No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 September 10, 2015 Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing September 10, 2015 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. P & Z Hearing Draft August 13, 2015, Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the August 13, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Serious Texas Barbeque Major Amendment at Timberline Center, FDP150017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Major Amendment to develop Lot 1 of the approved Timberline Center PUD, to construct a new one story, 3,096 square foot Serious Texas Barbeque sit-down restaurant with a covered outdoor seating area. Vehicular access will be via an existing private drive along the west portion of the property. The property is located at 2001 South Timberline Road and is in the (I) Industrial zone district. APPLICANT: Dan Bernth 1401 Riverside Avenue, Suite A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Planning and Zoning Board Agenda 11 City of Fort Collins Page 2 3. Houska Rezoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to rezone one parcel of land, 1005 Riverside Drive, near the southwest corner of the intersection Riverside Drive and Lemay Avenue. Existing zoning is N-C, Neighborhood Commercial District. The proposed designation is C-L, Limited Commercial District. The parcel comprises 2.5 acres. Access and orientation is onto Riverside Drive. APPLICANT: Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue Fort Collins, CO, 80521 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. Fort Collins Hotel - Project Development Plan #150008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a 117,665 square foot, 5-story mixed-use hotel with 162 rooms, a restaurant, two bars, and 3,541 square feet of conference space. Parking is proposed in a 106 space, surface parking lot at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The project is requesting five Modifications of Standards (relating to parking and building height) and one Alternative Compliance (relating to bicycle parking spaces). APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan, Bohemian Companies 262 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins CO, 80524 5. Village On Redwood PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Project Development Plan (PDP) would create 72 new units of affordable housing on an undeveloped 9.6-acre parcel on Redwood Street, 600 feet north of Conifer Street between Conifer and Willox Lane. 36 units are 2-story townhomes with ground floor entrances, in 6-plex and 3-plex buildings. 36 units are apartments in three 2-story buildings and one three-story building. A Modification of a standard is requested to a Land Use Code standard that would require residences to be placed directly in relation to street sidewalks. The project includes one apartment building with 15,900 square feet of floor area that requires a Modification of a standard that would limit the building to 14,000 square feet. The project creates a new City Natural Area by transferring ownership of an existing pond to the City Natural Areas Department, and provides landscaping, appropriate lighting, a community clubhouse, a central green and playground, a walking path, garden, and dog run. APPLICANT: Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 22 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT P & Z Hearing Draft August 13, 2015, Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the August 13, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft August 13, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC) 33 Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing August 13, 2015 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs and Schneider Absent: Kirkpatrick Staff Present: Gloss, Leeson, Eckman, Yatabe, Wilkinson, Shepard, Schmidt, Burnett, Shepard, Holland, Wray, Frickey, Kimple and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair 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 judgment of 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. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 44 Planning & Zoning Board August 13, 2015 Page 2 Planning Manager Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated his concern with the conditioning of use of a development after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. He contended that many of these conditions cannot be enforced; therefore, such conditions should not be adopted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from July 9, 2015, P&Z Hearing 2. East Ridge Amended Overall Development Plan 3. PDOD Pilot 6-Month Extension 4. Salud Family Health Center Rezoning – REZ150002 Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the August 13, 2015, Consent agenda, including the draft minutes from the July 9, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing, East Ridge Amended Overall Development Plan, and the PDOD Pilot 6-month Extension. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hansen will not participate in this vote, as he has a conflict of interest on the Salud Rezoning. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the remaining Consent item, the Salud Family Health Center Rezoning REZ150002. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 5:0. Discussion Agenda: 5. Land Use Code Revisions – Items related to siting and regulating homeless shelters and seasonal overflow shelters Project: Land Use Code Revisions – Items related to siting and regulating homeless shelters and seasonal overflow shelters Project Description: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding a variety of Land Use Code (LUC) revisions that address the siting and regulation of Homeless Shelters and Seasonal Overflow Shelters. Recommendation: Approval 55 Planning & Zoning Board August 13, 2015 Page 3 Staff and Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard made a brief presentation of this item, specifying how each of the primary definitions (“homeless” and “seasonal overflow”) should be interpreted. Public Input Guy Mendt, 460 Linden Center Drive, is the Director for Catholic Charities in Larimer County and operates the Mission Shelter along with other offsite winter shelters for the past 2 years. He commented on the professional staff and management of these shelters and the fact that there has been minimal neighborhood impact and feedback. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hobbs thanked staff for their work on this item; he feels the overall situation has improved greatly, and he recognizes what an important service it is. Chair Carpenter agreed and thanked staff for getting this item resolved in a timely manner. Member Hart asked to clarify what would be specifically amended in the LUC. Chief Planner Shepard detailed which section would be amended. Deputy City Attorney Eckman recommended adoption of the proposed Ordinance Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the ordinances to the Land Use Code detailed in attachment 6 of the packet that address the siting and regulation of homeless shelters and seasonal overflow shelters. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Other Business Addition of Permitted Use – City Council Process Options Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief description of this topic, stating that a specific process had not been solidified for evaluation of a development plan associated with an APU. Legal and Planning Staff have developed 2 options: • Option A is a draft ordinance where City Council would review the APU as a separate action, conditioning its approval on the successful approval of a development plan by the P&Z Board. The City Council would hear potential appeals of a P&Z Board decision on development plans. • Option B is a consolidated process whereby the P&Z Board would review both the APU and the development plans but would not take action; rather it would be a recommendation to City Council, who would then evaluate both applications at a public hearing and make a decision. There would be no appeal process at that point. 66 Planning & Zoning Board August 13, 2015 Page 4 Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hobbs clarified that this process has been characterized as “spot” rezoning; he asked whether, in a rezoning situation, if an Overall Development Plan (ODP) is also linked to the APU and if it would also go straight to City Council as a linked issue. Planning Manager Gloss responded by saying that, typically, an ODP would seldom be coupled with an APU. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the code currently allows this to occur, although Option B has excluded final plans. Public Input Kathryn Dubiel, 2936 Eindborough Drive, has a concern with the two options being offered for the APU process. She does not feel either option represents the citizen concerns that have been brought up in the past. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, also has concerns with the APU options. He discussed the language of “prohibited uses” and “detrimental to public good”, stating he does not believe that the standard will impact future citizen participation. Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, stated his concern about the APU criteria, not the process. He acknowledged that the hearing process is of vital importance. He also believes the current process is biased against citizens; he would like to see citizens given more time for presentations and rebuttals. Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns Planning Manager Gloss responded to the citizen concerns by saying the P&Z Board could consider some of the citizen suggestions. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Schneider stated his disappointment that this process has been ongoing with no acceptable resolution; he is more in favor of Option B, but would like to see more time spent developing this process overall. Member Heinz agreed and is in favor of continuing the discussion. Planning Manager Gloss confirmed that, while City Council is scheduled to review the P&Z Board recommendation on September 1st, this item could still be continued to a later date. Member Hart suggested that one of the options could be recommended with work continuing on the process. He explained the use of “detrimental to the public good”, and he suggested that a future process could allow citizens to respond to Staff. He prefers Option B, but acknowledged that he is not truly satisfied with either option at this time. Member Hobbs stated the positive aspects of allowing citizen time for rebuttals as well as the drawbacks (having large citizen groups requiring extensive amounts of time). He also suggested the possibility of having a different process for APU submittals. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that the P&Z Chair can run each meeting and grant citizen and applicant time to speak as needed. More discussion continued among Board members. Member Hart suggested that this process be reviewed at a future work session. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified both options and then stated that the P&Z Board can make any recommendation to City Council they wish, including no recommendation at all. Member Heinz suggested that a rebuttal period for citizens be added to the APU process as well. Chair Carpenter suggested that the Board select one of the options and allow City Council to modify it as necessary. The Board is concerned that there is a moratorium currently in effect, so passing one of these options would at least lift the moratorium at present. 77 Planning & Zoning Board August 13, 2015 Page 5 Member Hart motioned that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve Option B, Ordinance No. 080, 2015, relating to amending Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code, pertaining to the Addition of Permitted Uses in eight zone districts. Member Schneider seconded. Chair Carpenter added a friendly amendment to this motion that City Council gets the minutes from the P&Z hearing to provide background for this recommendation. In addition, Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified that “final plans” will be removed from Option B. Member Hart amended his motion to reflect these amendments. Member Schneider restated his reservations with this recommendation. Member Hobbs cannot support this motion, because both options appear to be narrowing the options for the community, and they reduce the citizen options for appealing decisions. He stated that he would prefer to keep the APU process status quo. Member Hart agrees, but he would still like to move the process forward. He feels that the APU has been an effective tool in the past with very few times being overturned. Member Hansen will not support either recommendation; he feels the long-term ramifications of putting either of these options in place would overshadow the current issue of causing project delays. Member Schneider clarified that the process of the hearing is separate from this ordinance; therefore, he questioned whether both should be considered simultaneously. Member Heinz will somewhat support Option B, with the idea that further work will be performed in the future. Chair Carpenter will support the motion because City Council requested the P&Z Board to choose among these options and will trust City Council’s final decision. Vote: 4:2, with Member Hansen and Member Hobbs opposed. Special Recognition: Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief account of the 35-year career of Deputy City Attorney Eckman, as this is his final hearing before he retires at the end of August. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 88 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE MAJOR AMENDMENT AT TIMBERLINE CENTER, FDP150017 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Major Amendment to develop Lot 1 of the approved Timberline Center PUD, to construct a new one story, 3,096 square foot Serious Texas Barbeque sit-down restaurant with a covered outdoor seating area. Vehicular access will be via an existing private drive along the west portion of the property. The property is located at 2001 South Timberline Road and is in the (I) Industrial zone district. APPLICANT: Dan Bernth 1401 Riverside Avenue, Suite A Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Doberstein Lemburg Commercial 1401 Riverside Avenue, Suite A Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The approval of the Serious Texas Barbeque Major Amendment complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Major Amendment complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration, which includes a waiver of the required neighborhood meeting. • The Major Amendment complies with the relevant Industrial District standards in Division 4.28 of the Land Use Code. • The Modification of Standard to LUC Section 3.2.2(L)(1) requesting a decrease in the size of standard parking spaces meets the requirements of Division 2.8 and is not detrimental to the public good. • The Major Amendment complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards, with one Modification of Standard proposed. 99 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Industrial (I) Timberline Star property, currently unplatted South Industrial (I) Remainder of the Timberline Center, with a recently approved Big O Tires store adjacent to the south East Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) and Industrial (I) Bucking Horse neighborhood West Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Timberline Star property, currently unplatted • The property was annexed in August 1993 as part of the Timberline Annexation. 1010 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 • The subject property is Lot One of the Timberline Center Final Plan, originally approved in 2006 as Building N, 4,600 square feet, Minor Vehicle Repair (please see attachment for approved plan configuration). Some of the other lots associated with the original plans have been amended, with a Big O Tire approved on Lot 2 (Building M) adjacent to the south, and the Ascent Studio climbing and fitness gym under review on Lots 12 and 13 to the southwest (a reconfiguration of Buildings A and E). 2. Compliance with Applicable Industrial District Standards: The project complies with all applicable Industrial standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section 4.28(B)(3)(a)(3) - Permitted Uses Restaurants are a permitted principal use in the Industrial District, if located within a Convenience Shopping Center, subject to a Type 2 Planning and Zoning Board review. The project proposes a reconfiguration of the Convenience Shopping Center boundary originally approved for the Timberline Center, which is a Major Amendment to the approved plans. Convenience Shopping Center is defined in LUC Article 5 (underlined for emphasis): Convenience shopping center shall mean a shopping and service center situated on seven (7) or fewer acres with four (4) or more business establishments with separate exterior entrances, located in a complex which is planned, developed and managed as a single unit, and located within and intended to primarily serve the consumer demands of adjacent employment areas. The principal uses permitted include retail stores; business services; convenience retail stores with fuel sales (possibly including an accessory one-bay automatic carwash); personal business and service shops; standard or fast food restaurants (without drive-up windows); vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance uses; liquor sales (for on- or off-premise consumption); beauty or barber shops; dry-cleaning outlets; equipment rental (not including outdoor storage); limited indoor recreational uses; pet shops; and uses of similar character. Secondary uses may include professional offices; limited banking services such as branch banks (with limited drive-up facilities) and automated teller machines; multi-family dwellings; medical offices and clinics; small animal veterinary clinics; child care centers; and elderly day care facilities. B. Section 4.28(D) - Land Use Standards The project is in compliance with these standards, which limit the maximum building height to four stories. C. Section 4.28(D) - Development Standards Typically, buildings located in the Industrial District are not required to comply with the Commercial Building Standards in LUC Section 3.5.3. This section clarifies that Standard Restaurants must comply with Section 3.5.3 if proposed in a Convenience Shopping Center within an Industrial District. Compliance with this section is met and is discussed later in the staff report. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards with the following relevant comments provided: A. Section - 3.2.1 Landscaping South Timberline Road has existing street trees at approximately 40 foot intervals in compliance with the standards of this section. 1111 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 Native and low-water-use landscaping is provided along the building foundation, in compliance with Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d) which requires that planting beds at least five feet in depth are provided along at least 50% of the building walls to the south and west. The applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance to the full tree stocking and certain aspects of the parking lot interior landscaping requirements. Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) full tree stocking requires a combination of at least 50% shade trees, evergreen trees and ornamental trees spaced at not more than 40 foot intervals along all high use and high visibility areas of the development. This tree stocking is required to be within 50 feet of the building face, in reasonable proximity in order to visually enhance and provide shade near the building envelope. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping requires that landscaped islands with canopy shade trees be evenly distributed through the project. The alternative compliance is for the two following sections which read as follows (underlined for emphasis): 3.2.1(E)(5)(b) Maximized Area of Shading. Landscaped islands shall be evenly distributed to the maximum extent feasible. At a minimum, trees shall be planted at a ratio of at least one (1) canopy shade tree per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of internal landscaped area with a landscaped surface of turf, ground cover perennials or mulched shrub plantings. 3.2.1(E)(5)(b) (c) Landscaped Islands. In addition to any pedestrian refuge areas, each landscaped island shall include one (1) or more canopy shade trees, be of length greater than eight (8) feet in its smallest dimension, include at least eighty (80) square feet of ground area per tree to allow for root aeration, and have raised concrete curbs. The applicant has provided an alternative compliance request (attached to this staff report). The interior parking lot area would require 4 canopy shade trees (one per 150 SF of interior parking landscape space), and that a shade tree be provided in the southwest parking lot island. The proposed design provides 3 canopy trees, and one island without a canopy tree, and proposes to alternatively comply by providing additional ornamental trees to the west and south along the parking lot perimeter. Staff finds this design alternative generally acceptable, given that the parking lot will be shaded by the proposed tree placement (due to the orientation of the parking lot), and the tree placement along the south and west perimeter will provide a visual transition into the property. Additionally, the project as a whole is reasonably well landscaped and provides the minimum tree stocking quantity (8 trees). B. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking The development proposal satisfies the parking requirement for the restaurant use as set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. The maximum total parking permitted is 30 spaces (10 spaces per 1,000 SF) and 28 spaces are proposed. A Modification of Standard is proposed to the parking lot minimum parking stall dimensions (discussed on subsequent pages). C. Section 3.5.3 - Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings 1. The proposed design provides a green standing seam pitched roof which is consistent with the overall theme approved for the Timberline Center. As sites are amended in the center, staff has coordinated with applicants to ensure that amended designs remain consistent with the common theme of pitched roof and color options noted on the original plans; 2. The building is oriented towards the street in conformance with the “build-to” line requirement; 3. The building form provides the required variation in massing, wall articulation, and changes in mass related to the building entrances; 1212 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 5 4. Entrances are clearly identified and articulated with an entrance awning as a sheltering element; 5. All facades are subdivided and proportioned using features such as false windows, architectural columns, integrally colored masonry and changes in texture and material; and 6. The project amends the approved plans by providing a direct walkway from South Timberline to the subject site along the north of the property. 4. Modification of Standard Request to LUC Section 3.2.2(L)(1) Parking Stall Dimensions Land Use Code Modification Criteria: “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). A. The standard: Section 3.2.2(L)(1) requires that parking spaces be a minimum of 9 feet by 17 feet unless associated with a long-term parking lot or parking structure. B. Description of the Modification: Ten parking spaces are proposed that are 8 feet by 17 feet. 1313 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 6 C. Applicant’s Justification: A Modification Request is attached with this staff report as follows: “Detention pond, internal access road, driveways and other existing features have placed physical site constraints on development of this property. Due to these extenuating circumstances we are requesting a Modification to Standard 3.3.2 (L)(2) to allow 10 compact car spaces be installed south of the proposed building. The internal access road location and existing detention pond results in a shallow lot limiting the area available for customer parking. With no ability for customers to park on the street or adjoining properties creates a unique hardship for development of this property. The five spaces proposed along the south parking area will be used for employee parking. The additional 5 spaces will be located just south of the building and will be available for customer use. We believe approval of this Modification of a Standard will increase public safety and have no detrimental effects on adjacent properties. Public safety will be increased by providing additional off street parking spaces.” D. Staff Finding for the Modification: Staff finds that this request is relatively minor given the fact that the LUC permits compact spaces that are 8 feet by 15 feet. While compact spaces are not specifically permitted with uses where parking is expected to be more frequently turned over, there should be enough spaces overall to allow customers to choose larger spaces if needed. Staff Finds that the request satisfies Criteria 2.8.2(H)(4): The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The request is nominal because the project provides 28 off-street parking spaces overall, with 64% of the parking spaces provided as standard 9x19 spaces (with adequate overhang). The project as modified continues to advance the purposes of Section 1.2.2 by encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. 5. Neighborhood Meeting As a Major Amendment, a City neighborhood meeting is typically required unless the development proposal is determined to not have significant neighborhood impact. In this case, the neighborhood meeting requirement was waived, because the anticipated impacts of the project are similar to what was originally approved. The project is situated along an arterial street that requires no significant public improvements with similar traffic patterns in comparison to the approved plan. The applicant is also providing additional sidewalks, both to the west and north, to enhance the level of service provided since these required elements were missing from the initial approval. 6. Findings of Fact When considering the Serious Texas Barbeque Major Amendment at Timberline Center FDP150017, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Major Amendment complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. 1414 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 7 B. The Major Amendment complies with the relevant Industrial District standards in Division 4.28 of the Land Use Code. C. The Modification of Standard to LUC Section 3.2.2(L)(1) requesting a decrease in the size of standard parking spaces meets the requirements of Division 2.8.2(H)(4) because the modification is not detrimental to the public good and the plan as submitted 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, because the project provides 28 off-street parking spaces overall, with 64% of the parking spaces provided as standard spaces, and the project will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 by encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. D. The Major Amendment complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard is approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of a Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(2), and approval of the Serious Texas Barbeque Major Amendment based on the Findings of Fact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site plan and details (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Overall site plan (PDF) 4. Building Elevations (PDF) 5. Building Materials (PDF) 6. Alternative Compliance Request (PDF) 7. Modification of Standard (PDF) 8. Existing Timberline Center Plan (PDF) 9. Existing Plat (PDF) 1515 SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 1616 SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 1717 VAN ACCESSIBLE RESERVED PARKING SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 1818 SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 1919 SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 2020 SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 2121 SERIOUS TEXAS BARBEQUE-MAJOR AMENDMENT 2222 Color selections are close representations but are limited by printing and viewing conditions. Actual samples are available by request. Visit www.metalsales.us.com for valuable tools and resources. COLOR GUIDE Terra Cotta (W72) Snowdrift White (W81) Linen White (81) Khaki (88) Old Town Grey (W25) Mansard Brown (133) Ocean Blue (35) Ash Grey (25) Colonial Red (W75) Regal Blue (W35) Taupe (74) Hemlock Green (M7) Classic Green (66) Weathered Copper (W50) Aged Copper (65) Sandstone (W51) Felt Green (W66) Slate Grey (W38) Tahoe Blue (W71) Brandywine (P8) Copper Penny (W92)1 Patriot Red (73) Parchment (W74) Metallic Silver (K7)1 Patina Green (W58) Dark Bronze (50) Matte Black (106) Mistique Plus (W31)1 Medium Bronze (H4) Antique Patina (M1)1 River Teal (59) Champagne Metallic (168)1 Galvalume® (41) RATED PRODUCT All Colors Meet or Exceed Steep Slope ENERGY STAR® requirements 1 An up-charge may apply PVDF (Kynar 500®) Paint System PVDF (Kynar 500®) Paint System 45 Year Paint Warranty Old Zinc Grey (W29) Standard Stocked Colors Standard Non-Stocked Colors Non-painted Finish ŏ 25 Year Warranty 2323 2424 2525 SERIOUS TEXAS BAR-B-QUE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST SECTION 3.2.1 Due to site constraints and the desire to maximize the effect of the proposed landscaping we hereby submit this Alternative Compliance Request to section 3.2.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC). The LUC requires 4 shade trees in the parking lot interior and 8 trees spaced around the building as tree stocking. As an alternative we request the approval to place the 8 required trees between the building and Timberline Road along the east side of the building. One additional shade tree will be provided at the southwest corner of the building near the entrance. Two extra ornamental trees are proposed for the interior parking lot to provide visual transition and parking lot shading. An additional ornamental tree is proposed along the west parking perimeter to replace the canopy shade tree required in the southwest island. Utility services in this island prevent the planting of this required shade tree. We believe this alternative landscaping provides a better buffer between Timberline Road and the proposed building, and between the building and adjacent land uses, than would be provided by strict adherence to the LUC. 2626 SERIOUS TEXAS BAR-B-QUE MODIFICATION OF A STANDARD SECTION 3.2.2(L)(2) Detention pond, internal access road, driveways and other existing features have placed physical site constraints on development of this property. Due to these extenuating circumstances we are requesting a Modification to Standard 3.3.2 (L)(2) to allow 10 compact car spaces be installed south of the proposed building. The internal access road location and existing detention pond results in a shallow lot limiting the area available for customer parking. With no ability for customers to park on the street or adjoining properties creates a unique hardship for development of this property. The five spaces proposed along the south parking area will be used for employee parking. The additional 5 spaces will be located just south of the building and will be available for customer use. We believe approval of this Modification of a Standard will increase public safety and have no detrimental effects on adjacent properties. Public safety will be increased by providing additional off street parking spaces. 2727 2828 2929 3030 3131 3232 3333 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME HOUSKA REZONING STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to rezone one parcel of land, 1005 Riverside Drive, near the southwest corner of the intersection Riverside Drive and Lemay Avenue. Existing zoning is N-C, Neighborhood Commercial District. The proposed designation is C-L, Limited Commercial District. The parcel comprises 2.5 acres. Access and orientation is onto Riverside Drive. APPLICANT: Linda Ripley Ripley Design Inc. 419 Canyon Avenue Fort Collins, CO, 80521 OWNER: Larry Stroud 1606 Humble Road Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Houska Rezoning #REZ150001 with the following motion: Approval of Houska Rezoning #REZ150001 to City Council based on the findings of fact. 3434 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LOCATION MAP The essential issue behind this item is the shift from the property being zoned N-C as part of the Albertson’s shopping center property grouping, to being zoned C-L as part of the Riverside corridor with its eclectic mix of service commercial and industrial uses. A number of main considerations underlie staff support for the request: • The property is not important as a potential component of this N-C district, according to the purpose and policies for N-C districts. The property is functionally disconnected from the residential neighborhood to the south and west by adjacent subdivision patterns and industrial land uses. Rather, the property is oriented to Riverside Drive, an arterial street, with little opportunity to be well-integrated into a neighborhood pattern of streets, blocks, and walkways leading to the shopping center. • The extension of C-L zoning can be compatible with existing surrounding vehicle-related uses including the rear truck loading and service area of the abutting shopping center. • Access to the property is highly constrained, and the zoning would support the feasibility of cross-access with adjacent properties in the C-L zone to the west. This rezoning request is on behalf of owners of the 3535 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 property adjacent to the west, which operates an auto repair complex and desire to expand their operation, with a shared single access point on Riverside Drive. • The rezoning would return the property to zoning that existed on the property prior to 1997. In 1997, a citywide rezoning was approved by City Council in conjunction with the new comprehensive plan known as City Plan. The subject property was included, placing it into the new Neighborhood Commercial District along with the Albertsons Shopping Center properties. • Since 1997, a number of development proposals have been brought forward under the N-C zoning, for various retail and medical office uses. None were able to proceed. The most challenging issues have centered on vehicular access limitations due to Riverside Drive constraints and ownership of adjacent shopping center property that is opposed to cross access with the shopping center. · The rezoning is consistent with the City Structure Plan map. BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION: 1. ZONING BACKGROUND Original annexation. The property was annexed in 1967 as part of the Lemay Annexation, and was zoned General Industrial, which allowed a whole range of industrial uses. Flatiron Paving Company existed on the site with a concrete batch plant that was later closed and removed. Rezoning to C-L. The property was rezoned into a newly written zoning district called the C-L, Limited Commercial District in 1991 as a follow up action of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. C-L zoning was applied to the whole south side of Riverside Drive from Lemay Avenue to Mountain Avenue. That C-L zoning district is still in place along Riverside except for the subject property. C-L zoning allows a wide range of commercial and vehicle- related uses, reflective of the eclectic mix that exists along the corridor. Rezoning to N-C. As noted previously, the subject property was rezoned to N-C, Neighborhood Commercial in conjunction with the new City Plan in 1997. The new 1997 Neighborhood Commercial District designation had been developed as a prominent topic in City Plan. It represents goals and principles for mixed-use supermarket-anchored activity centers to be walkable focal points for surrounding neighborhoods. It envisions an integrally connected pattern of streets and blocks offering access other than arterial streets. These goals and principles were translated into a new City Structure Plan map -- a diagram of long-term land use and transportation patterns within the Growth Management Area. The City Structure Plan map now serves as the primary basis for zoning decisions. The Structure Plan map Neighborhood Commercial designation was applied to the existing Albertsons shopping center, with notation as an existing center that would not necessarily be consistent with the City Plan goals and principles. In such situations, the N-C designation is considered aspirational as a guide to possible future redevelopment. 2. CITY STRUCTURE PLAN GUIDANCE FOR ZONING. As noted previously, the City Structure Plan map serves as the primary basis for zoning decisions. The map does not actually depict the subject property as part of the Neighborhood Commercial District; rather, it is depicted as part of the commercial corridor along Riverside, as it had previously been designated since original annexation and zoning. 3636 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 The 1997 City Structure Plan map was originally intended to be a somewhat general guide, with exact zoning of specific properties to be determined at the time of zoning based on detailed interpretation of City Plan policies and unique conditions on the ground. The map has since evolved to become much more parcel-specific in its depiction of the desired land use pattern. Because of the way the subject property is depicted, the rezoning request is arguably more consistent with the map than the current N-C zoning. A zoomed-in view of the City Structure Plan map is attached. 3. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North U-E, Urban Estate Railroad (across Riverside Drive) South N-C, Neighborhood Commercial Albertsons shopping center with related pad properties East N-C, Neighborhood Commercial Albertsons shopping center pad properties West C-L, Limited Commercial Houska automotive complex and other vehicle and RV storage uses 4. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST: In order for the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval of this proposal, the Board would have to find that the rezoning is: (a) consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.” The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code, which defines mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. In addition, the following subsection 2.9.4[H][3] lists additional factors that may be considered along with the mandatory requirements for this type of quasi-judicial rezoning, as follows: “In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: • whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land; • whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural environment’; and • whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.” NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: Though not required, a neighborhood meeting was held August 20; no citizens attended. 3737 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 5 5. FINDINGS OF FACT: After reviewing the Houska Rezoning, File #REZ0001, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan based on the City Structure Plan map designation, the lack of interconnectivity with surrounding neighborhoods or neighborhood commercial uses as envisioned under the current N-C zoning, and the orientation to the Riverside Drive commercial corridor. • Conditions have changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning, particularly the history of proposals to develop the property with N-C uses, which provides a body of new information regarding access constraints; and the growth of the automotive service center abutting the property, which has created the opportunity for that use to expand onto the subject property with crucial cross access. • The rezoning is compatible with existing and proposed uses, particularly the automotive center next door, the rear service area of the adjacent shopping center, existing vehicle storage uses to the south and west, and the Riverside corridor overall. • The rezoning will have no adverse effects on the natural environment because there are no wetlands, significant vegetation, habitats, or other sensitive environmental conditions on the property. • The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly pattern because it fits with the established, long-standing pattern of commercial land uses along Riverside Drive, and it creates the opportunity for coordination of an efficient auto-related service complex with shared access being a crucial consideration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Justification (PDF) 2. Zoning Existing Aerial (PDF) 3. Zoning Proposed Aerial Small (PDF) 4. City Structure Plan (JPG) 5. Land Use Code Pertinent Excerpts (DOCX) 3838 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com August 25, 2015 Rezoning Request - 1005 Riverside Avenue This is a Rezoning Request for 2.49 acres located at 1005 Riverside Avenue. The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District and received this designation in 1997 when City Plan was first adopted and the entire City was given new zoning designations as part of that broad scale planning effort. The property was and is adjacent to Riverside Shopping Center and it was logically assumed at the time that the property would ultimately be developed with retail uses and become part of the shopping center. Now eighteen years later, the property remains vacant despite numerous attempts at developing the property with neighborhood commercial uses. A variety of constraints make it difficult to develop the property:  The site is triangular shape which makes it inefficient for many uses.  The shopping center has an east facing orientation, while this site faces to the north. This makes it difficult to create any kind meaningful connection to the rest of the shopping center.  Access to the property is from Riverside Avenue, where getting adequate turning movements is difficult. Traffic continues to increase along Riverside Avenue and the right-of-way is constrained making it difficult to add a center turn lane. Houska Automotive, a local family owned business since 1952, recently expanded from its location at 899 Riverside. With the addition of the Houska Tire and Oil Service at 901 Riverside in 2013 the Houska property is now adjacent to the subject property at 1005 Riverside Avenue. Dennis Houska would like to expand his automotive center further to include a repair service and other auto- related uses on the adjacent property. Since automotive uses of this type are not allowed in the NC District, a rezoning of the property to Limited Commercial (CL) to match the other properties along Riverside Avenue is required. Houska Rezoning - Applicant Justification 3939 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com Rezoning Justification The Land Use Code outlines the procedures and criteria for rezoning: Land Use Code Section 2.9.4 -Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures (G)(2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: (a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or The change in zoning is consistent with City Plan and supported by the following Principles and Policies: Economic Health The proposed rezoning will help to create diverse jobs, and support an innovative, entrepreneurial atmosphere by allowing the expansion of an already successful automotive center. Houska Automotive is already a community leader in creating collaboration and partnerships with educational institutions and other organizations, by providing internships and training for students interested in automotive careers. They also provide Women’s Car Clinics twice a year for the general public and also offer a class through Project Self-Sufficiency, a local non- profit agency. Community and Neighborhood Livability The proposed expansion of the Houska automotive center creates a compact pattern of development; it represents quality infill development, and will add to an already attractive activity center, all conveniently located for neighborhood residents without negatively impacting them. (b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. The growth of the Houska automotive services and related uses together with the opportunity to expand and create additional compatible and related uses within a well defined, attractive center represents a change from what existed in 1997, when the dividing line between NC and CL zone districts was originally established. (3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed 4040 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100  Fort Collins, CO 80521  tel. 970.224.5828  fax 970.224.1662  www.ripleydesigninc.com amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: (a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; (b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; (c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The uses proposed for the property to be rezoned represent an expansion of auto- related uses already existing in the Houska Automotive center. Auto repair, servicing, tire sales, oil change service and auto parts sales already exist in the center. The expansion would include repair, servicing, and other auto-related uses. The rezone would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed uses would meet the City’s standards for water, storm water, and noise and air quality. There are no wetlands, significant vegetation or wildlife habitats on the property. Lastly, the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern with a variety of auto-related uses being grouped together providing operational efficiency as well as superior and convenient customer service. 4141 E NCM CL NC CCR NCL POL I RC RC NCB CG UE RDR CCR NCB NCM «¬14 Cowan St Colorado St E Myrtle St Endicott St E Laurel St Hoff m an Mill Rd Lesser Dr Frontage Rd 12th St R i v e n d a l D r Poudre River Dr Eastdale Dr Locust Ct Frontage Rd E Laurel St Pennock Pl Riverside Ave E Mulberry St S Lemay Ave Houska Zoning 1 inch = 333 feet © Site Houska Rezoning - Existing Zoning 4242 Houska Rezoning - Proposed Zoning 4343 4444 1 Houska Rezoning Land Use Code Pertinent Zoning Excerpts DIVISION 4.23 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (N-C) (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and a transit stop. The main purpose of this District is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. In addition to retail and service uses, the District may include neighborhood-oriented uses such as schools, employment, day care, parks, small civic facilities, as well as residential uses. This District is intended to function together with a surrounding Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, which in turn serves as a transition and a link to larger surrounding low density neighborhoods. The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town-like pattern of development with this District as a center and focal point; and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts. Development Standards. (1) Site Planning. (a) Overall Plan. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development plan contributes to a cohesive, continuous, visually related and functionally linked pattern within existing or approved development plans within the contiguous Neighborhood Commercial District area in terms of street and sidewalk layout, building siting and character and site design. (b) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one (1) prominent or central location within each geographically distinct Neighborhood Commercial District shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature and its amenities may be placed on blocks, with shared civic facilities. (c) Integration of the Transit Stop. Neighborhood Commercial Districts shall be considered major stops on the local transit network. Transit stop facilities, to the maximum extent feasible, shall be integrated into the design of the District, centrally located, and easily accessible for pedestrians walking to and from the surrounding neighborhoods. (See also Division 3.6 Transportation and Circulation.) (2) Block Requirements. All development shall comply with the applicable standards set forth below, unless the decision maker determines that compliance with a specific element of the standard is infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development, safety factors or a natural area or feature: 4545 2 (a) Block Structure. Each Neighborhood Commercial District and each development within this District shall be developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). (b) Block Size. All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres, except that blocks containing supermarkets shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10) acres. (c) Minimum Building Frontage. Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the total block frontage shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the N-C District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family attached dwellings. 2. Two-family dwellings. 3. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. 4. Mixed-use dwellings. 5. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than (5) tenants. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Places of worship or assembly. 2. Public and private schools, including colleges, universities, vocational and technical training. 3. Minor public facilities. 4. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. 5. Transit facilities without repair or storage. (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Standard restaurants. 2. Fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through facilities). 3. Health and membership clubs. 4. Grocery stores (occupying between five thousand [5,000] and forty-five thousand [45,000] square feet). 5. Open-air farmers markets. 6. Personal and business service shops. 7. Convenience retail stores, without fuel sales. 8. Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided that they are at least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three quarters [¾] of a mile) from any other such use and from any fueling station. 9. Offices, financial services and clinics. 10. Artisan and photography studios and galleries. 4646 3 11. Retail establishments. 12. Vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance establishments (indoor). 13. Limited indoor recreation. 14. Gasoline stations. 15. Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics. 16. Child care centers. 17. Equipment rental establishments without outdoor storage. 18. Dog day care facilities. 19. Print shops. 20. Food catering or small food product preparation. 21. Adult day/respite care centers. 22. Food truck rally. (d) Industrial Uses: 1. Workshops and custom small industry uses. 2. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems. (e) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Satellite dish antennas greater than thirty-nine (39) inches in diameter. 2. Wireless telecommunication equipment. 3. Wireless telecommunication facilities. (3) The following uses are permitted in the N-C District, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Multi-family dwellings. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Community facilities. (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Supermarkets. 2. Nightclubs. 3. Bars and taverns. 4. Entertainment facilities and theaters. 5. Drive-in restaurants (without drive-through facilities). 6. Outdoor amphitheaters. 7. Microbrewery/distillery/winery. 4747 4 DIVISION 4.24 - LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-L) (A) Purpose. The Limited Commercial District is intended for areas primarily containing existing, small commercial uses that are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Many of these areas have transitioned over time from residential to commercial uses. The District is divided into the Riverside Area as depicted in Figure 21 and all other areas. The purpose of this district is to allow small scale nonresidential uses to continue to exist or to expand while still protecting surrounding residential areas, provided that such areas have been designated under an adopted subarea plan as being appropriate for the C-L District. Riverside Area 4848 5 Permitted Uses Single-family detached dwellings BDR Two-family dwellings BDR Single-family attached dwellings BDR Any residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings that contain fifty (50) dwelling units or less, and seventy-five (75) bedrooms or less BDR Any residential use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings that contain more than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms Type 2 Group homes BDR Mixed-use dwellings Type 1 Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants BDR Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants Type 1 Fraternity and sorority houses BDR Shelters for victims of domestic violence BDR Places of worship or assembly BDR Transit facilities (without repair and storage) BDR Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the parks and recreation policy plan Type 1 4949 6 Public and private schools for college, university vocational or technical training Type 1 Minor public facilities Type 1 Neighborhood parks as defined by the parks and recreation policy plan BDR Major public facilities Type 2 Vehicle minor repair, servicing and maintenance establishments* BDR Vehicle major repair, servicing and maintenance establishments* BDR Vehicle sales, leasing and rentals with outdoor storage BDR Child care centers BDR Entertainment facilities and theaters BDR Clubs and lodges BDR Offices, financial services and clinics BDR Parking lots and garages (as a principal use) BDR Personal and business service shops BDR Plumbing, electrical and carpenter shops BDR Standard restaurants BDR Fast food restaurants (without drive-in or drive-through facilities) BDR 5050 7 Frozen food lockers BDR Retail establishments BDR Limited indoor recreation BDR Veterinarian facilities and small animal clinics BDR Veterinary hospitals BDR Dog day care facilities BDR Print shops BDR Exhibit halls BDR Adult day/respite care centers BDR Convenience retail stores without fuel sales Type 1 Convenience retail stores with fuel sales Type 1 Bars and taverns Type 1 Gasoline stations Type 1 Farm implement and heavy equipment sales Type 1 Mobile home, recreational vehicle and truck sales and leasing Type 1 Funeral homes Type 1 5151 8 Drive-in restaurants Type 1 Food catering or small food product preparation Type 1 Enclosed mini-storage facilities* Type 1 Indoor kennels Type 1 Artisan and photography studios and galleries Not permitted Bed and breakfast establishments Not permitted Grocery stores Not permitted Small scale reception centers Not permitted Animal boarding Not permitted Plant nurseries and greenhouses Not permitted Health and membership clubs Not permitted Open-air farmers markets Not permitted Lodging establishments Type 1 Microbrewery/distillery/winery Type 1 5252 9 Workshops and custom small industry uses BDR Transportation terminals (truck, container storage) BDR Warehouses* BDR Wholesale distribution BDR Light industrial uses* Not permitted Research laboratories* Not permitted Outdoor storage facilities consisting only of the storage of vehicles which are towed to the premises and temporarily stored until such vehicles are claimed by the vehicle owners or moved to an auction or junk yard or other similar disposal site, provided that such facilities are located at least thirty- five (35) feet from the flow line of all abutting arterial streets. Type 1 Medical marijuana optional premises cultivation operations Not permitted Medical marijuana-infused product manufacturers Not permitted Retail marijuana cultivation facility Not permitted Retail marijuana product manufacturing facility Not permitted Retail marijuana testing facility Not permitted Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems Type 1 5353 10 5454 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME FORT COLLINS HOTEL - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #150008 STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 APPLICANT/ OWNER: Stu MacMillan Bohemian Companies 262 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins CO, 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a 117,665 square foot, 5-story mixed-use hotel with 162 rooms, a restaurant, two bars, and 3,541 square feet of conference space. Parking is proposed in a 106 space, surface parking lot at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). Presently, a coordinated effort to construct a three-level public/private parking garage on the same lot is being pursued and may be considered in the near future. Proposed at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets (354 Walnut St.), the hotel entry and porte-cochere (pick-up and drop-off) will be on Chestnut Street. The porte-cochere will allow for hotel guests to drop-off and check-in, and other hotel functions such as valet parking. The restaurant will be on Walnut Street with an entrance from the street to ensure it does not feel like a “hotel restaurant”. To help activate the space, the hotel lounge and retail spaces will face onto Old Firehouse Alley which is proposed to be improved with pavers and Tivoli lights. All the proposed improvements in the right-of-way (ROW) require an encroachment permit through City Engineering. This project will connect Chestnut Street through to Mountain Avenue and Walnut Street with right-turn-only lanes through what is currently a sidewalk flanked with grass and trees. The intersection of Chestnut and Jefferson will be limited to right-in, right-out movement to comply with the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project. Consistent with the context of downtown, the building is not set back from the ROW and directly contributes to the urban design of the street and sidewalk. The massing along Walnut Street will be one story along the northwest side and climbs to four stories as it moves to the southeast and wraps around to Walnut Street. The building is five stories along the alley. The hotel is proposed to be constructed with multiple colors of brick, stone, ground face concrete masonry units, interlocking metal panels, and a perforated aluminum screen as an accent. 5555 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 Buildings proposed to be demolished for this project are the former Armadillo restaurant and a small garage structure on the hotel site, and the Iasis church on the parking lot site. The hotel and parking lot sites are both located in the Downtown (D) District – Old City Center Center Subdistrict and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The proposed sites are just outside the Old Town Historic District, abutting the southeast side of its boundary. Lodging establishments are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict through review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting five Modifications of Standards and one Alternative Compliance: Modifications of Standards Parking 1. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) requires the project to provide 111 parking spaces. The project is requesting to provide 106 parking spaces; 2. Section 3.2.2(J) requires the parking lot setbacks of 10 and 15 feet respectively from the ROW. The project is requesting seven and five foot setbacks; 3. Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) requires that parking lots be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks. The project is requesting to locate the parking lot at the corner of two streets (Jefferson and Chestnut); Building Height 4. Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet. The project is requesting a maximum height of five stories and 60 feet; and 5. Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. The project is requesting to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth floor. Alternative Compliance Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires the project to provide 58 bicycle parking spaces. The project is proposing an alternative plan to provide 25 bicycle parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed design is a result of a thoughtful context-sensitive approach by the developer. Although the project is outside of the Old Town Historic District, the design team utilized the Old Town Historic District Design Standards to inform the building and site design. At the time of writing this staff report, the project had twice been presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and has received very positive feedback. The project will be asking for an official recommendation at the September 9 LPC meeting – the day before the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board Hearing. A memo will be forwarded to the P&Z Board with the outcome of that meeting. The project has been through two rounds of staff review and staff finds the proposal highly compatible with the existing fabric of downtown, despite the requests for modifications. The hotel provides building articulation which emulates the historic building façade width and spacing. The proposed high quality masonry material is a cornerstone of downtown character and will contribute to the future vitality in the area. Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all standards of the land use code, with the exception of the requested modifications of standards which are considered nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. 5656 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses Northwest Downtown (D) Old City Center Subdistrict Retail and Restaurant uses on the ground level; residential and office on upper levels. Northeast River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Across Jefferson Street are industrial and office uses, and the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. Southwest Downtown (D) Old City Center Subdistrict Across Linden Street is the Mitchell Block (A.K.A. Bohemian Building) which is an office use and across Mountain Avenue is the Old Town Parking Garage and the Goodyear Tire store (which is proposed to redevelop into a mixed-use [retail & office] project). Southeast Downtown (D) Old City Center Subdistrict Across Chestnut Street are industrial, restaurant, retail uses, and the Lyric Cinema. 2. Compliance with Division 4.16 - Applicable Downtown Zone District Standards. Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel complies with the applicable standards in Division 4.16 Downtown District – Old City Center Subdistrict, with the exception of three modifications of standards, as explained below. Section 4.16 (A) Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown District is as follows: 363 Jefferson St t 354 Walnut St t 5757 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided into three (3) subdistricts as depicted on Figure 18. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian-oriented character. • Hotel as a use is specifically cited in the purpose statement for downtown. The proposed hotel provides additional uses such as restaurant, bar, and retail along the pedestrian frontage to encourage activity. Additionally, the project will improve the Old Firehouse Alley consistent with the DDA alley improvement projects around downtown to further engage pedestrians. Section 4.16(B) - Permitted Use: The proposed lodging establishment and accessory uses of restaurant, bars, and retail are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict by review from the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 1). Section 4.16(D) – Building Standards: (1) Setback from Streets. This standard requires setbacks shall be compatible with established setbacks of existing buildings on the same block face. • Existing buildings along both Walnut and Chestnut Streets have been developed with no setback from the ROW. The proposed hotel also has a zero lot line setback. (2) Building Height. (a) The maximum building height in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4) stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height. • The proposed building is five stories and 60 feet in height. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories). This standard requires the fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure 19. .Figure 19 - Fourth Story Setback 5858 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 5 • The proposed building provides a setback at a 35 degree angle at the intersection of the fourth story and the property line for a portion of the Walnut Street frontage and a portion of the Chestnut Street frontage. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (5) Building Character and Facades. This standard requires that buildings have architectural interest, encourage outdoor activity, and are constructed with high-quality materials. • The hotel is proposed to be constructed with multiple colors of brick, stone, ground face CMU, interlocking metal panels, and a perforated aluminum screen as an accent. • The hotel design encourages outdoor activity by providing a large outdoor patio on the second floor that overlooks Walnut Street and improvements to the Old Fire House Alley with pavers and Tivoli lights. Section 4.16(E) – Site Design Standards: (1) Site Design. a. Parking lots. This standard requires that parking lots not dominate the frontage of pedestrian- oriented streets and shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • The 106-space parking lot for the hotel is located at 363 Jefferson Street at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. 3. Compliance with Article Three – General Development Standards: Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel complies with the applicable General Development Standards, with the exception of two modifications of standards, as explained below. Section 3.2.1(E) – Landscape Standards: Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. • All areas of the site not paved for pedestrian and vehicular access are landscaped. • Street trees are provided along Walnut, Chestnut, and Jefferson Streets. (4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping shall provide one tree every 25 feet along public streets and every 40 feet along side lot lines. Screening shall be provided for 70% of the length of the street frontage. • The parking lot is providing a 30 inch high screen wall for 77% of the Jefferson Street frontage and one tree for every 21.5 feet of frontage. • Extra dense landscaping is being provided along the Chestnut Street frontage. (5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. Ten percent of the interior space of the parking lot is required to be landscaped. • The proposed parking lot is 36,335 square feet which requires 3,633 square feet of interior landscaping. The project is proposing 3,710 square feet of interior landscaping. 5959 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 6 Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking (C) Development Standards: (4) Bicycle Facilities. This standard requires bicycle parking space to be provided per use as follows: Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks Requirements for Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses Nonresidential Parking Requirements Restaurants a. Fast food b. Standard 1.5/1,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1/1,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0%/100% 0%/100% 5,391 s.f./1,000 = 5 spaces Bars, Taverns and Nightclubs 1/500 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0%/100% 1,480 s.f./500 = 3 spaces General Retail 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20%/80% 830 s.f./4,000 = 1 space General Office (conference space) 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20%/80% 3,541 s.f./4,000 = 1 space Lodging Establishments 1 per 4 units 60%/40% 162 units/4 = 41 spaces TOTAL 25 enclosed spaces / 26 fixed racks 51 spaces • The project is proposing to provide 20 fixed racks at the south corner of the parking lot and 5 enclosed spaces for employees at the back-of-the-house. As this does not meet the minimum requirement, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance as permitted in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(c) as follows: (c) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces that may be substituted in whole or in part for the number that would meet the standards of this Section. 1. Procedure. The alternative bicycle parking plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for bicycle parking plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purposes of this Section than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. 2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alterative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. 6060 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 7 In reviewing a request for an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces, the decision maker must consider whether the proposed land use will likely experience a lower than normal amount of bicycle traffic. Factors to be taken into consideration in making this determination may include, but need not be limited to: (i) the nature of the proposed use; (ii) its location in relation to existing or planned bicycle facilities or infrastructure; and (iii) its proximity to natural features that make the use of bicycles for access to the project infeasible. • The applicant’s alternative compliance request letter is attached, in which it states that the hotel use, as conveyed by the operator – Sage Hospitality, does not generate the amount of bicycle parking required by the code: “Through experience, the hotel operator does not see many guests travel to the hotel on bikes or with bikes and does not feel the required stall count is needed, especially for a hotel that is a destination where the majority of guests travel by car or public transit.” • In addition to requesting fewer bicycle parking spaces on the grounds that the demand is not generated by the hotel use, as noted in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(c)(2)(i) as a consideration for permitting alternative compliance, future bicycle parking will be placed in the bulb-out islands in the Walnut Street ROW via FC Bikes, the hotel may provide a bicycle check-out/rental service for their guests, and the City has asked the hotel to consider hosting a bicycle share station which is forthcoming to Fort Collins. • The stated purpose of this section is “to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas.” The proposed amount of bike parking is less than the minimum requirement but the hotel operator informs us that, due to (i) the nature of the proposed use, the hotel will not generate a bicycle parking demand as great as the minimum requirement. The additional bicycle amenities, both proposed and considered, will provide a greater amount of options and more dispersed locations for bike parking. This proposed scenario will allow cyclists to park closer to their locations with less sidewalk crossings and thus decrease the amount of conflict with pedestrians and automobiles. Therefore, the proposed alternative compliance accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater “safety, efficiency and convenience”. (J) Setbacks. The standard requires parking lots to be setback as follows: Minimum Average of Entire Landscaped Setback Area (feet) Minimum Width of Setback at Any Point (feet) Along an arterial street 15 5 Along a non-arterial street 10 5 Along a lot line * 5 5 • The project is proposing a five foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Street ROW instead of the required 15 feet, and a seven foot setback along Chestnut Street instead of the required 10 feet. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (K) Parking Lots – Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use. 6161 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 8 (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements. This standard requires a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces per use as shown in the following chart: Use Minimum Parking Spaces Maximum Parking Spaces Minimum Requirements for Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses Restaurants a. Fast Food b. Standard 7/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. 5,391 s.f./1,000(*5) = 27 spaces Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. 1,480 s.f./1,000(*5) = 7 spaces General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. 830 s.f./1,000(*2) = 2 spaces General Office (conference) 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. 3,541 s.f./1,000(*1) = 4 spaces Lodging Establishments 0.5/unit 1/unit 162 units*(0.5) = 81 spaces TOTAL 121 spaces Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(c) permits an exemption in the TOD Overlay Zone of 25% of 5,000 square feet (distributed proportionally among uses). Below is the breakdown of the permitted reduction in parking: Use Percentage of Overall Square Footage Applied to 5,000 S.F. Exemption Minimum Requirements with TOD Reduction per Use Restaurants 7.96% (*5,000) = 398 s.f. 5,391 s.f. – 398 s.f. = 4,993 s.f. /1,000(*5) = 25 spaces Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 1.23% (*5,000) = 62 s.f. 1,480 s.f. – 62 s.f. = 1,418 s.f. /1,000(*5) = 7 spaces General Retail 2.18% (*5,000) = 109 s.f. 830 s.f. - 109 s.f. = 721 s.f. /1,000(*2) = 1 spaces General Office (conference) 5.23% (*5,000) = 262 s.f. 3,541 s.f. – 262 s.f. = 3,279 s.f. /1,000(*1) = 3 spaces Lodging Establishments 83.40% (*5,000) = 4,170 s.f. 4,170 s.f. / 345 s.f. (ave. room s.f.) = 12 units 162 units – 12 units = 150 units *(0.5) = 75 spaces TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT 111 spaces • The project is proposing 106 parking spaces in the parking lot where 111 parking spaces are required. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 9 Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 (F)(6) states: “In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district.” • The Landmark Preservation Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on this project at its September 9 meeting. A memo will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board with findings and recommendation prior to the beginning of the hearing on September 10. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility: Standards in this Section require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. Where the established character of the relevant area is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, projects must set an enhanced standard appropriate for the area. • The proposed hotel is larger than the typical building downtown. However, the design is made to emulate the rhythm and spacing of storefronts found in downtown’s historic frontages. The Walnut Street facade is one-story in height for approximately 2/3 of the frontage and modulates into historic proportions as seen in the downtown context. The larger massing of four and five stories is stepped back toward the alley side effectively establishing a human-scale sidewalk experience. The applicant’s modification request for height provides an exhibit that clearly outlines how the proposed building’s massing is compatible with the existing context. 4. Compliance with Modification of Standards (Division 2.8) The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4. In order to grant a modification of standard, the decision maker must find that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness 6363 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 10 or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Parking Modifications Modification Request – Section 3.2.2(K)(1) 1. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires the project to provide 111 parking spaces; the project is requesting to provide 106 parking spaces. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). Providing 106 parking spaces of the required 111 parking spaces provides 96% of the required spaces. • Additionally, the hotel operator’s experience is that the proposed hotel can expect 35 – 57 vehicles per night by virtue of not always being fully occupied and some guests taking shuttles. • The proposed hotel is also in close proximity (approximately 400 feet) to the Old Town Parking Garage and has 20 on-street parking spaces abutting the site. • One final consideration is the valet service provided by the hotel will park cars in a more efficient manner than individuals parking in a lot. Modification Request – Section 3.2.2(J) 2. The applicant requests a modification to the standard by proposing a five foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Street ROW instead of the required 15 feet, and a 7 foot setback along Chestnut Street instead of the required 10 feet. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • When considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, the reduced setbacks are nominal and inconsequential because additional landscaping is provided along both frontages and a 30 inch high wall along 77% of the Jefferson Street frontage. Also, plazas with seatwalls are being proposed at both corners of the Jefferson Street frontage. All of these additional amenities make the parking lot more pedestrian friendly and add visual interest. Modification Request – Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) 3. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires parking lots to be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks; the project is requesting to locate the parking lot at the corner of two streets (Jefferson and Chestnut). The standard reads as follows: Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian-oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding 6464 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 11 neighborhoods. Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • The parking lot is not located behind buildings and in the interior of the block because of the constrained nature of infill lots, combined with the amount of space needed to provide the minimum amount of parking required. The project is proposing screening walls, landscaping, bike racks, and pocket plazas to ensure that this modification does not negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods nor interrupt pedestrian routes as noted in the standard. Considering these additional elements of the parking lot when viewed from the perspective of the entire development plan, the street-fronted location does not diverge from the purpose of the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. Building Height Modifications Modification Request – Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) 4. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet. The project is requesting a maximum height of five stories and 60 feet. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • When considering the perspective of the entire development plan in the existing context, the proposed additional story does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because the proposed hotel has reduced their floor-to-floor height to 9 feet 8 inches. The code permits up to 25 foot floor-to-floor height for commercial buildings. The Mitchell Block (60’-6”) directly across the street at four stories is actually taller than the proposed hotel (60’-0”). Please see the applicant’s request for modification and accompanying exhibit. Modification Request – Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) 5. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line, the project is requesting to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth floor. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • This modification is an outcome of the previous modification request for an additional story. The proposed 35 degree setback will occur at the floor plane of the uppermost story as intended; however in this case, it is between the fourth and fifth stories. When viewed from the perspective of the entire development plan in the existing context, the proposal to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth story does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because the proposed hotel has reduced their floor-to-floor height to 9 feet 8 inches. The code permits up to 25 foot floor-to-floor height for commercial buildings. The Mitchell Block directly across the street complies with the required setback 6565 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 12 at the floor plane of the fourth floor but, like the hotel, is also stepping back at 49 feet in height. Therefore the height and mass, which this standard aims to mitigate, is the same as a project that complies with the code. Please see the applicant’s request for modification and accompanying exhibit. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions: 1. The request for a modification of standard to permit 106 parking spaces instead of the required 111 parking spaces (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way as the proposal is providing 96% of the requirement and many other public parking options are conveniently close to the project site. 2. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduced parking lot setback from 10 feet to 7 feet and from 15 feet to 5 feet (Section 3.2.2(J)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas that make the parking lot more pedestrian friendly and add visual interest. 3. The request for a modification of standard to permit a parking lot located along street frontages as opposed to behind buildings and at the interior of the block (Section 4.16(E)(1)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas so that the parking lot does not interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. 4. The request for a modification of standard to permit a building height maximum of 5 stories instead of the required maximum of 4 stories (Section 4.16(D)(2)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that, when considered in the context of the area, the building is no taller than a building which complies with the standard. 5. The request for a modification of standard to permit a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth floor instead of at the fourth floor (Section 4.16(D)(4)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that when considered in the context of the area, the proposed 35 degree setback is at the same height (49’) as the building across the street that complies with the standard. 6. The request for an alternative compliance bicycle parking plan that, instead of providing 51 bicycle parking spaces, provides 25 spaces and future spaces in the Walnut Street ROW accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.2(C)(4) equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater “safety, efficiency and convenience”. 7. The Project Development Plan contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Downtown District – Old City Center Subdistrict in Article 4, Division 4.16 of the Land Use Code. 6666 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 13 8. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modifications of standards. 9. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Landscape Plan (PDF) 3. Lighting Plan (PDF) 4. Elevations (PDF) 5. Digital Material Boards (PDF) 6. Perspective Renderings (PDF) 7. Modification Request #1 - Vehicle Parking (PDF) 8. Modification Request #2 - Parking Setback (PDF) 9. Modification Request #3 - Parking Location (PDF) 10. Modification Request #4 - Building Height (PDF) 11. Exhibit A - Building height mod (PDF) 12. Modification Request #5 - 35 Degree Setback (PDF) 13. Exhibit B - 35 degree setback mod (PDF) 14. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) 6767 6868 6969 7070 7171 7272 7373 7474 7575 7676 LEVEL 01B 100' - 0" LEVEL 02 118' - 0" LEVEL 03 127' - 8" LEVEL 04 137' - 4" LEVEL 05 147' - 2" ROOF 158' - 0" 11 10.6 9 7 6.8 6 5 4.9 4 3.9 3 1 PENTHOUSE 167' - 8" 10 9.5 7.6 7.4 4.7 2 LEVEL 01A 101' - 0" 8 CUSTOM ZINC PANEL BRICK - (COLOR 3) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL (COLOR 4) GROUND FACE CMU BLOCK (COLOR 5) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 4) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 4) LEVEL 01B 100' - 0" LEVEL 02 118' - 0" LEVEL 03 127' - 8" LEVEL 04 137' - 4" LEVEL 05 147' - 2" ROOF 158' - 0" J G.1 G F.4 F E D C B A PENTHOUSE 167' - 8" I D.1 B.8 B.2 LEVEL 01A 101' - 0" H.4 H INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) BRICK - (COLOR 2) BRICK - (COLOR 1) PREFINISHED PERFORATED LEVEL 01B 100' - 0" LEVEL 02 118' - 0" LEVEL 03 127' - 8" LEVEL 04 137' - 4" LEVEL 05 147' - 2" ROOF 158' - 0" 1 3 3.9 4 4.9 5 6 6.8 7 9 10.6 11 PENTHOUSE 167' - 8" 2 4.7 7.4 7.6 9.5 10 LEVEL 01A 101' - 0" 8 BRICK - COLOR 1 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) CUT LIMESTONE COLUMNS WITH PAINTED STEEL PROFILES AND HEADER (COLOR 4) BRICK - COLOR 2 COMPOSITE ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) RESTAURANT STOREFRONT ENTRY ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) BRICK (COLOR 1) PAINTED STEEL TRELLIS SYSTEM (COLOR 4) INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) COMPOSITE ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 4) BRICK (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) LEVEL 01B 100' - 0" LEVEL 02 118' - 0" LEVEL 03 127' - 8" LEVEL 04 137' - 4" LEVEL 05 147' - 2" ROOF 158' - 0" A B C D E F F.4 G G.1 J PENTHOUSE 167' - 8" B.2 B.8 D.1 I LEVEL 01A 101' - 0" H H.4 LEVEL 02 118' - 0" LEVEL 03 127' - 8" LEVEL 04 137' - 4" LEVEL 05 147' - 2" ROOF 158' - 0" J G.1 G F.4 F E PENTHOUSE 167' - 8" I H.4 H INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) BRICK (COLOR 3) BRICK (COLOR 1) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED METAL RAILING (COLOR 4) PAINTED STEEL TRELLIS SYSTEM (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) LEVEL 02 118' - 0" LEVEL 03 127' - 8" LEVEL 04 137' - 4" LEVEL 05 147' - 2" ROOF 158' - 0" E F F.4 G G.1 J PENTHOUSE 167' - 8" H H.4 I INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) BRICK (COLOR 3) BRICK (COLOR 1) BALCONY WITH PREFINISHED METAL RAILING (COLOR 4) PAINTED STEEL TRELLIS SYSTEM (COLOR 4) BRICK (COLOR 1) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 3) PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP ISS. # KEY PLAN DESCRIPTION DATE ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER 4240 Architecture Inc. copyright 2015 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OWNER Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal Bohemian Companies Sage Hospitality McWhinney Downtown Fort Collins Hotel Digital Material Board Fort Collins, Colorado 24 August 2015 8080 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal CHESTNUT ST. ELEVATION CUT LIMESTONE COLUMNS WITH PAINTED STEEL PROFILES AND HEADER (COLOR 4) CUT LIMESTONE PLANTERS (SMOOTH TEXTURE) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM (COLOR 4) CANOPY ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) Hotel Materiality PRECAST OR CUT STONE PARAPET CAP BRICK 1 BRICK 2 INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM BRICK 3 WINDOWS (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 3) BRICK 1 (COLOR 1 TEXTURED) BRICK 2 (COLOR 2 TEXTURED) BRICK 3 (COLOR 2 SMOOTH) INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL- (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM CUT BUFF LIMESTONE PANEL PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal WALNUT ST. ELEVATION Hotel Materiality BRICK 1 BRICK 1 INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM BRICK 3 BRICK 2 WINDOWS (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 3) PRECAST OR CAST STONE PLANTERS COMPOSITE ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) COMPOSITE ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 4) PAINTED STEEL TRELLIS SYSTEM (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP CUT LIMESTONE COLUMNS WITH PAINTED STEEL PROFILES AND HEADER (COLOR 4) BRICK 1 (COLOR 1 TEXTURED) BRICK 2 (COLOR 2 TEXTURED) BRICK 3 (COLOR 2 SMOOTH) INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL- (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM CUT BUFF LIMESTONE PANEL PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal OLD FIRE HOUSE ALLEY ELEVATION Hotel Materiality INTERLOCKING BRICK 3 ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) PREFINISHED METAL RAILING (COLOR 4) GROUND FACE CMU BLOCK (COLOR 5) PRECAST OR CAST STONE PLANTERS PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 3) BRICK 1 (COLOR 1 TEXTURED) BRICK 2 (COLOR 2 TEXTURED) BRICK 3 (COLOR 2 SMOOTH) INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL- (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM CUT BUFF LIMESTONE PANEL PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) 8383 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal SERVICE ALLEY ELEVATION Hotel Materiality INTERLOCKING BRICK 1 BRICK 3 ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) OVERHEAD METAL COILING DOORS (COLOR 6) HOLLOW METAL DOORS (COLOR 6) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 3) BRICK 1 (COLOR 1 TEXTURED) BRICK 2 (COLOR 2 TEXTURED) BRICK 3 (COLOR 2 SMOOTH) INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (COLOR 3) ZINC METAL PANEL- (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM CUT BUFF LIMESTONE PANEL PRECAST OR CAST STONE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) GROUND FACE CMU BLOCK (COLOR 5) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) 8484 Bohemian Companies Sage Hospitality McWhinney Downtown Fort Collins Hotel (PDP) Re-Submittal Fort Collins, Colorado 26 August 2015 8585 Aerial View Looking East 8686 Aerial View Looking West 8787 View of Hotel Entrance Along Chestnut Street - Day 8888 View of Hotel Entrance Along Chestnut Street - Day 8989 View of Hotel Along Walnut Street 9090 View of Hotel Along Walnut Street 9191 View of Hotel Along Old Firehouse Alley 9292 Request for Modification – Section 3.2.2(K)(1) – Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 Fort Collins Hotel This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the site planning and design standards regarding the parking requirements for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel – which would be to allow the applicant to build 106 parking spots versus the required 113 parking spots. (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements: Nonresidential uses shall provide a minimum number of parking spaces, and will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below. (a) The table below sets forth the number of minimum required and maximum allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. In the event that on-street or shared parking is not available on land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking allowed may be increased by twenty (20) percent. (c) TOD Overlay Zone Exemption: If new development is proposed within the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, twenty-five (25) percent of the square footage of gross leasable area of such new development, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. The exemption shall be distributed proportionally among the uses contained in a mixed-use development. Use Minimum Parking Spaces Maximum Parking Spaces Restaurants a. Fast Food b. Standard 7/1000 sq. ft. 5/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. General Office 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. or .75/employee on the largest shift or 4.5/1000 sq. ft. if all additional parking spaces gained by the increased ratio (over 3/1000 sq. ft.) are contained within a parking garage/structure Lodging Establishments 0.5/unit 1/unit Explanation of need for modification: The Applicant has proposed a site plan that best meets the needs for the site given the constraints of the existing location being in Old Town and surrounded by development. Most new developments and or redevelopments in Old Town are not able to provide parking for their 9393 Request for Modification – Section 3.2.2(K)(1) – Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 site due to the nature of being downtown and the site constraints they are faced with. On top of that, the City already provides free paring on the streets and has 2 parking garages located within ¼ mile of the project. Justification for modification: The project is proposing 163 rooms, 5,391 sf of restaurant, 830 sf of retail, a 1,480 sf rooftop bar and 3,541 of conference/meeting space. The project is located within the TOD designation for Fort Collins and per the land use code, we are required to have 113 parking stalls but due to site constraints, we are able to provide 106 stalls of the 113 stalls required for the project (see calculation below for TOD reduction). The applicant feels that the supplied parking spots, while not meeting the LUC, is adequate for the project based on communication with the hotel operator about what they typically see at their downtown hotels with a similar mix of programs (see attached parking capture data). In addition there are twenty public parking spots that abut the project and two public parking garages within ¼ mile of the project that will provide additional spaces for patrons visiting the project that are not hotel quests. While the applicant knows you cannot count public spaces as part of your project, the 106 spots being provided and the additional public parking spots will provide adequate parking for the project the project is only seven parking spaces short to meet the LUC. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. The applicant is supplying 94% of the required parking per the LUC based on an innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) – Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Car Parking Program SF/rooms Req Stalls W/TOD reduction Restaurant 5391 27 4993 27 5/1000sf Retail 830 1 769 1 2/1000sf Sky Bar 1480 7 1371 7 5/1000sf Conference 3541 4 3280 3 1/1000sf Hotel 163 82 151 75 0.5/room Total 120 113 avg room size 345 aggregate sf 5000 SF Breakdown SF % TOD reduction (sf) - based on 5,000sf aggregate % Restaurant 5391 7.96% 398 Retail 830 1.23% 61 Sky Bar 1480 2.18% 109 Conference 3541 5.23% 261 Rooms 56496 83.40% 12 room count based on avg room size Total 67738 842 9494 Request for Modification – Section 3.2.2(K)(1) – Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 Since the applicant is providing 94% of the required parking spots per LUC, the applicant feels the impact is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development and location in Old Town. The hotel operator plans to have a mix of valet and self-parking options which will allow them to park more cars than the 106 spots provided. The plan, with the requested modification, continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. Additional information and actual capture rates: When talking with the hotel operator (Sage) about current operations at existing Hotels with a mix of uses (restaurant, retail and conference/meeting), they on average see a 30%-35% overnight capture rate on parking on their downtown hotels with a program similar to the project being proposed. With a 163 room hotel and assuming a 72% stabilization occupancy and a 30% capture rate, there will be about 35 overnight cars (163 x 72% x 30%). And for the peaks days when the hotel is 100% booked and assuming a 35% capture rate on 163 rooms, the project will see about 57 overnight cars (163 x 35%). The two hotel projects that Sage is referring to in order to come up with the capture rate are: • The Nines (Portland, OR) – 336 rooms, 2 destination restaurants, 13,500sf of meeting space (see below parking data counts) Overnight Parking Capture Rate: 35% (average 99 spaces per day) Other Parking (restaurants + meetings + other): 50 spaces per day • The Courtyard Portland City Center (Portland,OR) (– 256 rooms, 1 destination restaurant, 5,300sf of meeting space Overnight Parking Capture Rate: 29% (average 65 spaces per day) Other Parking (restaurants + meetings + other): included in number above Based on the data provided by the hotel operator from current operations, the applicant feels the project is adequately parked to serve the needs of the hotel guests as well as anyone traveling to the project. While the applicant knows you cannot count offsite public parking as part of the requirement, there are 20 public spots that are currently abutting the project site that will provide extra spaces for guests. Also, the City currently has a public parking structure on Mountain Ave adjacent to the intersection of Mountain, Chestnut and Walnut which is currently being proposed as the entrance to the hotel off Mountain Ave. With the existing public spots and the parking structure surrounding the project and our 106 stalls, the hotel operator feels there is more than enough parking for the project especially in a downtown environment. 9595 Request for Modification – Section 3.2.2(K)(1) – Parking Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 9696 Request for Modification – Section 3.2.2(J) – Setbacks (Parking) Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the parking setback for the parking lot proposed for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel – which the setback would be less than the general 15’ from an arterial road. Please see the text of Section 3.2.2(J) below: 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. (J) Setbacks (parking). Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from the street right of way 15’ along an arterial street. Explanation of need for modification: As an infill site, the project is spatially constrained and providing the requisite number of parking spaces is a difficult task without making an inoperable/inefficient layout that would be a detriment to the project and the public good. The required number of stalls for the project is a 114 spaces, this takes into account the TOD zone overlay that the project is within. The surface parking lot will provide 106 spaces. Justification for modification Reducing the parking setback along Jefferson Street will not be detrimental to the public good. A 5’ landscaped setback to a 30” cast-in-place concrete wall is shown along the Jefferson Street ROW. The buffer wall effectively provides screening of the parking area from the street, accomplishing the intent of the 15’ landscaped setback, while accommodating a required number of parking spaces. In addition, plazas are depicted at either corner of the property, framed by concrete seat walls with an enhanced finish. Seatwalls are also shown in equal spacing as raised planters along the streetscape to add visual interest and add additional planting area. The project creates an enhanced streetscape, with a combination of quality materials, landscaping and design. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) – Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Reducing the setback for the parking lot is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The proposed plan design activates Jefferson street and creates a more welcoming environment for pedestrians walking along the street. The parking setback is an inconsequential part of the site plan, given that it will have a planting area and 30” high wall between the parking lot and sidewalk. The plan, with the requested modification, continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. 9797 Request for Modification – Section 3.2.2(J) – Setbacks (Parking) Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 3.2.2(J) to allow a reduced setback for the parking lot along Jefferson Street. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with the 15-foot setback requirement, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 9898 Request for Modification – Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) – Site Design Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the site design standard regarding the parking location for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel – which would be to allow the surface parking to be located along an arterial, rather than behind a building. Please see the text below of Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) below: 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Parking lots. Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian-oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. Explanation of need for modification: The Applicant has proposed a site plan that best meets the needs for the site given the constraints of the existing location coupled with the parking requirements. An additional building on the site adjacent to the hotel to solely meet the LUC standard would be a detriment to the public because the applicant would not be able to meet the required parking count for the project as a whole. Justification for modification: As the overall project parking requirements are significant and the project site is constrained as an infill/redevelopment site, the current configuration represents the highest level of feasibility and activates the downtown core intersection of Walnut St., Chestnut St. and Mountain Ave. Efforts have been made to improve the streetscape condition along Jefferson St. and screen parking, however, the project cannot accommodate additional building frontage along Jefferson St. without sacrificing required parking quantities. The required number of stalls for the project is a 114 spaces, this takes into account the TOD zone overlay that the project is within. The surface parking lot will provide 106 spaces. If additional building frontage is required for the site, the project will not be able to provide the number of stalls listed above. The plan does not dominate the frontage of the street, interrupt the pedestrian route or negatively affect the surrounding neighborhood in any way. The plan activates the street frontage and provides ample site and landscaping to screen the parking lot. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. 9999 Request for Modification – Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) – Site Design Standards Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/12/2015 LUC Sec. 2.8.2(H)(4) – Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Not locating the parking lot behind a building along Jefferson Street is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The proposed plan design activates Jefferson Street and creates a more welcoming environment for pedestrians walking along the street. The location of the parking lot is inconsequential, given that it will have a planting area and 30” high wall between the parking lot and sidewalk. The plan, with the requested modification, continues to advance the following purposes of the LUC: innovative land development and development of vacant properties in established areas. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) to allow for the parking lot to be adjacent to Jefferson Street and not located behind a building. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with parking lot location requirement, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 100100 Request for Modification – Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) – Building Height Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/18/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of building height standard for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel – which would be to allow a five-story building of approximately 60’ in height to be built in Old City Center District. Please see the text below of LUC Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) below: Buildings in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4) stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height. Explanation of need for modification: The Applicant has proposed a building that best meets the needs for the site as it relates to the Mitchell Building directly across Walnut Street. Included for explanation and reference is page 38 of the 30 June 2015 presentation to the LPC (Exhibit A.) Justification for modification: The proposed hotel building would approximate the height of the existing Mitchell Building across Walnut Street, which helps to create a “gateway” into Old Town from Mountain Ave. Effort has been placed on reducing the apparent mass of the fifth level by stepping back along Walnut and Chestnut Streets and locating the bulk of the mass along Old Firehouse Alley. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(4) – Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Increasing the number of stories to five (5) and height of the building to sixty feet (60’) are nominal and inconsequential changes from the perspective of the entire development plan. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) to allow for a five-story building of approximately 60’ in height to be built in Old City Center District. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with the four-story and 56’ height limit, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 101101 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 33 elevation of Mitchell Building Setback: 49’ - 6” +/- elevation of Mitchell Building parapet: 60’ - 6” +/- elevation of hotel parapet: 60’ - 0” +/- elevation of Hotel Setback: 49’ - 2” +/- 60’ -0” 49’ -2” 49’ -6” +/- 60’ -6” +/- EXHIBIT A 102102 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 25 Zoning: Rotating massing towards Walnut Street creates better massing articulation along public edge and introduces more sunshine onto terrace. Floor 4 steps back in a similar way, building height still under 56’ max. Experiential: Guests using the upper terrace can become part of the “street life” along Walnut Street. Hotel Massing Evolution DRAFT mass, sc Building ered in th (1) as ex adjacent › at he ed an bu flo sc (2) as vi others in › th bu re op sio New Building 4 Changes in cornice lines combined with varia- tions in wall planes can help a new, larger building appear consistent with traditional development patterns. Variety in single facade: Energy Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | November 4, 2013 BuildiNg mAss, sCAle ANd height each historic building in the district exhibits distinct characteristics of mass, height and a degree of wall articulation that contributes to its sense of scale. as groupings, these structures establish a definitive sense of scale. a new building should express these traditions of mass and scale as well, and it should be compatible in height, mass and scale with its context, including the specific block and the historic district as a whole. 5.6 Convey the traditional size of historic buildings in new construction as it is perceived at the street level. › the height of a new building should appear to be within the height range established in the context, especially at the street frontage. › floor-to-floor heights should appear similar to those of traditional buildings. › if an additional floor is permitted, place it (or sufficient portions of it) back from the street Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 26 West Wing Shortened OLD TOWN Zoning: Upper floor massing is reduced at west wing to become more compatible with neighboring single story buildings. Asymmetric massing along Walnut Street Building begins to better stitch into site and reconcile overlapping city grids in unique way. Hotel program is lost as a result. Experiential: Visual connections between Old Town and Hotel are strengthened. Views to & from site are enhanced. Hotel Massing Evolution The Walnut Street facade maintains the scale established by the adjacent existing buildings and connects the new Hotel massing visually with Old Town DRAFT overview Designing a new building to fit within the historic character of the old town Historic District requires careful thought. Preservation in a historic district context does not mean that the area must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that, when new building occurs, it should be in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the district. this does not imply, however, that a new building must look old. in fact, imitating historic styles is discouraged. rather than imitating older styles, a new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the his- toric context while also conveying the design trends of today. it may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part of the character of the district. such features include the way in which a build- ing is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials. when these design variables are arranged in a new building to be similar to those seen traditionally, visual compatibility results. New Additions a new addition to an existing building in the his- The general alignment of storefronts, moldings and upper story windows contributes to the visual continuity of many commercial blocks in Old Town Fort Collins. A variation in the height of cornices exists, within a range of one to three stories. Facade widths also vary, but within a relatively narrow range. 104104 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 27 Introduction of Partial Fifth Floor 58’-60’ Zoning: Hotel program recaptured with partial Fifth Story added to mass. Upper floor to floor heights reduced from standard 10-6” to 9’-8” to minimize incremental height. Resulting building is 1 story and minimally over Zoning height allowance. 9’-8” 56’ Experiential: Gateway massing created between Mitchell Building and Hotel. Overall building heights are within 2’-3’ of each other. Mitch- ell Building accomplishes this with four “tall floors” and Hotel accomplishes this with “tall” ground floor and “shallow” upper floors. Hotel Massing Evolution 49’ 6” (+/-) 47’ 58’ 6”(+/-) 58’-60’ Looking North at Mitchell Building and Hotel massing from Mathews Street The taller corner marks the important gateway at the Walnut and Chestnut St. intersection and balances the building scale against the Mitchell Building . EXHIBIT A 105105 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 28 Top Level stepped back from the Street Top Level mass is pushed Mass stepped back to to alley side create transition to existing Walnut St. elevation Four story mass aligns with Mitchell Building mass Walnut elevation line maintained Hotel Massing Evolution Experiential: The Fifth Floor is envisioned as a penthouse with ma- terial changes and additional fenestration to lighten the uppermost mass. Facade articulation at the Fifth Floor is simple, with more craft, detail and architectur- al refinements reserved for lower floors. Introduction of Partial Fifth Floor Zoning: To reduce the presence of the partial Fifth Floor along Walnut and Chestnut, the primary upper floor building step back occurs between Floors Four and Five, rather than between Floors Three and Four, per zoning. EXHIBIT A 106106 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 29 Top Level Stepped back from Masonry Facade Top Level Stepped back from Masonry Facade Street Level Stepped back from Masonry Facade Hotel Massing Evolution Introduction of Partial Fifth Floor Zoning: To further reduce the presence of the Fifth Floor, the uppermost massing is set back from the Fourth Floor. EXHIBIT A 107107 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 30 Top Middle Base Retail Corner Stairs Meeting Rooms Entry Expression Hotel Lobby Corner Primary three story mass expressed in masonry Fifth story expressed in different material steps back from all sides to diminish visual impact. Upper level massing interlocks with lower levels at the corner Fourth story attic - step/change in material Old Firehouse Alley DRAFT overview Designing a new building to fit within the historic character of the old town Historic District requires careful thought. Preservation in a historic district context does not mean that the area must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that, when new building occurs, it should be in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the district. this does not imply, however, that a new building must look old. in fact, imitating historic styles is discouraged. rather than imitating older styles, a new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the his- toric context while also conveying the design trends of today. it may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part of the character of the district. such features include the way in which a build- ing is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials. when these design variables are arranged in a new The general alignment of storefronts, moldings and upper story windows contributes to the visual continuity of many commercial blocks in Old Town Fort Collins. A variation in the height of cornices exists, within a range of one to three stories. Facade widths also vary, but within a relatively narrow range. DRAFT mass, scale and height at different levels Building mass, scale and height should be consid- ered in these ways: (1) as experienced at the street level immediately adjacent to the building. › at this level of perception, the actual height of the building wall at the street edge is a key factor. the scale of windows and doors, the modular characteristics of building materials, and the expression of floor heights also contribute to perceived scale. (2) as viewed along a block, in perspective with others in the immediate area. › the degree of similarity (or diversity) of building heights along a block, and the 5.8 Provide variation in buildi when a new building is subs larger than historic buildin district. Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 31 Hotel Massing Articulation Walnut Street Top Middle Base Bar Corner Restaurant Retail Corner Primary three story mass expressed in masonry Fifth story pulled away from Walnut Street and expressed in different material steps back from all sides to diminish visual impact. Fourth story attic- step/change in material Undulating parapet height From Old Town Historic District Design Standards: DRAFT overview Designing a new building to fit within the historic character of the old town Historic District requires careful thought. Preservation in a historic district context does not mean that the area must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that, when new building occurs, it should be in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the district. this does not imply, however, that a new building must look old. in fact, imitating historic styles is discouraged. rather than imitating older styles, a new design should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the his- toric context while also conveying the design trends of today. it may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part of the character of the district. such features include the way in which a build- ing is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials. when these design variables are arranged in a new The general alignment of storefronts, moldings and upper story windows contributes to the visual continuity of many commercial blocks in Old Town Fort Collins. A variation in the height of cornices exists, within a range of one to three stories. Facade widths also vary, but within a relatively narrow range. DRAFT mass, scale and height at different levels Building mass, scale and height should be consid- ered in these ways: (1) as experienced at the street level immediately adjacent to the building. › at this level of perception, the actual height of the building wall at the street edge is a key factor. the scale of windows and doors, the modular characteristics of building materials, and the expression of floor heights also contribute to perceived scale. (2) as viewed along a block, in perspective with others in the immediate area. › the degree of similarity (or diversity) of building heights along a block, and the 5.8 Provide variation in buildi when a new building is subs larger than historic buildin district. › in order to reduce the perceived m Request for Modification – Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) – Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings Downtown Fort Collins Hotel 8/18/2015 This narrative requests that the decision maker approve a modification of the set-back standard that for the Downtown Fort Collins Hotel – which would be to set-back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth story and the property line along the public street frontage. Please see the text below of LUC Section 4.16, (D)(4)(a) below: The fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. Explanation of need for modification: Included for explanation and reference is page 38 of the 30 June 2015 presentation to the LPC (Exhibit A) as well as pages 24 through 31 of the presentation to the Landmark and Planning Commission on 10 June 2015 (Exhibit B.) Justification for modification: In our effort to create an arrival gateway to Old Town at Walnut Street, we contend that the hotel should approximate the massing and set-backs, in terms of absolute vertical dimensions and not specifically the number of stories, of the Mitchell Building located directly across Walnut Street. The Mitchell Building stands four-stories in height and steps back above the third story adhering to the zoning requirements put forth in the Land Use Code. Consequently, as the floor-to-floor of the office building differs from that of a hotel, the alignment of set-backs best occurs at two different corresponding floor levels. As we viewed the comparative massing of the buildings to be more important than the number of stories, we have located the hotel’s set-back at the fifth floor to better align with the Mitchell Building’s set-back at their fourth level. Given the existing building massing, this solution provides a more complementary gateway than would be allowed by the Land Use Code. The modification requested is based on a modification of standard that does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(4) – Nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. Allowing the set-back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane to occur at the floor plane of the fifth story is a nominal and inconsequential change when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests a modification of the standard in LUC Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) to allow for a building set-back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth story and the property line along the public street frontage. The Applicant proposes that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, promotes the purposes of the standard as least as well as a plan could comply with the set-back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage, and results in a nominal and inconsequential divergence from the standard. 110110 Downtown Fort Collins Hotel LPC Submittal page 24 Hotel Massing Evolution Theoretical Massing Allowed by Zoning 56’ Zoning: Building mass “built to” Walnut St. at Floors 1-3. Floor 4 steps back at 35-degrees, per zoning. Max. height below 56’ limit. Experiential: West facing courtyard does not address Walnut Street. Limited sunshine into upper floor terrace. Solid build- ing mass at corner of Walnut & City Parcel creates abrupt and anonymous transition towards Old Town. restricted views Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories). Old City Center: The fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure 19. EXHIBIT B 111111 Fort Collins Hotel Neighborhood Meeting June 11, 2015 | 5:30-7:30pm Mountain Room, 1st Bank Attendance: approx. 50 (not including staff and applicants) Staff: - Seth Lorson, City Planner - Meaghan Overton, Planning Intern - Joe Olsen, Traffic Engineer - Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager City Presentation: • Overview of development process, where we are today. This meeting is before applicant submits an official application. • Preliminary Design Review (PDR) already completed, went to LPC • Submitting application on June 23 • Looking for P&Z approval in September • Parking will be lot or structure. If structure, 200 of 300 spaces for public use. In conversation with applicant right now. • Site context – close to Old Town Square, close in to historic fabric • Proposing 162 rooms, bar/rest/lounge, meeting space, 98 parking spaces in lot Applicant Presentation: • Stu with Bohemian Companies + Sage Hospitality + McWhinney + 4240 (did Crawford Hotel at Union Station in Denver) • Context: unique opportunity, catalytic to River District, Old Town Square, etc. • History: First hotel in Fort Collins, Auntie Stone’s mess hall and hotel – a hub for everyone in the city. How can we create a “modern version of something that’s beloved?” • Galvanizing and activating a neighborhood and community • Hotel wants to be inviting – to guests, residents…a “living room” to the community and an ambassador (of sophistication, design, culture) • Questions: How can a grand building can be intimately scaled? How can a grand building feel hand-crafted? How can a grand building be humane? o Detailed and refined architecture – from the street to the guest room o Activated pedestrian scale (e.g. FC alleys) • Old Firehouse Alley will be maintained, improved, activated as part of project • Hotel lobby and bar faces alley • Includes retail tenant space, ideally breakfast/lunch – accessible from both hotel and street • 5,000 sf restaurant space – not a hotel restaurant. Can’t be accessed from hotel. • Outdoor roof deck accessible through lobby bar/alley area – dedicated elevator • Height-very comparable to Mitchell Building across the street • Predominately masonry construction, brick meets stone with more glass to let light in Q: Flagging the hotel – has there been consideration to going toward a more “signature” collection approach? 112112 A: It wants to not be branded, designed around the patterns that come out of Fort Collins. What brand it is doesn’t influence the architecture. Q: 2nd floor mezzanine area – what’s that about? A: A quiet guest amenity – events, functions. Capacity for 50 people, so not large. More of a lounge/oasis elevated off street level. Q: BizWest – this project will be a boutique hotel vs. Holiday Inn. I’m behind that and this project. Is that a fair statement? Will this be a hotel of that caliber? A: Architecturally, yes. We did the Julian hotel too, so that’s a measure of our craft and sensitivity. Q: What’s the city’s parking requirement for a project like this? A: .5 spaces per room min, 1 space per room max. 162 rooms, so 98 surface lot does meet city requirements. Q: Banquet and meeting space 20,000 sf on ground floor (read in paper) – renderings don’t look like that. Does it have the capacity to bring in conventions and new business to downtown? A: I don’t know where the 20,000 came from. We’ve always been around the 5,000 sf range. This was not intended to be a convention center. Q: More of a comment. Have had businesses in downtown since the 70s. Parking is, as far as we’re concerned, one of the primary concerns. Wholeheartedly encourage you to consider as big a parking garage as you can. Third structure (as Old Town Leaders planned in years past) has never been built. The idea of TOD is good, but a hotel is getting people coming by car. All I can do is encourage the parking structure because you’ve seen the problems (e.g. the Summit). Have you given thought to a 4-level with one level underground? A: There’s a lot of water under there. Cost prohibitive to go underground, either for parking or hotel program. A: (Staff) City will be rolling out a city conversation about parking in the near future. We recognize that it’s a problem and want innovative solutions. Q: I second what that gentleman just said. And in the drawing, looks like some spaces will be taken from Chestnut. Also Armadillo is acting like a parking lot, and it will lose spots too. Seems like 98 is insufficient. Encourage anyone involved to build as large a structure as you can. Physics is there’s not enough parking spots in Old Town – worth every penny, even though they’re costly. A: Thank you. Q: Massing on the parking- would it step down to Jefferson? A: It’d be 2.5 stories on Jefferson. Not all that tall when you look at what’s happening in the vicinity. Q: Any retail like Civic Center Garage? A: We’re talking about that – when you add retail you take away parking, but this is something we’re discussing. Q: What is the size of the restaurant? A: 3500 sf front-of house Q: We have two big-box hotels already. What’s your target market for the hotel? We’re at 60% occupancy with what we have now. 113113 A: Good question. If someone from Sage was here they’d have a better answer. I can follow up with you about that. Q: Can you make an estimation? Are you trying to make a nicer, more upscale property than the Hilton? A: I would love to answer, but I just don’t know. That’s Sage’s expertise. Q: I’d like to thank Bohemian Companies, McWhinney Enterprises, and Sage Hospitality for carrying forward this vision and getting it this far. DDA is available and ready to explore partnerships to make sure it gets across the finish line. 10 years ago when the first alley enhancements were underway, never thought that a significant project like this would be talking about putting their front doors on the alleys. A significant gesture, and a signal that this alley enhancement concept is worthy of investment. Q: Jeff Mihelich: Heard comments about parking. Heard about need from property owners. We agree that this is an opportunity to do a shared parking structure. We are having good, fruitful conversations about that. It’s more than just talk and hope we can get it to the finish line. Q: What are your decision points for lot vs. structure? A: Jeff Mihelich: From an urban design standpoint makes sense, opportunity to share cost with applicant as partnership. At the end of the day it’s about the agreement and financing. Hope to have more info later in the summer. Q: What is expected build time? A: About a 12 month build from when we begin. Potential to break ground in January 2016 (first quarter). Q: Entryway into City on Jefferson - any consideration to “Quonset Row” as a source of parking? Is this the time to address that again? A: At this point, this is the general location for these two hundred extra spaces in the plan. That area doesn’t allow for a parking structure, so we’re not looking there right now. Q: What about a ped bridge from Jefferson to parking garage? Jefferson is a tough road to cross. A: We encourage people to cross at Linden. There will be some improvements coming to Jefferson. As far as ped bridge goes, that’s more of a CDOT project. 114114 115115 116116 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME VILLAGE ON REDWOOD STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Project Development Plan (PDP) would create 72 new units of affordable housing on an undeveloped 9.6-acre parcel on Redwood Street, 600 feet north of Conifer Street between Conifer and Willox Lane. 36 units are 2-story townhomes with ground floor entrances, in 6-plex and 3-plex buildings. 36 units are apartments in three 2-story buildings and one three-story building. Units are a mix of primarily 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units, plus two 4- bedroom units. A community clubhouse building is provided. 110 parking spaces are provided, including 15 new on-street spaces on Redwood in front of townhomes. A Modification of a standard is requested to a Land Use Code standard that would require 131 parking spaces for the 158 bedrooms in the 72 units. The project provides a framework of walkways along private parking drives in lieu of streets extending into the site. A Modification of a standard is requested to a Land Use Code standard that would require residences to be placed directly in relation to street sidewalks. The project includes one apartment building with 15,900 square feet of floor area that requires a Modification of a standard that would limit the building to 14,000 square feet. The project creates a new City Natural Area by transferring ownership of an existing pond to the City Natural Areas Department, and provides landscaping, appropriate lighting, a community clubhouse, a central green and playground, a walking path, garden, and dog run. APPLICANT: Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 117117 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Modifications of Standards to subsections 3.2.2(K), 3.5.2(D), and 4.5(E)(4)(i); and approval of Village on Redwood #PDP150012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LOCATION MAP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property is zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district. The multifamily residential use is permitted, and requires review by the Planning and Zoning Board. 118118 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 Staff has evaluated the request under applicable sections of the Land Use Code (Code). Staff finds that all issues have been addressed in compliance with the Land Use Code, and that the plan is consistent with City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND A 1993 Overall Development Plan called Greenbriar Village Planned Unit Development designated this property for multifamily residential land use, indicating a density of up to 20 units per acre. The remainder of the ODP has been developed, consisting of single family residential development adjacent to this site on the north. In 1994, the Nokomis subdivision was created on property that and abuts the subject property on the south. The Nokomis subdivision consists of single family houses. The Fort Collins Housing Authority purchased the property in 2010 with the intention of developing affordable multifamily housing when the time was right. 2. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North RL, Low Density Residential Single family houses from a prior phase of the Greenbriar Village ODP South RL, Low Density Residential Single family houses East RL, Low Density Residential Single family houses West I, Industrial Light industrial uses separated by existing pond 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS Article 4 of the Land Use Code contains standards for the various zoning districts throughout the City. The subject property is zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN), Division 4.5 of the Land Use Code. Staff finds that the PDP complies with the applicable zoning district standards, with one Modification of a standard, based on the following evaluation. Purpose Statement for the LMN Zone The PDP is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district, to the extent feasible on a single parcel with 6 acres of developable land bounded on three sides by existing development with no opportunity for connections. The project adds housing choices in the area with affordable townhomes and apartments for rent, and provides a new City Natural Area with an access trail open to the surrounding existing neighborhood. Townhome-style units line Redwood Street and back up to the back yards of existing abutting homes. New parallel parking in front of the 119119 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 townhome units on Redwood Street lends a neighborhood feel to the street, similar to typical local streets which allow for parking in front of residences. Section 4.5 (A) states: “Purpose. The Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing combined with complementary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. The main purpose of the District is to meet a wide range of needs of everyday living in neighborhoods that include a variety of housing choices, that invite walking to gathering places, services and conveniences, and that are fully integrated into the larger community by the pattern of streets, blocks, and other linkages. A neighborhood center provides a focal point, and attractive walking and biking paths invite residents to enjoy the center as well as the small neighborhood parks. Any new development in this District shall be arranged to form part of an individual neighborhood.” Maximum Density in the LMN Zone Density standards limit the PDP to 12 dwelling units per acre maximum as an affordable housing project. The proposed plan has a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Building Height Limit in the LMN Zone The maximum height of multifamily buildings in the LMN zone is 3 stories per subsection 4.5(E)(4)(d). Seven of the eight buildings in the PDP are two stories in height; one proposed building is three stories in height. Design Standards for Multifamily Dwellings With More Than Eight (8) Dwelling Units in the LMN Zone LMN zoning includes design standards for the larger multifamily buildings that are permitted in the zone. In this case, the standards apply to the single 12-plex building. The standards require building design to feature a variety of massing proportions, wall plane proportions, roof proportions and other characteristics similar in scale to those of single-family detached dwelling units, so that such larger buildings can be aesthetically integrated into the low density neighborhood. Entrances must be clearly visible and identifiable. Roofs must include a degree of articulation and variation as opposed to a single monolithic roof. Staff finds that the 12-plex building complies with the design standards. These standards are found in Code subsection 4.5(E)(4). Note that they are essentially the same as standards for all multifamily development citywide, found in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, Section 3.8.30. Section 3.8.30 applies to the three 8-plex apartment buildings as well as the 12-plex, and is addressed later in this report. Maximum Floor Area for Multifamily Buildings in the LMN Zone -- MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED Code standard 4.5(E)(4)(i) limits multifamily buildings to 14,000 square feet. This standard is related to the intended character of LMN neighborhoods and the compatibility of multifamily buildings therein. The applicant is requesting a Modification of this standard to allow one building to contain 15,900 square feet. Modifications are allowed under code Section 2.8.2(H), as follows: 120120 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.” The applicant’s Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification based on not being detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criteria (1), (2), and (4) listed above. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criterion (2) above. Note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification. Following is staff’s evaluation of the required findings for this floor area Modification. No Detriment to Public Good -- 2.8.2(H). Key considerations in staff’s findings are: · The building is located internally within the project, with any external visibility blocked by the lower buildings around the perimeter of the site, and trees on the site. Any views of the building from the neighborhood outside of the project will be glimpses between other buildings at a significant distance and buffered by trees. · The larger building is offset by generous open spaces, as the building is bounded by the pond and community green. · The architecture is well-articulated and proportioned and blends harmoniously with the project, and the size is a transitional increment larger than the 8-plex apartments, which allows the building to be compatible. · The building is an efficient way to gain units that contribute to the project’s ability to provide affordable housing with quality development. For these reasons, staff does not find the larger building to be detrimental to the public good. 2.8.2(H)(2) ‘Defined Community Need’ or ‘Community Problem’. Staff finds that the one 12-plex, with its 2 and 121121 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 6 3-bedroom units, is a key contributor to the project’s ability to comprise 100% affordable housing with units in needed sizes; affordable housing being perhaps the most clearly defined community need that can be addressed in development. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT CITYWIDE Article 3 of the Land Use Code contains standards for all development citywide to be used in conjunction with zoning district standards. Staff finds that the project complies with all applicable General Development Standards, with two Modifications. Staff comments below follow the order of Article 3. Landscaping Standards Code Section 3.2.1 requires a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the buildings, abutting properties, and users on the site in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. The plan provides street trees in a turfgrass parkway along Redwood Street, and similar plantings along the parking drives and sidewalks leading to and from the street. Perimeter tree plantings of mostly ornamental and evergreen trees provide screening of parking lots and back yard buffering of adjacent houses. A range of turf grass, dryland grass, and shrub bed areas are provided in appropriate locations around buildings, the central play area, parking lots, and the pond buffer area. Staff finds that the landscape plan complies with the standards. Staff will follow up in the Final Plan stage with more detailed attention to exact plant species and placements of materials, to ensure that the landscaping is carried through to accomplish the functions indicated on the PDP. Access, Circulation and Parking Standards Safe, convenient, efficient parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development are required by Code Section 3.2.2. The emphasis of the plan is on the framework of walkways which provides direct access to and from Redwood Street. Sidewalks are mostly detached from parking lot drives; some sections are attached along parallel parking; and only one rear section along the northwestern building has overhanging head-in parking. Internal walkways provide circulation within the site to and from the central green and clubhouse. A walkway along the northern perimeter provides public access to the Natural Area. Driveway access to parking and emergency access are adequate for the project. One notable feature along the Redwood Street -- the most public edge of the project -- is a new inset curb to allow parallel street parking along Redwood in front of residences. Staff finds that this lends a neighborhood feel to Redwood Street which does not otherwise provide such parking in front of homes. Staff finds that access and circulation comply with applicable standards. Bike Parking Standard 158 bike parking spaces are required by code standard 3.2.2(C)(4). The proposed project provides these required spaces, with the required 60% of spaces in enclosed parking areas. Vehicle Parking Quantity Standard -- MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED 122122 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 7 The Code requires 131 parking spaces for the 158 bedrooms in the 72 dwelling units. The requirements are found in subsection 3.2.2(K). The applicant is requesting a Modification of this standard to allow 110 parking spaces. The applicant’s Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification based on not being detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criteria (1) and (2) in Code Section 2.8.2(H). The relevant Code text is repeated again below for convenient reference. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criteria (1) and (2) below. Note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification. “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible;” Following is staff’s evaluation of the required findings regarding the parking quantity Modification. No Detriment to Public Good -- 2.8.2(H). The issue is the number of vehicles to be owned by the residents of the project, and whether the project would generate undue external spillover impacts onto adjacent development. Key considerations in staff’s findings are: · The standard is based on assumptions for market-rate multi-family development in general, without consideration for different vehicle ownership patterns among residents of affordable housing. The applicant has submitted information derived from actual observations and counts in numerous similar affordable housing developments that indicate that vehicle ownership is significantly lower than in the spectrum of market-rate multi-family housing. Staff finds this information adequate to demonstrate no detriment to the public good from the 110 parking spaces proposed. · There is no adjacent development with convenient connections for spillover parking to occur, which would seem to limit the frequency of any casual spillover parking. Staff does not find the parking quantity to be detrimental to the public good. 2.8.2(H)(1) ‘Equal or Better’. Staff finds that the plan with 110 units is equal to or better than a plan with 131 spaces, given the information indicating that 131 spaces would be excessive and unused. Excessive paving would have detrimental effects on the aesthetic and environmental character of the project with no benefits to the purpose of the standard to provide adequate parking. 2.8.2(H)(2) ‘Defined Community Need’ or ‘Community Problem’. Staff finds that the balance of parking and dwelling units in the PDP is a key contributor to project’s ability to comprise 100% affordable housing, with affordable housing being perhaps the most clearly defined community need that can be addressed in development. Site Lighting Standards 123123 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 8 Lighting is carefully designed and limited with a few fixtures along parking drives and building-mounted fixtures on the buildings. Lighting will be down-directional, sharp cutoff fixtures in compliance with standards in Section 3.2.4. Right-of-Way Dedication Standard The plan dedicates additional right-of-way along Redwood Street frontage as required to meet current standards and fit the enhanced streetscape with inset parking and sidewalks. Requirements are in Code Section 3.3.1. Building and Project Compatibility Standards Standards in Section 3.5.1 require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. Staff finds the proposed project to be compatible with the context of the area, which includes abutting single family development in the Greenbriar Village PUD and Nokomis Subdivision; and facing development in the Evergreen Park subdivision. The proposed townhomes line the perimeters of the site and have a residential character, proportions, and roof forms. Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking -- MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED A basic Code standard requires residences to be placed along streets in a traditional neighborhood pattern, as opposed to freestanding complexes with orientation to parking lots instead of streets. For purposes of the standard, streets may be public or private. The standard is Section 3.5.2(D) in the Code. To meet the standard, this PDP would have to add new streets into the site to reach the rear portions. The applicant is requesting a Modification of this standard to allow seven of the buildings to face onto parking drives flanked by sidewalks, in lieu of streets. Their Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification based on not being detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criteria (1) and (2) in Code Section 2.8.2(H). The relevant Code text is repeated again below for convenient reference. Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criteria (1) and (2) below. Again, note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification. “The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible;” Following is staff’s evaluation of the required findings regarding the Modification for building relationships to streets. 124124 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 9 No Detriment to Public Good -- 2.8.2(H). The primary issue is direct, well defined, highly visible, tree-lined public access sidewalk connections leading straight to the street network from residences. This is related to corollary issues of clear wayfinding for visitor and emergency services, addresses for buildings, and an interconnected street network in neighborhoods. Key considerations in staff’s findings are: · The parking drives flanked by tree-lined sidewalks lead directly to and from Redwood Street. These form clearly defined and directly linked pedestrian spaces that will function adequately in lieu of streets in this particular situation. · Existing development and the pond in the west portion of the site preclude any opportunity for an interconnected street network other than Redwood Street. If an opportunity for such connections existed, the situation would be different. · Despite the lack of any opportunity for interconnection, staff evaluated alternative ways of providing streets into the development for buildings to face onto. The alternatives would be a U-shaped loop, or a cul de sac (or two). A loop would separate the central green and some of the buildings from the pond and possibly bring more vehicular activity close to the pond buffer. The proposed arrangement functions similar to two cul de sacs, especially in the most important aspect, which is direct tree-lined sidewalks. · The Fire Department finds the proposed arrangement adequate. The ability for 3-point turns to turn around from the rear portion of the site is built into the proposed plan. · The parking drives as shown are less costly than streets per se, and are one of several components of the plan that enables 100% affordability. Based on these considerations, staff does not find the lack of building placement along streets to be detrimental to the public good. 2.8.2(H)(1) ‘Equal or Better’. Staff finds that the plan is equal to or better than a plan with streets, because of the quality of proposed pedestrian connections, the role of the parking drives in affordability of the project, and the lack of any lost opportunity to contribute to an interconnected network. 2.8.2(H)(2) ‘Defined Community Need’ or ‘Community Problem’. Staff finds that the parking drives sought by the applicant in lieu of streets are a key contributor to affordability, with affordable housing being perhaps the most clearly defined community need that can be addressed in development. Additional Supplemental Standards for Multifamily Development Code Section 3.8.30 contains a number of applicable requirements for multifamily development, as follows. Access to a Park, Central Feature, or Gathering Place. The plan provides a central green and clubhouse building which meets the standard. 25-Foot Buffer Yards Abutting Single-Family Dwellings. The plan meets the standard. Variation Among Repeated Buildings. Three distinctly different building designs are required; five different building types are provided. The 3-story 12-plex, 6-story townhomes, and 3-story townhomes are the three most distinctly different types in the plan. Entrances, Roof Form, Facades and Walls, Materials and Colors. The plan meets standards for architecture to address these topics. 125125 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 10 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: Two neighborhood meetings were held. The first was held on October 9, 2014, and the second on June 15, 2015. Attendees at both meetings were primarily homeowners from adjacent single family subdivisions. First Meeting: The meeting was Open House format. Most of the discussion consisted of questions and answers. A number of questions and concerns involved potential impacts of the affordable multifamily housing on the neighborhood. A number of residents came to the meeting to oppose the project. There was specific discussion about arranging the townhomes around the perimeter with apartments internal to the site, which the applicants agreed to do. Second Meeting: The meeting was an Open House format in combination with a presentation of a revised plan by the developer. The discussion consisted of questions and answers, with no particular controversy evident. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the Village on Redwood Project Development Plan with three Modifications of Standards, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The PDP complies with the process outlined in Article 2, Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications. B. The PDP complies with applicable standards in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The PDP complies with applicable standards located in Article 4, Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. D. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K) to allow 110 parking spaces, instead of the 131 spaces required, would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (2). The proposed plan will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard because observations and parking counts in similar affordable housing developments indicate that vehicle ownership is significantly lower than the spectrum of market-rate multifamily housing on which the standard is based. Thus, the 110 spaces are adequate and appropriate for the project without creating spillover parking impacts on adjacent neighborhood. Furthermore, there is no adjacent development with convenient connections for spillover parking, which will help limit the frequency of casual spillover parking. The PDP is equal to or better than a plan meeting the standard in this regard because a plan with more paved parking lot area in proportion to units would have greater aesthetic and environmental impacts. The balance of dwelling units and parking is a crucial component of the PDP in meeting a defined community need for affordable housing; and the strict application of the standard requiring more parking would render the project practically infeasible. For these reasons, the PDP will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. E. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D) to allow buildings to be placed in direct relation to parking drives rather than streets would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2). This is because the proposed plan provides parking drives flanked by tree-lined sidewalks leading directly to and from Redwood Street, forming clearly defined and directly linked pedestrian spaces that will function adequately in lieu of streets. Furthermore, there is no lost opportunity for interconnections with adjacent development due to existing development and the pond on three sides. Emergency access is accommodated. The parking drives in lieu of streets are a key contributor to affordability, with affordable housing being a clearly defined community need; and the strict application of the standard requiring streets would render the project practically infeasible.. F. The Modification of Standard to subsection 4.5(E)(4)(i) to allow one 15,900 square foot building would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2). This is because the building is located internally within the project, with any external visibility blocked by the lower 126126 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 11 buildings around the perimeter of the site, and trees on the site. Any views of the building from the neighborhood outside of the project will be glimpses between other buildings at a significant distance and buffered by trees. The larger building is offset by generous open spaces, as the building is bounded by the pond and community green. The architecture is well-articulated and proportioned, and blends harmoniously with the project, and the size is a transitional increment larger than the 8-plex apartments, which allows the building to be compatible. The building is an efficient way to gain units that contribute to the ability of the project to provide affordable housing with quality development; and the strict application of the standard reducing the size of the single 3-story building would render the project practically infeasible. For these reasons, staff does not find the larger building to be detrimental to the public good. 2.8.2(H)(1) ‘Equal or Better’. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 2.8.2(H)(2) ‘Defined Community Need’ or ‘Community Problem’. Staff finds that the one 12-plex, with 2 and 3- bedroom units, is a key contributor to the ability of the project to comprise 100% affordable housing, with affordable housing being perhaps the most clearly defined community need that can be addressed in development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approve Modifications of Standards to Sections 3.2.2(K); 3.5.2(D); 4.5(E)(4)(i); and approve the Village on Redwood #PDP150012 based on the findings of fact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site & Landscape Plans (PDF) 2. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 3. Photometric Plan (PDF) 4. Plat (PDF) 5. Modification request - parking # (DOCX) 6. Modification request - Connecting Walkway (DOCX) 7. Modification Request - Bldg Size (DOCX) 8. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (DOC) 9. Neighborhood Meeting Notes#2 (DOC) 10. Statement of Planning Objectives (DOCX) 127127 128128 129129 130130 131131 132132 133133 134134 135135 136136 137137 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" Luminaire Schedule Label Quantity Manufacturer Catalog Number Description Lamp Number Lamps Wattage SB 1 Lithonia Lighting KBR8 LED 16C 700 40K SYM MVOLT KBR8 WITH 4 LIGHT BOARDS (16 LEDs), 700mA DRIVER, 4000K COLOR TEMP, AND SYMMETRIC OPTIC LED 1 39 SD 21 Lithonia 1 TYPE SB 2 TYPE SD 3 TYPE SG/SGHS 1" = 30'-0" SHEET NUMBER: SCALE: SHEET TITLE: REVISIONS: NO. DATE 1 08/25/15 STAMP: ISSUED: PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: DESIGNED: 2014-093-00 08/12/2015 MTV JJK MTV 139139 140140 141141 Village on Redwood Fort Collins Housing Authority July 15, 2015 MODIFICATION REQUEST #1 – Parking FCHA is seeking a modification of standard for relief from the minimum parking standards for the Village on Redwood. The Land Use Code requires 131 parking spaces for the 158 bedrooms in 72 units. The planned program includes 110 parking spaces therefore a 16% reduction is being requested. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H): “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” FCHA has studied its own portfolio and developed a plan that will more than adequately meet the demand for the unit types and income levels at Village on Redwood. 110 parking spaces for 72 units will provide sufficient resident and guest parking without creating excess asphalt and parking area on this sensitive site. A detailed study was currently conducted at FCHA’s Village on Plum property by Russell Mills Studio. The Village on Plum is located in Fort Collins at 2021 W Plum Street. The development includes 95 units of affordable housing with 208 bedrooms and 151 surface parking spaces. The recent investigation of the parking lot demonstrated that the current parking there is not only sufficient but significantly underutilized. A parking count was conducted on May 7, 2013 through May 13, 2013. Vehicles in parking spaces were counted each morning and each evening. On average, only 73 of the 151 spaces were used in the morning and 60 were used in the evening. Of the 95 households residing at the property, 22% do not own a vehicle or park on the property. This demonstrates that the highest demand for the Village on Plum property would be 73 spaces for 208 bedrooms, or a parking ration of 0.35 parking/bedroom. Applying this formula to the Village on Redwood project, the maximum parking demand for 158 bedrooms would be 55 parking spaces. FCHA is providing exactly double the realistic demand by creating 110 parking spaces. The Village on Redwood will include 110 parking spaces for residents, staff, and guests, which will clearly meet the parking demand of the project and not be detrimental to the public good. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(1): “the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested.” 142142 The location of the Village on Redwood, adjacent to a future City Natural Area, and surrounded by single-family homes creates the need for sensitive site planning that reduces the visual and environmental impact of parking areas. The amount and layout of parking proposed in the proposed site plan allows for an overall design that better meets the intent of the Land Use Code. By creating seven small parking areas distributed around the site, the amount of pavement visible from Redwood Street is minimal. The layout also allows for front doors to face Redwood Street, creating a strong pedestrian character. In addition, the Code requires a minimum 50’ buffer from the wetland area to the west. Increasing the amount of parking on the site to meet the minimum parking standards in the code would require encroachment into the buffer area and/or elimination of the community green area. Neither of these would be in alignment with the goal of sensitivity to natural areas and improving the quality and character of new development. Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is an affordable housing community designed to address the critical need for affordable rental housing in the community. The need for affordable housing is defined in City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 72 households is a significant step towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. 143143 Village on Redwood Fort Collins Housing Authority July 15, 2015 MODIFICATION REQUEST #2 – Connecting Walkway The applicant is requesting a Modification of standard 3.5.2.d Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking is requested for buildings C, D, E, F, J, K, and, L due to lack of a ‘Connecting Walkway’. These seven buildings all connect directly to a walkway, but due to the depth of the lot, the walkway crosses at least one parking area. Per the City Conceptual Review, the Modification is clearly supportable by staff based on the plan being equal or better than a plan that introduces a street into the property, with no detriment to the public good due to barriers on 3 sides; and also based on the plan providing 100% affordable housing. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H): “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” And As required by Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(3), by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The Project is located on a deep lot with two access points and 11 separate residential buildings. The layout and density is dictated by the LMN Development Standards. The depth of the lot makes it impossible for all 11 buildings to be connected to a walkway that does not require a pedestrian to cross a parking lot or driveway. “Connecting walkway” is defined as (1) any street sidewalk, or (2) any walkway that directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route. The internal pedestrian connectivity of the site is strong and will allow pedestrians to most amenities without crossing a driveway. The driveway crossings have been designed to foster safe and direct pedestrian crossings, so although access out to Redwood Street by a pedestrian from seven of the 11 residential buildings will require crossing a driveway, the vehicle movements will be slow and pedestrians will be clearly visible. 144144 Due to the unique deep configuration of the lot, it is not possible to meet the connecting walkway standard and comply with the maximum 12 units per building standard and provide adequate parking. In support of its request, the applicant also asserts: Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(1): “the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested.” The configuration of the lot at the Village on Redwood requires two access points to provide proper fire access while avoiding the wetland buffer area. The proposed site plan is equal to or better than two cul-de-sacs which would comply with the standards for which a modification is requested. The proposed site plan provides equivalent access and safety but avoids parking concentrations and promotes a strong internal pedestrian environment and main street style urban design along Redwood Street In support of its request, the applicant also asserts: Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is an affordable housing community designed to address the critical need for affordable rental housing in the community. The need for affordable housing is defined in City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 72 households is a significant step towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. 145145 Village on Redwood Fort Collins Housing Authority August 25, 2015 MODIFICATION REQUEST #3 – Maximum Floor Area for Multi-family building in the LMN Zone The applicant is requesting a Modification of standard 4.5.E.4.i, Maximum Floor Area for multi- family building, to allow one 15,900 square foot building. The limit is 14,000 square feet. Building K does comply with the 3-story height limit and 12 unit/building limit, but the total square footage exceeds 14,000 square feet. Building K is the only 12-plex and 3-story building proposed on the site. In an effort to balance the needed density to maintain affordability with the community feedback to minimize the number of 3-story buildings, FCHA spread out 72 units into 12 separate buildings. All efforts were made to reduce the number of 3-story buildings down to one and locate it internal to the site, minimizing any potential impacts to neighbors. Overall, the LMN zone District would have allowed for 130 units to be developed on this site, but FCHA chose to pursue only 72 units and maintain the large community green space, comfortable buffer areas, and mostly 2-story buildings. The total gross floor area of Building K is 15,960 square feet. The 12-plex building includes 3 one-bedroom units, 6 two-bedroom units, and 3 three-bedroom units (33 bedrooms) stacked with two internal stairways. The proposed unit configuration will best meet the needs of the community. The design and location ensure there is no impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Providing a mix of bedroom types allows for us to serve a variety of households and families and create the healthiest community possible. The 12-plex only exceeds the square footage amount by a nominal 1,590 square feet. In support of its request, the applicant asserts: “the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good.” Building K is located along the internal community green and separated from Redwood Street by a parking lot, 2 buildings, and significant landscaping (242 feet from the proposed Redwood right of way). The building is 161 feet from the closest property line to the south. The size of the building allows for an average of 1,330 square feet per unit, which is reasonable for a combination of 1,2, and 3-bedroom units with two internal stairways. Each individual unit has a balcony, and the 2 stairways have covered entries. These design features help break up the elevations of the building. Overall, the size of one building will have no impact on the community and not be detrimental to the public good. Building K has been intentionally located on the interior of the site to minimize any potential impact to the surrounding neighborhood and will likely not be visible from any neighboring property. 146146 In support of its request, the applicant also asserts: Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(1): “the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested.” The alternative to the proposed plan that would maintain the density which allows for the long term affordability would be to shrink Building K and consolidate all 9 of the 1-bedroom units into Building K and relocate the larger units into Buildings D and F. This would not have any effect on building height or density, but it would push Buildings D and F extremely close together. Currently the buildings are 31 feet apart and increasing the bedroom sizes of the building would shrink the separation to nearly 5 feet which would likely preclude the opportunity for the walkway that connects to the community green there. This would also consolidate unit types and family types into one building, which is undesirable when trying to create a healthy and balanced community. This alternative would also put greater pressure on the north half of the site for parking. The site as designed includes 51% of the bedrooms north of the community green with 50% of the parking on the north (55 spaces) half of the site as well. If more 2 and 3-bedroom units are shifted from the southern side to the northern side, the balance would be disrupted. Therefore, the plan as proposed would be equal to or better than a plan that would comply with the 14,000 square foot limit for Building K. In support of its request, the applicant also asserts: Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2): “the granting of a modification from the strict application of the standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible.” The Project meets both alternative requirements of Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.2(H)(2). The Project is an affordable housing community designed to address the critical need for affordable rental housing in the community. The need for affordable housing is defined in City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the opportunity to provide such housing for 72 households is a significant step towards addressing this important community need and provides a substantial benefit to these individuals and the community as a whole. 147147 In support of its request, the applicant also asserts: (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.” Building K exceeds the 14,000 square foot limit for a multi-family building by just 1,590 square feet. In the context of the entire 68,775 square foot development, it is a nominal and inconsequential square footage divergence from the standard. 148148 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES These notes capture questions, comments and ideas from the meeting but are not a verbatim transcript. PROJECT: Redwood Village Apartments DATE: October 9, 2014 (September 4 meeting date) PLANNER: Clark Mapes APPLICANT/ Fort Collins Housing Authority OWNER Q&A Discussion Financing Q: What is the timing of funding? A: Many different funding sources are being pursued, and it is likely to take through First Quarter 2015 to secure all of the funding. Q: What reserves do you have in place? Are they interest bearing? A: We capitalize reserves in interest-bearing accounts. $400 per year per unit is held in reserve for maintenance. Future Residents Q: Will there be a property value impact on neighborhood?* A: Impact on property value is a common concern with the construction of new affordable housing; however, studies repeatedly show that there is no negative impact on property values, especially when projects utilize the low income housing tax credit funding tool. The quality of design and investment planned with the Village on Redwood will bring a significant investment to the community and contribute positively to the neighborhood. Comment: Traffic??? A Traffic Impact Study will be required at the time of PDP application submittal, and the development will have to meet any requirements that may result from the study. Q: Are students going to live there? A: The tax credit funding source will not allow traditional full time students. 149149 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 Q: What is the timing? A: If all of the funding pieces come together, construction could begin in summer/fall 2015. Q: How will reserves work? Can rent payments sustain needs of property? A: The project will have $298,301 in capitalized reserves held in a segregated account with USBank. Additionally, $300 per unit or $18,000 per year will added to the reserves annually. Q: Why the density in a single-family neighborhood? A: The site plan and architecture will be designed to be lower scale and context sensitive. The zoning allows for up to 12 units per acre to be built on the site. The zoning reflects the mixed character of the neighborhood. Although the property is surrounded on three sides by houses, there are also multi-family, industrial, and institutional properties nearby. The project is specifically designed to help meet the community need for affordable housing. Comment: Not interested in pond. Comment: Against the development. Comment: Density is a concern. Comment: Traffic concerns!!! Q: Will parking spill over to Redwood Street? A: The project will consider adding on-street parking along Redwood Street in along the project boundary. Adding on-street parking should help minimize spillover street parking in other areas. This parking would be inset from the bike lane to avoid the situation that currently exists where parking for existing houses spills out onto Redwood Street in the bike lane. Q: What will rent be? A: Rent is dictated by the tax credit program and it varies by income level and number of bedrooms. Monthly rent for a 2-bedroom unit, for example, would vary from $424 for a 30% AMI household to $850/month for a 60% AMI household. Comment: Use quality materials that are easily maintained (don’t want to see chipping paint, etc.) A: The project would use materials and have a professional maintenance program that is intended to set an enhanced level of quality as a positive contribution to the neighborhood. Q: Is this low income housing or affordable housing? (Are they the same thing?) A: There is not a specific distinction with this terminology. These units will be income- restricted, meaning that tenants’ incomes must meet the affordability levels specified for the project. Comment: Concern about potential other multi-family development at Redwood/Willox. 150150 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 Property Management Q: What happens if someone’s income increases substantially after 2 years? What will their rent be? A: Once qualified, always qualified. Rent is not based on income, they are set but rents are adjusted annually. (Annual rent increases.) Q: Do we maintain exterior/grounds? A: Yes, we have contractors and we are held to higher standards because of funder/investor requirements. Q: Are there other properties in town we have built/rehabbed? A: Yes, several. These include Village on Stanford Rd. and Village on Elizabeth; these were both rehabbed. Q: What will this do to our property values? A: (City) - The City doesn’t analyze that as part of individual projects like this. The question has come up very often over decades on many projects where single family houses exist and then apartments or commercial activities are developed later. Houses and apartments exist near each other throughout the City and property values in Fort Collins seem to go nowhere but up to the point where the concern sometimes becomes the opposite – that housing values are too high making housing unaffordable for local residents. Q: What about curb appeal/personal items on patios/yards? A: We have a landscaping company that maintains our grounds. We do not permit anything in outdoor space that is not outdoor-approved (patio furniture). With detached sidewalks, street trees, and the faces of homes along Redwood Street rather than garages and driveways, the project is intended to meet or raise the level of curb appeal in the area. Q: What about noise? A: Our tenant handbook and lease cover issues of this nature which we enforce when needed. Q: Can I move in next week? A: This will certainly be a great option for many individuals and families in our community. The units will be available to those whose incomes qualify and pass the property management screening. The units should be available to rent in 2016. Q: When are we breaking ground? A: We still have a lot to prepare, but hope groundbreaking will be in the 3 rd or 4 th quarter of 2015. Q: What about turnover? A: Our properties range from 30-50% turnover every year. Q: What about damaged/inoperable vehicles? A: All vehicles must be tagged and operable or they will be posted with a tow notice. Q: What about parking? 151151 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 4 A: We are proposing curb cut outs along Redwood for overflow/guest parking and ample parking in the property. Q: How do we monitor pets/guests? A: We do annual inspections, and maintenance is in our units on a regular basis. Design Comment: Natural color palette. Q: I’m concerned about increased traffic on Redwood, especially about people parking in front of our house. A: Tucked-in parking is proposed along the west side of Redwood to allow parking further from the travel lanes and outside of the bike lane. Comment: Concern about drainage – pond fills, and the site slopes away from the pond. A: Drainage will be managed in conformance with the City’s high standards for drainage facilities. Comment: Interested in making the pond an amenity. A: Please see the site design. We will work with the City to increase access to the pond (e.g., a nature trail). Comment: Prefer low building height. Comment: Maintain bike lane; concerned that people will park there. Comment : Would like privacy along path/yards. Vegetation and trees as a privacy and noise buffer. Comment: Include fencing along north and south. Comment: Traffic along Lemay. Comment: Concerned about parking on Redwood. Comment: Sustainability desired. Comment: Consider placing 2-story townhomes along the edges and the 3-story flats internal to the site to reduce privacy concerns, rather than the current plan with 2-story buildings on the interior and 3-story buildings next to the existing homes. The currently-proposed 3-story buildings on the north and south edges of the parcel have balconies that look down onto to back yards of existing single family homes. Comment: Concerned about privacy – visual between north neighbors and the proposed bedroom windows in the apartments. 152152 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 5 Comment: Path around pond for neighbors to use is a potential component of the project – looking for input. Q: What are the building setbacks from the pond and the north and south sides of the site? A: Pond - 100 feet; sides of site - 25 feet. Comment: Scale of buildings is important (2 story/3 story). Comment: Love the plan, low density, subtle colors. Q: Will Redwood continue south of Conifer? A: That is part of the City’s future plans, but it is not related to this project. Q: Can we improve pond edge all around? A: FCHA is in partnership with City Natural Areas to improve and maintain the pond. Q: Can buildings be moved away from back yards? A: Sensitivity to surrounding properties is a priority. The design team will look into height, location of buildings, and landscaping to reduce any potential visual and privacy impacts. Q: Can community garden be on the north side? A: This can be looked into. There are plans for 2 garden areas on the property currently. FCHA would like to understand what id the basis of concern for the community gardens. Q: Can townhomes be on the perimeter? A: Yes, this change will be made. Q: Do you plan to replace the fence? A: FCHA does not own any fencing and does not plan to replace any fencing owned and maintained by other property owners. FCHA will cooperate with neighbors on any future shared fencing opportunities. 153153 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES These notes capture questions, comments and ideas from the meeting but are not a verbatim transcript. PROJECT: Village on Redwood Apartments DATE: June 19, 2015 (June 15 meeting date) PLANNER: Clark Mapes APPLICANT/ Fort Collins Housing Authority OWNER Fence Q: Is a fence proposed? A: Yes, there is a fence running along the wetland buffer boundary Other examples Q: Do you have other projects we could look at? A: The townhomes make this project unique, our other projects are stacked flats (typical apartments with stairs). The Village on Stanford was developed with similar financing and also has a community clubhouse, is a development located at 2631 Stanford Road, Fort Collins. Although it is not townhomes, it is perhaps the most similar. Village on Stanford 154154 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 Parking Q: Is there enough parking? The student housing project has cars all over, if we’re going to have two density projects in this area there needs to be parking. A: 110 spaces are proposed for the 72 units (1.5 spaces per unit). City standard requirements would be 131. The Housing Authority regularly counts vehicles in other projects and has found that a lot of households at this income level either do not own vehicles or only have 1 vehicle per household. 110 spaces will more than meet the parking demand for the development. Q: Can you take out 1 building and put in another parking lot? A: The proposed density is less than the allowable maximum. 72 units is appropriate scale and density, and additional parking is not needed to meet the parking demand of this population. General Comment: Q: A 4-way stop is needed at Redwood and Bayberry Circle – with dedicated turn lanes. A: This is a comment for the City of Fort Collins, but traffic counts would need to meet warrant for new stop sign and it currently does not. Height and Density Q: Can you replace the 3-story building with a 2-story building? A: Only one of the 13 buildings on the site is 3-stories, and it is intentionally located at the interior of the development to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. The overall density is less than the allowable for the zone district, and 3-story buildings are permitted. Q; Can you make the SW building area green space and get rid of a building? A: The allowable density on the site for affordable housing is 108 units, which is 36 units more than what is planned. With just 72 units proposed (8 units/acre), it would not be reasonable to reduce the density any further. If one building is eliminated in this location, 8 units would need to be absorbed elsewhere on the site. This would likely increase the height of 2 additional building to 3-stories, which is undesirable. 155155 1 Village on Redwood Fort Collins Housing Authority Statement of Planning Objectives August 26, 2015 Project Overview The Fort Collins Housing Authority is creating 72 new units of affordable housing in north Fort Collins at the Village on Redwood. This project is a unique opportunity to create a healthy, sustainable, and vibrant community for low-income individuals and families in a county severely impacted by recent natural disasters. Centered on a large community green, the Village on Redwood offers opportunity for recreation as well as peaceful retreat with the adjacent pond and natural area. Townhomes will line Redwood Street, creating a strong connection with the surrounding community, and all units will have outdoor space to enjoy the outdoor amenities. FCHA is ready to move the Village on Redwood project forward to help address a critical community need. With so many homes damaged, destroyed or made inaccessible by the High Park Fire and the 2013 Larimer County floods, the already strained rental market is now a serious problem for the Fort Collins area. Many of those impacted by the disasters are faced with having to choose very expensive housing options in order to stay in the community. Long term rentals are scarce and affordable options are extremely limited. Village on Redwood will offer much needed relief to the affordable housing rental shortage situation and the project will also include a new City Natural Area. In partnership with City Natural Areas, Evergreen West Pond Natural Area will be created on Lot 2, containing the pond and 50’ buffer area. This community amenity will be accessible through Lot 1, and provides an exciting opportunity for preservation in partnership with development. Program Overview Village on Redwood will include 72 new units of affordable housing with 36 “townhouse” units and 36 “flats” units separated into 12 individual buildings 156156 2 surrounding a large community green. The mix of unit types includes 1,2,3, and 4— bedroom units. Bedroom and Unit Mix 9 one-bedroom/1 bath 42 two-bedroom/1 bath 19 three-bedroom/2 bath 2 four-bedroom/2 bath Area Median Income (AMI) Target 13 units at 0-30% AMI 10 units at 31-40% AMI 19 units at 41-50% AMI 29 units at 51-60% AMI Total = 72 units (100% affordable) Unit amenities include: • In-unit washers and dryers; • Balconies or patios; • Microwaves; • Energy efficient heating and air conditioning; • Exterior storage lockers (located next to the stairs for the flats and off of the patios in the townhomes). • Great room floor plan Common area project amenities include: • Community building with two offices for property management, a fitness room, kitchen, great room with pool table and seating, entrance/lobby area, WiFi and patio; • A large tot lot; • A community green sufficiently large for various games and other activities; • A community garden with raised beds and a tool shed; • A pedestrian/bike path that loops throughout the site; and • Bicycle storage and parking areas. Location The Village on Redwood is located in desirable north Fort Collins, less than 1.5 miles from the heart of downtown Fort Collins. The flat vacant site is surrounded by an established single-family neighborhood with parks, schools, bike trails, and convenient access to the services and retail on the North College Corridor. A bus stop with regular and direct service to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit line is less than 0.2 mile from the site. 157157 3 Within ½ mile of the property (Comfortable 10-minute walking distance) • Food Bank of Larimer County • JAX Outdoor Gear • Redwing Marsh Natural Area • Greenbriar Park • Redwood Bike Trail • Salud Family Health Clinic • 2 Transfort bus routes (#8, #81) The North College Marketplace is just 0.7 mile from the site and includes the large format King Soopers Marketplace offering both general merchandise (clothing, electronics, etc.) and a traditional grocery market. A pharmacy, restaurants, bank, dentist, and gas station are also all located within the Marketplace. Transfort Bus Routes #8 and #81 stop at the corner of Redwood Street and Conifer every 30 minutes, 6 days/week, and the trip to the Downtown Transit Center is less than 10 minutes. The Downtown Transit Center is the northern hub for bus routes in Fort Collins, including MAX, and offers full service customer service counter and the Bike Library for check-out bike for community use. As stated in the Market Study, The location for Village on Redwood is ideal in many aspects. There are comparatively few Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects within the northeast area of Fort Collins yet the area is growing and has vacant land available for additional development. It is convenient to the downtown area and to I-25 for commuters. The site offers a quiet, safe, attractive residential setting with convenient access to grocery shopping, other commercial services, public transit and recreation. Construction Type The Village at Redwood includes 12 buildings consisting of (3) 2-story 8-unit flats, (1) 3- story 8-unit flats, (4) 2-story 6-unit townhomes, (4) 2-story 3-unit townhomes, and (1) clubhouse with a leasing office, open area, fitness room, and kitchen. The residential buildings will include 2 story “townhome” apartments and 2-3 story “flats” buildings. All residential buildings will be type VB wood-frame construction with R-2 occupancy and NFPA 13R sprinkler system. The clubhouse will be a 1-story Type VB wood-frame construction with A-2 and B occupancy and no sprinkler system. Sustainability Features and IDAP FCHA is participating in the City Utilities Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP). The goal of the program is an integrated design process that results in high performance buildings. The Schematic Design Energy Report completed by Group 14 Engineering for the Village on Redwood project documents how the project will meet the identified 42 158158 4 kBtu/sf/yr target by including a number of high efficiency measures ranging from tight construction and tankless water heaters, to 12.5kw photovoltaic system on the clubhouse roof. The Project is also expected to be certified under the Enterprise Green Communities Guidelines by utilizing various green building techniques, including compact development, smart framing, high R-values, water conserving features, energy efficient appliances and lighting, and compliance with Energy Star New Homes. 1. City Plan Principles and Policies Achieved by the Proposed Plan A fundamental component of City Plan is to locate higher density affordable housing within close proximity to transit while utilizing sustainable building practices that incorporate environmental, economic, and human considerations. Many principles and policies outlined in City Plan are achieved with this project. The most significant are listed here: Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Village on Redwood is a mixed income apartment community. The development is located one block from TransFort bus routes (public transportation); 0.7 mile from North College Marketplace (shopping, grocery, and pharmacy), and along the N College Corridor (employment, services, and retail). Policy LIV 7.6 – Basic Access Every unit in the Village on Redwood will follow Universal Design standards. Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Village on Redwood is located a healthy stable residential and will be a mixed-income apartment community. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape A functional landscape is being promoted by the incorporation of Rain Garden/Bioretention areas that will slow-down and filter the pollutants in stormwater run-off. Policy 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscape A low-maintenance landscape has been incorporated into this project by establishing low-water plant zones, low-water turf areas, and native seed and wetland zones 159159 5 Policy LIV 28.2 – Mix of Uses As recommended for the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District, the Village on Redwood includes small scale multi-family buildings as the principal use of the site. Policy LIV 28.3 – Mix of Housing Types Adding multi-family housing to the neighborhood is supported by the policies that encourage a mix of housing types in the LMN zone district. Policy SW 3.3 – Encourage Private Community Gardens in Neighborhood Design Community gardens for the residents are planned at Village on Redwood to help promote health, community, and sustainability. Policy LIV 44.4 – Utilize Buffers The 50’ buffer area planned around the pond will help preserve and protect the Evergreen West Pond. City Natural Areas will be a partner in ensuring environmentally sensitive trail design, location, and construction. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE, WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, CURCULATION, TRANSITION AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERING ON SITE AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROJECT. Proposed open space in the development proposal includes a large community green, tree-lined walkways, buffer areas, rain gardens, and detention pond. The wetland buffer area to the west of the site will be the future Evergreen West Pond City Natural Area. FCHA will provide a walkway along the north side of the property from Redwood Street to the Natural Area. Buffer Area All areas within the Natural Areas buffer zone will be owned and maintained by City Natural Areas. 160160 6 Perennials/Grasses/Shrubs/Mulch Planting Area This planting type serves as the transition between hardscape, select edges, some slopes, and the restoration area. The landscape serves two purposes: it celebrates our unique Colorado region, and it provides a sense of place and identity for the Village on Redwood. Characteristics of this zone are organic and rock mulch with distinctive Colorado perennial and ornamental grasses. These plantings have low water usage, low maintenance, improved wildlife value and iconic appearance. Rain Garden Area specifically designed to slow and absorb rainfall, slowing the time of concentration of runoff, improving water quality, and maximizing the growth potential of adjacent plantings. Grading will channel site and roof area stormwater through these areas. Lawn Used only in high traffic event areas, this is the highest water demand landscape treatment. This area is reserved for lawn areas used for outdoor informal play and medium volume foot traffic. These areas are kept to a minimum due to the high water and maintenance demands required. 3. STATEMENT OF PROPOSED OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS; APPLICANT’S INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO FUTURE OWNERSHIP OF ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Fort Collins Housing Authority and or its designated management agent shall have responsibility for owning and managing the property in accordance with the requirements of each lender, governmental agency and City of Fort Collins’ codes. Fort Collins Housing Authority and or its designated management agent shall perform all maintenance of the property, including all common areas, community gardens, parking lots, buffer areas, sidewalks, storm water infrastructure, and any other amenity and or feature on the property requiring upkeep. The City of For Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of infrastructure and snow removal within the public roadway. Stormwater Infrastructure Landscape maintenance and trash removal within stormwater infrastructure including detention ponds, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the Fort Collins Housing Authority. This maintenance shall include all mowing, weeding cleanout, removal of trash and debris and any other typical maintenance required in order to ensure stormwater infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent. Landscape All landscape maintenance within the property shall be the responsibility of and performed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority 161161 7 Snow Removal FCHA (or designated contractor) shall perform snow removal on the property, including within all common areas, parking areas, and walkways. 4. ESTIMATE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINEESES, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES Staffing at Village on Redwood will include a Property Manager, Caretaker, and Maintenance staff. 5. DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE CHOICES AND ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT Located within a stable residential neighborhood with strong bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access, the Village on Redwood is on opportunity to create a vibrant sustainable community for low-income residents in a quality neighborhood. The site plan is designed to be sensitive to the surrounding context and to reduce the visual impact of the buildings on neighboring property owners. The buildings are oriented to frame Redwood Street and activate the internal community green space. The 2-story townhome units (active living areas on main floor and bedroom on 2nd floor) units are located along Redwood Street and the perimeter of the property, maximizing privacy for the surrounding properties. The floor plans and footprints take advantage of stacking design to maintain cost effectiveness while allowing for an interesting shape. The colors and materials selected are drawn from the surrounding environment while adding visual interest and style that result in quality buildings for the neighborhood. Located within the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District, this project exemplifies the purpose and standards envisioned for multi-family development in the Land Use Code. The owner and design team used the zone district standards in guiding the site and building design for Village on Redwood. 6. The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use. The Planning Director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be described. 162162 8 MODIFICATION REQUEST #1 – Parking See attached Modification request. FCHA is seeking a modification of standard for relief from the minimum parking standards for the Village on Redwood. The Land Use Code requires 131 parking spaces for the 158 bedrooms in 72 units. The planned program includes 110 parking spaces therefore a 16% reduction is being requested. MODIFICATION REQUEST #2 – Connecting Walkway See attached Modification request. A Modification of standard is requested for seven buildings due to lack of a ‘Connecting Walkway’ from a street to the building entrance that doesn’t cross a driveway. MODIFICATION REQUEST #3 – Max Floor Are for 12-plex See attached Modification request. FCHA is seeking a modification of standard for relief from the maximum floor area for a single building in the Village on Redwood. The Land Use Code has a maximum of 14,000 square feet for a multi-family building in the LMN District. Building K is 15,960 square feet. 7. Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated. The Village on Redwood project is an exciting example of partnership between FCHA and City Natural Areas to ensure the adjacent pond and wetlands will be preserved and protected to the maximum extent feasible. The Village on Redwood project complies with the minimum 50’ buffer area standards for the wetland. City Natural Areas recognizes the importance of the existing pond and will be leasing or purchasing the pond and buffer area to create a NEW City Natural Area – Evergreen West Pond Natural Area – and will take over access and management of the pond. Proposed Evergreen West Pond Natural Areas amenities include: • Natural surface trail • 2 foot bridges/boardwalks • Patrol by rangers • Pet waste and Trash Containers • Weed control and Removal of Exotic Pest Shrubs 163163 9 8. Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held. In an effort to be a good neighbor and maximize transparency, two neighborhood meetings have been held for the Village on Redwood. FCHA elected to send out notices well beyond the required 800’ notification area and included over 1,200 properties. At the first meeting FCHA received feedback that the neighbors preferred to have the townhome units located at the exterior of the site and the flats should be on the interior to maximize privacy. This change was made by FCHA. At the second Neighborhood meeting, the neighbors supported and appreciated the change. One comment was also received about reducing the height of the 3-story building down to 2-stories. FCHA has minimized the height and mass of all of the buildings in the project as much as possible. The only 3-story building on the site was intentionally located on the interior to minimize impacts on neighboring property owners. Overall, it would have been more cost effective for FCHA to construct more 3-story buildings and reduce the total number of buildings in the project; however, it was recognized that the community preferred to see more 2-story buildings. 9. Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have had during Conceptual Review. The current project name is Village on Redwood. It initially went by “72: A Vibrant Sustainable Community” at the time of Conceptual Review. 164164 August 31, 2015 Re: a Phone call from a resident in the notification area, who is unable to attend the meeting and wanted to share some comments on the phone. Betty Svendsen, neighbor: - Attended the neighborhood meetings. - Is concerned that if the Modfication for parking quantity results in inadequate parking, then people will tend to park on Redwood Street in the bike lanes. Does not want to see people ticketed. What is “Plan B” if more parking is needed? To avoid any problems in this regard, the City should remove the bike lanes and allow on street parking instead. - Thinks that perhaps this could wait to see if there is indeed a problem; does not necessarily question the rationale for the Modification; but as a retired engineer, it is generally better to be proactive and out in front of problems. - Is aware that the general direction of the City is to expand bike facilities, rather than remove them; but in this case, thinks Redwood Street could work the same as local streets in the neighborhood, which do not have separate striped bike lanes. Given the lack of room for everything, simply treat Redwood in that manner. - Would hate to see people getting ticketed if, for example, someone has visitors for the holidays and they park on the street. - This isn’t only an issue related to the proposed development, it would also benefit the existing houses and the same concerns apply to them. 165165 Dear Planning and Zoning Board, I am writing in support of the Village on Redwood Housing project. I live in the Club Estates, which is within two (2) miles of the Redwood Housing project location. I also work for the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA). Affordable housing is a significant issue in our community, and there is an acute need for more affordable rental housing. The FCHA has proposed the Village on Redwood to address this critical need. This housing community is a valuable project for its proposed location, fitting well with the City’s plans, policies and zoning regulations. FCHA has planned a community that includes a combination of townhomes and flats with enhanced amenities including a large community green space, clubhouse with fitness center, playground, dog run and a new City Natural Area with walking trails, a pond and boardwalk. This project is a unique opportunity to create a healthy, sustainable, and vibrant community for low-income individuals and families in a county impacted by recent natural disasters. The damage and destruction of homes caused by recent years of fires and floods, combined with an already strained rental market and high home prices, has caused serious problems for the Fort Collins area. Many of those impacted by the disasters are faced with very expensive housing options in order to stay in the community. Long term rentals are scarce and affordable options are extremely limited. Village on Redwood will create 72 new units of affordable housing in our community. The development will offer much needed relief to the affordable housing rental shortage situation. It will assist the local workforce, as well as truly low-income residents, in meeting the housing needs of their families. Knowing that FCHA will own and manage this property gives me confidence that Village on Redwood will be successful. They manage more than 1,000 housing units in Fort Collins and have won awards for their excellence in design and sustainability. FCHA is a high performing housing agency with long-term and ongoing partnerships with other community agencies. I am certain they will create a high-quality community, manage a well-run property, and keep their promise of supporting strong, safe neighborhoods. The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Village on Redwood is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-heartedly support this project. Sincerely, Carol McGrath 166166 167167 168168 From: Clark Mapes To: Cindy Cosmas Subject: "Village at Redwood" Comments Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:32:00 PM From: TONY ARNERICH [mailto:tarnerich@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:38 AM To: Sarah Burnett Cc: Clark Mapes Subject: Response to proposed development "Village at Redwood" Sarah Burnett Neighborhood Development Liaison Fort Collins, Co Dear Ms. Burnett, My wife Cathy and I are the property owners at 1520 Thimbleberry Ct in Fort Collins, near the proposed development that is under consideration at Redwood Road. We are opposed to this development proposal for the following reasons: The existing neighborhoods bounded by Blue Spruce Drive, Willox Lane, Lemay Avenue, And Conifer Street are already at double the density compared to neighborhoods located to the immediate North and East; however this new development is planned to be built at yet another doubling of density which will change the character of the area in a detrimental way. In pursuit of this excess density, the developer is requesting three exceptions to planning standards: an overly large building, substandard parking provisions, and an unusual street layout. Two of these deviations are especially concerning: 1. There are no three story buildings of any kind in the area now. Presumably this is the building with the higher than norm floor area. 2. While the developer has confidence that the patterns of vehicle ownership will happen to conform to the vision he expects based on averages for this type of housing, there will be no controls for the number of vehicles. The builder can't restrict the degree of vehicle ownership, and it is well within possibility that eventually the streets of the development will be clogged with parking. This may also spill over towards other neighborhoods. 3. Even if the future residents do conform to the developer's notions, they will need to rely on public transportation, However in the notice I do not see any projection of new bus routes of enhanced schedules to come into this neighborhood which has minimal coverage today. Does the developer hope that the city will take action once the area becomes crowded? 169169 We urge the city of Fort Collins to accept only compatible development proposals which match the existing character of the neighborhood, rather than try to squeeze in as many units as possible. The developer will be present during the construction and then gone forever, not experiencing the results. The residents however will remain for years and be stuck with the consequences of questionable decisions. We are asking the city to reject this plan as it stands now. At the very least, please reject the three requests for modifications of standards. The standard exist for good reasons and they should not be discarded at mere whim. Thank You, Tony and Cathy Arnerich 170170 From: Clark Mapes To: Cindy Cosmas Subject: Letter for P&Z -- FW: Village on Redwood Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:05:17 AM From: David Slater [mailto:lunarowan@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:29 AM To: Clark Mapes Subject: Village on Redwood Mr. Mapes, I am writing you with my concerns about the proposed development, Village on Redwood. I am concerned the number of parking spaces available at his site. It is stated in the notice of public hearing that there are less parking spaces than standard. I believe that this should be modified because Redwood Street is narrow and won’t allow street parking on it without inhibiting the bike route, thus leaving the close by neighborhoods as the only alternative for additional parking for the complex. Just because the Village on Redwood is labeled affordable housing does not guarantee that the residents living there will own fewer cars, this is a over generalization and can’t be counted on and should not be allowed to vary from city zoning standards. These standards are in place to allow continued quality of life for the residents that are currently residing in the impacted areas. For similar reasons I ask that the city not allow the on building that exceeds the floor area limit for the zoning area. These standards are in place to look out for the current residents and I feel that allowing more square footage and thus more residents will have a negative impact on our neighborhood. I also take exception to having several buildings facing onto parking drive in lieu of internal streets. I feel that it is important to follow the zoning regulations in this instance because it affects the neighborhood as a whole when the front of homes face a parking lot it looks and feels very different than If they don’t and can attract a very different resident population based on this difference. Thank you for noting my concerns, David Slater Sent from Mail for Windows 10 171171 From: Daniel Covey To: Clark Mapes; Cindy Cosmas Subject: Support for the Village on Redwood Housing project Date: Friday, September 04, 2015 2:07:04 PM Dear Planning and Zoning Board, I am writing in support of the Village on Redwood Housing project. As a longtime resident of Fort Collins, I have seen the need for affordable rental housing increase to the point where families are struggling to secure long term rentals. Professionally, I have worked in the non-profit sector in Larimer County for almost a decade and have witnessed increasing numbers of individuals and families search tirelessly for housing, many without success. Especially for individuals who might have barriers to housing, such as poor credit, past evictions or even minor criminal charges, the search for affordable rental housing becomes nearly impossible. I was very excited to learn that the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) has proposed the Village on Redwood to address this critical need. Considering the FCHA’s reputation, I am confident that this housing community will be a valuable project for its proposed location, fitting well with the City’s plans, policies and zoning regulations. This project is a unique opportunity to create a healthy, sustainable, and vibrant community for low- income individuals and families in a county impacted by recent natural disasters. The damage and destruction of homes caused by recent years of fires and floods, combined with an already strained rental market and high home prices, has caused serious problems for the Fort Collins area. Many of those impacted by the disasters are faced with very expensive housing options in order to stay in the community. Long term rentals are scarce and affordable options are extremely limited. Village on Redwood will create 72 new units of affordable housing in our community. The development will offer much needed relief to the affordable housing rental shortage situation. It will assist the local workforce, as well as truly low-income residents, in meeting the housing needs of their families. Fort Collins’ greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable rental units. The average market rent of $1,173/month is unattainable for many community members. The Village on Redwood will provide permanent mixed-income, affordable housing with: · 13 units for households earning up to 30% of the AMI ($18,690 for 2-person household) · 10 units for households earning up to 40% of the AMI ($24,920 for 2-person household) · 19 units for households earning up to 50% of the AMI ($31,150 for 2-person household) · 29 units for households earning up to 60% of the AMI ($37,380 for 2-perosn household) I am especially pleased to know that 100% of the units will be affordable to residents earning 60% of AMI or less. 172172 The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. In my opinion, Village on Redwood is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. I whole-heartedly support this project. Sincerely, 173173 174174 175175 176176 177177 178178 ! September 9, 2015 Dear Planning and Zoning Board members: On behalf of the board of Homeward 2020, please accept this letter of support for the Village on Redwood. Homeward 2020 is an assembly of community and agency leaders working in support of the 10 Year Plan to make homelessness in Fort Collins rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. A major factor contributing to homelessness for many individuals and families in Fort Collins is the lack of affordable housing. Projects like the Village on Redwood, developed and managed by a reputable partner like the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA), will help fill the critical need for more affordable housing in Fort Collins. This housing community is a valuable project for its proposed location, fitting well with the City’s plans, policies and zoning regulations. FCHA has planned a community that includes a combination of townhomes and flats with enhanced amenities including a large community green space, clubhouse with fitness center, playground, dog run and a new City Natural Area with walking trails, a pond and boardwalk. This project is a unique opportunity to create a healthy, sustainable, and vibrant community for low-income individuals and families in a county impacted by recent natural disasters. The damage and destruction of homes caused by recent years of fires and floods, combined with an already strained rental market and high home prices, has caused serious problems for the Fort Collins area. Many of those impacted by the disasters are faced with very expensive housing options in order to stay in the community. Long-term rentals are scarce and affordable options are extremely limited. Village on Redwood will create 72 new units of affordable housing in our community. The development will offer much needed relief to the affordable housing rental shortage situation. It will assist the local workforce, as well as truly low-income residents, in meeting the housing needs of their families. Knowing that FCHA will own and manage this property gives us confidence that Village on Redwood will be successful. They manage more than 1,000 housing units in Fort Collins and have won awards for their excellence in design and sustainability. FCHA is a high performing housing agency with long-term and ongoing partnerships with other community agencies. We are certain they will create a high-quality community, manage a well-run property, and keep their promise of supporting strong, safe neighborhoods. The need in our community for affordable housing is undeniable. The Village on Redwood is the right solution, at the right location, managed by the right agency. For these reasons, Homeward 2020 whole- heartedly supports this project. Sincerely, Vanessa Fenley Director, Homeward 2020! 179179 262 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA || 970.221.2636 || bohemianfoundation.org September 10, 2015 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins Council Chambers, City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Planning and Zoning Board, Bohemian Foundation supports the Village on Redwood Housing project. Affordable housing is a significant issue in our community, and there is an acute need for more affordable rental housing. Long-term rentals are scarce and options are extremely limited. The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) has proposed the Village on Redwood to address this critical need. Bohemian Foundation is involved at the Board level of Homeward 2020, the Fort Collins based program focused on making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non- recurring by 2020. Affordable housing and rental subsidies are key to these plans. Via Homeward 2020, Bohemian also has relationships with stakeholders at FCHA and we appreciate the best practices they have employed thus far on the Village on Redwood Housing project. Village on Redwood will create 72 new units of affordable housing in our community. The development will offer much needed relief to the affordable housing rental shortage situation. It will assist the local workforce, as well as truly low-income residents, in meeting the housing needs of their families. Fort Collins’ greatest housing challenge is a lack of affordable rental units. The average market rent of $1,173/month is unattainable for many community members. The Village on Redwood will provide permanent mixed-income, affordable housing with: • 13 units for households earning up to 30% of the AMI ($18,690 for 2-person household) • 10 units for households earning up to 40% of the AMI ($24,920 for 2-person household) • 19 units for households earning up to 50% of the AMI ($31,150 for 2-person household) • 29 units for households earning up to 60% of the AMI ($37,380 for 2-person household) • 100% of the units will be affordable to residents earning 60% of AMI or less. FCHA has set a great example for public outreach and communication. FCHA exceeded the City’s requirements for community involvement. From the first days of planning, FCHA reached out to neighbors well beyond the required notification area. This expanded area included over 1,000 properties. Overall, the process has been transparent, inclusive and successful. This housing community is a valuable project for its proposed location, fitting well with the City’s plans, policies and zoning regulations. FCHA has planned a 180180 262 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA || 970.221.2636 || bohemianfoundation.org community that includes a combination of townhomes and flats with enhanced amenities including a large community green space, clubhouse with fitness center, playground, dog run and a new City Natural Area with walking trails, a pond and boardwalk. FCHA has taken great care to design a high quality project that is sensitive to the surrounding area. Building scale, height, and density are compatible with the neighborhood. The architecture reflects a traditional community with desirable amenities and features appealing to any renter regardless of income level. That FCHA will own and manage this property is an important feature of the project. They have won awards for their excellence in design and sustainability. FCHA is a high performing housing agency, with over 1,000 housing units under management and long-term and ongoing partnerships with other community agencies. The need in our community for affordable housing is clear. The Village on Redwood is worthy of your support. Please allow this project to move to the next phase. Sincerely, Cheryl Zimlich Executive Director 181181 182182 183183 184184 185185 186186 187187 Lighting DSXWPM LED 20C 700 40K T3M MVOLT DDL DSXWPM LED WITH (2) 10 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE T3M OPTIC, 4000K, @ 700mA WITH DIFFUSE DROP LENS. LED 1 45.7 SGHS 6 Lithonia Lighting DSX2 LED 100C 1000 40K T3M MVOLT HS DSX2 LED W/2 (30) LED & 2 (20) LED LIGHT ENGINES, (2) 1050mA DRIVERS, 4000K LED, TYPE T3M OPTICS WITH HOUSE SIDE SHIELD LED 1 356 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 2.1 3.6 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.5 2.5 2.7 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.6 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.2 3.9 2.9 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.7 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.4 3.1 2.6 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 3.4 1.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.7 2.5 1.7 1.3 1.6 2.3 1.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.3 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.1 4.1 2.9 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.9 3.9 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 2.1 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.7 0.7 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.2 3.3 1.2 0.4 0.4 1.6 2.3 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.6 2.2 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.6 1.8 3.2 1.9 1.7 2.7 4.4 1.1 2.2 3.2 4.5 4.5 4.9 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.6 3.0 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.3 0.6 2.3 3.3 4.8 5.2 6.6 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.3 2.3 3.2 4.7 5.1 6.4 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 2.2 3.2 4.3 4.7 4.6 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.0 3.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1 2.2 4.3 3.0 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.6 2.3 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.9 0.4 0.6 1.4 2.8 2.7 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.6 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 1.2 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 2.6 4.4 3.3 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.6 1.0 2.0 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.0 0.9 2.2 3.7 1.9 0.9 0.4 0.6 1.3 3.0 4.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.4 3.1 1.9 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.2 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.7 3.3 2.7 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.2 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.8 3.7 2.9 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 2.1 3.1 3.0 1.9 1.2 1.6 4.4 2.8 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.7 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 2.1 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 1.7 0.8 0.7 1.2 3.8 2.8 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 3.1 3.5 2.9 2.3 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.4 3.3 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 2.0 4.0 4.6 3.5 2.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.0 3.3 2.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.9 3.3 5.6 4.8 3.9 2.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.8 2.3 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.2 4.7 6.6 5.0 4.0 2.9 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 2.1 3.3 1.8 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.7 1.0 3.5 6.0 4.9 3.9 2.9 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 2.4 2.9 3.5 3.3 2.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.7 3.4 2.0 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.7 2.3 4.4 4.6 3.7 2.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.7 2.8 3.6 4.3 4.7 3.7 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 1.2 3.3 3.9 3.0 2.5 1.9 0.1 0.4 1.9 3.0 3.9 5.2 5.2 5.6 1.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 1.9 1.5 0.4 2.3 3.3 4.2 5.6 6.0 6.5 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.4 3.6 4.5 5.8 5.5 5.5 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.9 2.6 1.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.9 2.8 4.0 4.7 5.4 4.9 3.6 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 3.4 3.1 1.4 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.2 3.6 3.7 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.1 2.7 3.7 4.4 4.6 4.6 3.3 2.7 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.5 2.4 1.3 0.5 1.2 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.3 4.4 4.7 4.8 3.1 2.6 2.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.5 1.9 2.7 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 2.0 2.9 3.9 5.0 5.0 4.1 2.2 1.9 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.6 2.2 3.2 4.2 4.7 5.1 4.9 4.4 3.6 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.4 4.8 5.4 6.1 3.6 2.0 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.7 2.4 3.0 3.9 5.1 5.9 5.3 4.8 3.6 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.9 2.8 3.7 5.2 6.2 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 4.1 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.7 4.7 6.0 5.4 3.8 2.9 2.5 2.7 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.5 2.0 3.1 3.2 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.5 2.4 3.1 4.2 4.8 6.7 5.2 2.0 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.2 5.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 1.9 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.2 1.7 0.9 0.8 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.1 2.8 4.0 4.2 4.3 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.9 2.4 3.6 4.1 3.1 2.6 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 3.2 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.9 4.8 4.6 3.6 2.7 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 5.4 5.9 5.0 3.7 2.7 1.7 0.1 5.6 6.0 5.0 3.7 2.7 1.7 4.0 4.8 4.6 3.6 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 2.5 3.7 4.1 3.2 2.6 1.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.7 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 SGHS-4 SGHS-5 SGHS-7 SGHS-11 SGHS-12 SGHS-13 SD-1 SD-2 SD-3 SB-9 SD-5 SD-6 SD-7 SD-8 SD-9 SD-10 SD-11 SD-12 SD-13 SD-14 SD-15 SD-16 SD-17 SD-18 SD-21 SD-22 SD-20 SD-19 1" = 30'-0" SHEET NUMBER: SCALE: SHEET TITLE: REVISIONS: NO. DATE 1 08/25/15 STAMP: ISSUED: PROJ. NO. DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE: DESIGNED: 2014-093-00 08/12/2015 MTV JJK MTV 138138 a larger building, divide it into subo modules that reflect traditional bui in the context. › Vary the height of building modules structure, and include portions tha in height to historic structures in th Be careful to avoid excessive modu a building mass, when that would b character with simpler historic buil in the area. 5.9 maintain the scale of tra building widths in the con New Building 4 Changes in cornice lines combined with varia- tions in wall planes can help a new, larger building appear consistent with traditional development patterns. DRAFT 4 This single, new infill building is divided into modules to reflect the scale of the historic context. The height of a new building should appear to be within the height range of his- toric buildings, especially at street frontage. 5.10 establish a sense of human scale in a building design. › use vertical and horizontal articulation techniques to reduce the apparent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. › express the position of each floor in the external skin of a building to establish a scale similar to historic buildings in the district. › use materials that convey scale in their proportion, detail and form. › Design architectural details to be in scale with the building. using windows, doors, storefronts (in commercial buildings) and porches (in residential buildings) that are similar in scale to those seen traditionally is appropriate. 4 4 One Building broken into smaller masses Variety in single facade: Maintain historic proportions and heights 5.10 Establish a sense of human scale in a building design. ›› Use vertical and horizontal articu- lation techniques to reduce the ap- parent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. EXHIBIT A 109109 › in order to reduce the perceived m a larger building, divide it into subo modules that reflect traditional bui in the context. › Vary the height of building modules structure, and include portions tha in height to historic structures in th Be careful to avoid excessive modu a building mass, when that would b character with simpler historic buil in the area. 5.9 maintain the scale of tra building widths in the con New Building 4 Changes in cornice lines combined with varia- tions in wall planes can help a new, larger building appear consistent with traditional development patterns. DRAFT 4 This single, new infill building is divided into modules to reflect the scale of the historic context. The height of a new building should appear to be within the height range of his- toric buildings, especially at street frontage. 5.10 establish a sense of human scale in a building design. › use vertical and horizontal articulation techniques to reduce the apparent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. › express the position of each floor in the external skin of a building to establish a scale similar to historic buildings in the district. › use materials that convey scale in their proportion, detail and form. › Design architectural details to be in scale with the building. using windows, doors, storefronts (in commercial buildings) and porches (in residential buildings) that are similar in scale to those seen traditionally is appropriate. 4 4 From Old Town Historic District Design Standards: One Building broken into smaller masses Variety in single facade: Maintain historic proportions and heights Hotel Massing Articulation Chestnut Street 5.10 Establish a sense of human scale in a building design. ›› Use vertical and horizontal articu- lation techniques to reduce the ap- parent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. Undulating parapet height EXHIBIT A 108108 front to maintain the traditional range of heights at the street edge. 5.7 the overall height of a new building should be compatible with the historic district. A building height that exceeds the height range established in the context will be considered when: › it is demonstrated that the additional height will be compatible with adjacent properties and for the historic district at large. › taller portions are set back from the street. › access to light and air of surrounding proper- ties is respected. Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | November 4, 2013 specific block and the historic district as a whole. 5.6 Convey the traditional size of historic buildings in new construction as it is perceived at the street level. › the height of a new building should appear to be within the height range established in the context, especially at the street frontage. › floor-to-floor heights should appear similar to those of traditional buildings. › if an additional floor is permitted, place it (or sufficient portions of it) back from the street front to maintain the traditional range of heights at the street edge. 5.7 the overall height of a new building should be compatible with the historic district. A building height that exceeds the height range established in the context will be considered when: › it is demonstrated that the additional height will be compatible with adjacent properties and for the historic district at large. › taller portions are set back from the street. › access to light and air of surrounding proper- ties is respected. Theoretical Massing Allowed by Zoning * 56’ maximum height limit in this district EXHIBIT A 103103 GROUND FACE CMU (COLOR 5) 8282 8181 4240 ARCHITECTURE INC 3507 RINGSBY COURT SUITE 117 DENVER, CO 80216 t: 303.292.3388 f: 303.292.3113 ARCHITECT 8/26/2015 3:58:03 PM A-300 COURTYARD ELEVATIONS WALNUT ST & CHESTNUT ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 21129.00 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL MCWHINNEY 2725 ROCKY MOUNTAIN AVE STE 200 LOVELAND, CO 80538 DEVELOPER SAGE HOSPITALITY 1575 WELTON STREET STE 300 DENVER, CO 80202 OPERATOR t: 970.962.9990 t: 303.595.7200 f: 303.595.7219 BOHEMIAN COMPANIES 262 E MOUNTAIN AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 t: 970.490.2626 NORTHERN ENGINEERING, INC 200 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CIVIL RUSSELL + MILLS STUDIOS 141 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LANDSCAPE t: 970.568.5415 f: 970.221.4159 t: 970.484.8855 A PDP SUBMITTAL 24 JUNE 2015 B PDP RESUBMITTAL 22 JULY 2015 C PDP RESUBMITTAL 26 AUG. 2015 1COURTYARD SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (SOUTH) 2COURTYARD SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (NORTH) 7979 PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) GROUND FACE CMU BLOCK (COLOR 5) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) BRICK (COLOR 3) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 4) INTERLOCKING ZINC PANEL (COLOR 3) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 3) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM PANEL (COLOR 4) HOLLOW METAL DOORS (COLOR 6) OVERHEAD METAL COILING DOORS (COLOR 6) BRICK (COLOR 1) ISS. # KEY PLAN DESCRIPTION DATE ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER 4240 Architecture Inc. copyright 2015 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OWNER 4240 ARCHITECTURE INC 3507 RINGSBY COURT SUITE 117 DENVER, CO 80216 t: 303.292.3388 f: 303.292.3113 ARCHITECT 8/26/2015 3:57:42 PM A-200 BUILDING ELEVATIONS WALNUT ST & CHESTNUT ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 21129.00 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL MCWHINNEY 2725 ROCKY MOUNTAIN AVE STE 200 LOVELAND, CO 80538 DEVELOPER SAGE HOSPITALITY 1575 WELTON STREET STE 300 DENVER, CO 80202 OPERATOR t: 970.962.9990 t: 303.595.7200 f: 303.595.7219 BOHEMIAN COMPANIES 262 E MOUNTAIN AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 t: 970.490.2626 NORTHERN ENGINEERING, INC 200 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CIVIL RUSSELL + MILLS STUDIOS 141 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LANDSCAPE t: 970.568.5415 f: 970.221.4159 t: 970.484.8855 A PDP SUBMITTAL 24 JUNE 2015 B PDP RESUBMITTAL 22 JULY 2015 C PDP RESUBMITTAL 26 AUG. 2015 1SW SCALE: WALNUT 1/8" = 1'-0" (WEST) 2NW SCALE: CITY 1/8" = 1'-0" PARCEL (NORTH) 7878 ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) PRECAST OR CUT STONE PARAPET CAP ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM COMPOSITE PANEL PARAPET (COLOR 4) PREFINISHED PERFORATED ALUMINUM SCREEN (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM STOREFRONT (COLOR 4) PREFINISHED ALUMINUM CANOPY (COLOR 4) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 4) CUT LIMESTONE COLUMNS WITH PAINTED STEEL PROFILES AND HEADER (COLOR 4) CUT LIMESTONE PLANTERS (SMOOTH TEXTURE) BRICK - (COLOR 3) ALUMINUM WINDOWS (COLOR 4) ISS. # KEY PLAN DESCRIPTION DATE ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER 4240 Architecture Inc. copyright 2015 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OWNER 4240 ARCHITECTURE INC 3507 RINGSBY COURT SUITE 117 DENVER, CO 80216 t: 303.292.3388 f: 303.292.3113 ARCHITECT 8/26/2015 3:57:19 PM A-100 BUILDING ELEVATIONS WALNUT ST & CHESTNUT ST FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 21129.00 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL MCWHINNEY 2725 ROCKY MOUNTAIN AVE STE 200 LOVELAND, CO 80538 DEVELOPER SAGE HOSPITALITY 1575 WELTON STREET STE 300 DENVER, CO 80202 OPERATOR t: 970.962.9990 t: 303.595.7200 f: 303.595.7219 BOHEMIAN COMPANIES 262 E MOUNTAIN AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 t: 970.490.2626 NORTHERN ENGINEERING, INC 200 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CIVIL RUSSELL + MILLS STUDIOS 141 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 LANDSCAPE t: 970.568.5415 f: 970.221.4159 t: 970.484.8855 A PDP SUBMITTAL 24 JUNE 2015 B PDP RESUBMITTAL 22 JULY 2015 C PDP RESUBMITTAL 26 AUG. 2015 1NE SCALE: FIREHOUSE 1/8" = 1'-0" ALLEY (EAST) 2SE SCALE: CHESTNUT 1/8" = 1'-0" (SOUTH) 7777 Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting: The purpose of this section is for a project to ensure that the functional and security needs are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties and neighborhood. • All lighting is down-directional with cutoff fixtures. 6262