Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/11/2016 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 August 11, 2016 Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881 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 11, 2016 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft July 14, 2016, P&Z Hearing Minutes The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the July 14, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 2. Town of Windsor I-25/392 Design Standards PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item consists of design standards within the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center area that apply to new development in the Town of Windsor. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Agenda Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 July 14, 2016 3. 625 S. Peterson Multi-Family PDP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to redevelop an existing two-unit house at 625 South Peterson St into a 4- unit building by constructing an addition in the rear. According to Larimer County property records, the original house was built in 1898 with additions and/or renovations in the 1930's and 1970's. The current main floor is a 2-bedroom/ 1 bathroom unit while the upper level is also a 2-bedroom/ 1 bath unit. When exactly it was converted into a duplex is unknown, but is generally believed to be in the late 80's or early 90's. The site is located in the Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density District (NCM) zone district. APPLICANT: OWNER: Brad Massey - alm2s 712 Whalers Way Building B, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Heitmann Properties LLC 1421 Rollinwood Ln Fort Collins, CO 80525 • DISCUSSION AGENDA P&Z Board Recommendation of 2017-18 BFO Offers • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft July 14, 2016, P&Z Minutes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the July 14, 2016, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft July 14, 2016 P&Z Minutes (DOC) Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair City Council Chambers Gerald Hart, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Jeffrey Schneider Channel 881 on Comcast 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 July 14, 2016 Vice Chair Kirkpatrick called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Kirkpatrick, Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Hobbs and Schneider Absent: Heinz Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Beck-Ferkiss, Burnett, Mapes, Beals, Mounce, Holland, Ragasa, Sexton, Hahn, Wilkinson, Everette, and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Kirkpatrick provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures: • 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 Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 2 Chair Kirkpatrick also explained to the audience the procedures that will be used for such a large group of citizens participating in public input. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas for the audience. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, has a concern about the rezoning that occurs when a modification of standard is granted without a PDP application or any other development review application. He feels that those modifications that pertain to use by right, noting that land can be rezoned for use without any details of what the project will be. He suggested that an amendment to the Land Use Code (LUC) be considered as a result of his comments. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from June 9, 2016, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the July 14, 2016, Consent agenda. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan, PDP160009 3. The Overlook PDP160011 4. Harmony 23 Modification of Standard Project: Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan, PDP160009 Project Description: This is a request for consideration of a Project Development Plan for the construction of a mixed-use building on a vacant 2.6-acre site located at 4706 McMurry Avenue. The site is located in the Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district and within the boundaries of the Oakridge Business Park Overall Development Plan (ODP). Primary access to the site occurs using a shared driveway entrance located on the east side of McMurry Avenue near the intersection with Pleasant Oak Drive. Secondary access to the site may occur utilizing a shared driveway and parking area located at the northeastern corner of the site leading to Oakridge Drive and Innovation Drive. The proposed 3-story, 100,469 square foot building will contain 110 affordable multifamily units for seniors age 62 and older earning between 30% and 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The ground floor of the proposed structure contains 5,106 square feet of office space fronting McMurry Avenue, multifamily units, and indoor resident community space and a management office supporting the Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 3 building’s apartment units. Three modification of standard requests accompany the proposal; the first two modification requests concern Sections 4.26(D)(6)(b)(2) and 4.26(D)(6)(b)(3) of the Land Use Code, requiring public visibility and accessibility to areas meeting the project’s requirements for a park, central feature or gathering space. These modifications request the use of on-site gathering space that not visible to the public and the use of an off-site private park or gathering space that is not open to the public. The third modification relates to Section 3.22(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code requesting a reduction in the number of required minimum vehicle parking spaces for the project’s residential units. The 110 apartment units require 172 spaces and 80 are proposed. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mounce introduced the project, providing a brief overview. Arthur McDermott, representing the development company for this project, gave a brief history of the company. His company focuses on affordable housing, and he stated that they have been involved in approximately 3,000 similar developments along the Front Range. He showed slides of renderings of what the project would look like. He discussed the requirements that will exist for the seniors living at Oakridge Crossing, along with the demographics for the proposed residents. He stated that there is a need for this type of development here in Fort Collins, also citing the City’s policy that affordable housing is a priority for residents. He discussed the changes to the plan that were made based on public input, including parking issues, adding a Zip car for resident mobility, etc. This project would also inject a financial stimulus of approximately $21m into the community. Terrence Hoagland, Landscape and Land Planner, continued the presentation by showing slides of the project, highlighting the layout and the mixed-use aspect, which combines senior housing with retail, offices and other businesses, golf courses, and parks. He discussed the neighborhood outreach which has occurred and the subsequent alterations made based on public input. He discussed the building aspects: size, shape, and color. He talked about the plans for parking spaces for commercial and residential, including the parking modification application, adding that a Traffic Impact Study was performed. He spoke about water quality, the rain garden, patios, and the fencing along the east side. He discussed the amenities and the commercial portion of the building and how they meet the Fort Collins building code requirements. Andy Smith, Project Consultant, spoke about the modifications to standards for the parking space standard reduction, citing the rationale for this modification. He gave statistics for parking needs for senior housing and affordable housing, based on parking studies performed and the presence of a bike plan and ZIP car provisions. He concluded that this proposition adequately meets the LUC criteria. Oakridge Crossing is an infill property surrounded by lots, and he discussed both active and passive recreation planned while maintaining affordable housing standards. He briefly explained how this plan satisfies the requirement to meet City Plan, LUC, and Harmony Corridor plan standards, showing how the Urban Design elements have been developed based on these requirements. He discussed the plan for gathering spaces, buffered areas, entrance areas, and landscaping, with respect to the overall preference that seniors have for familiar, quiet open spaces. Planner Mounce provided an analysis of the project, including more information on the specifics of the modification requests: Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 4 • Parking Modification: a reduction in the number of parking spaces is requested (from 172 down to 80 spaces). Planner Mounce gave justification for this reduction based on statistical information from other affordable senior housing developments, empirical evidence from local projects, and other observation data and parking studies. He showed statistical slides of similar projects located in Denver, demonstrating how the reduction in parking for these projects was adequate. Vice Chair Hart asked whether this data was evaluated in proximity to public transit; Planner Mounce confirmed that this was considered. He also showed statistics for specific projects, including Oakbrook I & II, Innovage, Woodbridge, Rigden Farm, DMA Plaza, and Legacy Senior. Oakridge Crossing is primarily using Legacy Senior as a guideline for their parameters due to many similarities. He also discussed the amenities being offered to enhance mobility, including SAINT (Senior Alternatives in Transportation), the Bike Share program, and Car Share (Zipcar), demonstrating the “equal to or better than” criteria for modifications. • Modifications to section 2(D)(6), requiring access to a park, central feature, or gathering place: Planner Mounce summarized the sub-criteria, saying the visibility of on-site gathering spaces and the use of an off-site area that is located within a quarter mile would not be open to the public. Approval of one or both modifications is needed in order to comply with the LUC. He showed the site plan proposals for both modifications, and he discussed the indoor and outdoor recreational spaces being provided that meet policies, goals, and City Plan requirements. He described how access to Tract A of the Oakridge Business Park is currently being disputed by the Oakridge Business Park Association, since the original intent was more for drainage and detention purposes rather than a recreational amenity. Staff is not recommending approval of this modification due to access limitations and the possible creation of additional maintenance responsibilities. Staff is recommending: Approval of multi-parking requirement and the onsite gathering space Denial of off-site gathering space Approval of project Member Hansen asked about occupancy rates; Planner Mounce responded that most comparable senior housing developments are full and have waiting lists. Chair Kirkpatrick asked if this project would be on the edge of an urban area; Planner Mounce responded that this will be in a largely undeveloped area with no direct connections to businesses. Member Carpenter asked if there was spillover parking in the examples shown; Planner Mounce responded that approximately half of the examples shown had such parking available. For the record, Member Carpenter, Chair Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Hart, and Member Schneider disclosed their previous association with Mr. Smith, as they all served with him on a past P&Z Board; all stated they did not feel this previous association would cause any kind of bias. Public Input Chair Kirkpatrick directed that each member of the public would have 2 minutes to speak about this project, given the large public turnout. Guy Mendt, 460 Linden Center Drive, is in favor of this project and the proposed modifications, and he asked the Board to consider approving the modifications, enabling seniors to live independently with dignity. Rodd Rudolf, 6709 Hancock, is in favor of this project, stating that he is aware of the affordable housing shortage in Fort Collins, and he asked the Board to approve this project. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 5 Deborah Bobowski, 2002 Battlecreek Drive, is in favor of this project, stating her background in this industry and her extensive experience with the lack of affordable housing given the current and future housing demands. She mentioned a petition that she signed promoting this development and its benefits. Secretary Cosmas reviewed the list of items that were received regarding this project since the work session, including: • Numerous letters and emails both in support and in opposition to this project; • Land Use Restriction document; • Scoring statistics; • Building envelope calculations and history; • Cross-Access 1991 parking history and exception; • Oakridge Cross petition supporting the project; • 4 different pictures of the project area; • An opposition letter from Fox Rothschild, the attorney for the adjacent neighbor, Duncan Oakridge; and • Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Oakridge Business Park. Judy Ohs, 2201 S. Lemay, is in favor of this project, reviewing the isolation problems plaguing seniors and the related hardships; she hopes that this project will be built. Emily Dawson Peterson, 1303 E. 11th in Loveland, is representing PACE (Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly) and is in favor of this project, as she feels this project will provide safety and place for seniors, given the lack of such facilities in Fort Collins. Doug Hutchinson, 1315 Whedbee Street, is in support of this project, stating his understanding of the lack of affordable housing in Fort Collins. He knows several senior members of Fort Collins who have left the area because there were no such facilities in town. He feels this project meets the community focus and its compassionate goals. Molly Smith, 2012 Sheffield Court, read a letter from Yvonne Meyers, which supports this project. She praised Fort Collins and urged the Board to support this project. Tasha Weaver, 1981 Blake Street, is in favor of this project. She works for CHAFA (Colorado Housing and Finance Authority), who has allocated the tax credits for this project and helps supports the construction costs. She praised the developer, stating the significant amount of documentation involved with obtaining this funding, and stating her past involvement with other successful projects with the developer. Ray Caraway is the President of the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado, located at 4745 Wheaton Drive in the Oakridge Business Park. He is fully in favor of this project, saying it is a good fit with the community, saying it meets a genuine need for affordable housing. Janet Perlstein, 3473 Cimarron Way in Aurora, CO, is here representing Nick Duncan and Duncan Oakridge LLC, the adjacent owner, and she offered some additional observations, saying that the parking variance will have a detrimental effect on the adjacent property due to the existence of several easements. She feels it will interfere with the circulation of vehicles and may require additional modifications by agreement within the Oakridge Business Park partners, which have not yet been sought. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 6 Fred Pitzl, 508 West Trilby Road, is in favor of this project, stating the need for affordable senior housing, reiterating that CHAFA has given their thumbs up, which can be a huge obstacle to developers. Kirsten Hartman of Fort Collins is in favor of this project, saying that she believes that the parking situation will be adequate, since many seniors cannot afford a car and their caregivers leave the facilities at night. Dianne McMahill, 421 S. Howes, is speaking on behalf of 7 other people, saying she is in favor of this project and describing how hard it is to find affordable housing. Marilyn Heller, from Loveland, is in favor of this project. She asked whether there was anything in the Strategic Plan that addresses senior housing. Nancy McDuffie, 5151 E. Boardwalk Drive, is in favor of the project, and she feels this will really help a lot of seniors. She works at the local Food Bank and is aware of the ongoing financial difficulties that many seniors face. Janet Krech, 1518 Redberry Court, is in favor of affordable senior housing, and, while she feels the developer is qualified and capable, she thinks that Fort Collins should hold them accountable for this project. She has no objections about parking, but she does have a concern about the traffic, especially with the caregivers coming and going. She asked that the parking LUC be revised for this project. Jim Denton, 1508 W. Elizabeth, has a concern with the parking during peak demand, especially in winter during plowing season, which can decrease the number of parking spaces when snow is piled up. In addition, he does not believe that seniors use bicycles very often. Denise Selders, from Loveland, read a statement on behalf of the Division of Housing (DOH), indicating that the DOH had awarded Oakridge Crossing a Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery loan of approximately $1.7million in 2015 to support the development of a 110-unit rental apartment for seniors and requires a leasing preference for applicants impacted or displaced by the 2013 floods. She did not speak in favor of or against the project; this information is for reference only. Bert Wright, 2113 Grosvenor Court, stated that he and his church are in favor of this project. Wade Corliss, from Loveland, is in favor of the project and read a letter from Chris Otto, which stated that EKS&H (in the Oakridge Business Park) is in favor of the development. He has faith that project concerns will be properly addressed. Pete Wilkins, from Littleton, is in support of this project. He is surprised at the opposition, sharing some unkind remarks that he has heard regarding affordable housing in general. Alex Chapman, 4750 Pleasant Oak Drive, is in support of this project, although he feels the project size is too small for the parking lot and the building. He also acknowledged that the distance to shopping would be too far to walk. David Caputo, 4751 Pleasant Oak Drive, is in support of the project but has some concerns about the parking situation, acknowledging that there are not enough parking spaces. He asked the Board to require the developer to increase the number of spaces to avoid future issues. Steven Schroyer, 900 Greenfields Court, is also in support of this project. At 7:47pm, the Board took a short break; they reconvened at 8:00pm. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 7 Applicant and Staff Response Lucia Liley, with Liley & Rogers, is representing the developer, and she addressed some of the legal concerns that were raised. Regarding plat issues, she stated that this would be a Final Development Plan (FDP) item and should, therefore, not be considered by the P&Z Board at this time. Regarding private covenant issues and meeting consent of the Architectural Control Committee, the developer has been willing to provide the full set of plans upon request. She disagrees with the business letter submitted, saying that no private rights will be affected by City approval of this plan (private rights will be decided in a court of law). Regarding the claim of incompatibility with the proposed mixed-use, Ms. Liley stated the mixed-use is a primary use and is properly zoned, per the Master Plan. She also noted that a number of business owners in that business park are in favor of this project. Regarding the Tract A - Open Lands Modification, she noted that the maintenance agreement was amended in 2015, saying that the real property is intended to serve as a detention area primarily and secondarily as a recreational amenity. She acknowledged the continued threats of an appeal, saying that she will be satisfied with the approval of one modification and the denial of the other by the P&Z Board. David Nakhjovani, Architect for the project, reviewed the shadow study, explaining how the shadows would be cast by a 25’ hypothetical wall as compared to the building; he conducted his study using shadows from December 21st, the shortest day of the year. Based on his review, he doesn’t believe the building design will present a future issue for any adjacent buildings. He presented a signed letter for entry into the record certifying his opinion (see Exhibit 1). Matt Delich, of Delich and Associates, prepared the Traffic Impact Study for this project, and he stated that all intersections adequately meet the City of Fort Collins standards. At the intersection of Harmony and McMurry, the peak hour levels are still within the acceptable standards. He discussed the parking generation and demand for senior housing, which is typically less than other housing types. Therefore, he believes that the proposed parking will be adequate for this project, also stating that, even during the highest demand times, the parking provided would still be considered adequate. Mr. Smith addressed some of the citizen questions relating to the cross-parking agreement. He reviewed survey results of four adjacent areas at seven different times. He reviewed some slides of photo vantage points of the survey zones, discussing the average utilization rates of several surrounding parking lots, taking street parking into consideration as well. He noted some extraneous items (PODs, dumpsters, palettes) in the parking lot of the adjacent commercial neighbor. He also discussed the projected pedestrian distance to the nearest grocery store, showing proximity to bus stops, bike trails, and Transfort locations as well. Nicole Hahn, Traffic Operations, addressed some of the citizen concerns about parking and traffic issues. The City’s analysis of this area places it at a service level C. The study looked at the next 5 years after the project’s completion and focused on the development and growth at that time. They concluded that the projected will then be at a service level D, which also meets the current City standards. Planner Mounce also addressed some of the citizen concerns regarding overnight parking, saying that, while this time of day is considered to have the highest parking demand, he still supports the proposed parking levels. He acknowledged there may be some issues during winter months, but that is expected in general and certain steps will be taken to mitigate (striping, designating areas for snow removal, etc.). Sue Beck-Ferkiss, with Social Sustainability, spoke on the City’s role in senior affordable housing, saying the City does have specifics goals for this in their Strategic Plan. Seniors are considered to be part of the “special needs” population specifically mentioned in the Strategic Plan. She has heard no complaints relating to accessibility or amenity needs from Mackenzie Place, another senior housing facility located in close proximity. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 8 Board Questions Chair Kirkpatrick inquired about the level of bicycle usage by seniors; Planner Mounce confirmed that there is some usage, while not prevalent, and few bicycle spaces are generally provided. She also asked what the crossing improvements at the intersection of Harmony and McMurry will look like in the future; Planner Mounce stated that there is a large area to cross and that intersection improvements are being broadly contemplated, while not immediate. Martina Wilkinson, with Traffic Operations, confirmed that the signal timing length at McMurry is adequate and meets national standards, even though many signals in general are being recalculated. She also stated there also another crossing that is planned for the upcoming “Power Trail” to cross Harmony, as well as several grant applications that are going in for Federal grants this year to upgrade some of these signals. Transfort does not have plans to reroute that area into the business park. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe interjected regarding the legal issues relating to the interference with existing cross-access easements, saying the City’s position is to review these at the FDP stage. If the P&Z Board approves this project at this hearing, there will still be a lengthy process ahead pertaining to the platting of the site, meeting all requirements for the FDP, and resolving any other legal issues. He counselled the P&Z Board to focus on meeting the criteria within the LUC. Vice Chair Hart asked whether the office parking spaces in the Oakridge Business Park would be available to residents at night. Ms. Liley confirmed that there would be 8 additional parking spaces at night. Vice Chair Hart also asked about safety considerations for people walking through the parking lots and whether the area to the north could be fenced; Planner Mounce responded that it is a shared parking area, so there won’t be many amenities to the north, so foot traffic will most likely be limited. Mr. Hoagland also stated that fencing was previously considered but rejected because of how the fencing would be situated, which would impact the operational requirements of adjacent users. Regarding traffic crossing at the “Power Trail”, Planner Mounce stated that a driveway will be developed for safe crossing. Ms. Wilkinson added that this driveway will have adequate sight distance (to see other cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians); in addition, they may also install a sign indicating “trail users”. Member Hobbs asked if there would be an amendment to the 40-year requirement for bond funding use if there were a change of use; Planner Mounce responded that, if there is a “change in character”, that would require a major amendment to the approved plan along with another public hearing. Regarding the office space aspect, retail is not considered a primary use, so the zoning requirements would not allow it to be changed to a retail use. Member Schneider asked how Staff would know about this type of change; Planner Mounce responded that this would be known through complaints, additional people parking in the area, zoning inspections, or state requirements for funding. Ms. Liley stated that CHAFA does an annual inspection to ensure compliance, and this is controlled by covenants over a 40-year period. Member Hansen asked whether the alternate compliance for bike parking (reducing it to 60% requirements) will be adequate in view of the similar parking reduction. Planner Mounce stated that he studied these two mobility components, and he found that there is low utilization of bicycles by seniors, and this project is already proposing more bike racks as compared to other senior facilities. Mr. Nakhjovani stated they did look at the bike parking in order to find the right balance on the appropriate level of parking and bicycle racks; additionally, management will also offer a bike rack on demand, and there are other future bike rack locations if needed. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 9 Board Deliberation Member Hobbs is in favor of the project, but he is concerned with Transfort distances and the crossing of Harmony Road; he believes that multiple City departments will have to solve these issues at some point. Member Carpenter feels that the parking issues are well-resolved and agrees there are Transfort issues; she will also support the project. Vice Chair Hart is very impressed with the way Staff and the applicant have addressed the main issues, and he will support this project. Member Schneider was concerned with the density issues, but will support the project. Member Hansen will support the project and feels his bicycle concerns have been addressed and that the modifications are viable. Chair Kirkpatrick will also support the project, including the modifications for the gathering spaces onsite and parking. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to Section 3.22(K)(1)(a), based on the findings of fact on pages 38-39 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification to standard to Section 4.26 (D)(6)(b)(2), based on the findings of fact on pages 37-38 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 6:0. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the modification of standard 4.26(D)(6)(b)(3), based upon the findings of fact on pages 37-38 of the staff report. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Hansen asked if there was anything legally detrimental in approving or denying both of these modifications; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe confirmed that the finding of fact is considered detrimental to public good, although there is no legal detriment to approving both modifications. Chair Kirkpatrick is in favor of both modifications happening. Member Hobbs is in favor of this because he thinks it has resulted in a better site plan and he likes the site improvements. Member Schneider won’t support motion as presented, because he does agree that it would be a detrimental to public good. Vote: 4:2, with Members Schneider and Hansen dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Oakridge Crossing Project Development Plan PDP160009, based on the findings of fact on pages 37-40 in the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:0. Prior to the start of the next item, several disclosures were made: • Member Carpenter and Chair Kirkpatrick previously served with Mr. Stockover on the P&Z Board; • Member Schneider’s current office is adjacent to this project; and • Assistant City Attorney Yatabe has also provided legal advice to Mr. Stockover in the past, but does not feel this will impact his impartiality. None of these disclosures are considered detrimental to providing unbiased opinions regarding the project. Member Hansen recused himself at 9:15pm due to a conflict of interest with the last two projects. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 10 Project: The Overlook PDP160011 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan on a 3.3 acre site located on the east side of John F. Kennedy Parkway, 350 feet south of Horsetooth Road. A mixed-use building is proposed, with two wings connected by an elevated walkway which includes a fitness room for the residents. The west portion of the ground floor of Wing 1, facing John F. Kennedy Parkway, includes 8,100 square feet of commercial space. The remainder of both Wing 1 and Wing 2 includes 105 residential dwelling units. 70 of these units are one-bedroom, 60 are two-bedroom units, and 5 are three- bedroom units. 187 off-street parking spaces are proposed. A 4-story building height is proposed, located above 78 covered parking spaces in a basement level. This site is zoned (E) Employment and is adjacent to the (TOD) Transit Overlay District. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief overview of The Overlook project, including the zoning, appearance, size and usage. William Stockover, applicant, gave a presentation of the project, including slides of the layout, access points, parking space dedication, landscaping, irrigation ditch locations, demographics, and mixed-use requirements. He indicated that this project strives to comply with City Plan requirements. Planner Holland added some detail with respect to zoning compliance in the Employment (E) zone district. He showed various views of the proposed project and how other buildings will fit with this building. He highlighted the elevated walkway that connects the buildings, and he supports maintaining this walkway, explaining that the proposed wings also help to break up the massing and articulation. He discussed building height, access to parking spaces, habitat protection, shadowing requirements, setbacks and buffers, and building transitions. He discussed the building materials and articulation that would prove helpful for continued buffering. He also discussed sight lighting, trees used as buffers, and the fencing aspects. He complimented the project for clearly meeting the requirements prescribed by the LUC. Public Input None noted. Staff Response and Board Questions None noted. Board Deliberation Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of The Overlook Project Development Plan 160011, based on the findings of fact on page 20 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. All Board members offered compliments to the developer on the overall project. Vote: 5:0. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 11 Project: Harmony 23 Modification of Standard Project Description: This is a request for a Modification of a land use standard in the Harmony Corridor zone district that requires at least 75% ‘primary’ employment uses in any development plan, with any ‘secondary’ uses limited to no more than 25%. The request is for 100% secondary use (residential in the form of a multi-family housing development). The site is 23 acres, located at the southwest corner of Harmony and Strauss Cabin Roads. If the Modification is approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, it would be valid for one year by which time a Project Development Plan must be submitted incorporating the Modification. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes introduced this project. Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc., is representing CDRT, the property owners. She gave a detailed presentation, including some background on the modification and the potential benefits (natural scenic qualities, wetlands habitat, utilization of the area by meeting the goal of the Harmony Corridor Plan and Trails Plan). The site is small, and developable portions are even smaller, which limits the potential building of most normal buildings. It is encumbered by wetlands and slopes ranging from 4-26%, making it difficult to accommodate large building footprints or parking lots. Access is limited as well, and only one access point will allow full movement in the future. This site is a prime location for multi-family development: • Within easy walking/biking distance to transit and amenities; • 10 major employers close by, providing over 3,000 jobs; • Conservative estimates indicate approximately 10,000 future jobs within a 1-mile radius, and • Housing is sparse in this area. She believes that approval of this modification will contribute to the public good. She cited the extremely low vacancy rates, which are currently at 1.8% and should be around 5% (represents a balanced market). She also discussed the rental rate increases, which have been rising rapidly over the last few years. Planner Mapes provided an analysis of the project, pointing out the emphasis on promoting the scenic and natural qualities of the area and the zoning implications with this project. Public Input Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, does not support this modification, saying he has a concern about the zoning changes and how such changes could be accomplished with the normal zoning process for modification of standards. Matt Schuler, 5708 Daylight Court, has a concern about the conversion of this property from primary employment to mainly residential (there is low residential along Harmony where it has been primarily employment). He does not think that the landscape and amenities in that area compliment this proposed change. He acknowledged that, while it would bring multi-family housing to the area, people who relocated to this area may also commute to other locations, which would not support Fort Collins. He believes that this location could be used for commercial uses. Planning & Zoning Board July 14, 2016 Page 12 Staff Response and Board Questions Planner Mapes responded to the rezoning point, saying the Harmony Corridor zone is unique, so rezoning was not considered because it is an allowable land use. Ms. Ripley also responded by explaining how this corridor is special; therefore, this area is intended to be developed in a special way. Chair Kirkpatrick requested the Traffic Operations staff to speak to the future improvements in that area. Ms. Wilkinson added that this is a travel corridor, supporting car, bicycle and pedestrian travel. She also stated that specific traffic issues will be reviewed in depth once this project becomes a Project Development Plan (PDP). Vice Chair Hart asked about the citizen’s concern of having a modification of standard without a site plan to modify; Planner Mapes responded by saying that these stand-alone modifications are allowed within the code, and Staff believes that, due to the complexities with this site, it will still need a lot of work to make it usable. All things considered, this seems like a good application for this stand-alone modification. Ms. Ripley reminded the Board that they will still have a chance to approve or deny the project when it comes back as a PDP. Approving the modification does not grant a vested right; rather, it is only a provision in place to allow the applicant to submit a PDP within 1 year. Board Deliberation Member Schneider feels this is now a justified modification. Vice Chair Hart agrees, but he is still concerned with the site due to the identified difficulties. Member Carpenter agrees, especially with the special circumstances that this area presents; she feels it is an important gateway to Fort Collins. Member Hobbs is not fully in support with this use of modification, although he agrees with the reasons the applicant has taken this route. Chair Kirkpatrick will support this and feels it makes sense for the area and is not detrimental to public good. Vice Chair Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Harmony 23 Modification, based on the findings of fact on page 10 of the staff report, including the referenced condition on page 11 of the staff report. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Hansen rejoined the Board at 9:15pm Other Business Planning Director Gloss announced a merit award that the Fort Collins Planning Staff has just received from American Planning Association Colorado Chapter for their work on the West Central area Plan, and he congratulated Rebecca Everette, Ted Shepard, and Amy Lewin – the award will be presented at the upcoming state conference. He also recognized the work of the planners who presented this evening. Further Discussion of Outdoor Vendor Requirements – will be moved to the next work session. The meeting was adjourned at 10:41pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Kristin Kirkpatrick, Chair Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME REVISIONS TO THE TOWN OF WINDSOR I-25/SH 392 INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR ACTIVITY CENTER DESIGN STANDARDS STAFF Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item consists of design standards within the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center area that apply to new development in the Town of Windsor. APPLICANT/ OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Town of Windsor I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center design standards, specifically for the CAC area located east of I-25. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item consists of enhanced design standards within the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center that pertain to land within the Town of Windsor. An amendment to the IGA includes recommendations from the Windsor Planning Commission and Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, and adoption by the Windsor Town Board and Fort Collins City Council. On May 12, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval for revisions and additions to Article Three of the Land Use Code for design standards governing the I-25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center within Fort Collins. BACKGROUND/DESCRIPTION: The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor are in the process of amending the 2016 Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/Highway 392 Interchange as part of a separate action. Included within this Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), are Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 amendments to the Town of Windsor Land Use Code to incorporate new design standards within the Corridor Activity Center add new definitions and permitted land uses, and revise the revenue sharing approach. This item pertains to proposed new Land Use Code design standards for Windsor’s CAC area only. In 2010, recognizing that the I-25/392 Interchange is an important gateway feature for Fort Collins and Windsor, a Corridor Activity Center (CAC) overlay zone district was created. The CAC area is defined to include zoning boundaries within the immediate area surrounding the Interchange (see Map attached). The CAC established land use and gateway design standards to complement and enhance the implementation of the Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan (Regional Plan), with the District added to the Land Use Codes of each community. As part of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Town, both Land Use Codes were amended in order to implement the vision and establish a new list of permitted land uses, and establish design standards for this joint planning area. Since the completion of the I-25/SH 392 Interchange project, the Town of Windsor and City of Fort Collins have continued to coordinate development activity within the CAC area. In response to a recent development proposal in Windsor, both jurisdictions have been developing an amendment to the IGA that amends the Permitted Use list, applicable development standards and revenue-sharing within the CAC. In an effort to ensure a high quality of site, landscape and building design, the Town and City are considering the adoption of additional standards for future development within the CAC. The revised Windsor Land Use Code Standards under consideration enhance requirements for site design, landscaping, parking, building design and orientation, compatibility, lighting and outdoor display. Much of the proposed Windsor Code language was derived from Fort Collins’ existing Article Three Land Use Code standards so that design requirements are substantially the same within the CAC, regardless of jurisdiction. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval at its May 12, 2016 hearing for revisions and additions to Article Three of the Land Use Code for design standards governing the I- 25/SH 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center within Fort Collins. Proposed enhancements to the Fort Collins Land Use Code principally pertain to additional landscaping and screening requirements that bring requirements up to the same level as that provided in the Town of Windsor. ATTACHMENTS 1. I-25/392 CAC Map (PDF) 2. 7-27-16 Windsor proposed CAC Enhanced Design Standards (PDF) 3. P & Z Board - May 12-2016 FC CAC Standards (PDF) State Highway 392 E County Road 30 S County Road 5 !"`$ ôZYXW 2.8 39.2 23.9 10.4 10 29.7 8.7 11.4 7.3 22.9 17.8 6.7 58.4 24.3 35.7 40.8 0.9 30.4 18.2 25.6 21.5 2.9 15 31.7 1.7 I25 - State HWY 392 Interchange Corridor Activity Center Community Activity Center Windsor GMA Fort Collins GMA Wetlands Commercial Employment 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles I GrossCollins City of Acres: Fort 136.2 GrossWindsor Town Acres: of 361.8 Updated: 07/28/2016 Attachment 1 1 7/27/16 CAC Enhanced Design Standards Definitions _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Front Façade I-25 Landscape Buffer Any side of building with the primary entrance. A Front Façade may also be a Primary Façade. An area of no less than eighty (80) feet, measured from the Interstate 25 right- of-way’s outer boundary. Parking Lot All areas used for the parking of vehicles for customers, employees, and visitors, and fleet or business vehicles. In the case of Automobile Dealerships, Parking Lot shall not mean Vehicle Inventory Lots. Primary Façade Street-like Private Drive Any side of building facing toward a public or Street-like Private Drive. A Front Façade may also be a Primary Façade. Any privately-owned and maintained roadway intended for public use. General Purpose: The intent of these standards is to provide the tools for creating an improved quality of appearance and more integrated mix of land uses for the Windsor Corridor Activity Center (CAC). These standards apply to all development applications within the CAC other than single-family residential development and public parks or open space. These standards supplement all of the Town’s adopted design standards and, to the extent that the Town’s adopted standards conflict with these standards, these standards shall apply. Site Design: To the maximum extent feasible, larger sites containing multiple buildings and uses shall be composed of a series of urban-scale blocks of development defined and formed by public streets or Street-like Private Drives that provide links to nearby streets along the perimeter of the site. 1. In addition to a network of streets and drives, blocks shall be connected by a system of parallel tree-lined sidewalks that adjoin the streets and drives which, when combined with off-street connecting walkways, enables a fully integrated and continuous pedestrian network. Attachment 2 2 7/27/16 2. To the maximum extent feasible, remote or independent pad sites, disconnected from the pedestrian sidewalk network and shared parking facilities, shall be minimized. Buildings shall be directly connected to the pedestrian sidewalk network. All parking areas shall be interconnected to provide shared parking opportunities. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated around service areas, building entrances and throughout parking areas, vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas. All landscaping shall be in accordance with the Town of Windsor Tree and Landscape Standards, as amended, updated or replaced. The intent of these standards is to enhance the Tree and Landscape Standards in the CAC to ensure a high-quality appearance within the CAC. 1. Site landscaping shall be twenty percent (20%) or greater, excluding the I-25 Buffer, and any applicable Buffer Yards as set forth below. 2. Landscape designs shall strive to incorporate xeric principles. 3. Berms and walls may also be incorporated as an element for screening. 4. I-25 Landscape Buffer. Landscaping adjacent to Interstate 25 shall be provided in accordance with the following: A. Landscaping within the I-25 Landscape Buffer shall be planted predominantly with drought-tolerant grasses, interspersed with bands of shrubs and trees. B. A minimum of two (2) evergreen trees, two (2) shade trees, and four (4) shrubs per one- hundred (100) lineal feet of frontage shall be provided. C. Fences, screen walls, and Parking Lots are not allowed within the I-25 Landscape Buffer. Retaining walls should be minimized to the greatest extent possible, and shall not exceed four feet (4’) in height. D. Parking Lots, loading and service areas shall be significantly buffered from I-25 primarily by the use of naturalistic berms and landscaping. Berm heights shall primarily be designed to provide significant buffering of Parking Lots, loading and service areas, yet allowing for some visibility of buildings and providing visual interest along I-25. E. Berms shall comply with the following: 1. Berms shall range in height from three (3) to seven (7) feet in height, dependent on the proposed finished grade of the adjacent Parking Lot, loading or service area in relation to the adjacent interstate grade. If I-25 is elevated in comparison to the grade at the edge of the proposed development, berms should be higher to achieve the same buffering effect. 2. Berms shall create a naturalistic appearance raising, lowering, and/or overlapping, to provide adequate buffering. 3. The slope of berms shall generally be no steeper than a ratio of 4:1 to allow for a naturalistic, park-like appearance, and allow for mowing. 4. Berms shall be located along the easternmost portion of the I-25 Landscape Buffer, while still allowing for a meandering appearance of the berms. Attachment 2 3 7/27/16 5. Berms shall be predominately planted with drought-tolerant grasses, interspersed with shrubs and trees. 6. When berms are intended to provide significant screening of parking, loading and service areas, calling for berms greater than five feet in height, the berms and surrounding areas shall primarily be planted with drought-tolerant grasses interspersed with shrubs and a mix of shade, ornamental, evergreen trees. On average, such screening areas shall be planted with a minimum of four (4) trees and four (4) shrubs per one-hundred (100) lineal feet, requiring a minimum of 50% evergreen trees. Significant buffering of Parking Lots, loading and service areas shall be provided while allowing for some visibility of buildings. 7. When berms are intended to provide lower amounts of screening of Parking Lots, loading and service areas, calling for berms five feet or less in height, the berms and surrounding areas shall be planted with a higher-density mix of shade, evergreen and ornamental trees, in addition to drought-tolerant grasses and shrubs. On average, such areas shall be planted with a minimum of eight (8) trees and eight (8) shrubs per one-hundred (100) lineal feet, requiring a minimum of 50% evergreen trees. Significant buffering of Parking Lots, loading and service areas shall be provided while allowing for some visibility of buildings. 8. The Site Plan development review process submittals shall illustrate screening and view opportunities, including representative cross-sections and key views from adjacent streets. 5. Parking Lot Screening A. The perimeter of all Parking Lots shall be screened from public streets, Street-like Private Drives, public open space, and adjacent properties by at least one of the following methods for the entire perimeter length: 1. A berm three (3) feet high with a maximum slope of 3:1 in combination with evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs. 2. A hedge at least three (3) feet high, consisting of a double row of shrubs planted 3-feet to 5-feet on center, depending on the species, in a triangular pattern. 3. A decorative fence or wall made of masonry or other high quality material between three (3) and four (4) feet high in combination with landscaping. B. In addition to the above screening, the following landscaping is required: 1. Trees shall be provided at a ratio of two (2) evergreen, one (1) ornamental tree, one (1) shade tree, and four (4) shrubs per one-hundred (100) lineal feet along a public street or Street-like Private Drive. 2. Trees may be spaced irregularly in informal groupings or be uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting patterns and organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in and should be integrated with the streetscape in the street right-of-way. Attachment 2 4 7/27/16 6. Parking Lot Landscaping: 1. In addition to landscape island requirements, large surface Parking Lots be visually and functionally segmented into smaller sections by landscape areas or islands. Each section shall contain a maximum of two hundred (200) parking spaces. The perimeter of each module shall be landscaped with a ten foot (10’) wide buffer landscaped with shrubs and trees, including one tree every forty feet (40’). Each section shall contain a maximum of two hundred (200) parking spaces. 2. Landscape medians and/or islands should strive to incorporate bio swales and/or raingardens throughout a site to manage runoff. 7. Buffer Yards A. Applicability. These standards apply to all development applications within the CAC other than proposed single-family residential development and public parks or open space. B. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to separate proposed non- residential development from existing single-family residential uses, in order to eliminate, mitigate or minimize potential nuisances. C. Buffer standards. Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel proposed for non-residential development abutting single-family detached uses. D. Only those structures used for buffering and/or screening purposes shall be located within a buffer yard. The buffer yard shall not include any paved area, except for pedestrian sidewalks or paths. Fencing and/or walls used for buffer yard purposes shall be solid, with at least seventy-five (75) percent opacity. E. Buffer yard widths are established in the chart below and specify deciduous or coniferous plants required per one hundred (100) linear feet along the affected property line, on an average basis. Plants per 100 linear feet along affected property line Buffer Width Plant Multiplier Shade Trees Ornamental Trees Evergreen Trees Large Shrubs 40 1.00 4 4 3 25 50 .90 3.6 3.6 2.7 22.5 60 .80 3.2 3.2 2.4 20.0 F. Credit for berm. The required plant units may be reduced by 50% if a landscaped berm is provided with a minimum height of 5 feet. 8. Other landscape areas. Landscape areas outside of the I-25 Landscape Buffer, Parking Lot Screening and Buffer Yards shall consist of at least one (1) tree and five (5) shrubs for every 750 square feet of landscaped area. Attachment 2 5 7/27/16 Parking: 1. Applicability. These standards apply to all Parking Lots within the CAC associated with commercial, industrial, or multifamily development. 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to enhance the physical appearance of development within the CAC by ensuring Parking Lots are designed to maintain and enhance the quality of commercial development, manage storm water runoff, reduce heat island effects, and promote a pedestrian friendly and safe environment. 3. Standards. Parking Lots shall be located away from the Front Facade of a building to the maximum extent feasible. Such Parking Lots, if located between the Front Façade of the building and the adjacent public or Street-like Private Drive, shall be limited to no more than a single drive aisle with a single row of parking on each side. When this layout does not provide adequate parking, additional parking shall be located on sides of a building that are not a Front Façade. 4. Parking Lots containing more than one (1) drive aisle shall include walkways that are located in places that are logical, safe and convenient for pedestrians. Building Design and Orientation: The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to enhance the physical appearance of development within the CAC. The intent is not to limit creativity or innovation in architectural design. Applicants proposing architecture that does not comply with the following standards are encouraged to seek alternative compliance. Orientation: 1. Primary Facades shall face an adjacent public or Street-like Private Drive. 2. For buildings with more than one Primary Facade, facades visible from each street shall incorporate high-quality architectural materials, architectural elements and building appearance equivalent to that of the Front Facade. 3. Building details, landscaping and berming shall be combined to create a level of visual interest equivalent to that of the Front Façade for all Primary Facades on the building. 4. Service areas, loading docks, outdoor storage and mechanical equipment shall not face a public or Street-like Private Drive unless completely screened from view from all adjacent roadways and properties with combined architectural and landscape materials that complement the building. 5. To the maximum extent feasible, buildings shall be oriented to preserve intermittent views to the west. Form/Façade Treatment: 1. All sides of buildings shall be of high-quality architecture and building materials. Attachment 2 6 7/27/16 2. Building sides facing a public street or Street-like Private Drive shall incorporate high-quality architectural materials, architectural elements and building appearance equivalent to that of the building front. 3. Entrances shall be clearly defined by architectural elements. 4. Facades shall incorporate a minimum of three (3) of the following architectural elements to emphasize building entries, doorways, walkways and window openings. (a) Canopies or awnings over at least thirty percent (30%) of the openings of the building; or (b) Covered walkways, porticos and/or arcades covering at least thirty percent (30%) of the horizontal length of the front facade; or (c) Projecting trim, ledges or similar architectural accent features between two (2) inches and six (6) inches in width around all windows and doorways; or (d) Raised cornice parapets over entries; or (e) Some other architectural feature or treatment which adds definition to the building openings, walkways or entrances. 5. Ground floor facades that face streets or public walkways must be modulated with features such as windows, entrances, arcades, porches, pilasters, arbors, awnings, recessed or projecting display windows along no less than 75% of the length of the façade. 6. Openings or architectural elements simulating fenestration-like features shall occupy at least twenty percent (20%) of the wall surface area of the first floor of the primary facade and walls adjacent to public rights-of-way, or visible from adjacent properties. 7. No single wall plane shall exceed 30 feet horizontal length or vertical height. 8. Wall planes shall include varying building articulation with a minimum of three feet in projection or depth from an adjacent wall plane. 9. Wall planes shall include a variety of building materials, not to exceed 75 percent of one material. 10. Facades greater than 100 feet in length shall provide a varying roofline. 11. All roof-top equipment shall be fully screened from view of adjacent roadways and properties. Roof Form: Buildings Less than 10,000 sq.ft. Roofs on primary structures with a floor plate less than 10,000 sq.ft. shall be pitched with a minimum slope of at least 5:12 or provide the appearance of 5:12 pitch through the use of a modified mansard roof. At least one of the following elements shall be incorporated into the design for each 50 lineal feet of roof: 1. Projecting gables 2. Hips 3. Horizontal/vertical breaks Three or more roof slope planes shall be incorporated into a design. Attachment 2 7 7/27/16 Buildings Larger than 10,000 sq.ft. Roofs on structures with a floorplate of greater than 10,000 sq.ft. shall have no less than two of the following features: 1. Parapet walls featuring three-dimensional cornice treatment that at no point exceed one-third of the height of the supporting wall. 2. Overhanging eaves, extending no less than 3 feet past the supporting walls. 3. Sloping roofs not exceeding the average height of the supporting walls, with an average slope greater than or equal to 1 foot of vertical rise for every 1 foot of horizontal run. 4. Three or more roof slope planes. Compatibility: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Compatibility does not mean "identical". Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. To the extent feasible, conditions may be imposed upon approval of a development project in or adjacent to an existing developed neighborhood to achieve compatibility in connection with: 1) a complementary or new high-quality standard of architectural character for the neighborhood, including building materials and colors which complement or create an enhanced architectural standard for the area; 2) softening a building’s mass and scale through building articulation, subdivision of building mass, and sensitive orientation of a building on the site; 3) creating opportunities for privacy of abutting land uses; and 4) limitations on outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment, loading and unloading. Lighting: In addition to compliance with Windsor Municipal Code §16-10-100, the following lighting standards shall apply: A. In no event shall lighting negatively affect the safe passage of traffic on public roadways adjacent to or in proximity of the site. B. Exterior building lighting and display lighting shall include fixtures with a dimming interface. C. Light poles within 100 feet of a residential use or residentially-zoned property shall not exceed 20 feet in height. D. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to a maximum of one thousand (1000) candela per square meter (nits). Attachment 2 8 7/27/16 E. Outdoor lighting shall be L.E.D. (light emitting diode) “Dark Sky” compliant, per the International Dark Sky Association requirements for reducing light pollution and minimizing glare, sky glow, spill light and obtrusive light. F. Light bulbs shall be soft-white or warm-white hues. G. A photometric plan illustrating compliance shall be submitted. Lighting Time Limitations Parking Lot lighting shall require fixtures with a dimming interface. Lighting in and surrounding such parking shall be reduced within one hour after business closing to a level sufficient for security purposes only. All exterior illumination shall be reduced to levels sufficient for security purposes only after 10:00 p.m. Shielding All light fixtures required to be fully shielded shall be installed to satisfy the following: 1. All outside light fixtures, including building-mounted lighting shall be fully shielded and be aimed so that the direct illumination shall be confined to the property boundaries of the source. 2. All light fixtures used on open parking garages, including those mounted to the ceilings over the parking decks, shall be fully shielded. Certification Outdoor lighting shall be designed and certified by an engineer as conforming to all applicable restrictions of these Standards before construction commences. Further, the system shall be certified by a registered engineer following installation to verify that the installation is consistent with the certified design. Outdoor Display: Outdoor display of merchandise for sale or lease is not allowed unless specifically depicted on an approved site plan. Attachment 2 Proposed Land Use Code Revisions – Development Standards for the I-25 Corridor Section 3.9.4(B) Problem Statement: The Town of Windsor has initiated changes to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins regarding future land development in the Corridor Activity Center. Staff has been tasked with revising its land development standards for this area in order to more closely align with the new standards that have been proposed by Windsor so that both sides of the Interstate Highway will develop in an equal fashion over time. The following revisions reflect this effort. Proposed Solution Overview: The proposed solution is to revise portions of Land Use Code Section 3.9 to be more consistent with the proposed revisions as offered by the Town of Windsor. Related Code Provisions: Section 3.9.4(B) Site Perimeter Landscaping Abutting the I-25 Right-of-Way. 3.9.4 - Landscaping Standards (B) Site Perimeter Landscaping Abutting the I-25 Right-of-Way. (1) Buffers abutting I-25. Developments with a site perimeter which is adjoining the I- 25 right-of-way shall provide a landscaped buffer of at least eighty (80) feet between the building or parking lot edge and the I-25 right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of informal clusters of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs planted in an offset pattern and shall consist of one (1) tree and ten (10) shrubs per twenty-five (25) lineal feet of frontage. (2) Berms. Berms greater than three (3) feet in height shall not be permitted adjoining the I-25 right-of-way if they block long-range views of mountains and open lands for motorists on I-25 (not including motorists on frontage roads or ramps). Notwithstanding, additional berm height may be required to screen the following areas visible to motorists on I-25: parking lots, drive-thru lanes, and service areas, including but not limited to, loading areas, service entrances, and trash and recycling enclosures. Attachment 3 (3) Parking and Service Areas. When berms screening parking and service areas are less than five feet in height, berms and surrounding landscape areas shall be planted with a minimum of eight (8) trees and eight (8) shrubs per one-hundred (100) lineal feet. A minimum of 50% of the required trees shall be evergreens. (4) Additional Screening Elements. In conjunction with the buffering, landscaping and berms, additional elements allowed within the 80-foot buffer may include screen walls in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.9.8(A) (B) and (C). Attachment 3 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT August 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Board PROJECT NAME 625 S PETERSON ST MULTI-FAMILY - PDP160005 STAFF Clay Frickey, Associate Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to redevelop an existing two-unit house at 625 South Peterson St into a 4-unit building by constructing an addition in the rear. According to Larimer County property records, the original house was built in 1898 with additions and/or renovations in the 1930's and 1970's. The current main floor is a 2- bedroom/ 1 bathroom unit while the upper level is also a 2-bedroom/ 1 bath unit. When exactly it was converted into a duplex is unknown, but is generally believed to be in the late 80's or early 90's. The site is located in the Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density District (NCM) zone district. APPLICANT: Brad Massey - alm2s 712 Whalers Way Building B, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Heitmann Properties LLC 1421 Rollinwood Ln Fort Collins, CO 80525 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed 625 S Peterson St Multi-family Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: · The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 · The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C)(3) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code. · The Modification of Standard to Section 4.8(E)(4) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code. · The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards, provided the modification to Section 3.8.11(C)(3) is approved. · The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM) of Article 4 - Districts, provided the modification to Section 4.8(E)(4) is approved. COMMENTS: . Background The property was part of the Original Town Site Annex on January 16, 1873. The property was platted as the north half of Lot 3, Block 146 as indicated on the Fort Collins 1873 Map. Initially, the site contained a single-family home built in 1898. The property owners renovated the property in the 1930’s and 1970’s. At some point in the 1980’s or 1990’s the house was converted into a duplex. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density (NCM) Residential South Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density (NCM) Residential, school East Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density (NCM) Residential West Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density (NCM) Residential Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 Map 1: 625 S Peterson St Multi-family Zoning & Site Vicinity Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 2. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code - Modification of Standards Modification #1 Description: The applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.8.11(C)(3) - Fences and Walls to build a fence in a side yard setback area in a rear yard that exceeds 6 feet in height. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and bolded for emphasis): Land Use Code 3.8.11(C)(3): Fences shall be…(3) no more than six (6) feet high if located within any required rear yard setback area or within any side yard setback area in a rear yard; 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). Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 5 Summary of Applicant’s Justification: The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code): Applicant’s Justification Modification #1: · The neighbor to the south requested a taller fence to provide enhanced privacy during the development review process. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C)(3) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 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. Staff finds that the proposed plan equal to or better than a plan that would met the code. The adjacent property owner to the south is currently building an addition to their house that would have a bedroom near the fence to the property at 625 Peterson St. A fence with two feet of additional height will reduce the privacy concerns of this neighbor from the new two-story addition proposed as part of this project. The fence will line up with the addition that is currently under construction and will return to a height permissible in this Land Use Code section for the remainder of the fence. This context sensitive design of the fence will alleviate concerns of a two-story structure looking down upon this new addition next door. Since the fence will meet the code for majority of its length and will respond appropriately to feedback from a neighbor, staff finds the proposed plan is equal to or better than a plan that would meet the code. Modification #2 Description: The applicant requests a Modification to Section 4.8(E)(4) - Minimum Side Yard and Maximum Wall Height to have a building wall that exceeds 18 feet in height and does not step back at a ratio of 1 foot for every 2 feet in wall height over 18 feet. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and bolded for emphasis): Land Use Code 4.8(E)(4): Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a building wall along a side lot line exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, as measured from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of building wall height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, except as provided for in subparagraph (a) below. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 6 Summary of Applicant’s Justification: The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code): Applicant’s Justification for Modification #2: · The finished floor of the addition had to be positioned nearly 2 feet higher than the existing house due to floodplain issues. · The rooflines could be altered to be compliant but the roof form proposed is more appropriate with the neighborhood context. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to section 4.8(E)(4) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good B. The project design satisfies 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. Staff finds that the proposed plan meets the general purpose of the standard equal to or better than a proposal that would comply with the code. The purpose of this standard is twofold: to prevent looming structures that cast shadows on adjacent properties and to minimize privacy concerns with residents in the second floor of a new building looking down into adjacent properties. 625 Peterson has a unique context in that a multi-family building called the Chateau is located immediately to the north. The Chateau is a two-story, multi-family structure and has a 25’ strip of lawn that abuts 625 Peterson St. Since the proposed addition is two-stories and the abutting property is two-stories as well with a large strip of lawn acting as a buffer, the looming and privacy concerns are not as pronounced as other areas of the NCM. The privacy and looming issues are minimized on the property to the south as 625 Peterson is proposing an 8- foot high fence to minimize privacy concerns. Due to these unique circumstances, the primary concern is the architectural form of the building. The building could use a hip roof or dutch hip roof to meet this standard. However, very few buildings in the area utilize hip or dutch hip roofs in the area. The predominant roof form on Peterson St is a gable roof, which is the roof pattern proposed for 625 Peterson St. Since this property is located in the Laurel School Historic District, complementary architecture is paramount. The proposed roof forms were well received by the Landmark Preservation Commission and complement the existing architecture on Peterson St. The building wall height would also be lowered if the property was not in a floodplain, which is an existing physical hardship outside the control of the property owner. A plan that is not compliant with the City’s floodplain requirements poses a far greater concern than a wall that is marginally taller than permitted in the Land Use Code. This proposed plan complies with the floodplain requirement and provides an attractive architectural treatment to allow the building to fit in to the neighborhood. So, while the proposed wall heights do not meet the requirements outlined in Land Use Code section 4.8(E)(4), the proposed plan meets the code better than would a compliant plan. The unique context, architecturally compatible roof forms, and design that meets the floodplain requirements has resulted in a design that meets the code equal to or better than a plan that would be compliant with the code. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 7 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1(D)(2) - Tree Planting Standards - Street Trees The Land Use Code requires canopy shade trees to be planted at 30’-40’ spacing in the center of parkway areas where the sidewalk is detached from the street. Peterson Street already contains two Kentucky Coffee Trees spaced 25' apart. The proposed landscape plan shows these trees to remain in place. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) - Water Conservation All proposed landscaping should be designed to incorporate water conservation materials and techniques. The annual water use should not exceed 15 gallons/square foot over the site. The proposed landscaping uses low water use plants and has an overall annual water budget of 12.05 gallons/square foot. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Parking lots with six or more spaces must be screened from abutting uses and the street through fences or walls in combination with plant material. The proposed landscape plan shows both a fence and a series of shrubs to screen the new parking area from adjacent properties. Six (6) proposed evergreen trees are shown on the northern property line along with nine (9) evergreen trees on the south property line adjacent to the parking area to provide further year-round screening. D. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement To the extent feasible, existing significant trees should be preserved. Numerous trees in fair or poor health exist on the site currently but are proposed to be removed as part of this plan. The tree mitigation plan submitted shows 19 trees being removed. These 19 trees to be removed require 22.5 mitigation trees. The proposed landscape plan shows 23 mitigation trees on-site. Each mitigation tree satisfies the caliper size requirement for a mitigation tree. E. Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) - Bicycle Parking Space Requirements For multi-family residential, one bike parking space is required per bedroom with at least 60% provided in an enclosed space. The proposed development will contain 8 bedrooms, which will require a total of 8 bicycle parking spaces with 5 provided in an enclosed space. On the proposed site plan 9 bicycle parking spaces are shown. All 9 spaces are provided next to the parking area with 5 covered by an overhead roof and the remaining 4 uncovered. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) - Walkways Walkways must be provided to link sidewalks with building entries through parking lots. These walkways must also provide direct connections to off-site pedestrian and bicycle destinations. A series of walkways are shown to provide proper pedestrian access to the each unit. Each of the rear units has a walkway that connects to the parking area in the Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 8 rear of the site. This walkway then connects to a series of 24” square precast concrete pavers that acts as a connection to the sidewalk along Peterson Street. The front unit will retain the existing sidewalk connection to Peterson Street. Bicycles will have direct access to the alley and to Peterson St. G. Section 3.2.2(D) - Access and Parking Lot Requirements All vehicular use areas in any proposed development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system. The proposed parking area meets these requirements by providing unobstructed access to vehicles, separating modes, and providing parking in an appropriate location off the alley. H. Section 3.2.2(E) - Parking Lot Layout The proposed parking lot layout is consistent with requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to circulation routes, orientation, and points of conflict. I. Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks The proposed parking lot is setback further than the 10-foot minimum from non-arterial streets and 5-foot minimum along a lot line required per the Land Use Code. J. Section 3.2.2(K) - Off-Street Parking Requirements The site plan shows 7 parking spaces to serve the proposed development. Based on the standards for multi-family developments, the minimum amount of parking for this development is 7 spaces. Table 1 - Parking Requirements Min. Parking Parking Provided One bedroom unit 1.5 spaces (1 unit * 1.5) 2 spaces Two bedroom units 3.5 spaces (2 units * 1.75) 3 spaces Three bedroom unit 2 spaces (1 unit * 2) 2 spaces Total 7 spaces 7 spaces K. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) - Handicap Parking Parking lots with 1-25 parking spaces are required to provide one handicap parking space with an 8-foot access aisle to make the space van accessible. The site plan shows one handicap parking space, which is in close proximity to entrances on the west side of the building. The site plan also shows the handicap space having an 8 foot access aisle to make the space van accessible. L. Section 3.2.3 - Solar access, orientation, shading All developments must be designed to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations and must not deny adjacent properties access to sunshine. The proposed building is designed and located to minimize the casting of shadows on adjacent properties and could accommodate future active and/or passive solar installations. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 9 M. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the general standard, lighting levels and design standards. N. Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures Trash and recycling enclosures must be provided in locations abutting refuse collection or storage areas, shall be designed to allow walk-in access without having to open the main service gate, shall be screened from public view and shall be constructed on a concrete pad. The proposed trash and recycling enclosure abuts the alley, allows walk-in access without having to open the main service gate, is screened from public view, and is built on a concrete pad. O. Section 3.4.7 - Historical Resources The project is located in the Laurel School Historic District. The Laurel School Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Due to this historic designation, the property is subject to the requirements in 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and review by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). LPC reviewed this project and provided a final recommendation at their regular meeting on May 11, 2016. Historic Preservation staff and the LPC found the project to be in compliance with all elements of this section of the Land Use Code and recommended approval of the project. P. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to building and project compatibility including building size, height, bulk, mass, scale, mechanical equipment screening and operational/physical compatibility. Size, Height, Bulk, Mass and Scale Peterson Street contains a mix of one and two-story structures. Most of the structures on Peterson Street are single-family detached houses of various sizes. Most of the houses on Peterson contain a front porch, sloping roof forms, and a combination of brick or wood siding. Some of the houses contain additions or additional houses that have been built in the rear of the lot. One multi-family apartment building, The Chateau, is located on the parcel adjacent to 625 Peterson to the north. The Chateau is a 2-story, 16-unit apartment building that was built in 1969. The Chateau has a flat roof with brick and board and batten siding. On the west side of the alley that serves Peterson Street, the development pattern is more varied and contains larger structures. Three apartment complexes occupy most of the block that fronts on Mathews Street behind 625 Peterson Street. These apartments were all built between 1965 and 1969. 634 Mathews contains 24 units with similar architectural qualities to the Chateau. 620 Mathews contains 48 units in a 2.5-story brick building with a flat roof and outdoor balconies for each unit. 625 Peterson Street fits within the context on Peterson and Mathews streets in terms of building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale. Many of the architectural features of the building addition reflect similar features in the homes surrounding including wood siding, gable roofs, scalloped siding, a front porch, and period appropriate windows. While the building will be amongst the tallest residential structures in the immediate vicinity, the design of the building will make the height less imposing. The tallest portions of the addition will be setback more than 70 feet from the property line. The second-story Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 10 gables are also stepped back on the addition to prevent the building from looming over its neighbors. Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the location of outdoor storage, screening of storage areas, and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment from public view. Operational/Physical Compatibility The proposed plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to hours of operation, placement of trash receptacles and location and number of off- street parking spaces. Q. Section 3.6.6 - Emergency Access The proposal meets the standards for providing adequate access for emergency vehicles and emergency service providers as required in Chapter 9 of the City Code, which satisfies this code section. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM), Division 4.8: The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.8(B)(3)(a) - Permitted Uses Multi-family dwellings up to 4 units per building constructed on a lot that contained a structure on October 25, 1991 in a street-fronting principal building is an allowed use subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.8(D)(1) - Required Lot Area The minimum lot size required for a multi-family dwelling is 6,000 square feet. The lot at 625 Peterson is 12,000 square feet. C. Section 4.8(D)(2)(a)(4) - Allowable Floor Area on Lots For uses other than single-family dwellings and buildings accessory to single-family dwellings, the allowable floor area shall not exceed 40% of the lot area. Since the lot is 12,000 square feet, the maximum floor area is 4,800 square feet (12,000 * .4 = 4,800). The proposed floor area for the building is 4,332 square feet, which is below the maximum allowed. D. Section 4.8(D)(3) - Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots The allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot shall not exceed 33% of the rear 50% of the lot. On a 12,000 foot lot, this means the maximum floor area allowed in the rear half of the lot is 1,980 square feet (6,000 * .33 = 1,980). 92 square feet of the proposed building will be in the rear half of the lot. Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 11 E. Section 4.8(E) - Dimensional Standards The NCM zone district has various setback and building height standards. Barring the maximum building wall height standard, the proposed plan meets all of the dimensional requirements of the zone district. Please note the front yard setback was measured to the building as opposed to the porch since porches are allowed in the setback area per Land Use Code section 3.8.19(A)(10). Please also note the rear yard setback was measured to the nearest parking space since walls for trash and recycling enclosures are allowed in the setback area per Land Use Code section 3.19(A)(2). Table 2 - Dimensional Standards Standard Provided Min. lot width 50 feet 50 feet Min. front yard setback 15 feet 19 feet Min. rear yard setback 5 feet 15 feet Min. side yard setback See modification request #2 See modification request #2 Max. building height 2 stories 2 stories F. Section 4.8(F) - Development Standards The proposed building meets all applicable development standards including exterior wall angles, primary entrance features, roof pitch, front façade character (covered entry feature), side façade character (wall offset), and taking access off the alley behind Peterson St. 5. Neighborhood Meeting In accordance with Land Use Code section 2.2.2, staff held a neighborhood meeting for this project on November 9, 2015. All property owners within 800 feet received notice of the meeting two weeks in advance of the meeting per the Land Use Code. 15 people attended the meeting and offered the following feedback: · Concern over the size of the structure and its density · Ensure neighboring properties have access to sunlight given the size of the building · Context is mainly single-family homes, worried about project changing the character of the block · Retain privacy of adjacent properties · Concern about parking impacts The applicant responded to this feedback by requesting a taller fence along a portion of the southern property line to minimize privacy concerns. To minimize the impact of the mass of the building, the addition is setback 70 feet from Peterson St. Neighbors will retain their access to sunlight as outlined in the applicant’s modification request for wall height. 6. Recommendation from Landmark Preservation Commission Since this project is within the Laurel School Historic District, this proposal went to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a final recommendation on May 11, 2016. The members of the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the 625 Peterson St Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 12 Multi-family PDP. Committee members found the proposed building does not adversely affect the historic integrity of the property and area of adjacency. Other considerations the commission noted included the project’s: • Traditional proportions and building modules • Similar massing to historic context • Historically scaled materials • Historic window patterns • Architectural forms similar to adjacent historic context • Similar pedestrian scale to that of the area of adjacency 7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for the 625 S Peterson St Multi-family Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.11(C)(3) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted is equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code. C. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.8(E)(4) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and the proposal submitted equal to or better than a proposal that would meet the code. D. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards, provided the modification to Section 3.8.11(C)(3) is approved. E. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.8 Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM) of Article 4 - Districts, provided the modification to Section 4.8(E)(4) is approved. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the 625 S Peterson St Multi-family, Modification of Standards and PDP160005 based on the findings of fact and conclusions found on pages 15-16 of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment 1 - Zoning & Site Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Attachment 2 - Applicants Modification of Standard Requests (PDF) 3. Attachment 3 - 625 S Peterson St Multi-family Planning Document Set (PDF) 4. Attachment 4 - Findings of Fact for 625 S Peterson St Multi-family from the Landmark Preservation Commission (PDF) Centennial Sr High Young Peoples Learning Center NCM NCB Mathews St Peterson St E Plum St Whedbee St E Myrtle St E Laurel St E Mulberry St © 625 Peterson Vicinity - Multi-Map family 1 inch = 208 feet Site Attachment 1 Modification to L.U.C. Standards Request Peterson Multi-Family Development 625 South Peterson Fort Collins, Colorado May 31, 2016 PROJECT OVERVIEW The intent of this project is to redevelopment an existing two-unit house at 625 South Peterson into a 4-unit building by constructing an addition in the rear. According to Larimer County property records, the original house was built in 1898 with additions and/or renovations in the 1930’s and 1970’s. The current main floor is a 2-bedroom / 1 bathroom unit while the upper level is also a 2-bedroom / 1 bath unit. When exactly it was converted into a duplex is unknown, but is generally believed to be in the late 80’s or early 90’s. The property is 240’ long (E/W) by 50’ (N/S) with Peterson Street on the east and an alley to the west. There is a one-story single family house to the south, a 2-story apartment building to the north and a 3-story apartment building to the west. The owner/developer of the property is Heitmann Properties LLC and the intent is for this LLC to maintain ownership for an extended period. Bob and Amanda Heitmann live in Fort Collins and will actively manage these rental units. MODIFICATION TO SOLAR SETBACK STANDARDS REQUEST Per Land Use Code section 4.8(E)(4), any wall that exceeds 18’ in height as measured from the natural grade at the interior lot line adjacent to the wall must be setback an additional 1’ for every 2’ the wall exceeds 18’. Partly because the finished floor of the west addition had to be positioned almost 2’ higher than the existing house floor elevation due to floodplain issues, small sections of the upper gable roofs exceed this limit. Alternatively, the proposed rooflines could be changed to a standard hip or dutch hip configuration and be compliant with the solar setback requirements. However, we believe the gable roof form is more appropriate within the neighborhood context. With the existing 2-story apartment building to the north set back from the shared property line by approximately 25’, the small section of non-compliant roof would have minimal, if any, negative effect. A front elevation and roof plan, on sheet 6 of the architectural building elevations, illustrates where this non-compliance occurs at the upper sections of the gable roof elements. Again, we consider these to be very minor in nature and request that a modification to the standards be granted. MODIFICATION TO FENCE HEIGHT STANDARDS REQUEST Per Land Use Code sectin 3.8.11(C)(3), any proposed fence shall not exceed 6’ in height when located within any required side yard setback area. However, during our neighborhood meeting, the owners of the property directly to the south requested that we make the proposed wooden fence along the south property line 8’ in height for enhanced privacy. Therefore, we are proposing that a 24’ long section be 8’ in height starting at the east end of the existing detached garage building and extending to the east. The remainder of the fence along the south would be 6’ in height. In an attempt to be a good neighbor, we request that this modification be granted. Attachment 2 UP UP UP UP UP 1 2 3 5 A B C D E F 4 - --- 0 1/2" 1" 2" 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D PROJECT DATE DRAWN 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.alm2s.com PRINTED 1/28/2016 2:00:27 PM FILE NAME: Schematic Design 0000-Project-SD.rvt SITE PLAN 1537 DWN 11/30/2015 A0.2 Heitmann Properties, LLC Fort Collins, Colorado 625 S. Peterson St. Multi-Family Housing SCALE: NORTH 1" = 10'-0" SITE PLAN SYSTEM SYSTEM NOTES NOTES NO ISSUE DATE 1 of 6 COVER SHEET 5/31/16 BAM VICINITY MAP APPLICANT / DEVELOPER / OWNER HEITMANN PROPERTIES LLC 1421 ROLLINGWOOD LANE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 PLANNER / ARCHITECT ALM2S 712 WHALERS WAY, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 CIVIL ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 748 WHALERS WAY FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 SITE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION PARCEL SIZE / UNIT MIX: ZONING - N-C-M, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - MEDIUM DENSITY LOT SIZE - 50' x 240'; 12,000 SF; 0.275 ACRES TOTAL # OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED: 4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: 4 / 0.275 = 14.5 UNITS / ACRE UNIT MIX: ONE 3-BEDROOM UNIT, TWO 2-BEDROOM UNITS & ONE 1-BEDROOM UNIT TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 8 BUILDING AREA / HEIGHT: FINISHED FLOOR AREA: 4,332 SF 3-BEDROOM UNIT - 1,954 SF TOTAL (1,198 FIRST FLOOR / 756 SECOND FLOOR) (2) 2-BEDROOM UNITS - 916 SF TOTAL (417 FIRST FLOOR / 499 SECOND FLOOR) 1-BEDROOM UNIT - 546 SF TOTAL (ONE STORY) FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): 4,332 / 12,000 = 0.361 FLOOR AREA RATIO OF REAR HALF LOT: 92 / 6,000 = 0.015 HEIGHT: 2-STORY - APPROX. 30' FROM GRADE TO PEAK OF ROOF SITE COVERAGE: BLDG. FOOTPRINT - 2,768 SF; REAR PARKING - 3,359 SF; PORCHES & DECKS - 448 SF; SIDEWALKS, STEPS, RAMP & DRAIN PAN/CURB - 1,136 SF LANDSCAPE & TURF AREAS - 4,289 SF = 12,000 SF PARKING REQUIREMENTS: ONE 3-BEDROOM UNIT - 2 SPACES TWO 2-BEDROOM UNITS - 3.5 SPACES ONE 1-BEDROOM UNIT - 1.5 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED - 7 SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED - 7 SPACES 5'-8"; INCLUDING CAP PROVIDE ADD ALTERNATE PRICING TO EXTEND ROOF TO COVER BOTH BIKE RACKS 6/20/2016 EXISTING BUILDING TURF TURF TURF TURF TURF TURF TURF COBBLE MULCH (TYP) ORNAMENTAL GRASS AND SHRUB PLANTING BED (TYP) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 14 13 12 16 17 18 19 25 24 23 22 21 20 PROPOSED BUILDING ORNAMENTAL GRASS AND SHRUB PLANTING BED (TYP) TURF COBBLE MULCH (TYP) ORNAMENTAL GRASS AND SHRUB PLANTING BED (TYP) PLANTING TO SCREEN PARKING LOT FROM ADJACENT USES TRASH ENCLOSURE BIKE RACKS PETERSON STEET M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ALLEY M * * * LANDSCAPE NOTES: HALF OF DRIP LINE MIN. 6' T-POST WITH 4 STAKES PER TREE DRIVEN (MIN. 18") FIRMLY INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION VERTICAL NOTES: 1. FENCING TO CONSIST OF 5' HEIGHT ORANGE PLASTIC EXISTING ROOF LEVEL 116' - 11 3/4" GROUND LEVEL 96' - 3" EXISTING LEVEL 2 106' - 9 5/8" EXISTING LEVEL 1 97' - 3" NEW LEVEL 2 110' - 0 1/8" NEW LEVEL 1 100' - 0" 5 4 3 2 1 30'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF ADDITION IN REAR APPROX. 25'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF ORIGINAL HOUSE APPROX. ADDITION ROOF LEVEL 118' - 1 1/4" REMOVE EXISTING NON-ORIGINAL PORCH AND RECONSTRUCT IN SIMILAR SIZE AND CONFIGURATION REMOVE EXISTING NON-ORIGINAL DOOR AND REPLACE WITH NEW DECORATIVE WOOD DOOR WITH UPPER VISION LITES EXISTING ROOF LEVEL 116' - 11 3/4" GROUND LEVEL 96' - 3" EXISTING LEVEL 2 106' - 9 5/8" EXISTING LEVEL 1 97' - 3" 26'-9"ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF PRIMARY ROOF (6:12 PITCH) AT APPROX. NEW LEVEL 2 110' - 0 1/8" NEW LEVEL 1 100' - 0" 30'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF CROSS GABLE ADDITION IN REAR APPROX. F E D C B A ADDITION ROOF LEVEL 118' - 1 1/4" FRAME/INFILL EXISTING WINDOW OPENING CUT AND FRAME NEW PAIRED WINDOW OPENING TO MATCH ADJACENT SYNTHETIC STUCCO FINISH OVER CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL WITH VERTICAL SCORE JOINTS EVENLY SPACED AT 4'-0" O.C. (4991.0 ACTUAL) 0 1/2" 1" 2" 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D PROJECT DATE DRAWN EXISTING ROOF LEVEL 116' - 11 3/4" GROUND LEVEL 96' - 3" EXISTING LEVEL 2 106' - 9 5/8" EXISTING LEVEL 1 97' - 3" NEW LEVEL 2 110' - 0 1/8" NEW LEVEL 1 100' - 0" 30'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF CROSS GABLE ADDITION IN REAR APPROX. A B C D E F ADDITION ROOF LEVEL 118' - 1 1/4" AT APPROX. 26'9" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF PRIMARY ROOF (6:12 PITCH) 25'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF ORIGINAL HOUSE APPROX. DASHED LINE INDICATE APPROXIMATE CONFIGURATION OF EXISTING ROOFLINE NEW EAST/WEST GABLE END ADDITION AND HIPPED DORMER ON WEST END OF EXISTING HOUSE FRAME/INFILL EXISTING NON- ORIGINAL WINDOW EXISTING ROOF LEVEL 116' - 11 3/4" GROUND LEVEL 96' - 3" EXISTING LEVEL 2 106' - 9 5/8" EXISTING LEVEL 1 97' - 3" NEW LEVEL 2 110' - 0 1/8" NEW LEVEL 1 100' - 0" 1 2 3 4 5 30'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE PEAK OF CROSS GABLEADDITION IN REAR APPROX. ADDITION ROOF LEVEL 118' - 1 1/4" 0 1/2" 1" 2" 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D PROJECT DATE DRAWN 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.alm2s.com PRINTED 1/29/2016 5:03:35 PM FILE NAME: Schematic Design Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: June 21, 2016 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Clay Frickey, City Planner FR: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to 625 Peterson Multi‐Family (PDP160005) As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Findings of Fact and its motion for this project. At its May 11, 2016 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a review of the development project known as 625 Peterson Multi‐Family (PDP160005) as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6). The Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 6‐0: Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution recommending to the Decision Maker the approval of the addition to 625 Peterson Street as presented at the May 11, 2016 meeting of the Commission, the Commission finding that the project is in compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 and does not adversely affect the historic integrity of the property and area of adjacency. The Commission further finds that the project design uses: • Traditional proportions and building modules • Similar massing to historic context • Historically scaled materials • Historic window patterns • Architectural forms similar to adjacent historic context • Similar pedestrian scale to that of the area of adjacency Attachment 4 Attachment 5 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Project: 625 Peterson St. – Fourplex Date: November 9, 2015 City Staff: Clay Frickey (Planning) Summary of Comments &Questions • Why does multi-family seem to occur more in Eastside than Westside? • Expectation of single-family character in these areas • Lots of people were in and out of the property when it was a duplex o Changes, flow, sound, feel of the neighborhood • Concern about sunlight • Is new addition moving over existing fence line? • Concern about entryway facing driveway to the south o Flip to the north so it isn’t looking on to bedroom? • People visiting end up parking on Peterson St. o House north of the Chateau makes it tough to access from Peterson and thus force use of alley parking • Where is entrance to the addition? • Are you preserving historic features of existing home? o Concerned about character of the front façade • Are units required to be attached? • What is the room that attaches the structure? • Who are units targeted to? • What will rent be? • Will owners sell this off? • Could City paint curb to prevent cars from blocking driveway? • Concern about plan for infill • Not sure if adding density is the solution o Context is mainly single-family homes • Will likely be student housing o Worried about impacts • Why can’t it be a single-family home? • Worried about changing character of Old Town • Asking for any modifications? • Parking impacts from multi-family just pushes impacts further south o Amplify issues of Chateau • HOAs in new neighborhoods -> who speaks for neighborhood? Attachment 5 • Besides this input, what recourse do we have? • Concern about composition of Planning & Zoning Board o Seems very developer heavy • Houses have disproportionate impact on each block in Old Town • Developments have impact across the street • Consideration of fewer units? o Loss of privacy and yard next door • Appreciate improvement of existing house • Students = lots of people • Some merit to having yard space as opposed to having connected units • Can’t treat large lot like the rest since it is unique • How many spaces could you get arranging the parking East-West? • Concern about increased density and quality of the new addition • Who’s target tenant? • Outdoor space not necessarily a plus for the neighbors • Complex north of Chateau interesting -> front = students and the back = professionals • How strongly can landlord enforce occupancy? • How big is each unit? • Will owners be the property managers? • How do you control occupancy on the lease? 0000-Project-SD.rvt BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1537 Author 11/30/2015 A4.2 Heitmann Properties, LLC Fort Collins, Colorado 625 S. Peterson St. Multi-Family Housing A4.2 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A4.2 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION SYSTEM NOTES NO ISSUE DATE 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.alm2s.com PRINTED 1/29/2016 5:03:28 PM FILE NAME: Schematic Design 0000-Project-SD.rvt BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1537 Author 11/30/2015 A4.1 Heitmann Properties, LLC Fort Collins, Colorado 625 S. Peterson St. Multi-Family Housing A4.1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION SYSTEM NOTES NO ISSUE DATE GENERAL NOTES REGARDING ORIGINAL HOUSE: ORIGINAL ROOF HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH MULTIPLE LAYERS OF SHINGLES. REMOVE ALL LAYERS DOWN TO ORIGINAL SKIP SHEATHING. COVER ENTIRE ROOF WITH NEW 7/16" OSB SHEATHING, ICE/WATER SHIELD, GALV. METAL FLASHINGS & 30- YEAR HIGH-PROFILE LAMINATED FIBERGLASS SHINGLES - COLOR TO BE "WEATHERED WOOD". ENTIRE HOUSE WAS COVERED WITH STEEL SIDING IN THE 1970s OR 80s. REMOVE EXISTING STEEL SIDING AND FASCIA TRIM. IF ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING IS STILL IN PLACE, PATCH AND REPAIR AS REQUIRED. IF ORIGINAL SIDING/TRIM IS IN POOR CONDITION AND CANNOT BE SALVAGED, REPLACE WITH NEW EXTERIOR SHEATHING, AIR BARRIER AND PAINTED HARDBOARD SIDING IN SIMILAR SIZE AND PROFILE. ALL ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED OVER THE YEARS. REMOVE ALL EXISTING, NON-ORIGINAL VINYL AND METAL WINDOWS AND REPLACE WITH NEW PERIOD-APPROPRIATE ALUM.-CLAD WOOD WINDOWS. INTERIOR OF HOUSE TO BE STRIPPED DOWN TO WOOD STUD FRAMING INCLUDING REMOVAL OF ALL LATH & PLASTER AND DRYWALL. STUD CAVITIES TO BE FILLED W/ SPRAY-FOAM INSULATION AFTER ROUGH-IN OF NEW ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING. GENERAL NOTES REGARDING ADDITION IN REAR: EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2x6 STUD FRAMING W/ R-20 HIGH- PERFORMANCE BATT INSULATION & SHEATHED W/ OSB, AIR- BARRIER & PAINTED HARDBOARD SIDING IN SIMILAR SIZE & PROFILE. NEW ALUM.-CLAD WOOD WINDOWS TO MATCH. FINISHED FLOOR OF ADDITION IN REAR IS SET UP HIGHER THAN FINISHED FLOOR OF ORIGINAL HOUSE BASED ON CITY OF FORT COLLINS STORMWATER DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELEVATE FINISHED FLOOR 24" ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE). CONSTRUCTION FENCING TIED TO POST WITH METAL WIRE. FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLELTELY FINISHED. 2. SEE PLANT PROTECTION NOTES THIS SHEET. 2 CONSTRUCTION TREE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING NTS TREE PROTECTION NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THE DEMO PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR )((7,1+(,*+76(&85(':,7+0(7$/73267612&/26(57+$16,; )((7)5207+(7581.2521(+$/) ò 2)7+('5,3/,1(:+,&+(9(5,6*5($7(57+(5(6+$//%(12 STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE TABLE ON THIS SHEET. 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. MITIGATION TREES SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS: (A) CANOPY SHADE TREES 3.0" CALIPER BALLED AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT (B) ORNAMENTAL TREES 2.5" CALIPER BALLED AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT (C) EVERGREEN TREES 8' HEIGHT BALLED AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT M DESIGNATES A TREE UPSIZED FOR MITIGATION ON THE PLANS AUGER OFFSET TABLE TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OFFSET FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0"-2" 1 3"-4" 2 5"-9" 5 10"-14" 10 15"-19" 12 OVER 19" 15 TREES CODE QTY COMMON NAME SIZE SPREAD ORN 8 ORNAMENTAL B & B 2.5"CAL DEC 1 DECIDUOUS B & B 3"CAL EVRGRN 15 SMALL EVERGREEN TREE B & B 8` SHRUBS CODE QTY COMMON NAME SIZE SPREAD LDS 6 5` DECIDUOUS SHRUB 5 GAL LES 9 5` EVERGREEN SHRUB 5 GAL SG 18 3` ORNAMENTAL GRASS 5 GAL GROUND COVERS CODE QTY COMMON NAME SHRB 63 SHRUBS AND ORNAMENTAL GRASSES ROCK 174 SF COBBLE/ROCK MULCH TURF 2,327 SF BLUEGRASS TURF PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132. 5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS ANDLABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: a. 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS b. 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS c. 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES d. 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES. e. 4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES f. 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a). 10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. 14. ALL TREES TO MEET CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE STANDARDS FOR SIZE. 15. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING FROM DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, INCLUDING MOWING, WEEDING, WINTER WATERING AND PRUNING. 16. CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE ALL DISTURBANCE TO NON-IMPACTED AREAS. 17. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SETUP OF BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNAGE, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE DEVICES IF ANY EXCAVATIONS ARE LEFT EXPOSED AFTER ON-SITE WORK HOURS. 18. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ACQUIRE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 19. PROTECT ALL ROOTS THAT ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 20. TREE REMOVAL AND PRUNING SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 21. LANDSCAPING MUST BE INSTALLED OR SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW AMOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 22. DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING INCLUDING THAT WITHIN THE PARKWAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY. PLANT PALETTE MITIGATION REASONS 1. POOR CONDITION OR HAZARD TREE 2. COST OF RETENTION WOULD UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE PROJECT 3. TREE LOCATIONS IS IN CONFLICT WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES 4. TREES ARE OF A VOLUNTEER NATURE AND ARE FAIR- TO POOR QUALITY 5. TREE IS COTTON BEARING AND A NUISANCE EXISTING MAJOR TREES THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED POSE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN TO THE PROJECT BASED ON THE EXISTING LOCATION OF SAID TREES AND THE OWNERS DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS. 6 JULY 2016 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) - WITHOUT SUBDIVISION PLAT 625 SOUTH PETERSON STREET MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROPERTY LOCATION SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS. 2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 6. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 7. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 8. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 9. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 10. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 11. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. AND, IF APPLICABLE: 12. THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREET SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT. 13. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODOR CONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 14. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 15. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 16. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY-FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF SIX-INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. SHEET INDEX: 1 - COVER SHEET 2 - SITE PLAN 3 - LIGHTING PLAN 4 - LANDSCAPE & TREE MITIGATION PLAN 5 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS 6 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N 1/2 OF LOT 3, BLOCK 146, CITY OF FORT COLLINS OWNER' CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY N 1/2 OF LOT 3, BLOCK 146, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER (625 SOUTH PETERSON STREET) _______________________________________ _____________________________ NAME DATE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF LARIMER ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME BY ___________________________, THIS _____ DAY OF ___________, 20___ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: _________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR ON THIS _______ DAY OF _______________________, A.D., 2016. ______________________________________________________________ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIRECTOR