HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/21/2012 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVEDATE: August 21, 2012
STAFF: Lindsay Ex
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 38
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s June 25, 2012 Decision Regarding the Legacy
Senior Residences Project Development Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2012, Cornerstone Associates LLC submitted a Project Development Plan for a multi-family project in the RDR,
River Downtown Redevelopment zone district and the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD). As
proposed, the project consists of the redevelopment of the former Kiefer Concrete Storage Yard for the purpose of
constructing one new building that contains 72 one- and two-bedroom affordable apartments for seniors earning
between 30 to 60% of the Area Median Income. The parcel consists of on 1.97 acres and is located between Linden
Street on the southeast and Pine Street on the northwest.
On June 11, 2012, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing in consideration of the Legacy Senior
Residences PDP and three Modifications of Standard. On June 25, 2012, after testimony from the applicant, the public
and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision, approving the PDP and three Modifications of Standards.
On July 9, 2012, Save the Poudre (STP) filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision,
which was superceded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed July 27, 2012. The STP appeal asserts the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 2.82(H),
4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), Section 3.2.4, Section 3.4.1(D)(1), and Section
3.4.1(D)(1)(k).
In addition, the STP appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer
considered evidence relevant to its finding which was substantially false or grossly misleading on two accounts:
• The project’s Ecological Characterization Study did not provide sufficient evidence to support the statement
that the project would create no additional impacts to the Poudre River Corridor, and
• The applicants indicated at the Hearing there was no other place in Fort Collins to build a comparable project,
and STP contends that there are other sites in the City where this project could be built.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This project represents a 100% affordable housing project, redevelopment of abandoned industrial land, and an
assemblage of six lots. The site is located within the Downtown Strategic Plan and is highlighted within the Downtown
River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report. The proposed land use, multi-family, is permitted in the R-
D-R zone district subject to Administrative Review.
The proposal consists of 72 one- and two-bedroom affordable apartments for seniors (age 62 and over) who earn
between 30 to 60% of the Area Median Income. As the project is located within the TOD, multi-family dwellings have
no minimum parking requirements. However, the applicant is providing 51 off-street parking stalls for the residences.
All units (100%) are planned to be permanently affordable.
The River Downtown Redevelopment zone district allows a maximum height of five stories. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1)
of the Land Use Code outlines two exceptions to the five stories allowed within the R-D-R zone district:
1. Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted; however, massing shall
be terraced back from the River and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall
step down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage; and (2) buildings or parts of
buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage.
August 21, 2012 -2- ITEM 38
The proposed building is 4 stories tall with a maximum building height of 50 feet-6 3/4 inches. The project requested
a Modification of Standard to the requirement of stepping down to three stories along a public street (Pine Street), and
this Modification was granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and Section 2.8.2(H)(2). A Modification
of Standard was not required to step down to one story, as this project does not abut the River landscape frontage.
Legacy Senior Residences, PDP, complies with applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 and the land
use and development standards of Division 4.17 RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District, with the exception
of three Modifications of Standard requests:
1. Reduction of minimum vehicular overhang for a landscaped area from 7 feet to 5.95 feet (Section 3.2.2(L)(4)),
which was granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(2) and Section 2.8.2(H)(4);
2. Maintaining a building height of 4 stories along where the building abuts a public street (Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(1)), which was granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and Section 2.8.2(H)(2);
and
3. Increasing the frequent view/access standard from 125 feet to 180 feet (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4)), which was
granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(2).
The only Modification of Standard at issue with the appeal is the Modification to increase the frequent view/access
standard from 125 feet to 180 feet (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) of the Land Use Code).
ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
The Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on June 11, 2012. At the hearings, the Hearing Officer
considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review
process allows the Hearing Officer ten working days to render a written decision. On June 25, 2012, the Hearing
Officer provided a decision approving the PDP and the three Modifications of Standard outlined above.
THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code?
2. Did the Hearing Officer consider evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly
misleading?
APPEAL ASSERTIONS
On July 9, Save the Poudre (STP) filed a Notice of Appeal seeking redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision, which
was superceded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed July 27, 2012. The STP appeal asserts that the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 2.82(H),
4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), Section 3.2.4, Section 3.4.1(D)(1), and Section
3.4.1(D)(1)(k).
In addition, the STP appeal asserts that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Hearing Officer
considered evidence relevant to its finding which was substantially false or grossly misleading on two accounts:
• The project’s Ecological Characterization Study did not provide sufficient evidence to support the statement
that the project would create no additional impacts to the Poudre River Corridor, and
• The applicants indicated at the Hearing there was no other place in Fort Collins to build a comparable project,
and STP contends that there are other sites in the City where this project could be built.
August 21, 2012 -3- ITEM 38
A. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 2.82(H) to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) of the Land Use
Code.
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
“The decision by the Administrative Hearing Officer to allow the modification of standard “Increasing the frequent
view/access standard from 125' to 180' (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4)”, for “Senior Legacy Residences,” P.D.P. #12-0015
violates the following section of the land use code: Section 2.8.2(H).
1. The proposed modification of standard is detrimental to the public good and violates Section 2.8.2(H) of the
land use code. The reasons why the proposed modification of standard is detrimental to the public good are
described in Save The Poudre (STP) public testimony document: “Request to deny the development proposal
for “Legacy Senior Residences” Project Development Plan, #12-0015” (henceforth “STP Request”
http://savethepoudre.org/documents/STP-request-for-deny-SLR-6-11-2012.pdf) sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
In the following sections of the appeal, STP contends why each Sections 2.8.2(H)(1), 2.8.2(H)(2), 2.8.2(H)(3), and
2.8.2(H)(4) of the Land Use Code were violated. As the Modification of Standard was approved under Section
2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code, these sections of the appeal are highlighted below.
3. The proposed modifications of standard is not the only way to substantially alleviate an existing problem
(affordable housing) in the City and therefore violates Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the land use code. The reasons
why the proposed modification of standard is not the only way to substantially alleviate an existing problem
(affordable housing) in the City is described in “STP-Request” section 3. Further, STP stated at hearing that
there were many places in Fort Collins where the project could be built to alleviate this existing problem – STP
will repeat and support this statement at appeal.
STP states the following in ‘STP Request’ in #3, Section A:
3. The project’s proposed “modifications” will negatively impact the sensitive Cache la Poudre River ecological
corridor and are unnecessary when other alternatives exist. The project requests two “modifications.”
a. The project requests a modification to 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) which states:
“4. Frequent view/access. No building wall shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis
along the River.”
The project requests that the building wall on the axis along the River be 180’ instead of the maximum length of 125’.
We strongly object to this modification. In addition to the wall being 4 stories tall – which we objected to in (2) above
– this additional 55’ feet of wall abutting the Poudre River frontage will significantly mar the natural area scenery, the
natural area experience, and the River Landscape Buffer. The City claims this modification is acceptable due to the
need for affordable housing in the community. We contend that affordable housing can be built in numerous alternative
places where modifications would not be needed and so this justification is erroneous. In fact, we were told on the
telephone by Affordable Housing staff that other locations were considered for this project that we believe would have
been better choices. We contend that although affordable housing is a problem of city wide concern, it is not justifiable
to sacrifice other city wide concerns or values related to “Environmental Health” as noted in City Plan Principles and
Policies including ENV1.1 (Protect and Enhance Natural Areas), ENV1.2 (Regulate Development along Waterways),
ENV2.7 (Involve and Inform the Public), ENV4.2 (Enhance and Restore Streams), ENV4.4 (Provide Neighborhood
Natural Areas), ENV4.6 (Utilize Corridors), and Principles and Polices applying to the Poudre River including ENV23.1
(Poudre River Corridor Overlay), ENV24.1 (Support Ecological Resilience), ENV24.2 (Conserve Natural Features),
ENV24.3 (Provide Natural Area Protection Buffers), ENV24.4 (Restore and Enhance), ENV27.2 (Maintain and
Enhance Visual Resources), and ENV.27.4 (Restore and Enhance)
(http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/pdf/cityplan.pdf).
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code states the following:
August 21, 2012 -4- ITEM 38
“(H)Step 8 (Standards): Applicable, and the decision maker may grant a modification of standards
only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and
that:..
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing
the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and
described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason
of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need
specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted
policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would
render the project practically infeasible; or…
…Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific
findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said
subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).”
Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4)of the Land Use Code states the following:
“4. Frequent view/access. No building wall shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis
along the River.”
• Page 18 of the Staff Report contains an analysis of this Modification of Standard. The complete quote from
the Staff Report is as follows:
“Staff has evaluated the Applicant’s request against the criteria provided in Section 2.8.2(H) of the
Land Use Code. The purpose of the standard is not only to allow visual access into the river corridor
but also to break up the visual experience a pedestrian has while on the Poudre River Trail. City staff
held two design charrettes with the applicant to determine how a wall that exceeds the standard could
achieve the standard equally or better than a wall 125 feet in length.
The applicants have recessed the building for a length of 35 feet and provided significantly different
landscaping treatments around the building in the recessed area along the river. In addition, the
materials provided have brick in the recessed areas, which is darker in color than the other dominant
materials on the building, which furthers the visual variability a pedestrian will experience on the site.
While staff finds that the project has achieved a visual experience equal to a better than the standard,
visual access into the river is still precluded by a 180 foot long building.
Instead of meeting the criteria for a modification under Section 2.8.2(H)(1), staff finds that the
modification can be justified based on Section 2.8.2(H)(2) as the project meets a significant
community need, as discussed above. Thus, as this project meets the criteria set forth in Section
2.8.2(H)(2), staff recommends approval of this request.”
• With regard to the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), the Hearing Officer states
on page 28 and 29 of the decision:
“The Hearing Officer finds that the Applicant has proposed modifications to the “frequent view/access”
standard are reasonable efforts to mitigate the 180 foot length of the building. As proposed the
building is 55 feet longer than the standard length.
With regards to the statements by the STP spokesman that “affordable housing can be built in
numerous alterative places” the Hearing Officer finds that not one, let alone, numerous alternative
places were identified by STP. Counsel for the Housing Authority testified that they had looked for
several years for a potential site and proposed site was the only feasible site.
While these modifications would not be detrimental to the public good, the Hearing Officer finds that
the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described
problem of city wide concern. The provision of affordable senior housing at this location will result in
a substantial benefit to the city. This type of housing addresses an important community need that
is specially and expressly defined and described in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted
August 21, 2012 -5- ITEM 38
policies. The strict application of the “frequent view/access” standard would render the project
practically infeasible.
The Hearing Officer approves this modification pursuant to Section 2.8.2(H)(2).”
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) Height/Mass
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
“The P.D.P. violates Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) of the land use code as described in “STP-Request” section 2.”
STP states the following in ‘STP Request’ in #2:
“The project violates this section of the land use code because the building is four (4) stories tall abutting the River
landscape frontage, whereas the code requires one (1) story. We strongly object to this violation. This 4 story wall of
a building abutting the Poudre River landscape frontage will significantly mar the natural area scenery, the natural area
experience, and the Poudre River Buffer as well as potentially negatively impact wildlife and the ecology in the area.
This violation of the land use code was noted in a staff email from City Sustainability Director, Bruce Hendee, to
Assistant City Manager, Diane Jones, March 11th:
“Diane, I have not been in the day to day negotiations of this project and perhaps it is too late to turn
back the state of things but, the applicant is failing to meet what I consider to be a key provision of
the Land Use Code which is to step back the upper stories next to the river.”
Further, Figure 20 in section 4.17(D)(1)(a) very clearly depicts a building that steps down to one (1) story abutting the
“River landscape frontage.” There is no ambiguity or subjectivity in this wording in the code. Additionally, the attached
photo (SLR-image1.jpg) clearly shows the fence line abutting the grassy area along the trees at the top of the river
bank.
In addition, section 5.1.2 defines “abut or abutting”:
“Abut or abutting shall mean touching. An abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization
or division of land that results in an incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel.”
We contend that the grassy area between the fence and the trees along the river is indeed an incidental, nonbuildable,
remnant lot, tract or parcel, and thus that the project “touches” the river landscape. Indeed, the grassy area is the
“River landscape frontage.” In fact, the grassy area is a small nonbuildable piece of property owned by the City fully
integrated with and managed with the Poudre River natural areas and bike path. (See images SLR-image2.jpg and
SLR-image3.jpg).
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) of the Land Use Code states the following:
“1. Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted; however, massing shall
be terraced back from the River and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall
step down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage; and (2) buildings or parts of
buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage.”
As noted above, the definition of abutting is as follows:
“Abut or abutting shall mean touching. An abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization
or division of land that results in an incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel.”
• Page 26 of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision notes the following discussion that occurred during
the Hearing:
August 21, 2012 -6- ITEM 38
“Staff noted that the City owned land adjacent to the PDP could be the site of a park structure at a
future date. Therefore, the PDP does not touch or abut the River. See Division 5.1.2 Definitions, Abut
or abutting shall mean touching. An abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization or
division of land that results in incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel. (Emphasis added)”
• Page 22 of the Hearing Transcript notes the following comments made by staff during the Hearing:
“…Regarding that, staff had significant discussion about the term abutting versus along, and it really
7 came down to, for us, whether or not you could build on that parcel of City land. And even 8 though
it is on park land, when you look at the definition of a building being a permanent 9 structure, we do
require parks properties to come through our development review process, so 10 they could have
come through for numerous different structures on that parcel. And so that is 11 how staff arrived at
the notion that it was not abutting, not only that it wasn’t touching, but also we relied on the second
sentence of the term as well.”
• With regard to the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), the Hearing Officer states
on page 26 of the decision:
“In addition, the Hearing Officer finds that the existing pedestrian/bike pathway provides a buffer
between the PDP site and the River. As Staff noted, a park structure could be built in this area
between the PDP and the River. Therefore, by definition, the PDP does not abut or touch the River.”
C. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) Frequent View/Access
This section of the appeal has been addressed in “A” above under the Modification of Standard.
D. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) River Landscape Buffer
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
“The P.D.P violates Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) of the land use code as described in “STP-Request” section 4. Further, STP
contends that the buffer zone in the R-D-R zoning district is interpreted as a minimum of 200 feet henceforth.”
STP states the following in ‘STP Request’ in #4:
4. The project misinterprets the “buffer” along the Poudre River ecological corridor. The project requires a “River
Landscape Buffer” (section 4.17(D)(1)(a)):
“…the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River
as an integral part of a transition between development and the River.”
In the zoning district directly upstream of this area, the buffer width is determined by code to be 200 feet (section
3.4.1(c), Buffer Zone Table: “Cache la Poudre River in Downtown (College to Lincoln Avenue) = 200 feet). In the
zoning district directly downstream of the R-D-R zoning district, the buffer width is determined by code to be 300 feet.
The code (section 4.17(D)(1)(a) goes on to say: “In substitution for the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C)….”
As such, the code makes no determination about the buffer width in the R-D-R zone district, but again says: “the
applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of the
transition between development and the River.”
STP contends that there are no other relevant projects in this zone district abutting the river because this is the first
one that will set the precedent in this zone district. As such, the buffer width has not yet been interpreted nor set as
a precedent or in code. Because there is no precedent, STP contends that the buffer should remain at 200 feet in the
R-D-R zone district unless the City can prove, through a scientific ecological study, that the sensitive ecological
corridor of the Cache la Poudre River can be protected by a buffer of some other width. A 200-foot buffer could meet
the criteria to “establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River…”
August 21, 2012 -7- ITEM 38
Given that this project proposes to build structures (parking lots, buildings, etc.) within 150 feet of the river channel,
and even closer to the “top of bank” (100 feet or less) STP believes staff and developer have mis-interpreted the land
use code with regards to the buffer width and thus that the hearing officer should deny the project.
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code states the following:
“(a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural
Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall
establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of
a transition between development and the River. To the maximum extent feasible, the landscape
buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and shrub cover…
• Page 6 of the Staff Report contains an analysis of this standard. The complete quote from the Staff Report
is as follows:
Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) Transition between the River and the Development:
“(a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural
Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall
establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of
a transition between development and the River. To the maximum extent feasible, the landscape
buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and shrub cover…
• With regard to Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), the Hearing Officer states on page 5 of the decision:
“The city owned strip of land between the PDP and the River is part of the Poudre River Trail. This
PDP will improve the existing pedestrian/bike path along the River. The Hearing Officer finds that this
PDP complies with the standard.”
E. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
“9. The PDP violates Section 3.4.2 of the land use code. Neither staff nor applicant have adequately described
how they can build a 24/7 fully lighted parking lot within 100 feet of the sensitive ecological corridor of the
Poudre River without light pollution leaking over and into the Poudre River buffer negatively impacting wildlife,
ecology, and the riparian ecosystem.”
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 3.2.4(D)(6) of the Land Use Code contains the Design Standards regarding lighting adjacent to a natural area
or natural feature and states the following:
“6) Unique areas or neighborhoods within the city may have additional design guidelines for lighting
as part of a neighborhood or area plan. The Community Planning and Environmental Services
Department can provide information regarding neighborhood or area plans. Natural areas and natural
features shall be protected from light spillage from off-site sources.”
• Page 9 of the Staff Report contains an analysis of this standard. The complete quote from the Staff Report
is as follows:
“4. Section 3.2.4 Site Lighting - A photometric plan was submitted as part of the initial project
development plan submittal. As proposed, the project complies with the minimum lighting
requirements. Parking lot lighting will feature down-directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. No light
spillage occurs within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.”
August 21, 2012 -8- ITEM 38
• With regard to Section 3.2.4 the Hearing Officer states on page 5 of the decision:
“The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed site lighting will be placed on this Legacy Senior
Residences site. No additional lighting is proposed along the pedestrian/bike paths. All lighting will
comply with City standards.”
F. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.4.1(D) and 3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological Characterization
Study
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
“The PDP violates Section 3.4.1(D) and Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the land use code requiring an Ecological
Characterization Study (ECS). The Hearing Officer wrote: “The Hearing Officer notes that Section 3.4.1(D)(1) must
be replaced by Section 4.17(D)(1) and applied to the PDP because it lies in the RDR District.” The Hearing Officer
incorrectly interprets this section of the land use code.
In fact, Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) only states: “In substitution for the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural
Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of “natural area buffer zones,”…”. As such Section 4.17(D)(1)
substitutes for the buffer zones in Section 3.4.1(E), but it does not substitute for any other part of Section 3.4.1.
Therefore, every other part of Section 3.4.1 stands and is required in the R-D-R zoning district including Section
3.4.1(D) and Section 3.4.1(D)(1). In addition, in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) the “Director” has the discretion to require an ECS
– staff has already required an ECS and the Council (as “Director”) should reaffirm that requirement. The P.D.P. must
comply with the requirements of the ECS as defined in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) and noted in section 5 of STP’s “STP-
request.” The ECS must also comply fully with Section 3.4.1(F through O) including but not limited to 3.4.1(F)
“protection of wildlife habitat.” Also note that in Section 3.4.1(D)(1), the “area” is the area surrounding the site, whereas
the “site” is the parcel of land under the project – therefore the ECS must analyze the impacts to, and mitigations for,
the “area” including the surrounding the natural areas and Poudre River ecological corridor, not just the site.”
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code states the following:
“a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural
Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall
establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of
a transition between development and the River…”
Section 3.4.1(D) and 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code states the following:
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary Definition. The
boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map
is only approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be
proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and
reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature
in conjunction with the map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. f the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500)
feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from
inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics
in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the City an ecological characterization report
prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant
discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan
application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive ecological characterization study of
the entire property must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review.
The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the City already
possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set
August 21, 2012 -9- ITEM 38
forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N)
below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following:
• An Ecological Characterization Study was required in compliance with Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use
Code. Page 9 of the Staff Report states the following regarding Standard 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code:
“The buffer standards that apply to the Poudre River are described above, as the metrics described
in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code do not apply in the RDR Zone District. In addition, this site
does not abut the river but has City-owned property separating itself from the river. However, while
the standard metrics do not apply and this project does not abut the river, this project is still providing
a “continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition between
development and the River.” This buffer is being provided on City land and will be maintained in
perpetuity by the applicant. The buffer will be composed of native trees (13), shrubs (44) and
grasses.”
• With regard to Section 3.4.1(D)(1), the Hearing Officer states on page 5 of the decision:
“The Hearing Officer notes that Section 3.4.1(D)(1) must be replaced by Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) and
applied to this PDP because it lies in the RDR District. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets
the standards of Section 4.17(D)(1)(a).”
G. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) Ecological Characterization Study and
Mitigation
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
“11. The PDP violates Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) of the land use code, as described in “STP-request” section 5.”
STP states the following in ‘STP Request’ in #5:
“…Further, section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) states that the ECS shall describe “any measures needed to mitigate the projected
adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features.”
The ECS has failed to describe the impacts to the sensitive ecology of the Poudre River corridor, and certainly has
not described any mitigation measures on projected adverse impacts. Thus, STP believes the hearing officer should
deny the project.”
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) of the Land Use Code states the Ecological Characterization Study shall describe the following:
“(k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project on
natural habitats and features.”
• The Project’s Ecological Characterization Study does include mitigation recommendations. Page 22 of the
Hearing Transcript notes the following comments made by staff during the Hearing:
“Regarding the ecological characterization study, Dr. Wockner suggested that there were no
mitigation recommendations. Those begin on page two of the document...”
• With regard to Section 3.4.1(D)(1), the Hearing Officer states on page 5 of the decision:
“The Hearing Officer notes that Section 3.4.1(D)(1) must be replaced by Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) and
applied to this PDP because it lies in the RDR District. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets
the standards of Section 4.17(D)(1)(a).”
August 21, 2012 -10- ITEM 38
H. The Hearing Officer Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings that was Substantially False or
Grossly Misleading regarding the project’s Ecological Characterization Study
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
In supporting the P.D.P and the request for modifications of standard, the Administrative Hearing Officer violated
Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, Section 2-48(b)(2)(c) which states: “The board, commission or other decision maker
considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.”
1. The ECS for the P.D.P stated: “Development of the Legacy Senior Housing parcel would create no additional
impacts to the Poudre River corridor beyond those already occurred from existing disturbance and
development.” The ECS provides no evidence to support this statement. Save The Poudre alleges that this
statement is “substantially false” and provides the following summary of evidence, and scientific articles
supporting this summary, below:
N Native bird species decrease as housing density and housing encroachment into habitat increases.
N Abundance of mammals decreases as housing density and housing encroachment into habitat increases.
N As both housing density and quantity increases, nearby wildlife habitat is degraded.
LAND USE CODE STANDARDS:
Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code states the the following:
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. f the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500)
feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from
inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics
in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the City an ecological characterization report
prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant
discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan
application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive ecological characterization study of
the entire property must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review.
The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the City already
possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set
forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N)
below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following:
(a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the area, the times or seasons
that the area is used by those species and the "value" (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting,
roosting, perching) that the area provides for such wildlife species;
(b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological functions and
characteristics provided by those wetlands;
(c) any prominent views from or across the site;
(d) the pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation;
(e) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the
site;
(f) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive and Specially Valued Species;
(g) special habitat features;
(h) wildlife movement corridors;
(i) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features;
(j) any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological
character of the area; and
(k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project
on natural habitats and features.
August 21, 2012 -11- ITEM 38
Staff did not provide information regarding the ECS during the Hearing nor is the ECS specifically referenced in the
Hearing Officer’s decision;
Based on the staff report sections above, the project was found to be in compliance with Section 3.4.1 and Section
4.17(D)(1)(a) which also applies in the RDR Zone District.
I. The Hearing Officer Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings that was Substantially False or Grossly
Misleading regarding the availability of locations for this project to be built
ASSERTIONS
STP states the following in its appeal:
Statements of testimony by the FCHA and applicant at the hearing said that there was no other place in Fort
Collins to build a comparable project after a “thorough and exhaustive search.” Save The Poudre alleges that
these statements of testimony were substantially false or grossly misleading. At appeal, Save The Poudre will
produce a map (using City zoning maps) showing other areas in Fort Collins where a comparable project can
be built. Save The Poudre also submits as evidence a statement in the “Environmental Assessment, 7-25-
2011, Terracon project #20117008, that claims the site was chosen because of the “purchase price” and
because it was downtown, not because it was the only site available:
“2.3 Alternative Locations
Alternative locations for the 72-unit residential facility were considered; however due to the purchase price and
location in relationship to the Fort Collins Old Town area, the proposed site was selected.”
• With regard to this assertion, the Hearing Officer states on page 26 of the decision:
“Although the STP Spokesman argued that there were other equally suited sites for affordable senior
housing, none were identified. The other members of the public who testified in favor of the PDP
stated that the site selection process had been thorough and exhaustive. The Hearing Officer
approves this modification pursuant to Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2).”
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Amended Notice of Appeal, July 27, 2012
3. Administrative Hearing Officer Findings, Conclusions and Decision, June 25, 2012
4. Staff Report Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer, with attachments including the Ecological
Characterization Study and materials submitted by Citizens prior to the Hearing, Hearing held June 11
5. Materials submitted by Applicant to the Administrative Hearing Officer
6. Materials submitted by Citizens at the Administrative Hearing, June 11, 2012
7. Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing, June 11, 2012
8. Site Visit Summary, July 10, 2012
9. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
- Amended Notice of Appeal-
Gary Wockner, Save the
Poudre: Poudre Waterkeeper,
filed July 27, 2012
,-------/
Please describe the nature ofthe relationship of each appellant to the subject of the action of the
Board, Commission or other Decision Maker:
$(}. ve --t1u PCM.O re : PlUare W::t1er ke.a..per 'l5 C{ r~I(/\1.~ I
VlOh.- "rO{l1 e.rh/(('tmYvv2nte.( 0 r'Janl~Otrh~ uAtD~ IYlISS\U'Yl ~i 5 +0
~ro+ed-Ctv0 ve5~e. ~ C.ClC.~)a. P0v01t' R(ve r 1l)ov-f1,er/\
COlOV"MO
Ifappellant has alleged that the decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings that
was substantially false or grossly misleading, describe any new evidence the appellant intends to
submit at the hearing on the appeal in support of this allegation. NO NEW EVIDENCE WILL
BE RECEIVED AT THE HEARING IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION UNLESS IT IS
EITHERDESCRIBED BELOW OROFFERED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED
BY COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE HEARING.
Appellants: ~~±41er&, Appellants:
Signature Signature
Name Name
Address St ttl ~~ l.ertAVl4 Ave. Fe. '3a ~l Address
Phone Cf1{) -;)..1 "$''ll '3f1J Phone
Date z- ;).I~ ;J.() l ~ Date
Signature Signature
Name Name
Address Address
Phone Phone
Date Date
Signature _____________ Signature _____________
Name Name
Address Address
Phone Phone
Date Date
Signature Signature
Name Name
Address Address
Phone Phone
Date Date
Signature _____________ Signature
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Name
Address
Phone
Date
Signature Signature
Name Name
Address Address
Phone Phone
Date Date
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE SHEETS AS NECESSARY
Ci(v of Fort Collins
March 2012
'-......_----/
SUMMARY #1
The decision by the Administrative Hearing Officer to allow the modification of standard
“Increasing the frequent view/access standard from 125' to 180' (Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(4)”, for “Senior Legacy Residences,” P.D.P. #12-0015 violates the following
section of the land use code: Section 2.8.2(H).
In addition, P.D.P. #12-0015 violates the following sections of the land use code: Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), Section 4.17(D)(1)(a), Section 3.2.4, Section
3.4.1(D)(1), and Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k).
1. The proposed modification of standard is detrimental to the public good and violates Section
2.8.2(H) of the land use code. The reasons why the proposed modification of standard is
detrimental to the public good are described in Save The Poudre (STP) public testimony
document: “Request to deny the development proposal for “Legacy Senior Residences” Project
Development Plan, #12-0015” (henceforth “STP Request”
http://savethepoudre.org/documents/STP-request-for-deny-SLR-6-11-2012.pdf) sections 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
2. The proposed modifications of standard is not equal to or better than a comparable plan and
therefore violates Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the land use code. The reasons why the proposed
modification of standard is not equal to or better than a comparable plan are described in “STP-
Request” section 3. Further, STP stated at hearing that there were many places in Fort Collins
where the project could be built – STP will repeat and support this statement at appeal.
3. The proposed modifications of standard is not the only way to substantially alleviate an
existing problem (affordable housing) in the City and therefore violates Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of
the land use code. The reasons why the proposed modification of standard is not the only way
to substantially alleviate an existing problem (affordable housing) in the City is described in
“STP-Request” section 3. Further, STP stated at hearing that there were many places in Fort
Collins where the project could be built to alleviate this existing problem – STP will repeat and
support this statement at appeal.
4. Denying the proposed modification of standard is not a strict application of the standards
and therefore does not make the project infeasible and therefore granting the modification of
standard violates Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the land use code. The reasons why denying the
proposed modification of standard is not a strict application of the standard that will make the
project infeasible is because the project can be built in other areas of the City as described in
“STP-Request” section 3. Further, STP stated at hearing that there were many places in Fort
Collins where the project could be built to alleviate this existing problem – STP will repeat and
support this statement at appeal.
5. The proposed modification diverts from the proposed standard in ways that are not nominal
and inconsequential therefore granting the modification violates Section 2.8.2(H)(4) of the land
use code. The reasons why the proposed modification of standard diverts from the proposed
standard in ways that are not nominal and inconsequential and therefore granting the
modification of standard violates Section 2.8.2(H)(4) of the land use code is described in “STP-
Request” section 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Additionally, the modification results in a 44% increase in the
standard – a 44% increase is not “nominal and inconsequential.”
6. The P.D.P. violates Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) of the land use code as described in “STP-
Request” section 2.
7. The P.D.P violates Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) of the land use code as described in “STP-Request”
section 3.
8. The P.D.P violates Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) of the land use code as described in “STP-Request”
section 4. Further, STP contends that the buffer zone in the R-D-R zoning district is interpreted
as a minimum of 200 feet henceforth.
9. The PDP violates Section 3.4.2 of the land use code. Neither staff nor applicant have
adequately described how they can build a 24/7 fully lighted parking lot within 100 feet of the
sensitive ecological corridor of the Poudre River without light pollution leaking over and into
the Poudre River buffer negatively impacting wildlife, ecology, and the riparian ecosystem.
10. The PDP violates Section 3.4.1(D) and Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the land use code requiring an
Ecological Characterization Study (ECS). The Hearing Officer wrote: “The Hearing Officer notes
that Section 3.4.1(D)(1) must be replaced by Section 4.17(D)(1) and applied to the PDP because
it lies in the RDR District.” The Hearing Officer incorrectly interprets this section of the land use
code.
In fact, Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) only states: “In substitution for the provisions contained in Section
3.4.1(C) (Natural Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of “natural area buffer
zones,”…”. As such Section 4.17(D)(1) substitutes for the buffer zones in Section 3.4.1(E), but it
does not substitute for any other part of Section 3.4.1. Therefore, every other part of Section
3.4.1 stands and is required in the R-D-R zoning district including Section 3.4.1(D) and Section
3.4.1(D)(1). In addition, in Section 3.4.1(D)(1) the “Director” has the discretion to require an
ECS – staff has already required an ECS and the Council (as “Director”) should reaffirm that
requirement. The P.D.P. must comply with the requirements of the ECS as defined in Section
3.4.1(D)(1) and noted in section 5 of STP’s “STP-request.” The ECS must also comply fully with
Section 3.4.1(F through O) including but not limited to 3.4.1(F) “protection of wildlife habitat.”
Also note that in Section 3.4.1(D)(1), the “area” is the area surrounding the site, whereas the
“site” is the parcel of land under the project – therefore the ECS must analyze the impacts to,
and mitigations for, the “area” including the surrounding the natural areas and Poudre River
ecological corridor, not just the site.
11. The PDP violates Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) of the land use code, as described in “STP-request”
section 5.
SUMMARY #2
In supporting the P.D.P and the request for modifications of standard, the Administrative
Hearing Officer violated Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, Section 2-48(b)(2)(c) which states: “The
board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading.”
1. The ECS for the P.D.P stated: “Development of the Legacy Senior Housing parcel would
create no additional impacts to the Poudre River corridor beyond those already occurred from
existing disturbance and development.” The ECS provides no evidence to support this
statement. Save The Poudre alleges that this statement is “substantially false” and provides the
following summary of evidence, and scientific articles supporting this summary, below:
Native bird species decrease as housing density and housing encroachment into
habitat increases.
Abundance of mammals decreases as housing density and housing encroachment
into habitat increases.
As both housing density and quantity increases, nearby wildlife habitat is degraded.
1. Beier P., (1993) Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars.
Conservation Biology, 7:94–108.
2. Theobald DM, Miller JR, Hobbs NT, (1997) Estimating the cumulative effects of development
on wildlife habitat. Landscape Urban Planning, 39:25–36.
3. Lawrence A. Baschak, Robert D. Brown, (1995) An ecological framework for the planning,
design and management of urban river greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 3: 211-225.
4. Hansen, AJ, Rotella, JJ, (2002) Biophysical factors, land use, and species viability in and
around nature reserves. Conservation Biology, 16: 4, 1112-1122.
5. Eric A. Odell, Richard L. Knight (2001) Songbird and Medium-Sized Mammal Communities
Associated with Exurban Development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology, 15:4,
1143–1150.
6. Robert B. Blair (1996) Land Use and Avian Species Diversity Along an Urban Gradient.
Ecological Applications 6:2, 506-519.
7. Stephen S. Germaine, Steven S Rosenstock, Raymond E. Schweinsburg, W. Scott Richardson (1998)
Relationships Among Breeding Birds, Habitat, and Residential Development in Greater Tucson, Arizona.
Ecological Applications, 8:3, 680-691.
8. Steven T. Knick, John T Rotinberry (1995) Landscape Characteristics of Fragmented
Shrubsteppe Habitats and Breeding Passerine Birds. Conservation Biology, 9:5, 1059-1071.
9. Ralph G. Mancke, Thomas A. Gavin (2000) Breeding Bird Density in Woodlots: Effects of Depth and
Buildings At The Edges. Ecological Applications, 10: 2, 598-61.
10. Gaston KJ, Jackson SE, Cantu-Salazar L, Cruz-Pinon G (2008) The ecological performance of
protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39:93–113.
11. Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL (2008) On the protection of “protected areas”. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105:6673–6678.
12. Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, da Fonseca GAB (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting
tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125–128.
13. Hansen AJ, et al. (2002) Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the
New West. Bioscience, 52:151–162.
14. Radeloff VC, et al. (2005) The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological
Applications, 15:799–805.
15. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Rural and suburban sprawl in the US Midwest
from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 19:793–805.
16. Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a
fragmented system. Nature, 400:563–566.
17. Pidgeon AM, et al. (2007) Associations of forest bird species richness with housing and
landscape patterns across the USA. Ecological Applications,17:1989–2010.
18. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Conservation
Biology, 127:247–260.
19. Scott JM, et al. (2001) Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's
biological diversity? Ecological Applications, 11:999–1007.
20. http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.18/development-near-national-parks-impacts-park-ecology
21. Volker C. Radeloff, Susan I. Stewart, Todd J. Hawbaker, Urs Gimmi, Anna M. Pidgeon,
Curtis H. Flather, Roger B. Hammer, and David P. Helmers (2009) “Housing growth in and near
United States protected areas limits their conservation value” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the U.S. 107:2, 940-945.
Save The Poudre also requests the right to refer to any reference in any bibliography in any
citation above (or any chart, graph, or image therein), and the right to call authors as witnesses
at the appeal.
2. Statements of testimony by the FCHA and applicant at the hearing said that there was no
other place in Fort Collins to build a comparable project after a “thorough and exhaustive
search.” Save The Poudre alleges that these statements of testimony were substantially false
or grossly misleading. At appeal, Save The Poudre will produce a map (using City zoning maps)
showing other areas in Fort Collins where a comparable project can be built. Save The Poudre
also submits as evidence a statement in the “Environmental Assessment, 7-25-2011, Terracon
project #20117008, that claims the site was chosen because of the “purchase price” and
because it was downtown, not because it was the only site available:
“2.3 Alternative Locations
Alternative locations for the 72-unit residential facility were considered; however due to
the purchase price and location in relationship to the Fort Collins Old Town area, the
proposed site was selected.”
ATTACHMENT 3
Administrative Hearing Officer
Findings, Conclusions and
Decision,
June 25, 2012
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Administrative
Hearing Officer
Hearing held April 5 and
continued to April 23, 2012
Lindsay Ex
From: Gary Wockner [garywockner@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:00 AM
To: Lindsay Ex
Cc: Gary Lopez; John Stokes; Darin Atteberry; Kelly Ohlson; Gerry Horak; Bennet Manvel; Laurie Kadrich; City Leaders
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Development review question]
Page 1 of 3
5/30/2012
Hi Lindsay,
Thank you for sending the planning documents about the proposed high-density, low-income,
senior-housing project on Linden Street abutting the Poudre River. Here are Save The Poudre's
comments which you can provide to the public and the board at the P&Z hearing:
1. We believe the City should reconsider whether it is appropriate to place dense housing
clusters so close to the Poudre River's sensitive ecological corridor.
2. We prefer a scientifically supportable buffer area (300 feet is likely a minimum) along the
Poudre River throughout Fort Collins, including in the R-D-R zoning district.
3. The site's detention pond, curiously, is in the front of the building, show-cased for the
community to see, and right beside the Poudre River. We believe this is an inappropriate
location for a detention pond.
4. We oppose the 'modification' to allow a 180-foot wall of a building to abut the Poudre
River's sensitive ecological corridor.
5. The site's parking lot, curiously, is in front of the building, show-cased for the community to
see, and right beside the Poudre River. We believe this is an inappropriate location for a parking
lot, and we note that the facility is not required to have a parking lot.
5. The developers propose this project as a "river view" where residents can "relax and enjoy
the outdoors." We discourage the City from supporting high-density 24/7 residences so close to
the Poudre River's sensitive ecological corridor by wrapping it in a package of green-washed
"nature appreciation."
6. This lot is an excellent place for an addition to the City's extraordinary package of parks and
natural areas along the Poudre River. And, Marathon Oil probably can't drill and frack here.
Can we buy it for a park?
Thank you,
Gary
Save The Poudre
970-218-8310
Cc: Fort Collins City Council
Lindsay Ex wrote:
Gary,
Thank you for bringing these comments to our attention.
I’m going to send you a separate link to our City’s FTP site with all of the plans available for
you to download. Written comments are welcome up to the public hearing on June 11th
and
can also be provided in person (either written or verbally) that evening.
Regarding the buffer standard, I agree with your interpretation as well. As noted below, the
Code refers to a “continuous buffer” but is silent on the width. Staff believes this project has
provided a buffer consistent with the buffer provided by other projects within this zone
district.
I’d also be happy to sit down with you and discuss the plans in detail. I’m sorry we didn’t
notify Save the Poudre sooner, this project’s hearing was only scheduled last Friday
afternoon. I think it would be good to sit down with you and discuss the best way to keep
STP informed of development review projects related to the river, as it is apparent to both of
us that we need to get better at this. Could we schedule a time to do this?
Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay Ex
Environmental Planner
CDNS | City of Fort Collins
lex@fcgov.com
970.224.6143
From: Gary Wockner [mailto:garywockner@comcast.net]
1. Please provide me with site plans.
2. Save The Poudre disputes the interpretation of the buffer zone you note below, "minimum of 50 feet." Because no buffer is stated, that does not
mean there is zero buffer or an interpretation of a "minimum of 50 feet."
Please let me know the timeline for getting comments to your hearing.
And, once again, although I have raised this issue with the Council, with Darin, and with your office repeatedly, you did not notify Save The Poudre
about this proposed project even though it directly impacts our interests.
Gary
-------- Original Message --------
Good morning Gary (and Gary),
The project you are referring to is called Legacy Senior Residences. It's an affordable
housing project for senior citizens (age 62 and over) on 1.97 acres. Because the project
is in the River Downtown Redevelopment District (R-D-R), it is not subject to the 300' or
200' river buffer (as per the map I sent you last December). Instead, the Code in this zone
district reads as follows:
"In substitution for the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural Habitats and Features)
requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish, preserve
or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition
between development and the River."
Here is that Zone District's code section for reference: http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/article4.htm#div4d17.
For this project, and as you note in your email below, the project is south of the Poudre River
bike trail and is approximately 120' from the river. Typically, in the RDR zone district, the
"continuous buffer" requirement has been interpreted as a minimum of 50'. While this site's
location already exceeds the typical buffer, staff is recommending that all of the areas on the
north side of their building be treated as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, with the appropriate
restoration of native plant species and habitat complexity, up to the Poudre River trail, which
will include improvements on City park land.
Let me know if you have any further questions, as I welcome your feedback. I can also provide
you with site plans/landscape plans/grading plans, etc. The project will be going to hearing on
June 11th (see attached notice).
Thanks,
Lindsay
Lindsay Ex
Environmental Planner
CDNS | City of Fort Collins
lex@fcgov.com
970.224.6143
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lopez
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:58 AM
To: 'Gary Wockner'
Cc: Lindsay Ex
Subject: RE: Development review question
I'm not sure...Lindsay Ex, our Environmental Planner may know. Her number is 970-224-6143.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Wockner [mailto:garywockner@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:55 AM
To: Gary Lopez
Subject: Re: Development review question
Thanks Gary. What about the area right beside the Poudre River that
abuts the Poudre River bike trail? That's where the CITY sign is.
What's the plan for that property?
Gary
Gary Lopez wrote:
>There are at least a couple of buildings associated with this project. From a Zoning
standpoint there are no setback requirements. These are existing buildings in which the
old depot building, which had been vacated and sold by a previous tenant, has been purchased
by Mawson (also on the same site) and will be their new retail space. Parking/driveways
Subject: RE: Development review question
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 15:30:50 +0000
From: Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com>
were existing however for City requirements the portion being used for customers will be
hard surfaced. Building height has not changed and landscaping improvements to these areas
are minimal landscaping in the new parking lot required by the Land Use Code as well as an
enhancement complementary to the new Linden Street upgrades recently completed.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Wockner [mailto:garywockner@comcast.net]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 10:21 AM
>To: Gary Lopez
>Subject: Development review question
>
>Hi Gary,
>
>Does the proposal below have a building associated with it? I'm
>interested in setbacks from the river, location of parking, building
>height, integration with the natural area, etc.,
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gary
>Save The Poudre
>970-218-8310
>
>http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/current-projects.pdf
>MAWSON LUMBER & Gary Lopez
>HARDWARE
>This site is located at
>350 Linden St.
>Basic Development Review
>Routed for Review
>PETE COTTIER 04/06/2012
>970-221-4621
>PETEC@COTTIERCONST.COM
>Project Desc: Application for a basic development review to change use
>to retail and add a parking lot accessory to retail.
>New Belgium Brewing - Peter Barnes
>
>
Page 3 of 3
5/30/2012
Legacy Senior Residences Owner’s Names:
Mr. Larry Mazzotta
Cornerstone Associates, LLC
209 S 19th Street # 600
Omaha, NE 68102-1705
PH: 402-341-0888
Fax: 402-341-2655
lmazzotta@cstonellc.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW:
APPLICATION FORM
Community Development & Neighborhood Services – 281 N College Ave – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Project Information
Project Name:_____________________________________________
Project _______Description __________(_Choose _______type ____of __request ______from ____the ___list ___on __the ___back)_____ :
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Location Description/Project Address:_________________________
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Major Cross Streets: _______________________________________
Zone District:______________________________________________
Parcel Number: ____________________________________________
Building/Unit Information
Residential:_________ ___________________________Square Feet
Commercial:____________________________________Square Feet
Industrial:______________________________________Square Feet
Building Floor Area Ratio:___________________________________
Platted Area:______________________________________________
Number Single Family of Units: Attached:______Single Family Detached: __________
Two Family:________________Multi-Family:____________________
Dates:
Conceptual Review Meeting Date_____________________________
Neighborhood Meeting Date_________________________________
Hearing Type______________________________________________
Site/Area Information
Residential Area:_____________ _____Sq. Ft. ____________Acres
Commercial Area:____________ _____ Sq. Ft. ____________Acres
Industrial Area:_____________ ______ Sq. Ft. ____________Acres
Mixed Use Area:_____________ ______Sq. Ft. ___________Acres
Right of Way Area: _________________ Sq. Ft. ___________Acres
Parking and Drive Area: _____________ Sq. Ft. ___________Acres
Stormwater Detention Area:__________Sq. Ft. ___________Acres
Landscape Area: ___________________Sq. Ft. ___________Acres
Open/Other Areas: __________________Sq. Ft. __________Acres
Gross Area:________________________Sq. Ft. ___________Acres
Floor Area Ratio:_________________________________________
Gross Density:________________Net Density ________________
Owner Information
Name:__________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
City:__________________State:________________Zip:__________
Phone:_________________Email:___________________________
Applicant Information
Name:__________________________________________________
Organization Name: ______________________________________
Contact:_________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________
City___________________State:________________Zip:_________
Phone:_________________Email:___________________________
Preferred Method of Contact: ______________________________
For Office Use Only
Date Submitted ________________ Current Planning File #_________________ Planner______________________
Ö CERTIFICATION MUST BE SIGNED.Õ
CERTIFICATION
I certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with
the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the real property, as those terms are defined in Section 1-2 of the City Code (including
common areas legally connected to or associated with the property which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and authority the
Revised February 18, 2010 2 PDP Submittal Requirements
Type of Request
Please indicate the type of application submitted by checking the box preceding the appropriate request(s).
Additional handouts are available explaining the submittal requirements for each of the following review
processes.
Annexation Petition with Initial Zoning REQUESTED ZONE: _______________________________
Fee $1,188.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label
Rezoning Petition REQUESTED ZONE: _____________________________
Fee $977.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee
Overall Development Plan (ODP)
Fee: $1,599.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label
Project Development Plan (PDP) without Subdivision Plat (also W ireless Tele-communication Facilities)
Fee: $3,887.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label
Project Development Plan (PDP) with Subdivision Plat
Fee: $5,879.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label
Final Plan witho ut Subdivision Plat
Fee: $1,000.00
Final Plan with Subdivision Plat
Fee: $1,000.00
Fee: $200.00+ ($50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label for Modification of Standards only)
ment Review
Fee: $200.00
Fee: $3,206.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label
g Use Review
Fee: $1,389.00
of filing document
h the Current Planning Department
e Change
al
isory Review
Addition of Permitted Use
Fee: $500.00 + $50.00 sign posting fee + $.75 for each APO label
Modification of Standards/Text and Map Amendment
Basic Develop
Major Amendment
Non-Conformin
Vacation of ROW or Easement
Fee: $5.00 per sheet
Small Project Fees
Fee: Varies-Check wit
Street Nam
Fee: $5.00
Extension of Final Approv
Fee: $566.00
Site Plan Adv
NO FEE
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES
– LEGAL DESCRIPTION –
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of
Colorado being more particularly described as follows:
Considering the Southeast line of Lot 1, Block 2, City of Fort Collins bearing South
41°41'10" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
BEGINNING at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1, thence, North 48°18'50"
West, 400.00 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Pine Street; thence
along said southerly line, North 41°41'10" East, 215.00 feet to a point on the
southwesterly line of Lot 3, Northside Aztlan Community Center; thence along said
southwesterly line and along the southwesterly line of Lot 2, Northside Aztlan
Community Center, South 48°18'50" East, 400.00 feet to a point on the northerly
right-of-way line of Linden Street; thence along said northerly line, South 41°41'10"
West, 215.00 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 86,000 square feet or 1.974 acres, more or less.
April 30, 2012
D:\Projects\683-001\Admin\Description\Legal Description.doc
May 23, 2012
Administrative Hearing Officer
c/o City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Please accept this request for a Modification of Standards to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) and
Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) and Section 3.2.2(L)(4) of the Land Use Code.
Background
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP is a new construction apartment community that will consist
of 72 one and two-bedroom apartments for seniors (age 62 and over) who are low-income,
earning between 30 to 60% of Area Median Income.
A strong local commitment has already been made by the City of Fort Collins through its
Affordable Housing Competitive Process by awarding $717,151 in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) dollars because the project makes a significant contribution toward the City
of Fort Collins’ affordable housing goals.
In addition, the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) have awarded an allocation of
“tax credit” funding through the competitive Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. This is a
highly competitive program and Legacy Seniors significantly meets the goals of the State of
Colorado as specified in CHFA’s Qualified Application Plan.
Furthermore, the Fort Collins Housing Authority whose mission is to provide and promote safe
and affordable housing, economic opportunity and a living environment free from discrimination,
has agreed to be a formal partner in the project and the ultimate owner at the end of the tax credit
period because the project directly addresses significant community needs.
These modifications are requested in accordance with the review procedures set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code as follows:
Modification to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1)
Code Language: Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) River District Development Standards
related to building massing and placement states the following:
“Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted; however,
massing shall be terraced back from the River and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or
parts of buildings shall step down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage;
Legacy Senior Residences PDP Modification of Standards
5-21-12
and (2) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or less abutting
any street frontage.”
Requested Modification: We request that the building height remain at 4 stories abutting Pine
Street.
Justification
We feel that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested (2.8.2(H)(1) and that the modification would
substantially alleviate an existing, defined community need (2.8.2(H)(2), and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following
reasons:
1. In order to mitigate the four-story building, the proposed alternative plan creates a
pedestrian scale experience along the Pine Street frontage. This means:
• Detached sidewalk which connects to the river trail between this site and the
United Way playground
• Create two rows of trees on both sides of the walk, staggered to create an “entry”
into the river landscape
2. The proposed alternative plan seeks to provide a substantial benefit to the City by
addressing an important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the policies of the February 2011 City Plan:
Community and Neighborhood Livability: Housing
Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be
available throughout the Growth Management Area.
Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations
Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that
are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services,
and amenities. Housing section starts on page 59 and it is under principle LIV7 a variety of
housing types and densities and income levels.
Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing
Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse
residential care facilities, shelters, group homes, and senior housing throughout the Growth
Management Area.
Policy LIV 7.6 – Basic Access
Support the construction of housing units with practical features that provide basic access and
functionality for people of all ages and widely varying mobility and ambulatory–related
abilities.
Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable
housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply.
Policy LIV 8.1 – Support Affordable Housing Programs
Support the development and provision of affordable housing in the community by
maintaining and allocating funding for affordable housing services and programs including
management of a competitive process for federal and local funding, development incentives,
homebuyer assistance, and the Land Bank program.
Legacy Senior Residences PDP Modification of Standards
5-21-12
Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing
Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual
neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentrations of
affordable units in isolated areas.
3. The proposed alternative plan seeks to provide a substantial benefit to the City by
addressing an important community need specifically and expressly defined and
described in the priorities of the City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
2010-2014:
The purpose of this Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is to establish goals and strategies for
the City of Fort Collins’ affordable housing programs for the five-year period of 2010-2014.
Based on the most significant affordable housing needs, four goals have been identified and
prioritized as follows:
Legacy Senior Residences addresses two of the four priorities of the Strategic Plan:
1) Increase the inventory of affordable rental housing units
Fort Collins’ highest priority should be to increase the inventory of rental housing units
affordable to households earning 50% and below of the Area Median Income (AMI). Within
this rental-housing category, the first priority is for units for households earning less than 30%
of AMI, with a second priority for households earning between 31% and 50% of AMI.
According to the Larimer County Housing Needs Assessment (completed by Community
Strategies Institute in 2009) a deficit of 5,009 affordable rental units was found for the 0-
30% AMI level, and an additional deficit of 1,187 affordable rental units was identified for the
31-50% AMI level.
3) Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs
This broad category of “special needs” includes homeless people, victims of domestic
violence, people with substance abuse issues, persons with physical and mental disabilities,
and seniors. These groups often require housing units tailored to their specific needs are not
those typically provided by market-driven development. Many times a network of support
services is needed to keep these populations stable and independent. A point-in-time study
conducted by the Homeward 2020 project in March 2010, found 518 homeless people in Fort
Collins, with an additional 617 people at risk of becoming homeless. Another survey
conducted by the Poudre School District, also in March 2010, found 808 homeless children
attending school in Fort Collins. Larimer County is expected to gain over 35,000 residents
between age 62-75 by the year 2025, and over 16,000 age 75+. Many people in these age
groups have limitations in mobility and selfcare. In Fort Collins, there are 6,675 individuals
with a sensory disability, 7,128 with a physical disability, and 6,424 with a mental disability.
Modification to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4)
Code Language:
“Frequent view/access. No building wall shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125)
feet on the axis along the River.
Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) River District Development Standards related to
frequent view/access states the following:
Legacy Senior Residences PDP Modification of Standards
5-21-12
Requested Modification: We request that the building wall on the axis of the River
be 180’ instead of the the maximum length of 125’.
Justification
We feel that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested, and will continue to advance the purposes of the
Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons:
• The façade elevation facing the river has been modified to give the illusion and feel of
reducing the building’s length.
− A 35’ wide section of the pitched roof has been removed and changed to a flat roof.
− The 35’ wide section of the building is recessed by 8.5 feet.
− All four stories have brick in this recessed area. The brick is darker in color than
the stone therefore helping to enhance the feel of receeding.
− The roof covering the porch/promenade has been removed in this section.
• The proposed alternative plan enhances the landscape in the 8.5’ deep recessed area by
utilizing denser, darker plant material and vines, giving the area a significantly different
look and feel than the rest of the building.
• The United Way buiding and playground partially hide the building from the Poudre River
trail.
• The proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the Poudre River view corridor. We
feel that the proposed plan does not detract in any way from satisfying this purpose.
Modification to Section 3.2.2(L)(4) Figure 5
Code Language:
“(4) Vehicular Overhang. The stall dimensions indicated above may be modified
Section 3.2.2(L)(4) Figure 5 Vehicular Overhang for Standard-Size Parking
Stalls:
with respect to vehicular overhang as indicated in Figure 5, except that compact
vehicle spaces may not be reduced in depth to a dimension that is less than the
required depth indicated above.”
Figure 5 indicates that when vehicles overhang both sides of a landscaped area, such
landscaped area shall be a minimum of 7’ wide.
Legacy Senior Residences PDP Modification of Standards
5-21-12
Figure 5
Requested Modification: We request that the landscape island be 5.95 feet wide
instead of the 7 feet required by Code.
Justification
We feel that 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 interior parking lot landscape far exceeds the 6% minimum. By code, we are required
to have 1,429 sq. ft. and we are providing 2,181 sq. ft. , over double the amount required.
• The width of the landscape area in proposed alternative plan is short by 1.05 feet.
We look forward to working with you during this process and will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Cathy Mathis, APA
Project Manager, The Birdsall Group
Page 1
May 23, 2012
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Statement of Planning Objectives
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP is located at 360 Linden Street, just north of Willow
Street. The 1.97-acre site currently consists of vacant land that formerly contained
operations for Keifer Concrete. The intent of the development is to create 72 one and two-
bedroom affordable apartments for seniors (age 62 and over) who are low-income, earning
between 30 to 60% of Area Median Income. The developer, Cornerstone Associates,
specializes in this type of housing serving this population.
The site is within the R-D-R zoning district. Existing uses surrounding the project are single-
family residences to the south, Poudre Pre-Mix to the east, the Poudre River and city-owned
land to the north and the United Way building and parking lot to the west.
The area surrounding Legacy Senior Residences PDP will contain a mix of commercial,
mixed-use and residential uses. A growing trend in the River District area is the
redevelopment of older properties as the market becomes stronger for revitalization. The
nearby CSU Small Engines Lab expansion, the Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science
Center, the Northside Aztlan Center, Rooftops on the River and the proposed Block One,
just to the east of this property are good examples of the type of infill redevelopment that is
occurring. The proposed project is located within walking and biking distance to downtown,
the surrounding neighborhoods and the downtown transit center, thus representing a
reduction in the amount of cars on the streets. There is an existing transit stop east of the
site, across Linden Street.
The 4-story building is situated on the site to have the long axis of the building take
advantage of the view to the river. There will be a covered porch along the river for residents
to relax and enjoy the outdoors. The primary access to the site is from Linden Street, with
secondary access off of Pine Street via Poudre Place. The project is located within the TOD
Overlay Zone, where no minimum number of parking spaces is required; however, there are
51 off-street parking spaces provided. Sidewalks are provided from the building’s main
entrance to both Linden and Pine Streets. A new 5’ detached sidewalk will be constructed
along the Pine Street frontage, linking the existing walk to the south and the connection to
the Poudre trail. In addition, there are sidewalks from the covered porch to the Poudre trail
and to Pine Street.
Variation in massing and materials have been obtained on all elevations with stepping in
height and depths using various materials such as 12” x 24” rock face stone, brick veneer,
and horizontal fiber cement lap siding. Other features consist of prefinished accent sills,
decorative trim accent boards, siding corner trim, decorative dentil trim boards and
decorative wood columns. The roofs are prefinished standing seam metal with prefinished
metal fascia boards. The windows are vinyl single-hung with decorative precast headers and
sills. The primary entrance to the building is through a covered entryway, which is
Page 2
emphasized with a prefinished standing seam metal roof, decorative wood columns and
stone veneer column bases.
All utility meters and gear are located on the west side of the building and will be located in a
screened enclosure. Building-mounted meters will be painted to match the adjacent
materials to minimize visibility. Exterior lighting has been located over each entry and low
step lighting has been used around the perimeter to light all walking surfaces properly.
(i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the
proposed 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
Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP will provide a compact urban redevelopment project
that is in an ideal location, is within walking distance to many destinations and is within a
targeted infill area
Environmental Health
Principle ENV 1: Within the developed landscape of Fort Collins, natural
habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be protected and
enhanced.
Policy ENV 1.1 – Protect and Enhance Natural Features
Policy ENV 1.2 –Regulate Development along Waterways
Legacy Senior Residences PDP is located within 500 feet of the Poudre River. An ECS was
prepared for the project specifying native plantings to be used to enhance the area between
the property line and the southern edge of the bike trail.
Community and Neighborhood Livability
Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on
the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map.
Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP will provide a compact urban redevelopment project
that is in an ideal location, is within walking distance to many destinations and is within a
targeted infill area. The project is designed to be complimentary in style, character, and
scale to the existing redevelopment within the R-D-R District.
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
Page 3
Policy LIV 7.5 – Address Special Needs Housing
Policy LIV 7.6 – Basic Access
Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable
housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply.
Policy LIV 8.1 – Support Affordable Housing Programs
Policy LIV 8.5 – Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP provides a housing type that supports the needs of a
special population, such as seniors. The development is well-served by public transportation
and close to downtown, shopping, services and amenities. The building will be fully-
accessible for residents with mobility-related abilities.
A strong local commitment has already been made by the City of Fort Collins through its
Affordable Housing Competitive Process by awarding Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) dollars because the project makes a significant contribution toward the City of Fort
Collins’ affordable housing goals.
Principle LIV16: The quality of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the preservation
of historic resources and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the
community.
Policy LIV 16.4 – Utilize Planning and Regulations
The project has taken advantage of the complimentary design review offered by the Historic
Preservation staff. Although there were concerns regarding the compatibility of a four-story
building adjacent to single family homes over 50 years of age, the applicant worked with
historic preservation staff by making architectural design changes to the building. The
building has incorporated features and materials that are complimentary and compatible
with the historic buildings in the downtown area such as red brick, decorative lintels and
brick arch details above the third story windows.
Principle LIV22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize
creativity, diversity, and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a
comfortable, interesting community.
Policy LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Building Variation
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP consists of a single, L-shaped building that is oriented
on the site to take advantage of river views. The project achieves visual interest by the use
of building materials, variation of roof form, the placement of the covered main entrance and
the covered porch on the north side of the building.
Principle LIV 32: The Downtown will serve as a focal point and primary destination
and activity center for the community, with the design of buildings, streets, parking
areas, and public spaces reinforcing the area’s unique and distinctive character.
Policy LIV 32.1 –Mix of Uses
The project is designed to provide a continuous walkway between Linden Street and Pine
Street. This allows pedestrians to have access to the Poudre Trial, public walkways and
transit stops. Legacy also provides the desired mix of housing type called for in this policy
by providing low income housing targeting a specific population.
Policy LIV 32.5– Maintain Visual Character
The proposed building is visually attractive by utilizing a variety of building materials, colors
and other decorative features.
Policy LIV 32.6 – Encourage Human-Scale Architectural Elements
Page 4
Human-scale architectural elements are provided such as a covered entry, covered porch
on the north side of the building, proportional window treatments, and various landscape
treatments.
Policy LIV 32.7 – Allow Various Building Heights
The R-D-R District allows buildings up to 5 stories. The Legacy building is 4 stories in height
and is similar in scale to the Rooftops on the River, Northside Aztlan Center and Block One.
Principle LIV 45: Adjacent land uses will be carefully managed to ensure that the
diverse community values of the Poudre River Corridor are protected and enhanced.
Policy LIV 45.3 – River Segments
The Legacy Senior Residences PDP is establishing a river landscape buffer in the City-
owned area between the north property line and the edge of the recreation trail. This
established buffer zone, paired with the recommendations of the ECS, will continue to
preserve the character and function of the various wildlife uses by establishing native shrub
and tree plantings. Further, the project has established a covered porch/arcade on the
River side of the building.
Transportation
Principle T 8: Transportation that provides opportunities for residents to lead healthy
and active lifestyles will be promoted.
Policy T 8.1 – Support Active Transportation
Policy T 8.2 – Design for Active Living
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
The location of the Legacy Senior Residences PDP will promote and support the idea of the
residents utilizing alternative modes of transportation (walking/biking) or public
transportation. There is an existing Transfort stop to the east of the site on Linden Street
and this project will construct a pad for a future transfort stop on the Linden Street frontage.
There are bike lanes and sidewalks on Linden Street. In addition, this project supports
physical activity by providing easy access to the bike trail.
(ii) Description of proposed open space, wetlands, natural habitats and features,
landscaping, circulation, transition areas, and associated buffering on site
and in the general vicinity of the project.
There are not existing wetlands, natural habitats or features currently located on
site. There are some trees within the interior and edges of the site, which will be
removed with this proposed PDP. We have met with Tim Buchanan, City
Forester on-site, to evaluate the existing trees and determine mitigation. An ECS
was prepared and the landscape plan reflects how the river buffer area is treated.
The project is also providing a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone in the City-owned
area between the north property line and the edge of the recreation trail. This
established buffer zone, paired with the recommendations of the ECS, will
continue to preserve the character and function of the various wildlife uses by
establishing native shrub and tree plantings.
Page 5
(iii) Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and
private open space areas; applicant's intentions with regard to future
ownership of all or portions of the project development plan.
The building will be owned by the building developer/owner and will be leased
to individual tenants.
(iv) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial, and
industrial uses.
N/A
(v) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by
the applicant.
See above description.
(vi) The applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the
applicable criteria, the completed documents pursuant to these
regulations for each proposed use. The planning Director may require,
or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is
required in that section. Any variance from the criteria shall be
described.
See above description.
(vii) Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or
disturbances to wetlands, natural habitats and features and or wildlife
are being avoided to the maximum extent feasible or are mitigated.
There are not existing wetlands, natural habitats or features currently located
on site. There are some trees within the interior and edges of the site, which
will be removed with this proposed PDP. We have met with Tim Buchanan,
City Forester on-site, to evaluate the existing trees and determine mitigation.
An ECS was prepared and the landscape plan reflects how the river buffer
area is treated. The project is also providing a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone in
the City-owned area between the north property line and the edge of the
recreation trail. This established buffer zone, paired with the
recommendations of the ECS, will continue to preserve the character and
function of the various wildlife uses by establishing native shrub and tree
plantings.
(viii) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the
neighborhood meeting(s), if a meeting has been held.
A neighborhood meeting has not been held.
(ix) Name of the project as well as any previous name the project may have
had during Conceptual Review.
The project name is Legacy Senior Residences PDP and was called “Legacy
Senior Residences, PDR110005” on the Preliminary Design Review letter.
March 14, 2012
Jim Birdsall
The Birdsall Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, CO 80513
RE: Abbreviated Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the Legacy Senior Housing Project
Site
Jim:
This letter is submitted in response to Lindsay Ex’s request for a brief ECS Report summarizing my thoughts
regarding the ecological features of the proposed development site for the Legacy Senior Housing Project. The
development site is situated between Pine Street and Linden Street. Poudre Street (essentially an alley) defines
the southwest border of the property, while the Cache la Poudre River and its associated recreational trail
system abuts the northeast property boundary. Ecological characteristics of the property were reviewed during
an on-site meeting with City of Fort Collins staff, you, and me on March 6, 2012.
The proposed Legacy Senior Housing development site has minimal ecological value and supports no natural
habitat features other than a few trees along the northeast and southwest property edges. The majority of the
site is comprised of bare dirt or paved surfaces used for vehicle, equipment, and building material storage.
Other than a few narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia1) trees and one boxelder tree (Acer negundo), the
property does not support any native vegetation, wetlands, or other unique habitat features. Vegetation cover is
restricted to sparse stands of annual weeds and a small plot of turf grass at the southeast corner. Features of
ecological value within 500 feet of the development consist solely of the Cache la Poudre River and the riparian
corridor supported along both sides of the river.
Development of the Legacy Senior Housing parcel would create no additional impacts to the Poudre River
corridor beyond those that are already occurred from existing disturbance and development. The Legacy Senior
Housing Project Site is zoned RDR (River Downtown Redevelopment District) and City buffer zone standards
(LUC 3.4.1) do not apply to RDR zones. Based on its current zone designation, lack of any natural habitat
features, its location between existing development and roadways, and its separation from the river corridor by
the paved recreation trail, I do not believe that any habitat enhancement or mitigation measures are appropriate
for the proposed development parcel. It would be appropriate, however, to establish additional native shrub and
tree plantings on the City owned surface between the northeast property boundary and the recreation trail to
create a buffer between the proposed development and the river corridor/trail system. These plantings would
create additional habitat diversity (primarily for songbirds) and visual screening between the development parcel
and the river corridor and trail system. Native shrub and tree plantings would also establish a more natural
vegetation transition zone between the river corridor/trail system and the proposed development. Habitat
enhancement/native vegetation screening measures would need to be coordinated with City Natural Resources
and Parks and Recreation staff. This potential buffer zone area currently supports nearly solid stand of grass
cover comprised primarily of smooth brome (Bromus inermis). The City Parks and Recreation Department
maintains an approximate 5-foot wide grass strip, planted with native blue grama (Bouteloua gracils) and
buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides), on each side of the paved trail.
A review of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly SCS) soils mapping for the development
site area indicates the Paoli fine sandy loam soil-mapping unit underlies the entire project site and trail corridor
up to the river embankment. This is an upland soil that, in an undisturbed state, supports native short-grass
prairie species such as blue grama, little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and green needlegrass (Nasella
viridula). As indicated by the riparian corridor on the project area side of the river corridor, this soil type can also
1 Scientific nomenclature follows the USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/
J. Birdsall
3/14/12
Page 2 of 2
support native cottonwood trees and other riparian species when more mesic soil moisture levels are created by
proximity to the river corridor.
Based on these considerations the following mitigation recommendations are provided for the Legacy Senior
Housing development parcel.
• The area between the Legacy Senior Housing property boundary and the native grass strip maintained
by Parks and Recreation should be planted with an upland riparian vegetation mix, including shrubs and
trees, to create a transitional zone of native upland riparian vegetation. The goal of these plantings
should be to create a self-sustaining, native vegetation community to stabilize soils and enhance wildlife
habitat. Plantings of native shrubs and trees would also provide visual screening between development
and important habitat and recreation areas. Habitat enhancement plantings would likely require soil
treatment to relieve compaction (ripping) and improve fertility (fertilizer amendments). Supplemental
irrigation would also be needed for initial establishment of native shrubs and trees. Suggested species
for planting include the following deciduous trees and shrubs.
Deciduous Trees Deciduous Shrubs
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) American plum (Prunus americana)
lanceleaf cottonwood (Populus acuminata) big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)
(both non-cotton bearing varieties) chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)
golden currant (Ribes aureum)
rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus)
serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia)
skunkbrush sumac (Rhus trilobata)
• It is not the intention of the mitigation recommendations to convert areas currently supporting stable
non-native grass cover to be converted to native grassland species. Conversion of stable non-native
grass areas to native grassland is not recommended for three principal reasons. First, although the
majority of existing grass cover is non-native, non-native grassland on the property is well-established
and meets the general intent of the three objectives listed in the first recommended mitigation measure.
Soils are stable in the non-native grassland areas and non-native grass (primarily smooth brome), when
not mowed, provides adequate wildlife cover adjacent to riparian habitat. Finally, any attempt to convert
well-established non-native grassland habitat to native grassland are likely to fail without intensive
management efforts, and converted areas are most likely to be dominated by aggressive, undesirable
weedy species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and kochia (Bassia scoparia).
• Maintain, to the extent possible, trees on site that were determined to be significant by the City Forester
(Tim Buchanon) during our site visit. Removal of any trees classified as significant would need to be
mitigated with replacement trees as per Section 3.2.1 (F) of the Land Use Code.
• The intensity of night lighting from the sides of buildings facing the trail system and Cache la Poudre
River corridor should be shielded or directed to minimize the intrusion of artificial nighttime light into
these areas.
Jim, this concludes my evaluation of the Legacy Senior Housing Project development site. If you have any
questions or require additional input regarding my evaluation, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES, INC.
T. Michael Phelan, Principal
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
May 21, 2012
RE: Legacy Senior Residences, PDP120015, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or
lex@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Advance Planning
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A walk should extend straight out to Linden Street on the south side of the drive.
This requires the removal of the one northernmost parking space to allow the walk to align and
maintain a landscape area.
TBG Response: The applicant really does not want to do this because of added cost.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: The sidewalk that connects around the building to the west should be aligned to
the simplest and most direct route possible as shown on the trace paper notes discussed at
the review meeting.
TBG Response: We have added a 4’ wide crusher fines path following the 63’ contour. Final grading will be
complete at Final
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: The sidewalk connections to the trail on the north and to Pine Street on the west
should be increased in width from 4 feet to 5 feet.
TBG Response: Due to cost reasons, the applicant would like to leave the walks 4’ wide.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A grouping of 3 Lanceleaf Cottonwoods should be placed around the sidewalk
connection to the trail. The purpose is to reinforce the break in the building facade and
highlight the sidewalk connection.
TBG Response: Done.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: As discussed at the review meeting, the street trees lining both sides of the
sidewalk along Pine Street could be reduced in number by two or three, and the effect would
be greater if Honeylocust were used to match trees across the street, thus lining the street as
an allee. Related to this, the elms could be used in the parking lot instead of Honeylocust.
TBG Response: Done.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: The pedestrian framework is minimal and indirect. Alignments do not follow the
logical routes for walking to and from the entrance. 4-foot attached sidewalks do not
accommodate two people walking together and given the intensity of use, number of people
living here, and location, the pedestrian framework should be more generous and direct.
Walks along the front building faces should be 8 feet wide with 4x9 tree grates.
TBG Response: The connecting walkway had been widened out to 6’, the minimum required by Code.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Prior to Hearing: Please provide renderings prior to hearing illustrating the
buildings, including the materials and their colors. The images provided for the Building Height
Review may be sufficient for this requirement. Note that building colors and materials should
reflect both the historic neighborhood characteristics and the Poudre River, as per the PDR
comments.
TBG Response: Perspectives will be provided.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Please also label the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone on the site, landscape, and utility
plans. Add the following note to the site, landscape and utility plans, "Please see Section 3.4.1
of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone." Finally, please
call out the NHBZ in the Gross Acreage calculations as a separate area.
TBG Response: Will do this at Final and will coordinate the zone boundary area with you.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please note the following comments from Building Services:
1. Building code requires a 1-hour building if constructed with wood.
2. Fire-sprinkler required.
3. Bedroom egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire-sprinkler.
4. State statute CRS 9-5 requires project provide accessible units per that code.
5. New Green Code requires:
a. Exterior walls and roof must meet a STC (sound resistance) rating of 40 min. if building
located within 1000ft to train tracks.
b. Upgraded insulation is required for buildings using electric heat or cooling.
c. Low-flow Watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required.
d. Special combustion safety requirements for natural draft gas appliances.
e. Low VOC interior finishes.
TBG Response: So noted, passed along to architect
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to hearing, please indicate how the current proposal meets the parking lot
perimeter landscaping along Linden Street, specifically Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) that requires the
following:
- "Screening from the street and all nonresidential uses shall consist of a wall, fence, planter,
earthen berm, plant material or a combination of such elements, each of which shall have a
minimum height of thirty (30) inches. Such screening shall extend a minimum of seventy (70)
percent of the length of the street frontage of the parking lot and also seventy (70) percent of
the length of any boundary of the parking lot that abuts any nonresidential use. Openings in the
required screening shall be permitted for such features as access ways or drainage ways.
Where screening from the street is required, plans submitted for review shall include a graphic
depiction of the parking lot screening as seen from the street. Plant material used for the
required screening shall achieve required opacity in its winter seasonal condition within three
(3) years of construction of the vehicular use area to be screened."?
-Note that one option discussed during staff review was a 36" fence or wall to provide the
screening and take up a minimal amount of space on the site.
TBG Response: To keep costs at a minimum, we are providing landscape material to meet this standard.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: The stormwater detention pond that fronts on Linden Street is contrary to earlier
discussions that indicated the Linden Street frontage would be preserved for commercial uses.
Based on discussions at the staff review, let's continue to review (after the hearing) the ways in
which this portion of the site can be enhanced.
TBG Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Please see the landscape redlines, including the recommendation that street trees
along Pine Street mimic the existing street trees (honey locust), that the currently proposed
honey locust could be replaced with the proposed elm species, and that the landscape area in
front of the building recessed area should be significantly different than the other landscaping
on the north. Please also note Advanced Planning comments regarding the design along the
front of the building.
TBG Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please note that the two upsized trees (currently the boxelder trees) need to still
meet the 3' requirement. Please make a note on the landscape plans which trees are meeting
the mitigation standard.
TBG Response: Done. Changed to 3” caliper.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Site Lighting - see Zoning's comments regarding the lighting plan.
TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised.
Topic: Modification of Standard
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: The project has requested two modifications (1) Section 4.17(D)(c)(4) Frequent
view/access and (2) Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) Height/Mass. Both of the modifications are
supported by Section 2.8.2(H)(2) because the project "substantially alleviates an existing,
defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to
the City." In addition, staff supports the justification for 'Height/Mass' that the provision of a
pedestrian scale environment meets this standard equally or better than the standard sets forth.
TBG Response: Thank you.
Topic: Planning Objectives
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: In your statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies please also
discuss the following:
-Principle LIV 16 (Historic Preservation), e.g., how is this project addressing historic
preservation planning and regulations (Policy LIV 16.4)?
-Policy LIV 22.3 - Offer Multi-Family Building Variation
-Any applicable Principles and Policies for the Downtown District Principle LIV 32, and the
Poudre River Corridor Overlay (LIV 45), including Policy LIV 45.3(3).
TBG Response: Planning Objectives were revised to address the additional Principles and Policies
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: In your statement regarding proposed open space, wetlands, please describe the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone this project is dedicating on the north side of the project. Please
also address this in section (vii) of the statement.
TBG Response: Done
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Can the bike rack be moved closer to the project entrance (see Section 3.2.2(C)
(4)(b) of the Land Use Code?
TBG Response: The bike rack has been relocated to the west side of the main entrance walkway.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing. The walkway on the north side of the project (the promenade)
should connect to the walkway that extends out to Linden (Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) and Section
4.17(D)(1)(b). Another requirement is to continue the connecting walkway directly across the
parking lot to have a more direct pedestrian connection. Based on Long-Range Planning
comments, it would also be desired to have sidewalks on both side of the Linden Street
Entrance to the project.
Is there any way to provide a low seating wall (retaining wall) so that this suggestion doesn't
conflict with the site's grading plan?
TBG Response: We have added a 4’ wide crusher fines path following the 63’ contour. Final grading will be
complete at Final.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: All connecting walkways should be a minimum of 6' in width
(Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a)).
TBG Response: The connecting walkway had been widened out to 6’, the minimum required by Code.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Is there a drop-off area in the front of the building? See Section 3.2.2(F).
TBG Response: The driveway width is 30’, so there is room for a car to park in front, although PFA may
require the curb to be striped red and signed no parking, fire lane.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: While only two ADA spaces are required (Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)), are the
applicants sure that is sufficient for the proposed use?
TBG Response: Will address with Final.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Standard stall depth requirement is 19' (See Section 3.2.2(L)) -
see Zoning comments regarding overhangs and allowable depths. If this standard is not met, a
modification is requierd.
TBG Response: As discussed in staff review, a modification request is provided with this resubmittal
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Trash Enclosure- how is this plan meeting Section 3.2.5(B)(5) of the Land Use
Code along Poudre Place?
TBG Response: The trash enclosure design and details will be more refined at Final.
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Note Section 3.5.1(C) of the Land Use Code that requires new buildings in historic
areas to reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. Compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the
Land Use Code is required.
TBG Response: To be addressed at Final.
Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Continue the sidewalk in front of the trash enclosure (see Section 3.2.2.(C)(2) of the
Land Use Code.
TBG Response: See revised plans.
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: Building Height Review - Staff has received the shadow analysis
and summary required by Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(b) but not the visual analysis required. Please
provide this analysis, including an elevation of what the view from Linden Street looks like (to
meet both this standard and Section 3.52.(C)(2) regarding Street-Facing Facades.
TBG Response: Visual analysis included.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting
to hearing. 05/16/2012: Sheet C000 - A typical cross section of the Poudre Street (Alley)
needs to be included on either the cover sheet, grading sheet or preliminary plan and profile
sheet.
NES Response: A typical cross section has been added to drawings.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting
to hearing. The preliminary Plan and Profile is required prior to hearing for a number of
reasons but in this case we are specifically concerned with the south edge of Poudre Street
and how the design and construction will interact with the adjacent property owners. If a
preliminary design profile can not prove that adjacent property owners will be affected then
letters of intent will need to be gained by adjacent property owners agreeing to allow for
construction or grading easements for construction. 05/16/2012: A preliminary plan and profile
design of both flowlines will need to be provided for Poudre Street (Alley) prior to hearing. A
design sheet may be submitted for review directly to engineering prior to hearing.
NES Response: Adjacent property owners will be notified by developer and a Letter of Intent will be
provided prior to public hearing.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C100 - Adjacent property owners will need to be notified and coordinated
with regarding moving the fence along the south edge of Poudre Street out of the Right of Way.
NES Response: Adjacent property owners will be notified by developer and a Letter of Intent will be
provided prior to public hearing.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C200 - Is there design considerations for the large radiuses of the returns on
the south property access? Engineering would support a smaller radius for such a large access
off of an Alley.
NES Response: Curb returns are designed based of PFA truck turning movements.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C200 - Please provide a 2.5' concrete apron, 12" in depth across the south
access of the project adjacent to the right of way line. This does not need to be a concrete
pan but is required as a delineation and set grade for future maintenance and pacving of
Poudre Street.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C300 - How is the swale crossing the poudre trail north of the project? A
culvert is recommended by engineering.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Sheet C400 - It is unclear how portions of proposed drainage basin 4 will drain into
area inlet in island of parking lot.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/17/2012: Per conversation with Northern Engineering this will be required prior to submitting
to hearing. 05/16/2012: Sheet C400 - The minimum allowed cross slope is 1.5% and maximum
is 4% for reconstruction. The cross slopes on Poudre street exceed 5%. Consider creating
another low point and high point to minimize these cross slopes to less than 4%.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Topic: Drainage Report
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: Page 5 of the Drainage report makes reference to Drake Road.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: A repayment of $42,078.88 for the Linden Streets Streetscape will be due prior to
issuance of building permit.
TBG Response: So noted - we are still trying to figure this out.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: An easement and maintenance agreement will be required for the sidewalk
connection, steps and railing north of the project on the adjacent project. Engineering will
require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property owner (City of
Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department and discuss
obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with real estate
services.
NES Response: A Letter of Agreement will be provided prior to public hearing.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No Comment
TBG Response: Thanks.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/11/2012
05/11/2012: From the County Assessor's website it appears that their are different ownerships
for the numerous lots associated with this project. If this is the case than multiple signature
blocks will need to be added to the plat corresponding to the different owner's.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: It is understood that the outlet pipe for the detention pond will require an easement
by separate document. Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating
that the adjacent property owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify
the appropriate department and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the
applicant begin speaking with real estate services.
NES Response: A Letter of Agreement will be provided prior to public hearing.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The NE corner of Poudre Street and NW Corner of Pine Street should have a 10' x
10' triangle right of way or easement provided to ensure the corner is not obstructed in the
future. Refer to details 7-11F and 7-12F of the LCUASS standards.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Utility easements need to be dedicated on the back of the right of way along
Poudre Street and Linden Street.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: An offsite easement will be required for the drainage swale north of the project.
Engineering will require a letter or agreement prior to hearing stating that the adjacent property
owner (City of Fort Collins) will grant such easement. Please notify the appropriate department
and discuss obtaining this easement and it is suggested that the applicant begin speaking with
real estate services.
NES Response: A Letter of Agreement will be provided prior to public hearing.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: ECS -
- Conflict with the ECS, which suggests not regrading the entire site, with the site's grades, this
is prohibitive, but the ECS should be updated to reflect the current proposal. For example,
what management strategies are suggested to address the proposed conversion of the site
from a non-native grass dominated area to a native grass/shrub/cottonwood landscape?
- In addition, as the stormwater detention area is within the NHBZ, please have the ECS
address this as well.
TBG Response: We can amend the ECS at Final
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Fugitive Dust Control - A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from
Larimer County Environmental Health for development involving:
- Land clearing of 5-25 acres;
- Land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or exceeding 6
months in duration.
TBG Response: So noted.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/14/2012
05/14/2012: Prior to Hearing: As with zoning and current planning comments, the lighting plan
must extend into the buffer zone to ensure Section 3.2.4(D)(6) has been met.
TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised.
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: : Landscape notes that address tree separations could add these separation
dimensions in LUC 3.2.1. Six feet between trees and water and sewer service lines. Street
trees placed at least eight feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys.
TBG Response: The notes will be added to the landscape plan at Final.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Discuss with the City Forester and Project Planner street tree placement and
selection along Pine Street to achieve the canopy street tree standard.
TBG Response: See revised landscape plans.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Northern Red Oak does not thrive in Fort Collins soils often being deficient in iron.
Texas Red Oak or Shumard Oak are similar and are much more tolerant of Fort Collins soils.
Some designers prefer to use Tartarian Maple in place of Ginnala Maple. Both are on the Front
Range Recommended Tree list with Tartarian receiving a higher rating due to its generally
better adaptability to soil chemistry.
TBG Response: So noted.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700) will need a Commercial Service
Information (C-1) form completed and a 1-line diagram of the electric service. Electric
development and system modification charges will apply.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: Electric utility facilities will need to be installed before the sidewalk.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: If any regulated or hazardous materials are encountered during Light & Power
construction, removal or remediation will be at the developer's expense in addition to normal
electric development and system modification charges.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: If a fire booster pump is required, please coordinate power requirements with
Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2012
05/07/2012: After plans are final, please send an AutCAD drawing (version 2008) of the site
plan to Terry Cox at TCOX@FCGOV.COM.
Response: So noted.
Department: Outside Agencies
Contact: Megan Harrity,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2012
05/09/2012: Five parcels are in ownership of; KIEFER BLAIR A FAMILY TRUST
One parcel is in ownership of; KIEFER MARJORIE R
Please include a signature block for all owners to sign the final plat. Please feel free to contact
me if there are questions about the ownership. My number is 970.498.7065 and my email is
mharrity@larimer.org
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman@fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Landscape plantings need to continue to be reviewed by Parks and Forestry for
compatability with the City trail and the City will need to grant construction and maintenance
easements.
TBG Response: So noted, we plan on coordinating with Parks.
Department: PFA
Department: PFA
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
08/29/2011: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Poudre Fire Authority charges a fee for submitted
development review plans. Cost for this review is $250. For more information, contact Hayley
Spurrier at hspurrier@poudre-fire.org.
Response: Is an affordable housing project subject to PFA review fees?
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: 08/29/2011: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM Where adequate
radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification
systems shall be installed in the following locations: 1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in
size or addition(s) to an existing building that cause the building to be greater than 50,000 SF.
For the purpose of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. 2. All
new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is greater than 50,
regardless of the occupancy classification. 3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1
and 2 of this section undergoing alterations exceeding 50 percent of the aggregate area of the
building. Public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in
accordance with criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority. PFA Fire Prevention Bureau
Administrative Policy 07-01
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Addressing: The customer wishes to have the building addressed off of Linden.
This will only be honored if all fire department panels and services can be provided in a room
for fire dept use only, or the lobby. There must be a paved walk from the dedicated fire lane to
said room or lobby.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A full 13 fire sprinkler system is required to offset the lack of emergency access to
the rear of the building.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please do not lose sight of the associated Fire Pump requirement that
accompanies the Standpipe System.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A remote fire dept connection is not necessarily required, but can be provided if
already planned.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Because the fire lane is contiguous from Linden to Poudre St (alley), Poudre
Street shall be improved to be a hard deck which is designed to support 40 ton.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012:
1. Drainage Report P. 4 – Please revise the FEMA Map date to be May 2, 2012.
2. Drainage Report P. 4 – Please include a FEMA FIRMette of the site area in the appendix.
Please label or include a legend for the floodplain map on P.4
3. Drainage Report P. 9 – Please discuss that the structure has been elevated to account for
potential debris blockage at the Linden bridge. Compare the BFE to the floor level and the
bridge deck and the ground elevation where water may spill around the bridge.
4. Drainage Report P. 9 – Discuss the floodplain issue for the outfall pipe and that a floodplain
use permit and pre- and post-construction no-rise certification will be required. You can include
your no-rise justification in the drainage report instead of a separate memo, if you prefer.
Please document the tolerances for surveying for no-rise is 0.00 feet.
5. Please see comments on the plans related to the floodplain notes.
6. More detail will be required on the outfall pipe.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Please see redlined plans for other minor floodplain comments.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The outfall pipe for the site needs to be discussed regarding the best location on
where to release the flows. In the field, the best location looked to be at the toe-of-slope near
the bank of the river. This may be in the Poudre River Floodway where regulatory measures
will need to be planned and executed by the Applicant.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The design details for the off-site swale, the PLD in the parking lot, and the water
quality pond can be determined during final compliance.
NES Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: Off-site drainage easements are required for the drainage swale and water quality
pond outfall pipe. If the off-site property owner is the City of Fort Collins, drainage alignments
will be required. A Letter of intent for these easements is required before a public hearing.
NES Response: A Letter of Intent will be provided prior to public hearing.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A reminder that Detention Pond Landscape Standards apply to the water quality
pond.
NES Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/18/2012
05/18/2012: A curb cut was missed to drain part of the parking lot into the PLD.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No comments.
TBG Response: So noted.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No comments.
TBG Response: So noted.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet LS2.
TBG Response: We will fix.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: No comments.
TBG Response: So noted.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: The boundary & legal description close.
NES Response: Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a Lienholder's signature block.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add a note referencing development agreements & other documents
affecting this property, per Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(u).
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add missing lot numbers, ownership, and linework for the surrounding
properties. See redlines.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: All right of ways must reference how they were dedicated.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add "Point of Beginning" to sheet 2.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/16/2012
05/16/2012: Please add a complete legal description.
TBG Response: We will correct this at Final.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Please place an R1-1 (Stop) sign on the alley intersections with Linden and Pine
streets.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Seems that I recall some future plan for the alley to extend to the Azatlan Center. If
that is true a sidewalk serving this section of the alley would be an asset.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/19/2012
05/19/2012: Please locate both Honey Locust trees at the alley access 3-4 feet further north
than shown on sheet LS2. Reviewing the sight triangle here provides the possibility that the
trunk could be in the line of sight of someone attempting to pull out into the alley. Granted its
just one tree trunk but I would like to give cyclists and the senior residents as much
unobstructed visibility of each other in that area as possible.
TBG Response: Will be addressed at Final.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: Route 81 and 8 provide service on Linden Street adjacent to this site. Section
3.6.5 of the LUC states that all development proposals shall accommodate existing and
planned transit facilities. Currently there is not an accessible southbound bus stop in the
vicinity of this site, therefore the applicant shall provide a 12' x 18' accessible concrete pad for
a bus stop, preferably in the ROW between the sidewalk and existing curbline, additional
space may be necessary behind the sidewalk to accommodate the 12' depth. The location of
the pad should be at least 50' south of the driveway proposed. Please let me know if you
have questions.
TBG Response: We are working with Emma and Lindsay on placement of the pad fpr a bus stop.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: A 4" water service and an 8" sewer service seem large for the number of units
included in the project. Provide hydraulic sizing calculations for review. If the 8" sewer service
is really needed, add a manhole at the point that the 8" service connects to the City sewer.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: At final, label all fittings valves, pipe lengths, etc. and include standard details.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/15/2012
05/15/2012: See redlined plans for other comments.
NES Response: Will be addressed in final compliance.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: Land Use Code (LUC) 4.17(D)(3)(d)4. This section requires a minimum roof pitch
of 8:12 for hipped and gable roofs. Please call out the roof pitches on the elevation drawings
to verify compliance.
TBG Response: We have labeled the roof pitches and overall building heights to the revised elevations.
The roof lines shown on the architectural elevations are in conformance with design guidelines
of Article 4, page 85 of 142. Since all of the roofs at the top of the four story building are hip
roofs we are conforming to the 6/12 pitch stated in paragraph 4 entitled "Rooflines".
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: Please provide elevation drawings for all structures (Trash Enclosure and Utility
Enclosure). Elevations drawings need indicate building height
TBG Response: We will provide these at Final.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: 3.2.2(L)(4) Figure 5 When a landscaped area has vehicle overhang on two parallel
sides then the landscaped area shall be at least 7 ft in width between those two sides.
LUC 3.2.2(H) Vehicular use area shall be setback along a nonarterial street at least 10 ft and
along a lot line 5ft.
Along Poudre Street the proposed setback is not in compliance with the code.
TBG Response: As discussed in staff review, a modification request for the 7’ width is provided with this
resubmittal. The setback on Poudre Street has been changed to 5’ to meet Code.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.2(K)(5) Accessibility spaces are required to be identified also by a sign.
TBG Response: So noted. These will be shown at Final.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: Mechanical/Utility equipment (vents, flues, RTU, ac units, conduit...) should be
included on plans (site, landscaping, elevations) with notes on how such equipment will be
screened/painted.
TBG Response: So noted. These will be shown at Final.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.1(D) This section states the standards for Reduced Minimum Size of
plantings for Affordable Housing Projects.
TBG Response: So noted. We will change the landscape plan.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.5(B) and 3..5.1(I) Trash/Recycling enclosures shall be constructed on a
concrete cement pad and designed with walk-in access without having to open the main
service gate. Also the enclosure is to be setback 20ft from a public sidewalk.
The proposed enclosure does not have a walk-in access.
TBG Response: The trash enclosure design and details will be more refined at Final.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/10/2012
05/10/2012: LUC 3.2.4 The lighting plan is for the entire site and light levels twenty feet beyond
property lines. Please adjust lighting plan to include the mentioned items and other standards
found in the cited section.
TBG Response: The lighting plan has been revised.
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
April 06, 2012
RE: Legacy Senior Residences, PDR110005, Round Number
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your
submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the
individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Lindsay Ex, at 970-224-6143 or
lex@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: Please note the standard in Section 3.5.1(I)(1) of the Code that does not allow any
trash collection within 20' of any public street or public sidewalk. This will need to be
addressed in the site plan.
Response: The trash enclosure is located 20’ away from the public sidewalk on Pine Street.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: Please see Zoning's comment regarding the need to step down the building to
three stories along any public street. From internal discussions, we have agreed this building
does not abut Linden Street, but it does abut Poudre Place and Pine Street. A modification will
be required. Staff suggests considering the building elevation (articulation and massing),
enhancing the 40' of yard between the building and the ROW to be more pedistrian scale,
including street trees on 30' centers, sidewalks, and adding a connecting walkway from the end
of the promenade. Additional ideas are encouraged.
Response: Since it has been determined that the proposed building abuts Pine Street, a
modification request for this standard is included with the PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: As the building is over 40' in height, Section 3.5.1(G) 'Building Height Review"
applies. Please note the submittal requirements associated with this Code standard.
Response: A shadow analysis is included with the PDP submittal.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: A modification will be required for Land Use Code Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4)
"Frequent view/access- as the building wall along the river is 180' in length, whereas the Code
requires that the building not exceed 125'. In order to get as close to the "equal to or better
than" standard, staff suggests the following:
i. Roofline modifications to pull back the pitched roof from the recessed area (so the roof
over the entire recessed area would only be flat). Staff also wanted to note that a metal roof is
not a requirement in the code. Please see section 4.17(D)(3) for a discussion on the building
requirements. staff appreciates the revised elevation that has removed the pitched roof from
the recessed building area. Please note again that staff is not requiring a metal roof. One option
that has been brought to our attention is a rusted corrugated metal roof or a composite shingle
roof (though the rusted corrugated metal roof option would be less desirable if the dominant
material in the building was stone). Again, we are flexible on which roof materials are chosen;
we were more concerned with how the roof is articulated throughout the recessed area and the
current design achieves what we discussed in our last meeting.
ii. The landscaping in the recessed area (and extending out to the trail) should be significantly
different than the rest of the building; staff suggested that a heavier massing in this area versus
more clumping of landscaping outside of the recessed area as one option. Lindsay and Steve
can discuss this further with the projects landscape architects, as needed.
iii. Regarding the promenade, staff suggests that promenade does break off at the recessed
area to reinforce the separation of these building areas.
Response: A modification of this standard is included with the PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: Please note the Land Use Code requirements for the portions of the buildings that
face streets (Linden Street and Poudre Street) and how they must have street-facing facades
having at least one building entry or doorway (LUC 3.5.2(C)(2)); and, be oriented to a
connecting walkway (LUC 3.5.2(C)(1)).
Response: So noted.
Department: Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: In general staff is supportive of limiting the number of materials used on the
building. In other words, using the same material on the first three levels of the building is
preferred.
a. One option that has been suggested is to use all brick (except for the cementitious siding
on the top level), which would be more in character with the historic district. If this option were
pursued, we would strongly recommend using a darker, cooler-colored, separate brick type in
the recessed area, similar to what was originally proposed, to enhance the look of two
separate buildings.
b. As the applicant has suggested the use of veneer stone on the site, staff would like to
note that we could be supportive of using stone on the first three levels of the building,
depending on whether the right type of stone were selected. For example, real, native
sandstone could be appropriate, and patterns and details would be important in the historic
Downtown context.
c. Note that if you simplify the materials, you may be able to simplify the number of lintel
options currently proposed, which could save on project costs as well.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: Please note Section 3.2.2(C)(4) of the Land Use Code requiring bicycle parking at
the site.
Response: We have provided a bike rack at the south end of the building, near Poudre Place.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 04/05/2012
04/05/2012: All site lighting shall be fully-shielded and down directional. Please see Section
3.2.4 of the Land Use Code regarding lighting standards.
Response: See lighting plan submitted with PDP.
Contact: Steve Olt, 970-221-6341, solt@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
08/30/2011: What is proposed for the area within the 75' setback from Linden Street?
Response: This area will be sodded and irrigated with blue fescue in the interim until such time
that the area is platted and/or developed.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
08/30/2011: What is the status of Poudre Place? Is it a dedicated right-of-way for an alley or
street? It appears that it may have to become the only means of access to this development.
Response: Poudre Place is technically a platted street but the developer will be required to pave it
to alley standards only.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
08/30/2011: There are numerous Development Standards in Section 4.17(D) of the River
Downtown Redevelopment District in the Land Use Code that must be complied with, if
applicable. They deal with: 1) Transition between the River and Developments; 2) Street
Connections; 3) Buildings; and, 4) Site Design.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
08/30/2011: What is the base material for the first floor on the East Building Elevation, under the
arcade canopy? Is it the "stone veneer"?
Response: Yes, the first two floors have rock face stone veneer as the predominant material.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011
09/07/2011: The proposed multi-family residential project is a Type 1 land use in the RDR
District and is subject to an Administrative Review. A required Project Development Plan will
be evaluated against all applicable rules, regualtions and requirements set forth in the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code. Ultimately the development request must go to a Public Hearing
and the decision maker would be a Hearing Officer.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Susan Joy, 970-221-6603, sjoy@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building
permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions.
Response (The Birdsall Group): Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For
additional information on these fees, please see:
http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Response : This is a 100% affordable housing project and is therefore not required to pay
development review fees.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this
project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's
expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting
and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact
Transportation Planning for their requirements as well.
Response: Per our traffic engineer’s scoping meeting with Ward Stanford, a traffic memo is
included with the submittal.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for
this project.
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project
is finalized.
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on
the site.
Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
This project is responsible for the design and construction of all street frontages including the
alley.
Response (Northern Engineering): The PDP Utility Plans have included the improvements to the
public alley along with improvements adjacent to Pine Street. Improvements along Linden Street
appear to be complete per the recently completed Linden Street project.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/30/2011
Mark Laken with Capital projects (970-416-2907), is currently installing improvements on Linden
and a repay for this property will be due. The driveway is being installed 150’ center to center
from the alley. The proposed driveway shown with this development is probably not meeting
separation requirements from the alley and will need to be looked at. Suggest removing the
driveway and taking all access off the alley instead.
Response (Northern Engineering): The PDP submittal documents maintain the existing location of
the driveway as constructed with the Linden Street project.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site
is within 500 feet of a known natural habitat (Poudre River). The Environmental Assessment
provided by the applicant does not include key elements required by the Land Use Code that
would allow us to substitute this document for an ECS. While the City’s prescriptive buffer zone
standards do not apply in the RDR Zone, code does require that "the applicant shall establish,
preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of the
transition between development and the River" (See Division 4.17(D)(1) of the Land Use Code).
Upon receipt and review of the Ecological Characterization Study, staff will work with the
applicant to determine the width and nature of this continuous landscape buffer.
Response: An ECS was submitted.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: That said, staff recognizes the property is, at a minimum, 200' from the Poudre
River and that surrounding land uses hinder this site¿s ability to serve as a high quality wildlife
corridor. As an alternative, staff will accept a memo from a qualified consultant outlining habitat
values and constraints of the site and recommended mitigation/enhancement strategies in lieu
of an ECS for this site (please address the requirements in Section 3.4.1(D)1) of the Land Use
Code). Through this memo and conversations with your designers and ecological consultants,
staff is willing to consider working with your landscape architect to design this continuous buffer
with extensive native plantings to maximize this sites habitat potential as redevelopment
surrounding the site occurs. Please see the Citys Native Plant Guide at
http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/native-plants.php. These plantings should correspond to the
site design requirements outlined in Section 4.17(D) of the RDR District, specifically the
clustering of buildings to form outdoor spaces that relate to the river.
Response: The landscape treatment along the river buffer is in accordance with the ECS.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: Within the determined buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has
the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the
purposes of the buffer zone. Please ensure that your ECS memo discusses the existing
vegetation and identifies potential restoration options. If it is determined to be insufficient, then
restoration and mitigation measures will be required.
Response: The landscape treatment along the river buffer is in accordance with the ECS.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: Also, please note that Section 3.4.1(I) requires that the overall design of the
project take into consideration design and aesthetics in relationship to the Poudre River.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)
(6) requires that “natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from
off-site sources.” Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over
to the buffer areas.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to
submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a
significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or
more. If trees within the site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall
be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221-6361) to determine the status of the
existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed
development.
Response: A site meeting was held with the City Forester and tree removal and mitigation is
indicated on the landscape plan and the demolition plan provided by Northern Engineering.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in
Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or
re-landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Reveille Bluegrass is one
option for having bluegrass lawns and using less water.
Response: We are using a tall fescue blend, which use less water.
Contact: Matt Zoccali, 970-416-2283, mzoccali
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: As per the letter dated September 6, 2010, it is important to note that excavation in
this area may require notification to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) and should be conducted using reasonable precautions to ascertain, identify and
properly manage any regulated or hazardous materials encountered. Planning for management
of hazardous materials and project safety is advisable and may be required, depending upon
the condition of the property. Contact Matt Zoccali for more information at 970.224.6008 or
mzoccali@fcgov.com
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: Work must be planned and completed in a manner that will ensure development
project activities will not adversely impact the Removal Action Remedies on the site, or change
and/or create any preferential pathway for the NAPL plume.
Response: So noted.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: Air monitoring for methane and other airborne contaminates is strongly
recommended during intrusive excavation and trenching activities for work on or adjacent to
site.
Response: So noted.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated as Fort Collins
Landmarks, as well as on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register
of Historic Properties. Therefore the project would be reviewed for compliance with LUC
Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources.
LUC 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states: This section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent
feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the
proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the
historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic
property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and
any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood.
LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard, states: If the project contains a site, structure or object that is
[designated or individually eligible for designation] then to the maximum extent feasible, the
development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of
the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the
historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively
used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site
and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic
character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.
LUC Division 5.1, Definitions, provides the definition of Maximum Extent Feasible: Maximum
extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible
efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been
undertaken.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
The applicant is encouraged to take advantage of a Complimentary Review with the Landmark
Preservation Commission very early in the project. This may be arranged by contacting staff.
Response: A complimentary review was held.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
The height, massing, (lack of) articulation and materials are all items that will affect the buildings'
compatibility to their historic surroundings. Height will be an issue, as will massing.
Response: See building elevations.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: The City's Historic Preservation Office is in the process of reviewing and
commenting on the Cultural Resources section of the EA, under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. The City's review is separate and independent of SHPO's review,
and the conclusions may differ.
Response: So noted.
Department: PFA
Contact: Carie Dann, 970-219-5337, CDANN@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES
Poudre Fire Authority charges a fee for submitted development review plans. Cost for this
review is $250. For more information, contact Hayley Spurrier at hspurrier@poudre-fire.org.
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011:
RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS
An automatic sprinkler system installed in occupancies in accordance with Section 903.3 shall
be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R (Residential) fire area. (Exceptions:
Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhomes) not
more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress). 2006
International Fire Code 903.2.7 and 2006 International Building Code 101.2.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: FIRE STANDPIPE SYSTEM
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with
Section 905 of the 2006 International Fire Code. Approved standpipe systems shall be installed
throughout buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet
above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, or where the floor level of the lowest
story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of fire department vehicle access.
The standpipe system shall be capable of supplying at minimum of 100 psi to the top habitable
floor; an approved fire pump may be required to achieve this minimum pressure.
2006 International Fire Code Sections 905 and 913
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: FIRE LINE REQUIREMENT
Buildings that are required to be fire sprinklered shall have a minimum 6-inch fire line unless
hydraulic calculations can support a smaller fire line. NFPA 13 (2007) 23.1.3
Response (Northern Engineering): A 6-inch fire sprinkler line has been provided on the PDP Utility
Plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: KEY BOXES REQUIRED
Poudre Fire Authority requires at least one key box (“Knox Box”) to be mounted in approved
location(s) on every new building equipped a required fire-sprinkler system or fire-alarm
system. 2006 International Fire Code 506.1; PFA BUREAU POLICY 88-20
Response: So noted.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
Fire department connections shall be installed remote from the buildings, and located on the
street or fire lane side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest
point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official.
2006 International Fire Code 912.2 and PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Policy
Response (Northern Engineering): FDC locations will be provided with Final Compliance
documents.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having
jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum
requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include:
• Commercial and multi-family residential structures with three or more units, 1,500 gpm at 20
psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers
thereafter
• Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not
further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter
• Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not
further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter
Distance is measured as a hose would lay out from a fire engine, not necessarily in a direct
line.
A hydrant located across an arterial street cannot be “counted” unless the structure is equipped
with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system.
These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler
systems.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Response (Northern Engineering): An additional fire hydrant has been added to the proposed site
and is shown on the PDP Utility Plans per communications with Ron Gonzalez.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: REQUIRED ACCESS
Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the PFA’s jurisdiction when any portion of
the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than
150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained
unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In
addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire
lane must meet the following general requirements:
¿ Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of
supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire
lanes or at construction sites.
¿ Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable.
¿ Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
¿ Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (30 feet
on at least one long side of the building when the structures is three or more stories in height).
If the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire-sprinkler system, the fire
code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet.
2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1, 503.2.3, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D
Response (Northern Engineering): A fire lane and appropriate emergency access easement have
been included within the PDP Utility Plans and Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: TURNING RADII
The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside
and 50 feet outside 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.4 and Appendix D103.3
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM
Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio
amplification systems shall be installed in the following locations:
1. New buildings greater than 50,000 SF in size or addition(s) to an existing building that
cause the building to be greater than 50,000 SF. For the purpose of this section, fire walls shall
not be used to define separate buildings.
2. All new basements greater than 10,000 SF where the designed occupant load is greater
than 50, regardless of the occupancy classification.
3. Existing buildings meeting the criteria of Items 1 and 2 of this section undergoing alterations
exceeding 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building.
Public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with
criteria established by Poudre Fire Authority.
PFA Fire Prevention Bureau Administrative Policy 07-01
Response: So noted.
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: ADDRESSING:
numerals must be visible from the street on which you front, with a minimum of 6 inch numerals.
Response: So noted.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: No comments.
Response: Thank you.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: The north arrow on all Site, Landscape, Utility & Floor Plans is pointing in the
wrong direction.
Response: Corrected.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: The Site Landscape Plan has the same sheet number (C1.1) as the Site Layout
Plan.
Response: Corrected.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: The Site Plan will need to have a legal description of the property added.
Response: Legal Description added.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/31/2011
08/31/2011: The Site Layout Plan has the same sheet number (C1.1) as the Site Landscape
Plan.
Response: Corrected.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011
09/07/2011: Traffic Operations would encourage the applicant to have both accesses come
from Poudre Place instead of the south access coming from Linden St adjacent to Poudre
Place.
Response: The access to Linden ties into the existing curb cut recently constructed by the City
with the Linden Street improvements.
Department: Transportation Planning
Contact: Matt Wempe, 970-416-2040, mwempe@fcgov.com
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011
09/07/2011: There are currently no pedestrian or bicycle connections to Linden Street, Pine
Street, or the Poudre River Trail. The LOS analysis will likely show that all of these connections
are required in a downtown atmosphere. These connections must be safe and direct, ideally
linking into the streetscape.
Response: The current site plan shows sidewalk connections to the Poudre Trail, Linden Street
and Pine Street.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011
09/07/2011: Where will bike parking be located? This includes both short-term visitor and
long-term resident bike parking. The ideal location is on a hard surface, well-lit, near the main
entrance, protected from the elements, and secure. Both outdoor and indoor bike parking can
be included. Please contact Aaron Iverson to discuss any specific questions or ideas you
might have.
Response: Bike racks are located at the south end of the building, near Poudre Place.
Topic: Traffic Impact Study
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 09/07/2011
09/07/2011: A bicycle and pedestrian level of service analysis must be completed as part of
the traffic impact study. Please call Aaron Iverson, 416.2643 or aiverson@fcgov.com for
scoping.
Response: Bike and peds are addressed in the traffic memo.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers include a 12-inch water main and an
8-inch sewer in Linden, a 6-inch water main and a 21-inch sewer in Pine and an 8-inch sewer in
Poudre Street.
Response (Northern Engineering): The PDP Utility Plans shows connection to the 12-inch water
main in Linden Street for water and the 8-inch main in Poudre Street for sanitary sewer.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: Any water or sewer lines extending to the site must be used or abandoned at the
main.
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: Any connection(s) to the 21-inch sewer in Pine must be made at a manhole.
Response (Northern Engineering): At this time a connection to the 21-inch main is not being
proposed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply.
Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards
Response: Hydrozones for landscape beds are indicated on the PDP Landscape Plan.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/29/2011
08/29/2011: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit.
Response (Northern Engineering): Noted.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: Proposed use is classified as multi-family. This use is subject to a Type 1 hearing
officer review.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: This is in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. Therefore, there is no
minimum number of parking spaces required to be provided.
Response: So noted, 51 off-street parking spaces are provided.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: 6% of the interior of the parking lot must be landscape islands. The parking row
along Poudre Place must have a minimum 10' landscape setback area from the street right of
way line per Sec. 3.2.2(J) of the LUC. No parking lot setback dimension is shown on the plan,
but it is less than a 10' setback. If Poudre Place is not a street, then the required landscape
setback is 5' from the lot line.
Response: So noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: Perimiter parking lot landscaping must comply with Sec. 3.2.1(E)(4).
Response: So noted.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: Buildings up to 5 stories are allowed, but per Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) of the Land
Use Code, "buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to 3 stories or less abutting any
street frontage". Portions of the building along Pine and Poudre Place need to step down to
comply (assuming these are streets) The building is set back quite a distance from Linden
street, so staff will need to determine if the building is actually "abutting" the street or not. If it is,
then the modifications to the building would be necessary to comply with the massing and
placement standard.
Response: Since it has been determined that the proposed building abuts Pine Street, a
modification request for this standard is included with the PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: Parking is not allowed in front of the building per Sec. 4.17(D)(3)(c)(2) of the LUC.
The intent is that the parking can't be located closer to a street than the building setback from
the street.
Response: See PDP Site Plan; parking has been removed.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/26/2011
08/26/2011: No more than 15 parking spaces in a row are allowed without an intervening tree,
landscape island or landscape peninsula (Sec. 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the LUC.
Response: Landscape island has been added.
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES
Fort Collins, Colorado
April 30, 2012
Prepared for:
Cornerstone Associates, LLC
209 South 19th St, Suite 600
Omaha, NE 68102
Prepared by:
200 South College Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Phone: 970.221.4158 Fax: 970.221.4159
www.northernengineering.com
Project Number: 683-001
3 This Drainage Report is consciously provided as a PDF.
Please consider the environment before printing this document in its entirety.
When a hard copy is absolutely necessary, we recommend double-sided printing.
April 30, 2012
City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility
700 Wood Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
RE: Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES
Dear Staff:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report
for your review. This report accompanies the 04.30.12 Project Development Plan submittal for
the proposed Legacy Senior Residences development.
This report has been prepared in accordance to Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (FCSCM),
and serves to document the stormwater impacts associated with the proposed project. We
understand that review by the City is to assure general compliance with standardized criteria
contained in the FCSCM.
If you should have any questions as you review this report, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
Aaron Cvar, PE Kevin R. Brazleton, PE
Project Engineer Project Engineer
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 1
A. Location ....................................................................................................................................... 1
B. Description of Property ................................................................................................................ 1
C. Floodplain .................................................................................................................................... 3
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS ....................................................................... 4
A. Major Basin Description ............................................................................................................... 4
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................... 5
A. Regulations .................................................................................................................................. 5
B. Four Step Process ........................................................................................................................ 5
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ......................................................................... 6
D. Hydrological Criteria .................................................................................................................... 6
E. Hydraulic Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
F. Floodplain Regulations Compliance .............................................................................................. 7
G. Modifications of Criteria .............................................................................................................. 7
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN .................................................................................... 7
A. General Concept .......................................................................................................................... 7
B. Specific Details ............................................................................................................................. 8
V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 9
A. Compliance with Standards .......................................................................................................... 9
B. Drainage Concept ........................................................................................................................ 9
References ....................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A – Hydrologic Computations
APPENDIX B – Hydraulic Computations
B.1 – Storm Sewers (reserved for future use)
B.2 – Inlets (reserved for future use)
APPENDIX C – Water Quality Design Computations
APPENDIX D – Offsite Basins Exhibit
APPENDIX E – Erosion Control Report
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES:
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains ............................................................................................. 4
Table 1 – Water Quality Pond Summary ................................................................................. 9
MAP POCKET:
C500 - Drainage Exhibit
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 1
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Location
1. Vicinity Map
2. The project site is located in the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 7 North,
Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer,
State of Colorado.
3. The project site is located on the west side of Linden Street, the north side of Poudre
Street. The Cache La Poudre River runs just to the north of the project site.
4. The project site lies within the Downtown River District study area (Ayres, 2012), and
is located within Basin 114. This basin has a master planned outfall directly to the
Cache La Poudre river, which runs just north of the project site. Due to the project
site proximity to the river, no detention is required for onsite runoff.
5. Downtown development exists to the south and east of the site. The Aztlan
Community Center exists to the west of the project site.
B. Description of Property
1. The subject property is approximately 1.97 net acres.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 2
Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph
2. The subject property currently consists of open area. The ground cover generally
consists of gravel and some native seeding. Existing ground slopes are rather gentle
throughout (i.e., 2±%). General topography slopes from southwest to the northeast
towards the Cache La Poudre River.
3. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, the site consists of Paoli fine sandy loam,
which falls into Hydrologic Soil Group B. More site-specific exploration found varying
materials including sandy clay with occasional sand layers and sandy gravel. See the
Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon Consultants, Inc. for additional
information.
4. The proposed project will develop the majority of the existing site, constructing a
senior housing center. Parking areas and associated utilities will be constructed. A
water quality pond will be constructed at the northeast corner of the site.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 3
Figure 2– Proposed Site Plan
5. There are no irrigation ditches or related facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
6. The proposed land use is senior housing.
C. Floodplain
1. The subject property is not located in either a FEMA regulatory or City of Fort Collins
designated floodplain. The proposed outfall for the water quality pond is located
outside of the property boundary and lies within the Cache La Poudre 100-year
floodplain.
2. FEMA places the subject property within the Zone X Flood Hazard Area, which
constitutes an area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 4
Figure 3 – Existing Floodplains
3. The Cache La Poudre 100-year and 500-year floodplain exist to the northeast of the
project site. FEMA FIRM Panel Number 979 for Larimer County, Dated June 17,
2008 are referenced in this study.
4. The base (100-year) flood elevation in the vicinity of the proposed structure is
4954.8, which is referenced to the City of Fort Collins NGVD 29.
5. The proposed structure is located outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.
6. The Cache La Poudre half-foot floodway is located outside of the property boundary.
No fill is proposed within the half-foot floodway for construction of the offsite pond
outfall pipe.
7. It is noted that the vertical datum utilized for site survey work is the City of Fort
Collins Benchmark #4-00 (Elevation=4960.55, Ft. Collins NGVD 29).
8. A floodplain use permit will be required for the offsite pond outfall pipe within the
floodplain.
II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS
A. Major Basin Description
1. The project site is located within the Downtown River District study area (Ayres,
2012), and is located within Basin 114Sub-Basin Description
2. The subject property historically drains overland towards the Cache La Poudre River,
which runs northeast of the site. A more detailed description of the project drainage
patterns follows in Section IV.A.4., below.
3. Developed areas to the southwest of the site historically drain through the project site.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 5
These off-site drainage flows and patterns will be maintained and accounted for with
the proposed development.
III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Regulations
There are no optional provisions outside of the FCSCM proposed with the proposed
project.
B. Four Step Process
The overall stormwater management strategy employed with the proposed project utilizes
the “Four Step Process” to minimize adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters.
The following is a description of how the proposed development has incorporated each
step.
Step 1 – Employ Runoff Reduction Practices
Several techniques have been utilized with the proposed development to facilitate the
reduction of runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads as the site is developed from the
current use as athletic facilities by implementing multiple Low Impact Development (LID)
strategies including:
Conserving existing amenities in the site including the existing vegetated areas and
large trees around the perimeter of the site, particularly the north edge of the site
adjacent to East Drake Road.
Providing large vegetated open areas throughout the site to reduce the overall
impervious area and to minimize directly connected impervious areas (MDCIA).
Routing flows, to the extent feasible, through vegetated swales to increase time of
concentration, promote infiltration and provide initial water quality.
Step 2 – Implement BMPs That Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) with
Slow Release
The efforts taken in Step 1 will facilitate the reduction of runoff; however, urban
development of this intensity will still generate stormwater runoff that will require
additional BMPs and water quality. All stormwater runoff from the site will ultimately be
routed to the northeast corner of the site, where it is intercepted and treated in the main
water quality pond prior to exiting the site.
Step 3 – Stabilize Drainageways
There are no major drainageways in the subject property. While this step may not seem
applicable to proposed development, the project indirectly helps achieve stabilized
drainageways nonetheless. By providing water quality where none previously existed,
sediment with erosion potential is removed from the downstream drainageway systems.
Furthermore, this project will pay one-time stormwater development fees, as well as
ongoing monthly stormwater utility fees, both of which help achieve City-wide drainageway
stability.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 6
Step 4 – Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs.
The proposed project includes a senior housing center which will require the need for site
specific source controls including:
Several localized trash enclosures throughout the site for the disposal of household
waste.
C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
The subject property is essentially an "in-fill" development project as the property is
surrounded by currently developed properties. As such, several constraints have been
identified during the course of this analysis that will impact the proposed drainage
system including:
Existing elevations along the east and south property lines adjacent to existing
residential properties will be maintained.
Existing elevations and vegetation on the north side of the subject property will be
preserved.
Except where prohibited, grades along the existing private drive on the west side of
the subject property will be maintained.
As previously mentioned, overall drainage patterns of the existing site will be
maintained.
Elevations of existing downstream facilities that the subject property will release to
will be maintained.
D. Hydrological Criteria
1. The City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves, as depicted in
Figure RA-16 of the FCSCM, serve as the source for all hydrologic computations
associated with the proposed development. Tabulated data contained in Table RA-7
has been utilized for Rational Method runoff calculations.
2. The Rational Method has been employed to compute stormwater runoff utilizing
coefficients contained in Tables RO-11 and RO-12 of the FCSCM.
3. Three separate design storms have been utilized to address distinct drainage
scenarios. A fourth design storm has also been computed for comparison purposes.
The first design storm considered is the 80th percentile rain event, which has been
employed to design the project’s water quality features. The second event analyzed is
the “Minor,” or “Initial” Storm, which has a 2-year recurrence interval. The third
event considered is the “Major Storm,” which has a 100-year recurrence interval.
The fourth storm computed, for comparison purposes only, is the 10-year event.
4. No other assumptions or calculation methods have been used with this development
that are not referenced by current City of Fort Collins criteria.
E. Hydraulic Criteria
1. As previously noted, the subject property maintains historic drainage patterns.
2. All drainage facilities proposed with the project are designed in accordance with
criteria outlined in the FCSCM and/or the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
(UDFCD) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
3. As stated above the subject property is not located in either a FEMA regulatory or a
City of Fort Collins designated floodplain.
4. The proposed project does not propose to modify any natural drainageways.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 7
F. Floodplain Regulations Compliance
1. As previously mentioned, this project is not subject to any floodplain regulations.
However, extra care has been taken to ensure that neither existing nor proposed
structures will suffer damage during the 100-year storm as a result of the proposed
development.
G. Modifications of Criteria
1. The proposed development is not requesting any modifications to criteria at this time.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
A. General Concept
1. The main objectives of the project drainage design are to maintain existing drainage
patterns, ensure no adverse impacts to any adjacent properties, and to maintain the
drainage concepts as outlined in the Downtown River District study (Ayres, 2012).
2. Developed areas to the southwest of the site historically drain through the project site.
These off-site drainage flows and patterns will be maintained and accounted for with
the proposed development.
3. A list of tables and figures used within this report can be found in the Table of
Contents at the front of the document. The tables and figures are located within the
sections to which the content best applies.
4. The drainage patterns anticipated for proposed drainage basins are described below.
Basin 1
Basin 1 consists of landscaped area to the rear of the proposed building and a portion
of the rooftop. The basin drains west and north into a proposed swale running along
the west side of the proposed building. The proposed swale drains to an existing
swale located to the north of the building. The existing swale drains north to the
Cache La Poudre River.
Basin 2
Basin 2 consists entirely of the rooftop of the proposed building. The basin drains into
a roof drain system to the front and rear of the building. The roof drain system drains
into the water quality pond at the northeast corner of the site.
Basin 3
Basin 3 consists mainly of the proposed parking area and the proposed water quality
pond. The basin drains via surface flow into the proposed water quality pond at the
northeast corner of the site.
The area in the southeast corner of this basin will only be graded and seeded with the
current development. In the future, it is anticipated that this area may be developed.
All runoff and water quality calculations assume a 95% imperviousness for this area to
ensure future use of the area will not be encumbered.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 8
Basin 4
Basin 4 consists mainly of the proposed parking area. The basin drains into a storm
drain system which drains into the proposed water quality pond at the northeast
corner of the site.
Basin 5
Basin 5 consists of a concrete drive and landscaped area to the south of the building.
The basin drains via surface flow into Poudre Street. A sidewalk chase will capture
the flows from this small basin and direct flows into the proposed swale running along
the west side of the proposed building. The proposed swale drains to an existing swale
located to the north of the proposed building. The existing swale drains north to the
Cache La Poudre River.
Basin 6
Basin 6 consists of landscaped area. The basin drains via surface sheet flow into the
Cache La Poudre River.
Basin OS1
Basin OS1 consists of developed areas to the south of the project site. Runoff from
this basin will follow existing drainage patterns, as stormwater from this basin will be
directed via the proposed swale into the existing swale to the north of the proposed
building. This existing swale is the historic concentration point for flows from this
offsite basin.
Basin OS2
Basin OS2 consists of developed areas to the south of the project site. Runoff from
this basin will be directed via surface flow into the proposed water quality pond at the
northeast corner of the site. Offsite runoff will then be captured in the outlet pipe for
the proposed water quality pond, and be directed into the Cache La Poudre River.
A full-size copy of the Drainage Exhibit can be found in the Map Pocket at the end of
this report.
B. Specific Details
1. Water quality treatment is being provided for the proposed development in the form of
extended detention as previously described. Further documentation of treatment
volumes and removal rates of stormwater BMPs will be documented with the Final
Drainage Report prepared during the City FCP process.
Final design details, construction documentation, and Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) Manual shall be provided to the City of Fort Collins for
review prior to Final Development Plan approval. A final copy of the approved
SOP manual shall be provided to City and must be maintained on-site by the
entity responsible for the facility maintenance. Annual reports must also be
prepared and submitted to the City discussing the results of the maintenance
program (i.e. inspection dates, inspection frequency, volume loss due to
sedimentation, corrective actions taken, etc.).
2. Table 1, below, summarizes the water quality information for the proposed water
quality pond.
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 9
Table 1 – Water Quality Pond Summary
Water Quality Water Quality
Pond
Spillway Top of Pond
Capture Volume WSEL Elevation Elevation
(AC-FT) (FT) (FT) (FT)
0.047 4959.20 4960.00 4960.15
3. Proper maintenance of the drainage facilities designed with the proposed
development is a critical component of their ongoing performance and effectiveness.
The water quality pond may be easily accessed by maintenance staff via the gentle
slope provided to the bottom of the pond from the south side.
4. The drainage features associated with the proposed project are all private facilities,
located on private property with the exception of the water quality pond outfall pipe.
The outfall pipe is located within Aztlan Community Center property. A drainage
easement will be dedicated for said outfall pipe to ensure that the stormwater
conveyance outfall line is protected.
5. The proposed outfall pipe will require some form of a riprap rundown to the Cache La
Poudre River. There are no other facilities or upgrades needed off-site in order to
accommodate the developed runoff from the proposed development.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Compliance with Standards
1. The drainage design proposed with the proposed project complies with the City of Fort
Collins’ Stormwater Criteria Manual.
2. The drainage design proposed with this project complies with the Downtown River
District Final Design Report (Ayres, 2012).
3. There are no regulatory floodplains within the proposed development.
4. The drainage plan and stormwater management measures proposed with the
proposed development are compliant with all applicable State and Federal regulations
governing stormwater discharge.
5. The proposed development is in compliance with Chapter 10 of City Code.
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design proposed with this project will effectively limit any potential
damage associated with its stormwater runoff by providing an extended detention
water quality pond.
2. The drainage concept for the proposed development is consistent with the Downtown
River District Final Design Report (Ayres, 2012).
Legacy Senior Residences
Preliminary Drainage Report 10
References
1. City of Fort Collins Landscape Design Guidelines for Stormwater and Detention Facilities,
November 5, 2009, BHA Design, Inc. with City of Fort Collins Utility Services.
2. Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, as adopted by Ordinance No.
174, 2011, and referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code.
3. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Adopted January 2, 2001, Repealed and
Reenacted, Effective October 1, 2002, Repealed and Reenacted, Effective April 1, 2007.
4. Soils Resource Report for Larimer County Area, Colorado, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
5. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volumes 1-3, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, Denver, Colorado, Revised April 2008.
6. Downtown River District Final Design Report, February 2012, Ayres Associates.
7. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Keifer Concrete Storage Yard, February 1, 2011, Terracon
Consultants, Inc.
APPENDIX A
HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS
CHARACTER OF SURFACE: Runoff
Coefficient
Percentage
Impervious Project: 683-001
Streets, Parking Lots, Roofs, Alleys, and Drives: Calculations By: ATC
Asphalt ……....……………...……….....…...……………….………………………………… 0.95 100% Date:
Concrete …….......……………….….……….………………..….…………………………… 0.95 90%
Gravel ……….…………………….….…………………………..…………………………… 0.50 40%
Roofs …….…….………………..……………….…………………………………………… 0.95 90%
Pavers…………………………...………………..…………………………………………… 0.40 22%
Lawns and Landscaping
Sandy Soil ……..……………..……………….…………………………………………….. 0.15 0%
Clayey Soil ….….………….…….…………..………………………………………………. 0.25 0% 2-year Cf
= 1.00 100-year Cf = 1.25
Basin ID Basin Area
(s.f.)
Basin Area
(ac)
Area of
Asphalt
(ac)
Area of
Concrete
(ac)
Area of
Roofs
(ac)
Area of
Gravel
(ac)
Area of
Lawns and
Landscaping
(ac)
2-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
10-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
100-year
Composite
Runoff
Coefficient
Composite
% Imperv.
1 14612 0.335 0.000 0.080 0.029 0.000 0.227 0.48 0.48 0.60 29%
2 17857 0.410 0.000 0.000 0.410 0.000 0.000 0.95 0.95 1.00 90%
3 27892 0.640 0.447 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.76 0.76 0.96 73%
4 23429 0.538 0.447 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.88 0.88 1.00 90%
5 1549 0.036 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.68 0.68 0.85 55%
6 658 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.25 0.25 0.31 0%
Overall to Pond
(Basin 2-4) 69178 1.588 0.895 0.062 0.410 0.000 0.221 0.85 0.85 1.00 83%
OS1 5408 0.124 Utilized 95% imperviousness for offsite basins OS1 and OS2 per the 0.95 0.95 1.00 95%
OS2 56991 1.308 Downtown River District master drainage study (Ayres, 2012) 0.95 0.95 1.00 95%
DEVELOPED COMPOSITE % IMPERVIOUSNESS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
Runoff Coefficients are taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, Table 3-3. % Impervious taken from UDFCD USDCM, Volume I.
Overland Flow, Time of Concentration:
Project: 683-001
Calculations By:
Date:
Gutter/Swale Flow, Time of Concentration:
Tt = L / 60V
Tc = Ti + Tt (Equation RO-2)
Velocity (Gutter Flow), V = 20·S½
Velocity (Swale Flow), V = 15·S½
NOTE: C-value for overland flows over grassy surfaces; C = 0.25
Is
Length
>500' ?
C*Cf
(2-yr
Cf=1.00)
C*Cf
(10-yr
Cf=1.00)
C*Cf
(100-yr
Cf=1.25)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Ti
2-yr
(min)
Ti
10-yr
(min)
Ti
100-yr
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
Length,
L
(ft)
Slope,
S
(%)
Velocity,
V
(ft/s)
Tt
(min)
2-yr
Rational Method Equation: Project: 683-001
Calculations By:
Date:
From Section 3.2.1 of the CFCSDDC
Rainfall Intensity:
1 1 0.34 6 6 6 0.48 0.48 0.60 2.67 4.56 9.31 0.4 0.7 1.9
2 2 0.41 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.1 1.9 4.1
3 3 0.64 14 14 13 0.76 0.76 0.96 1.95 3.34 7.04 1.0 1.6 4.3
4 4 0.54 5 5 5 0.88 0.88 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 1.4 2.3 5.4
5 5 0.04 5 5 5 0.68 0.68 0.85 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.1 0.1 0.3
6 6 0.02 5 5 5 0.25 0.25 0.31 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.01 0.02 0.05
3
Overall to Pond
(Basin 2-4) 1.59 14 14 13 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.95 3.34 7.04 2.6 4.5 11.2
OS1 OS1 0.12 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 0.3 0.6 1.2
OS2 OS2 1.31 5 5 5 0.95 0.95 1.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 3.5 6.1 13.0
DEVELOPED RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
C100
Design
Point
Flow,
Q100
(cfs)
Flow,
Q2
(cfs)
10-yr
Tc
(min)
2-yr
Tc
(min)
C2
Flow,
Q10
(cfs)
Intensity,
i100
(in/hr)
Basin(s)
ATC
4/23/12
Intensity,
i10
(in/hr)
Rainfall Intensity taken from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria (CFCSDDC), Figure 3.1
C10
Area, A
(acres)
Intensity,
i2
(in/hr)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
Q C f C i A
APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS
B.1 – Storm Sewers (reserved for future
use)
B.2 – Inlets (reserved for future use)
APPENDIX B.1
STORM SEWERS (reserved for future use)
APPENDIX B.2
INLETS (reserved for future use)
APPENDIX C
WATER QUALITY DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
WATER QUALITY POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Water Quality Pond
Project: 683-001
By: ATC
Date: 4.26.12
REQUIRED STORAGE & OUTLET WORKS:
BASIN AREA = 1.960 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENT = 73.00 <-- INPUT from impervious calcs
BASIN IMPERVIOUSNESS RATIO = 0.7300 <-- CALCULATED
WQCV (watershed inches) = 0.289 <-- CALCULATED from Figure EDB-2
WQCV (ac-ft) = 0.047 <-- CALCULATED from UDFCD DCM V.3 Section 6.5
WQ Depth (ft) = ** <-- INPUT from stage-storage table
AREA REQUIRED PER ROW, a (in2) = ** <-- CALCULATED from Figure EDB-3
CIRCULAR PERFORATION SIZING:
dia (in) = ** <-- INPUT from Figure 5
n = ** <-- INPUT from Figure 5
t (in) = ** <-- INPUT from Figure 5
number of rows = ** <-- CALCULATED from WQ Depth and row spacing
**To be completed at final design
WATER QUALITY POND STAGE STORAGE TABLE
Project: 683‐001
Date: 4/26/12
By: ATC
ELEV AREA CONIC CONIC CONIC
INC. VOL. TOTAL VOL. TOTAL VOL.
(FT) (SF) (CF) (CF) (AC‐FT)
4958 63 0 0 0.000
4958.2 542 53 53 0.001
4958.4 1190 169 1243 0.029
4958.6 2037 319 3280 0.075
4958.8 2661 469 5941 0.136
4959 2882 554 8823 0.203
4959.2 3065 594 11888 0.273
4959.4 3258 632 15146 0.348
4959.6 3460 672 18606 0.427
4959 4959.8 3668 712 22274 0 0.511
4960 3927 759 26201 0.601
APPENDIX D
OFFSITE BASINS EXHIBIT
APPENDIX E
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
Regency Lakeview
Preliminary Erosion Control Report
EROSION CONTROL REPORT
A comprehensive Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (along with associated details) will be included
with the final construction drawings. It should be noted, however, that any such Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan serves only as a general guide to the Contractor. Staging and/or phasing of
the BMPs depicted, and additional or different BMPs from those included may be necessary during
construction, or as required by the authorities having jurisdiction.
It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure erosion control measures are properly
maintained and followed. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is intended to be a living
document, constantly adapting to site conditions and needs. The Contractor shall update the
location of BMPs as they are installed, removed or modified in conjunction with construction
activities. It is imperative to appropriately reflect the current site conditions at all times.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall address both temporary measures to be implemented
during construction, as well as permanent erosion control protection. Best Management Practices
from the Volume 3, Chapter 7 – Construction BMPs will be utilized. Measures may include, but are
not limited to, silt fencing along the disturbed perimeter, gutter protection in the adjacent roadways
and inlet protection at existing and proposed storm inlets. Vehicle tracking control pads, spill
containment and clean-up procedures, designated concrete washout areas, dumpsters, and job site
restrooms shall also be provided by the Contractor.
Grading and Erosion Control Notes can be found on the Utility Plans. The Final Plans will contain a
full-size Erosion Control sheet as well as a separate sheet dedicated to Erosion Control Details. In
addition to this report and the referenced plan sheets, the Contractor shall be aware of, and adhere
to, the applicable requirements outlined in the Development Agreement for the development. Also,
the Site Contractor for this project will be required to secure a Stormwater Construction General
Permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Water Quality
Control Division – Stormwater Program, prior to any earth disturbance activities. Prior to securing
said permit, the Site Contractor shall develop a comprehensive StormWater Management Plan
(SWMP) pursuant to CDPHE requirements and guidelines. The SWMP will further describe and
document the ongoing activities, inspections, and maintenance of construction BMPs.
RegencyLakeview
PreliminaryErosionControlReport
MAP POCKET
C500 – DRAINAGE EXHIBIT
1
Last edited : 3/23/07 Appendix E-4
Appendix E-4
City of Fort Collins
Requirements for Utility Plans
Project Name: ___________________________________
Project Planner: _______________________________________
Design Engineering Firm: _______________________________________
Developer: _______________________________________
All applications for final development plans must include final development plan documents (“Utility
Plans”). The standards for these Utility Plans are set forth in Division 3.3 of the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code, these Standards, and as further noted in this appendix.
THIS LIST PROVIDES THE DESIGN ENGINEER INFORMATION TO HELP HIM/HER DETERMINE
WHAT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXPECTS TO SEE ON DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THIS LIST IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ALL-INCLUSIVE AND SHALL
NOT, IN ANY WAY, OVERRIDE OR SUPERCEDE THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE AND/OR THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET
STANDARDS MANUAL. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED ON SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNS AND IS NOT INTENDED TO RELIEVE THE DESIGN ENGINEER OF THEIR OBLIGATION
TO UTILIZE GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES.
PLEASE NOTE: All items with an arrow (Ź) are items required prior to public hearing. All
items without an arrow will be required during final compliance.
The two “check list” columns to the left of the Utility Plan requirements below are provided for the convenience of both
City staff and the Developer’s Engineer. The columns are organized as follows:
(1) The first column, “Applicant Validation,” is provided as a check list for the applicant to ensure that all
required items are addressed within the Utility Plans.
(2) Upon submittal, City staff will check off the items in the second column to ensure that all the required
items are included within the Utility Plans.
Legacy Senior Housing
The Birdsall Group - Cathy Mathis
Northern Engineering - Randall Provencio
Cornerstone Associates, LLC
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 2 Appendix E-4
I. Cover Sheet
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Preamble title of “Utility Plans For…”
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Legal description below the project name
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Vicinity map including project location, nearest two Arterial
Streets, existing street system, street names for collector
and Arterial Streets, City limit lines, north arrow and major
public facilities
______ ______ ______ D. Ź Index to all sheets contained within the Utility Plan placed
on right side of sheet.
______ ______ ______ E. The current date (month and year) under the legal
description
______ ______ ______ F. General Construction Notes, and if applicable, CDOT
General Construction Notes (see attached Appendix E-2)
placed on left side of sheet
______ ______ ______ G. Ź Project Bench Marks referencing the City of Fort Collins’
datum
______ ______ ______ H. Reference to the updated or current soils investigation
report
______ ______ ______ I. Stamp and signature of a licensed Civil Engineer
registered in the State of Colorado (on approved final
development plan documents) in accordance with State
Statutes and Board Rules.
______ ______ ______ J. The following statement is annotated on the Cover Sheet:
I hereby affirm that these final construction plans were
prepared under my direct supervision, in accordance with
all applicable City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado
standards and statutes, respectively; and that I am fully
responsible for the accuracy of all design, revisions, and
record conditions that I have noted on these plans.
______ ______ ______ K. Ź Typical street section(s) provided for each street type
being proposed. Sections include appropriate horizontal
and vertical dimensions and cross slopes, type of curb and
gutter and any deviations from standards. See Figures 7-
1F thru 7-13F. (These sections may also be located on
the plan/profile sheets or a separate sheet within the utility
plan set.)
______ ______ ______ L. The names, addresses, phone numbers for the
Developer(s), Owner(s), and Consultant Engineer are
provided.
______ ______ ______ M. Indemnification Statement provided and annotated as
follows:
These plans have been reviewed by the Local Entity for
concept only. The review does not imply responsibility by
the reviewing department, the Local Entity Engineer, or
the Local Entity for accuracy and correctness of the
calculations. Furthermore, the review does not imply that
quantities of items on the plans are the final quantities
required. The review shall not be construed in any reason
as acceptance of financial responsibility by the Local
Entity for additional quantities of items shown that may be
required during the construction phase.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 3 Appendix E-4
II. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Drainage report submitted
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Existing and proposed contours provided at 2’ (min.)
intervals and labeled.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Contours extended a minimum of 50’ offsite and tie into
existing contours.
______ ______ ______ D. Finish grade elevations provided for streets, lot corners,
and finish floors/top of foundation of buildings for all lots.
______ ______ ______ E. This statement provided:
“The top of foundation elevations shown are the minimum
elevations required for protection from the 100-year storm.
______ ______ ______ F. Ź Drainage arrows are provided and show positive drainage
to streets or to an approved drainage facility.
______ ______ ______ G. Phasing of development and construction of all public
improvements. All public improvements within each phase
stand alone. Phases separated by a thick, ghosted line
and identified by either numbers or letters.
______ ______ ______ H. Temporary and long term erosion control devices are
provided and labeled.
______ ______ ______ I. Ź Revegetation methods and specific notes are provided.
______ ______ ______ J. Ź If the project proposes any construction in a floodplain,
please pick up the separate “Preliminary Floodplain
Submittal Requirements” available at the Stormwater
Utility.
III. Overall Utility Plan Sheet(s)
A. Streets
______ ______ ______ 1. Ź R.O.W., property lines and easements with
dimensions and labels.
______ ______ ______ 2. Ź Cross-pans
______ ______ ______ 3. Ź Access ramps
______ ______ ______ 4. Ź Curb and gutter
______ ______ ______ 5. Ź Sidewalks
______ ______ ______ 6. Ź Driveway locations
______ ______ ______ 7. Ź Medians, including flowline and lip of gutter
______ ______ ______ 8. General location of signs(speed, stop, monument, etc.)
______ ______ ______ B. Phasing lines of development and construction of all public
improvements. All public improvements within each phase
stand alone. Phases separated by a thick, ghosted line
and identified by either numbers or letters.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 4 Appendix E-4
C. Water Facilities
______ ______ ______ 1. Ź Mains with sizes
______ ______ ______ 2. Ź Fire hydrant locations
______ ______ ______ 3. Ź Valves
______ ______ ______ 4. Meter pits and curb stops
______ ______ ______ 5. Ź Manhole locations
______ ______ ______ 6. Ź Show service locations at preliminary, except for
single family uses.
______ ______ ______ 7. Waterline lowerings
______ ______ ______ 8. Dimensioning of manholes and cleanouts from the
centerline of the roadways.
D. Sanitary Sewer Facilities
______ ______ ______ 1. Ź Mains with sizes
______ ______ ______ 2. Ź Manhole locations and numbering
______ ______ ______ 3. Length of segments between manholes
______ ______ ______ 4. Type of pipe
______ ______ ______ 5. Slopes
______ ______ ______ 6. Clean-outs
______ ______ ______ 7. Ź Show services at preliminary,except for single
family uses.
E. Storm Sewer Facilities
______ ______ ______ 1. Ź General layout of stormsewers, channels and
swales.
______ ______ ______ 2. Ź Manhole locations
______ ______ ______ 3. Ź Junction structures
______ ______ ______ 4. Ź Clean-outs
______ ______ ______ 5. Ź Type of pipe
______ ______ ______ 6. Ź Sizes
______ ______ ______ 7. Ź Slopes
______ ______ ______ 8. Ź Length of segments between manholes
______ ______ ______ 9. Subdrains (where applicable)
______ ______ ______ 10. Ź Manhole numbering
______ ______ ______ F. Ź Existing features shown for a minimum of 150’ beyond the
project limits
______ ______ ______ G. Ź Proposed utility connections with existing utilities.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 5 Appendix E-4
IV. Street Plan and Profile Sheets (Horizontal Alignment)
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Largest possible curve radii used on Arterial and Major
Arterial roadways. Minimum curve radii used only where
necessary. See Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Minimum tangent lengths at intersections. See Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Crossing streets intersect at 90° (minor street can vary
±10°).
______ ______ ______ D. Ź Angle of departure of streets at intersections do not
exceed 10q for the length of the required tangent.
______ ______ ______ E. Ź Minimum tangent between reverse curves provided. See
Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ F. Ź Broken-back curves are separated by a length equal to 2
times the tangent length. See Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ G. Ź Compound curves: ratio value of d1.5 (Larger radius
divided by the smaller radius).
______ ______ ______ I. Ź Minimum centerline arcs for curves with deflection angles
10° or less. See Table 7-5.
______ ______ ______ J. Horizontal curves do not begin at the top of a crest curve
or the bottom of a sag curve.
______ ______ ______ K. Ź Tapers and transitions: Refer to Chapter 8
______ ______ ______ L. Ź Sight distance triangles and easements: Shown on all plan
& profile sheets. Sight distance easements dedicated on
the Plat.
______ ______ ______ M. Ź Minimum Local Street widths provided per Table 7-1 and
are consistent with the TIS.
______ ______ ______ N. Ź Access ramps and crosswalks provided. Crosswalk
lengths are a maximum of 56’ in length. See Chapter 16,
Pedestrian Facilities Design and Technical Criteria.
______ ______ ______ O. Ź Minimum of one mid-block access ramps provided at all
“T” intersections.
______ ______ ______ P. Ź Complete horizontal alignment includes, but is not limited
to: centerline of roads, intersecting streets, driveway
locations, and storm drainage facilities.
______ ______ ______ Q. Ź Existing and proposed Property and/or ROW lines,
easements and/or tracts provided, dimensioned, and
labeled clearly.
R. Existing utilities and structures (shown as phantom line)
included:
______ ______ ______ 1. Ź Storm sewer and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ 2. Fence lines and gates
______ ______ ______ 3. Ź Water lines and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ 4. Ź Ditches and swales
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 6 Appendix E-4
______ ______ ______ 5. Ź Electric lines and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ 6. Ź Curbs and gutters
______ ______ ______ 7. Ź Sanitary Sewer lines and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ 8. Ź Pavement limits
______ ______ ______ 9. Ź Telephone lines and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ 10. Ź Bridges and/or culverts
_____ ______ ______ 11. Ź CATV lines and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ 12. Ź Guardrails
______ ______ ______ 13. Signs
______ ______ ______ 14. Ź Gas lines and appurtenances
______ ______ ______ S. Station, critical elevation, and dimension of all existing and
proposed utility and/or drainage structures provided.
______ ______ ______ T. Intersections show construction and lane details for new
and existing facilities for a minimum of 150’ beyond the
limits of construction.
V. Street Plan and Profile Sheets (Vertical Alignment)
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Maximum grades for streets comply. See Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Maximum grades of cul-de-sacs are 3.0%.
______ ______ ______ C. Continuance of profile and ground lines for all Local and
Collector Streets that dead end (excluding cul-de-sacs)
shown for 500’ beyond the proposed construction.
______ ______ ______ D. Continuance of profile and ground lines for Arterial Streets
shown for 1000’ beyond the proposed construction.
______ ______ ______ E. Ź Minimum crest and sag curve lengths for street
classifications. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Lengths
must meet or exceed these minimums.
______ ______ ______ F. Crest curves: street centerline, curb and gutter designed
with vertical curves. See Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ G. Sag curves: street centerline and flowline designed with a
vertical curve (see exception below). See Figure 7-18
and Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ H. Sag Curves: For grade changes 1.0%: gutter flowlines at
low points are not designed with vertical curves, but must
meet the minimum .5% grade into the inlet.
______ ______ ______ I. Sag Curves: For grade changes !1.0%: both street
centerline and curb and gutter are designed with vertical
curves, but a minimum flowine grade of .5% must still be
maintained.
______ ______ ______ J. Ź Single point grade breaks do not exceed 0.40%, except at
inlets where min .5% grade into the inlet is required.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 7 Appendix E-4
______ ______ ______ K. Ź Series of grade breaks meet the vertical alignment criteria
for the design speed of the roadways.
______ ______ ______ L. Ź Minimum centerline and flowline grade for streets is
0.50%.
______ ______ ______ M. Minimum flowline grade for cul-de-sacs is 1.0%.
______ ______ ______ N. Minimum desirable grade around curb returns is 1.0%.
Minimum allowable grade around curb returns is 0.50%.
______ ______ ______ O. Curb return profiles (except medians) are provided.
______ ______ ______ P. Ź Centerline profiles through intersections provided.
______ ______ ______ Q. Flowline profiles provided on both sides of all streets (Final
compliance).
______ ______ ______ R. Ź Centerline profiles provided for all streets (Preliminary).
______ ______ ______ S. Ź Proposed (solid line type) and existing (dashed line type)
ground lines provided and labeled.
______ ______ ______ T. Ź All proposed and existing vertical curves and grade breaks
are dimensioned (Preliminary)/ stationed and labeled
clearly (Final compliance).
VI. Cross Slopes
______ ______ ______ A. Minimum cross slope of new streets is 2.0%.
______ ______ ______ B. Minimum cross slope of any reconstruction or overlay is
1.5%.
______ ______ ______ C. Maximum allowable cross slope on all new streets is
3.0%.
______ ______ ______ D. Maximum allowable cross slope on any reconstruction or
overlay of existing roadways is 4.0%.
______ ______ ______ E. Street modifications (widening, turn-lane, etc): the
widened portion is within the stated limits and is not less
than the existing cross slope.
______ ______ ______ F. When tying to existing cross slopes: Curb and gutter or
centerline shall be designed such that the when the
existing pavement is overlaid it results in a straight line
cross slope grade that meets standards.
______ ______ ______ G. Cul-de-sacs: See Figure 7-19.
VII. Design Speed
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Roadways are designed according to their proper design
speed. See Table 7-3.
VIII. Curb Return Radii
______ ______ ______ A. Curb return radii used in accordance with Table 8-2.
______ ______ ______ B. Minimum desirable flowline grade around curb returns is 1%.
______ ______ ______ C. Minimum allowable flowline grade around curb returns is
0.50%.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 8 Appendix E-4
IX. Medians
______ ______ ______ A. Provided as stated on Figures 7-1F thru 7-13F.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Width of medians are no less than 4’ wide.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Turn Lane and Access: Left-turn lanes (where warranted)
designed using criteria contained in Figures 8-2, 8-3 & 8-11.
______ ______ ______ D. Ź Landscaped medians include drainage facilities to handle
sprinkler runoff and nuisance flows. Refer to Appendix C.
______ ______ ______ E. Ź Median(s) are designed with keyed curb or curb with
outfall gutters (if gutters are not needed to handle
drainage), or medians are designed with curb with inflow
gutters (if gutters are needed to handle drainage).
______ ______ ______ F. Ź Nose of median(s) located such that vehicle turning
movements comply with vehicle tracking templates.
______ ______ ______ G. Ź Transition points of medians do not have “angle points”. A
100’ minimum radius with minimum arc length of 50’ is
used at transition locations.
______ ______ ______ H. Ź Permanent structures within medians are a minimum of 5’
from the closest travel lane.
______ ______ ______ I. Ź Pedestrian refuge areas are provided in the noses of
medians. See Chapter 16, Pedestrian Facilities Design
and Technical Criteria.
______ ______ ______ J. Profiles shall be provided for all areas of inflow curb and
gutter. Profiles or adequate spot elevations, dimensions
and any other information necessary for review and
construction shall be provided for all medians.
X. Cul-de-sacs
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Provided only on Local Streets. See Figures 7-19 & 7-21.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Maximum length of 660’ (1320’ max.) if fire sprinkler
systems are installed in structures.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Minimum radii used. See Figure 7-19.
XI. Eyebrows
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Provided only on Local Streets. See Figure 7-23.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Spaced in conformance with the requirements in Chapter 9,
Access Requirements and Criteria.
XII. Dead-end Streets
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Temporary dead-end streets provided only on streets that
do not have direct access from adjoining property.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Temporary turnarounds with a minimum radius of 50’
provided for permitted dead-end streets. See Figure 7-26.
______ ______ ______ C. Temporary access easements dedicated on the Plat.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 9 Appendix E-4
XIII. Driveways
______ ______ ______ A. Where curb cuts are provided, concentrated runoff from
adjoining properties does not discharge across the
sidewalk.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Spacing of curb cuts conform to spacing requirements.
See Figure 9-1 and Table 7-3
______ ______ ______ C. Drive approaches slope toward the street.
______ ______ ______ D. Ź Driveways intersect streets at 90° ±10° for a minimum of
25’ measured perpendicular to the street from the curb
edge or EOA.
______ ______ ______ E. Ź All access/driveway approaches are paved with Portland
cement from the street to the ROW.
1. SF Residential Approaches
______ ______ ______ a. Ź Minimum width of driveway(s) is 12’ and the
maximum width is 24’. See Standard
Drawings 706 and 707.
______ ______ ______ b. Ź Sidewalks are continuous through driveways.
See Standard Drawing 1601.
______ ______ ______ c. When pedestrian accessible driveways are
required in lieu of mid-block access ramps, the
slope of the driveway is d 1:12 and spaced at
300’ intervals on both sides of the street.
2. High Volume Driveway
______ ______ ______ a. Ź* Driveways accessing Arterial Streets or meeting
criteria in Section 9.3.2.A shall conform with
Standard Drawing 707.
______ ______ ______ b. Ź* Maximum width is 36’. If wider, a median
separates the inbound and outbound traffic.
______ ______ ______ 3. Ź Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Driveways
Minimum width of driveway(s) is 24’. Minimum of 28’
for driveways serving 12 units or more with
maximum width of 36’.
XIV. Grading In The ROW
______ ______ ______ A. Maximum slope for all areas within the ROW is 4:1.
______ ______ ______ B. Maximum slope outside of the ROW affecting public
improvements is 4:1.
______ ______ ______ C. Retaining walls provided where slopes exceed 4:1.
Retaining walls designed in accordance with Chapter 11,
Structures.
______ ______ ______ D. Minimum slopes in non-roadway areas is 2.0%
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 10 Appendix E-4
XV. Sub-drains
______ ______ ______ A. Engineered sub-drain systems meet criteria set forth in
Section 7.7.3
______ ______ ______ B. Hydrologic study submitted if criteria in Section 5.6.1. A. is
met or sub-drains are needed for basements.
XVI. Cross-pans
______ ______ ______ A. Cross-pans adjacent to Local Streets are a minimum of 6’
wide and Ǭ” deep.
______ ______ ______ B. Cross-pans adjacent to Collector Streets are a minimum of
8’ wide and 1ǩ” deep.
______ ______ ______ C. Cross-pans adjacent to Arterial Streets are a minimum of
10’ wide and 1½” deep.
______ ______ ______ D. Mid-block cross-pans are a minimum of 12’ in width and
1¾” in depth.
______ ______ ______ E. Minimum grade of cross-pans are 0.50%.
______ ______ ______ F. Pavement transitions approaching cross-pans designed
using the design speeds in Table 7-3 and meet the
requirements of Figure 7-27 and Standard Drawing 710.
______ ______ ______ G. Spot elevations provided as shown on Figure 7-27.
XVII. Inlets
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Inlets are not located within the curb returns.
XVIII. Bus Bays
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Bus bays are 11’ wide.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Bus bays are constructed with concrete in accordance
with Chapter 22, Construction Specifications.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Bus bays shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.9
and Standard Drawing 711.
XIX. Intersections
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Travel lanes are aligned through intersection(s) (a 2’ shift
is allowed in hardship cases only).
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Intersections cross at 90q ±10°.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Horizontal alignment of streets thru intersections are
designed in accordance with Table 7-3.
______ ______ ______ D. Ź Exclusive left-turn lanes provided where required.
See Section 8.2.5, Exclusive Left Turn Lanes.
______ ______ ______ E. Ź Exclusive right-turn lanes provided where required.
See Section 8.2.6, Exclusive Right Turn Lanes.
______ ______ ______ F. Ź Adequate turning radii used for each type of intersection.
See Section 8.2.8, Turning Radius.
______ ______ ______ G. Ź ROW is dedicated as shown on Figure 8-12.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 11 Appendix E-4
______ ______ ______ H. Ź Additional ROW dedicated for right and left turn lanes.
______ ______ ______ I. Ź Sight distances comply with Figure 7-16.
______ ______ ______ J. Ź Street grades approaching intersections shall be between
0.50% (min.) and 4.0% (max) for a distance equal to the
tangent length of the street classification. See Table 7-3)
______ ______ ______ K. Ź Profile grades within the intersection do not exceed 3%
XX. General Requirements
______ ______ ______ A. Phased improvements shown clearly.
______ ______ ______ B. Phases within the project limits stand alone and do not
leave necessary improvements to future projects.
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Design of State streets meet the requirements presented
in the State Highway Access Code Manual.
______ ______ ______ D. Ź North arrows and the appropriate bar/graphic scale(s) are
provided.
______ ______ ______ E. Ź Existing features adjacent to this development are shown
in a ghosted or alternate line weight.
______ ______ ______ F. The City’s signature block is provided in the lower right
corner of each sheet contained within the utility plan set.
Each signature block measures 3½” high by 4½” wide.
______ ______ ______ G. Ź Ditch company approval block is provided.
______ ______ ______ H. Ź Water and Sanitary District approval block is provided.
______ ______ ______ I. County approval block is provided.
______ ______ ______ J. CDOT approval block is provided.
______ ______ ______ K. Ź Title block is provided on each sheet of the utility plan set
and includes the project name, sheet name, engineer’s
name, address, telephone number and fax number, sheet
numbering, and revision block.
______ ______ ______ L. Ź The utility plans correlate with the Site and Landscape
Plans
______ ______ ______ M. Spot elevations at all intersections provided as shown on
Figures 7-27 and 7-28.
______ ______ ______ N. Ź Proposed construction within the Property boundary drawn
with solid lines and existing features shown with hidden or
dashed lines.
______ ______ ______ O. Stations and elevations provided at all PC’s, driveway
intersections and roadway intersections in both plan and
profile views.
______ ______ ______ P. Flowline curve table provided on each plan and profile
sheet that includes radius, angle, arc length, and tangent
length.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 12 Appendix E-4
______ ______ ______ Q. Centerline stationing is the standard and shall be used
except at cul-de-sacs, where flowline stationing is used
(Station equations provided.), unless approval to use
flowline stationing is given.
______ ______ ______ R. Ź Street names provided on all sheets.
______ ______ ______ T. Ź All easements shown in the plan views.
______ ______ ______ U. Ź Match-lines provided in both plan and profile. Page
number, station and elevation included.
V. The scale of all sheets are as follows:
______ ______ ______ 1. Ź Horizontal - 1” = 20’, 30’, 40’, or 50’
______ ______ ______ 2. Ź Vertical - 1” = 5’ or 10’
______ ______ ______ 3. Ź Overall Plan - 1” = 100’
______ ______ ______ W. Ź All private improvements, including but not limited to,
roadways, driveways, utilities, etc. are clearly shown and
labeled as such.
______ ______ ______ X. Ź A legend is provided on each sheet identifying the
symbols used on that particular sheet.
______ ______ ______ Y. Ź Key map is provided on the plan and profile sheets (for
utility plans having 3 or more plan and profile sheets).
XXI. Ź Street Cross Sections (Preliminary = typical for each street)
______ ______ ______ A. Cross sections for Arterial Streets and Collector Streets
are provided at 50’ intervals. Cross also required where
special conditions warrant the need (i.e. widening of an
existing street). The interval may be adjusted where site
topography is unique.
1. Information Provided on each Cross Section
______ ______ ______ a. Ź Curb & gutter, existing(f) and proposed(*)
______ ______ ______ b. Ź Roadway surface, existing and proposed
______ ______ ______ c. Ź Sidewalk, existing and proposed
______ ______ ______ d. Ź Cross slopes, existing(f) and proposed(*)
______ ______ ______ e. Ź ROW, existing and proposed
______ ______ ______ f. Side slopes, existing and proposed, 15’ beyond
the proposed ROW
______ ______ ______ g. Stations
______ ______ ______ h. Proposed flowline and centerline elevations
______ ______ ______ i. Utility crossings
______ ______ ______ j. Ź Dimensions
______ ______ ______ k. Areas of overlay, milling, pavement removal
and/or reconstruction.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Last edited : 3/23/07 13 Appendix E-4
XXII. Plat
______ ______ ______ A. Ź Maintenance Guarantee, Repair Guarantee, Notice of
Other Documents notes.
______ ______ ______ B. Ź Planning & Zoning Board/Hearing Officer certification
statement (to be signed at final compliance).
______ ______ ______ C. Ź Surveyor certification statement (to be signed at final
compliance)
______ ______ ______ D. Ź Statement(s) of land ownership
______ ______ ______ E. Ź Statement(s) of ownership and/or maintenance of all
tracts.
______ ______ ______ F. Ź Statement(s) of the dedication of any easements, ROW,
tracts, and other public areas.
______ ______ ______ G. Ź Vicinity Map: Project location, nearest 2 Arterial Streets,
street names, City limits, major public facilities.
______ ______ ______ H. Curve data complete for all curves.
______ ______ ______ I. Ź 2 ties to aliquot corners.
______ ______ ______ J. Ź All existing and proposed easements and ROW clearly
defined.
______ ______ ______ K. Ź Adjoining properties labeled.
______ ______ ______ L. Ź Scale, graphic scale, north arrow, date of preparation,
complete title w/ location.
______ ______ ______ M. Ź Boundary legal description closes.
______ ______ ______ N. Ź Lot lines.
______ ______ ______ O. Ź Designation of areas subject to flooding, including
floodplain, floodway, and product corridors. (Elevation
Datum must be referenced to City of Fort Collins datum.)
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Rendering
View of Project from the River
Rendering
Before Image from Linden Street
Rendering
After Image from Linden Street
ATTACHMENT 5
Materials submitted by
Applicant to the
Administrative Hearing Officer
r Reside ences PD DP
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES PDP
cy Senior
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES PDP
Legac
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Where:
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Where:
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
Who:
DP
• 72 one and two bedroom apartments
• Seniors (age 55 and over)
• Low income earning between 30% 60% of Area Median Income
ences PD
• Low income, earning between 30% ‐ 60% of Area Median Income
• 100% Affordable
• Special Needs Housing –Senior population identified
• Cornerstone Associates specializes
r Reside
Cornerstone Associates specializes
Legac cy Senior
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
• $717,151 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
DP
• Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) have awarded an
allocation of “tax credit” funding through the competitive Low
d
ences PD
Income Housing Tax Credit program.
• The Fort Collins Housing Authority whose mission is to provide and
promote safe and affordable housing economic opportunity and a
r Reside
promote safe and affordable housing, economic opportunity and a
living environment free from discrimination, has agreed to be a
formal partner in the project and the ultimate owner at the end of
the tax credit period because the project addresses significant
cy Senior
the tax credit period because the project addresses significant
community needs.
Legac
Landscape Plan
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Building Elevations
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Building Elevations
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Shadow Analysis
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
View from Linden ‐ Before
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
View from Linden ‐ After
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Modification to Section 3.2.2((L))(4) )
Code Language: Section 3.2.2(L)(4) Figure 5 Vehicular Overhang for
Sd d Si Pki Sll
DP
Standard‐Size Parking Stalls:
Proposing a reduction from 7 feet to
595feet
ences PD
5.95 feet
Nominal, inconsequential:
r Reside
•Interior parking lot landscape
exceeds the minimum by 2x
cy Senior
•Island is short by 1.05 feet
Legac
Modification to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1)
Code Language: Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) River District Development
DP
Code Language: Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) River District Development
Standards related to building massing
Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are
ences PD
permitted; however, massing shall be terraced back from the River and
from the streets as follows:
r Reside
1. Buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to one (1) story
abutting the River landscape frontage; and
2. Buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or
less abutting any street frontage
cy Senior
less abutting any street frontage.
Legac
Justification
Project substantially alleviates an existing, defined city‐
id d
DP
wide need:
•Project meets affordable housing goals identified in
City Plan
ences PD
City Plan
•Provides housing for people with special needs –
seniors
r Reside
Equally well or better than:
•5’ detached sidewalk which connects to the river
cy Senior
trail
•Double row of street trees
•Pedestrian‐scale environment
Legac
•Building is set back 23 feet
Modification to Section 4.17((D))(3))(c))(4) )
Code Language: Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) River District Development
Sd dldf i/ h fll i
DP
Standards related to frequent view/access states the following:
Frequent view/access. No building wall shall exceed one hundred
twenty‐five (125) feet on the axis along the River.
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD
Modification to Section 4.17((D))(3))(c))(4) )
Legac cy Senior r Reside ences PD DP
Justification
Project substantially alleviates an existing, defined city‐
id d
DP
wide need:
•Project meets affordable housing goals identified in
City Plan
ences PD
City Plan
•Provides housing for people with special needs ‐
seniors
Legac cy Senior r Reside
Legacy Senior Residences PDP
City Plan Goals and Policies:
DP
y
• Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas
• Protect and Enhance Natural Features
• Regulate Development Along Waterways
ences PD
• Regulate Development Along Waterways
• Provide a Variety of Housing Types for All Income Levels
• Address Special Needs Housing
• Basic Access
r Reside
• Encourage Creation and Expansion of Affordable Housing
Opportunities
• Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing
• Diverse Community Values of the Poudre River Corridor are
cy Senior
Diverse Community Values of the Poudre River Corridor are
protected and enhanced
• Allow Various Building Heights
• Support Active Transportation
Legac
• Transit Stops
r Reside ences PD DP
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES PDP
cy Senior
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES PDP
Legac
ATTACHMENT 7
Materials submitted by
Citizens at the Administrative
Hearing
June 11, 2012
ATTACHMENT 8
Verbatim Transcript of
Administrative Hearing
June 11, 2012
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Monday, June 11, 2012
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Legacy Senior Residences, P.D.P, #120015
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Richard Lopez
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
2
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER RICHARD LOPEZ: We’ll try to make this
2 as clear and friendly as possible. We’ll go through this order, but we don’t have any time limits
3 right now… I don’t think there’s that many people that are going to be testifying, but we want to
4 make sure everyone has the opportunity to be heard. So, with that as background, I’ll ask our
5 planner, Ms. Ex, to start.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER LINDSAY EX: Thank you Mr. Lopez. The second
7 hearing item tonight is a request for a multi-family project known as Legacy Senior Residences.
8 The proposed development is on 1.97 acres of abandoned industrial land located west of Linden
9 Street, north of Willow Street, and east of Pine Street. The entire site is in the River Downtown
10 Redevelopment District and is within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. The
11 proposal consists of seventy-two one and two bedroom affordable apartments for seniors, age
12 sixty-two and over, who earn between thirty to sixty percent of the area median income. As the
13 project is located within the TOD District, multi-family dwellings have no minimum parking
14 requirements; however, the applicant is providing fifty-one off-street parking stalls for the
15 Residences. All units are planned to be permanently affordable.
16 To this project tonight, the applicants are requesting three modifications, and I’m just
17 going to briefly outline what those modifications are. The first modification is to Section
18 3.2.2(L)(4) of the Land Use Code, and it is regarding overhangs. When two sides of a vehicle
19 overhang a landscaped area, the standard is that that landscaped area be seven feet wide. The
20 applicants have requested that that landscaped area only be 5.95 feet instead of seven feet. As
21 justification, the applicants have provided that their overall interior parking landscaping is twelve
22 percent, instead of the required six percent, and when viewed within the context of the entire
23 development, staff has found justification for this modification based on Section 2.8.2(H)(4) of
24 the Land Use Code, rendering it nominal and inconsequential. The second modification request
25 is to section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) regarding the need to step down a building to three stories when
26 along, or when abutting a street. Staff has evaluated the applicant’s request. The intent of this
27 standard of stepping down to three stories is to enhance the pedestrian and the human scale of the
28 development and the environment around that development. This project is providing a
29 pedestrian scale environment by exceeding the street tree standards along Pine Street through a
30 continuous tree canopy and landscaping to buffer the mass of the building from the pedestrians
31 on the walkway. The building setback exceeds the fifteen foot minimum setback requirement,
32 and we believe…staff finds that this criteria…this modification meets the criteria in Section
33 2.8.2(H)(1), which is that it is equal to or better than the standard. In addition, staff finds that
34 this project meets the criteria set forth in 2.8.2(H)(2), in the fact that this project meets a defined
35 community need. The project meets two of the highest priorities as outlined in the City of Fort
36 Collins Affordable Housing Strategic Plan by providing both rental units that are affordable, and
37 by providing them to marginalized communities, which are aging populations. So, the City has
38 also recognized this project through the contribution of over $700,000 of its Community
3
1 Development Block Grant funding, so staff finds that this modification not only meets the
2 criteria set forth to meet equal to or better than, but also that it meets a defined community need.
3 The final modification is regarding Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) as it relates to frequent
4 views and access providing along…any building that is along a river. Staff has evaluated the
5 applicants’ request. The purpose of this standard, in staff’s opinion, is not only to allow visual
6 access into the river corridor, but also to break up the visual experience that a pedestrian has
7 while they’re on the trail. City staff has held two design charettes with the applicant to determine
8 how a wall that exceeds the standard could achieve the standard equally or better to the hundred
9 and twenty-five foot standard. While the applicants have recessed the building for a length of
10 thirty-five feet and provided significantly different landscaping treatments around the building,
11 staff finds that the project has achieved a visual experience equal to or better than the standard,
12 but that visual access into the river is still precluded by a one hundred and eighty foot long
13 building. In the applicants’ justification, they requested this modification under Section
14 2.8.2(H)(1), which is equal to or better than, but staff finds that this modification can be justified
15 instead based off 2.8.2(H)(2), as the project meets a significant community need, which I’ve
16 already described. And that’s the end of my staff presentation.
17 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. For the applicant, would you please give us
18 your name, address?
19 MS. CATHY MATHIS: Yes, thank you. My name is Cathy Mathis, with the Birdsall
20 Group, 444 Mountain Avenue in Berthoud, Colorado, and I’m the land planner, landscape
21 architect for the project. So, I will go ahead and start my presentation. As Lindsay mentioned,
22 this site is on 1.97 acres. She already talked about the surrounding uses. Linden Street being
23 here, Poudre Place is here. This is Pine Street that empties into the parking lot for the United
24 Way building, here’s the United Way building and the day care. This area is City-owned open
25 space that has the Poudre River trail going through it. Here’s the Poudre River, kind of veering
26 off away from the site. In addition, we kind of wanted to point out an overall context of some
27 developments that have recently been happening in this downtown area. For one, the CSU Small
28 Engines Lab is planning a major expansion, over here is the Fort Collins Museum and Discovery
29 Science Center, here is the Northside Atzlan Community Center, fairly new. Right here is
30 Rooftops on the River, which is a residential four-story building, and over here is the proposed
31 Block One, which is a mixed-use redevelopment, soon to be coming through the City process.
32 So, we just wanted to give you sort of an overall context of where this fits in, just to kind of
33 show the type of infill and redevelopment that is occurring in the area.
34 So, as Lindsay mentioned, this is seventy-two one and two bedroom apartments,
35 seniors…it’s actually age fifty-five and over, I made a mistake, it’s fifty-five, low income,
36 earning between thirty and sixty percent of the area median income. It is a hundred percent
37 affordable, it also is…has been identified in City Plan as a special needs housing, which
38 identified seniors, the senior population, for that. Cornerstone Associates is the developer for
4
1 this project, and they specialize and do these projects all over the country. So, with that, I would
2 like to go ahead and introduce Larry Mazata, with Cornerstone Associates, and he’d like to
3 have…say a few words.
4 MR. LOPEZ: Wherever you wish. That’s fine.
5 MR. LARRY MAZATA: My name is Larry Mazata, I’m Chief Executive Officer of
6 Cornerstone Associates. We’re the developer and joint venture partner in this development with
7 the Housing Authority of the City of Fort Collins, and together we spent a couple of years
8 locating this land, and we’d spend the last year working with the City in trying to find a means to
9 meet the City’s needs and issues, and yet preserve for the residents that we’re going to be
10 housing, an agreeable residential community. We started this process last July. It’s been a
11 completely iterative process. We’ve spent many meetings over the last almost twelve months
12 now, arriving at this point where we have these modifications. We have an agreement between
13 staff and our two companies that we can build the kind of property we set out to build and meet
14 the City’s interests as well. That’s really all I wanted to say is that it has been a back and forth
15 process with the City to get to this point.
16 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. Anyone else?
17 MS. MATHIS: And, I also have a person from the Fort Collins Housing Authority, just to
18 speak really quickly about the Housing Authority’s involvement.
19 MS. KRISTIN FRITZ: Thank you, I’m Kristin Fritz with the Fort Collins Housing
20 Authority. I’m actually here on behalf of Julie Brewen, our Executive Director, who is unable to
21 be here as her home is unfortunately threatened by the High Park fire. But, we really wanted to
22 be here to reiterate our belief in this partnership with Cornerstone. We fully support this
23 property being developed as senior affordable housing, and, as the ultimate owner of this
24 property, we did want to ensure you that we believe in this project as it is designed and being
25 proposed as it directly addresses a significant community need.
26 MS. MATHIS: Okay, now I’m going to kind of talk you through the site plan layout a
27 little bit. Basically, the building is four stories. It’s situated on the site to have the long access of
28 the building take advantage of the views to the river, and you can see where I’m pointing right
29 here, there’s a long porch along this side of the river that’s going to be used for the Residences to
30 sit and enjoy the outdoors. This was intentional design, the way we did this. The primary access
31 to the site…here’s Linden Street, there’s already an existing curb cut out here that was
32 constructed with the Linden Street improvements, so this is where we enter the site, and circulate
33 through the site, and come back out with another access on Poudre Place. I should note also that
34 Poudre Place will be paved, currently it’s dirt right now. It’s got some significant drainage
35 problems, that there’s some drainage that’s happening to some of these properties along the
36 side…so it will be paved and positively drained out back towards our site and eventually to the
37 river. So, that’s our two points of access, obviously Poudre Place comes back out here to Pine
5
1 Street, and Pine provides access as well. The…as Lindsay mentioned, the project has fifty-one
2 parking spaces, off-street parking spaces, and also the project is located within walking and
3 biking distance to downtown, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the Downtown Transit Center.
4 There’s an existing transit stop right across the street, over here on Linden Street, and the project
5 is going to be providing another transit stop pad location on site at Transfort’s request. Lots of
6 connectivity here, there’s not only the existing sidewalks on Linden, but there’s also a six foot
7 walk that we’re providing all the way through the site from Linden clear over to Pine Street. In
8 addition, we’ll have a five foot detached sidewalk along the Pine Street frontage tying into the
9 trail, and then we’ve got various connections coming out from the porch around to the front of
10 the building, as well as, here’s the main entrance here, we’ve got a main covered entrance, and
11 so there’s access provided there as well.
12 One of the things I wanted to point out too…this is the location of our detention pond, out
13 here. The site is basically draining to bring everything down to a storm pipe here, and then it’ll
14 be piped underneath and go into this water quality detention pond, and then will go into the
15 Poudre River outfall, and if there’s questions on that later, I’m not the one that can answer, but
16 we can find someone who can. The landscape plan really…what I wanted to point out about
17 that, is this area along the north side here, between the edge of the porch and the property line,
18 and this City-owned land that goes all the way out to the trail. One of the things we did is we
19 worked with staff to try to establish a native landscape buffer zone in that area that would be
20 landscaped and maintained by the Legacy developer in perpetuity. It would consist of native
21 trees, shrubs and grasses to help enhance the river landscape and wildlife habitat, and we did
22 provide an ecological characterization report, and help establish that. So, we think this provides
23 a great transition and an amenity from the more developed property down to the river buffer.
24 The building elevations…as we said, they are four stores with a total building height of
25 fifty foot, six and three-quarter inches, similar in scale to the adjacent Rooftops on the River, and
26 the Northside Atzlan Center. The RDR District, just to note, allows five stories, this one is four.
27 We provide variation…variation in massing and materials have been obtained on all elevations
28 with stepping in height and depths using various materials such as twelve by twenty-four inch
29 rock, face stone, brick veneer, and horizontal fiber cement lap siding. The building also uses
30 offsets and recesses to add architectural interest, as well as the promenade, which is this thing
31 along here, the covered porch. The promenade along the north side promotes human scale and
32 forms outdoor spaces along the river. The roofs are pre-finished standing seam metal and the
33 roofline meets the minimum of the six-twelve pitch. The windows are vinyl single-hung with
34 decorative pre-cast headers and sills, and the primary entrance to the building, which is right
35 here, is pedestrian scale, it’s a covered entryway which is emphasized with a pre-finished
36 standing seam metal roof, decorative wood columns, and stone veneer column bases.
37 The applicant took advantage early on in the process of the historic preservation’s
38 complementary design review, and we felt we really worked with them, and the rest of staff quite
39 a bit. There were some concerns about compatibility as it related to the four story building,
6
1 adjacent to some single-family homes, and we worked with staff and made changes to the
2 architecture that are now more complementary and compatible with the historic buildings in the
3 downtown area. Items such as brick and stone materials, decorative lentils, and brick arch
4 details. In addition to…because the building was over forty feet high, by Code we had to
5 perform a shadow analysis which looks at the building as it casts a shadow on the shortest day of
the year, which I think is December 21
st
6 at nine AM and three PM, and we show no adverse
7 impacts occurs on adjacent properties. In addition to that, one of the things we have to look at is
8 views, and what…there’s a definition of desirable views in the Code, and one of…in this case it
9 would be the views to the foothills. So, we went out and took a before picture to see if we could
10 see views of the foothills, and then we superimposed our building on top of it, and here’s the
11 after. So, I guess we concluded that, since there were no views to the foothills because of
12 existing buildings, this building didn’t really block the desirable views.
13 So, as Lindsay mentioned, we are asking for three modifications. So, the first
14 modification is regarding the vehicular overhang as she described. The Code requires that we do
15 seven feet, and we are requesting that we do the 5.95 feet, as opposed to the seven.
16 Basically…this, obviously, is a tight site. When you start with a twenty foot alley and then build
17 your way up into a five foot landscape setback, then you’ve got your parking stall lengths, and
18 your driveway lengths, and your parking stall lengths, you’re sort of building your parking lot
19 this way. And then when you’re coming up here near the building, you’ve got a little landscape,
20 you’ve got a required six foot walk, we have a required thirty foot fire lane, because Poudre Fire
21 Authority has requested we do a thirty foot lane there because of the building height. Then
22 you’ve got your parking stall, and it just turns out that this little island in the middle kind of got
23 squished, so we are requesting that this modification be nominal and inconsequential by the mere
24 fact that the island is only short by 1.05 feet, and in addition to exceeding the interior minimum
25 six percent landscaping by two times. And, staff is recommending approval of this modification.
26 The second modification pertains to height and mass, and the Code states that buildings
27 abutting any street frontage step down to three stories. So, in this case, staff made the
28 determination…we don’t abut Linden Street, we’re far enough off of Linden, but staff made the
29 determination that this standard applies on Pine Street, which is technically a public street;
30 however, it really functions as a parking lot for United Way, so we tried to make that argument,
31 but we did have to comply with this standard along Pine, so therefore, we are asking for a
32 modification to not step the building back. The justification here is that we would substantially
33 alleviate an existing defined community-wide need, which is the affordable housing factor, and
34 the equally well or better than scenario in which we create a pedestrian environment with a five-
35 foot sidewalk right along here that’s connecting, you know, from the alley all the way down to
36 the river trail…double row of trees, so twice as many trees that the developer would be required
37 to, to help create that pedestrian experience and scale. In addition, the building only needs to be
38 set back from the right-of-way by fifteen feet, and we exceed that by…well, we’re twenty-three
7
1 feet. So, again, we feel that this helps make that argument for equally well or better than by
2 helping that pedestrian experience. And staff is also supporting this modification as well.
3 And, the third modification is regarding the frequent view and access. And the Code
4 states that no building wall shall exceed a hundred and twenty-five feet on the access along the
5 river. So, we are requesting that the building be one hundred and eighty feet rather than the
6 hundred and twenty-five feet. And, by doing this…we worked extensively to…excuse me, to
7 achieve this, we worked extensively with staff to try to figure out how we could really help
8 visually break up the mass and the length of this building, and, our solutions are the following.
9 So, we did…took out…this thirty-five foot wide section of the building is now recessed back
10 eight feet behind the face of the building here. In the same thirty-five foot section, we have
11 recessed the roofline. So, we took off the pitched roof and turned it into a flat roof, we used the
12 brick…a hundred percent brick on all four stories, which is the predominately darker color of the
13 building material, and that helps kind of break up that look. We also removed this continuous
14 roof along the porch that runs along the back side of the building, we broke that up. We also
15 used different landscaping. We’ve got the vines, we’ve got much darker and different
16 landscaping, again to help that look. In addition, we’ve got the sidewalk that’s coming up from
17 the trail, from the Poudre Trail, with…it doesn’t show in this rendering, but we’ve got a couple
18 trees and some different landscape treatment and some boulders in there, so again it just helps
19 that visual…that visual look. So, that’s how we felt we helped to meet…to make that standard.
20 So, staff is recommending approval based on the criteria of alleviating an existing defined
21 community-wide need for this one.
22 So, in conclusion, I just wanted to go through a few of the City Plan goals and policies
23 that…in doing my research, that this project complies with. And, this is just a few of them, there
24 are many more. But just to name them, it’s prioritized targeted redevelopment areas, very
25 important here, protect and enhance natural features, regulate development along waterways,
26 provide a variety of housing types for all income levels, address special needs housing basic
27 access, encourage creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities, integrate and
28 distribute affordable housing, diverse community values of the Poudre River corridor are
29 protected and enhanced, allow various building heights, support active transportation and transit
30 stops. So, these are just a few of many of the goals and policies that we feel that this project
31 complies with, and it’s an ideal…ideal location. So, that ends my presentation. Our team is here
32 to answer any questions.
33 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Was there anything, Lindsay, that you had to
34 comment on at this stage?
35 MS. EX: Yeah, I’ll just add one note. As several of the modifications are based on
36 meeting a defined community need, Ms. Mathis mentioned that the age of the Residences is now
37 allowed to be down to fifty-five. I don’t pretend to know the definition of what become a senior
8
1 residence versus what does not, but that the justification of this being a defined community need
2 is not based on the senior residences only.
3 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, very good, thank you. Okay, at this time we’re going to open up the
4 comments to members of the public that wish to testify. I’d like you to step to either one of these
5 or both of those podiums, give us your name, address, and be sure to write it down so that you’ll
6 get a copy of the decision when it is completed. Thank you. Is this the only copy, or have you
7 provided a copy to staff? Okay.
8 MS. EX: We will need a copy for the record, so if you could provide me one, that would
9 be great.
10 MR. GARY WOCKNER: Yes, thanks, I will. Sir, first of all, my name is Gary Wockner,
11 I’m the director of Save the Poudre, Poudre Waterkeeper. We’re here to first ask for a
12 postponement of this hearing based on the fact that we have not had enough time to review the
13 documents so that we…we haven’t been able to put together adequate public input, and therefore
14 we don’t believe the hearing at this time will be fair. The one document’s on the right hand side,
15 first document, is the six-page document asking for the postponement, and if you could just look
16 at that sir, and I’ll just kind of go through it sort of briefly, obviously it’s sort of long. First and
17 foremost, we are a vested stakeholder in this process and item number one goes through why we
18 that’s the case; property’s being built right beside the Poudre River, it has misinterpretations of
19 the Land Use Code, it has modifications based on issues that will impact the Poudre River, it
20 proposes to increase light and noise pollution into and abutting the Poudre River’s corridor, and
21 it may propose to drain stormwater into the Poudre River. The main fact, river flows, water
22 quality and aquatic wildlife, and it’s abutting the Poudre River’s natural habitat zone, and of
23 course it’s in the River Downtown Redevelopment District, and it’s constructing buildings,
24 parking lots, and detention ponds abutting the Poudre River, and so we think we’re a vested
25 stakeholder here.
26 Second item is that we have not had a reasonable amount of time for public input. We’ve
27 had ongoing continual problems with the City of Fort Collins about them notifying us about
28 projects that are proposed to be built near and abutting the Poudre River; this has gone on for
29 over a year, including with a couple of the projects that were previously mentioned. I found out
30 about this project just because I rode by it on my bicycle thirteen days ago, with no notification
31 from the City. We prefer a different kind of outreach model that’s very similar to what they use
32 in a Type II hearing, which is when you have a conceptual review wherein a neighborhood
33 meeting, and then you have a certain period of time to get comments together. We did not get
34 that at all. We also consider ourselves, via Section 2.2.3 steps six A) to be a bona fide
35 neighborhood group or organization. We are a bona fide organization. We are highly visible in
36 the community and the City has not reached out to us about this issue. Also, we think that the
37 lack of outreach violates a number of City plans and policies, including, and I won’t read them
38 all because they’re kind of long…HI 3.1, HI 3.3, HI 3.4, HI.4, HI 4.1, HI 4.2, HI 5, HI5.1, and
9
1 HI5.2. Those are all City policies about good government, and engaging with the community,
2 especially with the non-profit community.
3 The third thing is that we need more time to investigate public outreach requirements for
4 publically funded projects. This project is in part being funded through the Colorado Housing
5 and Finance Authority and the Community Development Block Grant. We think that those
6 organizations may have public outreach requirements different than the City’s. We just recently
7 found out today that the project required a zoning letter from Colorado Housing and Finance
8 Authority. We’d like to get ahold of that; we haven’t seen that yet, so we’d like to get more time
9 to look into that.
10 Step…number four is just a sequence of events of kind of how this has transpired. I will
11 avoid all of the gory details, but it culminated in Friday, that’s three days ago, at 4:15 PM, we
12 received, sir, this compact disc with two hundred and twenty megabytes of data, about eight
13 hundred pages, that…and I’ve been able to look through about five percent of those so far and
14 they’ve been very revealing and have allowed me to offer information, and I think the other
15 ninety-five percent would allow me to also offer information that would make this hearing fair.
16 Finally…or the fourth thing is when we…if we get a postponement, we have had
17 significant interaction planned with the staff, more court documents. We did an Open Records
18 Act request of the City…we got it from the City government, we didn’t get it from the Housing
19 Authority that apparently is a different entity. We have to do that differently. We also would
20 like time to research the alternatives for this project. As the developer suggested, they’ve been in
21 this process for a long time and three years ago, in fact, they proposed a different site. We ended
22 up on this one, we’d like to find out all those alternatives.
23 Finally, sir, we want time to look through the court documents, and that is item number
24 six here, and some of these have been very, very compelling to our case that this project violates
25 the Land Use Code, including 6A, which is an email from the City’s Sustainability Director,
Bruce Hendee, on March 11
th
26 , that says Diane…it went to Diane, the Assistant City Manager.
27 I’ve not been in the day to day negotiations of this project so perhaps it’s too late to turn back to
28 state things, but the applicant is failing to meet what I consider to be a key provision in the Land
29 Use Code, which is to step back the upper stories next to the River. So, that is one email, there’s
30 other emails there about the floodplain that we have significant concern about. There’s emails
31 about how the City has been advocating with the developer as opposed to just providing
32 information. A serious problem is that the…there’s an ecological characterization study that’s of
33 course very important to our organization. It was not provided to us in the original documents on
May 29
th
34 . We didn’t get it until Friday at 4:15 PM, so that’s a very important document. We
35 also…there’s a significant debate about the width of the buffer, and I point to some emails in
36 here where there’s controversy among the staff about the buffer, and then, finally, we just
37 learned today that the City wrote a twenty-page staff recommendation that I didn’t see until
38 about 4:00 today, and so there’s significant information here that has not been available to us,
10
1 including the two hundred and twenty-nine megabytes on this CD…we feel that we need to go
2 through that in order for this hearing to be fair, so my first request is a postponement of the
3 hearing. Thank you.
4 MR. LOPEZ: Could you be a little more specific about some of the issue before
5 me…there’s three variances, or modifications, that are being requested.
6 MR. WOCKNER: Yep.
7 MR. LOPEZ: Why would I want to continue this so that you could provide information
8 on those particular items?
9 MR. WOCKNER: Sure, well first and foremost, there’s an additional item that there has
10 been no…it’s called a modification, not a variance.
11 MR. LOPEZ: Modification.
12 MR. WOCKNER: I know, but they get very serious when I use the wrong word. And
13 that is that we think it violates Land Use Code 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), about the fact that the property
14 abuts the River, and that it should step down to one story abutting the River. Right now, it’s a
15 four-story building abutting the River. So, that’s not a modification. We think there’s a
16 violation of the Land Use Code that was not mentioned in the staff or the developer’s
17 presentation. We think two of the modifications, also, would have negative impacts on this
18 sensitive ecological corridor of the Poudre River, and so we would like to investigate those more.
19 We also want to investigate the ecological characterization study more, and we also want to
20 investigate the buffer issue more because there’s been significant controversy about what it
21 should be, and, again, Ms. Ex gave me a CD that has over a hundred and twenty of her emails on
22 it and I haven’t had a chance to look through those yet. And, so I think a postponement would
23 allow us to provide information to you, not just about the three modifications, but about other
24 things so that this hearing could be fair.
25 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I’m going to take this under advisement. We’re going to continue
26 on with the hearing.
27 MR. WOCKNER: Okay, could I provide hearing comments to you then, sir.
28 MR. LOPEZ: Sure.
29 MR. WOCKNER: Okay, thank you. The second document on the right side is request to
30 deny the development proposal for Legacy Senior Residences Project Development number 12-
31 0015. The introduction is very similar to the former introduction establishing why we are a
32 vested stakeholder in this process, and we are requesting this project be denied for six reasons.
33 One, that we were not publically notified in a timely manner, two, the project violates Land Use
34 Code Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), three, that the project’s modifications will negatively impact the
11
1 sensitive Cache la Poudre River ecological corridor when…and are unnecessary when other
2 alternatives exist, four, that the project misinterprets the buffer along the Poudre River ecological
3 corridor, five, that the project’s ecological characterization study is completely inadequate, six
4 the project proposal documents are inadequate because over half of the items in there are said to
5 be addressed in final compliance, including the issue about the length and size of the buffer.
6 So, just real quick, thank you for the time, sir. Again, we were not notified in a timely
7 fashion and we prefer a different notification method. And, again, by not conforming to this
8 different notification method, we think the City has violated City plans and policies that are in
9 City Plan, and read off those numbers previously so I won’t do that again. And, that’s one
10 reason why we think it should be denied.
11 Second reason that we think the project violates Land Use Code Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1),
12 which specifically states…multiple story buildings of up to five stories are permitted; however,
13 massing shall be terraced back from the river from the street as follows: number two is a
14 story…one story abutting the river landscape frontage. This project violates this section of the
15 Land Use Code because the building is four stories tall abutting the river landscape frontage;
16 whereas the Code requires one story. We strongly object to this violation…a four story building
17 along the Poudre will significantly mar the natural scenery and natural river experience, the
18 Poudre River buffer, as well as negatively impact the wildlife and ecology of the area. In
19 addition, as I previously read, the email from the City Sustainability Director, which said, also,
20 the applicant is failing to meet what I consider a key provision of the Land Use Code. And, in
21 addition to that, it also very clearly violates the Figure 20 on 4.17(D)(1)(a), which depicts a one
22 story building next to the river.
23 And, finally, sir, the City appears to be claiming that this project doesn’t abut the river.
24 We had a conversation today about it, and I…in the information I gave to you, I gave you three
25 photographs. Photograph number one shows the fence for the project and the river corridor right
26 here, City land and a bike path in the middle of that. Photograph number two is a Google Earth
27 image looking at the property from the sky, and then photograph three is the piece of land
28 between the two. The City is claiming that this…because of that piece of land, which the City
29 owns as a park, then this property doesn’t abut the river landscape buffer. We claim otherwise.
30 In fact, if you look at the definition of abut in Section 5.12, it is defined as abut or abutting shall
31 mean touching, and abutting conditions shall not be affected by the parcelization or division of
32 land that results in an incidental, non-buildable remnant lot, tract, or parcel. That’s the definition
33 of abut. We contend that the grassy area between the fence and the trees along the river is indeed
34 an incidental, non-buildable remnant lot, tract, or parcel, and that the project touches the river
35 landscape, indeed that the grassy area is the river landscape frontage. In fact, the grassy area is
36 the small non-buildable piece of property owned by the City, fully integrated with and managed
37 with, as you just heard, the Poudre River Natural Area and bike path. And, so, sir, in your
38 deliberations, please take a look at these three images, and also with that Section in our
39 comments.
12
1 Second is we…the third item here is that we believe the modifications will negatively
2 impact the sensitive Cache la Poudre River ecological corridor and are unnecessary when other
3 alternatives exist. First and foremost, the applicant wants a one hundred and eighty foot wall
4 whereas the Code required a hundred and twenty foot, one-story wall. And, so we object to that.
5 They claim they need it because it will meet the need of affordable housing in the community.
6 One of the reasons why we’d like more time, sir, is so that we could investigate where the other
7 options are for affordable housing. My understanding is that there were several different parcels
8 looked at before this one was decided on. In addition, sir, you should know that the City of Fort
9 Collins annexed area is actually bigger than the City of San Francisco, which has five times as
10 many people, and there is a lot of empty property in the City that would accommodate a two acre
11 affordable housing project. And, so, while we certainly support affordable housing, we think it’s
12 a great unmet need in our community, we do not believe that other City values should be
13 sacrificed, and I listed all those here, and I’ll just read off the numbers really quickly: ENV 1.1,
14 ENV 1.2, ENV 2.7, ENV 4.2, ENV 4.4, ENV 4.6, ENV 23.1, ENV 24.1, ENV 24.2, ENV 24.3,
15 ENV 24.4, 27.2, and 27.4, which are all about natural habitat, preserving the Cache la Poudre
16 River, etc.
17 The second modification they request is the one about the size of the building next to
18 Poudre Place, which is a street. We also object to this one because we think it will also mar the
19 entrance to the Poudre River bike path and walkway for all the similar reasons. In addition,
20 again, there are lots of other properties in the City of Fort Collins where they could build
21 affordable housing without asking for modifications.
22 Now, the fourth reason, sir, is that we believe the project misinterprets the buffer along
23 the Poudre River ecological corridor. Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) says that the applicant shall
24 establish, preserve, or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the river as an integral part
25 of the transition between the development and the river. Directly upstream, sir, and adjacent to
26 this property, the buffer is two hundred feet. Downstream to this, the RDR zone district, the
27 buffer is three hundred feet, so this would be the very first property in the RDR zone district that
28 will set the precedent for the buffer. We believe that the…staff’s concept here of the buffer
29 width, and also the developer, is inadequate. We think it should be a two hundred foot buffer
30 through the RDR zone district that will actually establish, preserve, and improve the continuous
31 landscape buffer along the river. And, we also think that the top of bank should be used rather
32 than the channel corridor, this gets into some of the minutia which you will have a chance to read
33 when you review it.
34 Number five, we think the ecological characterization study is completely inadequate.
35 Here is a sentence in the study: development of the Legacy Senior Housing parcel would create
36 no additional impacts to the Poudre River corridor beyond those that are already occurred. Sir,
37 the property will be a large footprint, four to five story building, a hundred people living on the
38 site within a hundred and fifty, two hundred feet of the river, fifty-one parking places, increased
39 traffic, increased human activity, night lighting, noise, changes in stormwater runoff, and
13
1 potentially changes in flooding impacts all occurring within the corridor, and so we think that it
2 is completely inadequate to make that statement. Further, Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) states that the
3 ecological characterization study shall describe, quote, any measures needed to mitigate the
4 projected adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features. We
5 believe the ECS has failed to describe those impacts, and certainly has not described any
6 mitigations on the projected adverse impacts; thus, we think…we again request that that’s a
7 reason to deny the project.
8 Finally, sir, my last point, out of…on the document titled Senior Legacy Residences PDP
9 120015, Round One, which is not in your packet, but it’s the comments that the staff gave to the
10 developer. Thirty-six of those comments are to be addressed in final compliance, so, final
11 compliance will be after the final decision is rendered, at which time the public won’t have any
12 recourse. Some of those compliance items are very important to the Poudre River’s health and
13 our organization, including the natural habitat buffer zone allowable uses, the width and the
14 acreage of it. And, so, they won’t even present that information to the public until after the final
15 decision is made. In addition, there are issues around floodplain impacts, Poudre River trail
16 impacts, etc., and drainage impacts, all to be addressed in final compliance. So, given those six
17 points, sir, we respectfully ask that you deny this project. Thank you very much for your time,
18 and I really appreciate the extended time you’ve given me, sir.
19 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, thank you very much for your comments. Okay, the next speaker,
20 please? Yes, mam. Start coming up to either podium and sign in.
21 MS. RUTH LONG: I’ve already signed in
22 MR. LOPEZ: Great, thank you.
23 MS. LONG: My name is Ruth Long, I’m the program manager for the Larimer County
24 Office on Aging, and I am in support of the project. Two years ago, the Office on Aging did a
25 survey of Larimer County residents who are sixty and over. We surveyed twenty-five hundred
26 people, older adults in Larimer County, and asked them basically about what their needs are.
27 One of the things that came out of the survey was…we asked them about having housing to suit
28 their needs. Fourteen percent of the survey respondents said that it was a problem for them to
29 find housing that would suit their needs, and that fourteen percent amount extrapolates out to
30 four thousand, four hundred and sixty-four people. Last year, we did a survey of all of the low
31 income senior housing in Larimer County, and we found that every housing facility for seniors
32 had a waiting list. So, we know that now, today, there’s a shortage of affordable housing for
33 seniors. In the years to come…currently, or at the years to come, we’re going to see a huge
34 increase in the senior population in Larimer County. Currently, our…the population of seniors is
35 about sixteen percent here in Larimer County. By the year 2030, the population will increase to
36 twenty-five percent of the County. That huge population growth is something that the County
14
1 and the City has not prepared for, particularly in the area of senior housing. And so,
2 consequently, I’m very supportive of this project. Thank you.
3 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. The next person?
4 MR. MATT ROBENAULT: Good evening, my name is Matt Robenault, I’m the Director
5 of the Downtown Development Authority, and the DDA is a tax increment redevelopment
6 agency established by the property owners and business owners in the downtown area, and
7 authorized by the City Council in 1981. The DDA strives to promote developments that are
8 consistent with priorities that the DDA’s plan of development to achieve a mix of uses in the
9 central business district. We do this by trying to maintain the downtown as a regional center for
10 commercial, financial, governmental, social, recreational, and cultural activities, and to prevent
11 the deterioration and fragmentation of the central core of Fort Collins. In this context, the
12 definition of fragmentation is: the absence of connections, or the underdevelopment of
13 connections, between parts of the neighborhood. The…residential housing is an important use in
14 the central business district, and the Legacy Senior Residences project represents a desired use
15 that contributes to the elimination of fragmentation in the River District neighborhood. The
16 developer’s proposal is transforming previously vacant industrial land that was formerly used as
17 equipment storage, into a desired use that’s going to contribute to the positive redevelopment of
18 the River District, and also satisfy significant community need for affordable housing units. The
19 Legacy project is appropriately scaled for its parcel and its context in the Downtown River
20 District and the modifications being requested by the developer are not out of the ordinary for an
21 infill development project. The justifications provided by the developer’s team as to why these
22 modifications are needed appear very rational. Quite honestly, as a professional in the
23 redevelopment industry for nearly twenty years, I’m actually quite surprised that there aren’t
24 more modifications on this modern infill project that’s located on one of the oldest established
25 parcels in the community.
26 I think that the developer’s team and the City staff who worked on this project have done
27 a great job meeting or exceeding the intent of the Code, and also addressing the needs of the
28 development program on a constrained urban parcel. I’d like to speak specifically to one of the
29 modifications, which is the request to modify…for modification to Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1)
30 regarding the building massing and placement, and it’s interface with Pine Street. I’ve provided
31 photographs for the public record tonight, and they represent existing conditions of buildings
32 located within two to four blocks of the proposed Legacy project. The first one…first
33 photograph that I provided you is 180 North College. This is a four story building with no step
34 back terrace immediately adjacent to the street. This is the Northern Hotel, and this is another
35 senior oriented, qualified affordable housing development, and it’s also one of the most highly
36 celebrated historic resources in the community. By evidence of the photograph, I can assure you,
37 as a representative of the Downtown Development Authority, that that project is not a detraction,
38 nor a negative urban design influence on the neighborhood, despite the fact that it lacks that step-
39 back terrace on the fourth floor. The second photograph I’ve provided to you this evening is 232
15
1 Pine Street. Now, this is a three story historic structure which also has no upper floor step-back,
2 and it’s immediately across the alley from a one story building. This building actually serves as
3 a defining element in the entryway to one of the newly enhanced alleyways that the Downtown
4 Development Authority constructed in 2010, and as you can see, its contrasting height with the
5 building across the alley is neither a detriment to urban design nor a liability to the
6 neighborhood, despite its lack of a step-back.
7 The third photograph, third and final photograph I provided, is of 252 East Mountain
8 Avenue. This is a four-story infill project that was completed just a few years ago. It’s known in
9 the community as the Mitchell Block, and as you can see that it contains a four story…it has four
10 story façade elements that represent both a step-back façade and a four story uniform elevation
11 that are combined into one. In my opinion, I think the Land Use Code’s requirement for the
12 step-back of the fourth story is not nearly as important as how the building physically relates to
13 the street. The examples I provided of the existing conditions in our downtown, and of the
14 highly celebrated projects that this community has worked on in partnership together,
15 demonstrates that there’s no right or wrong way to address the question of massing and height,
16 so long as that we’re paying attention to the typology of the building’s façade and the materials,
17 and the relationship to the street. The mitigation proposed by the developer’s representatives
18 along Pine Street accommodates both the building’s context in the urban core, and also with its
19 interfacing connection to the softer landscape as it feathers out towards the Poudre River. I’d
20 like to express my support of the requests for all three of these modifications sought for the
21 project. Thank you.
22 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. Next person.
23 MS. LINDA HOPKINS: Hello, my name is Linda Hopkins and I reside in Fort Collins, in
24 fact have been involved in this neighborhood, if you will, for the past thirty years, serving
25 initially as the chair of the Board of Directors that built…planned and built the United Way
26 building located in the Atzlan neighborhood. And then also was involved in a real estate
27 transaction that added a private home parcel to the development parcel under consideration. So,
28 I’ve had a lot of experience in some of the private public sector compromises that have been
29 generated in this neighborhood. And, I would think that I would really like to compliment the
30 partnership of public and private sector in what I see as generous compromises. First of all, the
31 compromise from five stories to four, the compromise in the overhang in the landscaped median.
32 I think extending the vehicular access for seniors is probably warranted. And then, also, I’d say
33 that the distance from the river, for those residents, and the distance to the river from the…for
34 the advocates of the Poudre River, is a practical compromise, one that the development plan
35 supports, and then one that I would suggest is worthy of your support as well. Thank you.
36 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. Yes, sir?
16
1 MR. BRYCE HACH: Yes, good evening. My name is Bryce Hach, and I am the chair of
2 the Affordable Housing Coalition of Larimer County, which is a network of organizations and
3 agencies, certainly in the City of Fort Collins and across the County addressing the needs of
4 affordable housing for vulnerable populations here in our community. And, in that regard, I just
5 want to provide support to the Legacy Senior Residences. I think what we have found is that the
6 vacancy rate for housing in our city is 2.6 percent, which is one of the lowest in the entire state,
7 and we’ve seen a thirty-five percent increase among seniors from the 2000 to 2010 census, so
8 this is an area of significant need. I also just wanted to celebrate the local commitment that’s
9 already been made on the part of the City as a part of the CDBG competitive process, and also
10 with the Colorado Housing Finance Authority and the competitively awarded low-income
11 housing tax credits. In addition, just wanted to reiterate that this housing is really right in line in
12 many ways, with what’s going on in the City Plan, in terms of the community and neighborhood
13 livability with housing principle seven stating that a variety of housing types and densities for all
14 income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area, that certainly falls
15 right in line with that, as well as principle eight, which states that the City will encourage the
16 creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities, and preservation of the existing
17 affordable housing supply, and this effort certainly falls right in line with that. In addition, this
18 housing effort really does fall in line with the City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Strategic
19 Plan for 2010 through 2014, where two of those four priorities are laid out in the Strategic Plan
20 right in line with this project. Number one, which states the increase in the inventory of
21 affordable rental housing units, and then number three, which is increase housing and the
22 facilities for people with special needs. And, so, looking in view of City Plan, looking in view
23 what’s the low vacancy rate, and what’s really in the best interest of our community at large, and
24 for the Affordable Housing Coalition of Larimer County, certainly in support of this housing
25 project. Thank you so much.
26 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, Mr. Hach. The next person?
27 MR. BILL REINKE: Hello, my name is Bill Reinke, I’m the Executive Director of
28 CARE Housing, a non-profit organization involved in the development, management, and
29 provision of supportive services associated with affordable housing. I arise to speak on behalf of
30 the proposal and proposed modifications. I think, number one, basically we have three hundred
31 and twenty-four affordable housing units in the City right now, seven projects, and they’re all
32 occupied. We basically have a zero vacancy rate, and a waiting list at each of our properties, so I
33 can basically speak to the fact that there is a lack…or a need of more affordable housing,
34 especially more affordable senior housing as we all grow older and, people talk about the baby
35 boomers retiring, and that type of thing. The other thing is that, what I have found is that there’s
36 still a great need for low-income…very low-income people to have housing in the City of Fort
37 Collins, for instance, I really applaud the effort to work…to really push the envelope and have
38 people that are making as low as thirty percent of the area median income, which is very low
39 income, up to sixty percent of area median income.
17
1 I think I’d also like to speak to the fact that we’re talking about abandoned industrial land
2 here, and I believe the use of this land for affordable senior housing speaks to its highest and best
3 use. The other thing, as mentioned before, I’d like to, you know, applaud the concession of the
4 developers making the building height lower. It’s funny, I do a lot of speaking in front of City
5 Councils and that type of thing, and I think it really speaks well of the City of Fort Collins that
6 nobody’s talking about not having those people in our property…and so I’m really glad to be
7 here to be talking about something a little bit different. I think one of the things is that…the
8 other thing is that it fits within the spirit of the redevelopment district, and it also is walking
9 distance to downtown. There’s a lot of talk these days about green development and ecologically
10 sensitive development, and low carbon footprints, and because of the walking distance, I think
11 basically the density there seems to be quite justified, with a great deal of a high walk score, and
12 proximity to services, public transportation, without the danger of heavy traffic. It also, just in
13 final…to end with this idea, is that I’m really very proud to be in a community that’s willing to
14 share the riverfront with low income people. I think a lot of times, the idea of having affordable
15 housing in an area that’s so attractive, is just something unheard of. So, I really applaud the City
16 and the developers sharing in the waterfront. Thank you very much.
17 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you.
18 MR. ED STONER: My name is Ed Stoner, I’m with Old Town Square Properties. I’m
19 here today…be redundant on the other speakers because I do support what they’ve said…the last
20 few speakers. I was on the Housing Authority when this project first came to us, I’m no longer
21 on the Housing Authority today, but this project was hard to find a site. So this site was unique,
22 number one that it’s also in a beautiful location, although if you looked at that site today, and you
23 looked at what it could be, a rational person would say this is definitely an improvement to the
24 downtown river district, this is something we should do. It fits all the City goals. As a past
25 mayor of Fort Collins, I can say that these are things we always stressed and wanted to have
26 done, was affordable housing. Now, senior affordable housing is just another quiver in the arrow
27 of making this project a real stand-out gem. I’d support the modifications. I think the
28 modifications are logical, the nexus is there to approve this, and they’ve worked with staff for
29 nine months trying to get to the end result, and with the historic preservation was part of that.
30 Now, as far as Mr. Wocker’s concerns, as far as not being notified, I assume…part of the SOP as
31 far as running it through that department, that they would be notified. I think it’d be up to them
32 to get in that loop if that’s what they’re going to do, wait until the last minute to oppose
33 something isn’t fair to a development proposal. And, one of the missions of the City of Fort
34 Collins is to not…hinder or discourage infill development, and this is obviously infill
35 development. So, I encourage this project to go forward, and I wish Larry luck. Thanks. Is this
36 thing supposed to work at three minutes?
37 MR. LOPEZ: You have as much time as you want, mayor. No, we’re not using the time
38 limits tonight. Next person.
18
1 MR. TOM MOORE: Hi, my name is Tom Moore. I have a business that’s located, for
2 the last thirty years, about a block from this, to the south, and I find this to be very much in the
3 spirit with how the area is redeveloping, and I like the idea of the residences downtown too. I
4 brought up my children in the middle of downtown, it was a great place for them, and also I had
5 an aunt and uncle that lived in the middle of Old Town until they were ninety years old. That
6 gave them the opportunity to walk around and walk to the store, and it really does cut down a lot
7 on how much transportation. I think the impact on the river…which, I love the river, and I’m on
8 it probably five out of seven days, one way or another, either fishing or riding my bike, or
9 running. The impact is minimum for something like this. There’s a lot of river, and this is a
10 great opportunity to use it in…the location here, in a great way. Thank you.
11 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. Next person, please? Don’t be shy.
12 MR. RICH SHANNON: Hello, my name is Rich Shannon, and I represent a couple of the
13 property owners who are not able to be here tonight. One is Dennis Nader, at 359 Linden, the
14 other Howard Perko at 351 Linden. Both of them are very supportive of the City’s goals for
15 redevelopment of the river district. On their behalf, I would express support for the
16 modifications, they are truly minimal. The overall goals of the City for density and diversity in
17 the river district are met by a project like this, and we’d strongly encourage you to support it. I’d
18 also mention that there are several other property owners in the river district here tonight that
19 may or may not feel comfortable speaking, but if it’s alright I’d ask them just to raise their hands
20 to recognize themselves as property owners, and by raising their hands, also indicating their
21 support for this project in their neighborhood.
22 MR. LOPEZ: That’s acceptable, thank you.
23 MR. SHANNON: Thank you.
24 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, next person please? Anyone in this section over to my left?
25 Okay, the remaining section? No one else? Okay, I will close this portion of the hearing, return
26 to the applicant, first of all, for responses based on what you’ve probably heard and some of the
27 testimony provided by the public, and then we’ll go to staff.
28 MR. JIM MARTELL: Mr. Lopez, my name is Jim Martell, I’m an attorney and I
29 represent the applicant’s in this case. I also represent the Housing Authority, which is one of the
30 general partners, and at the end of fifteen years will in fact be the owner of the property. I’d like
31 to address a couple of issues that Mr. Wockner raised. First, the issue of notice. He said he
32 didn’t get notice and that he should have received notice. The Land Use Code provides that
33 notice must be given to property owners within eight hundred feet. He didn’t indicate that he
34 owns property within eight hundred feet, but he indicated that he was a member of a group that
35 he believes should receive notice. That particular sentence says formally designated
36 representatives of bona fide neighborhood groups and organizations, and homeowner’s
37 associations within the area of notification. I don’t know whether he…he must consider that his
19
1 organization is in the neighborhood, and therefore should have received notice. But, the section
2 specifically provides that failure to mail such notice shall not affect the validity of any hearing,
3 meeting, or determination by the decision maker. He clearly stated that he received notice
4 thirteen days before this hearing. The statute…or the Land Use Code requires that the notice be
5 mailed fourteen days before the hearing. Assuming that the U.S. Postal Service does not deliver
6 mail the same day, he could not have received mail notice, under the statute if it had been
7 complied with, specifically, until the thirteenth day before. So, he got the notice within the time
8 period that he would have anyway.
9 So, I have two cases which the hearing officer may very well be aware of…Sundance
10 Hills Homeowners Association versus the Board of County Commissioners, which is 1975,
11 which held that posted notice is adequate. That’s how he found out, he said he rode his bike by
12 and saw the posted notice, that’s the purpose of the posted notice, is to put people on notice. The
13 second case is Hartley versus the City of Colorado Springs, which said that actual notice is
14 sufficient. And, clearly, he had actual notice. So…and I’ll provide copies of these to Mr.
15 Eckman for the hearing officer.
16 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, you can just give me the cites on those. That would be fine.
17 MR. MARTELL: Okay…the second part of the notice issue is what’s the purpose of the
18 notice? The purpose of the notice is to give him notice of this hearing. And, he had notice, he
19 appeared, and he presented and extensive amount of material. It is not…the purpose of the
20 notice is not to get everyone in the community involved in the process with the City staff, where
21 they can come in…as the developer mentioned, they’ve been working on this for eleven
22 months…meeting with the City staff for eleven months. The purpose of this notice is not, at the
23 last minute, to get every citizen in Fort Collins involved in what has been an eleven month
24 process. The purpose of the notice is to give him an opportunity to show up tonight and present
25 what he wishes to present, which he did.
26 So, the third issue on the request for a continuance, is what effect will that have on the
27 developer? And, in this case, the developer can speak to this directly, but, as you noticed, part of
28 the financing is tax credit financing. CHFA is requiring that they have ten percent invested in
29 this property by the first of August, which is two million dollars, which means that any delay
30 would be a very serious hardship to the developer because they would not have a decision on
31 these modification requests. The second issue that Mr. Wockner raised, that I think is somewhat
32 legal and technical, is…he read the definition of abut, or abutting, shall mean touching. And, in
33 the next sentence is what he was relying on, an abutting condition shall not be affected by the
34 parcelization or division of land. Those two words are active verbs, parcelization – to create a
35 parcel, division – to divide property. And, as the hearing officer may know, having represented
36 developers and others, sometimes some developers may create a parcel of land within their own
37 parcel and convey it to someone else solely for the purpose of evading the regulations so that
38 they’re not touching whatever it is they don’t want to touch. That’s not the case here. This was
20
1 not a parcelization or a division by the developer in any sense. But then Mr. Wockner went on to
2 say that results in an incidental, non-buildable, remnant lot, tract, or parcel. His argument
3 seemed to be that because the City owns it, therefore it’s non-buildable. Well, again, every
4 building that’s owned by the City is on land owned by the City. The fact that the City owns land
5 does not mean that the City cannot build on its own land. And, in this case, almost adjacent to
6 this property is the Atzlan Center, which is a City-owned building on City-owned land, which is
7 part of this same area that he is talking about. So, I don’t think that that…that either one of those
8 should in any way be an issue in this case.
9 The other issue he raised is, well, there may be other properties out there in the City
10 because there is vacant land in the City. We have no idea what other properties may be
11 available, but Mr. Stoner pointed out that the Housing Authority, in fact, looked at alternatives.
12 But, that’s really not relevant, because we’re not considering how many other parcels anywhere
13 could accommodate this use, what we’re looking at tonight is this parcel, this proposal, and the
14 modifications being requested. One of the modifications is the step down, and he referred to an
15 email from a staff person of Mr. Atteberry’s who thought that it did not comply. Well, that’s
16 true, it doesn’t comply, that’s why we’re here requesting a modification. It does not step down,
17 we’re asking it to be modified, and have presented specific evidence and reasons why the
18 modification should be granted. So, the fact that a staff person thought that it did not comply is
19 in fact correct. It didn’t and that’s why we’re here. I think the other thing on that point, that the
20 hearing officer ought to consider, is that Pine Street is actually a parking lot. I mean this is
21 designed to step back from a street. And, as you can see from the maps, Pine Street is really a
22 very large parking lot for the adjacent building. So, based on that, I would ask that the hearing
23 officer, obviously not continue the hearing, find that the notice was adequate, that Mr. Wockner
24 had actual notice, that actual notice is adequate, that the posting of the notice is adequate, and
25 that he has not, in any way, been deprived of any due process. Thank you.
26 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. Any other responses from the applicant?
27 MR. MAZATA: Jim brought up the issue of the consequences of the delay, and you may
28 well have experience with affordable housing tax credit, financed affordable housing. We have
29 an extended deadline because the planning process has taken the time that it has. We had to ask
30 the Colorado Housing Finance Authority to extend the deadline for the carryover allocation
31 which includes the ten percent cost certification requirement. They did so, with the admonition
that they would not be extended again. So, on August 1
st
32 , we either submit the documentation
33 with the ten percent cost certification, or we do not. In the event we do not, the credits are
34 returned to the Finance Authority and they’ll reissue them elsewhere.
35 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Okay, I think we’ll bring it back to staff, and
36 I think, staff, if you could make the record in terms of notice, that would be very helpful.
37 MS. EX: You want us to clarify the notice question?
21
1 MR. LOPEZ: Yeah.
2 MS. EX: I’m going to actually turn that over to our City Attorney Paul Eckman.
3 MR. PAUL ECKMAN: It is true that Section 2.2.6(A), dealing with mail notice, contains
4 a sentence that says formally designated representatives of bona fide neighborhood groups and
5 organizations and homeowner’s associations within the area of notification shall also receive
6 written notice. Mr. Martell is also correct, the last sentence of that paragraph says failure to mail
7 such notice shall not affect the validity of any hearing, meeting, or determination by the decision
8 maker. I think that the organization called Save the Poudre, Poudre Waterkeeper, could logically
9 be considered a neighborhood organization of the river. If it were to formally designate with the
10 City, a person who should receive notice, because it does mention that formally designated
11 representatives of bona fide neighborhood organizations shall receive notice. The City would
12 have no way of knowing who it should send notice to if they did not formally designate someone
13 to whom notice should be sent, and I don’t know…that’s a fact question I don’t know about
14 whether or not the City has received a formal designation of anyone from Save the Poudre, most
15 likely Dr. Wockner, as the person to whom notice should be mailed. So, I…that’s my thought on
16 the notice. I tend to agree with Mr. Martell…that the notice issue, if it was only like one day off,
17 or even, not even that much, is probably the deminimus at the most, and is not of particular
18 concern to me in terms of due process.
19 As to the continuance of the hearing, while I have the microphone on, and there was
20 mention made of that…Section 2.2.7(B)(3) deals with continuances of public hearings, and says
21 the decision maker conducting the public hearing may, on its own motion, or at the request of
22 any person, continue the public hearing to a fixed date, time, and place. All continuances shall
23 be granted at the discretion of the body conducting the public hearing, which in this case is you.
24 I have seen continuances, and the Planning and Zoning Board has a procedure for
25 continuances…a rule of their own for continuances, that if the meeting goes beyond 11:00 PM, I
26 think it is, there is an automatic continuance unless the Board suspends its own rules and decides
27 to continue with the hearing. You could also, I think, very logically continue a hearing if you
28 feel that you need more information in order to afford a full and fair hearing with a just result
29 tonight. And, those are the two main reasons that I can think of why…as to why a continuance
30 might be appropriate.
31 MR. LOPEZ: Anything else from staff?
32 MS. EX: Does anybody from the staff that’s here want to say anything? I think I’d like
33 to add on to what Mr. Eckman said about the notice. I think that, in fairness to Dr. Wockner, he
34 has made requests to the City that he be notified. He has not cited this section of Code, we have
35 not, to my knowledge, designated him formally, although he and I did speak tonight about
36 designating his organization formally, so I know that that process is going to happen here on out.
22
1 But, I feel as though he has requested to be notified on this project in the past, and I feel like you
2 should be aware of that. Is that mic on? Yeah.
3 The other thing I’d like to…in addition to a couple of other comments, it’s important to
4 note that Mr. Martell talked about an email from one of our staff to the City Manager, and that
5 violation was not in relation to the modification being requested tonight, but regarding the
6 definition of the abutting versus along, next to the river. So, that’s important to clarify as well.
7 Regarding that, staff had significant discussion about the term abutting versus along, and it really
8 came down to, for us, whether or not you could build on that parcel of City land. And even
9 though it is on park land, when you look at the definition of a building being a permanent
10 structure, we do require parks properties to come through our development review process, so
11 they could have come through for numerous different structures on that parcel. And so that is
12 how staff arrived at the notion that it was not abutting, not only that it wasn’t touching, but also
13 we relied on the second sentence of the term as well.
14 I tried to capture all the comments made by Dr. Wockner, but he speaks very fast, and so
15 I might have missed something in his comments, but I do believe I captured most of them. The
16 first one was related to light pollution, and he talked about how that affects the Poudre River.
17 Lighting is not allowed to spill over into a natural habitat buffer zone, which has been
18 established on the project. We have received a photometric plan and staff has verified that
19 lighting does not spill over.
20 Regarding stormwater going into the river, Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code requires
21 that projects meet the stormwater codes as outlined in the Municipal Code. The outfall on the
22 project is required as part of the Old Town Stormwater Master Plan.
23 Regarding the ecological characterization study, Dr. Wockner suggested that there were
24 no mitigation recommendations. Those begin on page two of the document, and if for any
25 reason you do not have a copy of that as well, I apologized to Dr. Wockner that he didn’t
26 apparently get that…I can provide that to you as well.
27 Regarding a misinterpretation of the buffer…Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code does
28 not apply in the RDR zone district. Instead, what is required is a continuous landscape buffer
29 along the river. As the environmental planner, I know a lot about this one. The…that area is
30 dominated by smooth brome, which is a non-native grass and provides very little habitat to the
31 river right now. The applicants are proposing to establish quite a bit of native landscaping,
32 including, I believe, thirteen trees, forty-four shrubs, and numerous different grass species in the
33 area that will improve the habitat of the river, in my opinion. Also, I believe he made mention of
34 top of back versus the channel corridor. We do measure the buffer from the point of top of bank,
35 that is a Land Use Code change that went through last year, and it is defined in the Land Use
36 Code in Section 3.4.1(E), as well as in the definitions. Regarding fifty percent of the items not
37 being addressed until final…this is a standard development review process that’s outlined in our
23
1 Code as well as in our procedural documents. Regarding his specific concerns about the
2 environmental planning comments, I had asked that the applicant’s label the natural habitat
3 buffer zone on the plans at time of final, and they already have complied with that. They did that
4 in a revised submittal which you have. I also asked for acreages of the natural habitat buffer
5 zone, and I did that more from a tracking perspective, not from a Code requirement. I believe
6 that that covers everything I have written down, unless you had any further questions.
7 MR. LOPEZ: No, I don’t. So that’s all from staff?
8 MR. ECKMAN: Just one more comment about the definition of abutting. It is true that
9 Division 4.17 talks about one story building abutting the river landscape, so if it’s abutting, that
10 would be a problem. The definition of abutting, I think…I disagree with Mr. Martell, I don’t
11 think that the parcelization or division of land has to be done by the developer. This definition
12 doesn’t say that. It just says an abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization or
13 division of land, no matter by whom. It could have been a previous owner, I think. But, it has to
14 result in an incidental, non-buildable remnant lot, tract, or parcel. So, I think I heard Ms. Ex say
15 that something could be built there that requires a building permit, and that would seem to me to
16 be buildable then, if something could be. So, you get to the same result, in my thinking, even
17 though I don’t think the developer is the one that has to do the parcelization.
18 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, well thank you very much. I am going to deny the request for the
19 continuance. I believe I have the information necessary to render a decision. I want to thank
20 each and every one of you for your comments. As I’ve stated before, I will be preparing a
21 written decision, it will go out within ten working days, and with two hearings tonight, I’m going
22 to be busy the next ten days. So, thank you very much.
23
24
25
ATTACHMENT 8
Site Visit Summary
August 6, 2012
1
MEMO
To: Ms. Laurie Kadrich
Ms. Lindsay Ex
From: Andrew S. Gingerich, P.E.
Date: August 9, 2012
RE: Legacy Senior Residences PDP City Council Site Visit
Members of City Council were invited to inspect the site of the proposed Legacy Senior
Residences in conjunction with appeals of the Hearing Officer’s decision. City Council
is scheduled to consider the appeals at the August 21, 2012, regular Council meeting.
City Council Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson
Council Member Wade Troxell
City Staff Present:
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney
Laurie Kadrich, C.D.N.S. Director
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
Lindsay Ex, Environmental/Project Planner
Andrew Gingerich, Staff Engineer
Others Present:
Julie Brewen, Fort Collins Housing Authority
Cathy Mathis, Planner – The Birdsall Group
Janelle Kechter, Liley, Paralegal - Lucia Liley
The site inspection began at 3:45 pm. along Linden Street near the existing driveway
access to the property between the Poudre River and Poudre Street. Carrie Daggett began
by informing all present of the protocol for this visit and handed out “City Council Site
Visit Pending Appeal of Legacy Senior Residences PDP and Modifications of Standards”
which provide important notes and reminders regarding the process of this site visit.
2
After brief introductions of everyone present staff led everyone into the site which is
currently owned by Keifer Concrete. Lindsay Ex began pointing at the approximate
location of the northeast corner of the proposed building. Laurie Kadrich referenced the
location of the proposed detention and water quality pond located at the southeast corner
of the property. Lindsay Ex showed the group the site plan exhibit (from the
administrative hearing materials) and referenced the location of the building corners with
the corners marked on the site. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the shape and character
of the detention pond had been ironed out. Lindsay Ex replied that the specific shape of
the pond would be worked out in Final.
Lindsay Ex pointed out the top of bank of the Poudre River from the NE corner of the
building to give a perspective on the building setback from the top of bank. Mayor Pro
Tem Ohlson asked what the standard distance for the setback is. Lindsay Ex noted that in
the River Downtown Redevelopment District, the standard metrics in Section 3.4.1(E) of
the Land Use Code do not apply. Instead, a “continuous landscape buffer is required” and
a specific metric is not provided in this zone district.
Staff led the group west to the middle of the building along the proposed north wall
where the building is intended to angle to the southwest. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked
how tall the proposed building is. Lindsay Ex replied that it is four stories and pointed to
the nearby Willow Street Lofts to give perspective as to what four stories looks like.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked why is the building turning at a 45 degree angle and not 90
degree angle. Laurie Kadrich replied that the angle is important for the functionality
within the building as this area is used as a common area inside.
Staff led the group to the south edge of the property near the SE corner of the building
and proposed access off of Poudre Street.
Councilmember Troxell asked what is to be done with the Alley (Poudre Street). Andrew
Gingerich replied that it has been designed and will be constructed in accordance with
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Alley Standards. Councilmember Troxell
asked who is paying for the alley improvements. Andrew Gingerich responded that the
applicant/developer is responsible for these improvements.
At 3:55 pm. Staff began to lead the group back out of the site along south edge of the
property. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson was curious what the purpose of the promenade was
along the north side of the building. Lindsay Ex explained that this was covered porch
along the north of the building that allows for a wide pathway for the residences to walk
along.
Staff continued to lead the group out of the site and north to the Poudre Trail and west
along the trail to show some reference stakes placed outside of the existing site fence.
Lindsay Ex explained that these stakes do not represent building corners but just visual
references to the actual building corner stakes within the site.
3
Councilmember Troxell asked what the area between existing site fence the Poudre Trail
was used for. Lindsay Ex replied that this area was part of the continuous landscape
buffer.
Lindsay Ex explained to the group the three modifications that were approved at the
administrative hearing; the wall length along Poudre River modification, the building step
down modification and parking median width modification. She noted that the appeal
specifically challenges the approval of the modification so as to allow the northern wall
of the building to be 180' in length (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4).
Lindsay showed the group the trees that are to be removed as part of the project. Mayor
Pro Tem Ohlson asked where the city easement is located that is proposed to be granted
to the project. Lindsay Ex showed the group the general location of the easement.
The group was then shown the location of the drainage rundown along the banks of the
Poudre River where the proposed detention/water quality pond would release detained
flows that would then congregate at the intersection of the Poudre Trail and Linden
Street. Staff asked if there were any last comments or questions. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson
asked to see a building elevation rendering that most closely resembled what his view
would be from where he was currently standing. Lindsay Ex showed him the two
building elevation exhibits (from the administrative hearing materials) that provided the
best representation of the view, though Lindsay highlighted that the landscape materials
depicted in the rendering are not reflective of the landscape materials proposed. The
purpose of the rendering is to highlight the building materials and massing in order for
staff to review the proposed project in relation to the Code. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson
suggested that, in the future, a footnote is added to such renderings noting that the
landscape is or is not reflective of the landscape plans.
The site visit was concluded at 4:23 pm.
The explanation of the site visit process and the three items that were viewed during the
site visit and referenced within this memo (from the administrative hearing record) are
attached as exhibits.
City Council Site Visit
Pending Appeal of Legacy Senior Residences PDP
and Modifications of Standards
August 6, 2012
3:30 p.m.
Meeting Point: 411 Linden Street
Important Note and Reminder:
The purpose of the site visit is for the City Council to view the site and to
ask related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining site
conditions.
There will be no opportunity during the site visit for the applicant,
appellants, or members of the public to speak, ask questions, respond to
questions, or otherwise provide input or information, either orally or in
writing.
Other than a brief staff overview and staff responses to questions, all
discussions and follow up questions or comments must be deferred and
provided as part of the hearing on the subject appeal to be held on Tuesday,
August 21st.
ATTACHMENT 9
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
August 21, 2012
8/20/2012
1
1
Legacy Senior Residences
August 21, 2012
Consideration of the Appeal of the Hearing
Officer’s June 25, 2012 decision to approve
the Legacy Senior Residences Project
Development Plan
2
Aerial Map
8/20/2012
2
3
Project Facts
• 1.97 acre site
• 72 one- and two-bedroom units
• Redevelopment of a concrete storage yard
• 4-story building with a maximum building height of
50’-6 ¾”
• 51 parking spaces provided (within the
Transportation Overlay District)
• All units are planned to be permanently
affordable, serving seniors who earn between 30-
60% of the Area Median Income.
4
Zoning
• River Downtown Redevelopment zone
• Allows a maximum height of five stories, except:
– (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall step
down to one story abutting the River landscape
frontage; and
– (2) buildings or parts of buildings shall step
down to three stories or less abutting any
street frontage (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1))
• Requires walls to not exceed 125’ in length along
the river (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4))
8/20/2012
3
5
Zoning
• Poudre River Buffer – Section 4.17(D)(1):
– “(a) River landscape buffer… In substitution for
the provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C)
(Natural Habitats and Features) requiring the
establishment of "natural area buffer zones,"
the applicant shall establish, preserve or
improve a continuous landscape buffer along
the River as an integral part of a transition
between development and the River.
6
First Assertion - Failure to Properly Interpret
and Apply Section 2.82(H) to Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) of the Land Use Code.
• Section 2.8.2(H) – Modification Review Procedure
– the decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds
that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the
public good, and that:
• (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any
standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this
Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and
described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a
substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the
proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described
in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy,
ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict
application of such a standard would render the project practically
infeasible; or
8/20/2012
4
7
First Assertion continued - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section 2.82(H) to Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) of the Land Use Code.
• Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) Frequent view/access
– No building wall shall exceed one hundred twenty-five
(125) feet on the axis along the River.
8
Second Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) Height/Mass
• Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) – Height/Mass
– 1. Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5)
stories are permitted; however, massing shall be
terraced back from the River and from streets as follows:
• (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to
one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage;
and
• (2) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to
three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage.
8/20/2012
5
9
Third Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section
4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) Frequent View/Access
• This section of the appeal has been addressed
in the first assertion under the Modification of
Standard.
10
Fourth Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section 4.17(D)(1)(a)
River Landscape Buffer
• Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) – River Landscape Buffer
– (a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the
provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural
Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of
"natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish,
preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer
along the River as an integral part of a transition
between development and the River. To the maximum
extent feasible, the landscape buffer shall consist
predominantly of native tree and shrub cover…
8/20/2012
6
11
Fifth Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.4 Site
Lighting
• Section 3.2.4(D)(6) –
– 6) Unique areas or neighborhoods within the city may
have additional design guidelines for lighting as part of a
neighborhood or area plan. The Community Planning
and Environmental Services Department can provide
information regarding neighborhood or area plans.
Natural areas and natural features shall be protected
from light spillage from off-site sources.
12
Sixth Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section 3.4.1(D) and
3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological Characterization
Study
Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) – River Landscape Buffer
– (a) River landscape buffer. In substitution for the
provisions contained in Section 3.4.1(C) (Natural
Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of
"natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish,
preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer
along the River as an integral part of a transition
between development and the River. To the maximum
extent feasible, the landscape buffer shall consist
predominantly of native tree and shrub cover…
8/20/2012
7
13
Sixth Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section 3.4.1(D) and
3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological Characterization
Study
Section 3.4.1(D) –
– (D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature
Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature
shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only
approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a
project development shall be proposed by the applicant and
established by the Director through site evaluations and
reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization
of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map.
14
Sixth Assertion continued- Failure to
Properly Interpret and Apply Section
3.4.1(D) and 3.4.1(D)(1) Ecological
Characterization Study
Section 3.4.1(D)1 –
– (1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains,
or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if
it is determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection,
that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other
natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall
provide to the City an ecological characterization report prepared by a
professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other
relevant discipline…The Director may waive any or all of the following
elements of this requirement if the City already possesses adequate
information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s),
as set forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development
("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below…
8/20/2012
8
15
Seventh Assertion - Failure to Properly
Interpret and Apply Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k)
Ecological Characterization Study and
Mitigation
• Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) of the Land Use Code
states the Ecological Characterization Study
shall describe the following:
– (k) any measures needed to mitigate the
projected adverse impacts of the development
project on natural habitats and features.
16
•(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or
is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is
determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the
site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural
characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the
City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional
qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant
discipline... The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of
this requirement if the City already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in
subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in
subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization study shall describe,
without limitation, the following:
Eighth Assertion - The Hearing Officer
Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings
that was Substantially False or Grossly
Misleading regarding the project’s Ecological
Characterization Study
8/20/2012
9
17
– (a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the
area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species and
the "value" (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting,
perching) that the area provides for such wildlife species;
– (b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the
ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands;
– (c) any prominent views from or across the site;
– (d) the pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and
other native site vegetation;
– (e) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial
stream or body of water on the site;
Eighth Assertion continued- The Hearing Officer
Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings
that was Substantially False or Grossly
Misleading regarding the project’s Ecological
Characterization Study
18
– (f) areas inhabited by or frequently utilized by Sensitive and Specially
Valued Species;
– (g) special habitat features;
– (h) wildlife movement corridors;
– (i) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its
features;
– (j) any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities
stemming from the ecological character of the area; and
– (k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of
the development project on natural habitats and features.
Eighth Assertion continued - The Hearing Officer
Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings
that was Substantially False or Grossly
Misleading regarding the project’s Ecological
Characterization Study
8/20/2012
10
19
“Although the STP Spokesman argued that there were
other equally suited sites for affordable senior housing,
none were identified. The other members of the public
who testified in favor of the PDP stated that the site
selection process had been thorough and exhaustive.
The Hearing Officer approves this modification pursuant
to Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2).” (Hearing Officer
Decision, Page 26)
Ninth Assertion continued - The Hearing Officer
Considered Evidence Relevant to its Findings
that was Substantially False or Grossly
Misleading regarding the availability of locations
for the projects to be built
20
Question Council Needs to Address:
• Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code:
– Section 2.8.2(H) regarding 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) –
Modification of Standard for the Frequent
View/Access Standard
– Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) – Height/Mass
– Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) – River Landscape Buffer
– Section 3.24 – Site Lighting
– Section 3.4.1(D) and 3.4.1(D)(1) – Ecological
Characterization Study
8/20/2012
11
21
Question Council Needs to Address:
• Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code:
– Section 2.8.2(H) regarding 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) –
Modification of Standard for the Frequent
View/Access Standard
– Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) – Height/Mass
– Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) – River Landscape Buffer
– Section 3.24 – Site Lighting
– Section 3.4.1(D) and 3.4.1(D)(1) – Ecological
Characterization Study (ECS)
– Section 3.4.1(D)(1)(k) – ECS and Mitigation
22
Question Council Needs to Address:
• Did the Hearing Officer Considered Evidence
Relevant to its Findings that was Substantially
False or Grossly Misleading regarding the
following?
– Section 3.4.1(D) – Ecological Characterization
Study (ECS)
– The availability of locations for this project to be
built
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Tc
(min)
10-yr
Tc
(min)
100-yr
Tc
(min)
11No0.25 0.25 0.31 41 12.00% 4.4 4.4 4.1 0 0.00% N/A N/A 198 1.30% 1.71 1.9 6 6 6
22No0.95 0.95 1.00 42 0.50% 2.3 2.3 1.5 214 0.50% 1.41 2.5 0 N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
33No0.25 0.25 0.31 141 3.20% 12.8 12.8 11.9 76 0.50% 1.41 0.9 0 N/A N/A N/A 14 14 13
44No0.95 0.95 1.00 62 2.50% 1.6 1.6 1.1 67 0.50% 1.41 0.8 0 N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
55No0.95 0.95 1.00 33 4.50% 1.0 1.0 0.7 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
6 6 No 0.25 0.25 0.31 20 8.00% 3.6 3.6 3.3 0 0.00% N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
3
Overall to
Pond
(Basin 2-
4) No 0.25 0.25 0.31 141 3.20% 12.8 12.8 11.9 76 0.50% 1.41 0.9 0 N/A N/A N/A 14 14 13
DEVELOPED TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS
Gutter Flow Swale Flow
Design
Point Basin
Overland Flow
ATC
4/23/12
Time of Concentration
(Equation RO-4)
3
1
1 . 87 1 . 1 *
S
Ti C Cf L
OS1 OS1 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 187 0.90% 4.0 4.0 2.6 202 0.40% 1.26 2.7 0 N/A N/A N/A 7 7 5
OS2 OS2 No 0.95 0.95 1.00 94 1.60% 2.3 2.3 1.6 78 0.40% 1.26 1.0 0 N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5
10-year Cf = 1.00
4/23/12
requested action could not lawfully be accomplished. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the
purpose of inspection, and if necessary, for posting of public notice on the property.
Name (Please PRINT): _______________________________________________________________________
Address:___________________________________________________________________________________
Telephone:___________________________________________________________________________
Signature: (and title showing authority to sign, if applicable)
LEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES PDP
18,740
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 72 AFFORDABLE SENIOR APARTMENTS
.43
23,442 .54
LINDEN STREET AND POUDRE STREET
36,728 .84
7,090 .16
WILLOW STREET AND LINDEN STREET 86,000 1.97
RDR
.89
36.5 d.u./ac
9712208009, 8013, 8014, 8016, 8017, and 8022
76,723 Cornerstone Associates LLC
209 South 19th Street #600
Omaha NE 68102
.89 402-341-0888 LMazzotta@cstonellc.net
1.97 acres
Cathy Mathis
72 The Birdsall Group
September 9, 2011
444 Mountain Ave.
Berthoud CO 80513
970-532-5891 cathy@tbgroup.us
n/a email
Type I
Cathy Mathis
TB Group, 444 Mountain Ave. Berthoud CO 80513
970-532-5891
To: Gary Lopez <GLOPEZ@fcgov.com>, 'Gary Wockner' <garywockner@comcast.net>
References: <4FC3A5FC.1040205@comcast.net> <4C643A41E5B5DE4FA4CB5426324671420B4D8A07@mbxchw01.city.fcgov.com>
<4FC4E33C.2050104@comcast.net> <4C643A41E5B5DE4FA4CB5426324671420B4D8A51@mbxchw01.city.fcgov.com>
Page 2 of 3
5/30/2012
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Lindsay Ex
Cc: Gary Lopez; John Stokes; Darin Atteberry; Kelly Ohlson; Gerry Horak; Bennet Manvel
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Development review question]
Thank you, Lindsay,
I'm Ccing Councilmembers Horak, Manvel, and Ohlson above, as well as Darin and
John Stokes.