Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/17/2012 - CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF THE HEARING OFFICEDATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 40 SUBJECT Consideration of Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer’s May 7, 2012 Decision to Approve the District at Campus West Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC, submitted a Project Development Plan for multi-family dwellings in the C-C, Community Commercial zone district. As proposed, the project consists of the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets on the north side of West Plum Street for the purpose of constructing three new buildings, including a parking structure, containing 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres. The parcel is between Aster Street on the east and City Park Avenue on the west. On April 5, 2012 and on April 23, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted public hearings in consideration of The District at Campus West P.D.P. On May 7, 2012, after testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the P.D.P. with one condition ensuring proper vacation of public streets. On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 19, Robert M. Meyer filed a Notice of Appeal, which was superceded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed May 29. Both appeals seek redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision. The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The PDP represents the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets. The site is located within the Campus West Study Area. The proposed land use, multi-family, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative Review. The dwelling units would be distributed among three buildings and include a mix of two, three and four-bedroom units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two-bedroom (14%); 42 three-bedroom (22%) and 123 four-bedroom (64%). There would be a total of 674 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. There would be 495 off-street parking spaces and located within a parking garage with five levels. In addition, 332 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated. Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and computer lab. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and is not at issue for either appeal. The Community Commercial zone district allows a maximum height of five stories. Moving along Plum Street from west to east, Building One would be five stories and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two would be a five level parking structure featuring a three-story residential component facing Plum Street. Building Three would be a five story building. ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER The Hearing Officer conducted two public hearings. The first hearing on April 5, 2012 was continued to April 23, 2012. At both hearings, the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review process allows the Hearing Officer ten working days to render a written decision. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 40 On May 7, 2012, the Hearing Officer provided a decision approving the P.D.P. with the one condition as recommended by staff that the vacation of two public streets follows proper procedures. THE QUESTION COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 29, Robert M. Meyer filed an amended Notice of Appeal. The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A,D) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). A. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code. ZTA states, “In accordance with Section 3.2.3(A), ‘a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements does not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners.’ This standard was ignored by the Hearing Officer.” ZTA maintains that instead, the Hearing Officer only took Section 3.2.3(D) into consideration and only to find that Section 3.2.3(D) “shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district.” While the Appellant does not disagree that Section 3.2.3(D) does not apply to the proposed development, the remainder of Section 3.2.3 does apply and the stated goal found in Section 3.2.3(A) must be a consideration for approval of the proposed development. It was an error to discount the shading studies conducted by the public and Appellant on the grounds that the Hearing Officer “has not authority to impose the shading standard.” ZTA contends that the Hearing Officer has the authority to impose requirements to prevent adverse impacts from shading and that such authority is found in the purpose statement per Section 3.2.3(A). Section 3.2.3(A) Access, Orientation, Shading - (A) Purpose. It is the City's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. While the use of solar energy systems is optional, the right to solar access is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year, including between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, when the longest shadows occur. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade caused by buildings, structures and trees. Section 3.2.3(D) (D) Shading. (1) The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high-density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. • With regard to Section 3.2.3(D), the Hearing Officer states on page 12 of the decision: “The provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard.” July 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 40 B. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3(D) Shading versus Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 Shadowing Meyer states, “Page 8 of the Hearing Officer’s report discusses Section 3.2.3(D) of the Code and argues that provisions for mitigation of shading do not apply to any development located in zones determined to be Community Commercial. And, on page 19 the Hearing Officer concludes that ‘Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 duplicates Section3.2.3(D).’” Meyer contests this conclusion. While Meyer acknowledges the provision stated in Section 3.2.3(D), his opinion is that the project buildings still must comply with Section 3.5.1(G), and that they are not “duplicates.” Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape. • Pages 9-10 of the Staff Report contain an analysis of the portions of Section 3.5.1(G) that pertain to light and shadow. The complete quote from the Staff Report is as follows: “As noted, Section 3.2.3(D) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). Nevertheless, it may be important to evaluate compliance with this standard since shadowing was identified as a concern by citizens attending the neighborhood information meetings.” Based on this concern, the Staff Report goes on to state: “The applicant has provided a shadow analysis. Section 3.5.1(G(1)(a)2. states that adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and the shading of window or gardens for more than three months of the years. The shadow analysis indicates that there is shadowing on the garden level units of Sunstone Condos on December 23rd under present conditions due to existing trees along the shared property line with The District. With the addition of Buildings One, Two and Three, on December 22nd, this shadowing impacts the second level of Sunstone Condos. On the 22nd of November and January, the shadows cast by The District are reduced back down to impacting the only the garden level. Staff concludes that even if Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. was not exempted by 3.2.3(D), that shadows cast by Buildings One, Two and Three would not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property for more than three months over and above that which is the present condition.” While the Hearing Officer elected to consider the provisions of Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. to be inclusive of the “shading standards” as contained in Section 3.2.3(D) and thus not applicable to the C-C zone district, Staff provided an analysis based on the evidence presented in both public hearings. This analysis led staff to find that shadowing occurs on the adjoining buildings during the three month timeframe specified in the standard. This shadowing, however, is not found to constitute a substantial adverse impact. July 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 40 C. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(B) – Architectural Character - of the Land Use Code. ZTA states, “The Hearing Officer made no finding that the proposed mass and scale of the proposed development ‘set an enhanced standard of quality” for the area. Rather, the Hearing Officer simply found that the ‘area has no predominant architectural character.’ Despite the considerable testimony from the public regarding the fact that the mass and scale of the proposed building were not compatible with the existing area, the Hearing Officer failed to establish the standards set forth in Section 3.5.1(B).” Section 3.5.1(B) (B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. • Page 8 of the Staff Report addresses Section 3.5.1(B): “(1.) Architectural Character As documented in the Campus West Area Study, there is no predominant architectural character in the area. Consequently, the standard requires that new development shall establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in the area. This P.D.P. sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of quality exterior materials. Balconies add interest to the façade and the flat roofs are mitigated with cornices and overhangs. Although Building One is long, its length is mitigated by recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow lines. The pedestrian scale of Building One is highlighted by the common area and courtyard being placed directly behind the sidewalk. This area features a one-story component bringing the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale. All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, such as overhangs, entry features and seat walls so that there is both horizontal and vertical relief. (2.) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale The three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surrounding area. As mitigation, the buildings are sub-divided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lowering the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank walls.” • The Hearing Officer considered the testimony of all parties. Page 14 of the Hearing Officer’s Decision addressed Section 3.5.1 – Architectural Character: “It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards.” D. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(D) Building and Project Compatibility – Privacy Considerations Meyer states, “Privacy was a major concern voiced by residents of the sorority located directly north of the proposed project’s 5 story, Building 3. In our view, the Hearing Officer discounted the concern by suggesting that residents in both facilities will need to pull their window shades down and be responsible for their own conduct which hardly July 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 40 addresses suggestions for mitigation as provided in this section of the code. Issues of safety and security for the women residents of the sorority will be created. Section 3.5.1(D) (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. (See Figure 8.) • On page 16 of the Hearing Officer’s decision, the Hearing Officer states: “The security and privacy of the sorority are a different issue. Privacy is a concern anytime two buildings are constructed within visual distance from one another. Both buildings will undoubtedly contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority cannot be guaranteed nor can the privacy for the residents of the proposed development be guaranteed. The best control of privacy is with each individual. The individual can control the windows and shades of their respective room as well as their own conduct.” E. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(G) Building and Project Compatibility – Views Meyer states, “This section of the Code provides for structures which will not substantially alter the opportunity for and quality of desirable views. During the hearing process, we provided film footage of the ‘in your face’ view that residents in our properties will experience when they walk out of their units and view the parking garage being proposed.” Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks. • The Hearing Officer states on page 18 of the decision: “The C-C zone and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development. The surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condo, apartments and the sorority are higher density developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit. The transition from the existing single family homes to high density development will be accomplished, in part, by this development. The neighborhood scale will also change as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets this standard.” SUMMARY The Staff Report provided the following conclusion: “The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea Plan) which calls attention to the redevelopment potential of this mature neighborhood adjacent to the Colorado State University campus. Such redevelopment would fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urbanizing and walkable district. In evaluating the overall impacts of the P.D.P., staff finds that The District at Campus West complies with the applicable standards related to compatibility. Staff acknowledges that the overall scope of the P.D.P. represents a significant change when compared with the existing development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. It has been the common experience of most neighborhoods that re-development in fulfillment of the adopted vision of City Plan is uncomfortable. Despite these growing pains, this is how all cities evolve over time in response to changing social and economic July 17, 2012 -6- ITEM 40 conditions. The development review process has allowed for a robust citizen participation process that has resulted in plan revisions that further promote neighborhood compatibility.” ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal, Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity Housing Corporation, filed May 21, 2012 - Amended Notice of Appeal, Robert Meyer, Appellant, filed May 29, 2012 3. Administrative Hearing Officer Findings, Conclusions and Decision, May 7, 2012 4. Staff Report Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer, with attachments, Hearing held April 5, continued to 23, 2012 5. Materials submitted by Applicant to the Administrative Hearing Officer 6. Materials submitted by Citizens Prior to the Administrative Hearing, April 5 and 23, 2012 7. Materials submitted by Citizens at the Administrative Hearing, April 5 and 23, 2012 8. Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing, April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 9. Site Visit Summary, July 10, 2012 10. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal -Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation, filed May 21, 2012 - Amended Notice of Appeal- Robert Meyer, filed May 29, 2012 ATTACHMENT 3 Administrative Hearing Officer Findings, Conclusions and Decision, May 7, 2012 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: April 5, 2012 continued to April 23, 2012 PROJECT NAME: The District at Campus West CASE NUMBER: P.D.P. 120003 APPLICANT: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC c/o Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 401 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC c/o Mr. Derek Anderson Residential Housing Development 1302 Waugh Drive Houston, TX 77019 HEARING OFFICER: Richard V. Lopez PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to redevelop 16 houses along four short blocks in the Campus West neighborhood for a multi-family project consisting of 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres located on the north side of West Plum Street between Aster Street and City Park Avenue. The parcels are zoned C-C, Community Commercial and within the Transit- Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD). The District at Campus West (The District) is a student oriented housing development. It will consist of three buildings which include a mix of two, three and four-bedroom units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two-bedroom (14%); 42 three- bedroom (22%) and 123 four-bedroom. The total number of bedrooms is 674 with each bedroom leased individually. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and computer lab. A total of 495 off-street parking spaces will be located within a five level parking garage. In addition, 332 bicycle spaces will be located within the parking garage on five levels. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated. Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive 2 The three buildings will vary slightly in height. Building One at the western edge will be five stories and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two in the center would be a five level parking structure with a three-story residential component facing Plum Street. Building Three at the eastern edge would be a five-story building. The applicant has requested one modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) and approval of the P.D.P. subject to one condition (vacation of streets). The District will redevelop this four-block area by replacing the 16 existing houses with three large student housing buildings. A parking garage will be constructed and two public streets will be vacated. This site is within the Campus West Study Area. The proposed use, multifamily, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative Review. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding the setbacks from public streets is requested for Building three pursuant to criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). The vacation of public street must be approved by the City Council in a separate proceeding. One condition of approval is that the vacation of two public dead-end streets proceed separately. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION BACKGROUND: 1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zone Land Use N ——N Existing multi-family S C-C Existing multi-family E C-C Existing sorority house W Not zoned Colorado State University - Married Student Housing 2. CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA Campus West is a mature, mixed-use neighborhood with the highest residential density in the City of Fort Collins. Its proximity to Colorado State University (“CSU”) offers the advantage of access to CSU, by means other than a vehicle. Plum Street (local street) is a convenient east-west travel corridor that connects a significant number of student - orientated multi-family dwelling units to the main campus of CSU. Its signalized intersection with Shields Street (arterial street) allows for safe crossing for cyclists and pedestrians and leads directly to the heart of the campus. 3 The four short streets north of Plum Street, Daisy, Columbine, Bluebell and Aster Streets, presently serve modest one-story single family detached houses, primarily used as student rentals. These houses are approximately 50 years old and none are considered eligible for designation as structures of historic significance. Campus West not only features a mix of land uses but a mix of structures of different ages. The area has continually evolved, along with the growth of the CSU for decades. For example, newer projects include two-story mixed use buildings along the street in a new urbanism style and older steel commercial buildings set back behind large parking lots. The City of Fort Collins funded street improvements, sidewalk widening, crosswalk enhancements, street trees, street furniture and decorative street lights along the two block area of West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue. These public improvements have enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as the image of the area. The project seeks to transform the area from an auto dominated development pattern to a more walkable district and act as a catalyst for private sector redevelopment. 3. CAMPUS WEST STUDY The C-C zoning was placed on the Campus West area in 1997 to implement City Plan. At that time, there was concern that the vision of C-C zoning (ambitious redevelopment incorporating new urbanism principles) was incongruous with the character and existing development pattern of the area. Consequently, the City studied the area to rectify the vision of the zoning with the constraints on the ground. In 2001, the study was completed but did not achieve adoption as an official Sub-Area on equal status with the other plans such as the Harmony Corridor Plan. The primary focus was on the commercial core along West Elizabeth Street. With regard to multi-family development, parking was identified as a constraint and structured parking was recommended as a viable option. In general, The District represents an incremental step toward redevelopment and upgrading the Campus West neighborhood so that it is more urban and walkable by constructing new physical public and private improvements. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the two hearings were properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. PUBLIC HEARING: 4 The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:05 P.M. on April 5, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. The April 5, 2012 Public Hearing was continued at the request of the applicant when it was discovered that some of the shadow analysis information was incorrect. The Public Hearing was continued to April 23, 2012. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence from both hearings: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for public testimony was provided during the hearing and members of the public were present and submitted a variety of documents. The Land Use Code, the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following persons attended the hearing: From the City of Fort Collins: Ted Shepard, Planning Ward Stanford, Traffic Department From the applicant: Ms. Linda Ripley Brent Cooper, Ripley Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Erick Bracke, ELB Engineering Derek Anderson: Residential Housing Development, LLC From the public: Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign-in sheets are attached hereto. FINDINGS ARTICLE FOUR - C-C ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS 1. Section 4.18(B)(2)(a) - Permitted Use. 5 a. Permitted Use Standard. Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone, subject to Administrative. b. Staff Analysis. Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone. c. Public Testimony. The concerns were not about the residential use, but primarily the concentration, density, scale and mass of the building. d. Hearing Officer. The use is an appropriate use in this area. 2. Section 4.18(D)(2) - Secondary Uses. a. Secondary Use Standard. This standard requires that if residential uses are considered secondary, and the project is less than ten acres, the P.D.P. must demonstrate how the project contributes to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area but shall not be required to provide a mix of land uses within the development b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the P.D.P is located on Plum Street which is not a street suitable for commercial activity. Consequently, residential is an appropriate land use of this immediate area. The location of the P.D.P. is only 700 feet from Elizabeth Street which is the commercial core of Campus West. This proximity between residential and commercial uses will contribute to the walkable character of the area and further urbanize the C-C zone district. c. Public Testimony. The public did not object to the residential use, but was concerned about the density, mass, scale of the proposed building. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff analysis that commercial would not be an 6 appropriate use. The more appropriate use is high density residential given the proximity to the CSU campus. 3. Section 4.18(E)(1)(c) - Integration of the Transit Stop. a. Standard. This standard requires installation of a transit stop. Transit stops, to the maximum extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the core commercial area. b. Staff Analysis. West Plum Street is served by Transfort Route #11. A transit stop is provided in front of Building Two. This stop is incorporated into the design of the building and weather protection is provided by a projecting overhang. A separate, dedicated, pull-in bus lane is provided so that through traffic is not impeded by passenger pick-up and drop-off operations activity. c. Public Testimony. The public expressed some concerns that the bus service would be adequate to serve the increased population of the area. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the transit stop will meet the standard. The dedicated, pull-in bus lane is a significant improvement over the current curbside loading. This standard is met. 4. Section 4.18(E)(2)(a) - Block Structure. a. Standard. This standard requires that each Community Commercial District and each development within this District be developed a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). b. Staff Analysis. The proposed development is located on the southern half of two existing blocks that are established by existing streets. Building One and Two are contained within the existing block formed by four public streets - Plum Street on the south and City Park Avenue on the west, Baystone Drive on the north and Bluebell Street on the east. 7 Building Three is contained within a block formed by Plum Street on the south, Bluebell Street on the west and Aster Street on the east. Due to existing buildings, Aster Street is prevented from continuing north to intersect with Baystone Drive. Given this existing block structure, the P.D.P. complies with the standard. c. Public Testimony. The public did not object to the block structure. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with the standard. 5. Section 4.18(E)(2)(b) - Block Size. a. Standard. This standard requires that all blocks be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres, except that blocks containing supermarkets be limited to ten (10) acres. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the blocks are established. The block defined by Plum, City Park, Baystone and Bluebell is 5.29 acres. The block defined by Plum, Baystone and Aster is 1.47 acres. The P.D.P. occupies the southern half of these two blocks. Building One and Two are formed by three public streets and contain 2.7 acres. Building Three is formed by two public streets and contains .75 acres. c. Public Testimony. The public did not object to the block size. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with this standard. 6. Section 4.18(E)(2)(c) - Minimum Building Frontage. a. Standard. This standard requires that forty (40) percent of each block side of fifty (50) percent of the total of all block sides consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. 8 b. Staff Analysis. Staff found for the 2.7 acres half-block. There are 720 feet of frontage along Plum Street and 165 feet along City Park Avenue. The Building frontage along Plum Street is 390 feet or 54% of the total frontage. The building frontage along City Park Avenue is 147 feet or 88% of the total frontage. For the .75 acre half-block, there are 200 feet along Plum Street and 165 feet along Aster Street. The building frontage along Plum Street is 180 feet or 90% of the frontage. The building frontage along Aster Street is 125 feet or 76% of the total frontage. The P.D.P. exceeds the required minimum of 40% of each block side featuring building frontage. Since the P.D.P. occupies only the southern half of the total block, the standard requiring 50% of the total of all block sides to featuring a building frontage is not applicable. c. Public Testimony. The public did not comment on the minimum building frontage standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. exceeds the 40% required for each block side standard. However, the 50% of the total of all block sides requirement is not applicable. 7. Section 4.18(E)(2)(d) - Building Height. a. Standard. This standard requires that all buildings be at least 20 feet in height and no higher than five stories. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the P.D.P features three multi-story buildings none of which exceed five stories. c. Public Testimony. The public objected to the height, massing and scale of the three buildings. 9 d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that despite the objections of members of the public, the P.D.P. meets this standard. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection. a. Tree Planting Standards. All developments are required to establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that street trees are provided in the parkway along all four public streets. Foundation plants are provided in the form of planters which also double as storm water collection containers. Finally a continuos row of trees are provided along the north property line. Concerns about the row of trees were reviewed by the City Forester who approved the landscaping plans as submitted. The concerns about the spacing were duly noted and reviewed. c. Public Testimony. Members of the public questioned both the spacing provided for the continuos row of trees along the north side of the parking structure. The concern was whether the trees would survive and grow. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer believes that the concerns expressed by the speaker were addressed by the City Forester satisfactorily. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 2. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. a. Protection and Replacement Requirements. Existing significant trees are to be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing trees or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant is required to replace such trees per the schedule 10 and requirements of the code. b. Staff Analysis. Staff explained that with infill redevelopment there are a high number of existing trees. The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees ad determined a mitigation schedule. There are 130 existing trees. Of this total, 10 trees will be preserved and 120 are to be removed. For mitigation, 128 new trees will be planted. The mitigation schedule has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester. c. Public Testimony. Members of the public were primarily concerned with the trees to be planted on the north side of the parking structure and buildings. These concerns were addressed by the City Forester. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer believes that the concerns expressed by the speaker were addressed by the City Forester satisfactorily. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 3. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking. a. General Standard. Parking and circulation systems within each development are required to accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently and shall contribute to the adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest as security as defined by the standards in this section. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that the site is served by four public streets and one private driveway serving the parking structure. Plum Street will include two, eight-foot wide, on-street bike lanes. The existing sidewalk along Plum Street is attached and only three feet wide and will be replaced by a detached walk that is seven feet wide. This exceeds the standard sidewalk width by two feet. A new bus pull-in lane will be provided for the Transfort Route #11. Weather protection for buses is incorporated into the design of Building Two. All connections tie directly into the city-wide system of public improvements. c. Public Testimony. 11 Members of the public were concerned with the additional density and possible vehicle trips that could result in congestion and unsafe conditions. They also were concerned that the greater number of pedestrians and cyclists could compromise safety. d. Hearing Officer. The introduction of up to more than 600 students at this location is noted. The proximity to the CSU campus and the TOD zone mean that most traffic will be pedestrian and cyclists. The Staff Traffic Department reviewed the Transportation Impact Study provided by the applicant and found the estimates to be acceptable. The Hearing Officer agrees that the primary impacts will be the increased pedestrian and cyclists traffic to and from the CSU Campus. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 4. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) - Parking Requirements. a. Parking Requirements. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwelling within the TOD Overlay Zone have no minimum parking requirements. The site is located within the TOD therefore there are no minimum parking requirements. However, the P.D.P. provides 495 vehicle parking spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces. According to the applicant, the provision of onsite parking where none is required is considered “essential from a leasing perspective.” b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that if the project was not located in the TOD, 441 parking spaces and 50 bicycle spaces would be required. The spaces provided exceed the minimum parking required for vehicles by 54 and 282 for bikes. c. Public Testimony. Members of the public questioned both the number of spaces provided and the possibility spillover parking into the nearby neighborhood. In addition there was a concern that the parking garage could become a public garage. An additional concern was the possibility of objects being thrown from the parking garage onto cars or people below. The speaker asked the applicant to consider screening the openings in the garage. d. Hearing Officer. Although there is no parking requirement in this TOD, the Hearing Officer asked the applicant to address the concerns raised by the speakers. The applicant explained the 12 parking agreements the manager will enter with residents and stated that there is no intention to allow the parking garage to become a public garage. Lastly, the applicant stated that they would take the screening of the parking garage under consideration. 5. Section 3.2.3(D) - Shading. a. Shading. The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high-density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that this section sets a maximum shading standard but it specifically exempts structures within the Community Commercial zone district. c. Public Testimony. There was considerable testimony from members of the public, specifically residents of dwellings to the immediate north of the proposed development. Concerns of ice and snow on adjoining parking lots and sidewalks were mentioned by many of those who testified. d. Hearing Officer. This provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. The public testimony and concerns regarding the shadow analysis and depiction by the applicant were discussed at length. The applicant requested a continuance to ensure that the shadow analysis presentation was correct. Members of the public also presented their shadow analysis which challenged that of the applicant. During the second public hearing the applicant offered two modifications that would reduce the shadows cast upon adjoining properties. The first was the reduction or sloping of the roof by five feet on the north side of the Building One. The second was the sloping of the parking garage structure roof which also would reduce the shadows on adjoining properties, but would eliminate nine parking spaces in the garage. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard. However, 13 the Hearing Officer notes that two modifications were offered by the applicant. The Hearing Officer encourages the applicant to incorporate these modifications which would demonstrate their willingness to mitigate the shading that will occur on adjoining properties. 6. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting. a. Site Lighting Requirements. All developments, except single-family residential uses, are required to submit a proposed lighting plan that meets the functional security needs of the proposed land use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the community. b. Staff Analysis. Staff reviewed the proposed lighting plan. There are seven pole-mounted light fixtures with no foot-candles exceeding one-tenth as measured 20 feet from the property lines. Four of these fixtures will illuminate the top deck of the parking structure. These fixtures are placed in the middle of the deck, not on the edge, to minimize exposure. c. Public Testimony. One member of the public expressed a concern over possible lighting impacts from the proposed development on the Sunstone Complex to the north. d. Hearing Officer. The proposed lighting plan has been reviewed by Staff and found to be in compliance with design standards. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 7. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Coded, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. b. Staff Analysis. 14 Staff noted that the Campus West Area Study found that there is no predominant architectural character in the area. Therefore, the standard requires that new development establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects. Staff found that the project sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of quality exterior materials. Balconies are added to the facades and flat roofs are mitigated with cornices and overhangs. The length and bulk of Building One is mitigated with recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow lines. Building One features common area and courtyard placed directly behind the sidewalk. In addition the first story features bring the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale. All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, including overhangs, entry features and seat walls that provide both horizontal and vertical relief. c. Public Testimony. Concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Some persons objected to the visual impact of parking structure facade facing the Sunstone Condominiums. They believed that it would be years before the trees could grow tall enough to soften the scale of the facade. For some, the density was the biggest issue, too many people for the area. Other members of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. They cited the overall benefit for the community by locating a convenient state of the art student housing close to CSU. They cited the existing ranch style homes as an underutilized land use at this location. The redevelopment of this area, located in the TOD, would facilitate walking and biking by the residents. In addition, the proposed development would be built to the Silver Leed standard. One person stated that the construction of student housing at this location would help mitigate the defacto policy of students living in single family homes, originally built for employees and CSU staff. The thought was that the construction of high density student housing would free up single-family housing for nonstudents. Others cited the anticipated growth of CSU over the next ten years. d. Hearing Officer. It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards. 8. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. 15 a. Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. As stated above, the existing architectural character is not definitively established. Therefore, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that the three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surround area. As mitigation, the buildings are subdivided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lower the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank walls. c. Public Testimony. Concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Some persons objected to the visual impact of parking structure facade facing the Sunstone Condominiums. They believed that it would be years before the trees could grow tall enough to soften the scale of the facade. For some, the density was the biggest issue, too many people for the area. Other members of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. They cited the overall benefit for the community by locating a convenient state of the art student housing close to the CSU. They cited the existing ranch style homes as an underutilized land use at this location. The redevelopment of this area, located in the TOD, would facilitate walking and biking by the residents. In addition, the proposed development would be built to the Silver Leed standard. One person stated that the construction of student housing at this location would help mitigate the defacto policy of students living in single family homes, originally built for employees and CSU staff. The thought was that the construction of high density student housing would free up single- family housing for nonstudents. Others cited the anticipated growth of CSU over the next ten years. d. Hearing Officer. It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 9. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. 16 a. Privacy Considerations. The standard calls for elements of the development plan to be arraigned to maximize the opportunity for privacy by residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining and uses. Additionally the development plans should create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. b. Staff Analysis. The north elevation of Building One is four stories. Per the landscape plan, there will be trees planted between Building One and the north property line. The buildings to the north (Sunstone) are separated from the shared property line aby a parking lot that is 60 feet wide. The combination of landscaping and distance provide sufficient amounts of buffering to ensure the privacy off the existing residents occupying the southern portions of the Sunstone Condos. c. Public Testimony. Privacy was a major concern expressed by the residents of Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority in a petition submitted by a representative. The concern expressed was that the sorority is not air conditioned and that the residents leave their windows open and curtains open during the summer months. Residents of Sunstone Condos were also concerned with privacy issues. d. Hearing Officer. This standard requires that the proposed development minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining uses, but simultaneously requires that there be opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. The applicant stated that efforts were made to meet with the Sunstone Condos residents to formalize a pedestrian connection between the two properties. While not abandoned, the Hearing Officer believed that this conversation should take place and a walkway or linkage of some type would benefit both properties. The security and privacy of the sorority are a different issue. Privacy is a concern anytime two buildings are constructed within visual distance from one another. Both buildings will undoubtedly contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority cannot be guaranteed nor can the privacy for the residents of the proposed development be guaranteed. The best control of privacy is with each individual. The individual can control the windows and shades of their respective room as well as their own conduct. 17 10. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Building Materials and Color. These standards call for the use of building materials that are either similar to materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form architectural detailing, color and textures, be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible despite the different in materials. Building color standards call for color shades to be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials should be drawn from the range of color shades that already existing on the bloc or in the adjacent neighborhood. b. Staff Analysis. As noted above, the Campus West Area Study found that there is no predominant architectural character in the area or in the C-C zone district as a whole. The proposed buildings use a combination of cultured stone, masonry and fiber cement board as the primary exterior materials. Proposed building colors are muted earth tones. The arrangement of these materials and colors, including combination with other features such as covered entries, balconies, overhangs and cornices, create an interesting building that sets a new standard of quality for the surrounding area. c. Public Testimony. The public concerns were mainly mass, scale, height and density. No one was particularly concerned about the proposed colors. d. Hearing Officer. There is a lack of a predominant architectural character in the immediate vicinity or in the C-C zone district as a whole. Therefore, the proposed building materials and colors meet the standards. 11. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Building Height Review - Views and Neighborhood Scale. This standard governs buildings that exceed forty (40) feet in height. The intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site design with a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown 18 and designated activity centers. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that the views, the three new buildings do not substantially alter the opportunity for, quality of, desirable views from public places, streets, and parks within the community. Campus West is a mature neighborhood with significant numbers of existing, fully-grown trees. Presently, staff found that there are no desirable views as the mature trees already block views from the public streets. In considering the neighborhood scale, the staff noted that the north elevation of Buildings One and Two achieve a height of 49 feet in comparison to the Sunstone Condos which are 32 feet in height. The south elevations are 67 and 58 feet in height respectively. Building Three is 61 feet in height but is located further away from adjacent buildings. The heights of other buildings in the area, excluding the CSU campus, are identified and described in the applicants material and range in height from 28 feet to 58 feet. (Tab 5) While higher than most buildings in the area, the scale is compatible given the height and mass of other existing buildings. c. Public Testimony. As noted above, concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. d. Hearing Officer. The C-C zone and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development. The surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condos, apartments and the sorority are higher density developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit. The transition from the existing single-family homes to high density development will be accomplished, in part, by this development. The neighborhood scale will also change as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 12. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Light and Shadow. Section 3.2.3(D)(1) states that this (shading) provision shall not apply to structures within the following high-density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. 19 b. Staff Analysis. Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with the shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(2) duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). The shading of adjacent properties was identified by neighbors as a concern at the neighborhood informational meetings. The applicant provided two shadow analyses. Section 3.4.1(G)(1)(a)(2) states that adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare, such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three(3) months of the year. The shadow analysis indicated that there is shadowing on the garden level unit of Sunstone Condos on December 23 under present conditions due to existing trees along the shared property line with proposed development. With the addition of Buildings One, Two and Three on December 22nd, this shadowing impacts the second level of Sunstone Condos. On the 22nd of November and January, the shadows cast by The District are reduced back to impacting only the garden level. Staff conceded that the shadows cast by the proposed development would not have a substantially adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property for more than three months over and above that which is the present condition. However, this proposed development is specifically exempted from this standard. c. Public Testimony. Considerable testimony at both public hearings focused on the shading of not only the Sunstone Condos, but the sorority. Members of the public presented their own shadow analysis to dispute the information provided by the applicant. d. Hearing Officer. This provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard. However, the Hearing Officer notes that two modifications were offered by the applicant. The Hearing Officer encourages the applicant to incorporate these modifications which would demonstrate their willingness to mitigate the shading that will occur on adjoining properties. 20 13. Section 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition. a. Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials, and colors, buffer yards and adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the issues related to scale, form, materials and color have been addressed. In terms of buffering, the north property line will include the preservation of the existing trees that have been determined to be of value and the planting of new trees. In terms of operational characteristics, the most important design feature is the each level of the parking structure features a parapet wall that blocks headlights. Other features include two trash dumpsters that are fully enclosed withing the buildings and, as mentioned above, no lighting spillover in excess of the standard. Finally, the active area of the pool and clubhouse is south-facing and totally screened from the Sunstone Condos. c. Public Testimony. There were several concerns about the belief that this concentration of students would lead to parties with noise, on street parking, lighting and noise from the parking structure and the concentration of people in a small area. Others feared that parties would grow to hundreds of students and spill over into the neighborhood. Still others were concerned about automobile traffic in the area, trash build up during the times that students move in and out of the development. There were some comments about pedestrian traffic and linkages to the CSU and some missing pedestrian walks. There was some concern of crowded buses being unable to serve the new students who would reside in the development. Finally, the concerns about the scale of the proposed development was mentioned. The slides that were presented created a false sense of scale because of the type of perspective used to illustrate building heights of the development and Sunstone Condos. d. Hearing Officer. The gradual transition of land uses is not possible given the size of this development. The proposed development is located in a high density zone, TOD and is 3.34 acres in size. The visual character of this proposed development and the neighboring properties 21 will be different. The efforts to mitigate these differences to the maximum extent possible have been incorporated into the design and location of certain facilities. The pool and clubhouse have been located on the south facing side of the development, away from the Sunstone Condos. These two features and any noise will be screened from the Sunstone Condos to the north. The concerns about spill over parking or guest parking are addressed by the 495 parking spaces in the garage which includes 50 guest parking spaces. The concerns about trash accumulation during the move in periods was addressed with the provision of extra dumpsters to accommodate trash. The applicant commented that these issues are known and given experience in other similar developments, can be controlled. The design of the parking garage parapet walls will block headlights and noise from neighboring properties. Bus, pedestrian and bicycle traffic was analyzed and found to be acceptable. This is a TOD where bus service is available. The proximity to the CSU campus will result in pedestrian and bicycle use, reducing the need or desirability to travel to and from the campus by auto. This proposed development will improve the pedestrian walks along Plum Street and one bus stop will be located adjacent to the development. The concerns about student parties and possible spill over should be addressed by the on-site management personnel. 14. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service. a. Standards. All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service (LOS) standard contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The transit LOS standards contained in Part II of this Multi-model Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section. In order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with these standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines, as established in the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards. b. Staff Analysis. A Transportation Impact Study was submitted and evaluated by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department. Plum Street is classified as a major collector (meaning there are two eight-foot wide bike lanes but no on-street parking). The detached sidewalk has been widened by two extra feet from the required minimum of five feet to seven feet to accommodate the expected level of pedestrians and in fulfilment of the C-C 22 zone’s emphasis on walkability. The Study made the following conclusions: • Operation at the key intersections will be acceptable under full build-out of the project. • No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required with the construction of the project. • No auxiliary lanes will be needed. • Crosswalks should be added to Plum Street at City Park Avenue and Bluebell Street. • Multi-modal Level of Service Standards can be achieved. • Overall, the project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted Levels of Service standards. c. Public Testimony. The concerns raised at the public hearings concerned all modes of circulation. The adequacy of the existing sidewalks, roadways and transit services were questioned. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Office has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study submitted by ELB Engineering LLC and took testimony from the City’s Traffic Engineer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. meets the Level of Service standards. 15. Section 3.8.16(E)(2) - Occupancy Limits. a. Standards. With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all the applicable criteria of the Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number off unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that with regard to open space and recreation, the P.D.P. provieds a pool, clubhouse and computer lab of sufficient size to serve all tenants located in Building One. As to parking, there will be both vehicular and bicycle parking in excess of what 23 would otherwise be required under Section 3.2.2(K)(1). Finally, public facilities have been enhanced with the construction of a bus pull-in land, a detached public sidewalk that exceeds the minimum required width and accompanied by seat walls, planters and decorative lighting along Plum Street to encourage gathering and social interaction. c. Public Testimony. The public concerns about increased density and occupancy of this proposed development were varied. Many of these concerns have been detailed above. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the documentation provided by the applicant (Tab 4), reviewed the plans and considered all the testimony provided at the hearings. The provision of open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities should adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Four bedroom units have become a popular lifestyle alternative for many students throughout the nation. It allows four students to share an apartment in a well-managed environment. There is added security compared to single-family home rentals. The four bedroom unit costs are less per bedroom and offers a more affordable option for students. The applicants’ written justifications include open space and recreational amenities, parking, public facilities, architectural design and sustainability. These justifications and the testimony of the applicant at the hearings have been considered by the Hearing Office. The Hearing Officer finds that the request for four bedroom units is justified and herein grants this request. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION-SECTION 3.4.2(D)(2) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS FROM NON-ARTERIAL STREETS a. Standard at issue. Section 3.5.2(D)(2) reads as follows: (2) Setback from Non-arterial Streets. Minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of- way shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet. 24 b. Description of the Modification. Building Three, unlike Buildings One and Two, is not a mixed-use building and is governed by the setback standard, not the build-to line standard. Instead of being setback from the three public streets by the requisite 15 feet, it is setback in the following manner: Street Required Proposed Difference Plum Street 15' 12.5 2.5' Aster Street 15' 10' 5' Bluebell Street 15' 11'5' 3.5' c. Applicant’s Justification. The applicant’s justification is contained in Tab 3 of their application report. The staff report provides a summary of the applicant’s justification. Briefly, the applicant states that 11.5 feet of additional right-of-way dedicated for Plum Street will improve operations and functions of westbound travel lane, bike lane, parkway and detached sidewalk. Setbacks along Aster and Bluebell are mitigated by articulation of the building. Setbacks for Building Three from the public street are not detrimental and result in a plan that is equal to or better that a plan that would have complied with the plan. Lastly, the modification is justified by the provision of student-oriented, multi- family housing that alleviates an existing defined problem of city-wide concern and addresses an important community need. The project is located within the Targeted Redevelopment Area as described by the City Plan. d. Staff analysis. Staff noted that Building Three is well-articulated along all three public streets. As a residential building, it contains entrances, windows and a variety of exterior materials. There are no blank walls. In addition, there is no established context of building setbacks in the general vicinity. A slight divergence from the 15-foot setback would not cause a glaring inconsistency and would not look out of place in the neighborhood. Staff found from an urban design perspective that all three buildings demonstrate a consistent relationship to Plum Street. The on-street bike lane, parkway, street trees and detached sidewalk are public improvements all of which contribute to an urban, formal and pleasing arrangement of the street scape. Aligning all three buildings with a consistent setback enhances the organization of the project and creates a uniform development pattern. A consistent setback contributes to the urbanization of the area as envisioned by the Community Commercial zone district. Staff recommended approval of the Modification with specific findings of fact. 25 e. Public Testimony. Public testimony was primarily directed at the overall scale and density of the proposed development. There were a couple of persons who were concerned about setbacks. FINDINGS The Hearing Officer has reviewed the applicants’ request, staff evaluation, testimony from the public hearings and all exhibits and documents submitted into the record and makes the following findings of fact: 1. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and 2. The plans 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 the Modification is being requested. Building Three is an attractive building along al three elevations facing the three public streets. There is no established context of building setbacks in the larger neighborhood. Further, from an urban design perspective, there is more value to the larger C-C district in having all three buildings aligned in a uniform arrangement than having two buildings at the build-to line and one building at the setback line. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Two neighborhood meetings were held with citizens. The first was on August 31, 2011 and the second on March 7, 2012. Staff notes that between the two meetings, the height of Building One and Two were reduced and the number of units and bedrooms reduced. The main issues and the applicants’ responses are summarized below: 1. Building Height, Mass, Scale, Bulk. Issue: This issue relating to the overall scope of the project remains at the forefront. While the applicant has scaled down the project since the first neighborhood meeting, those attending the second meeting express concerns that the P.D.P. represents a departure from the existing development pattern. 26 Response: The applicant has indicated that the plan revisions result in a reduction of the height and density of the project. The applicant acknowledges that the P.D.P. represents a significant change compared to the existing context of the area. The overall scale of the project, however, complies with the City’s vision for the C-C zone and the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. 2. Traffic. Issue: The increase in traffic on the surround streets remains a concern. Response: The applicant contends that he surrounding streets can accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. For example, Plum Street is classified as a collector roadway capable of carrying up to 5,000 trips per day. With the addition of The District, this capacity is not reached. Similarly, Shields is classified as an arterial street and capable of handling the expected traffic generated by the P.D.P. 3. Density. Issue: There is a concern that with a density in excess of 50 units per acre, and the significant number of four-bedroom units, there is too much density associated with this P.D.P. Response: The applicant has indicated that there is no density maximum in the C-C zone and that the provisions related to four-bedroom units have been addressed, primarily by adding extra parking spaces for both vehicles and bikes. 4. Property Management of Student Behavior. Issue: Those attending the meetings and public hearings have expressed a concern about the concentration of college students who may be living independently for the first time. Such an arrangement could lead to undesirable behavior such as late night noise, rowdyism, loud music, littering and the like. Response: The applicant has indicated that there will be on-site managers who are professional and adults, not students. The leases provide for eviction for tenants who violate the rules associated with undesirable behavior. 27 5. Staff Evaluation of Issues and Responses. Staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to neighborhood compatibility. It is important to note that there is no one single standard in the Land Use Code that would be the equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of Compatibility specifically states that it “ . . . does not mean the same as..” Rather, the Code breaks the issues down to number of specific standards that are intended to address impact mitigation. The P.D.P. has been evaluated by these standards and Staff finds the P.D.P. to be in compliance. FINDINGS The Hearing Officer agrees with Staff and finds that the P.D.P. is compatible with the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS The Hearing Officer has reviewed all of the evidence and testimonies submitted by the applicant, citizens and staff and being fully advised, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea Plan) which calls attention to the redevelopment potential of this mature neighborhood adjacent to the CSU campus. Such redevelopment would fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urbanizing and walkable district. 2. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standard of Article Four - Community Commercial zone district. 3. The P.D.P complies with the applicable Article Three General Development Standards with one exception: Request for Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) - Residential Setbacks from Non-arterial Streets to allow less than 15 feet of setback along three public streets has been evaluated and found not to be detrimental to the public good and equal to or better than a plan that would have otherwise complied with the standard in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H). 28 Building Three setbacks are found to be equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise provide for uniform 15 foot setbacks. Building Three features a level of architectural detail that exceeds the baseline and a sidewalk along Plum Street that exceeds the minimum width. The proposed setbacks are consistent with Buildings One and Two, thus promoting an attractive urban design perspective for Plum Street. 4. In evaluating the overall impacts the P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards relating to compatibility. The overall scope of the P.D.P. represents a significant change when compared with the existing development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. However this transition in use and scale was contemplated when the C-C zone and TOD were implemented. The development review process has allowed for a robust citizen participation process that has resulted in plan revisions that further promote neighborhood compatibility. The two public hearings provided ample time for the applicant and public to express their concerns and receive responses. 5. The vacation of two public dead-end streets is a separate process that must be properly completed in conjunction with P.D.P. and Final Plan. DECISION The Hearing Officer herein approves The District at Campus West P.D.P. #120003, subject to the vacation of two public streets as a separate procedure subject to approval by City Council. Dated May 7, 2012, per authority granted by Sections 1.49 and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Richard V. Lopez Richard V. Lopez Hearing Officer ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer Hearing held April 5 and continued to April 23, 2012 S SHIELDS ST W MYRTLE ST W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS ST CITY PARK AVE BAYSTONE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S SHIELDS ST WAYNE ST GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE CRESTMORE PL ASTER ST DAISY ST COLUMBINE ST S WASHINGTON AVE DALE CT W MULBERRY ST SHELDON DR W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST W MYRTLE ST BROADVIEW PL W MYRTLE ST W MYRTLE ST MILLER DR W MULBERRY ST W MYRTLE ST CITY PARK AVE W MULB ERRY ST MONT E V ISTA A VE S WHITCOMB ST W ELIZABETH ST W MULBERRY ST P I O N E ER AVE W PLU M ST WESTVIE W AVE SUNSET AVE S HE L DO N D Swedish Columnar Aspen North facing wall Swedish Columnar Aspen (North facing wall) Corinthian Littleleaf Linden putative Littleleaf Linden near wall Different variety than Corinthian Littleleaf Linden growing in shade Different variety than Corinthian Crimson Sentry Norway Maple Pyramidal European Hornbeam Crimson Spire Oak ATTACHMENT 5 Materials submitted by Applicant to the Administrative Hearing Officer land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com 1. Planning Objectives Narrative Perspective Renderings of Project 2. City Plan Principles and Policies 3. Modification Request for Building Setback 4. Request for 4-Bedroom Units 5. Building Height Review Narrative Shadow Analysis Contextual Building Height Exhibit 6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 7. Response to PDP Comments land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com March 23, 2012 Planning Objectives The District at Campus West Project Development Plan The District at Campus West is intended to be a student housing apartment project consisting of 193 units with 674 individually rented bedrooms. The site is located on approximately 3.32 acres of land west of Colorado State University, in the 700 block of West Plum Street. The site is located in the West Central Neighborhood Plan area. The Plan developed in 1999 incorporates policies and plans to direct development in the three square mile area west and south of the CSU campus. The District is proposed to be located in the Campus West/Community Commercial Area and is zoned C-C Community Commercial. The Community Commercial District is designed to provide a combination of retail, office, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Several one-story, single-family rental houses built in the mid 1950's currently exist on the site. The intent is to remove the houses and replace them with a well-designed, multi-family project catering to CSU students. The project extends from Aster Street on the east side to City Park Avenue on the west side. Moving along Plum Street from west to east, the project consist of Building 1, a 5-story residential building that steps down to 4 stories on the north side, followed by Building 2, a 4-story parking structure faced with 3-story townhome-type units along the street facing facades, followed by Building 3, a 5-story residential building. Sunstone Condominiums are located to the north separated from the proposed District project by a linear parking lot. The site is bordered by multi-family housing on the east, Cambridge House Apartments, other multi-family buildings and single-family residences to the south and multi-family housing to the west. Two existing dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy will be vacated and removed with the development of this project. Bluebell Street will remain and connect through to Baystone Drive. Plum Street is classified as a collector street on the City’s Master Street plan. It has two travel lanes, striped bicycle lanes and parking is prohibited. It lacks adequate right-of-way width to The District at Campus West Planning Objectives Page 2 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com incorporate detached sidewalks. Currently sidewalks are attached and very narrow if they exist at all, forcing the student population to walk in the street as they head to campus. This project will dedicate additional right-of-way and construct wide, detached sidewalks creating a safe, convenient and attractive streetscape that will promote walking and increase bicycle safety on the street by greatly reducing pedestrian conflicts over what exists today. The spaces between the curb and the buildings are integrated into the streetscape to create visually exciting and functional urban spaces. These urban spaces and adjacent courtyards include special paving, a variety of seating opportunities, lighting, trees and ornamental plant materials, bike parking and internet access. The foundation planters along most of the building frontages incorporate a storm water function in addition to being attractive landscape features. The bio-retention planters will detain storm water before it drains to the storm water outfall. This allows for water to be released at the historic rate, allows pollutants to settle out and enables plant material to take advantage of the storm water reducing the need for artificial irrigation. The Applicant will work with City staff to insure that the planters meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. The 4-story parking garage will park 495 cars and 332 bicycles (282 more than required by the LUC). A centrally located transit stop is planned near the southwest corner of the parking garage with a covered waiting area and bench seating. Since the property is in the TOD overlay district, no minimum residential parking is required; however, adequate parking is essential from a leasing standpoint. The site location is within easy bike and walking distance of the CSU Campus, the Mason Street BRT and other activity centers. The proposed modern architecture is urban in scale and design. The design of the buildings also incorporates many sustainable components and is targeting Silver LEED designation. Buildings 1 and 3 have flat roofs with cornices making their overall height compatible with adjacent 3-story structures that have pitched roofs. The buildings have an attractive street appeal owing to upscale architectural articulation and detailing as well as the rhythm associated with two south facing courtyards and the pool complex. The courtyards include a variety of site amenities, such as seat walls, outdoor furniture, shade, special lighting, fire pits, generous landscaping and internet access. Each courtyard is unique offering a variety of places to sit, socialize, study or simply enjoy the outdoors. The clubhouse facility located in Building 1 is set off by an eye-catching overhead canopy. In addition to the outdoor pool the clubhouse will include a recreation room with pool tables, TV's, and other games; fitness center; a computer lab; and study rooms for group study sessions. The parking garage is faced with 3-story townhome units along street facing facades so the utilitarian aspect of the garage is not visible along the public street. On the north side where it is visible, it is buffered by existing trees and additional trees are proposed to be planted. The District at Campus West Planning Objectives Page 3 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com A neighborhood meeting was held on August 31, 2011. Concerns voiced by attendees included: management of the project, building height and shadowing, increased traffic, noise and property values. In response to concerns voiced by City staff in early discussions and in response to neighborhood concerns, the applicant has prepared a traffic study to look at impacts to the neighborhood and has made design changes in response to concerns about building height, density and shadowing. The following points illustrate how the District is addressing neighborhood concerns: • At the time of Preliminary Design Review the project was proposing 215 units and 732 bedrooms and included a 6-story parking structure. • At the time of the Neighborhood Meeting the parking structure had been reduced to 5 stories. • After the neighborhood meeting, the scale of the project was reduced down to 193 units and 674 bedrooms. Original plans to incorporate land on the south side of Plum Street into the project were abandoned. The parking structure was scaled down to 4 stories in height and the larger of the two residential buildings drops to 4 stories on the north side to reduce the shadow impact. • Outdoor activities such as the pool, and barbeque areas are located within the courtyards, so that the sights and sounds associated with the outdoor activity is effectively buffered by the buildings and does not impact the neighbors. The courtyards and the pool complex all face south to the street and away from adjacent residences. • The Traffic Impact Study concludes that after the project is constructed; all key intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. It also concludes that the site is outstanding in terms of opportunity to utilize alternative modes of transportation. • The District’s policy is to incentivize certain, key, management and security personnel to live on site. The property manager, may or may not live on site, but will live close enough to be responsive and effective. A second neighborhood meeting was held March 7th. The Applicant presented the changes made to the plans in response the neighborhood concerns. The project is requesting a Modification to the building setback for Building 3 along public streets and is requesting 4-bedroon units. Those requests along with a Special Height Review Analysis and Statement of City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan are attached. The District proposes to be located in the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area, as defined by City Plan and is supported by many City Plan Principals and Policies aimed at residential development. The District at Campus West will be achieving many of the City’s specific objectives in regard to infill development. • The District replaces a dilapidated student rental housing stock with safe, modern, and energy efficient units. The District at Campus West Planning Objectives Page 4 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • The District offers significant improvement to the currently deficient multi-modal transportation corridor along West Plum Street, by widening the right-of-way and incorporating generous detached sidewalks. • The District will concentrate higher density housing in a location that can be served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. • The District will enable students to access the campus, jobs, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • The District will promote the revitalization of the Campus West commercial area, an existing, underutilized commercial area near campus. • The District will provide reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists. • The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses and, will help provide stimulus for more redevelopment in the area. The District at Campus West will provide a high density, unique housing type designed to offer students the ability to live just off campus in an exciting urban environment, designed with their needs in mind. The rental apartments are designed to be safe, convenient, energy efficient, comfortable and affordable for the average student. We believe the proposed student housing project will be a very positive addition to the community, providing needed student housing in a great location close to campus and generally away from single family neighborhoods. land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com March 23, 2012 The District at Campus West Project Development Plan (PDP) is supported by the following Principles and Policies found in City Plan Fort Collins Adopted February 15, 2011 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 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. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment. The District at Campus West is proposed to locate within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter). The area currently consists predominantly of single-family rental houses that are in poor condition and not being properly maintained. The quality of the existing housing is substandard in most cases. Pedestrian linkages are poorly defined or nonexistent altogether. Redevelopment of this property will remove the current blighted conditions and replace it with new, high quality, attractive student-oriented The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 2 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com housing close to campus. In addition to alleviating visual blight in the area, the student population that will be living in The District at Campus West will provide an economic boost to the adjacent Campus West commercial district. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Policy ENV 8.6 – Prevent Pollution Promote prevention of air pollution at its source as the highest priority approach in reducing air pollution emissions. Principle ENV 9: The City will reduce total mobile source emissions by focusing on both technology (e.g., tailpipe emissions) and behavior (e.g., driving patterns). The District at Campus West PDP will provide housing for 674 students located within easy bike and walking distance of the CSU Campus, the Mason Street BRT and other activity centers. The site is an ideal location for student housing because it will encourage students to use alternative modes of travel and help reduce vehicle miles traveled. Development of high-density student housing at this location will help the City reach their goals of encouraging alternative modes of travel. Policy ENV 17.4 – Construction Waste Reduction Encourage activities that help divert debris from construction-related activities. Explore the feasibility of requiring any City-subsidized projects to employ reduction and solid waste diversion practices that reduce the volume of material sent from city construction sites to landfills for disposal. The District at Campus West is pursuing LEED Certification. Construction waste reduction is one of many sustainable building practices that will be evaluated during the design and construction processes. COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES The principles and policies in this section carry forward the City Plan vision for a community with a compact land use pattern within a well-defined boundary, adequate public facilities, and development paying its share of costs of necessary public facilities and services. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements. Principle LIV 3: The City will coordinate facilities and services with the timing and location of development and ensure that development only occurs where it can be adequately served. The District at Campus West PDP is located within the City’s Growth Management Area where it can be adequately served by streets, utilities and urban services. Furthermore, The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 3 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com the property is located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas, which the City has determined to be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Principle LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. The developers of The District at Campus West will be paying City fees that ensure that the development pays its share of the cost of public improvements. INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies for Districts and Neighborhoods, as applicable. 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 (See Figure LIV 1). 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. By locating in a Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area, The District at Campus West will be achieving many of the City’s specific objectives in regard to infill development. • The District will promote the revitalization of the Campus West commercial area, an existing, underutilized commercial area near campus. • The District will concentrate higher density housing in a location that can be served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. • The District will enable students to access the campus, jobs, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • The District will provide reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists. • The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses and, will help provide stimulus for more redevelopment in the area. Policy LIV 5.4 – Contribute to Public Amenities. Explore options for private development to help contribute to the additional public amenities needed in areas where infill and redevelopment occurs. Public amenities will be key to transforming outdated areas into distinct places with identifiable character and more marketable frontage that promotes redevelopment. Needed amenities The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 4 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com usually include pedestrian improvements like streetscapes, plazas, special walkways, and lighting; access improvements like new secondary streets; and landscaping and signage for identity and wayfinding. Options for helping developers with these amenities include tax increment financing, improvement districts, and context-sensitive design and engineering standards for streets and development. 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 with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. The District at Campus West will help transform the area along Plum Street into a distinct place with identifiable character and more marketable frontage that will promote redevelopment. Needed amenities will include pedestrian improvements like streetscapes, plazas, special walkways, and lighting; access improvements like new pedestrian connections; and landscaping and signage for identity and wayfinding. HOUSING 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. 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. 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. 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. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. The District at Campus West will provide a high density, unique housing type designed to offer students the ability to live just off campus in an exciting urban environment, designed with their needs in mind. The rental apartments are designed to be safe, convenient, comfortable and affordable for the average student. Four accessible living units will be provided for handicapped students. There will be adequate parking facilities for bikes and cars as well as a centrally located transit stop. The location is convenient to campus as well as a variety of goods and services available at the adjacent Campus west commercial area. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 5 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com The clubhouse facility will include an outdoor pool, a recreation room with pool tables, TV's, and other games; fitness center, a theater room, a computer lab, and study rooms for group study sessions. In addition students living at The District are just one block from the CSU athletic fields and Moby Gymnasium and are also just a few blocks from City Park, which includes 172 acres of open space with sport fields, a lake, natural areas, a swimming pool, playground, and a golf course. 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 8.4 – Retain Existing Affordable Housing Retain affordable housing options in existing neighborhoods so that long-term residents can “age in place” and to meet the housing needs of various household types. The District at Campus West addresses the need for affordability in several ways: • Locating high-density housing for students where they can access the campus, shopping, employment and recreational opportunities without using an automobile is a key component of reducing living expenses. The District at Campus West will allow 674 students to live in a location where they can easily get along without owning a car. This is not only highly desirable from an environmental perspective but also makes going to college more affordable to students on a budget. • High-density multi-family housing helps to achieve affordability because land costs and infrastructure costs are spread over more units. • The District will provide energy efficient 4-bedroom units that lower the student’s utility costs making the living unit more affordable. Policy LIV 9.1 – Increase Efficiency and Resource Conservation Reduce net energy and water use of new and existing housing units in order to conserve natural resources, and minimize environmental impacts. • The District will provide four-bedroom units which are more efficient in terms of material usage and are also more energy efficient. Data obtained from Conservice, a nationwide utility billing service that analyzes information from many properties and thousands of units indicates that electricity usage is on average 21.25% more efficient when comparing a 4-bedroom unit to two 2- bedroom units. In other words the same four people use less electricity when housed in a 4-bedroom unit vs. being split up into two 2-bedroom units. Likewise, natural gas is estimated to be 55.13% more efficient. • Additionally, less construction materials translates into less environmental impact from a construction standpoint. • The landscape plan proposed for the District is intended to provide an attractive and sustainable landscape for many years to come. Plants are selected for hardiness, low water consumption and ease of maintenance. Xeriscape The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 6 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com principles regarding plant material selection, soil amendments, mulches and irrigation will be incorporated throughout. • The District will be pursuing LEED Certification. In order to get the certification the project will be required to incorporate numerous green building practices and incorporate water saving fixtures. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND DESIGN STREETSCAPES 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 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Ensure all new public streets are designed in accordance with the City street standards and design all new streets to be functional, safe, and visually appealing, with flexibility to serve the context and purpose of the street corridor. Provide a layout that is simple, interconnected, and direct, avoiding circuitous routes. Include elements such as shade trees, landscaped medians and parkways, public art, lighting, and other amenities in the streetscape. Approve alternative street designs where they are needed to accommodate unique situations, such as “green” stormwater functions, important landscape features, or distinctive characteristics of a neighborhood or district, provided that they meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. (Also see the Transportation chapter.) The streetscape along the existing public streets adjacent to the project site are designed in accordance with the City street standards, allowing for a parkway, street trees, lighting and a public sidewalk located within the public right-of-way. The layout is simple, interconnected, and direct. The spaces between the public right-of-way and the buildings are integrated into the streetscape to create visually exciting and functional urban spaces. These urban spaces and adjacent courtyards include special paving, a variety of seating opportunities, lighting, trees and ornamental plant materials, bike parking and internet access. The foundation planters along most of the building frontages incorporate a storm water function in addition to being attractive landscape features. The planters will detain storm water before it drains out to the storm water outfall. This allows for water to be released at the historic rate, allows pollutants to settle out and enables plant material to take advantage of the storm water reducing the need for artificial irrigation. The Applicant has worked with City staff to ensure that the planters meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. 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. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 7 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Street trees are used to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Existing trees have been preserved where possible and trees that have been removed have been mitigated by planting trees that are larger than required on the site in locations where they will be both functional and attractive. Policy LIV 10.3 – Tailor Street Lighting While most of the lighting for The District at Campus West will be provided by the public streetlights along the adjacent streets, the developer proposes to add pedestrian scale lighting where it is needed to provide good visibility and security during the evening and nighttime. This low-level pedestrian scale lighting will be located in the courtyards, plaza spaces and at the proposed transit stop. The lighting will be designed to achieve the desired illumination level and preserve “dark sky” views at nighttime, avoiding sharp contrasts between bright spots and shadows, spillover glare, and emphasis of the light source. Fixtures will be selected to enhance the street environment by establishing a consistent style with height, design, color, and finishes. Principle LIV12: Security and crime prevention will be important factors in urban design. Policy LIV 12.1 – Design for Crime Prevention and Security Policy LIV 12.2 – Utilize Security Lighting and Landscaping All of the buildings at The District are oriented to public streets. This orientation heightens visibility that not only helps with police surveillance, but will increase observation by residents who feel a sense of ownership in the community. The landscape is designed to avoid hidden areas near building entrances, and the transit stop. The parking garage is an open-air facility. The interior is well lit and the structure is designed to avoid “hiding” spaces. The elevator is located to encourage students to primarily use the Plum Street access point, which is a safer egress since it is located along a busy public street. LANDSCAPE DESIGN 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 Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape Policy LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Plant material will be selected based on water requirements, hardiness and ease of maintenance. Plants will consist of trees that the City forester approves, evergreen and deciduous shrubs and high performing grasses and perennials that require only The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 8 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com seasonal maintenance. Turf areas are minimized. Xeriscape principles of utilizing soil amendments, mulches and efficient irrigation will be followed to ensure that the landscape is both attractive and sustainable. The foundation planters along most of the building frontages incorporate a storm water function in addition to being attractive landscape features. The planters will detain storm water before it drains out to the storm water outfall. This allows for water to be released at the historic rate, allows pollutants to settle out and enables plant material to take advantage of the storm water reducing the need for artificial irrigation. The Applicant has worked with City staff to ensure that the planters meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. NOISE POLLUTION MITIGATION Principle LIV 18: The City shall reduce noise disturbances and pollution through enforceable, measurable, and realistic noise standards, and careful consideration of potential noise impacts. The pool area and courtyards are oriented to Plum Street and away from adjacent neighborhood residential projects. In addition The District’s management policies are designed to eliminate noise problems before they happen. Pool hours are limited and there are a restricted number of people that can be in the area at one time. The number of guest that residents can have at one time is also restricted. In addition to these policies, the project is patrolled by on-site surveillance people on a regular basis. APPLYING THE CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP Principle LIV 19: The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations - Utilize the City Structure Plan Map to set forth a basic framework, representing a guide for future land use and transportation decisions. The District at Campus West is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Structure Plan. The high-density student housing project will replace existing substandard housing and urban blight conditions with a compact urban development pattern that achieves the following objectives: • Locates high-density residential housing adjacent to activity centers (CSU campus and Campus West Commercial area) so residents can work, shop and recreate close to home. • Contributes to an interconnected transit system. With a transit stop centrally located within the project students can conveniently access other activity centers in the community including the Mason Street BRT. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 9 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Encourages alternative modes of travel. With so many activities located within easy walking and biking distance, students will drive their cars less because it will be less expensive and more convenient to walk or bike. The end result will be fewer daily trips and overall reduced carbon emissions. • Contributes to the success of a transit-oriented activity center. Locating a large- scale, high-density student housing project adjacent to the Campus West Commercial area contributes to the success of both. Students will be attracted to The District because of the convenience of living so close to a diversified commercial area and the commercial area will benefit from the expanded student market. Principle LIV 20: Subarea and corridor planning efforts will be developed and updated as needed, tailoring City Plan’s citywide perspective to a more focused area of the community, such as individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. The West Central Neighborhood Plan developed in 1999 incorporates policies and plans to direct development in the three square mile area west and south of the CSU campus. The District is proposed to be located in the Campus West/Community Commercial Area and is zoned C-C Community Commercial. The Community Commercial District is designed to provide a combination of retail, office, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. The District at Campus West Project Development Plan (PDP) is supported by the following policies found in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. Policy F3 New multi-family structures must be designed and managed in such a way that reduces conflicts with single-family neighborhood character and lessen infrastructure impacts on single-family neighborhoods. Policy F7 The City should encourage the development of additional student housing by Colorado State University on, or adjacent to, the Main Campus. Policy H2 Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be made to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel within and to/from the neighborhoods. Policy J1 Adequate parking should be required in all development and redevelopment projects. Policy J2 Parking areas should be designed to consider the aesthetic impacts on the visual quality of the neighborhoods. PRINCIPLE LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities, and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or Community Commercial District. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 10 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network Policy LIV 21.2 – Design Walkable Blocks Policy LIV 21.3 – Calm Traffic Policy LIV 21.4 – Provide Access to Transit The District at Campus West is designed to become an integral part of the Campus West neighborhood. Design characteristics that contribute to this integration include: • The District is oriented to existing public streets and reinforces the historic block pattern in the neighborhood. • Improvements to street sidewalks – Currently the streets adjacent to the project site have a rollover curb section at the edge of the street, which is inadequate to provide safe pedestrian movement. Students living in the area are forced to walk in the street on their route to the CSU campus or to the Campus west Commercial area. The District will provide wide detached pedestrian ways along the West Plum Street, Aster Street, Bluebell Street, and City Park Avenue. These pedestrian ways will not only be convenient and safe, but will also be fun, attractive urban places that contribute to the character of the neighborhood. • Adding a transit stop on West Plum Street in the heart of The District project will encourage transit use by residents of the District as well as other students living in the immediate vicinity. The transit stop will be easily accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. • A pedestrian connection through the fence at the north end on the west side of the parking structure is planned. • Existing bike lanes along Plum Street are adequate to provide safe and convenient bicycle movement through the neighborhood. Neighborhood Design and Character Principle LIV22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community. Policy LIV 22.2 – Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design Policy LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Building Variation Policy LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets or Spaces Policy LIV 22.5 – Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes Policy LIV 22.6 – Enhance Street Design and Image Most student-oriented multi-family housing projects in Fort Collins fit a suburban model of three-story buildings with 16-24 units in each. The architecture of buildings is identical or very similar. A centrally located clubhouse and pool is typically part of the plan. The buildings and associated surface parking are designed to create an enclave with an inward focus. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 11 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com The District offers a fresh student housing model unique to Fort Collins. The project is designed to be highly urban in character oriented to public streets with an outward focus. The highly articulated street facades of the buildings change their relationship to the street in an undulating pattern of alternating intimate or expansive pedestrian spaces at the ground level. The architecture of the building offers a variety of building materials including brick, stucco, metal and glass in a variety of color and textures that make the modern architecture exciting and appealing. The sizing of windows and doors as well as the articulation of other building design elements are careful to respect the human scale so that even though the buildings are large, they relate to the pedestrian and feel comfortable at the ground level. Building entries are oriented to the neighborhood street sidewalk and south facing courtyards provide access to sunlight and opportunities for social interaction. The pedestrian areas at the ground level offer a variety of seating opportunities, upscale street furniture and unique landscape details that include green wall systems, playful lighting, and multi-purpose rain-garden planters at the building foundation. All these amenities occur within the framework of tree-lined public streets with detached pedestrian sidewalks. The visual impact of the 4-story parking garage is mitigated by integrating three-story townhouse-like living units on the sides of the structure that face public streets. Existing trees visually buffer the north side of the garage. Principle LIV 26: Neighborhood stability should be maintained and enhanced. Most existing residential developments will remain largely unaffected by these City Plan Principles and Policies. Policy LIV 26.1 – Maintain Existing Neighborhoods Policy LIV 26.3 – Promote Compatibility of Uses The District at Campus West is oriented away from single-family neighborhoods and within the Campus West/Community Commercial area designated in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. The District is open to communicating and working with adjacent property owners to improve the safety, convenience, attractiveness and general livability of the immediate neighborhood, which includes a variety of student housing as well as commercial uses. We believe the District will raise property values and inspire other community improvements. Policy LIV 26.4 – Balance Resident Preferences with Communitywide Interests. In determining the acceptability of changes to parcels of land adjacent to existing residential developments, balance the adjacent residents’ preferences with communitywide interests A neighborhood meeting was held August 31, 2011. Approximately 24 people attended the meeting. Concerns raised by adjacent neighbors included building height, shading, property values, increased traffic, emergency access, parking and density. The The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 12 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Applicant listened to comments from the neighborhood and the design has responded to their concerns. The Community Commercial District does not have a maximum density and the building heights proposed by The District are at or below the maximum building height of 5- stories. The applicant reduced the height of the parking garage down to 4 stories and has stepped the largest building down to 4-stories on the north to reduce the shade impact on the adjacent development. The project is replacing poor quality single-family rental housing with new, higher density, upscale, energy efficient, student housing within walking distance of campus. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ELB Engineering, LLC, indicates that existing infrastructure is adequate to handle the expected increase in traffic volume. The trip generation of the project is expected to be significantly lower than other multi-family projects due to the proximity of the site to CSU. Since the project is located in the Transit Overlay District (TOD), no on-site parking is required. The parking garage will provide 495 vehicular parking spaces, which equate to one parking space for 73% of the residents. In addition, the parking garage will accommodate 296 bicycle parking spaces, with additional bike parking in courtyard spaces for a total of 332. The Land Use Code would require 50 bike spaces. While property values are not considered a design criterion in the Land Use Code, we expect that the street and sidewalk improvements together with the upscale architectural design of the buildings will add tremendous value to the neighborhood over what currently exists. A second neighborhood meeting was held on March 7th. The changes the Applicant made to the project in response to the comments heard on August 31st were presented. Comments were mixed. The HOA presidents of Sunstone Condominiums were present and presented a statement reiterating the original comments concerning size, shadowing and property values. Policy LIV 26.5 – Retain Differences among Neighborhoods Retain the size and pattern of lots and blocks, building style, street design details, street and outdoor lighting, and landscape characteristics in ways unique to a given neighborhood as infill and redevelopment occur. The proposed project keeps the existing street and block pattern intact while adding street trees, upgrading the paving and generally enhancing the pedestrian experience. Policy LIV 30.3 – Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections within and to Commercial Districts as infill and redevelopment occur over time. (Also see the Transportation chapter.) • Provide direct access between commercial Districts and adjoining uses. • Clearly identify and distinguish pedestrian and bicycle travel routes from auto traffic through parking areas, across streets, and along building frontages. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 13 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Improve pedestrian/bicycle linkages across arterial streets and along transportation corridors. • Avoid superblocks, dead-end streets, and cul-de-sacs. • Coordinate with impacted neighborhoods to find context-sensitive solutions to address connectivity and neighborhood needs. Currently the sidewalks along Plum Street are either very narrow (2-3 feet) attached walks or they don’t exist at all. Pedestrians are forced to walk on the street competing with bicycles and cars for space. The existing situation is unsafe and a serious community concern since Plum Street is a collector street and a direct route to the CSU campus. The District project will be dedicating right-of-way and incorporating detached sidewalks along all street frontages, greatly improving pedestrian safety and connectivity in the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant is committed to working with the property owner to the north (Sunstone Condominiums) to maintain a safe, convenient cross access between the two properties. Currently there is a break in the fence to allow pedestrians to walk between the Sunstone parking lot and the existing property that the District intends to develop. This access point would occur behind the parking garage in the current site plan. The Applicant would like to move the access to align with an alley/courtyard space west of the parking structure. This connection would require re-striping the parking lot on the Sunstone property, but would create a more effective and secure pedestrian connection point. The Applicant is willing to pay for the re-striping if the adjacent property owner agrees. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Policy LIV 30.6 – Reduce Land Devoted to Surface Parking Lots To support transit use and a more pedestrian-friendly environment, reduce land devoted to surface parking lots as infill and redevelopment occur. Adhere to maximum parking ratios for commercial uses and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for transit-supportive uses. Encourage alternatives such as structured parking, angled or parallel on-street parking, shared parking, and others as appropriate. Structured parking for The District dramatically reduces the amount of land devoted to surface parking, resulting in a more pedestrian friendly and convenient environment for residents. The visual impact of the 4-story parking garage is mitigated by integrating three-story townhouse-like living units on the sides of the structure that face public streets. The architectural facades establish human scale at the street level along the The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 14 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com frontages. The vehicular entrance to the parking garage is located on the side along an alley to reduce pedestrian vehicular conflicts. The parking garage is an open-air facility, with the interior being well lit at night. The structure is designed to avoid “hiding” spaces and the elevator is located to encourage students to primarily use the Plum Street access point, which is a safer egress since it is located along a busy public street. Policy LIV 31.7 – Housing Incorporate a variety of housing options in Commercial Districts as infill and redevelopment occur over time: • Residential units may be incorporated on upper floors of mixed-use buildings at the core of the Commercial District or in freestanding residential buildings along district edges. • Residential housing types along district edges should be compatible with the scale and massing of surrounding neighborhoods. • Incorporate residential amenities such as convenient parking, parks, plazas or other open spaces, gathering places, and recreation facilities to enhance the living experience in the district. • Concentrate high-density residential within one quarter (1/4) mile of existing and planned transit stops to provide ease of access and to promote increased ridership over time. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Purpose: Community Commercial Districts are higher intensity, mixed-use activity centers intended to serve as destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community. Community Commercial Districts offer a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, small civic uses, and higher density housing. Existing patterns and intensities of development in the City’s Community Commercial Districts vary greatly; therefore, both vertically and horizontally mixed-use development forms will be encouraged. Higher density development is encouraged in Community Commercial Districts to support their role as hubs of the City’s high-frequency transit system and to promote an active, pedestrian-friendly environment. The physical environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit use and ridesharing as well as provide a high quality urban life for residents. Examples of Community Commercial District areas include Campus West and the Foothills Mall. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.2 – Mix of Uses Community Commercial Districts may include a mix of uses, as follows: • Principal uses: Retail, restaurants, offices, and other community services. • Supporting uses: Higher density housing, day care (adult and child), civic and institutional uses, pocket parks and other outdoor gathering spaces, and other supporting uses. Discourage drive-through facilities. Where such facilities are allowed, they should be secondary in emphasis to outdoor spaces for people, and relegated to secondary locations. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to remote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 15 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. CAMPUS DISTRICTS Purpose: Campus Districts include the various campuses of Colorado State University and Front Range Community College, which serve as centers of higher education in the City. In addition to being education, research and employment centers, these Campus Districts also include supporting retail and residential areas either on or adjacent to the campus. The location and surrounding development context of each Campus District varies; therefore, unique urban design and environmental concerns will need to be addressed for each. Principle LIV 37: The campuses of Colorado State University and Front Range Community College will be integrated into the community structure, and treated as prominent community institutions and major destinations served by the City’s multi-modal transportation system. Policy LIV 37.3 –Supporting Uses and Housing Include student-oriented housing, retail, services, and entertainment designed to function as part of the Campus District. Form strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages throughout the district and provide connections to city systems beyond the campus. Policy LIV 37.4 –Campus District Edges Development within Campus Districts should be compatible with surrounding uses and their design characteristics. Mitigate negative impacts on surrounding areas as development occurs. Policy LIV 37.5 –Transit As primary multi-modal destinations within the city, serve all Campus Districts with high-frequency transit service. Transit service should link campuses. Develop transit stops as integral parts of the campus environment that serve as inviting gathering places for pedestrians, using materials of character and quality consistent with the desired image of the campus. Policy LIV 37.6 –Parking Structures Where appropriate (as shown on campus master plans), use parking structures to reduce the areas covered by parking lots, thereby making space available for infill and redevelopment opportunities. The District at Campus West project supported by all of the community and neighborhood livability policies listed above (31-37). The project is located in the Campus West Commercial area, a targeted infill and redevelopment area, specifically called out in City Plan. It will provide higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. The development is just a block away from the CSU campus, providing safe convenient, attractive, energy efficient and affordable units for CSU students. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses and the development will dramatically improve pedestrian connectivity and circulation in the neighborhood. In addition, the visual The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 16 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com quality of the neighborhood will improve with the proposed high quality architecture and upscale streetscape improvements. SAFETY AND WELLNESS PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES 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. The outdoor courtyard spaces at the District are oriented toward the street to provide good visibility. Both the courtyards and parking garage are designed to eliminate hiding spaces and security lighting will be provided at night. In addition the District will have on-site personnel that will patrol the site on a regular basis. COMMUNITY WELLNESS Policy SW 2.3 - Support Active Transportation Support means of 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, as outlined in the Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Plan 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. Safety and Wellness policies are achieved by the District by virtue of locating high density housing in an area where tenants can walk or ride bikes to a variety of destinations including the CSU campus, the Campus West commercial area, and nearby parks and grocery stores. The District encourages the use of bicycles by providing convenient and secure bike parking spaces within the parking structure and at other locations on the project site. In addition the proposed pedestrian streetscape improvements will encourage other neighborhood residents to use alternative modes as well. TRANSPORTATION PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Principle T 3: Land use planning decisions, management strategies, and incentives will support and be coordinated with the City's transportation vision. Policy T 3.1 – Pedestrian Mobility Promote a mix of land uses and activities that will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community and minimize the distance traveled. Policy T 3.2 – Bicycle Facilities Encourage bicycling for transportation through an urban development pattern that places major activity centers and neighborhood destinations within a comfortable bicycling distance. Policy T 3.3 – Transit Supportive Design Implement and integrate Transit Supportive Design strategies with respect to new and infill development opportunities along Enhanced Travel Corridors. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 17 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy T 3.4 – Travel Demand Management Manage development in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence, maximizes choices among other modes of local and regional travel, and encourages the use of telecommunications. The District project will help the City achieve the above land use planning objectives related to transportation. The District is ideally located to encourage alternative modes of travel. The District will be making streetscape improvements that will make walking and biking in the neighborhood safer, more convenient and more pleasant than it is now. A centrally located transit stop will be provided, and the District will be providing 332 bike parking spaces when only 50 are required by the LUC. Policy T 4.4 – Attractive and Safe Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood streets will provide an attractive environment and be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers as well as having a well-designed streetscape, including detached sidewalks, parkways, and well- defined crosswalks. Policy T 4.5 – Infill and Redevelopment Areas Where the established street pattern and design may not conform to current street standards, allow for alternative contextual design. The District will provide an attractive environment designed to be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. It will provide an upscale urban streetscape, including detached sidewalks, parkways, and well-defined crosswalks. The project is located in City Plan’s targeted infill and redevelopment area. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.5 – Connect Transit to Other Modes Connect public transit to other modes of travel through intersecting routes, shared facilities, schedule timing, and accessories such as bike racks on transit vehicles. A centrally located transit stop is planned. A covered area with seating located at the entry to the parking garage will be provided by the developer. Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 11.1 – Bicycle Facilities Ensure safe and convenient access by bicycle in neighborhoods and other pedestrian and bicyclist- oriented districts. Policy T 11.3 – All Ages and Skill Levels Design a bicycle network that maximizes safety, convenience, and comfort for bicyclists of all ages and skill levels. 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 The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 18 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Direct pedestrian connections will be provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work, and public facilities. Policy T 12.2 – Pedestrian Network Develop a complete pedestrian network in ETCs and Activity Centers. Policy T 12.3 – Pedestrian Plan The adopted pedestrian plan will be considered in the development of all transportation projects. Policy T 12.4 – ADA Compliance Pedestrian facilities will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. 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. 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. Policy T 12.8 – Safety The City will promote development of educational programs and appropriate utilization of traffic enforcement. Principle T 14: The City will be a responsible steward of transportation resources for multiple modes of travel, making it easy to choose transportation options that support a healthy lifestyle. By providing an enhanced streetscape along Plum Street that includes detached sidewalks and parkways, the project will improve the overall quality, safety and convenience for pedestrians of all ages utilizing Plum Street. Street crossings will be constructed with ADA accessible ramps and crosswalks. TRAFFIC FLOW Principle T 25: Transportation infrastructure will ensure the provision of high quality facilities for the movement of goods, people, and information. Policy T 25.1 – Level of Service Standards The City will have current Level of Service standards positioned in alignment with transportation and land use goals. Policy T 25.3 – New and Existing Roadways New roadways will be designed and constructed to ensure an acceptable Level of Service and design standards. Existing roadways will be enhanced as necessary to meet current and future needs and design standards. The Traffic Impact Study prepared by ELB Engineering, LLC indicates that: • Operation at all key intersections will meet City Level of Service (LOS) standards after full build-out of the project. • No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required with the construction of the project. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 19 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Multi-modal LOS standards can be achieved with the project. Policy T 29.1 – Bicycle Safety The City and community will partner to develop educational and enforcement programs that promote safety and encourage respect by and for bicyclists and by bicyclists for traffic laws. Policy T 29.2 – Pedestrian Safety The City and community will partner to develop educational and enforcement programs that promote safety and encourage respect for pedestrians and by pedestrians for traffic laws. Principle T 30: Programs that establish awareness of the environmental and energy use impacts of transportation choices and affect travel choices and behavior will be promoted. Policy T 30.1 – Energy Efficient and Environmentally Sensitive Transportation Develop a program to promote energy efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation choices. The District is located in an area where students can easily walk or ride bikes to the CSU campus, to the Campus West commercial area, and to nearby parks and grocery stores. The District will encourage the use of bicycles by providing convenient and secure bike parking spaces within the parking structure and at other locations on the project site. In addition the District will be providing an on-site air pump and fix-it station for residents. Educating residents in regard to bicycle use and safety will be part of the District’s message to new residents. Promoting energy efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation choices fits right in with the applicant’s goal to attain Silver LEED certification. land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com February 28, 2012 Modification Request 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (D) Residential building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size. (2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. Minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be fifteen (15) feet. Reason for the Request West Plum Street in the vicinity of the District at Campus West includes two travel lanes and striped bike lanes within a 40-foot pavement section. The travel lanes and striped bike lanes are adequate for the volume of vehicular and bicycle traffic that exists currently and will also be adequate when the proposed development is in place (see Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ELB Engineering, LLC. The pedestrian circulation system however, is seriously inadequate. Sidewalks in the area are strips of concrete attached to the curb, only 2-3-feet wide and in some locations sidewalks don’t exist at all, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. City staff has requested the applicant to dedicate additional right-of-way sufficient to accommodate a 5-foot sidewalk and 6.5- foot parkway strip within the right-of-way. Building One includes a clubhouse and leasing office in addition to residential dwelling units which makes it a mixed-use building. Similarly Building Two, which is a parking structure with residential dwelling units along the street-facing facades, is also classified as a mixed-use building. Mixed-use buildings are not subject to the 15-foot setback from the right-of-way. In fact the LUC stipulates that mixed-use buildings shall be located no more than 15 from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial. (3.5.3(B)(2)b. Building Three, being a total residential building is required to be setback 15-feet from the right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a Modification to the building setback in order to provide a more varied streetscape pattern and to be consistent with Buildings 1 and 2. We are confident that the proposed setbacks and resulting streetscapes will meet the needs of the pedestrian as well as provide an interesting, upscale, urban The District at Campus West Modification Request – Building Setback Page 2 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com experience for neighborhood residents who walk along this corridor. The proposed building footprints are highly articulated and the setbacks vary. Building 3 Bluebell Street At the most constricted areas the building is setback 11 feet from the right-of-way. The setback is more at patios and at building indentations, averaging a 14.6-foot setback along the Bluebell Street frontage. There is a consistent 8.5 foot sidewalk adjacent to Bluebell Street with tree grates and a curb bulge at the Plum Street intersection. Building 3 Plum Street At the most constricted areas the building is setback 12.5 feet from the right-of-way. The majority of the façade on Building 3 is setback 17 feet or more and the setback extends to beyond 100-feet at the courtyard, averaging a 26.2-foot setback along the Plum Street frontage. In addition to these setback measurements that extend from the building face to the newly dedicated right-of-way line, there is a consistent 11.5 feet that includes a 5-foot walk* and 6.5-foot parkway along the curb line. Building 3 Aster Street At the most constricted areas the building is setback 10 feet from the right-of-way. The setback is more at patios and at building indentations, averaging a 15.8-foot setback along the Aster Street frontage. In addition to these setback measurements that extend from the building face to the existing right-of-way line, there is a consistent 11.5 feet that includes a 5-foot walk* and 6.5-foot parkway along the curb line. * Sidewalks along Plum Street and Aster Street are consistently 7-feet wide, however, only 5 feet is within the public right-of-way. Justifications The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the decision-maker must also find that the Modification meets one of the following four criteria described in the LUC. (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; The District is a unique project designed specifically for this challenging site. All design projects require trade-offs to get to the best design fit. In this case, the design team believes that the unique architectural character, created by the building’s articulation The District at Campus West Modification Request – Building Setback Page 3 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com and street-facing courtyard space is more important, more valuable, and more attractive than a consistent 15-foot setback. The District at Campus West project proposes a safe, convenient, attractive streetscape in place of an inconsistent and seriously inadequate pedestrian system that currently exists in the Plum Street neighborhood. A developer could propose a building with less building articulation, without a street facing courtyard and maintain a consistent 15-foot setback. We believe the varied streetscape design proposed by the District is not only equal to but much better than a project that may provide a consistent 15-foot setback but not achieve the overall aesthetic and functional values that the proposed streetscape does. A student housing project proposed for this site and approved in 2009 known then as The Retreat at 1200 Plum Street PDP proposed nearly identical building setback distances from the curb line. The Retreat project, however, was not required to dedicate additional right of way. So as lines measured on paper, the “setback” from right-of-way was greater, but the physical relationship to the curb, streetscape, etc. is almost identical to what was previously approved (and what the new developer understood to be purchasing). The right-of-way line is invisible and doesn’t change the visual or functional quality of the streetscape. On Plum Street and on Aster Street the average setback exceeds the minimum requirement of 15 feet. The average setback distance for all three streets combined is over 20 feet. The District is located in the Campus West Commercial area. Commercial Districts often have no setback requirements at all. Commercial, mixed-use and residential buildings are constructed at the property line in commercial districts. Buildings 1 and 2 are mixed-use buildings and are not subject to the 15-foot setback. We believe the look and feel of the District’s varied setbacks will be appropriate to the new urban scale evolving in the neighborhood. Lastly, it is interesting to note that in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MMN) there is no minimum setback from the public right-of-way. Reducing or eliminating the setback requirement encourages streetscapes that are more urban in character, usually including, highly articulated spaces with street furniture, special paving, lighting, planters and a variety of seating opportunities, precisely the kind of streetscape proposed by the District at Campus West. (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; The District at Campus West Modification Request – Building Setback Page 4 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com The proposed project addresses important community needs in three ways: 1. The project is located within City Plan’s “Targeted Redevelopment Areas” and within the Campus West “Targeted Activity Area”. By locating in this neighborhood, the District at Campus West will be achieving many of the City’s specific objectives in regard to infill development. • The District will promote the revitalization of the Campus West commercial area, an existing, underutilized commercial area near campus. • The District will concentrate higher density housing in a location that can be served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. • The District will enable students to access the campus, jobs, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • The District will provide reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists. • The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses and, will help provide stimulus for more redevelopment in the area. 2. The project will be replacing inadequate, run-down student rentals with safe modern, and energy efficient units. 3. An attractive and functional streetscape will be added to this core circulation route, where students are currently forced to walk in the street. land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com March 23, 2012 District at Campus West Request for 4-bedroom Units The District at Campus West is planned to be a student-oriented apartment complex that will include 193 dwelling units located west of the Colorado State University (CSU) campus adjacent to West Plum Street. The apartment complex is planned to include 28 two-bedroom apartments, 42 three-bedroom apartments and 123 four-bedroom apartments. In the City of Fort Collins, the maximum occupancy allowed per multi-family dwelling unit is three unrelated persons, unless an exception is granted by the decision maker. In order to provide 4-bedroom units intended to be occupied by four unrelated persons, the City’s Land Use Code requires the Applicant to provide a written request as follows: 3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed (E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit. (2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that that the applicant has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Justification The Applicant has found that 4-bedroom units are a popular lifestyle alternative for many students. It allows four students to share an apartment in a well-managed environment. It is more secure than most single-family home rentals and the 4-bedroom unit costs less per bedroom and therefore offers a more affordable alternative to students on a budget. The tenants that are likely to occupy these units are also the ones likely to occupy single-family rental properties near campus. By providing safe, efficient, and high quality 4-bedroom apartment units The District is helping to relieve the burden on surrounding neighborhoods and is helping to free up affordable rental housing stock to families and employees of CSU. The District at Campus West Request for Four Bedroom Units Page 2 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com In order to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units, the applicant must show that there is adequate open space, recreation areas, parking and public facilities to serve the occupants of the development. There are no specific criteria in the Land Use Code that addresses how to determine how much is adequate. In the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MMN), residential projects are required to be close to public parks or include a 10,000 square foot private park, central feature or gathering place. Although this is not a requirement in the Community Commercial District (CC), The District complies with both. The project is less than ½ mile from City Park and just two blocks from CSU athletic fields. The District will offer 16,500 square feet of courtyards and landscaped open space on the 3.34 acre site including a swimming pool and sun deck. The indoor clubhouse facility will provide an additional 7,000 square feet of indoor recreational opportunities. Further justification for 4-bedroom units at this location includes the following: Open Space and Recreational Amenities • The buildings are designed to create an attractive urban-living experience for the student interested in living near CSU where they can easily walk or bike to campus. The buildings are designed to create south-facing exterior courtyards. This has the benefit of getting sun light into more units and also creates outdoor space that is readily accessible to students. The courtyards are oriented to maximize exposure to the sun, so that students can enjoy the outdoors all year long on sunny days. The design of the courtyards includes special paving, generous landscaping, outdoor lighting, internet access, and a variety of seating opportunities. • The project incorporates open space and recreational amenities based on how many students are living in the complex. Four-bedroom units are factored into the equation. The 7,000 square foot clubhouse facility will include an outdoor pool, a recreation room with pool tables, TV's, and other games; expanded fitness center, a theater room, a computer lab, and study rooms for group study sessions. • The streetscape around the edges of the project adds to the urban-lifestyle by providing street trees, special paving, seat walls, planters, street furniture and convenient bike parking. • Students living at The District are just one block from the CSU athletic fields and Moby Gymnasium. • CSU’s newly renovated campus recreation center with swimming pool, gymnasium, climbing wall, fitness center and much more is less than ½ mile to the east. • Students are also just a few blocks from City Park which includes 172 acres of open space with sport fields, a lake, natural areas, a swimming pool, playground, and a golf course. Parking • The project is located within the transit-oriented development (TOD) overlay zone. Multi-family residential projects in the TOD have no minimum parking requirements; however, if the project were not in the TOD, it would require 441 parking spaces based on bedroom counts. The project proposes to provide 495 spaces. The applicant recognizes that many students do own cars even when they don’t need to use them on a regular basis. To insure that students don’t park their vehicles on neighboring properties the applicant proposes to provide parking for 73% of the students that will live in the complex in a centrally located on-site parking structure. The District at Campus West Request for Four Bedroom Units Page 3 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Parking permits will be required, but spaces will not be designated. It is anticipated that parking at the proposed ratio will be more than adequate to serve the needs of students that have cars with ample spaces left for guest parking. If a student has a car that they bring to college with them, they are required to purchase a parking permit and park it in the garage. • The applicant is interested in doing everything they can to encourage students to be environmentally responsible by promoting alternative means of transportation including walking, biking, transit and ride-sharing programs. The site is served by Transfort and there is a centrally located bus stop proposed in the project. Students can connect to the Mason Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) via bike or by using the bus. The BRT provides transportation to Downtown or to destinations and activity centers located in south Fort Collins. Public Facilities • The proposed site is adequately served with standard public infrastructure including water, wastewater, police and fire facilities. The existing street network has adequate capacity to absorb the additional traffic within level of service standards. See Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ELB Engineering LLC. • The site is adjacent to Campus West commercial shopping area that includes many retail and personnel service shops as well as a variety of restaurants and entertainment venues that cater to the student population. • The site is also close to two grocery stores, being approximately 1 mile from Beaver’s Market at Mountain and Shields Streets and 1.5 miles from Safeway on College Avenue. The CSU campus offers many public facilities that are available for students to use including classroom facilities, auditoriums, medical care facilities, arts and entertainment opportunities as well as a variety of other amenities and services especially designed to serve the student population. Architectural Design • In addition, the 4-bedroom occupancy has positive effects related to architectural design and sustainability. Four-bedroom dwelling units are more efficient in the utilization of space, allowing more flexibility in building height. Sustainability • Locating high-density housing for students where they can access the campus, shopping, employment and recreational opportunities without using an automobile is a key component of being an environmentally responsible community. The District at Campus West will allow 674 students to live in a location where they can easily get along without owning a car. This is not only highly desirable from an environmental perspective but also makes going to college more affordable to students on a budget. The 4-bedroom unit is an essential component that allows higher density to work in this location. • The District encourages the use of bicycles by providing 332 convenient and secure bike parking spaces within the parking structure and in courtyards. In addition to being able to walk or bike to campus, the students will also have easy access to transit with a Transfort bus stop located in the heart of the project. • The four-bedroom units are more efficient in terms of material usage and are also more energy efficient. Data obtained from Conservice, a nationwide utility billing service that analyzes information from many properties and thousands of units indicates that electricity usage is on average 21.25% more efficient when comparing a 4-bedroom unit to two 2- bedroom units. In other words the same four people use less electricity when housed in a 4-bedroom unit vs. being split up into two 2-bedroom units. Likewise, natural gas is estimated to be 55.13% more efficient. The District at Campus West Request for Four Bedroom Units Page 4 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Additionally, less construction materials translates into less environmental impact from a construction standpoint. We believe the 4-bedroom units proposed in this development will serve the students by providing a fun, secure and affordable lifestyle alternative without impacting adjacent neighbors. To the contrary, the 4- bedroom units are necessary to keep building heights lower and more compatible with adjacent properties. Upscale urban courtyards and a large, state-of-the-art clubhouse/recreation facility provide recreational opportunities on-site, while City Park and the CSU campus offer expansive green spaces, sport fields, water bodies and natural areas nearby. More than adequate parking for both cars and bicycles is provided on site and there is a variety of shopping, dining, and entertainment opportunities located in the adjacent Campus West shopping center and on the CSU campus land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com January 25, 2012 Building Height Review (1) Special Height Review/Modifications. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown and designated activity centers. All buildings or structures in excess of forty (40) feet in height shall be subject to special review pursuant to this subsection (G). (a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty (40) feet in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review criteria: 1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks. The development of The District at Campus West will change the look of the Plum Street neighborhood but it will not alter the opportunity for or quality of desirable views from public places, streets or parks. There are no significant views to the foothills or to parks or open spaces from this site or adjacent sites that would be changed by the development of this project. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 2 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape. The Community Commercial Zone District encourages taller building heights up to 5 stories and does not increase setbacks to avoid the shading that is unavoidable. The criteria in the LUC General Development Standards that limits shadowing do not apply in this zone district in order to encourage higher density in key commercial areas like Downtown and in the Campus West Commercial area. (LUC 3.2.3 (D) (1) The attached photos were taken December 23rd, 2011 to illustrate the existing condition at the site during the winter. The photos indicate that the existing one-story structures combined with the existing trees, many of which are over 50 feet tall, cast shadows across the existing parking lot and onto the adjacent Sunstone Condominium buildings. The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 3 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com While the LUC is supportive of building heights up to 5 stories in the Community Commercial District, the applicant has reduced the height of the parking structure to 4 stories and has dropped the height of Building 1 down to 4 stories on the north side to decrease the shadowing on the adjacent property. This was done in direct response to comments received in the August 31st neighborhood meeting. The District project was The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 4 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com scaled back and redesigned so that the shadow caused by the project is not substantially different from the existing condition. The attached shadow analysis depicts the shadows cast by the Buildings 1, 2 and 3 at 9AM, 12 NOON and 3PM, the 22nd day of the month in January, March, June, September, November and December. Each month shows the shadows cast by the project when all structures were proposed to be 5-story, followed by a depiction of shadows cast by the project when Building 1 is dropped to 4 stories on the north side and the parking garage is reduced to a 4-story structure as currently proposed by the Applicant. The analysis shows that shadows are cast across the parking lot and onto the adjacent buildings between November and January. By dropping the north side of Building 1 down to 4 stories and by reducing the parking structure to 4 stories, we can reduce the shadowing impact so that shadows cast by the new buildings will only impact the first floor units of the adjacent building and only in December. By January the first floor units have full access to the sun by noon. By reducing the scale of the buildings we are able to stay well within the criteria that require the project to avoid shading of windows for more than three (3) months of the year. The shadowing does not preclude the functional use of solar energy technology for adjacent properties. The next two photos taken December 23rd, 2011 show, the existing houses and tall trees shade the Sunstone Condominium parking lot during the winter. The District project has lowered the height of Building 1 and the parking structure so that the shadow cast by the buildings is not significantly worse than the shadowing that already exists. The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 5 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 3. Privacy. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed to avoid infringing on the privacy of adjacent public and private property, particularly adjacent residential areas and public parks. Techniques to improve the level of privacy in a neighborhood may include, but not be limited to, providing landscaping, fencing and open space, and changing building or structure orientation away from adjacent residential development. Existing residential units in the Sunstone Condominium project are separated from units in the new project by a parking lot; therefore, we don’t anticipate that privacy would be an issue. 4. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale. The structures proposed for the District are incrementally taller than adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. For example the Sunstone Condominiums located to the north are 3-story structures while Building 1 and 2 of the District project are proposed to be 4 stories in height on the north side. The Sunstone project has pitched roofs while the District proposes flat roofs so the overall height difference is less than it would be if both projects had pitched roofs. A building height exhibit follows the shadow analysis at the end of this narrative. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com HEIGHT COMPARISON 48'-8" 32'-8" - ----.- •• • •••• SHADOW STUDY - JANUARY 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A916 SHADOW STUDY - JANUARY 22 -5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) @ N 9 AM @ N 12 NOON @ N 3 PM 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM A916A SHADOW STUDY - MARCH 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME @ N @ N @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A911 SHADOW STUDY - MARCH 22 - 5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM @ N @ N @ N ___J I 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM A911A SHADOW STUDY - JUNE 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED ~ ~---- --r-----t:=::J-i:jj l -----.I:!!~I--------l--.J -~..... -----------...J 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME @ N @ N @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A912 SHADOW STUDY - JUNE 22 - 5_ ST_ORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM @ N @ N @ N T:: .- -, I ,- ,- ~~.r=-- I ~-_. ~--~ , I • ] I • ~--~ ~ ,--,,~.. - -- , -" - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM A912A SHADOW STUDY - SEPTEMBER 22- CURRENTLY PROPOSED _/ 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME @ N @ N @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A913 SHADOW STUDY - SEPTEMBER 22 - 5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) @ N 9 AM @ N 12 NOON @ N 3 PM 9 AM !L-__ J~ I 12 NOON II .. ~ J, -i, - -t - r' 3 PM A913A SHADOW STUDY - NOVEMBER 22- CURRENTLY PROPOSED @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME r I r -. r 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A915 SHADOW STUDY - NOVEMBER 22 - 5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) @ N 9 AM @ N 12 NOON @ N 3 PM 9 AM 12 NOON II ..,...,. l J, ..,., 3 PM A915A SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A914 SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER 22 - 5 STORY OPTION @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A914-A Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES Applicant has provided updated responses in red where appropriate. (1-25-12) PROJECT: The District at CSU DATE: August 31, 2011 APPLICANT: Derek Anderson and Consultants: Ripley Design Inc. and Northern Engineering PLANNER: Emma McArdle and Steve Olt Questions and Answers: 1) How many bedrooms are proposed in the project vs. the previous project? - 754 bedrooms in The District (Derek Anderson, Residential Housing Development(RHD)) - About 500 bedrooms in the past Retreat at Plum Street project (Nick Haws, Northern Engineering (NE)) At Submittal (1-25-12) there are 193 units with 674 bedrooms. 2) Is this a private development or is it associated with CSU? - It is a private developer that is not associated with CSU. (Derek Anderson, RHD) 3) Who is the developer? - Derek Anderson owner of Residential Housing Development, LLC 4) Does the developer/applicant currently own all of the properties that make up this site? - We own most of the property since March, but not all yet. (Derek Anderson, RHD) 5) How many total properties have you assembled and how many will be used in this project? - 19 properties are included in the site, we own 12 at the time of the neighborhood meeting (Derek Anderson, RHD) 6) Will you demo or donate the existing homes? - We are open to donating the homes, we don’t have an exact plan how we will deal with them at the moment. (Derek Anderson, RHD) 7) A resident that owns a condo in the Sunstone Condos, directly north of this proposed development, is concerned about a 63’ parking structure blocking 1 sunlight to their property. Will the developer consider putting a level of parking below grade? - We can look into the options. (Derek Anderson, RHD) Since the neighborhood meeting the developer has lowered the parking structure to 4 stories. The main structure is 45 feet tall. 8) A resident mentioned their concern about property values being impacted by this proposal. 9) It looks like the City would be vacating 2 streets for this project? Is that correct? - Yes, two streets would be proposed to be vacated (Daisy and Columbine Streets) with this proposal. (Emma McArdle, City of Fort Collins) 10) An owner in the Campus West Condos is concerned about the 5 story building and the traffic and noise associated with this size development. - The applicant’s traffic engineer was present (Eric Bracke), he described the traffic impacts this project is anticipated to have on the area: i. The proposal will increase approximately 1,000 trips a day over the current approximate 2,000 daily trips. ii. Plum Street is a collector, which is designed for 5,000 daily trips; therefore the increase would be acceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint. 11) How is it decided that you can get an enhanced crosswalk? This resident has requested enhancing a cross walk in her neighborhood with no luck. - The City’s Traffic Engineer and Transportation Planning would participate in review of a development proposal like this one. (Eric Bracke) - If residents have questions about changing existing intersections to having enhanced crosswalks, contacting the City’s Traffic Engineer would be a first step. Joe Olson is the City’s Traffic Engineer; he can be reached at 224-6062. (Emma McArdle, City) 12) What would the applicant/developer do if a pool party, like the recent party at Ram’s Point, were to happen at their development? - We have every interest in protecting our asset and for other student housing project’s we run we have live-on security and management. If something like the recent party were to happen on one of our properties, the management and security staff would be let go immediately. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 13) Will the pool area be lit? Even when it is closed? - Yes the pool will be lit, primarily with lights inside the pool. The pool will have secured access that is only accessible to the residents via a door buzzer system. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - The City requires lighting plans be included in the information provided to staff for review. Areas like entryways and gathering areas need to be lit 2 for safely purposes, but lighting needs to be down directional and not spill from the site according to our standards. (Emma McArdle, City) 14) What does the door buzzer system sound like? - It would buzz if a door was left open. The buzzer sound is not something that could be heard off of the site though. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 15) Would you consider adult property managers living on-site? - Yes, we do not allow student property managers. Security people will definitely live on-site. Regarding management living on-site, we are interested but it will depend on finding qualified management that is willing to live on-site. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 16) How many of your properties actually have live on-site managers? - 3 of 6 (Derek Anderson, RHG) 17) What is the project schedule? - If all goes as hoped, we want to deliver for late summer 2013, which means building by spring of 2012. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 18) Can you show how the traffic will enter and exit the parking structure and where could traffic back-up? Will there be a back-up of traffic on Plum Street? - Traffic enters the parking structure on Bluebell Street, the structure entry is set inside the structure far enough to help avoid too much back-up that would reach Plum Street. (Derek Anderson, RHG) At Submittal (1-25-12) there is one vehicular entrance to the parking garage off of the alley between Buildings 1 and 2. 19) What is the height of the structures? - One structure is 5 stories (the centrally located building south of Plum Street), which is approximately 64’ tall. - The other residential buildings are 4 stories and proposed at 54’ tall. - The parking structure is proposed as 6 tiers and 53’ tall. (Derek Anderson, RHG) Building 1 is 67’-1” to the top of the tower elements, the main building is 61’-1” and the 4-story portion on the north side drops to 48’-8”. Building 2, the 4-story parking garage is 41’-8”, with a 57’-8” tower element on the southwest corner. Building3 is 67’-1” to the top of the tower elements, the main building is 61’-1”. 20) An owner in the Sunstone Condos expresses his concern about the shade these structures will produce over his property from October to March. This will add to their snow removal costs in the parking lot. A 60’ building is overwhelming and will hurt our property values. 3 Building 1 has been lowered to 4 stories on the north and the parking garage has also been lowered to 4 stories in order to reduce the shadow impact. A shadow analysis has been submitted. 21) This is too dense and does not satisfy block standards. Could you put a street along the north side of Building 2? - A street behind Building 2 would not be preferred from the City as it would create an intersection too close to Plum Street, this would be a less than 200’ separation between streets. Old town blocks are range from 400’ to 600’ wide. (Steve Olt, City) - There is a local street connection standard that would apply to this project on the Plum Street side, if it were not for the existing development to the north making any connection this project made to the north a dead end. Therefore, this standard does not apply according to the Land Use Code. (Information not provided at the meeting, staff provides this as additional information to the neighborhood.) (Emma McArdle, City) 22) When will the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be available and can residents have a copy? - The TIS will be available for the formal submittal of a project development plan. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - Any information submitted to the City is public record and available for anyone to review. (Emma McArdle, City) - Eric Bracke described how the traffic is evaluated in the TIS. Intersections are rated on an A – F scale (A – best, F – worst). Three intersections were reviewed in the TIS (Plum and Shields, Bluebell and Plum and City Park Avenue and Plum) they currently are rated As. The additional traffic load maintained the intersections working at an A or B level, which is acceptable to the City’s Traffic Engineer. In fact, these ratings are better than most intersections are rated in the City. 23) How is the street (Right-of-Way (ROW)) vacation done and how can that affect the development if some property owners oppose it? - ROW vacations require all adjacent property owners be in favor of the ROW vacation and once the ROW is vacated the adjacent property owner’s would then be the owners of the old ROW to the center line. In the scenario the applicant is proposing, they would own all the properties adjacent to the subject ROW (Daisy and Columbine Street). The ROW vacation becomes a timing concern as it needs to occur after a plat is recorded, stating the applicant is the owner, and before a development plan is approved on the site. (Emma McArdle, City) 24) How is emergency access provided to these buildings? - From the streets around the project as well as in two emergency access easements that are required by Poudre Fire Authority adjacent to Buildings 3 and 4 (in the Scott Avenue ROW) and between the parking garage and Building 2. (Emma McArdle, City) 4 - Poudre Fire Authority participates in the Development Review Process and will review all plans submitted for any development application. (Emma McArdle, City) 25) Are any sound studies done for the mechanical units on the roofs of these buildings? In Denver they must be 50 decibels or lower. - No, none have been done on past projects. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - A sound study is not required by this City for this type of project. (Emma McArdle, City) 26) Will this project be LEED Certified? - Yes, that is our intent. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 27) A resident reminds the City that “no required parking” does not mean that no parking can be provided due to protection of the existing neighborhood and creating no adverse impact. - That is correct, though there technically is no required amount of parking in this area, due to the project site being located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone, there is a compatibility standard that addresses not adversely impacting the surrounding neighborhood. (Emma McArdle, City) - Although the site is located in the TOD, the applicants are proposing a parking ratio that would meet and exceed the required amount of parking spaces as it would be required if it were not located in the TOD. We are proposing more than 600 parking spaces even though we do not think the students will need their cars except to go off campus since this project is a block away from CSU. (Derek Anderson, RHG) At Submittal (1-25-12) we are proposing 495 parking spaces, enough for 73% of the residents. In addition the project provides 332 bicycle parking spaces. 28) Students do not behave the way you think they do. They will be driving at all times of the day and night to campus and elsewhere. 29) Where is trash collection located and when will it be picked up? - We are still working on those details. We have contacted Gallegos trash service to find out what our options are. (Derek Anderson, RHG) Trash collection areas are proposed on the east side of Building 1 and on the east side of Building 3. 30) Move-in and move-out times are always really problematic. Are you willing to have extra trash service during those times to prevent students from using nearby dumpsters? - Yes. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 31) Does the TOD negate the need to provide amenities for the 4 bedroom units? - No, the criteria of the Land Use Code regarding dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms will apply to this project. This standard asks projects including 5 4 bedroom units provide additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities. (Emma McArdle, City) 32) What is the density of this development? - 46 dwelling units per acres. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - There is no density limitation in this zone district, but it is called out in the Land Use Code as a high-density zone district. (Emma McArdle, City) At Submittal (1-25-12) the gross density is 43.08 and the net density is 57.78. 33) Is the shadow analysis still done at the shortest and longest days of the year? - Yes, because the buildings are over 40’ tall the applicant is required to prepare and submit a shadow analysis according to the Land Use Code (LUC). However, the section reviewing the shadows in the code does not apply to this zone district or the Downtown zone district, as they have been called out as being “high density” zones according to the LUC. (Emma McArdle, City) 34) Just because it is allowed, because you can, why does this development have to be so big? Since the neighborhood meeting the overall size and scale of the project has been reduced. 35) Have you looked at other areas for this development? - Yes, we have looked around the City and this location is our preferred site. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 36) This development is really going to affect our quality of life and our property values. 37) The letter advertized “multi-family,” but you are proposing student housing? How can you mitigate the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood? - We are in the process of getting all the necessary studies done and want to do what we can to be good neighbors. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 38) Can you have a second neighborhood meeting after the project is submitted and you have more completed information about the development? - The applicant is open to the idea, but did not say yes, or no. (Derek Anderson, RHG) A second neighborhood meeting is planned after the project is submitted and first round comments are received. 39) When the Land Use Code was adopted it seems that the intent was not for this massive type of development. (Neighbor) 40) Who would the neighbors address comments and concerns to at the City? - Emma McArdle, I will be the project planner for this project if it is formally submitted. (Emma McArdle, City) Ted Shepard has replaced Emma McArdle as the planner for this project. 6 41) How does this process work? When this project goes to the public hearing and citizens have the opportunity to express comments and concerns, what effect do we have? - Interested neighbors can provide me written comments before the public hearing that will be provided to the decision maker (administrative hearing officer) or come to the public hearing and express their opinions about the project. (Emma McArdle, City) 42) Who is the decision maker for at Type 1 hearing? - The decision maker is an administrative hearing officer, usually a staff member of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department or an outside hearing officer if the project seems to be controversial. (Emma McArdle, City) 43) Does the City care about how many cars are generated by this development and will be on these streets? - Yes, this is why a Traffic Impact Study will be required to be submitted with this project. The City’s Traffic Engineer will review the TIS. (Emma McArdle, City) 44) How does the fire department get down the streets? - There is no parking on Plum and emergency access easements cannot be obstructed in the event of a fire. Emergency Access Easements are required to be 20’ wide and are generally part of the public and private street network. Poudre Fire Authority will review this project as it goes through Development Review. (Emma McArdle, City) 45) The bike box at Plum and Shields does not work at this time. - This is the first bike box the City has tried and the City will be reviewing how it functions. (Eric Bracke) 46) Is there a study that can be done to evaluate the impacts this project will have on additional snow accumulating behind the buildings? - Not that City staff or the applicants were aware of. 47) Is there any consideration for making this development a mixed-use project? - Yes, this is something we are interested in investigating. It will depend on viability. The spaces on the corners of the parking structure are proposed to be converted/finished as retail if and when the market is viable for that use. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - City staff has recommended this to the applicant also. (Emma McArdle, City) 48) The Land Use Code state that in this zone district (CC – Community Commercial) that secondary uses shall demonstrate how they contribute to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area. 7 - This CC area currently has a pretty good mix of commercial and residential use with Elizabeth Street located just a block away. This is something that staff will look at in our review of the project, but we do not see why this project would not contribute to the overall mix of the area. (Emma McArdle, City) February 29, 2012 Mr. Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ted, Responses to City staff comments for The District at Campus West, PDP120003, Round Number 1 follow. In addition to the revised drawings we have included one set of color rendering perspective views. These have also been provided on a CD for your use. If you need more printed copies please let us know. If you have any questions regarding these responses or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to contact us. Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc. responses in red 970-224-5828 Nick Haws, Northern Engineering responses in blue 970-221-4158 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Building Two contains two distinct uses, dwelling units and structured parking. Therefore, it is a mixed-use building and would be subject to the build-to line requirements per Section 3.5.3 rather than the residential setback requirements of Section 3.5.2. The same could be said for Building One as it contains the clubhouse and amenities in addition to dwelling units. Perhaps the leasing office could be added in order to strengthen the mix. Therefore, as with Building Two, Building One is subject to the build-to line and not the setback line. Building Three, however, appears to contain dwelling units only and, therefore, would be subject to the setback standards and the proposed Modification to Section 3.5.2. Our understanding is that Buildings One and Two meet Section 3.5.2 because they are considered Mixed- Use Buildings. Building Three will still require a Modification for Setbacks along Bluebell Street, Plum Street and Aster Street. The Modification Requests have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Regarding the Request for Modification for Building Three to Section 3.5.2, it appears that the most valid justification is the equal-to-or-better-than criterion of Section 2.8.2(H) (1). In your analysis, under justification number four, regarding the invisible right-of-way line, this justification should be moved under the aforementioned criterion. The Modification Request has been revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the site plan, a connection to the north is indicated at the north terminus of the access drive to the parking structure. This connection is laudable. Could you please provide information as to what this connection ties into on the Sunstone side of the property line. The attached sketch shows the relationship between the existing and proposed pedestrian connection between the Sunstone Condominiums and the District project. So far we have been unsuccessful in our attempts to contact the Sunstone Condominium Association. Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Current Planning supports the adjustments to the widths of parkways and sidewalks offered by Engineering. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the landscape plan, please label the "Enhanced Transit Stop Pull-in." Label has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the architectural elevations, in order to match the project narrative with the character elevations, please provide a cornice detail, with dimensions. Cornice detail has been provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the architectural elevations, it is unclear as to the exterior material for the ground floor elevation for Building Two. Is this material to be different from stone? The proposed material for the clubhouse portion of building one will be either synthetic or real stone, but will look different than the stone veneer on the rest of the building in both color and pattern. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the architectural elevations, please indicate the depth of the balconies. Staff would be concerned if these balconies were merely of the "Juliet" variety. The balconies are approximately 3 feet in width. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Staff is concerned about the present depiction of the north character elevation of the parking structure. In the middle, there is a considerable gap in the deployment of masonry. The use of the masonry materials should be consistent across the entire north elevation. And, there appears to be no cornice treatment. Please note that Section 3.5.3(D)(6) requires the structure to have a recognizable top. Masonry treatment is now consistent on the north side of the garage. The stone veneer is left off of the ground floor where there is now a simple railing proposed. The first six feet of the north side of the parking garage will be screened by the adjacent fence. The cornice treatment is consistent on all sides of the building. In addition the visual quality of the north elevation is softened by existing mature trees and as well as proposed new trees planted on the north side of the building. Please see the perspective views of the parking garage as seen from Bluebell Street and from Sunstone Condominiums. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Based on the Lighting Plan, there appears to be no lighting on the top deck of the parking structure, unless the top deck is covered. If covered, then there are no lighting issues. If uncovered, however, the lighting details need to be provided. Such lighting must be strategically located to avoid light spillover to the north. House-side shields may be needed. We have included the lighting for the top deck of the parking structure. We have also included a calculation for the ground level north of the structure for light spill over verification. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the Lighting Plan, on sheet 7 of 10, please provide a schedule for the specifications of the proposed fixtures. Also, please note that the photometric plan must be calibrated such that the light loss factor is 1.00. If not done so already, this may require re-submitting the photometric so that it is properly calibrated. We have included a light fixture schedule on our plans as requested. We have changed the light loss factor to 1.0 as requested. On the light fixtures types LNR3 and LNR2 we have a light loss factor less than 1.0 because we only have a IES file for the type LNR4 48” fixture. These type LNR lights are LED and the lumens cannot be adjusted for different lengths of fixtures, i.e. LNR3 is a 36” version of type LNR4 and LNR2 is a 24” version so we have had to change the light loss factor to simulate the different lengths. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012:The request for four-bedroom units per Section 3.8.16 is acceptable. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Significant progress has been made since the early submittal from 2011. The submittal documents are very organized and complete. Please refer to the redlined plan set for other minor comments. Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The variance requests regarding the street grade, cross slope, and pipe cover concerns are undergoing evaluation at this time and a response will be provided separately. Please note however that the last review for the previous iteration of the project had brought up the potential of using concrete streets as an option to help mitigate some of these concerns (including on Plum Street itself) and may need to be explored with this project. It is understood that the variance requests listed above necessitate further discussion, and that additional information will need to be provided in order to make a final determination. The Applicant also acknowledges that portions of concrete streets, alternative pipe materials, and other similar measures may be necessary to mitigate grade and cover issues. The type of information and detail necessary to fully evaluate these issues typically comes during Final design, as this level of engineering is not required at PDP. Again, the Applicant understands that there are potential cost implications associated with alternative construction means and methods. Therefore, even though it is not a requirement for PDP, the design team will continue to work with City Engineering Staff to provide additional detail necessary to evaluate the “vertical” variance requests. This on-going effort will likely span across the public hearing on the PDP, and may not conclude until Final Plans have been submitted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A profile of the north flowline of Plum Street should be provided to ascertain flowline grade and general drainage for the area along Plum Street. It was identified in the previous iteration that concerns regarding drainage exist, including the grade across Bluebell Street which appears to be at about .3% across the intersection. Intersection detail spot elevations should also be provided for this analysis on Plum with Aster and Bluebell. This is now provided on Sheet C502. Similar to the response to Comment Number: 5, above, additional evaluation needs to occur, particularly at the intersection of Bluebell Street. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The bus bay design does not meet the standard prescribed in detail 711 of LCUASS. The width of the bus bay from the face of curb to the flowline of Plum Street is required per this standard to be 11 feet when 9 feet appears to be provided. Additionally, the transition lengths leading in and out from the through movement of Plum Street is required to be 60 feet but are in effect 24 feet here. This item should be documented in a variance request; if this design is agreed to by Transit, then I suspect the modified design would be viewed favorably. (I noticed Transfort's comments in the system, it appear they will require some changes to the transition lengths, I'm still pending a response from them on the bus bay width). The bus bay design has been revised per Transfort Comment Number: 1. The bus bay width was originally coordinated with Kathleen Walker and Jerediah Burianek with Transfort. Once the bus bay configuration has been thoroughly vetted and informally approved by City Staff, an engineering variance request will be submitted to document the site-specific design solution. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The legal descriptions for right-of-way vacation to Columbine Street and Daisy Street should not include the areas along which right-of-way dedication is needed along Plum Street. Per a meeting with Jeff County and John von Nieda on 02/23/2012, it appears that there is still some uncertainty as to where the southern boundary on these two vacations should be drawn. The exhibits and legal descriptions will be revised, as necessary, pending a final decision on this issue. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The variance requests regarding the parkway/sidewalk dimensions are undergoing evaluation at this time and a response will be provided separately. Please note however that PFA has concerns with the neckdown width of Bluebell which may leave an official response to Bluebell's streetscape design on hold for now. The parkway and sidewalk dimensions have been revised per Sheri Langenberger’s variance request response letter dated February 27, 2012. Bluebell Street has been modified after meeting with PFA on 02/23/2012. The streetscape design for Bluebell will be very similar to City Park Ave. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Encroachment permits for the private utility lines that cross right-of-way would ultimately need to be issued from Engineering Inspection. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: With the reconstruction of Aster Street, an access ramp should be provided facing south that allows for promoting the crossing of Plum Street. This appears to have been provided in the previous application submittal. The requested access ramp has been added. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Building 3 indicates a trash and compactor on the east elevation. Is this then needing a driveway cut off of Aster Street to facilitate this operation, as one does not appear to be specified. A curb cut has been provided. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The plat language (certificate of dedication, maintenance guarantee, etc.) has since been updated. Please update the language as attached (this can be emailed as well). The plat language has been updated to the current City standards. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The plat should indicate the intention with the ordinances to vacate Columbine Street and Daisy Street that within the ordinance language these area would be retained as access, drainage and utility easements by the City. Upon complete removal of the roadways and underlying utilities, an action to vacate the easements may then be processed. The plat now contains additional language to this effect. We are open to further refinement and suggestions. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2012 02/03/2012: No comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The District at Campus West Forestry Comments 2-15-12 These Forestry comments are offered: 1. The applicant should contact the City Forester for a second walk through for a review of the existing trees now shown to be retained. This review could determine if there will be any construction impacts that would limit proposed tree retention or if any tree qualities need further review. On-site review was conducted 2-27-12. 2. Tree condition information reviewed in the first walk through can be added to the inventory and mitigation table. Due to the number of trees, tree conditions were not noted during the first walk through. Only tree mitigation requirements were noted. 3. Tree Selection Choices: a. Tower Popular unfortunately is prone to many insect and diseases. This vulnerability has resulted in a rating of do not plant the Front Range Recommended Tree List. Swedish Columnar Aspen could be a good substitution for the Tower Popular. Swedish Columnar Aspen has been substituted for Tower Popular. b. Lanceleaf Cotton woods are used along the north perimeter in the 10 foot bed by rather high buildings. Lanceleaf cottonwood has a large mature size and broader mature canopy. In this smaller area near the buildings Crimson spire Oak could be a good choice. It’s tight pyramidal form could function in this area. Lanceleaf Cottonwoods have been removed and Crimson Spire Oaks have been added as suggested. c. European Fastigiate Hornbeam has a good shape for the north perimeter bed. Some designers prefer to use smaller quantities in anticipation of the occasional freeze damage that may occur. Since conifer trees are not used in the north perimeter bed perhaps one of the upright cultivars of Rocky Mountain Juniper could be considered in this area. European Fastigiate Hornbeam is used in smaller quantities. The applicant prefers to not use evergreen trees in the narrow space on the north for visibility and security reasons. d. In the narrow parkway along Bluebell the more upright growing Ivory Silk Tree Lilac would require less pruning than the broader Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn. This change is preferred by Forestry. Since Bluebell Street has been widened and the street light removed, we can now use taller street trees which can be limbed up in the future and not interfere with pedestrian circulation. A combination of Skyline and Shademaster Honeylocust are proposed. c. If incorporating a red flowering crabapple with a narrower crown form is to be considered in certain areas, particularly close to buildings, to contrast with the Spring Snow Crabs than Red Barron or Thunderchild are cultivars to consider. Red Baron crabapples have been incorporated. 4. Placing trees along the north perimeter as far away from the buildings as possible will help reduce pruning and other conflicts. Explore planting tree close to the property line to help provide separation. Acknowledged. 5. Please add the following landscape note: • The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Note has been added. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and electric utility charges with Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700). Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: Light & Power Engineering will need a 1-line diagram of each electric service in order to design the electric utility system. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: Due to the existing 8" SS along the east side of City Park Ave., Light & Power facilities will need to be installed under the roadway. The developer will be responsible for asphalt repairs as necessary. It is kindly requested that Light & Power provide a rough estimate for this item as soon as practicable. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: It appears that building #1 is planned to have two electric services. It is believed that to accommodate this, a firewall is required to isolate the two electric systems. Please confirm this with the Ft. Collins Building Inspection department. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: Light & Power Electric Construction Practices and Procedures require that all electric meters shall be located for easy access 24-7 by Utility personnel. It is generally regarded that this means the meters should be outdoors. If outdoor metering is not practical, they may be indoors provided that the builder provides a Knox Box (keyed to the Light & Power key), containing the key(s) necessary to access the meters. Meter access shall not require utility personnel to obtain permission or an escort. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: The street light shown on the N. side of Plum St. (appx. 35 ft. E. of City Park Ave. will not be located as shown. It is planned to be 65 ft. farther east than where shown. The street tree locations need to be adjusted to provide required clearances (40 ft. if a shade tree, 15 ft. if an ornamental tree). Street light has been moved and street trees adjusted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: The method of metering the electricity for the fire pump needs to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering early in the building design process. Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: This will be a fully fire sprinklered (NFPA 13) project due to reduced access. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Buildings 4 or more stories in height require a standpipe system. This system shall provide a minimum of 100 psi at the highest point of the system. Therefore, a properly sized UL listed fire pump will be required to augment the additional pressure required of the highest standpipe of each edifice. One master pump will suffice for the campus provided the volumes and pressures are available. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The PFA anticipates conflict with other vehicles utilizing the Emergency Accessment Easement; i.e. trash and garage traffic. The proposed EAE has been deleted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The building address for each one is required to be visible from the street fronting the property. Minimum 6-inch numerals are required to be posted on a contrasting background for visibility. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The water supply for this project will be 1500 gpm at 20 psi; with hydrant spacing of 300 feet to the building and on 600 foot centers thereafter. These distances are to be measured as the hose would lay, not as the crow flies. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Because calcium hypochlorite > 50% = a Class 3 oxidizer, the normal quantity limit is 10 Lbs. However, because this product is utilized for swimming pool maintenance quantity limit is increased to no more than 200 lbs maximum when storage containers and the manner of storage is approved. Please provide a storage plan for approval if 11-200 lbs is to be stored, or 10 lbs will be the limit without an approved plan. It is anticipated that no more than 10 lbs. of calcium hypochlorite will be stored on site. If more is needed, a storage plan will be provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: All fire appurtenances shown in the courtyards, including the bar-b-q area shall be at least 10 feet away from any combustible surfaces; and there shall not be any wood or charcoal allowed to be stored and/or burned. Wood is problematic for storage, embers, cooling, disposal of hot embers in ash, and the production of smoke. All fire appliances shall only be gas-fired, with natural gas preferred over propane. The barbeque grills are located four feet from a masonry wall. Is this acceptable? All fire appliances shall be gas-fired. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: Because this project is a multi-story, multi-family comples it is imperative that the fire department standard width of 30-feet for a 3 or more story edifice be provided throughout. Please contact Ron Gonzales, Assistant Fire Marshal of the Poudre Fire Authority at 970-219-5316 if further details are needed. The design of Bluebell Street has been revised pursuant to a meeting with PFA on 02/23/2012. Please note the request to prohibit parking on the east side of Bluebell. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Staff is still reviewing the HCRAS modeling provided for the water surface elevation comparison in Plum Street. No major concerns are anticipated and the City concurs with the design assumptions and design criteria. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The planters which have 2 feet of quantity detention depth are draining through the media which may burden the media and increase clogging. The extra detention depth should have its own outlet works to avoid draining through the media. Agreed. Additional consideration and detail will be forthcoming with the Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: All of the drainage infrastructure, SOPs, etc. that is being designed by others will need to be reviewed and accepted during the final compliance stage and before signing of mylars. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: At final there will be many drainage design details that will need to be designed and reviewed including the outlet works for the detention planters, proportionate area to the detention planters, and the parking garage detention system. Agreed. Additional consideration and detail will be forthcoming with the Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: Drainage easements are required for the planter detention areas. The detention area in the parking garage will be discussed in the development agreement. The City is still deciding what the best options are for securing perpetual compliance for the garage detention. We welcome any suggestions from the applicant. Following initial discussions with legal counsel, Private Drainage Easements are now shown on the preliminary plat. There will likely be additional refinement as this issue is discussed further. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There is a line over text issue on sheet 10 of 10. This has been corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add benchmark descriptions to sheet C000. The benchmark descriptions have been added to Sheet C000. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please remove "preliminary" from the titleblock on all sheets. The word “Preliminary” has been removed from the titleblock on all sheets. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: The title of sheet C502 doesn't match the sheet index. This has been corrected. (Please note, “Typical Roadway Sections” is now Sheet C504). Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets C100, C101, C200, C201, C301 & C500. These have been corrected. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There is some confusion with the coordinate control on sheet C000. It doesn't match the information shown on the subdivision plat. Sheet C000 now matches the Plat. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Both ROW vacations do not close. These have been corrected. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add a basis of bearings statement to the Daisy Street ROW vacation. The requested statement has been added. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 4 of 10. These have been corrected. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues on all plans. The line over text areas have been corrected on the Light Plan sheets. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: The subdivision plat boundaries & legals close. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add the redlined distance on Bluebell Street along the north boundary lines. The requested distance has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please address the controlling monuments. The controlling monuments have been addressed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add a total square footage/acreage. Total acreage has been added to the Plat. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add the signature block. Ownership, lienholders, and the like will be confirmed during the Final Plan phase prior to printing mylars to ensure that the most current and correction information is listed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please show how the street right of ways were dedicated. Please see the listing under “Existing Right-of-Way Documents” on Sheet 2 of 3. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please remove "Plat of" from the titleblocks & borders. The requested change has been made. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please provide current monument records for all public corners show on this plat. Current copies of the monument records have been provided with the re-submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please change "A Tract" to "Tracts" in the legal description. The requested change has been made. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: If the easement in block 2(Rec. # 95042342) was not dedicated to the City of Fort Collins, it can not be vacated by this plat. This is a City of Fort Collins Utility Easement. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please change "A Tract" to "Tracts" on sheet 1 of 10. Change has been made. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add a total square footage/acreage to sheet 1 of 10. Total square footage has been added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2 of 10. Line over text has been corrected. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: "Enhanced Transit Stop" - The pull out is nice for traffic flow, but needs a few things to make it work for bus operators and other drivers in the area. - A 60' articulated bus will be utilizing this stop. Manuals suggest that pull outs have 40' departure and arrival tapers for buses to maneuver in and out of the pull out. Please add about 10' to the east side of the pull out and a slightly modified curb to the west may be necessary to allow the bus to exit the pull out without running over the curb consistently. - A "Yield to Bus" sign is needed for vehicles exiting the parking structure onto Plum. - A "Right Turn - Do No Pass Bus" sign is needed to notify those turning into the parking structure that they cannot pass a bus stopped in the turn lane to turn into the parking structure. - A "Turn Lane - Except for Buses" is needed in the turn lane. The requested changes have been made to the plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: The bench is hidden from bus operators by the building. Please consider modifying the structure to allow for a line of site for bus operators and those waiting for the bus. The bench is placed so that it is under cover in a protected area, in case of rain, snow or wind. We prefer this location, which leaves the main sidewalk free of obstacles. Please contact us if you believe keeping the bench where it is not acceptable. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Provide notes outlining how the water and sewer mains in Daisy and Columbine are to be abandoned. The existing water and sewer mains in Daisy and Columbine will be abandoned back to the respective mains in Plum Street. Preliminary Utility Demolition Plans have been provided as Sheets C102 & C103. These plans are expected to be further refined during Final design. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Is the 1.5" water service for irrigation? The 1½” water service to Building 1 is provided for the main floor “commercial” clubhouse uses. Drip irrigation is assumed to come off the buildings at this time. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The location of the 3" and 4" water meter vaults are unacceptable. For safety reasons, the vaults cannot be in busy pedestrian routes. Ideally the vaults would be in landscaped areas, but it doesn't appear that there is much of that on this project. The location and orientation of all water meter vaults was coordinated with the Water Utility and meter shop on 02/22/2012. Custom details will be provided during Final design, and close communication and coordination will be maintained. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The 1.5" and 2" appear to be in conflict with the underground electric. Show the curb stops on these services. The proposed underground electric is intended to route around the meter pits/vaults and run under the sidewalk in these locations, as shown on the plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Provide water service sizing calculations for the three buildings. Water service sizing calculations will be provided during Final design. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: See redlines for other comments. See redlines for additional responses. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 The applicant has already noted the setbacks for residential buildings and buildings along nonarterial streets are 15 feet. A Modification of Standard has been submitted but may not be necessary per the interpretation of Mixed-Use Buildings per Current Planning. It should be noted that if there were some commercial/retail use in the buildings then the setback would not apply and a required build to line would be in place, making the proposed buildings in compliance. Thank you for pointing this out. Checking with Ted Shepard, we now know that Building One qualifies as mixed-use because of containing the clubhouse and leasing office. Building Two also qualifies as mixed- use because of the parking garage and residential units within the same building. There are some safety/privacy concerns in having residential units on the ground floor. Perhaps the height of the window placement could be considered as an extra measure of security. We believe window coverings offer more flexibility and can provide the degree of privacy that the tenant prefers, without sacrificing views and natural light. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Applicant has provided request in accordance with LUC 3.8.16(E)(2) for an increase of the number of unrelated individuals allowed to reside within an individual dwelling unit. In this request it is mentioned that a parking permit would be necessary to park in the spaces that are to be provided. It is unclear if this will satisfy the parking needs if the spaces are only available at additional cost to the occupants. Parking permits are sold individually and are not part of the rent for the dwelling unit, however, students that have cars are required to purchase a parking permit, insuring that they will not be parking their cars in the neighborhood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Trash/recycling enclosures are required and need to be placed in convenient locations. Such enclosures shall be on a concrete pad and setback at least 20 feet from the public ROW. Also trash/recycling enclosures shall be designed to allow walk-in access without opening the main service gate. Trash/recycling centers are located within the building at two locations on-site. One is located on the east side of Building One and the other is located on the east side of Building Two. The applicant believes these two locations will adequately serve the residents. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Elevation drawings provided are not printed to scale. Please provide individual elevations for all sides of the buildings. All elevations are provided. If there is a discrepancy between the scaled drawing and the printed dimension, the dimension prevails. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 With 60 or more trees only 15% of total can be one specie. The only tree that exceeds the 15% rule is the Swedish Columnar Aspen which is used extensively on the north side of the project where it is an ideal selection because of its tall and narrow growth habit. Tim Buchanan indicated he would support this design approach even if the 15% is exceeded. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Mechanical/utility equipment shall be screened/painted. Please indicated all such equipment on the plans, including in elevation drawings. Roof mounted mechanical equipment is screened by a parapet wall. Ground mounted equipment will be screened and addressed in more detail at Final. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 If 495 vehicle spaces are being provided then 50 bikes spaces are required. It is encouraged to exceed the minimum bike parking requirements. The project is providing 332 bicycle parking spaces. 296 of those are located in the parking structure. SUNS NEED TO SHIFT & RESTRIPE PROPOSED CONNECTION EXISTING CONNECTION BLDG 01 BLDG 02 An interactive computer simulation modeling the shadowing effect of the proposed project was presented by the applicant at the Administrative Hearing on April 5 and April 23, 2012. This simulation is available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., through July 17, 2012 The applicant will present this simulation at the Appeal Hearing on July 17. ATTACHMENT 6 Materials submitted by Citizens prior to the Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 ATTACHMENT 7 Materials submitted by Citizens at the Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 1 Previously Requested Minor Modifications ‐Increased setback distance to 15 feet ‐Viable tree plan ‐Reduced building height to mitigate shadowing and conform to the neighborhood pattern ‐Offset windows on garage to mitigate noise from squealing tires, car alarms, and reduce flying debris ‐We don’t want to stop development. We want minor changes. Without them the developer is in violation of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. In it’s current form it is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Developer is In Violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1C • Section 3.5 Relates to Project and Building Compatibility • C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater‐ corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figure 7.) • How is a Building One, a massive five story, 65 foot tall structure, similar in size and height to existing structures in neighborhood? It’s not. Its twice as tall and volumetrically at least ~10x (2x taller, 2x longer and 3x wider) the size of adjacent condos in the our neighborhood? Building One is NOT subdivided. It’s one massive structure. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 2 THIS… Figure 7 NOT THIS!!! The Developer’s Plan is In Violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1D • (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses • How does having dozens of units overlooking a Sorority House maximize the opportunity for privacy? • The ZTA girls don’t want a bunch of people staring down on them as they try to tan in their own backyard – See signed petition from ALL OF THEM Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 3 The Developer’s Plan is In Violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1G.2 • The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height… • 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to…contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. • Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape. Our accurate shadow study shows the developer is in violation of the LUC. • My background – Bachelors in physics – M.S in Engineering w/ emphasis in biomedical optics • Presented at OSA conferences, published my research in respected optical journals – Courses in Physical Optics, Biomedical Optics, Astronomy, Fourier Optics, Lens Design, and Laser Physics • I will explain our study’s methodology. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 4 Lengths and Heights Derived from developer plan • North face of Bldgs 1 and 2 are 48.66 feet tall. • North face of Bldg 3 is 61‐67. 61 feet used in our analysis. Our estimates of shadow impact are conservative for Bldg. 3. • The distance to our units is derived from measurements of the devloper’s blueprint. In good agreement with distances presented by developer on 4/6 AND my own physical measurements. Source of Solar Angle Data: US Naval Observatory Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 5 Provides Sun’s Azimuthal and Altitude (Polar) Angle in table format for anytime of the day in Fort Collins, CO Solar Position is Defined By Just Two Angles Azimuthal: Where the sun is relative to north along the horizon Altitude: How high the sun is above the horizon Basic Shadow Math The District SUN Altitude Angle (A) Shadow Length (L) Building Height (H) Tangent (A) = opposite/adjacent Tangent(A)=H/L L=Shadow Length=H/Tangent(A) H ranges from 48.6 to 67 feet on North Side of complex Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 6 Shadow Height vs. Time of Day Football Field Sized Shadows!!! Shadow Heights vs. Azimuthal Angle Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 7 Raw Shadow Length in Feet Bldg 3 Time Oct 31st Nov 6th Dec 21st Feb 4th Feb 8th 9:00 142 153 246 192 182 12:00 87 94 126 94 90 3:00 179 197 254 154 147 Bldgs 1/2 Time Oct 31st Nov 6th Dec 21st Feb 4th Feb 8th 9:00 113 122 196 153 145 12:00 69 75 100 75 72 3:00 143 157 202 123 117 Computation of Effective Shadow Length Seen By Sunstone and ZTA House The District Sunstone Shadow length= L Az Cos(Az)=adjacent/hypotenuse Cos(Az)=D/L D=L*Cos(Az) Effective Shadow Length Cast in Direction of Angle Az is Sunstone = D determined using the azimuthal angle of the sun and corrected for angular orientation of the buildings relative to North Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 8 Distance to Buildings and Effective Shadow Length Seen By Buildings Bldg 3 31‐Oct 6‐Nov 21‐Dec 4‐Feb 8‐Feb 9:00 AM 97.31 107 175.2 118.3 110.1 12:00 86.57 94.1 125.4 93.41 89.66 3:00 121.3 136.2 196.8 118.1 111.4 Bldgs 1/2 31‐Oct 6‐Nov 21‐Dec 4‐Feb 8‐Feb 9:00 AM 77.53 85.24 139.6 94.25 87.72 12:00 68.97 74.97 99.89 74.43 71.43 3:00 96.65 108.5 156.8 94.11 88.73 Conclusion: Portions of Sunstone are shadowed continuously for more than three months a year. ALL of ZTA House is shadowed for much more than three months a year. October 31st 9:00 12:00 3:00 Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 9 October 31st Composite Shadow Map Daily Shadowing indicates massive shadowing throughout the day!!! February 8th 9:00 12:00 3:00 Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 10 No Sun=Frigid Sidewalks=Instant Icing • The District will cast a permanent shadow on our sidewalks all winter, and our basement dwelling will only be exposed to sunlight for a few minutes at high noon each day. • LUC: “Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to…contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year.” • Clear Violation on our property. Shadow even worse on ZTA due to Bldg 3 (61‐67 Feet!) Implications of shadow study on tree growth, compliance with tree protection plan • Trees are continuously shaded 365 days a year. • A newly planted 16 foot high tree, with a radius of 4 feet will receive no direct sunlight at any time of the year, even at the summer solstice!!! • A solar angle of 74 degrees is required. The sun is never more than 73 degrees above the horizon in Fort Collins, CO. Ever. • Old growth trees are being cut down and replaced with trees that may never thrive. We have seen no visual evidence that the Linden or Hornbeam can survive in such an environment. May be challenging to grow in such a narrow, light constricted space. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 11 Can a Corinthian Linden Survive when Planted Five Feet from a 48 foot North Facing Wall? This wall is south facing and the tree appears to have a radius of 10 feet. Will there be enough space to grow if planted so close to the wall? We have seen no visual evidence that such a tree can grow under the conditions proposed by the developer? If fact… One of the largest tree nurseries in CO states a mature radius of 15‐17.5 feet? Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 12 Can a European Hornbeam survive when Planted Five Feet from a 48 foot North Facing Wall? City staff has provided no visual evidence that they can. This is a newer office park. The trees are fully exposed to light and not yet fully mature. They should become much bigger when mature In fact… The mature radius is up to 12.5 feet. Sun to filtered shade needed. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 13 Email to John Rizza, CSU Extension, Land Stewardship and Forest in Range • Hi Mr. Rizza, My name is Tim Erickson. I am an engineering student here at CSU. I had a question related to tree planting in Fort Collins. If one wanted to plant trees on the North side of a 48 foot tall building, what is the recommended planting distance from the building? How would shading by the building affect their growth rate, and specifically how do think the following types of trees would do long‐term: Crimson Spire Oak, Swedish Columnar Aspen, European Fastigiata Hornbeam, and Corinthian Linden? Best regards, Tim Erickson Key Points in Response Email • “The distance away from the building all depends on the projected size of the tree at maturity, to illustrate this point, take a look at an interesting link: http://www.arborday.org/trees/righttreeandplace/righttree.cfm” • also, in addition to growing space, you need adequate root space. in many urban landscape situations, folks plant big trees in little spaces (between sidewalks), they need more room than that, giving them space will give them a better chance for survival. following illustration should make my point: http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/resources/New_TreePlant ing.pdf • (Will forward entire email to staff. Have a hardcopy ready now.) Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 14 Conclusion • The developer’s current plan is in violation of the land use code on many fronts. – Shadowing, Neighborhood compatibility due to massive scale, Possible Tree Issues • This project needs to be put on hold until the developer can submit a plan in compliance with code. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson ATTACHMENT 8 Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, April 5, 2012 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: The District at Campus West, P.D.P, #120003 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Richard Lopez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer 2 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER RICHARD LOPEZ: Okay, good evening. 2 We’re going to start this hearing. As a way of introduction, my name is Richard Lopez, I’m the 3 Hearing Officer. I’ve actually been the Hearing Officer for the City of Fort Collins for the past 4 three years, this is my fourth year. I am a City Planner, I’ve done that for about forty years, and 5 I’ve been an attorney for the last twenty years. I’ve served as a staff planner for cities, as a 6 consultant, I’ve actually sat on a Planning Board, Planning Commission, and spent some time as 7 a City Councilmember. I’ve also litigated a number of land use cases and actually enjoy land use 8 and city development and neighborhood issues immensely. 9 Tonight we’re going to have a hearing on a project that’s been proposed called The 10 District. I want to remind everyone to sign on the sign-up sheet. At the end of the hearing, I will 11 not be making a decision. I have ten working days to draft a written decision and that’s why, we 12 want to be able to send you a copy of this written decision. 13 The order of presentations tonight will begin with a staff presentation followed by an 14 applicant presentation, then staff will have an opportunity to respond to anything that the 15 applicant may have brought up, and then we’ll conduct a public testimony and everyone will 16 have an opportunity to talk, make your presentations. If you’re making a technical presentation, 17 using any sort of graphics…in order for me to enter that into the record, I will need a copy. I 18 know there was some shadow analysis that was done by some neighbors. The copy I’ve got is 19 not really legible, it’s a Xeroxed copy. I’d like to have either in a disc form, thumb drive, or 20 whatever, so I can make that part of the record. After the public testimony, there will be an 21 opportunity for the applicant to respond to any questions or concerns and then the staff will have 22 an opportunity to respond to anything that’s been said as a result. At the end of that, the hearing 23 will close and I will take the information and the presentation, your comments…I will draft a 24 written decision based on the regulations, the evidence that’s been presented, and your 25 testimony. As I said, we’ll try to get that done within ten days. They tend to be very detailed so 26 it ends up taking me pretty much the whole ten days. So, with that, Ted, would you like to start? 27 CHIEF PLANNER TED SHEPARD: Thank you Mr. Lopez. This is a request for a 28 Project Development Plan to redevelop sixteen houses along four short streets in the Campus 29 West neighborhood for a multi-family project. This project would consist of 193 dwelling units 30 on approximately 3.34 acres, located on the north side of Plum Street between Aster Street and 31 City Park Avenue. The parcels are zoned CC – Community Commercial, and also located within 32 the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District, also known as the TOD. The dwelling units 33 would be distributed among three buildings and include a mix of one, two…just, no, two, three, 34 and four bedroom units, no ones, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two- 35 bedroom units, 42 three bedroom units, and 123 four-bedroom units. There would be a total of 36 674 bedrooms, each of which would be leased individually. There would be 495 off-street 37 parking spaces located within a parking garage that is located in the middle of the three 38 buildings. There are also 332 bicycle parking spaces. The two dead-end streets, Columbine and 3 1 Daisy, would be vacated. We have a condition of approval that says those two vacations have to 2 be done properly by action by City Council before final approval could be granted. 3 There are…the project also includes clubhouse, pool, fitness center, and computer lab. 4 There is also a request for a modification to Section 3.5.2(D), which is a setback standard, for 5 building three, which is the eastern most building. Staff is recommending approval of the 6 modification and approval of the P.D.P., subject to the one condition that you have in your staff 7 report. And that concludes my presentation. 8 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, very good. Who, on behalf of the applicant will be making a 9 presentation? Okay, would you please step forward and give us your name, address. 10 MS. LINDA RIPLEY: Thank you Mr. Lopez, my name is Linda Ripley with Ripley 11 Design, Inc. We’re land planners and we represent, this evening, Residential Housing 12 Development, the developer of the project, and Derek Anderson is also here this evening to 13 represent that company as the developer. 14 I’m going to start my presentation tonight with just a little bit of history. Back in 2009, 15 just three years ago, a similar, a very similar project was approved on this site called The Retreat 16 at Plum Street, or 1200 Plum Street. The site plan was very similar, it proposed 197 units 17 compared to our 193. It was…the density was 74 dwelling units per acre compared to ours at 58 18 dwelling units per acre. The Retreat was a combination of four and five-story buildings, as our 19 project tonight also is. And, proposed setback distances from the curbline are also very similar 20 as well. So, the Residential Housing Development bought this property and they added 21 additional property so the project extends now all the way to City Park Avenue. And these are 22 the four blocks that Ted mentioned in his report, that contain the sixteen existing single-family 23 houses that are currently rented out to students. And, many of those are in deteriorating 24 condition now. The houses will be replaced by three new buildings. Building one is a mixed- 25 use building that contains a clubhouse. The front of the building facing Plum Street is five 26 stories, the back of the building is four stories tall, so relatively, the front of the building is 61 27 feet, one inch, the back of the building is 48 feet and eight inches tall. The building in the 28 middle, building two, is a parking structure which is faced with three-story housing units on the 29 street sides. It is a four-story parking garage and 48 feet tall. Building three is a completely 30 residential structure, its five stories in height and 61 feet, one inch tall. The project will provide 31 193 units and contain 674 individual bedrooms. 32 The approximately, well, not approximately, there are 130 existing trees on the site. A 33 few of those trees are being retained, however, most of them are going to be replaced with new 34 trees planted along the streets and along the north side of the project and within the courtyards. 35 This aerial slide is included in our presentation to show what exists around the site. The 36 Sunstone Condominiums are located north of the project, multi-family…other multi-family 37 projects exist on the east, south, and west. Campus West Shopping District is located just a 4 1 block further south and the CSU campus is one block to the east. City Park is located further to 2 the north, just about a half a mile away. Two existing dead-end streets on the project will be 3 vacated, while Bluebell Street will remain and connect through to Baystone Drive. Plum Street 4 has a 40 foot pavement width and a 50 foot right-of-way. It has two travel lanes and striped bike 5 lanes. Currently, sidewalks in this neighborhood are wholly inadequate. This project will 6 dedicate additional right-of-way and provide detached sidewalks along Plum Street. 7 The architecture proposed for the project is urban in scale and design. The materials 8 include stone and stucco with metal accents. Buildings are designed with south-facing 9 courtyards so that we get a nicely articulated street frontage. So, the setback varies quite a bit. 10 Some places we’re relatively close to the street and then the building bends into these sunny 11 courtyards that will capture a lot of sun for extended seasonal use. All the buildings have 12 foundation planters that actually serve a dual function: the ground the building to the site, they 13 are aesthetic, but they also provide stormwater function of capturing a lot of our stormwater and 14 detaining it, as well as providing water quality before that as the water is released to its eventual 15 outfall. 16 The clubhouse is located in building one, it’s architecturally distinct from the rest of the 17 buildings by having a different kind of stone material. It includes an outdoor pool, a recreation 18 center, pool tables, TV games, fitness center, as well as study rooms. Building two, our parking 19 garage, as I mentioned, is faced with townhouse-like units on the street-facing facades. It 20 provides five levels of parking in a four-story height. The project is located in the Transit 21 Overlay District so no parking is actually required of this project; however, if The District were 22 located outside of the TOD, it would be required by the City Code to have 441 parking spaces. 23 Our project provides, in the structure, 495. So they are providing 54 more parking spaces than a 24 project would be required anywhere in Fort Collins, even though technically they’re not required 25 to provide any. Any student who lives in this project, and has a car, will be required to purchase 26 a parking permit and park that car in the garage, and so, therefore, they won’t be parking out in 27 the neighborhood and that’s how it’s policed. In addition, the project will provide 296 bicycle 28 parking spaces as well as a bicycle fix-it station and bike pump. All that’s located in the garage. 29 Thirty-six more are located in the courtyards, for a total of 332 parking spaces, when I believe 30 only fifty are required. Is that correct? Anyway, it’s a very small number that’s required. 31 The garage is well-lit for safety with no hiding spaces. Our photometric plan that was 32 submitted shows that light doesn’t spill onto neighboring properties. Noise typically isn’t a 33 problem with a parking garage because the sound coming from car wheels is deflected back into 34 the garage by masonry parapet walls. 35 I’d like to move on now to talk about how this project meets the policies, goals, and 36 objectives contained in City Plan, in the West Central Neighborhood Plan, and the Campus West 37 Commercial District Study Report. The project addresses all three of these. City Plan has 38 policies that include economic, environmental, livability, safety and wellness, and transportation 5 1 policies. The District addresses economic policies, first of all, by locating in the targeted infill 2 and redevelopment area, as defined in City Plan. This means that the City encourages 3 redevelopment in this area to revitalize the area that is in decline, in some respects, to provide 4 high-density housing where residents can walk or ride bikes to campus, jobs, shopping, and other 5 services, to increase economic activity to benefit local businesses, and to promote investment in 6 areas where infrastructure exists. So, the City is trying to provide incentives to encourage 7 development in this targeted area; however, I want to point out that this developer is not 8 requesting any financial support from the City to develop this project. 9 Currently, the site consists of single-family rentals that, I mentioned, are in poor 10 condition, sub-standard pedestrian access which can fix with bikes. Even though Plum Street has 11 nice bike lanes where…Plum Street is a main route to campus, it’s a straight shot right into the 12 campus, collects kids from a large area of multi-family. But, because kids have to walk in the 13 street, because there are no sidewalks, there are all these conflicts at high-volume times. So, the 14 project’s going to replace these blighted conditions with high-quality, attractive housing, 15 allowing more students to live an easy walking distance of both CSU as well as the Campus 16 West Commercial District. 17 The project also meets the City Plan’s environmental policies. Not only is this project 18 going to meet the City’s new green building standards, The District is being designed to achieve 19 silver certification under the LEED for Homes program. As part of that certification, a long list 20 of features are targeted for implementation. I’ve got that long list, I’m not going to take the time 21 to go over it in this presentation, but I would like to submit it into the record at the end of my 22 presentation. 23 The project supports livability policies by substantially upgrading the streetscape. The 24 project provides a wider right-of-way, creating wide detached sidewalks and providing street 25 trees, seating, pedestrian-scale lighting, planters, and other urban amenities. The project will 26 contribute positively to the identity and character of the neighborhood. Currently, students walk 27 to campus on the street and have to battle with cars and bicycles for safety. Providing affordable 28 housing for students just a block from campus is consistent with the City’s vision for compact 29 land use patterns, and helps reduce vehicle miles travelled. 30 Aside from locational aspect, transportation policies are met in three other ways: the 31 project encourages bicycle use by providing adequate parking in a secured, covered location, and 32 providing on-site air pump and a fix-it station. The development incorporates a transit stop in 33 the center of the project to encourage students to use public transportation, and the enhanced 34 streetscape will promote walking by making it safer and more convenient, and just generally 35 much more pleasant than it is today. 36 The Land Use Code also has standards in two chapters: chapter four is the Zone Districts 37 and chapter three are the General Development Standards. The project, as designed, meets all of 6 1 the land use standards in the Community Commercial zone district. Since the project is less than 2 ten acres, it’s not required to meet the secondary land use criteria aimed at creating a mix of land 3 uses. Even so, we believe that this map taken from the Community Commercial District study 4 report, prepared in 2001, illustrates that high-density student housing contributes very favorably 5 to the mix of land uses that exist in the neighborhood. So, you can see the blue areas are mixed- 6 use or commercial buildings, and then the pink are more multi-family, and then feathering out to 7 single-family further out, out of the core. 8 Buildings are…in our project, buildings are located along pedestrian-oriented streets. 9 The project provides several gathering places and outdoor site amenities, including two 10 courtyards and a pool complex. A transit stop is integrated into the project. By orienting all the 11 buildings to public streets, the project meets the block standards. The zone district allows 12 building heights up to five stories and our project is a mix of four and five stories. The project 13 also meets the development standards for projects in the transit overlay district that are designed 14 to promote land uses and densities that support transit. 15 The property, as designed, also meets all of the general development standards in the 16 Land Use Code, with one exception. And, we are requesting a modification for that exception 17 because building three does not meet the fifteen foot minimum setback standard. First of all, I 18 want to talk about building one, includes a clubhouse and a leasing office in addition to dwelling 19 units, so it is classified as a mixed-use building. Similarly, building two is a parking structure 20 with residential units on the street-facing facades, so it’s also classified as a mixed-use building. 21 Mixed-use buildings are not subject to the fifteen foot setback from the right-of-way, and, in fact, 22 the Land Use Code stipulates that they cannot be any further from the right-of-way than fifteen 23 feet. So, in order to be consistent with those buildings, we’re trying to…we’re requesting a 24 modification for building three. The applicant is requesting that modification in order to be 25 consistent. We’re confident the setbacks and resulting streetscapes will meet the needs of 26 pedestrians as well as provide an interesting, upscale, urban experience for neighboring 27 residents…for neighborhood residents who walk along the corridor. The building footprints are 28 highly articulated and the setbacks vary. These two slides, or these two illustrations, depict what 29 the setbacks are on the streets around our residential building three, and also what the average 30 setback is. So, along Bluebell Street, the most constricted area is eleven feet from the right-of- 31 way. The setback is more at patios and at building indentations, averaging a 14.6 setback along 32 the whole frontage on Bluebell. And, there is a consistent 8.5 foot sidewalk adjacent to Bluebell 33 Street with tree grades and a curb bulge at Plum Street…at the Plum Street intersection. On 34 Plum Street, at the most constricted area, the building is set back 12.5 feet from the right-of-way, 35 the majority of the façade on building three is set back seventeen feet or more, and the setback 36 extends to beyond 100 feet at the courtyard. So, the average all along Plum Street is 26.2 feet 37 from the right-of-way. In addition, the setback measurements that extend from the building to 38 the face of the dedicated right-of-way, there is a consistent 11.5 feet that includes the five foot 39 walk and a 6.5 foot parkway along the curbline. On Aster, the most constricted were ten feet 7 1 away, the setbacks more at patios and building indentations, the average is 15.8, and there is a 2 consistent 11.5 feet in the right-of-way that includes a five foot walk and 6.5 foot parkway. I 3 want to point out, too, that along Plum Street and Aster Street, there is actually…the sidewalk is 4 seven feet wide, but only five feet is in the public right-of-way, but it’s a consistent seven feet 5 wide so it’s plenty wide for the population that lives here and so much better than what exists 6 today. 7 So the Land Use Code gives the decision maker four different criteria to choose from to 8 see if the modification can be approved. The first one that we believe applies is that the plan 9 needs to be equal to or better than a plan which would comply with the standard. We believe 10 that’s true, any time you develop a project like this, there are a series of design trade-offs that 11 need to be made. It’s clear that this project could be designed and have a fifteen foot setback; 12 however, what we’d be giving up is the building articulation and the varied setback. So, we 13 believe that the varied setback of having the courtyards that face the street and go way far from 14 the street, and then having it bend in at entrances and bend in at patios, but then come closer, 15 makes for a much more interesting streetscape, even though at certain points, we are less than 16 fifteen foot. So, we’re seeking the modification rather than creating a building that is less 17 interesting than the other two proposed. Yes? 18 MR. LOPEZ: I have a question. 19 MS. RIPLEY: Sure. 20 MR. LOPEZ: When I was visiting the site and the area nearby, one of the things I noticed 21 was the pedestrian traffic in and around some of these units. In fact, one person was actually 22 cutting through a fence that had been knocked down, or partially knocked down, I think it was to 23 the north of this site. What is the…do you plan to have fencing around the development, The 24 District, or how will circulation, pedestrian circulation, operate. 25 MS. RIPLEY: I can talk to you where we are with that. Brent, could we go to a site plan? 26 Okay, the area, currently there’s a connection between the Sunstone Apartment project and this 27 site right here. There’s an opening in the parking lot and there’s an opening in the fence so 28 students can go from Sunstone, go through this site, and get to Plum Street. We’ve talked to the 29 homeowner’s association presidents north of this, and expressed to them that we would like to 30 create a similar connection here at the end of this courtyard, and offered to restripe their parking 31 lot. We’ve looked at it in detail so that they wouldn’t lose any parking spaces, but there would 32 be a need to restripe their parking lot because we’d really like to move the access so it doesn’t 33 come out in back of the garage. We think it’d be safer and more convenient for everyone if it 34 lined up with this courtyard. So, we’ve offered to do that, and, to date, they haven’t responded to 35 that offer. So, does that clarify? 36 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, it does. I was there, I saw that connection earlier today and the 37 other…I was…the place where the person was cutting through a downed fence was a little bit 8 1 further to the north and to the east, but I was…this is a pedestrian area, we have a lot of students 2 that will take the closest route to their unit and… 3 MS. RIPLEY: Understood. 4 MR. LOPEZ: But, you know, I think maintaining the openness and the accessibility is 5 probably beneficial to your development and probably to neighboring developments too. 6 MS. RIPLEY: We absolutely agree, we’d like to have that. I’d also like to point out, in 7 this fifteen foot setback modification, that, if we were in our MMN district, our medium mixed- 8 use neighborhood district, where you tend to find most of our multi-family projects, there is no 9 minimum setback from the right-of-way. So, it seems a little bit inconsistent that the City has 10 this fifteen foot setback in the CC zone. But, it is what it is. We think our plan is better than a 11 plan that would meet it. 12 Another criteria that can be used for approving the modification is that the granting of the 13 standard would substantially alleviate an existing described problem of City-wide concern, or 14 would result in a substantial benefit to the City. We think that our proposed plan addresses 15 important community needs in three different ways. First of all, by locating in the targeted 16 redevelopment area, The District is promoting the revitalization of the Campus West commercial 17 area. The District is concentrating high-density housing in a location that can be served by high- 18 frequency transit. The District will enable students to access campus job services with shorter 19 auto trips. The District will provide a reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists 20 and The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses. 21 Secondly, the project will be replacing inadequate, run-down student rentals with safe, modern, 22 and efficient units. Third, an attractive and functional streetscape will be added to this core 23 circulation route where students are currently forced to walk in the street. I think there’s actually 24 a fourth one here that didn’t occur to me this very moment, but, by this project being approved, 25 we’re also creating more opportunity for rental housing in our neighborhoods to be more 26 available to low-income people, rather than all of it being taken up by students. Which leads me 27 to the next topic to cover, which is our request to have four-bedroom units in the project. 28 Since the City, a few years ago, adopted the no more than three-unrelated rule, multi- 29 family projects that want to offer four-bedroom units need to specifically request this option, and 30 demonstrate that residents will be adequately served without adversely impacting the 31 neighborhood. So, The District at Campus West plans to include 28 two-bedrooms, 42 three- 32 bedroom apartments, and 123 four-bedroom apartments, so most of their units are designed to be 33 four-bedroom apartments and this is why. The applicant has found that four-bedroom units are a 34 popular lifestyle alternative for many students, it allows for students to share an apartment in 35 well-managed environment, it’s more secure than single-family home rentals, and the four- 36 bedroom units cost less per bedroom, and therefore offer a more affordable alternative for 37 students that are on a budget. The tenants that are likely to occupy these units are also the ones 9 1 likely to occupy single-family rental properties near campus, so it helps alleviate that problem in 2 some neighborhoods. In order to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in 3 individual dwelling units, the applicant must show that there’s adequate open space, adequate 4 recreation areas, adequate parking, adequate public facilities to serve the occupants in that 5 development. So, first of all, in terms of open space and recreational amenities, students living at 6 The District are just one block from the CSU athletic fields, Moby Gymnasium, and the newly 7 remodeled student rec center. Students are also just a few blocks from City Park which includes 8 172 acres of open space with sport fields, a lake, natural areas, a swimming pool, playground, 9 and a golf course. In addition, The District will offer 16,500 square feet of courtyards and 10 landscaped open space on the 3.3 acre site, including a swimming pool and sundeck. The south 11 facing courtyards include special paving, generous landscaping, outdoor lighting, internet access, 12 and a variety of seating opportunities. The project incorporates open space and recreational 13 amenities based on how many students are living in the complex. So, four-bedroom units are 14 factored into that equation. The 7,000 square foot clubhouse will include the pool, a rec room, 15 pool tables, and all of those things I mentioned earlier. In addition, the streetscape around the 16 edge of the project also adds to the urban lifestyle providing street trees, special paving, seat 17 walls, and street furniture, as well as convenient bike parking. 18 We believe that the project provides more than adequate parking, given that it provides 19 54 more parking spaces than it would located anywhere, and it is in the Transit Overlay District 20 which specifies no minimum parking requirements. The applicant is also interested in doing 21 everything they can to encourage students to be environmentally responsible by promoting 22 alternative means of transportation including walking, biking, transit and ride-sharing. The site 23 is served by Transfort and there is a centrally located bus stop. Students can connect to the 24 Mason Street bus rapid transit via bike, or by using the bus. The BRT provides transportation to 25 downtown, or destinations and activity centers south Fort Collins. 26 In terms of public facilities, the site is well-served. It obviously has the typical water, 27 wastewater, police, and fire facilities. The site is adjacent to Campus West commercial shopping 28 that includes retail, personal service shops, as well as restaurants and entertainment venues. The 29 site’s also close to two grocery stores; approximately one mile from Beaver’s Market, and 30 approximately one and a half miles from the Safeway on College Avenue. 31 The four-bedrooms also add to the sustainability aspect of this project. We did a little 32 research and I’m seeing data from Conservice, a nationwide utility billing service that analyzes 33 information for many properties, and thousands of units indicated that electricity use, on average, 34 is 21% more efficient when comparing a four-bedroom unit to two two-bedroom units. 35 Likewise, it found that natural gas is estimated to be 55% more efficient when four students are 36 living in a four-bedroom unit compared to two two-bedrooms. And, lastly, less construction 37 materials are used because it’s just physically more compact. So, we believe that the four- 38 bedroom units proposed in this development serve the students by providing secure and 39 affordable lifestyle alternative without negatively impacting adjacent neighbors. 10 1 Neighborhood compatibility is the issue that’s had most talk, I guess, from the 2 neighborhood. We started working with the neighborhood in August, that was when we held our 3 very first neighborhood meeting. And, the concerns that we heard at that first neighborhood 4 meeting were concerns about the building height, shadowing, increased traffic, noise, property 5 values. So, in response to concerns, the applicant did prepare a traffic study that was prepared by 6 Eric Bracke; he is here tonight and can expand on that if we need him to. We’ve also made 7 changes to the project to try to address some of the concerns that we heard. At the beginning of 8 our design process, the very first time we showed the project to the City, the project was much 9 larger. It contained 215 units and 732 units and it had a six-story parking garage. The project 10 actually extended south of Plum Street and included development along Scott Avenue. At the 11 time of the first neighborhood meeting, we had already reduced the project to five-stories, and 12 after that neighborhood meeting, the scale of the project was reduced down to 193 units, the 13 current 674 bedrooms, and the parking structure was scaled down to four stories in height, and 14 the larger of the two residential buildings drops down to four stories on the north side, 15 specifically to reduce the shadow impact. The outdoor activities are located in the courtyards 16 facing south towards the street so that the noise and activity associated with those courtyards 17 don’t impact neighbors directly. The traffic impact study concludes that, after the project is 18 constructed, all key intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. It also 19 concludes that the site is outstanding in terms of opportunity to use alternative modes of 20 transportation. We held a second neighborhood meeting after we made these changes, on March 7 th 21 . The 22 applicant presented the changes made to the plans in response to their concerns. Since building 23 height and shadowing were still big concerns, I want to spend just a little time demonstrating 24 how the project changed in response to the concern, and why we believe we meet the City 25 standards that relate to building height and shadowing. Next slide. This slide shows the 26 comparison of the height of the Sunstone Apartments, which are 32 feet, 8 inches tall to the top 27 of their pitched roof. Our parking garage is 48 feet tall and the north side of building one is 48 28 feet, 8 inches tall. The height of building one and the parking garage were brought down to four 29 stories to be more compatible with the neighboring condos. The neighbors to the north were also 30 very concerned about the visual impact of the parking garage. These slides show that the 31 view…next slide…these slide show that the view is now…these slide show that the view now, 32 compared to what it will look like if the parking garage is built. So, the parking garage is an 33 open air garage, so first of all, it’s not a solid box. The parapet walls screen the cars, shield the 34 headlights, and block sound from moving vehicles. The stone façade is incorporated on the first 35 two levels of the parking garage on the back side to increase the visual interest. And, luckily, 36 there are large existing trees on the Sunstone property very close to the property line that serve to 37 buffer the visual impact of the garage, that it will buffer initially, and new columnar trees are 38 planted all along the north to ensure that this buffering continues into the future. 11 1 So, there are two criteria in the Land Use Code that govern shadowing. The first is 2 Section 3.2.3, Solar Access, Orientation, and Shading, and this is the criteria that applies in most 3 places in the City, but it does not apply in the Community Commercial zone district. However, it 4 says that, to the maximum extent feasible, projects should not cast a shadow onto structures on 5 adjacent property greater than a shadow cast by a 25-foot wall placed on the property line. The 6 other section…the other standard that does apply is Section 3.5.1 in the Building Height Review, 7 where it says that buildings over 40 feet should be designed so that they do not have substantial 8 adverse impact on the distribution of natural light on adjacent properties. It goes on to say that 9 the project shall not preclude the functional use of solar energy or solar technology, and we don’t 10 preclude that. It says the project shall not create adverse solar reflectants or glare, and we don’t. 11 The criterion also addresses the accumulation of ice and snow, and shading of windows or 12 gardens for more than three months of the year, both of which are concerns of people that own 13 property or live in the Sunstone Condos situated to the north. First of all, it’s fortunate that those 14 buildings are separated from our project by a fair distance, and that distance varies. They’re 15 never closer than 52 feet, our buildings from their buildings. The farthest they get, well, not the 16 absolute farthest, but, going back to that location, is 91 feet, and the average is about 70 feet 17 from our buildings to theirs. Our team has prepared an extensive shadow analysis that illustrates 18 two things: first, that the shadows produced by the proposed buildings do not shade windows for 19 more than three months of the year, and secondly, that the shadow cast by the building does not 20 make the shading of the parking lot substantially worse than the natural distribution of light that 21 currently exists. 22 Alright, I need to make a clarification at this point in the presentation because it wasn’t 23 until today that I found a discrepancy in something we submitted. I’m showing you the shadow 24 analysis that we submitted to the City a while back and it is correct, and we stand by it. If, for 25 some reason, it is not correct, we will lower our buildings so that the shadow will never be more 26 than what is shown on these graphics. The reason I have to clarify this is because, subsequently, 27 we submitted a shadow analysis where the buildings were shown to be slightly higher; therefore, 28 the shadow went up, and we want to make sure that there’s no confusion. This is what we’ll live 29 by, and we will prove it with further analysis if we need to. But, this is the shadow analysis that 30 we used to make the decision to drop the parking garage to four stories and to drop the back side 31 of building one to four stories. So, let me show you how that happened. This first slide shows 32 what the shadow is like in November. So, in November, we’re…our buildings…it actually 33 shows two things too, it shows the top row is our currently proposed project and the bottom row 34 shows the project as it was originally proposed when the garage and building one were all five 35 stories. So, what you see is that, in November, if we kept the five story option, we are shading 36 that first story of apartments on Sunstone. But, if we drop to four stories, we’re shading them at 37 9:00 a.m. in the morning, but by noon, that shadow is down to the ground and off of those units. 38 Then, when we get to December, and December, you know, the sun is at its lowest angle, and so 39 those units are shaded in December, even, all day long, at 9:00, and noon, and at 3:00 p.m.; 40 however, it’s just one month, it’s much less than three. By lowering the height of the north side 12 1 of building one and the height of the parking garage to four stories, we were able to keep the 2 shading of the windows in these closest apartments to under three months. 3 Now I want to shift to talking about shading of the parking lot. This illustration shows 4 what a shadow would look like if a 25-foot hypothetical were placed on the property line. And, 5 if you’ll recall, there’s that one standard in the Code that doesn’t apply to us; however, it’s the 6 general standard everywhere else in the City that says you don’t want to go beyond this. So, but, 7 it’s okay if your shadow is equal to what a 25-foot wall would do. Well, the 25-foot wall would 8 put the whole parking lot in shade. We also took a look at, well, what if our buildings were only 9 three stories? What would that do? You know, what if we were three stories like the other 10 apartment buildings in the neighborhood. That would still shade the parking lot all winter long. 11 And, the fact is, that the parking lot…next slide…the parking lot is shaded all winter long now, 12 for the most part, by the existing trees. One hundred and thirty trees on this site, even without 13 their leaves, they produce a lot of shadow. And this is taken, like midday, 12/23 this year. 14 MR. LOPEZ: Excuse me. 15 MS. RIPLEY: Yes. 16 MR. LOPEZ: You mentioned 133 trees…are those trees on your property or on… 17 MS. RIPLEY: Those trees are on our property. 18 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 19 MS. RIPLEY: Some of the trees you see in this slide actually are on the Sunstone…to the 20 father right, the fence line is the property line. So, the…we use the picture just to illustrate that 21 it’s unfortunate, but this parking lot is in a place where it’s shaded right now much of the winter 22 and it’s difficult to keep it clear. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Just to follow up a little bit on that…since most of the trees are on your 24 side of the property line, as I understand, there’ll be a number of them removed? 25 MS. RIPLEY: Uh, huh. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Have you done any analysis on how that might change the shadowing, once 27 those trees are removed? 28 MS. RIPLEY: Well, our buildings will create a shadow similar to these trees. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 30 MS. RIPLEY: The trees…as you can see, there are patches of sunlight, so, with our 31 building, in our shadow analysis, if you go through that, there won’t be those little striations of 32 sunlight. But then, on the other hand, some of those trees shade buildings all the way up to the 13 1 top story because those trees are actually taller than our buildings will be, so it’s sort of a mixed 2 bag. Some of the shadows are taller but our buildings will block in a more solid pattern across 3 that parking lot for sure. But anyway, we don’t believe that we’ve created a substantial adverse 4 impact on the parking lot since the accumulation of ice and snow is a condition that already 5 exists and would exist with any urban scale project proposed for this site. The shadowing is no 6 worse that a shadow cast by the previously approved housing project, just three years ago. 7 Another issue that the neighborhood has voiced concern about is noise, both in 8 association with rooftop mechanical equipment and cars in the parking structure. So, we did a 9 little research on that with our mechanical engineer, and found out that the condenser units that 10 are on top of the buildings…we have two types, a 1.5 ton condenser unit and a 2.5 condenser 11 unit, fewer of those…but they are relatively, 49 decibels and 54.7 decibels. So, what does that 12 mean? He also gave us this little chart which shows what that sound is relative to things that 13 we’re all familiar with. And, in that range of 49 to 54 decibels, is about how much sound a 14 dishwasher makes when you’re in the other room. So, sound also travels out and up, so if we’re 15 talking about the sound of the dishwasher, we’re not going to be hearing it four levels down on 16 the street, or 90 feet across in an apartment on the other side of the parking lot. So, we don’t 17 think that those are real concerns, it’s never been a concern on other projects that this developer 18 has built, but we wanted to give some data that supports that. Similarly, noise created by the 19 wheels of the car would also be blocked by the parapet walls, because the sound would tend to 20 bounce back into the parking garage. 21 Now, I would like to turn it over to Derek Anderson and have him talk a little bit about 22 how the project is managed, because management is always a concern to neighbors that live next 23 door to a multi-family project. 24 MR. DEREK ANDERSON: Thank you, Linda. As Linda said, my name is Derek 25 Anderson, I’m a partner with Residential Housing Development, the developer of The District at 26 Campus West. While Linda has done an excellent job at presenting many of the major facets of 27 our project, I’d like to briefly address a few items that pertain to the management of them. First, 28 let me reiterate that Residential Housing Development is a developer of student housing, and, 29 while we do have extensive experience in the management of student housing projects, which 30 gives us insight into how to responsibly develop student communities, we do hire competent 31 third party management for our communities. We do this because the projects are a significant 32 investment, and as such, we believe it is best to have professional management on property 33 whose sole focus is that management. 34 Universities and the students…and the student communities that serve them, are a vital 35 and vibrant part of their communities; however, we recognize that they also pose certain 36 management challenges that, our experience shows, that with the right management policies and 37 procedures in place, can be successfully addressed. While we, as developers, strive to design 38 projects that foster a sense of community, it is important that management be present and 14 1 policies be in place to control social events so that they are carried out responsibly and with the 2 utmost respect for right to quiet enjoyment of our neighbors. And, I might point out, the 3 neighbors within our community. So, unlike many larger communities that rely solely on the 4 services of a few resident assistants, who do play an important role in property management, we 5 insist our management budget and implement a number of additional measures to better ensure 6 against disturbances to our neighbors and damage to our properties. 7 Our first measure is policies and procedures. Each resident, as well as his parent or 8 guardian, is provided with a copy of the rules and regulations of our community. Our 9 management is specifically instructed to go through these rules and regulations with the resident, 10 and residents are required to acknowledge their understanding and receipt of them, and the 11 associated fines and ramifications for their violation. Our community policies dictate hours of 12 operations for the amenities and specifically limit the size of gatherings permitted in their 13 apartments. These hours are limited so that outdoor activities occur during appropriate hours, 14 gatherings are limited to an appropriate size so that the resident neighbors within our community 15 are respected as well. As mentioned, fines for the violations of rules and regulations are clearly 16 detailed in our leasing package, and they are enforced, both by management and the professional, 17 third-party security service we hire to look after each of our properties. These patrol services are 18 tailored to each community so that the appropriate manpower is present to guard against, and 19 when necessary, diffuse potential incidents. These are uniformed personnel that are a resource 20 for our residents, but also serve to visibly remind our residents of our policies and procedures. 21 We believe in on-site management. To us, that means that the manager lives on-site. As 22 such, we incentivize our property managers to live on-property by offering a unit as part of their 23 compensation package. The social integration of our managers into the community and their 24 exposure to the property, not just during the hours of nine to five, but rather all hours of the day 25 and night and every day of the week, is a win-win-win, in our opinion. It helps us to better 26 understand our residents and their needs and respond to the unique challenges all properties 27 have. It is a resource for our residents, and it better ensures that our community is run in a 28 fashion that compliments and enhances the surrounding community. 29 Lastly, some questions have been raised about move-in and move-out procedures and 30 their impacts on the surrounding community, and I want to briefly touch on that. While the 31 rhythm of academic life dictates that most of the residents will move in and move out within a 32 relatively brief time, let me point out that Campus West, including our immediate neighbors on 33 all sides, is dominated by student housing, and this will not be a challenge unique to our 34 property. This is one of the important reasons why we identified this area as being the most 35 suitable for a development that meets the housing needs of CSU. We, as developers, are keenly 36 aware of the logistical challenges and our communities are designed with this factor in mind. 37 Some of the ways we address these challenges are by staggering move-in dates and assigning 38 key pick-up times to spread out move-in and move-out traffic. We provide extra trash 39 receptacles to handle the increase trash volume, and designate temporary spaces to facilitate 15 1 logistics. Also, I will note that our communities are furnished to include TVs, and unlike most 2 other communities, this significantly reduces the amount of trash and time required to move in or 3 out of our community. 4 I hope that the foregoing statement, as well as those of our team member, serves to 5 illustrate that this student community has been thoughtfully designed and will be responsibly 6 managed. We have listened to our neighbors, having not just one, but two meetings at the 7 request of some neighbors, to gather feedback, explain plans and changes that we have made 8 specifically to respond to community concerns. Unlike some developers who perhaps rely on 9 their employees or consultants to sit in on these meetings, I personally attended these meetings to 10 hear our neighbors. The City staff can surely attest to the significant redesign of the project that 11 we have made in response to its, and the neighbors comments. These redesigns have come at 12 considerable expense, which can be measured in, quite honestly, the hundreds of thousands of 13 dollars, and compromise to the feasibility of the project. I say this merely to illustrate the 14 seriousness with which we have considered all comments, both concerns and considerable praise 15 for the project’s merits. I say considerable praise because it’s the nature of our democracy and 16 these proceedings, that concern is what is overwhelmingly voiced, and it might lead one to 17 believe that concern is the dominant sentiment. But, it is important to note that this is a project 18 that fulfills the community at large’s goals and vision of an urban student community in the west 19 campus area, as voted on in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. We have received numerous 20 letters and other expressions of support from the immediate neighbors. With this in mind, I 21 respectfully request that you carefully consider the many merits of our proposed project and 22 approve our requests. Thank you for your time. 23 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, I just wanted to add, to let you know, that a couple other members 24 of our team that are with us tonight. Nick Haas with Northern Engineering is available to answer 25 or address questions about utilities, drainage, streets, or stormwater detention. Eric Bracke with 26 ELB Engineering did our traffic analysis and is here to answer questions regarding that, and, 27 unfortunately Yeau Yu, our architect with Humphries and Partners, is on his way; however, his 28 flight was delayed today, so we do think he’ll be here before the end of the hearing. So, with 29 that, we’ll conclude and we’re…Derek and myself, as well as the rest of our team, are available 30 for comments, questions. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Ted, is there any response, comments? 32 MR. SHEPARD: I have no response. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, at this point, we’ll start the public testimony. I would like you to 34 come up one at a time, give us your name and address so we can make sure we get a copy of this 35 decision to you, and…how many people are planning to speak? Okay, that seems fine, it’s only 36 6:00 so we should be able to get through everyone. 37 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 16 1 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, why don’t you go ahead and tee that up. Okay. 2 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you want us to sign in before we speak? 3 MR. LOPEZ: That would be great. 4 MR. SHEPARD: The purpose for signing in is because Mr. Lopez’s decision will be in 5 writing, and we want to get it out to everyone who participates, and this is the best way to do it, 6 and, if you can write legibly, we’ll send it electronically. And, if you don’t have electronic, then 7 we’ll send it to your address. 8 MR. BOB MEYER: Thank you, my name is Bob Meyer, I represent the Sunstone 9 Condominium Homeowners Association, I’m the president of one of the Associations, building 10 C and D. So, my comments tonight are going to be collective comments from our Homeowners 11 Association Board, they’ve asked me to present, and then, I think we have several people…will 12 be expanding on some of the points and concerns that we have in that. And then…so, I do have 13 some prepared comments, which I will leave with you Mr. Lopez. 14 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 15 MR. MEYER: And, when I get done with those, I do have a couple little, just little, things 16 I do want to say regarding what the applicant previously presented, if I may. Thank you for the 17 opportunity to discuss our position and relay the concerns of our homeowner’s association, related to the proposed development, at this public hearing. During the recent March 7 th 18 19 neighborhood meeting, we provided more detailed written comments to the City Planning 20 Department, which I hope have been provided to you for your review. Today I would, again, 21 like to summarize our continuing concerns with the project as currently proposed. 22 Concern number one, this concern centers around the shadowing impacts of the proposed 23 development immediately to the south will have on the buildings and parking lot of our 24 properties. In the shadowing study presented by the developer, and in studies conducted by 25 those representing our interest, which you will hear shortly, significant shadowing is predicted to 26 occur directly on the Sunstone buildings themselves, beginning in mid-November through 27 February. This building shadowing encompasses over one-half of our buildings existing 28 structure depending on the time of day, and likely will occur for the four-month period of 29 November to February, at least four months is what our shadowing study shows. And, our 30 studies show the shadowing effect to be substantially greater than that presented by the 31 developer. Casting shadows as far as 131 feet north of the proposed parking structure. Negative 32 economic impacts of 25% or more on our property values have been estimated by realtors related 33 to this shadowing effect. Our HOA requests that the impacts of our modeling results also are 34 considered in the decision making process. 17 1 Of equal concern is the shadowing effect on our main parking lot. The studies show that 2 at no time during the months of November through February, will our parking lot see the sun at 3 all. Certainly we can all understand and appreciate the resulting impacts which may occur if a 4 late fall or early winter storm dumps snow resulting in ice formation. Without sun, the ice would 5 likely remain all winter, potentially resulting in injuries to our residents and visitors from falling 6 down or from increased automobile accidents. 7 Economically, our HOA will be impacted by the increased cost of snow removal from the 8 parking area. And, I would just like to make a side comment. As I was viewing the applicant’s 9 pictures, I think we need to keep in mind that, even though they showed that the building by their 10 currently proposed model, the shadow and noontime, during December, I believe it was 11 December, only comes to the base. I think what’s really important to remember is, we have 12 garden apartments, and some of those windows are down there, they’re going to be shadowed 13 there. So, the structures aren’t quite really represented on the drawings as they really exist today. 14 We have garden apartments, is what I’m saying there. 15 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 16 MR. LOPEZ: Along that line, can you tell me what the height is from ground level to, 17 let’s say, the floor level. So, you have a ground…a garden apartment that’s recessed into the 18 ground I’m assuming. 19 MR. MEYER: Right. 20 MR. LOPEZ: So, what is the height from the ground level up to the floor level for the 21 second floor? 22 MR. MEYER: Five feet. 23 MR. LOPEZ: It’d be five feet, okay. 24 MR. MEYER: Concern number two. This concern centers around the traffic impacts and 25 available parking for our residents and tenants. The project proposal indicates that as many as 26 674 residents would be housed at The District, if all rooms were occupied. Although no one 27 knows for sure how many cars the proposed project would eventually attract to the area, 28 potentially 674 cars would need to be parked, if all residents arrived in Fort Collins with a 29 vehicle. Considering that the proposed parking structure will accommodate 495 cars, 179 cars 30 would be seeking parking in other places in the nearby neighborhood, likely on the surrounding 31 streets of City Park Avenue and Baystone Drive, and probably in the Sunstone parking lot, 32 resulting in a significant spillover effect that will need to be continually addressed by our 33 homeowner’s association. These streets are already being occupied by residents of both the 34 Sunstone and Baystone Condominium complex, and additional cars will only add to existing 35 pressures of locating an available parking spot. Of even greater concern to Sunstone 18 1 Homeowner’s Association members, is the impact that such a spillover effect will have on our 2 own residents’ available parking in the Sunstone lot. 3 We would all be naïve to think that District residents would not quickly figure out that 4 parking in the Sunstone lot was more convenient to their apartments, especially if they are being 5 charged for parking in their own facility, which was brought out at the last neighborhood 6 meeting, that…the developer said that they expected to charge for the parking there. And, they 7 would certainly test our resolve until such time penalties that the Sunstone Homeowners 8 Association would need to impose, were successful at getting the message out of don’t park in 9 the Sunstone lot, or you will get towed. Such a situation places Sunstone managers in the 10 unenviable position of becoming parking lot police, which, without a doubt, will incur increased 11 costs for our Association, and will likely not serve to promote friendly relations with our 12 neighbors. Our Homeowners Association will not appreciate being placed in such a position. 13 Concern number three. Our third concern centers around what we will term building 14 effects. In particular, we are very concerned about the visual, lighting, and noise impacts that 15 may occur from having a large parking structure literally in our backyard. The new proposal 16 describes very nice looking apartments adorning the southern and east faces of the parking 17 structure, thus to make the parking structure visually appealing for those travelling down either 18 Plum or Bluebell. In contrast, our inspection of the plans in the proposal shows that the northern 19 face of the parking structure, that Sunstone residents will view everyday, is a 20 bit…unimaginative. A few trees planted outside likely will do little to mitigate such effects, 21 either from a visually-friendly, or property value impacts perspective. Not to mention, it’s going 22 to take a while before they get any size that might even potentially have any impact. We hope 23 that the final decision makers will understand we cannot accept this as currently proposed. 24 We are also concerned about the effects of lighting and noise coming from the parking 25 structure that will be so close to our property. We need to have more assurance that lighting and 26 noise coming from the structure is sufficiently mitigated, such that disturbance to our residents 27 does not occur. Our reading of the proposal does not address those concerns sufficiently, in our 28 opinion, and we…I acknowledge that we do have more information now that was presented at 29 this meeting, which we will be interested in reviewing more closely. There. 30 Our fourth concern, and final more general concerns, relates to the overall mass and scale 31 of this project. This project is huge in terms of physical size and the concentration of people and 32 their associated vehicles in a relatively small area. It dwarfs most all other residential facilities 33 in the immediate area. We ask consideration of the following: are four and five story buildings 34 located in generally residential type areas compatible with existing structures? And, is this the 35 vision that most Fort Collins planning officials wish to embrace? We are of the opinion they are 36 not. Number two, 674 residents in the proposed complex, of which the majority will likely be 37 CSU students, in our view is cause for particular concern. Many of us have been college 38 students before and, as we all know, once the weather warms, as it’s doing right now and has for 19 1 the past weekend, in that area, younger folks often have a tendency to kick back, call some 2 friends, and start a party, which can quickly grow to hundreds of participants. And, history has 3 repeatedly shown that those areas in which the proposed project is located, west of CSU campus, 4 are especially prone to be of greater risk for such activities to develop. We have concerns that 5 the tendency for large-scale parties to develop and spill over into the neighboring properties will 6 be incrementally increased based merely on the size of this development and the number of 7 persons that will locate there. 8 And, third, we question why an accommodation allowing four persons to occupy an 9 apartment is being allowed with this project. Such accommodation will likely encourage other 10 property owners in the nearby area to increase their occupancy levels…limits also, without 11 obtaining prior permission, since they may challenge Fort Collins’ three-unrelated person 12 maximum rule as being discriminatory and unfairly applied or enforced. Please understand that 13 Sunstone Homeowners Association is not opposed to redeveloping the proposed area, in fact, we 14 welcome it. But this particular proposal is not compatible with our interests. Again, we thank 15 you for the opportunity to provide our input and listen to our concerns. And, one final comment 16 I will make…the applicant said they…to date, we have not received any written, formal request 17 for them to meet with us or a proposal about what they would want to do related to this access 18 issue and things, but we certainly are open to meeting with them once we receive a formal 19 request to do so. Thank you very much. 20 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Meyer, I have one question. In your presentation, and I think in the 21 written material that was submitted, you mentioned that a 25% reduction in property value as 22 estimated by real estate persons. Do you have that report or that estimate? 23 MR. MEYER: No, these were from property…different…no we don’t have a written 24 report, we have opinions that some of our Homeowners Association members and our Board had 25 talked to certain realtors on that. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 27 MR. MEYER: We don’t have any written report to give you on that. 28 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, do you have any names of the realtors? 29 MR. MEYER: I don’t, sir. 30 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you. 31 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 32 MR. MEYER: I will say we’ll try to provide a report, I won’t say we could do it in a few 33 days. 34 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. 20 1 MR. MEYER: Would you like this just brought to you right now? 2 MR. LOPEZ: Just give it to Mr. Shepard. Thank you. Next person? Yes, sir. 3 MR. TIM DUDLEY: Hello, Mr. Lopez, I’m Tim Dudley, I’m a Sunstone condominium 4 owner and I’m also on the Board of Directors of the Sunstone for C and D. And I’m here to talk 5 a little bit about the shadow study and how it compares to a study that we have done just on our 6 own. So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to drive from the keyboard if I could because I’ve got a 7 presentation. 8 MR. LOPEZ: That sounds fine. 9 MR. DUDLEY: Okay, now it’s on with the screen, okay. Okay, so, I did a shadow study, 10 just to… I originally did this when we first heard about this project, based on the heights of the 11 buildings that they were at the original proposal, so I’ve since modified this to adjust for 12 basically 49-foot residential structure and the garage. And, this shows…and actually I got this, 13 built this information out of two references, the U.S. Naval Observatory has a site where you can 14 show…get the angle of the sun at any date and time in any location, and then this planetarium, 15 the Sanburg Center for Sky Awareness has another tool that you can use then to show, based on 16 the angle of the sun at a height of a certain unit, how long the shadow will be. So, that’s how I 17 built this. If you look at basically the six months from the fall equinox to the spring equinox, 18 September through March, the minimum shadow is going to be almost 41 feet long, from their 19 parking structure…now there is…parking structure and the building. I believe that’s an eight 20 foot setback on the north side of their development, is what I was told in the neighborhood 21 meeting. So, when I do the next slides and show how far that shadow goes into our parking lot, 22 I’ve adjusted for that eight feet, and I’ll show you that. So…and I don’t have the data from the 23 developer, all I have is their slides that they presented so that’s why I’m doing some comparisons 24 on that. 25 So, this is a…basically just a Google Earth shot from space of our development and their 26 site. And, over here, this is basically the property line. I’m a little bit south of the property line 27 here, but, so, for September and March, between September and March, this yellow line and the 28 red and green dot represent the length…minimum length of a shadow for that six months. And, 29 again, I’ve subtracted the eight feet from this, that would extend out in to this area. And, if you 30 can see here that, starting in September, that shadow is the majority of our parking lot. In fact, if 31 you draw this over, it’s almost to the sidewalk of the furthest south sticking out buildings here, 32 so most all of this parking along here and most of the driveway is going to be in the shadow 33 starting at that point. I mean, if you look at the developer’s shadow study, and this is two views, 34 and I got this right from the shadow study that they submitted to the City. Down here at the 35 bottom, you can see there, where they estimate their shadows, doesn’t come nearly as far up into 36 the parking lot as what my study shows. And so, again, I don’t have their data that shows what 37 these shadow lengths actually are, but there’s really I don’t think is representative of what I 21 1 believe the impact is going to be to the shading of our parking lot. So, that’s basically what it’s going to look like September to March. After that, they were using November 22 nd 2 as a date, I’m not sure why, but I looked at it November 22 nd 3 as well, and the length of the shadow there is 4 actually 86 feet, so I’ve drawn a line 78 feet here, and so the shadow starting in November goes 5 well beyond our parking lot. So, starting in November, so November, December, January, and 6 into February, four months, not only is the parking lot going to be in shade, but all of our 7 sidewalks are going to be in shade, and actually up into, you know, some of the stairwells and 8 things like that. So, again, this is ground level, I don’t have the information about how high up 9 the building it’s going to go, but that’s basically for four months, that’s how long the shadows 10 are going to be. If you look at their study, now this changed from what they showed today. This 11 actually was pulled from their original design or model that they showed at the neighborhood meeting of what this would look like on November 22 nd 12 . The one they just showed indicated that 13 the shadows were barely going to touch the bottom of this building. The ones they submitted 14 earlier…this is…right here is the next floor of the building, so all of these basement windows, 15 these garden level windows, are in the shade for four months, based on the first shadow study 16 that they submitted. So, again, I don’t have the data that actually shows the length and things 17 like that. I will say, if you look at this bottom, where it shows just how long the shadows will be, 18 that is very similar to what my study shows. I mean it’s…mine goes a little bit farther out here, 19 but that’s very compatible, not…the first…the September through March one, I think their 20 shadows were much shorter, but in the rest of these slides, their shadows are pretty much the 21 same as what my study showed. So, this, again, this is November, and all the garden level 22 windows are covered for basically about four months. Here’s what it looks like in December, so 23 this is the longest the shadows get, in December, so it goes way out into our driveway. So, you 24 know, we’re pretty much, I don’t know how far up the building it’s going to go honestly, but 25 actually I think in their picture, it does show now the shadows getting up into the second story 26 windows on these. So, I don’t know how many months that’s going to be, but certainly at the 27 height, or the low point of the sun in the winter, it’s going to be getting into the second story 28 windows. Also, their shadow lengths that they show on here is very compatible with what my 29 study shows, about how far the shadows will go from their buildings into our parking lot and into 30 our buildings. 31 The other thing I wanted to point out here before I move on, is if you look at this model 32 that they built here, it’s a little misleading in my mind because of the perspective that this model 33 is built in. The model is skewed more towards our side of the parking lot, so it makes…so, when 34 you look, have to look farther away at their building. If you look at this, it makes it look like 35 their buildings are basically the same height as our buildings, and they really aren’t. Their 36 buildings are actually 50% higher, taller, than our buildings, 32 feet compared to 48 feet. So, I’ll 37 come back to that point in just another slide, but I wanted to illustrate it on this one because it’s the best one. Here’s one of the pictures that they took on December 23 rd 38 to show that the parking 39 lot’s always a mess. Well, here’s the point…this…I think this was taken right after a snow. 40 There’s cars that still have not been scraped off, you see the cars that have been moved still have 22 1 snow on the top of them, and even though there are a lot of shade from the trees, and honestly 2 there’s very few trees that are 50-foot tall on that south side of that lot, and they go way up the 3 building here. Even though there are some shadows, there’s also a lot of daylight here. And, if 4 we go back to theirs, there is no break in the shadows that their buildings are going to cast on our 5 parking lot and our buildings. So, this is actually just solid shadow, basically starting, for six 6 months of the year, it’s going to be solid shadow well into our parking lot. I just want to look 7 here and make sure I’m hitting all my points. 8 Let me go back up one slide. The developer has talked about what changes they made to 9 the buildings to adjust for the shadowing. In fact, they…you know, lowered the back side, the 10 north side of the buildings down to four story, but, in reality, what’s happened is, during…and 11 this is…of course, this is my opinion, but, if you looked at the first…and they showed a slide of 12 their original proposal. All of these courtyards open to the north, which actually would give our 13 development a lot more sunlight, because all this stuff would be opening to the north. I believe 14 that after our first neighborhood meeting when we started talking a lot about the shadowing and 15 the shading and ice build-up and snow build-up, and one of the ladies tonight here talked 16 about…they put the courtyards here so that they could use the best ability of sunlight and stuff. 17 In reality, that’s harmed us more than it’s helped us, because now we have a solid line of shadow 18 for buildings A, B, and C, where before there was at least some breaks in there before they 19 redesigned. So, a lot of talk about they’ve done some work to lower this section to mitigate the 20 shadowing, but in reality the redesign has just made it much worse for our neighborhood, or for 21 our development. 22 The other thing I want to talk about, around this…sort of this…what I think is a 23 misleading of the perspective that they’re showing here. Again, this is the same thing that they 24 showed up here earlier, but in reality, because of the perspective that this model is built closer to 25 this corner and we’re looking up it here, this actually is not an accurate depiction of what the 26 height…and they call this their height comparison. So, their building is 50% taller than our 27 buildings, so 32 and 48. So, I got out the old plastic ruler and measured, you know 50% 28 difference, so this section of the line should be 50% of what this section is, and in reality it is not. 29 This line is short by about 30% of what it should be. In reality, this line should be stretched up 30 into this area someplace. So, again, I think they’re using their modeling and the perspective of 31 how this modeling is set so that this actually is not an accurate depiction of the comparison of the 32 heights of the buildings. So, I just wanted to point that out. 33 And then, related to what the garage is going to look like, I’ve got another thing I want to 34 start up here real quick. They showed a view of what the parking structure would look like with 35 the trees and stuff and that’s really not that bad. That view was taken from out in Baystone 36 Street someplace, it really doesn’t accurately depict what we’re going to see on our front 37 sidewalk. I work at a college campus in downtown Denver, we have two parking structures on 38 that campus. I went out to our 45-foot structure, paced out 30 paces, which is 75 feet, and just 39 turned around with my iPhone and took a picture of what that structure is going to look like, and 23 1 I think this is an accurate depiction of what this is going to look like from our front walks. So, 2 even though it might not look that intrusive from out in Baystone Street someplace, it’s a little 3 different from our front porches here. So, again, that’s just a different perspective on what this 4 garage is going to look like, and again, this is from our…this is not from out in the middle of the 5 parking lot, this is what it’s going to look like from our sidewalks and our front steps. 6 And then, the one last slide that I have is just talking a little bit about compatibility and 7 harmonious, you know, being harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. So, the Sunstone 8 Condos, which is in the same block as the new development, is really compatible with the rest of 9 the developments right…they’re two and three developments, there’s a lot of open space with 10 grass and trees, there’s lots of parking available, and I…we just don’t feel that this development 11 in this particular block, especially with this existing development on the same block, is really 12 compatible with the neighborhood or the existing development. It’s just too overshadowing, too 13 high-density, too massive. It’s just… I don’t believe that it really meets compatibility or 14 harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. As far as that zoning, the Community 15 Commercial zoning, the main purpose as I read that zoning, was to have multi-use buildings 16 from the standpoint of, like, retail on the first floor, and maybe multi-unit housing on the second 17 floor. Similar to what’s just south of this on Elizabeth Drive and things like that. When the 18 developer was asked the question at the neighborhood meetings: why is there not any retail in 19 this development? The answer was, it’s just not feasible in this location. It’s just not a good 20 location for retail. So, to me, while this might meet the actual standards in that zoning, or that 21 district, in reality, this whole area is just not…I believe that it’s just not feasible for retail and 22 things like that. In my opinion, this block should be rezoned to be more similar to what the 23 zoning is in the surrounding areas, to be more compatible. So, that’s all that I have today. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Is that presentation available in a form that I can utilize. 25 MR. DUDLEY: Yeah, you know I can…I can’t give you this flash drive, but I could 26 copy it to this machine, or I can email it to you, or I can get it to…Ted, I’ve got your address. 27 MR. LOPEZ: Why don’t you give it to Ted and then Ted will transfer it to me. 28 MR. DUDLEY: Okay. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. 30 MR. DUDLEY: Okay, thank you. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. Have you loaded up? Sure. 32 MR. SHEPARD: Tim, while you’re doing that, can someone sign you in? Does someone 33 know Tim’s…okay. 34 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 24 1 MR. LOPEZ: Is there someone else that might go and talk while the gentleman is loading 2 up. Why don’t you come ahead sir. Thank you very much and sign in. 3 MR. SHEPARD: Be sure to turn off that microphone while Mr. Gavaldon is speaking. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. JERRY GAVALDON: Good evening Mr. Lopez, Mr. Shepard, and audience. I’m 6 Jerry Gavaldon. I live at 1252 Solstice Lane, Fort Collins. I have clients that own property over 7 in Sunstone and Baystone, so I’m here to represent their interest tonight and, Ted, can I make 8 sure I get a copy of this, because I think I haven’t gotten the last two copies. 9 MR. SHEPARD: Copies of what? 10 MR. GAVALDON: I mean, of the decision maker, because… 11 MR. SHEPARD: If you’ve signed the sheet, yes. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, I tried last two times, so hoping I could. I wanted to share a 13 segment on the traffic, parking, pedestrian, bike analysis. And, I want to thank Ted Shepard for 14 his excellent help for getting me the information I needed. Ward Stanford as well, I have 15 worked with him before when I served on the P & Z Board a number of years ago, and got to 16 learn the process pretty well. So, what I’m going to share is observations and, Mr. Lopez, do 17 you have a copy of Eric’s TIS, Transportation Impact Study? 18 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. 19 MR. GAVALDON: I want to draw your attention, if you can go to…look at, I’ll put this 20 on record, I was looking at Eric’s analysis on current and his proposed on it, and if you look on 21 his tables on page six and page fourteen, and looking at the impacts of this, you’re seeing that the 22 accumulation effect of this, which is important, and sometimes we don’t get to make decisions 23 on it, but…the accumulation effect can cause this to be more of a concern than just a point by 24 point impact saying that well, our doesn’t effect it any more. We’re going to be at level E, D, D 25 and C in the Plum…Shields and Plum. If you look on six, he pretty much mirrors the same 26 thing…bless you…with the exception that one becomes a B, from C to B, and…but I have a 27 concern with the observation on the data and I tried to look at Eric’s details, and tried to run a 28 regression analysis and I’m still not coming up to where this project is going to be in the same 29 service level and vehicle miles travelled, and I’m looking and the accumulation of cars, 30 pedestrians, and bicycles. And, as you look at today, there’s…a lot of concern was brought up 31 by the neighbors about the stacking and how many times you have to wait to get to Shields from 32 Plum. I know you can spill over to City Park and beeline it to Elizabeth and come down that 33 way, but you’re going to add accumulation onto Shields whether you go north and south. That’s 34 going to be another section I want to cover in a few moments. My view is, and listening to the 35 neighbors, I feel that the service level could be higher in looking at E going to F. Your D’s 25 1 going to E’s, maybe F in some respect. And, if you start getting down to the detail and getting to 2 the granular of the analysis, now you would see how the effect on the AM and PM, coupled with 3 the morning rush from Shields going north and south, shows in the PM, you’re going to have an 4 impact where a person’s going to be waiting a few light cycles to get through. Now, Ward and 5 them can look at it operationally to see where they need to improve the cycling of the traffic 6 light, but you’re going to see a cause and effect. Someone’s going to be waiting longer than 7 someone else is going to get through. And, then, that is my concern on this, so I would ask if 8 you can really look at the traffic analysis and see where the impacts are, and I didn’t see too 9 much improvement being made. I know Linda’s brought up a lot of, we’re going to improve the 10 sidewalks, blah, blah, blah, and it looks great, but if you look at the width of the sidewalks, for 11 example, connecting, to the existing sidewalk. In Eric’s report, he says it’s going to be nice and 12 wide until it gets to, off the property it’s going to be narrow sidewalks. And he says, verbatim, 13 while the City needs to improve and add more width to the sidewalks and make improvements, 14 that’s going to impact the other homeowners. So, this project is giving me a concern called 15 accumulation factor, which is going to probably cause more concerns and issues. By the way, 16 I’m a licensed realtor, and I’m going to look at the market analysis to see if there is a cause and 17 effect on property values for adjacent property owners, but that’s not for me tonight, but just 18 wanted to share that. 19 But, my concern is that the accumulation of this project is going to be intense enough, 20 just on the traffic itself. Now, let’s go to parking. 21 MR. LOPEZ: Excuse me, before we leave the traffic analysis that you’re referencing on 22 page six and page fourteen, table two is existing analysis, existing traffic capacity analysis. You 23 talked about changing the levels from E to F…which of these on page fourteen are you disputing 24 in terms of the level. 25 MR. GAVALDON: Oh, that’s easy, if you look at the first section of the table, Shields 26 slash Plum with the signal, eastbound left through right, I would say that could be an F. And 27 looking at westbound through left, westbound right, being E’s, I’m being generous, but in 28 sometimes it could be a failure, be going to F. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Are you talking about the morning or afternoon? 30 MR. GAVALDON: Well, I’m looking…this is the capacity analysis I’m looking on it. 31 MR. LOPEZ: On table four. 32 MR. GAVALDON: Pardon? 33 MR. LOPEZ: Table four. 34 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah, table four. That’s their capacity…I was trying to get into 35 Eric’s analysis on Appendix A, and while I was looking at it, I was finding that it’s hard to bring 26 1 it back to the tables to see where everything’s at. Traditionally, we were able to see AM tables 2 and PM tables. But, it looks like there’s been some updates. 3 Another point I want to share before I get to the parking is…is the effect of this is going 4 to have on traffic on Shields. And, I notice on one of Ward’s memos, I don’t know if you have a 5 copy of this, this is a copy of a memo that Ward sent to Eric, an email on 8/9/2011, talking about 6 some of the analysis changing from 75 to 25, and Ward was looking at his 65, 35 mode split. 7 Been trying to understand more about what’s the difference and how’s the effect of this going to 8 be on this project. But, I didn’t have to into the detail because accumulation that I’m looking at 9 is having a potential impact when it gets built out and you start looking at all the Cambridge 10 House, Sunstone, Baystone, and all the folks from Ram’s Village going down Plum, because 11 that’s quite a traffic spot, and the City’s done some biking analysis and is telling me that this is 12 going to add more to it. And, the taxpayers are going to be burdened with having to make 13 substantial improvements, changes in behaviors, and…so people can get across, let alone, 14 accommodating the folks going north and south on Shields. And, I’m looking at Mulberry down 15 to Elizabeth. A person could be waiting a few lights, and of course you don’t want to hit 16 anybody, and of course you’ve got the human behaviors that go with it, so… 17 But, to parking, and it was covered by Bob Meyer, and Tim Dudley on parking. You’ve 18 got 175 extra cars that are not going to be available to park in the parking structure parking 19 garage. Where are those guys going to go? They’re going to probably end up going on Bluebell, 20 they’re probably going to be going on Sunstone, Baystone Drive, City Park, on all the adjacent 21 streets. Again, that is going to increase some concern on enforcement in Baystone, enforcement 22 at Sunstone. Someone’s going to have to pay to have additional monitoring and enforcement. I 23 don’t want to be a parking policeman, and I don’t want that job, I don’t think anybody else wants 24 it. But, we need to look at what traffic calming, parking accommodations are going to be. But, 25 if you’ve got four people in a unit, what if you have guests, overnighters, and things like that. 26 We always do that as kids when we’re in school. You’re going to have more parking, people are 27 going to be scrambling to find parking spots. And, you may have to open up Bluebell to allow 28 people to park on the street, take some of the pressure off. You may have to even look at Plum 29 Street becoming additional parking. But, again, you narrow the scope of flow of people going 30 east and west, and that’s something that I have not seen in Eric’s or anyone’s report, but 31 operations is going to have to take this big toad and make it fit with the big accumulation going 32 in the neighborhood. And, so, I know I’m harping on accumulation, but I look at the big picture 33 versus…my project’s okay, I’m going to stack another project on top of it, and another one. The 34 intensity of this is no different that mass and scale and orientation and stuff, and impacts on 35 Sunstone. This is going to add more to it, and, unfortunately, the taxpayers, not the developer, 36 are going to have to pick up the tab on making some more adjustments. I don’t know if they pay 37 any over street sizing fees, I don’t know if that’s still available as it was years ago, but hopefully 38 the development will come forward and make some points and mitigate pedestrian, bicycle, and 27 1 automobile, because all these combined together brings up a different story. And that’s a 2 concern I have, so I wanted to share that. And you should have all the related documents on it. 3 Then…in closing, the development mentioned, we’re going to have people pay to park 4 there in the parking structure, have to offset those costs. That’s current with other large 5 developments. What if people don’t want to pay? Is it going to make them? If you’re going to 6 live in my unit, you’ve got to tell me if you have a car or not, and you’re going to have to pay 7 extra dollars a month to park in this…to be there. Well, we as kids will scratch our head, we get 8 creative, and we’re going to come up with wonderful ideas and say…and I’d like to know how 9 they’re going to enforce that, accommodate, because if he has less cars in that parking structure, 10 he has no accommodation for guests, visitors, overnight stay folks. They’re going to spill over 11 into other neighborhoods, and I hate to see the folks having to pay largely more for enforcement, 12 towing…and, when you start towing people’s cars and they can’t find them, they get the boot 13 and stuff like that, that creates a disharmony in terms of being a good neighbor. I hope that this 14 developer…and I’m not against development, I’m a realtor; however, I look at the intensity and 15 mass and just hope The District at CSU, whatever they get to build, are able to build and be 16 harmonious and be a good neighbor. I think of FDR with the good neighbor policy in 1939. I’d 17 like to see more of that, so that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, feel free 18 to let me know. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, Mr. Gavaldon, going back to the tables and your assertion that the 20 traffic levels are going to be going from E to F, how…what are you basing that on? 21 MR. GAVALDON: I’m basing it on the accumulation of everybody using that 22 intersection. Cambridge House, folks through…in Baysone, Sunstone, Ram’s Village. And if 23 you look on City Park, if you go on the big map, if someone could pull it up, you got CSU 24 married student housing over there. I’m looking at the big picture, where that’s going to….effect 25 everybody. 26 MR. LOPEZ: And how far out are you basing your…? 27 MR. GAVALDON: A quarter mile, half mile. I could be generous, I could go a half mile 28 and you could see more. Bring up the…Google map of the development. 29 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 30 MR. GAVALDON: How about your presentation…that’s not yours, okay. Well, when 31 you look at the big pictures, I ask that you look at the student housing on City Park, that’s 32 married student housing CSU. Now City Park and Plum, which is not even…less than half a 33 mile. Then you got other student housing, married student housing, south of there on City Park 34 and Elizabeth…if Elizabeth is crowded, they’re going to go on Plum. Then Cambridge House 35 has their own fair share number of people which are more pedestrians and cyclists, which, when 36 I lived there, that was easy to get through. But, you’ve got folks today and different behaviors, 28 1 different modes and habits, and I’m looking at AM…and I’m looking at the high points, that’s 2 AM and PM, and that’s where I’m basing it on, and I’m sure if I had more detail and do a 3 scientific on it, I could probably give some numbers. But, I feel the accumulation is something 4 that needs to be reckoned, and factored in, so everybody can live together in nice harmony and 5 be good neighbors. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. 7 MR. GAVALDON: You’re welcome, thank you. 8 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, are you cued up? And your name please. 9 MR. TIM ERICKSON: Yeah, my name is Tim Erickson, I’m a resident at the Sunstone 10 Condos. I’ve been a resident for over two years, and before I start my prepared remarks, excuse 11 me, I haven’t used a microphone in a while…I would like to mention my personal opinion on the 12 traffic impact study. There will be over 600 students living in the unit, and the traffic impact 13 study stated that there would be approximately 67 trips during peak hours. I can tell you that 14 most of the students do have classes that start at either eight or nine in the morning, spread out, 15 and already there’s a significant amount of traffic getting to campus during those hours. And a 16 good way to actually compute how many trips there would be for the hour would be to take a 17 small random sampling of CSU students and look at their morning schedules, and they do attend 18 class, and I’d estimate that approximately one-third of the students would be leaving at eight, and 19 about one-third would be leaving at nine. So, looking at those numbers with about 600 students, 20 one could anticipate about 200 trips during the peak hour, which is very different than what the 21 traffic impact study stated, which is around I think 60 to 70 trips. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Are you referring to vehicle trips or pedestrian trips? 23 MR. ERICKSON: Total number of trips. 24 MR. LOPEZ: So, bike, vehicle, pedestrian. 25 MR. ERICKSON: Yes. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 27 MR. ERICKSON: So, on to my prepared remarks. This is a picture of our neighborhood. 28 One great aspect of our neighborhood is that there’s lots and lots of trees everywhere. It adds a 29 lot of character to the neighborhood, and I wanted to show you some pictures of existing 30 complexes in our neighborhood. Up top is the Clocktower Lofts, this is the International House, 31 this is another unit close to McDonald’s, and several others. And, one thing to touch on is that 32 they’re all very far recessed back from the street, and they do have a lot of trees. And, so, 33 basically, the standard in our neighborhood is three stories and lots of trees. And, what the 34 developer is proposing is just completely unprecedented. We don’t have massive parking 29 1 structures and the magnitude and height of the structure is unbelievable. I read in the City Code 2 that five stories are allowed within the zone, and each story is allowed to be twelve feet and eight 3 inches; however, on the south side of the complex, on parapet is over 67 feet. So, if you multiply 4 twelve feet by eight inches times five stories, that height may well exceed what the Code 5 requires. And, so I wanted to also remind, Mr. Lopez, that where the developer has this project 6 proposed is actually at the edge of the zoning boundary. So, if they were to move it over by less 7 than about 200 feet, there’s no way that they could get five stories, it would be against the Code, 8 three stories are allowed. 9 So, I believe that the developer’s plan is actually in violation of Land Use Code 3.2.1(C), 10 and I’m going to go ahead and read that off. The intent of this section is to require a preparation 11 of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy, shading to reduce glare or 12 heat build-up, and contribute to the visual quality and continuity within and between 13 developments. And, so my question is that, does the tree protection plan specifically enhance the 14 appearance of the development and neighborhood? And, does it protect significant trees? And, 15 there are numerous trees along the property boundary; however, within the property that they 16 proposed to develop, over 92% of old growth trees are going to get the ax, and that will 17 dramatically change the character of this neighborhood. So, the developer has proposed putting 18 trees on the back side of the unit, but as shown in their plan, they only allow 8.5 feet for these 19 trees, and the trees that they have lined up to be planted are Crimson Spire Oak, Corinthian 20 Linden, a European tree and Swedish Columnar Aspen. Interestingly, the Crimson Spire Oak 21 has a diameter of about fifteen feet when it’s fully matured, the Linden is about fifteen feet, and 22 the European Fastigiata is about twenty to thirty feet. I did speak with the arborist today, of the 23 City, Tim Buchanan, and he did express concern about the minimal amount of space that is 24 allotted for these trees. He also mentioned that the Swedish Columnar Aspen which are to be 25 planted, are not very tolerant of low light conditions. And, if we’ve gained anything from the 26 shadow study, it’s very obvious that it’s going to be an incredibly low light area. So, the City 27 arborist did provide me a picture, on the left is his picture, of a Corinthian Linden, and, as you 28 can see, it does need a fair amount of space. And, so, if the developer is only leaving five feet 29 for this tree, there’s not going to be sufficient enough room for the tree to grow, and it’s probably 30 going to die, or it’s not going to reach a significant height at all. On the right, this is a picture of 31 a European Fastigiata, and this definitely needs more space. This is the tree that will grow 32 twenty to thirty feet in diameter, and that’s according to the Florida Horticultural Department 33 website. So, they’re basically trying to crowd the property line as much as they can, and the tree 34 protection plan isn’t a tree protection plan, it’s basically a tree destruction plan, with 92% of the 35 trees gone, and they’re not leaving enough sunlight and room for these trees to grow, and this 36 was a concern that the City arborist shared. I wish he was here to render his professional 37 opinion. And, so, I wanted to show…should have brought this slide up a little bit earlier…the 38 trees that they have proposed in…they’re just several feet from where the parking garage is 39 going to be. And, so, I think that the current plan is wholly inadequate and not consistent with 40 the Land Use Code. We’d like to see a tree protection plan where the trees that they plant 30 1 actually have a chance of establishing a root structure and surviving, and I think it would be 2 reasonable to establish about a fifteen foot buffer zone instead of the 8.5 foot buffer zone, so the 3 trees have a chance of making it. And, this is also consistent…well, it’s not…it’s similar to the 4 other part of the City Code which does require about a fifteen foot setback. 5 There are some other known issues that have been discussed; I think shadowing has 6 already been talked about. But, given that it’s going to create a permanent shadow over the 7 parking lot for all of the winter months, I’d like to know if the developer would be willing to 8 help defray some of the snow removal and ice removal costs in a contract over time…that the 9 HOA will accrue, and it’s likely that if they don’t, our HOA fees will probably have to go up to 10 cover the cost. 11 MR. LOPEZ: I have a quick question. 12 MR. ERICKSON: Yes? 13 MR. LOPEZ: I was going to ask previously, does the HOA have a snow removal service 14 presently? 15 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, they do. So, we are concerned. I’m a graduate student; I’m on a 16 limited income. A lot of other students are on a limited income and, you know, if rental fees go 17 up to cover the HOA, it’s going to make things even tighter. The other thing I’d like to talk 18 about is I did go to the University of Texas at Austin. I actually lived in one of these complexes 19 in UT’s west campus, that was a five story complex, so I have very personal experience with 20 this. I was a sophomore once, I can tell you what goes on in these complexes in all hours of the 21 night, especially when you have over 600 people. There’s going to be squealing tires, it does 22 slightly depend on how they surface the parking lot. So, if it’s that smooth concrete, even if 23 you’re not driving fast, your tires will squeal, especially if you’re a student and you have a car 24 and the tires are a little bit out of alignment. Car…the car alarms go off. The more cars you 25 have, the higher percentage you’re going to have of one going off because somebody bumps it, 26 somebody drives by with their boom box blaring and it sets of the alarm. So, it’s going to create 27 a nightmare for the people that are actually right across from the parking garage in the current 28 configuration, because there will be parking alarms that go off at three AM, more often than 29 we’d like. If it was, you know, a couple times a year, maybe you could live with it, but I think 30 this will be a repeated occurrence. 31 Also, college students like to drink, and sometimes…they’re usually pretty good about 32 not drinking and driving, but when they’re headed off to a party, they do what’s called pre- 33 gaming…you drink a little bit before you get to the party, and they’ll be carrying beer bottles and 34 stuff, and the driver is going to say, hey don’t have those in my car if I get pulled over, or maybe 35 I’ve already had a couple, I’ll get a DUI. It’s actually illegal to have an open container in a car. 36 So, the college students are probably going to wind up doing something with their beer bottles. 37 They might just set it in the parking garage, they might be really drunk and just…so I’d be really 31 1 worried about trash and other debris falling on the cars and people in our parking lot, and it could 2 really create a dangerous situation if the parking lot is designed as it is now, with large open 3 windows. And, I can tell you, like…just looking at the alley that faced the rear end of our 4 parking garage, there is a tremendous amount of trash and beer bottles, so this is a real concern 5 with a large development. So, to address that, I think that the developer could change the 6 parking garage, and other neighbors have mentioned that it looks foreboding, it’s drab, it kind of 7 looks like a prison wall. And, the front that, excuse me, Mrs. Ripley showed, actually looks 8 really nice, they did a nice job with that. So, my question is, why…if they’re going to build a 9 garage, why can’t they do that on the back, make it look nice, and also put up some fencing or 10 some windows like this that would both reduce noise and prevent beer bottles from breaking the 11 windshield of my car. And, so, I just want to say, I mean, I live on the third story of the 12 complex, so it would be a nightmare for me if I lived on the first story. My heating costs would 13 go up. In the winter months, if I didn’t take vitamin D, I’d probably wind up with Rickets or 14 something. 15 So, with that in mind, we would like this complex…it’s good that they’re developing it, 16 but we’d like it to be compatible with the neighborhood, and I think that there’s some things that 17 need to be done. We need probably a fifteen foot standoff so that the trees can grow, and we 18 need the parking garage to be redesigned so that it looks halfway decent, and so it reduces the 19 noise that will inevitably occur. And, so, you know, basically I’m looking for a win-win 20 situation where the developer can make some small changes that will allow the trees to flourish 21 and that it will be harmonious with the existing neighborhood. Thank you for your time. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you Mr. Erickson. And, will you be able to provide that 23 Power Point to Mr. Shepard? 24 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, I will. Would you like it over email? I’ll bring it to your office, 25 in hard copy if it’s necessary. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Or, whatever. 27 MR. ERICKSON: Okay, will do. 28 MR. LOPEZ: If you could transmit it to my… 29 MR. ERICKSON: Okay, thank you. 30 MR. LOPEZ: Next person please. Thank you, and please step up. Be sure and sign in. 31 MS. JOYCE PRATT: I don’t know how to run this. Hi, my name’s Joyce Pratt and I 32 own property at 1209 West Plum, and I…the initial proposal, I didn’t make the second meeting, 33 but the initial proposal had a complex next to our property as well and so I do have a question on 34 what will happen to that property on the south side of the street. And then, the other thing, I do 35 have some concerns, again, about parking going onto our property because, when you look at 32 1 these numbers…I’ve worked at CSU for several years and I worked in housing, so I know…I 2 actually was an office manager in one of the resident halls. I know what 600 people in a resident 3 hall do, and the amount of trash for move-in is astronomical. Whether they are…what do you 4 call that? Furnished or not, the amount of trash that is during our resident move-ins was 5 astronomical, and all the resident halls in CSU are furnished, so I have a concern about that. 6 They also indicated that there would be low-income. Well, if you have low-income and you’re 7 charging for parking, where are those low-income residents going to park? And, typically, low- 8 income students have to work, which means they need a car. And, if you’re charging for 9 parking, I’m not sure how that financially makes sound decisions. So, I have a concern about 10 that. 11 One of the other concerns that I have is the amount of traffic that will enhance, or 12 increase, in the area. And, University Village is one of the areas, and they have small children, 13 and so, how is that being addressed? So those are my concerns that I do have, and that’s pretty 14 much what I wanted to say. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Next person that would like to speak, please 16 come forward. 17 MS. PRATT: I’m sorry, I do have one other concern, is the noise. 18 MR. LOPEZ: Sure. 19 MS. SAMANTHA PETERS: Good evening, my name is Samantha Peters. I was born 20 and raised in Fort Collins; I’ve seen this city change a lot. I’m a disabled city individual, my 21 husband is also disabled. I own a condo unit in the Baystone property. I’ve lived there for 22 fifteen years, I’ve raised two children there. Needless to say, at the end of Baystone Street, we 23 have sororities, fraternities, and I think that’s the party center of the city, you know. It…I think 24 if they’re expecting to put some sort of a police officer or some sort of person to try and 25 discipline so-called student population of up to 600 people, not to party in their building, or be 26 fined, that the students will simply drift over to Sunstone or Baystone, or just go to the street if 27 it’s a warm night. Certainly, as it currently stands, the parties start Thursday night on a main 28 weekend, and end sometime early Sunday morning. And, it’s quite noisy and we usually have 29 fireworks all year long, for whatever reason. 30 Personally, I’ve seen Plum Street dilapidate over the years, and I do know that trash and 31 tree limbs can stay in the front yards and on the street for months, and that Plum Street doesn’t 32 have sufficient sidewalks. It’s difficult to get…I…my husband and myself have to use the bus 33 service, which is inadequate already. They have routes three and eleven, which are not 34 continued during the student year. Apparently, it’s only the student population that is taking the 35 bus service. You have to go all the way over to Elizabeth Street during student holidays and then 36 it’s a roundabout; it takes about an hour to get back to the area. So, what I want to say about the 37 bus though is, in the morning or in the afternoon, if you…from two to four, if you’re…in the 33 1 afternoon…if you’re attempting to catch the bus going to Plum Street from the University, there 2 is standing room only on the bus. And, I would imagine the majority of those students do have 3 bicycles or cars, but they get that free ram card pass, they don’t have to deal with the parking 4 issues on campus, so they simply catch the bus. It’s easy and they go in a group, this group 5 ascends on the bus. Same thing with Ram’s Village, and it’s…if a disabled person does get on 6 the bus, and they have further issues with a wheelchair or walker or whatever service animal they 7 choose to bring with them, during…they simply cannot travel during those times, because there’s 8 no access. 9 They…the promoters mentioned that they…this would be low-income housing. I’m 10 wondering if they were opening it up to Section Eight? They didn’t mention any type of 11 disability access, or, if it is specifically for CSU students who are not disabled, or to the 12 community. I think that developing Plum Street is an excellent idea. I’d like to see it happen in 13 a realistic manner. I think the shadowing and the noise are legitimate concerns, and I wish they 14 would also consider disabilities at this time. There was no mention of it, so that’s all I have to 15 say. Thank you. 16 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. Next person, anyone else in this first section? 17 Okay, we’ll move to the center section, is there anyone in the center section that wishes to 18 speak? 19 MR. CHRIS RAY: Okay…my name is Chris Ray and I own the Cambridge House 20 Apartments, which is directly south of the proposed project, and I have a few concerns I just 21 wanted to go over. I think it’s about time that somebody developed that particular block, it’s 22 pretty bad right now, but my really number one concern about this is pedestrians and traffic. I 23 have about 215 college kids that live at Cambridge House, and I think that, from what I have 24 understood, and I have not seen the traffic study. Eric, maybe you can tell me this, but I don’t 25 think it has a pedestrian…where’d Eric go? Alright, well, okay, he left. Does the traffic study 26 really have a pedestrian study component to it? Can anybody answer that? 27 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 28 MR. RAY: Okay, okay, so…because I don’t think it does, and let’s just make that 29 assumption. And, I really think that this particular area, especially Shields and Plum, really 30 needs some in-depth study about that because there’s a sidewalk in front of Cambridge House 31 that is…you know, in the City right-of-way, and it continues east towards the University, and 32 then it dead-ends because there’s a property between my property line eastwardly to another 33 smaller sidewalk that picks up, that doesn’t have a sidewalk in it. There’s a fence that goes 34 across there. So, we have a sidewalk that just dead-ends, and then what happens is all the kids 35 who are on the south side of Plum Street will walk and then they will walk over across my 36 property median, and then, you know, dish out into the bike lane. It’s very dangerous. I office, 37 and have for the last eleven years, at the Cambridge House Apartments, so I’m in and out of 34 1 that…and I watched that subdivision, or that intersection, you know, breathe every day, and 2 it’s…it can be dangerous and I think it’s the only one in the town that has what’s called a green 3 box, which is designed for bicycles to have the right-of-way, have the premier right of the road 4 and not just the bike lane. It’s an area that cars are not supposed to park in. It’s a great idea, a 5 lot of people don’t know how to run it, but… 6 Something else I want to say that I’ve seen happen a hundred times, and I…is that the bus 7 that goes eastward to campus…we have a little bus stop right out in front of Cambridge House, 8 and there’s…there’ll be, you know, thirty or forty kids lined up to get on that bus. The bus 9 comes and there’s no room on the bus because it’s all filled up, the bus continues on. Those kids 10 don’t want to wait for the next bus, so there they start traipsing down, going to that intersection. 11 I think that intersection is…really needs to be looked at, and the pedestrian, because you’re 12 going to have so many kids down there with this many new beds and people that they’re going to 13 be at that intersection, and that intersection’s going to have to change the timing of it. And, 14 because that is a major arterial street, that has…that timing is going to affect stuff, you know, for 15 five miles south and probably three miles north…or, yeah, three miles north. So, that’s all going 16 to have…that’s all, there’s a big impact of what’s going on with just more people at that 17 intersection. 18 A question I have, and I can either…I just want to ask it maybe now, or not. But…I 19 believe that the new development has a bus stop right in front of their, in front of your project. 20 That’s only going to be for western-bound buses right? An eastern-bound bus can’t come in and 21 pull into there? Okay, so, I think what’s going to happen is all those kids from The District are 22 going to go across the street to my bus stop, basically, that’s in front of the Cambridge House. 23 That’s…that really needs to be looked at, because there’s not going to be enough buses to come 24 by to pick those people up, there’s not right now because it also picks up people all the way 25 down to Ram’s Village, so I really think that that needs to be studied and looked at as a resolve. 26 I also have a problem with the mass and scale. It is out of place, but I’m not going 27 to…we’ve had enough people talk about that. I think that that’s…you know, enough has been 28 said about it. I think it also has a compatibility problem. I believe that in the CC zone, 29 compatibility is not perceived as an issue, or is not weighted as an issue. But, it is in the rest of 30 the Land Use Code, so I really think that that needs to be looked at. And, you know, I just want 31 to say one other thing about the four-bedroom…the number of four-bedroom units is roughly 32 500 beds. That intention of creating that modification of the Code is really to help a project get 33 through financially and make it work, but I don’t think it’s really designed to have three-quarters 34 of the project be four bedrooms. And, I think that just goes to show that they’re just trying to 35 maximize the profit motive on it, which is fine, but it does affect everything else around it. So, I 36 would like to see a project there, I just… I think this one is just way too many people and way 37 too intense in scale and mass, so, that’s all I have. Thank you. 38 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. 35 1 MR. BEN KING: Hi, my name is Ben King, and I own the property 1109 West Plum, 2 which is just to the east of Cambridge House, and I’m the one with the parking lot that basically 3 is in front of the building where there is no sidewalk. Before I bought that building, I had asked 4 the City if there was going to ever be a requirement that I put any kind of sidewalk there, because 5 then there would be no space for parking. And, they said no, as long as I didn’t change the use. 6 So, I figured, you know, it’s okay, and I, you know, I come and go a lot there. I just want to 7 address this issue that Chris brought up. And, the way you get into that parking lot basically is to 8 put straight in, there’s six spaces there. And the way you get out is to back out. And, with the 9 traffic that does go down on Plum Street, on that south side between pedestrians, bicyclists, 10 skateboarders, and vehicles, all going at different speeds, it’s really difficult to get out of there. 11 And, also, scary that you’re going to hit somebody because they come at different speeds and 12 they’re going in both directions. So, it’s actually quite confusing, and if you add…I hadn’t even 13 thought about this before, but, if that…the people from that building are going to be coming 14 across the street to pick up the bus and then not get it, it’s going to be impossible to get out of 15 there. And, that’s…you know, that’s…I’ve already…since they put in that green box, it’s funny 16 because there’s no right turn on red, and you know, the bicyclists have the right-of-way, I have 17 noticed that I have to wait several light changes before there’s even space enough to back out on 18 to Plum Street. I realize this is kind of a small issue, just this one little unit, but it just, it 19 just…just as a personal note, it’s just that it’s already really bad there and it’s only going to get 20 worse. And, so that’s…that’s what that part. 21 My biggest issues are with the density of, you know, the number of students living in, 22 you know, that concentrated of a space. And, also the size and mass of the, you know, the 23 project. I think everybody that’s gone before has done a much better job than I can to articulate a 24 lot of these issues, but I do believe that it’s really out of place, that it’s not compatible with the 25 neighborhood, and that it’s going to add a bigger strain with respect to the number of people in 26 that small area. Along with the number of people, I can see, you know, the parking is already an 27 issue over there. People really gravitate towards those few parking places that are on those 28 streets, two of which are going to be vacated, and two which I guess there probably won’t be any 29 parking on. For my place, like I say, I only have six spaces, and any visitors, that gives them an 30 opportunity to park there. There won’t be any, and again, it’s a small thing, it’s just a little 31 fourplex. But, at the same time, the number of visitors that are going to be going to that 32 building, and the parking issues, if they’re not even allowed to park in their parking structure, 33 that’s really going to cause a lot of trouble and, as it was said, bad attitudes, a lot of people 34 getting towed, a lot of people being upset, that kind of thing. 35 Also, you know, the number of people…the gentleman over here that gave the 36 presentation, giving a good view of what it is actually like to be a student. I think so much of 37 that is missed when we do these meetings and the building looks good, and we have this number 38 of units and stuff. But the attitude, or the actions of a lot of young people, college students, you 39 know most especially at that time, is a little bit off the wall. And, it’s basically, feels to me, like 36 1 this is basically a dormitory that’s just set off campus, without the…at least the controls that the 2 University can, kind of, impose on them. They talk about having a live-in manager, but you’ve 3 got 600, 700 people, you’re going to have parties every night, multiple ones, probably. And I 4 just think that it’s too big, and there’s too many people, and that it’s in the wrong place. Thank 5 you. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Just a quick question. When you first started, did you say your property 7 was the one that didn’t have the sidewalk? 8 MR. KING: Did not. Well, there’s some that also don’t, but I’m actually just on the 9 south side of Plum, just to the east side of the Cambridge Apartments. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 11 MR. KING: So, the Cambridge Apartments sidewalk just dead-ends into my property. 12 So, they all kind of funnel out and walk behind the cars. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Looks just like my phone. Okay, next person please. 14 MR. MATT LLOYD: Hello, my name is Matt Lloyd. I live over at the Sunstone 15 Condominiums, I’m in the Unit D, the one that’s going to be blocked by the parking garage. 16 But, I also work at a consulting firm that does emergency response planning. One thing I wanted 17 to point out…I hate to beat a dead horse, it seems like everyone is concentrating on the Shields 18 and Plum exit, but to get to work every day, I actually circumvent that area because I don’t feel 19 like waiting at the stoplight for two or three times. So I actually go City Park to Plum. One 20 problem with that is it’s actually a four-way stop that exhibits high amounts of not only car 21 traffic but bike traffic and pedestrian traffic. About two weeks ago, I actually had a bike run into 22 my car at a very slow speed. He wasn’t paying attention at the stop sign, ran into me. If you add 23 600 more people, at least a third, a quarter of them are going to think like me. They’re going to 24 say I don’t want to wait two or three turns at Shields, I’m going to go to Plum and City Park and 25 get out that way. So, in one respect, the city’s going to be either bearing some sort of extra cost 26 changing the stop lights at City Park and Plum…adding some sort of stoplight, or instituting 27 something. Because, eventually, a four-way stop, in my opinion, just based on the work I’ve 28 done in emergency response planning, is probably not going to be adequate into the future. 29 Moreover, you also would have the continued problems with the increased traffic at Shields and 30 Plum. So, that’s all I have to say, actually have to make it to my niece’s birthday party which 31 started about half an hour ago. But, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. 32 MR. LOPEZ: I’m sure they’ll save you some cake, but please sign your name. 33 MR. LLOYD: I will do that. 34 MR. LOPEZ: The ice cream may be gone though. 37 1 MR. LLOYD: That’s always the first thing to go. 2 MR. LOPEZ: And will the next person that’s not going to the birthday party, please come 3 up. 4 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 5 MR. LOPEZ: Can we get through everyone first, and then if we have time, we’ll come 6 back to you. 7 MR. LLOYD: And, just out of curiosity, what is the proper protocol for considering some 8 sort of an evacuation, if that were to occur. A tornado, some sort of fire, onto Shields or onto 9 Plum out of there? Is that taken into consideration at all? 10 MR. LOPEZ: We’ll see if the staff or the applicant has any response to that. You may 11 miss it, but, hopefully it’ll be in the report. 12 MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, is there anyone else in the center section here that wishes to speak? 14 Okay, did you have a brief comment? 15 MR. DUDLEY: Yeah, it’s Tim Dudley again. He touched on a little bit, we were 16 wondering if, you know, fire and police and emergency, EMTs and things like that, have been 17 consulted on this project and if they think they’re going to have to adjust patrols or equipment or 18 anything to support this environment. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, we’ll probably get a response to that. Okay, if there’s no one else 20 wishing to speak, we’re going to turn this back to the applicant for some responses. And, I think 21 you’ve been taking notes, but I know the questions will be revolving around parking, guest 22 parking, some of the landscaping concerns that were mentioned in that rear area in terms of 23 space for the trees, noise, shadow analysis, and snow and ice removal. 24 MS. RIPLEY: We did take notes; however, could we request a fifteen minute break to 25 organize our team to decide the best person to respond to each thing so we could do it more 26 organized? 27 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, can you do it in ten minutes? 28 MS. RIPLEY: We’ll do it in ten, thank you. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you. 30 MS. RIPLEY: Are we ready? Okay, thank you very much for giving us that time, it was 31 helpful. There’s a lot of new things presented tonight that we had not seen before. And, 32 certainly there are a lot of things that we can address relatively quickly here, but there are other 38 1 things that we feel like, in order to be able to address very clearly, and we believe for you to 2 make a proper decision, you’ll want a clear record of evidence, as would the City Council if this 3 project were to be appealed, that we think we may want to request a continuance for several 4 reasons. But, before we get to that, I’d like to start with addressing some of the comments that 5 we clearly can do pretty well this evening. So, I’d like to start with some of the traffic concerns. 6 Eric, could you come to the podium and deal with some of those? 7 MR. LOPEZ: Ms. Ripley, let me go ahead and interject a little bit. 8 MS. RIPLEY: Sure. 9 MR. LOPEZ: I do understand that there was information and, the request for a 10 continuance is something that you can make. To the extent that you can respond fully to some of 11 the questions and issues that were raised tonight, please do so. If you feel that it’s much more 12 appropriate to defer that to another meeting, then go ahead and we’ll defer that. 13 MS. RIPLEY: Okay. 14 MR. LOPEZ: I think the audience deserves responses fully. 15 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely. 16 MR. LOPEZ: And, if you need more time to do that, then… 17 MS. RIPLEY: And we’ll do the very best we can, but as we get into it, I think everybody 18 will see where the…it’s difficult. And could be more clear if we had a little more time. So, I’ll 19 get back to Eric. 20 MR. SHEPARD: And, any of the team, feel free to use these seats and microphones here 21 to save time, if anyone would like to. 22 MR. ERIC BRACKE: Eric Bracke, ELB Engineering. I was the one hired to conduct the 23 transportation analysis for this project. And, the scoping of this project was done in conjunction 24 with the City of Fort Collins, the Traffic Operations Department. The first thing, one of the 25 questions that came up was about the mode split; there was an understanding…a 26 misunderstanding of how we got to the 35% distribution, and that was somewhat discussed with 27 Mr. Stanford of the Traffic Operations Department. This is not an automobile-oriented 28 development at all. This is a student housing project, and we use rates to generate trip generation 29 and take an estimate, but we knew that this was not a normal project, and this was going to have 30 significant amount of alternative modes as part of the project: the bikes, the peds, the transit all 31 reduce the amount of peak hour trips. And, this study does look just at the peak hour trips, and 32 that’s the impact that the City requires. The 35% is probably conservative; in my professional 33 opinion, it’s probably going to be significantly higher than that and we’re going to have almost 39 1 all bike and ped trips and transit trips that are coming out of here during the peak hours. During 2 the day, there will be other trips, people going to work, things like that. 3 In the distribution of this, that was also negotiated with the City, and almost all the trips, 4 80%, are going into the CSU campus for their, what would be their work trips, would be going to 5 school. That absolutely seems reasonable since it’s a student housing project. The…all the 6 intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. Acceptable level of service is D, 7 and level of service goes from A to F. These are operating at A and B. An approach to an 8 intersection can go to level of service E, as long as the intersection as a whole remains D or 9 better. And, in a movement can actually go to F. So, if there’s a specific left turn movement, 10 that might fail, that could do that, according to the standards. But, this meets all of the standards 11 and it’s within all the criteria established by the City. 12 The…and, then I took all the trips that took existing traffic, took the…and that includes 13 everything that’s already built within the area that’s using it now, so, the Ram Village and the 14 International House. All that traffic is already included in the existing counts. Then the new 15 traffic is added to it, then we assume that there’d still be background traffic growth and that was 16 at a one and a half percent per year. That’s actually also very conservative since most traffic 17 counts, even in this area, have actually gone down since 2005, or 2007. So, this is an aggressive 18 analysis that shows probably worse conditions than what’s actually out there. The study did 19 include a bicycle, pedestrian, and transit analysis, and it met all the criteria. The criteria 20 somewhat qualitative rather than quantitative, but this does, for the pedestrian in particular, that 21 the sidewalks are already substandard; this will definitely improve the walking experience. So, 22 we’re looking at continuity, visual appeal, things like that…the distance to the walking sites. So, 23 this is a definitely walkable type of development. Transit, it’s served by several routes. There 24 are transit there. The pedestrian at Shields and Plum, in particular, crosswalks are in good shape, 25 they have pedestrian phases, there’s more than significant time to adequately get pedestrians 26 across. 27 There was questions on the bike box. The bike box is an interesting project. There are a 28 couple of them in Colorado, there’s a number of them in some other places. This is probably the 29 best location to put a bike box; it really does increase the safety for the bicyclists. It eliminates 30 that right turn hook accident for the bicycle going straight through and a car making a right turn. 31 The eastbound approach to this intersection at Shields and Plum is a single lane approach, and 32 so, when we took a look at it…to make the bike box work, you have to eliminate the right turn 33 on red. And, so, it does add a little bit more delay to the east bound vehicles, whether they’re 34 going left, through, or right, because they are stalled behind the stop bar, and if there’s gaps in 35 traffic, they can’t go. But, there are a lot of bikes that use this, so, on the whole, I think safety 36 weighed out. The…it does add delay. The analysis tools are not that good for analyzing a bike 37 box, because all you can do is eliminate or add a right turn on red, and basically it’s adding a 38 couple of seconds of delay per each vehicle over the peak hours. But, then again, there’s…what 39 it doesn’t take into account are, there are some start-up times for the bikes, that it probably adds a 40 1 few additional seconds on top of that. But, it does operate at acceptable levels of service and it 2 has improved the safety for bikes and peds. So, did I hit all the questions? 3 MR. LOPEZ: I believe so. 4 MR. BRACKE: Okay, if you have any more, just let me know. 5 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thanks Eric. Alright, next, I’m going to have Brent Cooper, who’s 6 with Ripley Design, Inc., who actually handled…worked with the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, 7 not only to inventory the site but also to decide what to plant on the site with the new project. 8 So, I’m going to have him go through the process that him and the City Forester went through. 9 MR. BRENT COOPER: Yeah, and I worked…can you hear me pretty good? I worked 10 with Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, and also Ralph Sessins, who’s another City Forester, and 11 we started out by going out to the site and we went around and looked at every tree on the site. 12 We noted what the species was, what the size of the tree was, and what the condition was, and 13 then Ralph and Tim came up with a mitigation number that would be required, if any, for each of 14 the individual trees. Then we went back and I created this tree inventory and mitigation plan, 15 which is in the set, which basically numbers all of the trees and then provides a list of all those 16 trees with those things we looked at. And, after I compiled this, we went through and looked at 17 all the trees that we thought might be able to be preserved, and I went back out with Tim 18 Buchanan onto the site and specifically looked at those, each and every one of those trees that we 19 thought we maybe could preserve, and a lot of them were in really bad shape, really bad 20 condition, or they were nuisance trees to Fort Collins, and hazardous trees. Once we were done 21 with that, this is kind of a summary of what we found. 22 We inventoried 130 trees and most of those were on the site. There was about five trees 23 that were just to the north of the property line but we still looked at those. All of those trees are 24 being preserved. Seventy-five of the 130 trees required no mitigation because they were 25 nuisance or hazardous trees. So, then there was fifty-five trees that would require some 26 mitigation if they were removed. So, of those fifty-five trees that would require mitigation, we 27 preserved ten of them and we removed forty-five of those, but then have mitigated with 128 28 upsized trees, all on this site. And, just to clarify a little bit more what an upsized tree is…we 29 normally plant a tree, it’s a certain caliper, and to upsize it, if it’s a deciduous tree, we make it 30 one inch more caliper on the trunk, and if it’s a coniferous tree, we increase it by two feet in 31 height. So, they’ll be substantially bigger trees right from the beginning. So, I think that’s 32 about…that’s about how that process went. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 34 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, now Derek Anderson is going to talk about some of the 35 management issues that were brought up. 41 1 MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, I specifically want to address some of the concerns 2 about the parking and give my perspective on it. Parking is certainly a critical issue for any 3 developer of a student housing project. The real fact of the matter is that overbuilding parking, 4 especially when it’s structured parking, is very, very expensive. But, the fact of the matter is that 5 underbuilding it is even more expensive. Those students that do have cars value those cars, they 6 don’t like to leave them in the street, they don’t like to walk a quarter of a mile, or half a mile, to 7 go park with them, to go find them. They don’t like to carry groceries back like that. There are 8 just a number of reasons why they wouldn’t want to do that. And, so, what happens is that they 9 don’t live with you when they don’t feel like they can park anywhere conveniently for your 10 apartment complex. But, fortunately, we actually do have some data within our system that 11 gives us some guidance on what levels we should park to. We have two other properties that are 12 within similar distances to the campus and have operating data for a number of years for those, 13 and we’ve gone back, well before these issues were raised because we consider them ourselves. 14 And, the truth of the matter is, is that what we have found is that those loads in our parking 15 garage tend to be about…those residents that have cars, tend to be within about sixty-three to 16 sixty-seven percent of the residents. Now, those are in cities, like Tucson, that quite honestly 17 have more of a car culture than Fort Collins I think, arguably, that do not take some of the 18 initiatives they do to promote bike…to promote biking and pedestrian traffic. And, another 19 one’s in Norfolk, Virginia, I mean…it does not…they do relatively very little to promote those 20 types of traffic. So, I did want to point that out. 21 The other thing that I wanted to point out is that we are willing to go to the measure of 22 having the resident sign a form in our office when they sign the lease, stating whether or not they 23 actually have a car. This is not something we have to do other places. And, we are willing to 24 have their parents, who by the way, sign on just about ninety-nine percent of all the leases that 25 we have. We are willing to have them sign to that effect also. So, look, I will point out what 26 just…it would take some collusion in order to go around that system. If anybody wants to pose a 27 better system, we’re more than happy to discuss implementing it. But, the very fact of the matter 28 is, is we believe we have adequate parking in the first place. We well exceed the standards that 29 are required of us, and so, we don’t believe it’s going to be a problem in the first place and, 30 so…but, yet, as an extra measure of comfort, we are willing to go to those measures and we’ll 31 even consider others. Thank you very much. 32 MR. LOPEZ: Could you address the guest parking concern? 33 MR. ANDERSON: We provide guest parking on the first level of the garage. There is 34 also, I think contrary to someone’s statement, there is parking provided for on, is it Blue Bonnet, 35 or Bluebell rather? 36 MS. RIPLEY: Bluebell, yeah, there’s actually parking both sides of the street, Bluebell, 37 Aster, and City Park Avenue. 42 1 MR. ANDERSON: And, the garage is significantly in excess…significantly larger than 2 what we anticipate our residents will utilize, so… 3 MR. LOPEZ: Can you give me an idea of how many spaces would be considered guest 4 spaces? 5 MR. ANDERSON: I haven’t drawn the interior of the garage at this point, but I think 6 it’s…we’d probably end up with at least fifty, right? Around fifty, around fifty spaces. 7 MS. RIPLEY: I guess I might just add that that’s kind of consistent with the City’s 8 general policy. As I mentioned before, this project provides fifty-four more parking spaces than 9 it would be required to if it was not in the TOD, and if you provide more parking than is 10 required, then the City doesn’t actually require you to have additional guest parking. They just 11 assume that you…that will work out because you’ve got more than you need. So, they provide 12 fifty, they have fifty-four more than they need by our standard, so that should work. 13 Well, I’m going to try to play clean-up here with the rest of the comments I heard. I want 14 to go back to Brent’s process with Tim Buchanan. Brent covered very well what the process of 15 which trees were retained, which ones were eliminated, why, and all that, but I also want to point 16 out that we worked very closely with Tim in terms of selection of trees, and Tim was well aware 17 of where we were planting them, that they’re on the north side, that they were in this 8.5 foot of 18 space and gave us some suggestions, rejected some trees that we had proposed, offered different 19 ones, and eventually approved our plan with the trees proposed. Just as a side note, I have a 20 tree…cherry tree that has to bloom and bear fruit planted four feet from the north side of my 21 house. As a landscape architect, I had doubts whether that would work, but I get more cherries 22 than anybody in the neighborhood. So, just because a tree’s on the north side doesn’t mean it 23 doesn’t get enough light to grow. 24 Moving on, property values…just want to touch briefly. Property values are not 25 something that the City’s Land Use Code governs, so it’s not a criteria. However, I’ve been 26 working on several student housing projects over the last several months and one project in 27 particular, when they got the same comment from that neighborhood, they did a little research, 28 mostly in the Denver area, but some in Fort Collins, and discovered that property values indeed 29 did not go down. I want to correct something that I said that was misleading, because I 30 mentioned that the apartments, especially the four-bedroom apartments are more affordable for 31 students. They are more affordable because they cost less per bedroom, but this is not a low- 32 income project whatsoever. It’s actually a higher level than most projects, so it’s not a Section 33 Eight, low-income, affordable project in that context. 34 The neighbors said that we didn’t talk to them about the fencing between our lots, or the 35 access. And, I thought I’d made it clear that we wanted to talk to them, and gave me their card, 36 and they gave me their card too, so I could have, I suppose, been more proactive, but I assumed 37 if they wanted to negotiate that, they would have contacted me. So, we would still like to do 43 1 that, and that’s one of the first reasons why a little more time might be helpful, is that we could 2 have that conversation with them and get that worked out. 3 Evacuation plan… 4 Just a little correction, the request for four-bedroom is not a modification, it’s simply 5 something that needs to be a written request, but it’s not a modification to City standards. 6 Crowed buses were mentioned, that’s something that I was not particularly aware of, but 7 it’s also something that our project can’t deal with, but I would hope that our City would provide 8 more buses if we’re promoting more student housing and we’re promoting it in areas that are 9 close to campus, and, we want people to ride transit, that we would provide more buses and solve 10 some of those problems. 11 Okay, I think that brings me down to the two issues that were perhaps the most 12 cumbersome to straighten out. The first of those is the shadow analysis, and the gentleman that 13 had his presentation and used some of our graphics to illustrate his points. He was actually using 14 the second shadow analysis, which was incorrect. The very first shadow analysis we did was the 15 one I used, and that’s the one that we’re committed to and that we can guarantee our buildings 16 will not cast a shadow so that that ground level would be shaded more than three months. We’re 17 committed to meeting that standard. But, I don’t have the ability to prove that tonight, or show 18 what was incorrect about his presentation, or show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mine is 19 correct. I would like to have more time to be able to do that. 20 And then, the last, and it’s similar, was the discrepancy on the scale. It’s a fact that the 21 Sunstone buildings are thirty-two feet, eight inches tall. It’s a fact that we’re promoting our 22 building one, at its tallest side, is forty-eight feet, eight inches tall. But the ground isn’t level 23 everywhere across a building this large, the ground slopes and there’s a two foot differential that 24 helps to explain partially why that graphic is a little confusing. And, when he started talking 25 about it, it was very confusing to me. But, we were able to talk with our architect over the break 26 and begin to understand a little bit better why that’s the case, but I don’t think I’d convince 27 anybody in this room without being able to show more graphics that illustrate it appropriately. 28 So, those two reasons, as well as liking to have an opportunity to have a conversation with the 29 neighbors about the pedestrian access between the two, as well as the shared fence line. We’d 30 like to take some additional time to do that, if you’d be willing to delay your decision. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I believe we have the ability to continue this matter to a date certain, 32 is usually how I’ve done it in the past. So, I’d have to take a quick look at my calendar and, Ted, 33 would you be prepared to offer some dates. 34 MR. SHEPARD: I don’t have my calendar with me, but I know that we cannot do 35 Tuesday nights, because that’s when Council is here in the Chambers. We need to stay away from Thursday, the 19 th 36 , because that’s a Planning and Zoning Board evening. Those are the two 44 dates that I recall. So, no Tuesdays, no Thursday, the 19 th 1 . Generally speaking, Mondays, 2 Wednesdays, and Thursdays work, but not Tuesdays. 3 MR. LOPEZ: And, how much time would you believe we’d need to have the 4 conversations, revise your material, and be ready to present it here? 5 MS. RIPLEY: I think two weeks would be good. MR. LOPEZ: So, we’re looking at the…late in the week of the 16 th 6 , or the following week is the week of the 23 rd . I could meet any…during the week of the 23 rd 7 , I could meet a 8 Monday or Wednesday. 9 MR. SHEPARD: Okay, I’ll check on the Council Chambers availability, which I have to 10 do through the City Manager’s Office, and I can send out an email to you and the people who’ve 11 signed up on the sign-up sheet, and we can go ahead and schedule, and we can commit to another 12 mailing. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 14 MS. RIPLEY: So, did we pick a date, or just a general week and you’ll have to check? 15 Okay. MR. LOPEZ: So, it would probably be either the 23 rd or the 25 th 16 . 17 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, I think that’s helpful for everybody in the room to plan a little bit if 18 we look at those two. Great, thank you. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: We have some concerns that it may not be 21 helpful to everyone in the room. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Why? 23 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, I have to keep driving up from 24 Denver…which is not an easy task for me, especially if they’re at five o’clock in the afternoon, I 25 have to take time off of work…so if they’re addressing my concerns, I’d like to have them 26 addressed as soon as…I mean, tonight. Otherwise, I’m going to have to plan another trip and 27 I’m going to have to look at my calendar…and see if I can get up here for that or not. 28 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, it’s the applicant’s…have that ability to request a continuance, and 29 the hearing officer will grant a continuance of this matter. In terms of a time, perhaps we can set 30 a later time. I don’t think this is going to be a long subsequent meeting. I think we could 31 probably handle this in probably an hour or so. So, Ted, what time would work? 45 1 MR. SHEPARD: We’re open. We generally pick five o’clock for convenience, but we’re 2 open to any time that works for all the parties in interest. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, if we did a six o’clock? 4 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do it at seven, there’s…that might help 5 for…get off work at five…driving, there are several of us that are in that situation. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, okay. The applicant, would a seven o’clock meeting work for you? 7 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 8 MR. LOPEZ: Let’s hope there’s no tornadoes there. Okay, then I’m going to…did you 9 have anything else you want to add, or any other comments, or do you want to… 10 MR. SHEPARD: You mentioned earlier that, with the folks here in attendance that would 11 like to get out as much information as possible, and I do believe we have a staff response. We 12 have some very brief staff response, just in the interest of having the folks here. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, why don’t we continue on with that, and then we’ll continue the 14 meeting. So, we’ll have the staff response right now. 15 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah, and I’m going to work backwards. The question about did the 16 Poudre Fire Authority have a chance to review these plans. The answer is yes, they review all of 17 our plans. They come to all of our meetings and their comments have been duly noted. The 18 Poudre Fire Authority has been involved in the review of this project. So, is there evacuation 19 protocol? No, that’s not part of the Land Use Code. A lot of questions about the behavior of 20 students. I think, I’ll just remind the folks, but I think everyone knows that the nature of the 21 occupant is not in the Land Use Code. We’ve talked about that at the neighborhood meeting. 22 Ward Stanford, our Traffic Engineer, is here, but we talked also at the neighborhood meeting that 23 pedestrians, per se, don’t create impact. They don’t cause congestion; they’re the answer to 24 congestion. Those folks are not in cars, they don’t cause delay at the intersections, and that’s 25 why the review of the pedestrian level of service is qualitative, not quantitative. The definition 26 of compatibility is in Article Five of the Land Use Code, it’s in the staff report. Compatibility 27 has a very lengthy definition; one of the clauses in there is that compatibility does not mean the 28 same as. As mentioned by the applicant, our City Forestry department has been involved in the 29 review of this project. Guest parking has been addressed, I’ll tell the hearing officer that we’ve 30 done some field surveys of other apartment complexes, particularly Ram’s Village on Plum 31 Street, that it’s our finding that as many residents leave on weekends as guests come in on 32 weekends, and that kind of balances out. In fact the same ratios for this project…well, for…have 33 been in effect for parking as Ram’s Village, as would be for this project were it not in the TOD. 34 And, let’s see…the height…I think Mr. Erickson brought up the height. Twelve feet, 35 eight inches is a residential story. But, that section of the Code specifically exempts buildings in 46 1 two specific zone districts, the Downtown zone and the Community Commercial zone, so that 2 maximum residential height per story is not in effect in the CC. And, that’s all I had unless 3 Ward and Marc wanted to add anything else. 4 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, gentlemen? 5 MR. WARD STANFORD: Been a while since I‘ve been here. Good evening, my name 6 is Ward Stanford, I’m with the Traffic Department in the City. Just to touch on a couple of the 7 items that were brought up, Ted’s aspect is quite correct. I mean, yes, pedestrians can have an 8 impact, but timing of streets and intersections are not relative to one or twenty kids, like they are 9 with cars. Cars…ten cars have much bigger impact than ten kids do, or ten pedestrians. 10 Crossing a street…the timing is based on the walking speed of people and the distance they have 11 to cross. Pedestrians…that’s the same for one or forty, because they can go as a group. 12 Completely different for cars, so the impact of pedestrians is substantially different than the 13 impact of a comparable amount of cars. 14 One of the aspects that Eric had touched on, that I think Mr. Gavaldon had brought up, 15 was that memo I had provided about the mode split. Typically, my comfort level without 16 additional evaluation, is about a 25% reduction in expected trips, generated by some use. This 17 aspect, looking at its location, its proximity to the college, the fact that it is designated to be 18 student housing…and we are definitely expecting that there will be a higher rate of pedestrians 19 than car users at this location than most others that are, you know, a mile or two away. It didn’t 20 seem reasonable to put out a conservative view of what kind of traffic it would generate, 21 vehicular traffic, when we don’t even expect that vehicular traffic to be there. And then to make 22 them, possibly, have to mitigate something that we don’t even expect to happen. So, we did go 23 with a higher mode split, and that’s that sixty-five thirty-five characteristic that Mr. Gavaldon 24 was speaking about. The aspect of the amount of students, the gentleman brought up about 25 sixty-three expected trips in the morning come from this at the morning peak hour, and there’s 26 674 bedrooms. Well, in all reality, those people don’t all leave and exit their home at one time, 27 they’re spread out through the day. Yes, there is a higher amount of them during those peak 28 hours, but these numbers and how they’re derived are actually done from going to these type of 29 facilities, to apartments, to banks, to grocery stores, to whatever the use may be. People sit out 30 there and physically count how they come and go, and then from that, that data is analyzed to 31 create this work. And, it is reasonably accurate. I mean, over the years it proves to be 32 reasonably accurate. So, the reality is that during that morning peak hour rush, when everybody 33 is going out there, yes, there will certainly be kids coming out. We hope they are walking and 34 biking, over cars, but all 674 bedrooms are not going to empty out at that time. 35 As far as the access, or the use of the transit facility, the possibility exists that if…if the 36 use of it is heavy enough that not everybody can be served, Transfort will look at that and make 37 adjustments, and otherwise, the kids that may be not be able to be served at that particular 38 time…experience kind of shows us that, that timeframe, they’ll continue to walk. They’ll find 47 1 the other way to work it until the transit service catches up. To have them left stranded and stuff 2 is not an expectation or anything that we observe. And, with that, I guess, I did do some review 3 even above and beyond to kind of make the point of peds’ impact. I took the future expectation 4 of peds with the future expectation of traffic for that intersection, increase them by one and a half 5 times…the bed and bike, I left the traffic as it was. And, it took that level to make a level of 6 service change. Now, from that, I looked at what do I have to Shields Street…timing 7 adjustment, to mitigate that, or improve that. It only took a couple of seconds taken away from 8 Shields and given to Plum Street to mitigate that level of service change. So, it takes quite a bit 9 of pedestrian activity to cause a change. And, it’s not necessarily so difficult to change it. Now, 10 currently, the timings out there are truly based on the time it takes a person to walk across the 11 roadway, so we give a lot of time to Shields, only because of the pedestrian timing, not because 12 of the vehicle traffic that’s there. So, we have room to make adjustment, and it doesn’t require 13 three to five miles of analysis up and down stream for this kind of condition. 14 I guess probably the last thing I’ve got is the four-way stop characteristics around the 15 other possible alternative routes out of here. Yes, we do believe some people will use that, but 16 it’s not a primary destination route for the people that will live at this unit. Will some of them 17 certainly head out to City Park Drive? Sure, there’s restaurants and stuff over there. Are they at 18 the morning rush hour, or maybe the evening rush hour? There might be a few, but they will not 19 be the congregate amount. So, will they have a great impact? We don’t expect so. Will they be 20 there in some amount? Yes, we expect they will be. But that is just typical of an urban setting, 21 and not every location can be signalized. We wouldn’t want to do it, it would definitely congest 22 the area much worse. And, that’s pretty much what I have. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. 24 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 25 MR. LOPEZ: No, we’ve closed that portion of the hearing, so thank you very much. 26 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 27 MR. LOPEZ: No, actually. We’ve had the public testimony portion, we had the 28 responses, we’ve had some staff responses. The applicant has requested a continuance which we 29 will do, we’ve made adjustments so that members of the audience can travel from work, and we 30 have a later starting time for your benefit. So, I think, with that, we’re going to bring this 31 hearing to an end. You will be notified of the exact date. It’ll be at seven o’clock. It’ll either be 32 on that Monday or that Wednesday, and I look forward to seeing everyone back at that time. 33 Thank you very much for your comments and input, we appreciate it. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Monday, April 23, 2012 (Continued from April 5, 2012) City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: The District at Campus West, P.D.P, #120003 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Richard Lopez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER RICHARD LOPEZ: PDP #120003, The 2 District at Campus West. I have…we’re going to go ahead and allow a, sort of a modified 3 procedure tonight. I think we’re going to begin with the applicant, who requested the 4 continuance to provide some more detailed and revised analysis. Then, I will open up for a 5 public hearing portion for testimony, then we’ll come back and allow both staff and the applicant 6 to respond. This is a little unusual, but within the authority of the Hearing Officer, and I think 7 given the interest, and the fact we continued this… a number of people have returned, we’ll give 8 everyone an opportunity to talk. So…and, if you have spoken before, your previous comments 9 are in the record, I’ll still have those. There’s no need to repeat what you said at a previous…at 10 the previous hearing. So, with that, is there any more introduction you’d like to add? 11 CHIEF PLANNER TED SHEPARD: No, this is a continued hearing, and…but I’ll just, for the audio tape, say that this is the April 25 th 12 continued hearing for The District at Campus 13 West, and…as modified by the Hearing Officer for order of proceedings. Just a reminder, I’ll 14 just read one paragraph from my staff report. This is a request to redevelop sixteen houses along 15 four streets in the Campus West neighborhood for a multi-family project consisting of 193 16 dwelling units on 3.34 acres, located on the north side of West Plum Street between Aster Street 17 and City Park Avenue. The parcels are zoned CC – Community Commercial, and within the 18 Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. And, that’s just a brief reminder of the project 19 at hand tonight, and I’ll turn it back over to you. MR. LOPEZ: And, for the record, the hearing is on the 23 rd of April, not the 25 th 20 . Okay, 21 Ms. Ripley? 22 MS. LINDA RIPLEY: Thank you, Mr. Lopez, thank you, Ted. I first want to express my 23 appreciation for allowing us to continue this hearing. As you recall from the last hearing, at the 24 very last minute, we discovered a discrepancy in our shadow analysis from the one we had to 25 present that night from when we had submitted earlier…hadn’t been able to get ahold of the 26 architect who had done that one, and couldn’t explain it, quite frankly, did understand what the 27 difference was. So, we felt uncomfortable about it. This extra time, of this two weeks, has 28 allowed us not only to verify the shadow analysis that we have to share with you tonight, but also 29 to be absolutely certain that it’s accurate and that it’s comprehensive. What we ended up doing 30 is, our office took over responsibility for the shadow analysis, so we’ve done it in a different…a 31 little bit different format tonight that’s much more comprehensive, so we’re going to be able to 32 show you what happens to the sun, not only during the course of the day, but also throughout the 33 year. And, it will be available to anyone who wants to look at that later, or who wants to explore 34 it further at tonight’s hearing. So, anyway, we appreciate that opportunity and we will try to just 35 stick to the basic issues that weren’t made clear at the last hearing. And, from our perspective, 36 that really centered on the building height, it’s mass, the shadowing effect of the building, and 37 it’s appearance from the north side, particularly of the parking garage. 1 So, the first thing I’d like to talk about is simply looking at how tall our building is 2 compared to how tall other buildings are in the neighborhood. This aerial photograph shows our 3 project striped in red, right there, going from City Park to Aster, just one block from the CSU 4 campus. So, our buildings actually have a range in height; the first building is a five-story 5 building, the parking garage is a building that is three stories on the front, with residential facing 6 the street, and five levels of parking, but four stories of height on the back, of about 48 feet in 7 height. Although, I’ll get into that in a little more detail later. And then, the building one, is 8 actually five stories on the south, and it had been dropped down to four stories on the back 9 specifically to drop down adjacent to the neighboring structures, and also, directly to reduce the 10 shadowing effect. So, other buildings around the neighborhood, Sunstone is 32 feet, 8 inches, 11 and that’s…these are all heights that were verified by our surveyor, so, Brent, could you just 12 point out some other building heights, and, I can’t see them from here in the… 13 MR. BRENT COOPER: So, Sunstone is 32 feet, 8 inches, the frat house here is 38 feet, 14 there’s some 28 foot, a 58 foot building, 30 foot, 43 foot, and then the twelve-story dorms right 15 over here. 16 MS. RIPLEY: So, the twelve-story dorms are significantly higher than anything in this 17 neighborhood, but very close proximity. The orange area on the vicinity map represents the 18 Community Commercial zoning district. And, I think it’s important to point out that that area 19 was specifically called out as an area that the City wanted to have more height, more urban level 20 density. So, five stories are allowed in the orange part of this area, and the City’s actually 21 targeting infill in this area to be taller and more dense, so…next slide. This slide just shows the 22 distance between our most adjacent, our closest neighbor, which is the Sunstone Condominiums 23 to the north, and the distances range from 52 feet at the closest, to 91 feet, and average about 70 24 feet across the parking lot there. 25 And then this graphic we brought along tonight…we had a similar graphic at the last 26 hearing that we were also a little confused about. We were asked the question, well, your 27 building is sixteen feet higher than our building, why doesn’t it look that way, proportionally? 28 And, what we discovered after analyzing it…it was because of it actually being a two-point 29 perspective, and we had simply taken this line across and there was an optical illusion there that 30 caused it to look less. It was not attempt to try to make it look smaller, so, tonight we wanted to 31 show you…this is the actual differential that are on the submitted drawings. It’s sixteen feet 32 difference between the backside of our building one and the 32 foot Sunstone building. 33 However, since the last meeting, since we went back to looking at the shadow analysis and trying 34 to figure out we could show it more comprehensively, we also took another look at the building, 35 or the architect and the developer did, and they looked at this cross-section and said, well, gee, 36 that part of the building that we had reduced to four stories…if we change that to a sloped roof 37 instead of a flat roof, we could knock off another five feet on that corner, which would help the 38 visual scale of the building on that side of the building, drop it down by five foot, and it would 39 also have an effect on lowering of the shadow a bit too. So, we offer that as an alternative 1 tonight, to lower that side of the building even further, if that’s what everyone agrees is the best 2 approach. Next slide? 3 What were we doing with this? Well, the next part is to get into the actual shadow 4 analysis and…the first thing I want to talk about is the standard in the Land Use Code, 3.2.3, 5 which is just mentioned in the staff report, but it’s the strongest section in the Code that 6 addresses solar access, orientation, and shading. And, specifically, the last sentence of that 7 standard in the Code says that it doesn’t apply in the Downtown District or in the Community 8 Commercial District. Again, emphasizing that the City intentionally, in those two zone districts, 9 wanted to be able to encourage height. So…however, Section 3.5.1, which is the section that if 10 you are over 40 feet in height, so if you’re greater than a three-story building, you are required to 11 do a shadow analysis. So, we have complied with that, we have a shadow analysis to show you 12 tonight that we believe is very comprehensive, it’s accurate. We used a 3D, a very sophisticated 13 3D model that taken into account where we are on the earth, what the sun does from sunrise to 14 sunset, as well as what it does through each month of the year. So, we can take you through all 15 of that. But our purpose is really to show that we do not create a substantial adverse impact on 16 adjacent properties. We have to show that we do not preclude the use of solar technology, that 17 we’re not going to create any offensive solar reflectants or glare, that we’re not going to increase 18 the shading of adjacent parking areas over what exists today, and that we’re not going to be 19 shading adjacent structures for more than three months of the year. So, I’m going to have Brent 20 run through this modeling exercise. He’s going to tell you a little bit about how he built it, and 21 then walk you…walk you through kind of worst case scenario of the start and finish of the three 22 month worst time of the year, and then show you a little bit what happens all year long. 23 MR. BRENT COOPER: So, the program I used to do this model…it’s called Google 24 Sketch Up, and it allows you to mass different objects, pull them up, to the right scales. And, to 25 ensure everything was at the right scale, I actually just overlaid everything onto our site plan 26 here, so that I was sure that we had the right setbacks and that the relationship between Sunstone 27 Condos and The District project was the right separation. You can see the boundary line here, 28 and the offset that we have with our project, and then Sunstone Condos here. Another neat thing 29 that this program allows is for us to actually turn off and on the shadows and to use the sun to 30 dictate where those shadows go. So, I put our project into the time zone that we’re in, and I 31 can…I can manipulate this from any time in the day, or any time in the year, and it tracks how 32 the sun moves through the sky. So, this is a lot more accurate than just triangulating something 33 with the building height and the sun angle, and just getting a triangulated calculation, this 34 actually tracks it the whole way and I can look at any day, any time of the whole year. So, I 35 guess I’ll… 36 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, so, starting, we wanted to focus in on the three-month period, forty- five days from the worst day of the year, which would be December 22 nd 37 . So, what day do you 38 go back to in November? MR. COOPER: So you go back to November 6 th 1 , is what you would go back to so…the end of the nine month period would be November 5 th 2 . So, I’m going to…I can put in that date. 3 Eleven, five, and then I’ll go through from the morning to the night on that day, and you can 4 track what happens. So, this is six, seven o’clock, eight o’clock, nine o’clock, ten o’clock, 5 eleven, twelve, one, two, three, four, and then to sunset. 6 MS. RIPLEY: So, what…I think what that illustrates is that on forty-five days off of the 7 worst day of the year, those buildings are still getting a significant amount of sun...sun during the 8 day, and then something very, very similar happens in February at the end of that three-month 9 period. MR. COOPER: So, February 5 th 10 , I’ll do the same thing from the morning, eight o’clock, 11 nine, ten, eleven, twelve, one, two, three, four, five, to sunset. 12 MS. RIPLEY: And, now, just for fun, why don’t you take us through the whole entire 13 year. MR. COOPER: Okay, so this at twelve PM, noon, starting January 1 st 14 , February, March, 15 April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 16 MS. RIPLEY: So, so what we’re illustrating is that, although we definitely will cast a 17 shadow on the building at the extreme early hours in the morning and late in the day, there’s no 18 doubt about that, we…all the buildings receive a stantial amount of sunlight all year long, and 19 certainly most of the building are…have sunlight for most of the day for a nine-month period. 20 MR. LOPEZ: Ms. Ripley… 21 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah. 22 MR. LOPEZ: The shadows cast in this analysis, are they of the original building or the 23 one that you mentioned that will have a sloped roof? 24 MS. RIPLEY: This one has a sloped roof; however, we have the other roof with us 25 tonight too, if you want to see the difference. It’s not a huge difference, but it’s somewhat 26 different. 27 MR. LOPEZ: If it’s easy to load up, I’d like to see the difference. 28 MR. COOPER: Sure. 29 MS. RIPLEY: Maybe, Brent, we should also talk about the parking garage. MR. COOPER: So, this is noon on October 12 th 30 . This is the shadow cast by our newly 31 proposed building one, and there’s the shadow of the previous condition. So, you can kind of see 1 the difference it makes…on that day. If you went a little bit later into the year, around 2 December, it would make more of a difference. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Do you have the ability to spin that view around and imagine we’re in 4 Building B, or one of the buildings over to the north…look towards the south. MR. COOPER: Okay, so, I’ll just put in on November 3 rd 5 at noon. So, there’s the 6 difference. 7 MS. RIPLEY: So, like I…like I said, it’s not huge, but we think it’s worth doing. We 8 don’t think it downgrades the building. Our client doesn’t lose units…I think it’s a good 9 example of what I always find when we have neighborhood opposition to our projects that it 10 forces us to look closer to see how we can make improvements. So, that’s one thing that we 11 came up with that we, quite frankly, hadn’t thought of before, for the last hearing. 12 In that same regard…Brent, could we go to show the idea we had for the parking garage 13 too? The parking garage was always four stories tall, forty-eight feet on the back side, as 14 presented in the original submittal. But, again, since the last meeting, we discovered that we 15 could bend the one side of the parking garage down a story and the lowest part of the parking 16 garage then would be…is it thirty-seven feet? Something? Thirty-seven feet and change, so it 17 gets that part of the parking garage much closer to the scale of the thirty-two foot Sunstone 18 buildings, and, again, helps with the shadow. Not dramatically, but makes a difference. So, we 19 can offer that. There is a cost to that change, however, is because we do lose nine parking spaces 20 in the parking garage. But, if you’re recall, we already were overparked by fifty-four if we had 21 to meet normal standards, and, in this Transit Overlay District, there are zero parking 22 requirements. So, if it seemed like a beneficial trade-off, we’re happy to do that change as well. 23 So, do you have more questions about the shadow analysis before I go on? We can 24 certainly bring it back up. 25 MR. LOPEZ: Sure…the public will have a chance to ask questions and then you’ll have a 26 chance to respond, so if you’ll just hold those questions up there. Great, thank you. 27 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely, we’d love to be able to answer as many questions as we can 28 tonight. The last subject that I wanted to go over was just the visual aspects of the parking 29 garage itself, because there was some time spent with that last meeting. Not just the shadowing 30 of it, but the visual aspect of it. So, we showed this at the last meeting, and, what it shows 31 is…the top is a photograph of the view of our site from the Sunstone Condominiums, and then 32 the bottom picture shows what it will look like when the parking garage is built. And, what 33 we’re trying to illustrate there is that the big trees that you see are trees that exist, and you can 34 see them in the top photo. They exist on the Sunstone property so they are not coming down 35 with our project. And then, our trees are smaller, they’re columnar, they’re planted in a straight 36 line behind our parking garage. So, the combination of the two helps to buffer the impact of the 1 parking garage. But, in addition, the parking garage isn’t an ugly concrete box either. It’s open- 2 air parking garage, it has stone facing on the back side for the first two stories. So, it’s a 3 relatively attractive looking building, and we’re buffering it as well as we can in the space we 4 have available to do it. We did work really hard with the City Forester to decide what to plant 5 back there, to do the best job possible. That was…some gentleman from the neighborhood took 6 issue with that last time. I contacted Tim Buchanan after the meeting and asked him to reiterate 7 that he had confidence in the species selection because he had actually provided them to us. And 8 we have five different trees planted back there, all of which he feels will do well, and he 9 approved the project. So, I don’t know what else we can do as developers, if not rely on the 10 advice of the City Forester. However, I notice in my email tonight, about five o’clock as 11 I checked it, that…and I’m sorry, I can’t remember the gentleman’s name, but he had contacted 12 Tim after he saw his letter, because he had been copied, and asked some more questions about 13 tree growth rates and how much sun they need, and how big they’re going to get. And, Tim 14 Buchanan responded to that as well, quite a lengthy response. So…Ted has that and we’d like 15 that submitted into the record as well. 16 MR LOPEZ: I have a copy, I believe this is the one, Ted? 17 MS. RIPLEY: So, you have both of them? The one today, and the one a few days ago? 18 Because there’s two now. 19 MR. LOPEZ: There’s a three page… 20 MS. RIPLEY: That looks like it, yeah, the first one was just a page. Okay. So, with that, 21 I think those address the issues that we were a little shaky on last time, and didn’t feel that we 22 had adequate information. So, we’d like to turn it over to the neighborhood, or to yourself, and 23 be available for questions to clarify as much as we can. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, let me just clarify and make sure I understand…the two 25 modifications that you’ve illustrated, the sloping roof on the building and the slope on the 26 parking garage, are modifications that you find acceptable if the Administrative Hearing Officer 27 makes that? 28 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Very good. Okay, we’re going to open this up for public testimony, 30 and if you’ve…come on up, if you’ve given your name before, that’s great, we have you in the 31 list and you’ll get information. But go ahead and state your name again. 32 MR. BOB MEYER: If I could take just thirty seconds to load my presentation. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Good luck. 1 MR. MEYER: Good evening and thank you again, Mr. Lopez, for the chance to speak. 2 My name is Bob Meyer. I’m the president of the Homeowner’s Association for Sunstone, 3 Buildings C and D. Last public hearing, and at the neighborhood meeting, we submitted our 4 prepared comments, so, in respect for the time of everyone here, I will not go through those 5 comments again. I would just like to summarize a couple things with a couple slides here. Can 6 you put that on slideshow please? So that will go up a little bigger. 7 I think generally, right now, our concerns haven’t changed. Our really concerns haven’t 8 changed. As I listed to the previous discussion by Ms. Ripley, they certainly haven’t changed. 9 We do not feel, right now, the shading and the shadowing has been adequately addressed, even 10 with the new modifications they’ve made. And, also, since these are new modifications, 11 different, we have not had a chance to review that data either, at this point, so…there. But, 12 basically, to just come to the bottom line is…I’ve got a couple slides here to talk about the Land 13 Use Code. And, really, my comments before…just the mass and scale of this project, we still 14 feel is just, does not meet the neighborhood or the intent of what our visionaries in Fort Collins 15 intended for that area. The, basically, to look at building size in that Land Use Code, buildings 16 shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing 17 that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures…that is proportional to the mass and 18 scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face, or caddy-corner 19 block faces of the nearest intersection. Well, basically, we don’t see…these are three huge 20 buildings and there is no subdivided articulation that tends to blend with any other structure in 21 the area. Basically, the third…building one, massive five-story…or, five-story, or actually it’s 22 building three of theirs, which is…that’s a misprint…sixty-five foot tall structure. Similar in size 23 and height to existing structures in the neighborhood? It’s not, it’s twice as tall, and 24 volumetrically at least approximately ten times the size of adjacent condos in our neighborhood. 25 Building one is not subdivided, it is one massive structure. That’s building three. Next slide 26 please? Thank you. 27 So, our concern here is still…articulates what we’ve articulated before, the sheer mass 28 and scale. The second slide I’d like to talk to, talks more about…gets into the shadowing, but 29 basically, light shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty feet shall be designed so as not 30 to have substantial adverse impact on that distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent 31 public and private property. Adverse impacts, which I think is really critical to the discussion, 32 include, but are not limited to, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the 33 winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three months of 34 the year…for more than three months of the year. In the next slide I’ll show you our analysis 35 went for a hundred days. The analysis you just showed from them only went for three months. 36 It would be interesting to compare our analysis and have their model, which is very neat, to…in 37 fact, to go out to a hundred days, and I will bet our data will match. But, the point I’m trying to make here…if we go between 31 st of October to 8 th 38 of February, that’s a hundred days. I’ve 39 drawn some lines here, and I think you’re going to see this in more detail in the future, so I’ll 1 make it quick…other discussions here tonight. At nine o’clock, you can just see the blue line 2 here…the blue line here. I just took the very smallest number, which is 77.53, at nine o’clock, 3 and just drew it across. You can see every building, including the sorority house, which has not 4 been discussed tonight, which is behind a much taller building, there…it’s got significant 5 shading. At noon, taking 68.97, the minimum, it’s going to be right at the bases of ours, most of 6 them, although our bookends, the one far on the left, the far and the right, and I think, as I 7 remember, their analysis showed the same thing, it’s shaded. And, look at the sorority house, it’s 8 got it too. And then if you go at…that’s at noon, the green, but now if you go up, three PM, 9 which you’d expect would be similar to nine, it’s just under, but it’s shaded there. So, these are 10 the…you know…for corrected the angles of the sun and the shading, we still feel we’ve 11 tremendous shading. And, the biggest thing on that Code, it not only just talks about shading on 12 buildings, but it talks about shading on our parking lots, and on our gardens. And, that’s the 13 concern. So, we still, Mr. Lopez, we still have those same concerns, and thank you for your 14 time. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 16 MS. PAT WOOSTER-JACKSON: Mr. Lopez, I’m Pat Wooster-Jackson, I represent the 17 sorority. On the models that you did, the sorority structure was not on there at all, so I had to 18 kind of extrapolate, use my imagination as you moved through the shadowing on it. It appears to 19 me that the sorority house, which is thirty-eight feet tall, is adjacent sixty feet away from a 20 structure that is at least sixty-three feet high. And, from the modeling that you showed, it looks 21 to me that the sorority house is in shadow virtually the entire time. The only time that the 22 sorority house is not in shadow, based on what you went over earlier, I think, is the three months 23 of the year when none of the students are there, which is high summer. The rest of the year, the 24 sorority house is going to be completely in shadow, it’s going to be dwarfed by a structure that is 25 two stories taller. The parking is going to be an issue because of its…because the bulk of the 26 parking is between the projected building of this developer and the back of…the south side of the 27 sorority house. So, I have a lot of concerns about that. 28 I also would like to address the parking density issue. Within this project, there are five 29 sorority and fraternity houses. Most of the…in general, each house holds about fifty residents. 30 However, the size of the groups is about a hundred and twenty each. The…the houses, each one 31 of the houses, is the communal area which is used by the entire group constantly for meetings, 32 gatherings…it’s the center of activity. None of the houses have that kind of parking, so when all 33 of them are doing their activities…they’re conducting their business as a recognized student 34 group, the amount of additional parking that it throws onto the street side around that one block 35 radius, is arguably, more than four hundred additional cars. Again, the…you know, when you 36 dial in the impact of the snow and ice, and being able to mitigate that, it just adds to an already 37 difficult situation. I would like to see what…I wish that you had drawn the sorority in there. I 38 apologize that we weren’t…that we were not represented at earlier meetings and, boy, I’m glad 39 I’m here tonight. 1 So, for us, our things are threefold. It’s the density…the population density over there, 2 it’s the parking issues, and it’s the shading. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 4 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Go right ahead. 6 MR. TIM DUDLEY: Hello, Mr. Lopez, I’m Tim Dudley. Just a couple of things, one is 7 just a note that the Sunstone Condos…the south side of those roofs all drain down into the 8 parking lot. And, if you’ll notice on their shadow study, that parking lot, for almost six months 9 of the year, does not get any sun at all. So, with the roof draining down in there, we’re just going 10 to have a real ice accumulation, not to mention, you know, additional snow accumulation there 11 as well. And then the other point…or the other thing I wanted to ask the developer was a point 12 that was brought up last meeting, and that was about putting in some type of screening in the 13 parking garage so that students and tenants can’t throw things out of the parking garage right 14 onto the Sunstone cars that are down below. I don’t know if there was any consideration of any 15 changes there or not, but…that would certainly be something that I think would help us feel 16 more secure about having all that stuff towering up above our vehicles. Thank you. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Very good, thank you. 18 MR. TIM ERICKSON: My name is Tim Erickson, I’ve prepared a presentation and I’m 19 going to try and be as brief as possible in my remarks. I’ve actually expanded on the shadow 20 study, and our shadow study does include the sorority house so I’m going to be able to touch on 21 that. Our previously…we made some previous requests to the developer, and these included 22 increasing the setback distance, putting forth a viable tree plan, and reducing the building height 23 to mitigate shadowing, and conform to the existing neighborhood pattern. We also requested 24 minor changes to the parking garage structure, so there could be some screening windows that 25 would reduce noise and the chance of objects flying onto our cars in the parking lot. We 26 basically just want to work with the developer, we don’t want to stop development, we want 27 something that’s just compatible with the neighborhood. We do fee, as Bob stressed, that the 28 developer is in violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1(C), which relates to the building size, height, 29 mass and bulk. And, that’s particularly true for the building which is directly across from the 30 ZTA sorority. In the Code, it mentions to look at Figure 7 for compatibility, and when we look 31 at Figure 7, it shows the top figure in the Land Use Code, it doesn’t show what’s on the bottom, 32 a structure which is well over twice the size in height of our condos. The ramparts on the back 33 side of building three reach over sixty-seven feet, which is more than double 32.8 feet. 34 We also feel that the developer may be in violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1(D), and this 35 relates to privacy considerations. Elements of the development plan should be arranged to 36 maximize the opportunity for privacy of the residents of the project, and minimize infringement 1 on the privacy of adjoining land uses. So, basically, the situation we have with the sorority 2 house, is there’s going to be dozens of units overlooking their backyard. And, as I’ve discussed 3 the situation with members of the sorority, they’re concerned because they like to go out there 4 and tan, and they don’t want basically a bunch of random people looking at them. I went over 5 and discussed this, and the girls signed a petition which I’m going to present to you, which reads: 6 We, the members of the Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority, oppose the construction of The District on the 7 ground of the excess shadowing caused by this five-story structure will lead to the accumulation 8 of ice and snow in our parking, creating a hazardous and unsafe condition for months at a time. 9 In addition, we have privacy concerns related to the views of our backyard that would be 10 afforded by such a tall structure. Please take our concerns into consideration. 11 We also feel that the developer’s…is in violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1(G.2), and this 12 is something that Bob’s discussed already, and I’m going to go into detail with our own shadow 13 study. So, first of all, I’m pretty qualified to perform a shadow study. I have an extensive 14 background in optics, I actually have a Master’s in biomedical optics and I’ve taken courses in 15 physical optics, worry optics, biomedical optics, astronomy, lens design, and laser physics. And, 16 so, I’m actually going to go ahead and explain the methodology we used for our shadow study, 17 so that you can be one hundred percent sure that it’s truthful and accurate. 18 The lengths and heights were derived from the developer’s plan, and, at this point, I 19 would like to get a quick clarification from the developer on what the maximum height of the 20 north side of building one would be, because in my shadow study, as presented by the plan at the 21 last meeting and most up-to-date documents, I used a height of forty-eight feet and eight inches. 22 Is that still correct? The height on the back side? It is five feet less? Okay, so since it is, that 23 will make the height forty-three feet, approximately, on the back side? Okay, so I do appreciate 24 the developer doing that, and that does somewhat skew my analysis then, and it…we may need 25 to request a continuance. But one thing that hasn’t changed, very notably, is the height of 26 building three, which is directly across from the sorority house. And, in the design, that height 27 ranges from sixty-one feet to sixty-seven feet…I just wanted to check that that has still remained 28 constant. Is that still the same, on building three? The towers are sixty-seven, and I think the 29 rest is about sixty-one, right? Okay, so, the analysis that holds for the building across, the 30 sorority, is still correct then. 31 So, basically, the source of our data came from the Naval National Observatory, and they 32 actually have a website where you can put in the day, the time of day, and the location, and from 33 that they infer the latitude and longitude, and get the solar angles. And, so, there’s basically two 34 solar angles, there’s the azimuthal angle, which tell you where the sun is relative to north along 35 the horizon, and then there’s the altitude angle, which tells you how far above the horizon the 36 sun is, or basically how high in the sky it is. So, on the left I just showed an example table, and 37 if we go through…and do that analysis, and just understand some basic shadow math, I’ll spare 38 everybody the trig lesson, but I’ve included it for future reference. Basically, the length of 39 shadow at any given time is derived from the solar altitude angle, where it’s just the height of the 1 building divided by the tangent of the solar altitude angle. And, so that tells you how long the 2 shadow will be cast, but it doesn’t tell you…it doesn’t correct for the direction that it’s cast in. 3 And, for that, you actually need to take into account the azimuthal angle. So, I just showed some 4 quick plots here of the shadow height versus time of day, and as you can see here, it’s for five 5 dates. So, I’ve included what was discussed in our shadow study, that hundred day period between October 31 st , Halloween, and February 8 th 6 , and then I’ve included the winter solstice, 7 and then basically the ninety day period that’s been discussed by the developer. So, looking 8 over, specifically, at building three, since it’s much taller than the other structures, and I used just 9 the height of sixty-one, so my estimates, actually, for the shadow are pretty conservative, 10 because it’s doesn’t include the ramparts on that building. We are seeing, you know, at a 11 minimum during this time, of height shadow lengths of approximately ninety feet. And, during 12 the winter solstice, it’s particularly acute in that it gets up to about a hundred and thirty feet. 13 And then, in the early morning hours and the late afternoon hours, around nine and three PM, the 14 shadow length is almost the size of a football field, it’s upwards of like two hundred and fifty 15 feet. So, the shadows cast by building three are definitely huge. This just shows how the 16 shadow length is a function of the sun’s azimuthal angle, which is basically where it is…where it 17 rises in the east, and sets in the west. That tells you what the…that’s what the azimuthal angle is. 18 So, these are just the raw shadow lengths in feet for the period of time, that’s a hundred days. 19 And, so, for building three, we’re seeing shadows that are a hundred and forty-two feet in the 20 morning, a hundred and seventy feet in the evening, and, at the high noon hour, the minimum is 21 eighty-seven feet. And, so, as Bob alluded to in our presentation, it’s not just the shadow length, 22 it’s the shadow length that’s in the direction of our condominium that counts, and…our shadow 23 study, that was corrected, and so those lengths that Bob showed, were derived from the 24 mathematics included in this slide. 25 And, so, Bob’s already discussed this, but what we are basically seeing here, even at the 26 noon hour, is shadow infringement on our property, particularly at the bookends, that are just 27 fifty-five feet, and here you can see it’s about sixty-nine feet, and it’s fifty-two feet over here, so, 28 during this entire time, parts of our units are shadowed for the entire day, for over a hundred 29 days. And then, this problem becomes particularly acute when we look at what happens to the 30 sorority house, which is just sixty-three feet away from the structure. And, since the structure is 31 so much taller, it’s bathed in the shadow, even at high noon…I mean the shadow over-reaches by twenty-three feet here, and on December 21 st 32 , the shadow is basically going to cover the entire 33 building. And, so, we’ve done our own shadow study based on this data, and we can see what’s going on here for October 31 st 34 . It’s a little bit difficult to see the outlines of the building on this 35 one, and I apologize for that. On the computer screen you can see them, so the outline is a little 36 bit faint, but I will point because I can see it on my screen, where the sorority house begins, right 37 here. And, so this is at nine, and then the sorority house is right here, so you can see it’s getting 38 shaded pretty badly, even on Halloween, and then, keep in mind this is also their parking lot too 39 and I think they do have a garden back here on one side, so that’s getting shaded. And, to make 40 it a little bit clearer, this is like the composite shadow study, which is an overlap of shadowing 1 during different parts of the day, so we’ve overlaid the shadowing at nine, twelve, and three, and 2 we can see that we’re getting significant shadowing at some time in the day. And, so, to make it clearer, I’ve drawn this out so it’s a little bit easier to see, of what’s going on on December 21 st 3 at 4 nine, twelve, and three. And, so, our…this is the solstice, and our…not only is like our entire 5 unit shadowed, but we see that the shadow lengths would protrude all the way out to here, 6 although they’re probably going to be just getting very high up on our buildings. And then if we go over at high noon on the 21 st 7 , the entire Zeta house is shadowed, and so this problem that they 8 left out of their analysis, which they really should have included shadowing of the Zeta house, is 9 extreme, and is clearly a violation of the City Code, because it’s much longer than three months. 10 I mean, we’ve shown it’s a hundred days. And, if I were to bring out the analysis time, it would 11 probably be something closer to a hundred and twenty days. So, this also shows basically what’s going on February 8 th 12 , and since it’s the same amount of time from the winter solstice, it’s basically the same shadowing that we get on October 31 st 13 , consistent with the developer’s results. This is the February 8 th 14 composite. And so, the whole issue with not getting any sun on our 15 parking lot is also, you know, it’s going to create ice in the parking lot, but the shadows reach all 16 the way up to our sidewalks, so the sidewalks are going to be really cold, and they’re never going 17 to get any sunlight. And, as a result of that, as soon as snow falls on them, it’s going to ice up. 18 And so, you know, typically if snow falls, you know, you can say, you know, you can get 19 somebody to come out and remove it. But, here, our concern is really that the sidewalks are 20 going to be so cold that it’s going to ice up instantly and create a really dangerous condition for 21 our residents. And, you know, the Land Use Code does say that adverse impacts, once again, 22 include contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice. And, this is definitely going to 23 accumulate to the contribution of snow and ice…or lead to more accumulation of snow and ice, 24 and we see that this is a clear violation of our property, and shadowing is much, much worse on 25 the Zeta house due to building three. 26 So, I wanted to briefly discuss the implications of our shadow study on tree growth, as 27 the City Land Use Code requires a tree protection plan. And, we see that these trees are going to 28 be shaded at first before they have a chance to grow up, they’re going to be shaded three hundred 29 and sixty five days a year. I did a quick calculation for a sixteen foot high tree. I don’t know if 30 the saplings that they’re going to plant are even going to be that high, but if we assume that that 31 tree has a radius of four feet initially, it will receive no direct sunlight at any time of the year, 32 even at the summer solstice. And, so we have a situation where these established, old growth 33 trees are being cut down and replaced with trees that may never thrive. I did get some emails 34 from the City Forester, and he showed one clear photo where the Swedish Columnar Aspen was 35 planted on the north face of a building, and it looked to be doing pretty well. So I asked him if 36 he had any other photos, any visual evidence that trees could survive on the north face of 37 buildings that were almost fifty feet, and he said he didn’t have any photos of those. So, I’m still 38 not really convinced that these trees can grow, and if we look at…you know, on the CSU 39 campus, where they plant the trees so that they can thrive…in the background here, we see a 40 building that’s approximately fifty feet tall, and there’s a reason why they don’t plant the trees 1 there and they plant them here. Because, when they’re planted here, they can grow and thrive, 2 they get plenty of sunlight. And, if they’re planted here, it’s…it might be a mixed bag, and the 3 trees very well might not be able to survive. So, I guess the question, is basically can…in the 4 developer’s tree plan, they want to plant a Corinthian Linden five feet from a forty-eight foot 5 north facing wall. And, as shown in this picture, the tree’s actually south facing, because you 6 can see the sun’s over here, because the shadow’s here. And this tree gets to be pretty wide, 7 from this image and this image, you can see that they grow to be about, you know, ten to fifteen 8 feet. So, I guess my concern is that they’re going to have trees growing into their building, and if 9 they prune them, the tree might not be able to survive. So, I did get some data from one of the 10 largest tree nurseries in Colorado, and for this Corinthian Linden, it states that the mature 11 spread…meaning the diameter, is thirty to thirty-five feet, so we’re going to have a fifteen foot 12 radius. And, if there’s only five feet, I have no idea how this tree’s going to be able to grow. 13 And then the same question comes up for the European Hornbeam, and the staff provided this 14 image, and it’s planted out in the middle of a parking lot, and you can see that these trees aren’t 15 anywhere near to being fully grown, and already their radius is probably exceeding five feet. So, 16 given how little space the developer has left between their building and our property line, it’s 17 very doubtful that some of these trees are going to be able to reach their full maturity size. 18 And, so, to get a little bit more information, I emailed a gentleman named John Rizza, 19 who works for the CSU Extension. He’s a specialist in land stewardship in forest and range. 20 And, so, this is basically my email question, it’s if one wanted to plant trees on the north side of 21 a forty-eight foot tall building, what is the recommended planting distance from the building? 22 How would shading by the building affect their growth rate? Specifically, how do you think the 23 following types of trees would do long term: Crimson Spire Oak, Swedish Columnar Aspen, 24 European Hornbeam, and Corinthian Linden? And, some of the things that he wrote back are: 25 the distance away from the building all depends on the projected size of the tree at maturity, and 26 then he gave me a link to illustrate this point. And, he said also, in addition to growing space, 27 you need adequate root space. In many urban landscape situations, folks plant big trees in little 28 spaces between sidewalks. They need more room than that, giving them space will give them a 29 better chance for survival. And, so, these narrow sidewalks are probably similar in size to the 30 five-foot distance that the developer has left for the trees. I do have a hard copy of this email 31 that I will go ahead and forward on to you. And, so, I guess my conclusion is that the 32 developer’s current plan appears to be in violation of the Land Use Code on many fronts. 33 Shadowing, which is particularly harsh on…for building three, and then there’s the whole 34 neighborhood compatibility issue, do the massive scale of the project. There’s definite tree 35 protection plan issues as the trees may not be able to thrive. And, I feel like this project needs to 36 be put on hold until the developer can submit a plan that’s in compliance with Code. Thank you 37 for your time. 38 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Erickson, did you get a copy of the three-page from the City Forester? 39 MR. ERICKSON: I did. 1 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, good. Next person? One other thing, Mr. Erickson, do you have a 2 copy of you Power Point? 3 MR. ERICKSON: It’s saved on this computer, do you want me to email it? Or, I can 4 drop a hard copy off at the office tomorrow. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Just get a copy to Mr. Shepard and he’ll make sure I get it. 6 MR. ERICKSON: Okay. 7 MS. SAMANTHA PETERS: My name is Samantha Peters. This kind of…you know, I 8 don’t want to be disappointing, I can’t give you a trigonometry lesson. But, I just have some 9 concerns. My experience is from walking from Baystone Street to Plum Street to catch the bus 10 during the winter. The dead-end streets tend to flood when the snow is melting, and that 11 floodwater kind of runs down Plum Street to the traffic light area. And, I don’t have any 12 engineering experience or anything, so…but, I’m wondering, I’m curious…maybe somebody 13 here with a laptop can answer this, what will happen with the…when the snow on top of these 14 five buildings melts, where is that going to go? Is it going to be greater than the amount of 15 flooding we have currently? Are they going to have to…the City going to have to do some extra 16 work underneath the streets? I don’t quite…it doesn’t seem to fit for me, because I know there’s 17 already a water issue and drainage there. Just from having to…seeing the girls in their very 18 attractive galoshes going through that. And, I was born in Fort Collins and I’ve been raised here, 19 and I know that when the…we had a building boom here in the 80’s and 90’s. Fort Collins went 20 to great pains to not just be a city, a pretty city, but a community. And, I think that the reputation 21 of our community has made us what we are today. It would be a shame to pock-mark our 22 community with large buildings in the interest of profit and throw the baby out with the 23 bathwater and then have this…have our…you know, lose our reputation for what we have built 24 for so many years. I don’t think that’s necessary. I think we can go forward. We do need to 25 continue to grow, but we can do it rationally. And, let’s see…that’s what I have to say. Thank 26 you. 27 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you Ms. Peters. Anyone else in this first section? I guess we’re 28 moving to the second section. 29 MS. JOYCE PRATT: My name’s Joyce Pratt, and I was here last time, and I own 30 property and am on the board for Campus West Condominium. And, after talking to some of our 31 members, we are concerned about the noise issues and violations of densities in that area. We 32 have several graduate students that live in our residences, and part of the reason they like it is 33 because it is close to campus, and, for the most part, it has stayed relatively quiet. There are 34 some concerns when the sororities and fraternities have the rush, but that only happens 35 occasionally. So…and then the parking issue, you know, overflowing into our parking area. We 36 don’t have a permit system at all, and we don’t want to have to go to one. And, so that’s what 37 we would like to address. 1 MR. LOPEZ: Joyce, what was your last name again, and your address? 2 MS. PRATT: Pratt. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Pratt? Okay. 4 MS. PRATT: Yes. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, is there anyone else in this center section or the right section? It 6 looks like we have just two sides. We’ll go back to the left section here. 7 MR. DAVID BOLTHROP: Good evening, my name is David Bolthrop and I own two 8 condos in the Sunstone units, one in Building A and one in Building C. I use these primarily as 9 housing for my children who are attending CSU. My son is a senior this year, he’s in Building 10 C, and my youngest daughter will be a freshman this fall, she’ll be staying in Building A. My 11 main concern echoes the shadowing problem, and mainly it’s safety. I agree that the parking lot 12 and the sidewalk areas will be in shadow most of the entire winter. This is going to turn into an 13 ice rink in there. It’s going to be not safe walking in and out and, if it gets onto the stairwells at 14 all, it’s just going to compound that problem. I have a couple questions for the applicant. One 15 concerns the parking garage. Is there any plans to make that into any kind of public parking? If 16 they only rent out three hundred of the four hundred and fifty-four units, or four hundred and 17 forty-five units now that they’ve reduced it by nine, are they going to try to make a public 18 parking for the remaining hundred a fifty units, a day, or monthly, or weekly, or whatever. 19 Primarily, that’s because this is a two-lane road, Plum is, and, like the applicant mentioned in 20 their last meeting, this is an arterial feeder street onto the CSU campus. And, by…if you try to 21 introduce that much additional traffic in that area, it’s just going to become a mess. 22 Second concern I had with the parking garage was, I don’t think it’s big enough for the 23 number of residents in this proposed unit. Alright, if you take The Grove, for example, which is 24 another housing development that’s taking place over of Centre and Rolland Park. It’s similar in 25 size, about six hundred and twelve units, but they have over six hundred parking spaces, almost 26 one to one. This development is more, three units…two parking spaces for every three people 27 staying in the unit, in the complex. So, even if you…you know, worst case you have fifty to a 28 hundred cars extra that are left over, that have no place to park, that’s just going to spill out onto 29 the street, which is already full. You drive over there any evening and there’s no parking places 30 on the street. 31 I guess, finally, I would just wrap up and say, my main objection is just the sheer scale of 32 the building itself. I don’t feel it fits with the neighborhood plan. The density, putting that many 33 people in basically a half a square block area, just…I think will ruin the quality of life in the 34 neighborhood, and destroy the property values of the surrounding buildings. Thank you Mr. 35 Lopez. 1 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Yes, sir, step right up. 2 MR. MATT LLOYD: Sorry to bring you back over here. My name is Matt Lloyd, I live in Unit D. I just wanted to point out real quickly that in the July 20 th 3 of 2011 meeting, I 4 submitted the meeting minutes to you, but the Transportation Advisory Board to the City 5 Council discussed the problems that already occur on Plum Street with the bicycles. So, I just 6 wanted to make sure that was on record. Basically, as he says, the rationale is that there is a very 7 high cyclist volume and no right turn lane. We wanted to avoid a potential clash. And then the 8 other gentleman says there’s already one reported right hook crash. In theory, you’re doubling 9 the number of people that are going to be there, more traffic problems. I also wanted to just put 10 on the record that I wanted to take a bunch of photos of the parking situation as it already stands. 11 I took a bunch of photos on my iPhone tonight. I figured I’d choose a random event, such as 12 tonight, and I just…I’ll email those to Ted, but that’s all I have. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, did you send the photos, or…? 14 MR. LLOYD: Yeah, I’ll email them to you. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 16 MR. LLOYD: Thanks. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you Mr. Lloyd. Is there anyone else in this left…this section here? 18 Are you getting up to talk? Again? 19 MS. WOOSTER-JACKSON: Mr. Lopez, may I take a second real quick turn here, 20 because a point was raised about the privacy issues that I think that I need to address on behalf of 21 the sorority house. And, by the way, I’m Pat Wooster-Jackson and I am a national officer for 22 Zeta Tau Alpha. And, the girls that live in that house…the house is not air conditioned. The 23 first floor is, but the dorm rooms where they live are not. So, what that means is windows are 24 open, shades are open. I…you know, I didn’t bring this up because I didn’t…I don’t know why I 25 didn’t, but I would like to make the point that, for a safety and security issue, having that five- 26 car, that five-story garage right…excuse me, condominium, apartment complex, right behind us, 27 is going to afford people to look directly into the girls’ bedrooms. And, that is a concern for us 28 as well. Thank you. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Anyone else in this section over here? We got you all. There we go. Step 30 right up. 31 MR. ANDREW BARNES: Hi Mr. Lopez, I’m Andrew Barnes. I own a unit in Building 32 B. Also own a house on the south side of Elizabeth and have been a homeowner here for about 33 five years and love Fort Collins. But, yeah, if you’re in the area to golf or whatever one here 34 said, it’s also…it’s already very dense during the school year. I’m not in school, but if you’re in 35 the area you understand, people who come to the college from other areas come to drive there, 1 and I know that’s one reason for building this. I’m not opposed to development closer to the 2 college, but with their proposed parking structure and Plum Street, which he mentioned, the main 3 artery into the college there. The traffic would just be insane I think. Along those lines, also, 4 one thing Tim brought up was the parking garage directly borders Sunstone property, and, yeah, 5 some sort of screening or something. Back in 2004, there was a riot in the exact same area and, 6 primarily college students are going to be living in this and now it’s fairly quiet for most of the 7 year. But, I think, you know, injecting six hundred people into that one area is going to be very 8 concerning and a lot of potential for hazards to our property. Everything else that I have concern 9 for has been touched on by everyone else here, so thank you. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I thank you for your brevity. But, I will make a note that you share 11 many of the other concerns, too. Okay, is there anyone else in this section over here, to my left? 12 I think we’ve almost heard from everyone. Okay, in the other section? Yes, sir, please step right 13 up. 14 MR. LLOYD WALKER: Good evening, my name is Lloyd Walker. I was involved with 15 the development of the West Central Neighborhood Plan, so I’m pretty familiar with the issues in 16 this area, and the surrounding West Central Neighborhood, which covers…this is sort of the 17 northern edge of that. And I, you know, I understand what people are saying about specifics. I’d 18 like to give a little more contextual issues in terms of you know, how this fits in the community 19 and so forth. And, basically, I support this project because I think, ultimately, it is a benefit to 20 the community for a variety of reasons. In the West Central Neighborhood Plan, it stated that we 21 need more convenient, well-located high-density residential development with all the amenities 22 of state-of-the-art student housing. And, I think that this addresses that particular concern in the 23 West Central Neighborhood Plan. I think it’s a well-known fact that we are deficient in high- 24 density student housing. This area is also very underutilized. You look at it, and you know, 25 these are ranch-style houses that are being…that are going to be removed. And, so I think, given 26 the location, it’s a very underutilized site. And, I think certainly upgrades and makeovers would 27 be appropriate given the fact that Fort Collins has built out to its city limits, and now we’re going 28 to be looking more and more, almost exclusively, at infill and redevelopment. And so, in that 29 regard, when we talk about redevelopment, I think when you look at City Plan and the policies 30 and principles of City Plan, I think this is the kind of project that is envisioned for 31 redevelopment. And, particularly given the area it’s in. It was mentioned it’s in the Transit 32 Overlay zone…Overlay District, I mean, one of the things that really is driving the city on a lot 33 of fronts, is that we’ve got to provide alternative methods for getting people around than the 34 automobile. And, of course, this project, where it’s located, it’s going to facilitate walking and 35 biking given the nature of the residents and where they spend their day, which is, you know, 36 across Shields basically. So, it provides the opportunity to provide more housing that’s needed 37 without adding to a traffic load significantly, because of the opportunities for walking. And, it 38 should be noted that the provisions they’d had for bicycle use, in terms of, you know, facilities 39 that would promote bicycle use, they are far in excess of the Land Use Code standard. So, I 1 think that, you know, it’s also being developed as a silver LEED project, means it’s going to 2 address energy efficiency standards. They’re important now, they’re going to be increasingly 3 essential in maintaining our community in a sustainable fashion, so I think the fact that the 4 development is proposed is going to, you know, be highly energy efficient, is something that 5 should be considered in the broader context, as I say. And, I think it’s a kind of…again, 6 we’re…I appreciate the fact that we’ve got this kind of discussion going on, and these points that 7 have been brought up. And, I think, you know, as we work through a project like this, and as 8 we’re seeing more of these kinds of higher density projects, I think, you know, if we can…if we 9 can sort of sort out the issues and come up with a workable solution, I think it’ll serve as an 10 example of the type of redevelopment that our community expects to address our future needs. 11 And, the other thing, again, rather more contextual, is that we need more appropriate 12 student housing in our community, you know. We’ve had a policy, sort of a de facto policy, that 13 says that students are going to basically be living in single-family homes, and we’ve seen that 14 throughout the city, because there aren’t enough higher-density apartment buildings. 15 Interestingly enough, the single-family houses that were built near the campus, particularly to the 16 west, were originally built as affordable housing for CSU employees, and, of course, over time, 17 they have evolved into the place where a lot of our students live. And, I think what that’s done is 18 it’s taken away the opportunity for affordable housing for a broad range of citizens in Fort 19 Collins. You know, we talk about, well, we’ve got an affordable housing crisis, and, of course 20 affordable has different levels. But, I think that providing a more appropriate type of housing for 21 students in a higher-density apartment complex provides the opportunity to free up some of these 22 single-family houses that can reestablish the function of neighborhoods as family neighborhoods, 23 as affordable housing for a broad range of citizens; that provides more social stability. So, I 24 think that there’s a lot of things beyond just the, you know, some of the points that are 25 considered here, that I’d like to be given consideration as you make your decision. Thank you. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much Mr. Walker. Is there anyone else in this 27 section? 28 MR. DOUG BROBST: Good evening, my name is Doug Brobst. You’ll have to excuse 29 me, I didn’t realize we would have an opportunity to speak tonight so I didn’t have any real 30 prepared comments. But, as you’re probably aware, over the next ten years, it’s projected that 31 the student enrollment at CSU is going to grow approximately ten thousand students. Presently, 32 with the enrollment being at around twenty-six thousand or so, we’re having a real problem with 33 housing shortage around the campus area. What we’re…the present situation is that we’re 34 spreading out farther and farther…the housing for the students mainly dependent upon single 35 houses being bought up by investors and used for student housing. And, this just can’t continue. 36 I’ve been involved with the issue of student housing for about six or eight years now, and during 37 that time, the University has not been able to keep up on their own with the enrollment growth, 38 and our neighborhoods are just being overwhelmed, in many cases, by the business of rental 39 properties spreading to our neighborhoods. I’ve said it in the past, and something’s got to give. 1 Nobody likes to have…apparently nobody likes to have student housing in their neighborhood. 2 Every time that any development like this is proposed, it meets a great deal of opposition, but 3 this particular project seems to satisfy a lot of the needs for student housing. It’s close to 4 campus, as Lloyd just mentioned, it is silver LEED, so it’s going to be energy efficient. That’s 5 certainly a problem we have presently. Investors and landlords have no real incentive to make 6 the single-family dwellings that they purchase anywhere near silver LEED as far as energy 7 efficiency is concerned. The issue was brought up tonight about the traffic that would be added. 8 I think what you’ll find is it’ll be mostly walking and biking traffic, not going to be a lot of car 9 traffic, but it is good to see that they have the parking available there on site for those students 10 that care…choose to have an automobile. 11 I don’t know all the ins and outs of the Land Use Code; I’m going to leave that up to the 12 people of the City, such as Ted, to work those kind of details out. But, I certainly think they can 13 be worked out in this particular situation, and this will be a very good project for CSU and to 14 help out our neighborhoods. Thank you. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. I think there was a gentleman over here that was 16 getting ready to stand up. 17 MR. BOB BRODIN: Good evening, sir. My name is Bob Brodin, I’m the president of 18 Sunstone One Condominium Association, that’s Building A and B, so it’s on the west side of the 19 Sunstone development there. I just…sorry, I got here a little bit late, had a long drive from down 20 south. I am a property owner as well as on the Board of Directors for the Association. 21 Our…we’ve had an opportunity within our Board of Directors recently to get together and…as 22 well as get a lot of our opinion from property owners. A high degree of concern about the 23 shading, increased costs around landscaping, snow and ice removal…all the things that I heard 24 mentioned earlier too. We’re…I personally am…would like to see a lot of development, a lot 25 more housing, that kind of thing. But, as the gentleman just mentioned, you know, suitable 26 designs and reasonable solutions in those things…in those cases that…and, the scale as 27 mentioned by a number of people tonight. The scale of this, it just dwarfs the…our buildings 28 and our lot to the north of it. If there was a way to alleviate some of the shadowing, alleviate 29 these concerns, then that would be great. But, so far, the economics I don’t think have driven 30 that way. I think that’s all I’ve got to say so thanks. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from this section? Okay, I’m 32 going to return it to…staff, do you have any responses at this time? 33 MR. SHEPARD: No response. 34 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, then, the applicant? Ms. Ripley? 35 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thank you, thank you for the opportunity to address some of those. 36 The first thing I’d like to talk about is…and, Brent, before you do that. I’m going to have him 1 pull up the sorority house. The sorority house didn’t come up at the last meeting, there were no 2 questions, no one ever contacted us, they didn’t come to the neighborhood meeting so, we hadn’t 3 used it. But, we did model it because we were curious, so we can show you that this evening. 4 And, maybe we’ll just do that first. So, there it is. Simplified a little bit, but the correct height 5 and shape and modeled from the drawings that we have. Brent, do you have a dimension for 6 how far away that building is from our building? 7 MR. COOPER: I can get it real quick. About sixty-one feet, eleven inches…sixty-two 8 feet. 9 MS. RIPLEY: So, you know, we were accused of using a narrow window. We only used 10 a narrow window to save time. We can take you through a hundred days, a hundred and fifty 11 days, three hundred and sixty-five days if you want. We’ve got all the data. So, maybe what we 12 should do, for starters, is just to go through the year, nine AM, and just watch what happens, and 13 then we’ll watch what happens at noon, and then we’ll watch what happens at three. And, it’ll 14 definitely get worse during the winter, and then during the summer, it’ll get better, and in 15 between it’ll be what it is. So, Brent, I’ll just let you talk. MR. COOPER: Okay, here’s nine o’clock on January 1 st 16 , February, March, April, May, 17 June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 18 MS. RIPLEY: So, you see in those three months, we start shadowing that building, but, 19 when you stretch it out, and I think that’s probably why the three month got…ended up in the 20 Code. But, it’s not total shade, even for the three months. Now, go twelve noon. 21 MR. COOPER: Okay, here’s twelve noon, starting in January, February, March, April, 22 May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 23 MS. RIPLEY: And… 24 MR. COOPER: And, three? 25 MS. RIPLEY: Three. 26 MR. COOPER: Okay, three o’clock on January, February, March, April, May, June, July, 27 August, September, October, November, December. 28 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, I can’t dispute any of the numbers that they’re shadow study had. I 29 suspect if we compared notes and we got the building heights the same, our data would be the 30 same, because I trust that this gentleman got accurate data, and we got accurate data. Ours looks 31 different because we can show it a little differently, but I don’t think we disagree on facts, 32 necessarily. And, I don’t think we disagree that we will put some shadows on those buildings 33 during the winter. That’s a fact. But it’s also a fact that you can’t build what’s allowed in this 34 zone district…what’s actually encouraged in this zone district, to build five-story buildings and 1 high-density student housing without creating more shade. The…I take issue with…I think we 2 meet the test that we haven’t shaded the structures for three solid months, that you’ve got nine 3 months of the buildings not…of being mostly sunny. So, the parking lot is a different matter, but 4 it’s also covered by a different section of the Code. The shadow analysis doesn’t require you to 5 have a parking lot free of shadow, at all, not even if you had to comply with 3.2…whatever that 6 number was with the hypothetical twenty-five foot wall, because that hypothetical wall would 7 shade the parking lot. So, the Land Use Code didn’t…it doesn’t preclude that happening. So, 8 that’s just a matter of clarity. That section doesn’t even apply to us, and, if it did, it’s still many 9 many project do that, so, it’s unfortunate that we haven’t had a chance to talk to the neighbors. 10 We held two neighborhood meetings, we opened the door to discussion; we specifically wanted 11 to talk about interaction between the two properties. We took some extra time, we hoped that 12 we’d be able to talk to some representatives of the Homeowner’s Association between the last 13 hearing and this one, but they declined that until you made a decision. And, I guess I can 14 understand that, they’re hoping the project would be denied and…but, we do have some things 15 that we could offer if that were appropriate, if they were willing to come to the table and talk 16 with us. Can we take stories off the building? No. You know, can we just go away or make it a 17 three-story building that’s fifty feet from their property line? We can’t make those kind of 18 sweeping changes, but there are some things we can do, and we’d be happy to talk to anybody 19 who wants to meet with us about those things. 20 Let’s go back to talking about mass, scale, articulation…just one moment, if we could go 21 maybe to a plan view? And, then…plan view of the project…the rendering. Actually, let’s just 22 stay there for a second. Okay. Okay, get off of the model, go to there, stop. Okay. I just 23 wanted to point out that these buildings are articulated. That’s why you see smaller portions of 24 the building, and courtyards, and lots of ins and outs all around the buildings. The parking 25 garage has less of that than the others, but they all have, to a certain degree, much more 26 articulation than many buildings of this type and scale have. Now, let’s look at the perspective. 27 Yeah, and I think that shows too how the architect has tried very hard to break up the mass and 28 scale of the building by not having just one big block of a building, especially as it relates to 29 streetscapes in the neighborhood. And, yes, these buildings are a lot taller than the existing 30 buildings adjacent, but this whole area is slated for redevelopment and change over the years, 31 and this is what’s encouraged. I don’t…I don’t think it’s a downside, I think it’s going to be a 32 beautiful project, but, even if you thought the architecture wasn’t the right size, there are so 33 many other improvements in terms of detached sidewalks that…no sidewalks exist now. Kids 34 are fighting their way to campus with the bikes and the cars in the street. So, lighting and 35 landscaping, and just upgraded streetscapes all around this thing are going to make vast 36 improvements in this neighborhood. 37 Let’s go on to just parking…I’m not going to talk a lot about parking because we’ve 38 covered it. We’ve got way more than we’re required to by Code, but I did want to reiterate that 39 any student that owns a car is required to purchase a parking permit, has to park the car in the 1 garage. And, the response from the neighbors has always been, well, students will simply lie. 2 And, one of the safeguards we have is that the student and the parent both have to sign an 3 affidavit saying that they either don’t own a car and won’t have one, or that they do, and 4 therefore, they’ll purchase a permit. So, we kind of hope that parents and students don’t lie 5 together. We think there wouldn’t be much of that. I think maybe we could just have our civil 6 engineer address the drainage problem from the roof quickly? 7 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, before you move off parking, there was a question about whether you 8 would be using that as public parking if you were not able to sell, or get enough permits. 9 MS. RIPLEY: No, no intention to do whatsoever. It would be for people who live in the 10 development and their guests only. Okay. Nick? 11 MR. NICK HAAS: Nick Hass with Northern Engineering. I wanted to quickly address, I 12 think this woman’s comment on flood problems, particularly near the intersection of Plum and 13 Aster Street. It’s a known drainage deficiency in the city drainage system. This project has gone 14 through extensive efforts to not have any additional impact to that. While we won’t be entirely 15 fixing the city-wide stormwater issue there, we’ve integrated these multi-purpose planter boxes 16 that you can see on the rendering here. Not only do they provide seat walls and a nice 17 streetscape amenity, but they also mitigate stormwater. So, this project’s roof rain and snow 18 melt will be directed through those planter boxes then before draining back into the city storm 19 system. And, it’s all been reviewed by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department, and 20 there’ll be additional technical details at final design. But, it has been seriously thought about in 21 part of the proposed plan, and the parking garage also will have a large stormwater vault in it for 22 similar purposes, so as not to increase the existing drainage situation at Plum and Aster Street. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 24 MS. RIPLEY: Was there anything else that we should be addressing that you took note of 25 that I haven’t? I just wanted to reiterate that we did extend an invitation to talk about these 26 things at the neighborhood…those email responses are in the record. 27 You know, I understand the concern about the height and the shadowing. It’s different, 28 there’s tradeoffs when a city wants to become more urban and more dense. It’s the right 29 direction to go because of the proximity to campus and the number of students we have to house. 30 It’s not easy, but this client has done his very best to try to accommodate the neighborhood, even 31 more than, I believe, the Code would require. But, we hope to be able to continue a relationship 32 with the neighborhood, to keep talking about it as we go forward. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Going through my notes, here, I know there was some comments made 34 about potentially screening the parking…the windows along the parking to deter or prevent 35 objects from being thrown. 1 MS. RIPLEY: From flying out…the beer bottles. We actually did talk about that as the 2 comment came up, and that’s one of the kinds of things that we could talk about doing with the 3 neighborhood. Our client would be willing to look into that. 4 MR. LOPEZ: I do remember you talking about the height of the walls in terms of 5 mitigating noise… 6 MS. RIPLEY: Right, all of the garage levels have parapet walls that are tall enough to 7 screen headlights as well as bounce back the sound of any wheels, and then they would have 8 people that area on site to monitor anybody who drove inappropriately in the parking garage…to 9 monitor that. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Yeah, if you want to comment on the trees again. 11 MS. RIPLEY: You know, the trees are, as Tim…his long, his three-page response to…is 12 it Mr. Erickson? Covers it really well, I had a chance to read it before coming over here tonight, 13 just skimming it really. But, he points out in there that trees actually don’t have to have direct 14 sunlight. They do need to have light, but there are trees that grow under the shade of other 15 trees…I think most of that experience that in forests. So, it does occur. Is it optimal? No, it’s 16 probably not optimal, but they will grow. We’re committed to seeing that they do. If a tree 17 should die, it would have to be replaced, per Code. He mentioned that it needed more room, that 18 often trees are placed in places where they don’t have enough root space. And, I think what that 19 person was probably referring to is when we’re trying to grow trees in tree grates in our 20 downtown urban areas, and those trees actually grow, even though their root systems are fairly 21 confined. And, in this case, it’s nothing even close to that, because we have eight and a half feet 22 of open area for those roots, and no hardscape on top of them. So, comparatively to the streets 23 on the south side that are all along the street, these trees have more root space and more 24 opportunity for rain water. But, obviously, they’ll be irrigated and well cared for. 25 MR. LOPEZ: Going through my notes, I think I have enough information. 26 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thank you, and again, thank you for the continuation. We really 27 appreciate it. 28 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I’ll give you one last chance, Ted, if you have anything to add. 29 MR. SHEPARD: No, I do not. 30 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I want to thank everyone for returning tonight for the continuance of 31 this hearing. As I stated originally, I will take your information, the documents, everything 32 that’s been submitted and is part of the record, and render a decision within ten working days. 33 It’ll be a written decision, so if you’ve signed up, you will get a copy. And, I want to thank you 34 very much again for coming back and making yourself heard. This is concluded. ATTACHMENT 9 Site Visit Summary July 10, 2012 1 The District at Campus West City Council Site Inspection July 10, 2012 Members of City Council were invited to inspect the site of the proposed multi- family development referred to as The District at Campus West Project Development Plan in conjunction with two appeals of the Hearing Officer’s decision. City Council is scheduled to consider the appeals at their July 17, 2012 meeting. City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson Councilmember Ben Manvel Councilmember Wade Troxell City Staff Present: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Laurie Kadrich, C.D.N.S. Director Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The site inspection began at 3:30 p.m. along West Plum Street near the intersection of City Park Avenue. Staff pointed out that there will be three buildings aligned along Plum Street between City Park Avenue on the west and Aster Street on the east. Buildings are number sequentially from west to east. The site presently contains 16 one-story houses served, from west to east, by Daisy, Columbine, Bluebell and Aster Streets. All sixteen houses would be demolished. Two streets, Daisy and Columbine, would be vacated. Plum Street would be widened and continue to feature on-street bike lanes. The existing attached curb and gutter would be replaced by a parkway with street trees and a detached sidewalk that is wider than what is required. A westbound bus pull-in lane would be provided for Transfort. Building One is a long rectangular building which would be five stories in height along the south then taper down to four stories along the north. This lowering is intended to minimize shadowing to the north. This building contains a one-story component along Plum which includes the pool, clubhouse, leasing office and fitness center. Building One would require the vacation of Daisy Street. 2 Building Two would include the five-level parking garage and would be include apartments facing Plum Street. Access to the garage would be from a private drive, not from Plum Street. This building would require the vacation of Columbine Street. Bluebell Street would divide Buildings Two and Three. Building Three would be five stories in height. Aster Street forms the eastern boundary of the project. Councilmembers walked the site from west to east along Plum Street and then walked north along Bluebell Street to the north property line. The tour then turned west and walked through the Sunstone Village parking lot located between The District’s north property line and the existing Sunstone Village condominiums. A Councilmember asked what was the zoning on the site and how long has this zoning been in place? Staff answered that the zoning is C-C, Community Commercial and has been in place since the adoption of City Plan in March of 1997. A Councilmember asked about the status of the existing trees. Staff replied that the existing trees have been inspected and evaluated by the City Forester and a mitigation schedule has been made a part of the Landscape Plan. Nuisance trees such as Siberian Elm and Russian Olive do not have a mitigation factor. A Councilmember asked, approximately, how many trees will be replaced. Staff stated that about 120 trees will be removed and replaced by about 128 new trees. A Councilmember asked if the healthy shade tree at the immediate corner of Plum and Bluebell would remain and the answer was yes. A question was asked on which side of the shared property line between The District and the condos is the existing fence. In reply, the fence is north of the shared property line. Will the developer be building a new fence? Yes. Would there be an opening in the fence for pedestrians? Yes. What would the fence look like? It would be six feet high, solid and constructed out of metal pickets for durability. A question was asked if a traffic study had been done for the project. In reply, a Transportation Impact Study was submitted by the developer’s consultant and evaluated by the City’s traffic engineer and the project is feasible from a traffic 3 engineering standpoint. A significant number of trips are captured by alternative modes due to proximity to campus. Regarding the number of parking spaces, is there a sufficient amount of parking? Staff responded that the project provides 495 vehicle parking spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces both of which exceed minimum requirements which are not applicable since the project is located within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay zone. Would the new buildings be L.E.E.D. certified? Staff does not know the answer at this time. But would the new buildings be subject to the City’s new Green Energy Code? Yes. In general, are there any environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of this site? Staff replied that there are no environmental impacts. Were any Modifications of Standard granted by the Hearing Officer? Staff responded that a Modification to the minimum required setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted. The result of the Modification was that all three buildings would be uniformly aligned in relation to Plum Street. This is because Buildings One and Two are mixed-use buildings and subject to the build-to line requirement in contrast with Building Three which is not mixed-use and subject to the minimum setback requirement. Aligning all three buildings in a consistent manner along Plum Street was determined to be equal to or better than having Building Three set further back than Buildings One and Two. In general, what the issues related to the two appeals? Broadly speaking, the issues on appeal pertain to shadowing and building compatibility. The tour concluded at about 4:00 p.m. back at the point of beginning after a circumnavigation of the site. ATTACHMENT 10 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council July 17, 2012 1 1 The District at Campus West July 17, 2012 Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer’s May 7, 2012 decision to approve The District at Campus West Project Development Plan •ZTA Appeal • Meyer Appeal 2 Aerial Map 2 3 Project Facts • 193 dwelling units •3.34 acres • Redevelopment of 16 existing houses • Between Aster Street and City Park Avenue • Vacation of two public streets ‐ Columbine and Daisy • Bluebell Drive would connect to Baystone Drive •Three new buildings • Includes 5‐level parking structure • Clubhouse, pool, computer lab, fitness center 4 Unit and Parking Detail •28 two‐bedroom (14%) •42 three‐bedroom (22%) • 123 four‐bedroom (64%). • Total of 674 bedrooms •Each bedroom leased individually • 495 off‐street parking spaces • 332 bicycle parking spaces 3 5 • Community Commercial zone • Allows a maximum height of five stories • Building One –5 stories – stepping down to 4‐stories on the north side • Building Two –5 level parking structure & 3‐story residential component • Building Three –5 stories Zoning 6 • First Neighborhood Meeting – August 31, 2011 •Project submitted –January 25, 2012 •Second Neighborhood Meeting –March 7, 2012 • First Public Hearing –April 9th •Second Public Hearing –April 23rd •Hearing Officer’s Decision –May 7th •ZTA Appeal –May 21st • Meyer Amended Appeal –May 29th Chronology 4 7 • Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: • Sections 3.2.3(A) –Access, Orientation, Shading ‐ Purpose “It is the City's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. While the use of solar energy systems is optional, the right to solar access is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year, including between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, when the longest shadows occur. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade caused by buildings, structures and trees.” ZTA –– First Allegation 8 ZTA –– First Allegation Continued •Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: •Section 3.2.3(D) – Shading “The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty‐five‐foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high‐density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial.” 5 9 ZTA –– Second Allegation Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: Section 3.5.1(B) “Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials.” 10 Meyer Appeal –– First Allegation Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: Section 3.2.3(D) – Shading versus Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. –Light and Shadow Shading “The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty‐five‐foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high‐density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial.” 6 11 Meyer –– First Allegation Continued •Light and Shadow “Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape.” 12 Meyer Appeal –– Second Allegation • Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: • Section 3.5.1(D) –Privacy “Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.” 7 13 • Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. –Views “A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks.” Meyer Appeal –– Third Allegation 14 • Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: – Section 3.2.3(A) –Solar Access, Orientation, Shading –Purpose Statement – Section 3.2.3(D) – Shading – Section 3.5.1(B) – Building and Project Compatibility – Architectural Character – Section 3.5.1(C) – Building and Project Compatibility – Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale – Section 3.5.1(D) – Building and Project Compatibility –Privacy Considerations – Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. –Building Height Review –Views Question Council Needs to Address: R JACKSON AVE SCOTT AVE S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE BLUEBELL ST C O O K D R SCOTT AVE CANYON AVE HOME R D R LEESDALE CT S B RY A N A V E MANTZ PL S WHITCOMB ST W MULBERRY ST S BRYAN AVE M ERIDIA N AVE E C O Y D R W C O Y DR W PLUM ST ORCHARD PL CRESTMORE PL BIRCH ST AR M STRO N G AVE WAGNER DR S WHITCOMB ST DEL NORTE PL BIRCH ST S LOOMIS AVE S GRANT AVE S BRYAN AVE W PLUM ST LAKESIDE AVE MERIDIAN AVE WESTVIEW AVE MOBY DR CONS T I T U T I O N A V E S BRYAN A V E S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE W ELIZABETH ST CITY PARK AVE UNIVERSITY AVE CRESTMORE PL W ELI ZABETH ST UNIVERSITY AVE W PLUM ST The District at Campus West CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 06, 2012 Scale 1:2,400 © 0 100 200 300 400 Feet The District at Campus West Parcels Community Commercial