Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2014 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingAGENDA 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, February 13, 2014 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, February 13, 2014, hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, February 20, 2014, 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 January 9, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Land Use Code Text Amendments to Regulate Retail Marijuana Establishments This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding Land Use Code amendments intended to allow retail marijuana businesses. Specifically, changes are proposed that will add such businesses to the permitted use lists in Article 4, add definitions in Article 5, and prohibit such businesses from the “addition of permitted use” process. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Peter Barnes 3. Proposed Amendment to the City Structure Plan and Zoning for Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan map and zone Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Phase Four consists of approximately 400 acres in subdivisions between South Taft Hill Road and South Shields Street, both north and south of West Trilby Road. The City Structure Plan map change represents a Minor Amendment to finalize the Growth Management Area boundary for the Wildflower expansion area. The requested zone districts for Phase Four are Urban Estate (UE), Rural Lands (RUL), and Public Open Lands (POL). Applicant: City of Fort Collins, Planning Staff: Pete Wray 1 4. Urban Agriculture Phase Two Code Changes Based on Council direction during the hearings for the Urban Agriculture: Phase One Code changes, staff has conducted research and significant public outreach on two issues related to urban agriculture: 1. Begin removing barriers to year-round production by allowing hoop houses to be exempt from Building Code requirements, and 2. Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands, Residential Foothills, and River Conservation Zone Districts). Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code that exempt hoop houses from Building Code requirements, add hoop houses to the list of accessory structures allowed in the Code, and require urban agriculture licensees to locate hoop houses on their site plans. Regarding standards for the raising of farm animals, staff is not proposing amendments to the Land Use or City Codes at this time. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Ex/Houghteling E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 5. Townhomes at Library Park, Addition of Permitted Use and P.D.P., #PDP130033 This is a request for an Addition of Permitted Use and P.D.P. for allow for ten Single Family Attached Dwellings located at 220 East Olive Street at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. This parcel is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B, zone district. The existing structure would be demolished. The ten units would be divided into two, five-plex buildings bisected by a common driveway. Six of the units would be four stories in height and four of the units would be three stories. The lot measures 90’ x 140’ for a total of 12,600 square feet. The Addition of a Permitted Use is submitted in conjunction with the accompanying P.D.P. This P.D.P. includes six Modifications of Standard relating to floor-to-area ratios, setbacks, building height and driveway width. Applicant: Mr. Brad Florin Noco Townhomes, Inc. c/o Kephart 2555 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205 Staff: Ted Shepard F. Other Business G. Adjourn 2 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes January 9, 2014 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Jennifer Carpenter Phone: (H) 231-1407 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick, and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Kadrich, Vidergar, Ex, Shepard, Lorson, Gloss, Beals, Burnett, and Cosmas Agenda Review Member Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. She clarified that item #6 had been removed from the agenda (Historic Preservation code changes) in order for staff to further review and make future recommendations. Election of Officers: Member Hart nominated Member Carpenter to be the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission for 2014-15. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0 in favor. Member Heinz nominated Member Kirkpatrick to be the Vice Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission for 2014-15. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 7:0 in favor. Public Input: None. 3 Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from November 21 and December 12, 2013 2. Scott Plaza PDP#130032 3. 2013 P&Z Annual Report 4. Cargill ODP#130005 5. Narcanon Fence PDP/FDP #120023 Member Hansen recused himself at 6:05 pm due to a personal conflict of interest with several items on the Consent agenda. Member Hart made a motion to approve the January 9, 2014, Consent agenda as stated, including minutes from the November 21 and December 12, 2013, hearings, Scott Plaza PDP#130032, 2013 P&Z Annual Report, Cargill ODP#130005, and Narcanon Fence PDP/FDP #120023. Member Schneider seconded. The motion passed 6:0. Member Hansen rejoined the group at 6:09 pm. Discussion Agenda: 6. Item was removed for further staff review. 7. Global Village Academy SPAR #13007 8. Aggie Village North SPAR #130005 _______ Project: Global Village Academy SPAR #13007 Project Description: This is a request to develop the vacant ground located at the northwest corner of West Horsetooth Road and South Taft Hill Road for a public charter school that would serve an estimated 500 students ranging from pre-school through eighth grade. The building would be approximately 24,000 square feet in size and two stories in height and include 47 parking spaces. Also, future additions of 8,200 square feet and 24,100 square feet are proposed in case of an increase in enrollment or to serve high school age students. The site is 5.02 acres and is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Recommendation: Approval Planner Shepard gave an overview of the project. Terry Gogerty, Chief Development Officer of Global Network Academies, gave a presentation of the Global Village Academy (GVA) project. He reviewed the current site selection and the reasons for selecting Ft. Collins. GVA programs will be a unique, proven program, especially for English language learners. He reviewed the operation factors, including bus usage. He stated that GVA is willing to offset their school schedule to accommodate Olander Elementary School to reduce traffic issues. Their expansion will only occur to meet increased enrollment demand for this K-8 school; GVA does not currently plan to have a high school on the site. At most, GVA would eventually add some administrative offices and a gym. He stated that the success of GVA’s program is due to language immersion, which begins in Kindergarten at 100% immersion and then decreases each year after that. Adele Wilson, with Slater Paul Architects, spoke as a representative of the Design Team. She discussed the access points to the new school, located off of Bronson and Silver Trails Drive, future expansion and 4 parking plans. She also reviewed the school floor plans (primarily classrooms, cafeteria, and administrative spaces), exterior materials (metal panels), and elevations. Joseph Delich, of Delich & Associates, who prepared the Traffic Impact Study, stated that all key intersections meet the City’s prescribed level of service standards, including bike traffic and transit. He stated that the queue length at school dismissal time is projected to be 51 vehicles. GVA will encourage parents to travel down Bronson Street during this time of day. He also stated that, based on current bus ridership and carpooling, he expected a much shorter queue than what has been calculated. Board questions: Member Hart asked whether bus transportation would also be expanded in the future if the school enrollment expands. Mr. Delich responded by saying that bus transportation would be expanded based on demand. Member Hart asked what the ultimate build-out on this site would be. Mr. Delich replied that the ultimate build-out is 700 students if the additional classrooms are also included. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Public Input Warren Moore, 2210 Silver Trails Drive, began by introducing his traffic handout (Exhibit I). He stated he is opposed to any development that would produce so much traffic. Because there are only two ways into the neighborhood, he doesn’t believe there is enough room for cars (approximately 70-80 extra cars). He believes that the distances are too short to fit the traffic into. He suggested that a driveway be built near the south end and assigned as a right turn only lane, which he believes would be a win/win for everyone. He is not opposed to the school itself but would like to see the traffic flow reconfigured. At this time Chair Carpenter requested that Assistant City Attorney Vidergar review exactly what the Board can deliberate on tonight in order to clarify that for everyone. Attorney Vidergar stated that there are two statutory provisions that cover this review. One provision requires a review based on location, character, and extent relative to the community. The second provision involves a review by the P&Z Board of the development plan within 30 days of submission. The statutory provision allows the local P&Z Board to approve or disapprove the application, but they cannot deny the application. If the decision today is disapproval, this decision cannot be appealed to the City Council. Michelle Lowe, 1429 Tori Court in Loveland, CO, is in favor of this project. She spoke of the benefits of the immersion program for the overall development of children. She approves of this school project, as it is nationally recognized and extremely successful overall. Paul Tomlinson, 2219 Bronson Street, opposes this plan. He wants to be sure this process would preserve the character of the neighborhood and the property values. His concerns are with the traffic and the fact that there will be so much development on such a small space. He questioned how it will impact the enrollment and funding of Olander Elementary. He also questioned whether this is the best site for this school. He expressed confidence in the Board’s final decision. Janice Rozman, 3532 Silver Trails Drive, is opposed to this project. She lives in the patio homes in the neighborhood and believes that the road to be installed will be too close to some of the homes. She is concerned that the privacy and resale values will decrease. She is also concerned with the traffic. She would like to see the GVA building placed further north. 5 Dr. Rob Allerheiligen, 3701 Carrington Road, is in favor of this project. He is on the Board of Directors of GVA. He is very enthusiastic about the academy’s curriculum and focus. He also stated that the Board of GVA takes the neighborhood concerns very seriously, and solutions are being developed for each. He believes this is a positive option for this area and could actually increase property values. He stated that GVA is interested in being a “good neighbor”. Faye Martin, 140 North Sherwood Street, is in favor of this project. She placed her second grader there with great overall success. She also stated that GVA is excellent at communicating with parents, and they require parents to be more involved than a public school would (a school enrollment requirement). Dr. Hussam Mahmoud, 1414 Westfield Drive, is in favor of this project. Based on his personal experience moving here from Egypt, he feels that, if such a school had been available to him, he would have had more opportunities to be better prepared in life. He believes that leaders have a certain obligation to give kids the tools they need to be prepared for “competition”. He stated that students that can fit into an exchange program will also be more competitive in the future. Lastly, he feels this school would present more of a draw to people coming to Ft. Collins. Dr. Juan Rodriguez, 2621 Kit Fox Court, is in favor of this project. He is from Peru and his parents immigrated here. He believes in the language immersion program, as that was his own experience. He also stated that knowing several languages has been extremely helpful in his career. He also lives close to the neighborhood in question, and he knows this property will be developed eventually. He feels this plan is a good option for the neighborhood. Dave Colliton, 2267 Silver Oaks Drive, is opposed to this project. He stated that he has been involved in developing and designing facilities for many years. He believes this is a bad location for this school. While the traffic flow in and out of Olander Elementary is well-done, he believes there isn’t enough space to create a similarly good traffic flow for GVA. He also discussed the sidewalk placement and setbacks; snow plowing will only make it worse. He feels this project should be disapproved. Kathandra Luongo, 2314 Silver Oaks Drive, is opposed to this project. She previously sent a letter to the Coloradoan giving community input as to why she believes this is a bad site for reasons of traffic. She cited traffic problems at Blevins as an example of other schools with problems on Taft Hill Road. She said that a previous project trying to install a gas station at this site was turned down before due to traffic problems. Barbara Schwerin, 1448 Bison Run Drive in Windsor, is in favor of this project. She is on the Board of Directors for GVA, as well as on many other boards. She was involved with other alternative schools in Ft. Collins and knows that the “core knowledge” curriculum has been adopted by many schools. She stated that language immersion schools have been proven effective. She understands that there is also an increased demand for homes in those neighborhoods with such schools. Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, is a former mayor of Ft. Collins and is currently the President for the Board of GVA. He stated that it is the Board’s intent to make accommodations for coordinating school times, traffic congestion, and any other areas necessary. His message to residents is that GVA is concerned about safety, noise, traffic and other concerns. He stated that GVA wants to be a good neighbor and teach the children to live in harmony. Nathalie Riggs, 3725 Rockaway Street, is in favor of this project. She is from France and gave the group some perspective of people from other cultures and how people with European backgrounds tend to walk more than Americans (therefore, future traffic concerns may be mitigated somewhat with this clientele). 6 Case Ferguson, 2506 Fox Run Court, is in favor of the project. He lives a mile away from the proposed site and has three children currently attending GVA. He puts a high value on children being bilingual. He would also plan for his children to walk or ride bikes to school to help traffic issues. He has no desire to see traffic jams, but he knows this site will eventually be developed. He approves of the proposed architecture of the school and believes it will be very valuable to the community. Kristina Balikokum, 2218 Bronson Street, is opposed to the project. She feels that, while the concept of the school is wonderful, the traffic is already bad at the Bronson intersection. She does not believe it is a good plan architecturally and in view of potential accidents. She would like the traffic patterns to be reevaluated. Tanja Hess, 2300 Hampshire Square, is in favor of the project. Her son attended Olander Elementary but now has been moved to GVA. She is from Brazil and wanted to share how well language education can benefit children. End of Public Input Staff Response Chair Carpenter asked Secretary Cosmas if any other information had been received regarding this project since the Board met at the work session on January 3, 2014. Secretary Cosmas responded by reading the names of the neighbors who had submitted letters via email, including: • Paul and Janice Rozman – building placement concerns • Doris Pellemeier – parking concerns • Janet Else - building placement concerns • Georgia Fulks – traffic and neighborhood concerns Chair Carpenter asked Attorney Vidergar to explain again the responsibility and purview of the Planning and Zoning Board in their deliberation of this topic. He responded by saying that the scope of their review is to look at this application as submitted with regard to the location, character, and extent of the improvements that have been proposed. Based on that review, P&Z Board can approve or disapprove the plan; if the plan is disapproved, the applicant can go to the Board of Education (BoE) and request a review of this decision. The BoE will decide whether to overturn the decision of the P&Z Board. In addition, the P&Z Board has the opportunity to decide whether they are satisfied with the applicant’s response to the concerns of the Board. The P&Z Board can also request a hearing before the governing body of the charter school applicant; this is not a requirement but can be a separate request. Mr. Delich began by reiterating that the level of service requirement prescribed by the City has been met for this project. He also stated that any other proposed expansions would require another traffic impact study. Ward Stanford, with the Traffic Operations Department, explained that the level of service is a qualitative look at the traffic flow of an area and is determined by how much delay a motorist might experience over a period of time. There are levels of service standards that are assigned based on the zoning characteristics of a roadway for comparison purposes. He addressed the concern of an “inadequate queue”, and he agreed that there is a substantial amount of queue even compared to high schools or charter schools. He was not able to address the signage issues, since the city controls signs on public roadways. Regarding the accesses from Taft Hill Road, there is a minimum separation of 460 foot 7 between access points or driveways. The goal is to avoid having additional vehicles mixing into the traffic stream, resulting in higher congestion levels and lanes being too close to an intersection. Mr. Stanford agreed that Olander Elementary has done a good job with its own circulation. He did not witness that anyone was experiencing any difficulty exiting Bronson onto Taft Hill Road at approximately 9am, even with snow on the ground. One concern is the intersection which is not controlled by lights or stop signs but is an onsite control situation. He has worked out a flow whereby vehicles coming east- west and north-south don’t have to cross each other. The vehicles coming in from Silver Trails going east into the site could simply make a right turn to circulate around the parking lot. The vehicles coming in from Bronson would be southbound and they would go through that intersection, so there would be a merging of right turners and through turners, not a crossing of these. He added that the safety of the children at that intersection is a high priority. He addressed the statement regarding Blevins, which is located on Taft Hill Road and has a wide crossing. He stated that it is likely that a HAWK Beacon, one of the newer pedestrian crossing signals which include a dual red flashing light, will be installed. It is actually designed for pedestrian movement. Finally, Mr. Stanford addressed the concern of exiting Bronson. He stated that this situation did not appear to have a high difficulty, although he conceded that it might be worse during morning rush hour. He wanted to determine whether a right turn lane is warranted southbound on Taft Hill Road. The outside lane is currently serving as a right turn lane on Taft Hill Road. He also wanted to determine whether enough of the traffic is actually moving over into the through lane allowing that right turn lane to be north of Bronson. In this observation, typically about 90% of traffic has already moved to that through lane leaving the right-hand lane to serve as a right turn lane. Mr. Stanford acknowledged that there are accidents on Taft Hill Road, but at the level of expectation for that area. City Planner Shepard added that the applicant is willing to offset their future school schedule with Olander Elementary up to 20 minutes on either end of the school day in order to create gaps in traffic flow. In addition, any future expansion (Phase 2) would require another Transportation Impact Study as well as another Site Plan Advisory Review with this Board. Board Questions Member Hart stated, for clarification, that the decision currently at hand is only based on Phase 1. City Planner Shepard confirmed that that is true. Member Kirkpatrick asked whether there was any consideration to changing the signalization at Taft Hill Road or Horsetooth in order to make any of the lights longer. Mr. Stanford responded that adjustments will be made as needed. Member Kirkpatrick also asked if a right hand turn from Bronson onto Taft has been considered. Mr. Stanford stated that it had not been considered because it would have to be a result of an issue that showed the characteristic of a high level of delay. Member Kirkpatrick restated that, if a high level of delay was proven due to a large enrollment increase, then reconsideration of the traffic lights would be warranted. Mr. Stanford responded that it would be a possibility using a baseline now and then performing new observations. Such impact would have to be clearly documented in order to evaluate available funds and priority. Member Kirkpatrick reiterated that several neighbors appear to be very concerned about that area. Member Hart asked about how the density development of the site for both Phase 1 and 2 compares to Poudre School District. City Planner Shepard responded by saying that the larger elementary schools in the southern part of the city are on larger sites; comparably-sized schools north of Drake are on slightly smaller sites. Depending on when the school campus was developed, the typical K-6 schools offer a wide range of subjects that charter schools do not offer. Comparing this campus to other schools, it is somewhat smaller than schools on south side of the city but compares favorably to northern schools. 8 Member Heinz asked what other circulation options were available. Mr. Stanford responded that other options are available, but they have other congestion and safety concerns. The applicant has also looked at other options, but this option is one of the better. Member Schneider asked about the proximity of the internal drive and whether this plan is in compliance with any setback distance minimums. Mr. Stanford responded that, regarding setbacks, there are only a couple of feet in alleys, and this may be more of a planning characteristic. From an engineering standpoint, Mr. Stanford did not recall that this was an issue. City Planner Shepard also stated that there are no metrics in the code for this type of setbacks. Member Hobbs asked about how the city and county work together in a joint improvement project when both city and county roads are at risk. Mr. Stanford responded that there are mutual standards that all municipalities have developed which cover city and county. If a residential area came in for redevelopment, another traffic study would be performed to determine whether service levels are unacceptable. Member Hobbs also asked whether a potential widening at the intersection in question would enable a better traffic flow. Mr. Stanford responded that the flow is currently good, as those roadways can handle a high volume of traffic. He went on to say that, in time, there is an expectation that Taft Hill Road will have to be widened. Member Kirkpatrick asked if there were any standards related to air quality and cars queuing. City Planner Shepard responded that, while this issue has come up before, from a community-wide air quality perspective, city policies don’t focus on “hot spots”. Rather, the city focuses on regional air quality standards. Member Hansen asked, regarding the driveways adjacent to the back of the lots on the patio homes, what kind of setbacks do those homes have off of the street. City Planner Shepard responded that the minimum required setback is 15 feet; the minimum required setback for a driveway is 20 feet. He went on to say that the setbacks will taper to align with the streets and backyards, sometimes reaching up to a 50-60 foot setback. Member Hart asked whether there had been other project proposals denied due to traffic. City Planner Shepard responded that there had been no other projects denied. He stated there have been conceptual reviews and interested applicants making inquiries, but nothing was ever formally submitted. Some of the past ideas included residential, multi-family, and convenience centers. Because it is zoned L-M-N, there is also the non-residential aspect of L-M-N, called the neighborhood center. Chair Carpenter asked whether the drawing submitted by a citizen, now called Exhibit 1, was considered to be an older version of the area. City Planner confirmed that the site plan had been revised since the neighborhood meeting on November 9, 2014, so this exhibit is an older version. Member Kirkpatrick stated that, looking at the landscape plan submitted, there does not appear to be inclusion of sidewalks on the private drives throughout the site. Jason Goode, of Faurot Construction, stated that there are sidewalks at the queuing area, but not along the walkways. This aspect had not been discussed because of the limited budget based on the number of students. Member Kirkpatrick asked whether the internal road that starts at Bronson and heads south into the site should be shifted to provide room to have a landscape buffer behind the homes. Mr. Goode responded by saying that a landscape buffer will be added as the site is developed; currently street trees and a landscape buffer along Taft Hill Road and Horsetooth Road are being added. Member Kirkpatrick also asked what elements were changed in the site design in response to the desire to be a good neighbor. Ms. Wilson responded that the landscape buffer is one element, along with the development of an adequate traffic flow and queuing system. Mr. Gogerty stated that the site has been shifted to the north in addition to 9 other changes to accommodate the traffic and city’s requests for modifying the site. There has been three or four modification to date, including landscaping and building placement. Member Schneider asked whether the color selections portrayed in the diagrams were the final colors or if they would be toned down. Ms. Wilson stated that the colors would be toned down, especially the yellow color. She said the intent wasn’t to have bright colors but to have a more natural color scheme. Member Hart asked how much time would be offset specifically before and after school hours. Mr. Gogerty stated that the offsetting times would occur before and after school hours. The GVA school day is longer than the Olander school day, so they are prepared to offset the time up to 20 minutes before and after school. He also stated that 15 minutes is usually adequate for students to load and unload on the site. Member Schneider asked whether there is enough space between the internal drive and the GVA property line to accommodate future trees and landscaping buffers. Ms. Wilson responded that it would be minimal, and the trees would not be tall. Member Schneider asked if the drive off of Silver Trails was moved to the south to accommodate larger trees. Ms. Wilson responded that this is the case. Member Schneider asked if they would be willing to create a buffer between at Bronson and the GVA property. Ms. Wilson responded that the alignment is with the street on the other side of Bronson to the north, so they worked again with the city on just the location. Member Kirkpatrick asked if the board could discuss some ideas to let the applicant address issues immediately. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar confirmed that this would be appropriate. He stated that, under the statutory process, the Board can make comments on the application and the applicant can respond one final time before a decision is made by the Board. Board Discussion Member Kirkpatrick stated that she supports the school itself but questions the site placement. While she is confident that traffic and flow concerns will be addressed, she isn’t satisfied with the character of the development and how it relates to the character of the neighborhood, including the lack of buffering to the single-family homes and lack of pedestrian connectivity. She suggested that a longer circulation drive would be appropriate in order to have more landscape buffering. She would also like to include sidewalks internal to the site at all locations as a baseline standard in development and not added only when budget permits. Member Hart agreed with this assessment and said that, especially since this is only Phase 1. He believes that we should take a hard look at Phase 2, when appropriate, and consider shifting the buildings to provide more space between the school and the neighbors located to the west. As a good neighbor, GVA should consider the neighborhood concerns and strive for the best livability possible. Member Schneider stated that he would like to see more separation between the internal drive plus more connectivity, looking at this project from a multi-mobile standpoint and walkability. There is a need to connect the neighborhood to the school, and he would like to see the entrance point on Bronson shifted to create more of a buffer. Member Heinz stated that there needs to be more buffering between the school and neighbors for streets and buildings. She also stated that she feels this is a great program and she would like to see them in Ft. Collins. 10 Member Hobbs stated that he also agrees. He believes GVA will be a great addition to the neighborhood as long as they are coming in as a friend and not as an opponent. Creating a buffering zone and handling logistics of pickups and drop-offs will set the stage for the neighbors. Member Hansen stated that he also agrees with the other Board members. He reiterated that an additional buffer would be the best option, in addition to moving the buildings so they are closer to Taft Hill side rather than the internal part of the neighborhood. He believes that the program is good and that this is generally a good location. Chair Carpenter stated that she also agrees that there is enough space on this site for additional buffering. She believes that the program will be a good addition to the neighborhood, but she is still concerned with the lack of mitigation between the roads and the walkability. Mr. Gogerty stated that GVA’s biggest constraint at present is money. Once buildings are at capacity, they would review the possibility of shifting the road to add more buffering, although he is aware that a four-lane Taft Hill Road could cut into the site. Member Hart asked if there is additional right of way required on Taft Hill Road on that section. Tyler Siegmund, from the Engineering Department, stated that there is additional right of way that is being dedicated as part of this project. He said that, to meet our minimum four-lane street standard, an additional 7½ feet is being dedicated. He said they did ask the applicant to look at the need for the possibility of a right hand turn lane onto Horsetooth, which would result in an additional 12 feet to meet the standard. This addition would encroach into the tree line. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar clarified for the group that the Board’s approval is based on the application, which includes only Phase I at this time, and that any motion would automatically include only Phase I. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve Global Village Academy Site Plan Advisory Review SPA#130007 based on the findings of facts and conclusions. Member Schneider seconded the motion. He went on to say that he would support this first phase of the project but would like to see changes to the site plan before Phase 2 is proposed. Member Hart also said he feels comfortable with Phase 1, considering the traffic flows will still be operating at acceptable levels. Chair Carpenter stated that she is concerned that, if Phase I is approved, how will it be possible to later move the roadway to accommodate the neighborhood? Member Kirkpatrick also stated that, if we approve this Phase I, we are indicating that this project meets our standards with regard to character, extent, and location without any of the improvements the Board has suggested. Member Hart offered to amend his motion. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar clarified that the decision that the Board can make can only be an approval or disapproval without conditions. Member Kirkpatrick stated that she does not support this project with respect to the criteria of character, extent, and location. Member Schneider restated that, if the project is disapproved, it could go to the BoE, and this was confirmed again by Assistant City Attorney Vidergar. Member Hart stated that, because this site is zoned L-M-N, having a school there is a very good fit, since other types of buildings could generate a lot more traffic operating at longer hours than a school would. Member Hobbs asked whether, if the Board disapproves, the applicant has the opportunity to return with an amended site plan to this Board. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar responded that the appropriate process would be for the applicant to request the decision to be tabled tonight until they can bring back a revised site plan for consideration rather than resubmitting. 11 Doug Talbot, with Highmark School Development (funding source of this project), asked what an acceptable buffer would be between GVA and the neighborhood homes. He reminded the group that there is already a fence in place and offered to make a wider area with landscaping continuing as phases develop. He stated that he is interested in making this a win-win situation. Mr. Goode stated that he did not believe a sidewalk would fit on the long sidewalk because of the queuing of busses for parking. However, he said other sidewalks could be developed on other drives. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar stated that, if the Board is satisfied with applicant’s response, the Board can approve the plan on the good faith follow-through of the applicant. Member Schneider asked whether the Board should request a specific number for the buffering zone, since he would like to see more buffering without moving entry point. City Planner Shepard suggested that we explore the option of asking the applicant so they could respond and the Board could reach satisfaction with their response. He went on to say that there is no specific metric for bufferyards, which is done intentionally because they are generally qualitative, based on the unique aspects of the site. He said that the southerly units of the patio homes are in the most need of buffering because of the taper. He believes that 10 feet would be inadequate, while 20 feet would be perfect. Within the 20 feet, there can be clustering of trees and any tapering would not make such an impact. Member Schneider asked what the distance is on the southern row of trees. City Planner Shepard responded that the distance between the southerly patio home and the access drive from Silver Trail is adequate (at 21 feet). Along the north-south drive is the critical buffering area. Member Schneider asked if the applicant would be willing to make the necessary adjustments. Mr. Talbot stated that 20 feet may be too much to accomplish, but he believes that at least 10 feet is possible and he will try for more for the greatest amount of buffering. Member Schneider asked if the applicant would be willing to look at adding sidewalks. Mr. Talbot responded that he would be willing to add a sidewalk. Member Kirkpatrick stated that she feels the more important sidewalk connection would be from Bronson on the east side because it is internal to the site and would provide a safe access to the school. Mr. Talbot suggested that, as the additional phases are developed, the sidewalk would continue down on that side. Member Kirkpatrick reiterated that sidewalks should not be optional or partially built. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar stated that it would be beneficial to reread the motion and then determine whether the motion should be withdrawn or amended. Member Hart stated that he doesn’t think the motion should be amended, since the applicant is willing to make some concessions and the Board’s decision is simply to approve or disapprove. Chair Carpenter asked if the Board needs to respond as to the acceptability of the applicant’s response. Assistant City Attorney Vidergar stated that the issue of satisfaction with the applicant’s response is only applicable if the Board disapproves the application. Member Heinz asked whether consideration had been given to shifting the parking to the area currently marked as “fields” to make more use of that space. Member Hart stated that the applicant is willing to move the roadway at least 10 feet and put in a sidewalk at Silver Trail. The motion was passed 4-3, with Chair Carpenter, Member Kirkpatrick, and Member Heinz dissenting. 12 _______ Project: Aggie Village North - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130005 Project Description: This is a request to deconstruct the Aggie Village North Apartments and replace them with 408,000 square feet of new student apartments. The new facility includes 1,000 beds within 480 apartment units, dispersed within a variety of unit types, from studio units to four-bedroom configurations. Buildings will be staggered, ranging between 3 and 5 stories in height. The Aggie Village North site is 8.7 acres in size is not zoned. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Planning Manager Gloss gave a project overview, which consists of deconstructing existing apartments and replacing them with new student apartments. Fred Haberecht, Campus Planner for Colorado State University (CSU) and Christie Mathews, Director of University Apartments at CSU, gave a short presentation of this project. This residence hall is designed to supplement the existing residence halls on campus. Ms. Mathews explained that this apartment complex will primarily house an upper-class undergraduate community of 500 students who are interested in an intercultural experience, another 250 upper-class undergraduate students who want an apartment-style living arrangement, and another 250 post-doctorate and visiting scholars who come to campus for a short amount of time. Mr. Haberecht stated that the neighborhood meeting was very positive, because it meets the student housing action plan by providing student housing on campus. This plan requires the university to provide 25% of the housing needs of the resident student population. This project also attempts to recapture some apartment needs that have been recently lost. The neighborhood was concerned with a possible spill-over of CSU into the adjacent neighborhood and whether there will be adequate parking. Mr. Haberecht also stated that, although there will only be 250 parking spaces onsite, a parking permit will be available to all residents, making other parking lots accessible as well. Another issue is the desire for a detached sidewalk along Prospect Road. The last sidewalk improvement, which occurred about 15 years ago, was a joint effort between CSU and the City of Ft. Collins. He does not currently know the right of way guidelines for Prospect. He stated that he has had many positive comments about this project. One of the reasons that there isn’t more parking in this project is because amenity space has been given a higher priority. Ms. Mathews also added that they are trying to protect the trees along Prospect Road by leaving the sidewalk alone. It has been her experience that they serve about 70% international students; generally only 1 in 4 international students will have a car on campus, plus there are transportation options provided for students on campus. Public Input None. 13 Board Questions Member Hobbs asked what the contingencies are if the assumptions about the demographics of car usage end up false and the number of cars is more than anticipated. Mr. Haberecht responded that the location of this project is imbedded into the campus system, so he doesn’t believe students will be commuting across the street. In addition, the campus has an inventory of parking stock that is offered to any resident of this facility. Member Hobbs questioned whether allowing students to park far away from their residence could be a problem. Mr. Haberecht responded that he is comfortable that students can park at several lots that are still within the campus boundary, in addition to the imminent implementation of a campus shuttle. Ms. Mathews also added that CSU can flex their parking stock as campus changes. The campus has a parking commitment to commuter students as well as residential students. Member Hobbs asked about future parking concerns if a similar redevelopment plan for South Aggie Village is proposed. Mr. Haberecht responded that the master plan shows a 450-lot parking garage to be located south of the Hilton, which would be in support of such an expansion. In addition, an allotment of land at Prospect would be the location of an underpass to provide another way for students to access campus at Centre and Prospect, which is a heavily-used access point for students. Member Hart stated that this project is only part of the overall campus development plan. He suggested that it would be easier to understand the campus plan if the Board could see the “bigger picture” rather than just the current plans. Mr. Haberecht responded that CSU is in the process of updating the campus master plan, which is due to the state by the end of 2014. He suggested that they could present something to the Board around September. Chair Carpenter also suggested that it might be a topic for a future work session. Ms. Mathews confirmed that there is no timeline for redevelopment of Aggie Village South at this time. Member Heinz asked how parking spaces are assigned. Mr. Haberecht responded that they are purchased by students, and prices change based on location. Member Heinz also asked what role CSU would be willing to play in widening Prospect Road. Mr. Haberecht responded that it would depend on the location and purpose of future projects. Member Schneider asked if the sidewalk internal to the property would be a connection along Prospect, would there need to be security, or is the proposed fence enough. Mr. Haberecht responded that they are not receptive to having that sidewalk being publicly accessible; rather it would be a bypass through the facility. The three private courtyards are facing that sidewalk, which would allow public access, and they are loading up a lot of their bike parking through that same corridor. They do not want to open up the back side of the project to general public circulation. Member Hansen clarified that they don’t want it to serve as the public sidewalk. Mr. Haberecht responded that public access might diminish the project. Member Kirkpatrick stated that it appears that there is flexibility within that space to provide a sidewalk at some point in time. Mr. Haberecht responded that there are a lot of considerations in bringing a new sidewalk up to grade. . 14 Board Discussion Member Heinz stated that she believes this is a beautiful project and she supports it. Member Kirkpatrick agreed and added that she believes the project has a high quality of design and adequately accomplishes both CSU’s and the City’s master plans. Member Schneider made a motion to approve the Aggie Village North SPA#13005 as presented with the findings of facts and recommendations. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Member Hansen commented that he believes that the traffic concerns have been well-mitigated. Regarding the parking situation, he believes that CSU’s vast infrastructure to accommodate parking needs can take on that challenge. Chair Carpenter agreed with this assessment. The motion was passed 7-0. Mr. Haberecht thanked the Board and expressed his gratitude. Member Kirkpatrick complimented the Traffic Impact Study that was prepared for this project. Other Business None. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25pm. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 15 PROJECT: Land Use Code Text Amendments to Regulate Retail Marijuana Establishments APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding Land Use Code amendments intended to allow retail marijuana businesses. Specifically, changes are proposed that will add such businesses to the permitted use lists in Article 4, add definitions in Article 5, and prohibit such businesses from the “addition of permitted use” process. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Amendment 64 is a voter-approved amendment to the State constitution which allows for local licensing and regulation of retail marijuana establishments. The City Council adopted a six-month temporary ban on such establishments in September, 2013 in order to allow City staff sufficient time to formulate a recommendation to the City Council and to develop potential regulations. That ban expires on March 31, 2014. Members of City staff held two work sessions with the City Council in 2013 for the purpose of discussing options for the local implementation of Amendment 64. The last work session was on November 26, 2013, at which time the Council directed staff to bring forward ordinances for consideration to allow and regulate retail marijuana businesses. BACKGROUND: Under current State law only licensed medical marijuana businesses can apply to the State for a retail marijuana business license. City staff is proposing that the local regulation of retail marijuana businesses be done in the same manner as was done for medical marijuana businesses. This means that the majority of the regulations are proposed to be placed in the Municipal Code. Those regulations will deal with such 16 things as the licensing, number, and location (spacing requirements) of retail establishments, the personal use and possession of marijuana, and the cultivation of marijuana in residences. The Planning & Zoning Board’s role is to provide a recommendation to City Council with regard to only the Land Use Code amendments (appropriate zones and definitions). The Board will not make a recommendation to Council with regard to any of the other components of the comprehensive set of regulations dealing with licensing, number, spacing, use, possession, or cultivation. Those regulations will be added to the Municipal Code. The proposed Land Use Code amendments that follow are in response to the direction provided by City Council at last year’s work sessions. They identify the appropriate zones for retail marijuana establishments (which are proposed to be the same zones where the equivalent medical marijuana uses are currently permitted), add definitions, and prohibit such businesses from the “addition of permitted use” process. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Add uses to various zones Problem Statement The permitted use lists for the various zone districts in Article 4 currently do not include retail marijuana establishments. Therefore, such uses are not allowed within the city. Proposed Solution Staff recommends that various sections of Article 4 of the Land Use Code be amended by adding retail marijuana store, retail marijuana cultivation facility, retail marijuana product manufacturing facility, and retail marijuana testing facility to the lists of permitted Type 1 uses in the same zones where similar medical marijuana business are already allowed, as follows: Division 4.16 Downtown District (D) Section 4.16(B)(2)(C) is amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses as follows: Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Cont'd) . . . … … … Retail marijuana store Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 17 Division 4.17 River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R) Section 4.17(B)(2)(c) is amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 14. Retail marijuana store. Section 4.17(B)(2) is amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (e) which reads in its entirety as follows: (e) Industrial Uses: 1. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 2. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 3. Retail marijuana testing facility. Division 4.18 Community Commercial District (C-C) Section 4.18(B)(2)(c) is amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 27. Retail marijuana store. Division 4.19 Community Commercial – North College District (C-C-N) Section 4.19(B)(2)(c) is amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 26. Retail marijuana store. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(d) is amended by the addition of the following uses as follows: (d) Industrial Uses: 26. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 27. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 28. Retail marijuana testing facility. 18 Division 4.20 Community Commercial – Poudre River District (C-C-R) Section 4.20(B)(2)(c) is amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 19. Retail marijuana store. Division 4.21 General Commercial District (C-G) Section 4.21(B)(2)C is amended to add Retail Marijuana Store as follows: Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL … … … Retail marijuana store Not permitted Type 1 Division 4.22 Service Commercial District (C-S) Section 4.22(B)(2)(c) is amended to add Retail Marijuana Store as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 43. Retail marijuana store. Section 4.22(B)(2)(d) is hereby amended by the addition of the following uses as follows: (d) Industrial Uses: 6. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 7. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 8. Retail marijuana testing facility. Division 4.24 Limited Commercial District (C-L) Section 4.24(B)(2)D of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following uses as follows: 19 D. INDUSTRIAL Riverside Area All Other Areas … … … Retail marijuana cultivation facility Not Permitted Type 1 Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility Not Permitted Type 1 Retail marijuana testing facility Not Permitted Type 1 Division 4.28 Industrial District (I) Section 4.28(B)(2)(d) is amended by the addition of the following uses as follows: (d) Industrial Uses: 11. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 12. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 13. Retail marijuana testing facility. Add definitions Problem Statement The LUC currently does not contain definitions for retail marijuana establishments. Proposed Solution Section 5.1.2 of the LUC should be amended by adding definitions for ‘retail marijuana store’, ‘retail marijuana cultivation facility’, ‘retail marijuana product manufacturing facility’, and ‘retail marijuana testing facility’ as follows: Division 5.1.2 Definitions. Retail marijuana store shall mean an entity licensed to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities, and to purchase marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities, for the purpose of selling marijuana and marijuana products to consumers. 20 Retail marijuana cultivation facility shall mean an entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana, and to sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility shall mean an entity licensed to purchase marijuana; manufacture, prepare, and package marijuana products; and sell marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and to retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers. Retail marijuana testing facility shall mean an entity licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana. Prohibit retail marijuana facilities from the “Addition of Permitted Use” process Problem Statement Section 1.3.4 of the LUC authorizes the Planning & Zoning Board to allow uses in a specific zone district that aren’t otherwise allowed. The “addition of permitted use” process is intended to allow the Board flexibility in cases where the proposed use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located and satisfies other compatibility standards. When making such determinations, the Board can place many conditions on an approval in order to address compatibility concerns. However, since the licensing, spacing, operational, possession, consumption and cultivation regulations for retail marijuana are to be contained in the Municipal Code, rather than in the LUC, the ability of the Planning & Zoning Board to add conditions or grant modifications as it would for other uses doesn’t exist. Proposed Solution Staff recommends that Section 1.3.4(A)(5) be amended just as it was for medical marijuana businesses, as follows: 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses (A)(5) Such use is not a retail marijuana store, retail marijuana cultivation facility, retail marijuana product manufacturing facility, retail marijuana testing facility, medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana cultivation facility. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 21 ORDINANCE NO. , 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE RETAIL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITY WHEREAS, the City Council, by Ordinance No. , 2014, amended the City Code to govern the licensing, number, location and operation of retail marijuana establishments in the City; and WHEREAS, there are currently no references to retail marijuana establishments in the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, in light of the most recently approved Ordinance No. , 2014, staff recommends amending the Land Use Code to accommodate such retail marijuana establishments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the Land Use Code be amended to include retail marijuana establishments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 1. That Section 1.3.4(A)(5) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses (A) Required Findings. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or any amendment of the foregoing, and upon the petition of the applicant or on the Director's own initiative, the Director (or the Planning and Zoning Board as specifically authorized and limited in subsection (B) below) may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other similar use which conforms to all of the following conditions: . . . (5) Such use is not a retail marijuana store, retail marijuana cultivation facility, retail marijuana product manufacturing facility, retail marijuana testing facility, medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana cultivation facility. Section 2. That Section 4.16(B)(2)C of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the D zone district as follows: 22 Land Use Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL (Cont'd) . . . … … … Retail marijuana store Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Section 3. That Section 4.17(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the R-D- R zone district as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 14. Retail marijuana store. Section 4. That Section 4.17(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (e) which reads in its entirety as follows: (e) Industrial Uses: 1. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 2. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 3. Retail marijuana testing facility. Section 5. That Section 4.18(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the C-C zone district as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 27. Retail marijuana store. Section 6. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the C-C-N zone district as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 26. Retail marijuana store. Section 7. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following uses to the list of permitted uses in the C-C-N zone district as follows: (d) Industrial Uses: 26. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 23 27. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 28. Retail marijuana testing facility. Section 8. That Section 4.20(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by adding Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the C-C-R zone district to read as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 19. Retail marijuana store. Section 9. That Section 4.21(B)(2)C of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to add Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the C-G zone district as follows: C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL … … … Retail marijuana store Not permitted Type 1 Section 10. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to add Retail Marijuana Store to the list of permitted uses in the C-S zone district as follows: (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 43. Retail marijuana store. Section 11. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following uses to the list of permitted uses in the C-S zone district as follows: (d) Industrial Uses: 6. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 7. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 8. Retail marijuana testing facility. Section 12. That Section 4.24(B)(2)D of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following uses to the list of permitted uses in the C-L zone district as follows: D. INDUSTRIAL Riverside Area All Other Areas 24 … … … Retail marijuana cultivation facility Not Permitted Type 1 Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility Not Permitted Type 1 Retail marijuana testing facility Not Permitted Type 1 Section 13. That Section 4.28(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following uses to the list of permitted uses in the I zone district as follows: (d) Industrial Uses: 11. Retail marijuana cultivation facility. 12. Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility. 13. Retail marijuana testing facility. Section 14. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Retail marijuana store” which reads in its entirety as follows: Retail marijuana store shall mean an entity licensed to purchase marijuana from marijuana cultivation facilities, and to purchase marijuana and marijuana products from marijuana product manufacturing facilities, for the purpose of selling marijuana and marijuana products to consumers. Section 15. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Retail marijuana cultivation facility” which reads in its entirety as follows: Retail marijuana cultivation facility shall mean an entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package marijuana, and to sell marijuana to retail marijuana stores, marijuana product manufacturing facilities, and to other marijuana cultivation facilities, but not to consumers. Section 16. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility” which reads in its entirety as follows: Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility shall mean an entity licensed to purchase marijuana; manufacture, prepare, and package marijuana products; and sell 25 marijuana and marijuana products to other marijuana product manufacturing facilities and to retail marijuana stores, but not to consumers. Section 17. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Retail marijuana testing facility” which reads in its entirety as follows: Retail marijuana testing facility shall mean an entity licensed to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana. Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this * day of *, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the * day of *, A.D. 2014. _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this * day of *, A.D. 2014. _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 26 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Amendment to the City Structure Plan and Zoning for Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins, Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan map and zone Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Phase Four consists of approximately 400 acres in subdivisions between South Taft Hill Road and South Shields Street, both north and south of West Trilby Road. The City Structure Plan map change represents a Minor Amendment to finalize the Growth Management Area boundary for the Wildflower expansion area. The requested zone districts for Phase Four are Urban Estate (UE), Rural Lands (RUL), and Public Open Lands (POL). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested Amendment to the City Structure Plan map. Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning designations. Staff recommends that the entire Phase Four be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan map and zone Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The Southwest Enclave Annexation Ordinance (2006) requires areas within each phase of the Enclave to be placed within a zone district no later than 90 days of the date the phase is recorded. Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation was recorded on December 31, 2013. 27 Phase Four consists of approximately 400 acres spread amongst various subdivisions between South Taft Hill Road and South Shields Street, both north and south of West Trilby Road. This area represents the last phase of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The City Structure Plan map would be amended to finalize the Growth Management Area boundary for the Wildflower expansion area. The requested zone districts for Phase Four are Urban Estate (UE), Rural Lands (RUL), and Public Open Lands (POL). Staff is recommending that all of Phase Four be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary to place Phase Four on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District map as "Inside Sign District." BACKGROUND: The Southwest Enclave Annexation Ordinance (2006) created four phases to be recorded and zoned in sequence over eight years. The 2006 Ordinance also requires areas within each of the four phases of the Enclave to be placed within a zone district no later than 90 days of the date the phase is recorded. The first phase was recorded and zoned in 2007, with the second and third phases recorded and zoned in 2008 and 2010, respectively. Finally, the fourth phase was recorded on December 31, 2013 (see Attachment 1). In its recommendation on the annexation ordinance on July 20, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the annexation request and assign initial zoning as recommended by staff for the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The recommendation also included that residentially-zoned properties be placed in the residential sign district. In February, 2010 City Council adopted a Resolution (2010-004) to amend the City Structure Plan map that included changes to land use designations in the Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase Three and Phase Four areas. Thus, a new recommendation for Council action is needed by the Planning and Zoning Board for Phase Four zoning. In addition, a recommendation for Council action is needed to finalize the Growth Management Area boundary for the Wildflower expansion area, within a portion of Phase Four. A map of Southwest Enclave Annexation Phase Four boundary is included below on next page. 28 CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MINOR AMENDMENT: The proposed City Structure Plan minor amendment represents a clarification of the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary for the Wildflower expansion area (see Attachment 3). Since the 2004 update to City Plan, the City Structure Plan map described several proposed future GMA expansion areas, including Wildflower. Finalization of this expansion area was anticipated by staff to be completed as part of the Southwest Enclave Annexation process. Significant public involvement was incorporated into the updates to City Plan in 2004 and 2010 including support for this proposed future GMA boundary change. The requested amendment to the City Structure Plan reflects a “housekeeping” action to reconfigure the GMA boundary to include the Wildflower expansion area. 29 City Plan states, "A plan minor amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings that the existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed amendment; and the proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof.” Policy LIV 1.1 – Utilize a Growth Management Area Collaborate with the County and other jurisdictions in utilizing a Growth Management Area (GMA) surrounding Fort Collins to guide and manage growth outside of the City limits and delineate the extent of urban development in Fort Collins. The proposed City Structure Plan amendment is consistent with the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. The City has worked closely with Larimer County throughout the process to implement the Southwest Enclave Annexation. The proposed GMA boundary amendment area is already annexed into the City of Fort Collins. The Board of County Commissioners supports the proposed GMA adjustment (see attached letter dated January 28, 2014). Policy LIV 1.2 – Consider Amendments to the Growth Management Area (GMA) The Growth Management Area (GMA) will remain generally as presently configured but will be subject to limited amendments in accordance with the following criteria. Two particular amendments to the GMA that have been identified for future consideration are the Wildflower and CSU Foothills Campus. The identification of any additional proposed amendments to the GMA will be undertaken only in conjunction with future comprehensive updates of City Plan. The criteria to be considered in reviewing each of these proposed GMA amendments will include, but need not be limited to, the following: a. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with community goals, principles, and policies as expressed in City Plan, b. Whether the proposed amendment has a positive net fiscal benefit to the community, c. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate an activity that cannot be reasonably accommodated on lands within the existing GMA, d. Whether the land proposed for inclusion in the GMA contains any environmental factors or hazards that make the area unsuitable for inclusion within the GMA, and e. Whether the proposed amendment would result in a logical change to the GMA. Factors to be included in making this determination will include, but need not be limited to, the following:  Whether the proposed amendment would allow for the logical, incremental extension of urban services,  Whether the proposed amendment would offer a desirable new “edge” to the community, 30  Whether the existing boundary to be extended is contiguous to existing developed areas of the city, and  Whether the proposed amendment would contribute to the compact urban form of the city. The proposed amendment is consistent with adopted vision and policies in City Plan. The proposed amendment promotes the public welfare in that it will provide an orderly and planned growth management pattern for the City of Fort Collins in accordance with adopted procedures. The City has initiated a logical and incremental extension of urban services for the Southwest Enclave Annexation, including the Wildflower area of Phase Four. This action represents a logical change to the GMA boundary, since this expansion area has been described in City Plan beginning in 2004 and is served by a full range of urban services. ZONING: Phase Four includes six recognized subdivisions:  Hersh MRD  Midway  Scheel MRD  Kapperman  Mountain Valley Acres  Wildflower The descriptions of existing subdivision and natural areas are illustrated in Attachment 2. The remaining area encompasses a range of mid-size to large lot single-family residential. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: P-O-L Existing vacant City owned Natural Area S: P-O-L/L-M-N Existing vacant City owned Natural Area, and Single-Family Residential E: U-E/P-O-L Existing Single-Family Residential, and vacant City owned Natural Area W: P-O-L Existing vacant City owned Natural Area The requested zone districts for Phase Four are Urban Estate (UE), Rural Lands (RUL), and Public Open Lands (POL). The five categories and letters (A-E) below correspond to Attachment 4 Southwest Enclave Annexation – Phase Four Proposed Zoning map. 31 A. (North of Gulley Greenhouse property): This area encompasses two existing subdivisions including Midway and Hersh MRD north and south of Midway Drive. This area contains 13 mid-size to large lot single-family houses on approximately 87 acres. The City Structure Plan designates this area as Urban Estate and Rural Lands. A few of these properties are split between the two land use designations. Larimer County zoning is FA-1 Farming. The most appropriate zoning is Urban Estate (UE). Large lot single-family houses are allowed in the UE zone district. B. (South of Gulley Greenhouse property): This area encompasses the Mountain Valley Acres subdivision. Area B contains approximately 32 large lot single family houses on approximately 110 acres. The City Structure Plan designates the area Urban Estate. Larimer County zoning is FA-1 Farming. The most appropriate zoning is UE. Large lot single-family houses are allowed in the UE zone district. C. (City owned open lands – West of Midway Drive): Area C includes approximately 35 acres of vacant City owned Natural Area. The City Structure Plan designation is Open Lands, Parks, and Stream Corridors. Larimer County zoning is FA-1 Farming. The most appropriate zoning is Public Open Lands (POL). D. (City owned open lands – NE corner of S. Taft Hill Rd. /W. Trilby Rd.): Area D includes approximately 37 acres of vacant City owned Natural Area. The City Structure Plan designation is Open Lands, Parks, and Stream Corridors. Larimer County zoning is FA-1 Farming. The most appropriate zoning is Public Open Lands (POL). E. (North and South of W. Trilby Rd., and East of S. Taft Hill Rd.): This area includes three existing subdivisions, Wildflower, Scheel MRD, and Kapperman. Area B contains 15 large lot single family houses on approximately 120 acres. The City Structure Plan designates this area as Rural Lands (RUL). Larimer County zoning is FA-1 Farming. The most appropriate zoning is RUL. Large lot single-family houses are allowed in the RUL zone district. The following table on next page summarizes the existing and proposed land use designations for each area, and zoning within Phase Four of the Southwest Enclave Annexation. 32 Phase 4 - Map ID Areas County Zoning City Structure Plan Proposed City Zoning Area A FA-1 Farming Urban Estate, Rural Lands Urban Estate (UE) Area B FA-1 Farming Urban Estate Urban Estate (UE) Area C FA-1 Farming Open Lands, Parks, and Stream Corridors Public Open Lands (POL) Area D FA-1 Farming Open Lands, Parks, and Stream Corridors Public Open Lands (POL) Area E FA-1 Farming Rural Lands Rural Lands (RUL) NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN DISTRICT: Staff is recommending that the entire Phase Four area be included within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, which was established for the purpose of regulating signs for non-residential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. A map amendment will be necessary to place this property on the Neighborhood Sign District Map as "Inside Sign District" (see Attachment 5 City of Fort Collins Residential Neighborhood Sign District map). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION: 1. Ordinance Number 137, 2006 requires the assignment of zone districts within 90 days of the recording of the annexation plat. 2. The City Structure Plan map, a related element of City Plan, the City’s comprehensive plan, is in need of the proposed minor amendment in that it will provide an orderly and planned growth management pattern for the City of Fort Collins in accordance with adopted procedures. The City has initiated a logical and incremental extension of urban services for the Southwest Enclave Annexation, including the Wildflower area of Phase Four. This action represents a logical change to the GMA boundary, since this expansion area has been described in City 3. The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. 4. The proposed Urban Estate (UE), Rural Lands (RUL), and Public Open Lands (POL) zone districts are consistent with the City Structure Plan map. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the City Structure Plan amendment, and that the area be placed in the Urban Estate, Rural Lands, and Public Open Lands zone districts. Staff also recommends that Phase Four be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Southwest Enclave Annexation – Sequence of Four Phases Map 2. Southwest Enclave Annexation, Phase Four – Existing Subdivisions, and Natural Areas Map 3. Southwest Enclave Annexation, Phase Four – Proposed City Structure Plan Map 4. Southwest Enclave Annexation, Phase Four – Proposed Zoning Map 5. Proposed Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map 6. Letter from Board of County Commissioners, dated January 28, 2014 34 P r a irie R i dg e Dr S mok e y St C a m e r o n D r Aurora Way E Skyway Dr M esaview Ln B itter b r u s h Ln Kevin Dr Debra Dr C a st l e R id g e C t Vinson St Moss Creek Dr Dusty Sage Dr Re g ina D r W Vinson St B on H o mme Richard Dr Prichett Ct J a n s e n Dr Hornet Dr Truxtun Dr Fossil C r eek Dr Enterprise D r Hilldale D r R a n ger Dr Trout Ct Wainwright Dr Tang Ct Agate Ct Bruce Ln Leah y Dr Sea Wolf Ct K im Dr Coral Ct Sea Red Tail Ct Sn o Ct ok Hob s on Ct Wild Flower Rd F o x Hills D Lovelan Fort Loveland Collins - Separator FRCC Carpenter Rd W Horsetooth Rd E Horsetooth Rd S Shields St S Taft Hill Rd E Trilby Rd W Harmony Rd W Trilby Rd S County Road 19 S College Ave S L emay Ave S Mason St W ôZYX ³I Southwest Enclave Attachment Annexation 3 - Phase Four Proposed City Structure Plan Printed: January 29, 2014 Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Proposed GMA Adjustment Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles © CITY GEOGRAPHIC OF FORT COLLINS INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These and were map not products designed and or all intended underlying for general data are use developed by members for use of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in labeling thereon. or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE Vinson St B on H o mme Richard Dr Prichett Ct J a n s e n Dr Hornet Dr Truxtun Dr Fo s s il Creek Dr Enterprise Dr H illdale D r R a n ger Dr Trout Ct Wainwright Dr Tang Ct Agate Ct Bruce Ln Leah y Dr Sea Wolf Ct K im Dr Coral Ct Sea Red Tail Ct Sn o Ct ok Fr o mme Ct Hob s on Ct Vinson St B on H o mme Richard Dr Prichett Ct J a n s e n Dr Hornet Dr Truxtun Dr Fossil C r eek Dr Enterprise D r Hilldale D r R a n ger Dr Trout Ct Wainwright Dr Tang Ct Agate Ct Bruce Ln Leah y Dr Sea Wolf Ct K im Dr Coral Ct Sea Red Tail Ct Sn o Ct ok Hob s on Ct Wild Flower Rd F o x Hills D BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 200 W. Oak Street Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-7010 Fax (970) 498-7006 E-mail: bocc@larimer.org January 28, 2014 City of Fort Collins - Planning Services Attn: Pete Wray 281 N. College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 To whom it may concern, The Larimer County Commissioners are aware that as of January 1, 2014 the City of Fort Collins incorporated the final phase of the Southwest Annexation, which commenced several years ago. We have also been informed that the annexation area includes a small area outside of the GMA boundaries, which is being referred to as the Wildflower Expansion area. Our Community Development staff has informed us that the City is performing a Structure Plan amendment to include the Wildflower Expansion area so that appropriate zoning can be applied to this area. The County Commissioners understand that this Structure Plan amendment is necessary and is consistent with the Fort Collins/Larimer County Intergovernmental Agreement. Therefore, we support the modifications to the Structure Plan for the Wildflower Expansion area. Respectfully, FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS Tom Donnelly, Chair 40 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Urban Agriculture Phase Two Code Changes APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Based on Council direction during the hearings for the Urban Agriculture: Phase One Code changes, staff has conducted research and significant public outreach on two issues related to urban agriculture: 1. Begin removing barriers to year-round production by allowing hoop houses to be exempt from Building Code requirements, and 2. Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands, Residential Foothills, and River Conservation Zone Districts). Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code that exempt hoop houses from Building Code requirements, add hoop houses to the list of accessory structures allowed in the Code, and require urban agriculture licensees to locate hoop houses on their site plans. Staff is also working with CSU to develop an informational brochure for erecting and maintaining hoop houses with specific sections designed to address concerns raised in the public process related to safety and neighborhood compatibility. Regarding standards for the raising of farm animals, staff is not proposing amendments to the Land Use or City Codes at this time. During the public outreach efforts, including three focus groups, an online survey, and an open house, and subsequent research, staff found that the concerns raised regarding farm animals could be addressed with existing regulations and were limited to one or two neighborhoods within the City. In addition, numerous citizens expressed strong concerns about regulating their food production ability within the zone districts that currently allow farm animals. Thus, instead of developing regulations that could affect all residents within these districts (approximately 1,700 homes), staff is working with the concerned neighborhoods directly to resolve specific concerns. 41 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation for adoption of the Land Use Code changes related to the Urban Agriculture: Phase Two Code Changes. DISCUSSION: Background. In 2011, City Plan, our community's comprehensive plan, was updated and contained four goals related to local food production. Since that plan was updated, staff has been working to align our policies and regulations with the Plan’s goals. In 2013, Council adopted updates to the Land Use and City Code that permits urban agriculture in all zone districts, allows farmers markets in more zone districts, and allows a greater number and types of animals to be raised. Throughout the public outreach process for the Phase One Urban Agriculture Code Changes, citizens continuously expressed a desire for the City to promote year-round food production by allowing hoop houses to be exempt from Building Code requirements. In addition, during the public hearings for the code changes, Council directed staff to consider whether to develop regulations for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are allowed. Each of these two objectives (hoop houses and farm animals) is further described below, including the problem statement, public outreach and research, and staff recommendation for each effort. Objective 1: Begin removing barriers to year-round production by allowing hoop houses to be exempt from Building Code requirements Problem Statement: During the public outreach process and Council Work Session for the phase one code changes, it was clear one of the greatest barriers to supporting year-round food production was being able to erect hoop houses. Hoop houses are temporary and generally more cost-friendly than a greenhouse; they are constructed of a large hoops or bows, often made of plastic pipe, and then covered with a layer of heavy greenhouse plastic. Hoop houses do not contain utilities; if these structures did contain utilities, then they would be classified as greenhouses. The challenge regarding hoop houses is that the Building Code requires any structure over eight (8) feet in height or over one hundred twenty (120) square feet to meet certain structural requirements, e.g., be able to withstand certain wind and snow loads. Meeting these structural requirements would require significant investments in the structures and would engineer them in such a way that they would act more as greenhouses (permanent structures) than hoop houses (temporary structures). For beginning farmers, and especially those on 42 short land leases, hoop houses extend the growing season without requiring significant investments. Research and Outreach: In the spring of 2013, staff met with the Residential Code Committee, who assists Building staff in Building Code updates, to discuss any concerns they might have regarding exempting hoop houses from the building permit process. During this discussion, the committee’s concerns related to hoop houses were largely focused on land use concerns, e.g., setbacks from abutting parcels and overall appearance. Given that these structures are temporary in nature and utilities are not allowed, the committee was comfortable with regulating hoop houses through the Land Use Code rather than the Building Code. To better understand the land use concerns, staff met with the Planning and Zoning Board during October of 2013, conducted an online survey (87 respondents), held an open house (15 attendees), and conducted two focus groups (one with self-selected citizens and one with the Local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee). The feedback from the focus groups, online survey, and open house were strongly supportive of the City’s efforts to exempt hoop houses. 89.7% of survey respondents felt that the City is moving in the right direction in exempting hoop houses from the Building Code. Additionally, 75.6% of survey respondents preferred that the City work to produce and distribute informational brochures illustrating best practices, versus 26.7% who felt that the City should develop specific standards for hoop houses. Citizen concerns generally surrounded visual impacts, improper mooring, and HOA restrictions. A number of citizens suggested that should problems arise, the City could move from informational brochures to standards and regulations. During the focus group discussion with interested citizens, it was also discussed that City staff has never received a complaint related to hoop houses that may already exist within the City. Staff also researched how other communities that are committed to local food production are regulating hoop houses and found a range of approaches. Many communities with shorter growing seasons, such as Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, Asheville NC, Boston and Cleveland have all provided exemptions or minimally regulated hoop houses (see Attachment 2). Recommendation: Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code that would allow hoop houses as accessory structures in all zone districts, but require that anyone who is required to obtain an urban agriculture license (those gardening or farming on a piece of land as a principal use) must also illustrate where the hoop house will be located on the farm and minimize any impacts to surrounding neighbors, through minimum setbacks (five feet) from the property line and other techniques as applicable (see Attachment 1). 43 To address concerns related to appearance, compatibility, and overall safety of the structures, staff is working with the CSU Extension to develop an informational brochure that will be available to anyone interested in using hoop houses for year-round food production. This brochure will contain information on the following aspects of erecting and maintaining a hoop house: • Types/structure: the various shapes and sizes of different hoop houses and the pros and cons of each option; • Growing: yield, seasonal solar gain, disease, planning for pests; • Tips/Advice: irrigation, siting the hoop house on your lot, being a good neighbor; • Resources and requirements: City regulations related to hoop houses and resources that can be utilized for more information, e.g., the Natural Resources Conservation service and other cost-share or financing issues; • Definitions: what the difference is between a hoop house and a greenhouse (temporary versus permanent structures) and a glossary that includes ribs, baseboard, hurricane straps, etc.; and • Risk Management: maintenance, insurance, orientation, and structure. It is staff’s goal to have a draft of the brochure available by the public hearing on February 13. Should the proposed Land Use Code changes be adopted by Council, staff will closely monitor whether the informational brochure is the best solution for addressing the concerns raised during the outreach process. If additional standards are necessary, staff will bring these forward to the Planning and Zoning Board and to Council with the annual Land Use Code updates. Objective 2: Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands, Residential Foothills, and River Conservation Zone Districts). Problem Statement: During the public hearing for the phase one code changes, Council directed staff to assess whether the City has adequate regulations regarding farm animals in the zone districts where they are allowed. Several citizens expressed concern during the hearings, specifically related to roosters and the nuisances they were creating. Currently, the only specific regulations related to farm animals the City has is the limitation of no more than one (1) horse per half (½) acre of open land. Research and Outreach: Staff benchmarked our existing regulations against eight communities both within the state and throughout the country. Almost every community had more specific standards regarding the keeping of farm animals, where they were allowed (see Attachment 3). An early focus group was held to ascertain concerns related to farm animals and the group identified that noise, odor, inhumane conditions, and water quality as key issues for residents (see Attachment 3). Initially, staff began to consider drafting similarly specific 44 standards to reflect the concerns heard during the Council hearing and the focus group. However, during the public outreach process, there was a lack of consensus on whether the City should develop regulations related to farm animals. For example, 57.7% of the online survey respondents felt that the City did not need regulations in the four districts, versus 38.8% who said that regulations were necessary. Further 88.2% of respondents had not experienced any problems with farm animals. When the survey results were segregated by those who lived the zone districts that allowed farm animals versus those that did not, the patterns discussed above were consistent. Finally, several residents attending the open house expressed sincere concern about their food production capabilities, as they were annexed into the City from the County and wanted to retain their right to raise farm animals. Staff then researched existing regulations to see if they might address the concerns that were raised, e.g., are sufficient regulations already in place? Working with numerous City departments to answer this question, staff found regulations already in place for the concerns identified during the process (see Table 1). Staff also followed-up with survey respondents and open house attendants to assess the extent of problems related to farm animals. Based on these conversations, staff was able to isolate the majority of concerns to a single neighborhood (not all concerned citizens could be located or responded to our contacts). Larimer Humane Society and City staff are following up with these residents to resolve these nuisances. Staff also went on a farm tour with a citizen concerned about the proposed regulations and found that on her five plus acre piece of land, the noise from surrounding traffic was quite a bit louder than her rooster (as measured by a decibel meter). Recommendation: As regulations are already in place to address the concerns raised by citizens during the public outreach process, staff is not proposing any additional regulations related to the raising of farm animals at this time. However, staff is updating our project’s website (www.fcgov.com/urbanagriculture) to act as a one-stop shop for all of the different regulations that affect residents who wish to raise farm animals in the zone districts in which they are allowed. It is expected these updates will be in place by the time of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. 45 Table 1: Concerns Raised during Public Outreach regarding Farm Animals and the Regulations that Address these Concerns Concern Existing Regulation Notes Noise and other nuisances, e.g., odor Chapter 20 of the City Code – Nuisances This chapter defines maximum permissible noise levels. The most frequent concern raised was related to the noise of roosters, which can be enforced through this code section. This section also contains specific references to odors, e.g., that they cannot interfere with the “comfortable enjoyment of property or normal conduct of business.” Concerns related to property maintenance Chapter 20 of the City Code – Exterior Property Maintenance and Weeds, Brush Piles, and Rubbish This section addresses property maintenance, especially as it relates to areas visible from the public right-of-way and how properties must be maintained from these views. Number of animals per lot (inhumane conditions) Chapter 4 of the City Code – Care and Treatment of Animals A section of this Chapter is dedicated to the “Care and Treatment of Animals” and contains numerous references to animal welfare all of which would allow the Larimer Humane Society to enforce inhumane conditions on a parcel. Manure/Waste Management (Water Quality) Chapter 4 of the City Code – Care and Treatment of Animals -and- Chapter 26 of the City Code – Stormwater Utility Chapter 4 requires the removal of animal waste so as not to cause a public nuisance. Chapter 26 also includes language that does not allow a person to “create a • October 2013 o Planning and Zoning Board Work Session o Hoop Houses Focus Group with representatives from community gardens, urban farms, and numerous City departments, including Building, Planning, Neighborhood Services, and Economic Health. o Online survey launched. Email update to the urban agriculture list serve announcing the survey. 1,700 postcards to mailed to all parcels within the zone districts where farm animals are allowed. • November 2013 o Open house held (15 attendees) o Online survey closed (87 respondents) • December 2013 o Email update to urban agriculture list serve with summary of online survey and open house feedback o Focus group with Local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee to review the feedback received to date and proposed direction o Farm tour with Ms. Teel-Duggan (additional farm tour cancelled due to weather) • February 2014 o Planning and Zoning Board Work Session and Hearing • March 2014 o City Council First and Second Reading RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board make a formal recommendation for adoption of the Urban Agriculture: Phase Two Land Use Code Changes. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Land Use Code Ordinance 2. Hoop House Research & Focus Group Meeting Notes 3. Farm Animals Research and Focus Group Meeting Notes 4. Online Survey Summary 5. Open House Summary 6. Local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee Meeting Notes 47 ORDINANCE NO. XXX, 2014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTIONS 3.8.31 AND 5.1.2 OF THE LAND USE CODE PERTAINING TO HOOP HOUSES WHEREAS, in 2011, the City Council adopted the City Plan Safety and Wellness Vision, which 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 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96, 2013, which allowed for urban agriculture in all zone districts throughout the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has conducted citizen outreach regarding potential urban agriculture land use changes, and throughout that process, numerous citizens have asked that hoop houses be permitted in the City in order to increase year-round food production potential; and WHEREAS, City staff has conducted outreach on the potential benefits and impacts of allowing hoop houses and has found that significant support exists for allowing hoop houses within the City to promote year round access to locally produced foods, although some concern has been expressed about the potential neighborhood impacts of larger hoop house structures; and WHEREAS, requiring that hoop houses be allowed only pursuant to an urban agriculture license will serve as a proper method for addressing the concerns raised by citizens so that the location and architectural characteristics of the hoop houses will not adversely impact neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, accordingly, City staff has recommended certain amendments to Sections 3.8.31 and 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the proposed amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.8.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (15) which reads in its entirety as follows: 3.8.1 Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses . . . 48 (15) hoop houses. Section 2. That Division 3.8.31(C)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.8.31 Urban Agriculture . . . (C) Standards. . . . (2) General Standards. Urban agriculture shall be allowed as a permitted use, provided that all of the following conditions are met: . . . (j) Hoop Houses. If an urban agriculture land use contains a hoop house, then the hoop house shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from any property line and shall also be located in such a manner that the hoop house does not have any adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the International Building Code (as adopted and amended by the City), hoop houses shall be exempt from all building code requirements. (jk) 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 agriculture land use abuts a residential use, there shall be a minimum setback of five (5) feet between the operation and the property line. . . . Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Hoop houses” which reads in its entirety as follows: Hoop house shall mean a structure used for the purpose of growing crops that has a semi-flexible, non-metallic frame covered by a flexible polyethylene film of not 49 more than six (6) mil, but not containing any mechanical or electrical systems or equipment or storage items. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of March, A.D. 2014, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of March, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of March, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 50 October 17, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Hoop Houses Page 1 of 3 Project: Urban Agriculture Phase 2 – Hoop Houses and Farm Animals Focus Group on Hoop Houses October 17, 2013 4:00 – 5:00 p.m. at Conference Room A, 281 N College Avenue Draft Meeting Notes Attendees: Lindsay Ex Sam Houghteling Mike Gebo Dennis Stenson Bailey Stenson Michael Baute Jeff Baumgartner Erich Stroheim Notes: Background. Lindsay Ex highlighted that in 2012 and 2013, staff worked with the community to allow the practice of urban agriculture as a principal use throughout the City, allowed farmers markets in mixed-use zone districts, and allowed additional types and increased numbers of farm animals to be raised (Phase One Changes). Each of these amendments was designed to further the City’s goal of supporting local food production (City Plan Principle Safety and Wellness 3). During public and City Council deliberation on the Phase One Changes, staff was asked to address two other issues related to urban agriculture: 1. Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands , Residential Foothills, and River Conservation Districts); and 2. Begin to remove barriers to year-round food production by allowing hoop houses. The focus of this discussion was to address issue #2. Introductions and Project Goal. Each attendee introduced themselves. We then discussed the following goals for the effort:  Promote year-round growing opportunities in a more cost-friendly manner than constructing a full greenhouse;  Protect neighbors quality of life; and  Provide information to new farmers for best practices on constructing hoop houses in our area. 51 October 17, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Hoop Houses Page 2 of 3 Lindsay discussed that there needs to be a balance between ensuring the visual experience neighbors currently have with the desired goal of having year-round, locally grown food. The group asked if City staff were aware of any complaints related to existing hoop houses. Staff was not aware of any. As hoop houses have never presented an issue, the group discussed creating informational brochures for hoop houses, so folks can learn about best practices associated with year-round growing in this part of the state. The group also discussed and agreed that urban farmers are likely to have larger hoop houses, and included hoop houses within the urban agriculture licensing requirement makes sense. For the best practices brochure, the group discussed the following:  Working with CSU Extension to see if such a brochure has already been developed, and if not, see if Extension could develop and publish the brochure as our partner  The brochure should illustrate best practices, ideally using “this, not this” illustrations.  Consider if the brochure can be done as one, or if there should be separate brochures for residential vs. commercial scale hoop houses.  Practices should include: o Orientation – local farmers have found an East-West orientation best deflects the wind o Anchoring – could discuss the use of hurricane straps on the hoop house to help protect the structure that can be anchored to concrete posts o Caterpillar tunnels – this is one type of a hoop house and is typically made with a single wall of plastic o Growing – the brochure could discuss what can be grown within these structures and timing for planting o Visual impacts – the brochure should address how to minimize visual impacts to neighbors through setbacks from property lines and how to not impact solar access o Other elements – other elements, such as wind loading, spacing between the ribs, and obtaining materials locally and from recycled sources could also be included. Next Steps: Staff is preparing an online survey to review these suggestions with a broader audience. Staff’s goal is to hold a public open house in mid-November or early December and have the proposed code changes heard before Council in February 2014. 52 October 17, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Hoop Houses Page 3 of 3 HOOP HOUSES FOCUS GROUP – Research Matrix Draft: October 17, 2013 Wheat Ridge Seattle Baltimore Cleveland Milwaukee Boston Asheville Twin Cities Boulder In addition to the zoning code amendments, the City also made updates to the building code that eased requirements for hoop houses. See Ordinance 1494 adopted by City Council in June 2011. Now, any hoop house that is 400 square feet or less in size is exempt from building permit. Hoop houses that are 400 to 1,000 square feet in size require a building permit, but they have less strict requirements for wind and snow load. Over 1,00 sqft – the full process is required. No exemption for hoop houses. Longer growing season and higher urban density. Permanent structures are prohibited. However, temporary greenhouses, including high tunnels/hoop- houses, cold-frames, and similar structures are permitted to extend the growing season. Accessory structures, such as sheds, gazebos and pergolas, are also permitted. Cleveland’s Urban Garden District uses a broad definition for urban gardens. Com- munity gardens and market gardens are the main permitted uses, and on-site sales are allowed, September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 1 of 6 Project: Urban Agriculture Phase 2 – Hoop Houses and Farm Animals Focus Group on Farm Animals September 24, 2013 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. at Conference Room A, 281 N College Avenue Draft Meeting Notes Attendees: Ragan Adams Courtney Bennett Andrea Musselman Lindsay Ex Lloya Lehnert Sam Houghteling Polly Lauridsen Beth Sowder Notes: Background. Lindsay Ex highlighted that in 2012 and 2013, staff worked with the community to allow the practice of urban agriculture as a principal use throughout the City, allowed farmers markets in mixed-use zone districts, and allowed additional types and increased numbers of farm animals to be raised (Phase One Changes). Each of these amendments was designed to further the City’s goal of supporting local food production (City Plan Principle Safety and Wellness 3). During public and City Council deliberation on the Phase One Changes, staff was asked to address two other issues related to urban agriculture: 1. Develop standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed (Urban Estate, Rural Lands , Residential Foothills, and River Conservation Districts); and 2. Begin to remove barriers to year-round food production by allowing hoop houses. The focus of this discussion was to address issue #1 – developing standards for the raising of farm animals in the zone districts where they are currently allowed. Introductions and Goals. Each attendee introduced themselves and identified their goal for the meeting, which included the following:  Protect animal welfare through fencing/coops/shelter  Protect neighbors quality of life  Understand regulations from an enforcement/neighbors perspective  Be good neighbors and have regulations that foster good neighbor relations 54 September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 2 of 6  Protect water quality through the development of standards  For the City to develop regulations that apply to all instead of individual Homeowners Associations having separate regulations  Still allow farming, especially on larger acreages but consider neighbors on small acreages  Have standards that foster this area as a transition area for farming/urban agriculture  Nuisance control: noise, odors, flies  Setbacks from neighboring properties and structures  Regulate the number of animals per area (to maximize animal welfare and minimize impacts to neighbors)  To determine where the most appropriate location for the regulations would be, e.g., in the Land Use Code (only apply to new developments) v. Municipal Code (apply to all landowners)  To consider allowing existing uses prior to annexation v. those who bought into the Urban Estate, Rural Lands, Residential Foothills, and River Conservation Districts zone districts. The group determined that the goal for developing standards related to the raising of farm animals should be as follows: “To continue allowing farm animals to be raised within these zone districts, while still maintaining the quality of life in the neighborhoods and protecting the welfare of the farm animals.” Best Practices from Neighboring and Leading Communities. Sam Houghteling, Planning Services Intern, presented his research on how other communities regulate farm animals (see Attachment 1). The group then discussed the various elements of the standards we thought were appropriate for our City, which include the following elements:  Setbacks – one of the most frequently cited issue in the focus group discussion was the need for setbacks. Other communities have established setbacks that range from 15 feet and up to more than 100 feet for raising roosters. The most common setbacks were 15-30 feet from a lot line and 50 feet from a residence or the closest structure.  Number of animals per lot – From an animal welfare and a nuisance perspective, staff will develop standards for the amount of open space required per animal, e.g., 4 goats per 9,000 square feet of open space as regulated by Wheat Ridge.  Water Quality – The focus group discussed the need for buffering animals from water sources, such as ditches and streams, to protect the water quality of these areas. 55 September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 3 of 6  General nuisance issues – The City already regulates nuisances, such as waste management and odor issues in the City Code. However, staff will review existing standards and ensure they are adequate for this issue.  Roosters – The focus group discussed the benefits (improved nutritional value of the eggs and opportunity to raise roosters for 4-H) and drawbacks of raising roosters (noise) within the City and determined the drawbacks outweighed the benefits. Staff is planning to prohibit roosters within City limits.  Other Animals – The group also listed other animals, such as turkeys and peacocks that should be discussed regarding whether or not to allow them to be raised. The group also discussed whether spacing requirements should be different for full size versus miniature horses and cattle. During the discussion, staff also discussed the need to allow farm animals within the Public Open Lands district to be consistent with City Code policies that allows Natural Areas to graze farm animals on their lands. The group also discussed the need to have the proposed regulations apply to all lots and not just to new developments (this would require Municipal (also called City) Code changes). Staff is considering a delayed implementation of this Ordinance so folks who currently would not meet the regulations would have time to come into compliance. Next Steps: Staff is meeting with the City Attorney’s Office (October 15) and the Planning and Zoning Board (October 4) to discuss the proposed elements for the standards based on the focus group discussion. Staff’s goal is to hold a public open house in late-October or early November and have the proposed code changes heard before Council in December 2013. 56 URBAN AGRICULTURE ANIMAL REGULATIONS – Draft Summary 09.19.13 Wheat Ridge Steamboat Denver Boulder Colorado Springs Austin Portland Seattle Fort Collins September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 4 of 6 Livestock & Animal Equivalencies 9,000 ft per horse. 1 horse = 4 goats, 2 llamas/ponies, etc. 6,000 sqft per additional animal. ½ acre per horse or equivalent. No more than 1 horse for each ½ acre of zone lot area. ½ acre per animal, including horse, goat, sheep, cow, llama, burro, or other equine bovine. Stables/ corrals for up to (4) horses, ponies, goats, llamas, potbellied pigs must include 37,00 sqft. Enclosure for livestock must be 100 ft from adjacent property, and 50 ft from residence. Horses and larger animals require a permit, must be 50 ft from any URBAN AGRICULTURE ANIMAL REGULATIONS – Draft Summary 09.19.13 Wheat Ridge Steamboat Denver Boulder Colorado Springs Austin Portland Seattle Fort Collins September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 5 of 6 Other ½ acre per large farm animal. ½ acre/5 small animals. Pigeons or doves – 25 maximum. Rabbits – 2 maximum. No person shall own or keep any swine, hogs, or pigs. Animals/ Fowl permitted in every district with proper enclosure. Pot-bellied pigs/miniatur e pigs (up to 95 lbs) are allowed, up to 3 per lot. No more than one potbelly pig, no taller than 22 in, and no greater than 150lbs. Setbacks/ Enclosures No enclosures within 30 ft of a residence or the front lot line, except for lots over an acre or if the lot has no main structure. The fence must enclose a min of 800 sq ft for the 1st animal URBAN AGRICULTURE ANIMAL REGULATIONS – Draft Summary 09.19.13 Wheat Ridge Steamboat Denver Boulder Colorado Springs Austin Portland Seattle Fort Collins September 24, 2013 – Focus Group Discussion on Farm Animals Page 6 of 6 Compliance Procedures After complaint, owner follows a manure mgmt program prescribed by animal control commission, which will investigate all citizen complaints. The max penalty for a 1st or 2nd conviction within two years, based on date of violation of this section, is a fine of $500.00. No person shall operate a facility without a permit. The applicant provides insurance docs within 10 days of the issuance of the permit. Outlined in the Municipal Code regarding citation procedures Waste Disposal Protocol, Disease Prevention Manure or liquid waste shall not be December 2, 2013 Re: Urban Agriculture Phase II From: Sam Houghteling, EHO MEMORANDUM: Survey Results From November 6, 2013 through December 2, 2013, representatives from the City of Fort Collins conducted a twenty question online survey pertaining to Phase II of the Urban Agriculture Regulations. The survey was broken into three components, (1) Hoop Houses, (2) Animal Regulations in the four districts where they are currently allowed, and (3) participant demographic questions to identify trends. Overall, 87 citizens participated in the survey, which was advertised on the City website, through social media, and sent to the current Urban Agriculture email list of over 350 citizens. Postcards to over 1,700 homeowners and residents in the Urban Estate, Residential Foothills, River Conservation, and Rural Lands zone districts were also sent informing them of the survey and open house. Survey results were clear in citizen support of Hoop Houses. Hoop houses are temporary and generally more cost-friendly than a greenhouse; they are constructed of a large hoops or bows, often made of plastic pipe, and then covered with a layer of heavy greenhouse plastic. Staff is proposing to add hoop houses to the list of allowable accessory buildings, structures, and uses in Section 3.8.1 of the Land Use Code. 89.7% of respondents felt that the City is moving in the right direction in exempting Hoop Houses from the building code. Additionally, 75.6% preferred that the City work to produce and distribute informational brochures illustrating best practices, versus 26.7% who felt that the City should develop specific standards for Hoop Houses. Citizen concerns generally surrounded visual impacts, improper mooring, and HOA restrictions. A number of citizens suggested that should problems arise, the City could move from informational brochures to standards and regulations. Survey results were much more mixed regarding Animal Regulations in the four zone districts where they are currently allowed but not regulated. 57.7% of respondents felt that the City did not need regulations in the four districts, versus 38.8 who did. 55.2% felt that the City should not establish setbacks, versus 42.5% who thought that the City should. 66.7% felt that the City should establish standards for the amount of open space per animal, and 66.3% agreed that the City should establish buffers from water sources to protect water quality. Roosters in City limits continued to be the source of most contention, with 55.8% in favor of keeping Roosters in City limits, versus 39.5% who feel that they should be banned. Most participants (62.4%) do not own farm animals, but do have neighbors who do (62.8%). Roughly half had received a postcard. 88.2% had not experienced any problems with animals, and 88.2% were also in favor of a delay in regulatory enforcement should new regulations be implemented, for citizens to gradually make changes and transition. City Staff is looking into the citizens who have had problems with farm animals and are in favor of banning Roosters in an effort to isolate trends, identify gaps in our public outreach pertaining to existing statutes, and address any procedural issues we discover. Staff is also preparing for 2 local farm visits, and preparing to present the Survey and Open House results to the local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee to solicit advice and feedback on the appropriate next steps. 60 December 2, 2013 Re: Urban Agriculture Phase II From: Sam Houghteling, EHO MEMORANDUM: Open House 11/20/13 On Wednesday November 20, 2013, representatives from the City of Fort Collins and the Larimer County Humane Society hosted the second Urban Agriculture open house, specifically pertaining to (1) Hoop Houses and (2) Farm Animals in the four zone districts where they are currently allowed but not regulated. Approximately 15 citizens attended the meeting, and they brought with them a wide range of opinions and concerns. City Staff was available to answer questions, explain the current process to date, present the survey results, and assist citizens complete the online survey that had not yet done so. Survey results were clear in citizen support of Hoop Houses. 89.7% of respondents felt that the City is moving in the right direction in exempting Hoop Houses from the building code. Additionally, 75.6% preferred that the City work to produce and distribute informational brochures illustrating best practices, versus 26.7% who felt that the City should develop specific standards for Hoop Houses. These results fell in line with the feedback received at the Open House; citizens were in favor of encouraging urban agriculture and local food production, and felt that these changes would work in doing so. Survey results (and Open House feedback) were much more mixed regarding Animal Regulations in the four zone districts where they are currently allowed but not regulated. 57.7% of respondents felt that the City did not need regulations in the four districts, versus 38.8 who did. 55.2% felt that the City should not establish setbacks, versus 42.5% who thought that the City should. 66.7% felt that the City should establish standards for the amount of open space per animal, and 66.3% agreed that the City should establish buffers from water sources to protect water quality. Roosters in City limits continued to be the source of most contention, with 55.8% in favor of keeping Roosters in City limits, versus 39.5% who feel that they should be banned. Citizens who attended the Open House fell on both sides of this issue as well, and conversation centered on the Rooster debate. Three participants felt that they should not be allowed in City limits; at least two of these citizens themselves affected by noise related nuisances of a neighboring Rooster. One adamant Rooster supporter asked that if the City does ban Roosters in the 4 districts currently allowed, could there be an exemption added to the Urban Agriculture License if the noise was addressed through surgery, if they were for 4H, or if they had neighbors sign off? Another participant felt strongly that new standards for open space should reflect proper animal health, not necessarily the pastures ability to feed that animal 100%. City Staff is preparing to present the Survey and Open House results to the local Food Cluster Policy Subcommittee, and solicit advice and feedback on the appropriate next steps. 61 Fort Collins Local Food Cluster LOCAL POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Date: 12.13.2013 Time: 1:00-2:30 In Attendance: Sam Houghteling – City of FC Economic Health, Lindsay Ex – City of FC Planning, Martha Sullins – CSU Extension, Beth Sowder – City of FC Neighborhood Services, Dan Weinheimer – City of FC Legislative, Rachel Rambo – Naropa, Erich Stroheim – CSU/A Growing Project, Kelly Burwell – CanDo, Amy Kafka – Garden Sweet, Cindy Roberts – FoCo Café, Ryan Wilson. This was the first meeting of the Local Policy Subcommittee. Next Meeting: Unknown; potentially in the afternoon on the 2nd Friday of the month. Meeting Summary: 1. Sam & Lindsay presented on: a. Local Initiatives: Urban Agriculture Phase II Regulations i. Phase I: allowed urban agriculture in all districts, more farmers markets, allowed more animals to be raised. ii. What are other communities doing? iii. Outreach to date: online survey, focus groups, open house. iv. Survey results. v. Hoop House direction: removal from the building code & creation of a best practice brochure in conjunction with CSU extension. vi. Animal Regulation direction: pursue complaints on an individual basis, and work with City/County staff to identify areas of concern, as well as enforcement gaps. vii. Next steps: farm tours, & solicit feedback from group. 1. Group was uniformly in favor of City direction. 2. Concern regarding storm water/run off. 3. Centralize regulations. b. State Initiatives: i. Colorado Food Systems Advisory Council recommends: 1. Direct Market Technical Assistance to CO Producers a. Clarify farm to plate food safety regulations. b. Support food & farm business development & management. c. Increase direct market access for producers of all sizes. 2. Increase SNAP at Farmers Markets 62 a. Expand services for Producers and Consumers to increase the use of SNAP, including training, education, outreach, evaluation. ii. Update on CA Bill 551 – Urban Ag Incentive Zone Proposal 1. Tax relief for land owners of vacant, unimproved, or blighted urban land for small scale food production. c. Federal Initiatives: i. Won’t know until the final Farm Bill is approved… 2. General Feedback & Concerns: a. Amy: waivers for low-income residents for animal licenses, etc? b. Amy: education on local food needs to increase. c. Rachel: align with State initiatives. d. Dan: prioritize themes. e. Cindy: other suggestions for elongating growing season, not just hoop houses. f. General: Food tax of 2.5% -- remove for local food? g. Amy: Local program to get hens to low income families? h. Ryan: Regulations should focus on animal welfare and population density. i. General: Marketing & Outreach – create/maintain an online presence. 3. Next Steps: a. Ascertain meeting availability. b. Call a meeting in January. c. Continue with current Urban Ag Phase II regulations. d. Create informational brochure. e. Sam will be taking more of a leadership role moving forward. f. Dan will be tracking legislation in Denver. 63 ITEM NO 5 - APU MEETING DATE February 13, 2014 STAFF Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PROJECT: Townhomes at Library Park, Addition of Permitted Use and P.D.P., #PDP130033 APPLICANT: Mr. Brad Florin Noco Townhomes, Inc. c/o Kephart 2555 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205 OWNER: Olive Street Properties, Inc. c/o Mr. Brad Florin P.O. Box 270070 Fort Collins, CO 80527 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for an Addition of Permitted Use and P.D.P. for allow for ten Single Family Attached Dwellings located at 220 East Olive Street at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. This parcel is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B, zone district. The existing structure would be demolished. The ten units would be divided into two, five-plex buildings bisected by a common driveway. Six of the units would be four stories in height and four of the units would be three stories. The number of parking spaces complies with the required minimum and enclosed within ground-floor garages. The only access would be from the alley on the west property line. The lot measures 90’ x 140’ for a total of 12,600 square feet. The Addition of a Permitted Use is submitted in conjunction with the accompanying P.D.P. This P.D.P. includes six Modifications of Standard relating to floor-to-area ratios, setbacks, building height and driveway width. STAFF REPORT 64 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request to allow Single Family Attached Dwellings at 220 East Olive, in the N-C-B zone district, as described on the accompanying P.D.P. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The project complies with the East Side Neighborhood Plan. • The project complies with the N-C-B standards with five exceptions. • The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Standards with one exception. • Six Modifications of Standard have been reviewed and evaluated and recommended for approval in compliance with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H). • A condition of approval is recommended that would require submittal of a signed easement from the adjoining property owner to the north that grants to the applicant ten feet of open space on the north side of the north property line. • The P.D.P. depends upon approval of allowing Single Family Attached Dwellings as an Addition of a Permitted Use in the N-C-M zone. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B; Existing 2 ½ story multi-family building (Park View Apartments) S: N-C-B; Existing parking lot for City Parking Services and D.M.A. Plaza E: N-C-B; Community Creative Center (Former Museum) and Library Park W: D; Existing mix of commercial and residential 65 66 Addition of Permitted Use – Single Family Attached 1. Request for Single Family Attached Dwellings: The applicant is requesting that, in conjunction with the Townhomes at Library Park P.D.P., Single Family Attached Dwellings be allowed at 220 East Olive Street located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B, zone district. As designed and documented by the accompanying P.D.P., the request would be for a maximum of ten such dwellings to be divided into two separate five-plex structures and bisected by a shared driveway serving five individual two-car garages. 2. Criteria for Additions of Permitted Use: Sections 1.3.4(A) and (B) contain seven criteria by which to review the requests for additions of permitted use. These criteria are summarized as follows: • Such use would not be detrimental to the public good; • Appropriate in the zone district to which it is added; • Conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone and other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added; • Does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added; • Compatible with other listed permitted uses in the zone; • Compliance with Section 3.5.1 (Compatible with Surrounding Area); • Such use is not specifically listed as a “Prohibited Use” in the N-C-B. 67 3. Such Use Would Not Be Detrimental to the Public Good: As a housing type, Single Family Attached is defined as follows: Dwelling, single-family attached shall mean a single-family dwelling attached to one (1) or more dwellings or buildings, with each dwelling located on its own separate lot. By way of contrast Multi-Family Dwellings are defined as follows: “Dwelling, multi-family shall mean a dwelling containing three (3) or more dwelling units, not including hotels, motels, fraternity houses and sorority houses and similar group accommodations.” The definition of Lot is as follows: “Lot shall mean a designated parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision or otherwise permitted by law to be used, occupied or designed to be occupied by one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, and which abuts a dedicated right-of-way, private street or private drive, any of which is at least twenty (20) feet wide at all points.” As can be seen by the three definitions, the two housing types are distinguished by ownership of a separate lot. The real estate profession has informally adopted common usage for these two housing types (none of which is found in the Land Use Code): • Single Family Attached – Townhomes • Multi-Family – Apartments (rental) or Condominiums (sole ownership of air space and joint ownership of common areas) Multi-Family Dwellings are a permitted use in the N-C-B and yet Single Family Attached Dwellings are not. The fact that Single Family Attached Dwellings must be located on their own individual lot, versus Multi-Family Dwellings which do not, results in significantly less density. If Multi-Family Dwellings, with potentially higher density, are permitted in the N-C-B zone, then allowing Single Family Attached, with its lower density, in the N-C-B would not be detrimental to the public good. Staff finds that adding Single Family Attached Dwellings to the N-C-B zone would not be detrimental to the public good. 68 4. Such Use is Appropriate in the Zone District To Which It is Added: The request for ten Single Family Attached Dwellings at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street would contribute to the transition of land use intensity between the Downtown zone, located across the alley, and the N-C-B zone. The Purpose Statement of the N-C-B is as follows: “The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer 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.” The East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was adopted in 1986 and divided the study area into three general land use areas: • Commercial “Fringe Areas” along College Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Lemay Avenue and Mountain Avenue; • “Preservation Area” that is predominately residential and comprises the majority of the Study Area; • Mixed use “Buffer Areas” between the Preservation and Fringe Areas. The Townhomes at Library Park, located at 220 East Olive Street, is located within one of the Buffer Areas. In fulfillment of the ESNP, the Buffer Areas were rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B in 1991. It is notable that the East Side Neighborhood Plan (1986) preceded the adoption of the Downtown Plan (1989). Subsequently, the “Fringe Area” was rezoned Downtown. The alley along the west property line is the dividing line between the Downtown zone and the subject site zoned N-C-B. According to the ESNP: “The Buffer areas are intended to provide a “cushion” between the Fringe and Preservation areas. The predominant land uses to be encouraged in the buffer areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity (non-retail) non- residential uses, multi-family housing including higher density residential uses, and other residential uses providing special housing needs such as boarding or group homes, and low/moderate income housing projects.” The subject parcel is at the edge of the neighborhood and borders the Downtown zone across the alley to the west. Since the P.D.P. is not located within the preservation area of the neighborhood, the land use intensity associated with ten proposed Single Family 69 Attached Dwellings acts as a logical transition between the commercial activities to the west and the predominant residential character to the east. The nearest single family detached home is approximately 270 feet away across two public streets. As such, 220 East Olive Street shares more urban characteristics and is more associated with the fringe area than the central area of the East Side neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed use, which is less intense than what would otherwise be allowed in the N-C-B, fulfills the purpose statement of the zone district. Staff finds that Single Family Attached Dwellings are appropriate for the N-C-B zone district. 5. Such Use Conforms to the Basic Characteristics of the Zone District and the Other Permitted Uses in the Zone District to Which It Is Added: There is no shortage of examples of existing Multi-Family Dwellings in the N-C-B zone. For example, within the N-C-B, within one block of the subject site, are the following: 221 Mathews Street – 26-unit apartment building 207 Mathews Street – 18-unit apartment building 308 East Oak Street – 43-unit apartment building 319 Mathews Street – 4-unit apartment building 320 Mathews Street – 7-unit apartment building 327 Mathews Street – 24-unit apartment building The building form of Single Family Attached Dwellings is roughly comparable to that of Multi-Family Dwellings. Both uses share an urban form with multiple units within singular buildings. Whereas a multi-family structure would provide access via one main entrance, a structure containing single family attached would feature individual entrances. Since lot lines are invisible, these individual entries are practically the only distinguishable attribute between the two housing types. Staff finds that adding Single Family Attached Dwellings to this parcel, as defined the P.D.P., conforms to the basic characteristics of the N-C-B and the other permitted uses in the zone. 6. Does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added: 70 As a land use, Single Family Attached Dwellings are at least comparable, if not less intense, than Multi-Family Dwellings which are permitted in the N-C-B. The impacts associated with the proposed townhomes are not expected to generate any more negative externalities than would apartments or condominiums. In fact, with the legal requirement that the proposed use feature one dwelling unit per lot, it is entirely likely that there would be fewer dwelling units, and therefore, less traffic generation and parking than otherwise associated with the permitted uses already allowed in the N-C-B. Staff finds that adding Single Family Attached Dwellings to the N-C-B zone would not create any adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. 7. Such Use Is Compatible with the Other Listed Permitted Uses in the Zone District To Which It Is Added: The definition for Single Family Attached Dwellings is clear in that each individual dwelling unit must be on its own lot. This requirement has the effect of limiting the number of dwelling units per acre. In contrast, each individual dwelling unit within a Multi-Family Dwelling is not so constrained. The Land Use Code defines “compatibility” as follows: “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.” Multi-Family Dwellings are permitted in the N-C-B and are not limited to placing each individual dwelling unit on its own lot. Since units can be stacked, there is always the potential for the number of dwelling units per acre to be placed in buildings that are higher than buildings containing Single Family Attached Dwellings. This higher density would result in projects that have greater height, scale, mass, bulk, parking spaces and traffic impacts. Essentially, the fundamental aspects of Single Family Attached Dwellings are found to be at least equal, and potentially less impactful than Multi-Family Dwellings. Staff finds that Single Family Attached Dwellings are compatible with Multi-Family Dwellings which are already permitted in the N-C-B zone. 71 8. Compliance with Section 3.5.1 (Compatible with Surrounding Area); Section 3.5.1 is referred to as Building and Project Compatibility and its purpose is defined as follows: “The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. They should be read in conjunction with the more specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained in this Section that pertain to "developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and other similar terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made by the Planning and Zoning Board under paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an additional use.” The primary attributes of a residential development featuring Single Family Attached Dwellings are similar to that of Multi-Family Dwellings. In fact, with individual entrances, there is the potential of Single Family Attached Dwellings having architectural features that are more reflective of residential buildings at lower densities. The test of compatibility for either land use is found in the performance of the P.D.P. Just as permitted uses must pass the test of compatibility in order to be approved, so too must any use that is added to a zone district. In this case, since the proposed land use is roughly comparable, if not less intense, than a permitted use, the proposed Single Family Attached Dwellings are potentially as equally compliant with Building and Project Compatibility as Multi-Family Dwellings and would continue to meet the Purpose Statement of the NCB zone district. Staff finds that as a land use subject to P.D.P. review, Single Family Attached Dwellings are as potentially compliant with the requirements of Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility as would be Multi Family Dwellings. 9. Such Use Is Not Specifically Listed as a “Prohibited Use” in the N-C-B: There are no specifically listed prohibited uses in the N-C-B. Staff finds that Single Family Attached Dwellings are not specifically prohibited in the N-C-B zone district. 72 10. Findings of Fact / Conclusion: Staff finds that the request for adding Single Family Attached Dwellings as a permitted use in the N-C-B complies with Section 1.3.4(A)(B) for the following reasons: A. The parcel, zoned N-C-B, adjoins the D, Downtown zone district separated only by the alley along the west property line. The parcel is not central to the residential character of the N-C-B zone which is identified as the Core Area per the East Side Neighborhood Plan. Allowing Single Family Attached Dwellings would not be detrimental to the public good B. Single Family Attached Dwellings are required to be on their own separate lot whereas Multi-Family Dwellings are not. Since Multi-Family Dwellings are permitted in the N-C-B, the proposed land use is comparable, if not potentially less intense, than other permitted uses in the N-C-B zone. C. Allowing Single Family Attached Dwellings at 220 East Olive Street contributes to fulfilling the purpose of the N-C-B zone which is to act as a transition in land use intensity between commercial uses and residential uses. D. Single Family Attached Dwellings do not create any more adverse impacts than the amount normally resulting from Multi-Family Dwellings which are permitted in the N-C-B zone. E. Single Family Attached Dwellings are found to be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the N-C-B, particularly Multi-Family Dwellings. F. Single Family Attached Dwellings would potentially be in compliance with Building and Project Compatibility standards found in Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code. G. Single Family Attached Dwellings are not specifically prohibited in the N-C-B. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for an Addition of a Permitted Use to allow Single Family Attached Dwellings to the N-C-B zone district specifically for the parcel at 220 East Olive Street, and specifically in conjunction with Townhomes at Library Park P.D.P., #130033. 73 ITEM NO 5 - PDP MEETING DATE February 13, 2014 STAFF Shepard PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PROJECT: Townhomes at Library Park, P.D.P., #PDP130033 APPLICANT: Mr. Brad Florin Noco Townhomes, Inc. c/o Kephart 2555 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205 OWNER: Olive Street Properties, Inc. c/o Mr. Brad Florin P.O. Box 270070 Fort Collins, CO 80527 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a P.D.P. for ten Single Family Attached Dwellings located at 220 East Olive Street at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. The existing structure would be demolished. The 10 units would be divided into two, five- plex buildings bisected by a common driveway. Six of the units would be four stories in height and four of the units would be three stories. All ten units include a two-car garage at a number that complies with the required minimum. The only access would be from the alley on the west property line. The lot measures 90’ x 140’ for a total of 12,600 square feet. The P.D.P. includes six Modifications of Standard relating to floor-to-area ratios, setbacks, building height and driveway width. This P.D.P. is submitted in conjunction with a request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow Single Family Attached Dwellings in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B zone district. STAFF REPORT 74 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Staff recommends approval of the six Modifications of Standard. 2. Staff recommends approval of the P.D.P., subject to one condition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The project complies with the East Side Neighborhood Plan. • The project complies with the N-C-B standards with five exceptions. • The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Standards with one exception. • Six Modifications of Standard have been reviewed and evaluated and recommended for approval in compliance with the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H). • A condition of approval is recommended that would require submittal of a signed easement from the adjoining property owner to the north that grants to the applicant ten feet of open space along the north side of the north property line. • The P.D.P. depends upon approval of allowing Single Family Attached Dwellings as an Addition of a Permitted Use in the N-C-B zone. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B; Existing 2 ½ story multi-family building (Park View Apartments) S: N-C-B; Existing parking lot for City Parking Services and D.M.A. Plaza E: N-C-B; Community Creative Center (Former Museum) and Library Park W: D; Existing mix of commercial and residential (To further describe the surrounding area, it is notable that the former museum in the historic Carnegie Library Building at 200 Mathews is being repurposed as the Community Creative Center. The creative center concept includes flexible, inexpensive spaces for the community to rent to support their creative endeavors. Once fully renovated, the building will house galleries, performance space, classrooms, innovative think spaces, and a digital classroom. The building is currently offering rental gallery space and serving as the home to the Arts Incubator of the Rockies (AIR) and Beet Street’s professional development program for creativity and innovation. Also, the Fort Collins Public Access Network (FCPAN) will create a studio in the basement allowing more community access to the cable station.) The existing, one-story structure is boarded up and vacant and has been under a variety of zone districts and used for many different functions over the years. The zone district history is as follows: 75 1955 – 1965 – Employment 1965 – 1991 – High Density Residential 1981 – 1991 – High Density Residential with P.U.D. Option under L.D.G.S. 1991 – 1997 – Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (Pre Land Use Code) 1997 – Present – Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (Land Use Code) At one point, the building was home to Vipont Laboratories, the research arm of Water Pik. Past tenants also include Public Service Company, City of Fort Collins Stormwater and Transportation Departments and the Northern Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization. Most recently, it has been the home of a software engineering company. The alley along the west property line divides the Downtown and N-C-B zone districts. In 2007 – 2008, a P.D.P. referred to as One Library Park was approved. This project consisted of demolishing the existing one-story structure and constructing a new four- story building containing 14 dwelling units with parking below-grade. This project included six stand-alone Modifications which were approved in October of 2007. (Deconstruction included recycling the exterior stone as would the current project.) The P.D.P. was approved in April of 2008 incorporating the six Modifications. A Final Plan was submitted but never recorded so the P.D.P. expired in 2010. In August of 2011, two neighborhood information meetings were held in conjunction with converting the existing building into one or two of the following: microbrewery, micro- distillery, or micro-winery. This proposal was withdrawn in February of 2012. In June of 2012, in association with a pending P.D.P. for new building containing 47 apartments, a request for a stand-alone Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), which establishes the minimum number of parking spaces for multi-family dwellings, was submitted. The Land Use Code required a minimum of 67 parking spaces and the applicant proposed zero spaces. As mitigation, the applicant proposed to provide 40 parking spaces across Olive Street in the City of Fort Collins public parking lot. These 40 spaces were available by a long term lease in accordance with the leasing procedures of the Parking Services Department of the City of Fort Collins. Other mitigation measures included a car share program and a bicycle repair facility. This request was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board by a vote of 4 to 3. 2. East Side Neighborhood Plan: The East Side Neighborhood Plan (ESNP) was adopted in 1986 and divided the study area into three general land use areas: the commercial “Fringe Areas” along College Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Lemay Avenue and Mountain Avenue; the predominantly residential “Preservation Area” that comprises the majority of the Study Area; and, the mixed use “Buffer Areas” between the Preservation and Fringe Areas. The Townhomes 76 at Library Park, located at 220 East Olive Street, is located within one of the Buffer Areas. In fulfillment of the E.S.N.P., the Buffer Areas were rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, N-C-B in 1991. The East Side Neighborhood Plan (1986) preceded the adoption of the Downtown Plan (1989). Subsequently, the “Fringe Area” was rezoned Downtown. The alley along the west property line is the dividing line between the Downtown zone and the subject site zoned N-C-B. According to the ESNP: “The Buffer areas are intended to provide a “cushion” between the Fringe and Preservation areas. The predominant land uses to be encouraged in the buffer areas are home occupations, office or other low intensity (non-retail) non- residential uses, multi-family housing including higher density residential uses, and other residential uses providing special housing needs such as boarding or group homes, and low/moderate income housing projects.” “Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the buffer area, all existing structures contributing to the character of the Neighborhood should be preserved if possible. The exterior treatment of renovated structures or any new construction should be compatible with the existing character of the Neighborhood.” “Use Conversions – Although a wider range of land uses is appropriate in the Buffer Areas, preservation of existing structures to the extent possible, and compatible exterior treatment and architectural style of renovated structures or any new construction is of great importance. “ “Setbacks should be allowed to be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.” “Any change of use determined to be appropriate in the Buffer Areas should be allowed if the proposal conforms to the intent of this Plan; is compatible with the surrounding environment; and, can be shown to create no significant traffic, noise, or other land use conflicts with adjacent Preservation Areas. Under those criteria, appropriate changes in use would include: • Multiple family dwellings up to a maximum density of 12 units per acre. Higher density residential uses may be permitted as proposed and approved as a Planned Unit Development.” 77 3. Evaluation of Compliance with the East Side Neighborhood Plan: The E.S.N.P. emphasizes that the primary purpose of the Buffer Areas is to provide a level of protection to the Preservation Areas from the more intense activities of the Fringe. As a higher density residential project, the Townhomes at Library Park would fulfill this function. The street-facing entrances and the emphasis on brick building facades contribute to the residential character of the Preservation Area. Placing the parking within garages promotes neighborhood compatibility. Ten single family attached dwelling units will not create significant traffic, noise or other conflicts with the adjacent Preservation Area. 4. Summary of the Six Modifications: A summary of the six Modifications is provided. Each one will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections of this report. First - Section 4.9 (D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. (This is also known as a 1:1 floor-to-area ratio.) Second - Section 4.9 (D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Third - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(b): Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet. Fourth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d): Minimum side yard width (north) 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. Minimum side yard width shall be 15 feet on the street side of any corner lot. 78 Fifth - Section 4.9 (D)(6)(e): Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 ½ ) stories. Sixth – Section 3.2.2(L) Table A (*) When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. 5. Compliance with Section N-C-B Dimensional and Development Standards Not Covered by the Seven Modifications: There remain six applicable dimensional and development standards that are not covered by the aforementioned five Modifications. These are: A. Section 4.9(D)(6)(a) – Minimum Lot Width The lot is 90 feet wide and exceeds the required minimum lot width of 50 feet. B. Section 4.9(E)(1)(a) – Building Design – Exterior Walls All exterior walls are parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot. C. Section 4.9(E)(1)(b) – Building Design – Primary Entrance The primary entrances to the building and ground floor dwelling units are located along the two street-facing frontages of the building, and include architectural features such as landings and porticos. D. Section 4.9(E)(1)(d) – Building Design – Second Floor There are sections of the south and east elevations that feature cantilevers along a portion of the walls. These cantilevers add character to the building in the form of a slight projection and do not constitute the entire floor so the entire second floor does not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls. E. Section 4.9(E)(1)(e) – Building Design – Front Porches Front porches do not exceed one story in height. 79 F. Section 4.9(E)(1)(g) – Building Design – Roof Pitch The primary building mass is three stories. Six of the ten units feature a fourth story in the form of a bonus room that is stepped back by ten feet and contains less area than the third floor. The roof pitch of the fourth floor component is 3:12. This shallow pitch complies with the standard that the minimum pitch be 2:12 and contributes to lowering the profile of the fourth floor. G. Summary of Article Four Standards These six standards are intended to ensure building compatibility as if the new building were being inserted into or next to the heart of the established residential neighborhood or the “Preservation Area” as noted in the East Side Neighborhood Plan. In fact, this is not the case. The subject property shares a boundary line with the Downtown zone district and is separated from the core area by Library Park. The site has a more significant relationship with the activity, scale and form of Downtown versus the residential area. It is next to a 2 ½ story building and across the street from an 11-story building. It is cater-corner to the Webster House, a former funeral home now serving as an office building for the Poudre Library District. The nearest single family detached dwelling in the NCB is approximately 270 feet to the southeast, across two public streets. While the project complies with these standards, a case could be made that due to location and context established by surrounding uses, such standards are not directly applicable. 6. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping All existing trees will be preserved and pruned. New street trees will be added along both public streets in the parkway. B. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking In accordance with the standard, there will be one bicycle parking space per bedroom. In excess of the standard, 100% of these spaces will be within the enclosed garages. C. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) – Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces The ten units are expected to contain a mix of two-and three-bedroom configurations depending on market demand of the fourth floor bonus room on six of the ten units. For conservative estimating, each unit is assumed to contain three bedrooms. Ten units, with three bedrooms each, are required to have a minimum of 20 spaces. With ten two- 80 car garages, (five per building), 20 off-street parking spaces are provided, thus complying with the standard. D. Section 3.4.7(F) – Historic and Cultural Resources – New Construction The P.D.P. is adjacent to the Laurel School Historic District, located across Mathews Street and to the north and south. The P.D.P. is across from the Carnegie Library and Museum cabins, which are Fort Collins Landmarks. The Park View Apartments building adjoins the P.D.P. along the north, and a multifamily dwelling adjoins the P.D.P across the alley to the west. While the eligibility of these multi-family buildings has not been officially determined, it is likely that these buildings are potentially individually eligible for consideration as Fort Collins Landmarks. The project was brought to the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Design Review Subcommittee on October 9, 2013 for a complimentary review. In general, the Subcommittee indicated that, as proposed, the new building fits within the neighborhood although there are areas that could be improved. For example, horizontality should be emphasized, which could be achieved through additional horizontal banding, and reducing the verticality of the stucco panels through the use of differently colored sections. The amount of brick is appreciated and allows the project to better blend in with the area. In response, additional brick has been added to the upper floors along Mathews Street. As to adding horizontal banding and using different colors of stucco on the south elevation, the applicant has agreed to consider these suggestions during Final Plan review. At the P.D.P. stage, however, this level of detail is difficult to resolve until overall project costs can be further analyzed. The standard in Section 3.4.7(F) requires that the project, to the maximum extent feasible, be similar to those of existing historic structures in terms of height, setback and/or width, horizontal elements, materials, visual connections and landscaping. New structures shall be designed to be in character with existing historic structures, with horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, aligned with those of existing historic structures, to strengthen visual ties. The P.D.P., at three to four stories in height, is compatible with the surrounding area. The heavy reliance on brick, individual entrances and window details are sensitive to the neighborhood character. The two entrances on Mathews Street are oriented to Library Park. As a corner lot, the building will anchor the block face and help frame Library Park. By preserving existing trees and adding new street trees, the landscaping will soften the overall mass of the two buildings. In general, staff finds that the P.D.P. is designed to respect the historic character of the historic properties in both the Laurel School District and the surrounding neighborhood. 81 E. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Levels of Service A Transportation Impact Study was waived because adding ten dwelling units at this location would not impact any Levels of Service at the adjacent intersections. The site is strategically located on Transfort Route 15 and three blocks from the Max Bus Rapid Transit. It is also located within bicycle commuting distance of major employers such as Otter Box, Woodward, New Belgium Brewing, Odell Brewing, Larimer County, City of Fort Collins, C.S.U. Engines and Energy Conversion Lab, Bohemian Foundation, First National Bank, Wells Fargo Bank as well as a supermarket and a variety of smaller firms, retail stores and restaurants. 7. Compliance with General Development Standard – 3.5.1(G) – Height: A. Background Since the fourth floor of the building exceeds 40 feet in height, the P.D.P. must comply with Section 3.5.1(G) – Special Height Review. The fourth floor roof is 48 feet in height and reduced in mass and scale from lower portion of the building. (The height analysis refers to habitable space only. Section 3.8.17(C)(3) specifically exempts elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures.) • Of the ten units, six include the fourth floor bonus room. Four units on the north building are three stories and include a roof deck only. The majority of the visual mass along the two streets is three stories. • Along Olive Street, Mathews Street and the north property line, the fourth floor façade is stepped back 10 feet from the third floor. • A ten foot wide easement will be granted by the adjoining property owner so that the effective north side yard is 15 feet instead of five feet. • When viewed from ground, based on the fourth floor step backs, the mass of the fourth floor appears to be minimal relative to the mass of the third floor. B. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. - Views The building, as designed, offers a reduced profile above the third story. The additional height gained by the fourth floor bonus rooms does not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks. Views to the mountains, from the perspective of Library Park, are currently obscured by the D.M.A. Plaza and will not be further impacted by the fourth floor component of the P.D.P. Finally, the number of mature trees in 82 the area offers a comfortable shade canopy and, combined with the public park, creates an urban amenity that is highly valued. C. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. – Light and Shadow A shadow analysis was performed demonstrating the condition on December 21 st at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The analysis also depicts the shadowing under existing conditions by including the shadows cast by the D.M.A. Plaza as well as the shadows cast by the P.D.P. approved in 2008. These three shadow analyses offer an opportunity to compare and contrast the three conditions. For the 9:00 a.m. condition, most of the south elevation of Park View Apartments is in shadow. This is greater than the existing condition and similar to the condition of the approved P.D.P. of 2008. For the 3:00 p.m. condition, again, most of the south elevation of Park View Apartments is in shadow but this is due to the location and height of the D.M.A. Plaza relative to the sun angle. Essentially, the 3:00 p.m. shadow is the same under the existing, 2008 and proposed scenarios due to the D.M.A. Plaza. The standard indicates that shadowing must be considered substantially adverse before mitigation becomes necessary. Staff contends that the shadowing of Park View Apartments at 9:00 a.m. on December 21 st , while demonstrative, does not rise to the level of being substantially adverse. For the 3:00 p.m. condition, the shadowing is equal to the existing condition. D. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)3. – Privacy There is only one fourth floor bonus room along the north elevation and only one that faces west above 40 feet. These two rooms do not infringe upon the privacy of the adjacent residents to the north and west. This is because of the minimum amount of windows on the north and west elevations and the physical separation between buildings. Also, there are 10 mature aspen trees located in the south yard of the Park View Apartments that add a measure of privacy for the south facing units. E. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)4. – Neighborhood Scale The structure successfully mitigates the fourth floor height by use of the ten-foot step backs and shallow-pitched roofs. In addition, there is no cohesive pattern of building height in the surrounding area that requires conformity. For example, buildings in the vicinity range in height from two stories to 11 stories. With the reduced footprint of the fourth floor, the mass of the building is primarily contained within the first three floors. A pedestrian at the ground level along Olive Street or Mathews Street will not be further impacted by the fourth floor 83 because the additional height will be minimized by an upper level step back and quality of the overall design of the structure. 8. Compliance with General Development Standard – Land Use Transition: Since the project is bordered on the north by a 2 ½ story building and on the west by a two story building, the P.D.P. must comply with Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition. In order to comply with this standard, the building has been specifically designed to address transitional issues: • Along the west elevation, the fourth floor of the southerly building has been recessed by ten feet thus mitigating the mass of the building as experienced by the neighbor to the west. • Along the north elevation, only the easterly most dwelling unit contains the fourth floor bonus room. The other four units are three stories but contain a stairwell to the rooftop deck. 9. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on August 22, 2013 and a summary is attached. The neighborhood meeting also addressed the request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow Single Family Attached Dwellings in the NCB district. In general, the project was well-received although subject to close scrutiny. Those attending the meeting were knowledgeable of the history of the various uses on the property as well as the various proposals since the building has been vacant. In fact, the length of the vacancy and the partial demolition (interior asbestos abatement and boarded up windows) and occasional graffiti raised the concern that the status quo is undesirable and that a new project that fits in with the neighborhood would be welcome. The primary concerns were parking, architecture, ownership versus rental and neighborhood compatibility. In response, the applicant has selected brick as the primary exterior material. The architecture is well-articulated with six of the ten units having a street-facing entrance. Parking is provided in garages that are not visible from the streets at a quantity that complies or exceeds the required minimum based on whether or not the bonus room is used as a third bedroom on six of the ten units. Existing trees will be preserved and new trees added to contribute to the established character of the neighborhood. Five net new public parking spaces will be added along Olive Street as a result of moving the vertical curb to align with balance of the block. Whether or not the units are owned or rented is not the purview of the Land Use Code. 84 Modifications of Standard 1. First Modification – Section 4.9(D)(1) – Density: A. Standard This standard requires that the minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building but not less than 5,000 square feet. This is typically referred to as a 1:1 floor-to-area ratio or F.A.R. B. Proposal Based on the entire site, the existing lot area is 12,600 square feet. The proposed total floor area between the two buildings is 30,188 square feet (excluding the driveway, balconies and patios) resulting in a 2.40:1 F.A.R. This would be the metric if the project were considered Multi-Family Dwellings on one lot. But, with ten single family attached dwellings, with each dwelling on its own individual lot; the metric applies to all ten lots. The applicant has provided a table depicting the floor-to-area ratio on each lot. C. Extent of the Modification The extent of the Modification can be described by the following table: Lot number Lot Size (square feet) Proposed Floor Area (square feet) Extra Floor Area (square feet) FAR 1 1,244 2,913 1,669 2.34 2 987 2,667 1,680 2.70 2 987 2,667 1,680 2.70 4 987 2,667 1,680 2.70 5 1,044 3,244 2,200 3.11 6 904 3,244 2,340 3.59 7 856 3,116 2,260 3.64 8 856 3,116 2,260 3.64 9 856 3,116 2,260 3.64 10 1,078 3,438 2,360 3.19 85 In total, the ten Single Family Attached dwellings would have an extra 17,588 square feet of floor area in excess of the 12,600 that would otherwise be allowed as per the standard. D. Applicant’s Justification Although the two buildings exceed the maximum area allowed by 3.08 times, and the individual townhomes exceed the maximum area by a range of 2.34 times to 3.64 times, the applicant contends that the excess building area is equal to or better than a plan that complies for the following reasons: • The project provides each of the six of the units with a fourth floor bonus room and all ten units with private outdoor spaces in the form of a roof-top deck. These fourth floor attributes are provided instead of a singular, rear yard green space. The applicant contends that this is a better utilization of space, creating a higher quality/living experience for the residents than what could otherwise be achieved in a smaller building with larger common open space in the form of a backyard. • The building and site design incorporates creative entries and landscaping which give the streetscape an active, urban, downtown residential character. This acts as a logical transition between the residential neighborhood and the Downtown District thus implementing the vision of N-C-B zone district. • All required parking is at-grade within garages accessed by a screened, private driveway. Since the number of spaces complies (and potentially exceeds) with the Code, there would be no added pressure on the heavily used on-street parking associated with the Library and Library Park. By enclosing the parking within garages, the building floor area increases. • The N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial activity and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. The alleyway to the west of the property is not only the subject property line but also the district boundary line dividing the Downtown District and the N-C-B zone. Logical transition requires that the site relate more closely to downtown than the single family dwellings further east. • The applicant contends the proposed plan, with 30,188 additional square feet in total, will serve the standard equally well or better than a plan that complies with the standard by virtue of providing urban living that utilizes creative design solutions to achieve an attractive streetscape within this transition zone. • Finally, the applicant contends that the One Library Park P.D.P, approved by the Board in April of 2008, included Modification of Standard allowing a 29,212 86 square foot building with a 2.32:1 F.A.R. The P.D.P, as proposed, is only 976 square feet of floor area in excess of what was approved for One Library Park. The primary factor in this increase is the fact that One Library Park incorporated underground parking that did not impact the floor area calculation while this request includes ten ground floor two-car garages that are incorporated into the floor area calculation. E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification The applicant has provided architectural elevations that demonstrate that floor area of the two 5-plex buildings is allocated in an attractive manner. With individual entrances, each building is sub-divided into modules, one per unit. As proposed, the project solves a fundamental urban design issue by placing the total amount of required parking within ground floor enclosed garages. While solving the parking dilemma, however, 10 two-car garages consume a significant amount of floor area. Staff finds the enclosed, at-grade parking to be a superior design versus a surface parking lot. Surface parking lots in an urban core are an under-utilization of valuable space that could otherwise be put to more beneficial use for both private gain and public urban design. Buildings that front on streets bring activity and interest to the public realm. In contrast, surface parking lots are generally unattractive and contribute very little to the vitality of downtown. Staff finds that in the transition area between Downtown and the residential neighborhoods, surface parking lots have limited usefulness and minimal economic benefit. Downtown urban living calls for more creative use of private open space such as prominent street-facing entrances, porticos and attractive architecture. Vibrant downtowns are well-served by close-in residents. For Modification One, Staff finds that the proposed P.D.P. is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because the project demonstrates a positive relationship within the context of the immediate surrounding area. The two buildings are separated which breaks up the mass. Their form provides a high level of urban design along both public streets with individual unit entries and building articulation. The use of brick as the primary exterior material contributes to preserving neighborhood character. These design features contribute to a pedestrian scale and promote a walkable neighborhood. Finally, by placing parking within garages (which counts towards floor 87 area) versus a surface parking lot (which is not floor area), the P.D.P. mitigates a negative visual impact. 2. Second Modification – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.9(D)(5): A. Standard This standard requires that the floor area ratio (FAR) be a maximum of 0.33 on the rear 50% of the lot. Based on the two buildings’ relationship with the surrounding neighborhood, Mathews Street is considered the front and the alley along the western property line is considered the rear. It is important that the block face of Mathews Street be preserved to respect the relationship that the block enjoys with the historic Carnegie Library and Library Park. With a total site area of 12,600 square feet, the rear one-half of the lot contains 6,300 square feet. Per the standard, 2,079 square feet would be allowed on the rear half of the lot resulting in a 0.33 F.A.R. This would be the metric if the project were considered Multi-Family Dwellings on one lot. But, with ten Single Family Attached dwellings, with each dwelling on its own individual lot; the metric applies to all ten lots. The applicant has provided a table depicting the floor-to-area ratio on each lot. B. Proposal The applicant proposes to place floor area on the rear one-half of the ten lots in the following manner: 88 Lot number Rear 50% of Lot (square feet) Rear 50% Floor Area (square feet) Rear FAR 1 622 1,730 2.78 2 493.5 1,614 3.27 2 493.5 1,614 3.27 4 493.5 1,614 3.27 5 522 2,001 3.83 6 452 1,725 3.82 7 428 1,657 3.87 8 428 1,657 3.87 9 428 1,657 3.87 10 539 1,795 3.33 C. Extent of the Modification Thus the Second Modification would allow the ten individual lots to have extra F.A.R. that ranges from 2.78 to 3.87 on the rear one-half of the lot. D. Applicant’s Justification With this required F.A.R., the buildings would be one story with each unit having traditional shared open/green space. There are several reasons why the FAR for this zone is not suitable for this particular site: • Proposed are ten dwelling units with each unit will have private outdoor spaces in place of a singular rear yard green space. We contend that this is a better utilization of space, creating a more creative urban living experience for the residents and allows the building to be designed with interesting, street-facing features. • Typically, a mixed-use building in an urban setting does not have back yard green space. The code appears to imply that a smaller FAR is better suited for residential lots, rather than a single family attached project. In addition to the landscaping and proposed rooftop decks, there is also a large city park (Library Park) located directly across Mathews Street. 89 • The buildings as designed will also give the streetscape a more urban downtown residential presence as a transition between the N-C-B District and the Downtown District. The street facades will have creative entry features on both streets as well as landscaping. Parking for each unit is provided with a surface garage accessible via an interior shared driveway. • As mentioned, the N-C-B zone district is intended as a transitional district between more intense downtown commercial activity and the surrounding single- family residential neighborhoods. The context of the neighborhood is unique, with a library, community creative center (former museum) and public park adjacent to the east. There are apartment buildings to the north and south, a parking lot to the south, and a former funeral home converted into an office to the southeast. Unlike the residential neighborhoods west of College Avenue, the east side neighborhoods are not as well-defined. The east side has a more random land use pattern of non-owner occupied residences, commercial uses and office uses. • The closest single-family dwellings are to the west of the property across the alley and are located in the Downtown District. The closest single family dwellings to the east are 270 feet away and located in the N-C-B district. The proposed building will not impact any residences. • Three of the four lots to the north along Mathews Street also contain large buildings that appear to exceed the required FAR and are located in the N-C-B District. Two of these lots, when analyzed from aerial photography and measured for FAR, actually exceed the required FAR. The ratios for two of the four lots are .50 and .86 (221 Mathews Street, Park View Apartments). • Furthermore, the existing building on the subject property consumes the entire lot, and actually encroaches over the property line along the Mathews Street façade by almost one foot at the southeast corner of the building per the civil engineering survey. Although the buildings at 301 E. Olive Street and 207 Matthews Street do not exceed the FAR, the rear areas of the properties are almost completely paved. The applicant contends the proposed plan will serve the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard by virtue of providing an attractive infill townhomes building that utilize creative design solutions for enclosed on-site parking and open space. Additionally, the proposed larger FAR is inconsequential when viewed in the overall context of the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the applicant indicates that the requested maximum floor area for the rear 50% of the 10 lots lot is 17,064 square feet (out of 30,188 total square feet), compared to a floor area of the rear 50% of 11,718 square feet (out of 29,212 90 total square feet) that was approved for One Library Park. The 2.08 incremental FAR for the current request compares to an incremental FAR of 1.86 for One Library Park. As mentioned previously the ground floor garages for the current project represent the majority of this difference. E. Evaluation of Applicant’s Request The original intent of the standard was to restrict out-of-scale, new, infill re- development in the back yards of existing uses which would potentially impact the character of the adjoining lots and the neighborhood. But, this parcel is a corner lot, abutting the Downtown zone and next to a 2 ½ story apartment building with a sloping roof. The entire block face is zoned N-C-B and features five lots, one of which is vacant (southwest corner of Mathews Street and Oak Street). Of the remaining four, there is only one backyard measuring 50-feet in width. The balance of the block face features not backyards but surface parking lots, garages and storage units. If the intent of the standard is to preserve neighborhood character, then such character does not presently exist of this block face. Preserving backyard character on this block face does not depend on limiting the building coverage on the rear one-half of this particular lot. Finally, there is no coherent pattern of floor-to-area ratios in the surrounding area due to the dissimilarity of land uses and the block being bisected by two zone districts. For Modification Two, Staff finds that the P.D.P., featuring ten single family attached dwellings where the F.A.R. on the rear one-half of each lot exceeds 0.33, is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because each unit will have a two-car, enclosed garage (which counts as floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which does not count as floor area). Enclosed parking, with a screened driveway, is a superior design when compared with a compliant plan featuring a backyard that has been converted to a surface parking lot. The rear one-half of the ten individual lots feature floor area at a scale that is appropriate for the area, especially given the transitional context of the site being between the Downtown zone district and the residential core of the East Side Neighborhood. 91 3. Third Modification – Section 4.9(D)(6)(b) – Minimum Front Yard Setback: A. Standard The required minimum front yard setback in the N-C-B zone is 15 feet. B. Proposal The proposed building would be zero feet set back from the front yard along Mathews Street. C. Extent of the Modification Thus the Third Modification would result in a building being set back zero feet from Mathews Street. D. Applicant’s Justification The current vacant office building is set back zero feet from Mathews Street and runs the entire 90-foot width of the lot. This elevation is characterized by an unremarkable wall that is 16 feet high, and, in fact, protrudes one foot into the public right-of-way. Since the building borders the Downtown zone on the west, and is separated from the N-C-B residential neighborhood by Library Park, the project design fulfills the transitional function by being both residential and downtown-like. It is residential in function but downtown-like in form. Like any building in downtown, there is building mass at the front property line. But, like residential buildings, there is a transition between public and private space by use of the distinctive front entrances and porticos. The interior private driveway is a key element that mitigates the mass of the buildings and contributes to the transition from Downtown to Neighborhood Conservation Buffer by providing a visual break between the north and south row of townhomes. This progression represents a classic urban living model that is found in the downtown areas of many cities. A zero-foot setback along Mathews Street was approved for One Library Park in 2008. 92 E. Evaluation of Applicant’s Request The existing building sits on the front property line. The project is located on a block that is divided equally between the Downtown zone and the N-C-B zone. As mentioned, the west property line is the alley that bisects these two districts. Whereas on the west side of the alley, the zero-foot front setback (build-to line) is allowed, east of the alley requires 15 feet. The P.D.P implements the concept of land use transition by replicating the Downtown zero-foot setback and furthering the urban form yet retaining the overall residential character of the neighborhood. The ten units are divided between two separate buildings thus breaking down the mass and scale. Both buildings would be set back from the streets by 21 feet separated by a parkway, sidewalk and landscaping behind the sidewalk. The project provides a gradual transition in urban design versus a sharp contrast in building placement. Further, this transition protects the core area of the East Side Neighborhood. As mentioned, the enclosed parking represents a significant upgrade in design that results in a project that is more aesthetically pleasing than a project that may have complied with the standard but with surface parking. Finally, the building is located at the end of the block, not the interior, where a dissimilar setback would be more noticeable. For the Third Modification, Staff finds that the building, with a zero-foot front setback along Mathews Street, is not detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because the lot, which adjoins the Downtown zone, and the proposed building placement, represents a gradual transition between the urban character of Downtown and the residential core of the neighborhood. This transition is aesthetically accomplished by the overall residential character and design of the building particularly the screening of the required parking. The entrances face both public streets which promote a pedestrian scale and contribute to walkability of the neighborhood. There remains 21 feet between the buildings and the two streets. The proposed buildings match the existing building and by being at the corner of the block face, do not break any established symmetry. 93 4. Fourth Modification – Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) – Minimum Sideyard Width: A. Standard This standard has two components. First, the minimum interior sideyard setback shall be five feet for the first 18 feet, plus one foot of additional horizontal setback for every two feet of additional vertical height over 18 feet. Second, the minimum corner sideyard setback along Olive Street shall be 15 feet. B. Proposal For the interior sideyard (north), the 134-foot long wall representing the front facades of the north row of five townhomes will be setback five feet from the north property line in compliance with the standard. This north wall will vary in height from 38.5 feet to 44 feet with periodic breaks in the massing to create architectural interest. Thus, this request is to allow a sideyard setback of five feet above 18 feet when otherwise a setback ranging from 11 feet to 13 feet would be required. For the corner sideyard (south) along Olive Street, the proposed setback is zero feet which reflects more of an urban build-to line approach versus a residential neighborhood approach. C. Extent of the Modifications Thus the Fourth Modification results in a north building façade that is not stepped back the requisite one foot for every two feet of height above the base height of 18 feet. The south façade features a build-to line approach with a zero-foot setback from Olive Street versus 15 feet. Summary Table North Wall – Total Wall Length – 134’ Wall Section % of Length Wall Height Segment of Wall Height Non-Comply Variance From Standard Linear Length Non-Comply Sec. 1 24% 48’ 18’ – 48’ 15’ Maximum 32’ Stairwell to fourth floor for units 2-5 (8 linear feet per unit) Sec. 2 24% 46.5’ 18’ – 46.5’ 14.25’ Maximum 32’ 4th floor stairwell for accessible units on each end, slopes 48’ to 45’ for an average of 46.5’ Sec. 2 52% 38.5’ 18’ – 38.5’ 10.25’ At least 70’ 3rd floor with parapet and 3rd floor with roof over elevator shaft for the end units 94 D. Applicant’s Justification The applicant contends that for the north five units, only one features a fourth story. The remaining four feature rooftop decks only. The fourth story represents a bonus room that is stepped back from third floor by ten feet. The fourth floor, therefore, is not a solid wall but is a mix of enclosed space and open space. The applicant also contends that the north façade features a mix of stone, brick and stucco with each material having its own color. There is series of windows and cantilevers so there is no flat wall. Accents include brick lintels and projections over the cantilevers. In addition, the building to the north, Park View Apartments, is approximately 32 – 40 feet north of the shared property line allowing for a 37 – 45 foot separation between buildings. With compliance for the first 18 feet of height, the only affected portion of Park View Apartments is the third floor. The proposed Modification for not stepping back the building above 18 feet is mitigated by the fact that there is a cluster of mature deciduous trees located between Park View Apartments and the subject building that obscures the view between the two buildings when these trees are in full foliage. Presently, the existing building features a north wall that is located on the property line with a zero-foot setback. This wall is solid concrete block with no windows and no breaks in the massing. Two thirds of this wall is 14 feet high and one third is 22 feet high. This elevation is not only in violation of current code but represents an outdated industrial-like design. In contrast, the proposed elevation will be setback five feet from the property line and, while ranging in height from 38.5 to 48 feet, will be a vast improvement in aesthetic featuring doorways, windows and other architectural features. For a building that achieves a height of 48 feet, the 26 feet of wall height from 18 to 44 feet would have to be stepped back an additional 10 – 13 feet. The standard could allow a solid wall to be constructed at the requisite step back, for the entire length of the façade, with significantly less articulation and variety than proposed. Regarding the zero-foot setback along Olive Street, this design represents a continuation of the build-to line concept that would otherwise be required in the Downtown zone just west across the alley. A build-to line in the fringe area of the N-C-B is compatible given the urban context of being next to the Downtown zone. 95 E. Evaluation of Applicant’s Request As can be seen by the table, for the sideyard setback along the north, the building complies with the five feet setback for the first 18 feet of wall height for 100% of the length of the façade. Where the building is 48 feet high, the standard step back is not achieved for 51% of the total building length for 26 feet of building height. Where the building is 38.5 feet high, the standard step back is not achieved for 49% of the length for 20.5 feet of building height. The north elevation demonstrates a high quality level of articulation and detail. Each unit is defined by its own module. The façade features individual entries and numerous windows. Further, articulation is enhanced by symmetrical series of cantilevers. The affected building to the north, Park View Apartments is 2 ½ stories and topped by a combination of a faux mansard and flat roofs. Its height is slightly lower than the subject building but its mass is similar. Existing trees provide a dense canopy that will obscure the proposed building from Park View Apartments for three seasons. Staff finds that the proposed building, with the narrow profile of maximum building height, is similar in height to Park View Apartments. For the corner sideyard setback along Olive Street, featuring individual entries, Staff finds that the building is visually interesting and highly articulated and blends both downtown-like form featuring a build-to line versus a zero-foot setback. As with the north elevation, the building along Olive Street features doorways, windows and cantilevers. With the Downtown zone located west of the alley, placing the building at the build-to line versus the residential setback is not out of character given the context of the immediate surrounding area. Combined, these features provide an ideal transition as envisioned by the East Side Neighborhood Plan that protects the core residential area. Again, it must be emphasized that the overall impact of the project is significantly mitigated by virtue of the enclosed parking. Staff finds that while the subject site is zoned N-C-B, it is located on the western edge of the East Side Neighborhood and abuts the Downtown district. The nearest single family detached dwelling in the N-C-B is approximately 270 feet to the southeast, across two streets. Given the mix of land uses and the size of buildings within the immediate context of the area, the Townhomes at Library Park represent a creative design solution that effectively mitigates its height, mass, bulk and scale. Finally, it has been established that there is no clear pattern of building-to-lot size relationships in the surrounding area that require a level of adherence. There is a hybrid character to the immediate surrounding area. The proposed building demonstrates a high level of variety and interest that contributes positively to 96 both the urban character of Downtown district and the residential character of the N-C-B district. For the Fourth Modification, Staff finds that the plan as submitted would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, P.D.P., as designed with the building relationship to the two sideyard setbacks, 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. This is because for the interior side (north), the architectural details between 18 feet and to the top of the building exceed that which would otherwise be required if the building were stepped back. For the corner side setback from Olive Street, the individual building entrances, porticos and other architectural elements combine to create a south elevation that surpasses that which would otherwise be setback 15 feet and have less overall quality. All units are identified by individual modules enhancing articulation. Finally, staff finds that the overall form of the two buildings, while being less intense than a Downtown project but larger than a prototypical N-C-B project, remains sensitive to the context of the adjacent neighborhood. 5. Fifth Modification – Section 4.9(D)(6)(e) – Building Height: A. Standard The maximum building height is limited to three stories. B. Proposal The proposed height is four stories for six of the ten units. C. Extent of Modification The proposed height is one story higher than the standard. The fourth story consists of a bonus room of approximately 300 square feet which applies only to the five units facing Olive Street and one unit (the easterly most) of north facing building. The remaining four units facing north will remain at three stories and feature a rooftop deck and stairwell which is not considered to be a story per Section 3.8.17(C). There are two units at the east end that include an elevator to the third floor but the elevator housing is located above the third floor and again not considered a story. 97 D. Applicant’s Justification The applicant contends that considering the context of the surrounding area, the fourth floor bonus room is compatible. For example, to the south across Olive Street is the 11-story D.M.A. Plaza. To the north is the Park View Apartments which features a garden level and two upper stories and steep, sloping faux mansard roof giving the appearance of a taller structure. At 308 East Oak Street, one block north and within the N-C-B, there is an apartment building featuring a garden level and three upper floors which also appears to be a four-story structure. The fourth floor bonus rooms are recessed from the third floor along Olive Street by ten feet and from the third floor along Mathews Street by ten feet. Further, the fourth floor features a roof that is shallow pitched and colored a muted tan in order to de-emphasize its presence. The P.D.P. approved in 2008 included a fourth story. The Downtown zone, located across the alley, allows for a four stories. E. Evaluation of Applicant’s Request Staff finds that the extra story on six units is successfully mitigated by use of step backs, and minimized roof form. The additional height gained by the fourth floor does not impact the surrounding properties or general public. The fourth floor bonus room is subordinate relative to the square footage on the third floor. The four stories continues to allow the building to fulfill its role of acting as an effective transitional land use as envisioned by the East Side Neighborhood Plan. There is no cohesive pattern of building height in the surrounding area that would require conformity. A building with only three stories and with less articulation, including surface parking, would not make as positive a contribution to preserving the character of the neighborhood. For Modification Five, Staff finds that the fourth story, in the form of a bonus room of approximately 300 square feet on six units, as designed, would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the P.D.P. as designed, 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. This is because the fourth floor is stepped back from the two public streets in a manner that minimizes the impact of the buildings’ height as experienced at the pedestrian scale. Further, the fourth floor is well- articulated and subordinate to the balance of the building by containing 98 less mass. These features combine to create a building that would be equal to a three-story building that contains fewer architectural qualities. 6. Sixth Modification – Section 3.2.2(L) Table A – Driveway Width: A. Standard When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or building, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. B. Proposal The proposed width of the interior driveway between the two buildings is 24 feet. C. Extent of the Modification The proposed interior driveway width is four feet less than the standard. D. Applicant’s Justification The applicant contends that the narrowness of the lot (90 feet) dictates that the shared driveway be reduced to 24 feet which is typical of an urban infill condition. Since each garage is sized for two cars, there is increased maneuverability than if the garages were sized for only one car. Finally, the shared driveway is not public and will only be used by residents of only 10 dwelling units. E. Staff Evaluation This standard was originally conceived to address large-scale apartment complexes where garages are arrayed in long rows of one car per bay. In contrast, the P.D.P. features two-car garages serving only 10 units. With increased maneuverability afforded by the two-car bays, and expected low turn-over, the proposed reduced width will be operationally safe and not have an impact on the general public. The location of the driveway is not visible from the two public streets thus contributing to preserving the character of the area. For Modification Six, Staff finds that the plan as submitted is not detrimental to the public good. Further, staff finds that the P.D.P., as designed, will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code 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. 99 This is because the driveway width of 24 feet is found to be visually screened, functionally safe and appropriately sized given the limited number of dwelling units that are being served. Further, the P.D.P. will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code per Section 1.2.2(J) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the Townhomes at Library Park P.D.P. and six Modifications of Standard, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. The P.D.P. complies with the overall intent of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. 2. The P.D.P. complies with the land use and development standards of Section 4.9, the NCB zone, with five exceptions for which Modifications are requested and are described below. 3. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards with one exception, Section 3.2.2(L), for which a Modification is requested and also described below. 4. Modification One, Section 4.9(D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. (This also referred to as a 1:1 floor-to-area ratio.) For Modification One, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that 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. This is because the project demonstrates a positive relationship within the context of the immediate surrounding area. The building’s form provides a high level of urban design along both public streets with individual unit entries and building articulation. The use of brick as the primary exterior material contributes to preserving neighborhood character. These design features contribute to a pedestrian scale and promote a walkable neighborhood. Finally, by placing parking within garages (which counts 100 towards floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which is not floor area), the P.D.P. mitigates a negative visual impact. 5. Modification Two, Section 4.9 (D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. For Modification Two, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the plan as submitted, featuring ten single family attached dwellings where the F.A.R. on the rear one-half of each lot exceeds 0.33, 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. This is because the project demonstrates a positive relationship within the context of the immediate surrounding area. The building’s form provides a high level of urban design along both public streets with individual unit entries and building articulation. The use of brick as the primary exterior material contributes to preserving neighborhood character. These design features contribute to a pedestrian scale and promote a walkable neighborhood. Finally, by placing parking within garages (which counts towards floor area) versus a surface parking lot (which is not floor area), the P.D.P. mitigates a negative visual impact. 6. Modification Three, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(b): Minimum front yard setback (Mathews Street) shall be fifteen (15) feet. For the Third Modification, Staff finds that Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the plan as submitted, with a zero foot setback along Mathews Street, 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. This is because the lot, which adjoins the Downtown zone, and the proposed building placement, represents a gradual transition between the urban character of Downtown and the residential core of the neighborhood. This transition is aesthetically accomplished by the overall residential character and design of the building particularly the screening of the required parking. The entrances face both public streets which promote a 101 pedestrian scale and contribute to walkability of the neighborhood. There remains 21 feet between the building and the street. The proposed building matches the existing building and by being at the corner of the block face, does not break any established symmetry. 7. Modification Four, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d): Minimum side yard width (north) 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. Minimum side yard width shall be 15 feet on the street side of any corner lot. For Modification Four, Staff finds that the two components of this Modification comply with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. And that the P.D.P., featuring a building placement as so indicated on the Site Plan, will promote 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. This is because for the interior side (north), the architectural details between 18 feet and to the top of the building exceed that which would otherwise be required if the building were stepped back. For the corner side setback from Olive Street, the individual building entrances, porticos and other architectural elements combine to create a south elevation that surpasses that which would otherwise be setback 15 feet and have less overall quality. There remains 21 feet between the building and the street. Finally, staff finds that the overall form of the building, while being less intense than a Downtown project but larger than a prototypical N-C-B project, remains sensitive to the context of the adjacent neighborhood. 8. Modification Five, Section 4.9 (D)(6)(e): Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1 ½ ) stories. For Modification Five, Staff finds that the Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (1) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Further, Staff finds that the P.D.P., as designed with a fourth floor bonus room of approximately 300 square feet on six of the ten units, will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested 102 equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. This is because the fourth floor is stepped back from the two public streets in a manner that minimizes the impact of the buildings’ height as experienced at the pedestrian scale. The fourth floor bonus room is subordinate in square footage relative to the third floor. Further, the fourth floor is well-articulated and subordinate to the balance of the building by containing less mass. These features combine to create a building that would be equal to a three-story building that contains fewer architectural qualities. 9. Modification Six, Section 3.2.2(L) Table A (*): When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet. For Modification Six, Staff finds that Modification complies with Section 2.8.2(H) and (4) because the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. And, the P.D.P. featuring a 24-foot wide private driveway will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code 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. This is because the driveway width of 24 feet is found to be visually screened, functionally safe and appropriately sized given the limited number of dwelling units that are being served. Further, the P.D.P. will continue to advance the purpose of the Land Use Code by: “Section 1.2.2(J) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. “ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the six Modifications of Standard and approval of Townhomes at Library Park P.D.P. #PDP130033, subject to the following condition: Prior to recording the Final Plan, the applicant shall submit a signed easement from the adjoining property owner to the north that grants to the applicant the southerly 10 feet of their lot as open space. 103 Attachments: Vicinity Map Zoning Map Aerial Maps Applicant’s Narrative/Setback Exhibit and Images Applicant’s Site and Landscape Plan Applicant’s Architectural Character Elevations Neighborhood Meeting Summary Citizen Input 104 Young Peoples Learning Center Library Park Oak St Plaza Park «¬287 «¬14 E Oak St Mathews St Peterson St E Olive St E Magnolia St W Olive St W Magnolia St Chestnut St Walnut St Remington St S College Ave E Mulberry St E Mountain Ave Lincoln Ave N College Ave W Mulberry St © Townhomes 220 E. Olive at Library Street Park Project Addition Development of Permitted Plan Use 1 inch = 250 feet Site 105 D D NCB NCM CL RDR CC Young Peoples Learning Center Library Park Oak St Plaza Park «¬287 «¬14 E Oak St Mathews St Peterson St E Olive St E Magnolia St W Olive St W Magnolia St Chestnut St Walnut St Remington St S College Ave E Mulberry St E Mountain Ave N College Ave W Mulberry St © Townhomes 220 E. Olive at Library Street Park Project Addition Development of Permitted Plan Use 1 inch = 250 feet Site 106 Teaching Tree Early Childhood Learning Young Peoples Learning Center Library Park Buckingham Park Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Civic Center Park Jefferson Street Park Old Fort Collins Heritage Park Oak St Plaza Park Civic Center Park North Cache la Poudre River «¬287 «¬14 E Olive St E Myrtle St E Oak St Mathews St Peterson St Smith St E Magnolia St 1st St Whedbee St Maple St W Olive St W Myrtle St W Oak St Pine St Lilac Ln W Magnolia St Poudre St Chestnut St Pine St Willow St Linden St Stover St Walnut St S Mason St E Mulberry St Remington St S College Ave Jefferson St N Mason St Riverside Ave N College Ave E Mountain Ave E Lincoln Ave Laporte Ave W Mulberry St W Mountain Ave Lincoln Ave © Townhomes 220 E. Olive at Library Street Park Project Addition Development of Permitted Plan Use 1 inch = 500 feet Site 107 Young Peoples Learning Center Library Park Oak St Plaza Park «¬287 «¬14 E Oak St Mathews St Peterson St E Olive St E Magnolia St W Olive St W Magnolia St Chestnut St Walnut St Remington St S College Ave E Mulberry St E Mountain Ave Lincoln Ave N College Ave W Mulberry St © Townhomes 220 E. Olive at Library Street Park Project Addition Development of Permitted Plan Use 1 inch = 250 feet Site 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 www.kephart.com 2555 WALNUT STREET R:\213065_One Library Park\065-Consultants\Civil\20130909_KA SITE.dwg, 1/30/2014 1:23:44 PM, tiffanyc 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: 220 East Olive Street Townhomes at Library Park DATE: August 22, 2013 APPLICANT: Mr. Brad Florin CONSULTANTS: Mr. Doug Van Lerberghe, Kephart Architects Ms. Tiffany Cellura, Kephart Architects CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the request is to re-develop 220 East Olive Street that presently contains a vacant one-story commercial building. The project consists of demolishing the existing building and constructing a new building for 12 townhomes. Each unit would be owned separately and located on an individual lot. There would be a mix of two and three bedroom units. All units would have a private, two-car, ground-floor parking garage. The existing head- in parking on Olive Street would be eliminated and replaced with new on-street diagonal spaces that align with the surrounding blocks. Seven units would be four stories with the fourth floor stepped back from the third floor. Five units would be limited to three stories. The site is located at the northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street and zoned Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B). As defined by the Land Use Code, townhomes are classified as single family attached dwellings which are not listed as a permitted use in the N-C-B zone district. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use to allow single family attached dwellings on this parcel only. Such a request is specific to the subject parcel only and would not result in re-zoning the parcel, and would not result in allowing townhomes on any other property in the N-C-B zone. The applicant is also requesting a Modification of Standard that would allow the height to be increased by one story to achieve a four-story building for seven of the 12 units. In addition, the applicant also requests Modifications of Standard that relate to how the building is arranged on the site in terms of floor-to-area ratios, building setbacks, and architectural details. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consultants. 160 Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. How much square footage would each unit contain? Response: At this early stage, we are thinking roughly between 1,600 to 1,800 square feet per unit. There will be some differences between the seven units that are allowed to have a fourth floor bonus room and the five units that will be restricted to three stories. 2. So each unit is multi-level? Response: Yes, each unit has a ground floor entry and a ground floor, two-car garage. The second floor would be the kitchen, dining room and living room. The third floor would include two bedrooms and two baths. For seven units, and at the option of the buyer, there would be a fourth floor for a bonus room that could be used as an office, den or third bedroom. 3. So these are not rental apartments? Response: No, these are units for purchase for fee simple ownership. Each unit will be on its own individual lot. The market refers to these as townhomes. The City’s Land Use Code calls them single family attached dwellings. 4. What would be the sale price? Response: We are looking at a range of $500,000 to $800,000. Prices may vary after the project cost is analyzed. 5. Will these be “live-work” units? Response: No, to qualify as “live-work” units under the International Building Code and Fire Code, there would have to be a different kind of occupancy classification. Instead, every unit would be allowed to have a home occupation, just as every house in the City is so allowed. 6. You mentioned garages? Will there be enough parking? Response: Yes, each unit will have its own two-floor garage served by a shared driveway that bisects the site. The upper floors would be built over the garages. 7. Will there be basements? Response: No, but, having said that, we are just beginning to do our market research. If research proves that basements are in demand, we will explore our options. 161 8. You mentioned rooftop activities – does this mean loud parties? I’m concerned about loud parties disturbing our neighborhood. Response: Our intention is to provide some active areas on the roof. These areas would be screened with a parapet wall at least 42-inches high. We don’t anticipate that the buyers at this price range would be causing noise problems for the neighborhood. 9. What is the height of the two buildings? Response: Assuming ten feet floor-to-ceiling, and with floor construction, we estimate a height of 35 feet to the top of the third floor. For the seven units with the fourth floor option, the total height could be 45 feet. The fourth floor is designed to be stepped back from the third floor. 10. How does this compare to Park View Apartments, the apartments to the north? Response: Park View Apartments is a three story building with about 30 feet to the top of the third floor living area. Then, when combined with the pitched roof, the height is comparable to the three story component of our building. Along our north property line, facing Park Lane Apartments, only the eastern-most unit would be eligible for the fourth story. The other five would be held to three stories per the access requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority. 11. So the access to the garages is from the alley? Response: Yes, that’s correct. 12. What are the changes to the on-street parking along Olive Street? Response: We plan on removing the six existing head-in parking spaces. In this area, we would install landscaping. Then, along the curb, we would provide on-street diagonal parking consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. And we would remove the existing driveway for the former drive-through feature along Mathews. Combined, these two improvements add 13 spaces for a net gain of seven public parking spaces. The City Parking Services Director has requested that two of these be handicapped accessible and one be devoted to a bike rack. 13. What is the building setback along the alley? Response: Five feet. 162 14. Do you still plan on leasing parking spaces in the City-owned lot across the street? Response: No, there is no need to lease public parking spaces in the parking lot across the street. By providing two garage spaces per unit, we comply with meeting the minimum parking requirements even if all 12 units feature three bedrooms. 15. What about the existing trees? Would these trees be retained? Response: We intend to protect these trees. These trees are on public right-of-way and are under the jurisdiction of the City Forester so they are not our trees. 16. Are you planning on respecting the historic character of the area? Nearby there is the historic Carnegie Library and the Webster House. Response: Yes, we are aware of the historic character in the area. We plan on using brick as our primary material. 17. Will you be going to the Landmark Preservation Commission? Response: Yes, we will participate in L.P.C.’s complimentary review process. 18. What is the front of the building? Response: As a corner lot, we have the option of selecting the front of the building. In this case, we are likely to select Mathews Street as the front. This will make the alley the rear, the north side the interior side lot line and Olive Street the corner side lot line. 19. Will the rear elevation look like the front? Response: Yes. 20. You mentioned that P.F.A. (Poudre Fire Authority) has concerns about the fourth floor? Response: Yes, P.F.A. is able to stage their equipment for fighting the fire and conducting rescues along Olive and Mathews Streets. These streets are wide enough to be able to set the outriggers for the extension ladders to get to the fourth floors. But, they cannot use the driveway for this purpose because it is not wide enough. So, since the five units along the north property line are out of access, they cannot have a habitable structure on the fourth floor. As an option, they may have a roof top deck and pergola but no enclosed living space. 21. So the alley is not needed for fire access? Response: That is correct. 163 22. I would like to see your building blend in with the existing character of the neighborhood. The white trim looks out of place. Response: We agree. The white trim is a simply a placeholder and will not be used. 23. So the first floor is really just a small entry and a two-car garage? Response: Yes, it will act as a foyer with a bathroom, hall closet and access to the garage and upstairs. 24. Will you be providing quality exterior materials all the way around the building? I’m particularly concerned about the north elevation. Response: We plan on using comparable materials all the way around the building. 25. What are the allowable hours and days of construction? Response: Per Chapter 20-25 of the City Code, construction is allowed to take place during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. seven days per week. 26. What is your estimated timeframe for construction and completion? Response: We are assuming a four to six month process for the City’s design review process and public hearings. Then, we would like to have six pre-sold units. Then we would begin construction on both buildings which could take up to nine months to complete. 27. Have you considered de-construction versus demolition? Response: Yes we have had discussion with de-construction contractors. For example, we are intending to save the exterior stone. 28. How old is the building? Response: We do not think this is the first building on the site. This particular building we estimate to have been constructed in the early 1960’s. 29. The proposed building looks large for the site? Response: Yes, it’s a sizable building but please note that the existing building covers the entire lot and contains about 12,000 square feet. The last project that was approved for condominiums in 2008 was about 29,000 square feet. So we are larger than the existing and just a bit smaller than the previously approved, but never constructed, building. 164 30. Will the front doors be A.D.A. accessible? Response: Yes. 31. How could you deconstruct the building without trespassing onto the property to the north? Response: We may have to pull the wall down from our side of the property line. 32. I am very concerned that you design not detract from the attractive Tudor-style View Lane Apartments and the historic Carnegie Library. I encourage you to be sensitive to these structures and pull design features or materials or colors from these buildings in order to blend into the character of the neighborhood. Response: Thank you for these comments. We are attempting to be sensitive to these buildings. 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 allowed to accumulate so as to cause a nuisance as regulated by Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, chapter 15 Coops & enclosures must be kept sanitary and be cleaned on a regular basis to avoid pests and odors. An enclosure is unclean when it contains more than one day's elimination of each animal enclosed therein. Fecal waste placed in closed flytight containers, every 3 to 7 days. Code Enforce. Officer may order more frequent removal. Maintained in a sanitary condition that does not allow flies to breed or cause an odor offensive to an adjacent residence or business; and Waste is regulated in nuisance sections of the Municipal Code, dogs, cats, and goats must be vaccinated for rabies Neighborhood Notification Multifamily, commercial, and mobile home zone districts: letter of approval from neighborhoo d association. To exceed occupancy requires a permit: includes neighbor notification & pre- inspection approval. When more than 1 acre and want more than 12 chickens, notify abutting property owners 59 and an additional 100 sq ft for each addtl animal Enclosures shall be no closer than 15 ft to a side or rear lot line. Coops shall meet min. structure setback requirement. Pens and corrals shall be located at least 30 ft from all property boundaries. Enclosures shall be located so that they are located at the rear area (backyard) of the property. Enclosures shall be a minimum of two hundred (200) square feet per small animal. No enclosure may be closer than 15 ft to a structure on an abutting zone lot containing a dwelling or on the same lot not containing the keeper. On any residential zone lot, the animals shall be maintained in the rear 50% of the Zone Lot Depth. An enclosure is overcrowde d unless its area is at least the square of the following sum for each animal confined therein: the sum of the length of the animal in inches (tip of nose to base of tail) plus six inches. All buildings and corrals must be constructed at least fifty five feet (55') from the building envelope of the adjoining lot. An enclosure used to keep ten+ small animals must be located at least 50 ft from an adjacent residence. An enclosure for livestock must be at least 100 ft from adjoining property and at least 50 feet from a house. Mini Livestock: up to 2: 10 ft, up to 6: 50 ft, 6+ 100 ft. 2 or more fowl: 50 ft. Enclosure at least 15 ft from any residence, not including owner’s home. Any walkway, street, park, etc, that is less than 150 ft away shall be protected by a six foot hedgerow, partition, fence. Structures housing domestic fowl must be located at least 10 feet away from any residential structure on an adjacent lot. 58 residence. Allowed on lots over 20,000 sqft. 10,000 sqft per animal and enclosures must be 50 ft from closest structure. ½ acre per horse. No standards for other animals. Miniature Livestock & Goats Minimum square feet based on horse equivalents. No permit. No less than 2 goats, no more than 3. No bucks. 200 sq ft/goat. Only allowed in single family or duplexes. 2 per lot, & min of 130 sq ft/goat. Must be maintained in rear 50% of lot in or next to a residential zone. Can increase #’s with a zoning permit. ½ acre per animal (see above). (See above…) 1-2 must be located at least 10 ft from adjacent home. 2-6 must be 50 ft. 6+ must be 100 ft. Males must be neutered. 3 or less chickens, ducks, doves, pigeons, pygmy goats, or rabbits per lot as a use by right. 3 small animals per lot; 20,000 sqft = 4 small animals; each addt 5,000 sqft = 1 animal. Goats must be mini, dehorned and neutered. Allowed in all zone districts. 2 per lot, must be maintained in rear 50% in or adjacent to a residential zone. Annual license. Chickens & Roosters Does not set a maximum number, but does define structure requirements. 5 hens/lot as a use by right; can increase with a permit, in all zone districts except 3 No Roosters. Up to 8 chickens/duck s combined per lot. 16 sq feet per chicken. Use by right. Up to 50 fowl per acre in residential districts. Crowing is prohibited. Enclosures for fowl must have 4 sqft per bird, and residents should not exceed more than 10 fowl. An enclosure for 2 or more fowl must be 50 ft from a neighbor. (See above) Up to 8 fowl. In comm. gardens or urban farms over 10,000 sqft, 1 addt fowl per 1,000 sq ft. No Roosters. Up to 6 hens per lot, 2 sq ft per hen. Requires permit. 57 along with greenhouses and hoop houses. However, building height and lot coverage are limited (Cleveland Zoning Code Title 7, Chapter 336). Most recently, in January of 2011, the city amended the code to permit hoop houses and to permit the construction of Growing Power’s vertical farm. (a) Setback: Buildings shall be set back from property lines a distance of five (5) feet (b) Height: No building or other structure shall be greater than twenty five (25) feet in height (c) Building Coverage: The combined area of all buildings, excluding hoophouses, shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of site area. Asheville, under rules passed by City Council in September, will no longer require building permits for temporary structures like hoop houses, greenhouse variations that help shield plants from extreme weather. Permitting regulations also were eased for larger, more permanent structures for growing food. Original proposal allowed hoop houses to be 12 ft tall with a max. area of 1,000 sqft or 15% of the lot area, whichever is greater, could only stand for 180 days. Due to residential concerns surrounding visibility, caps at 6’6 are proposed (head room). Community gardens would be allowed to stay at the 12 ft height. Agricultural policies and land use regulations are currently under review for changes to encourage agricultural uses of various types and sizes, including building code issues dealing with farm stands, worker housing and “hoop houses.” *Boston Study: http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/PlanningPublications/Urban%20Agriculture%20MEMO_Growing%20Produce%203.1.12.pdf Generally farm structures are classified as accessory uses and must either comply with underlying zoning requirements for accessory buildings (Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis) alternatively, the zoning establishes specific requirements for urban farm‐related buildings with setback, height and area restrictions (Chicago, Cleveland, Seattle). A few cities, such as Baltimore, do not have dimensional requirements for farm structures. Minneapolis specifically states that outdoor growing associated with market gardens and urban farms shall be exempt from enclosed building requirements. Lot Coverage: Most cities restrict the total area of accessory buildings to 10 – 25% of the site. Cleveland excludes greenhouses and hoophouses from this combined areas percentage. On the other hand, Baltimore sets no limits on either the number or square footage of accessory structures. Chicago provides for either 10% of the site area or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. Minneapolis has a similar provision for 15% of lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. Height: Baltimore and Cleveland have height restrictions of 25 feet. No other city sites a height restriction. Setbacks: Baltimore, Cleveland, Kansas City, and Minneapolis have setbacks ranging from 3 to 10 feet from the property line for accessory structures. Other structures: Cleveland explicitly enumerates the accessory uses and structures permitted in an Urban Garden District: greenhouses, hoophouses, etc… 53 significant potential for migration of pollutants or contaminated water to the City’s storm drainage facilities” which includes water bodies. 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: • September 2013 o Email update to the urban agriculture list serve (365 subscribers) announcing the project and soliciting participants in the focus groups. o Farm Animals Focus Group held with representatives from Colorado State University, Homeowners Associations, interested citizens, and numerous City departments, including Planning, Neighborhood Services, Natural Areas and Economic Health. 46 r S ar a t o ga C i r Intrepid Dr Dewey Dr Snow don Dr O gde n C t Johns Ln Hillview Ct La Eda L n Hutch inson Dr Midway Dr Nimitz Dr Paradise L n Apple Dr Hancock Dr Sedgwi ck D r T h omps o n Dr Scenic Dr Hill d ale Ct C larendon Hill s Dr Holy o ke Ct Forrestal Dr Fort Morgan Dr Plateau Ct R eeves Dr S Shields St W Trilby Rd S Shields St S County Road 19 S Taft Hill Rd Wild Flower Springs Seven Ranch RRiedggisetry Clarendon Hills Fossil Creek Estates Scenic Knolls Midway Fossil Crest Mountain Valley Acres Applewood Estates Printed: January 29, 2014 SW Annexation Phase 4 Inside Sign District Parcels Southwest Enclave Attachment Annexation 5 - Phase Four Residential Neighborhood Sign District 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Scale 1:15,840 © 39 Flower Wild Rd F o x Hills D r S ar a t o ga C i r Intrepid Dr De wey Dr Snowdon Dr O gde n C t Ln Johns Hillview Ct La Eda L n Hutchinson Dr Midway Dr Nimitz Dr Paradise L n Apple Dr Hancock Dr Sedgwick D r T h omps o n Dr Scenic Dr Hill d ale Ct C larendon Hill s Dr Holy o ke Ct Forrestal Dr Fort Morgan Dr Plateau Ct R eeves Dr S Shields St W Trilby Rd S Shields St S County Road 19 S Taft Hill Rd !C !A !B !D !E POL UE UE POL RUL Printed: January 29, 2014 SW Annexation Phase 4 Parcels Public Open Lands (POL) Rural Lands District (RUL) Urban Estate (UE) Southwest Enclave Attachment Annexation 4 - Phase Four Proposed Zoning 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Scale 1:15,840 © 38 UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of the by any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or may not be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. 37 r S ar a t o ga C i r Intrepid Dr Dewey Dr Snow don Dr O gde n C t Johns Ln Hillview Ct La Eda L n Hutch inson Dr Midway Dr Nimitz Dr Paradise L n Apple Dr Hancock Dr Sedgwi ck D r T h omps o n Dr Scenic Dr Hill d ale Ct C larendon Hill s Dr Holy o ke Ct Forrestal Dr Fort Morgan Dr Plateau Ct R eeves Dr COLINA NATUMRAARLIPOSA AREA CATHY PRAFIRROIEMME NATURAL AREA HAZALEUS NATURAL AREA NATURAL COYOTE RIDGE AREA FORMER (FARMCATHY FRANZ FROMME PRAIRIE NA) S Shields St W Trilby Rd S Shields St S County Road 19 S Taft Hill Rd Flower Wild HAemrsehnded MRD Springs Seven Ranch RRiedggisetry Clarendon Hills Fossil Creek Estates Kapperman Scheel MRD Scenic Knolls Midway Fossil Crest Mountain Valley Acres Applewood Estates Printed: January 29, 2014 SW Annexation Phase 4 City of Fort Collins Natural Area Parcels Southwest Enclave Attachment Annexation 2 - Phase Four Subdivisions & Natural Areas 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Scale 1:15,840 © 36 oo d land Way Prichett Ct Solar Ct Co n e j os Rd Pa r kway Cir W E Saturn Dr S had y Bend Dr Corsica Dr Highca s tl e D r R oma Vall e y D r Park w a y Ci r N Horne t D r Whale r s Way Mcgraw Dr St r asburg D r Truxtun Dr Tria n gl e Dr Ve n t u ri Ln L a rkb u ntin g Dr C lar e ndon H ill s Dr Vivian St Venus A ve Milky Way W T r outman Pkwy F o ssil C t E Bear Creek Dr Crooke d Arr o w Ln Saddle Notch Dr S tarflower Dr W i dgeon St Uranus St W Skyway Dr H illdale D r Deer Cre e k Ln Green v a le Dr Mea d ow R u n Dr Hogan Dr Egyptian Dr Nimitz Dr M a r i p o s a C t P e yton Dr Tr a il Vie w Ln Hancock Dr Y u ma C t La n gda l e Dr Hilbur n Dr Sea Wolf Ct Crest Rd E g y pti a n C t Chery l en S t Coral Sea Ct W e st b rooke Ct P r ovinc Rd e W e st b u r y Dr Red Ct Tail S ene ca St P a rlia m ent Ct L yf k a St F o x H i lls Dr Mil l Cr e ek C t Picard Ln Kyle Ave B r i n n C t Bordeaux Dr Bentley Pl Vi s ta Dr G al a xy W a y Al e xa C t Orbit Way St oney Bro o k Rd Ede n Rid g e Ln Ag a te Ct H ill d ale Ct Quaki n g Aspe n Dr Paradis e Ln Ashford Ct Towhee St C oyo t e T rail D r N i c k laus Ct Pitner Dr Gary Dr A p pl e Blosso Ln m Vivian Ct I d a lia C t Saturn W Dr M ilan T e rra c e Dr O g d e n C t Johns Ln P i c adil l y D r Id a lia Dr Hi l lview Ct S a wgr a s s C t W Ln Fairway Cra i g D r Fo s sil Cre s t Dr O a krid g e Dr Janse n D r G r eenway Dr Wes t bro o k e D r W oodrow Dr P o rt n er Rd G riffith Dr St o v e r St Prairie St Sain t Mi c haels D r C e d ar g ate D r Mer c u ry Dr Blue Mountain D r R ama h Dr H eat h e r Gl e n L n Aran St Palmer Dr Boardwal k D r Dunne Dr Fromme Prairie Way A shford Ln Enterpr i se Dr Jona t h a n Ct Midway Dr W o o d e d C reek Ct Kim Dr P lea s ant Hill L n H um m ingbird D r Pavilion Ln Victoria Dr Frontage Rd Fairway Ln Marig o l d L n Bl u estem Ct A u tumn R i d g e D r Flagler R d Fossil Blvd S a n J u a n Dr Holy o ke Ct O v e rlook Dr Fossil Creek Dr W e s t s h o r e W a y Au b u r n D r Warbler Dr P y re n e e s Dr P a r k w ay Cir E Mathe s on Dr Hinsd a le Dr Ro l ling Gate Rd Colb y S t A vondale Rd A bb e y R d S t ar w a y St Mc g ra w C ir Player Dr Bell e v i ew Dr Derr y Dr B e a ve r Cr e e k Dr Lookout Ln B ueno Dr Apple Dr C o nstellation Dr Snead Dr P o laris Dr Mail Creek Ln Kent Ave Sedgwick D r C h ippendale Dr Scenic Dr Lynn Dr Ta n ager St Ma r s D r N e pt u n e D r N a pa Vall e y D r Thomp s on Dr Goshawk Dr Fort Morgan Dr A l exa W ay W hippe n y Dr Plateau Ct Foss i l R idge Dr Ro c helle Ci r Fossil Cr e ek P k wy Regenc y Dr H e p plewhite Ct Brixton Rd Silvergat e Rd R a n ger Dr Le a hy D r H u n ting t on H ills D r La Ed a Ln Wa k e r obi n Ln Forrestal Dr Reeve s Dr B o n H o m m e Richard Dr W Harmony Rd John F Ke n nedy P k wy S Mason St E Trilby Rd S Shields St S Shields St E Troutm a n Pk w y W Trilby Rd W Trilby Rd S College Ave S County Road 19 S Taft Hill Rd S Taft Hill Rd B oar d wa l k D r E Harm on y Rd ³I Phase 20144 Phase 20144 Phase 20072 Phase 20061 Phase 20103 Phase 20103 Phase 20103 Wild Flower SSkyovuitehw HeTirgihlbtsy Estates Ader Scenic Knolls Skyview Fossil Creek Meadows Midway EBsrotaotkewsood Fossil Crest Lynn Acres Mountain Valley Acres Applewood Estates Southwest Attachment Enclave Annexation 1 Sequence of Four Phases Printed: January 29, 2014 Growth Management Area Proposed GMA Adjustment City Limits Parcels Annexation Phase 1 - 2006 (Complete) 2 - 2007 (Complete) 3 - 2010 (Complete) 4 - 2014 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Scale 1:24,000 © 35 Plan beginning in 2004 and is served by a full range of urban services. 33