HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/04/2013 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONDATE: June 4, 2013
STAFF: Seth Lorson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s April 18, 2013 Decision to Approve the Max Flats,
Project Development Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the application for the Max
Flats, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to demolish the existing King’s Auto building
at 203 West Mulberry Street and construct a 63,900 square-foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling
units and 1,439 square-feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line at the Mulberry
Station in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the Community Commercial (CC) Zone District.
The project requested four modifications of standards, as follows: (a) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; (b) the
ability to provide off-site bike parking; (c) a reduction for parking lot setback from five feet to four feet two inches; and
(d) an increased percentage of compact parking spaces.
On May 2, 2013, Bruce Froseth (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, failed to conduct a fair hearing because it
allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading, and substantially ignored its
previously established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under the appeals procedure contained in the Municipal Code, the appeal is required to be considered upon the record
on appeal, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and
the arguments made by parties-in-interest at the hearing on the appeal, provided the arguments raised by parties-in-
interest were raised in the notice of appeal.
The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties-in-interest in
response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. Staff is prepared to answer questions regarding
the allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
After testimony from the Applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board voted
4 – 0 to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan application.
In support of its motion to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings of fact
and conclusions as contained on page 9 of the staff report.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was
substantially false and grossly misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this project was required to be reviewed
as a type 2.”
The Appellant states, “staff provided information to the board concerning why the hearing was held so soon after the
required neighborhood meeting. Staff responded that this project was, ‘caught in the middle’, of a change in the L.U.C.
This is not correct. This project in fact, was required to go through a type 2 review process from the beginning of the
development submittal.”
June 4, 2013 -2- ITEM 27
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got caught in the middle
of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land
Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and
then require, instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the
developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion
that we had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded ahead
as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a definition that said, any
residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And,
so, very late in the process for this developer, we discovered that because of the Code change, they were required
to do a Type II review. The developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get
back on the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the time of
the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim
Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who participated that your late
neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of things about our process lately, and we’re trying
to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively
will do a better job.” (Page 16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we
had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think
that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been explained well as to why it happened and going forward,
the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater
outreach, and so that’s the right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change and is able to
answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. At the hearing “elevations in their entirety were not shown.”
The Appellant states, “Only sections or portions of elevations were shown. A limited visual image in the form of a tree-
framed perspective depicting a foreshortened view of the major façade was featured and left on the screen. The true
representation of mass and scale of the project remains elusive. The presentation appeared to be misleading and
avoided depiction of the reality of the project.”
The neighborhood meeting was held on April 10, 2013. The Applicant submitted a revised version of the building
elevations prior to the public hearing on April 16, 2013, as shown in the Power Point presentation to Planning and
Zoning Board (Attachment 4: Materials submitted to Planning and Zoning Board at the Hearing). The revised plans
show a fifth floor setback on the west side and a change in material from metal panel to brick.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the manner in which images were presented. Building elevations were
displayed during staff presentation and provided in the staff report (Attachment 1 – PDP Plan Set).
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure when approving the Project Development Plan application?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get comments to the board and indeed were
unaware and uninformed by staff that the work session was planned to review this project at all or
specifically was taking place the next day.”
June 4, 2013 -3- ITEM 27
The Appellant states, “Neighborhood comments should have been delivered to the P & Z Board at that work session
where the developer was present and had the opportunity to observe. Subsequently, the P & Z meeting was held on
Thursday, April 18, 2013. This timeline was inadequate for comprehensive neighborhood feedback, as well as counter
to proper expected procedure.”
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, “This was one of the projects that got caught in the middle
of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land
Use Code…where you might remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and
then require, instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the
developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the discussion
that we had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the developer proceeded ahead
as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a definition that said, any
residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And,
so, very late in the process for this developer, we discovered that because of the Code change, they were required
to do a Type II review. The developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get
back on the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the time of
the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held.” (Page 15, Line 30 through Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim
Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who participated that your late
neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of things about our process lately, and we’re trying
to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively
will do a better job.” (Page 16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, “I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we
had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think
that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been explained well as to why it happened and going forward,
the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater
outreach, and so that’s the right direction.” (Page 21, Line 19 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staff has prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change and is able to
answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
1. “This project fails to meet compatibility standards.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C)(1) states: horizontal masses shall not exceed a height:width ratio of 1:3 without substantial variation
in massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed elements.
The Appellant states, “The proposed 5 story 56-foot high building at 240-feet in length along the major axis has a ratio
of over 1:4 with no change in height or step backs on the featured block frontage” and the “proposed step in the
building height on the North elevation did fully depict how it relates in scale and mass to the overall building due to lack
of a West elevation. There is little or no visual effect from the later proposed North minimal stepping at the fifth floor
to the major East or West elevations.”
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page 5 and 6 respectively.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is able to answer
questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.”
June 4, 2013 -4- ITEM 27
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(3) states: all sides of the building shall include material and design characteristics consistent
with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facades shall be prohibited.
The Appellant states, “Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood. No substantial
projecting elements or substantial recessed elements of consequence occur to break up the block-like composition
leading to the lack of architectural quality, (please see elevations). There are no decks, balconies, horizontal/shading
elements brick and minimal enhanced features proposed as shown on the principal elevation.”
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the design characteristics on the side facing the neighborhood.
Staff has prepared information regarding the design characteristics on the side of the building facing the neighborhood
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
3. “The project detracts from the character by setting up a physical and visual barrier in its block-type
form.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(B) states: 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.
The Appellant states, “The burden is upon this project to set an enhanced standard. It fails to do so as it ignores how
sensitive mass and form promote compatibility.”
The Applicant’s narrative, attached to the staff report, discusses and illustrates the existing neighborhood character.
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, ”I like what the applicant’s team has done to design a good project and to
continually upgrade it. This is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the
Mason Corridor come to life and be functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason, and even
across the street, to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very eclectic architecture
in that neighborhood…very eclectic.” (Page 21, Line 24 – 28 of Verbatim Transcript).
Staff has prepared information regarding the neighborhood character and project compatibility and is able to answer
questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
4. “This building's architectural character has taken on an overall vocabulary of repetitive elements,
lacking in detailing superimposed upon an overwhelming scale and building mass.”
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(C) states: 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.
The Appellant states: “It [the proposed building] does not relate to street and neighborhood.”
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page 5 and 6 respectively.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is able to answer
questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Review the record and determine if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Max Flats Project
Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the Board for further consideration.
June 4, 2013 -5- ITEM 27
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit.
2. Notice of Appeal.
3. Staff Report provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, with attachments.
4. Materials submitted to Planning and Zoning Board at the Hearing.
5. Verbatim Transcript of Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
6. 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 - Bruce
Froseth and Susan Kreul-
Froseth, May 2, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Planning and
Zoning Board
Hearing held April 18, 2013
ITEM NO ______3___________
MEETING DATE __April 18, 2013____
STAFF __LORSON _____
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: MAX Flats (203 W. Mulberry St.), #PDP120034
APPLICANT/OWNER: Brinkman Development, LLC/203 W. Mulberry, LLC
3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project proposes to demolish the existing King’s Auto building and construct a 63,900
square foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square feet of
ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line, in the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and zoned Community Commercial (CC) in which multi-
family dwellings with more than 50 dwelling units are permitted subject to review by the
Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2). The project is requesting 4 modifications of standards,
they are as follows: A) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; B) ability to provide off-site bike
parking; C) a reduction for parking lot setback from 5’ to 4’2”; and D) an increased percentage
of compact parking spaces.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed PDP has been reviewed by staff and is in compliance with all applicable Land Use
Code (LUC) standards with the exception of the proposed modifications of standards for which
staff is recommending approval based on the finding that they are nominal and inconsequential
(Sec. 2.8.2.). The applicant has worked to enhance visual interest along the pedestrian frontage
(Sec. 3.10.4) and provide adequate variation in massing and building materials (Sec. 3.5.3). The
proposed development is in line with the principles of infill and redevelopment as outlined for
this area in City Plan (LIV 5).
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North Downtown (D) Commercial
South Community Commercial (CC) Single- and multi-family residential and
commercial
East Community Commercial (CC) Multi-family residential and commercial
West Community Commercial (CC) Multi-family residential
The property is part of the Fort Collins Original Town Site platted in 1873.
2. Compliance with Applicable Community Commercial (CC) District Standards
[Division 4.18]
A. Purpose: The purpose of the Community Commercial District is as follows:
The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail, offices,
services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story
buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses.
Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above ground-floor retail and
services.
The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the zone district as
the project proposes to provide a mix of uses with higher-density residential in a
multi-story building above ground-floor retail.
B. Permitted Land Uses: [Section 4.18 (B)] The proposed use of Mixed-use
dwellings is permitted in this zone district in coordination with Any residential
use consisting in whole or in part of multi-family dwellings that contain more
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 3
than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms the project
is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2).
D. Development Standards: [Section 4.18 (E)]
(1) Site Planning.
(a) Building Orientation. The configuration of shops in the Community
Commercial District shall orient primary ground-floor commercial
building entrances to pedestrian-oriented streets, connecting walkways,
plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, not to interior blocks or parking
lots. Anchor tenant retail buildings may have their primary entrances from
off-street parking lots; however, on-street entrances are strongly
encouraged. The lot size and layout pattern for individual blocks within
the Community Commercial District shall support this requirement.
The commercial element of the proposed development has its primary
entrance facing onto the plaza that is on the corner of Mulberry Street and
Mason Street, both have detached public sidewalks. The primary entrance for
the residential element faces onto the Mason Street sidewalk.
(b) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one (1) prominent or central
location within each geographically distinct Community Commercial
District shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with
amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature
and its amenities may be placed on blocks with community facilities.
A plaza is provided at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Mason Street.
The plaza is bounded by masonry seat walls and has sandstone seat blocks and
will provide tables and chairs.
(c) Integration of the Transit Stop. Community Commercial Districts shall be
considered primary stops on the regional transit network. Transit stops, to
the maximum extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the
core commercial area. Commercial uses must be directly visible and
accessible from the transit stop. Transfers to feeder buses shall be
provided for in the design and location of these stops. (See also Section
3.6.5, Transit Facilities Standards.)
The forthcoming bus rapid transit line, the Max, has the Mulberry Station stop
directly abutting this site. The building design has the station between the
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 4
commercial element and the residential entrance. The station shelter will be
almost directly against the face of the building and pedestrian traffic will
travel in front of the station shelter.
(2)(d) Building Height. All buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty
(20) feet, measured to the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or
the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped-roof building. In
the case of a complex roof with different co-dominant portions, the
measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All buildings shall be
limited to five (5) stories.
The building is proposed to be 5 stories in height. The site is in the City
Floodplain (not F.E.M.A.) so the project has provided parking for the majority
of the base level to lift the residential component out of the floodplain.
3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards – Article 3
A. Site Planning and Design Standards [Division 3.2]
3.2.1(D)(2) Street Trees:
The proposed development is providing street trees at 30 to 40 foot intervals with
the exception of the area with the Max station and on Mulberry Street near the
corner to maintain the required sight distance.
3.2.2(K)(1) Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements:
(a) Attached Dwellings: For each two-family and multi-family dwelling there
shall be parking spaces provided as indicated by the following table:
Number of Bedrooms/Dwelling Unit Parking Spaces Per Dwelling Unit*
One or less 1.5
Two 1.75
Three 2.0
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 5
Four and above 2.5
1. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall have no minimum
parking requirements.
The project proposes 64 parking spaces to serve 64 dwelling units with 100
bedrooms. The proposed development is in the TOD Overlay Zone and therefore
is not required to provide the minimum amount of parking spaces as noted in the
table above. If the project were outside of the TOD Overlay Zone, it would be
required to provide 105 parking spaces.
B. Building Standards [Division 3.5]
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
Architectural Character, Building Size, Mass and Scale, Building Materials,
Building Color, and Building Height Review [Section 3.5.1 (B), (C), (E), and
(F)]
The area in which this project is proposed has an eclectic mix of building styles
– in form, scale, character, and material – and uses. For example, the adjacent
corners of the Mulberry and Mason intersection have the following buildings:
gas station (Schrader, gas canopy and convenience store, NW corner), sporting
goods retail (Sports Authority, former grocery store, NE corner), church (First
Presbyterian, large scale with large parking lot, SE corner). There is not a
common character established in the area and is recognized in City Plan as a
targeted infill and redevelopment area. The proposed building is attempting to
set an enhanced standard of quality by creating a gathering plaza, providing
masonry materials on the base level, and articulating the massing with balconies
to further engage the residents with the public realm.
The building is sited directly on the east property line to frame the street and to
move its building mass away from the two-story multi-family buildings to the
west.
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 6
Shadowing [3.2.3 & 3.5.1(G)]
The five-story building shadow analysis has shown that the majority of the
shading of neighbors will be in the morning hours for the property to the west.
According to the shadow analysis, the proposed building does not cast a shadow
over the rooftops of the property to the west and therefore would not “preclude
the functional use of solar energy technology” (assuming the solar panels were
placed on the roof).
3.5.2 Mixed-Use, Institutional, and Commercial Buildings
Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways, and Parking. [Section 3.5.2 (B)]
The main entrances of the building face onto the public sidewalk on Mason
Street, directly adjoining to the Max Station, and the retail space opens onto a
public plaza at the corner of Mason and Mulberry. The building is sited well
within the required 15 foot build-to line leaving just enough space for bike racks
and green screen landscaping elements between the building and the sidewalk.
Variation in Massing. [Section 3.5.2 (C)]
The proposed building provides both vertical and horizontal variation throughout
the building. Additional building articulation is provided with the protruding
balconies on the east side.
Character and Image. [Section 3.5.2 (D)]
The proposed building creates a recognizable base with masonry material – a
mix between brick at entrances and ground-face CMU – windows that open to
the parking at the base level are covered with wood slats and green screen
landscaping. The base includes a 1,466 s.f. commercial element, a Max Station
(Mulberry Station), a public plaza, and many bike parking spaces. The top
element is treated with a color change in the stucco and a cornice.
4 Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone
[Division 3.10]
A. Parking Structure Design [Section 3.10.4(D)
The only applicable section of the Development Standards for TOD Overlay Zone
for properties north of Prospect Road is the section regarding parking structure
design. Specifically it requires that “where parking structures face streets, retail
and other uses shall be required along at least fifty (50) percent of the ground
level frontage to minimize interruption in the pedestrian interest and activity.”
The applicant is proposing to meet this standard by providing a commercial
element, residential entrances, and bicycle parking totaling 52% of the ground
level frontage. Additionally, the Max Station (Mulberry Station) will be
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 7
integrated into the ground level frontage, effectively precluding any other use in
the area and enhancing pedestrian interest and activity.
5. Modification of Standards [Division 2.8]
A. Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(5)]
The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring six percent
landscaping of interior spaces in parking lots and no greater than a 15 space
parking bay without a landscape island.
The project proposes 2.7% (224 s.f.) landscaping of interior parking spaces
instead of the required 6% (505 s.f.).
The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested
modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public
good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan.
The development site is particularly constrained being only 100’ wide and
thus has hardly enough room for drive aisles. The project is proposing 64 parking
spaces (one per unit) in the TOD Overlay Zone, which there is not a minimum
parking requirement. Without this modification, the project would provide less
parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking.
Additionally, the parking lot is well screened by the building and the 6’ privacy
fence along the south and west property lines. Please see attached the applicant’s
request for a modification of standard.
B. Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)]
The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring bike parking
spaces be provided on site in the amount of one space per bedroom (60%
enclosed; 40% fixed) and 4 spaces for the retail element (20% enclosed; 80 %
fixed).
The project proposes 65 enclosed spaces (61 required) and 31 fixed spaces (43
required) on site. The project proposes to partially compensate for the 12 spaces
by providing 10 spaces in the Mason Street ROW (requiring a revocable ROW
permit).
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 8
The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested
modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public
good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan.
If the spaces proposed in the ROW were counted toward the total required spaces,
then the project would be two fixed spaces short but are providing four additional
enclosed spaces, therefore the project would have an overall net of +2 spaces
beyond the requirement: 65 enclosed + 31 fixed + 10 ROW = 106 spaces (104
required). Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of
standard.
C. Parking Lot Setback [3.2.2(J)]
The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring a 5 foot
setback for vehicular use areas along lot lines.
The project proposes an average of 4.15 foot setback along the west property line.
The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested
modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public
good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, and that the project will 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.
The project site is particularly constrained by its narrow width of 100 feet and is
requesting 3 modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one
parking space per unit. The project is providing a 6 foot high privacy fence along
the west property line and also providing 3 trees and many shrubs to soften the
transition between the parking lot and the property to the west. Additional trees
were not provided due to a sizeable utility easement. The project is consistent
with community needs described in City Plan such as Prioritize Targeted
Redevelopment Areas (EH 4.1), Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and
Redevelopment (EH 4.2) and Maximize Land for Residential Development (LIV
7.4). Without the granting of this modification the project would be practically
infeasible because there would not be enough space for the parking lot drive
aisles. Please see attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard.
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 9
D. Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)]
The applicant is requesting a modification of standard to the requirement that
compact parking stalls make up a maximum of 40% of the parking spaces
provided.
The project proposes 58% compact parking stalls.
The applicant asks that the Planning and Zoning Board find that the requested
modification be granted on the grounds that it is not detrimental to the public
good and that the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a
nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan.
The applicant is attempting to provide one parking space per dwelling unit with
the existing site constraints. By reducing the size of an additional 12 parking
spaces to the permitted compact vehicle size, the project is able to achieve this
objective. This proposed reduction in parking stall size will not negatively affect
the public because they are private parking spaces to be managed by the
developer. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and
thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking. Please see
attached the applicant’s request for a modification of standard.
6. Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has granted the Max Flats
project a grant to assist in public improvements in the ROW. The DDA has reviewed the
project in entirety and has decided that the project meets their standard for desirable
development in the Downtown area.
7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating Max Flats (203 W. Mulberry) #PDP120034, Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in interior
parking lot landscaping (Sec. 3.2.1(E)(5)&(5)(e) is not detrimental to the public
good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan
because the parking is already screened from public view by the building and the
fence.
B. The request for a modification of standard to reduce the required number of on-
site fixed bicycle parking spaces (Sec. 3.2.2(C)(4) is not detrimental to the public
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 10
good and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. This is
because the proposal is still providing adequate bicycle parking when including
the public ROW.
C. The request for a modification of standard to reduce the parking lot setback (Sec.
3.2.2(J) is not detrimental to the public good and does not diverge from the
standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan, and that the project will 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. This is because the lot is
of a peculiar shape, exceptionally narrow, and requires the reduction to allow for
drive aisles. The project is 10 inches short of the standard and is providing
screening in the form of a 6’ fence and landscaping where feasible. Also, it allows
for additional parking to be provided on a targeted infill and redevelopment site
as identified in City Plan.
D. The request for a modification of standard to permit an increased percentage of
compact parking spaces (Sec. 3.2.2(L)(2) is not detrimental to the public good
and does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan because the
modification will not burden the public. This is because the parking is internal to
the site, will be controlled by the owners and will not be open to the public.
E. The PDP contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land
development standards of the Community Commercial District in accordance
with Article 4 of the Land Use Code.
F. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article
3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modification of
standards.
G. The PDP complies with the applicable procedural and administrative
requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Max Flats (203 W. Mulberry) #PDP120034
Max Flats, PDP #130034
Planning & Zoning Hearing 04-18-2013
Page 11
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – PDP Plan Set
2 – Modification Requests
3 – Applicant Narrative
4 – Public Comments
April 2, 2013
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Landscaping and Tree Protection,
Section 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code.
Background
The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as
a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to
the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with
64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor.
Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off-
street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure.
The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry
Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building.
This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5)
Code Language: Section 3.2.1(E)(5) states the following:
“(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. As required in Section 3.2.2(M)(1) Access, Circulation and
Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100)
spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100)
spaces or more shall be landscape areas.”
Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require
parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces.
27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges
with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking
stall depths and the parking structure. Because of these factors, the project does not meet the
6% parking lot interior landscaping requirement.
MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards
4-2-13
2
Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have 224
sq. ft. of landscape instead of 505 sq. ft. feet.
Parking lot area: 8,415 sq. ft.
6% required landscape: 505 sq. ft.
Provided landscape: 224 sq. ft.
Amount deficient: 281 sq. ft.
Justification
We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public
good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons:
• The intent of the required 6% interior parking lot landscape for vehicular use areas is to
provide sufficient canopy shade trees and landscaping that provides visual quality, visual
screening, and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area. The 224 square feet
of landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of
landscape interior to the pakring area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to
the west.
• The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in
terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials.
• The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street
parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking
demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
• We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud
of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a
benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of
the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of
the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural
facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to
provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged
to locate above ground-floor retail and services.”
Modification to Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e)
Code Language: Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) states the following:
“(e) Parking bays shall extend no more than fifteen (15) parking spaces without an intervening
tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula.”.
Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require
parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces.
27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges
MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards
4-2-13
3
with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking
stall depths and the parking structure. The project has 16 parking spaces located along the west
edge of the parking lot. As stated above, the Code requires a landscape island every 15 spaces.
The project is providing 1 space per unit and .64 parking stalls per bedroom and we feel it is
important to keep the parking ratios as is.
Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have 16
parking spaces in a row without a landscape island.
Justification
We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public
good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons:
• The intent of the Code section of having a landscape island every 15 parking spaces is to
provide trees that maximize areas of shade. We believe this requirement is intended for
large parking areas and this parking lot is fairly small. The landscape plan shows oak
trees spaced every 40’ in the landscape strip along the west property line. We feel that
these trees will provide sufficient shade for the parking area.
• The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in
terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials.
• The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street
parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking
demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
• We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud
of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a
benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of
the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of
the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural
facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to
provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged
to locate above ground-floor retail and services.”
MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards
4-2-13
4
The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the
February 2011 City Plan:
Economic Health
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
Environmental Health
Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development
Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to
address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact
Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a
goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of
various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology.
Community and Neighborhood Livibility
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 theTargeted 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.
Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
“community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The
MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards
4-2-13
5
“community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in
streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to
support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of
transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential
neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by
improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be
targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles
and policies on infill and redevelopment.)
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 7.4 – 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 7.7 – 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.
Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to
the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together,
the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the
character, form, and scale of the city.
Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees
Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by
buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent
feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of
tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover.
Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces
Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play
areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and
planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and
civic development projects.
Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes
of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting.
Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking
Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an
public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by:
• Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks.
• Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer.
MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards
4-2-13
6
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.
Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an
attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce
the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses
Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and
promote pedestrian activity:
• Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally
mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall
development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and
restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest.
• Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District
at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public
spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity.
• Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with
access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian
and vehicular circulation.
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 35.3 –Scale
Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to
promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the
community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support
MAX FlatsPDP 6% Landscape Modification of Standards
4-2-13
7
high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building
height to five (5) to six (6) stories.
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.
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized
Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically
promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors
will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking
major activity centers and districts in the city.
Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along
Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities
and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use.
Transportation
Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility
option for all ages and abilities.
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 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service
Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in
adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive
land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target
markets within the City.
April 2, 2013
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) of the Land
Use Code.
Background
The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as
a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to
the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with
64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor.
Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off-
street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure.
The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry
Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building.
This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b)
Code Language: Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) Bicycle Facilities states the following:
“(b) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements. The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set
forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle
parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed.”
Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space
Minimums
% Enclosed
Bicycle Parking/
% Fixed Bicycle
Racks
Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements
MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards
4-2-13
2
Multi-Family Residential 1 per bedroom 60%/40%
Requested Modification: MAX Flats PDP will have 100 bedrooms, therefore 100 bike parking
spaces are required. Of the 100, 60 spaces are required to be enclosed and 40 spaces are to be
in fixed racks. The project provides 64 enclosed spaces located within the units. 21 spaces are
located in fixed racks along Mason Street and 7 spaces on the west side of the building. In
addition, there will be 10 spaces in racks located within the right-of-way on Mason Street, totaling
38 fixed spaces. 4 bike parking spaces for the retail area are located on the west side of the
building. 1 is enclosed in a bike locker and 3 are in fixed racks.
Retail Bike Parking Required: 4 spaces
Retail Bike Parking Provided: 1 enclosed (80%)
3 fixed racks (20%)
Total 4
Residential Bike Parking Required: 100 bedrooms = 100 spaces (60% enclosed/40% fixed)
Residential Bike Parking Provided: 64 enclosed (64%)
38 fixed racks (38%)
Total 102
Since 10 of the fixed rack spaces are in the Mason Street right-of-way, we are requesting a
Modification to allow the project to be able to count the spaces towards the total requirement.
Justification
We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public
good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons:
• The development will provide a site that enhances the safety and convenience of walking
and bicycling as alternative means of transportation
• The site is located right on the MAX BRT/Mason Street Corridor. There will be a stop on
the east side of the building. There is a public benefit by providing racks within the right-
of-way that will be used adjacent to he transit stop. Further, the Mason Street right-of-way
is in its ultimate location, thus the risk of removing the bike racks in the future is minimal.
MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards
4-2-13
3
The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the
February 2011 City Plan:
Economic Health
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
Environmental Health
Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development
Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to
address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact
Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a
goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of
various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology.
Community and Neighborhood Livibility
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 theTargeted 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.
Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
“community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The
MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards
4-2-13
4
“community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in
streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to
support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of
transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential
neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by
improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be
targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles
and policies on infill and redevelopment.)
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 7.4 – 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 7.7 – 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.
Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to
the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together,
the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the
character, form, and scale of the city.
Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees
Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by
buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent
feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of
tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover.
Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces
Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play
areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and
planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and
civic development projects.
Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes
of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting.
Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking
Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an
public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by:
• Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks.
• Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer.
MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards
4-2-13
5
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.
Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an
attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce
the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses
Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and
promote pedestrian activity:
• Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally
mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall
development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and
restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest.
• Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District
at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public
spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity.
• Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with
access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian
and vehicular circulation.
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 35.3 –Scale
Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to
promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the
community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support
MAX FlatsPDP Bicycle Parking Modification of Standards
4-2-13
6
high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building
height to five (5) to six (6) stories.
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.
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized
Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically
promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors
will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking
major activity centers and districts in the city.
Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along
Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities
and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use.
Transportation
Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility
option for all ages and abilities.
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 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service
Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in
adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive
land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target
markets within the City.
April 2, 2013
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(J) of the Land Use
Code.
Background
The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as
a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to
the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with
64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor.
Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off-
street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure.
The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry
Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building.
This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to section 3.2.2(J)
Code Language: Section 3.2.2(J) Setbacks. Any vehicular use area containing six (6) or more
parking spaces or one thousand eight hundred (1,800) or more square feet shall be set back from
the street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or
uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according
to the following table:
Minimum average of
entire landscaped setback
area (feet)
Minimum width of setback
at any point (feet)
Along an arterial
street
15
5
Along a
nonarterial street
10
5
Along a lot line
5 5
MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards
4-2-13
2
Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require
parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces.
27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges
with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking
stall depths and the parking structure. Because of these factors, the landscape area along the
west property line ranges from 3.6’ to 4.7’ wide, with an everage of 4.15 feet.
Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to have an
average setback of 4.15 feet instead of 5 feet along the west property line.
Justification
We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public
good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons:
• The intent of the required 5’ vehicular use area setback is to provide sufficient space for
visual screening and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area, The 4.7 feet of
landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of
landscape interior to the pakring area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to
the west.
• The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, which is in compliance with all applicable building design standards in
terms of enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials.
• The width of the landscape area in the proposed alternative plan is short, on average, by
8/10ths of a foot.
• The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street
parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking
demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
• We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud
of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a
benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of
the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of
the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural
facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to
provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged
to locate above ground-floor retail and services.”
MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards
4-2-13
3
The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the
February 2011 City Plan:
Economic Health
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
Environmental Health
Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development
Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to
address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact
Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a
goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of
various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology.
Community and Neighborhood Livibility
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 theTargeted 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.
Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
“community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The
MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards
4-2-13
4
“community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in
streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to
support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of
transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential
neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by
improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be
targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles
and policies on infill and redevelopment.)
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 7.4 – 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 7.7 – 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.
Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to
the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together,
the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the
character, form, and scale of the city.
Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees
Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by
buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent
feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of
tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover.
Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces
Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play
areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and
planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and
civic development projects.
Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes
of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting.
Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking
Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an
public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by:
• Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks.
• Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer.
MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards
4-2-13
5
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.
Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an
attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce
the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses
Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and
promote pedestrian activity:
• Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally
mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall
development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and
restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest.
• Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District
at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public
spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity.
• Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with
access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian
and vehicular circulation.
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 35.3 –Scale
Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to
promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the
community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support
MAX FlatsPDP Parking Setback Modification of Standards
4-2-13
6
high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building
height to five (5) to six (6) stories.
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.
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized
Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically
promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors
will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking
major activity centers and districts in the city.
Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along
Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities
and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use.
Transportation
Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility
option for all ages and abilities.
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 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service
Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in
adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive
land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target
markets within the City.
April 2, 2013
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: MAX Flats Project Development Plan
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 3.2.2(L)(2) of the Land Use
Code.
Background
The MAX Flats PDP is located at 203 West Mulberry. The .70-acre lot is currently being used as
a small auto dealership. The site will be redeveloped into an L-shaped building to be oriented to
the corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets. The mixed use building will be 5 stories in height, with
64 dwelling units and approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of retail space propsed on the ground floor.
Overall net density of the project is 91.4 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 64 off-
street spaces, located at the rear of the building and partially tucked under a parking structure.
The site is in the C-C zoning district as well as within the TOD Overlay district. The Mulberry
Station for the MAX BRT stop is located on the east side of the building.
This modification requested is in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to Section 3.2.2(L)(2)
Code Language: Section 3.2.2(L)(2) Parking Stall Dimensions statess the following:
“(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. Off-street parking areas for automobiles shall meet the
following minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and
compact vehicles:
(2) Compact Vehicle Spaces in Long-term Parking Lots. Those areas of a
parking lot that are approved as long-term parking have the option to include
compact parking stalls. Such approved long-term parking areas may have up to
forty (40) percent compact car stalls using the compact vehicle dimensions set
forth in Table B.”
MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards
4-2-13
2
Requested Modification: The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require
parking for the residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces.
27 are standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges
with the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking
stall depths and the parking structure.
The following parking spaces are provided:
Standard Parking Stalls = 27 (42.2%)
Compact Parking Stalls = 37 (57.8%)
Total 64 (100.0%)
The Code requires 64 spaces x 40% = 25 compact spaces maximum
Given the above, we respectfully request that the MAX Flats PDP project be allowed to exceed
the maximum number of compact spaces by 12 spaces.
Justification
We feel that the granting of this modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public
good, and the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons:
• The modification is minor, when considered from the perspective of the entire
development plan, which provides consistency with the Land Use Code in terms of
enhanced architecture, building articulation and quality materials.
• While not required in the TOD, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street
parking demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
The project is providing 1 space per unit and .64 spaces per bedroom.
• We feel that the proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood by building an attractive, desirable product that the community can be proud
of. Although not strictly a criteria for justification, the consruction of the project would be a
benefit to the neighborhood. The resulting project enhances the established character of
the neighborhood with an intensity of use that is consistent with the purpose statement of
the C-C zone district which “provides a combination of retail, offices, services, cultural
facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to
provide a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged
to locate above ground-floor retail and services.”
MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards
4-2-13
3
The proposed alternative plan is consistent with the following Principles and Policies of the
February 2011 City Plan:
Economic Health
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
Environmental Health
Policy ENV 19.2 – Pursue Low Impact Development
Pursue and implement Low Impact Development (LID) as an effective approach to
address stormwater quality and impacts to streams by urbanization. Low Impact
Development is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a
goal of minimizing the impact of development on urban watersheds through the use of
various techniques aimed at mimicking predevelopment hydrology.
Community and Neighborhood Livibility
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 theTargeted 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.
Policy LIV 5.2 – Target Public Investment along the Community Spine
Together, many of the Targeted Redevelopment Areas and Activity Centers form the
“community spine” of the city along College Avenue and the Mason Corridor. The
MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards
4-2-13
4
“community spine” shall be considered the highest priority area for public investment in
streetscape and urban design improvements and other infrastructure upgrades to
support infill and redevelopment and to promote the corridor’s transition to a series of
transit-supportive, mixeduse activity centers over time. Established residential
neighborhoods adjacent to College Avenue and the Mason Corridor will be served by
improvements to the “community spine” over time, but are not intended to be
targeted for infill or redevelopment. (Also see the Economic Health chapter’s principles
and policies on infill and redevelopment.)
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 7.4 – 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 7.7 – 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.
Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to
the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together,
the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the
character, form, and scale of the city.
Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees
Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by
buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent
feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of
tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover.
Policy LIV 11.2 – Incorporate Public Spaces
Incorporate public spaces and activities such plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play
areas, transit facilities, sidewalks, pathways, “street furniture” such as benches and
planters, and public art into the urban designs for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and
civic development projects.
Principle LIV 30: Commercial Districts will be designed to accommodate all modes
of travel – pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and motor vehicle – in a compact setting.
Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking
Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots from primary pedestrian streets, plazas, an
public spaces and promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment by:
• Locating lots behind buildings, in side yards, or in the interior of blocks.
• Softening and screening their visual impacts with a perimeter landscape buffer.
MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards
4-2-13
5
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.
Principle LIV 31: Each commercial District should feature a mix of uses and an
attractive and inviting public realm that encourages pedestrian activity, reinforce
the unique identify of the District, and complements the scale and character of
surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LIV 31.1 – Relationship of Commercial District Uses
Organize uses in Commercial Districts to support existing and planned transit and
promote pedestrian activity:
• Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally
mixed uses based on site size, access, adjacent uses, and the overall
development context. Seek to locate active uses, such as retail shops and
restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest.
• Concentrate active uses and vertical mixed-use portions of a Commercial District
at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public
spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity.
• Locate uses along College Avenue and paralleling Mason Street to the west with
access between each corridor, at mid-block, and between uses for both pedestrian
and vehicular circulation.
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 35.3 –Scale
Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to
promote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the
community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support
MAX FlatsPDP Compact Car Modification of Standards
4-2-13
6
high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building
height to five (5) to six (6) stories.
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.
Principle LIV 43: Enhanced Travel Corridors will be strategic and specialized
Transportation Corridors that contain amenities and designs that specifically
promote walking, the use of mass transit, and bicycling. Enhanced Travel Corridors
will provide highfrequency/ high efficiency travel opportunities for all modes linking
major activity centers and districts in the city.
Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transitsupportive development along
Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities
and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
accommodating efficient automobile use.
Transportation
Principle T10: Using transit will be a safe, affordable, easy, and convenient mobility
option for all ages and abilities.
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 10.6 – High Frequency Transit Service
Implement high frequency transit service on Enhanced Travel Corridors as shown in
adopted transit plans and encouraged on Enhanced Travel Corridors with supportive
land uses, providing links between activity centers and districts, and recognizing target
markets within the City.
BOULDER PHONE: 303 449.8900
1805 29TH STREET, SUITE 2054 FAX: 303.449.3886
DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM
®
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN
INTERIOR DESIGN
12.12.2012 Page 1 of 2
g:\development\projects\203 w. mulberry\3.
entitlement\pdp\planning objectives docx
Statement of Planning Objectives
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
PDP Submittal
(i) The proposed project supports Plan Fort Collins’ principles and policies in the following ways:
- Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the economic health of
the community.
- Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by providing energy-
efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable products, limit construction waste, and
recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing
housing for students on bus routes close to campus, allowing them to ride bikes or busses, or walk to campus,
Old Town, shopping and other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use.
- Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern development and
will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically identified as a target for infill and
redevelopment.
- High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity within the city by
offering a community of housing to students in an open, non-discriminatory way.
- Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by providing housing
directly on the Mason Street ETC.
(ii) Usable open space consists primarily of the community plaza at the corner of Mason and Mulberry. Use of seating
provided for customers, transit users, and residents will be encouraged by its proximity to the proposed Retail/Flex
space and Max BRT stop. There are no wetlands or significant natural habitats within the boundaries of the site.
There are two existing Honeylocust trees on the site that will have to be removed and mitigated. The team has met
with the City Forester to assess the existing trees and landscaping. All of the existing street trees will remain
undisturbed. New landscaping will consist of low-water shrubs, ornamental grasses and groundcover as required by
code.
(iii) The proposed project site is currently owned by Jerry King and is in the process of transferring ownership to 203W.
Mulberry, LLC. The site is set to close on December 18, 2012. Once ownership has transferred to 203 W. Mulberry,
LLC, they will assume maintenance of the site.
(iv) A retail space of about 1,500 s.f. is proposed at first floor along Mulberry. This is envisioned to be a coffee shop or
similar business, which would have 1-3 employees at any given time and could employ between 3 and 5 FTEs (full-
time equivalents).
(v) The L-shaped building is oriented to provide a strong urban edge along Mason and Mulberry Streets and to provide
the maximum buffer to the existing apartments to the west. The ground level facade will intertwine residential
entries, bicycle parking, outdoor plazas and commercial uses to create a dynamic urban street. Pedestrian scale
elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street-level experience. The building facades are scaled
to be compatible with the surrounding context. This also allows the parking to be tucked under the building and
mostly hidden from the street.
Pedestrians will circulate primarily along the perimeter street edges. Bicycle parking is conveniently located
adjacent to the building along both streets helping create street activity. Secure bicycle parking is provided within
the individual residential units. An outdoor plaza at the prominent northeast corner takes advantage of proximity to
the future Max BRT station and the retail/flex spacing and provides numerous seating options (table and chairs,
seatwall, and seating boulders) for residents, customers, transit users and neighbors.
BOULDER PHONE: 303 449.8900
1805 29TH STREET, SUITE 2054 FAX: 303.449.3886
DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM
®
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN
INTERIOR DESIGN
12.12.2012 Page 2 of 2
(vi) Please see the attached Variance Request letter for information relating to variances that are being requested on
this project.
(vii) There are no natural features or wildlife conflicts. Impacts and conflicts with adjacent properties are mitigating by
providing a fence along the south and west boundaries. The building has been configured and sited to provide the
maximum separation to the apartments to the west.
(viii) A Neighborhood Meeting has not occurred for this project.
(ix) The current project name is MAX Flats. It went by “203 W. Mulberry” at the time of Preliminary Design Review.
Max Flats: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan
City Plan / Plan Fort Collins
o The City Structure Plan Map identifies this site in the Downtown Development
District/Community Commercial District and on an Enhanced Travel Corridor.
o Plan Fort Collins identifies this site as being located within the Targeted Infill and
Redevelopment Areas.
o Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the redevelopment and
infill in targeted redevelopment 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.”
o Principle LIV-5.2 emphasizes public investment along the Community Spine as the
highest priority for public improvements to streetscape and infrastructure, and
encourages the concentration of higher density housing and mixed-use developments.
o Principle LIV-31 encourages vertical mixed-use projects at key intersections and transit
stops.
o Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as communitywide
destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system.
35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in the
Community Commercial Districts to promote 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 to six stories.”
o Principle LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
“Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development
along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment.”
Land Use Code
o Division 4.18 - CC Zone District
Purpose: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail,
offices, service, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-
story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and
nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above
ground-floor retail and services.
o Division 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban
environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts
and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first
priority while also accommodating vehicular movement.
o Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone
Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts
south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that
enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor.
Refill Fort Collins
o Refill Fort Collins specifically identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with
Redevelopment and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights
Incentive.
o The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the north(Schrader’s)
and northeast(Sports Authority) as being part of an 11.24 acre redevelopment site that
can accommodate 7 – 9 stories and up to 115 feet in height.
The following images are included on page 95 of City Plan and also in Chapter 1 of Refill Fort Collins. The
images illustrate before and after views of the future redevelopment of the northeast and southeast
corners of Mason and Mulberry with new structures very similar to the project we are proposing.
Photosimulation of a possible redevelopment along the
Mason Street Enhanced Travel Corridor.
The following image is shown on page 23 of Plan Fort Collins in a section describing the redevelopment
of the Mason Corridor. Again, the image depicts a building that is very similar to the project we are
proposing.
The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to
Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to
incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at
station areas.
Map Showing Zone District Overlay:
Map Showing TOD Overlay:
March 23, 2013
Mr. Seth Lorson
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, Colorado
VIA-Email
Dr. Mr. Lorson:
I’m writing to express my full support of the new mixed-use building consisting of 64
dwelling units and ground level retail at 203 West Mulberry Street. The corner is well-
suited for the proposed project, and it’s my hope the condemned house immediately to
the south of King’s Auto is included in this project. Shame on City officials for allowing
that eyesore to exist.
Respectfully,
Mike Flesher
210 W. Magnolia Street, Unit 250
Fort Collins, CO 80521
970.222.3320
March 23, 2013
Dear Kelly,
We are not sure anyone really knows about a large scale, five-story high-density, student-oriented
housing project being proposed in your district on the old Kings Auto site on the corner of Mason and
Mulberry Streets.
We learned about the project because we own the property directly to the west and saw the posted
development proposal sign. We reviewed the preliminary drawings for the project with city planner Seth
Lorson initially around the first part of January. The scale of the project is massive and we believe poorly
designed and conceived. To give some background, we met with the developer and owner upon their
invitation on January 22nd. At that meeting we expressed concern about the various aspects of the
proposal not meeting the minimum planning standards set forth by the City of Fort Collins.
We kept in contact with Seth and he said that the next phase of the project would be ready to review
sometime in mid-March. Thursday of this week we just received a letter stating that the public
administrative hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2013, exactly two weeks and one day, (minimum notice
required), to affected property owners. We met with Seth yesterday, Friday, hoping to see some new
improved plans but it actually looked worse, not better. Seth mentioned that only one woman had
called and asked about parking issues other than our continued interest.
We do not believe that this is a type I review, not required to have a neighborhood meeting or to go
before the Planning and Zoning Board. We suspect that people are just now learning of the project at
all. This is an extremely important precedent setting project. It is the first large scale, 5-full story, block-
form, high density student-oriented complex proposed along the new Mason Street Corridor north of
Laurel Street. The major portion of the site at grade level is dedicated to a parking lot with large flat
walls or screens fronting the primary 240-plus long axis fronting Mason Street. The proposed 1,200
square foot coffee shop, representing a little over 2% of the total 63,900 finished square footage allows
it to be called “Mixed Use”. The total units number 64 with 100 bedrooms.
The neighbors and the community will have little time to review this project until it is presented for
approval by the hearing officer. The project is one of extreme precedent setting nature within the
community, the new Mason Street Corridor and District 5. So much so, as the developer has chosen to
take the name of the most significant major urban project the City of Fort Collins has likely taken on,
“MAX Flats”.
We believe that this project is required go to the Planning and Zoning Board for review based upon the
number of units and bedrooms. The full twelve step review process is clearly required based upon the
published regulations set forth in the Land Use Code under Community Commercial Zoning in the City of
Fort Collins.
Thank you, Kelly, for your interest. We know you were very involved in the Mason Street Corridor and
this is something we doubt you envisioned. We feel it would be detrimental to allow such a project with
unquestionable impact to simply slip through with little review or concern.
Sincerely,
Bruce Froseth Susan Kreul-Froseth cell (970-689-9322)
1
Seth Lorson
From: Mark Littau <mlittau1@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:43 PM
To: Seth Lorson
Subject: Max Flats, 203 W. Mulberry St.
Dear Mr. Lorson:
I am a part year resident of Park Lane Towers. I am unable to attend the neighborhood meeting regarding the subject
property, but I would like to comment if possible by email.
I have the following comments or questions:
1. What is the benefit to the neighborhood to allow less landscaping and offsite bicycle parking? It seems to
me that only the project benefits in allowing a higher project density. Is the project name a co-incidence?
2. It seems to me that such a dense project immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks is an invitation for a
student ghetto unless extraordinary sound isolation measures are taken with the project construction to insure a
livable environment for it's residents.
thanks for the opportunity to voice my comments,
Mark Littau
421 S. Howes #1008
Ft. Collins, Co.
1
Seth Lorson
From: Don Genson <dgenson@firstpresfc.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 11:12 AM
To: Seth Lorson
Subject: Comments on Mixed Use Building Project
Seth:
Thank you for the opportunity for providing these comments via email. A representative of the church was planning
to attend the April 3rd meeting but found the building locked. I trust these comments are still able to be added to
the record.
First, let me say thank you for the opportunity as an affected party to make comments about the new mixed‐use
building project at 203 West Mulberry. As business administrator at First Presbyterian Church at 531 S. College
Avenue I am aware of the additional burden this new construction is likely to place on our operation and how the
request for modification of standards will increase that burden.
Part of our physical plant is a parking lot for more than 200 vehicles running along Mason Street between Myrtle and
Mulberry. Residents in existing apartment buildings, including 3 in the 100 block of the south side of West Mulberry,
and buildings at 109 and 113 West Myrtle, already illegally use our parking lot on a regular basis because of too few
parking spots provided for their use. It is obvious if the new building were built to current standards adding only 64
parking spots for 64 dwelling units parking is already inadequate and will increase the illegal parking at our facility.
However, then to allow 4 modifications to reduce the effectiveness of existing parking spot standards would be
unconscionable. Please take these comments as from a neighbor who would like to be supportive but not trampled
upon.
Sincerely,
Donald W. Genson
Business Administrator
FPC, Fort Collins
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: Max Flats at 203 W. Mulberry Street
DATE: April 10, 2013
APPLICANT: Dave Derbes, Brinkman Partners
PROJECT PLANNER: Seth Lorson
NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Sarah Burnett
City Process Overview:
Type 1 projects do not require a neighborhood meeting and a public administrative hearing is heard
before a hearing officer. Type 2 projects require neighborhood meetings and are subject to a public
hearing before the Planning & Zoning Board. This project is considered mixed-use, typically a Type 1
hearing, however, there is also a new provision in the Land Use Code requiring multifamily projects with
more than 50 units or 75 bedrooms to be classified as a Type 2.
The new Land Use Code language now requires a Type 2 review for this project. Neighborhood
meetings for Type 2 projects are usually performed before project submittal. The neighborhood meeting
for this project is being held tonight, but it is also scheduled for the next Planning & Zoning Board
Hearing next week. All are encouraged to go to the Planning & Zoning Board or email comments to Seth
to have comments included as part of the official record.
Q: When are these comments sent to the P&Z Board?
A: Comments can be received up to the meeting. If you want a thorough reading of your comments, try
to get them in immediately before the meeting.
This project began in September with a Preliminary Design Review.
The project is located in the Community Commercial Zone District, near the Downtown District, along
the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Line at a prominent intersection.
Applicant Presentation:
This neighborhood meeting is out of sequence but we are still looking for your input and willing to work
together to address concerns. This project has been in the works since September of last year, and we
have been involved with the site since 2011. We do a lot of multifamily and student-housing projects
and feel the location between campus and downtown, along MAX will make it a successful project.
The project is on a prominent corner, a block away from College Avenue. It is an area seeing
redevelopment and improvements. Being located along Mason, it is very near campus and downtown;
bridging the connection between campus and downtown. The site allows us to be on the urban corridor,
along the transit system.
The building comes up to the property line to address the pedestrian needs in the urban core and those
navigating the city. At the corner (Mason & Mulberry) there will be a MAX Transit Stop. There will be
sidewalk improvements along Mason, and the building is creating a square a few steps from the transit
stop for community space, serving the bus stop but also those traversing the site. We are planning to
have a retail base at the corner. The main entry to the building itself is located along Mason Street; in
the middle of the block for sun access in the morning and near the bus stop.
There are bookends to each side of the building and the shape and mass of the building has been
articulated and modified as comments were received from the city. The base of the building has
potential for future retail development. Behind the front building wall there is parking, although it is not
required because of the TOD overlay, but we feel it is needed. The wall hides the parking, but it is
porous, but also allows for the potential of more retail space in the future. The wall allows for vines to
grow and to become a green wall. The building has a very distinct base.
The building has a defined base, midsection and an articulated top. It is articulated horizontally and
layered vertically, seen through the different cuts through the building. There are a series of balconies
that project in and out with different finishes -- the facade of the building coming out and then back in.
The building at the ends is different, such that on the south side the building is hovering over the
parking. On the north side it is creating an iconic element and defining the plaza space.
There are several materials from masonry, to stucco, to solid panels creating different looks.
We discussed with the neighbors the relationship to the new building, from a 5 story building to a 2
story building. The retail base is projected out away from the building. When you look at the building
from the west, there is a layer of parking and the building sits away from the existing buildings in the
neighborhood. We have removed balconies on the westside to minimize activity on this side of the
building affecting neighbors. The facade defines the building as having no back.
The building provides enclosed bicycle parking, some incorporated at the ins-and-outs of the building;
the little alcoves. Similar to street furniture. We have asked the City to see if we can move some parking
away from the property line, based on the fact there is no parking on Mason.
Along the north side of the building, the building is set back slightly to deal with setbacks and the
potential increase in width to Mulberry Street as we dedicated right-of-way to the city. This currently
allows a lot of green space between the building and the street. Between the parking and the building
above there is a concrete fire separation, projecting outside the building to allow for the layering.
We received some comments about the mass and materials of the building and reacted to the
comments from the city. We also received some neighbor comments from a previous meeting. Realizing
there are some decisions regarding the feasibility of the project.
Q: There were 4 requests for variances?
A: (City) 4 Modifications of Standards requested.
A: The modifications requested are site related. Each on its own falls into the category of nominal and
inconsequential.
1. One for bike parking (requirement of 1 per bedroom, thus a requirement of 100 or 104 bike stalls
total with the retail space). We're providing excess but request a modification to allow spaces in the
right of way to count towards the aggregate number.
2. There is a request to exceed the standard ratio of normal parking stalls to compact parking stalls;
there is no parking requirement in the TOD Overlay Zone. There are a higher proportion of compact
spaces than currently allowed in the plan.
3. On the west property line there is a 5' landscape buffer requirement, we have a buffer a little over 4'.
4. The last relates to a landscaping requirement of minimum square footage landscaped in a parking
area / landscape island requirement. We have 16 continuous stalls versus the requirement of 15.
Thought was to keep as much parking on site as possible.
Looking at the site constraints; the site falls in the City floodplain. The site evolution and why the
residential is above, the floodplain doesn't allow residential in the floodplain.
The transit stop and parking going away along Mason Street factored into the need to maximize parking
on site. There is right-of-way- on Mulberry being dedicated to the City (approx. 7.5') for future
expansion of Mulberry. The width of the site is approximately 100' and it is difficult to accommodate
drive isles.
Q: My property is adjacent to the back end of your parking area. The King's Auto lot is approximately a
foot higher - is anything going to be done about drainage?
A: All of the drainage will be directed to the northeast; there will be no runoff to the adjacent
properties.
Q: Will that difference in grade still be there? Will the water be moving away from my property?
A: Yes (water moving away).
A: The general flow right now is coming towards the northeast. The roof all drains near the backside of
the building and runs to a main inlet and then is hard piped.
A: There is very limited parking area exposed to runoff from above due to the roof overhang.
A: (City) By City standards they are not allowed to drain on to another site.
Q: I was wondering if the grade would be equalized. When they paved over the area they raised the
grade to drain towards Mason.
A: Will follow-up with you after meeting.
Q: I have a 6' privacy fence and a garage along the alley. I noticed in your proposals you are putting in a
fence - how does that relate to the existing fence?
A: We would try and get together with the neighbors to see what makes the most sense. A back-to-back
fence would not be ideal. Work with you guys for the best solution, whether it is replacing it or sections.
Q: What are the materials on the exterior?
A: The base of the building is masonry, with a ground floor face. Some of the same base materials are
brought up to the top of the building on the book-ends. Other portions of the building are stucco.
Q: Block or brick on the base?
A: Both
A: Creating a base to the building and on top there is brick as the two main elements on the ground
floor. Also the infill of the green wall. On top of the building is stucco in 3 different colors and metal
panels defining the corner of Mason & Mulberry. The balconies have metal railings. There are awning
projections within the property line, defining the articulation of the base. It also articulates the MAX
station.
A: The plaza uses the same materials.
Q: I have some concerns over the massing; it feels somewhat forced in the neighborhood. I thinkthere
should be some stepping down on the ends, like the Palace Lofts in LoDo -- they did a good job stepping
the heights, being sensitive to the area. It seems you could do some stepping on the top of the building,
and I think that would go a long ways towards bringing the project into scale with the neighborhood.
The grey area seems to intensify the scale of the building rather than mitigating it. It seems a less
intensive treatment could help. They (stairwells) are a dominating architectural feature. I own property
in the area, across the street and the neighborhood has an eclectic, high-quality feeling about it that
needs to be respected. Be careful with the metallic elements, they can become intense and offensive to
a smaller scale neighborhood.
A: We have heard the massing comment a few times and something we are trying to work through and
see what opportunities we do have. The stair elements are a functional element of the building. We
have really focused on the base of the building. Regarding the metal comments, there seems to be a
love it or hate it element. There is masonry on there that can feel pretty heavy and some structural
concerns when you get above 30' when it integrates with a wood structure.
C: When you look at the project, you look at the stairways. You don't want it to be known as the building
with the stairways.
Q: We met with the developer and you Seth, and our concerns. How this massive building relates to the
neighborhood. What are the relating factors, visually? We talked about stepping down, or adding more
masonry. If you look along the Mason Street corridor, the concept has been the use of masonry and
stone. Here we see materials that seem to be of a lesser quality. At what point do we attempt to step
down the areas we discussed? Is that on or off the table? We talked about the repetition of the west
elevation; it's a mirror image, it's monotonous. Something to give it a relationship to the neighborhood -
this is a major concern. I've known about Oz for years - they do fabulous work. I was looking at mixed-
use projects that Oz has advertised, and residential/multifamily that are fabulous work. Then I looked at
the affordable housing images, and that's the relationship I saw here. The quality of the building relates
to those affordable housing images rather than what Brinkman has been doing near here. We'd like to
see something that relates to the Mason Street Corridor and neighborhood better.
Q: What has changed since when we started meeting and having discussions?
A: The items we talked about were not just brushed aside. Stepping the building down has financial
implications to the project and something we're still discussing if we can do. There are a number of
things talking about materials. There was some discussion that Mason was an eclectic mix; a lot of
variety along there as anywhere can be found in the city. They have gone to lengths to incorporate and
establishing a high quality product. This isn't typical multifamiy with lap siding. We have spent 6-8
months to come up with a great project that does incorporate some of these things.
Looking beyond this block into the CC district, Downtown district, the Mason Corridor: The D District is
directly to the north and the potential for redevelopment to the north is pretty strong and will likely
develop and have the potential to go 7-9 stories. In the immediately area there are numerous structures
larger than this and integrated through this area of town. All are valid concerns and something we are
still looking at and looking for the balance.
Q: What types of mitigation do you have regarding noise, security, partying? Who is in charge besides
the police?
A: We have internally within Brinkman Partners our own property management division; we do that in-
house. We have strict policies when it comes to these properties with how we handle towing, etc. We
have found the more stringent you are handling these policies, the fewer issues there will be. Units will
be on corridor access and have limited access into the building. It is an open parking area; site lighting,
etc. are dictated by code. Problems are typically addressed through management policies.
Q: If there is a big party in the parking lot who do we call?
A: The property management company (us).
A: The alley is going to be closed off and fenced and may help the area.
C: If I look at that project, it's something I envision as a medical office in the urban markets of Denver. It
really doesn't look like it has any relationship to any of the newer buildings and fabric created for Mason
Street in Downtown. This completely differentiates from it. I think you have a responsibility to look at
this through your material selection.
Q: What is the overall height? Is it constant?
A: 56' to the top of the parapets and it is fairly constant. There are condensing units on the top of the
building, will not be seen at the street level.
Q: What are the sizes of the units?
A: There is a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units. On average, about 600 square feet for 1 bedrooms, 2
bedrooms are around 900 square feet and 3 bedrooms around 1,150 square feet. The mix is
predominately 1 and 2 bedrooms. There are four 3 bedroom units.
Q: I'm not sure where the station is and how traffic flows along with the station and the sidewalk areas?
The physical station built there now is in the middle of the sidewalk?
A: The closest point is between the station roof canopy gets within 2' of the building.
Q: Will pedestrians go behind the station, or up around the front of the station?
A: They can do both. The majority of the traffic will flow through the front of the station.
Q: Your insets in your building on the first floor for bicycle parking, what is the depth?
A: It is approximately 4 to 5 feet.
Q: How are the bikes parking?
A: The bikes park with the wheel projecting beyond the face of the building. There is an 8' walk along the
building, but necks down to 6' near the green walls. The bikes would be tucked in behind that 6' zone.
C: I guess I just don't see a space where the bicycle isn't hanging out in the sidewalk area.
A: Scaling off the drawing, it seems the recess area is closer to 6'
Q: Is that something you would like to see go away? (bicycles)
A: I just see it as tight and not very flowing for pedestrians to walk across the face of the building with
bicycle tires and the station and this-and-that. I know how students park bikes in bike racks. It seems a
little cluttered.
A: While I don't necessarily disagree. Part of that was the visual interest. I know saying looking at bike
racks isn't visually interesting, but it's part of that urban feel, similar to Old Town. The spacing and
location of bike racks was looking to give it that dynamic interaction and not just a plane-jane walkway
along the front of the building.
Q: Do you have someone interested in the retail?
A: It is designed to be limited service, like a coffee shop is something we're intending. Not a full service
kitchen. Something that will spill out and utilize the plaza. The transit stations also have bike racks in the
right-of-way. Hope it becomes a destination spot and utilizing the racks and plaza.
Q: I was looking at staff comments from the first of March. How were comments addressed about
design regarding the concrete? Was this addressed at some point? Also, the base element should be
more prominent (City comments). Some elements such as stairwells can provide a strong vertical
element but should be used sparingly.
A: The design is evolving as you go through the process. As far as the starkness of the concrete sidewalk
to building (concrete to concrete) -- we had numerous discussions with Staff about the build-to scenario.
The nature is to have a build-to (to the property line) and no opportunity for providing landscaping
between the building and the sidewalk. This is consistent throughout downtown. We have green walls,
added elements such as benches and bike parking.
C: Can you point out where you are talking about that.
A: Benches have been added (3 along Mason) to break up the transition from the building to the
sidewalk. Additionally, a base element running along the building introduced consisting of ground face
block. Bringing out some of the detail to the plans.
A: The elevations have changed over time. What you are seeing is the definition of materials as you go
from the ground up. We have the brick all the way to floor. Using wainscoting that almost looks like
limestone base, seen around town. Articulating more how the materials are used, this is partly due to
the technology of the rendering. I believe the base is elegant that it is articulating with many materials
and many ins and outs, it is not a solid wall. As you turn the corner onto Mulberry there is a lot more
landscaping. There are also trees you're not seeing on the rendering.
A: The comments about stepping the building -- we are showing today what was presented to staff.
Q: Do you anticipate these comments might be considered/addressed before the Planning & Zoning
meeting?
A: It is an economic decision, and one the ownership group has to address.
A: It would be a goal to address the comments before the planning meeting.
C: It would be respectful if you can address some of these stepping issues. I think it would make your
success more probable.
C: I hear that you're concerned about it and want comments, and like the neighbors to feel this is a good
project, but I haven't seen any changes yet based on conversations and that leads me to wonder where
we are.
Q: How many units would you lose if you stepped down 1 level on the ends?
A: Don't know.
A: At least 4 units total.
A: We have discussed dropping the north end as you go along Mulberry, but not anything on the south
side of the building. There is a different element on the south side of the building, more flowing.
A: In regards to Mulberry it sits way back and when you look at the building from the west it steps back
twice, and talking about stepping the building back. On the south end of the building best to stay at its
current level over the parking.
A: This is something we're looking at. Going from 2 stories with pitched roof to 5 adjacent, I don't
necessarily see that as incompatible. There are examples from around town where that has been done
successfully. We're trying to see what we can do to accommodate it, but no decision has been made.
C: I think it would help with the shading also.
A: In terms of shading of neighboring property -- December 21st is the worst condition. Within an hour
the shadow changes so much from being on the building to being pretty much gone.
A: It also shows the shading produced by the adjacent properties as well.
Q: Has there been any commitment made to the fence system along the alleyway and the south side of
the parking lot? I think if it's just asphalt to cedar fence -- if you really commit to do something there like
a masonry fence it could change how it relates to the neighborhood and give it a sense of place.
Architecturally on the south end, since it's away from the building it will give you another opportunity
for layering and stepping.
A: (City) The fence is committed but we haven't seen it yet
Q: Is there a height stipulation?
A: (City) 6'
A: Envisioned as a wood privacy fence. There may be other alternatives. Masonry fencing with
foundations and cost can become significant. There may be a balance rather than a wood fence.
A: May be something like masonry columns or caps. We can all get together and brainstorm this.
C: I have two dogs that will be going nuts as people are walking to the parking spaces, a masonry fence
would help as its more substantial than a wood privacy fence
A: What do the dogs do now?
A: It's an empty lot currently, they bark at some of the construction at the railroad tracks. I know where
you have the parking people will be walking. I'm not as concerned about the dogs barking, but the kids
getting upset at the dogs barking and throwing something at them.
Q: Where is the garbage located? You're putting 3 dumpsters 10' out my back window and kitchen
door? I also have an overhanging oak tree -- what will happen to that? I also have overhanging lilac
bushes?
A: I wouldn't see an impact with those two necessarily. They will hand deliver the dumpsters out to the
truck so they don't need the overhead clearance
Q: How often will they dump?
A: Typically do it in a way that is less impactful, for both site residents and neighborhood. Set up on a
more frequent basis so you utilize more frequently and not utilizing as much space. Some sites they are
dumped several times a week.
Q: They won't be able to drive in with the trucks?
A: They can drive in, but can't pick it up from the enclosure -- bring the dumpsters out of the enclosure
by hand.
Planning & Zoning Board
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Fort Collins, CO 80521
APPLICANT:
Brinkman Partners, LLC on behalf of
203 W. Mulberry, LLC
3003 E. Harmony Road, Suite 300
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Presented To:
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Table of Contents
Project Narrative ……………………………………………………………………………..……………….. Page 1-3
Existing Site Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 4
Adjacent Properties …………………………………………………….……………………………………. Page 5-6
Nearby Properties …………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 7
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 8-14
Mason Corridor ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 15-16
Refill Fort Collins ………………………………………..…………………………………………………….. Page 17-19
Project Compatibility & Streetscape ………………………………..……………………………….. Page 20-28
Infill Development/Site Constraints …………….……………………………………………………. Page 29-33
Neighbor Concerns …………………………………………….…………………………………………….. Page 34-35
1
MAX FLATS
Brinkman Partners, LLC is proud to introduce MAX Flats. MAX Flats is an exciting mixed-use project
located along the new and improved Mason Street Corridor and will feature the MAX Transit Mulberry
Station at its Mason frontage. The site is within walking distance of CSU as well as Old Town Fort Collins
and all that it offers including restaurants, theaters, museums, parks, bike trails and retail shopping.
Existing Conditions
The MAX Flats project is located at the southwest corner of Mason and Mulberry. The site is
approximately 30,500 SF and is bounded to the north by Mulberry Street and to the east by Mason
Street. Adjacent properties are comprised of multi-family rental, single family rental, commercial rental
and a blighted property to the south that is currently condemned. The attached images provide further
context to the overall density and make-up of the entire block. As you will see, the predominant use of
this block is rental housing in a variety of products types.
The site is located at the heart of the Transit Overlay District and is directly on the Mason Corridor. This
area has been identified in both City Plan and Refill Fort Collins as a priority target area for infill and
redevelopment. The project will ultimately share ROW with the newly constructed southbound
Mulberry Station for the MAX BRT. Significant time and energy has been invested in designing a fully
integrated TOD project that embraces the ideals of providing a high density, pedestrian oriented mixed-
use project. Those same goals are shared in the vision as it is set forth in City Plan. A compilation of
excerpts from City Plan is also attached for reference.
The existing building on the site is currently vacant. It was constructed in 1969 as an automotive service
facility and was occupied by University Motors from 1969 through the late 1980’s, and then by King’s
Auto from the early 1990’s through 2010.
The project has been through the new DDA review process and was unanimously approved for funding
associated with infrastructure improvements in the city right of way.
Project Description
The proposed project is located at 203 W. Mulberry which is nicely situated between Old Town Fort
Collins and the CSU campus. This project will integrate with the new MAX Transit Mulberry Station,
which is on the northeast corner of the site. The proposed project consists of a single 5-story, 63,530
square foot, L shaped building that is positioned in a way to maximize the utilization of the site, enhance
the urban fabric of the Mason Corridor. The upper 4 floors will be comprised of for-rent multi-family
units geared to both professionals and students. They will consist of 32 one bedroom, 28 two bedroom
and 4 three bedroom units for a total of 64 units or 100 bedrooms. The ground floor is designed to
accommodate a 1,500 SF retail use that will serve as an amenity for both the tenants and the
surrounding community. It will boast an attractive plaza and seating area at the corner of Mason and
Mulberry that will promote both tenant and pedestrian interaction and promises to be a focal point of
the neighborhood. Pedestrian scale elements and features will be incorporated to enhance the street-
2
level experience. The site will also boast an enhanced streetscape with new trees and landscaping,
hardscape pavers and seating. 64 private parking spaces will be provided on site, mostly concealed from
the street by the building, to serve the tenants and retail patrons along with ample bicycle parking.
The building façade and streetscape has been designed in a way that focuses on the pedestrian
experience and minimizes the impacts of the tuck under parking structure. An outdoor plaza is located
at the prominent northeast corner adjacent to the MAX Transit Station and ground floor retail space so
it can provide an interactive gathering area for residents, customers, transit users and neighbors.
Significant care has been taken to integrate the MAX Transit Station and the plaza so that it is enhances
the overall experience. We feel that the MAX Mulberry Station will become a destination stop along the
Mason Corridor which will ultimately help to fuel the redevelopment of adjacent sites.
The site plan evolved from numerous conversations with the design team, city staff, and the DDA staff.
The consensus that came from those meetings was that this project needed to serve as a connection,
not only geographically between Old Town and CSU, but also a connection with the MAX Transit Station
and the local community. In order to achieve this goal, the design team focused a significant amount of
effort in creating a streetscape, façade and plaza that will be inviting to the inhabitants of the building
and the overall community.
Desirability in Market / Benefit to Economy, Downtown, Public
MAX Flats target market is the Old Town employee that wants to be within walking distance to their
employer, but would rather rent than buy or a CSU student that wants to be within walking distance to
both campus and the amenities Old Town has to offer.
With the local economic landscape continually increasing the business traffic downtown, there is a
growing population of professionals and students seeking this type of housing. Employers like OtterBox,
who have located their headquarters in Old Town and expect to continue to add employees, will need
and prefer urban, quality housing that is nearby. Students that want to be both close to campus and the
urban lifestyle Old Town has to offer will desire the modern appeal of this property.
Community Commercial Districts encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment to promote 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. Vertical mixed-
use is encouraged up to 6 stories.
More broadly, higher residential density in the Old Town area will continue to drive demand for existing
recreational amenities and retail services; this, in turn, will facilitate the further growth of the
commercial components that make up the heart of the Old Town area. Residential occupancy in the
downtown area will also promote the walkability of the City, as these residents are able to access the
downtown amenities via foot or bicycle, rather than require the use of an automobile. With the new
addition of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit system, this will also open up the opportunity for residents in this
location to easily travel the Mason Corridor without the use of an automobile.
3
Redevelopment and infill is encouraged in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas
such as this location. It is encouraged to concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use
development in locations that are served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of
activity.
This site is also located in the Growth Management Area which encourages a variety of housing types
and densities, including mixed-use developments that are well-serviced by public transportation.
MAX Flats supports City Plan principles and policies in the following ways:
• Economic Health: The project will immediately provide construction jobs, supporting the
economic health of the community.
• Environmental Health: The project will conserve resources and reduce greenhouse gases by
providing energy-efficient housing. Green construction practices will utilize sustainable
products, limit construction waste, and recycle waste to the extent possible. Air quality will be
improved and greenhouse gases reduced by providing housing for students on bus routes close
to campus, allowing them to ride bikes or busses, or walk to campus, Old Town, shopping and
other destinations. The density of the project allows for responsible land use.
• Community and Neighborhood Livability: This project will contribute to a compact pattern
development and will provide a transit-oriented activity center. This site has been specifically
identified as a target for infill and redevelopment.
• High-Performing Community: The project will provide opportunities for improving diversity
within the city by offering a community of housing to students in an open, non-discriminatory
way.
• Transportation: This project will support the ETC (Enhanced Travel Corridor) concept by
providing housing directly on the Mason Street ETC.
4
Existing Site Conditions
The existing site is located at the southwest
corner of Mason and Mulberry. The building
has sat vacant since the previous tenant, King’s
Auto, closed in 2010 and has fallen into
disrepair. The site is directly behind the new
MAX Transit Mulberry Station and as such, it
will be a focal point along the Mason Street
Corridor.
Adjacent Properties
209 W. Mulberry Street – Multi-family for-rent units directly west of existing site.
5
Adjacent Properties
212 W. Myrtle – West of existing site.
202 W. Myrtle – Condemned property directly
south of existing site
206 W. Myrtle – Directly south of existing site. 208 W. Myrtle – Directly southwest of existing site.
6
3
415 S. Howes St.
224 Canyon Ave.
Nearby Properties
212 W. Mulberry St.
625 S. Mason St. 203 W. Myrtle St.
531 S. College Ave.
429 S. Mason St.
425 S. College Ave.
415 S. Mason St.
7
8
Executive Summary
Max Flats: Fulfilling the Comprehensive Plan
• City Plan / Plan Fort Collins
o The City Structure Plan Map identifies this site in the Downtown Development
District/Community Commercial District and on an Enhanced Travel Corridor.
o Plan Fort Collins identifies this site as being located within the Targeted Infill and
Redevelopment Areas.
o Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the redevelopment and
infill in targeted redevelopment 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.”
o Principle LIV-5.2 emphasizes public investment along the Community Spine as the
highest priority for public improvements to streetscape and infrastructure, and
encourages the concentration of higher density housing and mixed-use developments.
o Principle LIV-31 encourages vertical mixed-use projects at key intersections and transit
stops.
o Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as communitywide
destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system.
35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in the
Community Commercial Districts to promote 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 to six stories.”
o Principle LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns
“Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit-supportive development
along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment.”
• Land Use Code
o Division 4.18 - CC Zone District
Purpose: The Community Commercial District provides a combination of retail,
offices, service, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Multi-
story buildings are encouraged to provide a mix of residential and
nonresidential uses. Offices and dwellings are encouraged to locate above
ground-floor retail and services.
o Division 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
9
Purpose: These standards are intended to promote the design of an urban
environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts
and other connecting walkways that accommodate pedestrians as the first
priority while also accommodating vehicular movement.
o Division 3.10 – Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone
Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts
south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that
enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor.
• Refill Fort Collins
o Refill Fort Collins specifically identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with
Redevelopment and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights
Incentive.
o The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the north (Schrader’s)
and northeast (Sports Authority) as being part of an 11.24 acre redevelopment site that
can accommodate 7 – 9 stories and up to 115 feet in height.
10
The following images are included on page 95 of City Plan and also in Chapter 1 of Refill Fort Collins. The
images illustrate before and after views of the future redevelopment of the northeast and southeast
corners of Mason and Mulberry with new structures very similar to the project we are proposing.
Photosimulation of a possible redevelopment along the
Mason Street Enhanced Travel Corridor.
11
The following image is shown on page 23 of Plan Fort Collins in a section describing the redevelopment
of the Mason Corridor. Again, the image depicts a building that is very similar to the project we are
proposing.
The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to
Downtown. Along the Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone district is intended to
incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at
station areas.
12
13
14
Map Showing Zone District Overlay:
Map Showing TOD Overlay:
15
Mason Corridor
The Mason Corridor is a five-mile, north-south byway within the City of Fort Collins which extends from
Cherry Street on the north to south of Harmony Road. The corridor is centered along the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway property, located a few hundred feet west of College Avenue (US 287).
The Mason Corridor and MAX Bus Rapid Transit provide the framework for future economic development
and serve as the foundation to encourage community partnerships, private investment, active living, and
attractive, urban lifestyles. The Mason Corridor is a fundamental connection between the City, Colorado
State University, and local business and neighborhoods.
Nearly 60 percent of all Fort Collins jobs are located within one-mile of the Corridor. In addition, public
investment in the Mason Corridor will encourage private economic development along its length. New
zoning changes will promote high density, mixed-use development around the stations.
The transportation corridor also has the potential to generate transit-oriented development (TOD)
opportunities through the redevelopment of underutilized land along the corridor. TOD concentrates jobs,
housing, and daily conveniences around transit stations. The theory behind TOD is that by locating
walkable, higher-density, mixed-use areas around transit connections, this reduces the need to drive for
daily convenience errands and commuting, which reduces the number of automobile trips on area
roadways. TOD can also create attractive vibrant urban spaces and activity centers.
Summary of Findings from Mason Corridor Economic Analysis:
1. The Mason Corridor will capture an estimated 18 percent of the forecasted higher density housing
demand between 2006 and 2031, subject to land availability.
2. The Mason Street project provides additional accessibility to the downtown area and enhances the
appeal of the area for residential development.
3. The Downtown residential market is expected to grow modestly over the next 15 years building on
the success of early higher density developments.
4. The Colorado State University segment of the Mason Corridor is expected to provide TOD
opportunities on both university and private land holdings and act as a catalyst for future
redevelopment along the corridor.
5. Development in the southern segment of the corridor is expected to concentrate on key
redevelopment parcels at the Drake Road Station and South Transit Center.
6. The City’s potential investment of $4 to $5 million as local match funds could leverage $58 million
in Federal transit funding, as well as generate an estimated $6.1 million in property tax revenue and
$14.4 million in sales tax revenue over the next 25 years. Additionally, the project construction is
estimated to generate $108.3 million in one-time benefit.
7. The Mason Corridor is expected to provide a positive climate for TOD, which creates a clear nexus
between the transit improvements and enhanced development opportunities and higher land
values on surrounding sales. This nexus provides a basis to implement a corridor specific financing
mechanism, such as a GID, to fund a portion of the transit improvements. However, the City as a
whole also benefits from the new improvements and, therefore, should share in a portion of the
cost.
THE Connections
The Mason Corridor and MAX will provide both community and regional connections. MAX
will link Downtown Fort Collins, Colorado State University (Main Campus, Veterinary
Teaching Hospital and Natural Resources Research Center), South College Retail, Foothills
Mall, Park & Rides, as well as connect to east/west transit options and trail systems.
MAX will also provide much needed regional connections to the North Front Range and the
Denver Metro Area. The Mason Corridor connects to the existing Foxtrot transit service from
Fort Collins to Loveland as well as coincides with the North I-25 Environmental Study, which
examines long term potential regional connections using Bus Rapid Transit along the busy I-25
corridor, or Commuter Rail on the Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad corridor.
17
Refill Fort Collins
CITY REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Redevelopment is change, and change raises unique issues. Redevelopment involves extraordinary costs
and difficulties which the private market alone cannot always reasonably be expected to absorb. Seventy-
five percent (75%) of the citizens responding to a survey conducted during the recent update of City Plan in
2004 agreed the City should provide incentives that encourage redevelopment of under-utilized areas
within the existing city limits. Ultimately, any City participation must be tailored to specific public purposes
and unique circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
The City Plan support for redevelopment is best summarized in the following Principle:
Principle GM-8: The City will promote compatible infill and redevelopment in
targeted areas where general agreement exists that these activities are beneficial
within the Community Growth Management Area boundary.
The key to this principle is the promotion of well-planned redevelopment in targeted areas ideas. The
intent is to avoid whole scale disruption of viable neighborhood and non-residential districts, and to focus
public efforts on strategic locations where change can have greater impact.
Policies GM-8.1, GM-8.2, CCD-1.3, ED-1.7, and TC-4.5 in City Plan describe the kinds of areas in which
redevelopment should occur:
• Community Commercial Districts, specifically Campus West, North College, Foothills Mall area, and
Downtown.
• Areas where it is generally agreed that redevelopment would be beneficial, i.e. areas targeted for
redevelopment according to adopted subarea plans.
• Areas where there is potential for efficient transportation access between jobs, housing, and
services, for example, along enhanced travel corridors (e.g., College Avenue and Mason Street).
• Areas of outdated development originally built at the fringe of the City that has become more
central as the city has grown around them.
Mixed-Use Redevelopment Site
MULBERRY BUS RAPID TRANSIT STATION AREA
NWC OF MULBERRY ST AND COLLEGE AVE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Josh Birks
Economic Advisor
970-221-6324
jbirks@fcgov.com
fcgov.com/refill
The information in this brochure was obtained from public sources. The purpose of the brochure is to encourage reinvestment into
targeted redevelopment areas. The properties contained within this site are not owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City’s sole
intent is promote redevelopment by providing information, assistance and financial and infrastructure incentives in areas that have
the greatest potential for new commercial and residential development.
# OF PARCELS 14
# OF OWNERS 8
BUILDINGS 125,957 sf
LAND 11.24 acres
DESCRIPTION Prime redevelopment location for
high density uses at a major gateway into historic
downtown.
LOCATION This site is on the northwest and
northeast corners of the College/Mulberry
intersection. Current uses consist of a bank, sporting
goods store, supermarket, offices, 2-3 residences, a
gas station, a parking lot, and several vacant
buildings.
N
ZONING D – Downtown, Canyon Avenue Subdistrict
MAX HEIGHT 7-9 stories, 115 feet
INCENTIVES Downtown Development Authority (Tax
Increment Financing)
20
Project Compatibility & Design
This new development will set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in a neighborhood that
has no clearly defined architectural character.
The building is 5 stories as allowed in the C-C district. While larger and taller than the immediate
neighboring buildings, the building is articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional in
massing to its neighbors. The articulation includes balcony recesses, projections at the ground floor, as well
as overall massing resulting in forms with a height to width proportion of less that 1:3.
The building features a clear base, middle, and top. The base is formed by the predominate use of masonry
on the ground floor. This base element is further articulated by a “wainscot” and use of brick to highlight
the focal elements of the retail and residents’ entry.
Differing colors and materials colors help to further articulate the building. The proposed colors and
materials of brick, ground-face block, stucco, panel siding, and metal panel are all found on buildings in the
highly eclectic surrounding neighborhood.
Project Streetscape
The focal point of the site is the plaza at the intersection of Mason and Mulberry. This plaza will provide
seating for patrons of the retail (envisioned as a coffee shop) and residents of the building. It is also
conveniently located for use by MAX BRT riders. Uses along the Mulberry Avenue frontage are almost
exclusively retail and the plaza. Uses along the Mason Street frontage include the plaza, residents’ entries,
MAX BRT stop, bike racks, and stairs. These uses at both façades exceed 50% of the total length and will
increase activity on the street, enhance the pedestrian experience. Both facades provide pedestrian visual
interest by being subdivided and proportioned by windows, entrances, columns, pilasters, recesses,
awnings, and trellises. These elements comprise more than 50% of the façade length and serve to break
the façade into modules of less than 30’.
Green Wall Trellis System
Green wall trellis system is a modular framework grid typically wall-mounted to exterior structures
creating aesthetic living green facades. Grids are commonly used for partitions, canopies, arbors, and
around columns for interior and outdoor spaces. These high quality eco-units are constructed to
accommodate a growing space for various plants and vines.
The building block of this modular system is a rigid, light weight, three-dimensional panel made from a
powder coated galvanized and welded steel wire that supports plants with both a face grid and a panel
depth. This system is designed to hold a green facade off the wall surface so that plant materials do not
attach to the building, provides a “captive” growing environment for the plant with multiple supports
for the tendrils, and helps to maintain the integrity of a building membrane. Panels can be stacked and
joined to cover large areas, or formed to create shapes and curves, are can be made from recycled
content steel and are recyclable. Because the panels are rigid, they can span between structures and can
also be used for freestanding green walls
There are significant benefits to both the public and private sectors resulting from the successful use of
green walls. Green walls have a great potential for positive environmental change in dense urban areas,
particularly given the large surface areas on buildings that are available for retrofitting to these
technologies. For example, the emissions that can concentrate in multi-level parking areas in downtown
cores can be reduced by the presence of large leafy areas. A green wall with a mass of plant leaf
material can absorb carbon oxides and heavy metal particles while shading and screening these large
structures.
Acknowledgements: We thank the following for the information provided. Randy Sharp, Sharp & Diamond Landscape Architecture Inc.,James
Sable, greenscreen®, Flavia Bertram and Eva Mohan, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Steven Peck, Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
21
Glacier English Ivy will be used on the north facing trellis system.
Coral Honeysuckle will be used on the east facing trellis systems.
Both of these plant species are a broadleaf evergreen vine that will provide cover during the winter
months.
Acknowledgements: Photos and plant specifications provided by ONLINEPLANTGUIDE.com
22
23
MAX Transit Mulberry Station
Infill Development/Site Constraints
Additional ROW Provided
An additional 7.5-ft (750 sq.ft.) of right-of-way (ROW) is being dedicated along Mulberry Street. This results
in a half-ROW width of 57.5-ft, which affords an ultimate full ROW of 115-ft. Mulberry Street is classified as
a 4-lane arterial on the City’s Master Street Plan, which specifies the 115-ft ROW width.
Floodplain Applicability & Site Design Impacts
The entire site falls within the 100-year floodplain for the Old Town Basin, as regulated by the City of Fort
Collins. Mulberry Street is a high risk floodway, subject to No Rise criteria. The site itself is high risk flood
fringe with a 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) roughly 1.5-ft above the existing sidewalk. All residential
dwelling units and HVAC equipment need to be elevated another 1.5-ft above the BFE (i.e., approximately
3-ft higher than the existing sidewalk). This causes the dwelling units to start on the second floor, and
condenser units to be placed on the roof. The main floor commercial space and stair tower entrances need
to be floodproofed 1.5-ft above the BFE. Floodproofing is not allowed for the residential units.
Summary of Modification Requests
The Max Flats project is requesting Four Modifications of Standards.
• Parking lot Interior Landscaping/Intervening Landscape Island
• Bike Parking Spaces
• Parking Lot Setback
• Compact Parking Stalls
1. 6% Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Intervening Landscape Island Modification Request
• Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating
the structural columns for the building and parking structure.
• Additional 7.5’ of right-of way on Mulberry resulted in the building and associated parking
structure be compressed in a north-south direction
• The intent of the required 6% interior parking lot landscape for vehicular use areas is to
provide sufficient canopy shade trees and landscaping that provides visual quality, visual
screening, and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area. The 224 square feet of
landscape area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of
landscape interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to
the west.
• The intent of the Code section of having a landscape island every 15 parking spaces is to
provide trees that maximize areas of shade. The landscape plan shows oak trees spaced
every 40’ in the landscape strip along the west property line. We feel that these trees will
provide sufficient shade for the parking area.
• Site optimizes off-street parking, by providing 64 spaces, which is 1 space per dwelling unit,
while minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by taking the cars off the public street.
2. Bike Parking Spaces Modification Request
• The project ultimately provides excess bike parking spaces if the spaces located in the r.o.w.
are counted towards the total required spaces.
• The development will provide a site that enhances the safety and convenience of walking and
bicycling as alternative means of transportation
29
• The site is located right on the MAX BRT/Mason Street Corridor. There will be a stop on the
east side of the building. There is a public benefit by providing racks within the right-of-way
that will be used adjacent to the transit stop.
3. Parking Lot Setback Modification Request
• Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating
the structural columns for the building and parking structure.
• The intent of the required 5’ vehicular use area setback is to provide sufficient space for visual
screening and to enhance the appearance of the vehicle use area, The 4.7 feet of landscape
area, in combination with a 6’ privacy fence, will provide a softened edge of landscape
interior to the parking area while mitigating the visual impact to the property to the west.
• The parking plan as modified permits a development plan that accommodates off-street
parking. While not required, the off-street spaces provided help reduce on-street parking
demand, thus providing a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood.
4. Compact Parking Stall Modification Request
• Narrow Site (100’) – challenged with drive aisle width, parking stall depth and accommodating
the structural colums for the building and parking structure.
• Additional 7.5’ of right-of way on Mulberry resulted in the building and associated parking
structure be compressed in a north-south direction
• The property is in the TOD Overlay zone district, which does not require parking for the
residential units. The MAX Flats project is providing 64 off-street parking spaces. 27 are
standard (9’ x 19’) spaces and 37 are compact (8’ x 15’) spaces. Due to unique challenges with
the 100’ wide site, there is scarcely sufficient room for the required drive aisle widths, parking
stall depths and the parking structure.
• Site optimizes off-street parking, by providing 64 spaces, which is 1 space per dwelling unit,
while minimizing the impacts to the neighborhood by taking the cars off the public street.
Nominal and Inconsequential because of the following:
• The project embodies many of the principles and policies of City Plan for infill, redevelopment,
transit-oriented, mixed-use development
• The project is consistent with the vision set forth in the Community Commercial District by
providing high density residential over ground floor retail.
• The building placement and site layout orient the primary commercial building entrances to the
street intersection, provides an outdoor gathering space, and contains an integrated transit stop.
• Building is orientated to the build-to right of way line on Mason Street.
• The parking structure meets the design intent of the TOD Overlay District and the project reduces
the visual impact of the parking lot by locating the lot behind the building, with a perimeter
landscape buffer.
• The project, being constrained by the narrow site, is requesting three Modifications to compensate
for the narrowness and still provide one parking space per unit. Because of the construction of the
Mason Street BRT transit stop, the parking spaces that were available on Mason Street will go away,
which means that those who are currently parking in these spaces will have to find parking on the
neighboring streets.
• By granting the parking-related Modifications, this project is able to achieve its goal of providing off-
street parking for its residents to use.
30
Neighbor Concerns:
1) The neighbors mentioned concern relating to the compatibility of our project to the existing 2
story multi-family property directly to the west based on the following items:
a. Our project being 5 stories with no step back at the upper floor.
b. The stark nature of the west elevation
c. Our project being 5 stories lacks human scale
Response:
a. The 5-story building is allowed by code and meets the stated goals of increased
density and height along the Mason Street corridor. The building is positioned so as to
meet the “build-to” requirements with as much relief to properties to the west and
south as feasible.
b. The west elevation admittedly is not as visually interesting as the street frontages.
This is largely due to there being no ground floor façade, which is necessary to allow
parking. Balconies are cost-prohibitive throughout the project, so we have elected to
provide them only along the street frontage where they will have the most visual
impact. Outside those two differences, the west elevation has the same materials,
colors, and changes in plane as the street side facades.
c. Human scale is introduced by a substantial amount of articulation, especially at the
street level where interaction with the building will occur.
2) The neighbors challenged the identification of this project as mixed use based on the limited
percentage of commercial use as compared to residential use.
Response:
Section 5.1.2 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code defines Mixed Use as follows:
Mixed use shall mean the development of a lot, tract or parcel of land, building or
structure with two (2) or more different uses including, but not limited to, residential,
office, retail, public uses, personal service or entertainment uses, designed, planned and
constructed as a unit.
3) The neighbors identified concerns with how the pedestrian walkway passes through the transit
station.
Response:
Numerous meetings were held with the planning staff and with the various entities
involved with the construction and design of the Max Transit project. We were directed
to integrate the sidewalk with the transit station as it is indicated on the drawings.
34
4) The neighbors were not satisfied with the overall material selections for the exterior finishes
and felt that our project needed to incorporate more masonry in order to better reflect the
existing character of Mason Street.
Response:
While masonry is commonly used throughout the neighborhood, there is no single
overridingly predominant material. Furthermore when masonry is used, it is frequently
used as a base or accent element rather than on an entire building. The judicious use of
masonry as proposed is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood.
5) The neighbors challenged our projects ability to meet the TOD standard for parking structures
requiring ground level facades to be comprised of at least 50% retail and other uses.
Response:
Our calculations show that the project has 83.7% retail and other uses along Mulberry
and 66.1% along Mason. Other non-parking uses include the plaza, residents’ entries,
bike racks, the BRT station, and stairs. See the Street Frontage Exhibit.
6) The neighbors were concerned with the parking lot serving as the primary ground floor use.
Response:
The overall site plan and ground floor uses evolved from a balancing of infill site
constraints and competing needs presented in the land use code. We feel the result is a
ground floor that provides an activated mixed-use pedestrian environment and
incorporates screened surface parking, bike parking, community space, retail amenity,
landscaping and the transit station.
7) The neighbors feel that ground floor façade does not provide adequate relief to pedestrians as it
is intended in the code.
Response:
The ground floor has a number of active uses and will provide a considerable amount of
visual interest and relief by changes in plane, changes in material and color, awnings,
canopies, roof overhangs, and balconies. As such, the building meets all applicable
section of the code.
35
1
1
Max Flats – 203 W. Mulberry
Zone District:
Community
Commercial
(CC)
Mixed-Use with
50+ Units:
Planning and
Zoning Board
(Type II)
2
Site Plan
2
3
4
3
5
Modification A: Reduction in parking
lot landscaping
Required: 6% (505 square feet)
Provided: 2.7% (224 square feet)
6
Modification B: Provide off-site
bicycle parking
Required: 104 parking spaces (61 enclosed / 43 fixed)
Provided: 96 on-site; 10 in ROW (65 enclosed / 41 fixed)
4
7
Modification C: Reduction in parking
lot setback
Required: 5 feet
Provided: 4 feet 2 inches
8
Modification D: Increased % of
compact parking spaces
Required: 40% maximum
Provided: 58%
5
9
Original Design
10
Proposed Design
6
11
Proposed Design
12
Proposed Design
7
13
Proposed Design
14
Mulberry Station
8
15
Mulberry Station
ATTACHMENT 4
Applicant Presentation at the
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing
April 18, 2013
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Fort Collins, CO 80521
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Presented To:
Planning & Zoning Board
Location Overview
Located at the southwest corner of
W. Mulberry Street and S. Mason Street.
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Zoning & TOD Maps
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Zone District Overlay
Community Commercial (CC)
TOD Overlay
DDA Boundary Map
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Existing Conditions
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Infill Challenges
• Floodplain
• Sewer & Utilities
• Site Width
Floodplain
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Located in the City of
Fort Collins Old Town
Basin 100 Year High
Risk Flood Fringe
Floodproofing
required a minimum
of 3’ above grade for
entire building
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Utility Plan
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Site Plan
& Width
Adjacent
Properties
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
202 W. Myrtle – Condemned property
directly south of existing site
209 W. Mulberry – Multi-family for-rent units directly west of existing site
212 W. Myrtle – West of existing site
224 Canyon Ave.
Nearby
Properties
415 S. Howes St.
415 S. Mason St.
425 S. College Ave.
429 S. Mason St.
531 S. College Ave.
625 S. Mason St. 203 W. Myrtle St.
625 S. Mason St.
212 W. Mulberry St.
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
203 W. Myrtle St.
Conceptual Review 8/11
Preliminary Design Review 9/26/12
Plaza Review with City Staff 12/4/12
Meeting with the DDA Staff 12/18/12
PDP Round 1 1/2/13
Meeting with the DDA and City Staff 1/7/13
Façade Review with City Staff 1/8/13
Design Review with DDA Staff 1/16/13
Called to reach out to Neighbors 1/17/13
Meeting with Adjacent Property Owners 1/22/13
Design Review with DDA Staff 1/30/13
DDA Board Meeting 2/14/13
PDP Round 2 3/6/13
DDA Board Meeting 3/14/13
Change to Type 2 Review Process 3/26/13
Individual Meeting with Staff and Neighbors 4/4/13
Neighborhood Meeting 4/10/13
Provide Modified Imagery to Neighbors 4/15/13
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Outreach Timeline
“is the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort Collins, and illustrates how
we envision Fort Collins over the 25 years and beyond.”
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
City Plan
• Principles EH-4 and LIV-5 encourage promoting and prioritizing the
redevelopment and infill in targeted redevelopment 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.”
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
City Plan
• Principle LIV-35 identifies Community Commercial Districts as
communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit
system.
35.3 Scale – “Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in
the Community Commercial Districts to promote 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 to
six stories.”
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
City Plan
• Identifies this site on the list of Fort Collins Areas with Redevelopment
and Infill Potential and notes the site as having TOD Building Heights
Incentive.
• The city has also identified and is promoting the sites directly to the
north (Schrader’s) and northeast (Sports Authority) as being part of an
11.24 acre redevelopment site that can accommodate 7-9 stories and
up to 115 feet in height.
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Refill Fort Collins
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Max Height: 7-9 Stories, 115 feet
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
City Plan: Page 95
Refill Fort Collins: Chapter 1
Plan Fort Collins
Mason &
Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Plan Fort Collins: Pg. 23
The future Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system will connect the
new South Transit Center, south of Harmony Road, to Downtown. Along the
Mason/Midtown corridor, the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
zone district is intended to incentivize higher density, pedestrian-friendly
mixed use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis
at station areas.
Project Attributes
• Target market is the Old Town employee or CSU student/faculty.
• “Bridge” project between Old Town and CSU.
• Integration with the MAX Transit Mulberry Station
• Plaza & Retail Space will promote tenant & pedestrian interaction
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
MAX Bus
Rapid Transit Mulberry
Station
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Additional ROW Dedication
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Distances Between Buildings
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Mason Street - No Parking Lane
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
Neighbor Concerns
• Compatibility
• Identification of Project as Mixed-Use
• Pedestrian Interaction with Transit Station
• Building Materials
• TOD Parking Structure Standard
• Parking
• Ground Floor Facade
MAX Flats
203 W. Mulberry
ATTACHMENT 5
Verbatim Transcript of the
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing
April 18, 2013
HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, April 18, 2013
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
MAX Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034
Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., April 18, 2013
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant
Kristin Kirkpatrick Seth Lorson, City Planner
John Hatfield Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
Emily Heinz (**Boardmember Heinz recused herself from the discussion of this item)
2
1 CHAIR ANDY SMITH: The very next item that we’ll discuss this evening is the MAX Flats
2 Project Development Plan 120034. We have one Boardmember that will be stepping out for this item and
3 before we get into the staff report, Angelina, have there been any written comments received since our
4 worksession?
5 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes, since the worksession there’s been letters from the
6 DDA, Todd Dangerfield and Matt Robenault, and a letter from Bruce and Susan Kruel-Froseth and some
7 renderings for the MAX station from staff.
8 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Alright, well let’s move into the staff report. Seth, please.
9 SETH LORSON: Just one quick correction, Angelina, there should be one more from Ann
10 Hutchinson.
11 CHAIR SMITH: Oh, we did get that.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: I’m sorry, I must not have it on my log, but I did distribute it.
13 MR. LORSON: You did distribute it you say?
14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes.
15 CHAIR SMITH: Yes, I’ve got it. Go ahead.
16 MR. LORSON: Good evening Planning and Zoning Board. I’m Seth Lorson with Community
17 Development and Neighborhood Services. The applicant for MAX Flats is requesting approval of a
18 mixed-use building at the corner of Mulberry and Mason. It’s in the Community Commercial zone
19 district and it’s a mixed-use building of fifty plus units, therefore it’s subject to your review. Here is the
20 site plan for the building up here. There is about 1,400 square feet of retail on the corner, a plaza, as well
21 as some other elements along the Mason Street…the MAX station, there is the entry to the building,
22 there’s bike parking and there’s some interesting landscaping elements that are called green screens. This
23 is a rendering of the proposed design. Another rendering, this one is from the north end, as you can see
24 the adjacent properties to the west in this rendering. Again, this is an elevation as opposed to the
25 perspective drawing. This one is from the east side looking at it; this is how it will be experienced from
26 the Mason Corridor.
27 There are four modifications being requested for this project. The first one is a reduction in the
28 parking lot landscaping from the required six percent to 2.7 percent. The second modification is to meet
29 the parking…the bike parking standard, by providing parking in the public right-of-way. When they do
30 provide that in the right-of-way, they will have adequate bike parking. In order to do that, they will be
31 required to have a revocable permit through our Engineering Department. The third modification is a
32 reduction in the setback to the west from five feet to four feet, two inches. And, the fourth modification is
33 an increase in the percentage of compact parking spaces from forty percent, which is the maximum in the
34 Land Use Code, to fifty-eight percent. I have some additional information that will serve some of the
35 questions. Staff has reviewed this Project Development Plan and finds that it’s in compliance with all
36 sections of the Land Use Code with the exception of the four modifications, but that they do meet the
3
1 standards for approval for the four modifications. All of those are available and details are in your staff
2 reports. I’m here to answer any questions. Additionally, we have Emma McArdle here from Transfort to
3 answer any questions about the MAX station. The applicant is here to answer…to give a presentation as
4 well. Thank you.
5 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you Seth. Let’s go ahead and have the applicant make a
6 presentation please. Whatever microphone you prefer.
7 KEVIN BRINKMAN: Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners, we’ll be the developer, contractor,
8 and we’ll do the property management and leasing on the project. This is Eduardo Illanes with Oz
9 Architects and he’ll be talking about the design today. So, we’re excited to be here. We feel a little bit
10 like the opening act with all these people here, so I think we’ll get through our part here fairly quick. Our
11 project we’ve been working on since August of 2011, and it’s the MAX Flats project here…let me go to
12 the slideshow.
13 Alright, so just to orientate ourselves, this is on the southwest corner of Mulberry and Mason, and
14 the vision that we set out for is to do a project that’s very similar to Flats at the Oval, our project there at
15 Laurel and Howes, and to make a project like that successful, there’s many attributes that we look at for
16 site selection. So, one, as you can see here, it is on…right between Old Town and CSU, and is right on
17 the transit stop, that’s something that drove us to the site. Another very important factor for us is that it’s
18 in the Community Commercial zoning district. This allows us to go to five stories, which is important for
19 the economics of the project to work. And also, it’s in the TOD overlay. This allows us to park it more
20 in line with what market is, and that allows us to get all the characteristics to work for the project.
21 Additionally, we look for projects in the DDA boundary. This is the DDA map, and this project
22 was in kind of the growth area of the DDA boundary, so we’re actually annexed into the DDA. So we
23 were awarded with money to go to public improvements in the right-of-way. So, that has been through
24 the DDA’s Board twice and has been through the City Council with two readings to get into that
25 boundary.
26 So, you know with all those things that we look for and site selection, usually the challenge is it’s
27 an infill site that usually has inherent challenges. So, the site here…these are existing photos. It was
28 King’s Auto before, and…auto sales and repair shop. So, it’s been vacant and on the market for about
29 two years. Another challenge is it’s in the City of Fort Collins flood…high flood fringe, so that means
30 that we couldn’t do residential units on the main level, or subterranean, and we had to flood-proof all the
31 ground floor, and so that was a challenge. The other challenge, as you can see here, we didn’t realize this
32 until we went through our conceptual review, that there’s a sewer line that goes through the alley to
33 Mason, and when they vacated the alley, there wasn’t an easement put on the land there, and so we found
34 that out downstream. So, we have to relocate the sewer there and tie it into the homes there to the south.
35 So, that’s one thing that’s in our development plan. The other challenge, the site is almost identical
36 dimensions of a football field, so it’s…the width is just very narrow, and so you can see parking…to
37 optimize parking is a challenge. We needed to do one-way diagonal parking and we needed more…some
38 of the modifications you saw to be able to park it the way that we felt we needed to.
39 And the other challenge is just the eclectic area and architecture. This is a view of all the
40 properties that are on the block, and so you can see definitely a variety from…this one is on the corner of
41 Myrtle, it’s currently condemned. There’s a couple modular units. This is the property just to the west
4
1 that goes I think pretty much the whole duration of the site. And then if you go out a little bit farther and
2 you look at the corridor, you have a little bit of everything. You have eleven to twelve stories here on the
3 two Park Lane Towers, Cortina is seven to eight stories, everything from the Schrader’s gas station to the
4 large church across the street to Sports Authority to the new 415 restaurant. So, very eclectic architecture
5 and uses, and the challenge that that brought was when we…we reached out to all the neighbors and I
6 think it was in December and January, and there was a little bit of competing interest on a lot of the
7 commercial users wanted us to create as much density as possible to help their businesses, and create as
8 much parking as possible so it wouldn’t spill out on the street. The residential neighbors wanted less
9 density but more amenities that would kind of help their renters. So, we heard a lot of kind of conflicting
10 feedback.
11 And this is, I think, just helpful to understand the process that we went through, and I can go
12 through it quickly. We started our first conceptual review in August 2011, and for almost nine months we
13 worked through all those issues that we found that are inherent in that infill site. We went back through a
14 PDR just over a year later, and then we went through a specific plaza review with City staff. We met
15 with the DDA staff on the project, we had a first PDP submittal January 2nd, and we bought the property
16 at the same time period…a specific review for the façade with City staff, a specific design review with the
17 DDA staff. One of the things we did there was just making sure that we coordinated the BRT transit stop
18 and make sure that interacted perfectly with the project. We met…reached out to all the property
19 owners…we met with several of them. A design review with the DDA staff January 30th…first time
20 presenting at the DDA Board meeting …implemented some of their design suggestions. Second round of
21 PDP submittal in March, second DDA Board meeting where we received approval. Our process was
22 changed to a Type II review process…again we met with individual meetings with staff and neighbors.
23 We had the neighborhood meeting on April 10th, and then we’ve provided the…what we heard from the
24 neighborhood meeting, we’ve revised since then, and that’s what we’re presenting today. And so we’ve
25 gotten that out to all the neighbors of interest since then. So, that’s a little bit of a history of how we got
26 here.
27 Vision for the project…we’ve really looked at City Plan to provide a lot of the vision, and as all
28 you know, it’s the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fort Collins and it illustrates how we envision Fort
29 Collins over the next twenty-five years and beyond. And, we just pulled out a couple of things that we
30 thought applied to this project that we thought you’d find interesting. This is one…concentrate higher
31 density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by high-
32 frequency transit in the future and can support higher levels of activity. Another one…encourage higher
33 intensity infill and redevelopment…at the bottom it says, encourage vertical mixed-use but, however,
34 limit maximum building height to five to six stories. So, our project is five stories, and then we also
35 found in the Refill Fort Collins document, it identifies this side is on the list of Fort Collins areas of
36 redevelopment/infill potential and it notes this actual site is having TOD building heights and incentives.
37 And then also, the City is promoting the site just across the street – it’s about fourteen acres…so you can
38 see our site in the very bottom left corner there. This is Schrader’s, this is Sports Authority, and they’re
39 promoting seven to nine stores, a hundred and fifteen feet, so we felt our height is very appropriate as the
40 Community Commercial zoning district allows five stories, and this abuts the transition up to seven to
41 nine stories. So that’s why we felt that our height was appropriate. Also in City Plan and Refill Fort
42 Collins, this is from our site looking to the northeast, and so you can see a project that’s very similar in
43 character of what we’re proposing. Also in Plan Fort Collins, this is another transit stop location and it
5
1 specifies, the Transit Oriented Development Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher
2 density, pedestrian friendly mixed-use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at
3 station areas. And so, that’s what we set out to do. We took that as a vision and then we brought in Oz
4 Architects, who’s an award-winning architect, and we set out to design a project that…its target market is
5 Old Town employees…or excuse me, Old Town employees and CSU student…faculty. We want it to be
6 really a bridge catalyst project between Old Town and CSU. We really wanted to integrate with that
7 MAX transit stop, and also wanted to create a plaza and retail space that promotes tenant and pedestrian
8 interaction. So, with that I can hand it over to Eduardo to go through the design. Thank you.
9 EDUARDO ILLANES: Good evening, my name is Eduard Illanes, I’m with Oz Architecture,
10 representing the project as you just heard. As I get my bearings…I want to start by giving you a reference
11 of how this building hits the ground, as clearly that’s the best reference, if you will, to understand how a
12 project fulfills the need of neighborhood fabric. First thing I could tell you is that I applaud the fact that
13 infill projects have been developed in the core of your city to create the densities that are going to allow
14 your downtown to thrive…that would be more people and more activities…you’re doing it with the MAX
15 station as is [sic] providing that connectivity, bridging the University with the downtown. In that regard,
16 this building, on this plan is illustrating the corner of…of Mulberry on the north with Mason on the east
17 side of the building. What you see in here then is that on the ground level we have a building that’s
18 coming pretty much to that build-to line…the property line…in such a way that it defines the activities of
19 the pedestrian interaction that is happening in the building and also with the neighbors that are navigating
20 through the site. On the corner, we have a community space. We’re creating a plaza that pretty much
21 opens up the visual interaction of automobiles as they approaching [sic] the corner to see farther out to
22 what’s going to be the future station that is almost completed by now.
23 Phasing…Mulberry also, on the north of the building…the built area facing the street is a retail
24 space that also then faces the plaza on the east. As it turns around, what we have is the residential entry to
25 this mixed-use project and a wall that…allows us to invite activities with bicycle parking, benches and so
26 forth, that not only relate to the building, but it will also allow the people waiting on the station to either
27 sit on those benches and/or utilize that plaza beyond. So when you look at that in building mass and
28 design, what you see in a building, that’s addressing on the ground level the pedestrian, but it also allows
29 the building to have a body on the upper floors, and then eventually on the top of the building, a pretty
30 distinctive cap, if you will, that frames how the building ends on the upper floor. But, more importantly,
31 as the building turns the corner, it’s creating a space for the community activity…that community pocket
32 park almost on the corner where we are incorporating not only sitting areas, but we’re hoping to
33 incorporate activities like a piano, sitting tables, benches and so forth.
34 Now, when you look at that in more detail, you’ll see on the lower left the blow-ups that I want to
35 show you a little bit on the top here where we are incorporating activities that allow us to connect the
36 building to the street in such a way that it’s soft, it’s engaging, it allows the people to participate. And,
37 not only that, but it also is very porous, it’s…I think it’s critical for the building to allow that interaction
38 between people and uses. So, you see in the corner on the top of Mason and Mulberry, and now on the
39 bottom, number two, you are seeing right in the middle of the building here, the station connected with
40 the main entry to the residential tower up above. What you’re seeing also is that the ground level that you
41 saw…was a parking garage pretty much, it has this wall that is articulating pretty much the bulkheads for
42 future development if indeed retail was going to become a use that this street…the market could afford to
6
1 be here in such a way that we could modify those locations with storefront and create a small retails
2 space.
3 Farther, I wanted to illustrate to you what happens with the building when you…the base is
4 terminated then the building on top is highly articulated on layer [sic] with not only vertical elements but
5 also a lot of horizontal elements that are allowing us to create that activity that not only represents what
6 happens inside of the building, but also projects with these balconies such that we are articulating the
7 events that are happening along the street. That happens both on the Mason side and on the Mulberry
8 side. One other important component of the building, clearly, is the definition of this corner of Mason
9 and Mulberry on which we are not only creating this void that articulates a plaza on the ground floor, but
10 it also has an element that is more distinctive…
11 One of the questions, clearly, that…kind of requested for all of us to articulate in terms of
12 understanding how this building hits the face of the street, if you will, as it goes up, was in section…and
13 I’m going to show you three sections, two along Mason and one along Mulberry, that articulate first. The
14 first one coming on Mason going up north, what you see is the street, landscape strip, an eight-foot
15 sidewalk, the property line, a building inset, and that’s the place where we’re proposing to have
16 bicycles…bicycle parking, if you will, in such a way that the wheel of the parking…or the wheel of the
17 bicycle is projecting a little bit beyond the property line but not crossing the sidewalk. Therefore the
18 sidewalk is clearly articulated in such a way that the bicycles are not interrupting the traffic. But it
19 changes as you move forward up the street where now the bicycles are on the other side of the sidewalk,
20 allowing in between the sidewalk and the building and on all these insets, the potential furniture, if you
21 will, by creating benches and more activities along the street. Clearly when you go to the Mulberry cross-
22 section of how the building hits the ground, the pedestrian is faced with…the retail space is projecting
23 into the street such that the building sits far behind. We have a much wider section between building and
24 street, anticipating that potentially that street can change with time such that the sidewalk may move in,
25 and as such we have enough space between the automobile and the building as well. So you are also
26 seeing how the building is not just one flat…but articulates and the balconies, allowing us to create a lot
27 of dynamic movement throughout the building.
28 In terms of materiality, and this was a discussion that involved City staff as well as the neighbor,
29 the idea is that we are going to have a very strong pedestrian base that’s more tactile, following a bit the
30 vocabulary created in your downtown with brick and stone, clearly the stone is way too expensive to be
31 utilized here, so we are mimicking the base of the building with ground face block that mimics limestone,
32 if you will, in such a way that there’s a wainscot at all the retail fronts as they continue throughout Mason,
33 and at the stair towers, a base that’s a little bit higher but it defines the water line, if you will, of the
34 pedestrian base of the building. You’re seeing the plaza, the coffee shop, the retail projection into
35 Mulberry, and then what you’re seeing is the front facing Mason. So, we went from limestone-looking
36 material to brick, and eventually the body of the building is stucco in several colors. We are looking at
37 the creation of balconies that are recessed into the building and railings that project…and in places one is
38 different than the other such that the building has enough articulation not only horizontally as well as
39 vertically.
40 Now one discussion that we had with the neighbors as well with staff, is how we could bring
41 more of this brick to that iconic corner on Mason and Mulberry, so now we are bringing the brick all the
42 way up to the top of the fourth story, pretty much creating a lantern on the upper floor with a different
43 material, again in that instance we’re going to use stucco. There are some other materials that we’re using
7
1 in the building to allow these openings to the parking garage, and potentially retrofits for retail, we are
2 allowing that opening to be infill with a green wall which is a material…you might want to open that box
3 for me please…it’s a material that allows vines to grow in in such a way that what we have is almost a
4 living wall in lieu of just a blank wall or a solid wall. You see also that the insets that the building creates
5 where the balconies are up above, have on the back, almost a wood slat fence, if you will…very nicely
6 articulated…that allows the backdrop for the bicycle parking that’s inset into the building. We’re
7 proposing some signage to define the use…the commercial use on the bottom, as well as some signage to
8 define the name of the building on the façades.
9 Now here again you get to see the entire composition of this building, as it defines pretty much
10 this transit-oriented corner that you have created on your…well, a block away from main street, if you
11 will. This is the material that I was articulating…this is what…the green wall comes like this; it’s a three-
12 dimensional space frame that allows then, the vines to grow on them. It’s being used…I think it’s being
13 used also here in your community already. It’s a very interesting product introduced into the market
14 about ten years ago, and it’s worked pretty successfully for everybody. Questions?
15 CHAIR SMITH: No, I don’t think so…not yet anyway. Do you have more of your staff…I mean
16 your applicant presentation? Do you have any more team members coming up?
17 MR. ILLANES: That’s it.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, Jennifer you have a question right now?
19 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: No…
20 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, alright.
21 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: Can I ask one quick question? The modification
22 that you’re seeking for the parking landscaping requirements from the six percent down to the 2.7…does
23 that include other vertical green walls in that percentage as well…or?
24 MR. ILLANES: No.
25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Because it’s not in the parking area? Okay.
26 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, what we’ll do is, at this point, if you’re done with your presentation, we’ll
27 ask staff to step back up and maybe clarify, or if there was any other pieces to the presentation we might
28 need to hear, Seth? And if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. Thank you to the applicant for your
29 presentation.
30 MR. LORSON: There’s one element that I would like to highlight. There’s been a lot of
31 interaction with this project and staff, and staff with the neighbors, and the neighbors with the applicant,
32 and a lot of conversations have gone on about the impact on the neighborhood, the architecture, and these
33 kind of elements. I just wanted to highlight something real quick that…the original design, as you can
34 see up here on the screen, you see that this is not brick, and this corner here is kind of full, if you will.
35 What they have done is…they’ve done a couple of elements that was [sic] trying to step down towards the
36 neighbors and bring a little bit warmer character to the building, and that’s what I’ve been told is different
37 than what you even have in your packet, so there were some last minute changes there with that step
38 down. So, I really don’t have anything else to add other than those. I think the applicant would be able to
39 speak a little further towards any changes that may have happened.
8
1 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, alright…Jennifer, you have a question real quick? Alright.
2 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Seth, on that…so the only place that we’ve added brick is up
3 that column? Or was the piece across…?
4 MR. LORSON: You mean down here at the base?
5 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes, was that added as well?
6 MR. LORSON: That was already…so, in your packet, it’s already designed that way. As you can
7 see, where it comes up here, formerly that was metal…that’d be great.
8 MR. BRINKMAN: So, the…there’s probably four different changes. The brick is one that we
9 heard from several neighbors that it’s a real material that’s present a lot in Old Town, and so we did have
10 metal paneling there before, so all of that area went to brick. The setback was a big thing for us, as it
11 really affects the economics of a project, but it was important for the neighbors so we need to set that
12 back right here, that goes all the way towards the south. Another element that we did, we created
13 these…this element on the top of each stair tower there, so that brought, what we heard, was a better
14 element to the project, and we also created this base so it wasn’t one mass going up. We created this
15 bottom base here with material. So, those are a lot of the things we heard over the last couple weeks…we
16 heard at the neighborhood meeting, and the changes we made since then to today.
17 MR. ILLANES: We also added brick along the Mason façade. So you’re seeing that…was block
18 now is brick as it progresses through, moving to the south.
19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, so the stair protrusion, or whatever it is out there,
20 is…that’s metal tile? Is that what I’m seeing? The part that sticks out…that’s the stair?
21 MR. ILLANES: No, that is concrete block.
22 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Concrete block? Okay, thank you.
23 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. John, you have a question?
24 BOARDMEMBER JOHN HATFIELD: Not a question, but I just wanted to compliment the staff
25 and the applicant on the detail and all the work they put into this. It’s quite extensive here…the audience
26 has no idea how much more there is that we have to look at here than what you even have to talk about.
27 So, I just want to compliment you on the detail and the ease of reading and studying of this project.
28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, we’ll move into the public testimony component of this item. So, if
29 you are here to address the Board on this item specifically, would you please raise your hand so I can get
30 a count? How many folks? Okay, okay…so what we’ll do is, we’ll give you three minutes each to step
31 up to the microphone. We’ll have both podiums active and available. When you come up, please state
32 your name and address for the record, sign in as well, and be kind. So, please, sir, go ahead.
33 ERIC SUTHERLAND: Thank Chairman, my name is Eric Sutherland, I live at 3520 Golden
34 Currant in Fort Collins and I do want to express some concern about the modification that has been
35 requested that would allow the applicant to depart from our standards for bicycle parking. That wasn’t
36 really presented in their explanation here; perhaps there might be more details that might justify that
37 modification. But, I don’t know that that’s really something that we want to be compromising
38 on…pushing bicycle parking out into the public right-of-way in this particular district of town might
39 create problems. You know, honestly, as much as I’ve heard about the Mason Bus Rapid Transit
9
1 System, I’ve never really heard of somebody coming up with an explanation about how people are going,
2 in large numbers, ride their bicycles into town and catch the BRT to go elsewhere in town, and leaving
3 their bikes in town. You know, our bike parking at times is very strained in that area, as it is right now,
4 and as we try to infill in that area it’s on. It’s pretty obvious that a building structure of this size, this
5 much square footage, it’s not hard to contemplate that a certain percentage of the square footage could be
6 dedicated to indoor bike parking for the residents there, meaning that they would not have to take up
7 bicycle parking that we might provide as an amenity…public access, public right-of-way in that regard.
8 And, I just wonder really what the rationale is there, and if it’s really justifiable in terms of the request for
9 modification that’s being made. And, really, there’s really no project that can come forward in any tax
10 increment district in this city that does not merit a little bit of concern about everybody in this community,
11 about how Fort Collins is using tax increment financing, and the burden it is placing on the taxpayers, the
12 limitations it’s placing on other taxing agencies to provide services as our population grows. I don’t
13 think, in any way, shape or form, that that topic is being given anywhere near the weight it deserves.
14 And, certainly the rationalizations that are being made, and justifications for using tax increment here,
15 there, everywhere, probably need to be reconsidered in light of what the realities are for our libraries, our
16 schools, our health district, our County social services as well. So, I’ll just throw that in a little bit on top,
17 even though it doesn’t really pertain to LUC. Thanks a lot.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, anyone else? Please step forward.
19 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Good evening Board and staff, my name is Susan Kreul-Froseth, I
20 live at 524 Spring Canyon Court. It’s hard to write and talk at the same time here. So, I have a limited
21 amount of time and I’ll try to speak quickly, thank you for the opportunity to speak, it’s an obligation too.
22 We’ve been aware of this project since January; quite frankly it’s been a convoluted process. We met
23 with the developer two or three times…two times I guess, and staff multiple times. I wish I liked this
24 project; I have to tell you, I do not…several reasons. It fails on several levels in my mind to actually feel
25 like some of the images that we saw proposed when the Mason Street Corridor came into view to the
26 citizens. Without question, it is a precedent-setting project and I think you all realize that…probably most
27 of the citizens that are even aware of the project know that it’s extremely precedent-setting. We are going
28 to see development along the Mason Street Corridor based on some of these new projects. So, I urge
29 you…you know, ask questions like, let’s see the elevation instead of looking at a perspective from the
30 corner at a worm’s eye view. Look to see what the neighbors see from the west. There were balconies
31 showing up initially in this project, very early on, and suddenly they were gone…associated with
32 economic situations the developer mentioned, just can’t simply afford those types of things. Articulation
33 is incredibly important on this project. So I urge you, ask to see the elevations…not portions of buildings,
34 not half of the building or a third of the building. It’s a mirror image, and that’s been said over and over
35 about staff…about the project. I have several pages to talk to you about and one minute left. So, I urge
36 you to also look at the modifications of standards related to landscaping. It is not nominal and
37 inconsequential, it’s very important to the neighbors that the landscaping and the setbacks are maintained.
38 If we start to let this project slide now, others will follow. When the Mason Street Corridor was proposed
39 to us, we saw vibrant city streetscapes, we saw human scale, we saw setbacks, articulation, use of good
40 materials. Quite frankly, this neighborhood meeting occurred one week ago. So my responses are based
41 on what I saw at that meeting, not at this one. So, I know the developer and the architect have made
42 strides to respond to the neighbors, but it’s a little too late in a lot of cases. We’re left with no time to
43 consider these things, thank you.
10
1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. And, so you know, we did get your…your letter, and we’ve had the
2 chance to read through it…well written, so we’ll consider that as well. Anybody else? Speak to this
3 item? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record and sign in as well.
4 BRUCE FROSETH: My name is Bruce Froseth and I live at 524 Spring Canyon Court in Fort
5 Collins. Members of the Board and staff, I want to thank you for this opportunity to voice my concern
6 and opposition to this project. I may be a little disorganized tonight because our neighborhood meeting
7 was just last week. Your actions tonight will greatly influence the character and livability of this
8 neighborhood and guide future projects along the Mason Street Corridor. This project was first presented
9 to staff in the fall of 2012 with a total of 46,000 square feet and sixty-six parking spaces. Staff comments
10 were based on this proposal. According to the City-approved flow chart, there should have been a
11 neighborhood meeting after that initial submittal. The original concept with transitioning roofs has been
12 changed to what is proposed today…64,000 square feet, sixty-four units, a hundred bedrooms, sixty-four
13 rented parking spaces. This looks nothing like what was presented in the fall, it’s 18,000 square feet
14 larger. The project is called mixed-use, but it’s less than three percent other than residential. The project
15 being five stories is one of the few in the TOD and CC zoning district, and I believe requires you to use
16 some forward thinking and more scrutiny. I believe it is not compatible with the neighborhood in size,
17 character and mass, and makes no attempt to transition to the surrounding properties. I believe that stucco
18 is not the predominant façade of properties in this area. I believe even though there are no requirements
19 for TOD…parking in the TOD…thirty additional cars parking the neighborhood streets around here do
20 not contribute to compatibility. This area is already the hardest place in the city to find a parking space. I
21 believe placing trash enclosures next to the single-family residence shows a lack of concern this
22 development team has towards this neighbor. I believe projects like the Flats at the Oval and Pura Vida in
23 old Woody’s Pizza, have higher quality material and better transitioning techniques. They were both
24 larger sites but they ended up with less units than this. This project is ninety units per acre. I believe the
25 request for modifications show the developer’s lack of concern to be compatible with their surrounding
26 neighbors. I would hope that there will be a building on this site that would truly be a mixed-use and
27 contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood, providing more than a cup of coffee. I would like to finish
28 by saying I’m opposed to this dorm-like building on the Corridor and I do not believe this project will
29 help us become a world-class city. Thank you.
30 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else? Please step forward and state your name and address
31 for the record. And, for the folks that are in the back of the room that are standing, there are at least four,
32 five, six seats up here if you’d like to sit down…and I see a couple over here as well. Sir, go ahead.
33 ED SEELEY: I’m Ed Seeley, I live at 415 South Howes in Park Lane Towers about one block to
34 the west of the proposed project. I have a concern about the proposal as I understand it. I’m looking
35 forward to using the bus rapid transit system when it comes on line next year and in particular to using the
36 station just south of Mulberry. I’m concerned about the impact that MAX Flats will have on traffic along
37 Mason between Mulberry and Myrtle, but especially on an increased potential for accidents at the
38 intersection of Mason and Myrtle. If there is an accident at the intersection, getting vehicles, and even a
39 bus, out of the area with the confined lanes created by the railroad will not be easy. There may be
40 significant delays for bus service. I see this potential problem because it looks, from the project plan, as if
41 larger service vehicles such as garbage trucks would not be able to drive into the site, but will need to
42 park along Mason south of the project. Also, the intended population for MAX Flats looks to be a more
43 transient population that will have a more frequent number of move-ins and move-outs. So, I would
11
1 anticipate moving trucks needing to park along Mason to serve MAX Flats. If larger service vehicles
2 park along Mason south of the project area, the sight lines for traffic southbound on Mason and eastbound
3 on Myrtle will be impacted and would definitely increase the probability of accidents near the intersection
4 with Myrtle. I think the City of Fort Collins has an outstanding resource coming in the bus rapid transit
5 system. I hope the City of Fort Collins will ensure that no situation is permitted that would negatively
6 impact that system in this area. Thank you for the chance to comment.
7 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Board on this issue? Please, step
8 forward, state your name and address for the record and sign in as well.
9 DAVE MICHLOVE: My name is Dave Michlove and I live at 208 West Myrtle just west of…my
10 property is adjacent west of the building. I only became informed about this project based on the
11 neighborhood meeting last week, so I’m sort of new on this but my concern is with the fencing between
12 their property and our property. Right now they are talking about a wood privacy fence. Living next to
13 King’s, the wood privacy fence that’s up currently is mine. It kept getting knocked over over and over
14 and over again by people ramming into it with their cars. I would like to see a little bit sturdier…maybe a
15 masonry type fence put between our properties that will sort of ensure a little bit less of an issue between
16 the people parking, as well as things being thrown over walls. I have two dogs that bark, I don’t really
17 want college students that will probably be inhabiting here be throwing things at my dogs. Perhaps a
18 sturdier, maybe even a higher fence would help protect some of that from occurring. I also am concerned
19 about the parking. There is no parking in that area and during the day right now, CSU pretty much fills it
20 up and you’re going to be taking away parking from the CSU students that use that as an access. Usually
21 it empties out at night, but with this building I’m sure it won’t be emptying out. So, those are basically
22 my concerns, as well as what other people have stated. Thank you.
23 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Anyone else like to address the Board
24 on this issue? Please.
25 RICHARD TARANOW: My name is Richard Taranow, I live at 2731 Granada Hills Drive. I
26 own a building directly…house directly behind the project to the south, actually next door to his. The
27 infill I’ve seen in the last twenty years in the neighborhood has been kind of low quality duplexes and
28 four-plexes that already look dated. I like the fact that someone is planning a building that will look good
29 not just for our generation, but maybe one or two after ours. It won’t look dated or need to be torn down.
30 Parking certainly is an issue, but there’s people who don’t live in a neighborhood that come and park
31 there, so I don’t see an issue why people who do live in a neighborhood…if they moved into that why
32 they couldn’t park in the street. So, again, parking situation will never be great. Seems like we want
33 more density, we want public transportation to work…this type of infill will help that. Most of the new
34 student housing that I’ve seen built recently is…had no architectural flavor like this. So, I think
35 compared to what could go in there, you know, I’d rather see this type of development than another 7-11
36 or some car lot that was previously there, and it seems like the projects this developer has brought to town
37 recently have been very successful. I have not seen any issues with…problems with any of the
38 construction…neighbors in their last few developments they’ve brought to town, so I would have to say
39 in lieu of whatever else I’ve seen planned, that this is a good use for that land. The University’s going to
40 grow, we’re going to have more density…let’s do it at least with some design flare like these folks here
41 are presenting. Thank you.
12
1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else? This would be your only opportunity to address the
2 Board on this issue. So, if you even think you might want to talk to the Board about this, now is your
3 time. Anyone? Okay, with that…did I hear somebody? Alright, then we will close the public testimony
4 component of this item and we’ll move into the applicant’s response to what they just heard from the
5 public testimony. And, I think that what we might do is…if the applicant could step up and, you know,
6 respond to what we heard, the Board will probably have a few questions in order to direct you back to
7 maybe some of the concerns we’ve heard from the public. One second…sorry. Okay, I’m sorry, go
8 ahead.
9 MR. BRINKMAN: You bet…so, a couple comments. On the trash trucks, they will have access
10 directly back to the dumpsters and they will be able to access the trash right there and access back out.
11 So, they will not need to access that from Mason. A couple other things…could you touch on the
12 materials real quick?
13 MR. ILLANES: Clearly, the materiality of this building is very diverse with a very hard strong
14 material that reminisces downtown, with this block and the brick. The body of the building, stucco,
15 which as you might know is not a soft material, has been used for centuries and it is a very long-lasting
16 material. It’s a hard cement board with a cement finish in front of it. And then we have a lot of detail that
17 articulates the upper floors that, in the insets, that is a siding that’s also brought up from the neighborhood
18 quality of the residual project that the previous gentleman was talking about in regard to the smaller
19 homes that you see around.
20 MR. BRINKMAN: A couple other items…it is in the TOD so there really is no parking
21 requirement and we’ve worked pretty hard, and that’s why there are the modifications, to optimize the
22 parking as well as we can. The balconies on the west side, really that came about from comments from
23 the neighbors, how they thought that would create more noise and nuisance out there, and so that’s one of
24 the reasons why we pulled those back. And then also on…you know, the predominant material. It’s just
25 so difficult to determine what the predominant material is. I’d argue in this block, it’s probably siding
26 and so that’s something that we’re trying to kind of establish a precedent for future infill, mixed-use
27 projects along the corridor.
28 MR. ILLANES: There was also a question about bicycles, and clearly we are providing a lot of
29 bicycle storage within the building. But, when you think about transit-oriented development and a bus
30 stop right there, you want to make sure that you’re also responding to the needs that bicycle parking will
31 allow to the community as a whole. Most of the parking is within the property. As you have seen, there’s
32 a couple of spaces where we’re proposing to articulate some of the use at it relates to the station itself,
33 mostly facing Mason.
34 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, one thing…Jennifer, did you have…okay, we’ve probably got quite a few
35 actually. But, one thing I wanted to maybe touch on right at the beginning was…you know, I think…and
36 maybe we need to actually go through, have staff help us go through all of the requests for modification
37 here shortly, just because I think that’s probably the meat of the discussion. But, I think a point was
38 raised about, you know, as we start to, you know, build TOD projects that, you know, the need for
39 accommodating bikes for public use. And so, one of the concerns I had, or at least a question, was that in
40 particular, there’s four spaces to be, I guess, dedicated to the commercial space. And, I’m wondering if,
41 in your opinion, that’s truly adequate. And, I think that goes along the lines with what we heard the first
13
1 citizen talk about and whether or not we’re really getting enough parking for bikes in particular for the
2 public.
3 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, Seth, just to tag team that, do we have biking
4 standards as part of our transit stop plan and requirements?
5 CHAIR SMITH: And I guess maybe let’s have that discussion now, because I think maybe Emma
6 would come up…is I think it maybe illustrates a larger concept and maybe we need to punt on a couple
7 other things, but just this idea about, as MAX is developed, that the projects…what’s kind of the standard
8 for those stations for what they have provided for bike parking facilities, and how this one fits into those
9 standards…how this project fits in.
10 MR. LORSON: Okay, I was just told that there is no standards for the stations as far as for
11 developers to provide bicycle parking at a MAX station. The City will be providing three parking bike
12 racks to accommodate three bicycles at each station. As you can see here, this is the modification image
13 for bicycle parking, where the two red dots at the bottom are where they are proposing, or the applicant is
14 proposing to put ten of their required parking spaces off-site, off of their own area, that would help serve
15 both the transit station and the public realm to meet that standard. Just recently we did increase the bike
16 parking standard. Right now the standard is at one bike parking space per bedroom with sixty percent of
17 them being enclosed, or you know, inside the units, or in lockers or something like that…forty percent
18 outside. So, overall, this project is providing a hundred and six bicycle parking spaces. For our review,
19 we feel that moving them off-site is actually just nominal and inconsequential modification to the
20 standard.
21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How many of those are off-site?
22 MR. LORSON: Ten of them, and the ten are right where the two red dots are on the site plan
23 there.
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you.
25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: So, Seth, can I just clarify. So, they’re providing a hundred
26 and six bike parking spaces, ten of which are in the right-of-way. But, if they were to provide those
27 hundred and four required spaces on site, there would not be any bike parking in the right-of-way, except
28 for the three that you’re requiring in the station?
29 MR. LORSON: That’s correct. I’m sorry…I misspoke, the transit station will have six spaces,
30 three racks, and that’s provided by the City.
31 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And that’s in addition to the ten that’s provided through
32 this project?
33 MR. LORSON: That’s an addition to the ten, yeah.
34 CHAIR SMITH: Where would those be located? Emma, your mic’s not on…it’s good to see
35 you, it’s been a while.
36 EMMA MCARDLE: Nice to see you…Emma McArdle with Transfort by the way, for those of
37 you that don’t know. We have the three racks just to the north of the station, which is to the right of the
38 grey…the grey pad is the station for anyone that doesn’t know.
14
1 CHAIR SMITH: Emma could you use the mouse and show us with the cursor where you’re
2 talking about please?
3 MS. MCARDLE: So this is the pad for the station, the shelter is this dashed line here. Our bike
4 parking is right here and that’s six spaces. We do know that…we’ve heard from a lot of people that we’re
5 under bike parked across the board for all of our stations so any additional bike parking we can get near
6 stations is a good thing from our perspective.
7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, are there any plans or processes in order to bump that up if you’ve heard
8 that it’s under parked?
9 MS. MCARDLE: Yes, we are planning to get a project underway this year to address additional
10 bike parking throughout the corridor. That’s on our work plan, but we haven’t started it yet.
11 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks. I mean I guess just comment aside from this proposal is that, you
12 know, with MAX we have an opportunity to do something pretty great, and I’d like to see us plan for
13 greatness. I guarantee three to six bikes is not going to be adequate…not even close. Okay, so what other
14 questions do we have along these lines? Go ahead Jennifer.
15 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’m sure it’s on here somewhere, and I’ve been over these
16 and I can’t find it, but on the bikes that are going to be up next to the building, that are going to be
17 protruding out onto the sidewalk….how far are they going to protrude out into that space?
18 MR. ILLANES: The sidewalk is eight foot in width and the bicycles are outside of that width, but
19 within, or inside, of the right-of-way. If you follow the cursor please…so you see in the indent right there
20 as well as here, right? So, the bicycles are placed that the wheel is going to project just a little farther than
21 this blue line, but the sidewalk width…you can see it there.
22 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How deep is that indentation for bikes?
23 MR. ILLANES: Six feet.
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’m sorry?
25 MR. ILLANES: Six feet.
26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Six feet, okay, thank you.
27 CHAIR SMITH: I guess a real quick question…I may have missed this, but where you are
28 requesting to place bike racks in the right-of-way, what material will they be sitting on? Is that concrete?
29 So it’ll be in the tree lawn but it’ll be on a concrete pad?
30 MR. ILLANES: Yes, it’s a continuation of the material used for the sidewalk.
31 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay, thank you.
32 MR. BRINKMAN: If I can add, we did some very similar at Flats at the Oval. So, if you go by
33 Laurel and Howes, there’s the same attribute there.
34 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks, what other questions do we have right now?
35 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I have a question about the stucco. So, this is stucco board,
36 not stucco. Is that correct?
15
1 MR. ILLANES: It’s a hand-applied stucco system that is applied in coats. It’s the traditional
2 stucco that’s been used forever, it’s not Dryvit, which is a material applied to foam.
3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Right, but is it like the stucco board that’s applied to the wall
4 or is it actual stucco?
5 MR. ILLANES: No, it’s hand-applied on the wall.
6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin, go ahead.
8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I was wondering if you could also respond to the citizen
9 testimony questioning the landscaping and setback modification?
10 MR. ILLANES: In regards to landscaping, as you can see, there is a…let me change seats okay?
11 As you heard, the parking is not required, but clearly it was a great amenity to also bring at least one
12 parking space per unit. As the parking is organized around the building, you saw that most of it is
13 underneath the building. And, the spaces that are along the property lines that are in a
14 diagonal…currently, the landscaping is maintained as a straight line, and that width is where the
15 requirement is asked for. The building along all the entire perimeter has landscaping. I don’t think we
16 have a landscape plan here with us, but one of the things that is happening is that we are using a lot of
17 trees along the street façades. Now, what you saw in regards to the compact spaces…the compact spaces
18 are the ones that are located underneath the building for the most part.
19 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Just…not to design your building for you, but I’m
20 assuming that there’s not enough room to do the full-size parking within the building and to make those
21 spaces compact to have more of a buffer between your property and the single-family out in the parking
22 lot?
23 MR. ILLANES: Full-size spaces, they will not fit here, right.
24 MR. BRINKMAN: And, if I could say, that’s the number one concern we had from all the
25 neighbors is parking. So, we tried to optimize it as best as we could.
26 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin, do you have more questions…follow-up on that? Jennifer, go ahead.
27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I do, and maybe this is for staff, I don’t know. I just am
28 wondering why the neighborhood meeting was so late in the process…that’s kind of an unusual place to
29 have…
30 LAURIE KADRICH: I think I can help with that since Seth has to switch seats there. This was
31 one of the projects that got caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the
32 Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land Use Code…where you might
33 remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require,
34 instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the
35 developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed…they were having a mixed-use development and the
36 discussion that we had around the threshold was about multi-family development. So, Seth and the
37 developer proceeded ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it
38 included a definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change
39 made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
16
1 discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The developer
2 and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on the timeline that
3 they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the time of the
4 neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held. And, I’d invite Paul to correct me if I’ve
5 erred in this description.
6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, do we have any…what is our definition for mixed-use?
7 Is there any kind of a percentage of what you have to have of each to have it be considered mixed-use?
8 MS. KADRICH: Not yet…it’s one of the topics that’s come up by staff and by the Planning and
9 Zoning Board members that we would consider at a later date in defining whether there needs to be more
10 than the idea if there’s more than one type of use, does it have to be a certain percent of the project, or
11 some other way to define mixed-use. But, currently, this project would qualify under the Land Use Code
12 definition.
13 CHAIR SMITH: What other questions do we have?
14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
15 participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been changing all sorts of things
16 about our process lately, and we’re trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the
17 middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.
18 CHAIR SMITH: True…alright, what other questions do we have for staff or the applicant at this
19 time? John? Okay…you know I think it’d be important for us to do…maybe, Seth, if you could do this.
20 Could you lead us through the requests for modification please?
21 MR. LORSON: Yeah, absolutely. So, the first request for a modification is a reduction in the
22 parking lot landscaping. The Land Use Code requires six percent of interior parking area to be
23 landscaped, which would be five hundred and five square feet in this case. What they’re doing, is they’re
24 providing two hundred and twenty-four square feet, which would be 2.7 percent. Staff has made a
25 determination that it meets the standard in the modification Section 2.8, that the modification is not
26 detrimental to the public good and that the standard divergence is not detrimental…except in a nominal
27 and inconsequential way. What this is really a result of, as you heard the applicant say, is that they’re
28 trying to get one parking spot per unit. So, what…as you know, this is a TOD overlay zone, and there are
29 no parking requirements, there’s no parking minimum. So, they could take out a parking spot and meet
30 their interior landscape requirement, but then they’d have to take out a parking spot which could possibly
31 impose more parking on public streets in the neighborhood, which, as you know, we’ve heard recently is
32 a concern for the community.
33 The second one is to provide off-site bicycle parking to meet their standard. I think we’ve
34 already gone over this well enough.
35 CHAIR SMITH: Seth, could you go back real quick, just on B…just go through the rationale.
36 MR. LORSON: Okay, yeah, absolutely. The rationale for the modification of standard is that, for
37 all intents and purposes, they’re providing the adequate amount of parking spaces. And, honestly, there’s
38 a section in the Code that comes right after this that talks about alternative compliance. I think this would
39 actually have met the alternative compliance a lot better than a modification of standard, although they
40 had requested a modification of standard so we processed it as such. But, the alternative way to comply
17
1 to this would be to provide the parking in the public right-of-way. The reason it cannot be considered
2 towards the standard is because they have to get a revocable permit, and at any time the City could revoke
3 their ability to have that parking there and then they would no longer have the adequate amount of
4 parking spaces. Nevertheless, staff considers the request to be not detrimental to the public good and that
5 the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way.
6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks, continue…sorry.
7 MR. LORSON: You’re welcome. The third modification is a reduction in the parking lot setback
8 from five feet, which is what the standard requires, to four feet two inches. This is because what they are
9 doing is providing…trying to provide at least one parking spot per dwelling unit. Now, without that ten
10 inch difference, they wouldn’t have adequate space for the drive aisle to provide that entire row of
11 parking that you can see along the west side of the property. So, staff finds that it actually meets two
12 elements of the modification standards. The first one is that it’s not detrimental to the public good and it
13 doesn’t diverge from the standard except for in a nominal and inconsequential way, being ten inches.
14 And that also it will result in a substantial benefit for the City, being that they wouldn’t be able to do the
15 project and provide the parking without having that drive aisle and without having that extra ten inches.
16 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks. Yes, hang on, Jennifer, go ahead.
17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, where we’re losing the spaces on the west side…I’m
18 looking at the landscape plan now…so it’s on the west side along there, that’s where it’s going from five
19 to 4.2?
20 MR. LORSON: That’s correct.
21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, and that’s also where the landscaping which is meant
22 to be a buffer from the neighbors…that’s where we’re losing landscaping as well?
23 MR. LORSON: Not necessarily. Basically what we’re talking about losing the landscaping is
24 internal landscaping. The buffer that you’re talking about, the setback…the five foot setback along the
25 west, is perimeter landscaping in the Land Use Code. What also the Land Use Code requires is the
26 interior…interior landscaping, which is the paved area. And that area requires six percent of that paved
27 area to have landscaping inside it to soften the actual parking lot itself.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRPATRICK: I just wanted to ask about that, going back to modification
29 A…the intent of that is sort of for that perception of safety and to soften it so that you’re not just in a
30 concrete jungle, right? I know that…
31 MR. LORSON: The interior landscaping? Correct.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I know that our requirement is for six percent surface. If
33 they were to do, say those green walls again on that first floor in the parking lot, would that…that
34 wouldn’t still count, right, towards the six percent standard?
35 MR. LORSON: No, we have very specific diagrams in the Land Use Code that it would have to
36 actually be an area between parking spaces.
37 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think maybe that’s an area that we could look at in the
38 future for infill sites.
39 MR. LORSON: We will, thank you.
18
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Sorry, I didn’t quite finish. So, we’re not losing…by losing
2 the eight inches between the west boundary and the parking lot, we’re not losing any of the landscaping
3 along there that’s meant to buffer between…is that correct?
4 MR. LORSON: As proposed, I haven’t seen any landscape lost because of the ten inches. I think
5 there would be , obviously less impervious area due to the ten inches, but as far as the area that would
6 buffer from the neighbors, I don’t know how much difference that ten inches would make. They are
7 providing a six-foot privacy fence right there on the property line.
8 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
9 CHAIR SMITH: Seth, go ahead.
10 MR. LORSON: Thank you. The final modification is an increase in the percentage of compact
11 parking spaces. The Code requires a maximum of forty percent compact parking spaces, and the
12 applicant is providing fifty-eight percent compact parking spaces. Staff feels like this is not detrimental
13 to the public good and doesn’t diverge from the standard except for in a nominal and inconsequential
14 way, and this is because it’s internal to the site. It’s inside their own parking garage. This is their own,
15 private parking and it’s another symptom of trying to put more parking in where they aren’t required to do
16 parking by the Land Use Code anyway. And so, staff feels that it meets the standards for modification of
17 standard. Thank you.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, does the Board fully understand the four requests for modification? Do
19 you have any questions of staff about those? Trying to break this into some pieces that we can manage
20 and move forward on. Okay, alright if we understand that then go ahead…any other questions? We need
21 to be able to understand where we’re going. Kristin, go ahead.
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Seth, can I ask just one more clarifying question? I read
23 somewhere, but I can’t find it now…so there was a dedication of right-of-way on Mulberry, is that right?
24 Of seven and a half feet for the right-of-way that Mulberry will need for their ultimate street
25 improvements? My question is, when and if that gets improved, how will that be changing the Mulberry
26 side? I think that you said that perhaps…do we get rid of that street tree lawn or what would happen?
27 MR. LORSON: The applicant is prepared to speak to that.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect.
29 MR. BRINKMAN: So, Kristin, I think what you’re asking is seven and a half foot wide right-of-
30 way right here? So that’s for potential ultimate Mulberry expansion. And, so the potential road would go
31 to that southern edge.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
33 CHAIR SMITH: I’ve got a question for the applicant. The amount of bike spaces being provided
34 in each of the dwelling units…it’s one per unit, is that correct? And that’s even in the units that have
35 more than one bedroom?
36 MR. BRINKMAN: No, it’s one per bed.
37 CHAIR SMITH: It is one per bed?
19
1 MR. BRINKMAN: And what we’ve found…that in comparable projects, is that a lot of times,
2 you probably see it around town, that their bikes are worth more than their cars so they end up taking
3 them through the elevator up into their room. So, I think, practically speaking, a lot of the bikes will be in
4 the rooms and then that should leave adequate bike parking on ground level in our mind.
5 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Time to deliberate? Jennifer? We’re
6 all looking to you. Okay, I think that what our process would be is that we would take each one of the
7 modification requests and knock those down one by one, get a decision, and then we can move on to the
8 overall PDP. How do you all feel about that?
9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, you’re thinking about getting to compatibility last? Is
10 that where you’re wanting that to be?
11 CHAIR SMITH: I think so. Yeah, I think it makes sense. Yeah, if you’d like to…sure.
12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I make a motion to approve the MAX Flats project proposal,
13 number PDP 120034, along with the proposed modifications which are not detrimental to the public good,
14 and to the…and the proposed modifications A, B, C, and D which are nominal and inconsequential.
15 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Mr. Chair, the City Council has, in the past,
16 requested we take each modification by a separate vote, and then finally the PDP, again, by a separate
17 vote.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. I think…let’s do that if that’s alright with you, John, is let’s
19 go…if you want to make a motion toward one of the…
20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I’ll make the same motion, we’ll just go with modification
21 number A.
22 CHAIR SMITH: And go through your findings real quick too, the…your two…one’s the public
23 good and then the second one is…
24 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I’ll amend that then to say…make a motion to approve the
25 MAX Flats project proposal number PDP 120034 along with the proposed modification A which is not
26 detrimental to the public good, and the proposals…the modifications which are nominal and
27 inconsequential.
28 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so I think you got the whole PDP in that one as well. So, what I want to
29 do is try to get just one at a time.
30 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Maybe we should deliberate a little bit before we jump to
31 that, I don’t know that I’m really quite ready for…
32 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let’s hear your thoughts.
33 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: There is a motion on the table at the moment, I don’t
34 know if you want to try to have that motion withdrawn, or failed by a lack of a second.
35 CHAIR SMITH: It sounds like…
36 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Failed by a lack of a second? Okay.
20
1 CHAIR SMITH: Actually I think we’ll deliberate a little bit and then we’ll go each modification
2 one by one, the four, and then if we get all four of them then we’ll hit the PDP, if we’re in agreement. Go
3 ahead, Jennifer, I interrupted you.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, I’m struggling with this because I feel like a lot of the
5 reason for the modifications is that…and we do want density on Mason Corridor, but this just seems to be
6 stuffing too big a project for…onto this piece of property to me, which means we’re having to have
7 modifications where we’re not getting the amount of buffering that we should have between the houses
8 that are already there. I’m a little concerned…not really sure how long a bike is…whether six feet is
9 going to fit or whether it’s going to protrude really out into the right-of-way where it’s going to be a
10 constant problem for pedestrians, which is another one of our big things. I love that there’s parking,
11 because that’s one of my hot buttons, even though it’s not necessary…or at this point, it’s not required in
12 the TOD. But then my other hot button is that we need to be getting the services in the mixed-use that I
13 don’t really think we’re getting here, but I don’t think that’s something I can really hang my hat on
14 tonight because we haven’t gone there. So, that’s my struggling…the increased percentage of compact
15 parking spaces, I don’t think that has really much of an impact on the public. And the reduction in the
16 parking lot landscaping, the interior, doesn’t have…doesn’t really have any impact on the public either,
17 but the buffering between already existing areas and the fact that we have such a small amount of space
18 between the older places that are in here and the parking lot and all of that, so that’s…that’s where I’m
19 going. I’d like to hear what everybody else is thinking.
20 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin? John? Either one?
21 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: If I look through them one by one, the parking lot interior
22 landscaping, I would like to see green walls or something in the parking lot because I think it would be
23 important from an overall aesthetics feel; however, we don’t have a requirement to make you do that, and
24 so that would be something that I would like to see. But, I think that the modification of standard, given
25 the limitations for the infill site, makes sense. For the bike facilities, I was initially opposed to them, but I
26 hadn’t understood that those wouldn’t be spaces in the right-of-way anyway, and so I do think that it’s a
27 benefit to have those extra spaces in the right-of-way and I definitely agree that I think many students, or
28 other people who might be living there, will be parking their bikes within their units anyway. For the
29 parking lot setback, I struggle with that a little bit, but I also think that your site is a hundred feet wide,
30 and that is just tricky. And so I think that the buffering that is available is…it’s a relatively small change
31 in setback and I would wonder, Jennifer, if these apartment buildings, because they’re situated so far back
32 on their lot, would be conforming with our setback standards anyway for side yard. My guess would be
33 that they’re…that they’re too close anyway. And then for the last one, for the parking stall dimension, I
34 think that’s no problem. I feel like I could usually fit in a compact spot, even though I technically don’t
35 drive a compact car, so I think that’s fine.
36 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, Kristin, do you not feel like it’s going to be a problem
37 with the bikes protruding out into the…
38 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I don’t…if they’re saying that there’s an eight foot
39 sidewalk in addition to where those wheels are coming out, I think it would be…you would have to be
40 like me and travelling with kids on a bike trailer, and I doubt there will be many of those in this particular
41 sense.
21
1 CHAIR SMITH: Any other comments? Alright, generally I’m going to say that, you know,
2 we’ve been faced with more and more of these types of projects and it’s been a very active…I’d say now
3 two years when it comes to projects in the TOD of an urban flare, and you know, I think that our Board
4 has recognized the need to have continuous improvement in the way that we are actually implementing
5 urban style development in the TOD to be able to support BRT and some other larger goals in our comp
6 plan. And, so, you know, we’ve said that this year, quickly, we’re going to revisit TOD and the
7 implementation, we’re going to have discussions about the policies, and look forward to making, you
8 know, some recommendations to Council about how it’s implementing. You know, in that process I think
9 that we’re finding, by specific projects, that we could and should have more available creative mitigating
10 factors for some of the requests for modification. For instance, you’re talking about a green wall…that
11 might make a request for a modification seem to be a little bit better. And, I think that the applicant has
12 met the standards, they’ve done a…you know a fairly creative project with coming in, you know, asking
13 for…well, we’re asking for this modification but this is what we gain as the community and in the project
14 by, you know, not just doing a project that has zero parking for instance…big issues. And, to be able to
15 say, if you want the parking, we’re going to have to give up on some of these little pieces, but because
16 they’re nominal and inconsequential and they’re not against the public good, that they do meet the letter
17 of law when it comes to the technicality of how you request a modification to a standard. So, I
18 would…you know I think that they’ve done a good job of it.
19 I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we had some
20 neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think
21 that’s unfortunate and it doesn’t feel good, but I think it’s been explained well as to why it happened and
22 going forward, the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board
23 and there will be greater outreach, and so that’s the right direction. I would say that, you know…the
24 project…I like what the applicant’s team has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it.
25 This is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason
26 Corridor come to life and be functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason,
27 and even across the street, to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very
28 eclectic architecture in that neighborhood…very eclectic.
29 I would just…one thing I want to be able to say is that I’m…I am definitely concerned about, you
30 know, as we start to really develop projects like this along the corridor from north to south, we have
31 plenty of bike parking. And I think that’s something that we’ve also discovered in this process is
32 that…do we have enough bike parking being provided. And so, I think if somebody wants to start
33 making some motions on the four requests, I’m supportive of all four of them and based on the findings
34 that the staff has presented.
35 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just want to add a general comment as well. I was really
36 glad to see your changes in material selection and even though we don’t have any purview over that in the
37 Land Use Code standards, other than the mix and some of the articulation. When I first looked at it, I did
38 definitely agree with some of the neighborhood concerns that it felt like it wasn’t quite of the same
39 standard and quality that you guys have been building elsewhere and other developers have, and I think
40 the brick on that north side definitely helps with the transition from downtown where you see more of it,
41 and I was really, really glad to see the changes that you guys made. It definitely placated some of the
42 concerns that I have that we’re not allowed to really talk about, but I was really glad to see them.
22
1 CHAIR SMITH: Especially as we urbanize that…you know, if we’re going to be talking about
2 activated sidewalks, pedestrian activity, design is going to become more important than it ever has been in
3 this community and materials are going to drive a lot of that. Jennifer, go ahead.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I guess the concern that I’m having as we see these projects
5 come in…it’s another concern that we might want to put on our work program, is…I’m pretty much of a
6 neighborhood advocate, and I think while we are going to see huge changes along Mason Corridor, I
7 think it’s really important that we protect the folks and the neighborhoods that are already there. So, I
8 would really like to be able to look at ways and to have ways that we can…that we can do that better than
9 we are doing it. This to me is, partially because…and I think you’re right Kristin, partially because the
10 neighbors are so close in to the property line. But, I think we need to maybe find some creative ways and
11 some kind of a requirement or a place where we can make sure that we aren’t intruding so much onto the
12 neighborhoods that we lose the neighborhoods that we have now in…especially in the Old Town area, but
13 really it’s going to impact all along the Mason Corridor. So, I really think we need to come up with some
14 ways to do that better than we are doing it now.
15 CHAIR SMITH: If…one thing for the applicant…if…good fences make good neighbors, then for
16 Mr. Michlove’s concern about the wood fence…that’ll be your maintenance project?
17 MR. BRINKMAN: Correct, yep.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay.
19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Was it going to be a double fence if there’s already a fence
20 there? Is that one coming down, how is that going to work?
21 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, that would be coming down and we’d be building a new fence.
22 MR. MICHLOVE: Excuse me, that’s my fence and I don’t necessarily want to take it down.
23 MR. BRINKMAN: We could put a double fence if he wants to keep that fence up, that’s fine.
24 CHAIR SMITH: We’ll trust that perhaps you would work with him outside of this…okay.
25 Let’s…go ahead, Kristin.
26 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I was just going to say, Jennifer, I definitely agree. I think
27 that our standards on what we expect from the staff and the applicant really focus heavily on that big
28 pedestrian front, and not necessarily on the back side of the house, which is equally important. That’s
29 what most of the neighborhood is looking at from blocks and blocks away. And so I definitely think we
30 could institute some process improvements on that end.
31 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, I would entertain some motions.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification of standard for parking
33 lot interior landscaping, 3.2.1(E)(5) because it is not detrimental to the public good and it’s nominal and
34 inconsequential. Paul, what do I have to add?
35 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: You have to add how come it’s nominal and
36 inconsequential.
23
1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Because within the interior of the parking lot, the site is so
2 constrained there already…it’s such a small modification for the landscape interior and the benefit
3 exceeds the…oh shoot…sure, the benefit exceeds the detriment.
4 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Alright, so moved. We have a first and a second. Any discussion?
5 Paul, are you okay with that? Okay, okay. Any discussion? Roll call, please?
6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
11 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
13 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, let’s move on to the second one.
14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification of standard for bicycle
15 facilities 3.2.2(C)(4) because it is not detrimental to the public good, nominal and inconsequential
16 because providing bike facilities in the public right-of-way is a larger community benefit than having
17 them housed exclusively on the property.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Paul? Any discussion? Jennifer? No? Okay, roll call, please.
19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
26 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, the second modification request has been approved. On to the
27 third one, please.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the parking lot setback 3.2.2(J) because
29 it is not detrimental to the public good and the parking lot setback modification is truly nominal and
30 inconsequential when taken into consideration that the fact that the site is only a hundred feet in width and
31 it’s providing as much buffer as possible while accommodating the benefit of parking on the site.
32 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Further discussion? Jennifer?
33 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I can’t support this one. I just am feeling like it’s just one
34 step too far for me, and I really think that it’s setting a precedent to be able to…all of these sites are going
35 to be pretty narrow along here and I think, for me, that’s where we have to hold tight so I can’t support it.
24
1 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, further discussion? Roll call please.
2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: No.
4 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
5 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
9 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, the third request for modification has passed. On to the fourth
10 one, please.
11 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification for standard to parking
12 stall dimensions 3.2.2(L) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the benefit of having
13 increased parking in this district is worthwhile of having an increase in compact cars.
14 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Is that based upon nominal and inconsequential
15 analysis, equal to or better than, or what?
16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Equal to or better than, we’ll change it up.
17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Second.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Any further discussion?
19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: On the equal to or better than standard, the language
20 of the Code is actually that it advances the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a
21 plan which complies with the standard, just so you’re clear on what…
22 CHAIR SMITH: I would recommend making a modification to the motion to be based on
23 nominal and inconsequential as opposed to equal or better than.
24 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Okay.
25 CHAIR SMITH: And who was the second? Were you the second? So first and…they both have
26 to be agreeable? Are you both?
27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes, that’s fine.
28 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so the motion has been modified. Further discussion? Roll call please.
29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
32 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
34 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
25
1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
2 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright so all four requests to modify standards have been approved.
3 Anybody want to make a motion on the overall PDP?
4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: As you can tell, our A-tem for making motions is out
5 tonight. I move to approve the MAX Flats PDP Number 120034 and in support of my motion, I adopt the
6 findings of fact and conclusion as contained on page nine of the staff report.
7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: And page ten?
8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And page ten, sorry.
9 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Actually, as far as the PDP is concerned, I think the
10 findings for it are really E, F, and G on page ten. The rest of those pertain to the modification of
11 standards.
12 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect, I adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as
13 contained in E through G on page ten of the staff report. Thank you Paul.
14 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Kristin, you did a good job with making the motions. As a lot of folks
15 here know, one of our members recently graduated to the City Council, and he had been doing motions
16 for a few years. But, you did a good job, thank you for doing it. Any other discussion? Roll call please.
17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
18 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
24 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, so MAX Flats PDP 120034 with four requests for modification
25 has been passed.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
26
ATTACHMENT 6
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
June 4, 2013
1
Appeal of the Max Flats,
Project Development Plan
Seth Lorson, City Planner
2
Background: Site Location
Mulberry Street
Mason Street
MAX - Mulberry Station
3
Project Background
• 0.7 acre site
• 5 stories/ 63,900 square feet
• 64 Units / 100 bedrooms
• 1 Retail Unit (1,439 square feet)
• 4 Modifications of Standards
4
Planning and Zoning Board Action
The Board voted 4 - 0 to approve the Max Flats
Project Development Plan.
In support of its motion to approve the Project
Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings
of fact and conclusions as contained on page 9 of
the staff report.
5
Appellant Allegation
Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and
Zoning Board Considered Evidence that was Substantially
False and Grossly Misleading.
“It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this
project was required to be reviewed as a type 2.”
At the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) Hearing staff stated,
“This was one of the projects caught in the middle of the
transition...a mixed-use development and the discussion that
we had around the threshold was about multi-family
development…” (Page 15, Line 30 of Verbatim Transcript)
6
Appellant Allegation
Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and
Zoning Board Considered Evidence that was Substantially
False and Grossly Misleading.
At the hearing “elevations in their entirety were not shown.”
The P&Z Board did not discuss the manner in which images
were presented.
7
Appellant Allegation
Failure to conduct a fair hearing because it substantially
ignored its previously established rules of procedure when
approving the Project Development Plan application.
“The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get
comments to the board and indeed were unaware and
uninformed by staff that the work session was planned to
review this project at all or specifically was taking place the
next day.”
The P&Z Board stated, “…for the citizens who participated that
your late neighborhood meeting was because we’ve been
changing all sorts of things about our process lately…” (Page
16, Line 14 – 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
8
Appellant Allegation
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code.
“This project fails to meet compatibility standards.”
The P&Z Board did not discuss compatibility based on the
variation in massing.
9
Appellant Allegation
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code.
“Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the
neighborhood.”
The P&Z Board did not discuss the building materials used on
the façade facing the neighborhood.
10
Appellant Allegation
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code.
“The project detracts from the character by setting up a
physical and visual barrier in its block-type form.”
The P&Z Board stated, “I like what the applicant’s team has
done to design a good project…” (page 21, line 24 – 28 of the
Verbatim Transcript).
11
Appellant Allegation
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Land Use Code.
“This building's architectural character has taken on an overall
vocabulary of repetitive elements, lacking in detailing
superimposed upon an overwhelming scale and building
mass.”
The P&Z Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
12
The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be
considered when offered by City staff or parties-in-
interest in response to questions presented by
Councilmembers at the hearing.
Staff is prepared to answer questions regarding the
allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers.
13
Questions for Council
I. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to
conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly
considered evidence that was substantially
false and grossly misleading?
14
Questions for Council
II. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to
conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly
substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure when
approving the Project Development Plan
application?
15
Questions for Council
III. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to
properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code?