Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/2014 - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD - AGENDA - Regular MeetingInterested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items at 221-6750. DATE: Thursday, October 9, 2014 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, October 9, 2014, hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, October 16, 2014, at 6.00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non -agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on more important agenda items. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone, including Board members, may request an item to be "pulled" off of the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of routine administrative actions and items with no known opposition. 1. Minutes from the September 11, 2014, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing 2. Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Major Amendment MJA 140003 This is a request for consideration of a Major Amendment (MJA) for Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness. The site is located south of Bear Mountain Drive, west of Timberline Road, and east of Joseph Allen Drive. This is an amendment and replat to the approved Timberline Center Final Plan and Plat. The project includes one building that is 51 feet in height to be used for an indoor climbing and fitness facility (unlimited indoor recreational facility). Applicant: RB+B Architects / Joe Hosek, AIA 315 E Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Owner: Timberline Development, LLC PO Box 1046 Loveland, CO 80539 Staff: Noah Beals 1 3. 222 West Laurel CSU Classroom Addition, SPA 140002 This is a request for consideration of a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) for Colorado State University (CSU) to construct a 1,060 square foot addition to an existing building at 222 West Laurel Street. The 1-story addition will be used as classroom space for students in the Warner College of Natural Resources. Additional site amenities including bicycle parking and a handicap space are planned on the rear half of the lot in an existing parking area. The project site is approximately .35 acres and does not have associated City zoning. Applicant: Fred Haberecht Facilities Management, Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80521-6030 Owner: State of Colorado Board of Agriculture 202 Administration Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 Staff: Ryan Mounce E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 4. Affinity Senior Housing Modification of Standard 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 apartments with age restriction to seniors over 55), with no office/employment use. The site is 7.5 acres located north of Front Range Village shopping center, between Lowe's home improvement store and English Ranch South subdivision. If approved, the stand-alone Modification is valid for one year, by which time a Project Development Plan must be submitted incorporating the Modification. Applicant: Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 1620 North mamer Rd., Bldg. B Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Staff: Clark Mapes F. Other Business G. Adjournment 2 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Absent: Staff Present: Agenda Review Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Hobbs and Schneider Heinz Kadrich, Eckman, Gloss, Burnett, Beals, Wilkinson, Lorson, Holland, Siegmund, and Cosmas Chair Carpenter provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Director Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas and also explained the consent/discussion procedure to the audience. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from July 10, 2014, P&Z Hearing 2. Pedersen Toyota Expansion Public Input: None noted. 3 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2014 Page 2 Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the September 11, 2014, Consent agenda as presented, which includes the minutes from the August 14, 2014) Planning and Zoning Board hearing and Pederson Toyota Expansion. Member Hansen seconded. Vote:6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Adoption of Land Use Code Revisions from Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study 4. Clydesdale Annexation 5. The Flats at Rigden Farm Project: Adoption of Land Use Code Revisions from Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study Project Description: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider potential revisions to off-street parking requirements within the Land Use Code (LUC) that address parking issues identified in the TOD Parking Study. A variety of regulatory options have been evaluated to date that include: Multi -family and Mixed -use Dwellings (residential): a. Adopt minimum parking requirements as proposed; or b. Retain temporary minimum parking requirements. Nonresidential Land Uses (commercial): a. Adopt minimum parking requirements; or b. Retain maximum parking requirements. Alternative Compliance a. Residential; and b. Commercial. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff and Applicant Presentations City Planner Lorson gave a presentation of this project, detailing each of the policy recommendations. He detailed parking requirements for non-residential, multi -family, and alternative compliance for residential and commercial properties, discussing the minimum and maximum parking requirements of each. He also reviewed the feedback he has received from the Parking Advisory Board, the Transportation Board, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. 12 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2014 Page 3 Public Input Bob Carroll, 2844 Willow Tree, stated he is interested in the new proposal at Rigden Farms, but he thinks the parking is inadequate and should accommodate the number of adults in each unit. Staff Response to Citizen Concerns Planner Lorson addressed Mr. Carroll's concerns by saying that there will be less parking demand in the high -transit areas, which is quite different from the Rigden Farm area. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked for some details on why minimum parking standards for commercial, non-residential areas were not supported by the Parking Advisory and Transportation Boards. Planner Lorson responded by saying that, while there was not a significant amount of discussion on that topic, the Boards did express concern that creating minimum parking standards for commercial development might deter future development. Mitigating this requirement means that developers are able to provide off -site parking when necessary (alternative compliance). Member Hart also inquired about having a future parking plan for areas with minimum requirements, and Planner Lorson responded that there is a plan for on -street paved parking in the current budget offer. Member Hansen asked what the Parking Advisory and Transportation Boards' responses were concerning the alternative compliance measures and whether they had any value in commercial areas. Alternate compliance measures could include providing transit passes for employees, in addition to other tools. He also explained the parking minimums outside the TOD for residential by presenting a slide that showed a comparison of the standards that are outside the TOD zone, the temporary standards, and the recommendations proposed. Standards outside the TOD zone are clearly higher than the others because of the high -frequency transit and density. Director Kadrich also clarified that the proposed minimums only apply to the TOD area, which would not include Rigden Farm. Planner Lorson stated that he did not believe the proposed minimums would be a burden on commercial locations. Member Hobbs asked for clarification of the reduction in the TOD, and Planner Lorson confirmed that, for non- residential development, there is an allowable reduction in the TOD zone, but there is a minimum that is being recommended for the entire community. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a request to modify the second recommendation on page 2 of the Staff Report to include temporary downtown minimums until such time as a parking demand study could be performed. Planner Lorson responded that this is the first step to a more comprehensive series of improvements, which would eventually go to City Council for approval. Director Kadrich added that any recommendations would come back to the Planning and Zoning Board for changes or amendments, making it unnecessary to restructure the plan at this point. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick endorses the residential and alternative compliance components of this recommendation, but she is struggling with the non-residential City-wide use, so she will not support that part. Clarification was provided indicating that each component could be voted upon separately. 5 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2014 Page 4 Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council adoption of the revised TOD zone multiple -family mixed -use dwellings minimum parking requirements and provide an alternative compliance option for both residential and non- residential parking standards. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. There was some discussion of the differences between TOD areas versus City-wide areas. Director Kadrich stated that the difficulty for the commercial areas was that there were no requirements, so Staff felt more tools were needed to help contractors with in -fill projects. Member Hobbs stated that he believes this is a good tool to have. Member Schneider Is concern is that there are existing projects that are approved that are not required to have minimum parking, so TOD should be implemented soon. Chair Carpenter will support it because it is another tool and doesn't feel it will be a burden to the community. Member Hart stated that he would also like to see limits in the downtown area. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council that they establish a new non-residential minimum parking requirement City-wide as a step towards developing a downtown and TOD parking strategy. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Chair Carpenter added an amendment to recommend going forward with the comprehensive parking plan, transportation demand management program, on -site paved parking, public parking structures, provision of public parking, and protection of residential parking permits. Chair Carpenter also recognized Staff for their efforts in bringing this together. Vote: 5:1 with Vice Chair Kirkpatrick dissenting. Project: Clydesdale Annexation Project Description: This is a request for annexation neighborhood. Clydesdale Park is an existing subdivision intersection of East Mulberry Street and Carriage Parkway. residential lots on approximately 75 acres.. The requested Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is Structure Plan. Recommendation: Approval by the residents of the Clydesdale Park located east of Interstate 25, south of the Clydesdale Park includes 217 single-family initial zoning for this annexation is the Low in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff and Applicant Presentations City Planner Holland gave an overview of the area in question, including some history of the area, a zoning overview and the master plan for the annexation. He stated that one reason the residents are requesting annexation is to achieve consistent maintenance for Carriage Parkway, which will eventually extend south to East Prospect Road. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart asked for clarification on what the Board is being asked to approve at this hearing. Planner Holland confirmed that he is requesting approval for Annexations 1 and 2. Director Kadrich informed the Board that there was a Pre -Annexation Agreement signed by the residents, and, through the Power of Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2014 Page 5 Attorney, it was now being presented. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated that the original developer had granted Power of Attorney to the City Clerk. Secretary Cosmas stated that she had received a letter from the Clydesdale Park HOA President outlining their talking points in support of the annexation. Public Input Bill Schwerdtfeger, President of Clydesdale Park HOA, requested that the Board allow the HOA members to pool their time so a presentation could be made. Chair Carpenter granted them 15 minutes to make one general presentation. Tom Mills, Vice President of Clydesdale Park, began the presentation by stating that his community would like to make two requests to the Board: • To support the request for annexation so that Clydesdale Park is annexed into the City of Fort Collins, and • To support their request for phasing in the storm water fee. Chair Carpenter interrupted him to tell him that the stormwater issue would not be something the Planning and Zoning Board could vote on tonight and that it would have to go to the City Council for a decision. Mr. Mills continued with his presentation by reviewing the sequence of events to date, including the original petitioning, the citizen concerns, tax revenue issues, location issues, potential benefits to the City, and how annexation will demonstrate the City's commitment. While he supports the storm water utility fee, he asked for a phase -in period during the time his community is becoming a resident of the City, preferably over a 5-year period. He stated that he believes there will be economic impacts on the annexed property, but residents are in favor of paying associated taxes and fees. Staff/Applicant Response Deputy City Attorney Eckman said that City code allows the Planning and Zoning Board to advise the City Council on annexations and long-range planning. He went on to say that the City's Water Board should advise on matters concerning stormwater utility fees. There were no additional Staff comments or response. Board Deliberation Member Schneider made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to the City Council for the Clydesdale Park first and second annexation initial zoning of L-M-N Low Density Mixed Use neighborhood and that the residential neighborhood sign district be included based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in the Staff Report, Vice Chair Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Vote: 6:01 7 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2014 Page 6 Project: The Flats at Rigden Farm Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (PDP) for Flats at Rigden Farm, PDP140006. The project is located on an entire city block bounded by four streets: Limon Drive, Custer Drive, Iowa Drive, and Illinois Drive. The city block is approximately 4.08 acres. Proposed within in the site are six (6) residential buildings containing ninety-four (94) dwelling units and one (1) commercial/retail building containing 9,600 square feet of space. The request for approval of the Project Development Plan is included with a Modification of Standard to the Land Use Code section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a). This Modification of Standard allows the project to reduce the number of required off- street parking spaces by nine (9) spaces. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Staff and Applicant Presentations: City Planner Beals gave an overview of this project. He addressed a question that came up at the work session regarding Liberty Heights parking pattern, which is a clockwise pattern, has a staggered release time, and is restricted to guests and staff. About 52% of the students are of driving age, and there are some leased parking spaces available at Timberline Church, in addition to a shuttle for after-hours activities. Jason Sherrill, with Landmark Homes, is the Applicant, and he gave the Board a visual presentation, which included information about both his company and the project. His company, which is based in Windsor, CO, specializes in attached, for -sale homes. He praised the location of the project because of the combination of residential and commercial aspects, saying that the mixed -use zoning offers diversity to the residents. In addition, the commercial space will be available to residents as local offices. Of the 169 parking spaces that are required for this residential product, the applicant is providing 160 spaces in the form of: • attached and detached garages for all residents (94 spaces) and • surface lots on the property (66 spaces). Since there are 54 perimeter (off -site) parking sites, the applicant is requesting a modification to standard for the 9 spaces that are lacking for this requirement and asking that those 54 off -site spaces count toward the required spaces. He also showed a landscape plan, including trail connections, architecture and materials of the buildings, and proposed unit floor plans. Public Input Bob Carroll, 2844 Willow Tree, asked about the allocation of parking spaces and whether there are tandem parking spaces available. He stated that an exception to already low standards is not acceptable. He is concerned that the senior citizens could experience future hardships if others take their parking spaces. EOO Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2014 Page 7 Staff Response Mr. Sherrill responded to the citizen's concerns by saying there will be dedicated parking spaces for all residents, and all tandem parking spaces were abandoned. The required parking was derived using the City codes and formulas. Therefore, parking is adequately planned, and many residents can also walk to commercial areas or use public transportation. He feels that, as a result, residents should not place any significant parking burdens on any perimeter properties. Board Questions and Staff/Applicant Response Member Hansen asked about internalizing the garage buildings to the site. Mr. Sherrill responded by saying, in order to minimize visual impacts, that the garages are well -buffered with landscaping. He added that the garages provide safety and lifestyle convenience for residents. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard for section 3.2.2(K)(1)(A) of the Land Use Code regarding reduction of off-street parking spaces from the required 169 to 160 spaces. This would not be detrimental to the public good, and the modification meets the applicable requirements of section 2.8.2(H)(4) of the Land Use Code. The request satisfies section 2.8.2(H)(4) of the Land Use Code, because the project will not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way, when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because of the project's convenient location and neighborhood services, and because the surrounding number of on -street parking spaces is greater than the typical number of on -street parking places adjacent to a multiple -family development. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Rigden Farm Project Development Plan PDP 140006 based upon the findings of facts and conclusions on pages 11 and 12 of the Staff Report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 9 Agenda Item 2 PROJECT NAME ASCENT STUDIO CLIMBING AND FITNESS MAJOR AMENDMENT STAFF Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning :J Z1911:10 91ilk I INilri/GlIIs]► PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of a Major Amendment (MJA) for Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness. The site is located south of Bear Mountain Drive, west of Timberline Road, and east of Joseph Allen Drive. This is an amendment and replat to the approved Timberline Center Final Plan and Plat. The project includes one building that is 51 feet in height to be used for an indoor climbing and fitness facility (unlimited indoor recreational facility). The replat combines 3 lots into 2 lots. The undeveloped lot will be reviewed at such time it develops. APPLICANT: RB+B Architects Joe Hosek, AIA 315 E Mountain Ave, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Timberline Development, LLC PO BOX 1046 LOVELAND, CO 80539 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Major Amendment, MJA140003. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The approval of Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Major Amendment, MJA140003 complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The MJA complies with process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. • The MJA complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. • The MJA complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28 Industrial (1), of Article 4 - Districts. Item # 2 Page 1 10 Agenda Item 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: Vicinity Map: A y a �1 Site Bear Mountain Dr EI I_l f g e r I' I i l I -a � ' 1 I I I L.0 ld�a, grid bu r Lir 1=1bI"bur Ln -i f rl 'tNancy Gray Ave Flans n T n Police Services Builrii111_a i i 1 it 3 11 Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness. MJA140003 - FePt Historically the following approvals have been granted to the property: • Timberline Annexation (June 1997) • Timberline Center Final Plan (June 2006) The property is largely undeveloped, with minimal improvements such as curb/gutter and sidewalk along east and west portion of the property. A drive aisle was installed that extends from the north boundary into the middle of the site. The existing landscaping consist of natural grasses and weeds. Zoning History: • In 1997, upon annexation, the property was zoned Transition (T) District. • In January 2006, in preparation for a Project Development Plan, the property was rezoned to Industrial (1) District. Item # 2 Page 2 11 Agenda Item 2 The current surroundina zonina and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Use North Industrial (1) Fast Food Restaurant - Burger King Industrial (1) Vacant Land: Timberline Center South Employment (E) Vacant Land: No approved plan East Transition (T) Public Right -of -Way: Timberline Drive West Industrial (1) Mini Storage Facility: Stor-n-Lock Self Storage 2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code - Section 4.21 General Commercial (C-G): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: Section 4.28(A) and (B) - Permitted Uses for I district The purpose of the Industrial (1) district is to provide a variety of work places supported by complementary uses. A climbing and fitness facility over 18,000 square feet in size is classified as an unlimited indoor recreational use in the Land Use Code. This use is a permitted in the district. Section 4.28(D) - Land Use Standards for I district Section 4.28(D)(1) sets the maximum building height at four stories. The proposal includes 1 building. The Land Use Code limits the height of a story to 25 feet; therefore, a 4-story building could reach up to 100 feet. At 51 feet in height the proposed building is in compliance. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - General Development Standards The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards; with the following relevant comments provided: Division 3.2 - Site Plannina and Desian Standards 1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection: • Along the lot being developed are 3 existing street trees. The landscape includes the protection of these 3 trees and the planting of 23 new trees. These trees are in compliance with the required tree stocking standard. The project includes space for a future building addition to the north. At the time of the addition, additional trees will be planted. Item # 2 Page 3 12 Agenda Item 2 • Other landscape improvements include: o Foundation plantings surrounding the majority of the building. o Within and adjacent, the proposed vehicle use areas are in compliance with interior landscape islands and perimeter landscape setbacks. 2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking: • As part of the Timberline Center the proposed amendment continues the access connections for pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist to the abutting parcels. • A sidewalk located along the south property line extends from the west abutting public right-of-way to the east abutting property. This same sidewalk connects to the interior sidewalk that the main entrance faces. Additionally, along the drive way on the north side of the property, a sidewalk extends from the west abutting public right-of-way to the sidewalk that the main entrance faces. • Bicycle parking has been provided on the north side of the building within close proximity of the main entrance. There are 9 bicycle spaces covered by a shade structure in compliance with the minimum standard of 9 spaces. • 65 vehicle parking spaces are provided on site for the unlimited recreational use. Three of these are accessible spaces located as close a possible to the main entrance. 3) 3.2.4 Site Lighting: A photometric site plan was provided illustrating the project to be in compliance with the average minimum foot-candles. The LED light fixtures being used are sharp cut-off and down - directional, minimizing any light spillage. Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 1) Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features: • Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Major Amendment site does not include any natural areas, habitats, and features. Further, it will not increase impacts of the Timberline Center Final Plan. Item # 2 Page 4 13 Agenda Item 2 Division 3.5 - Building Standards 1) Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility: • Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness proposes a building height of 51 which is greater than the tallest buildings, at34 feet, within the Timberline Center. Therefore, this project was determined to be a Major Amendment. Staff has reviewed the height of the 51-foot-tall building through the special height review and visual analysis criteria for buildings over 40 feet in height. The building height does not have a substantial adverse impact to the distribution of light to adjacent property or public right-of-way. Additionally the building height is lower than the adjacent Police Services building to the south that is 55 feet in height. • The proposed building roof is green, consistent with the approved with of Timberline Center Final Plan and continues to be compatible with the surrounding architecture. Division 3.6 - Transportation and Circulation 1) 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards: This project does not include any new streets. The vehicle access driveway along Joseph Allen Drive was previously installed and the amended plan will continues the use of the access. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity has been improved with construction of interior sidewalks that connect to the public sidewalks. 2) 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service Requirements: The Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments have reviewed the Transportation Impact Study that was submitted to the City for review and have determined that the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities proposed with the Major Amendment are consistent with the standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal Transportation Level of Service Manual. 4. Neighborhood Meetinq A neighborhood meeting was held for the proposed project and over a dozen people were in attendance. A staff summary of the neighbors' comments and applicant's responses are included below. Detailed meeting minutes are attached with this staff report. Question (Citizen): Who decides this? What is the next step? Response (City): The next step is that the applicant would have to wait 10 days to formally submit the project, to take into account any comments or questions received tonight. Next, there are staff rounds of review to make sure it is in compliance with City standards to present to the Planning & Zoning Board. The Planning & Zoning Board is the decision maker. If Item # 2 Page 5 14 Agenda Item 2 approved by the Planning & Zoning Board, the plans will come back through for final plan compliance. Once the final plan is approved they can submit a building permit application. Question (Citizen): How tall is the Police Services Building? Response (City): The approved plans show it as 55'. After the neighborhood meeting no additional comments were received for this project. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion In evaluating the request for the Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness, MJA140003 Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.28 Industrial (1) of Article 4 - Districts. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Major Amendment, MJA140003 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan (PDF) 2. Elevations (PDF) 3. Landscape Plan (PDF) 4. Shadow Study (PDF) 5. Plat(PDF) 6. Ascent Studio Climbing and Fitness Neighborhood Meeting (PDF) Item # 2 Page 6 15 1 3 4 15 SHEET INDEX A5101 SAFE PLAN FINE LANDSCAPE 511E PLAN D FINE? LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN A201 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A202 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SIGNATURE BLOCK - IRE UNDERSIGNEB DOESDO HEREBY CERTIF) IHATVWE ARE THE UwNL APPROVED BYTxE SCANNING 5ERV1CF5 BFTxE CmaF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, THIS OWNLPSOFTHE READ PROPERTY DESCRIBED LNTxESE SEE PUNSAND CO HERMYCERTIFYTHAT IRWE ACCERTLE CONDmaxS AND RESIRIGTON55EF DAY WOAD., NI FORM ON SAID SIZE PUNS. E\ECNI13)TH6 DAY OFF DIRECTOR OF FEWER C(VEREMENT 6 NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AD, 20 OWNER TIMBERLINE DEVELWMEM, LLC, A WNM S LIMITED W®IIY COMPM BY: RNS RFISMI, MANAGER (STATE OF COLORADO ICMWY OF DIFFER) S.S. (Cm OF FORT COFFINS) THE FOREGOING DEDIMMON WAS AWIDWLEW® MEDICARE ME MIS DAY OF�AD., 20 C BY: MY REMISSION SEEMS WIDENESS MY HAND AND SELL NOTARYFEWC LIBEMBER:]DEVINE. A INFORMS BY: (STATE OF COMBINED) (CDumaFvaMER) S.S. (LILY OF END COWNS) THE FOREGOING DEDIMMON WAS AWIDWLEW® MEDICARE ME MIS MY OF�AD., 20 BY: MY REMISSION SEEMS WIDENESS MY HAND AND SELL 9 SITE PLAN SCHEDULE LOT 62,120 SF LANDSCAPED AREA 14,157 SF RHOADS COVERAGE 149755F BURNING AREA I3,1585E BURNING FAR 8.E BMDING DORM 51' PARKER, WAM( AXD OTHER WJIGSGIE 33,08 BE WORKING NION 65 REACHES BICYCLE WORMS 95PACE5 IA 2 VICINITY MAP V2•=P-0• 1 THIS Evo[ft \ ouv I �\ F E®arc --i LOT8I TAT/ 75 T/�T 7 Z SITE PLAN 1"='A-0" D C TIMBERLINE CENTER \LOT 9 1 I 1 1 ENABLE BE- MHOUSUNIT I (BOBBY P � '.✓' � � R R.IYIR _ 193 ACRES _l.V)=ED AREA 1 v .� (II INWSIRIAL � 1 THEY .ALK iiL 1-7 L I Ma� E p HCSMI'vrvol F 1 1 r *1 D Muu] \ 1 � \ Nxrtx vn � T W I DIWW AND PARXIM IL I38885F-i% EME v )ns�xrsmmo `-` A (E) AMMAY 7H�DIXBp6 XFI1XE55 _ LM \ INDOOR RNREATIONAL •uvew m[ \ _ µ� UE 1 51'M BOOMACCv UE IB.IWfi _1 F9 PR�. A 1 1 FAR'.0.ID 188' DEMAND COVERAGE anv 11,H]5SF-24%NOTE EKE IN _ HE A. �\ v LAND SCAPE ME 5 A W FBI OLL 7� c Q 'w C o Ln r 0Z /N/� W C w u u LV � U VfJ" d o N Q U F JLL PRO]EC @: 1317 ISSUE DATE: 9/3/14 SUE PLAN AS101 6 16 No Text No Text 10 IC ;I A 2 3 0I I I BET m a a. ANTING BED W/ LANDSCAPE BASIS OF BEARINGS BOULDERS REMOVE AN REPLACE(E)TREE W SPECIES SHOWN ® © - CONE. WAIY.-------- X I I A PI I I ^(E) THE TO REMAIN ILL! p I [l` .FQTUREBD IT(ON ARfA. MMGR'-'-_. - - -,- • I ' ....'.'.'.'.'. 'IR'ED'A'N'.P''.''.'..'..'. .:.:...:.. ................... S00.:.'.:.'...'...'...'...'. D61NGPATIO C f I t \SM\ wrs 4 ��— I„ ,o / m s" ASCENT STUDIO CLIMBING G FITNESS CONC. WALK ® na M / s+�" sN sTM ... ... _ _ AIL SHADE COVERED BKE RACKi'''''''''''''''''' W/ 9 SPACES ON GRA55CRETE -POROUS UNIT PAVERS JING BEDS W/ DSCAPE SOULDERSLU _ OTAL PARKING: G5 SPACES 'I" Z 2 CL oN W N W (1) IS CONC WALK PLANTIN BED W/ METAL/ EDGINGNG LA .C. PARKING fIFI-MITING BED TO SCREEN PARKING "y V v I NCLO5ED TRASH RECEPTACLE NEW CONC METAL CANTING BED 1 112 - 2' WASHED RIVER EDGING WALK ROCK MULCH BORDER LANDSCAPE SITE - PLAN L101 Sca1e:1'=20'-0' xomx 2 EXISTING TREE PROTECTION 101 Scale N T S 1 MEMO �EE TO BE PROTECTED - I �-w HEi[f O USE ScCALMwlwF1[x e TREE TO BE PROTECTED. R ip]ID MM MEL '/ EMS U mmm 2 HATCH LEGEND 5OD: SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE AND INSTALLATION PLANTING BEDS HIGH HYROZONE MEDIUM HYROZONE LOW HYROZONE 3 4 LAND5CAPE NOTE5 5 1. MINOR CHANGES IN THE SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY 51TE CONDITIONS. APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 15 REQUIRED PRIOR TO MAKING ANY CHANGES IN THE SPECIES, SIZES OR LOCATION OF ANY PLANTS. OVERALL QUANTITY AND QUALITY SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. 2. PLANT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ALL PLANT MATERIAL UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLANTING HOLE EXCAVATION. APPROVAL OF PLANT LOCATIONS DOES NOT RELEASE THE CONTRACTOR FROM LIABILITY OF DAMAGE OR INJURY TO UTILITIES, STRUCTURES OR PERSONS ON SITE. NOR DOES IT CONSTITUTE THE PLANT PLANTING D REVIEW FOR THE SITE WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER ALL THE PLANTS ARE INSTALLED. 3. ALL TREES SHALL MEET THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE STANDARDS FOR SIZE. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE ON NON -IMPACTED AREAS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SHREDDED BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE (3) INCHES OVER ALL PLANTING BED AREA5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A WEED BARRIER (PHILLIP5 GG DURON OR EQUAL) ANCHORED WITH GROUND STABLES, UNDER ALL MULCH. G. 501L OF SOD AREAS AND BED AREAS SHALL BE AMENDED WITH THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF COMPOST PER ON THOUSAND 0,000) SQUARE FEET. COMP05T SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SOILS TO A DEPTH OF EIGHT (8) INCHES IN TURF 501) AREAS AND EIGHTEEN H 8) INCHES IN BEDS. 7. PRIOR TO SEEDING OR PLACING SOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE THE SURFACE AS INDICATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, REMOVING ALL STONES HAVING A DIMENSION GREATER THENY¢ INCH, AS WELL AS ALL EARTH CLODS, LUMPS, AND DEPRESSIONS. ANY DEBRIS BROUGHT TO THE SURFACE DURING CULTIVATION SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8. NO SUB STANDARD SOILS SHALL BE USED IN ANY AREAS AS TOPSOIL. ALL AMENDMENTS MUST MEET THE STRICT DEFINITIONS SET FORTH IN THE SPECIFICATIONS NO 5UI3501L OR FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN AREAS TO BE PLANTED, ANY SUBSTANDARD SOILS PLACED IN PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 9 ALL TREE5 PLANTED QUF5IDE OF PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED FOR AN AREA OF FOUR (4) FEET IN DIAMETER AROUND THE TRUNK TO A DEPTH OF FOUR (4) INCHES WITH CHIPPER MULCH, TREE LOCATIONS SHALL T HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 10' TO WATER 6 SEWER SERVICE UNE5. STREET TREES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF G TO GAS LINES. 10. WHERE DESIGNATED, ALL EDGING SHALL BE C' METAL EDGING. INSTALL ALL JOINTS AND EDGING PER MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS. ALL EDGING SHALL BE FASTENED WITH A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) PIN5 PER TEN (10) FEET OF EDGING. 1 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE TRUE TO TYPE, SIZE, SPECIES, AND QUANTITY, FREE OF INJURY, BROKEN ROOTBALLS, PE3T5 AND DISEASE AS WELL AS CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE 'AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" GRADE NI . 12. ALL LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTIONS PRACTICES, WORKMANSHIP AND ETHICS SHALL BE, AT A MINIMUM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE HANDBOOK FOR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS PUBLISHED BY THE COLORADO LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, 13. ALL CONTAINERS, WIRE AND ROPE SHALL BE REMOVES FROM THE ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTING. BURLAP SHALL BE PULLED DOWN FROM THE TOP ONE THIRD OF THE ROOTBALL BEFORE PLANTING. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES AND STRUCTURE PRIOR TO AND DURING WORK. DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE REPAIRED BYTES CONTRACTOR AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER. 15. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOP501L THAT 15 REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION. I G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAILY CLEAN-UP OF DIRT AND DEBRIS SPILLED ONTO ANY PAVED B SURFACE. 17. THE 501L IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT (8) INCHES AND 501L AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE 501L OF ALL LANDSCAPES AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 51X (G) INCHES BY TILLING, DI50NG OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A TATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. 18. A FREE TREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS NOTED ON THI5 PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THI5 INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN CURB AND SIDEWALK, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. TH15 PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THI5 PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATION TREES AND A HOLD ON THE ... CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 19. TREE5 SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 4 FEET TO ANY GAS LINE, NO CLOSER THAN G FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINE, NO CLOSER THAN 10 FEET TO ANY WATER OR SEWER MAIN AND NO CLOSER THAN 8 FEET TO A DRIVEWAY. THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 40 FEET BETWEEN STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS AND 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD TO MAINTAIN THE ABOVE CLEARANCES. 20. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL TREES ARE TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVED STREET TREE PLANTING 15 REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL. FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER FOR STREET TREES SHALL RESULT IN A HOLD ON THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 21 . THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ONE (I) WEEK PRIOR TO BEGINNING A CONSTRUCTION. 22. REVIEW k APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF FORT COW N5 OF ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 23. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, RB+B SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYS, PERSONAL INJURIES, PLANT MORTALITY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THI5 PLAN. IF 1U1 DIG ORLMD - M US 91 TILITTES OFNIFR 1.8.800.920-922.1987 4 uu razxsMeanzm Architects, Inc. 315 W Imndn Aw 9'u lm Fort Collins, W MN 2913 T 9A.191d117 F 9FMKGM1 F_ Z W 0 W C0 G Q Y/ Lu r OLL CZLL ul O 0 N O r Z Co u W�BCE J 0 C u Q U F _.1 LL PROJECT R: 1317 MILE DATE: 9/02/14 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L-101 6 I 2 3 4 ! S I, O EXISTING GREEN TREE5 TO REMAIN: 4-5" VIA. GREEN A5H PLANT LIST 9PSIS OF BE4RING5 5YM. ABER. HYDROZONE QTY. COMMON NAME SIZBREMARKS e SHADE TREES a EML L-M B 5HADIwA 5TER HONEY L0005T 2" DAL. TU O.). WELL BRANCHED n cI W— w I Gledtsa trancanthos mtemus W/STRAIGHT TRUNK CENTRAL LEADER j 0 1 °;, SFudemaster D eis WH M 6 WE5TERN HACKBERRY 2- CAL, (U.N.O ), WELL BRANCHED Celhs ocmdemolo W/ STRAIGHT TRUNK E CEWRAL LEADER + 11 o WH M 6 ORIMSON SUNSET MAPLE 2- CAL, GHTTR WELL BRANCHED d 1 Acer'Cnmson Sunset' W/STRAIGHT TRUNKS CENTRAL LEADER ' L.-.'.'.'._.'._.'._.'._.'._. ..'.... ��`��` �{{{{ I i �W �.. € ....: .............. .... FLOWERING TREES �.... - 1 ISC L-M q �ql MAGICCRABRf 2' DAL. ), WELL BRANCHED Mal.5;mdum Magic W/5TR4GHT TRUNKf CENTRAL LEADER -�\s>n "f EVERGREENS 16 16EI ! m W \9H LOT= ° AT L-M I AU5TRIAN PINE OMIT., B48 > ^ sm SMF — Puri, s mgra FUf WELL BRANCHED > / a �wuAP 0 SHRUBS RC L 27 RED CORALBERRY 24'-36" HT.. 5 GAL CONT. Z • I P• honra rbiculatus FULL f WELL BRANCHED J— OTAL PARKING: 65 SPACES sY^�P rposo E 8 DK5 L-M 33 DARK KNIGHT 5PIREA 9-12'. 5 GAL COW. d a J, Caryoptens x clandonenss'Dark Knight' FULL f WELL BRANCHEp C W N _ PBW5 L-M 43 PAWNEE BUTTE5 W. 5ANDCHERRY 9-12', 5 GAL COW, Cn �{ Prunus bessep'Pswnee Buttes' FULL f WELL BRANCHED O LOG L-M 8 LOW GROW SUMAC 9-12", 5 GAL COW, "us aromat o Low GrowFULL 4 WELL BRANCHED ! R14 OGH L-M I I OREGON GRAPE HOLLY 12"-I B' HT.. 3-5 GAL CONT. MamosmaOREGO A FULL 4 WELL BRANCHED CLP L-M Ak4 CORONATION TRIUMPH POTENTILIA 2-3'. 5 GAL CONT. Potenhlla huhcoza'Loronahon Triumph' FULLf WELL BRANCHED - sN� PERENNIAL5 / O PA M 53 PURPLE A51FER 9"-12- HT., 1 GALCONT, 'dlu sN Aster tongolenss Wartburg Star' FULL E WELL BRANCHED e>•^ - DGBS L 89 DOUBLE GOLD B!ACs Gold' SUSAN 9"- 2' HT., GAL CONT, .......... ......... _ , O Rudbecda Mrka'Dwble Gold' m I _ _ FULL k WELL BRANCHED E E^ KFRG M 40 KOREAN FEATHER REED GRA55 B" -12' HT., 4" POTS tW�" Calamagro5ts brachytncha FULL f WELL BRANCHED I O _ O DFG M 100 Fe ARF FOUWAIN 9'-I2'HT,IGAL CONT, setU2'%TrelcvGRA55 ides'Hameln' FULL f WELL BRANCHED IB B LANDSCAPE PLANTING - PLAN j L102 Scale'. 1'=20'-0' NWRI I, 51A HYDROZONES DIAGRAM Scale. N T.S. I HATCH LEGEND SOD: SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE AND INSTALLATION PLANTING BEDS HIGH HYROZONE MEDIUM HYROZONE LOW HYROZONE WATER BUDGET CHART HYDROZONE AREA (s.f.) WATER NEED (gallon9/9.fJ ANNUAL WATER USE (gallons) HIGH 7.490 18 154,386 MODERATE 2.239 10 22390 LOW 3,843 3 11529 VERY LOW 1 185 0 0 TOTAL 1 13757 1 AVG.'.13.7 188305 IRRIGATION NOTES: I. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE SET WITH SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER EQUIPPED WITH A WEATHER STATION AND SMART CAPABILITIES. .... 2. ALL SHRUB AND PERENNIAL AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH A DRIP SYSTEM. 3. SOD AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED HUNTER MP ROTOR NOZZLES. ALL SPRAY HEADS/ROTAR NOZZLES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH PR5 STEMS AND CHECK VALVES. 4. FOLLOWING ESTABLISHMENT, THERE SHALL BE NO IRRIGATION OF TURF AND PLANTS FROM THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER THROUGH APRIL. 5, FOLLOWING ESTABLISHMENT, THERE SHALL BE NO IRRIGATION OF SHRUBS FROM THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER THROUGH JUNE. A G. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. IRRIGATIONS PLAN5 SHALL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW PROCE55. THE IRRIGATIONS SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS, OR AN ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL SECURITY DEP051T WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. ®F T)00 COLOW-fNL 05 S' U71011.8 NOP 2 ➢0N CENTER 1.800 922.1987 .... _..... .... _.... _.... _.... _..... _....5........... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _... _... _... _... _.... _............... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _..... _.... _....... Inc. 115 End Wulon An Wft Lou a Wrm, Me05H-2915 T 9IOWl01➢ F 00.04111 W z II— F�I 0LL Z �a0 `• u N 1= 0 z m W OV W 4 U N 0 aU 32 PR09EOTA: 1317 ISSUE DATE: 9/02114 WNDSCAPE PIANUNG PUN L-102 E i } f o. o' i �_ Mountam�.i�AMP low o - 2� 1 y v • 1 r'o • . -# rc r RE B Architects, Inc. H Z w i OZ n Q W � � Q W H 0iz J_ Zz Z w Ln Z F�1 m w u p u W w z U J J w m - o ry V Q U r J 0 PROJECT @: 1317 ESSDE DATE: 9/3/14 SHADOW STUDY AND STREET PERSPEMVE AS102 6 21 TIMBERLINE CENTER, SECOND FILING BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 11, 12 & 13, TIMBERLINE CENTER, LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Brow dip by Ihs Inexmx tam the ondenip¢a owmis) oflbe folbwm%dmcrihJ IeM: LOTS 11, IE,$ U, TIMBERLINE CENTER wmurs Ix45Xowmrermm3sos me,tmmmkss. Fa I l and them meetwarm in interest I Ike ill IY 0,AcC`) brief cared the name dne'riled land to Fee aunryed Ind III, I lood'into III trusts Intl I, owm, no thisPW IN Imi aTIMBERLINI, CENTER, SECOND FILING file: 'Rrvebww'a'I object to all moment, coal Imo-mway now ofrecvJo umngwinara�ed onNatPlar IM riglrnaM oblipptions oftbu Pia dull rtm with We WJ. The Oxwrwm-0ydJ'-W treaty to me, City fFour Collins C'bid Il Yylf public ¢ew al way bowevot pmpasa and BeCommon as laid act and denburved on arm FBI Pat Ned. Nei that111acceptance b)the eCityor thisdJ' fEsmnnu Nat mpuy No tits City duty I, mmmm tam E.. fichommy and 21 nations, by thC r ad to.dr,ho,ation It doccas does mumbi own flue City a only to maintain somes, so dedwaud until way turn as the prommers of the Mamboactance Easel bi thean fully -satisfied I he surseco dedicated on raw Plat we b fee property of beery m i idea -in Sec- 3123107 CR$ The Ciy., rigM1, una he Lawarnmasiinclude thegb ll operate. Palms.caused. nummuni. 'M replace withinIN In g None liscirsoiu n e intended f Me L ne right to ran. maintain and use gales n any fences that claimEass ess the mennto ; the right mark the reat rn of the Economy with su mble marlters u'Nand to I& to p^^ maw, Public-hu . 1, mmm lame¢ mine mainOwner ml,, thenot h Emment, fee omlmaea but der not ioniser, web Ice fan mjoymem of the no" nertby Plat The fly u requo bl for maintenance of in mpmrem, aM for repinnan g y daomper caused by in actvises in the Commerce Put For aa aceepue oftn,deaiu .tam es City dbut accept the aury arm m of late Cameroon, or ofiormemrenu in the Eaae.mb inat:na not owned by the City. On -11 maintain the surface of IM becommus in a vniury condition in compliance with my applicable weed, nuisance My olner legal male mmm I o,pIas p,y pc aind m an mom ml plan ofa Imprum or otherpersuasive withto er ow ,If ran romil it theines .m pi the clallmionthe "Promote of my building, innocent. imp . fence, refining Pull, sidewalk,b ndscp g (other man usual and cumormarry brown and i around 1. M1 n M1 M Ilea - M1e E M1 Cut M1 M1 right e9 M1 O Ise i�oWast F E enuIf0 du tt In bs i fly: City ynmuemeh bs 1 M yliability Ng. forrrtpnr a moue Marcef. amcM1WtM mCiyi for such remoal If MwCry cnmxs tnv mPanic wilhoeles Mi ill not the liable for any Manage me ere mbrxln or my ell W r p W snY to which they art mewheal. fbe rights oun id mIM City by Nis Plot murtmme bmeN of flue City's name, Iimnsses, pemlimc; walamays OWNER. Timd Tine DoeLg . LLC. a Wyonmg limbed liability mmfeny BY: Knot FiiscMi, Manager STATE OF COLORAOO ) W COUNTY OF LARIMER J The,meming immimmi was uekmwkJgal Rfnm IN this any of as Manager ofTimberlim LFecbFmem LLC. W iawm my mod and Initial seal p i MymnnJeionetpim: 8 Nrury Public i g a LIENHOLEER long Luc., a Wyoming componliao a BY j STATEOFWYOMING ) )tt 7 COUNN OF NATRONA ) i Tbef going ion mt was we wlNged bef me for day as of A Wildest my natal and official seal iF2 MY conanimim estimate C6 h g 5 Notary Public 20 b MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE The: Owner Pool w'amna and guarantees m the City, for u penes of two (2) years stem the ame of completion am Mae acceptance by the City of the Imporemerso wummed M1ereuoder, the full and module muintenanro aM rtph of Me impmremenu m be amdoc M in emrml Plan the Dec element which is the subject of this Plat This watremy am guaramee is trade in accordance with me City UM Use Code baby Me Umetaiml Lana Use Rmulmmm, 11 applicable. Thin guars applies o me movie and all athe, pressures routines, Intl mmmems lying within the rights -of -way, Eaumentsand other public Pmpenia including, without limitation, all coming, side 'alkt bike p Ms, dtmnage p p3 eon, n b Jn' g a n Ina Ivdvali g. Any maintenance mim,ecamermarneed no mlem,send h ,whramii am me nothing utility company or department. TM Meer shall maintain and imprecations in a member thim will noun compliancebuis iM all ormarractogy shoulands. sai rommmingra and In ismarrearat prefoution requirements of Me City Tom Owner Hall also correct add" he marmocal am cow i Ell damage, tl mallong firearn co,clopment mlated or b dd g IatN wenow, In ore Items me Owner falls to )Jn'g,, Ahin thirtyU01JYs after wrtmon rotor thereof, turn md damages Ybc mm,sadby me Cry Ind 11 ai and dimn, b IIN w aN o J by tam Oxen+. Ibe Cly shall Mrs my oNa vend s anilable w u aulForizcJ by law. Any damages wM1 ih aeurtW Met be the and of ssld two (2) yea pedM aW wbinF use umewinJ at the termination of mid wtluJ shll forms the responsibility of the Ch er. In coca sermon of Me adepmral of mu aml Plat and other cabal comideradon, any Owner doe beeby agree be hale Ne City hmMem fan a f' (5) year MiW, crearryousing upon the date of compin on and fire accepume by We City of Me imprinerients to be M in bermi with the doclomment ban11 theaobject of this Plot from my add III bime &=Sea or demands'roma on i of tam dam gat and cownuttion of public impmcemenu of the promoor Mon wr in; aM the Owner fuMemmre coma u to make necessary regain to L public p - IWc ohmo hmmmi@ ads .mms. filue ctolmdormati dlenu emes pane. mb-damm. mlorm.il6 and bridge. within Me fghrof'aY Fa¢ment and other Public punberman.rciulfng fnm failures caused M&, gat doctr un.Imsom&feet,. Go. ugoemenuo hold the City hmmleo im.IWe Jefcta in demands and workmani , well as defect emend by or emei iim of staining ormi fills or excui Father. me Former mmm bar miles owes fee simplethe v cote shown bress, and! agrte that Me City shall mor be liable the Oa,emr or Police during the mr,my HTW im any claim If damages resulting f tllY g engineering nn ti W d 'en m conterminous f - J -s d b lag thchanging f courses f d v fi Ji marn murral ere ks Ind miss, and my onto maw whamenspat' pmpeatY. MY Ind all arbitrary [ability umng moor the poragnph mail IN the liability ofmc Owner. IfuMru'amntma l haethershbacmey, said cord ngwtnv Plat. NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTS'. All pawns take notes titer, the Owner ma muted chain Mcumenb pertaining to min Declopmem which crome, memn rights and nbllgars of IN: De dogrcm me Owner maker aMwbmt fnmm mf all m witimm, of me Deceitfulness she. many of which obligation prvm- and m I g thcos bfg umlarti Ame Sitm Wb.Th JJeeum FinanW bemnFJyr f J y' lade tr I' ramts on in the S' AM kofMeCty mane,dIN closeSite ly co Final L a pe Plan.MA M1 IEI rwhicha file inane office of the dark of me City anal SM1euld bed¢ely cxamiM by allpersons Interested'n PunM1neintl any offlob oOhe Devdopmem ste. 1 bertby cmify that this Subdivision Plat No been July executed a, required punuanno Section E 2.1(CXJHot mi m)'mdmim (if the IaM U¢ Cale of me City of Fnn Collin mJ their Ill Pmaum signing On SUMirieim Plat as hnalf of a ammm'uim, or Wrtr many am only authM J ai omonn woe me Ims of the State of Colorado. This Cemneatub is Nucd upon coo means, of be Clark and Recorder of Wisner County,C,inmat at of me date f account of Jan Plat mtl mil mimmum diseases! by me mmvgb rsevnebk iipuiry and Is IMletl as armorissJ by Smaon 2.2.3(CX3XO of be IaW UseCode. BY the City Engineer of me City of Pon Colnm, Colorado mu day of AO., 20_ PLANNING APPROVAL By me DOectceol PWuung III of Fors Collins, Colorado mu Nylf AO. o by PROJECT LOCATION Y I � le \ A,• `N1 as l 1 VICINITY MAP SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT I.Normal D.GIIIarA, a Cob Registered Professional l Sunrymd M1 +y Note thal tM1: SUM Plus am ommal hm, an vamm," edumyp mad r Ewe sea m Instrumentation M -undicavalMrmn xert found re ser as sbown.and but this fincoungPl I, an am , nptewmamn mates all mis m de Neslofmewfrum and a NAef eeNd D. Gilliland Colmeae RcgisleW Prvpwimal Land Swveyor No. 14823 NOTES'. p TM1e Buis of Rmings is be North line of Lo¢ Ix ® 13, Timhlline Cco mr. as Noting South HW45W Pint FuNi Nndng)ere mmum nand on dewmg. 2)All information regaling offerings, nffifif-wnY atilk of macend. Nonlxm Engineering relic upo File Number PM5120355-2o tamed by Land Title Guarantee Company, dsted 05-30-2014. 2) The Intend unit ofmcnummcnt for this pill( is UA. Suncy Feel. a)Thare reetuMng oommccoMi(ions,meenanlslamalliwed P, pMa12-1in 20.12- 22of adon of ciao t wr.mg eyeipmm(IrlmaampmgtMl are anlwMmsmiom lx.NB.1x-Ixxorme sin P O ronce AIL OF ANDRIVAB STREETS ET" MAal VMLOEAND RECCPRIVATE PROPERTOTAT IS ESUMANLWRDRIVFSL BEA RONTHE PRIVATE OF SAIDTYTNATY,EITHER IECIVIDUALY. FLAT OR SHACOLLLBEBORY,THNE RO1E OWNERTY OWNERS' S'ASSOCIATION, IF ADIVIDUALE. THE CITY OF ORTCDLLINSSHAL HAVE OWNERS'ASSOCIATION,IFAPPLICABLE.THEOITY O FORTCINANNS SHALL HAVENOOBLIGATION OF OP NEON, SHALLMAINTME CITY RECON YOBLI A OFSLCH PCVATS STREETS STREETS AND0.1VF5 N00. SHALL ME CITE TSO IN ENE.. OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS ANDNR DRIVES AS PUBLIC SIRFEISOR DRIVfS. Sheet Oft Sheers 22 TIMBERLINE CENTER, SECOND FILING BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 11, 12 & 13, TIMBERLINE CENTER, LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO LOTS TIMBERLINE CENTER LOT NOD'14 '/0'E 2 14NKM) SK-MCSTNIRI 589"45'20'E 212W(M) \r � 588'45R0'E 321.58'(M) 9 ar> „04, nl wm I M EMERGENCY EASEMENT N"�= VDRAINAGE. rGS W>o GTEG„ ILI $�_ W LOT12 c LOT 13 SIT_ 9N,NwNAT , II I=, L JI j ORIGINAL LOT LINE EN % BY THIS xn• o� S89°1392M' S38.95'(M) K 9N'sTITVIRI U ^ OUTLOT A m 4 SPRING CREEK EXISTING LOT LINES AND EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED ( H LLS APYFY MET ) I Inch - w IT --- LEGEND MQHT-OGWAY EXISTING SOAMISARY LINE LOT THE SEr,C LONG Y NEWwM' Q RISrK W. IS MEN) ® ASR9fAHDRD wwin IMI=MEASURED BEARING 8 DISTMICE IRI = RECORDED BEARING AND DISTANCE FL TIMBERLINE CENTER LOT tO LOTNI I TOM NO No�wnR Lora N00°1440'E svrs IN) W8'xsw24.WE 889.45WE 212.08'(M) MINIONS e.... S9P5(RFIND MS S89-45'20-E 321 M' (M) uLme MIKAM2 i ' , r air. — R LI xn rr RBM I �I LS 9 TauPCC t Z UTILITY A EMERGENCY CEEMERGGENEN CY CIMpB AINATCXEDAREAji UTILITY DRAINAGE ELICESS& i_ A ACCESS EASEMENTY 'g$ \ IC�� IIHTCNED AREA I b zK — YIE LOTI w.�rozEJ\ 0 LEIU w o = I 6NZD pxk. 23 y� iI I O W o 620TWKoS AMB b: ail WILL BE REQUIRES ORFLFP ENT WQ, 'Y. z J DEVELOREGIII OF LOT IFUTURE I$ T K O Z ul � DEVELOPMEM OF LOTI P J VTIUTY. CM UGE ACCESSSEMERNCv ACCESGANJI F$ /1 INATcneDAREAI Hl w°9A" G v'nsx �zrivT 9z,m lave 212m 2xA. u°,.ra 989°13'32'W 538.85'(M) r SS9'15T11V/IRI m woulm SLOPE 8 DRAINAGE ETSEMEN y^ uN�ni'G OUTLOTA m SPRING CREEK REG NO. TNb9B$Tt3B i FARMS NORTH ffli y992 �3re� R sB a�Ls ;t55 gg. 3 fra �taE Vffix=� 8— zz lis€€ I 23 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Project: Ascent Studios Climbing Wall & Fitness Center Date: June 16, 2014 Project Planner: Noah Beals The project planner began the meeting by discussing the City's development review process, and where this project is in the development review process, including that tonight's neighborhood meeting is prior to any formal development application submittal. This project is a Type 2 project, subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board. If you received an invitation to tonight's meeting, you will also receive notice for the public hearing for this project if it continues to move forward. This site is located off Joseph Allen Drive. There is an existing, approved project development plan for this area called Timberline Center. This approved plan had established building lots and building designs. The project proposed tonight was different enough from these previously -approved designs the applicant is required to submit a major amendment to these plans. Applicant Presentation: The major amendment is for a new indoor climbing facility. The building will be 18,000 square feet and 2 levels. There will be an overall main level as well as an upper mezzanine level in the north portion of the building. The south portion will be all indoor climbing. The climbing walls will be as high as 40+ feet. There will also be a full -height open area up to the roofline ridge as you see on elevations which will be 50 feet. The building itself is located towards the southwest corner of the lot. The existing development plan indicated buildings for this area to be about 35' tall at their highest. This building is proposed to be 50' tall to accommodate the climbing walls. We had investigated digging down into the ground to help accommodate the taller walls, but this was deemed prohibitively expensive. The Timberline Association requires that all buildings have a pitched roof. In order to get most of the rope climbing over 40', we had to get to 50' for the roof peak at the top of the pitch. The City also requested additional windows in the building, that's why you see those windows near the top as well. The main core of the building will have a yoga studio, climbing training space, weight training, and cardio. There will be a separate area for group climbing, such as classes, birthday parties, team practices, etc. The building is pushed to the far south and west of the site, away from nearby houses and Timberline that we feel is appropriate for a taller building. The building will be setback from Timberline Road approximately 400', even more from the neighbors across Timberline Rd. For those who own pieces of property in front of this site, to the east, there will be other buildings that will front this building (viewed 24 from Timberline). These buildings could be up to 35'. You will see whatever is right on the street, helping to mitigate the impacts. You should be able to see the climbing walls through large windows from Timberline. The windows were important to John, the business owner, and the City. Timberline Center requires a roof green in color (similar to the storage buildings and Burger King) and this building will follow those guidelines as well. Questions, Comments & Answers Question (Citizen): Who decides this? What is the next step? Response (City): The next step is that the applicant would have to wait 10 days to formally submit the project, to take into account any comments or questions received tonight. Next, there are staff rounds of review to make sure it is in compliance with city standards to present to the Planning & Zoning Board. The Planning & Zoning Board is the decision maker. If approved by the Planning & Zoning board, the plans will come back through for final plan compliance. Once the final plan is approved they can submit a building permit. Question (Citizen): What is the time frame? Response (City): A typical project takes 2 or 3 rounds of review before going to Planning & Zoning Board, but you also need to factor in their schedule of meeting once a month and a two -week notification for nearby property owners. Depending on how many revisions are needed, it could be several months before it makes it to the Planning & Zoning Board. After that, it usually takes another round of review before mylars are recorded and signed. A complete, typical process can be 6-9 months before building. Question (Citizen): Is the neighborhood to the east; is that the major concern here or the height? Response (City): The overall height. The original center was approved with the tallest building height of 35'. At 50' we felt it was out of context with those approved plans. The police services building is taller than 50', but wasn't part of the Timberline Center development plan. Question (Citizen): What's being developed right there, across the road? Response (Applicant): That is staging for the Xcel gas line. Response (City): Nothing has been approved for that lot. Question (Citizen): What is being developed to the east, across Timberline? Response (City): Those are townhomes for the Bucking Horse development. Question (Citizen): Will those people complain? Response (Applicant): They were notified, and currently they are under construction or not built yet. It is quite a distance from these houses to the site. We have studied what could be visible from those houses to our building if planned buildings are built next to Timberline, and you could only see a very small portion. Response (City): The City also requires a special shading and shadow analysis that is reviewed for buildings over 40'. Question (Citizen): Is Timberline all commercial zoning? Response (City): It's mainly Industrial/employment zoning, but there are retail/commercial uses permitted. Question (Citizen): So there's no residential buildings? 25 Response (Applicant): To the southwest of the Police Services building a residential development is planned. Question (Citizen): Is there any concern about decreasing home values because of blocking the views? Response (Applicant): No, the trees behind (west) of us are very mature, and some are nearly 50'. The Police Services Building is may also be blocking the views of the mountains. Question (Citizen): How tall is the Police Services Building? Response (City): The approved plans show it as 55'. Question (Citizen): Is signage allowed for the development? Response (Applicant): There is a monument planned between Bear Mountain and Nancy Gray Ave. It's a shared sign for the development. Question (Citizen): Will there be access off Timberline at that point? Based on your plan tonight, there are only two points of access? Response (Applicant): Yes, that is what is approved right now for access from Timberline for the Timberline Center, access at Bear Mountain & Nancy Gray. Response (Applicant): There is a detention area along Timberline right next to Burger King that is also blocking additional access. Comment (Citizen): If you were headed south on Timberline you'd have to circle back after seeing the sign to make it into the development. Response (Applicant): Yes. Question (Citizen): Can you turn left from Bear Mountain (off of Timberline)? Response (Applicant): Yes. Question (Citizen): Is there any signage off Joseph Allen near Drake? Response (Applicant): No. Response (City): The amount of signage you can have is based on the amount of your lot frontage. We also limit the height of signs as well. Question (Applicant): What is our lot frontage considered? Response (City): The length along Joseph Allen. Question (Citizen): What would be the participant capacity of the building when it is open? Response (Applicant): That will depend on how much linear footage of rope climbing we can have. I would think close to 200 climbers. Question (Citizen): What is your parking? Response (Applicant): We have 74 parking spaces. There is also on -street parking on Joseph Allen. Response (City): They will also be required to have bicycle parking. Response (Applicant): There will also be some shared parking for the users of the entire Timberline Center. Question (Citizen): Are there any proposals for extending the Spring Creek trail to get under the railroad tracks, around EPIC? Response (City): Currently do not know the answer to this, but we can follow-up with our Parks Department. 26 Comment (Citizen): There is no way to get across currently unless you go to either Drake or Prospect. Comment (Citizen): I think Drake and Prospect the tunnels are more than enough access. Response (Applicant): We're basically half a mile from each. Comment (Citizen): There's also a great bike lane from either direction on Timberline. Response (Applicant): We want to make this a very successful facility for everyone. We looked at a number of different properties, but we realized there was a lot of potential at this site concerning access for many different travel modes. 27 Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME 222 LAUREL STREET CSU CLASSROOM ADDITION, SPA140002 STAFF Ryan Mounce, Associate Planner :1:Zoalx021kq1701Nkvile'llIIQkq PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) for Colorado State University (CSU) to construct a 1,060 square foot addition to an existing building at 222 West Laurel Street. The 1-story addition will be used as classroom space for students in the Warner College of Natural Resources. Additional site amenities including bicycle parking and a handicap space are planned on the rear half of the lot in an existing parking area. The project site is approximately .35 acres and does not have associated City zoning. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Facilities Management, Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80521-6030 State of Colorado Board of Agriculture OWNER: 202 Administration Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes and Land Use Code Section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. COMMENTS: Item # 3 Page 1 Agenda Item 3 1. Background: A vicinity map is included below depicting the site's context and adjacent City zone districts: Map 1: 222 West Laurel Street Zoning & Site D l! Myrtle St ki ,U Dr�� Iz �° 0 c r, O E a Y 5 t c a a Oz T Vicn c atli r, U U (T v O U E Myrtle St 2z 7 NCB E Laurel St E Plum St Locust St The existing building, originally built as a single family dwelling, was constructed in 1925. CSU has occupied the building continuously since 1939 and purchased the property in 1973. The structure is currently used by the Warner College of Natural Resources for graduate -level studies and faculty offices. Item # 3 Page 2 29 Agenda Item 3 The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Community Commercial Single Family, Multifamily & (C-C) Commercial/Retail Uses South Not Zoned CSU Main Campus East Community Commercial (C- Commercial/Retail Uses C) West Community Commercial (C- Multifamily, Mixed -Use C), Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) 2. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes C.R.S. allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public ground or other public way shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the "location, character and extent thereof" has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to Colorado State University. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado State University Board of Governors by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. 3. Site Plan Advisory Review Procedures: A Site Plan Advisory Review Section was adopted and added to the Land Use Code in July, 2014, outlining specific evaluation criteria for Site Plan Advisory Review Applications. These review criteria are presented below, followed by analysis of this development application: (1) The site location for the proposed use shall be consistent with the land use designation described by the City Structure Plan Map, which is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site development plan shall conform to architectural, landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by the applicant's governing body. Absent adopted design standards and guidelines, the design character of the site development plan shall be consistent with the stated purpose of the respective land use designation as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (3) The site development plan shall identify the level of functional and visual impacts to public rights -of -way, facilities and abutting private land caused by the development, including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, utilities, lighting, screening and noise, and shall mitigate such impacts to the extent reasonably feasible. Item # 3 Page 3 30 Agenda Item 3 4. Analysis A. Location The location of the classroom addition is on property that does not have associated City zoning, although the City Structure Plan Map designates the surrounding properties Community Commercial (C-C). The proposed office and university classroom use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Community Commercial District, and are permitted uses, should the parcel be placed in the zone district. B. Character The proposed classroom space addition integrates the design standards and guidelines of CSU's adopted plans, including the Colorado State University Master Plan, updated in 2012, and the Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines, adopted in 2006. 1. Architecture & Design The Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines call for new buildings to feature materials, design, and roof forms that are compatible with their context and campus district. Being located off the main -campus amongst an existing neighborhood, the proposed building addition features a compatible character and design to the existing on -site building and the adjacent neighborhood. Compatibility with the existing structure and nearby developments is achieved through the use of similar building materials, colors, roof form, window patterns and overall building scale and massing. Colorado State University has shared the new building's design informally with the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission, which was receptive of the proposed design. 2. Landscaping & Site Furnishing In addition to the new building, site furnishings will be provided that are consistent with CSU's Aesthetic Guidelines. CSU has indicated a handicap space and bicycle parking will be established in the existing parking area on the rear half of the lot. These new site amenities will be connected to the new east entrance by a concrete walkway. Existing site landscaping is intended to be preserved as feasible. A large evergreen tree will be mitigated with additional tree plantings if removal is necessary for the proposed building addition. The type and level of plantings will be consistent with CSU's adopted guidelines by utilizing native species, lawns in active areas, and the use of landscaping to define and screen spaces. Item # 3 Page 4 31 Agenda Item 3 C. Extent The extent of impacts generated by the proposed building addition to drainage, utilities, and transportation systems is expected to be minimal and can be accommodated through existing infrastructure. Sidewalks and street trees already exist along Laurel Street and will be unaffected by the proposed development. Visual impacts from the public right-of-way (Laurel Street and the adjacent alley) are also expected to be minimal, with the majority of the addition blocked by existing landscaping and structures. Preservation of existing side -yard landscaping is planned, along with additional landscaping and/or fencing to mitigate potential visual, lighting, noise and security impacts on adjacent property owners. The rear parking area, already designated as a CSU "A" Parking Lot for faculty use during normal school hours will remain the same; additional vehicular traffic and parking is not anticipated by students as a result of the classroom space addition. 5. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting for the project was held on August 27t" and attended by two members of the public who own property to the west of the project site. These neighbors also provided written remarks to CSU, who forwarded their comments to the City. A summary of the written comments and discussion from the neighborhood meeting is presented below. Detailed notes from the neighborhood meeting are attached to this staff report: - The space between the project site and 226 Laurel Street (property to the west) should be free of foot traffic and people should not be entering or exiting either property from the side yards. - A fence and/or landscaping would help screen the new building and prevent people from entering or exiting the side yards between the two properties. - The rear parking lot should remain as an "A" -designated lot by CSU for use by faculty to reduce potential student parking and vehicle impacts. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The proposed 222 West Laurel Street Classroom Addition Site Plan Advisory is subject to evaluation by the City of Fort Collins as a Site Plan Advisory Review, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. and Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.16. B. The site of the proposed 222 West Laurel Street Classroom Addition is consistent with land use designation described in the City's Structure Plan Map, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. The character of the proposed 222 West Laurel Street Classroom Addition is consistent with the adopted design guidelines of Colorado State University, including the Colorado State University Master Plan and Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines. Item # 3 Page 5 32 Agenda Item 3 D. The extent of impacts generated by the proposed 222 West Laurel Street Classroom Addition to the City's infrastructure, utilities, and public right-of-way is minimal and can be accommodated through existing infrastructure. Impacts to adjacent properties are also expected to be minimal and mitigated through proposed site design and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 222 Laurel Street Classroom Addition Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA140002. ATTACHMENTS 1. 222 West Laurel Street Project Narrative (PDF) 2. Planning Document Set (Site Plan, Elevations, Renderings & Photos) (PDF) 3. CSU Response - Additional Project Details (PDF) 4. Public Comments (PDF) 5. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF) Item # 3 Page 6 33 Colo University Office of Facilities Management Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 6030 Campus Delivery August 8th, 2014 Cameron Gloss Planning Manager Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Classroom addition to the Colorado State University Home Management House, 222 West Laurel Dear Cameron, The attached SPAR submittal package for 323 West Lake Street details a 1,060 square foot classroom addition to an existing CSU owned facility located a 222 West Laurel. The university has continuously occupied the building since 1939, and purchased the property in 1973. The existing building was constructed in 1925, Known as Home Management House, it is currently home to graduate level studies in the Warner College of Natural Resources. The existing building is 4,331 gross square feet of academic space contained within three floors, with a floor plate of approximately 1,500 gross square feet. The proposed addition is 1,060 gross square feet on one level. The building addition is attached to the existing structure via a one story connector, in an attempt to preserve the historic integrity of the 1925 structure. The Landmark Preservation Committee has been shown the plans in a work session, and I am told were receptive to the project. Although not required by the SPAR process, CSU has made the effort on an informal basis to garner feedback from the LPC about this project. The building addition is proposed to be located immediately to the north of the existing building in area currently occupied by the rear lawn. Efforts will be made to preserve the two mature spruce trees on the north edge of the rear lawn, but no survey has been done to date, and it is unknown if this will be practical. The entire gravel parking lot to the north of the building addition is proposed to remain, and unimproved from its current condition. The parking lot is a CSU managed "A" (Faculty and Staff) designated lot. The lot has seen little use by faculty and staff in recent years during school hours, but is mostly full on nights and weekends when it is used by patrons on neighboring businesses, and when it is outside of the hours of regulation by CSU Parking and Transportation Management. This project addresses the Character, Location and Extent requirements of pertinent State Statute and evolving City of Fort Collins SPAR requirements in the following ways: 34 Character- The project will conform to the landscape, site furnishing and lighting standards spelled out in the CSU Aesthetic Guideline and CSU Facilities Construction Standards Manual. Perhaps more importantly, the CSU project team, sees the existing building as the most character defining element of the site, and believes that the building addition is extremely sensitive to the existing structure. The project will maintain the current character of the Laurel Street frontage Location- the location currently houses academic activities, and has for over 70 years. This use, and scale of activity has been a good neighbor to the surrounding properties and extended neighborhood, and is immediately adjacent to the CSU main campus Extent- The maintains the current use, and only marginally increases the intensity of use on this site. V 11 Fred Haberecht, LEED AP, ASLAI Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning Facilities Services Center North Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 970,491,0162 970.491.0105 - fax 35 NOW low iDITION) ��. f r. _�� L•FV ��j P,, _ - . 0 N 00 O 00 O 1 NEW SITE PROPERTY kN 7 DJ LAUREL ST PLAN VIEW SITE PLAN ,ND FLOOR'WPL,,N 222 LAUREL HOUSE SPAR SUBMITTAL EXISTING' LAWN a" i r7m" f � I� J eftf SITE CONTEXT = 222 LAUREL HOUSE SPAR SUBMITTAL - 95' 95' 20' O�. Frame garo e o \ 9 54.25' a 1.35' ° LOT 0 H m w 47.5' w 1.4' +� 47.5' 11 X () ui w LOT 12. ""`� I Ld 3 Las' Ld I O J 6.7' �30.8' �{ 10.0' J = 0 O Q = Two story — residence Lo No.222. O 1 Y751w* 1 O LOT 1: 475' 20' 190' ,, Asphalt pavement. WEST LAUREL STREET. Scale: 1" = 40' o = Iron stoke. 0 N 00 O 00 O 4 t IPA N 00 O 00 O 5 EXISITING ADDITION CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTERS EXISITIN STUCCO COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF ADDITION EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/411 = 1 FOOT WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/411 = 1 FOOT ELEVATIONS 1 222 LAUREL HOUSE SPAR SUBMITTAL FIXED ANDERSON WINDOW, TYPICAL A r + — i.F4i� Alit x c—I O N 00 O 00 O 7 Colo STat University Office of Facilities Management Fort Collins, Colorado 8OS23-6030 6030 Campus Delivery September 25th, 2014 Ryan Mounce Planner Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: 222 West Laurel — Classroom Addition Site Plan Advisory Review, SPA140002, Response to Staff comments of September 5th, 2014, Dear Ryan, Based on the staff comments of September 5th1 2014 the following modifications will be incorporated into the site plan for 222 West Laurel Classroom Addition Project: 1. Bicycle parking will be installed in close proximity to the northeast entrance of the classroom addition. Bicycle parking will be per CSU standards (CORA type rack on permeable paving). One rack providing 10 spaces is proposed. 2. To extent possible, existing landscaping which currently provides a buffer between 222 Laurel and adjacent properties to the west will remain during construction. In the event that the landscaping does not remain, CSU will work with the property owner to the west plant new buffering landscaping and/or a boundary fence between the properties. 3. Two mature Colorado blue spruce exist in the year yard of the 222 West Laurel. One tree will be protected per CSU Tree Protection Standards. One tree will be removed, and six trees of a minimum 3" caliper size will be planted on CSU property within one quarter mile to mitigate for the removal. 4. At this time, CSU has no plans to change the current gravel parking lot to the north of the classroom addition, to a "hard" surface lot. However, a 12' x 20' concrete pad, for a van accessible handicap space will be installed on the south side of the lot. This HC space will be connected to the classroom accessible entry by means of a concrete sidewalk. incterely,` Fred Habere t, LEED AP, ASL4 Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning Facilities Services Center North Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 43 n Mounce From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rya n, Haberecht,Fred <Fred.Haberecht@colostate.edu> Monday, August 18, 2014 10:46 AM Ryan Mounce; Clay Frickey; 'Gloss, Cameron' Rick Reider; Flores,Steven FW: 222 W Laurel House Reider Comments Those big yellow development review signs get noticed! On Friday, I met with Rick Reider, the owner of several properties adjacent to 222 Laurel, and he was kind enough to forward me the attached comments. Thanks, Fred From: Rick Reider [mailto:rickreider@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:25 PM To: Haberecht,Fred Subject: 222 W Laurel House Reider Comments Re: 222 W laurel Street Project # 156 City of Fort Collins, CO Att: Fred Haberecht August 16, 2014 Dear Fred: I want to thank you for taking the time to meet me at the Laurel Street House. That was very kind of you. i 44 As we discussed, I own three properties that are adjacent to the 222 Laurel House. They are 226 and 230 West Laurel and 642 South Howes. Approximately 20 CSU students occupy my properties. I made a few comments during our meeting that I will address below. As I mentioned I am supportive of CSU and the 222 W Laurel House addition. I am very fond of Per Hogestad; I appreciate the buildings he creates and his sensitivity to surrounding architecture. Please tell him thanks for his attention to this addition. My suggestions or comments include: 1. I prefer we keep the narrow space between 222 Laurel and 226 Laurel free of any foot traffic. The space is narrow, (Perhaps less than 10 feet), dark and 5 of my tenants bedrooms and their windows either open on to this narrow space or are very close. Privacy and safety are my immediate concern. 2. Directly west of the proposed new addition is a line of tall shrubs and a parking area for my tenants. It may be difficult to keep the shrubs with the addition. I think a fence and landscaping is a good idea to avoid traffic through this area. Let me know if that works and if you want my participation. 3. CSU has a parking lot on the north side of the 222 Laurel House with alley access. Since the 70's when I first purchased homes on this block it has been parking with an "A" designation for faculty. My request is that it remains faculty parking and does not become a student lot. There is already a lot of pressure on this neighborhood for CSU commuter parking. The high turnover and foot traffic of commuter parking would be a detriment to my use. I appreciate you listening to my suggestions and again am most appreciative of your quick response to meet with me. Would you mind passing on this letter to your City Staff Planner for the project? Thank you Fred. Rick Rick Reider HomesByCampus Inc. P O Box 271262 Fort Collins, CO 80527 (970) 282-1863 2 45 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: 222 W. Laurel Street CSU Classroom Addition SPAR DATE: August 27, 2014 PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Mounce APPLICANT: Colorado State University Process Overview: The meeting began with a brief overview of the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process, and how this is different from the City's normal development review process for private development proposals. Fort Collins recently codified the Site Plan Advisory Review into the Land Use Code. Public entities complete an advisory review with the Planning & Zoning Board. SPAR proposals are reviewed based on their character, location and extent. If the Planning & Zoning board does not recommend approval, the public entities governing body can overrule with a 2/3 majority vote. There are also time limits on the duration of the SPAR review process, and this project is very likely to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Board at their October meeting. If you received a mailed notice of tonight's neighborhood meeting, you will also receive a notice two weeks prior to the Planning & Zoning Board hearing in October. Applicant Overview: This is a rear addition to the existing structure. The addition is approximately 1,200 square feet and one-story. There will be a connection between the two buildings as a passageway with restroom facilities. The existing parking lot in the rear is to remain. The university has been operating at this specific location/house since 1939 and the site was purchased by CSU in the 1970's. Comments, Questions & Responses: Question (Citizen): So if this land was in Boulder you wouldn't have to do a SPAR? Response (Applicant): The SPAR process is done at the discretion of the municipality. In Boulder they don't require a SPAR for projects undertaken by CU. In Fort Collins we have codified the SPAR process and CSU has been willing to participate in the SPAR process on its projects. Question (Citizen): Have you heard from anyone else about the project? Response (Applicant): Besides our meeting with you, we have not received any other comments. Comment (Citizen): My main comment was about having a fence or buffer between 222 Laurel and my building to the west. We talked about the landscaping in the back and it is nice to maintain that buffer. Response (Applicant): We believe a buffer would be positive for both parties. Comment (Citizen): The third thing that I think would be a benefit for the neighborhood would be to maintain the lot as an 'A' lot as opposed to a student commuter lot. There are a lot of students that EEO park around here anyway that make it tough on the full time people that live here so it would be nice if that parking lot remains an 'A' lot. It might be better for the staff of the building as well. Response (Applicant): We agree and the plans are to maintain the parking as an 'A' lot. Question (Citizen): So the parking lot isn't proposed to change to a different class of lot? Response (Applicant): No, we would like to park there as well. Question (Citizen): Is the lot going to stay gravel? Response (Applicant): Yes, we are proposing to leave it as gravel. Question (Citizen): How many spaces is it? Response (Applicant): It's double -loaded, perhaps between 20 or 30 spaces? Question (Citizen): How much square footage are you adding? Response (Applicant): Approximately 1,200 square feet Question (Citizen): How many classrooms is that? Response (Applicant): Just one. Question (Citizen): When can anyone park in the lot? Response (Applicant): After 4 on weekdays and the weekends. That may change. All lots might be enforced 24/7 in the future. But the Rainbow might want to rent spaces in the lot to prevent that from happening. Question (Citizen): What is CSU's motivation for 24/7 parking enforcement? Response (Applicant): Parking doesn't have subsidies from the government so they need a revenue stream to build more structures and spaces. That means more parking enforcement as parking tickets are an important revenue stream for parking services. They may start to enforce more at Foothills and they may go to a tiered system so that a person with a 'B' permit can park in every lot but'A/ for example. But you are not guaranteed a space in that case. If you buy a permit in these 3 lots close to campus and close to the core and pay more you will be guaranteed to have a space. As you move further out that won't necessarily be the case. Question (Citizen): Has parking always been an enterprise? Response (Applicant): Yes. Right now we have .34 parking spaces for every student. Our peers are more like .22-.28. If we were to build out for a 35k+ student population, it would be $160m price tag to build the requisite parking to maintain that ratio. That means parking permits would need to be $1,700 per year in order to afford the additional parking structures needed. Question (Citizen): Peer campuses provide twice the amount of spaces? Response (Applicant): No, they provide about a quarter less. Comment (Citizen): Just speaking for myself I am supportive of what CSU is doing and I know Per (the architect on the project) and he does great work and I hope I mentioned in my letter that I am in support of the project. Question (Citizen): Are there faculty in the building? Response (Applicant): Yes, space for 7 offices. Comment (Applicant): Do you have any building elevations? Response (Applicant): Yes, the way it's built follows the Department of Interior's guidelines for historic structures. We are going to use a connector to bring the two buildings together so that way we maintain the integrity of the original building. In the future the connector could be removed along with the new addition and the original building would be more or less intact. Question (Citizen): So the connector is just to keep people from having to go outside, right? Response (Applicant): Yes, but the bathroom is in there as well. 47 Question (Citizen): How do you get in to the building now? Response (Applicant): Tony is working on it so that there is access from the front and the rear so that people don't have to walk through rocks along the east side of the building. Question (Citizen): Do students come in through the front door now? Response (Applicant): They're trying to get away from that since the front will be office space. We want students to enter through the back. Comment (Citizen): If you can keep the pine trees that would be great. Response (Applicant): We believe one pine tree will need to go. Question (Citizen): What is the exterior made out of? Response (Applicant): Stucco — a pebble stucco, you don't see this variety too much anymore. Question (Citizen): Will you match the color? Response (Applicant): Yes, something very similar. Question (Citizen): Is the dormer in the rear still there? What about the roof, is it flat or gabled? Response (Applicant): The dormer in the rear has gone away. Question (Citizen): When students come after hours they will be able to park in the back lot, right? Response (Applicant): Most of the time will be classroom time during normal school hours; it won't be an open lab or anything like that in the evenings. Question (Citizen): The students would enter on the east then? Response (Applicant): Yes, the teaching wall will be on the west side and there won't be windows on that side and we did that for lighting reasons. Comment (Citizen): That would mean landscaping would be beneficial to provide relief to the blank wall on that west side. It's not a big deal but I think it would make the project nicer. I can work on landscaping on my side as well. Question (Citizen): How far back does the building go? Does it go back to our carriage house? Response (Applicant): It goes back to where your carriage house is. Question (Citizen): What's the setback from the west for the addition? Response (Applicant): Last I checked it was less than 10 feet. It encroaches less towards your property line than the existing building does now. Question (Citizen): When would construction start? Response (Applicant): Probably not until October or November. The construction schedule would be 3 or 4 months long. Question (Citizen): Will this be frame construction? Response (Applicant): Yes. Question (Citizen): When is the P&Z hearing scheduled? Response (City): October. Question (Citizen): Would this be a consent item? Response (City): Our policy is not to put things on the consent if there are comments or known controversy. In this case, I have received your comments and suggestions and was not planning on putting the item on consent agenda. Response (Citizen): Oh I don't think this need to be on discussion; we are supportive but did have those several suggestions. The board can still pull the item if they want to discuss the item, correct? Response (City): Yes, a member of the board could pull something from the consent agenda to discuss, or a citizen can also pull the item for discussion. I would like to check back with both of you following the City's internal staff review first and wait to see if other public comments are received before any decision is made to place this on the consent agenda. Comment (Citizen): There's a lot of foot and bike traffic on the sidewalks and alley way so long term, some improvements to encourage more bikes and pedestrians to use it would be great. Response (City): I'm not aware of any specific plans at this time for the alley, but there were the recent alley improvements on the alley one block to the east, between College and Mason. Response (Citizen): The Mason improvements are great but I just wanted to say that some improvements on this alley would be great long term. . • Agenda Item 4 LA PROJECT NAME AFFINITY SENIOR HOUSING MODIFICATION OF STANDARD STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner :1:Zoalx0r1kq17i1NkviFAA IIQkq 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 apartments with age restriction to seniors over 55), with no office/employment use. The site is 7.5 acres located north of Front Range Village shopping center, between Lowe's home improvement store and English Ranch South subdivision. If the Modification is approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, the applicant expects to submit a development application for the senior housing development with approximately 155 units. The project would be a certified affordable housing project with 10% affordable units meeting rent criteria. If approved, the stand-alone Modification is valid for one year by which time a Project Development Plan must be submitted incorporating the Modification. APPLICANT: Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. OWNER: Affinity at Fort Collins, LLC 1620 North Mamer Rd., Bldg. B Spokane Valley, WA, 99216 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Affinity Senior Housing Modification of Standard, #MOD140001. Item #4 Pagel 50 Agenda Item 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N LOCATION ►vi I_1 Front Range Village Multifamily 1 inch = 700 feet N W F f 5 Item #4 Page 2 51 Agenda Item 4 Staff has evaluated the request based on required findings under Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code governing Modification decisions. The key issues identified by staff are 1) the importance of the property relative to the City's supply of employment -designated land as part of the long-term jobs/housing balance; 2) meeting the need for affordable housing and affordable senior housing in particular; and 3) compatibility and impacts of the proposed senior housing project. STAFF COMMENTS. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use English Ranch South subdivision Neighborhood West L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Harmony Mobile Home Park Neighborhood South H-C, Harmony Corridor Regional Front Range Village Shopping Center Shopping Center East H-C, Harmony Corridor Basic Vacant 22-acre parcel and two large -lot Industrial Non -Retail residential properties along Ziegler Employment Road BACKGROUND: The Harmony Corridor Plan, first adopted in 1991, provides the policy guidance for land use in the area. H-C Harmony Corridor zoning then implements the policy guidance. Within the H-C zone, much of the land, including the subject property, has the designation of `Basic Industrial Non -Retail Employment Activity Center' (referred to as employment use or employment -based use throughout the rest of this report). This designation requires at least 75% `primary' employment use in any development plan, consisting of offices, r&d, light industrial, vocational schools, institutions, headquarters, and the like. Any `secondary' uses are limited to no more than 25%, and residential uses are secondary. Other properties within the corridor have specific designations that allow certain kinds of shopping centers. In 2005, the Harmony Corridor Plan was amended to add a `Regional Shopping Center' designation on 94 acres in the northwest quadrant of Harmony and Ziegler Roads, in order to allow what is now the Front Range Village Shopping Center. This northwest quadrant of the intersection, roughly a half -mile on each side and 145 total acres in size, had previously been envisioned as a location for major office park development suitable for primary employment uses at the scale of HP, Intel, Celestica, UC Health and Banner Health complexes, and similar users, consistent with the employment designation. LSI Logic (originally Symbios Logic), was the first phase at the highly visible and accessible corner of these two arterials. Item #4 Page 3 52 Agenda Item 4 The shopping center amendment on 94 acres surrounding LSI represented a complete change in the potential and vision for the property. The remaining employment -designated land is now behind the shopping center, with the subject property in the far northwest corner of the original property, between the back of the Lowe's home improvement store and the English Ranch South subdivision. During public discussions of the shopping center amendment, there were questions about the suitability of this remaining property for employment uses. Its access through the shopping center and lack of visibility from major streets were acknowledged as new constraints. The conclusion was that there may be unique employment users that do not need a high degree of access and visibility, and that such uses, possibly in combination with secondary residential uses, could form an appropriate land use transition given compatible design and landscaping. The Harmony Corridor Plan contains another land use policy relevant to this transitional location: Land Use Policy LU-7 is to: "Preserve a transition or cushion of lower intensity uses or open space between existing residential neighborhoods and the more intense industrial/ commercial areas. An important goal of the Harmony Corridor Plan is to provide a harmonious relationship between land uses and to protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against intrusive and disruptive development. Open space, setbacks, landscaping, physical barriers and appropriate land use transitions can be effective in providing a cushion between different uses. The following are generally considered to be appropriate transitional land uses: • low intensity professional offices • multi -family housing • churches • childcare centers; and • nursing homes and/or elderly retirement homes. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE STANDARDS: Request for Modification The applicant requests a modification of a land use standard in the Harmony Corridor zone district, Section 4.26(D)(2): 4.26(D) Land Use Standards. (2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment -based development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.26(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more Item #4 Page 4 53 Agenda Item 4 than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan (emphasis added). The request is for 100% secondary use (residential in the form of apartments with age restriction to seniors over 55). Land Use Code Modification Criteria Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code governs Modifications, with relevant criteria in Section 2.8(H) as follows: "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 1.2.2.19 Staff finds that the request would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets (2) and (3) above. Staff evaluation regarding each of these criteria is discussed below. Staff Evaluation of the Request 2.8.2(H) Public Good. The main issue staff evaluated in this regard is the loss of land from the Item #4 Page 5 54 Agenda Item 4 City's supply of lands designated for employment uses as part of long-term economic stability strategy. Also, citizens raised concerns about traffic at the neighborhood meeting, and staff evaluated that issue as well. Key considerations regarding loss of land for jobs are: • Recent estimates of employment lands indicate that 267 acres of land are currently vacant and appropriate for employment uses along the Harmony Corridor. This could accommodate 22 companies the size of LSI Logic. Staff finds that the loss of this particular 7.5-acre parcel is not significant given its constraints. However, the City should continue to carefully monitor the land supply to determine if primary employment land is adequate for long-term economic sustainability. • The amount of land available city-wide for employment uses is in balance with projected population growth through 2035 based on available Buildable Lands Inventory analysis, last updated in 2010 and currently being updated. • In the 2009 Land/Building Needs for Targeted Industries, the subject site was included in "highly suitable lands" for targeted industries. This document showed that the supply of land in the Growth Management Area exceeds the demand required by targeted industries. The analysis indicated that "about 487 acres (31 % of the highly suitable lands) will be required over the next 20 years, and under the lower density scenario, about 739 acres will be required (46% of the highly suitable land). This suggests that there is about twice as much highly suitable land than will be required." • Fort Collins is seeing increasing interest in a shift toward urban infill and redevelopment and infill activity that includes primary employment. Recent, major examples are Woodward and Otterbox developments in and near the Downtown. • Furthermore, Fort Collins is part of a larger region which remains attractive for primary employment in the future. Fort Collins stands to benefit if a primary employer chooses to locate within the region in a neighboring jurisdiction. Regarding whether traffic impacts would be a detriment to the public good, the question is- " what is the difference in traffic generation by the senior housing as opposed to employment - based development with secondary residential that meets the standards?" A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required and will detail the specific analysis and impact of the development on the streets. This is typically done at the actual development plan stage and thus has not yet been completed. In advance of a TIS, from a general perspective, Traffic Engineering staff evaluated an estimate of how the anticipated traffic might change with the proposed senior residential use. To enable the comparison, staff used modest assumptions for employment -based development potential on the 7.5 acres. These assumptions yielded about 90,000 square feet of employment and 34 residential units. Depending on the type of employment (office versus Item #4 Page 6 55 Agenda Item 4 industrial) and the type of residential, that daily trip generation would be about 1,100 - 1,200 vehicles and the pm peak hour is about 150 vehicles. For 155 apartments as proposed, the daily trip generation would be 1,031 vehicles and the pm peak hour is 96 vehicles. (Those numbers could end up being a bit lower with senior living.) Land Use Daily Trips Peak Hour Trips Office or mix of office and light industrial, with secondary residential of 34 dwelling units 1100-1200 144-155 155 apartments as proposed 11031 96 Overall, the anticipated traffic due to development of that parcel would be lower with the change in land use designation than what was originally assumed. Daily traffic would be lower by 10- 15% and the peak hour traffic would be lower by about 35%. In terms of impact to Corbett Drive, the current daily traffic along Corbett Drive close to Harmony is about 12,400 vehicles per day and the pm peak hour is 1,217 vehicles. The addition of traffic due to the proposed residential use would increase volumes by about 7%. (This is a conservative estimate as it assumes 100% of the proposed traffic would use Corbett and none would use Council Tree or be captured internally - such as residents going to the shopping area). Regardless of variations in specific details, staff does not find traffic generation associated with the request to be detrimental to the public good. 2.8.2(H)(1) `Equal or Better'. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. 2.8.2(H)(2) `Defined Community Need'. This criterion is a primary basis for staff support of the Modification based on the commitment to develop a certified affordable housing project. The project would meet a community need defined in City Plan. In City Plan, Principle LIV-7 states: "A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area Principle LIV-8 states: "The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opoportunities and preservation opportunities." Policy LIV-8.5 calls for integration and distribution of affordable housing throughout the community. Furthermore, housing for special populations (including seniors) is listed as one of the four priorities in our 2010 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and is a High Priority in the 2010 Five - Year Strategic (Consolidated) Plan, required by HUD, since the City receives federal funding. If the Modification is approved and the project proceeds, the project will be required to provide a 20-year commitment to housing affordability. Item #4 Page 7 56 Agenda Item 4 2.8.2(H)(3) `Exceptional situations...or conditions...which would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties...'. Staff finds that this property poses unusual practical difficulties for employment uses as envisioned, due to limited access, lack of direct access to major streets; and very limited visibility on the back side of the shopping center. 2.8.2(H)(4) `Nominal and Inconsequential'. Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: A neighborhood meeting was held September 22, 2014. Approximately 70 people attended. Discussion at the meeting mainly involved concerns about traffic, trust issues with the City, questions and answers about the non -connection of Corbett to Kingsley Drive, traffic complaints and concerns in the general area, and issues from a recent community garden installation in English Ranch Park. In staff's interpretation of the meeting, the main concern of English Ranch homeowners is traffic - specifically, the differences between 75% employment uses and 100% senior housing, despite the fact that no street connection is proposed. A street connection between Front Range Village and English Ranch was strongly opposed and many residents are concerned that there will be continuing pressures to pursue the street connection. Neighborhood Meeting notes are attached. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the request for Affinity Senior Housing Modification of Standard, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. The Modification of Standard to Section 4.26(D)(2) to allow 100% secondary use in the form of age -restricted multi -family residential would not be detrimental to the public good because the loss of this particular land for employment uses does not significantly affect the City's supply of such land, and there are no negative impacts in terms of traffic or compatibility. B. The request meets the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) because the proposed Modification would enable certified affordable housing for seniors, which meets defined community needs as identified in adopted policy documents including City Plan, the 2010 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the 2010 Five -Year Strategic (Consolidated) Plan, required by HUD, since the City receives federal funding. C. The request meets the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(3) because the site's location behind Front Range Village Shopping Center, lack of direct access to major streets, and lack of visibility from major streets are physical conditions unique to the property, which when combined create unusual practical difficulties for employment -based development, and none of which are caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Item #4 Page 8 57 Agenda Item 4 RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of Affinity Senior Housing Modification of Standard, #MOD140001. ATTACHMENTS 1. Modification Request (PDF) 2. Employment & Industrial Lands Map (JPG) 3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (DOC) Item #4 Page 9 land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ September 3, 2014 Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request urban design ■ entitlement DIVISION 4.26 HARMONY CORRIDOR DISTRICT (H-C) (D) Land Use Standards. (2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment -based development plan that emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.26(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan. Reason for the Request Background In 2005 the Harmony Corridor Plan was amended to add a "Regional Shopping Center" designation on 94 acres north of Harmony Road and west of Ziegler Road. The land was zoned Harmony Corridor (HC) and designated as a Basic Industrial and Non -Retail Activity Center. This amendment made the development of Front Range Village shopping center possible. The resulting combination of land uses is less than ideal from a land use transition perspective. A more logical land use transition would include multi- family housing between a shopping center and the single-family neighborhood. The increased housing density would be economically beneficial to the shopping center and higher density residential adjacent to single-family development represents a classic land use transition that is promoted by both City Plan and the Harmony Corridor Plan. Excerpted from the Harmony Corridor Plan: LU-7 Preserve a transition or cushion of lower intensity uses or open space between existing residential neighborhoods and the more intense industrial/ commercial areas. An important goal of the Harmony Corridor Plan is to provide a harmonious relationship between land uses and to protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against intrusive and disruptive development. Open space, setbacks, Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com 59 Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request — 25% Secondary Land Use September 3, 2014 Page 2 of 7 landscaping, physical barriers and appropriate land use transitions can be effective was to provide a cushion between different uses. The following are generally considered to be appropriate transitional land uses: • low intensity professional offices • multi -family housing • churches • childcare centers; and • nursing homes and/or elderly retirement homes. Proposal The Applicant, Gemstar Properties LLC, is proposing to develop an age -restricted (55+) residential apartment community north of Front Range Village. The Affinity community would consist of 150-160 apartments in a single 3-story building. Community amenities will include a library, movie theater, lounge, fitness center, game room, craft room, cafe, heated deck, indoor pool and hot tub. Outdoor amenities will include community gardens, BBQ, picnic area, dog park, bike storage and walking paths. All of these amenities are included at no extra cost to the residents. Parking is provided on -site via detached garages, carports and surface parking. Affinity senior living communities are designed for active seniors looking for a more social lifestyle along with affordable amenities. Affinity does not offer assisted living, on - site nursing services, or food service. All units are equipped with full kitchens and individual washers and dryers. Access to the site would be from an extension of Corbett Drive to the north. The 7.5- acre site is tucked behind Lowe's Home Improvement store approximately 1,760 feet west of Ziegler Road. Harmony Park, mobile home community, is located to the west and single-family homes are located immediately north of the site. In order to develop the community, the entire 7.5-acre site would be utilized. Since residential land uses are considered a secondary land use in the HC District, a Modification is required to develop 100% of the site as secondary use when only 25% secondary use is allowed within the development plan. At City staff's suggestion, the Applicant has reached out to adjacent property owners in an attempt to include all of the undeveloped properties north of Front Range Village in an Overall Development Plan (ODP). The owners of the adjacent property are not interested in moving forward with an ODP at this time. Notwithstanding we believe the size and location of this property warrants a close look at what is the most appropriate land use for the property, the neighborhood and the community. Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request — 25% Secondary Land Use September 3, 2014 Page 3 of 7 Justifications The Land Use Code states that 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 the decision -maker must also find that the Modification meets one of the following four criteria described in the L UC. Development of the Affinity community would satisfy a need for seniors seeking rental housing that offers residents an active and enriching retirement lifestyle at an affordable price. The resulting loss of HC — Basic Industrial zoned land is inconsequential given the marginal quality of the site in terms of size, visibility and access. The community meets the following criteria for approval of a Modification and the case presented below demonstrates that approval of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. (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; Not applicable (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; Development of the Affinity community would result in a substantial benefit to the City because the proposed community would substantially address the need for affordable housing for seniors as expressed in City Plan. City Plan contains overarching policy statements that promote balanced and integrated living patterns. Topics addressed include the goal of a mix of housing types in all City sectors. Additionally, affordable housing is encouraged to be dispersed throughout the City. The City also has an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, which establishes priorities and strategies for the City's affordable housing programs and informs the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans required by HUD. The most recent plan (2010) identifies four priorities to address affordable housing needs: • Increase the inventory of affordable rental units; • Preserve existing affordable housing units; Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com 61 Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request — 25% Secondary Land Use September 3, 2014 Page 4 of 7 • Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs; and • Provide financial assistance for first-time homebuyers. To meet the definition of Affordable Housing in the City of Fort Collins, 10% of units must be set -aside for households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income Adjusted for household size. In Larimer County, that means income limits of $41,200 for 1-person households and $47,050 for 2-person households. Maximum rents are determined by unit size and are as follows: Studio $17029 1BR $1,176 2BR $1,323 Proposed market rents for the Studio $17180 1 BR $17395 2BR $17610-$11765 remaining 90% of units are as follows: The above data demonstrates the need for affordable senior housing in the area and the Affinity community is poised to help bridge the affordability gap. According to the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2010-2014, seniors are one of several categories that fall within the group of people with special needs. The Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment identified 1,942 seniors earning less than 50% AMI are paying more than 30% of their gross monthly income on housing, which is also known as being "cost burdened." An additional 1,061 seniors in the same income category were identified as paying more than 50% of their income on housing. For those who are retired and live on fixed incomes, being cost burdened can significantly impact the ability to pay for health care, food, and other necessary household costs. Furthermore, the study estimates Larimer County can expect to gain over 35,000 residents between age 62-75 between 2005 and 2025, and over 16,000 residents age 75 and older. Many people in these age groups have limitations in mobility and self -care. Because the largest numbers of seniors live in Fort Collins, there will be an impact on the housing market and senior housing choices. The following demographics, obtained from Claritas/Nielson Company, also support the need for development of senior housing in the area. • In a 5-mile radius from the site there are currently 28,921 seniors age 55+, expected to grow to 34,179 in the next five years (18.2% increase). Seniors 55+ comprise 22.3% of the total population, expected to increase to 24.6% in five years. • In a 10-mile radius from the site there are currently 65,549 seniors 55+, expected to grow to 77,130 in the next five years (17.7% increase). Seniors 55+ comprise 24.1 % of the total population, expected to increase to 26.3% in five years. Fhinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 62 Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request — 25% Secondary Land Use September 3, 2014 Page 5 of 7 (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; The site lacks the qualities that employment -based users are typically seeking such as 10-20 acre size, convenient access, high visibility and a location near similar uses in an established business or industrial park. This site would have access to Harmony Road, via Corbett Drive, but vehicles would need to travel through a regional shopping center. The site is difficult to see from surrounding streets because of its location behind Lowe's service area approximately 1,760 feet west of Ziegler Road. There are no plans in the foreseeable future for anyone to develop a business or industrial park on adjacent properties. The proximity to existing single family development makes it difficult to develop basic industrial uses without a transitional land use in between. Due to its physical condition, specifically its size and location, this site lacks the qualities employers are generally looking for. Requiring the site to develop with 75% primary uses represents exceptional practical difficulties and hardship for the property owner. (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. The City's data base that illustrates the amount of land available for basic industrial development (jobs), and housing units was last updated in 2010. (See Buildable Lands Inventory Capacity Analysis attached.) The projected analysis shows that the City's Growth Management Area will accommodate the anticipated population growth projections up until 2035-2036. At that time there will be a shortage of land for housing as well as a shortage of land for developments that provide jobs. In addition, the Land/Building Needs Analysis for Targeted Industries prepared by Community Planning & Urban Design Group for the City in October 2009 shows that the supply of land in the Growth Management Area exceeds the demand required by targeted industries. The analysis in this document suggests that "about 487 acres (31 % of the highly suitable land) will be required over the next 20 years, and under the lower density scenario, about 739 acres will be required (46% of the highly suitable land). In broad terms, this suggests that there is about twice as much highly suitable land than Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com 63 Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request — 25% Secondary Land Use September 3, 2014 Page 6 of 7 will be required." See: http-//www.fcgov.com/advanceplanning/pdf/land-bldg- analysis.pdf We believe that the granting of a Modification allowing 100% of the 7.5-acre site to be developed as a secondary land use is inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the Harmony Corridor Plan and the City as a whole. Furthermore, the granting of the Modification will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. as follows- (C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services. (F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. (L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas. (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. (0) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well -served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities. Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com •A Affinity at Fort Collins Modification Request — 25% Secondary Land Use September 3, 2014 Page 7 of 7 1. Currerd E5rJwate (rears ............. 2010 2. Land Supply a) Vatark Land .......................................... b) Ap"edunks. t] Rede4ebproent...................................... Sl&MMI: Supply Tamil (Conant Estimate + Lams 5r); 3. RrWm DeMMA L roYMM ream.... 2M 4. tapauef of Fx" dM**.......................... 5. Odd out )%ar 0 anrw M Gm Mh Der mntaGe late a},,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,............ Housing Units d6,043 10,415 4617 7,OW 1,523 25a655 93,504 940DO 2,50+1 1-17 21336 Population 1620325 2010 23,450 1ALM 15 7w 3,429 W37 220,662 218,D00 =1 12j16j2D11 ]ohs f aws 96536 46r250 2%410 5+573 5 893 6,2i1 d7�N7 lds,523 14209M 10623 1-55 21135 e ■d�Yat -]pan [orsu4. U.S. Crawl Bwwu(l] -CL} at Fart€alter Braiding and Zoning Depaientnt(M* - E5M dM Start Department of labor and E mpkrVmdrrt;l} -Cry or Fort €oohs Current Kinnhrt¢ g Depamentb) * * SuppFf botil R] mhos DemLr fl F - C W or Fort €dohs Adrente Pbnrin6 Department {i MOO - brdt Report Market knalr s61or. Cty Plan UpdiW, Emnomt S Ptannin Sfstun4 Lno., lanwry 2DD3 QKS) %317 49,567 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 65 F 1 HARM Legend Zone District QGrowth Management Area Boundary - Outline E 0 City Lhnits - Outline F MV HC a ri A 66 N City of Fort Collins Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcao v com /De ve/onmentRe view NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NOTES These notes capture questions, comments and ideas from the meeting but are not a verbatim transcript. PROJECT: Affinity Senior Housing Modification of Standard Request DATE: September 23 (September 22 meeting date) PLANNER: Clark Mapes APPLICANT/ Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Associates OWNER: Inland Group, prospective developers City Staff Presentation Clark Mapes, with the City's Planning Department, introduced the meeting agenda and purpose; and summarized the nature of the Modification request, which is for residential use as 100% `Secondary Use' under Harmony Corridor zoning. A zoning standard limits secondary uses to 25% of any development, but standards allow for Modifications to be considered under criteria in the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Board will be the decision maker on the request. They are scheduled to consider the request at the October 9 hearing. If the request is approved, the developer team would then be able to submit an application with actual development plans to go through the review process considering physical development of buildings, parking, landscaping, and all other aspects. Corbett Drive will not connect to Kingsley Drive. The past decision to eliminate that connection remains in place. A number of follow up questions and answers reiterated this point. In the past, the City's Master Street Plan showed a connection. That connection was specifically removed from the Master Street Plan at the time Front Range Village was being considered. The development plan for English Ranch South subdivision always did and still does indicate a connection at Edmonds Road. This would be evaluated at such time as the property abutting Edmonds, east of English Ranch, is proposed for development. The requested land use Modification has no bearing on situation. Developer Presentation Linda Ripley of Ripley Design Inc. summarized the applicants' proposal for age restricted senior housing as a transitional use between Lowes and the adjacent neighborhood. The intent of the Modification request is to find whether the use would be permitted. If it is approved, then there would be another neighborhood meeting on an actual development plan, and the 67 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 12 developer would then follow up with a development plan submittal in the development review process. Linda explained the need for senior housing, showing demographic information being considered by the applicants. She explained how the residential use would be a good transition between the back of Lowe 's and the neighborhood. She explained that the property is not well suited for employment/industrial use. Scott Morris with the prospective developer, Inland Group, explained what Inland does and how they work. They develop, construct, and own senior rental apartments. They have a number of projects in various cities, the nearest being Lafayette. He also acknowledged and thanked the high level of interest which is obvious in the turnout for the meeting. His greatest fear on a project is to go to one of these meetings and have no one show up, which shows that the community does not care. Keith James with Inland showed photos of similar projects they have done, with an emphasis on the list of amenities. Q&A Discussion Q: You're asking for input - how seriously does the City take our input? Our experience is that the City doesn't consider it at all. There is no trust with the City. The recent garden issue was not a good example. A: City - Staff takes it seriously. Notes from this meeting will be included in the information for the decision maker, the P&Z Board. They take it seriously. They are interested citizens like you. Ultimately, they will make findings based on standards in the land use code, so the more your input adds relevant perspective their findings, the more effect it will have. Q: The extension of Corbett on this plan looks like it comes close to Kingsley. A: Developer - Yes, it provides access to the northern portion of the property. Q: The path looks like it's moved west on the site plan. A: Developer - Maybe so, but that would be determined in an actual development plan. The concept is to keep the connection along landscaped frontage. Q: How many parking spaces are you showing? A: Developer - 315. The final counts will be part of the development plan. Q: The issue is zoning to retain the employment designation versus allowing the residential. We can't decide that without knowing about the traffic and parking. How can the Board make a decision without knowing all of that about the project? A: City - This Modification request is similar to a rezoning — it changes the land use designation. The Board could find that the request satisfies the criteria for the Modification, which would allow the developer to submit a project which would be reviewed under traffic and parking standards, with a traffic study. The traffic and parking would have to work for the project to be approved. The traffic difference between employment uses and age -restricted residential use is not likely to be a deciding factor in the decision. .: Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 13 Q: Where is the property line? How close are the garages to our back yards? A: Developer - What's shown on the concept plan is not what would happen. There would have to be a 25' buffer yard with landscaping and then the backs of garages. A: City - When we looked at the concept, we thought that the garages would make part of a buffer. They would act as a fence with landscaping, but maybe better. They have to have some architectural features. We thought the eave height could be kept low along the back. Q: What about construction, noise, people over 55 driving, this sounds like a major inconvenience — how long will construction take? Will there be cranes? We're concerned about a big out of state company coming in and impacting us with this big development. A: Developer - It is true. There would be inconvenience. There wouldn't be actual construction traffic in your neighborhood, but yes you're right. Construction would take about 14 months. No cranes. We try to be considerate with things like hours of construction but we also hear people say `work long hours, and get it built as fast as possible.' Q: Can the City or County tell us the effect on our property values? A: City - No, the City doesn't analyze that as part of individual projects like this. The question has come up very often over decades on many projects where single family houses exist and then apartments or commercial are proposed later. And property values in Fort Collins seem to go nowhere but up to the point where we then sometimes hear that that creates its own problems. Q: Do you see this kind of Modification very often? And are they approved very often? A: City - Requests for residential uses in employment and industrial designations are not uncommon. We are seeing a lot of these lately. And usually if a request makes it to the Planning and Zoning Board its been pretty well vetted, and I think most are approved. But it is a case by case decision in every case. Q: Can you give examples? A: City - Drake/Timberline, which was actually a rezoning, Lincoln/Lemay rezoning. [Added with these notes: there's senior residential in the Centre for Advanced Technology south of CSU which is zoned employment, and there have been requests and projects for senior living in Oak Ridge on Harmony. Currently there is an inquiry involving a small lot at Boardwalk Drive and Whalers Way, and an inquiry involving a property on JFK Parkway just south of Horsetooth, to give a couple of other examples.] Q: You say there's no street connection, but what about fire emergency access. Will they need another access? Could they ask for something like that? A: City - Yes, that is something that could come up in any development plan. It may or may not come up or be feasible. Q: How would they get fire access if it doesn't connect? A: Developer - Possibilities with Lowes would be looked at. At this stage it looks like there could be possibilities for that. Q: Can you give examples of that? .• Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 14 A: City - Can't name one on the spot but they are common. [Added into notes - Clarendon Hills, on Abbey Road where a gated connection exists to Paradise Lane in Applewood Estates.] Comment: Say what you want, but that needs another way out. If it's not done now, you'll be back in 1 year, 5 years, to connect. Already, you can't turn left out of Kingsley onto Horsetooth. Also, can't turn left onto Ziegler, there's so much traffic already. Q: You say it's age restricted - do you have a maximum occupancy? Can you have your 20- year old child living there? Can you have a guest? A: Developer - Maximum occupancy is two. No one under 55 is allowed to live there. If someone had a spouse under 55, that would be allowed. There are zero children. Comment: Traffic is going to drive that connection. The City will not follow through. Q: On the 75-25 comparison of employment to residential, cell service is poor. You get dropped. 170 more units will compete in the evening for cell service. That's a difference. Have you ever had that issue with your other projects? A: Developer - No. We can check into it. If there's something we can do, we want to know. Q: Can the walkway connection be moved to the east side of Corbett so there are no drive crossings for our children? A: Developer - That's something we can look at. A: City - There would probably be sidewalks on both sides of Corbett eventually. Also, there would probably be drive crossings on the east side. These would be like the drive crossings in the shopping center. Q: My back yard has a drainage along the back. What about the drainage from this? A: City - It will be contained and managed on the property. Comment: The City has caused a lot of distrust over a long time. The City has lost trust with traffic problems, and how they operate in this community and neighborhood. Q: What do commercial tenants think? What do they think about this traffic coming through their commercial area, who may or may not use their businesses? Have you thought about using a thoroughfare to a residential area? A: Developer - We have thought about it. In our three visits to the site, we have seen Corbett pretty quiet, and then we have also seen it very congested. We hope to learn more about that in a traffic study. We generally find than businesses like residential nearby. Q: Can people have dogs? What will be the impact of people on our little park? A: Developer - Small dogs and cats are allowed. We find that with all of our amenities and our own little park, people mostly hang out and use their own facilities. Q: What's the plan for traffic flows? What are you going to do about that? You need to study it. A: Developer — We will do a study. If the study shows a problem, and if the possible solutions are not feasible, so the traffic just doesn't work, then, it's been nice meeting you. 70 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 15 Q: Traffic is the big issue. Can the P&Z Board consider that? A: City - Yes, the Board can consider that. If they found that they need information to make the decision, that is their prerogative, that's part of their role. They can consider anything they find relevant. If this Modification is approved, but then traffic can't be handled in the development plan, and there's no mitigation they can do, then this development won't work. Comment: There's already so much traffic I don't walk through the main area, I take the road behind Target. Now, with the 55 + crowd, no offense, I'm going to look for a safer route when I walk my dog Q: What happens when your tenants are no longer independent living, given the age of your tenants? A: Developer - This is not assisted living. We do sometimes have tenants who have caregivers come in. It hasn't been a problem in our other projects. When people need to move to more assisted living, it tends to take care of itself. Q: Has the City considered what residents might want? A pool would be nice. A: City - On privately owned lands like this, the City does not step in. The market, and owners, and zoning are the guide. Comment: I was told there would be businesses with apartments above on the property to the east of Corbett. I think this proposal would be nice. This could be better than some of those other ideas. Right now I hear noise from the back end of Lowes. This would make a buffer. Q: Lowes security lights shine very bright into my house. What about lighting? A: Developer - It will be contained within the property. That is required. A: City — lights have to be down directional, and shielded. No light, or virtually none, is allowed to spill over. If Lowes really has that, it may be a violation. Q: Looking for solutions, would you do, say, a 60 foot buffer along the north edge? And would you try to get a road out to Ziegler to help with traffic? A: Developer - That is the kind of thing we want to look at with you. We can look at a bigger buffer. If we could get a street out to Ziegler, we would like to look at that. Comment: I am the exception here in this meeting, I support this. The building looks good. Where we may see a fire gate, I live right there on the cul de sac. If there was a gate, what's the big deal? Q. The recreation path should be at least 10 feet wide. Can you do that? A: We can look at that. Q: I'd like to see the walkway maintained as a recreational path, not just a sidewalk. Wide. Maybe part of a landscaped boulevard. And keep it open to us residents who use it every day. A: Developer - That is our intent. 71 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 16 Q. How many people visit the site besides those that live and work there, like caregivers, house cleaning people, visitors, etc. A. We can provide more data on that when we proceed with a Traffic Impact Analysis. Q: What's the next chance we have to speak about this? I have no confidence that the input from tonight will make it back to the City. A: City - The next steps are, I will email you notes from this meeting, and you can let me know if you see anything missing. Also I will send a letter this week for the P&Z hearing on Thursday, October 9, City Hall, 6 pm. You have my email, and also Sarah Burnett's email who is our neighborhood Iiason to help with your questions and concerns. Comment Received after the meeting: I got the notice for the neighborhood meeting, but was unable to attend. I have no issues with the proposed modification for Senior Housing on this parcel. I would suggest however that the staff review connectivity and circulation associated with the extension of Corbett. I know that this roadway connection was a contentious issue in the past, but I think many of the complaints at Paddington and Ziegler would be relieved if Corbett connected to English Ranch (and ultimately English Ranch connected to Harmony Road). I think this connection would serve the neighborhood and not be a likely cut through path. Today, if I go to Front Range Village and am not walking or biking in the Corbett extension, the trip is more than doubled as far as length and probably tripled as far as time because of this lack of a logical street connection. Please consider this - I am sure I have neighbors opposed to re -looking at this, but there are two sides to this issue and I feel strongly that the connection would help rather than hinder the public. I wish there was a way to prove that the connectivity would work if it was all there and not be a hindrance. 72 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 17 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC INFORMATION, POST -MEETING: Following is some additional information from City staff regarding traffic impacts to address a key question from the meeting: Q: What is the change of anticipated traffic if the proposed use is changed from mostly employment to all residential as requested? A: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required and will detail the specific analysis and impact of the development on the roadways. This is typically done at the actual development stage and thus has not yet been done. So in advance of a TIS, from a general perspective, Traffic Engineering staff evaluated an estimate of how the anticipated traffic numbers might change with the change in use. Thes e preliminary estimates are based on industry standards from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). To enable the comparison, staff used modest assumptions for employment based development potential. This yields about 90,000 square feet of potential employment space and 34 dwelling units of residential. Depending on the type of employment (office versus industrial) and the type of residential, the daily trips generation is about 1,100 — 1,200 vehicles and the pm peak hour is about 150 vehicles. With the change in use to all residential that assumes 155 dwelling units of apartments, the daily trip generation is 1,031 vehicles and the pm peak hour is 96 vehicles. (Those numbers could end up being a bit lower with senior living.) Overall, the anticipated traffic due to development of that parcel will be LOWER with the change in use than what was originally assumed. Daily numbers will be lower by 10-15% and the peak hour numbers will be lower by about 35%. In terms of impact to Corbett Drive, the current daily traffic along Corbett close to Harmony is about 12,400 vehicles per day and the pm peak hour is 1,217 vehicles. The addition of traffic due to the proposed use of all residential will impact those numbers by about 7%. (This is a conservative estimate as it assumes 100% of the proposed traffic would use Corbett and none would use Council Tree or be captured internally — such as residents going to the shopping area). NOTE ABOUT PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING: A brochure that explains how residents may participate in the Planning and Zoning Board hearing is available at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/pdf/boards/pzbrochure.pdf . You can also email any comments about this proposed modification to cmapes(),fcgov.com, or contact Clark Mapes at 221-6225. Written comments received before the hearing will be provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for their consideration. There is also the opportunity for public comment at the hearing. Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison, can also help if you have questions about the review process or the hearing. 73 I r ILI �r- �•,. •. II �i "'" _ •'rLiti IIII lli p ��I'4 ill�tn rI11 11 111 �.`I�1 i` :. 11 u I I IIG• III ilk �. 1 SOUTHEAST AERIAL AFFINITY APARTMENTS a r c h i t e c t U r e 113ri if . 14 An l/ P K COMMUNITY GARDEN AFFINITY APARTMENTS a r c h i t e c t u r e I � 7WUWC 01 iiii7al --- �.r IN SOUTHEAST ENTRANCE AFFINITY APARTMENTS a r c h i t e c t u r e CCNF alt 3GO _ l Ivu Qnw RYfMv\M �� 1 A ° ,N p / I I l� SITE PLAN v w SITE PLAN LEGEND UYonymN c (E � / Of / Na.n�i.nlrN / rceN vM41vy •Alxr /MY�/XO / r e.. �. l (16'Mtu Of 9C t0 R NNV•t: C9vaCt YIXMN(S SlTit W) M4lMF5 FID Nw R LI %TM(SNI RSRMMI p!`R\y1RN1 T"ldMlLBLN Filt1 R1Y IU Nfp•Ilttr MRNAI1RIWr W""lN6COM11 lwM1 Stoll 4Crm loot)", ryylCNrNMf Is PROJECT INFORMATION w E� RYC K. NYY}n COn Wl in �Wdmffpo uM/ InNRQQjW r.•ln ITOI• � Ruam s1RQil a.nwn-INHNu Y•ml� lq,nwn.lTi1W3 IQ'N OINHRPIIm •MTNH NOR•En ws>n.sssuua MYQIY. nT.W1 m•4.HITNJQm. p • WeIY NMEy :�tyJ �tFDIMM O >®lYM 11 YIIQrfMY Y rmtMM M m Nwl• m From: Clark Mapes To: Cindy Cosmas Subject: Email Date: Monday, October 06, 2014 4:51:02 PM Attachments: zonina meetina for Affinity Senior Housina.msa Actually, I only have one to send on to the Board.