’s conversation with Ms. Ward verified one of the properties is north of Springfield and one is south of Springfield. What they must first determine is that the property has exterior integrity before considering if there was an important person who lived there or the other three elements of eligibility. The three components of eligibility are: age, does it have an adequate amount of architectural integrity, and finally, what is it significant for? If one of the three elements is not there eligibility cannot be supported. There were enough questions raised in the combined reports about the construction history of the house; some of the materials, structural systems that show it was built in different periods. The shed dormer on the front could impact the integrity of the front façade and the argument about the garage and its dominance because it faces the street. Mr. Sladek said he has struggled since the beginning in trying to find an architectural style for the house. Buildings can combine different styles but has this home been compromised over the years? Mr. Frick stated additions and remodels in their own right can become significant over time. Mr. Albright noted that the matter of style is not the only determinant; the continuum of development of the structure is historic in its own right and to get trapped into the easily identified matter of style is to overlook that all structures change over the years. Mr. Albright made a motion that the Commission designates 1305 as eligible for designation. Mr. Frick seconded. Mr. Ernest asked if the motion was to include any citation of Section or paragraphs but Mr. Albright stated no. Mr. Sladek’s stated the second architectural survey done by Morgan Angel on the property was more complete and reliable than the first and concluded that the property is not eligible and he will support a not eligible determination. Mr. Lingle agreed and said the integrity that is there does not express the level of exterior integrity that we should hold Fort Collins’ landmarks to. He’d like to see the Commission raise the bar and have a quality inventory of eligible and designated properties. Ms. Zink agreed with Mr. Lingle and added that 7 the historical significance of the Carlson ownership is not something that would override the lack of integrity. Mr. Sladek concurred. A roll call vote was taken: Albright and Frick voted Yes. Ernest, Lingle, Sladek, Tvede, and Zink voted No. The motion failed (2-5). OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Lingle recommended we drop the time designations off the agenda to which everyone agreed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 p.m. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Carriage House Apartments, 1305 – 1319 South Shields Street MEETING DATE: October 29, 2012 APPLICANT: Charles Bailey, Developer, Catamount Properties CITY PLANNER: Courtney Levingston, City Planner, City of Fort Collins The meeting commenced at 6:00 p.m. with an introduction of City Staff and the Applicant’s team. After the introduction, City Staff explained the City’s review process as it relates to this development proposal and explained opportunities for citizens to engage in the process. At 6:20 p.m. the Applicant gave a project description and then took questions, comments and input from citizens as well as responding to questions and comments. The meeting adjourned around 7:27 p.m. Unless otherwise noted, all responses to questions and comments are from Mr. Charles Bailey, Principal, Catamount Development. Q: Is the application the same as development plans? When the application is put in, we’ll know what is in the plan? A: (City Planner) Yes. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 2 | P a g e Q: Why was the cooling off period May-October when the Landmark Preservation Commission decision was in October? A: (City Planner) Landmark Preservation Commission decisions are independent of the development cooling off period. The determination of eligibility process is located in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The “cooling-off” period is in the Land Use Code and applies to Development Review applications. The applicant applied for a “stand-alone” modification of standards to Planning & Zoning board, which was appealed April 3 rd . The “cooling off” period was Q: TOD code provision (LUC 3.10) shall include convenient outdoor area – what is the designated transit station for this area? A: (City Planner) That code provision applies to projects south of Prospect Road. The TOD parking requirements are not located in Section 3.10, they are located in Section 3.2 and are part of the General Development Standards. Q: Is there a section of the code that includes north of Prospect Road? A: (City Planner) Article 3 of the Land Use Code, the General Development Standards, minus Section 3.10, applies to north of Prospect Road and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District standards. Q: Is there a main entrance off Springfield? A: Yes. C: I am concerned about the entrance being located on curve. Visibility will be difficult and I think there is a high potential for accidents. The fence on other side of the street was previously knocked down. Slowing bumps make it better. There are 20-25 cars parked on the street on a normal day. This project adding parked cars, in conjunction with the curve of Springfield Drive, creates a high potential for accidents. With 50 spaces proposed, there will be at least an additional 50 cars parking on the street & parking/traffic issues. A: Each building has 10 units. There are 5 buildings proposed for 50 units and about 100 beds. At Pure Vida, for example, not all residents have cars. Q: Coming off Springfield Drive onto Shields Street is adding a lot of traffic and there is also Bennett Elementary nearby. With this proposal, it will be even more difficult to make a left-hand turns going northbound onto Shields Street. Q: Will each unit be a 2-bedroom unit? Bedroom numbers have a profound impact on the neighborhood. A: The bedroom count is not finalized at this time. It will be a combination of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, for about 100 bedrooms. When the submittal is made, number of bedrooms will be known. Q: Is there a maximum number of units based on acreage? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 3 | P a g e A: (City Planner) The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District standards regulate density in this instance. It states that 24 units/acre and below, an administrative hearing, above and a Planning & Zoning Board hearing. The site is about 1.5 acres. 50 dwelling units/1.5acres is about 33 du/acre – that would mean a P&Z Hearing. C: This is the same plan as last time. The neighborhood had concerns of height (3- story buildings not fitting in the neighborhood and the number low number of parking spaces). I appears as though the concerns from neighborhood were ignored. A: (Developer) Neither is a code element. There are issues on the development end when taking height into consideration. C: There are single story buildings across the street from site and in the surrounding areas adjacent to the project. The doctor’s office across street is single story. The office building nearby is two stories. There are no 3-story buildings in this area. Q: What are the density requirements of the code for the site? What was the Code when it was originally developed? There must be some restrictions on number of units. A: (City Planner) No maximum density in terms of specific number of dwelling units. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district regulates density though minimum lot area size and Floor Area Ratio as opposed to strictly limiting the number of units. However, some zoning districts in the City (such as the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District) have density maximums related to number of units. Code came into effect in 1997 and there are frequent changes to the code. Q: How often is the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone evaluated? Why is our area included in TOD even though we are far away from the Mason Corridor? I feel that this inclusion in the TOD doesn’t fit in our Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone with the inclusion of TOD zone with reduced parking requirements. A: (Planning Manager) Property already has an underlying zone assigned to it, in addition the zone can have the TOD overlay if within defined boundaries and brings in new/different requirements. Still using and evaluation the standards adopted by City Council. Q: What defines the TOD overlay? What does it even mean? A: (City Planner) Generally, the TOD boundary runs along the targeted infill and redevelopment areas identified in City Plan (City’s Comprehensive Plan). South of Prospect, there are additional standards that apply to the district. C: (City Planner) The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is evaluating parking and other impacts of student housing in areas around campus. Please contact Beth Sowder in Neighborhood Services from City to become involved in SHAP and provide input regarding this effort. Q: Do the requirements of TOD precede NCB zone district? How does the overlay district interact with NCB district? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 4 | P a g e A: (City Planner) The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone (NCB) is contained in Article 4 of the Land Use Code and parking requirements are not contained in zone district standards (Article 4), they are contained in Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards of Article 3, General Development Standards. Division 3.2 of the Land Use Code states that in the TOD Overlay, no parking is required. Division 3.10 TOD standards apply to lands south of Prospect Road and the High Density Mixed Use zone district. TOD assists in promoting multi-modal transportation, one of the policies of City Plan. Q: Less than a mile away is single-family development only. How did this get converted to multiple units? A: (City Planner) I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone district was never converted. The NCB has always allowed many uses such as single family homes, duplexes, multi-family, offices, medical clinics, funeral homes – many different types of uses within the NCB zone district are permitted. C: It is my understanding that the last time students surveyed students on if they owned cars, 80% said they bring cars with them. Even if they are riding bikes they need to park their cars somewhere. I believe the TOD and Mason Corridor will require a change of values and education. C: Students have to get to Fort Collins, they have their cars. If parking isn’t required, they will overflow on the public streets. Currently, Springfield Drive is heavily trafficked including many pedestrian, bicycles, skateboarders ect. Cars are being parked somewhere and City is allowing city streets to be overrun by cars on streets. With so many cars parked in front of my house it is difficult to get and out of my driveway, especially with the inability to see over cars, through tinting. A: (Developer) We are planning as much parking as the site will allow. Pure Vida has 47 reserved parking spaces, and the development so far is working well. It may not be the development at hand that is the issue. Commuter students are poaching spaces in residential neighborhoods as they drive into campus. There is no real density around CSU campus and until there is, students will drive in from outlying areas of the community and park their cars in the surrounding neighborhoods. C: I don’t see increasing density as a solution in areas around campus. This project is adding a potential 100 beds and maybe 80 cars. Cars are already lining Springfield Drive. Adding 50 cars could be parking on nearby streets and there aren’t many parking spaces. It will be difficult and dangerous to drive down our streets. There are safety issues for neighborhood children and college students. Springfiled Drive and Shields are already busy streets and increasing density in the areas dangerous situation to put people in. Q: You (developer) have been talking about the proposal for a year. There is a commitment in terms of time and cost and understanding the nuances of the process. We understand that development occurs and projects need to be viable. As more Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 5 | P a g e becomes clear in the plans, we would like to feel an assurance that you are listing to us and taking into account neighborhood suggestions. This will make it more livable for neighbors when you take our concerns into account. Q: (Developer) Has anyone been designated from the neighborhood as a spokesman? A designated person can help facilitate communication. A: (Citizens) After the meeting, we will look into designating one for you. C: I disagree about a lack of density near the university. Mulberry to Prospect & Shields to Taft is one of the most heavily populated square miles in the City. There are a lot of townhomes, duplexes, apartments. A: (Developer) Density is relative. Looking at 7 universities, only Laramie has less density than Fort Collins. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Kansas State has more density. This is what is happening (density) on Laurel Street and it is positive for the community. Densification allows students to live near campus and walk to CSU. Q: Assuming the project goes ahead, and creates a problem on Springfield Drive– can the city do anything about temporary parking or discourage what may happen with overflow from this project? A: (Planning Manager) Usually what happens is someone makes a phone call, and then enforcement happens. Over the years, there has been creative solutions, depending on location and land-uses opportunities for shared parking with adjoining uses. For example, residential units and nearby offices can share parking because they have different peak uses periods so a private shared parking agreement may be an option. Parking issues are somewhat difficult to deal with once units are already established. Onsite property management may be the first to hear complaints and then City. Students can be creative when finding parking spaces. This is a topic everyone in the vicinity of campus has to deal with. Q: Who do we approach to look into these solutions? A: The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is exploring idea of neighborhood parking permits and signage. Contact Beth Sowder to provide inputs/comments. SHAP is going up for Council consideration. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 6 | P a g e A: (Developer) We would endorse neighborhood parking decals. The problem may be Students and CSU staff from outside neighborhoods poaching parking spaces. These types of developments are desirable as they are close to campus. C: There are two huge CSU parking lots that are never full. One where they will be building stadium and off-college at west Lake. We need to ask CSU to get involved. CSU may not want to pay for the improvements, there parking lot fees force users to park in nearby neighborhoods. CSU has Emily Allen paid part time and she should be involved if students are not required to buy parking. Students save money by parking in the neighborhoods. Please pass this feedback onto SHAP. Q: Will there be onsite management? A: (Developer) Undecided at this point. We will look at if it is valuable. Another layer of supervision. One possible option could be that we could split management between Pure Vida and this development. C: On site management would be a good idea being that this project is so close to an elementary school so the school isn’t dragged into college antics. Q: Who considers the movement of people across Shields? It is incredibly difficult to get across the street to CSU. I am concerned for the new residents, CSU users, school kids and parents. How will adding another 100 students to the area going to increase safety in terms of crossing Shields? This is a very dangerous situation and a safety issue. A: (Developer) At Pure Vida, there was no access point across Laurel. A mid-block crossing (flashing light) was installed and helps break traffic speed at the location (Sherwood & Laurel). A: (City Planner) In addition to the application form, a traffic study will be required that looks at vehicular, pedestrian & bicycle traffic. How they move from place to place will be evaluated. Pure Vida may have be a tipping point in helping to get a mid-block crossing on Laurel Street. Q: Would you (the Developer) be an advocate of a similar mid-block crossing device? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 7 | P a g e A: I would try and help persuade the City. Q: You mentioned a plaza/common area on the back of the property. Parking impacts west/south side neighbors. Are there any plans for buffering those living next to the development from large gatherings, noise, headlights? You need to provide consideration for those living in the neighborhood. A: The plaza is a sitting area, gathering place. There will be community WiFi like at Pure Vida. It provides an opportunity for residents to take their laptops outside. No plans yet and we are looking for input. This plan would meet City requirements for landscaping the perimeters. C: People’s housing right next to the site and needs to be taken into consideration. A: This will be a professionally managed property and there will be no renting by the bed. We take this very seriously. This is a $10 million asset and we intend to manage it well. There will not be large gatherings if we can help it. Q: I have more questions regarding onsite management. Can you speak more about that? A: We will never have someone onsite 24 hours a day. Carriage House Apartments will have professional policies and we will enforce those policies. We do not allow smoking or pets or allow loud noise/music. This will be a high-end student housing community and can’t allow several bad apples to ruin the experience for others. C: Springfield Drive is a springboard for roaming freshman, looking for parties. If there are parties at the development, it can quickly grow. A: I can’t guarantee there won’t be parties. If a party gets out of hand it would be a lease violation and we would strictly enforce it. C: The police are so busy downtown they do not have time to take care of these issues on Springfield. The driveway of the project could be a congregating space. Students could be making a big circuit and students alert each other to this complex from Thursday-Saturday nights. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 8 | P a g e A: We will have exterior cameras to watch the parking lot for these reasons, including car vandalism. In the past at other properties we have looked at film when assessing lease violations. Q: Pure Vida comes right up to fence on Bluebird. The house on Bennett to the south of the project will be highly impacted by this project. What is the buffer from a backyard fence to the parking lot? What is the required buffer? There are trees right now on the site and homes close to the road. A: Building is 15 feet from site boundary, parking lot 5 feet. A fence/landscaping to help screen headlights. Q: If we meet again, will the next plan be radically different from what is shown, or marginally different? A: The plan will differ in terms of better detail, and an understanding of how buildings fit together. We are committed to smaller, separate buildings (as shown). This design will be a better match with the articulation, elevations to make them look like large homes. Q: What about those people with the greatest impact, will there be any compensation for the dust/noise/construction/overall long term negative impact of the development on our area? There will be trash from construction workers and I notice it can get messy around construction sites. I would like to ask you for compensation for the disruption this project will cause. A: We film the construction site to police it. There will be an erosion fence & fence around the site to mitigate dust and disturbance. Q: I would like to hear more about the proposed character of the development. What mitigates that these are 3-stories and nearby structures are 2-stories or less. I am concerned with the proportions and massing. A: We only have rudimentary drawings currently. Envision buildings with portions and articulation; they won’t be boxes. There will be differentiated roofs. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 9 | P a g e Q: Would you be agreeable to another meeting when plans are further along to comment on elevations/site plan? These plans are not far enough along to inform neighborhood. A: Yes. When the plans are submitted those details will be available. I am happy to attend another meeting. C: The neighborhood is asking you to consider single and double-story nature of the neighborhood and the surrounding buildings. Look at privacy and forestry issues to help fit in with the neighborhood as plans move forward. A: We are trying to save as many of the trees as possible and large evergreen on the corner. A lot of trees on site are nuisance trees such as Siberian Elms. Q: Is it possible this project will be built to resell and maximize your investment? What does your company do? A: We do not have a general agenda. It depends on the cycle and what the investment world/potential looks like. A tsunami of apartments in Fort Collins and it doesn’t take a lot to overbuild. We will gauge the market then evaluate our options. Q: Is it possible that this project will be resold and then the neighborhood will be dealing with a different management company with completely different viewpoints than yours? A: It is certainly possible. This project is designed as a high-end apartment community and is unlikely to be sold and run it into the ground. C: If the demand isn’t there, there will be cut-rate bargains to move into the property. A: People have to service debt obligations and can’t reduce rents too low. Q: What is the history of Catamount Properties and your experience? Do you currently own anything other than Pure Vida on West Laurel Street? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 10 | P a g e A: Catamount is a personal company and we have been in business since 1991 and I am the sole proprietor for over 10 years. My previous experience is in building condominiums. This is my second apartment building built. A: Catamount Properties is not building the multi-family near DQ (Choice Center). That is Catamount Construction. Different company. C: The community recognizes a project is going to happen, but the neighborhood wants to be assured you care about the neighborhood and have invested and built the community. We want to make sure there are not so many people that it ruins the community and our neighborhood. The neighborhood wants their concerns taken into consideration. I am not coming away from this meeting feeling that my concerns are being adequately and appropriately addressed by you. A: I do want to take concerns in. I voluntarily met with the neighborhood in August 2011. We are going to pursue a 3-story development. If the neighborhood is going to try and defeat project on historic preservation issues or 3-story issues; you are not going to get there. However we can work together to find solutions on other issue the neighborhood may have. C: This neighborhood has not behaved as badly as others of contentious projects such as the Grove. The City wasn’t even aware of meeting you held in August 2011. The previous meeting created some distrust. What was the purpose of that meeting? We will look into appointing a community spokesman for the developer. A: The meeting in August of 2011 was a well-intended meeting of trying to present self to neighborhood proactively. I am not trying to end-run the system – I gave out contact information, but City would not have endorsed meeting as there was not a concept plan yet. A: What came out of the meeting in August 2011 was not to have a huge building, and we spoke of parking issues. Those issues have been ignored even before there were drawings. A: The code allows for a 3-story building and as it is in TOD, so it does not have to have 100 spaces. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 11 | P a g e C: An opportunity to sit down and talk about these issues – possibly having a spokesperson or a few people to discuss issues. C: This is the official neighborhood meeting however that doesn’t preclude other meetings from occurring. We encourage working together and some issues may always have varying opinions. A: (City Planner) I am not certain when submittal would come into City, but minimum 14 days after this meeting before a submittal could be made. Once there is a formal application, look for yellow-sign on site. Q: When the plan is submitted to the City, what is the timeline if it meets all requirements until it is approved? A: (City Planner) From initial submittal, the first round of review is 3 weeks. Staff review meeting with developer is on a Wednesday. Based on the first meeting with the City and Developer we provide comments and plans are revised for additional round(s) of review taking 2 weeks for each round. If it is ready to go to P&Z Hearing then we schedule it. Planning and Zoning Board Hearings occur on the 3 rd Thursday of each month. It takes about a month after we decide it is ready to go to P&Z. Typically there is about 4 months from submittal to Planning and Zoning Board hearing however it can vary depending on the submittal. Neighbors can e-mail or send written comments to me and I will submit with my staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board. Those written comments establish you as a party of interest in terms of an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision. All comments you submit to me will be forwarded on to applicant. It sounds like the applicant would be happy to meet with neighborhood again, on a one-on-one format, possibly with a small group of neighborhood spokespeople. A: (developer) Everyone loses when a neighborhood decides to dig in and try and kill a project (The Grove). If you can, find a spokesman and get behind that person and show, as a neighborhood, what you want to see. C: (City Planner) Part of reason meetings take place before plans are finalized/submitted is so there is a greater opportunity for changes to be made to the plans prior to the developer investing a lot of resources into drawing the plans. Having the meeting early is a great opportunity for the developer to incorporate what he hears tonight into the plans in some fashion. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 12 | P a g e A: (developer) I am trying to be realistic. Three-story buildings are a very important component of project for feasibility. Q: If project goes ahead, what is the range of starting construction to opening? A: (developer) Around 8 – 10 months. REVISED 3/14/13 PROJECT: Remington Row, Project Development Plan, #PDP110017 APPLICANT: Jeff Hansen Vaught Frye Larson Architects 401 Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Christian and Robin Bachelet Remington Annex, LLC 706 South College Avenue, Suite 202 Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an eleven unit multi-family infill redevelopment project. As proposed, the two existing homes located at 705 and 715 Remington Street would be demolished and replaced with two multi-family buildings. The historic home at 711 Remington Street would remain and be rehabilitated, containing a two bedroom unit. The project proposes 5 two-bedroom units and 6 three-bedroom units for a total of 11 units and 28 bedrooms. Parking would be in the rear with 21 spaces gaining access off of the alley to the west. The site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer Zone District. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Multi-family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with development standards of the N-C-B Zone District and with the applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code with the exception of the submitted Modification of Standard requests, which Staff recommends approval. The project, with its’ two new, three story multi-family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 2 of the Laurel School National Register district by utilizing a complementary design featuring historically appropriate architectural detailing, roof pitches and overhanging eaves. This complementary design, in tandem with the reduced massing and scale, reinforces the compatibility with the overall neighborhood context. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential, with Kensington Apartments to the northeast); S: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential); E: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential) with NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (existing single-family residential) beyond; W: C-C—Community Commercial District (existing commercial and mixed- use properties) with Colorado State University beyond. All three subject properties, 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980. Two of the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register district “intrusions” and not eligible for local landmark designation. Ten additional properties on the 700 Block of Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register as contributing to the district. Additionally, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as the Button House, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in August, 2011. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and neighborhood context. This project was initially submitted in 2011 under the name Remington Annex. The previous iteration proposed to demolish all existing structures at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street and construct one large multi-family building with 30 studio units, 8 one bedroom units and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 units with a bi-level parking garage with 65 spaces. The previous project struggled to meet the N-C-B density and dimensional standards as well as the historic preservation standards contained in Article Three of the Land Use Code. In February 2012, the Applicant elected to request five stand-alone Modification of Standards requests in connection with the previous Remington Annex PDP. The Planning and Zoning Board denied the stand-alone modification requests and the Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 3 Applicant appealed the decision to City Council in April, 2012. The City Council upheld the Board’s denial decision. In the summer of 2012, the Applicant utilized the City’s Design Assistance Program. Instituted by City Council in 2011, the Design Assistance Program aims to help property owners with setting, massing, and overall design composition to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties and minimize the impacts of new construction on contextually sensitive, and often historic, areas. Through this program, a local architect collaboratively redesigned the project, working towards envisioning a multi-family infill redevelopment project that both meets the needs of the Owners and complies with the Land Use Code and Historic Preservation criteria, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. This project was resubmitted to the Community Development and Neighborhood Services department in fall of 2012, with the reduced number of units, massing, scale as well as the preservation and rehabilitation of the Button House at 711 Remington Street. Additionally, the project was presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission on September 26, 2012 for a complementary review and again on February 13, 2013, requesting feedback prior to the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. 2. Compliance with Article Four- Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Standards: As previously mentioned, the site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). The purpose of the N-C-B Zone District is: “…intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.” To the west of the site is a commercial area, South College Avenue and Colorado State University; to the east is primarily single family residential. The proposed project fits the intent and purpose of the N-C-B Zone District. A. Section 4.9(B) – Permitted Uses In the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer zone district, the review and decision making body for multi-family housing projects are governed by the number of dwelling units and the residential net density. The proposed land use is considered multi-family and is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The site is .457 acres. As 11 units are proposed, the density is 24.07 dwelling units per net acre. Since the PDP contains more than four dwelling units in one building, at a density of more than 24 dwelling units per acre, the land use is permitted, subject to review and a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 4 B. Section 4.9(D) - Density The N-C-B zone district permits a building to contain an amount of square footage that equals the lot area, which in this case is 19,897 square feet. The proposed square footage total is 12,143 square feet, thus complying with the standard. Additionally, the Land Use Code requires there to be a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .33 on the rear 50 percent of the lot. The rear half of the lot is 9,948 square feet in size. To meet the rear Floor Area Ratio of .33 the project could have no more than 3,283 square feet in the rear 50 percent of the lot. The project proposes 720 square feet in the rear 50 percent of the lot for a rear Floor Area Ratio of .07, meeting the standard. C. Section 4.9(D)(6) - Dimensional Standards If a project has more than one principal building constructed side by side on the same lot, then each building must have at least 40 feet of street frontage for two-family dwellings and at least 50 feet of frontage for multi- family buildings. The PDP proposes to combine the three subject lots, for a lot width of 142 feet. The residence at 711 Remington Street has one 2 bedroom unit, thus needing 40 feet of frontage. The two new buildings are required to have 50 feet of frontage. As proposed, the project is required to provide 140 feet of frontage and the lot width is 142 feet, meeting the standard. The minimum front setback from Remington Street is 15 feet. The two new buildings are set back 19 feet 9 inches from Remington Street. The proposed buildings are setback approximately 60 feet from the rear alley to the west, meeting the minimum requirement of a 5 foot setback from the alley. The two new buildings are three stories in height thus not exceeding the maximum allowed height of three stories. Additionally, the project is requesting a modification of standards to the side setback requirements of Section 4.9(D)(6)(d). This modification request is outlined below (page 5). D. Section 4.9(E)(1) - Building Design Since the buildings are rectilinear, all exterior walls are constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines. Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 5 The entrances of the buildings are oriented to Remington Street. The entrances are enhanced by overhangs. The proposed primary roof pitches for the buildings are 5:12, meeting the minimum roof pitch of 2:12 and within the maximum roof pitch of 12:12. The front elevation features a variety of treatments creating a well- articulated appearance. E. Section 4.9(E)(4) – Landscape/Hardscape Material The Code requires that a maximum of 40 percent of the front yard of a lot may be covered with inorganic material. The front yard area is 3,207 square feet in size, thus no more than 1,283 square feet could be inorganic material. As proposed, the project has 616 square feet (19%) of paving and sidewalk in the front yard and meets the standard. 3. Modification of Standards Request: The Applicant is requesting a Modification of Standards to Section 4.0(D)(6)(d), regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards as it relates to the side setback requirements. A. Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d) reads as follows: Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. B. Description of the Modification The north wall on the east portion of Building A (containing the two bedroom units) is 18 feet 4 inches tall and is set back 5 feet 11 inches from the north property line. The standard requires the wall to be set back 6 feet because the wall is over 18 feet in height. The north wall on the west portion of Building A (containing the three bedroom units) is 32 feet 6 inches in height and is set back 12 feet 3 inches from the north property line. The standard requires the setback to be 13 feet. The south wall on the west portion of Building C (containing the 3 bedroom units) is 36 feet 10 inches in height and is set back 14 feet 8 inches from the south property line. The standard requires the setback to be 15 feet. Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 6 C. Summary of Applicant’s Justification In the request for Modification letter, the Applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified as set forth in Section 2.8.2.(H)(4) of the Land Use Code. “In our previous submittal we proposed a building with three main building masses that defined the three wall planes facing the north and south side yards for the Remington Row project; two stories of apartments on the east side, three stories of apartments on the west side and a vestibule for an exterior stair tower that connects them. It was the stair tower mass that was not compliant with Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) for which we were requesting the modification of standards. Through discussions with City Staff we decided to move the exterior door to the exit stair so that the entire stair could be un-enclosed and thereby eliminating the non-compliant mass of the stair tower. However, a clarification of the standard of Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) revealed that tallest of the remaining walls on both the north and south property lines were also non-compliant. An illustration of the relationship between these two remaining wall planes as currently proposed is shown on the attached Fig. 1. This illustration also lists the maximum height of each wall plane, the required setback as prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) and the actual setback that is being provided by this proposed design. As it can be seen, efforts have been made to reduce the length and height of this section of wall as much as possible including not enclosing the stair as described above so that the diversion from the standard set in Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) becomes nominal and inconsequential. Therefore, the Remington Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(4).” D. Staff Evaluation of Modification Request The purpose and intent of this standard is one of impact mitigation. The step- back standard assists with regulating the magnitude of construction in the N-C-B district. This standard also recognizes that there are impacts to abutting, existing homes and that these impacts can sometimes be onerous, detracting from the quality of life for adjacent residents. When taken in context of the entire development plan, the small portions of wall that slightly deviate from the standard do not create a significant have very little, if any, impact on the adjacent properties. Staff finds that the small portions of the walls that are slightly under the required setback deviates from the standard in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, as it creates virtually no impact on adjacent properties and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. A. Review Criteria Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 7 Land Use Code Section 2.8.2 – Modification of Standards: (H) Step 8 (Standards): The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). 4. Compliance with Applicable Article 3 - General Development Standards: As illustrated by the previous section, the N-C-B zone contains numerous specific standards. Where N-C-B Zone District standards of Article Four are in conflict with the General Development standards of Article Thee, the N-C-B standards prevail (as noted in Section 3.1.2 of the Land Use Code). Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 8 The PDP complies with the applicable General Development standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1 (D) – Tree Planting Standards The PDP provides full tree stocking and 75% of the trees provided are canopy shade trees. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) – Minimum Species Diversity This standard requires that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen) will exceed the allowable 33 percent of the total number of trees on the landscape plan. The landscape plan proposes 23 new trees, and no more than 8 can be of one species. The most of any one species is the Crimson Spire Oak and Swedish Columnar Aspen, each with 6 trees (26%), complying with the standard. C. Section 3.2.1 (E)(2)– Landscape Area Treatment The Applicant is proposing an Alternative Compliance (3.2.1(N)) method for satisfying the 5 foot wide foundation plantings requirement on the west elevations of buildings A and C. The project provides 5 foot wide foundation plantings around the majority of the building. In order to meet the historic setback along Remington Street, the buildings were pushed west providing little room (only about 1 foot 7 inches) for foundation plantings along the west elevation of Buildings A and C. In order to meet the intent of the standard, the landscape plan incorporates two vertical trellises with creeping myrtle or similar plant material. 1. Section 3.2.1(N) - Alternative Compliance The proposed alternative compliance is considered based on “whether the alternative preserves and incorporates existing vegetation in excess of minimum standards, protects natural areas and features, maximizes tree canopy cover, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, or demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape elements.” Staff finds that the proposal for alternative compliance accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.1(E)(2) equally well or better than would a landscape plan which complies with the standards of the section. It complies with previously mentioned review criteria, in that the landscape trellis demonstrates innovative design by adding an architectural element featuring plant material, adding visual interest to the west elevations of the Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 9 buildings while introducing a natural element and softening the overall appearance. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) – Water Conservation Standards Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the Remington Row PDP landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees and moderate water use plant materials where practical. An automatic, underground irrigation system will be designed to address specific needs of different plan species, soil conditions, as well as the slope and aspect of the different hydrozones. An irrigation plan will be provided by the Applicant concurrently with their building permit application. The water budget chart provided by the Applicant calls out that the average water usage for the site is 8.72 gallons per square foot, under the maximum 15 gallons per square foot permitted. The project meets the water conservation standards. E. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The perimeter of the projects’ vehicular use area will be effectively screened from the residential uses to the north and south with a combination of plant material and a 6 foot tall wood fence, meeting the requirements of this standard. The project is also providing three planter pots separating three parking spaces from the alley, also meeting the Code requirements. F. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping This Section requires that at least 6% of the interior space of a parking lot be landscaped. The parking lot is 7,721 square feet which requires at least 463 square feet of interior landscaped area to meet the 6% requirement. As proposed, there is 819 square feet (10.6%) of interior landscaped area, meeting the 6% requirement. G. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. This standard requires that existing trees be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. For this project, 20 existing trees are proposed to be removed and 6 trees are proposed to be protected. The City Forester conducted an on-site meeting with the Applicant and determined a mitigation schedule. For mitigation of the existing trees to be removed, 23 trees are upsized. H. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access Circulation and Parking, Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 10 The site is an infill location surrounded by existing infrastructure including sidewalks. There are bike lanes along Remington Street and Laurel Street. The project takes vehicular access of the alley between South College Avenue and Remington Street. I. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities This standard requires multi-family residential to provide 1 bike parking space per bedroom with a minimum of 60% of these spaces enclosed. The PDP proposes 28 bedrooms and requires 17 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. As proposed, the project provides 30 bicycle parking spaces total. Of these spaces, 18 bike parking spaces are located within the building, and 12 spaces will be distributed among 2 exterior fixed bicycle racks located to the west of the residence at 711 Remington Street. J. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) – Parking Lots – Required Number of Spaces The Code requires a minimum number of parking spaces for two-family and multi-family projects, based on the number of units proposed. For every two bedroom unit, 1.75 spaces are required and for every three bedroom unit, 2 parking spaces are required. The project proposes 5 two- bedroom units and 6 three-bedroom units. The project is required, and provides 21 parking spaces and meets the standard. K. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking The code requires 1 van-accessible handicap parking space for projects with parking lots that contain less than 26 parking spaces. The Remington Row PDP provides 1 van-accessible space, meeting the requirement. L. Section 3.2.4 – Solar Access, Orientation, Shading This standard provides shading considerations for adjacent properties, to the maximum extent feasible. Moreover, one of the goals of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners. The applicant provided a shading exhibit with their PDP submittal. From the shadow study, Staff finds that this shadow does not excessively shade the adjacent properties, does not inhibit the use of solar collectors on these homes during the winter solstice, nor does it create a significant adverse impact on these adjacent properties. M. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The Applicant submitted a photometric plan and the proposed site lighting complies with the requirements set forth in this Section of the Land Use Code. Site lighting will feature down-directional, fully shielded, cut-off Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 11 fixtures that are consistent in character with the architecture proposed. Public street lighting has been factored into the lighting plan to avoid redundancy. N. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures The proposed trash collection/recycling enclosure satisfies the Land Use Code requirements. A new trash enclosure is proposed on the west side of the site and opens to the alley. O. Section 3.4.7– Historic and Cultural Resources Remington Row PDP is located within the Laurel School National Register Historic District and the existing home at 711 Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. The home at 711 Remington Street will be preserved and rehabilitated in place, consistent with the requirements of this Section of the Code. Additionally, the Code requires new construction to be designed to be in character with existing historic structures in the area. The abutting home to the north at 121 East Laurel Street (historically addressed as 701 Remington Street) was recently designated as a Local Landmark, in addition to the project being surrounded by buildings that contribute to the Laurel School National Register Historic District. As such, the two new buildings being constructed were intentionally designed to take the surrounding historic context into account utilizing appropriate and historically compatible architectural detailing and materials. P. Section 3.5.1 – Building Project and Compatibility This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the established architectural character and context of the general area. The compatibility standards of this section require that the characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the larger context of the surrounding area. The Land Use Code offers the following definition of the term “compatibility”: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 12 of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The definition of compatibility is unique as no single element of the compatibility definition is essentially equivalent to a compatibility litmus test; rather it is a contextually driven notion and is derived based on circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Instead of one large, massive multi-family structure (as initially submitted), the PDP responds to the existing residential character to the north, south and east, by breaking up the project into two smaller buildings that are articulated with dormers, lintels assisting with the project blending in with the existing streetscape composition. The architectural character borrows from the vernacular of the area. The designated residence directly to the north of Building A, at 701 Remington Street, is a large Foursquare style residence with wood siding, hipped roof with hipped dormers, columns on the central porch and features a boxed cornice with brackets and overhanging eaves. The proposed buildings incorporate similar detailing, materials, roof pitches and overhanding eaves, further reinforcing the project’s compatibility with the Laurel School National Register Historic District as well as the Eastside Neighborhood. The primary building material is horizontal lap siding with the inclusion of stone at the base, similar to the existing Button House at 711 Remington Street. The Buildings A and C are appropriately articulated, further breaking up each buildings mass, as they essentially read as large single- family homes, blending in with the existing streetscape. Detailing features such as hip and gable roofs, accented window trim and timber brackets enhance the architectural character and reinforce the compatibility of the project with the area. In terms of scale and height, Building C (south building) is proposed to be approximately 38 feet in height. The existing Button House (Building B) is approximately 21 and a half feet in height. Building A is proposed to be approximately 35 and a half feet in height. The residence on the abutting property to the south at 719 Remington Street is 27 feet tall and the residence on the abutting property to the north is 37 feet tall. In addition, many adjacent structures on the 700 block of Remington Street are similar in scale to the proposed buildings and the project is compatible in regards to height. Q. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) memorandum was provided in 2011 as part of the initial Project Development Plan submittal. The TIS Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 13 provided analysis for a larger project with 42 units and 46 bedrooms. Since the proposed number of units and bedrooms were reduced to 11 units and 28 bedrooms, it can be extrapolated that the traffic impacts will be less than the TIS infers. The TIS shows that the existing single family homes on site generate 28 daily trip ends and the trip generation for Remington Row is estimated to be around 33 trip ends. Typically, traffic engineers accept a 25 percent reduction in trips due to the proximity to the CSU campus and utilization of multi-modal transportation options. With a 25% reduction, Remington Row is estimated to have an impact of 25 trip ends, which is less that the existing use. Overall, the Traffic Study concludes that the level of service for pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes will be acceptable and Remington Row can be constructed without street improvements. 5. Compliance with Applicable Article Two, Administration: A. Section 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings Three neighborhood meetings were held for this project. Two of those meetings were held in 2011 for the previous iteration of the project. At that time, discussion centered on the potential impact upon the Eastside neighborhood in terms of massing, scale, density and character. After the project was redesigned, the neighborhood meeting held in January 2013 was supportive in tone and the project generally received positive feedback from the surrounding affected property owners and neighborhood. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In reviewing the request for Remington Row PDP, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Multi-family dwelling units are a permitted use in the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable provisions of Article Four, N-C-B District Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. D. The Project Development Plan complies with the required review criteria for alternative compliance in that it accomplishes the purposes of Section Remington Row, #PDP110017 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 14 3.2.1(E)(2)(d), Foundation Plantings, equally well or better than a landscape plan which complies with the standards due to its innovative design and use of plant materials on a vertical trellis, creating a unique and complementary aesthetic aspect of the project. E. Staff finds that the small portions of the north wall of property that are slightly under the required setback are not detrimental to the public good and deviates from the standard in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan as it creates virtually no impact on adjacent properties, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested Modification of Standard and the Remington Row, Project Development Plan, #PDP110017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan 2. Landscape Plan 3. Architectural Elevations 4. Photometric Plan 5. Traffic Study 6. Modification and Alternative Compliance Requests 7. Shadow Study 8. Minutes from February 13, 2013 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting and associated Staff Report 9. Notes from the January 2013 Neighborhood Meeting 10. Citizen Comments CONNECTION TO SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE THROUGH ADJACENT PARKING GARAGE REMINGTON STREET EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING 1-STORY RETAIL BUILDINGS EXISTING COLLEGIO 3-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING EXISTING 3-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (701 REMINGTON) CONNECTION TO EAST PLUM STREET ALLEY CONNECTION TO EAST LAUREL STREET LOT 1 19,897 SQ.FT 0.457 ACRES BUILDING "A" PRIMARY ENTRANCE 715 SOUTH EXIT DOOR TRASH & RECYCLING ENCLOSURE ON CONCRETE PAD METERS TRASH RECYCLING BUILDING "A" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.5' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS EXISTING RESIDENCE (719 REMINGTON) WATER SERVICE, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS SANITARY SERVICE, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR EXISITNG & NEW TREES AND SHRUBS. REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR EXISITNG & NEW TREES AND SHRUBS. EXISTING FENCE 3-BEDROOM UNIT 2-BEDROOM UNIT METERS BUILDING "C" PRIMARY ENTRANCE 2-BEDROOM UNIT 705 NORTH EXIT DOOR 3-BEDROOM UNIT 2-BEDROOM UNIT BUILDING "B" ENTRANCE 1234 5 21 20 19 9 18 17 16 15 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: REMINGTON ANNEX Fort Collins, CO DESIGN PHASE 2011-47 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 2011. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: - COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.5828 www. ripleydesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN RDI PLANT LIST ABBR. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME QTY SIZE RMKS % TREES GTS Shademaster Honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Shademaster' 3 3" cal. B&B 11% TCG Greenspire Linden Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' 3 3" cal. B&B 11% PTE Swedish Columnar Aspen Populus tremuloides 'Erecta' 8 3" cal. B&B 30% QCS Crimson Spire Oak Quercus Crimson Spire # TYPE SIZE CONDITION REQUIRED MITIGATION TREES PRESERVING OR REMOVING 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: REMINGTON ANNEX Fort Collins, CO DESIGN PHASE 2011-47 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 2011. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: - COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 fax 970/224.1662 phone 970/224.5828 www. ripleydesigninc.com Ŷ land planning Ŷ landscape architecture Ŷ Ŷ urban design Ŷ entitlement Ŷ PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) L2 MITIGATION PLAN RDI 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 CAST-STONE BASE 8" WOOD LAP SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLES ASPHALT SHINGLES 8" WOOD LAP SIDING BUILDING "C" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.25' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS SECOND FLOOR = 110'-0" THIRD FLOOR = 119'-0" ROOF BEARING = 128'-0" 12 4 12 5 12 5 12 5 CAST-STONE BASE STUCCO 8" WOOD LAP SIDING STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES BUILDING "A" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.5' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS SECOND FLOOR = 110'-0" THIRD FLOOR = 119'-0" ROOF BEARING = 128'-0" 12 7 12 5 12 5 BUILDING "C" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.25' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS BUILDING "A" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.5' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS ASPHALT SHINGLES 3" WOOD SIDING 8" WOOD LAP SIDING STUCCO CAST-STONE BASE ASPHALT SHINGLES 3" WOOD SIDING CAST-STONE BASE STUCCO STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES BUILDING "B" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.0' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS RESERVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN POWER AND GAS METERS. PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING MATERIAL. POWER AND GAS METERS. PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING MATERIAL. 719 REMINGTON BUILDING "C" BUILDING "B" BUILDING "A" 701 REMINGTON 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 PM2 705-715 REMINGTON STREET 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: REMINGTON ANNEX PDP SUBMITTAL APS..519-11 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 2011. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects SJM RJB, CMP LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN DELICH Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2010 ASSOCIATES Figure 3 shows the site plan for Remington Annex Student Housing. Remington Annex Student Housing will consist of 42 apartment units (46 beds). Access to Remington Annex Student Housing will be via the alley to the west of the site. Trip Generation, 8th Edition, ITE was used as the reference document in calculating the trip generation. Persons (beds) were used as the trip generation variable. Since, this site is close to the Colorado State University campus, a reduction (25%) was taken for the trips that are expected to walk or bike to and from this site. Table 2 shows the trip generation for Remington Annex Student Housing. This trip generation was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. The trip generation for Remington Annex Student Housing is calculated at: 72 daily trip ends, 18 morning peak hour trip ends, and 15 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Currently there are three single family homes on the proposed Remington Annex Student Housing site. Using the cited reference document, these existing homes generate: 28 daily trip ends, 3 morning peak hour trip ends, and 3 afternoon peak hour trip ends. It is expected that the proposed Remington Annex Student Housing will generate more traffic than the existing land use. The trip distribution for this site is shown in Figure 4. The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment of the Remington Annex Student Housing. Although, vehicles can enter the Remington Annex Student Housing site through the Collegio access on College Avenue, in the scoping meeting, it was requested that no site generated traffic would be assigned to the Collegio access. Figure 6 shows the short range (2016) background peak hour traffic at the College/Laurel, Laurel/Alley, Laurel/Remington, College/Plum, and Plum/Alley intersections. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2015) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. Traffic volumes were factor by 2.0 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2016) background peak hour operation at the College/Laurel, Laurel/Alley, Laurel/Remington, College/Plum, and Plum/Alley intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections will operate acceptably with the existing control and geometry. Figure 7 shows the short range (2016) total peak hour traffic at the College/Laurel, Laurel/Alley, Laurel/Remington, College/Plum, and Plum/Alley intersections. Table 4 shows the short range (2016) total peak hour operation at the College/Laurel, Laurel/Alley, Laurel/Remington, College/Plum, and Plum/Alley intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate acceptably during the peak hours. Figure 8 shows the short range (2016) geometry at the College/Laurel, Laurel/Alley, Laurel/Remington, College/Plum, and Plum/Alley intersections. This is the existing geometry at the key intersections. The Remington Annex Student Housing site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Remington Annex Student Housing. The DELICH Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2010 ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing site is located within an area termed as “pedestrian district,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories except street crossing, which is B. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Remington Annex Student Housing: 1) the Colorado State University Campus area to the west of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood/commercial to the north of the site, 3) the residential neighborhood to the east of the site, and 4) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site. Currently there are sidewalks adjacent to the site along Remington Street. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, the only bicycle destination is Colorado State University Campus. This site connects directly to bike lanes on Remington Street and Laurel Street, which achieves level of service A. Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 1 and Flex. It is expected that transit level of service will be acceptable. It is concluded that, with development of Remington Annex Student Housing, the future level of service at the College/Laurel, Laurel/Alley, Laurel/Remington, College/Plum, and Plum/Alley intersections will be acceptable. The level of service for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes will be acceptable. The Remington Annex Student Housing can be built without additional geometry or other street improvements. Laurel Remington Plum Myrtle Mulberry Locust Elizabeth College Matthews Peterson SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 Laurel College Plum Remington 323/390 900/1150 21/44 62/90 717/1266 11/22 38/160 86/116 150/470 10/34 126/107 40/81 1245/1554 20/29 883/1787 7/21 22/52 49/153 6/13 48/53 62/168 7/12 10/37 81/91 29/54 5/16 112/110 7/3 1/6 1/0 0/6 0/8 2/3 0/17 1/3 24/39 2/8 3/4 6/21 0/6 3/7 0/0 3/4 1/7 1/1 0/3 3/3 114/176 3/3 2/4 175/208 DELICH Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2010 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT C C EB T C D EB RT C D EB APPROACH C D WB LT C C WB T/RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT D D NB T/RT B C NB APPROACH C C SB LT D E SB T/RT C D SB APPROACH C D College/Laurel (signal) OVERALL C C NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A B Laurel/Alley (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT B B EB LT A B EB T/RT B C EB APPROACH B C WB LT B A WB T/RT B B WB APPROACH B B NB LT A B NB T A B NB RT A A NB APPROACH A B SB LT A A SB T A B SB RT A B SB APPROACH A B Laurel/Remington (signal) OVERALL B B College/Plum WB RT B B (stop sign) SB LT B C NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A Plum/Alley (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT A A SITE PLAN Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 DELICH Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2010 ASSOCIATES TABLE 2 Remington Annex Student Housing Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartments 46 Beds EQ. 96 EQ. 5 EQ. 18 EQ. 13 EQ. 7 25% Reduction for Alternative Modes 24 1 4 3 2 Total 72 4 14 10 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 Laurel College Plum Remington Alley Alley 50% 5% NOM NOM 20% 5% 20% AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 Laurel College Plum Remington NOM 1/2 2/5 3/1 7/3 3/1 1/2 1/3 0/1 1/0 NOM 0/0 NOM 0/0 1/2 0/0 13/5 NOM 1/0 NOM 3/7 0/1 Alley Alley AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 Laurel College Plum Remington 357/431 994/1270 23/49 68/99 792/1398 12/24 42/177 95/128 166/519 11/38 139/118 44/89 1375/1716 22/32 974/1973 8/23 24/57 54/169 7/14 53/59 68/185 8/13 11/41 89/100 32/60 6/18 124/121 8/3 1/7 1/0 0/7 0/9 2/3 0/19 1/3 26/43 2/9 3/4 7/23 0/7 3/8 0/0 3/4 1/8 1/1 0/3 3/3 126/194 3/3 2/4 DELICH Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2010 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2015) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT C C EB T C D EB RT C D EB APPROACH C D WB LT C C WB T/RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT D D NB T/RT B C NB APPROACH C C SB LT D E SB T/RT C D SB APPROACH C D College/Laurel (signal) OVERALL C D NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A B Laurel/Alley (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT B B EB LT A B EB T/RT B C EB APPROACH B C WB LT B A WB T/RT B B WB APPROACH B B NB LT A B NB T A B NB RT A A NB APPROACH A B SB LT A A SB T A B SB RT A B SB APPROACH A B Laurel/Remington (signal) OVERALL B B College/Plum WB RT B B (stop sign) SB LT B C NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A Plum/Alley (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT A A AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 Laurel College Plum Remington 357/431 994/1270 23/49 68/99 792/1398 13/26 42/177 97/133 166/519 14/39 146/121 47/90 1375/1716 23/34 975/1976 8/23 24/57 54/169 7/14 53/60 68/185 8/13 12/41 89/100 32/60 6/18 124/121 8/3 1/7 1/0 0/7 0/9 2/3 0/19 2/5 26/43 2/9 3/4 7/23 0/7 16/13 0/0 4/4 1/8 1/1 0/3 3/3 126/194 6/10 2/4 DELICH Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2010 ASSOCIATES TABLE 4 Short Range (2015) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT C C EB T C D EB RT C D EB APPROACH C D WB LT C C WB T/RT D D WB APPROACH D D NB LT D D NB T/RT C C NB APPROACH C C SB LT D E SB T/RT C D SB APPROACH C D College/Laurel (signal) OVERALL C D NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT B B Laurel/Alley (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT B B EB LT A B EB T/RT B C EB APPROACH B C WB LT B A WB T/RT B B WB APPROACH B B NB LT A B NB T A B NB RT A A NB APPROACH A B SB LT A A SB T A B SB RT A B SB APPROACH A B Laurel/Remington (signal) OVERALL B B College/Plum WB RT B B (stop sign) SB LT B C NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT/T/RT A A Plum/Alley (stop sign) WB LT/T/RT A A AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2016) GEOMETRY Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Remington Annex Student Housing TIS, December 2011 Laurel College Plum Remington Alley Alley Strength in design. 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.1191 fax 970.224.1662 www.theartofconstru March 1, 2013 City of Fort Collins Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Attention: Courtney Levingston Re: Revised Modification to Standards for the Remington Dear Courtney: VFLA is respectfully requesting Modification of the Row project: 1. Modification to Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) every 2’ wall height in excess to 18'. Code Language: Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that excee fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty In our previous submittal we proposed a building with planes facing the north and south side yards for side, three stories of apartments on the west side and a was the stair tower mass that was not compliant with Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) for which we were request modification of standards. Through discussions with City Staff we decided to move the exterior door to the exit stair so that the entire stair could be un tower. However, a clarification of the standard of Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) revealed that tallest of the remaining walls on both the north and south property lines were also non An illustration of the relationship between these attached Fig. 1. This illustration also lists the maximum height of each wall plane, the required setback as prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) and the can be seen, efforts have been made to reduce the length design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.1191 fax 970.224.1662 www.theartofconstru Community Development & Neighborhood Services Modification to Standards for the Remington Row project LA is respectfully requesting Modification of the following Standards of the City’s Planning Code for the Remington 4.9(D)(6)(d) in regards to the increase of the 5’ side yard setback an additional 1’ for every 2’ wall height in excess to 18'. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of ds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). In our previous submittal we proposed a building with three main building masses that define planes facing the north and south side yards for the Remington Row project; two stories of apartments on the east side, three stories of apartments on the west side and a vestibule for an exterior stair tower that connects them. was the stair tower mass that was not compliant with Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) for which we were request modification of standards. Through discussions with City Staff we decided to move the exterior door to the exit stair so that the entire stair could be un-enclosed and thereby eliminating the non- ication of the standard of Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) revealed that tallest of the remaining walls on both the north and south property lines were also non-compliant. An illustration of the relationship between these two remaining wall planes as currently prop attached Fig. 1. This illustration also lists the maximum height of each wall plane, the required setback as prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) and the actual setback that is being provided by this proposed design. fforts have been made to reduce the length and height of this section of wall as much as possible, community. 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.1191 fax 970.224.1662 www.theartofconstruction.com 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.1191 fax 970.224.1662 www.theartofconstru including not enclosing the stair as described above 4.9(D)(6)(d) becomes nominal and inconsequenti modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(4). 2. Modification to Division 3.2.1(E)(2 Code Language: Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least fifty (50) percent of such walls. The attached Figure 2. illustrates the visual impact that a five foot wide planting bed as required by Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) would have along the west side of one of the proposed buildings. This illustration represents two staggered rows of feather reed grass During the most recent meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission the importance of aligning the face of the proposed buildings with the setback facing Remington Street established site was re-emphasized. This setback required by LUC 4.9(D)(6)(b). This pushes the structures farther back on the property and limits the amount of space available for parking and landscaping on the rear portion of the lot. The optimized for efficiency of space including the vehicle circulation. The building footprint has also common areas to code minimums. buildings and the parking lot which i the west side of the buildings has a pl significant wall plane. The remainder of the landscaping planting area available is 1 foot a After establishing the maximum area that could be made available would support viable vegetation in t what is required by LUC Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) minimal planting bed but can provide an extensive amount of cover over time. In order to protect the buildings from the climbing plants a free-standing trellis and off the face of the buildings. In the areas with planting beds three feet wide and greater a single row of feather reed grass will be planted in front of the trellis and planting configuration along one of the proposed buildings. By comparing Figure 2 to the proposed p screening provided by the proposed Therefore, the Remington Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(1). Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely, Jeff Hansen 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.1191 fax 970.224.1662 www.theartofconstru as described above, so that the diversion from the standard set in Division nominal and inconsequential. Therefore, the Remington Row modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(4). E)(2)(d) in regards to the required 5 foot wide foundation plantings. Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least fifty The attached Figure 2. illustrates the visual impact that a five foot wide planting bed as required by Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) would have along the west side of one of the proposed buildings. This illustration represents two reed grass obscuring exactly 50% of the west facing foundations. During the most recent meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission the importance of aligning the face of the proposed buildings with the setback facing Remington Street established by the existing structures on the setback is 19 feet, 9 inches from the east property line . This pushes the structures farther back on the property and limits the amount of e for parking and landscaping on the rear portion of the lot. The depth of the parking lot has been optimized for efficiency of space including the use of compact parking stalls and the footprint has also been optimized by designing efficient common areas to code minimums. The resulting design results in a planting bed between the west side of the buildings and the parking lot which is only 3 feet and 3 inches wide extending for 52% of each building. 31% of the west side of the buildings has a planting area greater than 5 feet, a majority of which is not a part of the most he remainder of the landscaping planting area available is 1 foot a After establishing the maximum area that could be made available a landscaping solution in the narrow area available and provide visual screening 32' - 6" 18' - 4" GROUND PLANE WALL PLANE A1 WALL HEIGHT: 18'-4" SETBACK REQUIRED: 6'-0" SETBACK PROVIDED: 5'-11" 34' - 7" WALL PLANE A2 WALL HEIGHT: 32'-6" SETBACK REQUIRED: 13'-0" SETBACK PROVIDED: 12'-3" FINISH FLOOR 6" ROOFS, EAVES AND TRIM HAVE BEEN OMMITED FROM THIS ILLUSTRATION FOR CLAIRTY PORTION OF WALL THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD OF DIVISION 4.9(D)(6)(d) (4.6 SF OF WALL IS 9" TOO CLOSE) PORTION OF WALL THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD OF DIVISION 4.9(D)(6)(d) (4.6 SF OF WALL IS 9" TOO CLOSE) 23' - 3" 36' - 10" GROUND PLANE WALL PLANE C1 WALL HEIGHT: 23'-3" SETBACK REQUIRED: 8'-0" SETBACK PROVIDED: 8'-4" WALL PLANE C2 WALL HEIGHT: 36'-10" SETBACK REQUIRED: 15'-0" SETBACK PROVIDED: 14'-8" FINISH FLOOR 1' - 3" 34' - 7" ROOFS, EAVES AND TRIM HAVE BEEN OMMITED FROM THIS ILLUSTRATION FOR CLAIRTY PORTION OF WALL THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARD OF DIVISION 4.9(D)(6)(d) (3.9 SF OF WALL IS 4" TOO CLOSE) Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects 1/8" = 1'-0" 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 12/19/12 Fig. 1 RJH RJH SIDEYARD SETBACKS 2011-47 REMINGTON ROW 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH PROPERTY LINE Illustration of Visual Impact of 5-Foot Wide Foundation Planting for 50% of High-Use Building Exterior as Required per LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) Scale Project number Date Drawn By Checked by 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com VAUGHT FRYE LARSON aaaarrrrcccchhhhiiiitttteeeeccccttttssss 1/8" = 1'-0" 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 02/28/13 RJH FOUNDATION PLANTINGS 2011-47 REMINGTON ROW RJH Fig. 2 CEDAR LATTICE WITH CLIMBING VINES TIMBER FRAME TRELLIS 52% OF WALL WITH 3'-3" PLANTING BED BED 1'-7" PLANTING BED GREATER THAN 5'-0" 31% OF WALL WITH PLANTING Illustration of Visual Impact of Proposed Foundation Plantings as Described in Request for Modification of Standard Required By LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) Scale Project number Date Drawn By Checked by 401 West Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com VAUGHT FRYE LARSON aaaarrrrcccchhhhiiiitttteeeeccccttttssss 1/8" = 1'-0" 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 03/01/13 RJH FOUNDATION PLANTINGS 2011-47 REMINGTON ROW RJH Fig. 3 BUILDING "C" SOUTH EXIT DOOR METERS 3-BEDROOM UNIT 9 15 SCREENING WALL SEAT WALL 10 11 12 13 14 BICYCLE PARKING 3 VERT. BICYCLE RACKS PER FLOOR (5) STANDARD PARKING SPACES 45' - 0" 14' - 8" 5' SIDEYARD SETBACK NEW 5-UNIT, 3-STORY BUILDING 1' - 7" 3' - 3" BUILDING "C" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.25' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS ASPHALT SHINGLES WOOD SHAKE SIDING 6" WOOD LAP SIDING CEMENT BOARD SIDING CAST-STONE BASE POWER AND GAS METERS. PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT BUILDING MATERIAL. CEDAR LATTICE WITH CLIMBING VEGETATION TIMBER FRAME TRELLIS 3" WOOD SIDING 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. PDP RE-SUBMITTAL 2 (01-30-2013) 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 2/22/2013 5:00:09 PM G:\2011\11-47 Remington Annex\3 Drawings\Remington Annex - Construction Drawings.rvt 2/22/2013 5:00:09 PM PDP5 SHADING EXHIBIT REMINGTON ROW PDP SUBMITTAL 2011-47 Author Checker NOVEMBER 21st, 9:00am NOVEMBER 21st, 3:00pm DECEMBER 21st, 9:00am DECEMBER 21st, 3:00pm FEBRUARY 21st, 9:00am FEBRUARY 21st, 3:00pm HYPOTHETICAL 25' WALL HYPOTHETICAL 25' WALL HYPOTHETICAL 25' WALL SHADOWS CAST BY 25' HYPOTHETICAL WALL & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY NEW STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY 25' HYPOTHETICAL 25 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL WALL PER LUC SECTION 3.2.3(D) HYPOTHETICAL SHADOW LINE HYPOTHETICAL SHADOW LINE 25 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL WALL PER LUC SECTION 3.2.3(D) 25 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL WALL PER LUC SECTION 3.2.3(D) 25 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL WALL PER LUC SECTION 3.2.3(D) HYPOTHETICAL SHADOW LINE HYPOTHETICAL SHADOW LINE 25 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL WALL PER LUC SECTION 3.2.3(D) 25 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL WALL PER LUC SECTION 3.2.3(D) HYPOTHETICAL SHADOW LINE HYPOTHETICAL SHADOW LINE 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 draft LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 13, 2013 Council Liaison: Wade Troxell (970-219-8940) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek SUMMARY OF MEETING: Determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, 710 Mathews Street – Complimentary review of Remington Row – Discussion of Eastside Westside Neighborhoods Character Study – Discussion of Historic Preservation Code Changes phase 2 - Conceptual Design Review of Nix Farm - Project update Jessup Farm. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:40 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were Alexandra Wallace, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Dave Lingle, Belinda Zink, Ron Sladek, Pat Tvede and Sondra Carson. Also present were Historic Preservation Planners Josh Weinberg and Karen McWilliams, City Planner Courtney Levingston, Interim Planning Manager Sherry Albertson-Clark, Senior City Planner Pete Wray and Amy Simmons, Staff Support. AGENDA REVIEW: The scope of the preservation code discussion changed, however the topic remained on the agenda. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams stated that many of the commission members had the opportunity to attend the Saving Places Conference in Denver last week. It was the largest state conference in the country, second only to the National Trust Conference in terms of size and scope. Also, Ms. McWilliams pointed out that the City of Fort Collins received its 8th Stephen Heart Award at the conference. The award was accepted by Council Liaison Wade Troxell. The award was given to the City of Fort Collins, to Carol Tunner, to Deborah Uhl and the property owner Ed Stoner for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Coke-A- Cola sign on the side of the Honstein block on east Mountain Avenue. COMMISSIONER MEMBERS’ REPORTS: Mr. Sladek suggested members might want to share any information they obtained from the conference at the next work session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: no minutes to approve at this time. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. McWilliams wanted to draw attention to an article that Mr. Ernest had emailed out about the Boulder City Council. Boulder is looking at ways to address the large number of 50 plus year old properties that they will soon encounter. Boulder Council Landmarks Board has been discussing historic preservation, and it turns out that the City of Boulder has never had a historic preservation plan. They have been in business for 39 years and they are just now getting a preservation plan organized. Ms. McWilliams had a mailing regarding educational courses being offered by the National Preservation Institute to share with the commission. There is another article brought to the commission’s attention by Ted Shepherd, Chief City Planner, which came from the American Planning Association Magazine which talks about preserving and protecting and taking another look at the standards for historic preservation. Primarily they address infill projects in historic commercial downtowns. The tone of the article is that rather than doing something new and that contrasts highly with the historic property, that instead we should be looking at the historic property as context and modeling the new construction to be in context with the historic. All of the articles will be passed around the meeting and made available via email before the next work session. PUBLIC INPUT: None DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGNATION AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK, 710 MATHEWS STREET, THE OLIVER AND LEOTA CHANDLER PROPERTY – BARBARA LIEBLER, OWNER STAFF REPORT: Mr. Weinberg gave a brief project description and stated the request is for the Commission to give approval for Landmark Designation of the Olive and Leota Chandler Property, under Standards (2) and (3) for its association with prominent Fort Collins Individual Oliver Chandler, as well as for its excellent representation of American Foursquare architectural form. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Barbara Liebler, owner, said she bought the house in 2003 after having lived a block away since 1972. She had noticed all along that it looked bare, because it was the only house around that no longer had a roof on its front porch. Also, the blue shutters and the pediment (or decorative item above the door) obviously don’t fit. She stated that she had been thinking for years of putting a porch roof back on, however, she couldn’t afford to just do it. She heard about the zero percent loan for historic rehabilitation and thought if that could help her out then she could afford to do it. If the property is not approved as a historic property then she is not eligible for the zero interest loans. If she doesn’t get the loan, then she cannot afford to do the project. Ms. Liebler stated she does have a contractor, Kevin Murray, who has given her an estimate. Kevin has worked with a number of historic properties and was very interesting to talk to. Ms. Liebler and Kevin Murray could see shadows on the front of the building where you could tell that the pillars were 10 ½” wide, which is what she had estimated from looking at neighbors houses. Ms. Liebler explained that this is where she is at now; she does not have the designation yet but has applied for the loan. She stated that if she gets the loan she will go ahead with the project for both the dormer and the porch roof. She will also take off the blue shutters that clearly don’t belong there and the triangular ornament above the door that doesn’t fit either. She said she would put it back to the 1948 look, or to imitate the 1948 look. Ms. Liebler also had architectural drawings done for the project. STAFF COMMENTS: None COMMISSIONER’S DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek thanked Barbara Lieber for her presentation and stated that this presents and interesting situation for the Commission. He asked for feedback from staff, at 3 which time Mr. Weinberg stated he did have a copy of the plans from Ms. Lieber, if the Commission members wanted to look at them. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. COMMISSIONER’S DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek stated that the request to the Commission is for approval of landmark designation for the property, however understanding that the property doesn’t look like it did back in 1948, or earlier. It has been changed from a foursquare with craftsman detailing to a foursquare with colonial with revival detailing. Mr. Lingle presented a question for Mr. Weinberg, wondering if he had been able to determine the period when the changes were made and whether or not, in his opinion, the house has gained significance as it is now versus 1948 and prior? Mr. Weinberg responded that in his opinion those changes had not caused the house to gain significance in its current state. Records were found, indicating that the house was used as a fraternity, and at one point speculated that the colonial revival elements were added during that time frame. However, CSU yearbook photos show that the fraternity occupied the building through the 1950’s and early 1960’s and there is no evidence of those changes being made. So they were most likely added in the late 1960’s if then, or after. Building permits were searched too, but that time frame is sketchy for records of permits. There is a possibility that the changes were made 50 years ago, but could have been made 45 years ago as well. Ms. McWilliams added that the photos in the yearbooks through the early 1960’s, shows that the building has not been altered at that point. So the alterations themselves are less than 50 years old. Mr. Sladek agreed, and stated that the nomination was very well written, congratulating the assemblers, Mr. Weinberg and Historic Preservation Intern, John Kochanczyk. Mr. Sladek questioned the Commission as to whether or not they could put through the landmark designation for the property with a condition attached to it; that it could be reviewed again at some point down the road. He asked Ms. McWilliams if that was an option and if the Commission had ever faced that situation before? She stated they had; however, it was prior to the tax incentives. She was unsure whether the tax incentives would be approved if the landmark designation were conditional. Mr. Frick asked if the drawings for the porch had been looked at by anyone, to which Mr. Weinberg answered yes. He stated that staff had done a preliminary review to make sure that all the necessary materials have been submitted and he offered a copy of the plans to the Commission for viewing as well. Mr. Lingle stated that in order to determine that the criteria can be applied for designation; the Commission would first have to find that there is integrity. The building doesn’t have integrity until the work is completed. Again, the question for staff is to conditionally designate, however, what if the property is sold or there is a reason that the work isn’t done. The Commission could revoke the designation if the work isn’t done. Otherwise, we would have to find that the house now has sufficient integrity to landmark it. Ms. Lieber agrees that this is the same problem she has had, only on the other side. Mr. Lingle stated that he believes that she fully intends to follow through with the completion of the project, but if for some reason it wasn’t done what would our recourse be or would the Commission have the mechanism to revoke the designation? Mr. Ernest stated that there is a procedural issue being faced in that normally landmark designations are dealing with the municipal codes 14-21 through 14-31 which deals with just landmark designations. In this case, it’s also an alteration, which procedure is outlined in 14-46 through 14-48. If we had a motion that would encapsulate both of those sets of procedures, then that might work. Ms. Tvede asked the members if they could landmark the house just based on the historic person who lived there and not the architectural integrity of the house. The evidence that someone of great importance lived there was presented and they could landmark the property based on that. Not based on architecture, and let the architecture resolve itself that way. Mr. Sladek commented that it was a great question, and discussion regarding removing standard (3) and basing the entire landmark designation eligibility on standard (2) took place. Integrity of the building was the next topic of discussion. Ms. Zink commented that she believed the building had a great deal of integrity. She stated it still had the original exterior brick, the original roof minus the dormer, the original windows, chimney, exposed rafter end and the front door. The original foundation of the porch is there and the stone base of the porch. Ms. Lieber commented that the stone wall around the porch is original. Mr. Sladek asked the members to help him remember all the aspects of integrity. The response was setting, location, materials, workmanship, association, feeling and design. He stated that location is the same, design obviously some changed but mostly the same, intact setting, materials of which most are there, workmanship much of it is intact – although not all. Ms. Zink commented that there won’t be too many designated properties that are one hundred percent in integrity. Mr. Sladek posed the question to the group whether removing standard (3) for architecture would make any difference. Ms. Carson agreed that the suggestion was an excellent idea. Ms. Tvede mentioned that it would remove any confusion about standard (3) and that standard (2) could stand by itself. Mr. Sladek agreed. Ms. Tvede continued by saying that removing the superficial things such as the shutters and the pediment would basically return the house back to a foursquare. Mr. Sladek commented that he felt the house was still a foursquare house just a matter of the detailing. Ms. Carson added that to find a home in Fort Collins that is pure and hasn’t been altered in 80-100 years is rare. Mr. Sladek addressed Ms. McWilliams stating that many of the Commission members were leaning towards approval on the request; however he questioned whether the board had the latitude to approve under the conditions presented. Ms. McWilliams stated that yes the board could find it eligible under standard (2), and then finding that it meets a predominance of integrity, which was discussed and determined that it is only missing one of the seven criteria, it certainly could be designated. Mr. Sladek reminded everyone that a property only needs to meet one of the criteria and the majority of the integrity standards; it doesn’t have to be perfect. Mr. Lingle understands that however, he hesitated in folding things into one motion stating both the landmark designation and the proposed alteration should be separate actions. Mr. Sladek said that we could just simply approve the nomination and let it be. The owner is always welcome to come back in and present again once the building has been changed and in fact that would probably be a good idea once the work is done. At that point, the design will have changed. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that a similar recent example would be a recent designation of 113 South Whitcomb Street as being contributing to the district under standards (1) and (2) but not (3) because the architecture had changed. The commission found that conditions of standard (3). Mr. Sladek asked for a motion. Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed landmark designation of the Oliver and Leota Chandler property at 710 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, under standard (2) for its association of prominent Fort Collins individual Oliver Chandler. The motion was seconded by Ms.Tvede. Mr. Sladek stated that by proceeding with the positive vote, the Commission would then be reviewing plans for modifications to the building in the future. Mr. Lingle fully supportive of Ms. Lieber, however cannot get past the integrity questions. He felt that the home does not have the majority of the integrity issues needed for his positive vote. Mr. Sladek posed a question to the staff asking about future ramifications that the Commission might not have thought of thinking towards the future and other 5 landmark requests. Ms. McWilliams restated the eligibility requirements for the designation, stating the case is significant for standard (2) and that in addition to the significance it needs to have a preponderance of integrity, not all of the 7 aspects. In terms of long term or short term ramifications for other designated properties or potential properties, she did not see one. She stated that each one will have to come before the Commission in their own right and either have the necessary qualifications to meet the standards and be eligible or not. She did not think what the Commission decided tonight would have an impact on the future. Mr. Ernest stated that after further reading of the history of the Chandler family, he was in agreement that the Chandler family had a historic significance to the City of Fort Collins. Motion passed (7-1). COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW OF REMINGTON ROW: 705, 711, AND 721 REMINGTON STREET – ROBIN AND CHRISTIAN BACHELET, OWNERS; JUSTON LARSON AND JEFF HANSON, VAUGHT-FRYE-LARSON ARCHITECTS AND PER HOGESTEAD STAFF REPORT: Ms. McWilliams explained the property is not a designated Fort Collins Landmark and that the review is complementary based on previous requests made by the Commission at the September 26, 2012 work session, of updated materials by the design team. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jeff Larson presented modified designs including setback changes that will both maximize meeting parking requirements and match setbacks of existing buildings. (several slides included in presentation) Mr. Larson felt like the team met all the conditions that the Commission requested in the September work session. Mr. Hogestead commented that he had indeed been involved with the design team and felt comfortable that the team had been true to the design concept that he presented to the Commission. Ms. Bachelet added that she appreciated the Commission hearing the presentation and stated that she was looking for enough support that she and the team could move to the next stage. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Mr. Frick commented that he felt 110% better and he would support the project at this point. The only other comment would be the setback at 715 Remington Street being 3 feet over the line. Ms. Carson mentioned how impressed she was and appreciative of the dedication and hard work that was put into the design. Mr. Sladek agreed with the previous comments and stated that he wished the Commission could have gotten to this place a lot sooner. He stated that this project was a possible model project for the future. Ms. Carson stated that with the pressure in old town with development coming in, this project captured exactly what the LPC is trying to achieve in neighborhoods. Mr. Lingle agreed with the comments as did Ms. Wallace. Ms. Zink felt the ensemble was interesting and will add to the exiting streetscape. Mr. Sladek mentioned that the existing buildings at the Remington addresses are not only ugly, but they don’t represent Fort Collins at all. He cannot wait for them to be removed and these new buildings go up in their place. OWNER COMMENTS: In response to Mr. Sladek’s question regarding possible project start date, Ms. Bachelet stated that she was hoping for end of April 2013, depending upon the Planning and Zoning Board meeting results. EASTSIDE AND WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER STUDY DISCUSSION: SHERRY ALBERTSON-CLARK, INTERIM PLANNING MANAGER, AND PETE WRAY, SENIOR CITY PLANNER TOPIC INTRODUCTION: Mr. Wray requested that LPC listen to the strategy options and make a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. On November 27, 2012, the strategy report was presented to City Council at their work session. At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy options including revising house size limits and new solar access standards. Since the work session, Mr. Wray and Ms. Albertson-Clark have been working hard to develop proposed code amendments to implement strategies. Draft materials have been presented at a series of public meetings, they have had working group meetings within the neighborhoods and hosted a public open house at the end of January. Now they are in the sequence of seeking boards and commissions recommendations to Council. PZ board had their first meeting on Feb 7th, and Mr. Wray and Ms. Albertson-Clark attended a 3rd City Council work session last night (Feb 12th, 2013). The staff recommendations from the strategy report included 5 strategy options. The first was to promote the existing design assistance program. Second was to expand notification for ZBA variance requests, the notification area. Third was to create voluntary design handbooks for guidelines. The fourth was looking at 2 measurement method adjustments; one for floor area ratio way of calculating large volume spaces within the building and the other was a measurement method adjustment for clarifying the building sidewall height and where it is measured from. The fifth recommendation was to address building mass, scale and solar impacts indirectly through a series of proposed new design standards. Council provided direction on these 5 strategy options and they also wanted to have a potential change to the FAR standard included. (slides shown at this point in the discussion mapping out the area boundaries in the 2 zoning districts (NCM and NCL) being discussed and affected by the code amendments) Recently, staff had prepared 2 options for consideration to be included in the ordinance. Option A reflects a package of revised new standards including the revision to the existing FAR formula. Option B is the same package however it does not include a FAR formula change. Both include the measurement method within the FAR standards and clarification and formatting of the existing code language. (explanation in detail of all the strategy options and standards with slide presentations, tables, charts, and diagrams of before and after code amendments) PUBLIC INPUT: None COMMISSION COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Mr. Sladek clarified that the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the ordinance that is being proposed, and to make a recommendation as to whether Option A or Option B is preferred or a variation of either ordinance. 7 The Commission discussed solar access, changes in setbacks, allowable height and what the potential design impacts could be. The concern was that the change could have unintended bad design consequences. Mr. Lingle asked if there would be corresponding design standards that would alleviate potential symmetry issues. The illustration was something of a concern, of course it was over simplified, however, the concern is the lack of architecture options creating all “saltbox” type roof lines. Notification area discussion with explanation of what the boundary changes from 150 feet to 500 feet will mean for future projects. Mr. Sladek questioned why the changes that were recommended and approved by Council in 2011 and then repealed, regarding LPC review, were not presented in the current round of changes. Ms. Albertson-Clark explained that the topic was not proposed because it was something the consultants suggested should not be included based on the fact that the proposal should be completely different from anything that had already been presented, especially because of the repeal. Recollection took place as to what the history of the original discussion of the LPC recommendation for a variance. It was unknown the exact topic or if there was a debate of sorts over the issue. Ms. McWilliams remembered that the item was brought before council as part of a package. At that time, council passed two separate ordinances creating a 9 member LPC with the idea that they would allow the LPC to do reviews of variances and to make recommendations. At that time, due to challenge by the citizens, the ordinances were revoked. One ordinance was left to stand at that time, so that LPC could do design review subcommittees, but the variance portion was revoked. Ms. McWilliams said that at that time, her take was that council was supportive of LPC doing variance reviews and making recommendations. The members expressed concern at LPC not being included in variance reviews. Discussion continued, focusing on the lack of mention of multi-family development, duplexes and 3 story buildings and how they could be impacted by the revisions. Mr. Wray explained that the existing standards in Article 3 were sufficient to address multi-family projects. Mr. Sladek stated it was a concern for him as a LPC member. His concern as well as Ms. Lingle’s, was that the revisions would not impact multi-family or multi-story projects. Ms. Albertson-Clark restated that the multi-family design standards are stringent and also that there are newer setback requirements between single and multi- family buffer areas. Commission members discussed the case studies presented and felt they were impactful as far as showing the potential effects now and in the future. Mr. Sladek commented that he felt good about where this was headed in terms of changes to buildings. He was more comfortable with Option A with revision of existing FAR standards. He felt it would add more to the impact it would have upon infill in the districts. Ms. Tvede commented that Option A would work without LPC review, but Option B, due to the design element should be presented to LPC. Mr. Lingle is a supporter of good solid design standards, and doesn’t think that the FAR is necessary. He would rather have thoughtful, comprehensive design standards that could positively influence the way people look at their properties and how they design things rather than having such a heavy handed FAR piece to it. Mr. Sladek posed a question to Mr. Lingle wanting to know if he thought that Option A including FAR burdened the homeowner. His response was that he wasn’t sure about it being a burden, but more of a layering of restrictions, including tampering of design creativity. Do we think that the problem is large enough, that City Council has the ability to “lop” off 22% of someone’s ability to build on their property, compounded with all the other reductions? If it is, than maybe that is the recommendation that we should make. Design assistance would be through HPC and would be utilized more; however, the parameters would not change. The outreach effort would be more intensive to get the word out. Discussion of how many lots will actually be impacted by the FAR standard changes. Mr. Wray presented numbers to the Commission with information about the lot sizes in the areas and mentioned that the intent was to target the largest construction projects, stating that the majority of projects are nowhere near the FAR standards now. That is the same for the design standards, hopes of providing greater flexibility for expansion of the projects in the lower ranges. Mr. Ernest moved that LPC recommend to City Council regarding an ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study to include Option B Ms. Carson second DISCUSSION AND AMMENDMENTS: Mr. Lingle suggests moving to amend the motion by adding a requirement that the solar access standard be coupled with additional design standards that would address the roofline compatibility, or design issues related to application of that ordinance language. Mr. Frick said that would have to be part of the code standards, not the voluntary handbooks. Mr. Sladek moved to amend the motion and add a request to council that the LPC be included in a variance request. Mr. Lingle moved to amend the motion concerning the new solar access standard by requiring and additional design standard or standards to be developed by staff that would address design issues related to rooflines, roof pitch and symmetry and to alleviate unintended consequences of the language. Ms. Carson still second Mr. Sladek moved to amend the motion by adding a request or recommendation to Council that the LPC be included in variance review as that comes up. Mr. Ernest believes that Mr. Sladeks’ amendment to the motion should be a separate issue all together. Vote made on original motion with Mr. Lingle’s amendment regarding solar access and design standards Passed 8-0 Confusion on the motion took place prior to vote, LPC restated the motion and took another vote Mr. Sladek, LPC Chair, moved that LPC make a recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance for the proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study and that the LPC recommends the adoption of Option B with the amendment that the new solar access standards and additional design standards be developed by staff that would address design issues related to rooflines, roof pitch and symmetry and to alleviate unintended consequences of the language. Ms. Zink seconded the motion Vote 8-0 9 Mr. Sladek, LPC Chair, moved that the recommendation be made to council that the LPC be considered for variance review as either one of the Options A or Option B is adopted. Ms. Zink seconded the motion (clarify LPC make a recommendation or would it be binding action) Amend motion that LPC be allowed to make a recommendation through the variance review process. Ms. Zink second Vote 8-0 Ms. Carlson left the meeting 7:53pm DISCUSSION: HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE CHANGES PHASE II – KAREN MCWILLIAMS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER STAFF REPORT: Ms. McWilliams updated the Commission by stating that the discussion will be delayed due to the Eastside Westside Neighborhoods Study at this time. She stated that this would give her and staff further time to work on the code changes and she would be presenting at a later date, possibly early summer. COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW OF THE REHABILITATION OF JESSUP FARM BUILDINGS: MICHAEL CAMPANA, BELLISIMO INCORPORATED; IAN SHUFF, ALLER LINGLE MASSEY ARCHITECTS Mr. Lingle left the meeting, stating he had a conflict of interest 7:56pm STAFF REPORT: Mr. Weinberg stated that this is a complimentary review for the rehabilitation of the Jessup Farm Buildings. Buildings comprising the Jessup Farm complex have been determined individually eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks and collectively as a Landmark District. The architect and developer have attached drawings with the intent to provide the Commission with a project update and are still in progress toward final submittal. At this time, they are looking for input from the Commission. PRESENTATION BY ARCHITECT: Mr. Shuff presented on behalf of Aller-Lingle-Massey Architects and the owner / developer. The project was initially presented to the Commission last summer, however, the team wanted to present the Commission with updated information at this time. The project is an artisan type feel with some small scale retail and restaurants. The project will be focusing on maintaining existing glass as much as possible, however they will be bringing the buildings up to code. He gave detailed information on each building including the Barn, the Loafing Shed, the Mechanics Shop, the Garage and the Saddle Shop and the plans to update each. The architect and the owner / developer are very interested in presenting the history of the buildings to the public and creating an “experience” that the City of Fort Collins residents can enjoy. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Hogestead stated that he felt the design was very thoughtful; however, the divisions in the glass for the new buildings might not be true to the time frame of the original buildings. He wants the difference to be made distinguishable between the modern changes and the preserved historical parts. He thought the fish scale gable end should be investigated – it could be a feature piece if it is historical. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Ms. Zink asked about the new store front materials projected for use. Mr.Shuff said they are considering using white on white for the store front because it will blend a little more and be less intrusive. Which the Commission felt was a great option. Mr. Hogestead also thought forward glazing on the store front would be best. Mr. Frick wanted clarification on insulation proposals for the buildings. Mr. Shuff explained which buildings would be insulated and how. In the Loafing Shed and the Barn, they will be using rigid insulation, metal roofing and galvanized metal bands around the roofline. The other buildings currently have attic space where blown in or batting type insulation can be used. Mr. Frick made suggestions on the Saddle Shop door and ideas on how to showcase the sliding door the developer wanted to preserve. He also wanted to know what type of window materials were projected for use. Mr. Shuff stated aluminum store front. Mr. Frick mentioned that he thinks the aluminum would be enough of a change from the original wood that the divided light would be okay if it were to be set inside the window panes. Ms. Zink said that the “case by case” approach that Mr. Shuff presents might not be the best thing to do. She suggests finding something that works for everything and makes a statement such as “this is the work that was done in 2013.” Commission members agreed with her. Mr. Shuff explained that the Loafing Shed will need x bracing or lines of steel to brace the building which will add to the tenant space. Some partitions are possible – 6-8” wide wall portions, which will create demising walls. Mr. Sladek said that the Loafing Shed is one of the most remarkable uses of a building he has seen so far. Mr. Frick commented that the design has been true to the original concept. Ms. Wallace asked the presenters if they planned on using interpretive text about the farm or the buildings for the public. Mr. Shuff mentioned that Wayne Sonberg had been hired to do research on the project, stating the importance of telling the stories of the farm and the families who owned the farm. Mr. Campana, the owner / developer, mentioned they do believe the information will be important for the project and they will be doing some type of pictures, plaques, signage, etc. They may even incorporate historical items that have been found at the sight. Mr. Sladek,said that many members of the public will be visiting this location and any chance to get historical information out to the public would be great. No other comments, great project. No vote needed, just opportunity for comments. CONCEPTUAL / FINAL DESIGN REVIEW: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS COMPLEX AT NIX FARM 1745 HOFFMAN MILL ROAD. MARK SEARS, NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM MANAGER; IAN SHUFF, ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY ARCHITECTS STAFF REPORTS: Mr. Weinberg gave background of Nix Farm which was acquired by the City of Fort Collins in 1996. The City Council passed Ordinance No. 94, 2001 designating the entire property as 11 a Fort Collins Landmark. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by LPC under Chapter 14, Article III of the City Code. The proposed 4100 sqft office building is 1 ½ stories with approximately 2650 sqft on the main level and 1450 on the upper level. Mr. Weinberg stated that staff recommends approving the application for a new office building at the Nix Farm site, finding that it meets the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III, Section 14-48(b), “Approval of Proposed Work.” PROJECT PRESENTATION: Mr. Shuff states that the Natural Areas staff had outgrown their current location and are in need of a new building. The design of which is going to fit in well with the existing farm buildings. He showed several artist renderings and gave a detailed description of the proposed new building, its location on the property and the plan to maintain the feel of the farm “cluster” development. The plan is to downplay the new building and let the existing main house be the “jewel” of the property. The new buildings will be stucco and lap siding, a combination of what the buildings on site consist of right now. The new building will have a bit of a contemporary look on the south side due to the modern windows – however, it will be more traditional in scale. PUBLIC COMMENTS: no comments COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek mentioned the similar roof slopes on the new building compared to the existing. The brackets proposed on the new building also a nice touch. Mr. Frick said he thought the project looks good. Mr. Sladek liked the design, only thing he would ask, is the use of good landscaping would help to soften the view from the drive and from the existing house. Landscaping will be an important piece. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC approve the application for a new office building at the nix farm site finding that it meets the provisions of municipal code chapter 14, article 3, section 14-48 (b), “Approval of Proposed Work” Mr. Frick second Vote 6-0 Meeting adjourned 8:44pm 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 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 13, 2013 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 705, 711, and 721 Remington Street, Remington Row (formerly Remington Annex) CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner APPLICANTS: Robin and Christian Bachelet, Owners; Justin Larson and Jeff Hanson, Vaught-Frye- Larson Architects REQUEST: Complimentary Review of Changes to this Project SUMMARY: This project came before the Commission most recently at its September 26, 2012 Work Session. At that time, the Commission presented the design team with several comments. The team is now providing revised drawings, and asking for another Complimentary review prior to their submittal of plans for the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing in March. Architect Per Hogestad has been working with the owners of the properties to design a multi- family housing project that both meets the needs of the owners and which complies with the City’s Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation criteria, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. BACKGROUND: At its September 26th Work Session, the LPC heard a presentation from Mr. Hogestad and requested the following for moving forward with the project:  Once Mr. Hogestad releases the project to VFLA for further development, he will retain oversight of the VFLA preliminaries, schematic design, design development, and construction drawings.  The Commission would like to look at the project once VFLA takes over.  Some Commission members had concerns with the proposed buildings maintaining less of a setback than the house at 711 Remington. Mr. Hogestad assured the commission that the buildings including the porches would meet the Land Use Code standards for front yard setback and the two new buildings will be aligned with the historic setback of 715 Remington. By preserving this setback for both buildings, all proposed parking will be retained.  Additionally, the Commission provided very positive feedback on the proposed project. It was suggested that it could serve as a “model project” for future projects that combine historic preservation with redevelopment. Specifically, the Commission was very pleased with the preservation of the house at 711 Remington, and it was clear that the full Commission was pleased with the sensitive design of the flanking buildings at 705 and 715. Prior to the September 26, 2012 Work Session, on September 12, 2012, Mr. Hogestad met with City Planner Courtney Levingston, LPC Member Bud Frick, and Historic Preservation staff to discuss preliminary project designs and garner feedback for a later presentation to the full Landmark Preservation Commission. Staff and Commission member Frick were comfortable with the direction the project is heading and provided the following feedback:  Elevation drawings should show the context of the street – specifically the existing buildings to the north and south of the project area.  Existing footprints of the buildings at 705 and 715 Remington Street should be shown for reference to the proposed buildings.  Explore options that could break up the verticality of the front-facing three-story portions of the proposed buildings at 705 and 715 Remington Street. COMMISSION ACTION: As this is a Complimentary Review of properties that are not Fort Collins Landmarks, the Commission will not take formal action. Individual members may provide feedback to the applicant and these comments will be considered by staff in its review of the project. 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 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 26, 2012 STAFF REPORT TOPIC: 711 Remington Street/Remington Annex, project update STAFF: Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner PRESENTER: Per Hogestad, architectural consultant BACKGROUND: Architect Per Hogestad has been working with the owners of properties at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street to design a multi-family housing project that both meets the needs of the property owners and also complies with the City’s Land Use Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. On September 12, 2012, Mr. Hogestad met with Courtney Levingston, City Planner, Bud Frick, LPC member, and Historic Preservation staff to discuss preliminary project designs and garner feedback for a later presentation to the Commission. Staff and Commission member Frick were comfortable with the direction the project is heading following the meeting. Mr. Hogestad is here tonight to present his revised designs. At the September 12th design meeting, Mr. Hogestad received the following feedback:  Elevation drawings should show the context of the street – specifically the existing buildings to the north and south of the project area.  Existing footprints of the buildings at 705 and 715 Remington Street should be shown for reference to the proposed buildings.  Explore options that could break up the verticality of the front-facing three-story portions of the proposed buildings at 705 and 715 Remington Street. LPC DIRECTION REQUESTED: After listening to Mr. Hogestad’s presentation and viewing the revised project drawings, provide comments to the project consultant as it relates to compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Remington Row (formerly Remington Annex) MEETING DATE: January 28, 2013 APPLICANT: Robin and Christian Bachelet, Owner CITY PLANNER: Courtney Levingston, City Planner, City of Fort Collins The meeting commenced at approximately 5:35 p.m. with an introduction of the Applicant’s team and then City Staff. After the introduction, City Staff explained the City’s review process as it relates to this development proposal and explained opportunities for citizens to engage in the process. Next, the Applicant gave a project description and then took questions, comments and input from citizens as well as responding to questions and comments. The meeting adjourned around 7:00 p.m. Unless otherwise noted, all responses to questions and comments are from Ms. Robin Bachelet, Remington Row Owner. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS Q: How tall are the structures? A: 38 feet maximum height of new stucture Q: How many stories is 701 Remington ? A: Two stories. Remington Row (Annex) Neighborhood Meeting January 28, 2013 Q: What are the materials and color? A: We have not determined the color. Lap wood siding Q: What will 711 Remington be used as? A: It will be rental units. The size does not warrant that building to be used as a rental office. Q: All the parking is in the back? A: Yes. Q: How will the units be accessed? A: Via the alley. Q. A: Plum and Laurel have a two hour parking limit Q: All Parking in the lot is first come first served. Q: Will it be all lap siding A: primarily lap siding, and stone Q: What about the landscaping A: We are working with the City to preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Q: Will you be requesting any modifications? A: No. Q; Are there any balconies or outside areas for tenants A: We move towards balconies of the Juliet variety due to operational and management challenges. These units will be higher end finishes, attracting a mature tenant Q: Where can we look at another project of yours? A: Southeast corner of City Park and Elizabeth Street is one of our previous projects. We would like to think that our previous investment was a economic catalyst. Q: How many bedrooms total? A: Eleven units, 28 bedrooms total. Page 2 Remington Row (Annex) Neighborhood Meeting January 28, 2013 Q: A: We remind people not to park there, and we monitor our parking lot for tenant purposes/needs. Q: Will there be signage regarding tenant parking only? A: Yes. To the extent feasible. We like to paint the notice on the ground. C: Looks nice. Did Per H. assist you? A: Yes. He is a former LPC member. C: I am impressed. It blends well. Really great job. Q; Why is this a type 2 ( P & Z ) hearing A: (Courtney) because of the zone district standards. Q: Footprint of the existing buildings vs. proposed buildings. Q:/C: We would like that exhibit included in the P & Z Board packet. A: Each of the newer buildings is each over 5, 16 – 17 C: I think this project looks great. Q: Does planning have a specific tree type requirement? A: Yes. We are doing a mix of landscaping, however we are looking into water-wise landscaping Q: What about trash and recycling A: We will have alley access trash and recycling. It will be enclosed and 6 foot cedar. Q: Roof materials A: Asphalt shingles. Q: Will the buildings be flush with 701> Contextual setback. Q: 719 Remington is 7 feet back from the proposed building (715 Remington) A: The building will be three stories stepped down to two stories as it approaches the east property line (Remington Street). Page 3 Remington Row (Annex) Neighborhood Meeting January 28, 2013 Q: Do the units have fireplaces? A: No. Q: What are shadow studies? Q: 701 Remington is 37 feet tall. The building abutting 701 Remington is 35’ 7”. Q: Will 711 Remington Street be designated? A: It is possible that it will be designated in the future. C: The buildings fit into the neighborhood context. Fantastic job. C: This is blending well with architectural interest. Nice job. A: We hope the bank will finance this project, that is a future step. Everything we have purchased and build, we have owned. Q: What is the zoning A: NCB – Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District. Page 4 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. PDP RE-SUBMITTAL 2 (01-30-2013) 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 1/23/2013 3:13:38 AM G:\2011\11-47 Remington Annex\3 Drawings\Remington Annex - Design Development.rvt 1/23/2013 3:13:38 AM PDP5 SHADING EXHIBIT REMINGTON ROW PDP SUBMITTAL 2011-47 Author Checker NOVEMBER 21st, 9:00am NOVEMBER 21st, 3:00pm DECEMBER 21st, 9:00am DECEMBER 21st, 3:00pm FEBRUARY 21st, 9:00am FEBRUARY 21st, 3:00pm WALL & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY NEW STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY 25' HYPOTHETICAL WALL & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY NEW STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHETICAL 25' WALL SHADOWS CAST BY 25' HYPOTHETICAL WALL & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY NEW STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHETICAL 25' WALL SHADOWS CAST BY 25' HYPOTHETICAL WALL & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY NEW STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHETICAL 25' WALL SHADOWS CAST BY 25' HYPOTHETICAL WALL & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT SHADOWS CAST BY NEW STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE by LUC Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). The proposed solution uses a climbing vine minimal planting bed but can provide an extensive amount of cover over time. In order to protect the buildings standing trellis and lattice structure will be constructed about eight to twelve inches off the face of the buildings. In the areas with planting beds three feet wide and greater a single row of feather reed grass will be planted in front of the trellis and climbing vines. The attached Figure 3 planting configuration along one of the proposed buildings. the proposed planting solution in Figure 3 it can be clearly seen that the foundation screening provided by the proposed planting is significantly better than what is required Therefore, the Remington Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions these requests. 401 W. Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.1191 fax 970.224.1662 www.theartofconstruction.com diversion from the standard set in Division Row project should be granted this in regards to the required 5 foot wide foundation plantings. Foundation Plantings. Exposed sections of building walls that are in high-use or high-visibility areas of the building exterior shall have planting beds at least five (5) feet wide placed directly along at least fifty The attached Figure 2. illustrates the visual impact that a five foot wide planting bed as required by Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) would have along the west side of one of the proposed buildings. This illustration represents two obscuring exactly 50% of the west facing foundations. During the most recent meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission the importance of aligning the face by the existing structures on the from the east property line rather than the 15 feet . This pushes the structures farther back on the property and limits the amount of depth of the parking lot has been use of compact parking stalls and the designation of one-way been optimized by designing efficient unit layouts and reducing The resulting design results in a planting bed between the west side of the for 52% of each building. 31% of anting area greater than 5 feet, a majority of which is not a part of the most he remainder of the landscaping planting area available is 1 foot and 7 inches wide. a landscaping solution was developed that he narrow area available and provide visual screening equal to or better than d solution uses a climbing vine that requires a very minimal planting bed but can provide an extensive amount of cover over time. In order to protect the buildings lattice structure will be constructed about eight to twelve inches off the face of the buildings. In the areas with planting beds three feet wide and greater a single row of feather he attached Figure 3 represents this proposed it can be clearly seen that the foundation planting is significantly better than what is required by Division 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). Therefore, the Remington Row project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions the City’s Planning Code for the Remington in regards to the increase of the 5’ side yard setback an additional 1’ for Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of ds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction ds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for nterior and street sides). three main building masses that defined the three wall two stories of apartments on the east stair tower that connects them. It was the stair tower mass that was not compliant with Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) for which we were requesting the modification of standards. Through discussions with City Staff we decided to move the exterior door to the exit -compliant mass of the stair ication of the standard of Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) revealed that tallest of the remaining walls as currently proposed is shown on the attached Fig. 1. This illustration also lists the maximum height of each wall plane, the required setback as setback that is being provided by this proposed design. As it of this section of wall as much as possible, 193/230 6/4 Alley Alley 6/40 193/230 6/3 Alley Alley 6/40 5/3 Alley Alley 5/36 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.2 3.0 3.8 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.3 2.5 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.3 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.5 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.0 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.7 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.8 2.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.7 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.5 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 3.5 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.0 4.4 4.2 4.3 3.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.5 3.7 4.3 4.4 3.7 1.7 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.9 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.5 3.7 4.1 4.3 3.6 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.1 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.4 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.6 2.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 1.3 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 3.7 3.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.1 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 3.8 3.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 4.2 2.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.8 1.6 0.8 1.0 2.9 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.6 3.6 1.5 0.8 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 4.2 3.5 3.9 2.8 3.2 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.6 3.7 2.1 4.3 4.7 2.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 3.9 3.0 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.7 5.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 2.3 3.2 0.1 2.7 2.9 3.5 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 2.4 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.9 2.5 1.7 1.2 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.1 1.5 7.5 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.8 6.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 4.1 6.1 6.4 6.1 4.2 3.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.1 2.2 0.7 0.9 4.1 6.1 6.4 6.0 3.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.3 8.6 0.8 0.1 0.2 2.1 6.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 Plan View Scale 1" = 16' PM1 705-715 REMINGTON STREET 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: REMINGTON ANNEX PDP SUBMITTAL APS..519-11 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 2011. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects SJM RJB, CMP LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLAN LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS No. Label X Y Z MH Orientation Tilt X Y Z Location Aim 1 DD 42.0 63.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 63.0 0.0 2 DD 42.0 56.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 56.0 0.0 3 DD 42.0 49.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 49.0 0.0 4 AA 57.5 30.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 57.5 30.0 0.0 5 AA 40.0 30.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 30.5 0.0 6 AA 1.0 12.5 3.0 3.0 -90.0 0.0 1.0 12.5 0.0 7 AA 1.0 -11.5 3.0 3.0 -90.0 0.0 1.0 -11.5 0.0 8 AA 57.5 -29.0 3.0 3.0 180.0 0.0 57.5 -29.0 0.0 9 AA 40.0 -29.0 3.0 3.0 180.0 0.0 40.0 -29.0 0.0 10 DD 42.0 -51.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 -51.0 0.0 11 DD 42.0 -44.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 -44.0 0.0 12 DD 42.0 -37.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 -37.0 0.0 13 DD 6.0 -22.5 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 -22.5 0.0 14 DD 5.0 -61.5 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 -61.5 0.0 15 DD -9.0 -61.5 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 -9.0 -61.5 0.0 16 BB 25.5 -34.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 -34.0 0.0 17 BB 19.0 -24.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 -24.0 0.0 18 BB 18.0 24.5 10.0 10.0 180.0 0.0 18.0 24.5 0.0 19 BB 24.0 35.0 10.0 10.0 180.0 0.0 24.0 35.0 0.0 20 DD 6.3 23.2 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 23.2 0.0 21 AA -17.5 -3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -17.5 -3.0 0.0 22 DD -9.0 62.5 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 -9.0 62.5 0.0 23 DD 5.0 62.5 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 62.5 0.0 24 CC -50.5 -67.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 -50.5 -65.7 0.0 25 CC -79.5 0.0 23.0 23.0 90.0 0.0 -78.2 0.0 0.0 26 CC -50.5 68.0 23.0 23.0 180.0 0.0 -50.5 66.7 0.0 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label Qty Catalog Number Description Lamp File Lumens LLF Watts AA 7 t33Itl49078.ies 1800 0.60 30 BB 4 WSTM_26TRT _MD.ies 1800 0.75 28.4 DD 12 LF6N_2_26DTT _MVOLT_F6O 2.ies 900 0.75 31 CC 3 KAD_250M_R4 _HS_(PULSE_ START).ies 22500 0.75 288 model for BSB- 2512 CAST BRASS POST-TOP FITTER, CAST BRASS TOP, SPUN COPPER REFLECTOR, THREE FABRICATED DIFFUSE METAL RINGS BETWEEN TOP AND REFLECTOR, ALL SUPPORTED BY SIX BRASS POSTS. CLEAR CYLINDRICAL GLASS LENS, CAST COPPER SOCKET HOUSING INSIDE LENS. lumens for 26w trt WSTM 26TRT MD MINIATURE TRAPEZOID ARCHITECURAL SCONCE, 26-WATT TRIPLE TUBE, MEDIUM DISTRIBUTION, HYDROFORM REFLECTOR. CLEAR, FLAT GLASS LENS. ONE 26-WATT TRIPLE TUBE COMPACT FLUORESCENT, HORIZONTAL POSITION model for LF6N 1- 26TRT MVOLT F6Oa 6" OPEN DOWNLIGHT WITH WHITE PAINTED REFLECTOR lumensf or 1 26-WATT DOUBLE TWIN TUBE COMPACT FLUORESCENT, HORIZONTAL POSITION. KAD 250M R4 HS (PULSE START) Area Luminaire, 250W MH, R4 Reflector, Full Cutoff, Houseside Shield MEETS THE 'NIGHTTIME FRIENDLY' CRITERIA ONE (1) 250 WATT CLEAR BT28 PULSE START METAL HALIDE LAMP IN HORIZONTAL POSITION STATISTICS Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Calc Zone #2 0.5 fc 9.0 fc 0.0 fc N / A N / A NOTES 1. file=visual-files-dec2012-remington5.vsl 27' - 0" ASHPALT SHINGLES BRICK STONE FOUNDATION 6" WOOD LAP SIDING 37' - 10" 8" WOOD LAP SIDING 6" VERTICAL WOOD SIDING 3" WOOD SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLES 3" WOOD SIDING 8" WOOD LAP SIDING CAST-STONE BASE ASPHALT SHINGLES STUCCO EXISTING STONE BASE SPLIT FACE CMU WALL ASPHALT SHINGLES 8" WOOD LAP SIDING 3" WOOD SIDING ? 4" WOOD LAP SIDING ASHPALT SHINGLES TIMBER FRAME TRELLIS 35' - 7" 37' - 0" 4" WOOD LAP SIDING 21' - 4" 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 10 12 8 12 7 12 7 12 7 12 7 12 6 12 6 12 8 12 8 12 9 12 9 STUCCO WOOD SHAKE SIDING FDC 3" WOOD SIDING CAST-STONE BASE 8" WOOD LAP SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLES ASPHALT SHINGLES TIMBER FRAME TRELLIS 12 5 12 5 12 4 12 7 12 10 KNOX BOX FDC CAST-STONE BASE 6" VERTICAL WOOD SIDING STUCCO 8" WOOD LAP SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLES TIMBER FRAME TRELLIS CAST-STONE BASE 8" WOOD LAP SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLES 3" WOOD SIDING 12 4 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 FDC KNOX BOX 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. PDP RE-SUBMITTAL 2 (01-30-2013) 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 1/23/2013 3:11:38 AM G:\2011\11-47 Remington Annex\3 Drawings\Remington Annex - Design Development.rvt 1/23/2013 3:11:38 AM PDP3 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS REMINGTON ROW PDP SUBMITTAL 2011-47 RJH RJH 8 NE - PERSPECTIVE 9 NW - PERSPECTIVE 7 SE - PERSPECTIVE 3 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING "C" - SOUTH ELEVATION 6 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING "A" - NORTH ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION 1 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION 5 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING "A" - SOUTH ELEVATION 4 1/8" = 1'-0" BUILDING "C" - NORTH ELEVATION 12 15 18 17 16 20 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 1. EXISTING TREES MARKED FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED. 2. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPACT OVER THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING TREES. 3. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SIDEWALKS AND PAVING LEVELS SHOULD BE CONTOURED SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID DAMAGE. 4. ROOT CUTS FROM EXCAVATION SHOULD BE DONE RAPIDLY. SMOOTH FLUSH CUTS SHOULD BE MADE. BACKFILL BEFORE THE ROOTS HAVE A CHANCE TO DRY OUT AND WATER THE TREE IMMEDIATELY. 5. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE 7581.2521(+$/) ò 2)7+('5,3/,1(:+,&+(9(5,6*5($7(57+(5(6+$//%(126725$*(25029(0(172)(48,30(17 MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 6. ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY FORESTER'S "MEDIUM PRUNE STANDARDS. 7. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 8. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 9. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 10. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BY "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN NOTE (5) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POSTS STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY FEET APART AND TYING A RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 11. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW. TREE PROTECTION NOTES TYPE COUNT REQUIRED MITIGATION TREES TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TREE INVENTORY THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. NOTE: ALL 27 MITIGATION TREES ARE BEING PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, SHEET L1. 27 RDI 5 3" cal. B&B 19% PCC Chanticleer Pear Pyrus calleryanna 'Chanticleer' 5 2.5" cal. B&B 19% MSS Spring Snow Crabapple Malus 'Spring Snow' 3 2.5" cal. B&B 11% TOTAL 27 100% LEGEND THIS IS A LAND USE PLANNING DOCUMENT, NOT A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. HYDROZONE AREA WATER NEEDED ANNUAL WATER USE TOTAL 6,070 52,918 WATER BUDGET CHART 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. 2. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY GAS LINE. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER MAIN AND NO CLOSER THAN 6 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINE. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO PLANTING. A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. 3. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT, ESCROW, OR PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 125% OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INSTALLATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE . 6. LANDSCAPING WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. 7. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 8. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITIES, WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 9. EDGING BETWEEN DIFFERENT MULCH TYPES SHALL BE 1 8" X 4" STEEL. 10. TOPSOIL. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. 11. SOIL AMENDMENTS. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPACTED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED. ORGANIC AMENDMENTS SUCH AS COMPOST, PEAT, OR AGED MANURE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED. 12. ALL LANDSCAPE WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STREET TREES) SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM TWENTY FOUR INCHES (24") IN HEIGHT. 13. REFER TO SHEET L2 FOR TREE PROTECTION NOTES. LANDSCAPE NOTES - PERCENT CANOPY SHADE TREES (50% MIN REQUIRED): 19 CANOPY SHADE TREES / 27 TOTAL = 70% PROVIDED - MINIMUM SPECIES DIVERSITY: 33% MAX REQUIRED, 30% PROVIDED (SEE CHART ABOVE) - SHRUBS WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE FORT COLLINS PLANT LIST AT THE TIME OF FINAL SUBMITTAL - ALL TREES ARE UPSIZED FOR MITIGATION RDI UNIT-A1 ENTRANCE UNIT-C1 ENTRANCE SANITARY SERVICE, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS WATER SERVICE, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS BUILDING "B" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.0' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS BUILDING "C" FINISH FLOOR = 100'-0" EQUALS 4992.25' ON CIVIL DRAWINGS SCREENING WALL SCREENING WALL SEAT WALL 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 SCREENING WALL SCREENING WALL BICYCLE PARKING BICYCLE PARKING 3 VERT. BICYCLE RACKS PER FLOOR 3 VERT. BICYCLE RACKS PER FLOOR 8' - 0" 8' - 0" ONE-WAY DRIVE AISLE 20' - 0" 19' - 0" 2' - 0" 17' - 0" AISLE AT COMPACT PARKING 17' - 0" 22' - 0" ONE-WAY DRIVE 9' - 0" (3) COMPACT PARKING SPACES 24' - 0" (5) STANDARD PARKING SPACES 45' - 0" (4) STANDARD PARKING SPACES 36' - 0" 9' - 0" (3) COMPACT PARKING SPACES 24' - 0" AISLE AT COMPACT PARKING 22' - 0" ONE-WAY DRIVE 17' - 0" (3) COMPACT PARKING SPACES 24' - 0" PRE-CAST CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS 2' - 0" RESERVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN FRONT YARD SETBACK 22' - 4" 24' - 8" 15' - 1" 18' - 5" 15' - 0" 18' - 5" 5' - 11" 12' - 3" 8' - 4" 14' - 8" 9' - 7" 18' - 7" 25' - 2" 142' - 0" 140' - 0" PAVING AND SIDWALKS MULCH DRAINAGE SWALE COBBLES TURF TOTAL 616 SF 1,087 SF 758 SF 746 SF 3,207 SF FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING 19% 34% 24% 23% 100% REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR EXISITNG & NEW TREES AND SHRUBS. 13' - 7" 15' - 3" 2' - 0" 5' SIDEYARD SETBACK 5' REAR YARD SETBACK 5' SIDEYARD SETBACK 15' FRONT YARD SETBACK FDC FDC FDC NEW 5-UNIT, 3-STORY BUILDING NEW 1-UNIT, 1-STORY BUILDING NEW 5-UNIT, 3-STORY BUILDING PRE-CAST CONCRETE LANDSCAPING PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING NOTES MAXIIIMO DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC IS PROPOSING A MULTI-UNIT HOUSING PROJECT CALLED THE REMINGTON ROW, LOCATED AT THE COMBINED PROPERTY ADDRESSES OF 705, 711 AND 715 ON REMINGTON STREET. THIS HOUSING PROJECT WILL PROVIDE 11 UNITS OF MUCH NEEDED, SUSTAINABLE HOUSING WITHIN WALKING AND BIKING DISTANCE OF THE CSU CAMPUS AND DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS. THE UNIT MIX CONSISTS OF 5 TWO BEDROOMS, AND 6 THREE BEDROOMS. THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES AN ONSITE ALLEY- ACCESSED PARKING LOT CONTAINING 21 SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASE IN PARKING NEEDS. THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE REMINGTON ROW IS TO CREATE A FRONT ELEVATION REPLICATING TWO SEPARATE AND MAJESTIC HOMES THAT ARE TWO-STORY IN CHARACTER AND FEEL THAT WILL FLANK THE EXISITNG HOME AT 711 REMINGTON. THIS PROJECT INCORPORATES STEEPER ROOF PITCHES ALLOWING FOR A DORMER LEVEL WHICH PROVIDES NATURAL LIGHT TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF UPPER FLOOR UNITS. THE MASSING OF THE TWO FACADES WILL REPLICATE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENCES, INSPIRED BY ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS FROM WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR DESIGN DETAILS BOAST GENEROUS FRONT PORCHES, VOLUMINOUS COLUMNS SUPPORTING ONE-STORY ROOFS, ARCHED AND PANED WINDOWS AND DOORS, BRICK AND STONE DETAILING AND LANDSCAPING THAT SUGGESTS, AND AGAIN, REPEATS THE PATTERN OF THE STREET. PRIMARY ENTRANCES ARE LOCATED ALONG REMINGTON STREET AT THE PORCH LOCATIONS. AS SUGGESTED BY THE LAND USE CODE, “THE NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL SET AN ENHANCED STANDARD OF QUALITY FOR FUTURE PROJECTS OR REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.” THE CURRENT ARCHITECTURAL VARIETY OF REMINGTON STREET IS A MIX OF SMALL COTTAGES, 2 ½ STORY TRI- PLEXES, FOUR-PLEXES AND LARGER 3-STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS. AN INDEPENDENT STUDY CONDUCTED BY OUR RESEARCH DEPARTMENT INDICATES THAT 81% OF THE STRUCTURES ON REMINGTON ARE OWNED BY INVESTORS AND LEASED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL OR PROFESSIONAL USE. OUR DESIGN TEAM SUBMITS THAT NOT ONLY WILL THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE REMINGTON ROW SEEK TO MAINTAIN THE SCOPE AND HISTORICAL INTEGRITY OF THE STREET THROUGH THE USE OF QUALITY MATERIALS AND RELEVANT DESIGN DETAILS BUT ALSO THE PROJECT WILL SEEK TO GREATLY ENHANCE THE STANDARDS OF SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY. IN ANTICIPATION OF THE NEED FOR HIGHER DENSITIES IN PROXIMITY TO DOWNTOWN AND CSU, THE CITY’S LAND USE CODE IDENTIFIES COMPACT URBAN GROWTH IN DIVISION 3.7 WHERE INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. THE REMINGTON ROW PROVIDES FOR A MORE EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, IMPROVES TRAFFIC PATTERNS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, PROVIDES MUCH NEEDED PARKING AND DUE TO ITS CENTRAL LOCATION PROVIDES EASY ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION. THE DENSITY OF THE REMINGTON ROW BRINGS RESIDENTS CLOSER TO AMENITIES THEREBY REDUCING VEHICLE EMISSIONS AND CONGESTION BY REDUCING VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY. THE REMINGTON ROW CONCEPT IS WELL WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE NCB DISTRICT WHICH PROVIDES ZONING FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT ARE A TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USE AREAS OR HIGH TRAFFIC ZONES, IN THIS CASE THE ALLEY. THE EAST SIDE OF REMINGTON IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT OF NCM WHICH ONLY ALLOWS 2 STORY BUILDINGS WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 4 UNITS PER ACRE. THE CITY ANTICIPATED THE NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEY CREATED THE TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, ONE TO ACCOMMODATE HIGHER DENSITY AND PROVIDE A TRANSITION AND THE OTHER TO PRESERVE, MAINTAIN LOWER DENSITIES AND REFLECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. REMINGTON ROW INCORPORATES ALL OF THESE DESIGN TECHNIQUES; INCLUDING VARIATION OF ROOF LINES, USE OF SIMILAR PROPORTIONS IN BUILDING MASS, SIMILAR WINDOWS AND DOOR PATTERNS AND THE USE OF BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH AS BRICK, STONE, AND WOOD FRAMING IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY. THE REMINGTON ROW IS A NECESSARY AND CODE SANCTIONED ADDITION TO REMINGTON STREET. THE DESIGN ELEMENTS HAVE EVOLVED, WITH THE COLLABORATION OF THE COMMUNITY, CITY STAFF AND OUR HIGHLY QUALIFIED DESIGN TEAM, INTO A PRIME EXAMPLE OF AN ENHANCED EXAMPLE OF A REDEVELOPMENT IN AN NCB ZONE. THE FINISHED PROJECT WILL NOT ONLY SERVE THE EXISTING CODE BY PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING IN A TRANSITIONAL AREA BUT WILL ALSO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STANDARDS OF QUALITY FOR FUTURE PROJECTS OR REDEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA. DWELLING UNIT SUMMARY TWO-BEDROOM UNITS 5 2-BED 11 per ACRE THREE-BEDROOM UNITS 6 3-BEDS 13 per ACRE # OF TYPE OF UNIT UNITS # OF BEDS/UNIT UNIT TYPE DENSITY TOTAL UNITS 11 TOTAL BEDS 28 OVERALL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 24 UNITS per ACRE LAND USE BREAKDOWN EXISTING SITE AREA TOTAL EXISTING ROOF COVERAGE EXISTING DRIVES & WALKWAY EXISTING LANDSCAPE PROPOSED SITE AREA TOTAL PROPOSED ROOF COVERAGE PROPOSED DRIVES, PARKING & WALKWAYS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING PROPOSED VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING PROPOSED FIXED BICYCLE PARKING PROPOSED ENCLOSED BICYCLE PARKING MAXIMUM HEIGHT TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS (0.457 ACRES) (0.457 ACRES) 20.75 SPACES 21 SPACES 28 SPACES 12 SPACES 18 SPACES 3 STORIES 11 UNITS 19,897 SQ FT 5,576 SQ FT 3,637 SQ FT 10,682 SQ FT 19,897 SQ FT 6,474 SQ FT 7,746 SQ FT 5,494 SQ FT GENERAL SITE NOTES THE PARCEL IS ZONED NCB IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT THE 3 STORY MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO A TYPE-I ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREVIEW CONDITIONS AND REVIEW THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR REMINGTON ROW VERIFY LOCATION ON EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH EXCAVATIONS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT THE SITE DURING THE PROCESS OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING. THE GRADE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN SUCH CONDITION THAT IT IS WELL DRAINED AT ALL TIMES. ADJACENT STREETS AND PARKING AREA SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF MUD & DEBRIS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF MUD AND DEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH DAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFINE STAGING, STORAGE AND CONSTRUCTION PARKING TO THE AREA INDICATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE. DAMAGED ITEMS SHALL BE REPLACED, REPAIRED OR RESTORED BY CONTRACTOR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE CONTRACTOR, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN WILL BE DAMAGED OR REQUIRE REMOVAL TO ACCOMPLISH CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE THE COST OF REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT IN BASE BID. ALL IMPROVEMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY SHALL CONFORM WITH CITY OF FORT COLLINS RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. ALL CONDUIT, VENTS, METERS & OTHER EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT BUILDING COLOR. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com DRAWING NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: SEAL: IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT: Issued No. Description Date 1 (09-14-2011) Revisions LPC SUBMITTAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Description Date 3 2 1 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects LPC SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL (10-02-2011) PDP SUBMITTAL (12-07-2011) PDP RE-SUBMITTAL (12-19-2012) VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. PDP RE-SUBMITTAL 2 (01-30-2013) 705 REMINGTON STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 1/23/2013 3:51:53 AM G:\2011\11-47 Remington Annex\3 Drawings\Remington Annex - Design Development.rvt 1/23/2013 3:51:53 AM PDP2 SITE PLAN REMINGTON ROW PDP SUBMITTAL 2011-47 RJH RJH BUILDING AREA BY FLOOR 705: UNFINISHED BASEMENT 2,224 SF 715: UNFINISHED BASEMENT 2,229 SF BASEMENT 4,454 SF 705: 1st FLOOR 2,116 SF 711: 1st FLOOR 726 SF 715: 1st FLOOR 2,120 SF 1st FLOOR 4,962 SF 705: 2nd FLOOR 2,113 SF 715: 2nd FLOOR 2,120 SF 2nd FLOOR 4,233 SF 705: 3rd FLOOR 1,366 SF 715: 3rd FLOOR 1,366 SF 3rd FLOOR 2,731 SF RESIDENTIAL TOTAL BUILDING TOTAL 11,926 SF 16,380 SF RESIDENTIAL FLOOR to LOT RATIO TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR to LOT RATIO 0.60 0.82 1 1" = 10'-0" ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN NORTH w/PLASTIC CAP LS 30462 FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP LS 30462 FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP LS 30462 FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP LS 30462 FND #4 REBAR w/PLASTIC CAP LS 14823 SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT GLENWOOD COMMONS PUD UNPLATTED UNPLATTED Delta= 18°25'57" R=170.00' L=54.69' Dir= N81°46'43"E Chord= 54.45' L5 L4 L3 S89°00'15"E 174.00' N00°59'45"E 56.00' N89°00'15"W 157.00' L7 L6 69.24' L8 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 25.40' 197.44' 37.80' 2' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT LOT 63 WESTERN HEIGHTS SHIELDS ST BENNETT RD WESTWARD DR SPRINGFIELD DR MULBERRY ST ELIZABETH STREET TAFT AVE. CITY PARK AVE CONSTITUTION AVE UNIVERSITY AVE. W. PLUM ST. S. BRYAN AVE. LINE TABLE LINE L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 LENGTH 106.54' 1.73' 17.00' 8.00' 22.00' 25.00' 17.00' 6.50' BEARING S77°25'04"W N00°59'45"E S00°59'45"W S89°00'15"E S00°59'45"W N89°00'15"W S00°59'45"W S00°59'45"W SE CORNER SEC 15-7-69 FND 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 20123 E 1/4 CORNER SEC 15-7-69 FND 3" ALUMINUM CAP ILLEGIBLE CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years after the date of the certificate shown 200 South College Avenue, Suite 10 hereon. Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 N O R T H E RN PHONE: 970.221.4158 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE : The Owner hereby warrants and guarantees to the City, for a period of two (2) years from the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements warranted hereunder, the full and complete maintenance and repair of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the Development which is the subject of this Plat. This warranty and guarantee is made in accordance with the City Land Use Code and/or the Transitional Land Use Regulations, as applicable. This guarantee applies to the streets and all other appurtenant structures and amenities lying within the rights-of-way, Easements and other public properties, including, without limitation, all curbing, sidewalks, bike paths, drainage pipes, culverts, catch basins, drainage ditches and landscaping. Any maintenance and/or repair required on utilities shall be coordinated with the owning utility company or department. The Owner shall maintain said improvements in a manner that will assure compliance on a consistent basis with all construction standards, safety requirements and environmental protection requirements of the City. The Owner shall also correct and repair, or cause to be corrected and repaired, all damages to said improvements resulting from development-related or building-related activities. In the event the Owner fails to correct any damages within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, then said damages may be corrected by the City and all costs and charges billed to and paid by the Owner. The City shall also have any other remedies available to it as authorized by law. Any damages which occurred prior to the end of said two (2) year period and which are unrepaired at the termination of said period shall remain the responsibility of the Owner. REPAIR GUARANTEE : In consideration of the approval of this final Plat and other valuable consideration, the Owner does hereby agree to hold the City harmless for a five (5) year period, commencing upon the date of completion and first acceptance by the City of the improvements to be constructed in connection with the development which is the subject of this Plat, from any and all claims, damages, or demands arising on account of the design and construction of public improvements of the property shown herein; and the Owner furthermore commits to make necessary repairs to said public improvements, to include, without limitation, the roads, streets, fills, embankments, ditches, cross pans, sub-drains, culverts, walls and bridges within the right-of-way, Easements and other public properties, resulting from failures caused by design and/or construction defects. This agreement to hold the City harmless includes defects in materials and workmanship, as well as defects caused by or consisting of settling trenches, fills or excavations. Further, the Owner warrants that he/she owns fee simple title to the property shown hereon and agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Owner or his/her successors in interest during the warranty period, for any claim of damages resulting from negligence in exercising engineering techniques and due caution in the construction of cross drains, drives, structures or buildings, the changing of courses of streams and rivers, flooding from natural creeks and rivers, and any other matter whatsoever on private property. Any and all monetary liability occurring under this paragraph shall be the liability of the Owner. I further warrant that I have the right to convey said land according to this Plat. NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS : All persons take notice that the Owner has executed certain documents pertaining to this Development which create certain rights and obligations of the Development, the Owner and/or subsequent Owners of all or portions of the Development site, many of which obligations constitute promises and covenants that, along with the obligations under this Plat, run with the land. The said documents may also be amended from time to time and may include, without limitation, the Development Agreement, Site And Landscape Covenants, Final Site Plan, Final Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations, which documents are on file in the office of the clerk of the City and should be closely examined by all persons interested in purchasing any portion of the Development site. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I, Gerald D. Gilliland, a Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Subdivision Plat was prepared from an actual survey under my personal supervision, that the monumentation as indicated hereon were found or set as shown, and that the foregoing plat is an accurate representation thereof, all this to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. __________________________________ Gerald D. Gilliland Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor No. 14823 CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION : The Owner does hereby dedicate and convey to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado (hereafter “City”), for public use, forever, a permanent right-of-way for street purposes and the “Easements” as laid out and designated on this Plat; provided, however, that (1) acceptance by the City of this dedication of Easements does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain the Easements so dedicated, and (2) acceptance by the City of this dedication of streets does not impose upon the City a duty to maintain streets so dedicated until such time as the provisions of the Maintenance Guarantee have been fully satisfied. The streets dedicated on this Plat are the fee property of the City as provided in Section 31-23-107 C.R.S. The City's rights under the Easements include the right to install, operate, access, maintain, repair, reconstruct, remove and replace within the Easements public improvements consistent with the intended purpose of the Easements; the right to install, maintain and use gates in any fences that cross the Easements; the right to mark the location of the Easements with suitable markers; and the right to permit other public utilities to exercise these same rights. Owner reserves the right to use the Easements for purposes that do not interfere with the full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. The City is responsible for maintenance of its own improvements and for repairing any damage caused by its activities in the Easements, but by acceptance of this dedication, the City does not accept the duty of maintenance of the Easements, or of improvements in the Easements that are not owned by the City. Owner will maintain the surface of the Easements in a sanitary condition in compliance with any applicable weed, nuisance or other legal requirements. Except as expressly permitted in an approved plan of development or other written agreement with the City, Owner will not install on the Easements, or permit the installation on the Easements, of any building, structure, improvement, fence, retaining wall, sidewalk, tree or other landscaping (other than usual and customary grasses and other ground cover). In the event such obstacles are installed in the Easements, the City has the right to require the Owner to remove such obstacles from the Easements. If Owner does not remove such obstacles, the City may remove such obstacles without any liability or obligation for repair and replacement thereof, and charge the Owner the City's costs for such removal. If the City chooses not to remove the obstacles, the City will not be liable for any damage to the obstacles or any other property to which they are attached. The rights granted to the City by this Plat inure to the benefit of the City's agents, licensees, permittees and assigns. ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all persons signing this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatories under the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the date of execution of the Plat and other information discovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by Section 2.2.3(C)(3)(f) of the Land Use Code. Attorney:________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Registration No.:__________________________________ NOTICE ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTIVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES. APPROVED AS TO FORM, CITY ENGINEER By the City Engineer of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this ______day of _____________ A.D., 20_____. ____________________________________________________ City Engineer PLANNING APPROVAL By the Director of Planning the City of Fort Collins, Colorado this _____ day of ___________ A.D., 20_____. ____________________________________________________ Director of Planning NOTES: 1) The Basis of Bearings is the East line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15-7-69 as bearing North 00°29'45" East as monumented on drawing (assumed bearing). 2) The lineal unit of measurement for this plat is U.S. Survey Feet. 3) All information regarding easements, right-of-way or title of record, Northern Engineering relied upon Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. 580-F0380877-383-JNB, dated June 7, 2011 and The Group Guaranteed Title, LLLP, Order No. 94299, dated April 5, 2011. OWNER: Carriage House Associates, LLC BY:_________________________________ Charles Bailey, Manager STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________________, 20____, by Charles Bailey, as Manager of Carriage House Associates, LLC. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: ________________ _______________________________ Notary Public STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISION : Know all persons by these presents, that the undersigned owner(s) of the following described land: A tract of land located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Considering the East line of Section 15 as bearing North 00° 29' 45" East, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, COMMENCING at the Southeast Corner of Section 15; thence along the East line of Section 15, North 00° 29' 45" East, 977.88 feet; thence, North 89° 00' 15" West, 39.00 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of South Shields Street, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 89° 00' 15" West, 401.00 feet to a point on the East line of Western Heights; thence along said East line, North 00° 29' 45" East, 128.77 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Springfield Drive; thence along said South right-of-way line, North 72° 33' 45" East, 96.49 feet; thence along a curve concave to the Southeast having a central angle of 18° 25' 57", a radius of 170.00 feet, an arc length of 54.69 feet, and the chord of which bears North 81° 46' 43" East, 54.45 feet; thence, South 89° 00' 15" East, 241.36 feet; thence, South 27° 41' 31" East, 29.64 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of South Shields Street; thence along said West right-of-way line, South 00° 29' 45" West, 142.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, contains 64,829 square feet or 1.488 acres, more or less. For themselves and their successors in interest (collectively "Owner") have caused the above described land to be surveyed and subdivided into lots, tracts and streets as shown on this Plat to be known as CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS (the "Development"), subject to all easements and rights-of-way now of record or existing or indicated on this Plat. The rights and obligations of this Plat shall run with the land. A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO VICINITY MAP SITE NORTH 1 (US SURVEY FEET) BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE EASEMENT LINE LOT LINE FOUND CORNER AS DESCRIBED RIGHT-OF-WAY LIENHOLDER: BY:_________________________________ STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________________, 20____, by __________________________, as ______________________ of _______________________________. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: ________________ _______________________________ Notary Public SET #4 REBAR w/1" PLASTIC CAP LS 14823 SIGHT DISTANCE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS Sight Distance Easement - The sight distance easement is an easement required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for level grade: 1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches in height with the following exceptions: 2) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not obstruct the line of sight for motorists. 3) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner. For non-level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same degree of visibility. MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POSTS STAKES A MAXIMUM OF 50' APART AND TYING A RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERMITTER OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY FORESTER'S MEDIUM PRUNE STANDARDS". TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 0 20 40 FT SCALE: 1"=20'-0" ARCHITECTURE ® PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 - - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TREE MITIGATION PLAN CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - oOutside la landscape architecture + urban design + planning boulder / steamboat springs p. 303.517.9256 / 970.871.9629 f: 970.879.6133 osla@me.com SOUTH SHIELDS STREET SPRINGFIELD DRIVE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE WV WV D Y H WV WV S S D D D T W OHE CC CC CC CC HC HC HC PP PP PP PP PP PP OHL OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHL OHL OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHL OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHL OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHL OHL LP LP LP OHE OHE G G D Y H WV E W C S FO G OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE AC G G G W W W E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W JAMES COURT SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 5032 5033 5033 5029 5030 5029 5031 5032 5033 5028 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S W F W S S S S W W W W W F W W W W F W W W W W W W W F W F UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD W W W W UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 6 12 11 10 9 13 14 15 19 18 17 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 27 30 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 52 54 55 56 57 TREE MITIGATION TABLE TREE NO: SPECIES SIZE CONDITION RETAIN REMOVE MITIGATION VALUE 10 ROCKY MTN. JUNIPER 11" FAIR X 1.5 11 ROCKY MTN. JUNIPER 11" FAIR X 2.0 24 RADIANT CRAB 22" FAIR/POOR X 2.0 25 RADIANT CRAB 11" FAIR/POOR X 1.0 27 GREEN AASH 32" FAIR X 3.0 39 APPLE MULTI-STEM 11"/7"/7" FAIR X 1.5 44 HACKBERRY 7" FAIR X 1.0 46 APPLE MULTI-STEM 6"/6" FAIR X 1.5 48 APPLE 13" FAIR X 1.5 49 APPLE 10" FAIR X 1.0 51 RADIANT CRAB 17" FAIR X 2.0 53 RADIANT CRAB ? FAIR X 1.5 56 RADIANT CRAB 17" FAIR/GOOD X 2.0 57 ROCKY MTN. JUNIPER MULTI-STEM 8"/7" POOR X 1.0 TOTAL MITIGATION REQUIRED 22.5 02/06/2013 03/06/2013  &  B upsized  for  mitigation HWTM Hotwings  Tatarian  Maple Acer  tataricum  'GarAnn' 8 1.5"  cal. B  &  B RC Radiant  Crabapple Maxus  x  'Radiant' 3 2"  cal. B  &  B upsized  for  mitigation SSC Spring  Snow  Crabapple Malus  x  'Spring  Snow' 8 1.5"  cal. B  &  B TOTAL 42 5.5"  TOTAL EVERGREEN  TREES SJ Skyrocket  Juniper Juniperus  scopulorum  'Skyrocket' 10 8'  ht. B  &  B upsized  for  mitigation 10 10"  TOTAL TOTAL 59 22.5"  TOTAL SHRUBS  AND  PERENNIALS  TO  BE  SELECTED  FROM  THE  FORT  COLLINS  RECOMMENDED  PLANT  LIST  AT  TIME  OF  FINAL. NATIVE  SEED  MIX: 30%  Western  Wheatgrass 25%  Sheep  Fescue 20%  Perennial  Rye 15%  Chewings  Fescue 10%  Kentucky  Bluegrass SEED  MIX  TO  BE  DRILLED  AT  RATE  OF  16-­‐24  LBS/PLS/ACRE. CARRIAGE  HOUSE  WATER  BUDGET  CHART  02/04/13 WATER  NEEDED ANNUAL  WATER CARRIAGE  HOUSE  WATER  BUDGET  CHART  02/04/13 HYDROZONE AREA WATER  NEEDED (GALLONS/SF) ANNUAL  WATER USE  (GALLONS) HIGH 10,473 18 188,514 MODERATE 10,682 10 106,820 LOW 2,933 3 8,799 VERY  LOW 0 0 -­‐ TOTAL 24,088 AVE.  13.48 304,133 LEGEND EXISTING TREES SHADE TREES ORNAMENTAL TREES EVERGREENS SHRUBS TURF NATIVE SEED COBBLE MULCH AT BASE OF BUILDING EDGER ENHANCED CONCRETE BOULDER BENCHES RIBBON BIKE RACKS (11 BIKES EACH) 6' PRIVACY FENCE 42" WHITE 2-RAIL FENCE ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) FOR NUMBER ONE GRADE. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED OR EQUIVALENT. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4' TO ANY GAS LINE CLOSER THAN 6' TO ANY WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINE, AND NO CLOSER THAN 10' TO ANY WATER OR SEWER MAIN. TREE PLANTING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40' BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS AND 15' BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. SHRUBS ARE NOT TO BE PLANTED WITH 4' OF ANY WATER OR SEWER MAINS. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD TO MAINTAIN THE ABOVE CLEARANCES. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. LANDSCAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH A LETTER OF CREDIT, ESCROW, OR A PERFORMANCE BOND FOR 125% OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INSTALLATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTINGS IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. LANDSCAPING WITH PUBLIC ROW AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. DEVELOPER SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS COORDINATED WITH THE PLANS DONE BY OTHER CONSULTANTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT CONFLICT NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. ALL LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THE SITE SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN IRRIGATION PLAN, REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE WATER UTILITIES, WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREA TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, ARE TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH A 3" LAYER OF SPECIFIED MULCH OR COBBLE OVER WEEK BARRIER. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 1/8" X 4" STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD. IRRIGATED TURF TO BE SODDED WITH REVEILLE BLUEGRASS. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN 8" AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6" BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST 3 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER 1,000 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. EXISTING TREES MARKED FOR PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL NOT BE REMOVED. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPACT OVER THE ROOT ZONE OF EXISTING TREES. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SIDEWALKS AND PAVING LEVELS SHOULD BE CONTOURED SUFFICIENTLY TO AVOID DAMAGE. ROOT CUTS FROM EXCAVATION SHOULD BE DONE RAPIDLY. SMOOTH FLUSH CUTS SHOULD BE MADE. BACKFILL BEFORE THE ROOTS HAVE A CHANCE TO DRY OUT AND WATER THE TREE IMMEDIATELY. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION , ALL PROTECTED TREES SHALL HAVE ORANGE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING ERECTED, WHICH AS A MINIMUM ARE SUPPORTED BY 1" X 1" OR SIMILAR STURDY STOCK, FOR SHIELDING OF PROTECTED TREES, NO CLOSER THAN 6' FROM THE TRUNK OR 1/2 OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICH EVER IS GREATER, WITHIN THIS PROTECTION ZONE, THERE SHALL BE NO MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT OR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, DEBRIS, FILL OR CUT UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CITY FORESTER. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A 4" DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORS OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE, WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD ROW AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE 'RIBBON OFF', RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN NOTE (5) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POSTS STAKES A MAXIMUM OF 50' APART AND TYING A RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERMITTER OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY FORESTER'S MEDIUM PRUNE STANDARDS". TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. SOUTH SHIELDS STREET SPRINGFIELD DRIVE WV WV D Y H WV WV S S D D T CC CC CC HC HC HC PP PP PP OHL OHL LP LP LP D Y H WV W FO W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W JAMES COURT SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 5032 5033 5033 5029 5030 5029 5031 5032 5033 5027 5028 BLDG 2 (WHITE) BLDG 1 (GREEN) BLDG 3 (GREEN) BLDG 4 (WHITE) BLDG 5 (WHITE) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C T T C C SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS S W F W S S S S W W W W W F W W W W F W W W W W W W W F W F UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD W W W W UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 2-SJ 2-SJ 2-SJ 2-SJ 2-SJ 2-RC 3-ABS 4-ABS 2-HWTM 4-CP 4-SSC 3-ABS 3-SSC 4-CP 2-HWTM 5-ABS 2-HWTM 2-HWTM 1-RC 1-SSC 1-GSL 1-GSL 3-APA 1-SKY PROTECT SIGNIFICANT EXISTING TREE PROTECT SIGNIFICANT EXISTING TREE PROTECT PLUM THICKET PROTECT SIGNIFICANT EXISTING TREE PROTECT SIGNIFICANT EXISTING TREE PROTECT SIGNIFICANT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING CRABAPPLES CONCRETE PATIO WITH STONE BENCHES - TYP. RIBBON BIKE RACKS (11 BIKES EACH - TYP.) 6' PRIVACY FENCE 6' PRIVACY FENCE 42" WHITE RAIL FENCE - TYP BETWEEN BLDGS. BUS STOP CONNECT TO EXISTING SIDEWALK 40'-0" BORE UTILITIES UNDER TREES RELOCATE UTILITY 0 20 40 FT SCALE: 1"=20'-0" ARCHITECTURE ® PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 - - 02/06/2013 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW LANDSCAPE PLAN CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - oOutside la landscape architecture + urban design + planning boulder / steamboat springs p. 303.517.9256 / 970.871.9629 f: 970.879.6133 osla@me.com 03/06/2013 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1          3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 1/8" = 1'-0" CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 - - 03/06/2013 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS PDP 6 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - 1/8" = 1'-0" 8 TRASH NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 7 TRASH EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 TRASH SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 TRASH WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 GREEN BUILDING - EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 GREEN BUILDING - NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 GREEN BUILDING - WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 GREEN BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION Cream Paint White Building Sage Paint Green Building Chestnut Stain Green & White Brown Roof Green & White Tan Paint White Building Mushroom Paint Green Building Red Brick Green Building Natural Stone White Building BLDG 1 LEVEL 107' - 6 BLDG 1 LEVEL 117' - 9 BLDG 1 LEVEL 128' - 0 HEIGH 147' - 6 BLDG 1 BASEMEN 97' - 3 EVEL 1 07' - 6" EVEL 2 17' - 9" EVEL 3 28' - 0" HEIGHT 47' - 6" MENT 97' - 3" BLDG 1 LEVEL 1 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 2 117' - 9" BLDG 1 LEVEL 3 128' - 0" 147' - 6" BLDG 1 BASEMENT 97' - 3" BLDG 107' - BLDG 1 LEVEL 1 107' - 6" BLDG 1 LEVEL 2 117' - 9" BLDG 1 LEVEL 3 128' - 0" 147' - 6" BLDG 1 BASEMENT 97' - 3" BLDG 1 BLDG 1 BLDG 1 BLDG 1 BA 1 LEV 10 1 LEV 11 1 LEV 12 14 ASEM 9 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 4 6 4 4' - 8" 4" 4" 2" TYP. 6' - 6" TYP. 6' - 6" 4" 1' - 10" 4" 6" TYP. 6' - 6" TYP. 3' - 0" TYP. 6' - 6"  ®                      3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 As indicated CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 - - 03/06/2013 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS PDP 5 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 WHITE BUILDING - NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 WHITE BUILDING - EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 WHITE BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 WHITE BUILDING - WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 FARM FENCE 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 6' PRIVACY FENCE Cream Paint White Building Sagge Paint Greeen Building Chestnut Stain Green & White Brown Roof Green & White Tan Paint White Building Mushrooom Paint Green Buuilding Red Brick Green Buildingg Natural Stone White Building BLD BL BL BL BL BLDG 2 LEVEL 110' - BLDG 2 LEVEL 120' - BLDG 2 LEVEL 130' - BLDG 2 GRAD 107' - HEIG 147' - BLDG 2 GARD LEV 100' - BLDG 2 LEVE 110' - BLDG 2 LEVE 120' - BLDG 2 LEVE 130' - BLDG 2 GRAD 107' - BLDG 2 M HEIG 147' - 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 WOOD FENCE - PAINT: WHITE WOOD FENCE - STAIN: BROWN 15' SET BACK SPRINGFIELD DRIVE SOUTH SHIELDS STREET BLDG 3 11,080 SF (GREEN) 14 UNITS EXISTING BUILDING 1201 SPRINGFIELD DR. PDP 5 5 PDP 5 6 31' - 0" 25' - 0" 76' - 0" 31' - 0" 25' - 0" 27' - 7" 27' - 0" 31' - 0" 28' - 0" 15' - 5" 18" TYP. TYP. 18" . TYP. 8'-0" TYP. 9'-0" 30' - 0" . 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 24' - 0" 6' PRIVACY FENCE TYP. 18". TYP. 18". TYP. 18". TYP. 18". 54'-5" 50'-7" 55'-11" 55'-11" 55'-0" 55'-0" 54'-5" 50'-7" 54'-5" 50'-7" TYP. 17'-0" TYP. 15'-0" SITE DESCRIPTION PROGRAM AND UNIT MIX: OUR PROPOSAL INCLUDES FIVE (5) MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT BUILDINGS COMPRISED OF TWO (2) DIFFERENT FOOTPRINTS AND ELEVATIONS STYLES. THERE ARE TWO (2) 'GREEN BUILDINGS' CONTAINING 13 & 14 UNITS EACH, AND THREE (3) 'WHITE BUILDINGS' WHICH HAVE 10 UNITS EACH. THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS ARE TWO DIFFERENT HEIGHTS. THE 'WHITE BUILDING' IS THREE (3) STORIES OVER A GARDEN LEVEL AND THE 'GREEN BUILDING' IS THREE (3) STORIES OVER A BASEMENT. THE 'WHITE BUILDING' IS A TOTAL OF 7,699 SF AND THE 'GREEN BUILDING IS A TOTAL OF 8,092 SF. THE FIVE (5) BUILDINGS COMBINED WILL CONTAIN FIFTY-SEVEN (57) APARTMENT HOMES BROKEN OUT AS FOLLOWS: -TWENTY-NINE (29) 1-BEDROOM DWELLING UNITS, THIRTEEN (13) OF THESE ARE GARDEN LEVEL (BELOW GRADE) -SIXTEEN (16) 2-BEDROOM DWELLING UNITS, TWO (2) OF THESE ARE GARDEN LEVEL (BELOW GRADE) -TWELVE (12) 3-BEDROOM DWELLING UNITS - NINETY SEVEN (97) TOTAL BEDROOMS ACCESSIBILITY: THE BUILDINGS ABIDE BY APPENDIX M: COLORADO TITLE 9 ARTICLE 5 - STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE HOUSING. WITH 57 TOTAL UNITS WE HAVE TO MEET 24 ACCESSIBILITY POINTS. WE HAVE COMPLETED THIS WITH TWO (2) TYPE A UNITS WORTH 6 POINTS EACH, AND FOUR (4) TYPE B UNITS WORTH 4 POINTS EACH FOR A TOTAL OF TWENTY-EIGHT (28) POINTS. THE BUILDINGS, AS PROPOSED, CONTAIN A COMBINATION OF BOTH TYPE A AND TYPE B UNITS PER THE CURRENT CODES. PARKING: THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NCB ZONE WITH A TOD OVERLAY, THUS NO PARKING IS REQUIRED PER THE CURRENT CODES. DESPITE THIS ZONING, WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE CAN HAVE ON THIS SITE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE THIRTY-FOUR (34) STANDARD SPACES, TWENTY-ONE (21) COMPACT SPACES, AND THREE (3) ADA SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF FIFTY-EIGHT (58) ON-SITE PARKING STALLS. ENCLOSED BICYCLE STORAGE IS REQUIRED ON THIS SITE. WE HAVE PROVIDED FIFTY-NINE (59) ENCLOSED SPACES WITHIN THE BUILDING STRUCTURES (WE HAVE 97 BEDROOMS, SO THIS EQUATES TO OVER 60% OF THE BEDROOMS HAVING A BIKE SPACE UNDER THE ROOF), AND ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 40 FIXED BICYCLE RACKS OUTSIDE THROUGHOUT THE SITE FOR EASY ACCESS. SITE PLAN GRAPHICS LEGEND ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY REAR HALF PROPERTY LINE ROOF OVERHEAD - BUILDING ENVELOPE BUILDING OUTLINE FARM FENCE 6' PRIVACY FENCE C COMPACT PARKING SPACES EASEMENT LIGHT POLES ARCHITECTURE ® PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: REVISIONS © OZ ARCHITECTURE SCALE: SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE: ISSUED FOR: APPROVED: 3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 As indicated CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 - - 03/06/2013 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN PDP 2 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATION IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 15 AS BEARING NORTH 00° 29' 45" EAST, AND WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO, COMMENCING: AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 15; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 15, NORTH 00° 29' 45" EAST, 977.88 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89° 00' 15" WEST, 39.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH SHIELDS STREET, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, NORTH 89° 00' 15" WEST, 401.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF WESTERN HEIGHTS; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 00° 29' 45" EAST, 128.77 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SPRINGFIELD DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 72° 33' 45" EAST, 96.49 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18° 25' 57", A RADIUS OF 170.00 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 54.69 FEET, AND THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 81° 46' 43" EAST, 54.45 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 89° 00' 15" EAST, 241.36 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 27° 41' 31" EAST, 29.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH SHIELDS STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 00° 29' 45" WEST, 142.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINS 64,829 SQUARE FEET OR 1.488 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.  ®                      3003 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80205 PHONE 303.861.5704 As indicated CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 511131.00 Author Checker 03/06/2013 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW COVER SHEET PDP 1 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS Approver OWNER CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES CHARLES BAILEY 7302 ROZENA DRIVE LONGMONT, CO 80503 P:(303) 884-1021 F:(303) 772-3680 LANDSCAPE OUTSIDE LA, LLC 2623 BURGESS CREEK ROAD, STEAMBOAT SPRINGS P:(970)971-9629 F:FAX CIVIL NORTHERN ENGINEERING 200 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE SUITE 10 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 P:(907) 221-4159 F:FAX ELECTRICAL MV CONSULTING INC. 5980 E. 114TH AVE. THORNTON, CO 80233 P:(303) 325-3271 F:FAX ARCHITECT OZ ARCHITECTURE BECKY STONE 3003 LARIMER ST DENVER, CO 80205 P:(303) 861-5704 F:(303) 861-9230 STRUCTURAL GEBAU ENGINEERS 1121 BROADWAY #201 BOULDER, CO 80302 P:(303) 444-8545 F:FAX MECHANICAL BA CONSULTANTS 234 COLUMBINE STREET SUITE 201 DENVER, CO 80206 P:(303) 322-1222 F:FAX PROJECT TEAM CARRIAGE HOUSE VICINITY MAP APARTMENTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 03/06/2013 1305 - 1319 South Shields Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 SHEET INDEX - PDP NOT TO SCALE CONTRACTOR TBD P:PHONE F:FAX 6KHHW 6KHHW1DPH 3'3 &29(56+((7 3'3 $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 3'3 /$1'6&$3(3/$1 3'3$ 75((0,7,*$7,213/$1 3'3 6,7(/,*+7,1*3/$1 3'3 $5&+,7(&785$/(/(9$7,216 3'3 $5&+,7(&785$/(/(9$7,216 3'3 675((7(/(9$7,219,(: spaces Page 7