Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingJennifer Carpenter, Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Jeff Hansen Gerald Hart Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing October 8, 2015 6:00 PM • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non -agenda and pending application topics) • CONSENT AGENDA 1. Draft Minutes for September 10, 2015, P&Z Hearing The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the September 10, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. CSU Medical Center. Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA150005 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University to construct a new medical center at the northwest the corner of South College Avenue and West Prospect Road. The project includes a 113,000 square foot, four-story building within an approximately 4 acre site. The site is located in the Community Commercial (CC) zone district. Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 October 8, 2015 1 APPLICANT: 3. Affinity at Fort Collins Fred Haberecht Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 PROJECT This Project Development Plan (PDP) would create 161 new apartment units for DESCRIPTION: seniors (age 55 and up) on an undeveloped 8.4-acre parcel accessed from Corbett Drive, north of Lowes home improvement store. The units are all contained in a single three-story building with a footprint of 62,731 square feet. Units are a mix of 1 and 2-bedroom units totaling 246 bedrooms. A community building with a pool anchors a 1.3-acre multi -use outdoor space with walkways, gardens, BBQ area, and recreational features. 263 parking spaces are provided in a mix of surface parking, garage spaces, and carport spaces. Access is via a private drive extended northward from the cul-de-sac terminus of Corbett Drive. The access configuration is largely directed by City Engineering, Transportation, and Planning staff. Modifications of standards are requested for wall length of perimeter garages, a buffer yard setback for perimeter garages, and to allow the private drive access configuration mentioned above. APPLICANT: Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 4. Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PROJECT This project proposes to construct a 3-level mixed -use parking garage with 325 DESCRIPTION parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The parking garage is proposed as a public -private partnership between the City of Fort Collins, the Downtown Development Authority, and the developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality). 113 parking spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins Hotel (approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 10, 2015) and 212 parking spaces will be public parking managed by the City. APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan Bohemian Companies 262 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins CO, 80524 City of Fort Collin Page 2 2 5. Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Modification PROJECT The purpose of this item is for the Planning and Zoning Board to determine DESCRIPTION: whether two proposed modifications to the Midtown Plan are in conformity with City Plan. This Resolution follows the action taken by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board (the "URA Board") at its September 8, 2015 meeting and City Council at its September 15, 2015 meeting. One modification would remove the territory in the Midtown Plan area that is currently not in either of the Midtown Plan's two approved tax increment financing district, Prospect South and Foothills Mall (other than the area preserved in the plan to connect the two tax increment financing districts). The other modification would amend wording in the Midtown Plan to clarify that the Plan identifies and describes only one urban renewal project. APPLICANT: Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collin Page 3 3 Agenda Item 1 STAFF Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT Draft Minutes for September 10, 2015, P&Z Hearing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the draft minutes for the September 10, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft September 10, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC) Item # Page 1 M Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Jeff Hansen Gerald Hart Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing September 10, 2015 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Absent: Staff Present: Agenda Review Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs and Schneider Kirkpatrick Gloss, Leeson, Yatabe, Wilkinson, Shepard, Schmidt, Burnett, Holland, Mapes, Lorson, Virata, McWilliams 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. 5 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 2 Planning Manager Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas. He noted that the Houska Rezoning has been moved from Discussion to Consent. He also noted that the 2016 Work Plan will be discussed under Other Business. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed his concerns over the SPAR process related to unincorporated areas of Larimer County. He specifically mentioned a construction project involving the building of a storm water dam located on County Road 50 that never had a development review, which is required by State law. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 13, 2015, P&Z Hearing 2. Serious Texas Barbeque Major Amendment at Timberline Center, FDP150017 A citizen requested to see a presentation on the Houska Rezoning project, so it was moved back to the Discussion agenda. Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the September 10, 2015, Consent agenda, including the draft minutes from the August , 2015, Planning and Zoning Board hearing and Serious Texas Barbecue Major Amendment at Timberline Center, Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 3. Fort Collins Hotel — PDP #150008 4. Village on Redwood 5. Houska Rezoning Project: Fort Collins Hotel — PDP #150008 Project Description: This project proposes to construct a 117,665 square foot, 5-story mixed -use hotel with 162 rooms, a restaurant, two bars, and 3,541 square feet of conference space. Parking is proposed in a 106 space, surface parking lot at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The project is requesting five Modifications of Standards (relating to parking and building height) and one Alternative Compliance (relating to bicycle parking spaces). Recommendation: Approval Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 3 Secretary Cosmas reported that the Landmark Preservation Commission submitted their findings of fact and conclusions from the previous night's commission hearing. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Lorson gave a full presentation of this project, including a description of each of the proposed modifications. He also discussed the request for alternative compliance to the bicycle parking standards, citing the potential amenities that may be provided in the future. Historic Preservation Planning Manager McWilliams also discussed the recommendation made by the Landmark Preservation Commission the previous evening. This property meets the criteria for this review, and the LPC reviewed the development plan and found that the project is compatible and respectful to the surrounding character of other historic buildings for the following elements: • Massing • Color • Building height • Setbacks The LPC unanimously recommended to the approving authority (Planning and Zoning Board) that they also approve this plan, finding that it complies with Land Use Code section 3.4.7. Stu McMillan, with the Bohemian Companies, gave a brief presentation on the history of how this project evolved and which entities are involved. He introduced Lou Beaker, with 4240 Architects, who also gave a detailed description of the project design and site placement within Old Town and its proximity to the River District. He discussed the history of the Fort Collins hotels and gave a detailed presentation of the architectural decisions made for all aspects of the hotel. Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hart inquired about the number of bicycle parking spaces expected to be used by employees, and the applicant confirmed it would be approximately 90. Member Hobbs asked about the traffic flow constraints relating to hotel access in general. Matt Delich, of Delich Associates, responded that two methods of accessing the site were reviewed, and they determined that the access roundabout will provide the best method for access. All options meet the City of Fort Collins traffic standards even with the current constraints. There are still some concerns about access during City events. Martina Wilkinson, with Traffic Operations, also stated that these details mainly address "ease of use" questions, especially during City events; she acknowledged that congestion will be present at any large City event. Member Hansen also inquired about the bicycle parking ridership levels, which may prove to be much higher than in other areas of town. Mr. Beaker detailed the locations that would be available to bicycle riders, even those not staying at the hotel. Public Input Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, indicated his concerns about bicycle parking and his disagreement with granting the alternate compliance request. He reviewed the significant tax revenues forecasted, which he believes to be inappropriate. 7 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 4 Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, is the Executive Director of Funding Partners, supports this project even though there may be some areas needing modification. He likes the architecture and approves of the design and the overall development process. Robert Lyle, 100 Riverside Avenue, would like to see a mock-up of the proposed roundabout. Dave Hejde, 222 Linden Street, supports this project but is concerned that the parking and doesn't support the modification proposed for parking. Applicant and Staff Response Planner Lorson addressed the citizen question about roundabouts, saying it has not yet been developed, so there are no conceptual designs to review at this time. He also discussed the parking garage question, saying he believes that the current plans are very adequate is providing necessary parking. The parking garage portion of this project will be brought to the Planning and Zoning Board in October for approval. Mr. Delich and Mr. Beaker also clarified some of the citizen questions, illustrating how parking operations will work and the possible effects of City events. Member Hobbs asked how the parking requirement was derived, and Planner Lorson explained how the number of spaces was developed based on the City standards. Member Heinz asked how many proposed sites are planned for the parking garage, and Planner Lorson responded just over 300 (2/3 public and 1/3 private). Overflow from hotel use could be at garage. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe counselled the Board to consider only the current proposal, not focusing on any future proposals. Planning Manager Gloss added that the Board can also provide specific conditions for approval. Member Hansen asked what the net change in parking area would be along Chestnut; 16 spaces will be removed, but there will still be available on -street parking on Chestnut. This loss of parking will not be considered in tonight's deliberation. The building materials and facade were also discussed at length. Member Heinz asked about the reasoning for demolishing buildings that may be eligible for historic designation, specifically focusing on the building called the "ghost garage". Planner McWilliams responded that this building is not eligible to be a Fort Collins landmark, which was determined by the CDNS Director and Landmark Preservation Chairman. Chair Carpenter asked for samples of the zinc and aluminum that would be part of the building materials. Mr. Beaker provided samples and explained the choice of materials and how they will weather. Planner Lorson also clarified that the P&Z Board is only approving one area for bicycle parking; future bike parking will be developed and the required number of spaces will be included in the review. Marc Virata, Engineering, further clarified that encroachments considered private can be installed in the right-of-way with the appropriate permits. He also said that such encroachments could be conditioned and approved by the City Manager per City code. Board Deliberation Each member indicated their support of the project. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for modification for the standard to permit 106 parking places instead of the required 111 parking places, as required under section 3.2.2(K)(1), is not detrimental to the public good and granting the modification would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way, as the proposal is providing 96% of the requirement and there are many other public parking options conveniently located near the site. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 5 Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for modification for the standard to permit a reduced parking lot set back from 10 feet to 7 feet and from 15 feet to 5 feet in section 3.2.2(J) is not detrimental to the public good and granting the modification would not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way, as that the proposal provides adequate buffering with 30" wall, extra -dense landscaping, and plaza that make the area more pedestrian -friendly and add visual interest. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for modification for the standard to permit a parking lot located on street frontages as opposed to behind buildings and at the interior of the block (Section 4.16(E)(1)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas so that the parking lot does not interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for modification for the standard to permit a building height maximum of 5 stories instead of the required maximum of 4 stories (Section 4.16(D)(2)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that, when considered in the context of the area, the building is no taller than a building which complies with the standard. Member Hobbs seconded. Vote: 6:0. L AM Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for modification for the standard to permit a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth floor instead of at the fourth floor (Section 4.16(D)(4)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that when considered in the context of the area, the proposed 35 degree setback is at the same height (49') as the building across the street that complies with the standard. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for an alternative compliance bicycle parking plan that provides for 51 bicycle parking spaces on private property and/or adjacent street rights -of -way and accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.2(C)(4) equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater "safety, efficiency and convenience". Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins Hotel project development plan #150008 based on the findings of fact in the staff report on page 13 and 14. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0, The Board took a break at 8:10pm and reconvened at 8:20pm. 9 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 6 Project: Village on Redwood Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) would create 72 new units of affordable housing on an undeveloped 9.6-acre parcel on Redwood Street, 600 feet north of Conifer Street between Conifer and Willox Lane. 36 units are 2-story townhomes with ground floor entrances, in 6-plex and 3- plex buildings. 36 units are apartments in three 2-story buildings and one three-story building. A Modification of a standard is requested to a Land Use Code standard that would require residences to be placed directly in relation to street sidewalks. The project includes one apartment building with 15,900 square feet of floor area that requires a Modification of a standard that would limit the building to 14,000 square feet. The project creates a new City Natural Area by transferring ownership of an existing pond to the City Natural Areas Department, and provides landscaping, appropriate lighting, a community clubhouse, a central green and playground, a walking path, garden, and dog run. Recommendation: Approval Member Schneider recused himself at 8:23pm due to a conflict of interest. Secretary Cosmas reported that there were 7 emails received in favor of this project, 2 in opposition, and 1 inquiring about community impacts. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief overview of the project, including a PowerPoint presentation. Kristin Fritz, Senior Manager of the Housing Authority, also gave a presentation, including statistics of affordable housing projects and how targets are designed and then built to achieve community goals. She stated that there will be a new City natural area in conjunction with this project. Public Input Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, the Executive Director of Funding Partners, stated that he supports this project, detailing how a good balance exists with the project and the community overall. He also believes the proposed modifications are inconsequential. Sue McFadden, 210 W. Magnolia, a Commissioner for the Fort Collins Housing Authority, is in support of this project and feels that the project is well -developed and will serve a valuable need. Cathy Mathis, 3518 English Court, the Board Chair for the Ft. Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, is also in support of this project, citing the acute need for affordable housing. Ann Jordan, 1018 Pica Run, supports this project and the energy efficiency aspects of the project. Jake Joseph, 339 Riva Ridge Drive, a Commissioner on the Fort Collins Housing Authority and a local minister, is also in support of this project. 10 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 7 Board Questions and Staff Response Member Hansen asked if the housing assessment performed was based on national standard; Ms. Fritz responded that, while there is a need at all levels, they have tried to balance the communities with a mix of income levels. The project was also developed based on what unit sizes would be the best fit, providing a mix of unit sizes. Member Hansen also asked about the modification requiring homes to face a public drive and his concern that buildings become "lost" within nebulous parking lots. Ms. Fritz suggested that adequate signage would be provided in order to easily locate properties. Ms. Fritz clarified that the units have front and back door entrances, along with sidewalk access; flats have shared entrances through internal stairway areas. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a modification to standard to Section 3.2.2(K) to allow 110 parking spaces instead of the 131 spaces required, which would not be detrimental to the public good, and granting of the modification will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard, because observations and parking counts of similar affordable housing developments indicate vehicle ownership is significantly lower than market rate units; thus 110 spaces are adequate and appropriate for the project without creating spillover parking demands. Furthermore, there is no adjacent development with convenient connections to spillover parking, which will help limit the frequency of casual spillover parking. The PDP is equal to or better than a plan meeting the standard in this regard because a plan with more paved parking lot in proportion to the units would have greater aesthetic and environmental impacts and the balance of the units and parking is a crucial component of the PDP and meeting a defined community need for affordable housing, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Member Heinz seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a modification to standard 3.5.2(D), which allows all building to be placed in direct relation to parking rather than streets would not be detrimental to the public good and granting the modification would substantially alleviate a defined problem - to wit: affordable housing. This proposed plan provides parking garages flanked by tree -lined sidewalks leading directly to and from Redwood Street forming clearly -defined and directly -linked pedestrian spaces that will function adequately in lieu of streets. Furthermore, there is no lost opportunity for interconnections with adjacent development due to existing development in the pond on three sides. Emergency access is accommodated in the parking garage in lieu of streets and is a key contributor to affordability with affordable housing being a clearly -defined community need, and the strict application of the standard requiring streets would render the project practically infeasible. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a modification to standard to subsection 4.5(E)(4)(i) to allow one 15,000 square foot building, which would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the community need for affordable housing. The building is located internally within the project, with any external visibility blocked by the lower buildings around the perimeter of the site, and trees on the site. Any views of the building from the neighborhood outside of the project will be glimpses between other buildings at a significant distance and buffered by trees. The larger building is offset by generous open spaces, as the building is bounded by the pond and community green. The architecture is well -articulated and proportioned, and blends harmoniously with the project, and the size is a transitional increment larger than the 8-plex apartments, which allows the building to be compatible. The building is an 11 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 8 efficient way to gain units that contribute to the ability of the project to provide affordable housing with quality development; and the strict application of the standard reducing the size of the single 3-story building would render the project practically infeasible. Member Hansen seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Fort Collins Housing Authority Village on Redwood PDP #150002, based on the findings of fact in the staff report on pages 10 and 11. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Schneider rejoined the hearing at 9: 03pm. Project: Houska Rezoning Project Description: This is a request to rezone one parcel of land, 1005 Riverside Drive, near the southwest corner of the intersection Riverside Drive and Lemay Avenue. Existing zoning is N-C, Neighborhood Commercial District. The proposed designation is C-L, Limited Commercial District. The parcel comprises 2.5 acres. Access and orientation is onto Riverside Drive. Member Hansen recused himself at 9:05pm due to a conflict of interest. Recommendation: Approval Public Input Janice Eads, 706 Colorado Street, inquired about the zoning changes and/or whether there would be a tax increase to the surrounding neighbors. Board Questions and Staff Response Planner Mapes responded to the citizen concern by saying this rezoning is simply a shift in commercial zoning, and any related property tax changes would be indirect. Board Deliberation Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Houska Rezoning REZ#150001 based upon the findings of fact on page 5 of the Staff Report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0. Member Hansen rejoined the hearing at 9:10pm 12 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 9 Other Business 2016 Draft Planning and Zoning Board Work Plan Planning Manager Gloss presented a draft of the 2016 P&Z Work Plan, which is a summary of the work accomplished during 2015. He stated the importance of the major City plans currently underway, including the CSU Stadium IGA, the Affordable Housing plan, the Climate Action plan, Nature in the City, and Urban Agriculture. The City Plan will also be a very robust, time-consuming effort between Staff and the Board. This Work Plan will be further discussed at the October Work Session. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director I, Jennifer Carpenter, Chair 13 Agenda Item 2 PROJECT NAME CSU MEDICAL CENTER, SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW #SPA150005 STAFF Jason Holland, City Planner UZ1031xmrllkql7i]Nkyy F_1111 Is] ► PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) by Colorado State University to construct a new medical center at the northwest the corner of South College Avenue and West Prospect Road. The project includes a 113,000 square foot, four-story building within an approximately 4 acre site. The site is located in the Community Commercial (CC) zone district. APPLICANT: Fred Haberecht Colorado State University 6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523 OWNER: Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System 01 Administration Building Fort Collins, CO 80523 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with Land Use Code Section 2.16, Site Plan Advisory Review. COMMENTS: 1, Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Community Commercial (C-C) Proposed CSU Parking Garage South General Commercial (C-G) Commercial / Retail East Community Commercial (C-C) Commercial / Retail West Community Commercial (C-C) Commercial / Retail; CSU Campus Item # 2 Page 1 14 Agenda Item 2 The property was annexed in 1925 as part of the GF Wiard's Annexation, and includes a number of parcels that contain existing residential structures, some of which have been repurposed for commercial businesses and university -related facilities over the years. 2. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the "location, character and extent thereof" has been submitted for approval by the Planning Commission (Planning and Zoning Board). In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the applicant's governing body. 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: The processing and evaluation of Site Plan Advisory Review applications is governed by Division 2.16 or Article 2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The section further defines the evaluation criteria for the "location, character and extent" of Site Plan Advisory Review applications. Evaluation criteria: (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. 4. Evaluation A. Location (Criterion 1) The proposed site meets this requirement with a proposed use that is consistent with the City's land use designation. The site is within the Community Commercial District, and Clinics are listed as a permitted principal Type 1 use in this district. B. Character (Criterion 2) The proposed medical center meets this requirement by conforming to the landscape and other design standards established by the Colorado State University Aesthetic Guidelines and CSU Facilities Construction Standards Manual. The design character of the site development plan is also consistent with the stated purpose of the City's Community Commercial District by contributing to the service -oriented uses anticipated for the area. The proposed building and site design establish a high level of quality consistent with the character established with prominent CSU Campus buildings. Automobile access into the center is from West Lake Street. Sidewalks and shared bicycle routes are provided around the perimeter linking the project to the MAX transit corridor and CSU parking garage proposed to the north. Foundation landscaping and canopy trees are provided around the perimeter of the building in excess of the City's requirements. As outlined in the applicant's project narrative, a substantial building setback combined with tree groves serve to provide a transition and distinctive character at this prominent street intersection. Item # 2 Page 2 15 Agenda Item 2 As with the parking garage structure recently approved to the north, the architectural character and massing of the medical center is consistent with recent campus construction. The building uses colored masonry block with precast caps, random ashlar sandstone accent panels, and glass -enclosed building projections. Variations in massing and forms and the use of high quality materials break down the overall scale of the structure and make the project clearly identifiable as a CSU campus building. All lighting provided will be fully shielded and down -directional in conformance with CSU standards. C. Extent (Criterion 3) Impacts to City facilities and services related to the site location, building transition, and streets were identified at conceptual review and have been addressed by CSU with the current plan. The main issues that were addressed involved: • Reconfiguring the service area to be more subordinate and less visually intrusive along the South College corridor; • Eliminating a direct emergency access from College into the service area; • Providing more complete integration of site walls and landscaping along the street frontages as transitional elements; • Providing a detached sidewalk along South College with the intent to save existing trees along this frontage; • Eliminating the direct vehicular access from South Prospect originally proposed adjacent to the MAX corridor to provide a direct access from the MAX stop to the building entry; and • Identifying transportation improvements needed as part of the project, including: o Widening the street frontage along South Prospect and rebuilding the flowline and sidewalk along the north side of the street, o Installing eastbound double lefts on South Prospect, o Installing a center median along the South Prospect frontage, o Installing a north -bound left at Lake and College, and o Providing improvements to mitigate congestion along the Mason Trail in accordance with the City/CSU Stadium Intergovernmental Agreement. 5, Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on July 15, 2015 and was well attended. Meeting minutes are attached with this staff report. 6. Findings of Fact: A. The CSU Medical Center SPAR is subject to evaluation by the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. and Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 2.16. B. The location of the CSU Medical Center is consistent with the permitted uses described in the City's Structure Plan Map, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. The character of the CSU Medical Center conforms to the landscape and other design standards and guidelines adopted by CSU. D. The extent of the CSU Medical Center has been addressed through the careful integration into the surrounding context though the use of appropriate perimeter landscaping and building setbacks, architectural design consistent with CSU standards, and necessary public improvements to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation patterns attributable to the development. RECOMMENDATION: Item # 2 Page 3 16 Agenda Item 2 Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approve the CSU Medical Center, Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA150005 based on the findings of fact found in this staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map(PDF) 2. Medical Center Submittal Narrative 9.11.15 (PDF) 3. CSU medical center Fact Sheet (PDF) 4. Medical Center Plans (PDF) 5. Existing structures exhibit (PDF) 6. Existing structures assessment (PDF) 7. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes (PDF) 8. Site Plan (PDF) Item # 2 Page 4 17 University Ave G N W to Dri ASt-o N o CO i Colorado State University Edison Dr , -�W Pitkin St rk 0 GeX/00 600 300 W La °�W CD N 10 H m Colorado State University Site Open Arms Christian Preschooil Garfield St Hm dm I I I Edwards St Em mm H 71111111[� S O A � n m m v� Johnson Dr� 'W U CL cn�] c E Pitkin St ., - o� `m -Buckeye St Colorado State University a Buckeye St E Lake St CO) 3 d s �a E Pros ect Rd E �� • MEN� ME minim 11111 � Ave O E Stuart St c o 'WTrinity lutheran Church c Spring Park Dr CSU Medical Center 0 600 Feet Vicinity Map Spring Creek Park CountrvlD'av School uth Trl 1 inch = 600 feet Spring Park N W E S 18 Colo 0 University Office of Facilities Management Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 6030 Campus Delivery September 11, 2015 Jason Holland Current Planning Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: CSU Medical Center — College Avenue and Prospect Road Dear Jason, Attached is the Site Plan Advisory Review Submittal for the CSU Medical Center proposed for the corner of College Avenue and Prospect Road. The content of this submittal is the consequence of comment from and consultation with City Staff, a Neighborhood Meeting in July and insight provided by the Landmark Preservation Commission during a work session this week. We believe that this is a project that both the University and Fort Collins Community will take pride in when completed. The project is an 113,000 square foot, four story building within an approximately 4 acre site. I have attached a fact sheet on the project that goes into some detail about the programs contained within the building, and the partnership between CSU, UC Heath, and Columbine Heath Systems that is the impetus for the creation of this building on this site. This is the same fact sheet presented at the Neighborhood Meeting. The project site is bordered by College Avenue on the east, West Prospect Road on the south, Lake Street on the north, and the Mason Corridor on the west. The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System is the owner of the entire parcel, with the exception of 1407 College Avenue, which is under private ownership. The project development plan treats three of the parcels; 1405, 1407 and 1413 College Avenue, as "out parcels", and makes the assumption that the houses associated with these parcels remain. We believe that the Character, Location and Extent requirements of pertinent State Statute and City of Fort Collins SPAR requirements detailed in code are meet in the following ways: Character - The project will conform to the landscape, site furnishing and lighting standards spelled out in the CSU Aesthetic Guidelines and CSU Facilities Construction Standards Manual. Location — The CSU Medical Center places an active and prominent use at a major city intersection, and creates a gateway to the emerging Midtown redevelopment to the south, and a 19 gateway to the Colorado State University to the north and west. It directly leverages the investment of the Mason BRT, by placing the main entrance of the Medical Center within 100 feet of the Prospect BRT transit station. Extent — The Medical Center is placed set -back from both College Avenue and West Prospect Road, in an effort to reduce the extent of the visual impact of a large building, and retain the existing character of College Avenue from Prospect to Laurel, which, especially on the west side of the street, is dominated by broad lawns, extensive building setbacks and mature trees. The extent of traffic impacts this project may have on the College -Prospect intersection are mitigated by removing all but fire truck access from entering or existing the site from Prospect, placing close in parking for the site on the northwest corner of the site and leveraging the 900 space parking lot immediately north of the site between Lake and Pitkin Streets. Sincerely, Fred Haberecht, LEED AP, ASLA Assistant Director, Landscape and Planning Facilities Services Center North Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030 970,491,0162 970.491.0105 - fax 20 0 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Moson Corridor — s r-- AAIL 1�lit d 10 d rw ;� y r;,.�;r• � j �' It it I �,� dd 1 � he0. _ I� d fill ; — ;� E �� College Avenue Ft' p Colorado State University is planning to build a new, four- story medical center that will serve the health and wellness needs of CSU students and the Fort Collins community. The site is on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Prospect Road, and will serve as a gateway to campus. Student and Public Medical Services The center will house the CSU Health Network, which provides a full range of medical, optical, dental, mental health, and education and prevention services for CSU students. The facility also will enhance medical services provided to the public through tenant agreements with UCHealth and Associates in Family Medicine, including a walk-in clinic and occupational health services. The facility will provide space and a framework for a new Columbine Health Systems Center for Healthy Aging, which will conduct collaborative research on aging and educational, community outreach programs. Construction Timeline Site preparation begins this fall, with building completion slated for spring 2017. Building Specs • Four-story building • Estimated $59 million construction costs • Funded through CSU Health Network revenue, tenant leases, private donations • 4.5 acre site • 113,000 square feet LOCATION • NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROSPECT ROAD AND COLLEGE AVENUE SERVICES • CSU HEALTH NETWORK— Full range of student health services • UCHEALTH AND ASSOCIATES IN FAMILY MEDICINE — Public walk-in clinic and occupational health services • COLUMBINE HEALTH SYSTEMS CENTER FOR HEALTH AGING — Collaborative aging -related research, outreach, public and community education, CSU student learning opportunities 21 FAST FACTS INFORMATION ABOUT CSU CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: http://source.colostate.edu/constructi on -and -parking FEEDBACK ABOUT CSU CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: http://source.colostate.edu/we-want- to-hear-from-you/ MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICAL CENTER: http://source.colostate.edu/new- medical-center-planned-gateway- campus/ CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE: Site preparation start: Fall 2015 Construction completion: Spring 2017 SQUARE FOOTAGE: 113,000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST: $59 million, including: • $5 million pledged from UC Health • $5 million pledged from Bob and Kitty Wilson on behalf of Columbine Health Systems ABOUT CSU HEATTH SERVICES: Provides a full range of medical, mental health, and health education and prevention services to CSU students. • Medical services • Laboratory • Pharmacy • Physical therapy • Psychiatry and counseling • Optometry • Immunizations • Travel medicine • Allergy and asthma • Women's medicine • Dental clinic • Student health and prevention education 250 professional staff including physicians, specialists and support personnel. CURRENT NEED FOR CSU HEALTH SERVICES: Currently located in two aging buildings on campus: Aylesworth Hall and Hartshorn Health Services. • Aylesworth Hall was built in 1956 as a residence hall. Its design does not facilitate health care or counseling services. • Hartshorn was built in 1964 as an infirmary when CSU had about 9,000 students. • Since 1964, the CSU student population has almost tripled and health care needs of students have changed dramatically. • Demand for health care services already exceeds the physical capacity of both buildings. • More than half of all CSU students use the Health Network, making it one of the most widely used student services on campus, • A more efficient building design would enable CSU Health Network providers to serve up to 40 percent more students. ABOUT COLUMBINE HEALTH SYSTEMS CENTER FOR HEALTHY AGING: The center will provide office and laboratory space for collaborative research and programs. • Columbine Health Services will partner with CSU academic programs, including College of Health and Human Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, and College of Natural Sciences. • Planned research includes biological, cognitive, psychological, social and behavioral factors. • Outreach and community education. • Learning and academic opportunities for CSU students. ABOUT UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HEALTH AND ASSOCIATES IN FAMILY MEDICINE: Tenant partner to offer: • A public walk-in clinic • Public occupational health services ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS AND PARKING: The center has been intentionally designed with public and student access and parking in mind. The center entrance is directly adjacent to the MAX station on Prospect Road. Through a city and university partnership, all CSU students ride MAX for free with their student ID card, providing them with reliable, convenient transportation to the center. MAX also provides public access to the center. A nearby Around the Horn shuttle stop, a free on -campus shuttle, provides access from other areas on campus to all students, employees and campus visitors. The center may be accessed by vehicle off of College Avenue at Lake Street. Parking is available on site, with 120 spaces at the center. A new university parking garage, to be ready for occupancy before the completion of the Medical Center, is planned immediately to the north, adding 450 spaces to an existing parking lot. BUILDING SUCCESS 22 T' La COLORADO STATE UN+IVE IT�(�7� MAIN CAMPUS -Lu I a cly o. ppg milnilp WEST PROSPECT I COLORADO STATE UNIVERSI SOUTH CAMPUS CAMPUS CONTEXT MAP SEE ENLARGEMENT r • :11 IN ENLARGED VICINITY MAP A �n -. .._ -_ .,pew .,»�.$,e._.�^ '�•urr SIT a, Ate ow Ipi I. - G ;-z;. ,.. FIVA / 11 APPROXIMATE�` f�i,�( i • PROJECT _- \�J , f ' LIMITS 4 AC.j%S}a� i'`Y,tlFi icy _€401 a a. _ 4w 011 [.A '11'U' 7 r j.: (` 10%,e --z Medical Center Existing Conditions/ Site Photos SPAR Submittal AS lvlww- 411 I i 5�©Q7 Colorado yawUniversity FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ,EDSTATE UNIVERSITY I JJJJJ, Feu paming spaces w/ new structure I11)&dparking * -Spaces c r Court • � Drop OV 1 1 Medie4`j"Center 6 ` y� , omplete Spring 201 5001 : N Area r Proposed - e' ,-"AlBus Sto �i 1J-tea JJAL IL....J._ W. Prospect Rd.r ,.Im . ; !'Oak Y >' Lm mi., 11 4 Mason Corrido Transit Lake Street WayfinSignSlgn EV-Chargingjl - StatloI: 8 Stalls 24 t106 LE I P um, Lul Parking LL Lr =Space M t 4 1� 28 E Detention Area 16' r� It d a — otential Future-- — us Droo_O:ff� Maintain Existing Access I Existing Existing House Connection Mw Property Line Existing Accessfrom College Ave. Existing House Property Line _ _ Existing Accessfrom College Ave. Existing House R c Mediia(Center FFE 5001 n V V V V V V � I c W TW BW 97.0 '' ■ - "go r pect Road Trash & Recycling Limits of Work Mixed Ashlar Stone Wall: Buff/Red Mix Plaza/Patio Red Sandstone Panel Wall to Match Building Identification Signage and Monument Potential Future Condition 0'10 20' 40' - L T 9.5' 14' 14' 1.5' 7.5' 2.5' 10' 7' 17.75' Potential Future Prosp Improvements �1 Physical Therapy Area a 1 Existing Cu 1 I I I I I 1 I e J Prospect Rd. -' "- -" 16.75' 1.5' T 1.5' 15.5' 10' 10' 14' Cur 21 8' 49' 31 Futun of Tree z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j iS ect Potential Future Prospect Improvements I Existing (orb 10' 10' 15.75' 0 3 6 12' • I ST _ C "I 1 F G F a Medical Center Building Elevations 5v©vP Colorado$tateUniversify FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SPAR Submittal •111111■:eJ:i• • Medical Center Building Elevations OYA 9 5v©vP Colorado$tateUniversify FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SPAR Submittal 4 Mason Corridor Transit S �a►re �rreer Wa ndg Maintain Existing Sign Access x: EV-Ch .. Sta (1 8 ' I L Existing Connection i /2 . t I _ - e Property Line Existing Access from 24' ,o College Ave. t�/m Existing - 6' r;, a - House jW _ _ _! 1 106 d'� I Property Line Parking ' Existing Accessfroml --� Spaces r ' College Ave. - ' Existing i t House t � I �} — — 10.AA&QI - 10 1 - t Service �� €\ Court V i. „ rn m Generator/ r Transformer T " 3 — ✓CLCIILIVII Area 16' a i— . otentia 1 Medical Center FFE 5001 n 1, V V V V V V � n c W V Walk Trash & Recycling Mixed Ashlar' Wall: Buff/Re4 Plaza/Patio -I -- � Red Sandston Rehab/PhysualTherapySpac Panel Wall to 98.5 Building Identification f• _� c Signage and 9ss a BW 93.7 Monument E hlarlcedh¢�na -- I za re. ---- - - Potential Futt -�'- s_ Condition A Eliminated College Ave. access point B Eliminated Prospect Rd. access point C Shifted building to the north, providing greater setback from Prospect Rd. D Provided direct access from MAX stop to building entry E Increased size of water quality feature, removed parking F Site to take water from existing streets and detain/ treat G Plan accommodates future bus pullout transfer point for Transfort H Detached widened sidewalk per West Central Area plan vision I Preserve existing street trees where feasible along College Ave. J Manipulate grade and provide significant vegetation along service court wall to buffer from College Ave. Use enhanced material for wall. K Detached widened sidewalk along College Ave. L Plan accommodates future intersection improvements at College Ave./ Prospect Rd. M Site access on Lake Street only, align infrastructure with existing to North N Direct pedestrian access through parking lot 0 10' 20' 40' � - Mason Corrido Transit Lake Street i" Wayfinding Slgn T � _ �1f-iilFil�1'Cgl' _ / A71 rSt7t1-W.Lak1 1 w 1 I W, Lake 1 St. 1 Is 1 I Lake l --` St. L�7.. ONAIN _ 2 �7 La to '�' rTW Ol st. L 'I LxwI+LParking i' WE Spaces l 1 C ' t. 1 OM rIr n to o — � vzir r will L J 1 28 .w4 301 i` — — \"t'l Detention Area i 44� - Maintain Existing Access ]DC Existing onnection 1405 College AT ' Existing 1407 ' Hot S. College pr ry _nx ' LAsting Access fr College Ave. ' Existing 1413 �� House S. College 0'Hi IIP6 H,Q � fir! �� � � ■ L 7 S.College Av L Service 1 1417 f I S. College r7 i 1 1 w 1 Medical Center " - - 120 1 r-?"7 1 w. 1 1 w. FU001 - ., Iprospecit (prospect L Rd. ON Rd. r L � J r r - o iture— V V V V V L c � c w v c c 'U "=B.il: 1 1435 West Prospect Road Trash & Recycling r +� .LimitsofWork 7Qj j 0 + o Qj = c, a o Mixed Ashlar Stone Wall: Buff/Red Mix Plaza/Patio Red Sandstone Panel Wall to Match Building Identification Signage and I ! Monument Potential Future Condition 0' 10' 20' 40, Roa n I1 M U L T I P L E STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT 7, 2, 2 0 1 5 I R T E C URE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER SITE Site: South College Ave to Railroad Tracks West Lake Street to West Prospect Road s e t Pr A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L CORPORATION F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309, DENVER, COLOR -ADO 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL:720-260-9934 32 CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research and Background/Participants Purpose of the project: Colorado State University is in the process of assimilating 14 individual properties bounded by South College Avenue on the East, The railroad tracks and MAX on the West, East Lake Street on the West, and West Prospect Road on the South. The total property once all assimilated equates to approximately 5 Acres. At this time CSU is considering a redevelopment of the property and repurposing it as an extension of the main campus with the construction of a new 3 story Medical Center with a daylight entry lobby and circulation space, both structured and surface parking, ambulance bays, and a community outdoor healing garden. The location of the property is such that it is positioned in the furthest South East corner of the main campus and will become a Cornerstone, a point of arrival, and a first impression of the main campus for a majority of those arriving at and visiting the campus. The purpose of preparing and submitting this Multiple Structure Assessment report is best summarized as outlined in some of bullet items found in the NPS Preservation Brief 43 document as follows: Documentation to help establish significant dates or periods of construction A basis for design of recommended work A compilation of key information on the history, significance, and existing condition of the existing structures A summary of information known and conditions observed at the time of the survey A readily accessible reference document for the owners and professionals working on future projects on site A tool for use in interpretation of the structures based on historical and physical evidence A bibliography of archival documentation relevant to the structures A resource for further research and investigation A record of completed work on site Process taken to complete the report: Colorado State University first contacted AH Architecture in May of 2015 to discuss providing a Multiple Structure Assessment Report to CSU to achieve the goals stated above. CSU approved and authorized AH Architecture to proceed with the Assessment Report on 5-26-15. AH Architecture began the work shortly thereafter. Our study involved collecting information in a variety of ways and we followed the steps outlined in NPS Preservation Brief 43 as follows: Preliminary walk through of the site Photo documentation and record of each structure from the exterior-- all 4 facades Electronic filing/cataloging of the photos in the City of Fort Collins format Production of annotated site plan as a key to photos electronic and hard copy formats (3) Photo montages of each street elevation electronic and hard copy formats A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Page 1 33 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Research and review of archival documentation from the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives. On site review of the interiors of each structure Evaluation of significance Report production Discussion with the owner about future intended uses of the site and impact to existing structures Selection and rationale for the most appropriate approach for each individual structure (demolition, demo and reconstruction, moving, left as is) Development of specific work recommendations List of Consultants and Participants Involved (in alphabetical order): ➢ AH Architecture, PC. Art Hoy III, President 1615 California Street, Suite 309, Denver, CO 80202 720-932-86045 720-932-8605 fax aharchitecturekgwestoffice.net ➢ Colorado State University- Facilities Management 200 West Lake Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Michelle (Shelly) Carroll- Manager: 970-491-0167 Shelly.carroU&colostate.edu Milton Brown- Project Manager: 970-491-0307 Milton.brown&colo state. edu Fred Haberecht- Landscape Architect: 970-491-0162 Fred.haberecht&colostate.edu David Hansen- Landscape Architect: 970-491-0318 David.hansen&colostate.edu ➢ Colorado State University- Research Foundation (CSURF) 2535 Research Blvd., Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Jeanie Weber- Residential Property Manager, Real Estate: 970-492-4521 j eanie.weber&colostate.edu e ➢ Fort Collins Museum of Discovery~ Archives Jenny Hannifin- Research Assistant 408 mason Court, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 970-221-6688 www.history.fcgov.com Milton.browngcolostate. edu ➢ Stewart Environmental Consultants, LLC Hazardeous materials site evaluation Robert (Bob) Blinderman- Environmental Services Manager 3801 Automation Way, Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970-226-5500 Bob.blinderman&stewartenv com A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Page 2 34 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1.2 Project site Location Address: The project site is located in the community of Fort Collins, Colorado. The City of Fort Collins is the county seat and the most populous municipality of Larimer County. Situated on the Cache La Poudre River along the Colorado Front Range, Fort Collins is located 65 miles north of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver. With a 2014 estimated population of 156,480, it is the fourth most populous city in Colorado after Denver, Colorado Springs, and Aurora. Fort Collins is a midsize college city, home to Colorado State University. It was named Money magazine's Best Place to live in the U.S. in 2006, No. 2 in 2008, and No. 6 in 2010. It is also known as one of the towns that inspired the design of Main Street, U.S.A. for the Walt Disney Company properties. Overall Area Map: 34 Aa� 7�[a F z 09. .0i"W A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Page 3 35 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Colorado State University is a key component in Fort Collins community and is located just South of the heart of the historic downtown core. Colorado State University is a land-grant institution classified as a Carnegie Doctoral/RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity). CSU was founded as Colorado Agricultural College in 1870, six years before the Colorado Territory gained statehood. It was one of 68 land-grant colleges established under the Morrill Act of 1862. Doors opened to a freshman class of 1 student in 1879. The campus is actively undergoing tremendous growth and additions to the infrastructure, facilities and amenities. This project site is located in the furthest South East corner of the campus and as such is a key location along South College Avenue for the campus as it continues its growth and the completion of the urban block defining the main campus proper. Campus Map: 7 IF/.t1611Y/A'[Mtt Wt$1MIIDdVR mIN wR x J g�g A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E O R A T I O N COLORADO, 80202 Page 4 Project Site C T U R E F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 36 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Legal Description: There are (14) individual properties which in sum comprise the Medical Center site, and 16 properties included in this assessment within an area bounded by South College Avenue on the East, The railroad tracks and MAX on the West, East Lake Street on the West, and West Prospect Road on the South. The total property once all assimilated equates to about 5 Acres. The property at 1407 South College Avenue is excluded from this assessment. Site Map: A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Pager) 37 CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 2.1 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROPERTIES SOUTH t ,LLEGEAVENI 1. 1405 South College Avenue East Facade West Facade South Facade Owner(s): Verner F. & Eugene M. Sorensen developers (Sorensens FTC subdivision) John E. & Lorene K. Clarke original owners The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca. 1920's Assessed Value: $8,640 original construction costs on record Misc Data: 72' x 180'= 12,906SF original lot size, 58'x180'=10,44 SF re -platted ca.1957, 1928 remodeled for Gamma Phi Beta Sorority at CSU, footprint is about 44'x50' = 2,131SF Condition: We found the home and the property fully occupied and well maintained throughout. It is currently inhabited by the CSU Trio House. Architectural Significance: This home is not a pure example of any one architectural style but a combination of many differing elements. It is `Neoeclectic' and could be described as `Neo- Tudor'. Like it's pre 1940 Tudor predecessors, it is characterized by multiple dominate front facing gables with steeply pitched roofs. Missing is the half timbered gable end detailing. With the addition of the continuous porch and walk out terrace in 1969 the style and expression has become more `Modern American' suburban tract home like. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 6 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Recommendations: In the short term we recommend that the home remain on the property as is and continue to function as the CSU Trio House. At some point in the future as spatial needs change we feel the home is of the scale that an adaptive re -use could be accommodated allowing the home to remain on the property. However, it is not a architecturally historically significant structure and could be removed by demolition if the need arises in the future to make way for redevelopment opportunities. 1405 South College Avenue- Historical Photos r. M Ca.1948- no porch originally simple elevated concrete stoop with arched doorway and gable projection over door i Ca. 1969- continuous porch with railing and walk out terrace at level 2 added in 1957 A H A R C H I T E C A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE Page 7 A T U R E A R C H I T E C T U R E 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 39 j Ott A VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1413 South ColleLve Avenue West Facade South Facade Owner(s): Kenneth G. Medearis� original owner The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca.1925 Assessed Value: $5,060 assessed in 1948, $9,890 assessed in 1979 Misc Data: 72' x 180' = 125960 SF original lot, 58'x180' = 105440 SF re -platted ca.1957 Condition: We found the home and the property fully occupied and well maintained throughout. It is currently inhabited by the CSU Confucius Institute. Architectural Significance: This 30'x48', 1.300 SF, 2 story over basement home is an example of an `Eclectic Tudor' style common in American from 1890-1940. It embodies the steeply pitched roofs, gentle curved roof eave, side gables, brick wall cladding, masonry chimney, recessed entry porch with arched opening, double hung divided light windows. It is somewhat of a stripped down Tudor missing the common decorative half timbers and stucco at the gabled ends, decorative brick work, massive multiple chimneys with round decorative caps and ornamentation in the brick and strap work. Although not an architecturally significant example of the Tudor style it has good street presence and is a positive contribution to the urban street scape. Recommendations: We recommend that the home remain on the property. At some point in the future as spatial needs change we recommend the home be incorporated into the Master Plan with an adaptive re -use and potentially be set in a garden like setting with the traditional street facing approach maintained in some capacity. We feel the facade facing S. College Avenue should remain intact and unobstructed in the future and that any proposed additions occur on the back/ West side and be done in an Architecturally compatible manner. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 9 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 41 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1415 South ColleLve Avenue West Facade North South Facade Owner(s): Henry B. & Dorothy M. Brack original owners The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1955 Assessed Value: $4,220 original construction cost Misc Data: 34'x57' = 15607 SF footprint, originally open front porch with low brick wall and corner pier, 300 SF addition in 1964, 22'x26' garage added at some point in time which today is utilized as finished occupied space with a roof deck above. Condition: We found the home full with boxes and miscellaneous furniture items, although it did not appear to be occupied at this time. The exterior of the home was in a state of active deterioration and the property marginally maintained. Architectural Significance: This home is of the `Modern American' style which commonly dominated the tract housing developments of that era. With the economic depression of the 30's came this compromise style which reflects the form of traditional eclectic houses but lacks their details. It is an ordinary example of that style and not a historically significant structure. Recommendations: We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 10 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 42 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1415 South College Avenue- Historical Photo Ca. 1948- Original elevated open front porch with corner brick pier, low brick walls A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 1I R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 43 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1417 South ColleLve Avenue East Facade West Facade South Facade bab OEM ONE now ENO ORM Owner(s): Ronald J. & Matilda R. Roland owners from 1962-1977 Jonathan Alder & James A. Bower owners from 1979-1983 Bruenger� dates of ownership not known The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1960 Assessed Value: $6,590 original construction cost Misc Data: 34'x40' = 1,360 SF footprint, 20'x18' detached garage (no longer on the property) Condition: The home is currently occupied by ABLC, Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc. and in good condition and being well maintained on the exterior and the property. The interior was unavailable for review at the time of this assessment. Architectural Significance: This home is an adaptation of the Dutch Colonial style with the rural Gambrel roof variant. Aside from the Gambrel roof It's features that are consistent with the Dutch Colonial style are the centered and accentuated front door, flanking pilasters, symmetrically balanced windows, double hung window sashes with divided lights, paired windows, continuous shed dormer at front, shutters. The surviving original Dutch Colonials can be found in Richmond, VA to Albany NY. The identifying features of those originals that differ from this home are stone masonry construction, one story (sometimes 1-1/2 stories, rarely 2 stories), a pure simple form with no additional wings like at this home on the West side, chimneys centered at both ends of the Gambrel roof (not offset) Although this is a nice home and in good condition, it is not a particularly architecturally significant example of the Dutch Colonial style Recommendations. We recommend that the home be offered for moving and relocation. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 12 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 MA VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1417 South College Avenue- Historical Photo Ca. 1948- Side trellised pergola leading to detached garage, all surfaces painted monochromatic white except for upper roof shakes A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Page 13 45 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 1419 South ColleLve Avenue East C West Facade Owner(s): r� -i ♦T Jf North Facade South Facade original owner(s) unknown Clarence J. Streit dates of ownership unknown The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca 1948 Assessed Value: $2,440 original construction cost Misc Data: 28'x50' = 15400 SF footprint with a 28'xT full front porch Condition: The home is currently vacant and in an active state of disrepair on the exterior, interior and the property. We found the site has been actively utilized by vagrants and college students for evening gatherings around the campfire. Fire Department arrived to put out an active fire left from the previous evenings activities. The garage was sleeping quarters to at least one individual at the time of the assessment. Architectural Significance: This home is also of the `Modern American' style but also mixes in some components from a `Ranch' style home. Elements of the Modern American style are low or intermediate roof pitches, large chimney, one front facing gable, wood clap board siding, small one story, combined with the Ranch style overhanging eaves and rakes in lieu of close as in the Modern style. Recommendations. In the short term the property should be fenced off to keep intruders out and help reduce a potentially dangerous situation. We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 14 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 me CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT ' State Project # 14-027 1421 South ColleLve Avenue V. West Facade South Facade Owner(s): Clarence J. Streit owner from 1948-1977 Jonathan Alder & James A. Bower owners from 1979-1983 Bruenger� dates of ownership unknown The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca. 1948 Assessed Value: $3,650 original construction cost Misc Data: 36'x26' = 936 SF footprint, 20'x18' detached garage, lot 100'x180' = 18,000 SF Condition: The home is currently unoccupied and vacant. We found the home in good condtion on the exterior and the interior. The property was in a state of neglect. Architectural Significance: Like 1417, this home is an adaptation of the Dutch Colonial style with the rural Gambrel roof variant. Aside from the Gambrel roof It's features that are consistent with the Dutch Colonial style are the centered and accentuated front door, flanking pilasters, symmetrically balanced windows, double hung window sashes with divided lights, paired windows, continuous shed dormer at front. Although this is a nice home and in good condition, it is not a particularly architecturally significant example of the Dutch Colonial style Recommendations: We recommend that the home be offered for moving and relocation. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 15 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 47 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Detached Garage- East 9• Detached Garage�West Facade Detached Garage South Facade 1421 South College Avenue- Historical Photo Ca. 1948 A H A R C H I T E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 Page 16 C T U R E F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 n• VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 West Facade North F South Facade Owner(s): Clarence J. Streit original owner The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca 1948 Assessed Value: $3,810 original construction cost Misc Data: 32'x40' = 15568 SF footprint with a 14'x11' front porch, 12'x25' garage, lot size 50'x180' = 93000 SF Condition: The home is currently vacant and in moderate condition on the exterior, interior and the property. The home had previously been re -purposed as commercial space for the company Blue Massage. We found the site has been actively utilized by vagrants and one individual was occupying the front porch. Although a friendly person and quite knowledgable about All of the homes on the property and the conditions of their interiors the situation is somewhat unsafe. Architectural Significance: This home is a `Ranch' style home. This style originated in the mid 30's and gained popularity by the 40's to become the dominate style through the 50's and 60's. The `Rambling Ranch' replaced the previous compact homes as the automobile gave rise to the suburbs and bigger lots. Elements of the Ranch style and this home are asymmetrical one story, low pitched roofs with cross gables and side gables, overhanging eaves and rakes in lieu of close as in the Modern style. We found nothing architecturally significant about this Ranch style home. Recommendations. In the short term the property should be fenced off to keep intruders out and help reduce a potentially dangerous situation. We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 17 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 2.2 WEST LAKE STREET PROPERTIES 111 West Lake Street West Facade Owner(s): South Facade Mrs. J. Siebert original owner George E. & Helen J. Fischer date of ownership unknown The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1926 Assessed Value: $3,000 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 30'x40' = 1,200 single story home with a finished attic space. Condition: The home is currently being occupied by CSU, EOC. The exterior of the home was found to be in fair condition and the property marginally maintained. Architectural Significance: This home is of the `Modern American' style which commonly dominated the tract housing developments just preceding and post WWII era. With the economic depression of the 30's came this compromise style which reflects the form of traditional eclectic houses but lacks their details. Roof pitches are low or intermediate, eaves and rakes are close, usually one fireplace chimney, front facing gables, typically just one story, frame construction with wood siding, brick, stone or a combination of those materials Recommendations: We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components. A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Page 19 50 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 117 West Lake Street West Facade Owner(s): original owner(s) unknown A.L. Fox 1925 South Facade Miss Davis 1936 Katharine Roufs� 1944 Allied Investors Inc. 1948-1977 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca. 1920 Assessed Value: $1,430 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 28'x40' = 1,120 single story home with a 16'xT enclosed front porch (added in 1925), 10'x18' detached garage (added in 1926 but no longer on the property) Condition: The home is currently vacant. The exterior of the home was found to be in fair condition and the property marginally maintained. Architectural Significance: This home is a `Ranch' style home. This is a typical example of the `Rambling Ranch' previously described. Elements of the Ranch style and this home are asymmetrical one story, low pitched roofs with cross gables and side gables, overhanging eaves and rakes, wood siding. We found nothing architecturally significant about this Ranch style home. Recommendations. We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H I T E C T U R E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 Page 20 51 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 119 West Lake Street West Facade North Facade South Facade Owner(s): Joseph Wendell & Elise M. Vansant~ original owners Arthur Collamer� 1926 W.B. Vansant� 1949 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1923 Assessed Value: $1,940 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 34'x24' = 816 single story home, 20'x24' detached garage Condition: The home is currently vacant. The exterior of the home was found to be in fair condition and the property in fair condition Architectural Significance: This home is a very simple stripped down `Ranch' style home. It is not of the `Rambling Ranch' variety but a simple rectangular box. Elements of the Ranch style and this home are one story, low pitched roofs, however here there are no cross gables or side gables, overhanging eaves and rakes, wood and shingle siding. We found nothing architecturally significant about this Ranch style home. Recommendations: We recommend that the home and garage be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 21 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 52 . 1 1 � 1 J11 1 1 n 1 • T ate_ jr Gpa VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 121 West Lake Street West Facade South Facade Owner(s): Arthur Collamer�original owner The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca. 1900 Assessed Value: $1,500 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 28'x28' = 784 SF single story home, 16'x18' detached garage (added in 1937), there was an addition added in 1934 (most likely the cross gable portion), back porch was enclosed in 1947 Condition: The home is vacant and we found it boarded up and was in a state of active deterioration. The landscaping was unmaintained in actively taking over the home and the property. Architectural Significance: This home is also of the `Modern American' style in a Minimal Tradition sense but also mixes in some components from a `Ranch' style home. Elements of the Modern American style are low or intermediate roof pitches, wood clap board siding, small one story, combined with the Ranch style overhanging eaves and rakes and a simple cross gable. Recommendations: We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 23 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 54 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Detached Garage�West Facade A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, Detached Garage North Facade I T E O R A T I O N COLORADO, 80202 Page 24 C T U R E F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 55 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 131 West Lake Street East Facade West Facade South Facade Owner(s): Louis M. Clark original owner The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1940 Assessed Value: $2,165 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 30'x22" = 660 SF single story home with basement, 12'x22' detached garage, 20'x15' detached shop Condition: The home appeared to have active rental tenants in it. The upstairs and downstairs are each individual apartments with separate access. The condition of the exterior was fair with some foundation cracking and deterioration of the siding. The interior was not available for review at time of the assessment. The exterior landscaping was also in fair condition and somewhat being maintained. Architectural Significance: This home is also of the `Modern American' style in a Minimal Tradition sense as previously noted for other properties. Elements of the Modern American style are low or intermediate roof pitches, wood clap board siding, small one story, combined with the Ranch style overhanging eaves and rakes and a simple cross gable. Recommendations: We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 25 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 56 �� rr�warn ��•. r�ivi i.r w��..��P•r—: -� lP Kli�i v P M P •' • k k .Z . •� .� ��- a,` kl ` CYO 1 i POP .•��� N �.TAItlpY' V•war i VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 133 West Lake Street East Facade West Facade North Facade 11 :"* i' South Facade Owner(s): Cecil G.& Harry B. Staner�original owners Louis M. Clark 1938 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1920 Assessed Value: $1,940 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 20'x34' = 680 SF single story home with basement with a 15'x8' front porch (added in 1937), 12'x18' detached garage (added in 1937), 12'x8' detached chicken coop Condition: The home is vacant at this time and appears to be occupied from time to time with unsolicited guests as the interior smelled strongly of marijuana and the walls were exhibiting fresh graffiti artwork. The exterior is in good condition and the interior is in poor condition. The landscaping is not being maintained and is deteriorating. Architectural Significance: This home is a `Modern American' style in a `Minimal Tradition' sense as previously noted for other properties. This is a frame building with stone veneer that gives it some architectural character and some presence from the street. We do not find it architecturally historically significant but the stone veneer does render it with some character. Recommendations. We recommend that the home and the detached garage be offered up for moving off site. Should that offer not come through then we recommend that the structures be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials (stone veneer) and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 27 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Detached Garage East Detached Garage West Facade W, V J Detached Garage South Facade Detached Chicken Coop South East Detached Chicken Coop North West A H A R C H I T E A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, COLORADO, 80202 Page 28 C T U R E F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 59 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 137 West Lake Street West Facade Owner(s): C.M. Moore original owner Otto & Hazel G. Aron�1945 North South Facade Edward D. Schelhaas� 1961 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1928 Assessed Value: $2,010 original construction cost Misc Data: This is a very simple 24'x37' = 888 SF single story home with basement with a small elevated front stoop, 20'x18' detached garage (converted into a shop space) Condition: The home is vacant at this time and was previously set up as 2 rental units- one main floor, one in the basement. The exterior is in good condition and the interior is in fair condition. The landscaping is not being maintained and is deteriorating. Architectural Significance: This home is also of the `Modern American' style in a Minimal Tradition sense but also mixes in some components from a `Ranch' style home. Elements of the Modern American style are low or intermediate roof pitches, wood clap board siding, small one story, combined with the Ranch style overhanging eaves and rakes and a simple cross gable. Recommendations: We recommend that the home and detached garage be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 29 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 S arti,. e CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 2.3 WEST PROSPECT ROAD PROPERTIES 116 West Prospect Road West Facade Owner(s), WEST PROSPECT ROAD South Facade R.M. Flinn & Edwin A. Miller original owners Clarence J. Streit dates of ownership unknown The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: 1951 Assessed Value: $9,000 original construction cost Misc Data: This 32'x32' = 13024 SF footprint is a frame structure, 5 room over a full basement. The upstairs and downstairs are each individual apartments with separate access. 14'x20' detached garage Condition: The home is vacant at this time but there is evidence that the backyard area is being used after hours for gatherings around a fire pit. The condition of the exterior and the interior was in poor condition with active deterioration in process. There are graffiti walls on the home the detached garage. The exterior landscaping was in very poor condition and not being maintained at this time and in a state of extreme deterioration A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 31 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 62 CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT State Project # 14-027 Architectural Significance: This home is Ranch style home and does not have any architectural historical significance to it. Recommendations: We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. Detached Garage�West Facade Stone Marker in yard A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, Detached North Facade Detached Garage South Facade I T E O R A T I O N COLORADO, 80202 Page 32 C T U R E F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 63 VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 120 West Prospect Road West Facade Owner(s): North Facade South Facade R.M. Flinn & Edwin A. Miller original owners Clarence J. Streit 1977-2015 The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System current owner Date of Construction: ca. 1950's Assessed Value: original construction cost unknown no permit information on file Misc Data: This is a one story frame structure with brick veneer over a full basement. 24'x64' _ 13536 SF footprint. The upstairs and downstairs are subdivided into multiple individual apartments (2 up, 2 down) with separate access. 20'x24' detached garage (added in 1960) Condition: The home is vacant at this time. Cutting Edge Masonry is utilizing the detached garage as a storage work space and appears to be using the property for vehicle staging as well as the landscape around the home as employee break space. The exterior of the home is in fair condition and the interior is in poor condition due to the nature of student rental use of the spaces. The exterior landscaping is in poor condition with the exception of the West side lawn panel which appears to be actively maintained at this time. Architectural Significance: This home is Ranch style home of the `Rambling type' previously discussed. It does not have any architectural historical significance to it. Recommendations. We recommend that the home be removed from the property by means of demolition in order to make room for site redevelopment. Salvage companies should be consulted to bid on the salvage of any building materials and components to reduce the amount of materials exported for landfill. A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E C T U R A T I O N F O R A R C H I T E COLORADO, 80202 PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL Page 33 R E C T U R E 720-260-9934 •A VZOI CSU MEDICAL CENTER SITE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT - State Project # 14-027 Detached East Facade Detached Garage�West Facade Detached North Facade Detached Garage South Facade White Motel Corporation- Commercial Strip Retail on this site ca.1961 A H A R C H A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P 1615 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 309 DENVER, I T E O R A T I O N COLORADO, 80202 Page 34 C T U R E F O R A R C H I T E C T U R E PHONE: 720-932-8604 CELL: 720-260-9934 65 City of Fort Collins NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES PROJECT: CSU Medical Center Site Plan Advisory Review DATE: July 15, 2015 APPLICANT: Colorado State University CITY PLANNER: Jason Holland The meeting began with Jason Holland providing an explanation of the Site Plan Advisory Review Process, next steps in the review, and an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules. Fred Haberecht, Assistant Director of Landscape and Planning for Colorado State University, provided an overview of the Medical Center project as well as an overview of campus improvements anticipated to be constructed through 2017 including: chemistry and biology buildings, new campus stadium, South College parking garage, Aggie Village, horticulture center, Research Blvd. parking garage, biological therapies building, and equine hospital projects. During the course of the Q&A, Mr. Haberecht presented extensive information about the plan including: • 120 surface parking spaces are provided adjacent to the Medical Center; • 920 parking spaces are planned to the north of East Lake Street with a new parking garage and surface lot; • "Around the Horn" bus shuttle will have a convenient bus stop nearby on East Lake Street; • Bike lockers and showers will be available in the Medical Center buildings, with the intent that the facility will serve as a hub for commuters; • Pedestrian and bicycle circulation provided with the plan, landscape and outdoor spaces provided and building design. Ann Hudgens, CSU Health Director, presented information and answered questions related to the Medical Center building program and operations. The facility includes approximately 110,000 square feet and will include an urgent care clinic with after-hours care, a medical clinic, aging research and other support facilities. The facility will primarily serve CSU students, but will also have available serves for the public, and is occupied in partnership with UC Health and Columbine Health. Associates in Family Medicine will also have a branch office incorporated into the facility. it 0 QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: 1. Question: (Citizen) What intersection improvements are planned? Response: (CSU) Mr. Haberecht explained that this is based on the traffic study, and that CSU is continuing to meet with City staff and the Colorado Department of Transportation to discuss potential improvements and costs. 2. Question: (Citizen) Are you sure there are enough parking spaces? Response: (CSU) CSU explained that in addition to the surface parking proposed on the site plan, which includes 123 parking spaces, additional parking will be available in the new parking garage directly north of the Medical Center. 3. Question: (Citizen) How many residents will be served other than students? Response: (CSU) Difficult to provide a general number or percentage. The UC Health facility located on the ground floor will also be available to residents and CSU staff. Of the 110,000 square feet proposed, less than 15% is for external visits (other than students). Primary focus will be on CSU students/staff. 4. Question: (Citizen) What is proposed in the 4t" floor? Response: (CSU) Currently no plans to finish out this space, this will be an expansion area. 5. Question: (Citizen) You mentioned Associates in Family Medicine, what will they have there? Response: (CSU) They will have a branch office. 6. Question: (Citizen) Will the existing CSU insurance options change? Response: (CSU) This stays the same. 7. Question: (Citizen) How does the square footage with the new building compare with the existing campus facility? Response: (City) Significantly more than current facility. Need a plan that anticipates growth. (General discussion followed explaining the condition of the current campus facilities that are used and the need for a new consolidated facility with room to expand services). 8. Question: (Citizen) What is the future of the existing Heartshorn Center and Aylesworth Hall? Response: (CSU) Demolition likely. Heartshorn could be used as greenspace or for other campus services. (General discussion followed explaining the long-standing issues and deficiencies related to the buildings). K 67 9. Question: (Citizen) What about parking along the railroad right of way? Response: (CSU) We do have some existing parking in the 100' railroad right of way, based on old agreements we have, but no additional parking is planned in those areas. 10. Question: (Citizen) What about park and ride for the MAX? Will the CSU parking garage be available for this? Response: (CSU) No, a permit will be required. CSU parking must be self -funded. The university did lose some parking inventory with the MAX implementation. 11. Question: (Citizen) Are improvements planned for better pedestrian connectivity to the east? Response: (CSU) Yes, improvements to the west trail connection for the underpass are planned with the parking garage. 12. Question: (Citizen) Construction logistics / routes? Response: (CSU) Lake and Prospect will be the primary routes. The primary access will be through a left turn onto Lake Street. 13. Question: (Citizen) Are changes to the Lake/College intersection planned? Response: (CSU) Lake Street will be modified to increase the lane stacking. 14. Question: (Citizen) What about the flow out of the site, is that an issue? Response: (CSU) We haven't seen that as an issue, primarily the flow will be a right -out from Lake onto College. 15. Question: (Citizen) I'm very concerned with the lack of parking for the MAX stop. CSU is seizing this public transit stop and surrounding it with parking that's not available to the public. The project limits public parking opportunities close to MAX. Response: (CSU) CSU staff generally responded that they see the stop as a destination and not as a park and ride stop. 16. Comment: (Citizen) Are the 120 spaces enough for all of the staff? Response: (CSU) Within the context of the campus, there are 10,000 parking spaces available and there are other parking opportunities in close proximity to the medical center. 17. Comment: (Citizen) I'm really concerned with the current Prospect/College intersection. How will this be addressed? Are the master improvements planned for the intersection? How will intersection be fixed? Response: (CSU) CSU explained that they are continuing to meet with City staff and the Colorado Department of Transportation to discuss potential improvements to the intersection, who pays for what and the timing of the improvements. Response: (City) Jason Holland also explained that as far as master improvements around all parts of the intersection, there has been a lot of discussion but we don't know k, yet what all of the possible solutions are given the existing constraints. Dual eastbound and westbound lefts have been discussed and longer stacking lanes. With the medical center, there will be room for some of the improvements, but for other improvements we don't know yet. 18. Comment: (Citizen) What will happen with the existing buildings along College? Response: (CSU) Options being explored are to remove, salvage or demolish these buildings. (CSU staff also explained that they we will be going to the Landmark Preservation Commission). 19. Comment: (Citizen) How are the buildings being documented? Response: (CSU) This is to be determined. 20. Comment: (Citizen) What about moving the buildings? Response: (CSU) Possible, need to explore the timing/costs and whether moving the buildings is appropriate. 21. Comment: (Citizen) Are the buildings currently under CSU ownership? Response: (CSU) Not yet, but they will be shortly. With no more questions, the meeting adjourned and there were informal discussions in various groups. M Wayfind�g Ill Sign Maintain Existing Access 4 Mason 1 Corridor Transit St 91 : I @ Connection 'I /ILiosutisng Existing 0 Am `17-�ss from Ave ILL; MFA+U P Ow UJI-1 House IExisting I Property Line LEL P IkinUNExisting Access trom ILL, me College Ave. aces U10— ILL, ILLolow LHous! .LJ ' r j 4 .. VIM k` Drop -Off_= -- _=-- Medical Center JV .lid E i ,irlegnab a; .-.99.54 tic BW ,, o u a ;}, .,4 Twriiv — ran■ '1■Ir, -G .ii - -•. _ r B x I wcsT rk�s zi�z�rrnwe-si Prospe Road _ A Eliminated College Ave. access point O Widen trail section for pedestrians ng B Eliminated Prospect Rd. access point Mason Trail C Shifted building to the north, providing greater setback from Prospect Rd. P Protect Significant trees on site 1 D Provided direct access from MAX stop to building entry Q Widen College Ave. Sidewalk to 10' E Increased size of water quality feature, removed parking F Site to take water from existing streets and detain/ treat G Plan accommodates future bus pullout transfer point for Transfort H Detached widened sidewalk per West Central Area plan vision I Preserve existing street trees where feasible along College Ave. J Manipulate grade and provide significant vegetation along service court wall to buffer from College Ave. Use enhanced material for wall. K Detached widened sidewalk along College Ave. L Plan accommodates future intersection improvements at College Ave./ Prospect Rd. M Site access on Lake Street only, align infrastructure with existing to North N Direct pedestrian access through parking lot 0 10' 20' 40' � - .. aaaa 4�QaaQ E L. Medical Center Site Plan SPAR Submittal SAWS P 5�©Q7 Colorado State University FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ,EDSTATE U..EFT5.. COMPOST METAL FASCIA PANELS PREFINISHED METAL WALL PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND SUNSHADES COLORADO RED SANDSTONE PANELS COMPOSITE METAL FASCIA PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CURTAINWALL AND SUNSHADES STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER CSU 00.20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE FIN WALL STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER ALUMINUMSTOREFRONT CURTAINWALL AND SUNSHADES CSU 80.20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE FIN WALLS CSU 80'.W BUFF ASHLAR STONE CUD WALL CSU 80:20 BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS CBU MM BUFF ASHUR STONE CUD SITE WALLS STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTRII BACKER CSU 00'.20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE FIN WALLS — OSU 8020 BUFF ASHUR STONE COLORADO RED SANDSTONE CUD FIN WALLS CSU 80:2D BUFF ASHLAR STONE CUD SITE WALLS STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER CSU 80:20 BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS CSU SON BUFF ASHUR STONE CUD SITE WALLS COLORADO RED SANDSTONE CUD SITE WALLS I ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CURTAINWALL AND SUNSHADES STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER COMPOSITE METAL FASCIA PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CSU 80 N BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS PREFINISHED METAL WALL PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS COLORADO RED SANDSTONE PANELS CSU WIN BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS PREFINISHED METAL WALL PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND SUNSHADES COLORADO RED SANDSTONE PANELS COMPOSITE METAL FASCIA PANELS CSU 5O.20 BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT PREFINISHED METAL WALL PANELS CURTAINWALL AND SUNSHADES ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND SUNSHADES COLORADO RED SANDSTONE PANELS MEDICAL CENTE � Shb UMwMIb MEDICAL CENTER C010IW0 SMI UMVMtRV ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CURTAINWALL AND SUNSHADES MEDICAL CENTER Cdun0a Slits Uo w"y COMPOSITE METAL FASCIA PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CURTAINWALL CSU 80.20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE FIN WALLS CSU SIT W BUFF ASHLAR STONE CUD SITE WALLS COLORADO RED SANDSTONE CLAD SITE WALLS STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER ALUMINUM STOREFRONT CURTAINWALL AND SUNSHADES CSU 00.20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE FIN WALLS CSU 80:20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE CUD WALL STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER CSU SO'.20 BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS CSU 80'.20 BUFF ASHLAR STONE CUD SITE WALLS STUCCO SOFFIT ON CEMENTITIOUS BACKER CSU 8020 BUFF ASHUR STONE FIN WALLS CSU 8020 BUFF ASHLAR STONE CUD SITE WALLS Agenda Item 3 PROJECT NAME AFFINITY AT FORT COLLINS STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT This Project Development Plan (PDP) would create 161 new apartment DESCRIPTION: units for seniors (age 55 and up) on an undeveloped 8.4-acre parcel accessed from Corbett Drive, north of Lowes home improvement store. The units are all contained in a single three-story building with a footprint of 62,731 square feet. Units are a mix of 1 and 2-bedroom units totaling 246 bedrooms. A community building with a pool anchors a 1.3-acre multi -use outdoor space with walkways, gardens, BBQ area, and recreational features. 263 parking spaces are provided in a mix of surface parking, garage spaces, and carport spaces. Access is via a private drive extended northward from the cul-de-sac terminus of Corbett Drive. The access configuration is largely directed by City Engineering, Transportation, and Planning staff. Modifications of standards are requested for wall length of perimeter garages, a buffer yard setback for perimeter garages, and to allow the private drive access configuration mentioned above. APPLICANT: Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Affinity at Fort Collins, LLC 1620 N Mamer Road, Bldg B Spokane Valley, WA 99216 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Modifications of Standards to Land Use Code subsections 3.5.2(G)(1)(a), and 3.8.30(F)(1); Section 3.5.2(D); and approval of Affinity at Fort Collins #PDP150010. Item # 3 Page 1 73 Agenda Item 3 b A LOCATION MAP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The site is zoned Harmony Corridor (H-C) zone district. Staff has evaluated the request under applicable sections of the Land Use Code (code). Staff finds that all issues have been addressed in compliance with the code, including three Modifications of standards and one land use Modification previously approved by the Board; and that the plan is consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive Plan. Item # 3 Page 2 74 Agenda Item 3 STAFF COMMENTS. 1, PLANNING 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. Residential use is permitted on this site by a Modification of standard approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on October 9, 2014. 2, SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES The property is surrounded by existing development on the north, west, and south sides with no opportunity for interconnectivity. 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 Employment residential properties along Ziegler Road 3, COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS Article 4 of the Land Use Code contains standards for the various zoning districts throughout the City. The subject property is zoned H-C Harmony Corridor, Division 4.26 of the Land Use Code. The zoning district contains few standards applicable to this site under 10 acres with a single principal building. Staff finds that the PDP complies with the applicable H-C zoning district standards, as follows. Minimum Density in the H-C Zone A density standard requires at least 7 dwelling units per acre for residential uses. The plan density is 19 dwelling units per acre. Building Height in the H-C Zone The maximum height of multifamily buildings in the H-C zone is three stories. The proposed building is three stories. Item # 3 Page 3 75 Agenda Item 3 Central Feature or Gathering Place for Residential H-C Zone A standard requires access to a park, central feature or gathering space easily accessible to residents. The plan includes a 1.3-acre outdoor space with a community pool building that exceeds the minimum requirements. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT CITYWIDE Article 3 of the Land Use Code contains standards for all development citywide to be used in conjunction with zoning district standards. Staff finds that the project complies with all applicable General Development Standards, with three Modifications. Staff comments below follow the order of Article 3. Landscaping Standards Code Section 3.2.1 requires a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the drives and walkways, parking, buildings, abutting properties, and users on the site in a manner appropriate to the neighborhood context. The plan provides a tree -lined access drive, and tree -lined walkways to the main entrance of the building. Perimeter landscaping is provided as required along vehicular use areas, and along required buffer yards abutting single family residential development. Parking lot islands provide shade trees and landscaping as required. Turf grass and shrub bed areas are provided in appropriate locations around buildings and their entrances, and different use areas within the site such as a pickle ball court, gardens, detention pond, and walkways. At the northeast corner of the site, an existing abutting patio home is close to the property line, and has numerous south -facing windows. That homeowner was concerned about the development and the plan includes landscaping arranged in consultation with that owner. Staff will follow up in the Final Plan stage with more detailed attention to exact plant species and placements of materials, to ensure that the landscaping is carried through to accomplish the functions indicated on the PDP. Access and Circulation Standards Code Section 3.2.2 requires safe, convenient, efficient access and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. The plan provides access and circulation with private drives with flanking walkways. These facilities connect directly to the nearest street, Corbett Drive, which terminates in a cul de sac 130 feet south of the property. The configuration of this connection to Corbett Drive is directed by City staff in Transportation, Engineering, and Planning. Pedestrian/Bicycle and Emergency Access Connections: an emergency access connection is provided to an abutting cul-de-sac, Kingsley Court, which terminates six feet north of the property line in the English Ranch South subdivision. This connection provides pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between English Ranch on the north and Front Range Village shopping center on the south side of the site. A 10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle path spans the east side of the site to link those existing Item # 3 Page 4 76 Agenda Item 3 developments for the benefit of their users. This new drive/walkway system would replace an existing interim asphalt path connection that was built with the shopping center for access to and from English Ranch. Stub for Potential Future Connection: the southern edge of the site consists of a tree -lined drive and walkway in a public access easement stubbed to the west property line. This allows for a possible future connection to the west, in the event that a change in the abutting mobile home park would ever warrant a connection among properties. Currently, the mobile home park property has no connections along its east edge, which is almost'/2 mile long. The main entry drive area is highlighted with permeable pavers, which enhances the pedestrian orientation of the main entry area. Internal walkways provide circulation among the outdoor use areas within the site, including to and from the clubhouse. Bike Parking Standard 246 bicycle parking spaces are required by code standard 3.2.2(C)(4). The proposed project provides these required spaces, with the required 60% of spaces in enclosed parking areas. Vehicle Parking Quantity Standard The code requires 263 parking spaces for the 161 units. The plan complies with 263 spaces. Requirements are found in Section 3.2.2(K). Site Lighting Standards Lighting includes decorative pedestrian fixtures along walkways, parking lot lighting in landscape islands and along the eastern drive, and building -mounted fixtures on the buildings and under carports. Lighting will be down -directional, sharp cutoff fixtures in compliance with standards in Section 3.2.4. Building and Project Compatibility Standards Standards in Section 3.5.1 require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. The context of the area includes single family development in English Ranch South, Harmony Mobile Home Park, and the back side of Lowes home improvement store. The large main building is separated from abutting residential development by landscaped buffer yards, perimeter garages which essentially have the effect of an architectural fence, and landscaping around the building. The pool building further aids the transition between the large main building and houses to the north. The main building is similar in scale to the Lowes store, and is separated from the store by 350 feet, with an intervening detention pond and parking area. Relationship of Dwellings to Streets -- MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED A basic code standard requires residences to be placed along street sidewalks, as opposed to freestanding complexes with orientation to parking lots instead of streets. The crux of the standard is that buildings and streets must be arranged so that a walkway leads directly from a main building Item # 3 Page 5 77 Agenda Item 3 entrance to the street sidewalk without crossing a vehicular use area. The standard is Section 3.5.2(D) in the Code. The standard is integral with the definition of Connecting Walkway in Article 5 of the code. To meet the standard, this PDP would have to remove the cul de sac at the north end of Corbett Drive, extend Corbett northward, and build a new cul de sac approximately 220-280 feet north of its current location. The building could then have a walkway connection to Corbett Drive. Note that Corbett Drive could not be extended northward all the way to connect with Kingsley Drive in English Ranch South, although the two streets align. A City decision in 2004 specifically precludes that connection. Staff finds no benefit in changing the cul de sac location in this particular situation. The configuration of private drive and walkway connections to the existing Corbett cul de sac is per the direction of City staff in Engineering, Transportation, and Planning. Staff is requesting the Modification because it is based on staff analysis and direction which have resulted in the proposed plan, with the Applicant responding to that direction. Modifications are allowed under code Section 2.8.2(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. " Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criteria (1) and (3) above. Note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification. Item # 3 Page 6 Agenda Item 3 Following is staffs evaluation of the required findings for this Modification. No Detriment to Public Good -- 2.8.2(H). Key considerations in staff's findings are: Lack of any public benefit in the demolition, excavation, and paving work needed to remove the existing cul de sac, extend the street, and construct a new cul de sac. If Corbett was extended so that a Connecting Walkway connected to its sidewalk per standard, a pedestrian would still have to cross the project's entry drive, walking on Corbett 9s sidewalk, to go south toward the shopping center. Nothing would be gained. Walkway connections are adequately direct. For these reasons, staff does not find the crossing of the entry drive to be detrimental to the public good. 2.8.2(H)(1) `Equal or Better'. Staff finds that the plan is equal to or better than a plan with a street extended northward, because of the quality of proposed pedestrian connections, which function essentially the same regardless of whether a street or a private drive extends north to the project. 2.8.2(H)(3) `Unique Conditions'. Staff finds that the decision for Corbett Drive to terminate in a cul de sac is a unique situation beyond the control of the applicant, and it creates the need for the proposed plan as shown. Rear Walls of Multifamily Garages-- MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED Code subsection 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) limits the length of rear garage walls along a property line to 55 feet. The plan contains 12 perimeter garages that are 60 feet wide, and two handicap -accessible garages that are 64.5 feet wide. The applicant's Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification based on not being detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criterion (1) in Section 2.8.2(H). Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criteria (1) and (4) in Section 2.8.2(H). Again, note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification. The relevant Code text is repeated again below for convenient reference. "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... (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. " Item # 3 Page 7 79 Agenda Item 3 Following is staffs evaluation of the required findings for this buffer yard Modification. No Detriment to Public Good -- 2.8.2(H). Key considerations in staff's findings are: The garage walls essentially act as an architectural fence, and work in conjunction with tree plantings to create an attractive, quiet edge to the development. The slightly longer walls are not likely to be noticed as such. The slightly longer walls are mitigated by additional architectural variation beyond that which is required, which compensates for the slightly increased length of walls as seen from abutting property. 2.8.2(H)(1) `Equal or Better'. Staff finds that the plan is equal to a plan with 55-foot long walls, because of the way the garages serve as an attractive architectural fence as a backdrop for tree plantings as seen from abutting properties. 2.8.2(H)(4) `Nominal and Inconsequential'. Staff finds that the plan does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan which includes architectural variation to compensate for the slightly longer walls. Additional Supplemental Standards for Multifamily Development Code Section 3.8.30 contains requirements for multifamily development, with applicable standards noted as follows. 25-Foot Buffer Yards Abutting Single -Family Dwellings -- MODIFICATION OF STANDARD REQUESTED Code subsection 3.8.30(F)(1) requires a minimum 25-foot buffer yard along the property line of abutting single family houses. This condition occurs for 1,285 feet along the north and west perimeters of the site. The plan meets the standard for 1,025 feet; however, the perimeter garages along the west perimeter provide a 20-foot rather than 25-foot buffer yard for a stretch of 260 feet. The applicant's Modification request is attached. It explains justifications for the Modification based on not being detrimental to the public good, and meeting numbered criteria (1) and (4) in Section 2.8.2(H). Staff finds that the request meets the requirements for approval in that it would not be detrimental to the public good, and meets numbered criteria (1) and (4) in Section 2.8.2(H). Again, note that only one of the numbered criteria must be met in order to approve the Modification. The relevant Code text is repeated again below for convenient reference. "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... (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 Item # 3 Page 8 :1 Agenda Item 3 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. " Following is staffs evaluation of the required findings for this buffer yard Modification. No Detriment to Public Good -- 2.8.2(H). Key considerations in staff's findings are: The reason for the reduction of setback from 25 feet to 20 feet in this situation is that the five-foot difference is taken up by garage structures. The garages could be removed and the standard met. The garages essentially function as an architectural fence which buffers and screens the development better than a 25-foot landscaped setback without the presence of the garages. 2.8.2(H)(1) `Equal or Better'. Staff finds that the plan is equal to or better than a plan with a 25-foot setback but no garages, because the garages strengthen the transitional quality and buffering effect which is the purpose of the standard. By definition the garages completely screen the cars parked inside, and contain noise and light. Thus the plan meets the purpose of the standard. 2.8.2(H)(4) `Nominal and Inconsequential'. Staff finds that the plan as proposed does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan which comprises garages with visual interest in combination with tree plantings and a 100-foot setback of the main building. The entire plan includes the access easement stubbed to the west on the southern drive, which is the reason that garages were shifted to the west side during the review process. Entrances, Roof Form, Facades and Walls, Materials and Colors. The plan meets standards for architectural design in Section 3.8.30 to adequately address these topics. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: A neighborhood meeting was held on December 15, 2014. Attendees were primarily homeowners from the adjacent English Ranch single family subdivisions. Salient points of discussion include: Retaining a walkway from English Ranch South subdivision to Front Range Village shopping center, across the east edge of the site. Prevention of any vehicular connection from English Ranch South subdivision to Front Range Village shopping center, across the east edge of the site. Questions about adjacent undeveloped property to the east. Questions about potential future traffic signals on Horsetooth and Ziegler Roads to aid residents of English Ranch development in turning left out of their subdivisions, with understanding that the proposed PDP does not involve those issues. Miscellaneous questions about various aspects of the plan. Item # 3 Page 9 Agenda Item 3 FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the Affinity at Fort Collins Project Development Plan with three Modifications of Standards, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The PDP complies with the process outlined in Article 2, Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications. B. The PDP complies with applicable standards in Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The PDP complies with applicable standards located in Article 4, Division 4.26, Harmony Corridor District. D. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D) to allow the buildings to be placed in direct relation to a private drive rather than a street would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (3). This is because the extension of the existing street is severely constrained, and the proposed plan provides walkway connections that function essentially the same as they would if the street was extended. Furthermore, there is no lost opportunity for interconnections with adjacent development due to existing development on three sides. E. The Modification of Standard to subsection 3.5.2(G)(1)(a) to allow rear garage walls to exceed the stated 55-foot limit by up to 9.5 feet would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsections 2.8.2(H)(1), (3), and (4). This is because the longer walls serve as an architectural fence and provide architectural variation exceeding requirements to mitigate the length. The walls meet the purpose of the standard as well as would 55-foot-long walls, and better than a plan without the garages. The additional length is nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the whole plan. F. The Modification of Standard to subsection 3.8.30(F)(1) to allow a portion of the required 25-foot buffer yard abutting single family houses to be reduced to 20 feet would not be detrimental to the public good and meets the applicable requirements of subsections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4). This is because the 20-foot setback is due to garages rather than surface parking. The garages serve as an architectural fence that works in combination with tree plantings to provide a better buffer than would be provided with compliant surface parking. The difference of five feet is nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the whole plan which includes architectural variation in rear garage walls exceeding requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approve Modifications of Standards to Section 3.5.2(D), subsection 3.5.2(G)(1)(a), 3.8.30(F)(1), and approve the Affinity at Fort Collins #PDP150010 based on the findings of fact found on pp. 12-13 of the staff report. Item # 3 Page 10 Agenda Item 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site and Landscape Plans (PDF) 2. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 3. Photometric Plan (PDF) 4. Plat (PDF) 5. Modification Requests (PDF) 6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (DOC) 7. Applicants Planning Objectives (PDF) Item # 3 Page 11 AFFINITY SUBDIVISION PDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS. CO PREPARED BY: RIPLEV DESIGN INC. LIMB Rip" 419 Canyon Am. SON 300 FM CNIns CO 80521 in WRMN,5828 L 870a58557 AFFINITYATFORTCOLLINS,LLC MCM1 Omllo 1@0 N. Mi Road RWlalty8 Srodam Valley, WA SU16 P509ml.M15 NYSIFOM OLSON ARCHITECTS Cnna Oam waft Sun, zoo Spolar'e, WA GGIN p. 50932880% JR ENGINEERING Nen Want 2900 S. College Am., Sure 3D Fan Calms. CO 0D535 p. 810491 AM MEP Engresn0 Ken Gnryenlmp &W S. Troy Clrte Cenunnnlel, CON111 00 R0�0 NORTH SCALE: 1'J0'-0' CRICINAI FOP 9AWAR aaaaaaaa ISSUED No DESCRPTION DATE REASIONS No DESCRIPMON DATE SITE PLAN aaaaaaaa SEAL: PROJECT No, 1 R14070 DRAWr by RDI REVIEWED BY I RDI DRAWING NUMBER: �I DESIGN INC. -- .. .. ■l �:-:r :::R :: =M=6mm - �■ ■� 4 !ln F ww =_■■ ■■6 .. I NINE mlill, 111111111 T- No 0 �.. .. ... 0.. ..... ... ... on ■■ ■ 1 Wd omit miiL i— 11 on k AFFINITY SUBDIVISION IVSPHALT SHINGLE ROOF STUCCO COW. FROM RAND VMVL WINDOW RIGHT ELEVATION 01 �l -19 RIGHT ELEVATION 2�1-19 PRE FINISHED METAL GUARDRAIL SFONE VENEER PDP SUBMITTAL FORT LINS,W PREPAREDBY: nystrom+olson a r c h i t e c t u r e so2 w nveMEe a". sung Pn eppbne, wa 99201 p5. 509W88181 web. wnv nyatromdnn wm AFF I NITY AT FORT LOLLINS, LLL MCMOmello 16M N. Known Food II B SpokaneValley WAM13 cas Olson Spokane WAOMI ENGINEER JR ENGINEERING Ken MI Far Goias SO PGS25 MEP Engineering Ken Gnepen9eq fiW25. Troy Clrt'k ceereemal, CO80111 p. 593935. LOS No DESCRIPTOR DAnpE REVISIONS No DESCRIPTION GSFE BUILDING ELEVATIONS SEAL PROJECENc, 1 1432 DRAMBY 1 CRO REVIVAI I LOU DRAWING NUMBER: 8 on mm H, . CI ■�i AFFINITY SUBDIVISION ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF COW. TERM HAND VINYL MNDOW PI I IIIIIIIIIIII . �_ I�IIIIIIIIIhIII II�IIIIIIIIhII I�II11111 a illAllllllllti l ___I■. ■■_ ■_■_ ■■_ TLN I■;W■IIr ■■_ _■■_ ❑�II_�I�_II ■,_ II�I�_II❑■ ■■_ ■■_ ■_I■_ ■■_ ■■_ ■■ �P' Il 1 IIIIIIIIIIII — IIIIIII IIIIPI IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII _ IIIIIP111119 _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII — pill STORE VENEER � -' -- -- II■IINIIII -- -- — -"Till( -- �� IIIIIIIIIII -- -- illlllll�lll ■■ ■■ ■■ C�■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ w �■ ■■ ■■ Cfn� YIIIIIIWW = -- -- -®®— — IIII IIIIIII -- -- -- _ ■ -- -- =IIIIII IIIIII( SR9IOlE9 _ u��_ ■■ ■■ I ■ - III ■■ ■■I _ . n� -. _tl _-��;„utldIIIIII1��=_:.�_—� '— �- ■ �-- =-1-llllllillllllli�� � •LEFF ELEVATION PDP SUBMITTAL FORT LOLLINS. CG PREPMEDBY: nystrom+olson a r c h i t e c t u r e s02 w OveMEe a". epne Pn eppbne, wa G pV1 p8. W9 W88181 wep. wnvnptm,,Al an, RPLEYDESIGNING. q a Gnrypn Aw. Gplk M F Goll ,O08MV1 p 970.=451211 1 9To225.W7 FFFwm ATFORTGOHIW I MCMOaeello 16M N. MartanRmE RUM B Spokane Vellry, WAM16 P. sGa m W15 ch's Soon Spokane WAO201 ENGINEER JR ENGINEERING Ken MartN AW S. cwlege Aw, Spla dO FM Cdllrc, CO bi p. 97049190W MEP Engineering Ken Gneam" fiW25. Troy Glrt'k c,,v, l.coaon+ p. SAS 93S.PAS SIGNAL SIZE 2AX36 MI No OESCRIPTON DATE S2 FOR RESI (I IGEVSIONS BUILDING ELEVATIONS SEAL PRQI 1 14 U DRANNEY 1 CRO REVIEIEDBC I CRO DRAWING NUMBER: 10 AFFINITY SUBDIVISION 01 POOL BUILDING ELEVATION - FRONT �1N I POOL BUILDING ELEVATION - RIGHT 03 a� 1A -,p GARAGE OPT 1 ELEVATION - FRONT 01eI GARAGE OPT 1 ELEVATION - BACK 04SI POSPWILT SHINGLE STI 9to] 01all: 02m.. GARAGE OPT 2 ELEVATION - FRONT ,or-,R GARAGE OPT 2 ELEVATION - BACK 05=CAL IO-l-0 Or� 1a POOL BUILDING ELEVATION - LEFT POOL POOL BUILDING ELEVATION — BACK 04 s� 1N 03� GARAGE ELEVATION - SIDE ,Ar_,a 06GARAGE ELEVATION - SIDE a 11-,a smiY� SHINGLE ROOF UM MIND PDP SUBMITTAL FORT COLLINS, CO PREPAREDBY: nystrom+olson a r c h i t e c t u r e s02 w nveMEe a". eune Pn eppbne, wa 9e201 ph. W9 W88181 we,. w,,, npK,,,nonwm RIPLEY DESIGN INC. L,nda Now 419 Gnrypn Ay. Sulk M Rod Color, CC,8MCl p. 970.=45328 1 97o225.E652 AFFINITYATFoRTCOUINS L-C MCMoaeello 16M N. Known Road Bulylryl B SpokaneValley WAM13 n 509. 3313E+5 NY87ROM OLSON ARCHITECTS cnaa OIL 502 W Rlvemde.Suue2kK Spokane, WA99291 p. 509. 328GI&I JR ENGINEERING Ken MI n0Q S. ColaOe Ave, Sulk 30 FM Cdllrc, CO POSES p. 9704919BW MEP Engineering Ken Gnepen0e9 fiW25. Troy Clrt'k c.m.nmalp CO 80111 p. 303935. 1633 oB NORTH SI 1•dO'tl ORIGINALS¢E2I ISSUED No DESCRIPTOR DATE REVISIONS No DESCRIPTION GSrE BUILDING ELEVATIONS SEAL PRCUECTNc, 1 1432 DMKN BY CRO REVIEMEDBC I CRO DRAWING NUMBER: AFFINITD AT FORT COLLINS ba ba to to to to 'Do Va'on 'on b a b t bt b a b o b o bo bo no b a b a bobobobobobo'm ba to to to to to 'Do VI'n,'n, b, b,b, b, to to to to no b, to baba to it I bigaa A ba to to to to Ad I b 1'11'02'01 bs bs b, b, b, b, b, NOT n, b, b, b, b, b, 111'01'01'01 to to do* to c� Gy G{ µ bt ', 2 19'za b. ba', G'O.s'o2 o3tts'o. s'24 3.a 1, 3, 22', s ht 26' Y, ba'as'ao 2t'tYt 3't3', i', o b/ Il2 ha'u Ya't 5 2a )6 jo `I�654s 3,'as 5' b bit s ba III , b. a b b, b. ,o b bit 54 b b, Ie is 09 IF bob. ,f54 ,RMONVb 'oo b. PARK b 'a.a b. o a 31 b5 o b. I b, lb. obo b. 'oo b. b. 'oo b. b bab. b ba b. a�T b b,'a ,a IF b, b. o bs 24 no IF IF ba b.0 b a b a b o b o bo'of .'o no bab ba babobobo b. Ilo'no'no'no bob ba ba bo bo Ilo b. %a bo'on 'on b a b a b, b, no b a b at ab a b a b a b. b. no In baba b. b. bo'no b. n, b, to to to b, b, to b. n, to to to to b. b. na to to ba ba 4a19P YP9.]B - na b, b, b, b2 n, b, b, b, b, b, b, II b. n, n, i n, b, b, b, b. II b. m n, n, no to to to to IT Do RE6'0. n, b, b, b, b2 av N_7 21 TA v 36 a 21 n 15'1S', i ,2 N9 ub b. bs ba ba bsb to be t b b b. b b. b. ' b 116 111 b b b nz ID b5 b5 b b2 a2 o 34 Il61615115 b a b2 b2 b ab5 .12 tt b5 IF ba bab b9 As b 3 N U III b Is b s3 a 't9 be b6' 6.a ba E o bs 3s 33 b9'ta ts,a ba b3 Is b6 N7 sba ba b5 NI tiJ'Lr ha D3 F3 A A b6 N2 Y62s',o hs''os'o ebs-n �q o b/ b.3 b5 D4 D4 b Il. f ts to b.4 b3 D3 D2 b Il. ts 's b7 b5 b.3 t2 III b1 b b. be Y2 111 b3 t2 tl III b n, o b3 b b3 bs b, tAF(RNIT% I ihT'.1 b3 ba A. oab bs n, WIRODIF %1 n2bba b a ba b a b2 b, b, b o bo h, b, h, b2b4b51)6 47 ^'. b'2b babab b. b b b b. Il, _ '22 . b b b. Il, Il, Il ��GG 12 ba b2 b, b, Il, b, Il, Ila as 69 STOIC t" 'a a oYGa 2 b b2 ba'Wdl'L W-'/' mas'm DS n5 b5 bT'2a n, b, b, b2 b2 02 bs bs'oa'oa b b'/',o b/'o54 ns b5 ba bibs b5 bs b 6 b/', 3', & '1 5 p 9 n6 b5 b7 N6 t2 ba ad 2, bsba tab b,' , o b/ba's2a b o ba ba',obs 2a o b bsb. ba to s b bab b5 ba '2. 7 b. b5 ba be ba 3 t b5 be < ba,.'2t't5bsbs Y5 b967b6b5 2/b bsbTbobo t. 2a', 7 bo b6 lbs Y2 b/ 51 bs u bs ,.a '22'i 5 bT be to bT be b5 to bT be b5 ,. 23',e b7 h5 'SI Ys',2 b6 $12. 2s'u ba 3 'ae'as Yt b6 t. 2a 15b7b5 b9 3 bs bTbsba b6 ,. be b5 ba ba a. ts�a6'_ bb. 5 e253 I bab3babg355313, ,. bT bs ba ba b b, , 3 bz to b, bD b6'16 NU to '12 bo On b5 bo I a to t4 t4 to I I b6 b. ,ba'Is bs bo bo ba b5 be'14bg b2 to ta'Is ',a 2a b, bT •b2z2zab 2�t-of'a. abb. a ]. ]s . . 2ITb b. 7 a a.1�32a 2b9t III In 1 7 16 ,b. 4 5 ba2e ba oazon ' ba b,b, bh]oZib b bbb oh,h ,2 52 bb ,t2a2sb3 9 16 as In b9b9b1151b2b3133Ilaba'nababa b2b,h,b1 b2b2114'ns'ns'nab3 b2 b2 bab3bab6bah2h2b,b, b, b, b, b,b, b, D I bm I oln, b,tby b, b, 112 05 113'04'02' ba FRONT RANGE VILLAGE DETENTION POND 266 N \a, SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN KINGSLEY COURT bT bz bab UNDEVELOPED (ZONE: AI POP SUnMITTAL PREPARED BY RIPLE- DESIGN INC AFFINIT- AT FORT COLLINS mi CARS Clle�A�,S=3[1 GO WS25 - Age 936 USES Na DESCRIPTION DATE TO 03 05 an DATE PC 03 04 05 SITE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SEAT A A0 AFG/gt _ �8sA pr• 16134 A' P Aa Pow DEADENED CAR DRAWING NUMBER: 5 LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE ME MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER DESCRIPTION MWMMG VO IS WANTS LAMPS RNIJW GENERAL LOCATION NOTES A ON L6iFVilA'3NFirlNX YW.M£POST RP IBKMIN MAE LGrt MEW IYN.R Ib mrW 9fLrPCM14 SITE gA10iWMT5iEA P'A£ RLL WRf. TYf£V4KW9nWN MiLBrS MA IaG AREI2N' SIR OR xxd-3w Fgal Gw,IF Nil 0320FBE1 wunw 94Vk sTE6R'AE Fl16N Mm11iE III d51lENIIYW A`OUFIR RA!" A[RNG LB5 as I31 CEW]ssal FM-gK-,65 Sx51.EIE00 PKFM51i%1118 BASE gRAP w mixam um WFFW WE sTmwlE TRIBnIaLFurIBB Fve ww 922c nISN ItlhE SmE xIm 31 WFUR COAST £B- I HER MEN N*RNNU1 IIl2Y WI1BUIHaL. YPLEN .IYYMf IXN.IF 2a NXAIQi B TROYNA BMKES ORTN3 AulYe Inaff Fiwil xd FTan® 6,65 BwUHavvv-IaxSn cx SURFACE 1 bA 05214% earane OARNARM NRWIVA fN1A.]ID [f ,YBCADYFpIB[ENL3r M2M® ANN',.r.,..na... blpW Ne.a owlny.lw0rt wb, ..n.n iuVu W.w •IIYNIfiF.l.n 4,a,nW M..IY'Y m n�Y6 Ms'b.Yp.ns.a ..film O""M WN61vnYmhY.-,w, M.Y MYn. dill, me, "I wu NUMBER!@ Ii�.Ya"i Y"Y�•i b" M`�Bvs�a..vY• NNN naYYYv win do.�r.,MWYWr.M mn"AwrAN wiu/Yr4Y •� ilr•_iwY6P.n ww .M awesny�.' W IY..tlbYYrw YYI Ali Wx1Y1�"i,IMM1,Yn YP,/arY,wPb.wx _ Yin.NRtnNReet Ml..a Y. lw MINN. amIIMYYIW�YYx1 Mw.raMUYxlEO see. r�rRr.Y.� rI ..n..IN.. TYPE •S1• BREFNNNRW � flllf LERi nw.r.anr�Iaucr�ra..uru n NeNV .navyixnw n+u.Vnn wem.v N ®� MONSOON �`j' tin LOiw ltlma .�w.myM avvn MY.eeWmwmw o � — J �:i,,Nd APAI,. Na"NNmvct:e m. wal w A,M, .. ^v ..,. IN IN IIA IN IIA n.,no,n, rb8.e M�ianw� Yw. ANN NI FN x.nYwY.u®�. r.. 10 V- Standard Strip Wide SW STRIP .oaar NTWide%I-IMDe X2C..S.18'.1Zor% Len9Rrs O� Tor Ramp n or T12 nuow ti I.'AIN...,..a n... 1 nx. AN NIP PHIUPS LIONTOLISIr TYPE 'S1' POLE BASE DETAIL TYPE 82 8 S3 POLE BASE DETAIL NO SCALE NOT TO 5AM1LE AFFINITD AT FORT COLLINS PDP SUFiMITTAL FORT PREPARED BY I im land planning a landscapes architecture a RIPLE- DESIGN INC AFFINIT- AT FORT COLLINS MI CANS Clle�A�,S=3[1 GO WS25 Go Nil 1 Age 936 ROD In DESCRIPTION DATE 02 03 05 Ed In DATE 01 02 03 04 05 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES AND DETAILS SEAT PROJECTS- 14445 REAAEVAE) FAR DRAWING NUMOEIR 6 AFFINITY SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP AND SUBDIVISIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY WEBB PRESENTS. THAT WE UNDERSIGNED. BEING WE OWNER OF WE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN WE SWWEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF WE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. CITY OF FORT DOWNS, MONTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS' BASIS OF BEARINGS: WE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32. TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WES1 OF WE SW PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS S 8971'46" E: BEGINNING AT WE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER CE SECTION 32; WENCE S 89'21'46" E. ALONG WE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32. A DISTANCE OF MI FEET; WENCE S 00'33'SY W. A DISTANCE OF 421RO FEET; THENCE S 89'56'27" W, A DISTANCE OF 851.76 FEET TO A PUNT ON THE 'WESTERLY ONE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECT)N 32; WENCE N 0011'11" E. ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE. A DISTANCE OF 431.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, WHICH ABOVE DESCRIBED LOT CONTAINS AN OVERALL CALCULATED AREA OF 384,084 SQUARE FEET OR B3582 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. FOR THEMSELVES AND WEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (COLLECRVELY, "OWNER") HAVE CAUSED WE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDINDEO INTO LOTS, TRACTS AND STREETS AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS "AFNNITY WBOINSICH", (WE "DEVELOPMENT') SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY NOW OF RECORD OR EXISTING OR INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. WE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THIS PLAT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND. CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATIONS WE OWNER DOES HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY TO WE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. COLORADO (HEREAFTER "CITY'). FOR PUBLIC USE FOREVER. A PERMANENT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET PURPOSES AND WE 'EASEMENTS" AS LAID OUT AND DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAT; PROPERTY OWNERS FRONT RANGE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLC BY: OWNER STATE OF COLORADO ) s. s. COUNTY OF LARIMER j WE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWTBDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF . 20_. BY AS OF FRONT RANGE VILLAGE COMPANY, LLC FOR WE PURPOSE HEREIN ABOVE SET FORTH. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION NOTICES ALL RESPONSIBIUTES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTOR OF WE PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON WE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY WE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR COLLECTVELY, THROUGH A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATON. IF APPUCABLE WE CITY OF FORT COLONS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION. MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE DUTY HAVE ANY CBUCATCN TO ACCEPT SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES. PADDINGTON RD SITE G rc z g COUNCIL TREE AV£ IN E HARMONY RD THE OWNER HEREBY WARRANTS AND BY WE CITY OF WE IMPROVEMENTS VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION AND FIRST ACCEPTANCE AND COMPLETE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF WE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE THE OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN SAID IMPROVEMENTS IN A MANNER THAT WILL ASSURE COMPLIANCE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS WIN ALL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF WE Ott WE OWNER SHALL ALSO CORRECT AND REPAIR. OR CAUSE TO BE CORRECTED AND REPAIRED, ALL DAMAGES TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING MOM DEVELOPMENT -RELATED CR BUILDING -RELATED ACTVTIES. IN WE EVENT WE UNDERSIGNED FAILS TO CORRECT ANY DAMAGES WWIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE THEREOF, WEN SAID DAMAGES MAY BE CORRECTED BY THE DUTY AND ALL COSTS AND CHARGES BILLED TO AND PAID BY WE OWNER. WE CITY SHALL ALSO HAVE ANY OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. ANY DAMAGES MICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO WE ENO OF SAID TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD AND WHICH ARE UNREPAIRED AT WE TERMINATION OF SAID PERIOD SHALL REMAIN WE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER. REPAIR GUARANTEES IN CONSIDERATION OF WE APPROVAL OF THIS FINAL PLAT AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. WE OWNER DOES HEREBY AGREE TO HOLD WE DUTY. WB-DRAINS, CULVERTS, WALLS AND BRIDGES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND OWER PUBLIC PROPERTIES, RESULTING FROM FNLURES CAUSED BY DESIGN ANO OR CONSTRUCTOR DEFECTS THIS AGREEMENT TO HOLD WE CITY HARMLESS INCLUDES DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP, AS WELL AS DEFECTS CAUSED BY OR CONSISTING OF SETTLING MEMORIES, FILLS OR EXCAVATIONS. FURTHER, WE OWNER WARRANTS THAT HE/SHE OWNS FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO WE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON AND AGREES THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO WE OWNER UR HIS/HER SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST DURING WE WARRANTY PENCE. FOR ANY CLAIM OF DAMAGES RESULTED FROM NEGUCENCE IN EXERCISING ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES AND DUE CAUTION IN WE CONSTRUCTION OF CROSS DRAINS, DRIVES, STRUCTURES OR BUILDING$ THE CHANCING OF COURSES OF STREAMS AND RIVERS. FLOODING MGM NATURAL CREEKS AND RIVERS. AND ANY OTHER MATTER WHATSOEVER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. ANY AND WE OBLIGATIONS OF WE OWNER PURSUANT TO THE "MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE' AND 'REPAIR GUARANTEE" PROVISIONS SET FORTH ABOVE MAY NOT BE ASSIGNED OF TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY UNLESS WE WARRANTED IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED BY, AND A LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE WARRANTED IMPROVEMENTS IS RECEIVED FROM THE CITY BY, SUCH OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY. GENERAL NOTESS I. PER C.R.S. 181 ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY. COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR. 2. PER C R.S. 38-51-105, "ALL LINEAL UNITS DEPICTED ON THIS LAND SURVEY PLAT ARE LLS. SURVEY FEET'. ONE METER EQUALS 39.37/12 LLS. SURVEY FEET, EXACTLY ACCORDING TO WE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 3, WE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32. TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH. RANGE 65 WEST OF WE STIR PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS S8921'46'E. 4. WERE SHALL BE NO PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS THAT PROHIBIT OR LIMIT WE INSTALLATION OF RESOURCE CONSERVING EQUIPMENT OR LANDSCAPING THAT ARE ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 12-120 - 12-122 OF WE CITY CODE. 5. THIS LAND SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTNTE A TITLE SEARCH BY JR ENGINEERING, LTD. TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OF THIS TRACT, OR VERIFY EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY OR TTLE CF RECORD. JR ENGINEERING. LTD. RELIED UPON TTLE COMMITMENT 40.097-C2004090-055-LCI. AMENDMENT NO. 1. PREPARED BY CHICAGO TTLE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR GEMSTAR PROPERTIES LED. A WASHINGTON UNITED LIABILITY COMPANY. DATED NOVEMBER 26. 2014 AT 7: W AA. NOTICE OF OTHER DOCUMENTSS ALL PERSONS TAKE NOTICE TEAT WE OWNER HAS EXECUTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATE CERTAIN RIGHTS AND CBUGATONS OF WE DEVELOPMENT, ME OWNER AND/OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OF ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SIZE. MANY OF WHICH DELEGATIONS CONSTTUTE PROMISES AND COVENANTS THAT. ALONG WN THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PLAT. RUN WIN THE LAND. WE SAID DOCUMENTS MAY ALSO BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND MAY INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SITE AND LANDSCAPE COVENANTS, FINAL SIZE PLAN, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS, MICH DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN WE OFFICE OF WE CLERK OF THE CITY AND SHOULD BE CLOSELY EXAMINED BY ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN PURCHASING ANY PORTON C£ WE DEVELOPMENT SITE. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENTS I, JARR00 ADAMS, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN WE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY UNDER MY PERSONAL SUBDIVISION THAT WE MCNUMENTATON AS INDICATED HEREON WERE FOUND OR SET AS SHOWN, AND THAT THE FORGOING PLAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION THEREOF, ALL THIS TO WE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF. ifooladmom ie ILV _ 1 70I1 NOTICES ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN WIS SURVEY WWIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT. MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER WE DAM OF WE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SUBOINSION PLAT HAS BEEN DULY EXECUTED AS REWIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.23(C)(3)(0) THROUGH (e) INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND USE CODE OF WE DUTY OF FORT COLLINS AND THAT ALL PERSONS SIGNING THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY ARE DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES UNDER THE LAWS OF WE STATE OF COLORADO. THIS CERTIFICATION IS RASED UPON WE RECORDS OF WE CLERK AND RECORDER OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AS OF WE DATE OF EXECUTION CF WE PLAT AND OTHER INFORMATION DISCOVERED BY ME THROUGH REASONABLE INQUIRY AND IS LIMITED AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 2.2.3(C)(3)(Y) BE WE LAND USE CODE ADDRESS'. REGISTRATION APPROVED AS TO FORM. CITY ENGINEERS BY WE CITY ENGINEER BE THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS DAY OF A.D., 20 CITY ENGINEER PLANNING APPROVALS BY WE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF WE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO THIS DAY OF A.D., 20� DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AFFINITY SUBDIVISION JOB NO. 39704.01 06-29-2015 SHEET 1 OF 2 J'R ENE A WYOFian Cmryny QWFR41i 4��ha�u H^� L '941 ' J�:iu']'J:04 AFFINITY SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO � T III"` I II 1�1 III _SwN _ P�W'PACE 0� 14 CO SEC J2 I LOT 66 /// III III ENC[/AL HAACN SOUhG R.6BW BM P.M - 1' A[UWAMLN CAP / / I P.UO. £TgIO PING lY UALITY @ STAMPED: P[S 5026 199f / 'scow EB PIS CLOT 60 rORALNAGEI CASEMENT PEA MpVUMENT REGYA4p f J - LOT 65- 1 LOJ 6f 1 LOT 63 LOT 62 J L - - J L - J L - - / - - L - - J LOT J EMERITY EA ACCESS & lj J J L / LOT 56 LOT 5J OA1ED EEB 2 2Ltl) LOJ 59 LOT 36 UTILITY EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT S51rm 46YE fi5E5f ` - IS' IELEC0.N EASEMENT w REC NO. 92042010 . 20EMERGENCY ACCESS k UTWTY EASEMENT 'v° 589'56'2]'W ,HI' EMERGENCY ACCESS SF£ CETAIL A� `4}87' DRAINAGE @ UTILITY EASEMENT I ` _________________________ -r S89'56'27"W 748.26' 1 1 I 20' DRAINAGE T E0.5FMPlT S110tl0'GO"E \ N8_9-5_6.27-E 52899' �4.00• N8956'27-E_I6484'_ _L SEE\ 50000'�'E , \ DETAIL A 1 / M90V0'CO" 26' EMERGENCY ACCESS, 211 110.D0' 1 54.84' -- - R-25 00, DRAINAGE & UTWTY EASEMENT H�5o9tlD•GG"E Y I2130'_______J__1L]o' 2LD8' A =39.2]' C0'00'W 155.00' I UNPLATI£O N4456126"E N90F1 8 8 10'PEAMANENT EALEWENT I- o REC NO 260 VTLtla364 TO BE ACATED 20' DRAINAGE 26' EMERGENCY ACCESS, Iw 11VX155' DRAINAGE wI EASEMENT ­� DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT $ EASEMENT bl I$ p[ J0, SE]I4 5 DRAINAGE EASEME T I- EG 32 ZII r l I- i7I I IVr w m - �e iI N90W'O'J'E 155.00' o al r LOT 1 ---------------------' IH I" nl 354,054 56 Is �1 In 8.3582 AC I� W1 In wl FI IQGQ g1 10 IN it Ix I I �N Iw 10 1^ I I 1 (1179102.51- a R-5500' 30' EMERGENCY ACCESS. M]9V2'S1' � L=75.88' DRAINAGE @UTILITY EASEMENT R=75.00' ap CH=]0.'1V 589562]YW ..00' CX']000' N w ___________ vwiw a we sw25'01'w��� w I m* M90V0'CO" ` \ N50-32'07'W > um I U• R=25.00' S1053'36'W / \ �Ff pw `a L-39.zT nY / nes'ss'z7"E 32s.aD' N11W'42 W <wo / ____________________________________________\ 37]' a= I' 98.22'1 N45V333'W I "4. ACCESS EASETENT �Y 1�fr 9i _ / NOJ03'33"W -I tNOTX VARIES S009333 E I Rp r I I 111 Ir1 A - 4279 I/ �1.00' _______N89'S8'2T_E_BO_2.09'___1 1 I.00'- _t J a _�___ ]0_00' 1�1 _ __-�_ C}r -Z _ 4 �B_ _ _t ___ _ r_ 589'S6'2TW 139.01' ICI 02 66.76 -- ______________________353_00___ _ -\4//-WAR'C9 Cy0 589'S6'9'W 119.>B 7 LS69'S8'2]'W 488.52'01 N88'S9'OYW -- 56652'Ot"W n �I 02_____________________________ N89'---56271E ]-- 102' a 506.24' -T 250.R6' ry 30' EMERGENCY AWESS, GE EMERGENCY ACCESS NOOT13'33"W 24.50�1 � I DRAINAGE k UTUTT EASEMENT DRAINAGE k UTWTY EASEMENT ^24.50' N04 REBAR WIN BLUE PCASPC CAP STAMPED: PIS JUCY0 I l I � ql „I a� gl slcae SEO J2 T IV, R 61 BR/P.M. I' 1' /RCN PIPE /N A RANGE BOX PER �Aovum:Rvr 9 DATED MAY )O 1991 I N05 REBAR WPL YELLOW PLASM CAP STAMPEO: PI JJ96J am' NEST & O.OJ' ACI LY CALLVLATEO 500'33'S]'W 621.60• _ 10} 1 500 ,18• I 1 PRETTILY/ 1 ______ _----- __ ! 3352'05' 1 N0053'57"E 3761' R-S.W' NW9J•S]"E 4.13• 00 01 01141-45.16- � R=45.0D-- � L=30.15' CH-29.71' 111 L-32.79' N16-22.05-W _ _ - EMERGENCY ACCESS & CH-320Y \`\ UTUTT EASEMENT BT 20' EMERGENCY ACCESS N21'28'35"E SEPARATE DOCUMENT & UTWTY EASEMENT F22'345T R-51.00' A� 43' ___ I ____ NW53's]'E 37.6a' L=20.16' /•y CH=20.0'� Iw N44'37'34'W iK C/QP o-R-2500' G PiACTA J L=1922• `\ 61 r JmC / n N2126.35-E /y e �p EMERGENCY ACCESS, DRAINAGE m & UTUTY EASEMENT T.P MI VARIES $ / UO632" / R-51.00' /pg' S00'33'S7"W N 10'PERMANENT EASEMENT L=30.38'�/v 1009' FEC Na 2L07004CB94 CH-1 1. LOT J TO BE VACATED N73TO17 W I ly / ENCL/W RANM SWAY I _ PU o-90'3]'30' EBB, PACE 2 E6 / I L-15.D0' L-23.]3' / I CH-21.33' �z♦ I 544'14'18'E / I I TRACT H PRIV AN6E OUAGE, FTC R C. NO 20024016164 ALYEW EASEMENT REC NO 20070016154� J g3 o� C�a x mUw Qm¢ Ua 1 r ymZ I I J2 , PSVIP.LC r SW PM. 9 n�r 2.5R.A8L/MM/lMI CAP m S LOT 4 STAMPED:PLS 17071995 rA �4 LN A RANGE0 PER BOX N 4 J `OATE 2S 1995 / TRACT A BAgS (F 9EgpLN4'S NORM L/NE SEl/4 EEC ORAINALE S T.IN PLUNK. SOY P.M. - - UAUTY EAEMENT n V SSW2V46"E 26 18• - - IJ09FY YELLOW PCASRC 3N ARVIN RE UNPLA JJEO Rf]TAR WTN BLUE PIASPC STAMPED:PIS M070 CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH CHORD CI 2394'26' 45.00' 1012' N7W3l'20'W I800' C2 23V4'22" 25.00' 10.07' S78'3118"E 10.00' C3 7902'S5 25.00' 34.49' N5015.04"E 31.82' C4 90W'00" 12.50' 19.63' N45T3'33'W 17.68' CS DOW 00' 25.00' 39.27' 44456'27"E 35.38' C6 9000'00Y 25.00' 39.27' 34501 3!1 C7 90TOYT 12.50' 19.63' S"56kTW 1765' CB 711 25.00' 3449' S5092'1O'E 31,82' 2314 2Y 0 0' 18C0 C " 55.0D' 1] 182 SN]88'2 1C9415 74'4'W 40 20 0 40 ORIGINAL SCALE: 1" = 40' AFFINITY SUBDIVISION JOB NO. 39704.01 06-29-2015 SHEET 2 OF 2 JYR ENE AWEMFian Cmryny DETAIL A 1" = W gaw"41i 4��ha�ei H 1 94 ' U�:iu']'J: July 1, 2015 Affinity at Fort Collins Two Modification Requests First - Section 3.5.2 - Residential Building Standards (G) Rear Walls of Multi -Family Garages. To add visual interest and avoid the effect of a long blank wall with no relation to human size, accessibility needs or internal divisions within the building, the following standards for minimum wall articulation shall apply. (1) Perimeter Garages. (a) Length. Any garage located with its rear wall along the perimeter of a development and within sixty-five (65) feet of a public right-of-way or the property line of the development site shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet in length. A minimum of seven (7) feet of landscaping must be provided between any two (2) such perimeter garages. The Applicant is proposing to provide twelve perimeter garages that will be 60 feet wide, and two handi-cap garages that will measure 64'-6" wide. The maximum length specified in the land Use Code is 55 feet. The one-story garages are used to create an attractive height transition and privacy screening on both the north and west sides of the project. The one-story garages being placed on the perimeter of the site allows the three-story multi -family building to be placed further from the single-family residences. The Affinity senior housing project caters to the 55 and over population leaving single-family homes to live in a senior community with a lively social environment and no maintenance responsibilities. For many it acts as a transitional step between home ownership and full-scale assisted living. The seniors living at this kind of facility are still very active and require garages that are wider than the minimum width to allow a comfortable access to each garage. The added width also allows room for storing bikes and other recreational equipment. Affinity proposes to build garages that hold five cars while providing a 9-foot wide door rather than an 8- foot wide door. The purpose of the standard which is to add visual interest and to avoid the effect of long banks of garages is still being met. The garages will meet the other residential building standards relating to garages including: A minimum of 7 feet of landscape area between garages and architectural articulation as specified in the LUC. In addition, the garages are setback 25-feet from English Ranch, the single-family neighborhood to the north and 20-feet from Harmony Mobile Home Park on the west. The setback areas are proposed to be landscaped with evergreen and deciduous trees as well as a variety of shrubs that will soften the appearance of the garage structures and provide seasonal interest. The Applicant believes that providing 9-foot wide garage doors instead of 8-foot garage doors is first of all not detrimental to the public good. Secondly, the wider doors which require the 5-car garages to be wider than the LUC allows is a better design solution than 5-car garages with 8-foot doors that meet the standard given the population being served. The more generous door size will help seniors negotiate the garages safely and 95 conveniently. The standard itself suggests that the designer should take into account accessibility needs. The extra wide garage doors and the two handicap garages provided are there to address accessibility needs without sacrificing visual attractiveness. The slightly wider interior space will also allow for storage of recreational equipment and other things that might otherwise end up on a porch or balcony. Second - Section 3.8.30 - Multi -Family Dwelling Development Standards (F) Design Standards for Multi -Family Dwellings. (1) Orientation and Buffer Yards. Buffer yards along the property line of abutting property containing single- and two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet. The proposed Affinity senior housing project is located adjacent to English Ranch Subdivision on the north and adjacent to Harmony Mobile Home Park on the west. One-story garages are used to create an attractive land use transition on both interfaces. On the north, adjacent to English Ranch a 25-foot setback is provided, however, due to site constraints a 20-foot setback is provided on the west. The Applicant has worked hard to meet all Land Use Code standards and is confident that they will be a good neighbor to the adjacent residential developments, however, the need for storm water detention on the east side and extra driveway width for fire access make it difficult to provide a full 25-foot setback on the west side. One-story garages are placed 20-feet from the property line. The garages are attractively designed with articulated facades that act as a privacy screen between the two residential communities. The three-story multi -family structure is setback 102 feet from the property line. The garages create a height transition between the mobile homes and the taller three-story building. The proposed building placement also eliminates potential privacy issues. The 20-foot setback is proposed to be landscaped with evergreen and deciduous trees as well as a variety of shrubs that will soften the appearance of the garage structures and provide seasonal interest. On the south end of the west side the project provides the option for a future pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connection to the west. A tree -lined sidewalk and access easement will allow pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists to travel through the Affinity site and connect with Corbett Drive which provides access to the Front Range Village Shopping Center. We believe this access opportunity enhances the interface between the two properties in the future. The Applicant maintains that the reduction of setback from 25 feet to 20 feet is not detrimental to the public good and is equal to or better than a project that would meet the standard. For example, the three-story building could be placed 25-feet from the property line and meet the standard. However, the end result would not have the same transitional qualities or be as attractive as the proposed building placement. Further, the Applicant believes that the P.D.P., as designed, will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. City of Fort Collins NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES 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 These notes capture questions, comments and ideas from the meeting but are not a verbatim transcript. PROJECT: Affinity Senior Housing Development Plan DATE: December 18 (December 15 meeting date) CITY STAFF: Clark Mapes, Planning; Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Services; Joe Olson, Traffic; Martina Wilkinson, Traffic APPLICANT/ Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Associates; Scott Morris and Mark Ossello, OWNER: Inland Group City Staff Presentation Sarah Burnett introduced the meeting agenda and purpose. The purpose is to share information and discuss questions and ideas for prospective developers to consider. Clark Mapes briefly outlined that process. The next step is for the applicants to prepare a development plan submittal. Developer Presentation Linda Ripley introduced the subject property and the general reasons why the developers are interested in the property. Scott Morris introduced the development firm, and explained their product, which they call Affinity senior living communities. About a dozen other similar projects have been built and are being built throughout several western states. They are well received and successful. The site plan shows a 3 story building with 155-165 apartments, a series of garages around the perimeter, a recreational pool building, 260 parking spaces, and landscaping. The building program contains numerous amenities. 10% of the units will be qualified affordable under the City's definition. The main building is separated from English Ranch houses by a 25-foot buffer yard, garages, parking, a pool building, and landscaping. The windows and balconies in the main building wing are about 232 feet removed from property line. The H-shaped building has wings that extend a bit closer, but the ends of the wings have no balconies. 97 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 12 Question & Response Discussion Q: What is the rent of affordable units? R: Will start at about $1,000 for a studio based on area median income as defined. Q. $1,000 for a studio does not sound affordable for Fort Collins. R: The term affordable refers to the City's definition. The development team actually considers all of their units to be relatively affordable in the market as compared to other choices, but 10% of the units will be set aside as qualified affordable as defined. The rent includes all utilities and amenities. Q: Patio home at the end of Kingsley cul de sac: The side faces the project with a lot of windows and a very small yard. Concern: people looking down into windows. Also have a sunroom at sw corner of the unit so don't want certain tree placements. How tall are garages? R: Garages are 1 story, about 14' to their roof ridges. There are no windows. We (developers) will meet with you on landscaping in our project. Q: What's the height of the main building? R: About 38 feet to the ridge. Q: We want to make sure the pedestrian walkway is safe and fun for people coming from our neighborhood across this property to Front Range Village. R: We (developers) do too. There will be a walkway and also bike lanes along Corbett. Eventually there will be a sidewalk along the east side of Corbett Drive as well. Q: The plan shows a dog park. A resident would not enjoy having this right behind their back yard. There's one at Front Range Village and it can be noisy and smelly. Would need a buffer, or move it away from back yards. R: That is a good point, another location will be sought. Q: Will pets be allowed? Is there a size limit? R: Yes, they are allowed, and no, size limits have never come up as an issue. It's doubtful anyone would want to bring a large dog into this kind of place. Q: What is the zoning on land across Corbett to the east? R: Harmony Corridor with a designation of employment -based mixed use. There is a 6-story height limit. Height limits are accompanied by additional standards for compatibility with the surroundings in terms of building massing and landscaping. Q: The letter mentioned a possible emergency access connection between Kingsley and Corbett — is that still being considered? R: That is still being researched. It would benefit safety in the area, and if it could be done, it would be strictly emergency access only with a gate. Also, the thinking is that it could be temporary until another street connects out to Ziegler. Neighborhood Meetino Notes - Page 13 Q: Someone drove their car down the cul de sac and out into the field. Happens every now and then. Motorcycles do that also. R: The City can look at this situation and see if some kind of barricade makes sense. Comment: Maybe the emergency access with a gate would do that. Q: Is the only entrance off of Corbett? Don't know how the one street can accommodate the additional traffic. Can the Corbett roundabout handle it? R: A traffic study will be required with the development submittal and will address that question. Comment: The developers have studied traffic generation in several of their projects and found that traffic is 30-40% lower than typical standards for multi -family land use. Also, they find that their peak hours differ from other typical peak traffic hours. Q: Will there be a traffic light at Ziegler for new property development on the east side of Corbett? R: Yes, that is anticipated at some point. There will be some choices about that which will involve the English Ranch neighborhood. There could either be a streetlight for a new street out to Ziegler, or one at Paddington. There may need to be some connection between English Ranch and the Ziegler property in either case. People in the Grand Teton neighborhood on the east side of Ziegler will want the signal at Paddington/Grand Teton so that they can get out of their neighborhood. It could be possible to have a connection at Edmonds, or at Carrick Drive. We don't want to hijack this meeting with those complicated questions, but we do encourage people to start thinking about preferences in regard to a possible future signal onto Ziegler. Q: Is the proposed project to the east already underway? R: No, it came in for a concept review meeting with the City on October 22, but the owners are still in an exploratory stage. Q: If emergency access is provided, that could become a street. Also where Edmonds comes into Paddington it looks like it could connect. The point being that there seem to be several places where access could eventually go to Front Range Village. People who live on Paddington are worried about this and others are as well. Concerns: kids playing in the streets, noise, etc. More worried about this than having a connection to Ziegler. R: That's why the City will talk with you about the choices when we need to agree on a solution if the new proposal comes forward. The City does not want to force a solution the neighborhood doesn't want. Comment: A lot of people go down Corbett and then turn around in the circle when they find out they can't get through. Q: There's a 25-foot buffer along the north edge, but a dog park is shown in the buffer. What are the requirements for that buffer? R: They are to be quiet, passive landscaped yards to buffer the impacts of multi -family development on adjacent single family housing development. The applicants have stated that they will research other locations for it. That's the kind of thing this meeting is for. 99 Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page 14 Q: Where the bike path ties into Kingsley, there are two right-hand turns needed which slows people down. The plan shows it more straightened out. Would like to make sure it doesn't allow people to speed up. R: More attention will be given to that, but the idea is for more of a curve. Q: Will the building be higher than Lowe's? R: Not sure about Lowe's height but it is probably slightly lower or similar in height to the proposed building. Q: Where will lighting be? Concern: glare into the neighborhood. R: Lighting will be on the front of garages, not the back. The City has lighting standards that prohibit spillover and glare across the property line. This will be addressed on a photometric plan as part of the project. Wrap Up and Next Steps The City will email notes from the meeting. The applicants expect to prepare plans for submittal to the City. If/when the project proceeds to a hearing, it will be a Planning and Zoning Board hearing, and a mailing notice will be sent for that hearing. 100 land planning July 1, 2015 landscape architecture urban design entitlement Planning Objectives Affinity at Fort Collins Project Vision: The Applicant, Affinity at Fort Collins LLC, is proposing to develop an age -restricted (55+) residential apartment community north of Front Range Village. The Affinity community would consist of 161 apartments in a single 3-story building. Access to the site would be from a private drive extended from Corbett Drive to the north. The 8.4-acre site is tucked behind Lowe's Home Improvement store approximately 1,800 feet west of Ziegler Road. Harmony Mobile Home Park is located to the west and English Ranch South, single-family homes, are located immediately north of the site. Two neighborhood meetings have been held to date. 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. 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. With single family development to the North, a mobile home park to the West and a shopping center to the South, Affinity at Fort Collins provides a transition between single family homes and commercial development. Residents have the opportunity to utilize bike paths and sidewalks to access a variety of retail and entertainment options located in the Harmony Corridor. Large landscape buffers are located to the north and west of the site, adjacent to residential uses. An 8' trail connects English Ranch south to the existing one along Corbett Drive. The northern part of the trail, as it connects into English Ranch, expands to 20' and doubles as an emergency access drive. A tree -lined sidewalk and access easement along the south drive will allow pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists to travel through the site and connect to Corbett Drive and Front Range Village in the future. The main building will include 76 1-bedroom units and 85 2-bedroom units. Indoor common amenities include a library, movie theater, lounge, game room, craft room, fitness center, Internet cafe, outdoor heated community deck and pub. Affinity at Fort Collins will feature a separate pool building with a 20' x 40' saltwater pool, hot tub, woodshop, and fitness center. Outdoor common areas include raised gardens, pickleball court, covered BBQ area with outdoor kitchen, community gas fire pit, and dog park. All of these amenities are included at no extra cost to the residents. Fhinkinq outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 101 Affinity at Fort Collins Planning Objectives Page 2 of 3 The required amount of vehicle parking (263 spaces) is provided on the site. Parking is conveniently located around the building close to entrances. There are 70 spaces located in 14 garages, and 36 covered parking spaces. Ample bike parking has also been provided with a total of 278 spaces, 85% of those being enclosed in the building and garages. Articulated walls and sloped roofs give the building a residential feel that integrates well with the area. The exterior fagade consists of multi -colored stucco with painted wood trim and stone veneer wainscot. The materials and building elements are complimentary to the surrounding architecture in the vicinity. In order to develop the community, the entire 8.4-acre site would be utilized. Since residential land uses are considered a secondary land use in the HC District, a Modification was approved to develop 100% of the site as secondary use when only 25% secondary use is allowed within the development plan. Two modifications are being submitted with this PDP. One is to increase the maximum length of the garages. The other is to decrease the 25' setback on the west end of the property adjacent to Harmony Mobile Home Park to 20'. The overall design concept for the site drainage for the Affinity at Fort Collins is to convey 50% of all developed runoff through porous pavement, rain gardens and a bio Swale along the north edge of the property to accomplish the L.I.D. goals for this project. Developed runoff from the site will then be conveyed into two temporary retention ponds designed to twice the 100-year volume generated by a two-hour storm. The retention pond configuration is intended to serve the development until a time that an adequate outfall system is installed to convey the detained release from the site to the Zeigler Road storm sewer crossing. At that time, the proposed retention ponds will be converted with an elevated, sloped invert and outlet structure to release flows below the 2-year historic flow rate. The site historically conveyed overflow during the 100-year storm event for the Harmony Mobile home Park and Pond 286 within the Front Range Village Development. These flows will continue to enter and exit the Affinity site in an identical manner. Internal to the site, the proposed access drives will convey flows to a level spreader on the east side of Corbett Drive and onto the neighboring property. The primary water and sanitary sewer connections to serve the proposed Affinity site will be made within the north end of the existing Corbett Drive cul-de-sac. A secondary water connection will be made in Kingsley Court to add the connection to the Front Range Village system. A water loop is proposed within the access road around the building to provide potable, non -potable and fire protection. Lastly, development of the Affinity community would result in a benefit to the City because it 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. For many seniors, current rental options are either unaffordable (traditional retirement homes with meal service, housekeeping, etc., starting at over $2.500 per month) or they do not offer the preferred senior oriented services and amenities (conventional multifamily rental housing without age Fhinkina outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 102 Affinity at Fort Collins Planning Objectives Page 3 of 3 restrictions, so the potential for noisy neighbors and most amenities focused on families). Affinity offers attractive apartment homes together with a variety of social services all at an affordable price. 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. 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 (AMI) adjusted for household size. The Applicant is proposing to set aside 10% of the dwelling units at Affinity for households earning less than 80% of AMI. Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com 103 land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ urban design ■ entitlement 07/01/15 Affinity at Fort Collins Project Development Plan (PDP) is supported by the following Principles and Policies found in City Plan Fort Collins Adopted February 15, 2011 ECONOMIC HEALTH Principle EH 1: The City will pursue development of a vibrant and resilient economy that reflects the values of our unique community in a changing world. Policy EH 1.1 - Support Job Creation Support the enhancement of the community's economic base and job creation by focusing on retention, expansion, incubation, and recruitment efforts that bring jobs and import income or dollars to the community, particularly businesses in the adopted Target Industry Clusters. The Affinity at Fort Collins will help support job creation in several ways. The construction of the project is estimated to utilize 90-100 workers. Once built, 5 permanent staff members will be employed, and 15-20 third party workers will be used for maintenance and other services. Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 -Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter's Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. The project is located adjacent to the 'Targeted Activity Center' of the Harmony Corridor. The active senior multi -family development will serve as a good transitional area between single family residential and the commercial development along the Harmony Corridor. Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 419 Canyon Ave., Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www. ripleydesigninc.com 104 Affinity at Fort Collins City Plan — Principles and Policies Page 2 of 7 Principle ENV 19: The City will pursue opportunities to protect and restore the natural function of the community's urban watersheds and streams as a key component of minimizing flood risk, reducing urban runoff pollution, and improving the ecological health of urban streams. Policy ENV 19.2 - Pursue Low Impact Development Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology. The overall design concept for the site drainage for the Affinity at Fort Collins is to convey 50% of all developed runoff through porous pavement, rain gardens and a bio swale along the north edge of the property to accomplish the L.I.D. goals for this project. Principle ENV 20: The City will develop an integrated stormwater management program that addresses the impacts of urbanization on the City's urban watershed. As part of that program, the City will implement requirements and strategies for multi -functional stormwater facilities that support density goals for development and redevelopment at a sub -watershed level. Policy ENV 20.2 - Follow Design Criteria for Stormwater Facilities Utilize stormwater facility design criteria that follow national Best Management Practices (BMPs). Stormwater facilities on the site follow the national Best Management Practices. COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map, Policy LIV 5.1 - Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed -use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. The project is located adjacent to the `Targeted Activity Center' of the Harmony Corridor. The active senior multi -family development concentrates higher density housing next to areas along the Harmony Corridor that can support higher levels of activity. Residences of the project will be within a short distance of many beneficial goods and services, benefiting businesses and reducing car trips. Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent 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 105 Affinity at Fort Collins City Plan — Principles and Policies Page 3 of 7 with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. Policy LIV 6.1 - Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Infill and redevelopment in residential areas may occur through: a. The addition of new dwellings on vacant lots and other undeveloped parcels surrounded by existing residential development. b. Dwelling units added to existing houses (e.g., basement or upstairs apartments). c. Small, detached dwellings added to lots of sufficient size with existing houses (e.g., "alley houses" or "granny flats"). d. Expansion or redevelopment of properties. e. Neighborhood -related, non-residential development. The project is located on an undeveloped parcel between existing commercial and residential development. It will add active senior dwellings and affordable housing to the area while serving as a transitional zone. Policy LIV 6.2 - Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not mean uniformity. Articulated walls and sloped roofs give the building a residential feel that integrates well with the area. The exterior fagade consists of multi -colored stucco, painted wood trim and stone. These materials are common elements that are compatible with residential areas. Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area, Policy LIV 7.1 - Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed -used developments that are well - served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. Affordable senior housing is a needed element to support a variety of housing in the City. The location of the development will benefit from the close proximity to transportation, goods and services. Policy LIV 7.2 - Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing Encourage public and private for- profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple -family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. There is a lack of affordable senior housing in the City that this project will help to ease. Policy LIV 7.4 - Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. This active senior multi -family development concentrates a needed housing type in an ideal location. In addition to positively influencing housing affordability, 10% of the development will meet the criteria for affordable housing. Policy LIV 7.5 - Address Special Needs Housing 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 106 Affinity at Fort Collins City Plan — Principles and Policies Page 4 of 7 Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area. For many seniors, current rental options are either unaffordable or they do not offer the preferred senior oriented services and amenities (conventional multifamily rental housing without age restrictions, so the potential for noisy neighbors and most amenities focused on families). Affinity offers attractive apartment homes together with a variety of social services all at an affordable price. Policy LIV 7.6 - Basic Access Support the construction of housing units with practical features that provide basic access and functionality for people of all ages and widely varying mobility and ambulatory —related abilities. The project provides important access and functionality for the active senior population. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. Policy LIV 8.5 - Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of affordable units in isolated areas. With 10% of the project meeting the requirements for affordable housing, this project helps to distribute affordable housing within the community. Principle LIV 10: The city's streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.2 - Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. Along the private drives, trees are included in parkway areas between the edges of the curb and sidewalk. Policy LIV 10.3 - Tailor Street Lighting Tailor lighting fixture design and illumination to match the context of the street. Design lighting to achieve the desired illumination level and preserve "dark sky" views at night time, avoiding sharp contrasts between bright spots and shadows, spillover glare, and emphasis of the light source. Explore options for the types of fixtures available for use within any street condition to enhance the street environment by establishing a consistent style with height, design, color, and finishes. Design residential street light fixtures for human, pedestrian scale, while providing an adequate level of illumination for safety. Where higher pedestrian activity occurs, such as that associated with neighborhood or community centers, districts, or transit stops, consider a combination of lighting options — such as exists in the Downtown — with high mount fixtures for broad distribution of light within the street and smaller pedestrian -oriented fixtures along the sidewalk corridors. Street lighting in full cutoff and meets the City standards for `dark skies'. Principle LIV12: Security and crime prevention will be important factors in urban design. 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 107 Affinity at Fort Collins City Plan — Principles and Policies Page 5 of 7 Policy LIV 12.2 - Utilize Security Lighting and Landscaping Provide security lighting at low, even levels to create comfortable area -wide visibility and pedestrian security, not highly contrasting bright spots and shadows. Design landscaping to avoid hidden areas, particularly where such areas may be used at night, such as near building approaches and entrances, transit stops and stations. A mix of site lighting and building mounted lighting will provide a level of illumination that will help to create a more secure environment. Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community. Policy LIV 14.1 - Encourage Unique Landscape Features In addition to protecting existing natural features, encourage integration of unique landscape features into the design and architecture of development and capital projects. These unique features may range from informal and naturalized to highly structured and maintained features. Some examples include tree groves within a project, stormwater facilities that become naturalized over time, walls with vines, drainageway enhancements, and other small, uniquely landscaped spaces. Several unique landscape features are incorporated into the site. A cobble swale on the north side of the property adds to an aesthetically appealing property buffer while also serving as a water quality feature. Also, a community garden is centrally located and will be an amenity that promotes outdoor interaction and sustainability. Policy LIV 14.2 - Promote Functional Landscape Incorporate practical solutions to ensure a landscape design is functional in providing such elements as natural setting, visual appeal, shade, foundation edge to buildings, screening, edible landscapes, buffers, safety, and enhancement of built environment. Consider and address practical details such as sight distance requirements and long-term maintenance in landscape design. A cobble swale on the north side of the property functions as a water quality feature. Also, a community garden functions as a way for residents to grow and eat their own food. Policy LIV 14.3 - Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Design new landscaping projects based on maintainability over the life cycle of the project using proper soil amendment and ground preparation practices, as well as the appropriate use of hardscape elements, trees, mulches, turf grass, other plant materials, and irrigation systems. Low maintenance practices can be achieved in both turf and non -turf planting areas, provided these areas are designed and installed to minimize weeds, erosion and repairs. Low maintenance practices will be incorporated into the landscape with an emphasis on weed barrier and proper mulch types and depths. Principle LIV 26: Neighborhood stability should be maintained and enhanced. Policy LIV 26.3 - Promote Compatibility of Uses Encourage low intensity residential uses within predominantly residential neighborhoods, including but not limited to single-family, low density multi -family, and group homes. Allow other compatible uses to the extent that they reinforce and do not detract from the primary low density, residential function of the neighborhoods. Active senior multi -family housing will serve as a good transition between single family neighborhoods to the north and west, and commercial development to the south. 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 City Plan — Principles and Policies Page 6 of 7 SAFETY AND WELLNESS Principle SW 1: The City will foster a safe community. Policy SW 1.5 - Maintain Public Safety through Design Provide a sense of security and safety within buildings, parking areas, walkways, alleys, bike lanes, public spaces, and streets through environmental design considerations, such as adequate lighting, visibility, maintained landscaping, and location of facilities. (Also see the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter's Community Appearance and Design section). A sense of safety will be provided through the use of lighting, maintained landscape, walkways and crosswalks. Principle SW 2: The City will provide opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles. Policy SW 2.4 - Design for Active Living Promote neighborhood and community design that encourages physical activity by establishing easy access to parks and trails, providing interesting routes that feature art and other visually interesting elements, and locating neighborhoods close to activity centers and services so that physically active modes of transportation are a desirable and convenient choice. (Also see the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Transportation chapters.) A centrally located amenity area encourages physical activity tailored around the needs and interests of the active senior population. Indoor common amenities include a library, movie theater, lounge, game room, craft room, fitness center, Internet cafe, outdoor heated community deck and pub. Affinity at Fort Collins will feature a separate pool building with a 207 x 40' saltwater pool, hot tub, woodshop, and fitness center. Outdoor common areas include raised gardens, pickleball court, covered BBQ area with outdoor kitchen, community gas fire pit, and dog park. All of these amenities are included at no extra cost to the residents. Principle SW 3: The City will encourage and support local food production to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other educational, economic, and social benefits. Policy SW 3.3 - Encourage Private Community Gardens in Neighborhood Design Encourage community and private gardens to be integrated in the design of new neighborhoods (single and multi -family), and encourage rooftop gardens where appropriate (e.g., roofs of commercial or office buildings, apartment buildings in higher -density areas, etc.). A community garden is centrally located and will be an amenity that promotes outdoor interaction and sustainability. TRANSPORTATION Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities for residents to lead healthy and active lifestyles will be promoted. Policy T 8.1 - Support Active Transportation 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 109 Affinity at Fort Collins City Plan — Principles and Policies Page 7 of 7 Support physically active transportation (e.g., bicycling, walking, wheelchairs, etc.) by continuing bike and pedestrian safety education and encouragement programs, providing law enforcement, and maintaining bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, lighting, and facilities for easy and safe use. 246 bicycle parking spaces are provided in the project, encouraging alternative forms of transportation. The close proximity to the Harmony Corridor makes it convenient for residences to bike or walk to utilize the goods and services. Accessible walks and ramps also allow wheelchairs to easily get around the site and to nearby areas. Policy T 8.2 - Design for Active Living Promote neighborhood and community design that encourages physical activity by establishing easy access to parks and trails, providing interesting routes that feature art and other visually interesting elements, and locating neighborhoods close to activity centers and services so that physically active modes of transportation are a desirable and convenient choice. 246 bicycle parking spaces are provided in the project, encouraging alternative forms of transportation. The close proximity to the Harmony Corridor makes it convenient for residences to bike or walk to utilize the goods and services. Accessible walks and ramps also allow wheelchairs to easily get around the site and to nearby areas. Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Principle T 12: The pedestrian network will provide a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 12.1 - Connections Direct pedestrian connections will be provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work, and public facilities. The site is in close proximity to the Harmony Corridor and provides convenient connections for pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy T 12.4 - ADA Compliance Pedestrian facilities will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. ADA compliance is provided with this project and is an important component of active senior living. Policy T 12.5 - Safe and Secure Develop safe and secure pedestrian settings by developing and maintaining a well -lit, inhabited pedestrian network and by mitigating the impacts of vehicles. Connections will be clearly visible and accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting, and paving materials. A sense of safety will be provided through the use of lighting, clearly visible connections, walkways and painted crosswalks. Policy T 12.6 - Street Crossings Design street crossings at intersections consistent with Fort Collins Traffic Code, Land Use Code, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards with regard to crosswalks, lighting, median refuges, corner sidewalk widening, ramps, signs, signals, and landscaping. Crossings will be painted and connected on both ends with accessible ramps. 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 110 Agenda Item 4 PROJECT NAME FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PDP #150018 APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan Bohemian Companies 262 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins CO, 80524 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a 3-level mixed -use parking garage with 325 parking spaces and 3,200 square feet of retail space at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). The parking garage is proposed as a public -private partnership between the City of Fort Collins, the Downtown Development Authority, and the developers of the Fort Collins Hotel (Bohemian Companies, McWhinney, and Sage Hospitality). 113 parking spaces will be dedicated to the Fort Collins Hotel (approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 10, 2015) and 212 parking spaces will be public parking managed by the City. Proposed at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets, the garage entry will be on Chestnut Street. The retail spaces will face onto Old Firehouse Alley which is proposed to be improved with pavers and Tivoli lights. The garage is proposed to be constructed primarily with precast concrete with architectural interest added with green screens made of galvanized steel lattice, steel framed metal grates to emulate punched windows, aluminum and glass "storefront" on the stair towers, brick facades at the vehicle entrance, the retail along the alley, and along Jefferson Street where future retail uses may be established. The second floor fapade along Old Firehouse Alley is proposed to be plaster to accommodate a mural. Consistent with the immediate downtown context, the garage is not set back from the ROW and directly contributes to the urban design of the street and sidewalk. The massing along both Chestnut and Jefferson Streets will be 2 1/2 stories (three levels without a roof) which will create a transition from Jefferson Street to the 5 story hotel along Old Firehouse Alley. This project is proposed on the same footprint as the approved Fort Collins Hotel parking lot and subject to all required improvements in the right-of-way (ROW). Also, the garage will contain all required vehicle Item # 4 Page 1 111 Agenda Item 4 and bicycle parking for the hotel. For reference, the Fort Collins Hotel staff report from the August 10 Planning and Zoning Board meeting is attached. The site is located in the Downtown (D) District - Old City Center Center Subdistrict and the Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, just outside the Old Town Historic District. Parking lots and garages are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict through review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting one Modification of Standard: Modifications of Standards Parking Section 3.2.2(L) parking dimensional requirements: 90 degree angle stall: 9 feet wide and 19 feet deep; 60 degree angle stall: 9 feet wide and 21 feet deep. One-way drive aisle: 20 feet wide. The project requests parking dimensional sizes: 90 degree angle stall: 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep; 60 degree angle stall: 8 feet 9 inches wide and 18 feet, 11 inches deep. One-way drive aisle: 16 feet, 5 inches wide. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PDP #150018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed design is a result of a thoughtful context -sensitive approach by the developer. Although the project is outside of the Old Town Historic District, the design team utilized the Old Town Historic District Design Standards to inform the building and site design. At the time of writing this staff report, the project is scheduled to be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) on September 28. A memo will be forwarded to the P&Z Board with the outcome of that meeting. Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all standards of the land use code, with the exception of the requested modification of standard which is considered nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. COMMENTS: 1, Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Item # 4 Page 2 112 Agenda Item 4 Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses Northwest Downtown (D) Old City Center Retail and Restaurant uses on the ground Subdistrict level; residential and office on upper levels. Northeast River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Across Jefferson Street are industrial and office uses, and the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. Across Walnut Street is the Mitchell Block (A.K.A. Bohemian Building) which is an office Southwest Downtown (D) Old City Center use and across Mountain Avenue is the Old Subdistrict Town Parking Garage and the Goodyear Tire store (which is proposed to redevelop into a mixed -use [retail & office] project). Southeast Downtown (D) Old City Center Across Chestnut Street are industrial, Subdistrict restaurant, retail uses, and the Lyric Cinema. Lb.v nUWr Tianml J CeuYjjl —J ARK 1O'e1ibcl to +re tl Fort = lltilnie3 Z _ i Inmei in ort Col tint, Hotel - 35 Walnut C+rnn+ J �n < X' > ;wKSTPLAZA _. u m Fire utlwrity 1 ""min I EETPARK/ y� F �C / C a4js / arking_ Garage 363 1_tt_.�__ Bu<kI ngh n I I . 2, Compliance with Division 4,16 - Applicable Downtown Zone District Standards, Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage complies with the applicable standards in Division 4.16 Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict, as explained below. Section 4.16 (A) Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown District is as follows: Item # 4 Page 3 113 I I . 2, Compliance with Division 4,16 - Applicable Downtown Zone District Standards, Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage complies with the applicable standards in Division 4.16 Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict, as explained below. Section 4.16 (A) Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown District is as follows: Item # 4 Page 3 113 Agenda Item 4 The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided into three (3) subdistricts as depicted on Figure 18. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian -oriented character. • Parking structures are complementary and supportive to the dense and activity intense uses in downtown. The proposed parking structure provides parking for both the hotel and the public in an efficient manner without compromising the pattern and fabric of downtown development. Section 4.16(B) - Permitted Use: The proposed parking garage and retail uses are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict by review from the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 1). Section 4.16(D) — Building Standards: (1) Setback from Streets. This standard requires that setbacks shall be compatible with established setbacks of existing buildings on the same block face. • Existing buildings along both Jefferson and Chestnut Streets have been developed with no setback from the ROW. The proposed garage also has a zero lot line setback. (2) Building Height. (a) The maximum building height in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4) stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height. • The proposed parking garage is three levels of parking or 2 '/2 stories in height (29 '/2 feet). The stair towers, located at the north and south corners, rise to 38 feet in height. (4) Building Character and Facades. This standard requires that buildings have architectural interest, encourage outdoor activity, and are constructed with high -quality materials. • The garage is proposed to be constructed primarily with precast concrete with architectural interest added with green screens made of galvanized steel lattice, steel framed metal grates to emulate punched windows, aluminum and glass "storefront" on the stair towers, and brick facades at the vehicle entrance, the retail along the alley, and along Jefferson Street where the structure has been designed to include potential future retail uses. The second floor fagade along Old Firehouse Alley is proposed to be plaster to accommodate a mural. • The garage design encourages outdoor activity by providing retail along the northeast side of improved (with pavers and Tivoli lights) Old Fire House Alley which engages pedestrians and further contributes to an already special space. Section 4.16(E) — Site Design Standards: 1. Site Design. a. Parking lots. This standard requires that parking lots not dominate the frontage of pedestrian -oriented streets and shall be located behind buildings in the interior of Item # 4 Page 4 114 Agenda Item 4 blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • The proposal would replace the hotel's surface parking lot and meet this standard by constructing a parking structure. 3. Compliance with Article Three — General Development Standards: Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage complies with the applicable General Development Standards, with the exception of one modification of standard, as explained below. Section 3.2.1(E) — Landscape Standards: Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. • All areas of the site not paved for pedestrian and vehicular access are landscaped. • Street trees are provided along Chestnut and Jefferson Streets. Section 3.2.2 — Access, Circulation and Parking The proposed parking garage will contain all required vehicle and bicycle parking for the Fort Collins Hotel project. (C) Development Standards: (4) Bicycle Facilities. This standard requires bicycle parking space to be provided per use as follows: Use Categories HOTEL REQUIREMENTS Restaurants a. Fast food b. Standard Bars, Taverns and Nightclubs General Retail General Office (conference space) Lodging Establishments Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Requirements for Parking/ % Fixed Bicycle Racks Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses 5,391 s.f./1,000 = 1.5/1,000 sq. ft., 0%/100% 5 spaces minimum of 4 0%/100% 1/1,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1/500 sq. ft., 0%/100% 1,480 s.f./500 = minimum of 4 3 spaces 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1 per 4 units 20%/80% 830 s.f./4,000 = 1 space 20%/80% 60%/40% 3,541 s.f./4,000 = 1 space 162 units/4 = 41 spaces I Item # 4 Page 5 115 Agenda Item 4 SUBTOTAL 25 enclosed spaces 51 spaces / 26 fixed racks PARKING STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS General Retail 1/4,000 sq. ft., 20%/80% 3,200 s.f./4,000 = minimum of 4 4 spaces SUBTOTAL 4 spaces TOTAL 25 enclosed spaces 55 spaces / 30 fixed racks • The hotel project was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with the condition that all required bicycle parking (51 spaces) be provided on -site and/or in the public right-of-way. • The project is proposing to provide 55 bicycle parking spaces to comply with the Planning and Zoning Board's condition of approval (51 spaces) and the additional bicycle parking required from the retail on the parking garage (4 spaces). (K) Parking Lots — Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use. (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements. This standard requires a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces per use as shown in the following chart: Use Minimum Parking Maximum Parking Minimum Requirements for Spaces Spaces Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses HOTEL REQUIREMENTS 5,391 s.f./1,000(*5) _ Restaurants a. Fast Food 7/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 27 spaces b. Standard 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. 1,480 s.f./1,000(*5) _ Nightclubs 7 spaces General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. 830 s.f./1,000(*2) _ 2 spaces General Office 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. 3,541 s.f./1,000(*l) _ (conference) 4 spaces Lodging 0.5/unit 1/unit 162 units*(0.5) _ Establishments 81 spaces SUBTOTAL 121 spaces PARKING GARAGE REQUIREMENTS General Retail SUBTOTAL TOTAL 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. 3,200 s.f./1,000(*2) _ 6 spaces 6 spaces 127 spaces Item # 4 Page 6 116 Agenda Item 4 Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(c) permits an exemption in the TOD Overlay Zone of 25% of 5,000 square feet (distributed proportionally among uses). Below is the breakdown of the permitted reduction in parking: Use Percentage of Overall Square Minimum Requirements with Footage Applied to 5,000 S.F. TOD Reduction per Use Exemption HOTEL REQUIREMENTS Restaurants 7.96% (*51000) = 398 s.f. 5,391 s.f. — 398 s.f. = 4,993 s.f. /11000(*5) = 25 spaces Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 1.23% (*51000) = 62 s.f. 1,480 s.f. — 62 s.f. = 1,418 s.f. /1,000(*5) = 7 spaces General Retail 2.18% (*51000) = 109 s.f. 830 s.f. - 109 s.f. = 721 s.f. /1,000(*2) = 1 spaces General Office (conference) 5.23% (*5,000) = 262 s.f. 3,541 s.f. — 262 s.f. = 3,279 s.f. /1,000(*l) _ 3 spaces Lodging Establishments 83.40% (*57000) = 4,170 s.f. 162 units — 12 units = 150 units 4,170 s.f. / 345 s.f. (ave. room *(0.5) = 75 spaces s.f.) = 12 units SUBTOTAL 111 spaces Planning and Zoning Board 5 106 approved modification (9/10/15) (-) spaces spaces PARKING GARAGE REQUIREMENTS General Retail 100% (as a separate project, the 3,200 s.f. — 25% = 2,400 s.f. reduction is not distributed /1,000(*2) = 5 spaces proportionally among uses) SUBTOTAL 5 spaces TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT 111 spaces • The project is proposing 325 vehicle parking spaces - 113 spaces will be dedicated to the hotel, and 212 parking spaces will be for public use. Section 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions Standards in this section establish minimum sizes for parking stalls and drive aisles in parking lots and parking garages. The requirements, found in Table A, for the parking garage follow: • 90 degree angle stalls: 9 feet wide and 19 feet deep; • 60 degree angle stalls: 9 feet wide and 21 feet deep. - One -way drive aisles: 20 feet wide. The project requests a modification to theses standard for the following to be permitted: • 90 degree angle stalls: 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep; • 60 degree angle stalls: 8 feet 9 inches wide and 18 feet, 11 inches deep. • One-way drive aisles: 16 feet, 5 inches wide. Item # 4 Page 7 117 Agenda Item 4 Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting: The purpose of this section is for a project to ensure that the functional and security needs are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties and neighborhood. • All lighting is down -directional with cutoff fixtures. Section 3.4.7 — Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 (F)(6) states: In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter -mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. • The Landmark Preservation Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on this project at a September 28 meeting. A memo will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board with findings and recommendation prior to the October 8 hearing. Section 3.5.1 — Building and Protect Compatibility: Standards in this Section require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. Where the established character of the relevant area is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, projects must set an enhanced standard appropriate for the area. • The garage's massing along both Chestnut and Jefferson Streets will be 2 1/2 stories (three levels without a roof) which will create a transition from Jefferson Street to the 5 story hotel along Old Firehouse Alley. The street frontages are modulated in historic proportions with brick storefronts, green screens, and steel framed metal grates that emulate punched windows. 4. Compliance with Modification of Standards (Division 2.8) The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4. In order to grant a modification of standard, the decision maker must find that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and Item # 4 Page 8 118 Agenda Item 4 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. Parking Modification Modification Request — Section 3.2.2(L) The applicant requests a modification to the requirements found in Table A of Section 3.2.2(L) which describe the dimensional standards for parking stalls and drive aisles in parking lots and parking garages. The requirements, found in Table A, for the parking garage follow: • 90 degree angle stalls: 9 feet wide and 19 feet deep.- 60 degree angle stalls: 9 feet wide and 21 feet deep; • One-way drive aisles: 20 feet wide. The project requests the following modification to these standards: • 90 degree angle stalls: 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep; • 60 degree angle stalls: 8 feet 9 inches wide and 18 feet, 11 inches deep. • One-way drive aisles: 16 feet, 5 inches wide. Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) have been hired to design the parking garage. They advocate for a parking design approach known as Level of Service (LOS) which customizes parking based on user needs. The proposed size of parking stalls and drive aisles fall into the category of LOS B which is intended for "short-term, high turnover parking such as downtown retail and office visitor parking." The garage proposal could most likely meet City requirements by providing a mixture of standard (sizes noted above) and compact stall sizes (up to 40% of total spaces — 90 degree: 8 feet wide and 15 feet deep; 60 degree: 8 feet wide and 17.9 feet deep; drive aisle width: 20 feet wide). Additionally, the City permits long-term parking stalls (defined as residential and employee -type parking) which measure for both angles 8.5 feet wide and 18 feet deep. However, Walker does not Item # 4 Page 9 119 Agenda Item 4 recommend this approach and advocates for a "one -size -fits -all" approach to improve the customer experience and because vehicles do not vary in size as significantly as they did at one time. The National Parking Association (NPA) also advocates for a similar approach to parking called Level of Comfort. A high Level of Comfort (defined as moderate to high turnover) recommends parking stall width between 8 feet 9 inches to 9 feet. It is anticipated that the parking garage will accommodate both long-term and short-term parking, and compact and standard -sized vehicles. The proposed size of the parking stalls and drive aisles represents a mid -range size between the largest requirements (standard) and the smallest requirements (compact or long-term). The requested approach would create a consistent parking experience throughout the garage. Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). The request would provide a Level of Service B or a high Level of Comfort and represents a mid -range size between the various requirements in the Land Use Code. Please see the applicant's modification request attached. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PDP #150018, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions: 1. The request for a modification of standard to permit parking stall sizes for 90 degree angle stalls at 9 feet wide and 18 feet deep and 60 degree angle stalls at 8 feet 9 inches wide and 18 feet, 11 inches deep, and one-way drive aisles at 16 feet, 5 inches wide is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the request represents mid -range dimensional sizes between the various requirements in the Land Use Code and the parking garage will be serving parking customers for which the various requirements are intended. 2. The Project Development Plan contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict in Article 4, Division 4.16 of the Land Use Code. 3. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modification of standard. 4. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. Item # 4 Page 10 120 Agenda Item 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of Modifications of Standards to subsections 3.2.2(L); and approval of Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage PDP #150018 based on findings of fact found on page 13 of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Elevations Perspectives and Materials (PDF) 2. Site Plan (PDF) 3. Landscape Plan (PDF) 4. Floor Plans (PDF) 5. Modification Request - Parking Stall Size (PDF) 6. FC Hotel - P&Z Staff Report 9-10-15 (PDF) Item # 4 Page 11 121 GALVANIZED STEEL LATTICE TO SUPPORT"GREEN SCREEN" SYSTEM VINES TRELLIS ^\ NATURAL VINES ON POWDER 11 COATED MESH SCREEN ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT -------- � GALVANIZED STEEL CHANNEL ART WALL BRICK VENEER ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure 4' 4Q LPC Submittal page 17 Building signage and Identification to match neigh- boring City parking structures to provide a clear wayfinding system within Downtown context. T INTEGRAL COLOR PRECAST CONCRETE SPANDREL - I GARAGE ENTRANCI COLOR T COLOR 2 METAL GRATE WITH GETAL IZED GRATE TEEL WITH FRAME I I PRECAST PLANTER RAMP UP BEYOND BRICK PRE -CAST INTERLOCKING PREFINISHED PREFINISHED (GARDEN BLEND- (LIGHT RED- METAL PANEL- ALUMINUM ALUMINUM SMOOTH) SMOOTH&TEX- (PREWEATHERED -COLORS-COLOR4 TURED) ZINC) PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING Chestnut Street Elevation LEVEL 03 LEVEL 02 ._ tts� o�� V PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING 122 GALVANIZED STEEL IATTICE TO SUPPORT 'GREEN SCREEN" SYSTEM VINES TREWS POWDER COATED MESH SCREEN Old Firehouse Alley Elevation Bay patterns along alley are inspired by traditional firehouse truck bays. Roll -up glass garage doors, captured between a masonry frame will activate the ground floor. Alley art will activate the spandrels above the bays and provide visual interest for hotel guests and pedestrians. ALUMINIUM INTERLOCKING STOREFRONT METAL PANEL (ZINC) T Q Q Q T TO MATCH HQTEL Q Q 10 PREFINISHED GALVANIZED METAL GALVANIZED STEEL C CHANNEL r COPING !O - �s - . rAW MARIIMUU .9 DOORTYP. INTEGRALCOLOR PRECAST CONCRETE METAL PANEL SPANDREL BRICK (GARDEN BLEND - SMOOTH) Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure 4 4Q LPC Submittal page 18 PRE -CAST (LIGHT RED - SMOOTH &TEX- TURED) EXTERIOR PIASTER FINISH PANEL TO BRICKVENEER ---- RECEIVE "ALLEY ART", TYP 4 BAYS STIX2EFRONF� DOORTYP. STOREFRONT METAL 'C'CHANNEL WINDOW - W-CONCRETE BASE INTERLOCKING METAL PANEL - (PREWEATHERED ZINC) PREFINISHED PREFINISHED ALUMINUM ALUMINUM -COLORS -COLOR4 PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING T PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING LEVEL 03 126' - 0" LEVEL 02 115' - 0" 123 GALVANIZED STEEL LATTICE TO SUPPORT "GREEN SCREEN' SYSTEM VINES TRELLIS ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT NATURAL VINES ON POWDER COATED MESH SCREEN GALVANIZED STEEL C CHANNEL _ _ I OPERABLE STOREFRONT DOOR TO PUBLIC WAY Facing Linden Street Elevation Secorndary facades within the Downtown and Civic Center Cores are rendered in simple, modest materials and finishes (painted precast and stucco finish- es). The proposed material selections are consistent with historic patterns of Downtown Fort Collins - (active public edges and passive secondary edges). Importantly, the rich material palete found on the primary facades shall "turn the corner" into the secondary facades to wrap the edges 2 3 4 INTEGRAL COLOR PRECAST CONCRETE SPANDREL � I I LEVEL 03 126' - 0" f LEVEL 02 Flo 1111111 I_ _ _ 4A 116' -0" BRICK VENEER ON CMU STEM WALL W/ PRECAST CAP RAMP UP BEHIND BRICK PRE -CAST INTERLOCKING PREFINISHED PREFINISHED (GARDEN BLEND- (LIGHT RED- METAL PANEL- ALUMINUM ALUMINUM SMOOTH) SMOOTH&TEX- (PREWEATHERED -COLORS-COLOR4 TURED) ZINC) Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure 4' 4Q LPC Submittal page 19 PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING 124 'ILVANIZED STEEL OFFICE TO SUPPORT IREEN SCREEN" ISTEIAMNES - ATURAL VINES ON DWDER COATED ESH SCREEN 1 h The New Parking Structure shares a few of the following attributes and consistent fa- cade character found along historic facades along Jefferson Street (one block away): Base / Middle / Top Variety in Single Facade: Bay Articulation / Punched Windows Consistent Material Palette Conveys the traditional size of historic buildings as perceived from street level INTEGRAL COLOR T T NOTCH AT PANEL JOINT PRECAST PERFORATED METAL _ CONCRETE GRATE WITH WITH GALVANIZED METAL IF _ -_i SPANDREL GANIZED STEE�h RAILING FIRME PERFORATED METAL GRATE WI GALVANIZED STEELFRAME - (TO BE REPLACED WITH STOREFRONT WINDOWS AND FOCUS WHEN DORI RETAIUOFFICE IS BUILT OUT) Downtown Fort Collins Parking Structure 424C LPC Submittal page 20 METAL "C'CHANNEL 1 PREFINISHED GALVANIZED METAL COPING PRIr'K WNFFR CONCRETE PLANER W FLOWERS BRICK PRE -CAST INTERLOCKING PREFINISHED PREFINISHED (GARDEN BLEND- (LIGHT RED- METAL PANEL- ALUMINUM ALUMINUM SMOOTH) SMOOTH &TEX- (PREWEATHERED-COLORg -COLOR4 TURED) ZINC) ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT - GALVANIZED STEEL C CHANNEL METAL PANEL PREFINISHED OMEGA ECO FENCING Jefferson Street Elevation PRECAST CONCRETE PARAPET CAP GROUND FACE CMU GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED BAR GRATING 125 46 ' 4 o�w• f t r 11 ..� = " •. ; op la l i, r J �4 _ a a - --! ►` Ar _ I Zzi oil OPP + Okla,' wr pot rT MIF7� II II I N I SDEIEGEt� care WxartTE OsMDMm worx Pa' _ _ UMR P ANAK _ MOM CONCRETE —__— PMCEL BWNDAtt CONCRETE FARM W SUNN AA PEEFSIRW UCR • alf9lPE BELOW 15CC1 WMIS LEMYNEADJUS O CONCRETE PIMIIER/SFA,NALL C� GLST-H-PIKE CONCRETE MVL Be ENS ® TIRE MD DRUM RMY ESN[ PROGRAM V/F w mu VDICIE PARKING tR COULL MINIMUM RESaONRN SORT S 27 PDT FUND Y PTM NO BE 1 2 PER FUND Y AY RN I.MC 4 ) 5 PER PoSo 3 COMMERCE 3,541 4 1 1 PAR LCW 5E ADS. 163 MOVE 75 D5 PA MIT COX RM MOO SPACES (NIfY WALL ] TOW ¢DES TOPE CE RANKS COMPONENT BANTU(BEHALF) AUNT ME SPACES NIC ROYAL (PREDATE) ) MMSES NSUC (GEMI PMANTA 212 VAGN BOND ADOEBMES WOMEN RMM ON 511E REFUSAL 5.391 Sf 6K1aE MASON 5 CORONA 1 PER 1.030 K - MN. OF 1 Md. TO) BE A 1 I4R 1.OD Sf - ux. GEL ALUW MAL ODDS A 1PR aOL s-MN. OF SKY AN I LBO SF A 1 PR SO3 BE - MN. OF a CMWIS 3541 4 1 1 PER 4.00* A- MN, P I IPJD1 163 RWM$ TDTAC 41 DI- 1 PER 6 KDRCOMS ALI- MOIRE - 51 SPACES "I11CNLL ILLEY MOO. SPACES - 1 PfR DOMNEOWN TORT OWN$ IDIR PP fWlglK 1, REIA Ig16 1. TO DUPM PWIS MR EtY.T lCCA1101S BE STORM [PN1CF STRUCTURES, NY HOPS AND S Wl END ERgt6. 2. PEER AD BCE EMAL AND EW ET IMPROVEMENTS PLANS MR OEMEO HEgpIAXNI REGAf01NG PROPoSFD TOPOGRAPHIC VHLIM1 AND STREET END UAMEMS. a ALL LIBERALS ME SVONS. M PUT RIG umnr PLANS TORE ER SU LOCVEY RAN,OCH AxO aME1BDxs Cf NL CONSTRUCT LANs. THE STREETS, DEVELOPMENT PLAN N B GOER SOXhE ED IN ONE P A. AL CONSTRUCTOR PLAN IS O THE CTHESE HEM PVN MJST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PUSH VME4 A BUYERS ROOFTOP TOP 15 SGRON WIM THESE MECHANICAL UGHES 5. ALL PGGf1GP HIG GXGVNG MOUNTED MECXPXICVL EQUIPMENT MUST R SCXfEXfO iRN NEW ROM IF ALL UGMINC MORE ADSORPTION LEWLS PRMOED ARM ME DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY ARM ME EWI-tlNOLE REQUIREMENTS IN MOTOR 326 Of ME LOUD USE CODE AND WIN CITY Of FORT SWUNG IMAM AND MEET AM REQUIREMENTS. ALL U FUNG MAKES PROMPT AM THE OEVUOPMEW SHALL USE A CONCEDED, FULLY BURNED UGM SOURCE AND SHALL FEANRS SWAP CUI-OP VMHCIa SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP -LIGHT , SPILL UCH, aME AND UNNECESSARY A N51]I. 1. SILAGE AND ADDRESSING ME NOT HANDLED WITH ARE PC& RD5 AND MVSI R AWXREQ 9Y SPACE CM WENT PRIOR M CONSTRUCTION. CONS MUST COMPLY WIM CITY smN CODE VRESS A SEEMS VMANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. B. DH XYDRANIS MUST MEET OR EXCEED WORSE H,E MINORITY STANDARDS. ALL SUMMERS MUST EAONDE M APPROVED FIRE MASONING STEM. 9. ALL BITE PACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 10. ALL SIOEWDKS AND RANKS MUST CONFOPoM TO CITY STANMI S. ACCESSIBLE PRANKS MUST BE PiQNDED AT ALL ACCEPT AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DUAGNARD ACCESSIBLE EARNED WALES. XCESSIBLE PMXNC SPACES MOST SLOPE NO MOW TUN 1.40 N AND OIRECTUM, ALL ICCESSII WAR MUST SLOPE NO MORE MW 1.90 IN DIRECTION OF TUVEL ANO NTH NO WHE TUN 1:99 OWN SLOPE. 11. PRINATE CON)TI',NS CUJENWTS AND REACTOR (CC&R'S), OR MY OTHER PRIVATE RESIRCTM CONTRAST ILPoiD ON UVA OWNERS BAR THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT O CREATED CN DAMAGED WAS ME 0117 OF PROHIPRNG OR UYRNC THE INSTALLATION OF RR6tlPE MARCONI SDUMBI VOLDIC COLECIOS IF MOUNTED MUSH UPON MY ESTABLISHED ME Uxn. CLOTHES UPS (R LOCATED M GP( Y.YRS), MOOR-cOHR01LE0 COMPOST GINS, OR WHICH MOVE THE EFPCT OF REQUIRING MAT A FORTRAN OF AW MAGI LOU BE HALT M LURE DBMS, 12. MY DAMMED CURB, GAITER AND WEND% EtlmxG PENN A CONSTRUCTION , AS WELL AS STREETS, SEEWAIM, CORES AND CURTIS, LESMOIFT. CROSSED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJI SXLLL RE REPIACID OR LAMBERT A CITY OF FORT COLLINS SUMMONSES AT ME EEVDWEtS EXPENSE PRIOR TO ME ACCEPTANCE Of COMPLETED IYPRTrfl1pR$ MD/OR RAN TO ME ISSILNCE OF THE FIRST COMPTMATE OF OCGIKANC! 13. ME ENCROACHMENTS SUSAN BAN ME RGHS-OF-MY ARE SLBIECT A A LLVOR FNAtl6NNEM PERMIT APPROVAL NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION 424o Architecture Inc. FORTCOULINSUM MEN 27M ROCKY MOUNFAINAVE STEM t an DO ENDS CROUTON SAAKEEHOSMULTY ARCHITECT "WHIMUCTUREINIC 35V MONEY COURT SUITS US DENVER COMMON CIVIL �M BOIWMM, INC MSCOLLEGEAVE 1413 COLLEGE AGE D FPO9MIRD 233EPTA15 C GARMEMPYJBMIITAL 2MKX15 0 PDPRES'JNM VJ. UJULYN15 A PDPW MIRAL UJUNEX15 INA DOOMPTaN MTE ARCHRECTSPRWECTNUMNER 2112900 KEY PIAN Overall Site Plan NVAAMIIWo"1:1aWTI 0 Zl 20, 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH LS101A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - LANDSCAPE SUBMITTAL DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL - GARAGE ALTERNATIVE IN PEEIM Collins MIiINks -. To 51 QSwamae St d 'aA m Salyer All Area o Oalandill Garet, Pasml$ Sr Main Sl IS River's Edge Natural Area Form At Lee E Vine Dr Maltearlpark'I seva LPe MWrini Park °Nnu,lAPa I ED >iT, New Belgium Fort Collins Museum Brewing Company of Discovery ' 4 if Iw k na Sr cherry 51 F $ _ Maple 5l rP a y 2 0 Laporte Ave W MYYnlaln Ave or o Ins a a M' wolai SY p o a, y pnolia 51 W Mai 5 b m Lincoln Center. lulberry St BY Mulberry St 0 E Or a y W MYrrla SY W war is b W Laurel St Old fort CID ins a uq in Heritage Park y FOW COLLINS HOTE`pe1B w'"°`Dm"'ny. E Lincoln Ave E Mountain Ave lea .AD EOak $1 Udall Nalural Area Z 3 ; a f IF R Ln F Maandia 51 N E Mavoiia 519 ms�p 9bP CaLl EMulberry St E Vine Or ViA I OPEZ r b 4/ ang t N � •euHalo Run ApeTtmmla e u R a Waknan Supttcenttt a ITT Y TITHome Depol Le.J don Lake y EMpIle 51 EMatter ST E"He 51 •l`\ Springer Nafvlel A,ea @ 3= n 0 r = 'R AsFM Williams Netoral Area Hy E Laurel St N N _ P3V X ELai Sr e egAP Northor F .. r. � Ephi Al 3 a Pivttsilte CmsFlnp M Michigan SHEET INDEX LPOOIA COVER LP10I TREE MITIGATION PUN LP102A OVERALL PUNTING PUN LP501 PLANTING DETAILS PLANNING CERTIFICATE OWNER'S CERNFICANON ME UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE PRE THE LAWFUL OWNER'S OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLW AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ONE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SEE FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN. DINNERIN (STATE OF )SS (COUNTY OF SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BE BEFORE THIS DAY OF 20 BY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ADDRESS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES PWJNING APPROVAL APPROVED BY ME CURRENT DIRECTOR OF COMMON" DEVELOPMENT & NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES (CDNS) OF ME CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, IRIS OF 2014, T1FELTUFb `=N NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION 424o Architecture Inc. WSEMOUNIUMNAVE DEVELOPER MMHIMU Sea ROCKY MOUNTAINAVE STEM t an 162 an 1:3032923368 Total CIVIL �M BOIWMM, INC ryo O J W F-" F N L O 0 F— z = WO O�U 06J INNIMMIN Z U)o z J F- c> oz0 Q O LL OUP 0 C GARAGERMPSUBMIRAL 2MKX15 9 POPRICUS mPL UJULYN15 A PDT SUBMIIIAL 24 JUNE M15 ISSN DESCNPnm DATE ARCHITIAT'S PROJECT NUMBER 21129.00 KEY PLAN Cover Sheet Landscape Submittal CONTEXT MAP ,r NORTH LP001A -a rt D T2 T3 T4 T5 dam• Z A m 1 '. T6 T7 T8 T9 TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1. ALL DIETING TREES WITHIN ME UMHS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND MUNK ANY NATURAL ARI RUPEES ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THEY PLANS FOR REMOVAL 2, WAR THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING WE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FULL OVER A FOUR -INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED MODEST t OR FORESEER HAS DIALIMTED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. All PROTECTED EASING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CRY OF FORT . 1 COWNS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL STILL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS TUT HOLDS A CURRENT Cltt Of FORT GOWNS ' MBORIST LICENSE MERE REQUIRED BY CODE. _ 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION. BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND Y o YIY All PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SAM SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE ` ` 1 FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEES IN BRIGHT. SECURED WITH METAL Y Y• Y MPOSTS. NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF OF THE DRIP LANE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MAIERW.. DEBRIS ON TILL WITHIN _ THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION MADE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE OJEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MOERML OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, COMBINE, ASPHALT, CONCRETE. MOTOR OIL OR ANY BITTER MATERAL HARMFUL TO THE UK OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. Rp - 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT. WIRES. SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE TABUCHI TO D ANY PROTECTED TREE. ogv.O ]. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND UNLIEY CASEMENTS MAY BE 'RUMORED 01 RATHER MAN ERELTNG PROTECTIVE _ FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. '] THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED W PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM T2 / , OF FIFTY (50) FEEL APART AND WING RIBBON OR ROPE RICAN --- — - STAKE-M-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. • B. THE IN51AWDON OF MILLER, IRRIGATION LINES OR MY UNDERGROUND NATURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER TOM SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER ME EDGE SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EASTNG T2 6 ` TREES AT A MINIMUM DEEM CL TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM ME FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER PARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT STUART HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE O I C_ CHART BELOW: ,. • 44T24T m Tree DnmNn n B He PA III Amer SARI Fmm Face of Dee 1T24 ( e m o2 1 T25 oo:n ` ;p 5-4 2 5-9 0-110 12 1Drer 9 Z 19 15 r*. Y • 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED CLOSER OF THE SONGBIRD ESON (EFE I - JULY ) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING N IN THE m E .; � rI I ANSI I ANSI III11WI I III I IIII I CHESTNUT ,_,_,_ . y C ESTNUT STREET y °�a� /_' _.. \./. '�\/•..1�•.. \ In hP:.YWi .w'e'I� �I P..�.� 4'l. h.'... . TV A TREE MITIGATION PLAN �1 20' 0 FOR 20' 40' NORTH DOWNTOWN HOTEL TREE INVENTORY/MITIGATION ID ACTION LOCATION SPECIES SIM CONDITION MITIGITION RED IF REMOVED 71 RETAIN NORTI-AUONGALLEY SIBERMM ELM 2'-P' FAIR- 2 IT REMOVE ADJAOENTTO EXISTING RESTAURANT HONEY LOCUST 04" FAIR WA 13 REMOVE ADJACENTTO EXISTING RESTAURANT HONEY LOCUST 04 FAIR 15 N REMOVE ADJACENTTO EXISTING RESTAURANT CHOKECHERRY 0'4F FAIR 1 T5 REMOVE ADJACENTTO EXISTING RESTAURANT HONEY LOCUST O8 FAIR- 15 TO REMOVE ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESTAURANT HONEYLOCUST 9-0 FAIR- N/A AS REMOVE ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESTAURANT CHOKECHERRY O-T FAIR 15 TS REMOVE ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESTAURANT CHOKECHERRY DRS. FAIR 15 TB REMOVE ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESTAURANT HONEYLOCUST )I FAIR N/A RIG REMOVE ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESTAURANT HONEYLOCUST tl% FAIR♦ 15 T11 REMOVE PLANTING ISLAND ALONG WALNUT MARULALLGREENASH Y-10.5' FAIR 2 T12 RETAN PLANTING ISLAND ALONG WALNUT MARSHALLGREENASH 13.5' FAIR 2 T13 SEEMS PLANTING ISLAND ALONG WALNUT MARSHALLGREENASH P-II,F FAIR 2 714 REMOVE PLANTING ISIANDAT END OF CHESTNUT MARSHALLGREENASH 114, FAIR 2 T15 REMOVE PLANTING ISIANDAT END OF CHESTNUT MARSHALLGREENASH 114, FAIR 2 T16 RETAIN PLANTING ISIANDAT END OF CHESTNUT MARSHALLGREENASH 1'-T FAIR 2 TP RETAIN PLANTING ISUJRD ALONG MOUNTAIN AVE MARSHALLGREENASH 1i FAIR• 25 T18 RETAIN PLANTING ISUJRD ALONG MOUNTAIN AVE MARSHALLGREENASH 1-T FAIR 2 718 REMOVE PLANTING ISUJRD ALONG MOUNTAIN AVE MARSHALLGREENASH Vtl FAIR 2 tt0 RETAIN SIDEWALK NORTH OF LYRIC CAFE SCHUMARD OAK 0'-P' GOOD 2 tt1 RETAIN SIDEWALK NORTH OF LYRIC CAFE SCHUMAAD OAK 0'-9' GOOD 2 tt3 RETAIN SIDEWALK NORTH OF LYRIC CAFE TEXAS RED OAR 0'-7' GOOD 15 723 RETAIN SIDEWALK NORTH OF LYRIC CAFE TEXAS RED OAK 0'8" GOOD 15 YG HEWN SIDEWALKALONG JEFFERSON ST HONEY LOCUST U-55. GOOD WA 725 REMOVE COURWARDATBNLDING HONEYLOCUST 2T POOR 15 tt8 REMOVE COURTYARD AT BUILDING CRABAPPLE W FAIR 2 ttT REMOVE COURTYARD AT BUILDING JUNIPER 15' FAIR+ 25 TREE MITIGATION TOTAL - 24 NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION 424o Architecture Inc. OWNS WHEMANCONFANIN AGEMOUNTAINAW DEVELOPER MCWHINNEY 27M ROCKY MOUNTAINAVE STEM t an SO SM 35V PEONY ONTO SUITE U7 DENVER CONS CIVIL FICARTMERN BOIWMM, INC MISCOLUEGEAVE tINSR&I III FANNIE of O W �N LL FAA= �o O Z 00 z = =o Uz Z �Jp J HU ZJJ� O � �o 0 C GARAGEIMPSUBMITIAL 2MKX15 B PUPR=MOMMUM. UJULYN15 A PDPW MIRAL UJUNEXI5 IN A CEYMPTp1 DATE MCNRECTS PROJECT NUMNEN 21129,00 KEY PI -AN Tree Mitigation Plan LP101 OVERALL PLANTING PLAN NO MSS AND A Hp0 ON CONTEXTS PLACTINGs AT ME EMBLEM N OF ED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDUCA E BEFORE FINE APPROVAL OF EACH SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AL L WORKS 9NLL BE PERFORMED BY A BY CODE STREET HELPS SHALL BE BED LANMCAPE OMMACTOR. HEM AFTER MAKERS UNTIL FINAL FONT COLONS FORESTRY ORBITAL ALL I AN METHODS SPECIES AND OF THE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED ID EMEEN TREES, STREET SONS CAN IDLE OF ME LOT ITT ME EXTENT UNLESS A REMGIIGn B.LLFiN[D BY WIfHAPE LEGEND LANDSCAPE REACTED WATER O MIDGET CHURN" ENISIING ME TO REMIN ��set Ham��p TOTAL WATER VY = 57,145 B1 TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA • RCIN S.F. CNEONs PER SF. = LOT P/L./SE Mr.NmWN OF HEAT: NICE • M6 DAI MEDIUM • NLLf OF SHRUB ROM LOW - ME OF EARTH KIM 1, RANT GAMEY, NL PILM W2RML 9WL A "RAYS CR x0 1 GANDE -FREE BE ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL BEAUTY. HEIGHT, TYPE DENSITY AND sPRG01XROPRAM 10 THE SPECIES AS CEHNED BY THE AMERICAN AMEOCM1pN OF MOMENTUM (SUN) SFANMROS ALL TREES SHALL BE BYL AND BURLAP OF EQUIVALENT. 2. IANSnpx: ALL MDONR ME\5 WORK ME SEE INCLUDING TURF. SHELF BEM AND WE NEED sxNE R IRRIGATED WITH M MNOwvI INGANON SRH4 ME IRRIGVnpI BEEN MUST BE AMONG AND ARAOVED BY ME MY OF FORT CCWN$ WATER UTLI DEPARTMENT PRIER TO ME ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ALL NRT MEAS MALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN NIIdMTC PCP -LP HMS IIW SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB KOS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NAIVE BED 3 MERGIL'. 10 ME WMWN STAN FEASIBLE, EXPROII THAT Is REMOVED BUYERS CONSTRUCTION ALTMIY SNIT R CCIRAV£D MR UIER USE ON AHEM AWIMNC FREDERICK AND OUDSCAPINC. C RUN AMENDMENTS, 55L AMENDMENTS 9VLL BE PROARD AND MENTIONED IN ACCORDANCE 6 TO THE BRENAUIRwE X5HAW SEi {EN INCRH INEASED SECTIOOMENS AND ME SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT MTIM 12-132 S INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE ME UNCSCMNC SMALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING T) SAND a ], REPLACEMENT: MY LANDSCAPE RENEW THAT DIES, OR Is OMERMSE RE AGAR, SMALL BE PROMPTLY REPEATED IN ACCORDANCE AM THE REQUIREMENTS OF EASE PUNS. 8. ME EOLLOMING $EPASMONS SHALL BE PFSIOED DONALD IRRs/sHRUDS AND UIIIIIES: AO FEET BETWEEN GN0.W IRRs AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL WE AND FOREMASTS 0 FEEL BETWEEN MESS AND PUBLIC WATER. SANITARY AND STA N SEWER MIND UX6 B RESET BETWEEN TERM AND FUELS WATER WITARY AND SEMI AWED SERVICE FINDS. FE EL BETWEEN SERUM AND PUBLIC WATER AND FANTASY AND STORM OVER LINES EEL BETWEEN TEE AND GAS ONES 9. ALL STREET THUS REAL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EV£s OR oBMWAYS AND Aufls PER wC 321(o)(2)(0) IDPO6EMENT OF ALL LANGELAND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WHIM M RGM MODULE CRITNM AS SPECIFIED BY ME Cm OF FORT COLORS. NO SIRIC CURET OR IANDYAR MOUNTED (MODEST MAN 24' SHALL BE ALLOWED NEAR ME SIGHT DEGREE TRNxGI£ OR EASEMENT$ WITH M ENCEPRONOF DECIDUOUS IRAN PENEY THAT THEUNREST TGMT EAST IS AT L6 FROM CIRM CIRCUS FENCES WITHIN M %ITT DISTANCE MARBLE OR MOMENT MOST A NICE MORE MAN 42' In HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN, II.CHMMON SEEN VPKE ARCS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAY$, STREET NEXI AND FINDS CIRCLES ADIACENT TO COMMON p4N SPACE MEAN ARE REQUIRED TO BE WARGA FG BY A PROPERLY OWNERS A40.'WIDN. THE PROPERTY OWNERS AROCKLON 6 RESPONDED CAN SHOW REMOVAL ON ALL APNLENT STREET SMWNYS AND ON ALL CONDEMNS. REMAIN DRUM AND PARKING AREAS SPIN ME )NELCPMENT. ILIANDSGNIXG WIMIN MIGHT ME WAYS, STREET MEDIANS SAN TRAFFIC CIRCLES APYTEw TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS USE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY M PROPERTY OWNER OF M RESIRNNL LOT, AND M PROPERTY OWNER Is REMPONSIBIE FOR SNOW ROIwAL ON ALL SUBAGENT STREET $RAMEM HOME DMIMER SNALL OBSCURE TMl ME FINAL UNUSUAL RAN IS COMMIUIEO WITH ALL OTHER FALL FLAN DOMESTIC SO TNT THE PRGPMED (MARGIN, SITTER LEAKAGE. AND OFFER QENELOPMENR IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT COMMIT YAIH NOR PRECLUDE IHAM1ACK AND MAINTENANCE OF LAM CAFE ELEMENTS 0 FEE PINK. IF. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND BLAME LIX]TNNS My BE MADE DURING Cp51MILMn — AR REQUIRED BY SITE MORNING OR PORE AVAILABILITY OVERALL BAR NETT. QUAKY, AND oF51(AI CONCEPT MUSK BE WN515 M WITH THE APPROVED PLANS IN THE EVM OF COMBAT GATT ME gW Es INCLUDED IN THE PLANE LIST SPECIE AND COUNTERS IILUSSIMTED SWLL R PRINTED. AL CMAI GF PLANT SPECIES AND BANNER MU51 MACE WHITEN AFPMNAL BY M Cm PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ISALL MONTHS BEDS SHAL A MULCHED To A MINIMUM FRED OF THREE HERB WARICiEED Nw SHALL R TERM BLDEGMtt/KFNRSKr RUELRAS$ TWO REVALUE M APPROVED) EQUAL. 17.EUGNG MIMw MASS AND SHRUB Ros SHALL BE HE K F' STEEL SET USE. WITH TOP OF AM OR ASPREED SMALL 141 RESIGN TYANBM SALES HANEMANN 2' WIA . MORNS SKTYBE' 8 AL CUSTOMS MµAWRPA WR OW. 2' CAL (M GALL If56MN) 0 R Oumcus scxuxATDu sxuxARO GM x' vL / 1 1 GYMNO)QUO us WIG IrtxnKKY z' OIL ESPR COMMERCE WEi5ERE1REE 6 / _ 1 GWTUBE w r CV \�"✓J PRINCEPON TExmr GNGO5FN1! GINKGO 22 O COEMI5 K BEINbYOY CANYON SPIRE ON S CAL 16 (] POPULA TREMI WCC1' SMOMPH CCWNTIR MOTOR 15' CN. N RNErtR PARK LN SUBSIDIES KWIMM� IO32.2(J)AN L Fn PROMISES • PROPMED PENTAGON ANDCAI L MAMMON (I)) OEM ALONG SOT BE, OF PARKHGGNW£ PAR NUM (JEFFERSM ST)= I TREE EERY 160' NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION 424o Architecture Inc. OWNER BMEMIMCWFMIES FORTICUALLINI NOR SIGN ROCKY MOUNTAINAVE STEM t an RN TWO SAGEMSPETRULTY DENVER GO MCI COMMIT f3ON923113 CIVIL �M BOIWMM, INC NOSCOLLESEAVE t9gNI FBI t WHAT WAS C GARDRPOPSUBN11AL 2MKX15 B PDPRES'LBMWTL UJULYN15 A PDPW MIRAL UJUNEX15 IN A CEYNPTM QUITE ASCNRECTS PRNJECTNUNNER 21129,00 KEY PLAN Overall Planting Plan Z1 20, 0 10' 20' 40' NORTH LP102A NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION UAL N.A pl� W W � AMENDED SqL MIX i0 DEPTH PER IDELIFICATCNS 00 NOT CUT LEADER. PRUNE DAMAGED OR TYPICAL PLANT LAYOUT SEE PLANT LIST MOMS FOR WEBBING AT 1/3 DEAD VRCOD AFTER SPAONG WEE HEIGHT PLANING AND STAKING. �N � 2 LDIA DRIVEN PINE POSTS EQUAL T DIA. DRI`2N IN FIRMLY PLANT WEE SO THAT OUTSIDE . PLANTING PIT. FINISH H➢E IS 22 KEEP PLEAD W/TOPS EVEN. PUNT MATERIAL HIGHEST ORDER FIRST CRMR ROOT MULCH MULCH BALNDLL MATERIAL \ \� ,.B OWRFULHLT AMEND ILL MIX TO DEPTH PER 9JBGRADE + x ..,. REMOVE WREBASKET, REMOVE SECTOR SPECIFICATIONS FIRM BASE \ \ i N\ \i j11 DRUM FROM TOP j OF FOOTBALL NOT 1. MEN DAWDLING MOUND PLANTS, DO N07 ALLOW AIR POKI TO FORM 2 % FOOTBALL pA. 2. AFTER PLANING, WATER THOROUGHLY 3. ALL GRASSES TO BE PLANTED AT A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL PLANTING A SCALE: NIB L S5 E N S ZONE 3 ROOT PROTECTION -VARIES PER ME 9ZE EXTENDS MGM DRIPLINE TO DRIPNNE ITL TREE PROTECTION E SCALE: NTS FEE PRGTECTIOx AREA 1.5 A a IISTANLY DEFACER MUNK AND TRIP LINE, OR 1 FOOT FOR EVERY AAMETER INCH OF MUNK. LHICHEVER IS GREATER Rnoa�as�uX PROVIDE G' HIGH CHANUNK ENGxG AT DRIPLINE (MIN ) ?ONE 2 TRUNK PROTECTION -REQUIRED If WHEELED `ANSTRUCDON EQUIPMENT NVOLVED MTHIN 10OR LESS ,V0 MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED AFAR THE WEE PROTECTOR AREA PLANT ROOT BALL AT GRADE FORM SAUCER MTH 3' CONTINUOS RIM BACKFALL MIX - PER SPECI ICATIONI SUBCRADE FARM BASE NOTE: 1. MEN BACKFAWNG AROUND PLANTS, DO NOT ALLOW AIR POCKETS TO FORM 2 AFTER PLANTING, WATER THOROUGHLY 3. ALL GRASSES TO BE PLANTED AT A MINIMUM OF ME FOOT FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT C SC SHRUB PLANTING ALE: NTS SHRUB CENTER 0 D TRIANGULAR SHRUB SPACING Ef/LE'. NIS 01-SM1rvb-SPou Mg 424o Architecture Inc. M TER DEVELOPER CAMPAIGN ARDHRKi CIVIL LANDSCAPE o.' 1A 1f O LL 0 Z 0 XMEMIµ CMFAXIEB W2EMOUMNNAVE FCm COULIN fA B35N 1'. 9704%2UG MMXIM EY Pb ROCKY MOUNTAIN AVE STEM LOVELAND Co 8933 t 3]0.M SW EAA EXMPFAUUTY ISTS MOTOR STREET STE 3W DENVER CO MET2 t3033967210 IMISI "MCHITECTUREIxc 35V MUSSY COURT SUITE It] DENVER, CONK t3M29233N t3N.3919113 NORTHERN EXOINEERADINC NOSCOLI£C£AVE FMTCdLNS CO W524 WTS6RN15 ES2D221409 RUNELLIMIUSI MIDS 1413 COLLEGE AVE FCnTCgLN5 CO W524 t s/SM4"55 J W O 2 O U N Z 00 Z 00 w LU = C UZ 0 J fn U HU jJ W > LL O C GARMEMPSUMMTTAL 2MKX15 B PDPRESUNIRAL UJULYN15 A PDPW MIRAL UJUNEX15 IN A MIGRATION SAN ARCNRECTSPRWECTNUMNER 2112900 KEY PLAN Landscape Details LP501 JEFFERSON STREET r— -- — — _ a 11 EL 2 EC MSS EL GA- eRaN u GROUND LEVEL ISOMETRIC CAR COUNT BASE OPTION 8'-9" 90° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) 8'-9" 65" STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) TIER STANDARD TOTAL GROUND 87 87 SECOND 119 119 THIRD 116 116 TOTAL 322 322 STALL COUNT IS APPROXIMATE AS ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND OTHER FACTORS ARE NOT YET ACCOUNTED FOR 424o Architecture Inc EASIER GUYED FEET COLUNS FEW COLLINS Cd WEE1 DESIELOPER MCI t gm WI DENVER, CO NICE SERVER GO 00216 ..� <3xi 311s USE "h. ELECTRICAL GODEORSMIDR)MES CEEL WESTERN ENGINEERING, INC RUNNING WAIXERPARRUNIGGONERILTAN" MECHANICAL N"CONERILTINGENGINEERE INC J J LLJ 0 (� Q F— N u7 F— W I I_ = 0 O C� Co LL z C/) J Z Z z00 O Y w0 ILLo LL ILL Z aLU O IRS N DESCRIPTION GREG KEY PIAN LEVEL 01 S(GGjE VI PPAI(INGGeAM£PIPNS Am500 LEVEL03 LEVEL 02 THIRD LEVEL EL zSn^ SECOND LEVEL EL 1YV GROUND LEVEL ELW ISOMETRIC CAR COUNT BASE OPTION 8'-9" 900 STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) 8'-9" 650 STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) TIER STANDARD TOTAL GROUND 87 87 SECOND 119 119 THIRD 116 116 TOTAL 322 322 STALL COUNT IS APPROXIMATE AS ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND OTHER FACTORS ARE NOT YET ACCOUNTED FOR THIRD LEVEL EL zs-n^ SECOND LEVEL EL 1s•ff Sp GROUND LEVEL EL UP ISOMETRIC NOTFOR • CONSTRUCTION 424o Architecture Inc ERROR GITEDF FEET COLUNS FEW COLLINS Cd WEE1 t gm WI DENVER, CO DEC Aa�,ICEDE <3xi 3113 erRE a ELECTRICAL GODEORCM13R)MES DOWNS GREENARDI GO SDIll CEEL INSURERS ENGINEERING, INC SINGING WALIERPARRUNIGGONERILTAN" MECHANICAL N"CONERILTINGENGINEERN INC Z J J LLJ 0 (� mt � N LL u� Q =0 O CD C) IL '6 Z C/) J Z Z ZOO O Y w G_ LL LE.LL >z a O IRS N DESCRIPTION GREG KEY PLAN pP IINGG5RAGEp PNS Am50l 0 MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING STALL SIZE �jlPARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 1 DATE: September 21, 2015 TO: Lou Bieker COMPANY: 4240 Architecture Inc. ADDRESS: 3507 Ringsby Court, Suite 117 CITY/STATE: Denver, CO 80216 CC: T. J. Carvis - 4240 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No FROM: Larry Hofmockel PROJECT NAME: Downtown Fort Collins Parking Garage Jefferson & Chestnut Streets PROJECT NUMBER: 23-7539,00 SUBJECT: Parking Stall Size 5350 S. Roslyn Street, Suite 220 Greenwood Village, CO 801 1 1 Office: 303.694.6622 Fax: 303.694.6667 www.walkerparking.com Following is a comparison of parking stall sizes prescribed in the Fort Collins Land Use Code versus those recommended by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). According to Table A in Section 3.2.2 (L) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, standard stalls shall be 9' wide by 19' long for both 90 degree and 60 degree parking. Table A lists no dimensions for any angles between 60 degrees and 90 degrees, but presumably it would be the same 9' x 19' for 65, 70 or 75 degree parking stalls. Up to 40% compact car stalls are allowed in long-term parking areas according to Section 3.2.2 (L) (2). Long-term parking is defined in Section 5.1.2 as having limited turnover during a normal working weekday. Walker generally considers stays of longer than 3 hours to be long-term. Per Table B, compact car stalls shall be 8' wide by 15' long for 90 degree parking and 8' wide by 16' long for 60 degree parking. Again, there are no dimensions listed for any angles between 60 and 90 degrees. As an alternative to a combination of standard and compact stalls, Section 3.2.2 (L) (3) permits stalls in long-term parking areas to be one size which is 8.5' wide by 18' long for both 90 degree and 60 degree parking. Walker supports the one size fits all" concept as will be explained later in this memo. In addition to length of stay (short-term versus long-term), Walker recommends considering additional factors to establish appropriate parking stall sizes. These factors can include the type of customer (residential, office, student, shopper, etc.), familiarity with the parking garage, anticipated turnover of stalls, urban versus suburban settings, and the owner's personal preference toward the "customer experience" J:\23-7539-00-Fort_ Collins_Hotel_PS\Corresponden ce\MEM20150921-Parking Stall Size.docx 137 MEMORANDUM PARKING STALL SIZE PAGE 2 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS In the late 1980's, Walker pioneered an approach to parking design known as the Level of Service approach to account for the different needs of different parking customers. Others, including the National Parking Association, now advocate a similar approach. LOS A is the highest level of service and is intended for high end parking facilities such as some shopping centers and some patient parking at medical facilities. LOS B is intended for short-term, high turnover parking such as downtown retail and office visitor parking. LOS C is intended for long-term, low turnover parking such as for office employees or students at a university. The lowest level of service, LOS D, is not recommended for public parking but might be acceptable for certain private parking customers. Walker recommends 9'-0' wide stalls for LOS A, 8'-9" for LOS B, 8'-6" for LOS C and 8'-Y for LOS D. We recommend 17'-9" long stalls based on an 85t" percentile vehicle size of 6'-7" wide by 17'-1" long (Ford Expedition) plus an 8" cushion from the front bumper to a wall or other restraint at the head of parking stalls. Many designers and municipal codes use 18' long stalls, and we find this acceptable as it effectively just adds a little more width to drive aisles for better maneuverability. The National Parking Association (NPA), in their 2011 publication "Guidelines for Parking Geometrics", advocates an approach similar to level of service, but uses the term "Level of Comfort". NPA recommended stall widths are as follows: Minimum Level of Comfort (low turnover) 8'-3" to 8'-6" Medium Level of Comfort (low to moderate turnover) 8'-6" to 8'-9" High Level of Comfort (moderate to high turnover) 8'-9" to 9'-0" Walker does not recommend the concept of a mixture of standard and compact car stalls. One reason is the size difference between large and small cars today is not as significant as it once was. Also, the number of truly small cars on the road today is only about 20% of all vehicles, never even approaching early predictions of up to 80%. In our experience, this concept does not get parked as intended as smaller cars can park in the large stalls and oftentimes the only stall remaining for a larger vehicle is a small car only stall. Either the large car has to squeeze into a small stall or often it gets parked in two small stalls, reducing the effective stall count in the garage. Attached Option 3D illustrates Walker's recommended parking stall dimensions for the subject parking facility. The public parking areas on the second and third levels use a combination of 9'-0" wide 90 degree stalls on the two way center ramp and 8'-9" wide 65 degree stalls on the flat outside bays and the ends. In general, 90 degree stalls are somewhat more difficult to maneuver in and out of, and we believe it is appropriate to provide some extra width for these stalls. While the hotel patron parking on the ground level could be considered long-term, recognizing the hotel patron will be an infrequent user, we recommend using 8'-9" wide stalls in this area as opposed to a smaller stall. This parking stall layout, in our opinion, provides a level of service in the range of B to B+, consistent with our guideline for a downtown retail and office visitor parking structure. According to NPA guidelines, this would be classified as a high level of comfort. J:\23-7539-00-Fort_ Collins_Hotel_PS\Corresponden ce\MEM20150921-Parking Stall Size.docx 138 MEMORANDUM PARKING STALL SIZE PAGE 3 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS It is anticipated that the public parking levels will accommodate a mix of long-term employee users and short-term retail customers. The Fort Collins Land Use Code does not appear to address the situation of a mix of long-term and short-term parkers in terms of a blended parking stall size. We then presume that the code would technically require all stalls to be 9'-0" wide. Again, Walker believes the combination of 9'-0" wide 90 degree stalls and 8'-9" wide 65 degree stalls provides an appropriate level of service for the intended users of this facility. We suggest applying to the City for a modification of standards on the basis of "nominal and inconsequential" modifications in accordance with Section 2.8.2 (H) (4) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. This application for modification should include parking stall width of 8'-9" in lieu of 9'-0" for some stalls and 18'-0" length in lieu of 19'-0" for all stalls. Please contact us if there are questions or if additional clarification is needed. Attachment: Parking Garage Option 3D Floor Plans J:\23-7539-00-Fort_ Collins_Hotel_PS\Corresponden ce\MEM20150921-Parking Stall Size.docx 139 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I I I 13 SPACE I I I I I_ n GROUND LEVEL JEFFERSON STREET i -----�---ice -�—___ HOTEL <= o- METISTORAGE b a ----. j ° a Q E a 7 f///i'//M /////, 77 '_ HOTEL 11- ACE RETAIUOFFICE FLEX SPACE . 32 RETAIL SPACE POPENk PoTENTIAL DIKE SHARE 29 WIDE ALLEO 0 0 ❑ nN Ed �0 i I ij 0 ^ DOWNTOWN HOTEL. WALKER PARKING CONSULT OPTION 3D GROUND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL x� SECOND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL ISOMETRIC CAR COUNT RASE OPTION 9'-0" 900 STANDARD SPACE (LOS B+) 8'-9" 650 STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) TIER STANDARD LE TOTAL ACCE9911 LEACCESSI GROUND 80 3 3 86 SECOND 117 0 3 120 THIRD 117 0 2 119 TOTAL 314 3 8 325 LEGEND NORTH Scale: 1/16" = 9O-011 3-1 JUNE 17, 2015-23753 M 140 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO %1 SECOND LEVEL %1 THIRD LEVEL WALKER PARKING CONSULT OPTION 3D SECOND & THIRD LEVEL THIRD �ueLEVEL v „H GROUND LEVEL �MA ISOMETRIC LEGEND NORTH O Scale: 1/16" = V-011 3-2 JUNE 17, 2015-2375 M Fort Collins ITEM NO HEARING DATE September 10, 2015 STAFF Seth Lorson PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD PROJECT: Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 APPLICANT: Stu MacMillan Bohemian Companies 262 East Mountain Avenue Fort Collins CO, 80524 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a 117,665 square foot, 5-story mixed -use hotel with 162 rooms, a restaurant, two bars, and 3,541 square feet of conference space. Parking is proposed in a 106 space, surface parking lot at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets (363 Jefferson Street). Presently, a coordinated effort to construct a three -level public/private parking garage on the same lot is being pursued and may be considered in the near future. Proposed at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut Streets (354 Walnut St.), the hotel entry and porte-cochere (pick-up and drop-off) will be on Chestnut Street. The porte-cochere will allow for hotel guests to drop-off and check -in, and other hotel functions such as valet parking. The restaurant will be on Walnut Street with an entrance from the street to ensure it does not feel like a "hotel restaurant". To help activate the space, the hotel lounge and retail spaces will face onto Old Firehouse Alley which is proposed to be improved with pavers and Tivoli lights. All the proposed improvements in the right-of- way (ROW) require an encroachment permit through City Engineering. This project will connect Chestnut Street through to Mountain Avenue and Walnut Street with right -turn - only lanes through what is currently a sidewalk flanked with grass and trees. The intersection of Chestnut and Jefferson will be limited to right -in, right -out movement to comply with the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project. Planning Services co i N College Ave — PO Box 580 — Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970,221.6750 142 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 2 Consistent with the context of downtown, the building is not set back from the ROW and directly contributes to the urban design of the street and sidewalk. The massing along Walnut Street will be one story along the northwest side and climbs to four stories as it moves to the southeast and wraps around to Walnut Street. The building is five stories along the alley. The hotel is proposed to be constructed with multiple colors of brick, stone, ground face concrete masonry units, interlocking metal panels, and a perforated aluminum screen as an accent. Buildings proposed to be demolished for this project are the former Armadillo restaurant and a small garage structure on the hotel site, and the lasis church on the parking lot site. The hotel and parking lot sites are both located in the Downtown (D) District — Old City Center Center Subdistrict and the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The proposed sites are just outside the Old Town Historic District, abutting the southeast side of its boundary. Lodging establishments are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict through review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting five Modifications of Standards and one Alternative Compliance: Modifications of Standards Parking 1. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) requires the project to provide 111 parking spaces. The project is requesting to provide 106 parking spaces; 2. Section 3.2.2(J) requires the parking lot setbacks of 10 and 15 feet respectively from the ROW. The project is requesting seven and five foot setbacks; 3. Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) requires that parking lots be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks. The project is requesting to locate the parking lot at the corner of two streets (Jefferson and Chestnut); Building Height 4. Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet. The project is requesting a maximum height of five stories and 60 feet; and 5. Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line. The project is requesting to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth floor. 143 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 3 Alternative Compliance Section 3.2.2(C)(4) requires the project to provide 58 bicycle parking spaces. The project is proposing an alternative plan to provide 25 bicycle parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The proposed design is a result of a thoughtful context -sensitive approach by the developer. Although the project is outside of the Old Town Historic District, the design team utilized the Old Town Historic District Design Standards to inform the building and site design. At the time of writing this staff report, the project had twice been presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and has received very positive feedback. The project will be asking for an official recommendation at the September 9 LPC meeting — the day before the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board Hearing. A memo will be forwarded to the P&Z Board with the outcome of that meeting. The project has been through two rounds of staff review and staff finds the proposal highly compatible with the existing fabric of downtown, despite the requests for modifications. The hotel provides building articulation which emulates the historic building fagade width and spacing. The proposed high quality masonry material is a cornerstone of downtown character and will contribute to the future vitality in the area. Staff finds that the proposed development complies with all standards of the land use code, with the exception of the requested modifications of standards which are considered nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. 144 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 4 COMMENTS: 1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses Downtown (D) Old City Center Retail and Restaurant uses on the ground Northwest Subdistrict level; residential and office on upper levels. Across Jefferson Street are industrial and office Northeast River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) uses, and the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. Across Walnut Street is the Mitchell Block (A.K.A. Bohemian Building) which is an office Downtown (D) Old City Center use and across Mountain Avenue is the Old Southwest Subdistrict Town Parking Garage and the Goodyear Tire store (which is proposed to redevelop into a mixed -use (retail & office] project). Downtown (D) Old City Center Across Chestnut Street are industrial, Southeast Subdistrict restaurant, retail uses, and the Lyric Cinema. •� F 1482 tr - •.�o, ea enMl - fTPAP L r363 Jeffers % Street s' - [n ItICI p S Fort �E / - / ` \gip / .fie Lill — Trimol�'Ct_ / � - J i //y\ °\�/• ,(o�� COHMSLI r� s W1Mou'n 13in7Ave ElMount - Ave EII HOl "n Me •>uni, rltquS'. - 4 I.� � ,—� Buckingham q udrn Fin :J N - -% - n Street Lj - o m .o - X o 1 < ) Q4K.$Tjp- I i..rA nt 145 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 5 2. Compliance with Division 4.16 - Applicable Downtown Zone District Standards. Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel complies with the applicable standards in Division 4.16 Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict, with the exception of three modifications of standards, as explained below. Section 4.16 (A) Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown District is as follows: The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, office and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing. It is divided into three (3) subdistricts as depicted on Figure 18. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian -oriented character. • Hotel as a use is specifically cited in the purpose statement for downtown. The proposed hotel provides additional uses such as restaurant, bar, and retail along the pedestrian frontage to encourage activity. Additionally, the project will improve the Old Firehouse Alley consistent with the DDA alley improvement projects around downtown to further engage pedestrians. Section 4.16(B) - Permitted Use: The proposed lodging establishment and accessory uses of restaurant, bars, and retail are permitted in the Old City Center Subdistrict by review from the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 1). Section 4.16(D) — Building Standards: (1) Setback from Streets. This standard requires setbacks shall be compatible with established setbacks of existing buildings on the same block face. • Existing buildings along both Walnut and Chestnut Streets have been developed with no setback from the ROW. The proposed hotel also has a zero lot line setback. (2) Building Height. (a) The maximum building height in the Old City Center shall not exceed four (4) stories or fifty-six (56) feet in height. 146 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 6 • The proposed building is five stories and 60 feet in height. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (4) Building Mass Reduction for Taller Buildings (over three [3] stories). This standard requires the fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty -five - degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure 19. Figure 19 - Fourth Story Setback NO BUILD AREA, a floor Plane Tourtli Story Setback ill the Old City Center Subdistriel • The proposed building provides a setback at a 35 degree angle at the intersection of the fourth story and the property line for a portion of the Walnut Street frontage and a portion of the Chestnut Street frontage. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (5) Building Character and Facades. This standard requires that buildings have architectural interest, encourage outdoor activity, and are constructed with high - quality materials. 147 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 7 • The hotel is proposed to be constructed with multiple colors of brick, stone, ground face CMU, interlocking metal panels, and a perforated aluminum screen as an accent. • The hotel design encourages outdoor activity by providing a large outdoor patio on the second floor that overlooks Walnut Street and improvements to the Old Fire House Alley with pavers and Tivoli lights. Section 4.16(E) — Site Design Standards: (1) Site Design. a. Parking lots. This standard requires that parking lots not dominate the frontage of pedestrian -oriented streets and shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • The 106-space parking lot for the hotel is located at 363 Jefferson Street at the corner of Chestnut and Jefferson Streets. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. 3. Compliance with Article Three — General Development Standards: Staff finds that the Fort Collins Hotel complies with the applicable General Development Standards, with the exception of two modifications of standards, as explained below. Section 3.2.1(E) — Landscape Standards: Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. • All areas of the site not paved for pedestrian and vehicular access are landscaped. • Street trees are provided along Walnut, Chestnut, and Jefferson Streets. (4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. Parking lot perimeter landscaping shall provide one tree every 25 feet along public streets and every 40 feet along side lot lines. Screening shall be provided for 70% of the length of the street frontage. Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 8 • The parking lot is providing a 30 inch high screen wall for 77% of the Jefferson Street frontage and one tree for every 21.5 feet of frontage. • Extra dense landscaping is being provided along the Chestnut Street frontage. (5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. Ten percent of the interior space of the parking lot is required to be landscaped. • The proposed parking lot is 36,335 square feet which requires 3,633 square feet of interior landscaping. The project is proposing 3,710 square feet of interior landscaping. Section 3.2.2 — Access, Circulation and Parking (C) Development Standards.- (4) Bicycle Facilities. This standard requires bicycle parking space to be provided per use as follows: % Enclosed Bicycle Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Parking/ Minimums % Fixed Bicycle Racks Nonresidential Parking Requirements Restaurants a. Fast food 1.5/1,000 sq. ft., minimum b. Standard of 4 1/1,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 Bars, Taverns and Nightclubs 1 1/500 sq. ft., minimum of 4 General Retail General Office (conference space) Lodging Establishments TOTAL 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1 per 4 units Requirements for Proposed Hotel and Accessory Uses 5,391 s.f./1,000 = 0%/100% 5 spaces 0%/100% 0%/100% 1,480 s.f./500 = 3 spaces 20%/80% 830 s.f./4,000 = 1 space 20%/80% 3,541 s.f./4,000 = 1 space 60%/40% 25 enclosed spaces / 26 fixed racks 162 units/4 = 41 spaces 51 spaces 149 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 9 • The project is proposing to provide 20 fixed racks at the south corner of the parking lot and 5 enclosed spaces for employees at the back -of -the -house. As this does not meet the minimum requirement, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance as permitted in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(c) as follows: (c) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces that may be substituted in whole or in part for the number that would meet the standards of this Section. 1. Procedure. The alternative bicycle parking plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for bicycle parking plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purposes of this Section than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. 2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alterative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing a request for an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces, the decision maker must consider whether the proposed land use will likely experience a lower than normal amount of bicycle traffic. Factors to be taken into consideration in making this determination may include, but need not be limited to: (i) the nature of the proposed use, (ii) its location in relation to existing or planned bicycle facilities or infrastructure; and (iii) its proximity to natural features that make the use of bicycles for access to the project infeasible. • The applicant's alternative compliance request letter is attached, in which it states that the hotel use, as conveyed by the operator — Sage Hospitality, does not generate the amount of bicycle parking required by the code: "Through experience, the hotel operator does not see many guests travel to the hotel on bikes or with bikes and does not feel the required stall count is needed, especially for a hotel that is a destination where the majority of guests travel by car or public transit." 150 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 10 • In addition to requesting fewer bicycle parking spaces on the grounds that the demand is not generated by the hotel use, as noted in Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(c)(2)(i) as a consideration for permitting alternative compliance, future bicycle parking will be placed in the bulb -out islands in the Walnut Street ROW via FC Bikes, the hotel may provide a bicycle check-out/rental service for their guests, and the City has asked the hotel to consider hosting a bicycle share station which is forthcoming to Fort Collins. • The stated purpose of this section is "to ensure that the parking and circulation aspects of all developments are well designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, both within the development and to and from surrounding areas." The proposed amount of bike parking is less than the minimum requirement but the hotel operator informs us that, due to (i) the nature of the proposed use, the hotel will not generate a bicycle parking demand as great as the minimum requirement. The additional bicycle amenities, both proposed and considered, will provide a greater amount of options and more dispersed locations for bike parking. This proposed scenario will allow cyclists to park closer to their locations with less sidewalk crossings and thus decrease the amount of conflict with pedestrians and automobiles. Therefore, the proposed alternative compliance accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater "safety, efficiency and convenience". (J) Setbacks. The standard requires parking lots to be setback as follows: Minimum Average of Entire Minimum Width of Setback Landscaped Setback Area (feet) at Any Point (feet) Along an arterial street 15 5 Along a nonarterial street 10 5 Along a lot line ' 5 5 • The project is proposing a five foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Street ROW instead of the required 15 feet, and a seven foot setback along Chestnut Street instead of the required 10 feet. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. (K) Parking Lots — Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use. (2) Nonresidential Parking Requirements. This standard requires a minimum and maximum number of parking spaces per use as shown in the following chart: 151 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 11 Use Minimum Parking Maximum Parking ' Minimum Requirements for Spaces Spaces Proposed Hotel and Accessory i Uses Restaurants 1 1 5,391 s.f./1,000(*5) = a. Fast Food 7/1000 sq. ft. 15/1000 sq. ft. 27 spaces b. Standard 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. Bars, Taverns, and 5/1000 sq. ft. 10/1000 sq. ft. 1,480 s.f./1,000(*5) = Nightclubs 7 spaces General Retail 2/1000 sq. ft. 4/1000 sq. ft. 830 s.f./1,000(*2) _ 2 spaces General Office 1/1000 sq. ft. 3/1000 sq. ft. 3,541 s.f./1,000(*l) _ (conference) 4 spaces Lodging 0.5/unit 1/unit 162 units*(0.5) _ Establishments 81 spaces TOTAL 121 spaces_ Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(c) permits an exemption in the TOD Overlay Zone of 25% of 5,000 square feet (distributed proportionally among uses). Below is the breakdown of the permitted reduction in parking: Use Percentage of Overall Square Minimum Requirements with Footage Applied to 5,000 S.F. TOD Reduction per Use Exemption Restaurants 7.96% (*51000) = 398 s.f. 5,391 s.f. — 398 s.f. = 4,993 s.f. /11000(*5) = 25 spaces Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 1.23% (*51000) = 62 s.f. 1,480 s.f. — 62 s.f. = 1,418 s.f. /11000(*5) = 7 spaces General Retail 2.18% (*5,000) = 109 s.f. 830 s.f. - 109 s.f. = 721 s.f. /17000(*2) = 1 spaces General Office (conference) 5.23% (*5,000) = 262 s.f. 3,541 s.f. — 262 s.f. = 3,279 s.f. /1,000(*l) = 3 spaces Lodging Establishments 83.40% (*51000) = 4,170 s.f. 162 units — 12 units = 150 units 4,170 s.f. / 345 s.f. (ave. room *(0.5) = 75 spaces s.f.) = 12 units TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT 111 spaces • The project is proposing 106 parking spaces in the parking lot where 111 parking spaces are required. The project has requested a modification to this standard. Details of the request are in section 4 of this staff report. 152 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 12 Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting: The purpose of this section is for a project to ensure that the functional and security needs are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties and neighborhood. • All lighting is down -directional with cutoff fixtures. Section 3.4.7 — Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 (F)(6) states: "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter- mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district." • The Landmark Preservation Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on this project at its September 9 meeting. A memo will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board with findings and recommendation prior to the beginning of the hearing on September 10. Section 3.5.1 — Building and Project Compatibility: Standards in this Section require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of buildina size. massina DrODortions. desian character and buildina materials. Where the established character of the relevant area is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, projects must set an enhanced standard appropriate for the area. • The proposed hotel is larger than the typical building downtown. However, the design is made to emulate the rhythm and spacing of storefronts found in downtown's historic frontages. The Walnut Street facade is one-story in height for approximately 2/3 of the frontage and modulates into historic proportions as seen in the downtown context. The larger massing of four and five stories is stepped back toward the alley side effectively establishing a human -scale sidewalk experience. The applicant's modification request for height provides an exhibit 153 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 13 that clearly outlines how the proposed building's massing is compatible with the existing context. 4. Compliance with Modification of Standards (Division 2.8) The decision maker is empowered to grant modifications to the General Development Standards contained in Article 3 and the Land Use Standards and Development Standards contained in Article 4 and any separation or proximity standards that are established as a specific measurement of distance in the District Permitted Uses contained in Article 4. In order to grant a modification of standard, the decision maker must find that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and that- (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness 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. 154 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 14 Parking Modifications Modification Request — Section 3.2.2(K)(1) 1. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires the project to provide 111 parking spaces; the project is requesting to provide 106 parking spaces. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). Providing 106 parking spaces of the required 111 parking spaces provides 96% of the required spaces. • Additionally, the hotel operator's experience is that the proposed hotel can expect 35 — 57 vehicles per night by virtue of not always being fully occupied and some guests taking shuttles. • The proposed hotel is also in close proximity (approximately 400 feet) to the Old Town Parking Garage and has 20 on -street parking spaces abutting the site. • One final consideration is the valet service provided by the hotel will park cars in a more efficient manner than individuals parking in a lot. Modification Request — Section 3.2.2(J) 2. The applicant requests a modification to the standard by proposing a five foot landscaped setback from Jefferson Street ROW instead of the required 15 feet, and a 7 foot setback along Chestnut Street instead of the required 10 feet. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • When considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, the reduced setbacks are nominal and inconsequential because additional landscaping is provided along both frontages and a 30 inch high wall along 77% of the Jefferson Street frontage. Also, plazas with seatwalls are being proposed at both corners of the Jefferson Street frontage. All of these additional amenities make the parking lot more pedestrian friendly and add visual interest. 155 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 15 Modification Request — Section 4.16(E)(1)(a) 3. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires parking lots to be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks; the project is requesting to locate the parking lot at the corner of two streets (Jefferson and Chestnut). The standard reads as follows: Parking lots shall not dominate the frontage of pedestrian -oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. Parking lots shall be located behind buildings in the interior of blocks, in side yards, underground or in a parking structure, to the maximum extent feasible. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • The parking lot is not located behind buildings and in the interior of the block because of the constrained nature of infill lots, combined with the amount of space needed to provide the minimum amount of parking required. The project is proposing screening walls, landscaping, bike racks, and pocket plazas to ensure that this modification does not negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods nor interrupt pedestrian routes as noted in the standard. Considering these additional elements of the parking lot when viewed from the perspective of the entire development plan, the street -fronted location does not diverge from the purpose of the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. Building Height Modifications Modification Request — Section 4.16(D)(2)(a) 4. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that permits a maximum height of four stories or 56 feet. The project is requesting a maximum height of five stories and 60 feet. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • When considering the perspective of the entire development plan in the existing context, the proposed additional story does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because the proposed hotel has reduced their floor -to -floor height to 9 feet 8 inches. The code permits up to 25 156 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 16 foot floor -to -floor height for commercial buildings. The Mitchell Block (60'-6") directly across the street at four stories is actually taller than the proposed hotel (60'-0"). Please see the applicant's request for modification and accompanying exhibit. Modification Request — Section 4.16(D)(4)(a) 5. The applicant requests a modification to the standard that requires a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth floor and the property line, the project is requesting to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth floor. • Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way (4). • This modification is an outcome of the previous modification request for an additional story. The proposed 35 degree setback will occur at the floor plane of the uppermost story as intended; however in this case, it is between the fourth and fifth stories. • When viewed from the perspective of the entire development plan in the existing context, the proposal to provide the 35 degree setback at the floor plane of the fifth story does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because the proposed hotel has reduced their floor - to -floor height to 9 feet 8 inches. The code permits up to 25 foot floor -to -floor height for commercial buildings. The Mitchell Block directly across the street complies with the required setback at the floor plane of the fourth floor but, like the hotel, is also stepping back at 49 feet in height. Therefore the height and mass, which this standard aims to mitigate, is the same as a project that complies with the code. Please see the applicant's request for modification and accompanying exhibit. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions: 1. The request for a modification of standard to permit 106 parking spaces instead of the required 111 parking spaces (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)) is not detrimental to the 157 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 17 public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way as the proposal is providing 96% of the requirement and many other public parking options are conveniently close to the project site. 2. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduced parking lot setback from 10 feet to 7 feet and from 15 feet to 5 feet (Section 3.2.2(J)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas that make the parking lot more pedestrian friendly and add visual interest. 3. The request for a modification of standard to permit a parking lot located along street frontages as opposed to behind buildings and at the interior of the block (Section 4.16(E)(1)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that the proposal provides adequate buffering with a 30 inch wall, extra dense landscaping and pocket plazas so that the parking lot does not interrupt pedestrian routes or negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. 4. The request for a modification of standard to permit a building height maximum of 5 stories instead of the required maximum of 4 stories (Section 4.16(D)(2)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that, when considered in the context of the area, the building is no taller than a building which complies with the standard. 5. The request for a modification of standard to permit a setback at a 35 degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fifth floor instead of at the fourth floor (Section 4.16(D)(4)(a)) is not detrimental to the public good, and granting the modification will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code except in a nominal and inconsequential way in that when considered in the context of the area, the proposed 35 degree setback is at the same height (49') as the building across the street that complies with the standard. 6. The request for an alternative compliance bicycle parking plan that, instead of providing 51 bicycle parking spaces, provides 25 spaces and future spaces in the 158 Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 Planning and Zoning Board September 10, 2015 Page 18 Walnut Street ROW accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.2(C)(4) equally well or better than would a plan that complies by creating greater "safety, efficiency and convenience". 7. The Project Development Plan contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the Downtown District — Old City Center Subdistrict in Article 4, Division 4.16 of the Land Use Code. 8. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modifications of standards. 9. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Board approval with the following motion: Approval of Modifications of Standards to subsections 3.2.2(K)(1), 3.2.2(J), 4.16(E)(1)(a), 4.16(D)(2)(a), 4.16(D)(4)(a); approval of Alternative Compliance for subsection 3.2.2(C)(4); and approval of Fort Collins Hotel PDP #150008 159 MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING DIMENSIONS �jlPARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 1 DATE: September 28, 2015 TO: Lou Bieker COMPANY: 4240 Architecture Inc. ADDRESS: 3507 Ringsby Court, Suite 117 CITY/STATE: Denver, CO 80216 CC: T. J. Carvis - 4240 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No FROM: Larry Hofmockel PROJECT NAME: Downtown Fort Collins Parking Garage Jefferson & Chestnut Streets PROJECT NUMBER: 23-7539,00 SUBJECT: Parking Dimensions 5350 S. Roslyn Street, Suite 220 Greenwood Village, CO 801 1 1 Office: 303.694.6622 Fax: 303.694.6667 www.walkerparking.com Following is a comparison of parking stall sizes and drive aisle widths prescribed in the Fort Collins Land Use Code versus those recommended by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). According to Table A in Section 3.2.2 (L) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, standard stalls shall be 9' wide by 19' long for both 90 degree and 60 degree parking. Table A lists no dimensions for any angles between 60 degrees and 90 degrees, but presumably it would be the same 9' x 19' for 65, 70 or 75 degree parking stalls. Up to 40% compact car stalls are allowed in long-term parking areas according to Section 3.2.2 (L) (2). Long-term parking is defined in Section 5.1.2 as having limited turnover during a normal working weekday. Walker generally considers stays of longer than 3 hours to be long-term. Per Table B, compact car stalls shall be 8' wide by 15' long for 90 degree parking and 8' wide by 16' long for 60 degree parking. Again, there are no dimensions listed for any angles between 60 and 90 degrees. As an alternative to a combination of standard and compact stalls, Section 3.2.2 (L) (3) permits stalls in long-term parking areas to be one size which is 8.5' wide by 18' long for both 90 degree and 60 degree parking. Walker supports the one size fits all" concept as will be explained later in this memo. In addition to length of stay (short-term versus long-term), Walker recommends considering additional factors to establish appropriate parking stall sizes. These factors can include the type of customer (residential, office, student, shopper, etc.), familiarity with the parking garage, anticipated turnover of stalls, urban versus suburban settings, and the owner's personal preference toward the "customer experience" J:\23-7539-00-Fort_ Collins_Hotel_PS\Corresponden ce\MEM20150928-Parking Dimensions.docx 160 MEMORANDUM PARKING DIMENSIONS PAGE 2 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS In the late 1980's, Walker pioneered an approach to parking design known as the Level of Service approach to account for the different needs of different parking customers. Others, including the National Parking Association, now advocate a similar approach. LOS A is the highest level of service and is intended for high end parking facilities such as some shopping centers and some patient parking at medical facilities. LOS B is intended for short-term, high turnover parking such as downtown retail and office visitor parking. LOS C is intended for long-term, low turnover parking such as for office employees or students at a university. The lowest level of service, LOS D, is not recommended for public parking but might be acceptable for certain private parking customers. Walker recommends 9'-0' wide stalls for LOS A, 8'-9" for LOS B, 8'-6" for LOS C and 8'-Y for LOS D. We recommend 17'-9" long stalls based on an 85t" percentile vehicle size of 6'-7" wide by 17'-1" long (Ford Expedition) plus an 8" cushion from the front bumper to a wall or other restraint at the head of parking stalls. Many designers and municipal codes use 18' long stalls, and we find this acceptable as it effectively just adds a little more width to drive aisles for better maneuverability. The National Parking Association (NPA), in their 2011 publication "Guidelines for Parking Geometrics", advocates an approach similar to level of service, but uses the term "Level of Comfort". NPA recommended stall widths are as follows: Minimum Level of Comfort (low turnover) 8'-3" to 8'-6" Medium Level of Comfort (low to moderate turnover) 8'-6" to 8'-9" High Level of Comfort (moderate to high turnover) 8'-9" to 9'-0" NPA recommends a stall length of 17'-10" for 90 degree parking and 19'-0" (vehicle projection) for 65 degrees. NPA recommended parking modules (two stalls separated by a drive aisle) are as follows: 90 degrees 65 degrees Minimum Level of Comfort 58'-6" 52'-6" Medium Level of Comfort 60'-0" 54'-0" High Level of Comfort 61 '-6" 55'-6" Walker does not recommend the concept of a mixture of standard and compact car stalls. One reason is the size difference between large and small cars today is not as significant as it once was. Also, the number of truly small cars on the road today is only about 20% of all vehicles, never even approaching early predictions of up to 80%. In our experience, this concept does not get parked as intended as smaller cars can park in the large stalls and oftentimes the only stall remaining for a larger vehicle is a small car only stall. Either the large car has to squeeze into a small stall or often it gets parked in two small stalls, reducing the effective stall count in the garage. Attached Option 3D illustrates Walker's recommended parking dimensions for the subject parking facility. The public parking areas on the second and third levels use a combination of 9'-0" wide 90 degree stalls on the two way center ramp and 8'-9" wide 65 degree stalls J:\23-7539-00-Fort_Co/hns_Hote1_PS\Corresponden ce\MEM20150928-Parking Dimensions.docx 161 MEMORANDUM PARKING DIMENSIONS PAGE 3 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS on the flat outside bays and the ends. In general, 90 degree stalls are somewhat more difficult to maneuver in and out of, and we believe it is appropriate to provide some extra width for these stalls. While the hotel patron parking on the ground level could be considered long-term, recognizing the hotel patron will be an infrequent user, we recommend using 8'-9" wide stalls in this area as opposed to a smaller stall. Walker's recommended parking module for LOS B 90 degree parking is 60'-6" (two 18'-0" stalls plus a 24'-6" drive aisle). Walker's recommended parking module for LOS B 65 degree parking is 54'-3" (two 18'-11" stalls plus a 16'-5" drive aisle). The Walker LOS B module exceeds the NPA Medium Level of Comfort Module for both parking angles. The parking stall layout illustrated and recommended by Walker, in our opinion, provides a level of service in the range of B to B+, consistent with our guideline for a downtown retail and office visitor parking structure. According to NPA guidelines, this would be classified as a high level of comfort. It is anticipated that the public parking levels will accommodate a mix of long-term employee users and short-term retail customers. The Fort Collins Land Use Code does not appear to address the situation of a mix of long-term and short-term parkers in terms of a blended parking stall size. We then presume that the code would technically require all stalls to be 9'-0" wide. Again, Walker believes the combination of 9'-0" wide 90 degree stalls and 8'-9" wide 65 degree stalls provides an appropriate level of service for the intended users of this facility. We suggest applying to the City for a modification of standards on the basis of "nominal and inconsequential" modifications in accordance with Section 2.8.2 (H) (4) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. This application for modification should include parking stall width of 8'-9" in lieu of 9'-0" for some stalls and 18'-0" length in lieu of 19'-0" for all stalls. Additionally, the application for modification should include one way drive aisles 16'-5" wide in lieu of 201 . Please contact us if there are questions or if additional clarification is needed. Attachment: Parking Garage Option 3D Floor Plans J:\23-7539-00-Fort_Co/hns_Hote1_PS\Corresponden ce\MEM20150928-Parking Dimensions.docx 162 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I I I 13 SPACE I I I I I_ n GROUND LEVEL JEFFERSON STREET i -----�---ice -�—___ HOTEL <= o- METISTORAGE b a 77 '_ HOTEL => &„ 111 11- ACE RETAIUOFFICE FLEX SPACE . 32 RETAIL SPACE OPEN AREA FOR POTENTIAL OIKE SHARE 29 WIDE ALLEO o 0 ❑ nN Ed �e i I i� 0 ^ DOWNTOWN HOTEL. WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OPTION 3D GROUND LEVEL THIRD LEVEL EL x� SECOND LEVEL EL iem GROUND LEVEL ISOMETRIC CAR COUNT RASE OPTION 9'-0" 900 STANDARD SPACE (LOS B+) 8'-9" 65° STANDARD SPACE (LOS B) TIER STANDARD VAN ACCESSI LE TOTAL ACCESSII LE GROUND 80 3 3 86 SECOND 117 0 3 120 THIRD 117 0 2 119 TOTAL 314 3 8 325 LEGEND NORTH Scale: 1/16" = 9O-011 3-1 JUNE 17, 2015-23753 M 163 DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL PARKING GARAGE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO %1 SECOND LEVEL %1 THIRD LEVEL WALKER PARKING CONSUli OPTION 3D SECOND & THIRD LEVEL THIRD EL„r - SECOND LEVEL EL IT y GROUND LEVEL ELUT�=S ISOMETRIC LEGEND NORTH O Scale: 1 /1611= 1'-0" 3-2 JUNE 1], MI5-23-75M W j Planning, Development & Transportation Cityly of Community Development & Neighborhood Services ort Collinsrth College Avenue P.O.P. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 0580 970,416,2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov com MEMORANDUM DATE: October 1, 2015 TO: Planning and Zoning Board � TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Dire to of Community Development & Neighborhood Services I) Seth Lorson, City Planner FR: Karen McWilliams, Histo Preservation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Project. As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Commission's motion and findings of facts for this project. At its September 28, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 4-1: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, approval of the Fort Collins Hotel Parking Garage Project located at 363 Jefferson Street, with the following findings of fact. 1) The development project known as the Fort Collins hotel Parking Garage is located adjacent to the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark District as well as a National Register of Historic Places District; and to the Downtown River District, a portion of which is included in the National Register District. Additionally, the project is located adjacent to the Armory Building, which is individually designated on the National, State, and Fort Collins historic registers, and to other properties that have been officially determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. 2) That the project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons: a. The building uses historically sensitive materials and colors of materials that are compatible with adjacent historic properties. b. The project uses compatible solid to void pattern, typical of the adjacent historic context. c. The pedestrian scale of the proposed project is compatible with the historic context. 165 Agenda Item 5 PROJECT NAME MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN MODIFICATION STAFF Josh Birks, Economic Health Director PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is for the Planning and Zoning Board to determine whether two proposed modifications to the Midtown Plan are in conformity with City Plan. This Resolution follows the action taken by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board (the "URA Board") at its September 8, 2015 meeting and City Council at its September 15, 2015 meeting. One modification would remove the territory in the Midtown Plan area that is currently not in either of the Midtown Plan's two approved tax increment financing district, Prospect South and Foothills Mall (other than the area preserved in the plan to connect the two tax increment financing districts). The other modification would amend wording in the Midtown Plan to clarify that the Plan identifies and describes only one urban renewal project. APPLICANT: Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In May 2015, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 2015-1348 (the "URA Reform Bill"). The URA Reform Bill will affect the City's Urban Renewal Authority (the "URA") in several significant ways. Chief among them is that on and after January 1, 2016, the City will be required to attempt to negotiate an agreement with all affected taxing entities, like Larimer County, on the issue of how property tax increment generated under any new City urban renewal plan or the modification of an existing plan will be allocated and spent under the new plan or modification. If the City and other taxing entities cannot reach such an agreement, the tax -allocation issue will be decided through "mediation" by the "mediator." There is concern that the City's two existing urban renewal plans, the North College and Midtown Urban Renewal Plans, and the urban renewal projects ongoing under them, may be negatively impacted by the URA Reform Bill. In an effort to avoid and minimize this concern, staff recommends that the Council take the following actions before January 1, 2016: (1) amend the Midtown Plan to remove all the territory in the Midtown Plan area that is not currently in the Prospect South or the Foothills Mall tax increment financing ("TIF") districts and to clarify that the Midtown Plan authorizes only one urban renewal project (the "Midtown Modification"); and (2) amend the North College Urban Renewal Plan to clarify that it too only authorizes one urban renewal project. Item # 5 Page 1 166 Agenda Item 5 This Planning and Zoning Board action continues the Midtown Modification process. Since the Midtown Modification is arguably a substantial modification of the Midtown Plan, the urban renewal statutes require that this process be, to the extent applicable, the same process that is required for the approval of a new urban renewal plan. Therefore, this action confirms that the Midtown Modification conforms with the City's general plan of development, which is City Plan. The Midtown Modification conforms to the City's general plan of development. Although the modification removes a substantial amount of land from the Midtown Plan area, which area is currently 658.5 acres in size and shown on the map in Attachment 1 (the "Plan Area") it does not prevent future urban renewal efforts from taking place in the excluded area.. The land to be removed from the Plan Area would be those properties not currently located in either of the two tax increment financing districts established in the Midtown Plan, these being the Prospect South Tax Increment District and the Foothills Mall Tax Increment District (jointly, the "TIF Districts"). However, certain portions of South College Avenue currently not located in the TIF districts will remain in the Plan Area to connect the two TIF Districts. The Midtown Modification would exclude approximately 490.7 acres (or approximately 75 percent) of the land from the Plan Area as depicted on the map in Attachment 2 (the "Excluded Area"), thereby resulting in the new boundaries for the remaining Midtown Plan area consisting of approximately 167.9 acres of land, which boundaries are also depicted in Attachment 2 (the "New Plan Area"). The primary rationale for this Midtown Modification is to protect the TIF Districts and their existing and future undertakings and activities that are part of the urban renewal project authorized in the Midtown Plan, like the Foothills Mall redevelopment, from some of the potential adverse effects of the URA Reform Bill. For instance, if the properties in the Excluded Area are not removed from the Plan Area and any future urban renewal undertakings or activities occur on them, an affected taxing entity might argue that such undertakings or activities have triggered the URA Reform Bill requiring the City and the URA to negotiate with that taxing entity a tax allocation agreement for not only the new undertakings or activities, but also with respect to the existing undertakings and activities in the TIF Districts. By removing the Excluded Area from the Plan Area now, this should eliminate this argument. Then, if and when the City decides to pursue an urban renewal plan and project for any property in the Excluded Area, it can do so without concern that such action will adversely affect the existing and future urban renewal undertakings and activities in the Midtown TIF Districts in light of the URA Reform Bill. This process to modify the Midtown Plan involves the following steps: 1. URA resolution proposing the Midtown Modification - September 8, 2015 (OCCURRED - the URA adopted Resolution No. 077 on September 8, 2015); 2. Council resolution submitting the Midtown Modification to the Planning and Zoning Board to review for conformity with City Plan and to the Poudre School District - (OCCURRED — the City Council adopted Resolution No. XXX on September 15, 2015); 3. Planning and Zoning Board hearing to consider the Midtown Modification and adoption of a resolution with its recommendation to Council concerning the Modification's conformance with City Plan - October 8, 2015 (this resolution); 4. Council resolution scheduling a public hearing on the Midtown Modification - October 20, 2015; and 5. Council public hearing to consider a resolution approving the Midtown Modification - December 1, 2015. ATTACHMENTS 1. Midtown Exist Boundary Map (PDF) 2. Midtown Proposed Boundary May (PDF) 3. Midtown CC Resolution (PDF) 4. Midtown URA Resolution (PDF) Item # 5 Page 2 167 ATTACHMENT Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Existing Plan Area Boundary - Midtown W PITI(lN LAKE > O z z W O ~ PROSPECT z � v •••• z °C W • • • O • U (A w —STUART. • (STUART---- \n • T =G'PARK 3 ICOLUMBIAT�.`� I m 00 �9 > 99 O cQ 7/ ■ H C 00 ■ J J O ■ 02 DRAKE ■ ■ ■ ■ Y � • C � ■ SWALLOW ' 0 F s Mall } 0 ■ : 0 0+ MENNEN CENTENNIAL Z p • all �i O W ■ 'J � 0 � ■ ■ ■ ■ IQ ■ fm ■ O mo RICHMOND o ■ I I ■ z ■ HORSETOOTH D � Z � 2 � D � D . z Z WABASH z ; o ■ a 0 J ■ BOARDWALK •I ■ ■ uu, ' ¢ 2, T12EROGA ■ T� w W..�TROUTMAN\ ■ �. M'TROUT MAN� 2` J W ■ ■Q�\ d' ■ a N wNp�ERS (100 SIN.& W HARMONY ■ O 1 OAKRIDGE o ' o > a z � AZ ■.■■■ ■7 ��G�GP KE�N�PNo Legend Ito Foothills Mall Boundary • • Prospect South Boundary /\/ Streets i ;,. ,� ■ Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area") L ATTACHMENT Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Proposed Plan Area Boundary- Midtown Cr LAKE W cc z z ■ ■ �'—PROSPECT v z z 2 W ■ _ ■,�� ; L61 0 V OR l~/1 W ■ 3 STUART ; STUART �^ SPRING PARK o ■ _ �4Q i O �. 3 0 ♦■ W / = Y O g—COLUMBIA O m m PARKWOOD� F99 > C'S Or ¢ !y0 OQ W J DRAKE ■ ■ ■ Y � Y ■ SWALLOW < ills Mall CENTENNIAL Z p 0 •■ O ¢ ■ J W ■ ■ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 0 �. J ♦ ■ ' lL J MONRO`�F RICHMOND z , 3 3 HORSETOOTH D Z 2 N D � z Z WABASH p z BOARDWALK g Z O. Z', TICONDEROGA W...�TROUTMAN� 3 TROLIT IAN�y. O in z �< ii WNpLE� m HARMONY- O D �OAKjIDGE W G > a a W = W (yT J 0 V Legend New Plan Area ® Excluded Area /\/ Streets e Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area") 169 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 077 OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the Council of the City of Fort Collins ("Council") adopted Resolution 82-10 establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the "Authority") and designating the Council to serve as the Authority's Board of Commissioners (the "Board"); and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-081 approving the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, C.R.S. Sections 31-25-101 , et seq. (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Plan identifies and legally describes approximately 658.5 acres of land as being within the Plan's boundaries as depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "A" (the "Plan Area"); and WHEREAS, the Plan also established a tax increment financing district within the Plan Area known as "Prospect South," which district is depicted on Exhibit "A" (the "Prospect TIF District"); and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the Council adopted Resolution 2013-043 in which the Council ratified and reaffirmed the Plan and amended the Plan (the "First Amended Plan") to establish within the Plan Area a second tax increment financing district known as "Foothills Mall," which district is depicted on Exhibit "A" (the "Mall TIF District"); and WHEREAS, the Prospect TIF District and the Mall TIF District shall be jointly referred to as the "TIF Districts;" and WHEREAS, the Act was recently amended in several respects by House Bill 15-1348 ("HB-1348"); and WHEREAS, starting January 1, 2016, the City will be required under HB-1348 to attempt to negotiate an agreement with all affected taxing entities, like Larimer County, on the issue of how the property tax increment generated under any new City urban renewal plan or the modification of an existing plan will be allocated and spent under the new plan or modification and, if such an agreement cannot be reached, the tax -allocation issue will be decided through "mediation" by a "mediator;" and WHEREAS, there currently exists many uncertainties as to how this and other requirements in HB-1348 will affect the Plan and the TIF Districts; and -1- 170 WHEREAS, to help avoid and minimize any adverse effects that might result from these uncertainties, Authority staff is recommending that the First Amended Plan be modified in two respects before January 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the first modification is to amend the wording of the First Amended Plan to clarify that the Plan identifies and authorizes only one urban renewal project (the "First Modification"); and WHEREAS, under C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(7) the First Modification is not a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan because it will not result in any substantial change in the land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing or procedure of the First Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, the second modification is to exclude from the Plan Area the approximately 490.7 acres of land that are currently not located in either of the TIF Districts, which excluded land is depicted on the attached Exhibit "B" (the "Excluded Area"), except that certain portions of South College not in the TIF Districts will remain in the Plan Area in order to connect the two TIF Districts as depicted on Exhibit `B" (the "Second Modification"); and WHEREAS, as a result of the Second Modification, the new area of the First Amended Plan will be reduced to approximately 167.8 acres of land, which area is depicted on Exhibit "B" (the "New Plan Area"); and WHEREAS, since the Second Modification results in a substantial change in the First Amended Plan's land area, although it will be a decrease and not an increase in land area, under Section 31-25-107(7) the Second Modification is arguably a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan that is subject to the notice and hearing requirements in Section 31-25-107; and WHEREAS, one of these requirements is in Section 31-25-107(1)(b) and it requires that an urban renewal authority, within thirty days of commissioning a blight study for an area proposed to be included in a new or existing urban renewal plan, to mail notices that it is commencing the blight study to all fee title owners of private property in the proposed study area at their last -known address of record; and WHEREAS, since under the proposed First Modification and Second Modification (jointly, the "Modifications") no new land is being added to the Plan Area, but instead removed, and since the remaining New Plan Area has been previously determined to be a blighted area under the Act by Council in its Resolutions 2011-080 and 2011-081, both adopted on September 6, 2011, there is no need for a blight study for the Modifications, so the notice under Section 31- 25-107(1)(b) is not required; and WHEREAS, Authority staff is nevertheless recommending that the Board direct in this Resolution that the Authority mail notices of the Modifications to all fee title owners of private property in the Plan Area and to notify them in the notice that a blight study involving their properties will not be conducted for the Modifications for the reasons stated in this Resolution; and 171 WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a) requires the Council or the Authority, at least thirty days prior to the Council conducting a hearing to consider a substantial modification of an urban renewal plan, to submit to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners (the "County") the proposed modification and an "urban renewal impact report" if the County's property taxes will be collected and used under the substantial modification; and WHEREAS, it is not necessary to submit an "urban renewal impact report" to the County since the Second Modification simply removes the Excluded Area from the Plan Area and the Excluded Area is not currently in one of the TIF Districts, so no County property tax increment has been or is being collected from the Excluded Area and used under the First Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, Authority staff is nevertheless recommending that the Board direct in this Resolution that the Authority submit a written report to the County stating that the Modifications have no impacts on the County as such impacts are defined in Section 31-25- 107(3.5)(a)(I)-(V); and WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Board believes that it is the Authority's best interest that the First and Second Modifications be presented and considered together by the Council as a substantial modification to the First Amended Plan and that the Authority take the actions hereafter provided to accomplish this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS as follows: Section 1. The Board hereby finds and determines that it is in the Authority's best interest that the First Modification and the Second Modifications be presented and considered together by Council at a future meeting scheduled, noticed and held in accordance with the requirements of the Act as a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan and directs the Executive Director of the Authority (the "Director') to take all necessary and appropriate actions to accomplish this under the Act including, without limitation, the actions described in this Resolution. Section 2. The Board hereby finds and determines that since the Modifications do not require the commissioning of a blight study because they do not add any new land to the Plan Area, but instead under the Second Modification the Excluded Area is proposed to be removed from the Plan Area, the mailed notice to owners of private property within the blight study area under C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(1)(b) is not required for these Modifications. Nevertheless, the Director is directed to promptly mail a written notice to all the owners of private property in the Plan Area to their last -known address of record notifying them of the proposed Modifications and of the fact that a blight study involving their properties will not be conducted by the Authority or the City for these Modifications for the reasons stated in this Resolution. Section 3. The Board hereby directs the Director to timely submit to the County the proposed Modifications as required by C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a). -3- 172 Section 4. The Board hereby finds and determines that since the Excluded Area to be removed from the Plan Area under the Modifications contains only properties that are located outside of both the TIF Districts, no County property tax increment has been collected or used from the properties in the Excluded Area under the First Amended Plan so the City and the Authority are not required by Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a) to submit an "urban renewal impact report" to the County for the Modifications. Nevertheless, the Director is directed to promptly submit a written report to the County notifying it that the Modifications will have no impact on the County as such impacts are described in Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a)(I)-(V). Section 5. The Director, in consultation with the Authority's legal counsel, is hereby authorized to take all actions and sign all documents reasonably necessary to carry out the Authority's intent, purposes and direction under this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 8th day of September A.D. 2015. ATTEST: Secretary Chairperson tj%%nn n►IIII ,..� OLLINS'��,, • d de60, '�BAN� REN -4- 173 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 077 OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN WHEREAS, on January 5, 1982, the Council of the City of Fort Collins ("Council") adopted Resolution 82-10 establishing the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the "Authority") and designating the Council to serve as the Authority's Board of Commissioners (the "Board"); and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-081 approving the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, C.R.S. Sections 31-25-101 , et seq. (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Plan identifies and legally describes approximately 658.5 acres of land as being within the Plan's boundaries as depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "A" (the "Plan Area"); and WHEREAS, the Plan also established a tax increment financing district within the Plan Area known as "Prospect South," which district is depicted on Exhibit "A" (the "Prospect TIF District"); and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the Council adopted Resolution 2013-043 in which the Council ratified and reaffirmed the Plan and amended the Plan (the "First Amended Plan") to establish within the Plan Area a second tax increment financing district known as "Foothills Mall," which district is depicted on Exhibit "A" (the "Mall TIF District"); and WHEREAS, the Prospect TIF District and the Mall TIF District shall be jointly referred to as the "TIF Districts;" and WHEREAS, the Act was recently amended in several respects by House Bill 15-1348 ("HB-1348"); and WHEREAS, starting January 1, 2016, the City will be required under HB-1348 to attempt to negotiate an agreement with all affected taxing entities, like Larimer County, on the issue of how the property tax increment generated under any new City urban renewal plan or the modification of an existing plan will be allocated and spent under the new plan or modification and, if such an agreement cannot be reached, the tax -allocation issue will be decided through "mediation" by a "mediator;" and WHEREAS, there currently exists many uncertainties as to how this and other requirements in HB-1348 will affect the Plan and the TIF Districts; and -1- 174 WHEREAS, to help avoid and minimize any adverse effects that might result from these uncertainties, Authority staff is recommending that the First Amended Plan be modified in two respects before January 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, the first modification is to amend the wording of the First Amended Plan to clarify that the Plan identifies and authorizes only one urban renewal project (the "First Modification"); and WHEREAS, under C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(7) the First Modification is not a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan because it will not result in any substantial change in the land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing or procedure of the First Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, the second modification is to exclude from the Plan Area the approximately 490.7 acres of land that are currently not located in either of the TIF Districts, which excluded land is depicted on the attached Exhibit "B" (the "Excluded Area"), except that certain portions of South College not in the TIF Districts will remain in the Plan Area in order to connect the two TIF Districts as depicted on Exhibit `B" (the "Second Modification"); and WHEREAS, as a result of the Second Modification, the new area of the First Amended Plan will be reduced to approximately 167.8 acres of land, which area is depicted on Exhibit "B" (the "New Plan Area"); and WHEREAS, since the Second Modification results in a substantial change in the First Amended Plan's land area, although it will be a decrease and not an increase in land area, under Section 31-25-107(7) the Second Modification is arguably a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan that is subject to the notice and hearing requirements in Section 31-25-107; and WHEREAS, one of these requirements is in Section 31-25-107(1)(b) and it requires that an urban renewal authority, within thirty days of commissioning a blight study for an area proposed to be included in a new or existing urban renewal plan, to mail notices that it is commencing the blight study to all fee title owners of private property in the proposed study area at their last -known address of record; and WHEREAS, since under the proposed First Modification and Second Modification (jointly, the "Modifications") no new land is being added to the Plan Area, but instead removed, and since the remaining New Plan Area has been previously determined to be a blighted area under the Act by Council in its Resolutions 2011-080 and 2011-081, both adopted on September 6, 2011, there is no need for a blight study for the Modifications, so the notice under Section 31- 25-107(1)(b) is not required; and WHEREAS, Authority staff is nevertheless recommending that the Board direct in this Resolution that the Authority mail notices of the Modifications to all fee title owners of private property in the Plan Area and to notify them in the notice that a blight study involving their properties will not be conducted for the Modifications for the reasons stated in this Resolution; and 175 WHEREAS, Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a) requires the Council or the Authority, at least thirty days prior to the Council conducting a hearing to consider a substantial modification of an urban renewal plan, to submit to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners (the "County") the proposed modification and an "urban renewal impact report" if the County's property taxes will be collected and used under the substantial modification; and WHEREAS, it is not necessary to submit an "urban renewal impact report" to the County since the Second Modification simply removes the Excluded Area from the Plan Area and the Excluded Area is not currently in one of the TIF Districts, so no County property tax increment has been or is being collected from the Excluded Area and used under the First Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, Authority staff is nevertheless recommending that the Board direct in this Resolution that the Authority submit a written report to the County stating that the Modifications have no impacts on the County as such impacts are defined in Section 31-25- 107(3.5)(a)(I)-(V); and WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Board believes that it is the Authority's best interest that the First and Second Modifications be presented and considered together by the Council as a substantial modification to the First Amended Plan and that the Authority take the actions hereafter provided to accomplish this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS as follows: Section 1. The Board hereby finds and determines that it is in the Authority's best interest that the First Modification and the Second Modifications be presented and considered together by Council at a future meeting scheduled, noticed and held in accordance with the requirements of the Act as a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan and directs the Executive Director of the Authority (the "Director') to take all necessary and appropriate actions to accomplish this under the Act including, without limitation, the actions described in this Resolution. Section 2. The Board hereby finds and determines that since the Modifications do not require the commissioning of a blight study because they do not add any new land to the Plan Area, but instead under the Second Modification the Excluded Area is proposed to be removed from the Plan Area, the mailed notice to owners of private property within the blight study area under C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(1)(b) is not required for these Modifications. Nevertheless, the Director is directed to promptly mail a written notice to all the owners of private property in the Plan Area to their last -known address of record notifying them of the proposed Modifications and of the fact that a blight study involving their properties will not be conducted by the Authority or the City for these Modifications for the reasons stated in this Resolution. Section 3. The Board hereby directs the Director to timely submit to the County the proposed Modifications as required by C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a). -3- 176 Section 4. The Board hereby finds and determines that since the Excluded Area to be removed from the Plan Area under the Modifications contains only properties that are located outside of both the TIF Districts, no County property tax increment has been collected or used from the properties in the Excluded Area under the First Amended Plan so the City and the Authority are not required by Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a) to submit an "urban renewal impact report" to the County for the Modifications. Nevertheless, the Director is directed to promptly submit a written report to the County notifying it that the Modifications will have no impact on the County as such impacts are described in Section 31-25-107(3.5)(a)(I)-(V). Section 5. The Director, in consultation with the Authority's legal counsel, is hereby authorized to take all actions and sign all documents reasonably necessary to carry out the Authority's intent, purposes and direction under this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority this 8th day of September A.D. 2015. ATTEST: Secretary Chairperson tj%%nn n►IIII ,..� OLLINS'��,, • d de60, '�BAN� REN -4- 177 RESOLUTION 2015-0 OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MIDTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN TO THE FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the Fort Collins City Council ("Council") adopted Resolution 2011-081 approving the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, C.R.S. Sections 31-25-101 , et seq. (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the Plan identifies and legally describes approximately 658.5 acres of land as being within the Plan's boundaries as depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "A" (the "Plan Area"); and WHEREAS, the Plan also established a tax increment financing district within the Plan Area known as "Prospect South," which district is depicted on Exhibit "A" (the "Prospect TIF District"); and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013, the Council adopted Resolution 2013-043 in which the Council ratified and reaffirmed the Plan and amended the Plan (the "First Amended Plan") to establish within the Plan Area a second tax increment financing district known as "Foothills Mall," which district is depicted on Exhibit "A" (the "Mall TIF District"); and WHEREAS, the Prospect TIF District and the Mall TIF District shall be jointly referred to as the "TIF Districts;" and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Board adopted Resolution No. 077 submitting to the Council for its future consideration a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan under the Act (the "Authority Resolution"); and WHEREAS, the substantial modification of the First Amended Plan proposed in the Authority Resolution would modify the First Amended Plan in two respects; and WHEREAS, the first modification would amend the wording of the First Amended Plan to clarify that the First Amended Plan identifies and authorizes only one urban renewal project (the "First Modification"); and WHEREAS, under C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(7) the First Modification is not a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan because it will not result in any substantial change in the land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing or procedure of the First Amended Plan; and WHEREAS, the second modification would exclude from the Plan Area the approximately 490.7 acres of land that are currently not located in either of the TIF Districts, which excluded land is depicted on the attached Exhibit `B" (the "Excluded Area"), except that -1- 178 certain portions of South College not in the TIF Districts will remain in the Plan Area in order to connect the two TIF Districts as depicted on Exhibit `B" (the "Second Modification"); and WHEREAS, as a result of the Second Modification, the new area of the First Amended Plan will be reduced to approximately 167.8 acres of land, which area is depicted on Exhibit `B" (the "New Plan Area"); and WHEREAS, since the Second Modification results in a substantial change in the First Amended Plan's land area, although it will be a decrease and not an increase in land area, under Section 31-25-107(7) the Second Modification is arguably a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan that is subject to the notice and hearing requirements in Section 31-25-107; and WHEREAS, if the First Modification and the Second Modification (jointly, the "Modification") are together a substantial modification of the First Amended Plan, Section 31- 25-107(2) requires the Council to submit the Modification to the City's Planning and Zoning Board prior to the Council approving the Modification so that the Planning and Zoning Board can review the Modification and provide its written recommendation to the Council on the sole question of whether the Modification is in conformity with the City's general plan for development of the City as a whole, which is the City's comprehensive plan titled "City Plan — Fort Collins" and dated February 15, 2011 ("City Plan"); and WHEREAS, after reviewing the Modification to the Plan, the Planning and Zoning Board finds, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(7), that the Plan as changed by the Modification is in conformity with City Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Plan as changed by the Modification to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan is in conformity with City Plan. -2- 179 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 15th day of September, A.D. 2015, ATTEST: City Clerk -3- Mayor :e EXHIBIT A Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Existing Plan Area Boundary - Midtown PITK/N W LAKE p ~ PROSPECT W • • • z p[ U • • • GZc W • • yCj Q J • °C U STUART STUART �+ • SPRING PARK 3 / ■ Y 2-COLUMBIA 0 ' m �F! z o > 99 �Oy O a O ■ W C ■ (� L O ■ W W 6 J J DRAKE 0�■ ■ ' ■ ■ Y ■ ■ OC ■ ■ SWALLOW ■ Fo i Is Mall 2 ■ CENTENNIAL ■ moll ones■■ Z . ��7 Ti O Q ■ 0 W ■ Q ■ ■ ■ rQ ■ f� ■ lO ■ ■ 1 ILL RICHMOND o . MONROE �� ■ �< ■ I in z ?� HORSETOOTH D ■ z ■ 2 ' 4 ' � ■ sn D . � Z WABASH Z o ■ ■ BOARDWALK J 'I ■ Z O\ a — ■ w m a yam'. TICONDEROGA w W�TROUTMAN� ■ ? n 03 : TROUTMAN� yA`\ J `` Tim, W ' l ■Q�\ WHP�ERS ■ ■ w HARMONY ■ O W ■���) z OAKRIDGE a � a ■ ■ W ■ ■ �\G�Lp,S �EEN�PNO Legend Foothills Mall Boundary Streets v■ lk • • Prospect South Boundary ,. ■ Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area") 181 0 EXHIBIT B Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority Proposed Plan Area Boundary = Midtown LAKE > z ~ 4'—PROSPECT z V ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Z z W ♦ ♦ W 0 VI W ♦ 3 STUART ♦ STUART . . 0 . SPRING PARK W N `���Q� • .. A 3 O 0 / ■ = 0 / ■ O —COLUMBIA m T'Ff PARKWOO ,A) ■ �9? p 9�'F Cyy ; Ln a �0 ■ g Op • ' J DRAKE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Y / SWALLOW ' . thills all 3 ■ . CENTENNIAL > ■ Z ♦ ♦•1 O O C / ■ ■ ■ ///� ■A A A A A A AO / J • - - W MONROE RICHMOND z Illlll 3 ; HORSETOOTH Z_ ■ Fi Z ■ / • Z WABASH ■ c ■ z ■ � J ■ BOARDWALK ■ ■ . O W�TROUTMAN� < TICONDEROGA 3 -TROUT AN 2 O 0� Q • � n ■ ■ W HARM NYI ■ ��� ■ 0 �OAKIIDGE _Z •� AO W ■ W■ J ■ O ■ Poo V ■ • ■ ■ .. a . ■ Legend • New Plan Area Excluded Area /^\/ Streets e so ma ■ Midtown Urban Renewal Plan Area (the "Plan Area") 182