HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/12/2016 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial
711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Adjourned Meeting
July 12, 2016
6:00 p.m.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Consideration of an Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision Regarding the Maple
Mixed Use PDP. (staff: Tom Leeson, Clark Mapes; 10 minute staff presentation; 2 hour
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider an Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer decision
dated April 25, 2016, denying the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project Development Plan. On May 9,
2016, Ian Shuff, Architect with the firm ALM2S, filed a Notice of Appeal on grounds that the Hear
Officer made the following errors:
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code (LUC),
particularly LUC Sections 3.4.7, 3.5.1, 2.8, and 4.16(D)(5)(e); and
Consideration of evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly
misleading.
2. Consideration of a Motion to Support the Nomination Application of Mayor Pro Tem Horak to the
United States Department of Transportation Advisory Committee on Transportation and Tourism
Infrastructure.
The purpose of this item is to propose a motion in order to support the nomination application of
Mayor Pro Tem Gerry Horak to the US Department of Transportation’s Advisory Committee on
City of Fort Collins Page 2
Transportation and Tourism Infrastructure. This advisory committee is comprised of 25
representatives from around the nation and advises the Secretary of Transportation on matters
pertaining to the role of intermodal transportation in facilitating mobility related to travel and tourism
activities.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 12, 2016
City Council
STAFF
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs
SUBJECT
Consideration of an Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision Regarding the Maple Mixed Use
PDP.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider an Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer decision dated April 25,
2016, denying the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project Development Plan. On May 9, 2016, Ian Shuff, Architect with
the firm ALM2S, filed a Notice of Appeal on grounds that the Hear Officer made the following errors:
Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), particularly LUC
Sections 3.4.7, 3.5.1, 2.8, and 4.16(D)(5)(e); and
Consideration of evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On April 14, 2016, an Administrative Hearing Officer held a hearing on the application for the 320 Maple Mixed
Use Project Development Plan (PDP). On April 25, 2016, the Hearing Officer issued a decision to deny the
application, which included a Modification of a Standard.
The decision is provided as Attachment 3. It was generally based on findings that the mass, height and
design of the proposed building are entirely incompatible with the adjacent existing buildings including historic
resources in the area of adjacency.
The Staff Report to the Administrative Hearing Officer (Attachment 4) describes the proposed development in
detail.
I. Land Use Code Standards In Question
The Hearing Officer’s decision focused on LUC Sections 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, and 3.5.1,
Building and Project Compatibility, as the reason for denial of the PDP. These LUC standards require new
development to be compatible with the adjacent surrounding neighborhood context, including compatibility with
historic resources in the adjacent area.
The standards are written to provide qualitative requirements rather than numerical metrics for building size
limits. They are based on extensive community discussion, and represent a careful balance among widely
differing interests with regard to larger new buildings in infill and redevelopment projects.
The premise is that the resulting degree of flexibility and interpretation in the development review process will
be resolved in an iterative process among staff, the development team, the community, and ultimately the
decision maker.
1
Packet Pg. 3
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
Because the Hearing Officer decided that the applicant had not demonstrated compliance with Section 3.4.7
and 3.5.1, she also denied the Modification of Standard request to use cement fiber lap siding. The
Modification of Standard request was related to LUC Section 4.16(D)(5)(e), Downtown District Building
Standards, Building Character and Facades, Canyon Avenue and Civic Center: Exterior Facade Materials.
II. Appeal Allegation - Hearing Evidence Substantially False or Grossly Misleading
This issue is addressed second in the Notice of Appeal. However, it is being addressed first in this AIS
because the City Code would require Council to remand this matter for rehearing if it determines that the
hearing officer considered substantially false or grossly misleading evidence.
The question for City Council regarding this appeal allegation is:
Did the Hearing Officer consider evidence relevant to her findings which were substantially false or grossly
misleading?
The allegation is that a presentation by certain members of the public, Christian and Robin Bachelet, at the
hearing included information that was substantially false or grossly misleading; and that given the
overwhelming amount of accurate evidence presented by the applicant and staff, the Hearing Officer must
have considered and relied on the false or misleading information in determining that the Project Development
Plan failed to comply with Land Use Code Sections 3.4.7 and 3.5.1.
The Notice of Appeal asserts that the information presented by the Bachelets at the hearing included
substantially false and grossly misleading evidence related to the following:
property lines of the Project and Brownes on Howes overlap;
the Project and Brownes on Howes are not kitty-corner;
the Project and Brownes on Howes buildings are only 35 feet apart;
the Project is directly across alley from Brownes on Howes;
the Project does not mitigate height and mass;
residents of the Project would have direct views into windows, terraces and entrances of Brownes on
Howes;
the applicant's shadow analysis was incomplete and inaccurate;
the Project does not meet setback requirements;
incorrect information regarding setbacks of other properties within the block;
the Project will have metal siding on east side;
historically designated and eligible structures were not adequately considered.”
Relevant information to the assertion that substantially false or grossly misleading evidence was considered
includes:
Transcript pp. 11-18 generally, presentation of images by the Bachelets as the developers of the Brownes
on Howes, Staff Report, Applicant slide presentation.
III. Appeal Allegation - Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Land Use Code
The question for City Council regarding this appeal allegation is:
Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply Sections 3.4.7, 3.5.1, 2.8, and 4.16(D)(5)(e) of the
Land Use Code?
The allegation is that the Hearing Officer did fail to properly interpret and apply these Land Use Code Sections
because the record is replete with facts and evidence that establish that the project complies with the Sections;
and that in contrast, the Hearing Officer cited no facts or evidence to support the finding of noncompliance.
1
Packet Pg. 4
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
SECTION 3.4.7 - HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. This Section is intended to ensure that, to the
maximum extent feasible, new construction is designed to respect the historic character of properties in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Findings pertinent to Section 3.4.7 are:
The Hearing Officer found that applicable standards were not met in the Project Development Plan. The
officer cited building height that far exceeds height of surrounding buildings; flat-roofed, modern design;
overall mass with step-backs not adequate to reduce overall mass; and a relationship to the street that is
not similar to other surrounding buildings; resulting in a building entirely incompatible with adjacent historic
properties. The Hearing Officer’s decision is attached.
Staff found that applicable standards were met in the Project Development Plan due to: modulation of the
building sufficient to mitigate the mass and scale of the larger building, with substantial setbacks of 12 and
14 feet and upper floor stepbacks; the clearly defined one-story brick base portion, the step down to 1½
stories on the north next to a neighboring house; doorways facing the proposed new streetscape; window
and trim patterns; and use of lap siding similar to surrounding buildings; all contributing to the project’s
compatibility with the surrounding context.
The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) unanimously found that applicable standards were met,
citing compatible massing and scale, appropriate step-backs to mitigate height relative to the historic
context, compatible materials, window patterning and proportions typical of the historic context, and
pedestrian scale of the ground floor compatible with the historic context.
The LPC’s recommendation was required based on the presence of historic resources in the adjacent context
area. The project was reviewed twice by the LPC, first for an early conceptual review and then for a
recommendation on final plans, which had been revised in response to comments from the LPC and staff.
The LPC identified five relevant adjacent historic properties in its recommendation, which is attached to the
hearing staff report. They comprise four houses and the Emma Malaby grocery building, all of which are
across Meldrum Street to the west of the proposed project, facing the subject property. The LPC found that
the proposed project was compatible with adjacent historic properties.
At the Type 1 hearing there were two brief mentions of historic properties. There was no specific discussion of
historic compatibility. The first mention was when the applicant showed a photo of the historic Emma Malaby
grocery and houses across Meldrum Street from the property. (See transcript page 4, line 9 for this brief
mention.) The only other mention of historic properties was a statement in citizen testimony regarding 325
Howes. (See transcript page 15, lines 14 and 15.) This is a house across the alley to the east, facing Howes
Street on the east (opposite) side of the subject block. This property was not noted by the LPC. It is
completely separated visually from the subject property by the intervening 3-story Brownes on Howes
development.
The Hearing Officer has relatively broad discretion in interpreting the pertinent standards in Section 3.4.7
because they are qualitative and descriptive rather than quantitative and numerical.
The hearing officer’s decision notes that staff's and the LPC's findings are understood, but the officer
disagrees.
Key information from the hearing relevant to interpretation of Section 3.4.7 includes:
Hearing Staff Report pp. 9-11.
Applicant’s presentation - transcript p. 7, lines 1-21 and all powerpoint slides.
SECTION 3.5.1 - BUILDING AND PROJECT COMPATIBILITY. This Section is intended to ensure that
physical and operational aspects of Project Development Plans are compatible with the context of the
1
Packet Pg. 5
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 4
surrounding area. In this case, the pertinent standards deal with new buildings in terms of size, massing
proportions, and design.
Findings pertinent to Section 3.5.1 are:
The Hearing Officer found that applicable standards were not met in the proposed project, citing height that
far exceeds height of surrounding buildings; flat-roofed, modern design; step-backs not adequate to
reduce overall mass; privacy impacts on Brownes on Howes and other nearby buildings; a relationship to
the street that is not similar to other surrounding buildings; and failure of the proposed project to set an
enhanced standard of quality.
Staff found that applicable standards were met in the proposed project for several reasons.
o First, there is no established architectural character in the adjacent context area. Instead, there is a
variety of building character with which a new project can be compatible. This includes two 3-story
redevelopment buildings on the same block with the same height and similar wall lengths directly
abutting much smaller wood houses; both with brick and flat roofs. One of these, Cherry Street Lofts,
has ground floor commercial and upper story multifamily units in a mixed-use building. It anchors the
north end of the same block face. The other, Brownes on Howes, is across the alley and offset
slightly. A flat-roofed brick office building is directly across the alley. A flat-roofed, 2-story apartment
building is kitty-corner to the site, and the City Hall block is directly across Maple Street from the site.
Flat-roofed light industrial buildings exist on the subject site currently. Numerous wood frame houses
also exist in the context area.
In areas such as this where existing architectural character is not definitively established or is not
consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, Section 3.5.1 states that the architecture of new
development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the
area.
To extent that Brownes on Howes and Cherry Street Lofts set an enhanced standard of quality as
asserted in hearing testimony (transcript p. 14 lines 20-22), that standard includes:
- 3-story walls totaling 144 feet long, 37-39 feet high, abutting single family houses and yards;
- use of brick and lap siding;
- flat roofs;
- responsive architecture reflecting input from the LPC and staff; and
- street-facing ground floor entrances in the case of Cherry Street Lofts.
To the extent that the proposed project did or did not set its own new enhanced standard of quality, it
incorporates these same characteristics. One exception is that the long wall is 176 feet long and is not
3 stories but rather has step-backs ranging from 9-20 feet above the first story.
o Second, staff found that the PDP mitigated the size of the building, which is much larger than others in
the adjacent context. Staff does not consider square footage as a determining factor or basis for
findings regarding compatibility.
Mitigation factors explained in the Staff Report include modulation of the mass with 1½, 2, 3, and 4
story portions and a defining one-story base; relationship to the street with ground floor entrances
similar to all other surrounding buildings except for the Brownes on Howes; landscaped setbacks; and
use of brick and lap siding.
o Third, the Downtown zoning district was a factor in staff’s findings. While the subject block has houses
on it, it has been zoned for industrial or commercial uses since 1929. The zoning encourages mixed
use buildings. The block has a zoning height limit of 3-4 stories and is located between the block to
the east which has a 4-5-story limit and the block to the west which has a 3-story limit. The City Hall
block is directly across Maple with a zoning height limit of 4-5 stories. Thus staff considered the PDP
to be within the intent of the zoning.
1
Packet Pg. 6
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 5
o Fourth and finally, staff had not heard any objections to the project until the weeks leading up to the
hearing after the Staff Report had been posted, when the developer of the Brownes on Howes
redevelopment project came forward with strong concerns. There was a lack of opposition, and even
general support in some cases, from owners of the historic houses across Meldrum and the owner of
the house next door to the north at a neighborhood meeting. While not a major factor in findings, staff
found the lack of opposition to be notable.
Key information from the hearing relevant to interpretation of Section 3.5.1 include:
Hearing Staff Report pp. 11-12.
Transcript pp. 4-18, Applicants slide presentation, presentation of images by the developers of Brownes on
Howes.
SECTION 2.8, MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS, AND 4.16(D)(5)(E) - EXTERIOR FAÇADE MATERIALS
The application requested a Modification of Standard to Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code to allow
the use of cement fiber lap siding and panels on portions of the building. The staff report explains staff’s
support for the request in two paragraphs on page 13 and 14.
The decision does not mention the proposed use of these materials; this was not discussed at the hearing; and
it is not apparent to staff that this Modification was a factor in the decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk's Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit (PDF)
2. Notice of Appeal (PDF)
3. Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (PDF)
4. Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (PDF)
5. Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (PDF)
6. Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (PDF)
7. Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (PDF)
8. Verbatim Transcript (PDF)
9. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 7
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: City Clerk's Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityclerk
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision regarding
the Maple Mixed Use
The Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing on the enclosed appeal.
Appeal Hearing Date: July 12, 2016
Time: 6:00 pm (or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing)
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO
Agenda Materials: Available after 2 pm, July 7, 2016, in the City Clerk’s office and at
fcgov.com/agendas.
Why am I receiving this notice? City Code requires a Notice of Hearing to be provided to
Parties-in-Interest, which means you are the applicant of the project being appealed, have a
possessory or proprietary interest in the property at issue, received a City mailed notice of
the hearing that resulted in the decision being appealed, submitted written comments to City
staff for delivery to the decision maker prior to the hearing resulting in the decision being
appealed, or addressed the decision maker at the hearing that resulted in the decision being
appealed.
Can I submit any written materials for this appeal? New evidence is only permitted under
City Code Subsection 2-55(b)(1) or (2). If you have evidence that is admissible under these
two subsections, it must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk’s Office by 5:00 pm, July 5,
2016. Further information is available in the Appeal guidelines online at fcgov.com/appeals.
If you have questions regarding the appeal process, please contact the City Clerk’s Office
(970.221.6515). For questions regarding the project itself, please contact Tom Leeson,
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director (tleeson@fcgov.com or
970.221.6287).
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay
Colorado) for assistance.
____________________________________
Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk
Notice Mailed: June 30, 2016
Cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: City Clerk's Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityclerk
NOTICE OF SITE INSPECTION
An appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer decision of April 25, 2016 regarding the Maple
Mixed Use will be heard by the Fort Collins City Council on July 12, 2016.
Pursuant to Section 2-53 of the City Code, members of the City Council will be inspecting the
site of the proposed project on July 12, 2016 at 3:30 pm. Notice is hereby given that this site
inspection constitutes a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public, including the
appellants and all parties-in-interest. The gathering point for the site visit will be 320 Maple, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Any Councilmember who inspects the site, whether at the date and time above, or
independently shall, at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they
made or conversations they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their
determination of the appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City
Clerk’s Office at 970-221-6515.
__________________________________
Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk
Notice Mailed: June 30, 2016
Cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
The purpose of the site inspection 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 inspection 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 discussion and follow up questions or
comments will be deferred to the hearing on the subject appeal to be held
on July 12, 2016.
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: City Clerk's Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
- Notice of Appeal filed by Ian
Shuff, ALM2S, and Constance
Dohn, Development Company,
LLC, May 9, 2016
1.2
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.2
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Notice of Appeal (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 3
Administrative Hearing Officer
Decision,
April 25, 2016
1.3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1
4/25/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\320 MAPLE\DECISION-042516.DOCX
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: April 14, 2016
PROJECT NAME: Maple Mixed Use
CASE NUMBER: PDP150025
APPLICANT: Craig Russell
Russell + Mills Studios
141 College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Development Company, LLC
2642 Midpoint Dr. Unit A
Fort Collins, CO 80525
HEARING OFFICER: Kendra L. Carberry
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project Development Plan (PDP) proposes a 3-story
mixed-use building with partial fourth-story loft spaces located at the northeast corner of Maple
and Meldrum Streets, directly across Maple Street from City Hall. The total number of units is
29, and the total building floor area is 44,966 square feet located on 0.65 acres. The PDP includes
a request for a Modification of Standard to Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code (the
"Code") to allow the use of cement fiber lap siding and panels on portions of the building.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Denied
ZONE DISTRICT: Downtown (D)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 5:32 p.m. on April 14,
2016, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence:
(1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting
documents submitted by the applicant; (3) the March 8, 2016 recommendation from the Landmark
Preservation Commission; (4) documents from the nearby Brownes on Howes project; and (5) a
copy of the public notice (the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of
the record considered by the Hearing Officer).
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Clark Mapes, Martina Wilkinson
From the Applicant: Ian Shuff, Craig Russell, Joe Delich
1.3
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
2
4/25/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\320 MAPLE\DECISION-042516.DOCX
From the Public: Christian Bachelet, Robin Bachelet, Jess Gries, Emanuel Martinez,
James Burrill, Dawn Putney, Barb Wilkins
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
2. Though not required by the Code, a neighborhood meeting was held on October 22, 2015
at which preliminary concept drawings were reviewed.
3. The PDP complies with some, but not all of the applicable General Development
Standards contained in Article 3 of the Code.
a. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1, Landscaping and Tree Protection, because:
the PDP protects existing street trees and adds street trees to fill gaps; a new section of
parkway will be added where an existing driveway is being removed; existing trees on site
will be removed under a tree mitigation plan approved by the City Forester; and areas of
the site not paved for pedestrian use and vehicular access will be landscaped.
b. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.1(E)(4), Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping,
because: parking is enclosed and screened by the building; and screening on the north side
is augmented by a sold 6' fence with trellised vines.
c. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b), Bicycle Parking Space
Requirements, because there are 68 bike parking spaces with 62 in enclosed locations and
6 on fixed outdoor racks.
d. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(K), Off-Street Parking Requirements,
because 39 parking spaces are included for the residential portion of the building, and the
non-residential portion of the building is exempt from any minimum parking requirement.
e. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(5), Handicap Parking, because there are 2
handicap parking spaces alongside the alley, in close proximity to the building entrances.
f. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.4, Site Lighting, because: the only outside
lighting will be building lighting; all fixtures will be down-directional, full cutoff,
residential scale fixtures; and no foot candle levels will exceed 1/10 as measured at 20'
from property lines.
g. The PDP complies with Section 3.2.5, Trash and Recycling Enclosures, because
the PDP provides for the trash and recycling enclosure to be located in the covered parking
area.
h. The PDP does not comply with Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources,
because the PDP, is not designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural
value of the adjacent historic properties. The Hearing Officer carefully reviewed the
findings of the Landmark Preservation Commission, but those findings included little
1.3
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
3
4/25/2016
Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS LAND USE\320 MAPLE\DECISION-042516.DOCX
detail, and based on the evidence presented at the April 14, 2016 hearing, the Hearing
Officer disagrees with those findings. Instead, the Hearing Officer finds (as more
particularly discussed below) that the mass, height and design of the building are entirely
incompatible with the adjacent historic properties.
i. The PDP does not comply with Section 3.5.1, Building and Project Compatibility,
because: the height of the building far exceeds the height of surrounding buildings; the
flat-roofed, modern design of the building is incompatible with the design of most
surrounding buildings; the overall mass of the building is incompatible with surrounding
buildings, and the step-backs are not enough to reduce the overall mass of the building; the
building will negatively impact the privacy of the occupants of the Brownes on Howes
building and other nearby buildings, and fails to sufficiently mitigate those impacts; the
building does not have a similar relationship to the street as other surrounding buildings;
and the PDP does not set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or
redevelopment in the area.
4. The PDP complies with the applicable standards contained in Article 4 of the Code for the
D zone district.
a. The PDP complies with Section 4.16(B), Permitted Uses, because a mixed-use
building is a permitted use, subject to administrative review.
b. The PDP complies with Section 4.16(D)(1), Building Standards – Setback from
Streets, because of the landscaped setbacks.
c. The PDP complies with Section 4.16(D)(2), Building Standards – Building Height,
because the building is 3-4 stories.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing findings, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following rulings:
1. Because the Hearing Officer finds that the PDP does not comply with Section 3.4.7 or
Section 3.5.1 of the Code, and because to approve a PDP, the Hearing Officer must find
compliance with all applicable provisions of the Code, the PDP and the associated request for
Modification of Standard are hereby denied.
DATED this 25
th
day of April, 2016.
_____________________________________
Kendra L. Carberry
Hearing Officer
1.3
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Administrative
Hearing Officer,
Hearing held
April 14, 2016
1.4
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ITEM NO 1
MEETING DATE April 14, 2016
STAFF Clark Mapes
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Maple Mixed Use Project Development Plan #150025
APPLICANT: Craig Russell
Russell + Mills Studios
141 College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNERS: Development Company LLC, Manager Connie Dohn
2642 Midpoint Dr. Unit A
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a proposal for a Project Development Plan (PDP) located at the northeast corner
of Maple and Meldrum Streets, directly across Maple Street from City Hall.
The plan proposes a predominately 3-story mixed-use building with partial fourth-story
loft spaces. The ground floor includes 4,900 square feet of office space along Maple
street frontage, and four dwelling units along Meldrum Street frontage. Upper levels
contain 25 dwelling units for a total of 29 dwelling units in the building. Units are a mix
of studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bedrooms with a total residential occupancy of 46 bedrooms.
The second floor has a central rooftop terrace of 2,770 square feet.
The property is 28,500 square feet, or .65 acres. Building coverage is 22,455 square
feet, of which 14,042 square feet is covered ground floor parking. Total building floor
area is 44,966 square feet.
39 vehicle parking spaces are provided within the building structure, covered by
residential units above. Access is from the alley which runs north-south on the east
side of the property. 22 on-street parking spaces will exist along the property frontage,
including 4 new spaces created by the development plan with removal of a driveway.
An existing vacant light industrial building and one single family house will be
demolished and removed from the subject property. These buildings have been found
not eligible for historic designation.
1.4
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 2
Proposed new streetscape development includes new curb, gutter, sidewalks,
landscaping, and patio areas.
The property is located within the Downtown (D) Zoning District, at the western edge of
the zone.
The project is requesting a Modification of Standards to Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) of the
Land Use Code to allow the use of cement fiber lap siding and panels on portions of the
building.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 320 Maple Mixed Use PDP.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Zoning encourages the mixed use dwelling land use with its designation as a ‘Type 1’
use requiring administrative hearing. Zoning describes height limits for this particular
block as 3-4 stories, 45’ +/-, with the intent to convey a scale of building rather than
exact points or lines. The building is mostly limited to a maximum of 3 stories and 40
feet in height, with the minor exception of 4-story loft portions reaching 49 feet at the
highest points.
Building materials include brick and fiber cement lap siding intended to relate to
traditional building materials in the neighborhood. Accents of fiber reinforced concrete
panels and fiber cement panels are intended to relate to more-contemporary and
commercial aspects of the area. These are used to define the commercial portion of the
building at the corner, along Maple Street, and to frame residential balconies. A
pedestrian-oriented ground floor base portion is designed in conjunction with extensive
streetscape development. Parking exceeds code requirements.
COMMENTS:
1. Context and Background
The subject block is the very northwestern corner of the Downtown zoning district; and
the subject property is at the west edge of the block. Facing blocks to the north and
west are zoned Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB), which is intended for areas
that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-
use areas or higher traffic zones.
1.4
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 3
NCB zoning allows limited multifamily and office uses, with a three-story building height
limit. The transitional zoning is intended to allow limited conversion from single family
residential to other uses, in recognition of its location around edges of the Downtown.
These NCB blocks comprise predominately single family houses with a historic
character.
At the other end of the subject block face (the north end), a 3-story mixed-use building
exists as a result of redevelopment under the D zoning. It is somewhat similar to the
proposed project, albeit on a much smaller lot (11,000 square feet vs. 28,500 square
feet for the subject property; with 9 dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of commercial
space).
The opposite, east face of the subject block includes a new 3-story townhouse
development currently under construction with 6 units in two buildings on a 19,000
square foot mid-block lot.
Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North
Downtown (D) on the subject block;
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
(NCB) on facing block
Single family residential and a mixed use multi-
family dwelling
West Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Single family residential, across the street,
including several historic properties
South Downtown (D) City Hall across the street
East Downtown (D) Office Building across the alley, new
townhouse development under construction
Below is a site location and zoning map.
1.4
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 4
Location Map
2. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code, Division 4.16 - Applicable
Downtown Zone District Standards
Staff finds that the proposed PDP complies with the applicable standards in Division
4.16 Downtown District – Civic Center Subdistrict, as explained below.
Section 4.16(B) - Permitted Use
The proposed mixed use dwelling is permitted in the Downtown District, and requires
administrative review by a Hearing Officer (a Type 1 use).
320 Maple Site
1.4
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 5
Section 4.16(D) – Building Standards
(1) Setback from Streets. This standard requires a landscaped setback for all block
faces west of Mason Street.
x The proposed frontage along Maple Street has a 14-foot wide landscaped area
between the sidewalk and the building, 9 feet of which is setback distance from
the right-of-way line. This frontage also includes a 10-foot parkway area
between the curb and sidewalk with turfgrass and street trees consistent with the
traditional neighborhood pattern.
x Similarly, the proposed frontage along Meldrum Street provides 12 feet of
landscaped area behind the sidewalk and a 12-foot wide parkway.
These landscaped setbacks demonstrate a generous landscaped edge along the street,
consistent with standards and enhancing the transition between the west side
neighborhood and downtown.
(2) Building Height. Maximum building height for this block is stated as 3 – 4 stories,
45 feet+/-. This limit is stated to convey a scale of building, rather than exact
points or lines.
x The building fits this scale. The predominate 3-story portion of the building is 40
feet in height. The massing is highly modulated with significant recessed
portions and stepped back terracing on the north side to reduce shading on
adjoining property. On the north side of the building, upper-story portions are set
back further than the ground floor by dimensions ranging from 9 to 20 feet.
x The partial 4
th
story loft portions of the building reach a maximum of 49 feet in
height, but are set back 38-40 feet from the lower portion of the building on all
sides except the Maple Street side, where the additional setback is 13 feet.
These deep setbacks mitigate any visual or shading impacts.
(5) Building Character and Facades. This standard requires that buildings provide
architectural interest, encourage outdoor activity and interaction, and are
constructed with high-quality, durable materials.
x The proposed building massing is heavily modulated both horizontally and
vertically, with modulations designed to express different units within the building
and to define outdoor spaces. Outdoor activity is encouraged with extensive
balconies and terraces, the main commercial entry at the corner, ground floor
patios, and doorways to ground floor units along Meldrum Street.
1.4
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 6
x Predominate exterior materials are brick, which clearly defines a base portion
oriented to pedestrians; fiber cement lap siding which relates to siding on
adjacent houses and is a high quality durable material; and architectural grade
fiber reinforced concrete panels in a large-shingle pattern which add a more
contemporary and commercial aspect to the corner and the Maple Street
frontage. The use of fiber cement siding requires a modification to this standard
(4.16(D)(5)(e)), which is discussed later in the staff report.
x Cornice features, window and door trim, and recessed windows are provided in
conjunction with the different materials as appropriate to add interest and
highlight the modulation and fenestration.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code - Applicable General
Development Standards for All Development
Zoning district standards noted above work in conjunction with several General
Development Standards for all development city-wide in Article Three of the Land Use
Code. Staff finds that the PDP complies with the applicable General Development
Standards, as explained below.
Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection
Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses
relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on
site.
x The PDP protects existing street trees and adds street trees to fill gaps.
x A new section of turfgrass parkway will be added where an existing driveway is
being removed.
x Existing trees on site are to be removed per a tree mitigation plan approved by
the City Forester. Most are volunteer Siberian Elms in poor to fair condition.
Three mitigation trees are required and are provided in the PDP.
x All areas of the site not paved for pedestrian use and vehicular access are to be
landscaped per a fully developed landscape plan. Key components are
generous streetscape areas along the two streets in compliance with standards
for street trees in parkways, landscaped setback areas, and trellised vines to
enhance the fence along the north side of the project.
1.4
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 7
Section 3.2.1(E)(4) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
Parking lots with six or more spaces must be screened from abutting uses and from the
street with fences or walls in combination with plant material.
x Parking is enclosed and screened by the building. Screening on the north side is
augmented by a solid 6-foot fence with trellised vines.
Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) - Bicycle Parking Space Requirements
For the multi-family residential units, one bike parking space is required per bedroom
with at least 60% provided in an enclosed space. For the commercial space, one bike
parking space is required per 4,000 square feet with a minimum of four spaces. 20% of
these bike parking spaces provided by commercial uses must be in an enclosed space.
Since there will be 46 bedrooms and the retail use will be smaller than 16,000 square
feet, the total required bike parking must comprise at least 50 bike parking spaces.
x The proposal provides 68 bike parking spaces with 62 in enclosed locations and
6 on fixed outdoor racks, exceeding the code standard requirements.
Section 3.2.2(K) – Off-Street Parking Requirements
This Section contains a formula for required residential parking in development projects
within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone, based on bedroom and
unit counts. A subsection exempts the nonresidential portion of the proposed PDP from
parking requirements based on no net increase in the nonresidential floor area above
the existing building floor area to be demolished.
x 26 spaces are required for the residential use, and the PDP provides 39 spaces.
In addition, the property frontage will provide 22 on-street parking spaces.
The exemption from nonresidential parking requirements is found in code subsection
3.2.2(K)(2)(b) states (bold and underline applied for emphasis):
Existing Buildings Exemption: Change in use of an existing building shall be
exempt from minimum parking requirements. For the expansion or enlargement of
an existing building which does not result in the material increase of the building by
more than twenty-five (25) percent, but not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square
feet in the aggregate, shall be exempt from minimum parking requirements. For
the redevelopment of a property which includes the demolition of existing
buildings, the minimum parking requirement shall be applied to the net
increase in the square footage of new buildings.
Where nonresidential space is included in a mixed use dwelling, the standard is
intended to refer to the nonresidential portion of the new building.
1.4
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 8
The existing nonresidential building to be demolished is 9,900 square feet. The new
non-residential component is proposed to be 4,900 square feet. Since there is no net
increase in the square footage of the nonresidential area, this project is exempt from the
minimum parking requirements for the non-residential portion of the building.
Although code does not address on-street parking, the presence of 22 street parking
spaces along the property are a factor in the overall parking situation.
Section 3.2.2(K)(5) - Handicap Parking
Parking lots with 26-50 parking spaces are required to provide two handicap parking
spaces.
x The site plan shows two handicap parking spaces alongside the alley, which is in
close proximity to entrances on the north, south, and east sides of the building.
Section 3.2.3 - Solar access, orientation, shading
All developments must be designed to accommodate active and/or passive solar
installations and must not deny adjacent properties access to sunshine.
x The proposed building is designed to avoid undue shading of adjacent property
and could accommodate active and/or passive solar installations.
Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting
The purpose of this section is to ensure that the functional and security needs of a
project are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties and
neighborhood.
x The only outside lighting will be building lighting. All fixtures will be down-
directional, full cutoff, residential scale fixtures. No footcandle levels will exceed
one-tenth as measured 20 feet from property lines as required under this
standard.
Section 3.2.5 - Trash and Recycling Enclosures
Trash and recycling enclosures must be adequate and convenient and accessible as
appropriate for the proposed use.
x The proposed trash and recycling enclosure is located in the covered parking
area, fully screened from public view. Staff will ensure that if the PDP is
approved, the Final Plan will further explore the adequacy of the facilities in full
1.4
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 9
detail for the commercial and residential uses, including adequacy and details of
recycling accommodations.
Section 3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources
Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for new
building construction where the surrounding neighborhood context includes designated
or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of. The proposed project is
adjacent or in close proximity to several such historic properties. Therefore, the project
must comply with Section 3.4.7.
Section 3.4.7(A) Purpose, states:
“This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: …new
construction is designed to respect the historic character of…any historic properties
in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or
individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or
objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development
site.”
x Staff finds that the project is designed to respect the character of the historic
properties in the surrounding neighborhood because of building modulation,
setbacks, upper floor step backs and recessed portions, brick and lap siding,
window and doorway patterns, and streetscape improvements.
Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard reinforces the Purpose discussed above. It states
“The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical
and architectural value of any historic property that is…located on property adjacent
to the development site and…is determined to be individually eligible for local
landmark designation. New structures must be compatible with the historic character
of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.”
Staff finds that the project is designed to protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of the adjacent historic properties as required, and is compatible with
the historic character of the historic properties for the reasons stated previously.
Section 3.4.7(F)(1) states:
“(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures
shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which
the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or
collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located….
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the
decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect
to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being
1.4
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 10
constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot
be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used
to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions
of structures shall be located interior to the site.”
x Staff finds that the project is designed to protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of the adjacent historic properties as required, and is
compatible with the historic character of the historic properties for the reasons
stated previously. The existing historic buildings on N. Meldrum are one-story
and two-story wood frame structures with lap siding. The new building is
proposed to be one-and-a-half to three stories with a step down to the north as it
approaches the adjacent residential property. The setback of the proposed
building from the street along Meldrum and Maple is similar to those of existing
historic structures. Taller portions are located interior to the site, away from
streets.
3.4.7(F)(2) states: “New structures shall be designed to be in character with such
existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings
and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to
strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures
(size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the
primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent
feasible.”
x During the design review process, several aspects of the design were developed
to create compatibility with adjacent historic residential buildings along Meldrum
Street. These include: extensive use of lap siding on the west elevation;
projecting bay window on the west elevation; trim details in conjunction with
wood siding; and overall window pattern variety in single, double, and triple
configurations.
LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) states: "The dominant building material of such existing historic
structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be
used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be
appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block."
x Horizontal lap siding on the 1.5-story section and upper portions of the west
façade provides an important material connection to the surrounding
neighborhood. The historic buildings along Meldrum do not contain brick as a
primary material, however brick is found throughout the historic downtown area
and is a universally compatible hiqh quality material compatible with all styles of
building. This is demonstrated by its use on several more-recent buildings on
the block including the 3-story mixed-use Cherry Street Lofts building and the 3-
story Brownes on Howes buildings.
1.4
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 11
Section 3.4.7 (F)(6) states: “In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties
containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter-
mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for
individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of
Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are
listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially
designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall
receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation
Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would
not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility
of the site, structure, object or district.”
x The LPC reviewed the PDP and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the
Hearing Officer, finding the project in compliance with Section 3.4.7 and “that the
project is compatible and respectful to the character of the surrounding historic
context for the following reasons:
o The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with
adjacent historic buildings.
o The project uses appropriate step-backs to mitigate height relative to the
historic context.
o The project relies on building materials that are compatible with adjacent
historic properties.
o The project uses window patterning and proportions that are typical of the
adjacent historic context.
o The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is
compatible with the historic context.
Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility
Standards in this Section require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area
in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials.
Where the established character of the relevant area is not definitively established, or is
not consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, projects must set an enhanced
standard appropriate for the area.
Staff finds no predominant architectural character in the area. Buildings vary from older
single-story wood houses to the 3-story mixed use loft building at the north end of the
subject block face, to City Hall across Maple Street. The zoning is different on abutting
blocks to the north and west. The abutting block to the south contains City Hall. The D
zone envisions potential long- term redevelopment with mixed-use multi-story buildings
emphasizing pedestrian interest to establish an enhanced standard of quality. This is
evident in the specific height limits set for the block at 3-4 stories.
Section 3.5.1(B) requires that new developments have a design that is complementary
to the existing developed area.
1.4
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 12
x The project site is in the Downtown zone district but is at the edge of a
commercial-civic area and the adjacent transitional Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer District zone. The project includes brick on the ground floor as a defining
feature, with brick seen in the abutting “Terracon” building, City Hall (across
Maple Street), Cherry Street Lofts at the opposite end of the block face, the
Brownes on Howes on the east face of the block, and the historic Trolley Barn on
the block to the east. The ground floor of the building is defined by brick,
windows and doorways, awnings, and landscaping. This ground floor component
brings the height and mass down to pedestrian scale.
The remainder of the building includes significant modulation and detail features
to create visual interest and break down the massing proportions and outdoor
spaces into compatible scale. Upper stories and the west side use a cement
fiber lap siding which is a high quality, material similar to wood siding in character
to wood siding, which is found on all the single-family houses in the adjacent
area.
Section 3.5.1(C) requires that buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if
larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and
scale of other structures on the block face. The other structures are single-story
houses, with the exception of the 3-story mixed use dwelling at the north end of the
block face.
x The proposed building is predominately three stories and incorporates extensive
modulation, terracing, and recessed portions to reduce the sheer mass. These
aspects include a strong change in material from the heavier brick base portion
to lighter lap siding and shingle-patterned panels.
x The commercial corner is similar in form to the other end of the block face.
Section 3.5.1(D) requires that the project minimize infringement on the privacy of
adjoining uses.
x Where the proposed building would overlook the neighboring property to the
north, the upper levels are set back to reduce looming, shading, and privacy
effects. This set-back area is used as a second-floor terrace space with a
parapet wall enclosure.
The other three sides of the project overlook streets and alley parking areas.
1.4
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 13
4. Modification of Standards for Siding Material – Division 2.8 of the Land Use
Code
Division 2.8 empowers the decision maker to grant Modifications to standards based on
certain criteria. In order to grant a modification of standard, the decision maker must
find that the modification is not detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with
the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate
an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a
substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would
substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined
and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or
resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render
the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such
as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which
hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the
standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided
that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant;
or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue
to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Modification Request – subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e)
The applicant requests a Modification to the following standard:
“All street-facing facades shall be constructed of high quality exterior materials for the
full height of the building. Such materials, with the exception of glazing, shall include
stone, brick, clay units, terra cotta, architectural pre-cast concrete, cast stone,
prefabricated brick panels, architectural metals or any combination thereof.”
Cement fiber lap siding and architectural grade concrete fiber and cement fiber
rainscreen panels in a stylized shingle pattern are proposed on upper levels of the
building and the lap siding is also uses as the primary material on the 1.5-story
transitional module next to the neighboring single family house to the north.
1.4
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 14
x Staff finds that the request is not detrimental to the public good, and 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. This siding is a high quality, durable material that relates well
to the wood siding on all houses found in the adjacent area. At this edge of the D
zone, the siding material helps meet several code standards that reference
compatibility with adjacent neighborhood character.
Furthermore, the material was not available or well-known at the time the
standard was written, and staff will propose to add it to the subsection because
staff finds it highly appropriate in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center
subdistricts. This finding has been made in two recently approved PDPs under
the same zoning (Brownes on Howes and Uncommon) for similar purposes.
5. Neighborhood Meeting
Although not required, a voluntary open house neighborhood meeting was held on
October 22, 2015. Preliminary concept drawings were reviewed. Seven neighbors
attended, including owners of the house next door on the north and owners of the
historic Emma Malaby grocery building across Meldrum Street. Neighbors primarily had
questions, and were generally supportive of the proposal with no controversy or
opposition evident. Neighbors particularly appreciated the stepping of the mass at the
north end of the building, next door to the neighboring single-story house.
6. Recommendation from Landmark Preservation Commission
At its February 10, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission
voted 7-0, with one member recused, to forward a recommendation of approval of the
proposed PDP. A memo is attached summarizing their discussion and findings.
7. Findings of Fact
Staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions:
1. The request for a modification of standard to Section 4.16(D)(5)(e) to allow use
of cement fiber lap siding and architectural grade concrete fiber and cement fiber
rainscreen panels is not detrimental to the public good, and the granting of the
modification will promote the purpose of the standard better than would a plan
which complies with the standard, because the proposed materials are more
compatible with the particular neighborhood context and add emphasis to the
brick base along streetfronts as described in the staff report.
2. The Project Development Plan contains permitted uses and complies with the
applicable development standards of the Downtown District – Civic Center
Subdistrict in Article 4, Division 4.16 of the Land Use Code.
1.4
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Staff Report – 320 Maple Mixed Use, PDP150025
Administrative Hearing 04-14-2016
Page 15
3. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General
Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of
the requested Modification of Standards.
4. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable procedural and
administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification of Standards to subsection 4.16(D)(5)(e)
and approve the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project Development Plan #150025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 Site Plan Set
2 Landscape Plan Set
3 Architectural Elevations
4 Architectural Elevations Rendered
5 Renderings
6Plat
7 Landmark Preservation Commission Recommendation
1.4
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
MAPLE MIXED USE
SITE PLANS
l 1pll ll
1h11
ZONING MAP: DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
CONTEXT MAP
D MAPLE MIXED.USE
'' '
FL
NORTH
NORTH
SHEET INDEX
LS001 SITE COVER
LS002 SITE LEGEND AND NOTES
SV001 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
LS101 SITE PLAN
LS102 SITE PLAN - SECOND LEVEL
LS501 SITE DETAILS
OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNER'S OF THE REAL
PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE PLAN.
OWNER (SIGNED)
OWNER (SIGNED)
(STATE OF
(
(COUNTY OF
DATE
DATE
)
)SS
)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BE BEFORE THIS
AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
NOTARY PUBLIC
ADDRESS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
DAY OF 20
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
, BY WITNESS MY HAND
APPROVED BY THE CURRENIT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, THIS OF , 20
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
w
f--
0
f--
w
2
2
w
"'
z
<{
_J
a..
f-
w z
(/) w
:::> �
1.4
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Attachment 2
1.4
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Attachment 3
1.4
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Attachment 4
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Attachment 5
1.4
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Attachment 6
1.4
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 8, 2016
TO: Hearing Officer
TH: Tom Leeson, Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Clark Mapes, City Planner
FR: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to
the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project
As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for
properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or
districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written
recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the
Landmark Preservation Commission’s Findings of Facts and its motion for this project.
1) At its February 10, 2016 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission conducted a
final review of the development project known as the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project as
authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6).
2) At its February 10, 2016 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission adopted the
following motion on a vote of 7-0 with one member recused: That the Landmark Preservation
Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the 320 Maple Mixed-Use Project
(PDP150025) finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in the Land Use Code
2.4.7 in regard to the project’s adjacency to several historic buildings, specifically 303, 305,
313, 315, and 329 North Meldrum, finding that the project is compatible and respectful to the
character of the surrounding historic context for the following reasons:
a. The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with adjacent historic
buildings.
b. The project uses appropriate step-backs to mitigate height relative to the historic
context.
c. The project relies on building materials that are compatible with adjacent historic
properties.
d. The project uses window patterning and proportions that are typical of the adjacent
historic context.
e. The pedestrian scale of the main floor of the proposed project is compatible with the
historic context.
Attachment 1.4 7
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
DISCUSSION POINTS:
Good evening my name is Christian Bachelet and I own a neighboring
property and development on Howes Street known as the Brownes on
Howes which is a 6 unit single family development across the alley from
320 Maple
*Tonight I am here to recommend denial of the proposed project located
at 320 Maple Street.
The basis for my request for denial is based on numerous sections in
3.5.1 of the Land Use Code:
3.5.1 – discusses Building and Project Compatibility
3.5.1 (A)
Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational
characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within
the context of the surrounding area. They should be read in conjunction with the more
specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone district standards
contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained in this Section that pertain to
"developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and other similar terms shall be
read to include the application of said criteria and regulations to any determination made
by the Planning and Zoning Board under paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose
of evaluating the authorization of an additional use.
**We contend that the physical and operation characteristics of 320 Maple
street are not compatible within the context of the surrounding area
1) most of the single family homes neighboring the proposed project are (1)
story… 700 -1200 square foot bungalows.(see illustration exhibit 1)
2) The two biggest buildings in the block are the Cherry St. lofts building which is
approx 10,000sq ft, and BOH which is approx 17,000 square feet in mass.
a. 320 Maple is 41,0000 square feet
3) BOH has (2) vehicle access points whereas 320 Maple does not.
4) 320 Maple has the (1) access from the alley which will create traffic and
congestion and thus causing a safety and hazard conditions for all residents
living in the area…for example,
5) BOH will have a east and west public pedestrian walkway that will feed into
the alley as well as lies an existing commercial building that has (10) parking
spaces that can only be access thru the alley thus causing additional
congestion along the between the alley and Maple.
Attachment 1.4 8
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
3.5.1(B)
General Standard. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design
that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not
definitively established or is not consistent with the purposes of this Code, the
architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for
future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through
techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building
mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door
patterns and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar
to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and
stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials.
Architectural compatibility (including, without limitation, building height) shall be derived
from the neighboring context.
1) The Existing Neighborhood Context surrounding 320 Maple:
a)single story family dwellings, exist.
b) Cherry St Lofts located at 325 Cherry is approx. 38 feet high ( 3 story )mixed
use building containing only 9 multifamily dwelling units and is approx 10,000
square feet
c) 315 N. Howes known as the Brownes on Howes is 38 feet high (3 stories) with
6 single family dwelling units and is approx17,000 square feet
**320 Maple is 49 feet high at it’s highest point and has 29 units with a
total of 46 beds and is 41,000 square feet. At this size, mass, and height 320
Maple has not been derived from or based on the existing neighborhood
context which per the code specifically includes consistency in building
height.
2) Again 3.5.1 (B) General Standard- says that “in areas where the existing
architectural character is not definitively established or is not consistent
with the purposes of this Code, the architecture of the new development
shall set an enhanced standard of quality for the future projects or
redevelooment in the area” The design of 320 Maple does not follow this
enhanced standard set by Cherry St Lofts and BOH
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be similar in size and
height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the
mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, abutting or adjacent to
the subject property, opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest
intersection. (See Figures 7a and 7b.)
Figure 7a
Infill Buildings -The illustration below is not followed by 320 Maple
1.4
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Figure 7b
Infill Buildings
New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood
through repetition of roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of
characteristic entry features.
3.5.1 C speaks to Building height size and mass. 320 Maple is not proportional to the
existing structures in the neighborhood. Again, I point to the size of the 320 building at
41,000 square feet which is clearly not compatible with the existing structures in the
neighborhood. The mass of this structure is unprecedented in this area and is in fact in some
cases 40 times the size of the single family dwellings on the block and more than 2x the size
of the largest structures existing in the neighborhood. We also believe that the numerous
historically designated homes on Meldrum and the individually eligible house at 325 North
Howes were not adequately considered, otherwise the mass of this building would not be
1.4
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
41,000 square feet.
The set backs allowed for in the design of 320 Maple Street DO NOT FOLLOW the
enhanced conditions and standards set by the BROWNES ON HOWES project. The
setback from the alley to BOH is approx 14 1/2 Feet and 320 Maple provides no set
back from the alley. This condition, though perhaps allowed by code, conflicts and is
out of context with the enhanced conditions and standards set by BOH and other
neighboring properties.
The lack of set backs along the alley creates another safety issue. 320 Maple will add
100+ vehicle trips along this alley which will add congestion and traffic flows that will
directly conflict with the pedestrian walkway running west to east along the south
side of Brownes on Howes. Pedestrians exiting the pathway into the alley will be
dangerously affronted by cars entering and exiting the parking podium of 320 Maple.
There is an additional safety issue caused by the traffic impact along Maple Street and
the alley due to the cars parked on the west side of the alley. As these cars arrive and
depart they will be backing up into the alley causing conflicts with the cars accessing
the alley from Maple Street. If 320 Maple were required to have two points of access,
one from Meldrum or Maple and one from the alley this would relieve a tremendous
amount of stress from the single point of vehicle access to the building. 320 Maple’s
existing design does not follow the enhanced condition of two vehicular access points
to the property…and Brownes on Howes is only 6 units with 2 car private garage
parking beneath each unit.
(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to
maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize
infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall
create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.
3.5.1 (D) speaks to privacy considerations. The close proximity of the 320 building to our
Brownes on Howes project does not successfully address this section of the code. The
windows on the 40’ Foot flat wall look down into the windows, terraces, entrances of our
Brownes on Howes units.
(See Figure 8.)
(E)
Building Materials.
(1)General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in
the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as
scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to
ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences
1.4
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
in materials.
The scale and proportions of 320 Maple are not within the context of the existing
neighborhood. Again, as I have stated above. 325 Cherry Street is less than 10,000 square
feet and the new Browns on Howes project is 17,550 square feet. 320 Maple is one mass
building of 41,000 square feet.
Figure 8
Privacy Considerations
(2)Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective building
materials are proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and reflective glass, the
potential for glare from such materials will be evaluated to determine whether or not the glare
would create a significant adverse impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or
community in terms of vehicular safety, outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so, such
materials shall not be permitted.
We are concerned that the metal siding on the east side of the 40’ wall will cause a
reflection and glare into the units of the Brownes on Howes dwellers. At the very minimum
these windows should not be clear glass and should be made smaller and set back.
(3)Windows.
(a)Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60) percent is prohibited.
(b)Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows and doors.
(c)Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels,
and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale
and proportion.
(F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood
and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials shall draw from the
range of color shades that already exist on the block or in the adjacent neighborhood.
1.4
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
(G) Building Height Review.
(1)Special Height Review/Modifications.
Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or
structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and
diversity of architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood
planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve
desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown and designated activity centers. All
buildings or structures in excess of forty (40) feet in height shall be subject to special review
pursuant to this subsection (G).
It is my contention that the Height of 320 Maple not only impedes the privacy of the
Brownes on Howes dwellers and other neighbors but also impedes their “access to sunlight
and desirable views”. so stated in 3.5.1 (G) (1) The shadow study provided by the
developers of Maple Street only went as far as 2pm in the afternoon which already began to
cast a shadow on to the living spaces of Brownes on Howes.–
(a)Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty (40)
feet in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review
criteria:
1. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and
artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not
limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of
solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night,
contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and
shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to
reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of
a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building mass or redesigning a
building shape.
The height of 320 Maple will have a substantial adverse impact because it blocks natural
light into the dwelling units it will cast shadows upon our south facing structure which will
cause a freeze and melt condition in the winter, thereby causing a safety concern for
pedestrians using the walkway that runs east and west along the south side of the building.
We believe these impediments caused by the 40+ structure proposed could be mitigated by
reducing building mass and increasing setbacks along the east side elevation.4 sided design
was not incorporated on the east side of this structure again I find the shadow study provided
to be incomplete as it was only completed through 2pm in the afternoon.
Privacy. Development plans with buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height
shall be designed to address privacy impacts on adjacent property by providing landscaping,
fencing, open space, window size, window height and window placement, orientation of
balconies, and orientation of buildings away from adjacent residential development, or other
effective techniques.
Again…3.5.1 (D) speaks to privacy considerations. The close proximity of the 320 building to
our Brownes on Howes project does not successfully address this section of the code. The
1.4
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
windows on the 40’ flat wall look down into the windows, terraces, entrances of our Brownes
on Howes units.
3.Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be
compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in
terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or structure scale to
human scale.
(b)Submittal Requirements. All development plans proposing building or structure heights in
excess of forty (40) feet shall, at a minimum, include the following information:
1.a shadow analysis that indicates, on the project development site plan, the location of all
shadows cast by the building or structure (with associated dates of the year);
2.a summary of the key conclusions of the shadow analysis, and steps to be taken to comply
with the review standards set forth above.
(c)Modification of Height Limits. To provide flexibility in meeting the height limits contained in
Article 4 of this Code, such height limits can be either increased or decreased by the
decision maker in the development review process for the following purposes:
1.preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods;
2.allowing architectural embellishments consistent with architectural style, such as peaked
roof sections, corner turrets, belvederes or cupolas;
3.defining and reinforcing the downtown areas the major focal point in the community;
4.allowing for maximum utilization of activity centers;
5. protecting access to sunlight;
6.providing conscious direction to the urban form of the City through careful placement of tall
buildings or structures within activity centers;
7.allowing rooftop building extensions to incorporate HVAC equipment.
3.5.3 (5) in order to conform to an established pattern of building and street relationships, a contextual
build-to line may fall at any point between the required build-to line and the build-to line that exists on
a lot that abuts, and is oriented to, the same street as the subject lot. If the subject lot is a corner lot, the
contextual build-to line may fall at any point between the required build-to line and the build-to line
that exists on the lot that is abutting and oriented to the same street as the subject lot. A contextual
build-to line shall not be construed as allowing a vehicular use area between the building and the street.
IN CONCLUSION:
While the code may support a project like 320 Maple we feel that the code also offers a safe harbor
section known as 3.5.1 for those neighborhoods that are in transition and still defining and finding
themselves. And with that in consideration, the context of this single-family neighborhood and the
enhanced design standards created by both Brownes on Howes and Cherry Street Lofts must be taken
into the highest consideration. Throughout project review we see comments relative to mass, bulk,
size, scope, set backs, step backs and subdivision but it is clear that the design in response to those
comments was not taken far enough. Therefore, again, we respectfully request denial of the proposed
design of 320 Maple Street.
1.4
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
3.5.1 Building and project compatibility;
320 Maple doesn’t follow existing, set back standards, existing height standards or step back standards
already created in the neighborhood. Increases in traffic will cause more intensity to already
challenged sightlines. Pedestrian walkway east to west drops pedestrians in to alley directly across
from only access point to garage of property.
1.4
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Does not follow code 3.5.1(D)
Perspective from west facing 2nd story window
1.4
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Site perspective: It would be tremendously helpful if the architect would offer a site perspective
1.4
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
EXAMPLE OF SITE PERSPECTIVE FOR THIS 320 MAPLE PROJECT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL
1.4
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1.4
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 5
Staff Presentation to the
Hearing Officer
April 14, 2016
1.5
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1
320 Maple Mixed Use
Administrative Hearing
Project Development Plan
PDP # 160025
April 14, 2016
Exhibit D
1.5
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
2
Site and Location
Maple Street
1.5
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
3
Zoning:
Zoning
3333333333333333333333
Site
1.5
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
4
Zoning Height Limits
Site
1.5
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
5
Site and Location
1.5
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
6
Site and Location:
Zoning
Site
1.5
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
7
320 Maple Mixed Use
1.5
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
8
Brownes on Howes
1.5
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
9
Brownes on Howes
1.5
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Hearing Officer (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 6
Applicant Presentation to the
Administrative Hearing Officer
April 14, 2016
1.6
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple: Mixed Use
Administrative Hearing
April 14, 2016
Exhibit E
1.6
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Existing Site Context
site
1.6
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Future Site Context
site
1.6
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Information - Zoning
Current Zoning
Zoning District: Downtown (D)
Civic Center Subdistrict
3-4 Stories +/- 45 feet
Encourages a mix of activity with quality
development that maintains sense of human scale,
pedestrian-orientated character
Proposed Zoning
North Mason Character District
Mixed use buildings are encouraged
Emphasis on residential character and
compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods
Adjacent Zoning
NCB: Neighborhood Conservation Buffer
Transition between residential neighborhoods and
more intensive commercial-use or high traffic
zones
3 Stories
1.6
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Context – East Side of Meldrum St.
1.6
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Context – West Side of Meldrum St.
1.6
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Context – South Side of Cherry St.
1.6
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Context – West Side of Howes St.
1.6
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Context – North Side of Maple St.
1.6
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Context – South Side of Maple St.
1.6
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Solar Village – Previously Approved Project
Previously Approved
Solar Village PDP
27 units
3 stories
5,366 S.F. Commercial Office
Space
1.6
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Solar Village – Previously Approved Project
1.6
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Project Design Progression – PDR Submittal
Preliminary Development Review
(PDR) Submittal – 7/28/15
30 units
47,000 S.F.
4,800 S.F. Commercial Office Space
1.6
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Project Design Progression – PDP & LPC Work Session Submittal
Preliminary Development Plan (PDP)
Submittal – 11/18/15
29 units
45,000 S.F.
4,900 S.F. Commercial Office Space
1.6
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Conceptual Site Plan
Proposed Building Program
Main Level
Office Space: (1) 4,885 S.F. Tenant Space
Residential: (4) Studio Units (including 1 with a loft space)
Second Level
Residential: (8) 2 Bedroom Condos
(2) 1 Bedroom Plus Office condos
(4) 1 Bedroom Condos
Third Level
Residential : (5) 2 Bedroom Condos
(4) 1 Bedroom Plus Office Condos
(2) 3 Bedroom Condos
Total Units 29 Units / 46 Bedrooms
Proposed Parking
Parking Provided 39 total parking spaces including
2 HC accessible spaces
Parking Req’d.
Residential: 26 spaces
Office Space: 5 spaces
Total Parking Req’d.: 31 spaces
1.6
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Site Plan
1.6
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Second Floor Courtyard Plan
1.6
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Exterior Building Elevations
W e s t E L E V A T I O N
1.6
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Exterior Building Elevations
S o u t h E L E V A T I O N
1.6
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Exterior Building Elevations
E a s t E L E V A T I O N
1.6
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Exterior Building Elevations
N o r t h E L E V A T I O N
1.6
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
S W C o r n e r W e s t V I E W
1.6
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
S I d e w a l k E x p e r I e n c e W E S T
1.6
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
S i d e w a l k E x p e r i e n c e S O U T H
1.6
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
S W C o r n e r S o u t h V I E W
1.6
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
S W C o r n e r B I R D S E Y E V I E W
1.6
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
C O U R T Y A R D V I E WS
1.6
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Transition – Building Massing at North and West Elevations
1.6
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Shadow Studies
1.6
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Context – Looking North
1.6
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Context – Looking West
1.6
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Compatibility of Building Height and Massing with Surrounding Context
1.6
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Compatibility of Building Height and Massing with Surrounding Context
1.6
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Compatibility of Building Height and Massing with Surrounding Context
1.6
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Transition – Building Massing at North and West Elevations
The Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (B) Historic and Cultural Resources state
that:
“New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any
such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent
thereto.”
Compatibility with the adjacent Historic Landmark and
Eligible properties
1.6
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Transition – Building Massing at North and West Elevations
Massing and Proportion
• The proposed west and north elevations
provide significant setbacks down to 1-1/2
stories at the north and 1 story at the west
that provide a transition to the
neighborhood.
Compatibility with the adjacent Historic Landmark and
Eligible properties
1.6
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Transition – Building Massing at North and West Elevations
Compatibility with the adjacent Historic Landmark and
Eligible properties
Use of Materials
Brick has been chosen to “ground” the
building with the use of lap siding at the
upper levels and north end of the building to
reflect the residential character of existing
historical and single family structures to the
west and north.
1.6
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighborhood Transition – Building Massing at North and West Elevations
Compatibility with the adjacent Historic Landmark and
Eligible properties
Fenestration and Detailing
Single hung windows in single, double and
triple window configurations have been
chosen for their compatibility. A projecting
bay window and patio doors are also
complimentary to the character of the
surrounding single family neighborhood.
1.6
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple: Mixed Use
LPC Meeting
February 10, 2016
1.6
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
320 Maple
Neighboring Views of 320 Maple
1.6
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Applicant Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 7
Citizen Materials provided
to Administrative Hearing
Officer at April 14, 2016
Hearing
1.7
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
6 pm looking from south alley to Brownes on Howes
Attachement 8
1.7
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Architects rendering View from Above SW Corner
1.7
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Articulated properly as to 3.5.1 illustration 17A & 17B
1.7
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Building Massing - context to human scale
1.7
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Cherry St Lofts from alley 12ft setbacks
1.7
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Existing condition 12.4 setback on Cherry
1.7
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Existing lookout from 2nd floor terrace
1.7
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
image looking west with 40ft wall 1.7
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Light and Shadow
1.7
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
looking west from BOH 1.7
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
looking west - 2nd story window
1.7
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
North entrance of alley
1.7
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Proposed condition looking east at 2.5 story building
1.7
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Citizen Materials Presented at Hearing (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 8
Verbatim Transcript of the
Administrative Hearing Officer
Hearing
April 14, 2016
1.8
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, April 14, 2016
Conference Rooms A & B, 281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
320 Maple Street – Mixed Use
PDP #150025
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Kendra L. Carberry
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer
1.8
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
2
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER KENDRA L. CARBERRY: I will go ahead
2 and open the public hearing; this is for 320 Maple…it’s case number PDP 150025, it’s a
3 proposal for mixed use. The order of proceedings is up on that…I think up on that board, I can’t
4 see it. Okay, so I’ll go ahead and ask the City to give the project overview first. Let me
5 just…one sec…my name is Kendra Carberry; I’m the Hearing Officer. What I will ask of the
6 public, if you’re here, if you would please come up to the table, sit, write your name and address
7 on the sign-in sheet so we make sure we get it in the record, and that enables us to get it also on
8 the record if you’re sitting here we can record what you’re saying…and that’ll be a little bit later
9 down the agenda. Thank you.
10 MR. CLARK MAPES: Thank you. I’m Clark Mapes, City Planner, and I have been
11 working with the review process on this ever since it was first submitted, and our job is to review
12 the project under applicable standards in the City’s Land Use Code. With that, you can hit these
13 front lights. I have a very brief introduction to the project. I think everyone here is familiar with
14 the location…instead of pointing, I’ll just stand up. At the corner of Maple and Meldrum
15 Streets; that’s this corner. The property would consist of a vacant, abandoned light industrial
16 building and one small house that exists next door to that building. Zoning is…it’s the
17 Downtown zoning district. This property is at the western edge of the Downtown zoning district,
18 adjacent to the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zoning district which is intended to be a
19 transition…transitional zone between the neighborhood around and to the west of the NCB zone.
20 And within the Downtown zoning…the Downtown zoning district has height limits that are very
21 carefully stated on a block by block basis, and I’ll show that in just a minute. And the NCB
22 zoning district has a height limit of three stories. And NCB zoning does allow some
23 intensification from the predominantly single-family house development pattern that exists, and
24 has existed for a long time.
25 Within the Downtown zoning district, there are sub-districts. This property is in the
26 Civic Center sub-district, block is here, and you can see the characterization of height limits for
27 each block within the Downtown zoning district; and this is in the designation called three to
28 four stories, 45 feet plus or minus…if we want to, we can talk more about that limit and why it is
29 stated in those terms that are not just an absolute fixed point in space…intended to convey a
30 scale of development. Here the property is…is here…and this is just a snapshot of some of the
31 uses around the property…mostly single-family neighborhood, although the zoning here is
32 Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density which also does allow for a limited degree of
33 intensification, multi-family and office uses. And then surrounding on other sides, you can see
34 why it’s in the Civic Center sub-district…City Hall, other civic buildings and multi-family
35 buildings on the block to the east which have, you know, a real urban kind of loft type of
36 character. That was all I was going to say to introduce, and now I’m going to get the applicant’s
37 presentation…and I will hand over the mouse.
38 MS. CARBERRY: If you could just state your name for me please.
1.8
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
3
1 MR. IAN SHUFF: Sure, good evening, my name is Ian Shuff; I’m a principal with alm2s
2 Architects here in Fort Collins.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Could you spell your last name for me please?
4 MR. SHUFF: Yes, it’s S-H-U-F-F; like shuffle without the L-E on the end.
5 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
6 MR. SHUFF: I’m proud to say I’ve been living in this town since 1999 and live pretty
7 close to this neighborhood, and so I’m very familiar with this site and excited about the project.
8 I’m going to go into a presentation, one that we started with at the neighborhood meeting and
9 continued to develop the presentation as the project was developed.
10 MS. CARBERRY: I don’t want to interrupt, but if anyone in the back can’t hear, you’re
11 welcome to move forward; we don’t have a microphone here so, just giving you a heads
12 up…you’re welcome to sit up here even if you want to if you can’t hear.
13 MR. SHUFF: I’ll try to speak up.
14 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, thank you.
15 MR. SHUFF: As Clark mentioned, I just want to really talk a little bit about site context
16 first off. Here’s our site, this overall area. This next slide really shows some of the kind of
17 compatibility and other uses currently. Here’s our site, there’s the existing Cherry Street Lofts,
18 which is a mixed-use three story building directly to the north, the Browns on Howes project
19 which is currently being constructed, three-story townhome project. Currently there’s a project
20 under review for more townhomes on the north end of this block, north of Penny Flats. And
21 here’s kind of the preferred option of the new Civic plan that has been presented, and just kind of
22 to get an idea of potentially what holds in the future of that area. And then here to the southwest
23 is an existing two and a half story apartment building, so just kind of highlighting some of the
24 surrounding potential developments, current developments, and other existing projects that are
25 similar.
26 Quickly on zoning, Clark already covered this…I think the key point here is that’s the
27 current zoning, three to five stories, 45 feet, encourages a mix of activity, pedestrian scale,
28 human scale, and pedestrian-orientated character; we’ll kind of get into that a little later in the
29 presentation. This adjacent zoning is this transition zone that Clark mentioned, and it really is
30 a…truly a transitional zone and it really is intended to buffer between the more intensive
31 commercial use to the really single-family use, and it does allow three stories. And then, really,
32 this is what’s kind of up and coming, this proposed zone district, the North Mason Character
33 District is what it will be called, or being proposed. And really it’s…emphasis on mixed-use
34 buildings and also an emphasis on residential character and compatibility with adjacent
35 neighborhoods.
1.8
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
4
1 These next few slides are just going to kind of walk around this block face and start to
2 look at a lot of the existing conditions of this site. We’re starting off…this red line kind of
3 shows this…this west block face of Meldrum. Here you can see Cherry Street Lofts, three story,
4 it’s a mixed-use building and it’s a pretty quick transition to a one-story single-family house;
5 that’s shown right here…this photo is taken right there. And so there’s kind of a precedent set
6 on this block face already with one of a mixed-use building and a transition to single-family
7 structures. And then this is kind of looking more mid-block between our proposed project and
8 the Cherry Street Lofts…some of the…here’s a better view down here of kind of these three
9 structures mid-block. Now, turning around…the other side, we have the historic Emma Malaby
10 market and I believe this house was eligible as well, and other single-family houses, some of
11 which were not found eligible on the other block face. So this is that NCB district we talked
12 about. Now moving around the other block face to Cherry Street; here’s the other side of this
13 Cherry Street Lofts…this kind of more commercial component and this transition of building
14 forms. Main level, kind of retail, commercial with condos above; and here’s kind of looking at
15 that alley and that transition to this existing house here on the north…northeast corner of that
16 block face. Now moving around to Howes, we have a couple…a few single-family houses from
17 the north moving into the interior block. This vacant lot here in this aerial is now the Browns on
18 Howes project which is two three-plexes of for sale townhome product, three story. And then on
19 the corner is the Northern Engineering office, one story office, on that southeast corner.
20 Kind of quickly moving to this other south face of the block face, obviously the other
21 side of Northern Engineering’s office, south face of it, and then our site with the existing
22 building. Looking across the street, now looking, you know, to the south…currently it’s the
23 City-owned property here, City-owned block. A lot of it is kind of open space right now,
24 existing one-story building. I’ve kind of superimposed this kind of grand master plan of a civic
25 center. Really the key point here is that there’s a parking structure, potential office buildings
26 planned. I think the assumption is it will probably be at least three stories…with their plan of
27 that. So, there’s definitely…my key point here is there’s plans for intensity to happen to this part
28 of the site and the surrounding part of the site. It’s hard to say how soon those kind of
29 developments will happen, but there is kind of thoughts and plans of that going forward at some
30 time. And then, finally, here…this is that two and a half story, kind of a sunken garden level on
31 the main level…this is just kind of caddy-corner to the southwest of our site, an existing
32 apartment building.
33 I also want to talk about the previously approved project that was on this exact same
34 property, it was called Solar Village. This PDP was approved, I believe, in 2007, although was
35 never built…and probably of the great recession, or other issues, but it was never built. It was an
36 approved project; it was a 27 unit project, it was three stories and two stories, it had 5,300 square
37 feet of office space. But, as you can see it had…it engaged both, you know, Maple and Meldrum
38 in a kind of urban way. And I think this project was in keeping with Cherry Street Lofts as well
1.8
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
5
1 and some of the other projects around the area. Here’s the site plan of that project. Again
2 addressing both the street fronts and accessing parking off the alley was the approach there.
3 These next slides show what we presented initially to the City in the PDR, which is a
4 preliminary development review process…very conceptual; it was 30 units at that point, 47,000
5 square feet with 4,800 square feet of office. This is kind of looking to the northeast. We got
6 some negative feedback from the City on this PDR; we got comments that we weren’t addressing
7 the north end compatibility along Meldrum, and then this courtyard facing east was really…we
8 got some comments that solar issues and solar access was going to be an issue, so this is kind of
9 looking opposite to the…to the southwest. So we really took those comments to heart and kind
10 of really totally re-looked at the project and how we’re going to approach it. This is kind of our
11 initial start…we were at that stage looking at the surrounding buildings and were thinking about
12 the context of that.
13 This is our PDP submittal, so this is our next iteration and our first formal submittal we
14 made to the City and as you can see, we made quite a few changes. We orientated the courtyard
15 facing south. We’ve done a lot of things which I’m going to get a little bit further into the
16 presentation about how we dealt with compatibility, stepping down to the north, and also this
17 west elevation facing the NCB district across the street. So, here you can start to see the
18 modulation, articulation…and we’ll get into that more. We did also lose a unit; we reduced the
19 building by 2,000 square feet and we were able to increase the commercial space by just a little
20 bit, up to 4,900 square feet. But, we really took in those comments and worked a lot to get to
21 this point; I’ll get into that as well further in the presentation.
22 This is currently where we are at with the building program: just under 4,900 square feet
23 of commercial office space on the ground level, we also have four studio units, and then on the
24 second level we have a mix of two and one-bedroom condos and at the third level we have a mix
25 of one, two and three-bedroom condos. So a total of 29 units, 46 bedrooms. We’re providing 39
26 parking spaces, and we’re only required 31. And so another key point was we purposefully
27 could have had more density in the project; the parking could have supported more density, but
28 the goal is to really provide good, ample amount of parking for the residents, and that was a
29 really important thing to make this project work. So, we are quite a bit over parked, and we feel
30 that that’s been a good decision. I’m going to turn it over to Craig to talk a little bit about the
31 site design now.
32 MR. CRAIG RUSSELL: I’m Craig Russell with Russell Mills Studios; I’m the landscape
33 architect and planner on the project.
34 MS. CARBERRY: And Russell is spelled like I would think?
35 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, two S’s, two L’s. So along Maple, I think the overall objective
36 with this, with the landscape design, is really to address the street frontages like Ian talked about,
37 thinking about this being a commercial use along Maple. And what we’ve got here is
1.8
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
6
1 approximately about a 30 foot separation from the building face to the curb and a generous tree
2 lawn along the existing diagonal parking there. And then in addition to that, we’ve proposed
3 kind of extensive landscape beds that will be planted with shrubs and small trees. And the idea
4 there is we’ve got the street trees proposed along Maple, the tree lawn, and then a number of
5 small trees that kind of…and shrubs and grasses, perennials, that kind of help mitigate the height
6 of the building, and help bring that kind of commercial character to the frontage. So we feel like
7 that’s an asset for this type of commercial office space; it’s not necessarily going to be a retail
8 space where we want to create a lot of hardscape in surfacing. And then at the corner what we
9 envision is kind of a gathering space with outdoor seating in tables and chair kind of
10 configurations that are located within the property line…this is kind of the right-of-way right
11 here…with a number of additional shrub bed plantings along Meldrum that are a little bit more
12 residential in their appearance and scale. Again, providing privacy to the residences along…
13 MS. CARBERRY: Those café tables for the commercial office?
14 MR. RUSSELL: Yes, and they’re just sort of gathering for general employee use…so,
15 they’re on the property though. So the residential use will be kind of mitigated, again, and
16 providing some privacy with these additional smaller trees. So, I think in general we’ve got
17 fairly substantial buffering on both sides which kind of helps with the overall user experience as
18 well as the street frontage experience.
19 MS. CARBERRY: Are there patios or anything in front of the residential units or it’s just
20 landscaping?
21 MR. RUSSELL: They’re small patio spaces, yeah. And then on the north side of the
22 property, we’re proposing a series of conifers as well as a fence with vines along the edge. So
23 that will be planted with vines to kind of help create that residential feel, and again kind of help
24 mitigate the distance between the…this property and the adjacent residential use. Planting,
25 obviously, in parking islands; and then in addition to this, we’re providing an upper courtyard, as
26 Ian mentioned, that’s south facing. So that’s kind of structured with a series of private spaces
27 that provide these units with outdoor courtyards, and they’re separated with basically planters
28 that also act as water quality treatment for the site that help us meet our LID stormwater
29 requirements. So, it’s privacy for these courtyards as well as that LID requirement being met.
30 And then at the south end, we’re providing kind of a gathering space within that courtyard with
31 an outdoor grill, shade structure, and then some additional gathering oriented seating. I’ll pass it
32 back to…
33 MR. SHUFF: Thanks Craig. We’re going to get back into the building design. Here’s
34 the west elevation, and really want to talk a little bit about materials, but also…we’ll get into
35 some 3D views, but this really starts to show the articulation, modulation. We do have a fourth
36 story loft; it is set back more than 40 feet so, from a 3D view, you won’t even see these units
37 from the street level, but as an elevation you do see them. The building, predominant building
1.8
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
7
1 line, is this third story. As we move to the north, we’ve stepped the building down to a one, one
2 and a half story element, and then we step to a two story, and then up to a three. And I have
3 some other slides to really illustrate that modulation of mass and scale.
4 The other component is, we’ve got some brick, and we’re treating brick on both…kind of
5 a stronger commercial base and really highlighted pedestrian experience with awnings and
6 sunscreens. We really wanted to create a nice, activated, pedestrian-orientated, friendly
7 streetscape. But as we move to this west side, we’ve kind of transitioned down and used softer
8 materials. We got input from both the Landmark Preservation Commission, City staff, to look
9 at, you know, reflecting more a lap, clapboard siding to reflect some of the older, historic houses
10 in that neighborhood. So, there’s kind of been a transition of materiality. There’s also the design
11 of more maybe contemporary materials transitioning, as we go north, to more soft residential. So
12 the scale’s been broken down, and the use of this brick form is also kind of eroding and
13 becoming softer as we go further to the north. This material here, we’re going to use lap siding
14 in some fashion…we’re going to use it in just traditional five, six inch exposure. Other areas
15 we’re going to use it more in a contemporary fashion where we’re going to have a mix of narrow
16 and wider boards. We have traditional brick here shown. This kind of slate blue is actually an
17 architectural grade cement fiber panel rainscreen system that’s going to be kind of used in a sort
18 of shingle, offset shingle pattern. Also to be softer to the residents, kind of in a running bond
19 fashion, and that scale will be softer. These elements at the balconies will be actually a
20 concrete…architectural grade concrete fiber panel, and probably some slight variation in tone
21 and texture to give it some interest.
22 As we move to the south elevation, you can see how the building’s really been broken
23 down into almost two wings, and really this connector in the middle is really a one-story
24 courtyard. So really there’s this kind of strong commercial base that’s very activated with
25 different treatments overhead for pedestrian scale, human scale, of variation and fenestration.
26 And as we move up, we kind of have this language of these accented balconies that are framed,
27 and then a mix of materials to kind of break these elevations up. But really, it’s essentially
28 two…two wings of buildings. Moving to the alley, this is the view looking at the alley. We
29 really haven’t backed off on the design materials or architecture; it’s still the same high-quality
30 materials. We do have ventilation requirements we have to meet with a covered parking
31 structure, so we are going to have a fenced-in covered parking that you’ll see along the alley,
32 which you see here at the bottom. And then looking north, this view, this elevation makes things
33 look kind of flat, but there’s quite a bit going on here. This is actually a one-story parapet that
34 then steps back quite a ways to a second level, which then steps back significantly to a third level
35 back here. So there’s quite a bit going on as far as the breakdown of scale being done to really
36 mitigate solar access and just the mass and scale to neighboring properties to the north and those
37 to the northeast.
38 Here’s a 3D view taking…and here you can see these lofts are barely perceivable from
39 across the street, and I think that’s the effect of a great setback is you really…you barely
1.8
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
8
1 perceive them. But here you can start to see the articulation along the west elevation. We have
2 some elements at this ten foot setback from the property line, but then this is actually stepped
3 back another six feet from that lower element, so significant step backs, significant stepping
4 down to the north. And as we look down Maple, you can start to see the effect of these kind of
5 two wings coming out and greatly reducing the effect of the building.
6 Here’s more of a closer look at that corner element with the residential units above and
7 the commercial entry at the corner. And you can see the activation of the street level. Here’s
8 looking…on Maple looking to the west, and there’s this commercial…here’s this courtyard up
9 here, and the pergola Craig mentioned above. Again, a variety of parapets, of brick detailing, of
10 treatments with awnings and trellis, landscaping…generous amount of landscaping, so very
11 highly active façade. And another just kind of overview of the project looking quite a ways
12 back. In this view…you can see kind of the massing of Cherry Street Lofts in the background
13 here. Here is kind of a bird’s eye view of the project. This starts to kind of show, I think, a little
14 bit better some of the massing of the building and how it’s really broken into these two wings.
15 And there’s very little….there’s just a small three story connector of these two wings at this
16 north side of the building. And you can start to see how this building starts to relate to some of
17 the surrounding structures and massing with the Northern Engineering office building, the
18 Browns on Howes project, Cherry Street Lofts, and some of the existing single-family properties
19 to the north.
20 Here’s kind of a view…we didn’t really show the articulation of that courtyard and all the
21 raised beds and planters, but this kind of gives you an idea of that courtyard space facing south
22 with units looking down onto it. Here’s some diagrams and some drawings here…this view up
23 here is looking predominantly to the south, southeast, and it’s showing, you know, in the
24 foreground this existing single-family house and how these step downs start to transition to those
25 existing lots, and then how this street face then steps back another five to six feet at this level, at
26 the second and third level, and how there’s significant step backs all along that north side. And
27 here, looking at a cross section, really this neighboring property has pretty clear open solar
28 access because of these step backs, and it greatly reduces the impact. This aerial view is kind of
29 looking to the opposite way; here’s the alley, here’s all these step backs from here.
30 We did a shadow study; we weren’t required because our building is 40…it’s not taller
31 than 40 feet I should say. We did go ahead and provide one. The top two are looking at the
32 equinox, which are obviously the same for spring and fall, at 10 and 2, and you can start to see
33 the shadowing here at those two time frames. And the solar access…some of those step backs
34 we did is providing a pretty minimal amount of shading at that level. And then here’s kind of
35 your worst case, winter solstice, at the same time frames, 10 and 2. And you can start to see,
36 there is some shadowing going on here, and then also at the 2 PM, we’re just barely starting to
37 touch this adjacent property at that point. The shadows…you can see over all…the shadows of
38 all the properties start to affect other properties as well as you get into that late winter sun.
1.8
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
9
1 This is a…kind of a Google Earth view overall. We’ve inserted our project and I think
2 the key point of this is, as you work from College Avenue across this downtown zone district to
3 the NCB, we have the existing five story Old Town Flats project, we have the four story Penny
4 Flats, we have three story Browns on Howes, our three story project, and you really start to see
5 this step down as you go along this corridor, and really feel like our project is in keeping with
6 that, and with these two…with this courtyard and these two masses how that really breaks the
7 scale of this building down. You can see Cherry Street Lofts in the background.
8 This view is looking west, kind of the same blocks here, and kind of start five story, four,
9 and down to three as we look to the west. And you can start to see the adjacency of our project
10 to some of the neighboring projects and really not…not really blocking views per se. We’ve had
11 some concerns from an adjoining developer at the Browns on Howes, but really their views to
12 the south are completely retained as are their views to the west. We will have some impact to the
13 southwest, but you know, primarily their terraces all face, and their units all face, to the south.
14 Their western unit does have some western exposure, but that view is maintained, that view
15 corridor.
16 We also did a diagram to try to help understand heights and massing, and really it’s a
17 gradation of one, two, three and four stories based on these colors. You can start to see that the
18 blue and the dark blue represents the part of our building that’s three stories or higher, and it
19 makes up about 67%, about 2/3 of our building is three stories or higher, and the other third is
20 one story and two stories. So, this starts to show just really the massing and how that affects
21 other projects…in relation to other projects I should say. Here’s existing Cherry Street Lofts, the
22 Browns on Howes project, and some of the other buildings in the area. I think one thing
23 we…we’ve also heard some concerns about this project and its relationship to our project. Based
24 on getting a site plan from recorded documents and looking at that, it appears that we are about
25 51 feet from the point of…their corner of their building to the corner of our building. And from
26 their upper terrace, it looks like we’re about 58 feet, 3 inches. And I think we want to note that
27 that’s a pretty significant distance; it’s really wider than a standard city lot. And the fact that
28 we’re diagonal from that, we feel like that’s…it’s pretty far away on a lot of levels. I think it
29 would be different if that project were here, directly either to the east or to the north, but we feel
30 like that’s not the case.
31 Also in reference to that, their project is quite close to some other projects, to the
32 Northern Engineering building, they’re 47 feet away. They’re even closer to a single-family
33 house in that direction. So I think we want to make that point. Also our upper floors are set in
34 significantly, in most cases close to 40 feet from the edge of the building on those lofts.
35 We were also asked to look at a couple views, particularly in the alley. So we took these
36 shots today; this is the Browns on Howes project that’s currently being built. This is looking
37 south down the alley, and we have put our building into that view to get an idea of just what that
38 is going to feel like. And with some of the existing landscaping in the foreground and everything
1.8
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
10
1 else, but you can start to really see how this scale step down really kind of mitigates the mass and
2 scale on that side, and that impact. And really these buildings are a very similar size; they’re
3 probably around the high 30’s, 36, 37 feet up, and we’re right around 40, so very comparable in
4 height and scale. And then this is looking opposite; this would be looking on, I guess the south
5 side of Maple looking down that alley. And here’s our building, and then you can see their
6 project in the background and that, sort of, relationship between these two projects. But, again,
7 very similar scale.
8 We went through, as all projects do…went through a couple rounds of review from the
9 Landmark Preservation Commission because of our adjacency to potentially eligible or historic
10 projects, and really it comes down to 3.4.7 of our Land Use Code…new structures must be
11 compatible with historic and the character and…so these next few slides are what we presented
12 and really dealing with massing and proportion. We really…the proposed west, north
13 elevations…provide significant setbacks down to one-half stories and to this transition here. So
14 bringing the mass of these more commercial brick elements down, stepping this façade back
15 from this ground-level façade that we mentioned before and really starting to break that scale
16 down. Also the use of materials…we chose brick to ground the building and then also as we
17 mentioned before, the use of lap siding at the upper levels to really tie in to that residential
18 neighborhood both to the north and across the street. We also worked closely to look at, as we
19 moved kind of on this north half of the building, starting to use more historically sensitive
20 fenestration, single, double hung windows sometimes grouped up in pairs, sometimes in triples,
21 but also that’s in keeping with those existing single-family residences built anywhere from the
22 turn of the century to the ‘30’s. And that concludes our presentation.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, thank you. Does staff have any response or would you rather
24 move to public testimony?
25 MR. MAPES: Not really a response, but there’s a couple points I think…I’ll mention
26 them and then if they want to expound on it. But, one is that there’s an existing driveway on
27 Meldrum Street; this project will close and remove that driveway, replace it with new, you know,
28 streetscape, parkway landscaping. And the parking figures mentioned were the parking in the
29 structure, but this is…well, there are 22 on-street parking spaces fronting this lot. This is quite a
30 bit larger lot than any other lots on the block and it has 22 diagonal parking spaces on the street,
31 which we don’t count with regard to the Code. But when one thinks of evenings and weekends
32 and peak times such as that, I have thought that that’s kind of a factor in the whole picture, just
33 understanding the whole picture of the parking.
34 You notice that there is a modification request in the staff report for the materials.
35 MS. CARBERRY: I did see that, yes.
36 MR. MAPES: There’s a very specific list of materials listed in the Land Use Code for the
37 Civic Center sub-district, and it’s brick, stone, precast concrete accents, terra cotta, very much
1.8
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
11
1 geared toward thinking about permanent civic buildings. And, staff…this has happened on two
2 recent projects where this cement fiber siding in certain areas within the Civic Center district
3 actually seems to be more appropriate than just using all brick and stone as you might find on the
4 courthouse or buildings like that. It doesn’t really affect this hearing, but I can tell you that staff
5 is going to propose a slight change to the Land Use Code to add materials like this into the very
6 specific list of materials in the Civic Center sub-district because of the fact that that Civic Center
7 sub-district includes some blocks like this where there is residential and houses. And the intent
8 is to have quality materials that are appropriate to the context, and the staff report explains that
9 we have found that in this case, considered it actually a minor modification, with those materials
10 being as good or better as if the whole building was brick and stone and concrete. And again,
11 that’s happened on two recent projects in kind of similar situations. So, there’s that…and that is
12 all.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Anyone from the public who would like to testify, come
14 on up. If you wouldn’t mind just telling me your name and then also writing it on the sheet.
15 MR. CHRISTIAN BACHELET: My name is Christian, and this is my wife, Robin
16 Bachelet, spelled B-A-C-H-E-L-E-T. Let me just add before I finish this that the presentation
17 you just saw was a little misleading. A lot of the information towards the end was added after
18 the neighborhood meeting and after the meeting that we had with the developer. So, some of the
19 pictures that were taken inserted in this report was not…was not part of the neighborhood
20 meeting, just for the record.
21 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, and I think…just to let you know that that often happens,
22 because I think what happens is the applicant, after the neighborhood meeting, takes some
23 comments into consideration and then can change some of their plans, but go ahead with
24 whatever you’d like to tell me.
25 MR. BACHELET: Sure, but just so you know.
26 MS. ROBIN BACHELET: Fair enough.
27 MR. BACHELET: My wife and I are currently developing two three-plexes, or
28 brownstones, located at 315 North Howes. And so we’re here today, basically, to recommend
29 denial of this proposed project located at 320 West Maple. Like I said, we’re currently building
30 this project, and this building is about 17,000 square foot building as you can see right there, my
31 wife is pointing. There are actually two buildings right there. And in that building…these are
32 lot and block, by the way.
33 MS. CARBERRY: And just so you know, I did also preside over the hearing for Browns
34 on Howes so I am familiar with your project.
1.8
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
12
1 MR. BACHELET: Okay, great, okay. I also would recommend you actually after this
2 hearing or at some other point, take a look and just walk down the alley please, at some point,
3 and look at some of the things that we’re about to mention. But, at number one, there is a 17,000
4 square foot building that exists right now. We have a two-car garage, there is a garden terrace,
5 there’s a second floor terrace, and there’s a sun deck.
6 MS. BACHELET: On the south side.
7 MR. BACHELET: On the south side, all along the south side. Not to mention, there’s a
8 pedestrian that runs between east and west…the public pedestrian, so people from Howes will
9 walk along that pedestrian and they can actually make their way into the alley.
10 MS. BACHELET: So, our concern, if I can elaborate…our concern is that you have a
11 public right-of-way here basically dumping into the alley. And I think that the other perspective
12 that they showed didn’t really capture the fact that these are not kiddy-corner. From the way we
13 see it, there’s an overlap. In fact the pedestrian walk could potentially dump right into the access
14 of their garage entrance, which we think is a safety issue because of, obviously, the amount of
15 cars that will be parking under there and then the people that are walking along here. And I think
16 their 51 feet, again, I would question that because if we have a 9, excuse me, 14 and a half foot
17 setback right here, and then the alley is 20, that’s 34, and I didn’t hear…I didn’t hear what Craig
18 said about the setback there on the alley, but it’s negligible. So, how that adds up to 51, I’m not
19 too sure, because that looks like 35ish to me.
20 MR. BACHELET: And also there is a…two vehicle access points…one on the alley and
21 one off of Howes. And so, like I said…two-car garage that parks exactly…
22 MS. CARBERRY: Where’s Howes…just to point me…
23 MS. BACHELET: Right here.
24 MS. CARBERRY: That’s Howes, okay.
25 MR. BACHELET: So we have an entrance that goes on Howes behind those two
26 buildings, and then it…
27 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, two access points, so one from the alley and one from Howes,
28 and the drive aisle runs behind the two buildings, and then there is parking underneath. And
29 that’s, you know, again, two points of access for six units…six units basically, two three-unit
30 buildings of 8,500 square feet each, so…
31 MR. BACHELET: And so, what we’re looking at right now, if you look on Cherry Street
32 Lofts, it’s nine units with 5,000 square foot building. But that’s on one lot too, just like Browns
33 on Howes. Maple is on four lots, so they’ve assembled four lots to build that thing. Cherry may
34 have had two. And if you look back, and there may be a photo, but on the alley there, there is a
1.8
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
13
1 three-car garage, a single-family dwelling, and then there’s an access onto Cherry that takes you
2 into that building where there’s some garages. Right there.
3 MS. BACHELET: So here’s the other alley condition along the north side; we’ve got a
4 huge step back down to a one and a half story house, basically, and then we’ve got at least one
5 car depth set back to hit the garages, which is not duplicated, even remotely, on the other
6 side…on the south side of the alley.
7 MR. BACHELET: And the access on Cherry is just behind that little house there between
8 those two dwellings right there.
9 MS. BACHELET: So to kind of, you know, I mean…and we have example…many
10 examples of this. But I think basically our contention is that, in relation to 3.5.1, the
11 compatibility of the proposed 320 project is nowhere near, you know, compatible with the
12 neighborhood. We’ve got 700 square foot bungalows in here, we’ve got a 16,000 square foot
13 building, 17,000 square foot building…
14 MR. BACHELET: Two buildings…
15 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, in two buildings, and a one story here. And these are, you
16 know, these are single-family dwellings with attached garages.
17 MS. CARBERRY: I was looking back, but it looks like Browns on Howes is 39 feet
18 tall…is that…
19 MR. BACHELET: Thirty-eight.
20 MS. BACHELET: Thirty-eight.
21 MR. BACHELET: And this is 40 on the alley, and it’s 49…
22 MS. BACHELET: And then 49 at the, whatever you want to call those…lofts.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Right.
24 MR. BACHELET: And my understanding was, everything was going to be kind of like
25 this wedding cake…five stories would start here on College, and make its way down as we…
26 MS. BACHELET: Step down and step down and step down…
27 MR. BACHELET: And step down as we get into the residential, and here it does not do
28 that at all; it’s actually doing the opposite. And, like Robin said, we’ve got a handful of
29 bungalows at 700 square feet up to 1,200; they’re set back at almost 20. We’re set back 20 feet
30 on Howes, and we’re set back 14 on the alley. Here, they are nine and a half on Meldrum, only
31 four and a half on Maple, and I’m not even sure what’s the setback on the alley.
1.8
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
14
1 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, it’s negligible.
2 MR. BACHELET: Negligible…so…
3 MS. BACHELET: So the question is why that the alley is not being considered for this
4 particular project, for 320 Howes, and there’s no foresighted design. I mean, we’ve got a, you
5 know, straight 40 foot wall overlooking our terraces and, you know, there’s no privacy and that
6 kind of thing. If we were required to set back fourteen and a half feet off the alley, why is this
7 building not doing the same thing? There’s just a mass of inconsistency there.
8 MR. BACHELET: So, again, it just goes back to the building and project compatibility,
9 which it says here in 3.5.1, the purpose of this section is to ensure that the physical and
10 operational characteristics of proposed buildings and use are compatible with considered within
11 the context of the surrounding area.
12 MS. BACHELET: Now again, you know, to the setbacks, here’s Cherry Street Lofts, and
13 that is, you know, commercial frontage there, and those are, I think greater than 12 feet.
14 MR. BACHELET: And this goes back to the 3.5.1 general standards. In there is says
15 here, new developments in or adjacent to existing developed area shall be compatible with the
16 established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complimentary. In
17 areas where existing architectural character is not definitively established or is not consistent
18 with the purpose of this Code, the architecture of the new development shall set an enhanced
19 standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
20 MS. BACHELET: We were told when we built Browns that we were setting a new
21 standard.
22 MR. BACHELET: And Cherry, again, is a new standard, and I understand that they’re
23 trying to mirror that being that it’s a Type I and it’s got that commercial component. But again,
24 it’s only on one lot, or two lots with the house and garages and setback. Here it’s four, that’s the
25 difference.
26 MS. CARBERRY: How high is Cherry?
27 MR. MAPES: Thirty-nine feet.
28 MS. CARBERRY: I’m sorry; I didn’t mean to interrupt.
29 MR. BACHELET: No, no…and so the reason why we’re discussing about the general
30 standards is that, like Robin said, we had, you know, we went through this process with Browns
31 on Howes and part of that discussion was with Seth, who was our planner, who said…he actually
32 brought Solar Village into the discussion in one of our comments. And he says here, per Solar
33 Village’s neighborhood meeting, neighbors were concerned about the following: parking, tree
34 preservation, four-sided design, the massing reduction techniques, visual and solar impact on
1.8
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
15
1 adjacent properties. So these are things that he had brought out from the Solar Village comments
2 and interjected in our hearing, or our submittal and asked me, look, you need to follow these
3 kinds of standards because these are the concerns that the people…the neighbors had of the Solar
4 Village back in 2007.
5 And so part of this also goes to the fact that Neenan had tried to do a multi-family project
6 on our lot at 315 a couple years ago. They were going to, again, 45 to 50,000 square foot
7 building…just as many if not more units. They were trying to expand the lot line by a couple of
8 properties to the north.
9 MS. BACHELET: Right along here.
10 MR. BACHELET: No, you can’t see it because it’s blocked. So there’s a couple homes
11 to the north that they were trying to go ahead and purchase and what have you, but LPC came in
12 and said no, 325 Howes is historic, you can’t do anything about it, so it just kind of derailed that
13 project.
14 MS. BACHELET: So we have, you know, historic dwellings surrounding this all over the
15 place. I mean, 320…325 is right over here, and you know, we’ve had other projects where that
16 is an easy bleed in to this neighborhood here, or to this building here. So, again, it just…there’s
17 a disconnect we feel as to what’s really being considered here and why.
18 MR. BACHELET: I mean parking is just…I mean the vehicle is just one example…for
19 example. There’s going to be just, let’s see, there’s 31 parking spots available, there’s 46 beds.
20 We have a business to the west that has cars parked along…
21 MS. BACHELET: Right here.
22 MR. BACHELET: Yeah, right there. There’s like 10 or 12…
23 MS. BACHELET: It’s a head-in parking situation.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, I saw it in one of the photos.
25 MR. BACHELET: Yeah, and then you’ve got the parking lot that they use. So, can you
26 imagine on a Monday morning or Tuesday, people are parking along there, along the alley, and
27 then they have to pull…reverse back into the alley while cars are coming in and out.
28 MS. BACHELET: And accessing underneath here.
29 MR. BACHELET: Right. Not to mention…
30 MS. BACHELET: All while we’ve got our pedestrian walk and frontage of our
31 building…
1.8
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
16
1 MR. BACHELET: Pedestrian walkway and our garden terrace which is getting affected,
2 not to mention the…
3 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, let’s talk about shadows. So, the other concern we have is the
4 privacy considerations because on that east wall, 40 feet, there’s windows…tons of windows that
5 look right into our garden area. This side here we have windows, there’s a terrace there…so the
6 privacy issue there as far as 3.5.1. Go ahead.
7 MR. BACHELET: Yeah, and it’s also the building size, height, bulk, and mass and scale
8 I don’t think has been addressed.
9 MS. BACHELET: Along that side, yeah, there’s no four-sided design…yeah.
10 MR. BACHELET: Along the alley, yeah…and even Cameron Gloss had mentioned in his
11 comments with regards to 320 when he said that…his initial comments were concerned with the
12 height, mass, and scale that’s not compatible to the surrounding area. So even though the plans
13 were revised like they have here, and they did address some of the setbacks, what they didn’t
14 address was the building scale and the mass, being that it was 45,000 square feet. And I think
15 that’s the one area that they did not address. Like I said, they took care of the elevation setbacks
16 along Meldrum and along Maple, and also on that north side, but nothing was considered along
17 the alley.
18 MS. BACHELET: But the powder along the alley is not…has not been followed…yeah.
19 MR. BACHELET: There’s a 40 foot wall right there.
20 MS. BACHELET: So then, light and shadow is another section of 3.5.1 which we’re
21 concerned…we know they did a shadow report, but we feel like it was not exactly reflective of
22 what’s going to be happening when a 40 foot wall, you know, is erected there creating basically
23 an adverse impact on the natural light. And we’ll have snow and ice and things like that from the
24 shadows so it’ll be hard for the pedestrian walk to really be a safe place to traverse.
25 MR. BACHELET: The pedestrian along the alley is going to be a big concern too.
26 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, that’s…I mean with all the new cars and the new vehicle trips
27 per day.
28 MR. BACHELET: And pulling out of the alley and taking a left onto Maple is going to
29 be quite challenging, especially when you’ve got cars parked on the street and also cars parked
30 on the alley.
31 MS. BACHELET: So the shadow study, I think again maybe needs to be scrutinized a
32 little bit more. We have a picture…bear with me here…alright. So this is 6:00 right here, and
33 look at the shadow that this is casting all the way out here into these parking lots, yeah.
1.8
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
17
1 MS. CARBERRY: I’m sorry, where is this?
2 MR. BACHELET: That’s the alley there…
3 MS. BACHELET: This is the alley, so this is where…
4 MS. CARBERRY: Is that the existing building?
5 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, this is where the new building is proposed so…being that that’s
6 one story…here’s the shadow all…I mean it goes all the way across. And then you have…this
7 building is going to carry out all the way over so that it overlaps with Browns on Howes. So
8 how they could show a study that doesn’t have any shadowing on our terraces and garden level
9 areas is very curious to me, yeah.
10 MR. BACHELET: Yeah, just again, going back to the building and mass real quickly. I
11 wrote down here that 320 is, as we know, a 45,000 square foot building. It’s 40 times the size of
12 existing single-family dwellings and it’s two times the size of Browns on Howes and Cherry. So
13 again, if you can allow this project to go then you’re setting a new standard. So now, the next
14 developer is going to buy the next five lots, build 50,000 of a building with the commercial
15 component because now it’s a Type I, and continue that all the way around that block and go to
16 the north…or go on the east side of Howes and buy the next four or five lots and assemble all
17 them together and do another 50,000 square foot building four stories, five stories high, so…
18 MS. CARBERRY: Just for the record, I’m looking at your renderings of Browns on
19 Howes. You have second floor decks, sun…whatever…I think you called them sun decks or
20 something. I’m looking at that…
21 MR. BACHELET: Terrace.
22 MS. CARBERRY: I just want to make sure that was still in the plan.
23 MS. BACHELET: Yeah, and right now, they do, they enjoy great sunshine. So the open
24 sky, the natural lighting, all of that is a major concern to us. So, basically, you know, we just
25 feel like the context here is not…is not…the existing context of the neighborhood and the block
26 is just not being respected. You know, these kind of buildings exist two blocks down. Penny
27 Flats has a garage that accesses off of Maple…they have two points of access for that four or five
28 story building. So we just think there’s, you know, room for improvement here.
29 MR. BACHELET: I’m not even sure that this type of project, this Type I project, actually
30 works in this neighborhood. Now, it’s a side matter, but we are talking about zoning. But again,
31 you know, you look at other projects like Penny Flats, they’ve got the same concept. You look
32 at that retail or commercial component, it’s usually empty; it hasn’t been filled. You go down on
33 The Summit, same thing…they did the same type of project, commercial on the bottom,
34 residential on top. They’ve got some vacancy there as well; it’s been three years since that’s
1.8
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
18
1 been built. I’m not saying that they won’t be able to rent out that five or eight thousand square
2 foot space, but that does add a lot of stress to the parking.
3 MS. BACHELET: And impact to the neighborhood, yeah…
4 MR. BACHELET: And we know as developers and owners of office space, parking is
5 extremely important when it comes to leasing office. And that’s going to be a concern, and so
6 I’m not sure how they’re going to address that. But I can guarantee you that any tenant that
7 moves in there that’s going to want to spend a handsome rent is going to want some parking
8 deeded to that space for sure. And if I was a homeowner and wanting to live in downtown and
9 want to buy a condo for $700,000, I don’t get a parking spot? I don’t get any of that stuff? I
10 mean, you know, these are just parts of the design and part of the project that I don’t think fits in
11 this neighborhood, but that’s just my opinion on that.
12 MS. BACHELET: So I think, you know, in conclusion, we’re relying on 3.5.1, context,
13 building height, mass…
14 MR. BACHELET: And also in relation to 3….
15 MS. BACHELET: Patterns formed, yeah, patterns along the alley that haven’t been
16 continued…existing patterns. We think that 7A, illustration 7A in 3.5.1 has not been considered.
17 It’s been done well here at Cherry Street Lofts, but that illustration has not really been
18 considered as far as the 320 project. You know, quality of life, open sky, natural light…these are
19 the things that we’re offering. A lot of outdoor living space, walkways, you know, all brick
20 exteriors, that kind of thing that we were told we were setting a new standard, and we just feel
21 like this has kind of blown that standard apart, so…thank you very much.
22 MR. BACHELET: Thank you.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Is there other public comment?
24 MR. JESS GRIES: Hi, my name is Jess Gries …I’m at 312 North Meldrum, which in a
25 lot of the renderings that we’ve seen is the home that’s…the single-family home that’s directly to
26 the north of the project.
27 MS. CARBERRY: Could you spell your last name for me, sorry.
28 MR. GRIES: G-R-I-E-S as in Sam.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
30 MR. GRIES: So, I guess compared to some of the things that have been proposed for this
31 lot at one point in time, this is a little lower impact. I do appreciate the applicant’s efforts and
32 the City’s…modifications from the initial plan with the step backs that would be on the
33 north…on the north facing, on that relief, that will at least…there will be some, you know, at
1.8
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
19
1 least most of the year there’ll be sun that reaches, but there’ll be…there’s going to be several
2 months of the year where my home now is going to be in…pretty much my whole lot…in
3 perpetual shade. That is…that’s going to affect my quality of life there. Of course living in an
4 area that’s downtown zoned, I know that there’s going to be some of this, but it seems like going
5 to 29 units, it is a fairly big step up from what…what we’re finding on the rest of the block, with
6 Cherry Street, with Browns on Howes. I would echo some of the things that we heard from the
7 previous members of the public as far as…just the impact of the shadows and the…how many
8 people we’re now going to have in there. It does seem to be significantly larger than what we’re
9 seeing with the other things that have been permitted by the City there. And, you know, again, I
10 knew that change is coming, but I guess I’m hoping and think what’s most consistent with
11 what’s happening on the block, and what I think is in the plan, are projects that are a little closer
12 to what we’re seeing with Browns on Howes and even Cherry Street, than really what the mass
13 of this project is. But, in the same breath, I do appreciate the fact that there has at least been
14 some consideration in mitigating the iceberg effect that this has. Thanks.
15 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Anyone else? Don’t be shy. Anyone? Yes?
16 MR. MANUEL MARTINEZ: I’m Manuel Martinez; I live at 310…I own 306, just
17 recently sold 308 Cherry Street. We’re in the buffer zone on the north end there, across from
18 Cherry Street Lofts, caddy corner. And that…I’ve lived there since 1976. The Miranda’s, who
19 are next door to the Brownsville [sic]…my cousin is there and Joe Coria has two houses to the
20 east of us. And most of the Hispanics in that area don’t want to come in because they say that
21 the City is going to do whatever they’re going to do anyway; that’s their attitude. My attitude is,
22 speak up and see what happens.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Yes, tell them to come and speak up; we’re open.
24 MR. MARTINEZ: I was against Cherry Street Lofts; we still have issues with parking,
25 snow removal. Every winter, they move the snow from the front to in front of my brother-in-
26 law’s house across the alley and then they clear the alley for those garages that are there and put
27 it out in the street. I’ve had to call the City every winter so far when we get a big snow. They
28 ticket them, they tell them to move that snow, put it in a dump truck and move it out; they have
29 no place to put the snow. When I clean my area off with my Bobcat, the three houses, then we
30 get people from Cherry Street Lofts wanting to park there. I move the snow so my grandkids
31 and my daughter can get out, take the kids to school and unload groceries and stuff. In the
32 summertime, they park across the street where the shade is, the employees do, and that. So,
33 parking is a big issue there already. Now, with Brownsville [sic] coming in…I spoke at theirs.
34 They have a plan for removing the snow; they have two entrances into their area, from the alley
35 and on Howes Street. The only thing on that Brownsville [sic] one is just, it’s so straight up
36 from my cousin’s house…now they just look up at a big old building. And we lost our view too
37 of the First National Bank. We used to sit on the porch, see what time it is, you know, enjoy our
38 coffee, watch people. Now the clock is gone; we’re going to face a building and that. What I
1.8
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
20
1 see echoing some of the stuff the Brownsville [sic] people mentioned was the setback, that
2 parking…the engineer parking in the alley. I don’t know how close the new building is going to
3 be, and their only way in and out if I understand this right, is through the alley. Am I correct?
4 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes.
5 MR. MARTINEZ: Why not go out to Meldrum or Maple? That alley is going to
6 be…you know, I walk through there, walk my kids to school at St. Joseph’s and that, and other
7 kids walk through there you know. And let me tell you, that diagonal parking, like they said, you
8 have to pull out of that alley almost the full length of your vehicle to see traffic coming because
9 of diagonal parking. What’s even worse is when people turn into that alley from Maple; they’re
10 coming pretty good, and by the time they turn, they don’t know who’s there, whether a vehicle or
11 a pedestrian. So that alley…and then if they come out Cherry Street, that’s close to Howes.
12 Cherry Street is heavily used; people speed on it constantly. It’s hard to get across that street.
13 Too many units; not enough parking. Yeah, they say they have 22 street parking, just like
14 Cherry Street Lofts and yeah, we put diagonal parking on Meldrum. And then they’ve got
15 parking all over…but those parking spots are going to be gone because they’re going to have
16 commercial businesses underneath them right? So you can’t count those parking spots. You go
17 down there now; you go down there any time of the week….those parking spots are already used
18 now and there’s no apartments or businesses in that corner. So those parking spots are already
19 used now…now where are those people going to park? To me, parking is the biggest issue on
20 this because the building is so big and tall. I appreciate the way you went on…on Meldrum from
21 the one house at the level…that’s a good idea. You know, kind of gradually getting up to your
22 big building; that’s a good idea. But you’ve got to do something like that…it’s too tall. Too
23 many units. You say 39 parking spaces and 27 units…you need 50. You figure two people
24 per…everybody is going to have a vehicle. They say they don’t; they say everybody rides the
25 bike. You know what people do? They park on Cherry Street, get off, get their bike out, and
26 then ride into town. I see that in our neighborhood. Yeah, they ride their bikes to town, but they
27 park in our neighborhood and then ride into town.
28 Snow removal for this space…how are you going to remove the snow? Where’s it going
29 to go? Sometimes we get big dumps and, you know, the City has trouble keeping the streets, just
30 the curb streets…they have to remove it and take it out of the way. So, snow removal there. To
31 me, the parking and the safety issues there, going out on Maple, coming in through the
32 alley…that alley is going to become a main street for…you’ve already got the engineer parking
33 there, you’ve already got those garages from Cherry Street parking in and out of there, and then
34 Brownsville [sic] people are going to be able to come in and out there. So that alley is going to
35 feed into Maple and Cherry Street. And getting out on Cherry Street, the way people speed
36 there, and then Howes…the intersection just being there because it’s a dead end there…it dead
37 ends at Cherry Street and that. So, my concern is the parking, the snow removal, and just the
38 safety of getting in and out of that alley.
1.8
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
21
1 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you, and if you would please write your names…I’m sorry, for
2 the last two, would you write your name on the sign-in sheet for me please so I can make sure I
3 get it in the record? Thank you. Anyone else?
4 MR. JAMES BURRILL: My name is James Burrill, B-U-R-R-I-L-L, and I own 303, 305,
5 313 and 315 North Meldrum; I live at 305. Hearing his comments about parking, I thought there
6 was a point I should make. There have been two days in the last month when there has not been
7 parking available on Meldrum Street at all. So…whatever is happening at the City or something,
8 there’s something that’s causing….bringing more people in. And so that might be something
9 you want to take into account. As far as the project goes, I think that the project will actually add
10 value to my place; it’s an improvement. But, I think that the parking should be reviewed. That’s
11 my comment.
12 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
13 MR. MAPES: Can I ask a question of this speaker?
14 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, of course.
15 MR. MAPES: And the reason I want to do it now is because I think the first speaker left
16 and I had a question…or Mr. Gries, I think it was.
17 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: He left.
18 MS. CARBERRY: Did he leave? Okay.
19 MR. MAPES: Okay. Do you know if he has lived there since last fall?
20 MR. BURRILL: The first speaker?
21 MS. CARBERRY: Mr. Gries.
22 MR. BURRILL: Yeah, he’s lived there; he’s been there for three or four years.
23 MR. MAPES: So did he come to the neighborhood meeting…?
24 MR. BURRILL: Yeah, he was there.
25 MR. MAPES: Okay, thank you.
26 MR. BURRILL: Yeah.
27 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. And did you have a question for this…?
28 MR. MAPES: That was it…I just…
29 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, okay, sorry.
1.8
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
22
1 MR. MAPES: Before he leaves, I wanted to see…
2 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, got it.
3 MS. DAWN PUTNEY: Hello.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Hello.
5 MS. PUTNEY: My name is Dawn Putney; my husband Tom and I own a commercial
6 property at 325 Cherry Street; we’re one of the commercial…we actually own three of the units
7 at Cherry Street, so we’ve been there for nine years. And while, yes, parking can be challenging
8 in our neighborhood once in a while, we don’t live in Old Town...we live outside of the city and
9 we drive into work. What we’ve found, and as a local business owner, we agree that we feel like
10 this will add value to the property that we own. And, as a business owner, I think there’s a need
11 for more properties like ours. We bought that property nine years ago; we couldn’t buy that
12 property today. We would not be property owners for our business in Fort Collins today. I serve
13 on the Chamber board too, so I’m very pro-business. But I think there’s something to be said for
14 the concerns with the parking. We are probably the biggest employer in Cherry Street; we are
15 very careful that our employees do not park on Cherry Street, across the street. The neighbors
16 are very thoughtful and we try to be very good neighbors. I think with that mixed use of
17 commercial and residential, it is a good use for the neighborhood. When we moved into that
18 building, there was not much around us and it took us a long…it took us years for our property to
19 gain value. When we bought the third unit two years ago, we had to put considerable cash into it
20 because the property had not gained value during the downturn. So, we’re fans of the building;
21 we like that it is mixed-use, and we’re hoping that we can see other business owners move into
22 our neighborhood.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
24 MS. BARB WILKINS: Hi.
25 MS. CARBERRY: Hi.
26 MS. WILKINS: My name is Barb Wilkins…
27 MS. CARBERRY: Can you spell your last name for me please?
28 MS. WILKINS: Sure, it’s W-I-L-K-I-N-S.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
30 MS. WILKINS: And, I mean, I like to see improvements; I’m not going to say that I’m
31 against it. But, I think, you know, if there’s an issue with them not having enough land on the
32 site to build the parking…I know the City at one time was thinking of building a parking garage
33 around all their City buildings, and I will say on Maple Street…good luck trying to find a
1.8
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
23
1 parking spot if it doesn’t have one hour or two hour parking on that street. Good luck…there is
2 none, absolutely none. And I don’t care what day of the week you go. The other thing is, with
3 the amount of people that are moving in these apartments and stuff like that, there’s no green
4 space for their dogs or their, you know, whatever animal they have that are walking. And it is a
5 little disgusting to walk by the City parks and the City land and, you know, most people do
6 probably try to clean up, but I am sorry, I think people, if they’re building apartments, they need
7 to have a little space if they’re going to rent to people that have pets. It’s just overusing the City
8 land…it’s just too many people getting to be in these areas.
9 So, I mean, you know, with the parking situation, I think they can work with the City and
10 say hey, we will, you know, you know, give these parking spots for…our tenants will buy them,
11 and we need to have this parking garage built in the site that I think has been a planned site for
12 the City. But, there is no parking on Maple. I mean I even have people that come in my store
13 and say, Barb, I hate living on Maple now. It’s just…people are going down those streets really
14 fast; there’s so much traffic, there’s so much parking on there, they can’t stand it. So…
15 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
16 MS. WILKINS: Thanks. And then there’s also the smells, you know, with…animals…
17 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, right, okay. Anyone else? Oh, you can come back, sure.
18 MR. MARTINEZ: Can I come back?
19 MS. CARBERRY: Yes.
20 MR. MARTINEZ: One other note I wanted to stress is that…if you look…
21 MS. CARBERRY: Can you just come up so we can make sure we get you on the
22 recorder?
23 MR. MARTINEZ: Oh, okay. This is Manuel Martinez again.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
25 MR. MARTINEZ: If you look on the north…northeast corner of Howes and Cherry,
26 those two houses are owned by Housing Authority. Then if you look at the buffer zone across
27 the street there on Meldrum on Cherry, I think there’s three or four houses that are owned by
28 Housing Authority. So, you’re going to get…you’re not going to get, you know, they don’t
29 obviously come to these meeting or say anything. You can tell their properties because they’re
30 pretty well torn down. I mean, you know, no grass or nothing. The house next…east of 306
31 Cherry Street, a Boulder guy owns it; he just bought it for investments. The lawn ain’t kept
32 up…they just rent them. And you could…the other house on the other side of my other property,
33 310, on the west side, is owned by a local real estate. Again, they don’t take care of the property;
34 just for investments and that. And then, on further west there is Housing. So, you know, you’re
1.8
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
24
1 not going to get a lot of input from that area because they are owned by real estate people or
2 investors and that, or Housing. Housing owns probably five houses in that area…Fort Collins
3 Housing.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Anyone else? I think before we have applicant and staff
5 response…can you turn on the lights? We’d rather not be in the dark. I have a couple questions
6 and so maybe you all can cover that…no matter who…it doesn’t matter to me.
7 I have a couple…the alley looks to be dirt and I’m a little concerned with the amount of
8 traffic that’s going to be put into this alley. Are you planning on…?
9 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: It’s baked; it’s concrete.
10 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, it is…some of the pictures…
11 MR. MAPES: The dirt from Browns on Howes construction is coming out, but it’s…
12 MS. CARBERRY: It’s actually paved, okay, because some of the pictures it looked like a
13 dirt alley. But, it’s not dirt.
14 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: It’s concrete.
15 MR. MAPES: A little stretch of it looks that way today, but…I’m sure once that project
16 is complete…
17 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, and I know some people asked about this, but what is the
18 setback from the alley?
19 MR. SHUFF: It’s just over five feet.
20 MS. CARBERRY: And that’s in compliance with the Code?
21 MR. SHUFF: Yes.
22 MS. CARBERRY: Okay. And then, the prior…the zoning that’s been already approved
23 for this site…I guess…I think we called it the Solar Garden…is that correct?
24 MR. SHUFF: Solar Village.
25 MS. CARBERRY: Solar Village, sorry. How many bedrooms did that have?
26 MR. BACHELET: It was 18 to 26, is what they proposed…
27 MR. MAPES: No, it was 25 units…
28 (**Secretary’s note: A bit of inaudible background conversation occurred at this point.)
1.8
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
25
1 MR. SHUFF: I had it on the slide, but I believe it was 29 units, and I can’t recall if those
2 were studios…
3 MS. CARBERRY: I have 27 units is what you had on your slide.
4 MR. SHUFF: Okay, so it’s 27 units.
5 MS. CARBERRY: But it didn’t talk about the number of bedrooms.
6 MR. SHUFF: I can’t remember offhand if those are one-bedrooms or twos…pull that
7 up…
8 MR. MAPES: Here we go…and then… Solar Village…
9 MR. SHUFF: And if you go, Clark, into the previous slide, it would show them. I believe
10 I had 27 units, three stories. I guess we’d have to go back to confer…I think those are work/live
11 units as well, if I understand right. So…
12 MR. MAPES: There were…I think there were four commercial spaces…I could go find
13 out in about four or five minutes.
14 MS. CARBERRY: That’s okay, I just wanted to know generally.
15 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think it was predominantly two bedrooms.
16 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, general…I just wanted a general idea of the comparison
17 between this project and that one. Okay.
18 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: With regards to the
19 setbacks, so…I think the distinction is, for example Browns on Howes is single-family
20 residential land use, and kind of a townhome product.
21 MS. CARBERRY: Yes.
22 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: Where that one…you know,
23 that’s generally stated as 15 feet from any public right-of-way, and the alleys in this case were a
24 public right-of-way. In contrast to that, this is a mixed-use land use…classified as a mixed-use
25 land use in the Code due to the percentage of mix….meets that use. So that’s generally more of
26 a contextual setback…is what we’re…what we’re kind of arguing. And we’re trying to maintain
27 that contextual setback to the adjacent office property to the east. And in addition to that, to the
28 adjacent residential properties along Meldrum. So that’s the basic distinction…if you want to
29 elaborate on that Clark.
30 MR. MAPES: Yes, can I?
31 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
1.8
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
26
1 MR. MAPES: On the setback point, I should jump in. First of all, the 15 foot setback for
2 the residential, that would be from the street, not the alley.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Is there no setback on the alley?
4 MR. MAPES: There’s no specified setback from the alley.
5 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: I think that was interpreted…
6 MS. CARBERRY: Is that the same with Browns on Howes?
7 MR. MAPES: I’m talking about Browns on Howes.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, okay, I’m sorry.
9 MR. MAPES: It’s the one that would have a 15 foot setback.
10 MR. BACHELET: It’s 20 on Howes and 14 and a half on the alley. That’s the new
11 standard that we set.
12 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, I’m sorry; I can’t have any comments from the audience.
13 Thanks.
14 MR. BACHELET: I’m just trying to correct…
15 MS. CARBERRY: I understand and I appreciate your willingness to help, but I can’t
16 have everybody talking at once.
17 MR. MAPES: The Land Use Code requirement for the front setback for Browns on
18 Howes is 15 feet.
19 MS. CARBERRY: Front, meaning from the street?
20 MR. MAPES: From the street.
21 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, I’m asking about the alley.
22 MR. MAPES: And there’s no rear setback specified.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
24 MR. MAPES: And then one point about the setbacks that were presented as being about
25 ten feet on Meldrum and four feet on Maple…those are from the right-of-way, but this is a…I
26 think it should be clear that along Maple Street, the landscaped area behind the sidewalk is 14
27 feet. It showed a four foot setback, but the sidewalk is not right on the right-of-way…
1.8
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
27
1 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: I guess I’d like to clarify,
2 we actually are nine feet…
3 MR. MAPES: From the right-of-way…
4 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: From the right-of-way.
5 That’s just from the right-of-way, but then….
6 MR. MAPES: There’s an additional four to five feet so that, thinking of a four foot
7 setback on Maple isn’t quite right. There is 14 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the
8 building. So…and nine feet of that is setback from the right-of-way line, but there’s even a little
9 bit of additional space between the right-of-way line and the sidewalk if you follow that.
10 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
11 MR. MAPES: So, when you think of a four foot setback, you might be thinking of a four
12 foot strip between the sidewalk and the building, and there’s actually 14 feet.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
14 MR. MAPES: And then on Meldrum Street, there is 12 feet of a landscaped area between
15 the sidewalk and the building.
16 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
17 MR. MAPES: And it was shown as nine feet eight, but…so the setback, you know, is
18 technically measured from the right-of-way but, when you think of the landscaped space, that’s
19 what those are.
20 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: The perceived
21 setback…sort of.
22 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
23 MR. MAPES: Well, anyway, that’s what they are.
24 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, those are my questions. If you want…whatever…I don’t know
25 how you all want to proceed, whether you want to go first and have a response to the public
26 testimony, or you do…it’s up to you. I know technically you go first, and then you, but I’ll let
27 you work it out.
28 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: Well, since we heard some
29 concerns on traffic and the alley, I think I’d like to bring up the traffic engineer for the
30 project…Joe and Matt Delich here. And I don’t know, Clark, if you want, try to pull that up, or
31 just want to kind of speak to that…yeah, we should pull up a site plan to refer to.
1.8
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
28
1 MS. CARBERRY: Will you give me your name please?
2 MR. JOE DELICH: Joe Delich, D-E-L-I-C-H.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you.
4 MR. DELICH: So I did the traffic impact study for the project, and we had all the trips
5 going in and out of the alley, and we assumed none would be parking on Maple or Meldrum, for
6 a worst-case scenario. And the level of service at the alley and Maple Street is level of service
7 B. And we accounted for all of the existing traffic that was coming into and out of the alley, and
8 then added our traffic onto it. And we assumed a similar distribution of traffic of exiting on the
9 alley to Maple and also the alley to Cherry Street, which not very many people do. And the level
10 of service on…oh, the level of service…the Cherry Street and the alley was level of service B
11 also.
12 MS. CARBERRY: And, I’m sorry, what did you say Maple was?
13 MR. DELICH: Level of service B.
14 MS. CARBERRY: B as well, okay. And, can you just tell me, is there…is there a reason
15 that there is no exit on to either Meldrum or Maple, from a design standpoint, or…
16 MR. MAPES: First of all, from the City’s standpoint, and the Downtown pattern of
17 blocks and sidewalks…I don’t recall offhand if the Code speaks to this directly; however,
18 anytime we can, we encourage access from the alleys, the alleys being considered the more
19 service and utilitarian and vehicular access area, and have the street fronts not be interrupted by
20 driveways, especially driveways for multi-unit buildings. But, even the single-family houses
21 along most of these blocks don’t have driveways onto the street and sidewalk. And these
22 continuous sidewalks along the block faces are a defining very positive aspect of the
23 Downtown…it differentiates it from different parts of the city. And so the City generally
24 would….if the applicant would have come in with driveway access on Maple or Meldrum, from
25 a…just a design standpoint, I think the City would have encouraged them to not do that and take
26 their access from the alley. Let me check with…our City’s traffic engineer is here, and just see if
27 Martina disagrees with what I said. Okay, thank you.
28 MS. CARBERRY: And, just a question, and maybe you can answer it…is the width of
29 the alley sufficient to…I mean, I don’t know how wide that alley is. Can it take two-way traffic,
30 will it be one-way only? How is that working?
31 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: It’s a 20 foot wide alley.
32 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, and is that sufficient? That seems kind of tight for two-
33 way…is that…?
1.8
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
29
1 MR. MAPES: Typical of everything in Downtown, one of the defining aspects of
2 Downtown…depending on the vehicles, there’s a little bit of jockeying for two vehicles to pass,
3 but it’s not viewed as a two-way street with, you know, traffic, you know, moving, other than
4 just to and from parking. It’s kind of like a…
5 MS. CARBERRY: Sure, but this is a pretty extensive amount of parking…I mean I
6 understand what you’re saying when you have a residence or a series of residences along….but
7 this is a pretty substantial amount of parking for the alley use, that’s why I’m asking if…if
8 you’ve got people trying to come in and somebody trying to come out, is that going to create
9 traffic issues?
10 MR. DELICH: Typically, you know, the speeds are slower and that allows two ten-foot
11 travel lanes. Occasionally there might be, if somebody, you know, uses more of the center of the
12 alley…but, what we saw when I was doing the traffic counts is that it moved pretty smoothly.
13 Typically, there wasn’t a whole lot of entering…it was more…in the morning, it was vehicles
14 entering and in the evening it was vehicles exiting, so…
15 MS. CARBERRY: So, even though…because I would imagine for the commercial
16 business, in the morning you’re going to have vehicles entering, but for the residences, in the
17 morning you’re going to have people exiting, and then it’s going to switch in the evening right?
18 Because you’ve got people leaving the office but coming home at the same time right?
19 MR. DELICH: So it does, it does equalize a little bit more with the…in the short range
20 total.
21 MR. MAPES: Ten foot travel lanes in each direction in a local residential situation like
22 this is…it doesn’t violate any…
23 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
24 MS. MARTINA WILKINSON: So, good evening, I’m Martina Wilkinson; I’m one of
25 the traffic engineers for the City of Fort Collins. So, the alley is 20 feet, is that correct? So, you
26 know, that’s a relatively standard width for our alleys. It is wide enough for two cars to pass one
27 another.
28 MS. CARBERY: Okay,
29 MS. WILKINSON: When we’re looking at this particular development, when we look at
30 the very peak hour time, you know the busiest time for this entire development once it’s
31 completely built out, what we’re looking at in terms of added traffic in the alley, we’re talking
32 about one car less than every two minutes. So, it’s…we’re talking…
33 MS. CARBERRY: So you don’t perceive eight people lining up to come into the
34 commercial office while eight people are trying to get out to go to work?
1.8
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
30
1 MS. WILKINSON: No, the total traffic in the busiest peak hour in this development is
2 something like 26 in an hour.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
4 MS. WILKINSON: So, again, it’s…we just have to put it into context in terms of how
5 many cars we’re talking about. In terms of the City’s review of this, in terms of the traffic, I
6 think what we’ll want to make sure that we have is…is adequate sight distance at the exit of the
7 alley onto the street, and I think we heard that from some of the residents here, and we
8 completely agree with them that we’ll need to ensure that there’s adequate sight lines for cars
9 coming into and off of the alley. It’s an existing condition now, but as we add more traffic, we’ll
10 want to make sure that we have adequate sight distance at Maple and at Cherry. Especially if at
11 Cherry now, you see people parking very, very close to the alley, and we’ll need to add some red
12 curb to make sure that that doesn’t occur.
13 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, and are those spaces, the diagonal spaces, are they…are they
14 striped? Because I just heard what you were saying about, perhaps lessening the number of
15 diagonal spaces by one or whatever it may be.
16 MS. WILKINSON: Right.
17 MS CARBERRY: If they’re not striped, it makes it a little harder…
18 MS. WILKINSON: We would sign it or red curb it.
19 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
20 MS. WILKINSON: So, striping for us, in parking…downtown parking striping is
21 difficult for us to maintain because we have to go restripe it, but we do that with signage and red
22 curb.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. SHUFF: I’ll continue with some of the parking discussions. I’ll talk about snow
25 removal; I heard that comment from Mr. Martinez. This is all covered structured parking, so
26 there really will be no snow removal component of our parking structure. That’s one benefit of
27 building over the parking lot, obviously. So really, from a snow removal standpoint, it’s really
28 the City streets and the alley. I’m not even sure if the alleys get plowed…they’re kind of left on
29 their own.
30 MS. CARBERRY: So you’re not…
31 MR. SHUFF: I guess we’re not creating an additional issue of snow removal because
32 we’re essentially covering our parking.
1.8
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
31
1 MS. CARBERRY: But what happens with all the people trying to get in and out through
2 the alley that’s not being plowed?
3 MR. SHUFF: Yeah, I think that’s a common issue…you can ask…personally, I’ve had
4 that issue at my place in Old Town.
5 MR. MAPES: Streets are the same…it’s the same with the streets.
6 MS. CARBERRY: Okay. Sidewalks for snow removal?
7 MR. SHUFF: That’ll be responsible for the property owner, and it’ll be a management
8 company taking care of the snow removal so…so that piece will be…it’s a local Code, obviously
9 we need to meet that, and that’s the intent. So, we feel like from a snow removal aspect, we’re
10 covered there.
11 I think in general, in the alley, and just the thoughts of what an alley is…I think it is a
12 utilitarian corridor, and I think, as Clark mentioned, we are using that for parking as that’s what
13 the City would like to see. We do have two points of access. I think it’s realistic to say, with the
14 business of Cherry Street to the north, that most people will actually use Maple to access the site.
15 And if you consider that, really, most people are only going to be entering the site this distance
16 and turning right into the parking lot. So really the biggest effect would be on Northern
17 Engineering’s property. And I would suspect the vast majority of users would probably be using
18 that, just based on the business of Cherry versus Maple Street. So, I feel like in some ways
19 we’ve mitigated that…that frontage…this project’s frontage to the alley, because of that access
20 point. And also we have an in and an out, which this one-way direction should help clean up that
21 flow as well. There’s not going to be two cars trying to come in and out of a single parking
22 structure; it actually has a one-way flow, so that should also help that situation.
23 So I think also with parking, I think, you know, understand the concerns of parking. I
24 think everyone living in Fort Collins feels that right now; it’s getting to be an issue everywhere.
25 I think we would try to…we were not counting the on-street parking in any of our calculations.
26 The project is parked adequately, it’s actually over-parked, so we feel like we have that covered
27 and we exceed the Land Use Code. Really, we would promote the idea of high turnover of the
28 on-street parking spaces. They’re currently…I think they’re two hour, and maybe we look at a
29 mix of one hour limited on-street and work with Parking Services to try to really promote
30 turnover of parking in those city blocks. I think that’s one effective way to deal with parking.
31 But, really I think we all understand that parking is a bigger issue in this community, and I think
32 it’s something that we as a community are going to have to continue to deal with on a bigger
33 scale. I think it’s anywhere you look at.
34 I think I’m going to move into…I’ll start with Mr. and Mrs. Bachelet’s comments. I’m
35 going to kind of start to address some of those. I think Clark already addressed some of the
36 setback on Maple and Meldrum, and really we do meet…from the property line, we are ten feet
1.8
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
32
1 from Meldrum and we are nine feet from Maple. So I just wanted to kind of clarify that, that’s
2 actually what we are. We are five foot six off the alley; we have some landscape off the alley,
3 and again, there is no real setback there. We have two points of access. The slide that they
4 showed of the Cherry Street project where they’re building transition down to this 1.5 story
5 house off that alley, that is a designated local landmark, and that project was probably required to
6 step down to meet that. So, that is a specific localized condition of that project. So, that’s
7 probably the bigger reason they stepped that down, because if you really look at Cherry Street
8 Lofts on the Meldrum side, I have the slide where there’s three stories right to one story. So,
9 clearly that other existing house was not historic and that same care was not…had to be made for
10 that project.
11 I think, really talking about the height…we’re really a similar height, almost the same, 38
12 feet with their project, our project is 40 feet, Cherry Street Lofts 39, very consistent. I really
13 can’t speak much to the Neenan project they mentioned; it was never really brought forth to a
14 PDP level, so I just don’t have a whole lot to comment on that project. I do want to restate that
15 we went through the Landmark Preservation Commission; we received very good input in both
16 those meetings. We made some slight modifications, but they thought we had done a really good
17 job of breaking the scale down, meeting the compatibility standards. So we feel like we did a
18 really good job dealing with the historic properties across the street that are eligible for local
19 landmark status.
20 I think the example that Mr. and Mrs. Bachelet brought up on the shadowing…they
21 showed the existing building at 6 PM, and that’s really a…shadows are interesting because they
22 exponentially get longer as the sun gets lower, so it’s really a skewed way to look at a shadow
23 because pretty much, at some point everything is in shadow because it gets so low, the sun gets
24 so low…everything will be virtually cast in shadow, including the mountains will shadow
25 everything beyond it. So, really the standard that the City looks at is a 10 AM and a 2 PM, and
26 those are the time frames we looked at, so I think…I think what we’ve portrayed is accurate, and
27 also I think, you know, for them to say our project shadowing, when their project is shadowing
28 another project to the north of them. So, that argument in some ways can be just continued on
29 and on.
30 Privacy, I think they brought up some points on privacy. We do have some slides I think
31 I’d like to show that…we tried to set up some views as best we could, from where we kind of
32 could model from their project. If you look at the upper right-hand corner here, this is looking
33 from approximately their middle unit on their roof terrace looking to the south. And this is a
34 view cone. When I say view cone, this is normally what you would see looking south,
35 southwest. And really, their view to the south is completely open; this is where their units are
36 orientated to the south. You do see our building in kind of the side ground vanishing away, but
37 really, we feel like these aren’t directly looking into their units, they’re looking to the east; their
38 units are looking to the south. And here you see Northern Engineering’s kind of building here,
39 these could be potential future civic buildings. This slide here is looing due west from their west
1.8
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
33
1 unit, and obviously they will see our project, but it is stepped back so it does help open that view
2 up. But, really, the view to the west is unobstructed.
3 MS. CARBERRY: I think they were talking about the alley view that they were
4 concerned about right?
5 MR. SHUFF: Right.
6 MS. CARBERRY: So if you pulled it…push it that way…I think they’re talking about
7 the wall.
8 MR. SHUFF: Yeah.
9 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
10 MR. SHUFF: And we have those other views. I think I can bring these up again. I think
11 these views are…
12 MS. CARBERRY: That’s…from what I heard that was the concern…that there’s nothing
13 stepped back over there.
14 MR. SHUFF: Yeah, and you know, again, I think the requirement of an alley, when we
15 went to design this project is that…there’s been some precedent set with other projects recently,
16 like Uncommon, where actually there’s been push to push bulk and mass to the alley and that it’s
17 not a street, it’s not necessarily the same treatment. Whereas we feel like we’ve actually treated
18 the building design from a material and massing very consistent with the overall building. And
19 really, it’s a three story building on that façade, it’s articulated very well. There’s a rich variety
20 of materials, recessed balconies, and then you have our entry into our parking structure, and we
21 have a five foot, over a five foot setback with landscaping along that, so it’s actually enhanced.
22 And again, here’s this other view.
23 Let me go through the rest of these comments. I think the traffic was pretty well covered,
24 we talked about shadows, talked about privacy, talked about parking. As far as…I think Mrs.
25 Wilkins has concerns with some of the green space, outdoor space. I can understand that
26 concern too with residents. We do have this courtyard space at the upper level that is an outdoor
27 space that residents can use, so I think that’s a real amenity to the site and to those residents…
28 MS. CARBERRY: And they’re going to let their pets go out there though?
29 MR. SHUFF: Yeah, that could be another issue, but…
30 MS. CARBERRY: I assume you hope not anyway.
31 MR. SHUFF: But we also have some significant landscaped areas in front of the building,
32 and I think also…that’s just a tough issue of urban design and infill, but I think overall if you
1.8
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
34
1 look at the City goals and the City Plan, it’s encouraging projects like this, infill development,
2 mixed-use…and, really, if we want to really stick to our growth urban boundaries and infill,
3 we’re going to have to do projects more like this to make us all fit. Because, I mean we all love
4 Fort Collins a lot apparently…people keep moving here, and it’s…it is an issue. We all love it
5 too much sometimes and there’s just too much traffic and too much everything, but it’s growing
6 pains of the City…you know, bigger picture problems of the city going through the stages it is
7 right now. So, all those comments are definitely heard, and we understand.
8 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: Related to that, there
9 is…really pretty close proximity from this project to Washington Park and Civic Center Park,
10 some of the other larger open spaces in and around downtown. So, I feel like access to open
11 space is adequate. Martinez Park, Poudre Trail…
12 MR. SHUFF: So yeah, I think overall we feel like we meet all the intents of the Land Use
13 Code…and it is a larger parcel, and we feel like it does support the scale of the project we’re
14 proposing and the amount of units. Our parking is adequate; we’re over-parked. The project is
15 well articulated; it’s got a mixed-use component. We feel like it’s really just adding to the
16 richness of the Downtown district. So, I’ll conclude my response.
17 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you. Anything further from the City?
18 MR. MAPES: Yeah, a few little things, and just kind of, you know, keeping the facts
19 clear and I think keep the facts straight. There was a comment that the property’s overlap, that
20 they’re not cater-corner to each other. And…just to be clear on that point, the north property line
21 of this proposal…
22 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, I see, okay.
23 MR. MAPES: So, they don’t overlap…they’re…if you call that, I think the diagonal,
24 cater-corner idea is between the building here and the building here. And then…but if you’re
25 looking at just the properties…
26 MS. CARBERRY: So that line…the property line basically goes straight across…okay.
27 MR. MAPES: So, just, whatever it means…that’s the relationship. A little factoid, the
28 setback of the garages at the north end of the alley, here, are not really a one car depth; that’s
29 probably eight feet. It’s enough to pull a car parallel…but it’s not a car depth in the way you
30 normally think of a car depth. The enhanced standard of quality is a section in the building
31 standards for buildings dealing with architectural character and proportions in building masses
32 and outdoor spaces and quality of materials. And, that doesn’t show the whole project here, but,
33 staff’s finding of compliance with this is based on the modulation that we’ve seen. And as we
34 think about the east wall, which again was not a real sensitive point of concern in our review
35 during the whole process, but it’s a 40 foot wall of a length that’s kind of similar to a 40
1.8
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
35
1 foot…39 foot wall that is this long with a small break in between, but as you see this north wall
2 here…
3 MS. CARBERRY: That’s eleven feet shorter right?
4 MR. MAPES: No, no it’s one foot shorter.
5 MS. CARBERRY: Okay.
6 MR. MAPES: One foot shorter…so it’s….there’s…
7 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, because the 49 foot height is only in the middle…I see…got it.
8 MR. MAPES: The 49 is the highest point of the fourth floor extensions that are
9 approximately here on the…on the building.
10 MS. CARBERRY: I see.
11 MR. MAPES: You know there is precedent for a 40 foot wall about this long right there,
12 and so it wasn’t a big…wasn’t even a big factor in staff’s review. But, the…you know, there is a
13 similarity in proportions, and then we mainly looked at the modulation.
14 I was going to ask the owner to the north about his comments…I do not recall those
15 comments at the neighborhood meeting, and if he was there…but since he left, we can’t ask him
16 about that. But he may have sort of changed his mind a little bit, or maybe it’s kind of soaked
17 in…you know, what’s happening. But, we haven’t heard from him since the neighborhood
18 meeting, and there was not that same kind of concern at the neighborhood meeting.
19 Regarding parking, there’s city-wide, and downtown-wide, there’s an issue here that
20 comes up frequently. And some of the concern is when people have parking on the street in
21 front of their property, and then other people park there. And to the extent that…it’s kind of a
22 catch 22 there, because this property, if the City were to try to enforce only parking in front of
23 your property, then this property would have 22 spaces. So, you see the catch 22 of complaining
24 about people parking in front of other people’s property, and also complaining about this
25 property’s frontage spaces being not available. And that whole thing is colored by different
26 times of the day, different times of the week and so on. But…the whole downtown parking
27 shuffle still is based on those being public streets and, until there is a two-hour or neighborhood
28 permit programs, everyone’s doing this. And as the city evolves and changes, things do get
29 tighter. As the city’s economy is healthy…and so…just…I was listening trying to think
30 of…would anyone suggest that this project be denied? Would anyone suggest this project have
31 fewer units, how many fewer units, how much difference would it really make? And I think,
32 analytically, it wouldn’t make that much difference.
33 There was the idea that Cherry Street Lofts has a lot less units, but it’s a much smaller lot.
34 And if you equated the units on Cherry Street Lofts lot to the units on this lot, you would think of
1.8
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
36
1 Cherry Street Lofts as having 23 units, and this project has 29, so the amount of units on the lot
2 size is kind of similar. This does have, you know, more units per lot size. But it can’t really be
3 compared directly to Cherry Street Lofts having nine units because that’s an 11,000 square foot
4 lot, this is a 28,500 square foot lot, so…
5 The space for dogs…in downtown, we’ve got multi-family mixed-use four and five story
6 buildings right across the street here. The answer is to pick up after your dog. There is no way
7 that there’s going to be green space for that purpose associated with any of these projects…you
8 know that equates to someone having like a single-family ranch house with a backyard. And to
9 the extent that people use the parks…yes those parks are…I heard the compliant to be that
10 people don’t pick up after their dog in the park, and you know I see it…I know what they’re
11 talking about. In the parkways between the sidewalk and the street there’s grass and,
12 unfortunately, that’s not really a function of development or the Land Use Code, it’s got to be
13 growing up and getting more polite with each other.
14 The idea of a step down…at the north end of the alley, there’s the one and a half story
15 house, and there’s been, I think, a little confusion about stepping down to that. The building
16 doesn’t step down…the new building, Cherry Street Lofts, doesn’t step down next to that house.
17 That house does represent kind of a step down.
18 MS. CARBERRY: You lost me on that whole…
19 MR. MAPES: There was just a…if we looked at Cherry Street Lofts…
20 MS. CARBERRY: I’m not…honestly, I don’t think we need to go there.
21 MR. MAPES: Okay, good.
22 MS. CARBERRY: I don’t think it’s relevant.
23 MR. MAPES: Good…yeah…that’s a unique situation with a very historic landmark that
24 happens to be one and a half stories, but…yeah…okay.
25 MS. CARBERRY: Thank you, anything else? Okay, thank you. Alright, I’ll close the
26 public hearing and I’ll issue a written decision within ten business days. Thank you. Thank you
27 all for coming; I appreciate your comments.
1.8
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
ATTACHMENT 9
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
July 12, 2016
1.9
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
1
7-12-16
320 Mixed Use Appeal – City Council
Clark Mapes, City Planner
1.9
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Maple Street
City Hall
2
Proposed Project
Proposed use:
Mixed Use Dwelling
29 Condominiums
4 commercial spaces
1.9
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Context: Zoning
Zoning District:
D, Downtown
Civic Center
Review:
Administrative Hearing
(Type 1)
Zoning District:
D, Downtown
Civic Center
Review:
Administrative Hearing
Site (Type 1)
3
1.9
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Context: Zoning Transitions
4
Height Limits:
5-6 stories on two sides
3-4 stories - site
3 stories on two sides
Site 3
1.9
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Context: The Block
Single family
houses
1 story
Office building
1 story
Townhomes
3 stories
Mixed-use building
3 stories
[Brownes on Howes
Townhomes Site]
5
1.9
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Proposed Project
6
1.9
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Decision
Does not comply with two Sections:
3.4.7 – Historic Resources
3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility
7
1.9
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
8
Appeal Allegations
An appeal was filed on two allegations:
The Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings
that was substantially false or grossly misleading, and
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code
1.9
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
9
First Allegation
Did the Hearing Officer consider evidence relevant to the decision
that was substantially false or grossly misleading?
1.9
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Land Use Code 3.4.7(A) Purpose.
“…to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible…new
construction is designed to respect the historic character of any
historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood.”
Second Allegation – 3.4.7
10
1.9
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Second Allegation – 3.5.1
11
Land Use Code 3.5.1(A) Purpose.
“ …to ensure that the physical and operational characteristics of
proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered
within the context of the surrounding area. ”
1.9
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Second Allegation
12
Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply Sections
3.4.7 and 3.5.1 by finding that:
“the mass, height and design…are entirely incompatible with the
adjacent historic properties?”
“the height of the building far exceeds surrounding buildings?”
1.9
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Second Allegation
13
“the flat-roofed, modern design is incompatible with the design of
most of the surrounding buildings”…?
“the overall mass is is incompatible…and the step-backs are not
enough to reduce the overall mass”?
1.9
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Second Allegation
14
“the building will negatively impact the privacy of occupants of
Brownes on Howes and other nearby buildings, and fails to
mitigate those impacts?”
“the building does not have a similar relationship to the street as
surrounding buildings?”
1.9
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Second Allegation
15
“the Project Development Plan does not set an enhanced standard
of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area?”
1.9
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
16
Appeal Allegations
The Decision Maker considered evidence relevant to its findings
that was substantially false or grossly misleading, and
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code
1.9
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 12, 2016
City Council
STAFF
Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Analyst
SUBJECT
Consideration of a Motion to Support the Nomination Application of Mayor Pro Tem Horak to the United States
Department of Transportation Advisory Committee on Transportation and Tourism Infrastructure.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to propose a motion in order to support the nomination application of Mayor Pro
Tem Gerry Horak to the US Department of Transportation’s Advisory Committee on Transportation and
Tourism Infrastructure. This advisory committee is comprised of 25 representatives from around the nation and
advises the Secretary of Transportation on matters pertaining to the role of intermodal transportation in
facilitating mobility related to travel and tourism activities.
2
Packet Pg. 203
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
July 12, 2016
After the Adjourned City Council meeting, which begins at 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER.
1. Overview of Homeless Shelter Services. (10 minute presentation by shelter partners)
An overview of homeless shelter services will be provided by Guy Mendt, Catholic Charities, Tom
Konstanty, Fort Collins Rescue Mission, and David Rout, Homeless Gear/Murphy Center.
2. Homelessness Initiatives Update. (staff: Beth Sowder, Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Jeff Mihelich, Vanessa
Fenley (Homeward 2020); 20 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the state of homelessness and local
current homelessness initiatives. Additionally, an overview and update of the Homeward 2020 Action
Items for 2016 will be discussed. Staff will also seek direction on the camping ordinance in light of
these initiatives and research from other communities.
3. Short Term Rentals (STRs). (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to review draft regulatory concepts and public feedback regarding short-
term rentals (STRs.) Council and staff have been studying STRs, including potential impacts,
benefits, and community desire in advance of considering an ordinance to regulate the activity.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2016
Beth Sowder, Director of Social Sustainability
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Overview of Homeless Shelter Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An overview of homeless shelter services will be provided by Guy Mendt, Catholic Charities, Tom Konstanty, Fort
Collins Rescue Mission, and David Rout, Homeless Gear/Murphy Center.
1
Packet Pg. 2
DATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2016
Beth Sowder, Director of Social Sustainability
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainabillity Officer
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Homelessness Initiatives Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to provide an overview of the state of homelessness and local current
homelessness initiatives. Additionally, an overview and update of the Homeward 2020 Action Items for 2016 will
be discussed. Staff will also seek direction on the camping ordinance in light of these initiatives and research from
other communities.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have on existing and proposed programs, and are there other programs related
to homelessness that the community should focus on?
2. What changes to the Camping Ordinance, if any, does Council wish to consider at this time?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
State of Homelessness
Recently, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) released an annual report on the State of
Homelessness in the United States. This report provides basic data related to the number of individuals
experiencing homelessness, the number of individuals at risk of homelessness, and the volume of homeless
assistance provided in each state.
These data illustrate that while some communities and states are making strides in developing permanent
housing solutions and reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness, homelessness continues to be
a social issue many cities struggle to address as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Population Summaries
In 2015, on any given night, an estimated 564,708 individuals experienced homelessness in the United States.
Just over 69% of those experiencing homelessness were staying in emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs, with the remaining 31% of individuals staying outside, in unsheltered areas. Since 2007, both the
overall number of individuals experiencing homelessness as well as the rate of homelessness in the United
States has declined. In 2007, over 647,000 individuals experienced homelessness (21.5 individuals per 10,000
U.S. residents). In 2015, just under 565,000 individuals experienced homelessness (17.7 individuals per 10,000
U.S. residents).
In Colorado, 9,953 individuals experienced homelessness on any given night, with 2,819 (or 28%) staying outside
in unsheltered locations. While Colorado’s overall number of people experiencing homelessness declined slightly
from 2014 (down 0.7% from the previous year), the number of individuals staying in unsheltered situations across
the state increased by almost 45% over the previous year. Approximately, 18.6 individuals per 10,000 people in
Colorado (0.186% of the population) are experiencing homelessness on any given night, a slightly higher
population rate than is seen nationally.
2
Packet Pg. 3
July 12, 2016 Page 2
In 2015, 301 individuals were surveyed as part of the Point-in-Time Count in Fort Collins. Around 25% of those
surveyed were staying outside, in unsheltered locations. In the 2016 Point-in-Time Count in Fort Collins, the total
number of individuals surveyed dropped slightly to 290. In addition, the proportion of individuals staying in
unsheltered location declined to represent 21% of those surveyed.
Comparison of national, state, and local populations and population rates of homelessness (2015 Point-
in-Time)
Homeless
Population
Percent
Unsheltered
Population Rate
(per 10,000
people)
Population Rate
(as percentage of
total population)
United States 564,708 30.7% 17.7 0.177%
Colorado 9,953 28.8% 18.6 0.186%
Fort Collins
(2015)
301 24.6% 19.0 0.190%
Fort Collins
(2016)
290 21.0% 18.0 0.180%
Denver
County/City
(2015)
3737 16.1% 54.8 0.548%
Boulder County
(2015)
658 21.8% 20.6 0.206%
Colorado
Springs/El Paso
County (2015)
1073 22.6% 15.9 0.159%
Grand
Junction/Mesa
County (2015)
507 18.9% 34.1 0.341%
Pueblo County
(2015)
776 75.5% 47.4 0.474%
Homeless Assistance
To have a complete response system to homelessness, communities should provide both emergency shelter
options and permanent housing options. Permanent housing options includes both those options that provide
short-term assistance to regain housing (rapid rehousing) and those options that provide long-term housing
assistance (permanent supportive housing). In addition, transitional housing units are in operation; this type of
housing has been in decline nationally over the past five years, as more effective and efficient permanent housing
options become more prevalent.
Across Colorado, emergency shelter beds and permanent housing units (including both rapid rehousing and
permanent supportive housing units) are provided. Similar to national trends, Colorado increased its permanent
housing supply and decreased its transitional housing supply from 2014 to 2015.
Similarly in Fort Collins, emergency shelter beds are available. The capacity of emergency shelter in Fort Collins
in 2016 was around 298 beds. Bed capacity is estimated annually, based on usage from previous years.
Therefore, in facilities where a single unit could be used for either a single individual or a family, the capacity can
vary greatly from year to year depending on how many people end up using each single unit. The variance in
emergency shelter capacity in Fort Collins is more a factor of this variance than actual changes in capacity from
2015 to 2016. There is transitional housing available and dedicated to specific populations (i.e. domestic violence
survivors). Permanent housing includes both rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing. The majority
July 12, 2016 Page 3
2015 Emergency Shelter
Beds
Permanent Housing Options Transitional Housing
National 264,440 379,524 161,827
Colorado 3,782 4,183 4,390
Fort Collins 260 200 18
System Recommendations to Address Homelessness
Nashville, TN recently commissioned a study to assess its capacity to effectively address homelessness, both
with consideration of governance changes and system re-designs needed. (Attachment 1) The following five
recommendations were provided related to components of Nashville’s homelessness system which would need to
be redesigned:
1. Prioritize households with the highest needs through a coordinated entry system and removal of program
barriers.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: coordinated entry is one of six action items identified in the
2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
2. Provide shelter diversion to households who are still in housing.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: prevention and shelter diversion is one of six action items
identified in the 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
3. Invest in rapid rehousing.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: expanding rapid rehousing is one of six action items identified
in the 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
4. Expand resources available through landlord recruitment and housing navigation.
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: a collaborative of service providers in Fort Collins, called the
Housing Work Group, has adopted landlord engagement as one primary area on which to focus.
To date, representatives from the Housing Work Group have presented to the Northern Colorado
Rental Housing Association regarding the need for landlords to participate in efforts to reduce
homelessness and the financial benefit of accepting housing vouchers; have conducted a
landlord focus group to better understand the reservations some landlords may have toward
renting to people with vouchers as well as those programs or strategies that may incentivize them
to accept housing vouchers; and, have incorporated a section on accepting housing vouchers to
the City-facilitated training for landlords. Additional work will continue through 2016 to expand the
number of landlords willing to accept housing vouchers or work with rapid re-housing providers.
5. Engage additional providers to participate in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
a. What’s being done in Fort Collins: improving the utility of HMIS is one of six action items identified
in the 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (more detailed information below).
Complete Housing First Homelessness Response System
In Fort Collins, we strive to provide a complete system to respond to homelessness by utilizing the Housing First
methodology and implementing a Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System. The visual below
explains how this system works by properly assessing the needs of people is varying states of homelessness
which includes currently homeless, provisionally housed or accommodated, and housed but at-risk of becoming
homeless. This is the first step of the Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System which then helps
identify the housing needs and barriers, navigating the system and obtaining necessary documents, and
accessing the housing that is appropriately matched to the household’s needs.
2
Packet Pg. 5
July 12, 2016 Page 4
What Fort Collins Has and What Needs Improvement/Resources
In Fort Collins, there are some key services of the homelessness response system that are mostly resourced
although continual improvements and resources are still needed. These include:
Transitional Housing: No longer seen as a best practice for the majority of people experiencing
homelessness; Housing First systems adhere to the philosophy that all households are housing ready. In
Fort Collins, this resource is provided by:
o SummitStone Health Partners
o Crossroads Safehouse
o Matthews House - HOST Home
Connections to Mainstream Resources: Includes benefits, employment services, and other resources that
can help a household with few to no barriers resolve their homelessness. In Fort Collins, this resource
provided by:
o Homeless Gear - Dedicated Navigator Program
o Multiple providers offering case management services
The services somewhat resourced with some improvements/resources needed in Fort Collins include:
Emergency Shelter - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Catholic Charities
o Fort Collins Rescue Mission
o Crossroads Safehouse
2
Packet Pg. 6
July 12, 2016 Page 5
o Faith Family Hospitality
Outreach - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Outreach Fort Collins (see more detailed information below)
o Homeless Gear Nighttime Street Outreach (volunteer-based)
Prevention - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Neighbor to Neighbor
o Homelessness Prevention Initiative
o Salvation Army
Permanent Supportive Housing - In Fort Collins, this service provided by:
o Fort Collins Housing Authority
Redtail Ponds PSH 60 units
Single Room Occupancy (SROs) 27 units
Veterans Administration Supportive Housing (VASH) Vouchers, 135
Tenant-based Rent Assistance (CDDT) 10 units
o SummitStone Health Partners
Approx. 15 shelter + care vouchers
The services that need significant resources in Fort Collins include:
Shelter Diversion - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Crossroads Safehouse
Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System (CAHPS)
o A regional team has been working since spring to establish CAHPS although this is expected to
be a lengthy process
Rapid Rehousing - In Fort Collins, this service is provided by:
o Volunteers of America
o Rocky Mountain Human Services
o Homeless Gear - One Village One Family
o Neighbor to Neighbor
o Catholic Charities
Homelessness Initiatives Underway
Outreach Fort Collins
Led by a collaborative Task Force/Board with representatives of Homeward 2020, Downtown Development
Authority, SummitStone Health Partners, UC Health, Homeless Gear, City of Fort Collins Police Services and
Social Sustainability Department, Outreach Fort Collins is a community-driven outreach effort to maintain
downtown Fort Collins as a safe and welcoming place for all while connecting the community’s most vulnerable to
the services and supportive networks available. It is a professionally staffed, on-the-street team working in the
downtown area. The goals include building relationships with community members, services providers,
businesses, and community services in an effort to address and deescalate disruptive behaviors downtown.
This team assists with resolving on-the-street conflicts or disruptions that currently pull emergency responders
away from their primary task of maintaining public safety while compassionately building trusting relationships to
understand the needs of community members to assist and accurately refer them to appropriate services.
Outreach Fort Collins will positively impact the lives of those living in, working in, and visiting downtown.
2
Packet Pg. 7
July 12, 2016 Page 6
Based on successful street outreach models across the country, Outreach Fort Collins is a visible team of trained
and highly skilled professionals with a regular schedule of outreach throughout the downtown. They will cover the
walkable downtown business district.
Outreach Fort Colling began operating last month, and will have three staff in its pilot year. The Program Director
is Nick Verni-Lau who brings years of outreach and housing experience working with Denver’s homeless
population. Emily Harms is an outreach worker who has experience working as a volunteer with Homeless
Gear’s Street Outreach Program. Lastly, Lisa Dunworth, a behavioral health clinician hired through an in-kind
position provided by SummitStone Health Partners, and has experience volunteering with Homeless Gear’s Street
Outreach Program.
Metrics and Outcomes will include:
Contacts (calls, nature of calls, who initiated call, location, time, outcome)
Proactive contacts/building relationships with individuals and businesses
Response rates and ability to deescalate situations
Referrals and consultation around accessing systems of care
Service coordination
Step by step support to resolve issues
Perception and knowledge of Outreach Fort Collins by various stakeholders
Perception of safety downtown
By carefully tracking the calls made to OFC and the response to calls, patterns can be recognized, hot-spots
identified, and the ability to address frequent calls from a proactive stance enhanced. In particular, one of goals is
to decrease time spent by Police downtown on calls that do not concern criminal behavior. There will be a close
working relationship with downtown officers, as well as the leadership in the police department, to accurately track
interventions that in the past would have been a police call.
Currently OFC is working with various agencies in Fort Collins who also work with individuals and families who
are experiencing homelessness: Homeward 2020 tracks data surrounding the annual Point in Time count;
Homeless Gear and the Murphy Center for Hope work daily with the same population and track data on client
usage; the police department tracks data on calls involving the homeless population; lastly UC Health tracks
hospital usage by those who are homeless. OFC has set up and will continue to develop data tracking tools to be
able to identify trends, gaps in services, and also compare data with other agencies.
Additional evaluation systems will be developed and implemented in the first year of programming. At this point,
staff are determining what other evaluation will be necessary.
Municipal Court Special Agency Sessions
Special Agency Sessions (SAS) were added to the Municipal Court in August 2014 to address public concerns
with quality of life violations (such as camping, littering, open container, etc.) for people experiencing
homelessness and/or with other service needs. The sessions are intended to balance compassion and
resourcefulness with accountability. The program was created as a collaborative effort involving the Municipal
Court, City Attorney’s Office, Police Services, and now functions also in collaboration with the Social Sustainability
Department. The Murphy Center and SummitStone Health Partners were a part of the originating agencies. The
SAS Resource Specialist is now an employee of the City’s Social Sustainability Department, and provides case
management for all participants of the program. Since this position became part of the City in December 2015,
there has been a 13% increase in the successful completion rate of participants in the program (from 32% in 2015
to 45% in 2016).
Since the program started thru May 2016:
85 participants entered the program
30 successfully completed the program (36% completion rate)
2
Packet Pg. 8
July 12, 2016 Page 7
10% or less overall recidivism rate (recidivism is tracked three ways: while in the program, 6 months after
the program, and 1 year after the program)
Numerous improvements to the program have been made including:
Information sessions held at the Salvation Army
Volunteer opportunities identified for participants
bike safety trainings for participants (collaboration with FC Bikes)
Shower vouchers provided by Northside Aztlan Center
Single-ride bus passes provided by Transfort
Notary training and certification of SAS Resource Specialist which is useful to participants
Participant exit survey implemented with the following results in first 6 months (Dec. 2015 - May 2016):
(Attachment 2)
o 77% strongly or somewhat agree that they were able to complete goals
o 67% felt the right amount of contact was spent with Resource Specialist
o 78% would recommend the program to someone else
o 78% felt their quality of life was improved due to participating in this program
o Some response to “the most beneficial part of the program”:
“to meet with someone that knows the right material to help you”
“getting back on my feet”
“being able to come to court every month and have at least one goal accomplished to tell
the Judge”
“not going to jail”
“friendship”
Community-based Shelter Model
Late last year and earlier this year, City Councilmembers and City staff visited the Room in the Inn overflow
shelter model in Nashville, TN. After returning, staff was directed to begin adapting the model to operationalize
something similar in Fort Collins.
Staff has been working diligently to identify community partners interested in assisting in a variety of ways to
implement this model by November 1 for the winter overflow months (November thru April). This model will assist
with the ability for the overflow shelter plan to have more flexibility and elasticity to better provide an increased
number of shelter beds as needed. A few key reasons for implementing this model include:
1. The 2016 and previous Point-in-Time Counts indicate a need to expand shelter beds.
2. The need for shelter beds is dynamic and changes frequently, therefore, a flexible option that can
expand would be beneficial.
3. This could fill the gaps that currently exist for people with unique needs, such as having a pet, staying
with a partner, concerns about staying with a large number of people, and respite care. An effort is
being made to identify whether interested community partners have the ability to fill some of these
gaps/needs.
4. This is an important step to explore whether there is a need for year round additional shelter beds.
This pilot season will provide information regarding need, utilization, and ability to find willing partners
to inform future decisions.
As staff has worked through the planning phases to operationalize this pilot, the following work has been done:
Phase 1 April - July
Outreach to community partners to gauge interest and willingness to participate. This was done
by meeting with various groups (e.g. Fort Collins Church Network, Interfaith Council) as well as
individual partners and by distributing a survey to assess interest and questions in a variety of
areas.
2
Packet Pg. 9
July 12, 2016 Page 8
Met with existing shelter providers to discuss coordination, possibilities for assistance, and any
concerns.
Once recruitment is final, development of a coordination framework and program plan will be
finalized.
To date, over 25 partners have expressed interest in providing volunteers, space, and/or training.
Phase II August - November
Planning, implementation, and coordination with current shelter process.
Convene meeting in August consisting of the shelter providers, participating partners, and other
stakeholders to discuss an operational plan to implement prior to November launch.
Staff will work closely with existing service providers (shelters, Homeward 2020, Murphy Center,
etc.) to solicit input and keep them informed throughout the process.
Staff will work with Catholic Charities to provide volunteer training and orientation video.
Staff will work with Homeless Gear and other partners to identify and fill gaps regarding needed
materials and supplies.
Staff will coordinate with the shelters and the Murphy Center about pick-up and drop-off locations
and other operational and staffing details.
Desired Outcomes
Partner with up to ten community partners to participate in the program on a rotating basis with a
small number of people at each location (no more than 15).
Pilot program that runs November thru April, with up to three locations operating at any one time
to provide important overflow shelter beds.
Complete full pilot season to provide the City with important data about the viability of the
program in an on-going fashion.
It is important to note that there may be some challenges to overcome regarding the Land Use Code and Zoning
requirements. This has not been an issue in other communities, and staff is working on identifying potential
solutions.
2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020
In January 2016, a group of about three dozen stakeholders met to review progress on the 10 Year Plan and
prioritize action items for 2016 (Attachment 3). The 6 action items identified include:
1. Improve data collection via Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) - lead and active
agencies are Homeward 2020, Catholic Charities, Homeless Gear, Murphy Center, City of Fort Collins,
Fort Collins Housing Authority, SummitStone Health Partners, Volunteers of America, Veterans Affairs
a. Assess validity and utility of community-level reports, determine adjustments to community-level
reports, input all client data from Murphy Center
b. Pull community reports, craft resource strategy for local data administrator
c. Secure resources for local data administrator, request integration and implementation of swipe
cards
d. Create protocol for pulling sheltered PIT from HMIS
2. Increase permanent supportive housing supply - lead agency (developer)/owner/property manager is Fort
Collins Housing Authority with partner service agencies - SummitStone Health Partners, Homeward 2020,
Larimer County Criminal Justice Services, Catholic Charities, Neighbor to Neighbor, Veterans Affairs, City
of Fort Collins
a. Secure property for project
b. Apply for low-income housing tax credits
c. Development process
2
Packet Pg. 10
July 12, 2016 Page 9
3. Increase rapid rehousing supply - lead and active agencies are Homeward 2020, Homeless Gear,
Neighbor to Neighbor, Volunteers of America, Rocky Mountain Human Services, Crossroads Safehouse,
Homelessness Prevention Initiative
a. Reviewed current data, gain additional information from local providers, assess community’s
rapid re-housing needs
b. Research available resources and other communities’ strategies for providing rapid re-housing,
outline implementation plan for building rapid re-housing stock
4. Implement Outreach Fort Collins - lead and active agencies include City of Fort Collins (Social
Sustainability and Police Services), Homeless Gear, Homeward 2020, Downtown Development Authority,
UCHealth, SummitStone Health Partners
a. Secured fiscal sponsorship with Colorado Nonprofit Development Center, hired program director
and outreach worker, secure remaining resources
b. Establish evaluation measures
c. Implement program
d. Program evaluation
5. Implement robust homelessness prevention and shelter diversion strategies - lead agency is Homeward
2020 and active agencies are still to be determined
a. Convene gathering of participants to review current assessment of national best practices and
local resources
b. Outline current gaps in local prevention/diversion system, identify gaps that could be filled by
current providers, identify resources needed and possible sources
c. Create prioritized implementation plan
6. Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement System (CAHPS) - lead and active agencies are
Homeward 2020, North Front Range Continuum of Care, Balance of State Continuum of Care, Fort
Collins Housing Authority, City of Fort Collins, Homeless Gear, Murphy Center, United Way 211, Larimer
County Veteran Services, SummitStone Health Partners, Catholic Charities
a. Participated in the Coming Home Colorado Action Lab to develop the structure for coordinated
entry focused first on veterans
b. Reported out results of first 100-day intensive coordinated entry pilot (assessed 104 veterans and
housed 36 by end of May)
c. Larimer and Weld Counties will continue to work regionally to develop a CAHPS that serves all
households experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness
d. A regional CAHPS coordinator will be hired by the United Way of Weld County (with partial
funding provided by the Office of Behavioral Health) to manage and develop this process for
Northern Colorado
e. Build sustainability for the veterans’ process and begin development of process for chronic
homelessness
f. Goal to house 50 more veterans in next 100 days (ending in late August)
Camping Ordinance
Information provided in Attachments 4 and 5
Next Steps
Written updates will be provided for each of the programs as progress is made:
Outreach Fort Collins - Report after the summer season and then quarterly
Special Agency Session - Annual report from Municipal Court
Community-based Shelter Program - Report prior to implementation and again after the winter season
(May)
Homeward 2020 2016 Action Plan - End of year report
2
Packet Pg. 11
July 12, 2016 Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (PDF)
2. Special Agency Session Exit Survey Results December 2015 through May 2016 (PDF)
3. 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (PDF)
4. Memo to Council June 30, 2016 re: Continued Enforcement of the City's Camping Ordinance (PDF)
5. Report of Camping Violations Filed in Municipal Court January 1 thru June 28 for 2015 and 2016 (PDF)
6. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 12
NNashville Homeless
System Assessment Report &
Recommendations
Commissioned by the Metropolitan Homelessness
Commission, Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency,
& Frist Foundation
March 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
TTable of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
I. Background and Purpose of Report ........................................................................................................ 7
II. Methodology: Information Sources and Analysis Process ...................................................................... 7
III. Background on Nashville’s Homeless System ......................................................................................... 9
A. Numbers and Characteristics of Homeless People in Nashville ........................................................ 9
B. System Inventory ............................................................................................................................ 10
C. Households Served in HMIS Participating Programs ...................................................................... 11
D. Governance Structure .................................................................................................................... 12
E. Key Accomplishments .................................................................................................................... 13
F. System Challenges .......................................................................................................................... 14
IV. Results: Analysis of System Performance ............................................................................................. 15
A. HMIS Data Quality .......................................................................................................................... 15
B. Alignment of Inventory and Investment with Need ....................................................................... 17
C. System Performance ...................................................................................................................... 17
1. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate ................................................................................................... 18
2. Entries from Homelessness ..................................................................................................... 19
3. Lengths of Stay ......................................................................................................................... 21
4. Exits to Permanent Housing ..................................................................................................... 22
5. Cost Per Exit to Permanent Housing ........................................................................................ 23
6. Returns to Homelessness ........................................................................................................ 24
V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 25
A. Governance Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 25
1. Establish New Unified Governance and Decision-Making Entity ............................................. 25
2. Recommended Implementation Steps for New Governance Entity ........................................ 27
B. System Re-Design Recommendations ............................................................................................ 30
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix A: List of Interviewees ........................................................................................................... 33
2.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 22 of 333
Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Nashville’s Metropolitan Homelessness Commission (MHC), Metropolitan Development and
Housing Agency (MDHA), and the Frist Foundation (NDMC) have engaged Focus Strategies to assess the
performance of the existing homeless system and the community’s efforts to reduce homelessness.
Between June and December 2015, we collected and analyzed data to assess the performance of
individual programs, program types, and the system as a whole. We also conducted telephone interviews
with key stakeholders to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, and to
assess what kinds of changes the City of Nashville could consider to support its goals. The results of our
analysis are presented in this report and will be used by MHC, MDHA, and the Frist Foundation to inform
the next steps in Nashville’s system planning work, including developing an integrated set of strategies to
further reduce homelessness and an updated governance model to carry out the new direction.
Shifting from Homeless Programs to a System that Ends Homelessness
In recent years, communities around the United States have begun to make the shift from simply having a
collection of programs that serve homeless people to more intentionally creating systems to end
homelessness. Federal policy priorities are also moving in this direction. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) is encouraging communities to assess the effectiveness of their current
efforts and engage in a process of transformation towards Housing Crisis Resolution or Housing Crisis
Response systems. In a fully realized Housing Crisis Resolution System, all the programs and services in
the system work collectively to ensure that homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurrent1. Housing Crisis
Resolution incorporates coordinated entry and prioritizes households with the highest needs for
assistance, uses data to assess system and project performance, and ensures that all the components,
programs, and services are oriented to a common set of objectives: rapidly moving people who are
homeless into housing.
Nashville Homeless System Accomplishments and Strengths
The City of Nashville and Nashville/Davison County CoC have implemented a number of impressive
initiatives to address homelessness. The community has many strengths it can build upon to develop a
Housing Crisis Resolution System:
x There is engaged and committed leadership (including the Mayor’s Office, MHC, MDHA and the
Frist Foundation) who are willing to explore what system changes are needed and to achieve
greater reductions in homelessness by aligning interventions with evidence-based practices and
federal policy priorities;
x The whole community is involved in existing efforts to make changes, including non-profit
providers, faith-based providers, housing developers, property owners and landlords, publicly
funded service systems, and the philanthropic community;
1 Ending homelessness, as defined by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), means having a system
in which homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurrent. Another definition, found in the HEARTH Act, is a system in
which no one is ever homeless for longer than 30 days.
2.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 33 of 333
x All the key components of what Nashville needs to build a system to end homelessness are
already in place or under development, including street outreach (to both chronically homeless
people and youth), Coordinated Entry for some populations, prevention/diversion efforts, shelter
and interim housing, a small but growing inventory of rapid re-housing, and permanent
supportive housing;
x The How’s Nashville campaign has demonstrated that significant progress can be made by
prioritizing those homeless households with the highest needs for assistance and leveraging
mainstream housing and services systems to help meet those needs, including Housing Choice
Vouchers (Section 8); and
x There is a large and very engaged community of faith congregations, faith-based service
providers, private foundations and other non-governmental resources that support the work
currently underway (including operation and funding of much of the community’s shelter and
transitional housing inventory) – presenting an opportunity for the public and private sectors to
work together to set and meet common goals.
Given the relatively small size of the unsheltered homeless population in Nashville, the existing inventory
of programs, and the resources currently invested in the homeless system, getting to a system in which
homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurrent is a realizable goal. To accomplish this objective, the
community will need an updated leadership and governance model that can successfully bring together
private and public sector resources, as well as some comprehensive strategies for re-design of the
interventions available to homeless people.
Summary Results of System Performance Assessment
Key performance assessment results from our analysis are summarized below.
Key FFindings
1. Governance
Collectively, the CoC, MDHA, MHC, and housing and service providers and the
broader Nashville community have come together to implement an impressive array
of efforts to address homelessness. While the providers in the community are
generally making the effort to coordinate and collaborate, at present each program
operates independently based on their individual goals and agency missions. This
lessens the collective impact and makes it difficult for all the parts to work together
towards a common set of goals. We found that there is no comprehensive plan to
tackle homelessness systematically, which is also reflected in a lack of unified
leadership and governance structure. The need for a more formalized and clear
governance and decision-making process, and higher level coordination, is evident in
the assessment of system performance.
2. Data Quality
aand HMIS
Participation
Generally speaking, the quality of the data in the Nashville/Davidson County CoC’s
HMIS system is of high quality, with relatively few missing data elements. However,
the usefulness of the data is somewhat limited by the relatively low rate of
2.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 44 of 333
Key FFindings
participation by providers, particularly those operating emergency shelters (and some
transitional housing). Though these providers are not required by their funding
sources to participate, including them would significantly improve the community’s
ability to assess system performance.
3. System
PPerformance
Using data drawn from HMIS and individual program budgets, as well as data from
the Rescue Mission’s HMIS-compatible database, Focus Strategies assessed the
performance of emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing and
permanent supportive housing on the following metrics. Our findings are summarized
in this report.
a. Bed and
UUnit Utilization
We found a relatively low bed and unit utilization rate in many areas of the system:
72% for single adult shelter beds, 75% for family transitional housing, and 80% for
transitional housing for single adults. This suggests that system inventory is not being
used to maximum capacity and likely is partly the result of programs having high
barriers to entry and restrictive eligibility criteria.
b. Entries from
HHomelessness
Currently many of the programs in the system are serving a high number of
households who were not literally homeless upon entry2. In particular, 47% of families
entering shelter and 39% entering transitional housing were coming from housed
situations. This reflects the fact that each program is establishing their own individual
eligibility criteria and may not require households to be literally homeless upon entry.
In a high performing system, beds are prioritized for people who are literally
homeless while those who are still housed are diverted from entering the system (and
housing is preserved or new housing is secured). This finding is also likely related to
the presence of high entry barriers among some of the programs in the system.
c. Lengths of
Stay
Lengths of stay are relatively high in all system components, and particularly
transitional housing where the average stay is 159 days for single adults 298 days for
families. Program providers often structure their service models on the assumption
that longer stays lead to higher rates of exit to permanent housing. Yet, as noted
below, the data does not support this assumption.
d. Rate of Exit
tto Permanent
Housing
The rate at which households exit emergency shelter and transitional housing to
permanent housing is relatively low, with transitional programs exiting only 48% of
single adults and 67% of families to permanent housing. By comparison, rapid re-
housing, which has the same or shorter lengths of stay, is faring much better on this
measure, with 78% of single adults and 99% of families exiting to permanent housing.
e. Cost Per
PPermanent
Housing Exit
Nashville’s Rapid Re-Housing programs are not only achieving better results in terms
of the numbers of households who exit to permanent housing, but they also do so
more cost effectively. The cost for each permanent housing exit from rapid re-
housing is one-third the cost of transitional housing for singles and one sixth the cost
of transitional housing for families.
2 “Literal homelessness” means living in a place not meant for human habitation (e.g. street, car, camp) or in an
emergency shelter.
2.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 55 of 333
Key FFindings
f. Rate of
Return to
HHomelessness
For households who exit to permanent housing, the rate of return to homelessness is
generally very low across all program types. There is no information to suggest that
people who secure permanent housing more quickly and cost effectively using rapid
re-housing are more likely to experience a loss of housing and return to
homelessness. Rate of return is calculated by looking at all the households who exit
to permanent housing in a year and then seeing if any of them re-enter any homeless
program in the next 12 month period.
Summary of Recommendations for New Governance Structure and System Re-Design Strategies
Based on the information we have gathered and analyzed about the existing system, Focus Strategies
makes the following recommendations about the governance structure and the system re-design
strategies needed to make further progress on reducing homelessness in Nashville. These
recommendations are detailed further in our report.
Governance RRecommendations
1. Establish a New
Unified Governance
and Decision-Making
Entity
The single most important initial step for Nashville is for the community
leadership to come together and identify or create a single governance
structure and lead entity that will be tasked with moving forward
transformation of the current collection of programs into a Housing Crisis
Resolution System. This new leadership structure and lead entity must: involve
high-level decision makers, include private and public funders aligned around a
common set of objectives, have the ability to oversee a system planning
process, and have the authority to set policy and implement identified
strategies to end homelessness. Based on our assessment of the existing
governance structure, Focus Strategies recommends that the Metropolitan
Homelessness Commission (MHC) be reconfigured to serve as the lead entity
of the new governance structure, with functions currently housed within
MDHA shifting over to MHC in a phased process.
System Re--Design Recommendations
2. Use Coordinated
Entry and Remove
Program Barriers To
Ensure that Literally
Homeless and Higher
Need Households
Can Be Prioritized
The existing programs and services in Nashville that provided data for this
analysis are serving large numbers of people who are not literally homeless,
even while there are many unsheltered individuals in the community. To make
faster progress on ending homelessness, the new governance entity will need
to adopt policies and strategies to ensure that programs are prioritizing people
who are living outdoors, in vehicles, or in emergency shelter. These policies
would include the removal of entry barriers and requirements to accept
referrals from coordinated entry.
2.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 66 of 333
System Re--Design Recommendations
3. Provide Shelter
Diversion to Those
Who Are Still Housed
Nashville’s new coordinated entry system should integrate a strong shelter
diversion component to help keep households who are not yet homeless from
entering the system. This can build upon the diversion/prevention effort that
was recently launched as part of the coordinated entry system for families. To
be maximally effective, shelter diversion should target those households who
are imminently going to be homeless within a few days.
4. Invest in High
Performing Rapid Re-
Housing
Rapid re-housing programs in Nashville are achieving strong results in exiting
people to permanent housing with low rates of return to homelessness in
comparison to either shelter or transitional housing. This suggests that the
system could likely house more homeless people with an expansion of rapid
re-housing and a shift of resources from lower performing transitional
housing. This approach can complement the work already being done by the
2016 by 2016 campaign and focus on the non-chronically homeless
population.
5. Increase System
Capacity in Landlord
Recruitment and
Housing Navigation
As Nashville seeks to expand rapid re-housing and continue the 2016 by 2016
campaign to house chronically homeless people using Housing Choice
Vouchers and other permanent supportive housing vouchers, the high cost of
housing will make it difficult for participants to locate appropriate units.
Experience from other communities suggests that this problem can be
mitigated through expending system resources on staff who are dedicated to
cultivating relationships with landlords and to helping clients with their
housing searches.
6. Engage Providers
Not Currently
Participating in HMIS
A key obstacle to conducting effective system planning in Nashville is the
relatively low rate of participation in HMIS, particularly among providers who
do not receive federal homelessness funding (and therefore are not required
to participate). With many key programs not currently contributing data, it is
very difficult to have a complete system-level understanding of where clients
are entering the system, what programs they access, and the results of the
interventions. The CoC (through MDHA, which manages the HMIS) is working
to expand participation. To support the development of a Housing Crisis
Resolution System, the new leadership/governance entity will need to be
involved in engaging non-participating providers and developing strategies to
include them in the system.
2.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 77 of 333
I. Background and Purpose of Report
The City of Nashville’s Metropolitan Homelessness Commission (MHC), Metropolitan Development and
Housing Agency (MDHA) and Frist Foundation (NDMC) have engaged Focus Strategies to assess the
performance of the existing homeless system and the community’s efforts to reduce homelessness. The
City of Nashville has made a strong local commitment to addressing homelessness, as evidenced by the
success of the How’s Nashville campaign to address chronic homelessness as well as many other
homeless initiatives. However, while the community has taken some strides towards reducing the
numbers of homeless people3, it lacks an overarching plan to align and coordinate the many different
programs and activities underway.
The goal of our technical assistance is to assist MHC and MDHA, to develop a new set of system
objectives and strategies that will better integrate the different components of the system and ensure
resources are invested in interventions that will yield the greatest results. This includes recommendations
about how to create a more streamlined and effective governing structure for homeless activities that
can advance the identified system objectives.
Focus Strategies has completed our analysis of the performance of the existing homeless programs in
Nashville and of the system as a whole. The results of our analysis are presented in this report along with
our recommendations for system re-design and changes to the governance structure for homeless-
related initiatives.
II. Methodology: Information Sources and Analysis Process
A. Data Sources
This report is based on work conducted by Focus Strategies from June through December 2015. To
compile this report, we conducted several different types of analysis:
x Document Review: Focus Strategies reviewed existing planning and governance documents and
reports including the Strategic Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Nashville 2005-2015; the
2013 Nashville/Davidson County CoC Collaborative Application, CoC Gaps Group Bylaws, CoC
Interim Rule, Consolidated Planning documents, MHC Bylaws, and progress reports.
x Stakeholder Interviews. We conducted telephone interviews with key stakeholders representing
different system components and areas of expertise, including stakeholders knowledgeable
about the community’s emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive
housing programs, as well as the specific interventions for homeless youth, single adults, families
and chronically homeless people and people with disabilities. The interviews with these key
stakeholders provided rich information about the strengths and weaknesses of the existing
system and areas for meaningful change. A complete list of individuals who participated in the
interview process is provided in Appendix A.
3 The Point in Time Homeless Count went down slightly in 2015 to 2,154 (from 2,234 in 2014).
2.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 88 of 333
x Performance Data: Focus Strategies conducted an analysis of data provided by MDHA and MHC
staff. The data was collected from three main sources: (1) the community’s inventory of
emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing units
as documented in the annual Housing Inventory Count (HIC) prepared by MDHA; (2) client data
exported from the community’s Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for the two
year period from July 2013 to June 2015; and (3) program budget data collected directly from
homeless program providers. The data were input into a customized Excel tool developed by
Focus Strategies (Base Year Calculator – BYC) which generates an analysis of HMIS data quality for
each project as well as the performance of each project across a range of measures. The results
of this analysis are summarized in Section IV of this report, with the individual project data
presented at the level of program types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-
housing, and permanent supportive housing.
x Point in Time Count. Data from the Nashville/Davidson County Point in Time (PIT) counts from
2014 and 2015, coordinated by MDHA, was used for context on the size and composition of the
homeless population.
B. Programs Included in Data Analysis
The performance analysis presented in this report incorporates data on programs in the City of Nashville
that provide housing, shelter and services to homeless people. The programs analyzed fall into four
categories: (1) emergency shelters; (2) transitional housing; (3) rapid re-housing and (4) permanent
supportive housing. Descriptions of these program types are provided in Section IV. The scope of the
analysis is limited only to these four program types and does not include homelessness prevention
assistance for people at-risk of homelessness, or other types of safety net assistance or mainstream
system services provided to people who are homeless.
The universe of programs analyzed included any of the above program types that were on the
community’s Housing Inventory Count (HIC) and that also participate in the Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS) and for which there was two years of data available. To understand program
performance in relation to the level of financial investment, data was collected from individual providers
about their project budgets, including the total annual operating cost of each program, its revenue
sources, and amounts.
C. Rescue Mission Program Data
The Nashville Rescue Mission does not participate in HMIS, but they do maintain an HMIS-compatible
database and provided Focus Strategies with an export of client data for the analysis period. Since the
Rescue Mission operates the majority of emergency shelter beds in the system, obtaining this data was
critically important to developing a complete picture of system performance. However, since the Rescue
Mission data is not part of the larger HMIS system, we were not able to determine which of the Rescue
Mission clients were also served in other programs, so including their data likely inflated the total
2.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 99 of 333
numbers of clients served in the system (Section III.C). Also, we were not able to determine whether
clients exiting Rescue Mission programs entered into other homeless programs in the system, or if clients
from other homeless programs in the system entered Rescue Mission programs, so the rate of return to
homelessness presented in Section IV.C.6 under-represents the actual rate of return. The Rescue Mission
did not provide budget data, so their programs are not reflected in the cost-effectiveness analysis in
Section IV.C.5.
III. Background on Nashville’s Homeless System
This section provides a general overview of the current system of housing and services for homeless
people in the City of Nashville, including data on who is homeless in the community, the inventory of
homeless programs and their capacity, and an overview of the community’s homeless governance
structure and key system initiatives.
A. Numbers and Characteristics of Homeless People in Nashville
The table below presents data from the most recent Homeless Point in Time Count (PIT), conducted in
January 2015. The count found a total of 2,154 homeless people, comprising 1,890 households. The data
shows that the majority of the homeless population in Nashville is sheltered, with 54% of counted
households living in emergency shelters and 21% living in transitional housing. There were 470
unsheltered households, comprising 25% of the total households counted.
The overall population is largely single adults without children (93% of all households counted). Of the
1,752 homeless single adults counted, 647 or 37% are chronically homeless, defined as: (1) currently
unsheltered or in emergency shelter; (2) having been continually homeless for at least a year or four or
more times within the last three years; and (3) having a disability that significantly impairs ability to
secure and sustain housing.4
2015 Homeless Populations
4 The data in HMIS does not reflect the current HUD definition of chronic homelessness that went into effect in
January 2016.
Sheltered
Unsheltered TOTAL
All Households/All persons Emergency Transitional Safe
Haven
Number of Persons (Children) 97 161 0 1 259
Number of Persons (age 18 to
24) 159 34 0 23 216
Number of Persons (Adults) 860 365 8 446 1,679
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 1,022 390 8 470 1,890
TOTAL PERSONS 1,116 560 8 470 2,154
2.1
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 110 of 333
2015 HHomeless Subpopulations5
Sheltered Unsheltered TOTAL
Chronically Homeless Individuals 290 357 647
Chronically Homeless Families 5 0 5
Persons in Chronically Homeless Families 14 0 14
Veterans 25 47 72
Severely Mentally Ill 162 42 204
Chronic Substance Abuse 423 117 540
Persons with HIV/AIDS 105 28 133
Victims of Domestic Violence 288 80 368
B. System Inventory
The table below presents a summary of the homeless system’s overall capacity. This includes data on
participation levels in HMIS, which is drawn from the most recent Housing Inventory Count (HIC) from
January 2015.
System Capacity
Program Type Number of
Providers
Number of
Programs
Number of
Beds
Percentage of
Beds
Participating in
HMIS6
Emergency Shelter 10 16 1,619 1%
Transitional Housing 14 23 583 59%
Rapid Re-Housing 4 5 108 71%
Permanent Supportive Housing 7 16 1,350 65%
Total 35 60 3,664 36%
The Nashville homeless system currently has a very large inventory of emergency shelter, comprising 48%
of all beds. There is also a sizeable inventory of transitional housing and permanent supportive housing.
There is relatively little rapid re-housing, as this is a relatively new program type for the community.
One of the challenges facing the Nashville system is the relatively low HMIS participation rate for all the
program types in the system. Most notably, only 1% of existing shelter beds are reporting data into the
HMIS. The Rescue Mission and Room in the Inn operate most of the shelter inventory but do not
participate in HMIS. As noted above, the Rescue Mission does use an HMIS compatible database and is
able to produce reports on clients served and their outcomes (i.e. whether they exit to permanent
5 Subpopulation categories are not mutually exclusive so these figures do not sum to the total homeless
population. People may be represented in multiple categories.
6 Domestic violence (DV) programs are prohibited from entering data into HMIS, which impacts participation rates.
For the rapid re-housing programs, there is 100% participation of non-DV programs.
2.1
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 111 of 333
housing).7 However, since this information is not integrated with the rest of the programs in the system,
it is not possible to understand or track the movement of clients between HMIS participating and non-
participating programs and thereby understand how the system as a whole is functioning. The
participation rates for other system components (transitional housing, rapid re-housing, and permanent
supportive housing) are higher, but still below what is desirable for system planning purposes.
The CoC has recently re-allocated some funds to create a new dedicated HMIS grant that will help MDHA
focus efforts on bringing more of the system inventory into HMIS, which will likely begin to address this
problem. Having higher participation in HMIS will be critical if the community is to have access to the data
needed to inform system planning.
C. Households Served in HMIS Participating Programs
The data below shows the total number of people served in HMIS participating programs and in Rescue
Mission programs in Nashville in 2014-2015. Over the course of the year period, these programs served
8,183 people.8 Of these, 77% were adults 25 and older, 9% were transition age youth (TAY) ages 18 to
249, and 14% were children. About 20% had a disability, 9% were veterans, and 6% were chronically
homeless.
Total Unduplicated People
8,183
# %
Age
Adults 25+ 6,262 77%
TAY 18 - 24 729 9%
Children 1,122 14%
Missing 70 1%
Total Unduplicated Adults
6,991
# %
Gender
Male 4,757 68%
Female 2,226 32%
Other 4 0%
Unknown 4 0%
Disabled10 1,385 20%
Veteran 659 9%
Chronically Homeless 396 6%
Domestic Violence 261 4%
7 Room in the Inn also uses an HMIS compatible database for many of their programs but that data is not included in
this analysis.
8 This number may be inflated because the Rescue Mission clients cannot be de-duplicated from the clients of the
other programs.
9 TAY includes unaccompanied young adults ages 18-24 and also young adults age 18-24 who have minor children,
or what HUD refers to as “parenting youth.”
10 Disability as indicated by a "Yes" answer in the universal data element "Disabling Condition"
2.1
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 112 of 333
The following tables show the unduplicated number of people served in 2014-2015 by program type.
Individuals who received services from more than one program type are reflected more than once (i.e.,
in each of the service types they received). Program types with short lengths of stay tend to serve a
larger number of people than those with longer or unlimited lengths of stay. Emergency shelters
housed 6,607 or 77% of total people served, while permanent supportive housing served 995 (12%).
ES TH RRH PSH
Total Unduplicated People
6,607 796 217 995
# % # % # % # %
Age
Adults 25+ 5,152 78% 666 84% 122 56% 692 70%
TAY 18 - 24 668 10% 40 5% 9 4% 47 5%
Children 731 11% 88 11% 74 34% 254 26%
Missing 56 1% 2 0% 12 6% 2 0%
ES TH RRH PSH
Total Unduplicated Adults
5,820 706 131 739
# % # % # % # %
Gender
Male 4,084 70% 560 79% 78 60% 341 46%
Female 1,735 30% 146 21% 51 39% 394 53%
Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 0%
Unknown 1 0% 0 0% 2 2% 1 0%
Disabled11 826 14% 234 33% 18 14% 430 58%
Veteran 354 6% 303 43% 20 15% 49 7%
Chronically Homeless 8 0% 123 17% 35 27% 212 29%
Domestic Violence 28 0% 85 12% 26 20% 150 20%
D. Governance Structure
The leadership and oversight of efforts to address homelessness in Nashville is divided between two main
entities:
x The Nashville/Davidson County Continuum of Care (CoC) “Gaps Group” oversees the
development of the community’s annual funding application to HUD and sets policies governing
the distribution of CoC funds, assesses needs, and coordinates the bi-annual homeless point in
time count. The Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) is the lead agency that
staffs the CoC and also manages the HMIS system. The MDHA’s Homeless Coordinator is
responsible for the day-to-day work of the CoC. The Gaps Group membership is open to any
interested agency or individual and is composed primarily of representatives from housing and
service providers, including agencies receiving CoC funding. There are several standing
committees, including a Governance Committee, Nominations and Bylaws Committee, HMIS
11 Disability as indicated by a "Yes" answer in the universal data element "Disabling Condition"
2.1
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 113 of 333
Committee and Grant Review Committee. Ad Hoc committees are formed as needed to assist
with a range of activities (e.g. coordinated entry committee, youth committee, health committee,
etc.).
x The Metropolitan Homelessness Commission (MHC) was formed in 2005 at the behest of the
Mayor to oversee the implementation of Nashville’s Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
(2005 to 2015). The MHC is staffed by and operates within the Metropolitan Department of
Social Services (MSS) of the Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Commission
membership includes individuals appointed by the Mayor (including three homeless or formerly
homeless individuals currently), members of the Metro Council, and staff from Metro
government, including Department Directors. One member of the Commission sits on the CoC’s
Governance Committee to ensure coordination between the two groups. Beginning in 2013, the
MHC has spearheaded the implementation of the How’s Nashville Campaign, which is based on a
collective impact model and has its own leadership structure. Campaign partners housed 900
chronically homeless people through the end of 2014. The MHC has recently launched a new
2016 by 2016 initiative to end chronic and veterans’ homelessness by the end of 2016. There
have been 906 chronically homeless veterans and non-veterans housed between January 1 and
December 31, 2015.
Additionally, there are other groups working on homelessness in the community, including the
Nashville Coalition for the Homeless, which advocates for solutions to homelessness.
E. Key Accomplishments
Collectively, the CoC, MDHA, MHC, housing and service providers and the broader Nashville community
have come together to implement an impressive array of efforts to address homelessness. Some key
accomplishments and system strengths that were highlighted during our interviews are listed below (this
is not intended as a comprehensive list of all programs and initiatives in the community):
x There is a tremendous degree of involvement by the faith community in solutions to
homelessness. This includes shelter and transitional housing programs operated by the Nashville
Rescue Mission and Room in the Inn, transitional housing and other programs operated by faith-
based organizations, as well as the many congregations that have opened their doors to provide
emergency shelter for homeless people.
x Housing and service providers in the community operate a diverse range of programs, including
many that are targeted to specific populations, including homeless and at-risk youth, people with
substance abuse issues, homeless families, people with disabilities, and other populations.
x There is a strong community emphasis on outreach to the large number of unsheltered
individuals living around downtown Nashville, including mental health outreach operated by the
Mental Health Cooperative and employing an innovative Critical Time Intervention (CTI) model, as
well as a youth outreach program operated by the Oasis Center.
2.1
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 114 of 333
x Rapid re-housing is still relatively limited but has begun to expand, with programs operated by
several different providers.
x The How’s Nashville campaign has helped to transform the community’s approach from “making
homelessness less miserable”, as one interviewee put it, to one that is focused on getting people
into permanent housing as quickly as possible. Through an innovative partnership with the MDHA
to dedicate Housing Choice Vouchers for chronically homeless people, recruitment of private
landlords, use of housing navigators, and linkages with mainstream services systems, this
campaign has successfully housed an impressive number of chronically homeless people in a very
short period of time and helped to begin shifting the community’s understanding of what works.
x How’s Nashville has also been the starting point for Coordinated Entry in Nashville, with all
chronically homeless people being assessed using the VI-SPDAT and a central waiting list created
to ensure that those with the highest vulnerability are prioritized for assistance. Based on the
success of this effort, the community is poised to launch a pilot coordinated entry for homeless
families in November 2015. Five city-funded staff will comprise the new Family Shelter Intake
Team (FSIT) to complete assessments, help families collect required documentation for
prevention assistance, and make referrals to prevention, shelter, and housing resources. The goal
will be to use emergency shelter as the last resort and do everything possible to keep families in
housing by using local and federal prevention resources.
F. System Challenges
Although there are many strong elements in Nashville’s efforts to end homelessness, one consistent
theme that Focus Strategies heard in our interviews was the lack of a plan to tackle homelessness
systematically and a unified governance structure to implement such a plan. While the providers in the
community are generally making the effort to coordinate and collaborate, at present each program
operates independently based on their individual goals and agency missions, which lessens the collective
impact and makes it difficult for all the parts to work together towards a common set of goals. Although
the MHC has set some specific objectives in relation to ending chronic and Veteran homelessness and has
developed strategies to meet those objectives, it does not provide a framework for addressing
homelessness among other populations or involve the full range of organizations aside from those
providing permanent supportive housing. The Nashville/Davidson County CoC, with MDHA as the lead
agency, has a broader mandate to address all types of homelessness, which are set forth by HUD in the
CoC Interim Rule. While the CoC and its committees are addressing a broad range of homelessness issues,
the work remains somewhat narrowly focused on what is needed to develop a competitive CoC funding
application rather than on broader system planning.
The implications of not having a strong and united leadership and governance entity tasked with
developing an overarching system to end homelessness have become more evident in recent years, as
federal policy priorities have shifted and communities are being asked to move from simply having a
collection of services and programs to developing systems to end homeless, or Housing Crisis Resolution
Systems. A fully realized Housing Crisis Resolution System incorporates coordinated entry systems that
prioritize households with the highest needs, uses data to assess system and project performance, and
2.1
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 115 of 333
ensures that all the components, programs, and services are oriented to a common set of objectives:
rapidly moving people who are literally homeless into housing. In Nashville, the need to make this shift
comes at a time when the community is experiencing rapidly rising rents and low vacancy rates, an issue
that many of those interviewed noted as a significant obstacle to making progress on ending
homelessness.
IV. Results: Analysis of System Performance
The sections below present our analysis of homeless system performance using data drawn from HMIS,
the Housing Inventory Count (HIC) and provider project budget information. Data presented includes the
Rescue Mission (from their HMIS-compatible database) unless otherwise noted. We have also included
information provided by key stakeholders where relevant to help provide context for the data, or in cases
where the data does not appear to align with what we learned from stakeholders.
A. HMIS Data Quality
A key precondition to any assessment of system performance is the availability of high quality data.
Based on our assessment, we found the data quality from the HMIS system to be excellent for most
variables. The tables below show the percentages of missing data for key data fields. Values in red are
areas where the quality of data could be improved.
2.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 116 of 333
TOTAL
DATASET
ES TH RRH PSH
Total Cases 3,477 186 1,354 410 1,234
Total Adult Cases 2,748 173 1,187 267 903
Percent Missing
# missing
values
TOTAL
DATASET
ES TH RRH PSH
ClientID 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Program Type 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Prior Living 252 7% 5% 1% 14% 5%
Entry Date 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Destination * 10 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Program Name 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Organization Name 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HouseHoldID 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
DOB 33 1% 6% 0% 3% 0%
Gender 28 1% 4% 0% 4% 0%
Disabled 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Chronic Homeless 391 14% 23% 16% 4% 9%
Vet 50 2% 6% 1% 2% 2%
Domestic Violence 40 1% 1% 1% 3% 1%
Income at Entry 1,164 42% 70% 19% 8% 66%
Total Amount Income Entry 1,115 41% 18% 19% 12% 70%
Employment at Entry 1,115 41% 18% 19% 12% 70%
Income at Exit * 12 1% 3% 1% 12% 70%
Total Amount Income Exit 1,115 41% 18% 19% 12% 70%
Employment at Exit * 12 1% 3% 1% 12% 70%
One of the most important data elements to examine when assessing project performance and system
performance is Prior Living Situation and Exit Destination. These data elements provide critical
information about: (1) how people are accessing the system and whether they are literally homeless
when they enter and; (2) whether they exit the system into permanent housing or some other
destination. To understand whether programs are being effective in helping homeless people to secure
housing, it is critical to have high data quality for these two questions.
Focus Strategies examined the rate of missing and unknown data for Prior Living and Exit Destination
from the main HMIS system as well as from the Rescue Mission data set. The results for HMIS data are
presented in the table above; the HMIS data quality of these variables is excellent. The Rescue Mission’s
data, however, generally did not capture Prior Living or Exit Destination consistently. Given the size and
importance of the Rescue Mission programs to Nashville’s overall efforts to address homelessness, these
data quality issues are significant. The missing data elements, combined with the Rescue Mission and
2.1
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 117 of 333
other emergency programs maintaining separate data systems that are not integrated with the HMIS,
makes it difficult to establish a clear picture of who is being served in the system and where they go when
they exit.
B. Alignment of Inventory and Investment with Need
The graph below illustrates the relationship between Nashville’s adult only and family households in
terms of population size, current system capacity and investment levels. Though family households
comprise just 7% of the total homeless population, 22% of financial investments are allocated to families.
A similar disparity is found in the system inventory, where 13% of the bed capacity is designated for just
7% of the total homeless population. On the single adult household side, 78% of investment and 87% of
bed capacity is allocated to the remaining 93% of Nashville’s homeless population. This disproportional
allocation of resources toward families in relation to the size of the population of homeless families is
quite common and evident in a number of communities Focus Strategies has analyzed.
C. System Performance
In recent years, federal homelessness policy has shifted to looking at how well communities are
performing in their efforts to reduce homelessness. To further these objectives, HUD has strongly
encouraged communities to evaluate the effectiveness both of individual programs as well as the overall
system in meeting specific performance measures. Focus Strategies has developed a set of performance
metrics that build upon HUD’s measures as articulated in the HEARTH Act and Opening Doors: The Federal
Strategic Plan to End Homelessness. While the measures we use are all aligned with HUD’s goals, we also
incorporate cost effectiveness, so that communities can understand not just system performance, but
also performance in relation to the level of investment and the likely impact of investing in alternatives.
93%
7%
87%
13%
78%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Adult HHs Family HHs
Homeless Population, Capacity and Investment
Population Capacity Investment
2.1
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 118 of 333
This section presents our analysis of Nashville’s system performance on six measures:
1. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate
2. Program Entries from Homelessness
3. Lengths of Stay
4. Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing
5. Cost per Permanent Housing Exit
6. Returns to Homelessness
1. Bed and Unit Utilization Rate
This metric measures the average daily occupancy of programs in the system, as calculated using HMIS
data. Maximizing the use of available bed capacity is essential to ensuring that system resources are being
put to their best use and that as many homeless people as possible are being served given the existing
inventory.
The table below presents the utilization rate for emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent
supportive housing.12 This data uses bed utilization for single adult programs, and unit utilization for
family programs (because sometimes a unit in a family program might have unfilled beds simply due to
housing a smaller sized family than the unit is designed to accommodate).
We found that utilization rates in many parts of the system are below 90%. Utilization rates for
emergency shelters for single adults and transitional housing for families were the lowest at 72% and 75%
respectively. In a high-performing system, we would expect to see utilization rates above 90% for all
system components. When programs are underutilizing their ability to serve homeless households, an
opportunity to reach and assist more people is being missed.
This finding was consistent with information we collected during the stakeholder interviews relating to
program entry barriers and views about Housing First approaches. In a system that is strongly oriented to
the Housing First philosophy, programs have relatively few barriers to entry so that households with the
greatest needs are served and no one is screened out of assistance due to not being “housing ready.”
While the providers in Nashville appear to have a solid understanding of Housing First, opinions expressed
in the interviews suggested that there is a broad spectrum of practice in this area, with some programs
strongly aligned with Housing First principles and others operating more on an a Housing Readiness
model. The existence of unfilled beds in the system is likely related, at least in part, to the existence of
entry barriers that are preventing some homeless households from accessing assistance.
12 Note: Rapid re-housing is not included in this analysis because this program type does not have a fixed bed capacity and so the
methodology applied to the other program types does not generate a comparable result.
2.1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 119 of 333
2. Entries from Homelessness
This measure looks at the degree to which programs are serving people with the most acute housing
needs, namely those who are literally homeless (meaning they are living outdoors, in a vehicle, or in an
emergency shelter). While certain funders may allow programs to serve people who are living in other
situations (e.g. people living in motels, people in doubled-up situations, people living in their own
apartments but at-risk of eviction), successfully reducing homelessness depends on prioritizing those with
the highest need for available units. This measure reflects the federal policy goals of ending chronic
homelessness and prioritizing literally homeless people for permanent housing. To create a “right sized”
system in which there is an appropriate housing intervention for all homeless people, those who are not
literally homeless must be diverted from entering the homeless system to begin with, thereby making
resources available for those with nowhere to live.
The graphs below show the prior living situations for households entering emergency shelter, transitional
housing, rapid re-housing, and permanent supportive housing in Nashville. The first chart shows the
percentage of people coming from literal homelessness (streets, vehicles, emergency shelter) and the
second one shows the percentage coming from non-homeless situations (e.g. living with friends and
family, living in subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, in a motel or in an institution). Currently, all of
the system components are admitting many people from housed situations. This is particularly notable in
the system components serving families, where 47% of shelter entries and 39% of entries to transitional
housing are from non-homeless situations. The 2015 Point in Time Count showed that there were 470
unsheltered people in the community (22% of all those counted), and that unsheltered homelessness has
increased since 2014, so system resources could be better targeted to serve those who are most
vulnerable and have nowhere to live. (Note that the figures from the two graphs below do not total to
100% of entries because some people are entering from unknown/missing locations, institutions, and
miscellaneous other types of locations).
72%
80%
86%
162%
75%
91%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ES TH PSH
Utilization Rate
Adult HHs Family HHs
2.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 220 of 333
This data appears consistent with what we learned from the bed utilization data (see above) and suggests
some programs may be screening out households with higher needs. It also suggests that the system
overall could likely divert many of the still-housed people from entering shelter to begin with. A robust
diversion program would significantly reduce the number of housed people entering shelter and
transitional housing. Experience from other communities shows that some people with unstable housing
situations can be assisted to remain in place with some problem solving, mediation, and small amounts of
flexible financial assistance. If even a portion of these “at risk” households are prevented from entering
shelter, it frees up resources to assist those who have already lost their housing and have nowhere to go.
20%
25%
55%
38%
14%
30%
68%
47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ES TH RRH PSH
% ES/Unsheltered entries
Household Entries from Homeless Prior Living
Adult HHs Family HHs
16%
12%
18%
8%
47%
39%
13%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
ES TH RRH PSH
% Housed locations
Household Entries from Non-Homeless Prior Living
Adult HHs Family HHs
2.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 221 of 333
A new coordinated entry system for families recently launched in November 2015 and incorporates a
prevention/diversion component. This is a good first step towards implementing system-wide diversion.
The metric associated with where people have lived prior to entering PSH is also very important as it
helps illustrate whether PSH projects in the community are prioritizing those with the greatest housing
needs. In addition to looking at prior living data, Focus Strategies assessed the demographic data on PSH
program participants (presented in Section III.C, page 8). HMIS data shows that of the 739 people served
in PSH during the analysis period, only 29% were chronically homeless and 58% had a disability. This
suggests that this system component is not serving those households with the highest needs. Many of
these households probably entered PSH many years ago when HUD did not require PSH to serve literally
homeless people, so the data on those who have recently entered would likely show a higher rate of
chronic homelessness and disability, particularly given that the How’s Nashville 2016 by 2016 campaign
has been targeting this population in recent years. However, this data shows that much of the existing
PSH inventory is not serving households with the highest needs.
3. Lengths of Stay
Achieving relatively short lengths of stay in emergency shelter, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing
programs is essential to ending homelessness. Every day a person is homeless has an associated cost, and
reducing lengths of stay results in a quicker rate of exit and a lower cost per exit, which in turn allows
more people to be housed. The HEARTH Act has established a goal that no one is homeless longer than
30 days. As part of system right-sizing, the entire system must strive for the shortest stays needed to
reach this goal.
Length of stay in Nashville programs was calculated based on HMIS data using the entry and exit dates for
each program stay recorded in the system. Currently none of the system components have achieved
lengths of stay below 30 days. Transitional housing stays are the longest, with an average of 159 days for
single adults and 298 for families. Rapid re-housing program stays, by contrast, are about the same for
single adults and much shorter for families. This data should be considered in particular in relation to the
rate of exit to permanent housing, presented in the next section. Many transitional housing programs are
designed with relatively long lengths of stay based on the assumption that longer stays allow households
to develop the skills and resources they need to successfully secure housing upon exit. Yet this data
shows that in spite of these longer stays, participants in rapid re-housing programs have much higher
rates of permanent housing exit. The longer stays in transitional housing are not yielding stronger
outcomes.
2.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 222 of 333
4. Exits to Permanent Housing
While helping households exit shelter and transitional housing quickly is a key strategy to end
homelessness, it is just as important to understand where people go when they exit. The rate of exit to
permanent housing is a very important metric and one that HUD has asked communities to report on for
several years. This measures the degree to which a project assists clients to move to a housed situation,
and is a critical aspect of project performance.
The next graph shows the rate of exit to permanent housing for all emergency shelter, transitional
housing, and rapid re-housing programs in Nashville. For the purpose of this measure, “permanent
housing” includes any housed situation that is not time-limited, such as a market rate apartment, a
subsidized housing unit, shared housing with a roommate, or staying permanently with family and
friends.
As shown in the table below, the rate of exit to permanent housing for emergency shelter programs in
Nashville is very low at only 11% for single adults and 5% for families. We note, however, that most of the
emergency shelter inventory is not currently included in the HMIS system, so these results do not really
tell us much about the actual rate of exit from shelter to housing13. The results for transitional housing
are better at 48% and 67%, respectively, but still below what would be expected in a high performing
system. As discussed in the next section, emergency shelters and transitional housing are not cost-
effective strategies to reduce homelessness in general, and low performance on the rate of exit further
reduces cost effectiveness. Typical performance for exits from emergency shelter to permanent housing
13 The data in this table does include exit destination information from the Rescue Mission, but much of that data is
incomplete so probably under-represents the actual rate of exit to permanent housing.
43
159 169
59
298
114
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
ES TH RRH
Number of days
Average Length of Stay
Adult HHs Family HHs
2.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 223 of 333
are 20%14, while the HUD standard for transitional housing exits to permanent housing is greater than
80%.
Rapid re-housing has a far higher success rate on this measure than either shelter or transitional housing
with 78% of single adults and 99% of families exiting to permanent housing. This is true even while the
lengths of stay in rapid re-housing are the same or shorter than in transitional housing. Thus, there is no
evidence that staying longer in a given program results in a higher rate of successful exit.
5. Cost Per Exit to Permanent Housing
To create a more efficient system, it is essential that investments are aligned with the objective of ending
homelessness. Cost per permanent housing exit is a key performance measure because it assesses not
only whether a program is helping clients to move to permanent housing, but also whether they do so in
a cost effective manner. As funds are shifted from expensive programs to those that are more cost
effective per person served, system capacity will increase and the numbers of homeless people will be
reduced.
The graph below shows the average cost per permanent housing exit for all program types. These figures
are calculated using the total program cost, utilization of beds/units and client length of stay (cost per day
is calculated and then multiplied by the number of days the individual/family was in the program).
14 National Alliance to End Homelessness, Performance Improvement Calculator (PIC), Sample data from 14
communities. http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/performance-improvement-calculator
11%
48%
78%
5%
67%
99%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ES TH RRH
% of all exits
Rate of Exit to Permanent Housing
Adult HHs Family HHs
2.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 224 of 333
As shown in the table below, the cost per permanent housing exit for transitional housing programs is
much higher than the cost for rapid re-housing programs. On the single adult side, each successful exit is
$4,107, or about a third the cost of an exit from transitional housing. The difference is even more striking
when considering the family programs, where rapid re-housing is one-sixth of the cost of transitional
housing per permanent housing exit. This is consistent with many national studies which have found that
rapid re-housing typically is more cost effective and achieves better housing outcome than transitional
housing. If investments were to shift from these more costly interventions to those that are more cost
effective, the overall system would be able to house many more homeless households. It is important to
point out that while we have included cost per permanent housing exit for shelters in this table, this
information does not present a complete picture of shelter costs, since budget and HMIS data is not
available for most of the shelter inventory. Actual costs per permanent housing exit from shelter is likely
much higher than what is presented in this table.
6. Returns to Homelessness
Reducing lengths of stay and increasing rates of exit to permanent housing has to be balanced by
ensuring that people who exit programs do not return to homelessness. Tracking this metric allows
communities to assess whether programs are helping place clients into permanent housing situations that
“stick” and are appropriate for their needs. For the purpose of this analysis, returns to homelessness is
calculated by looking at all households who exited programs and determining whether any had a new
entry into a homeless program within 12 months.
The next graph presents rate of return to homelessness for people who exited emergency shelter,
transitional housing and rapid re-housing in Nashville between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 with an exit
$2,279
$13,561
$4,107
$58,253
$8,992
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
ES TH RRH
Average Cost per Household Exit to Permanent Housing
Adult HHs Family HHs
2.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 225 of 333
destination that was a permanent housing situation. The rate of return from emergency shelter is likely
not very representative, since this largely reflects only those who exited from the Rescue Mission to
permanent housing and then returned to the Rescue Mission.15 For transitional housing and rapid re-
housing, the rate of return is quite low, between 1% and 6% depending on the program type. While this
analysis is not as comprehensive as it would be if the Rescue Mission data were in HMIS, and cannot show
a complete returns to homelessness analysis, it does at least show that among the programs in HMIS the
returns rate is extremely low. This result supports the conclusion that rapid re-housing is just as effective,
if not more so, in helping people move quickly to a permanent housing situation that sticks.
V. Recommendations
Based on our assessment of the performance of the existing system and the information we have
collected about governance and oversight, Focus Strategies has developed the recommendations related
to governance structure as well as strategies for system re-design.
A. Governance Recommendations
1. Establish New Unified Governance and Decision-Making Structure and Lead Entity
The single most important initial step for Nashville is for the community leadership to come together and
identify or create a single structure and lead entity that will be tasked with moving forward in
15 The Rescue Mission operates the majority of the Emergency Shelter inventory and their data is not integrated
with HMIS. Also, more than 80% of exits from their program are to unknown destinations, so the 18% return rate
does not provide much useful information and is likely not representative of the true rate of return for people who
exit ES to permanent housing.
18%
6%
1%
6%
2%
6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
ES TH RRH
% of PH exits
Rate of Return to Homelessness
Adult HHs Family HHs
2.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 226 of 333
transforming the current collection of programs into a Housing Crisis Resolution System (HCRS). Key
features of this new structure should include:
x Involvement of high-level community leadership (elected leaders, leaders from publicly funded
service systems, private funders, and influential community members) willing to take on the
project of creating a Housing Crisis Resolution System that quickly returns people who have lost
their housing to a state of being housed. This new lead entity should use data to inform decisions
and ensure that the purpose and goals of the system are well understood by providers, clients,
decision-makers and the public.
x Strong alignment of local funders around a common set of goals. To make changes that will result
in more effective strategies to address homelessness, the new governance structure must include
the key funders of the existing set of interventions. Funders will have agree on some common
strategies to achieve those goals, even if it means no longer supporting programs the community
perceives as essential and effective, if these programs are not achieving the identified objectives.
Given that a significant portion of the existing Nashville homeless system does not receive public
funding, key private funders will need to come to the table if this work is to be effective. Both
public and private funders will have to agree to invest their resources in proven interventions that
target homeless people with the greatest needs, have low barriers to entry, and result in
homeless people gaining and maintaining housing at the least cost possible. Existing resources
need to be allocated with the objective of ending homelessness, not merely providing services to
make homelessness more tolerable.
x Ability to oversee a system planning process to design a Housing Crisis Resolution System. The
new governance structure must be set up with a mandate and a committee structure that will
allow it to work through a process that will lead to the adoption and implementation of a Housing
Crisis Resolution System that has strong support and buy-in, is feasible to implement, and will
have a real impact on homelessness. The key challenge of the planning process is deciding who
will have input and how their input will be used. Since the main features and strategies that
actually end homelessness are already well known and supported by evidence, the work to get
there is less about “what will we do?” than “how will we do it?” The leadership entity and
structure must meaningfully involve organizations who are currently funded by the existing
system and who may have to change their programs when the HCRS is implemented.
x Authority to set policy and implement identified strategies to end homelessness. Once the HCRS
system objectives and strategies have been identified, the new governance structure and lead
entity must have the authority to oversee implementation through policy setting, making funding
allocations and establishing performance based contracting systems, providing technical
assistance to help providers align to new expectations, and tracking progress towards meeting
system goals.
x Data gathering and analysis capabilities. The new lead entity should have the capability to gather
and analyze data on the performance of the system and the individual programs within the
2.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 227 of 333
system, so that resources can be directed towards those interventions that yield the best results
and progress towards reducing homelessness can be tracked.
2. Recommended Implementation Steps to Create New Governance Structure and Lead Entity:
As currently constituted, neither of the two existing governance entities (MHC or the CoC) has the
authority or the resources to serve as a unified governing structure or lead entity with the features
described above. Each one has important strengths, but also some key gaps that will make it difficult to
take on the role of the centralized governance entity without some major changes.
x The existing CoC structure consists of a CoC Governing Committee and a set of subcommittees.
As the CoC lead agency, MDHA provides staff support to the committee work, including
completing the CoC application and administering federal CoC planning and HMIS funds. MDHA
also directly manages CoC grants for permanent supportive housing (S+C). The existing CoC
committee structure is fairly informal and the CoC does not have any organizational or staffing
capacity beyond what is provided by MDHA. MHDA is a large and sophisticated public agency
with a strong track record in management of federal funding sources. The agency is very capable
of implementing federal and local policy initiatives, but has not taken a visionary or agenda-
setting role as it relates to ending homelessness. As the CoC lead agency, MDHA does not view its
role as charting the course for system change, and tends to focus more on compliance with
federal and local funding source requirements.
x MHC plays a more visionary role for the overall homeless system, though its mandate is
somewhat narrowly focused on addressing chronic homelessness. The Commission and its staff
are held in high regard by all community stakeholders, and the community looks to them for
leadership on ending homelessness. MHC is seen as able to manage change initiatives and do
both planning and implementation work. Their main weakness is in the area of organizational
capacity. MHC is somewhat minimally staffed and has limited organizational infrastructure. It has
a track record of managing City funds but is not equipped to handle the complexity of federal
funding and compliance requirements. MHC is housed within MSS which provides some
infrastructural support (HR, IT, finance) but the Commission is not strongly integrated into City
government functions.
Based on its existing role and set of core competencies it appears that the MHC is best positioned to be
transformed into a new homeless policy setting and decision making structure and lead entity, with
functions and funding sources currently housed within the CoC and at MDHA eventually coming under
the oversight of the MHC. This shift will likely need to happen in two phases, with policy functions
shifting over first, then funding sources coming over once the reconfigured MHC has sufficient capacity
and infrastructure to manage federal funding. A phased approach will also give MDHA time to make the
needed administrative and organizational shifts to transfer CoC, ESG, HOPWA and any other funding
sources that will shift over to the MHC.
On the next page we have outlined some of the key steps and elements of this two-phase process.
2.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 228 of 333
Phase One (2016): Homeless System Planning and Policy Setting Functions Transition to MHC
x Amend MHC Ordinance/Dissolve CoC Board (“Gaps Group”). As a first step, the City will need to
amend the ordinance creating the MHC to broaden the Commission’s purpose and make it the
entity in Nashville/Davidson County responsible for policy and decision-making for ending
homelessness for all populations (not just chronic homelessness). The MHC will also need to be
named as the CoC Board. The CoC Regulations require that there is a general CoC membership
body, which is open to all interested agencies and individuals by invitation. There is also a
required Governing Board that acts on behalf of the membership and is selected based on a
written process that must be updated at least every five years. We would propose that the MHC
becomes the CoC Governing Board, and also convener of the larger CoC membership group
which would be open to all interested participants. Once the Commission is named the CoC
Board, the existing “Gaps Group” that serves as the CoC Board should be dissolved.
x Revisit MHC Composition. The Commission currently includes a mix of individuals appointed by
the Mayor, members of the Metro Council, and Metro Government officials. It is a fairly large
body and attendance is reported to be inconsistent. We recommend that as part of the
amendment of the Commission’s charter, the City should re-think and re-structure how seats are
allocated with the goal of maximizing the Commission’s ability to make decisions, align funding,
and drive implementation of identified strategies to reduce homelessness – in other words it
needs to be a group that is less advisory and more action-oriented. Some issues to consider in
deciding on Board composition would include:
x To maximize its ability to oversee system change, members should consist primarily of
individuals who are able to make policy and funding decisions, such as elected leaders,
City Department heads or their deputies, other key public systems (e.g. hospitals), and
private funders. Other members can be included to ensure a balanced perspective, but
making the board too large and inclusive will dilute its ability to be nimble and action-
oriented. The current size of the board (19 members, 7 of whom are ex officio) could
probably be whittled down to something closer to 10 or 12 members.
x CoC regulations require that the CoC Board must include representation from a homeless
or formerly homeless individual.
x Involvement of service and housing providers on the Board can pose challenges for the
kind of decision-making needed to drive systems change, as it asks providers to separate
their agency’s interests from the interests of the system as a whole, which are not always
aligned. Providers can be more meaningfully involved through workgroups and
committees, providing input and helping to work through how the Board’s policy
decisions will be implemented at the program and program-type level.
x Advocacy groups that are not directly funded by the homeless system also have an
important role to play, and could be included both on the Board as well as in committee
work.
2.1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 229 of 333
x Create New Subcommittees/Workgroups: To ensure broad involvement and input from a range
of stakeholders and people with different areas of expertise as it relates to ending homelessness,
the Commission should create a committee structure that meaningfully involves all interested
organizations and individuals, including housing and service providers, the faith community,
business leaders, advocates, universities, hospitals, publicly funded systems and others. The
committees and workgroups should be organized around the community’s goals for ending
homelessness and should at a minimum include:
o Executive Committee – overseeing operation of the Commission
o CoC Application/Funding Committee – open only to organizations without conflicts of
interest (no CoC grantees), this group would oversee priority setting for the annual CoC
application as well as the project ranking and review process
o HMIS Committee – overseeing policy and governance for the HMIS system, policies and
procedures, data quality plan, etc.
o Data and Performance Measurement – overseeing an ongoing process of setting both
system and project level performance benchmarks, assessing and monitoring progress,
identifying strategies for continuous quality improvement
o Coordinated Entry – overseeing process for design and implementation of both
coordinated entry and shelter diversion components of the system
o Coordinated Exits/Housing Interventions – overseeing process to “right size” available
housing interventions (rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing)
o Population Specific Work Groups – overseeing strategies for specific populations, e.g.
veterans, families, single adults, chronically homeless people, youth.
o Funders collaborative – pulling together public and private funders of the homeless
system to develop shared objectives and align their funding outcomes with the
Commission’s overall direction, so that privately funded components of the system can
be better coordinated with the publicly funded programs.
x Expand MHC Staff Roles: The City needs to redefine roles and create new position descriptions
for MHC staff, with a clear articulation of their function as point person(s) for development and
implementation of homeless system policy. The Director of the Commission could be re-titled to
emphasize its policy role, such as by becoming Homeless Policy Director or Coordinator. The CoC
planning and administrative functions currently being done by MDHA staff would shift to the
MHC staff, including convening required CoC meetings, managing the annual CoC application
process, conducting the annual PIT count, evaluation of project performance, and other
functions. Either there would be a CoC Coordinator position created at MHC or those
responsibilities could be divided up among existing MHC staff. Additionally, MHC staff would
handle all homeless-system planning and implementation activities (more broadly than just the
CoC work), including possibly overseeing the development of an update to the 10 Year Plan or
creation of a new strategic plan to end homelessness, building off the recommendations in this
Focus Strategies report. MHC staff would also staff the commission and its
committees/workgroups, attend meetings of other bodies as appropriate, and respond to
information requests and media inquiries. MHC currently has 4 full time positions, so the City will
2.1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 330 of 333
need to explore whether additional staff is needed to handle all these functions and how they
would be paid for.
x Explore Limited Funding Shifts. In the short term, MDHA would continue to manage CoC, ESG and
other federal sources providing funding for homeless activities, but priority setting for use of
these funds would shift to the Commission. One exception might be the CoC Planning funds,
which could potentially shift over to the Commission in 2016.
Phase Two (2017-2018): Federal, State and Local Funding for Homeless Activities Transitions to MHC or
New “Department of Homeless Solutions.”
While the short term transition of MHC to having oversight of planning and policy making will help create
a more unified approach to ending homelessness in Nashville, it will be difficult for the Commission to
hold responsibility for planning without having authority to make decisions about funding. As much as
possible, funding for the homeless system should move under the MHC. At the same time, the HMIS
system should also shift over so that MHC can have some direct ability to collect and analyze data and can
take the lead on increasing HMIS participation, improving data quality, and using data to inform decision-
making.
As the MHC takes on these expanded administrative functions, a further set of changes will likely be
needed to ensure it has sufficient organizational infrastructure. One option would be for the Commission
to transform into a City Department (e.g. the Dept. of Homeless Solutions), though it would need to
retain some sort of appointed or elected governing board in order to continue to have broad community
buy-in and to meet HUD CoC requirements.
Since MDHA is the lead agency for the administration of the Consolidated Plan and its four related grant
programs, including ESG and HOPWA, these programs would continue to be managed by MDHA.
However, CoC and ESG regulations require that the CoC have strong involvement in priority setting for
use of these funds and evaluation of ESG grantee performance. We recommend that the MHC hold
responsibility for developing the strategic framework for use of ESG and HOPWA funds, in collaboration
with MDHA, to ensure they are strongly aligned with Nashville’s overall plan to end homelessness. For
MHC to play a role in policy setting for the allocation of ESG and HOPWA, MDHA will need to make
changes to their administrative documents, particularly the Consolidated Plan (which sets forth how ESG
and HOPWA funds will be managed). The five year Consolidated Plan is currently in its third year, so any
change in how these federal funds are managed could be folded into the next Consolidated Plan Update
that would begin in 2017. If there are any CDBG funds being used specifically for activities relating to
homelessness, the plan would also need to address how these funds will be coordinated with MHC.
B. System Re-Design Recommendations
While our main recommendation relates to changes to the community’s governance model and decision-
making processes, Focus Strategies has also developed some recommendations about the key strategies
2.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 331 of 333
this new governing entity will need to pursue in order to transition from the existing approach to a
Housing Crisis Resolution System.
1. Use Coordinated Entry and Removal of Program Barriers to Ensure that Literally Homeless and Higher
Need Households Can Be Prioritized
The system performance assessment reveals that the existing programs and services in Nashville are
serving large numbers of people who are not literally homeless, even while there are many
unsheltered individuals in the community. To make faster progress on ending homelessness, the new
governance entity will need to adopt policies and strategies to ensure that programs are prioritizing
people who are living outdoors, in vehicles or in emergency shelter. Some elements of coordinated
entry are either already in place or about to be launched, and these efforts should be re-visited and
refined to ensure they are designed to ease access into housing for those who have the greatest
housing barriers and need the most support from the homeless system to become housed. At the
same time, programs in the system have to reduce their entry barriers and agree to accept referrals
from the coordinated entry system.
2. Provide Shelter Diversion To Those Who Are Still Housed. Nashville’s new coordinated entry system
also would benefit from the integration of a strong shelter diversion component to help keep
households who are not yet homeless from entering the system. This can build upon the
diversion/prevention effort that recently started as part of the coordinated entry system for families.
To be maximally effective, shelter diversion should target those households who are imminently
going to be homeless within one to three days. Generally, this intervention is targeted to households
that do not have their own rental unit but are living informally with friends or family or in a motel.
Diversion differs from traditional homelessness prevention, which generally provides assistance with
back rent for those who are living in their own rental unit and facing a potential eviction. While
traditional prevention programs may be effective at preventing evictions, data suggests that few of
the households assisted would ever enter the shelter system even if they did not receive prevention
help.
3. Invest in High Performing Rapid Re-Housing. The performance data we analyzed demonstrated that
the existing rapid re-housing programs in Nashville are achieving strong results in exiting people to
permanent housing at relatively low cost and with low rates of return to homelessness in comparison
to either shelter or transitional housing. This suggests that the system could likely house more
homeless people with an expansion of rapid re-housing and a shift of resources from lower
performing transitional housing. Providing rapid re-housing at a much larger scale is the key solution
to ending homelessness for the non-chronically homeless households in the community.
4. Increase System Capacity in Landlord Recruitment and Housing Navigation. As Nashville seeks to
expand rapid re-housing and continue the 2016 by 2016 campaign to house chronically homeless
people using Housing Choice Vouchers and other permanent supportive housing vouchers, the high
cost of housing will make it difficult for participants to locate appropriate units. Experience from
other communities suggests that this problem can be mitigated through expending system resources
2.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 332 of 333
on staff who are dedicated to cultivating relationships with landlords and to helping clients with
searching for and securing housing. Currently those households who are assisted by How’s Nashville
have access to housing navigators, but this service is not available to all clients who need it. A
community-wide landlord outreach/liaison program coupled with expanded resources for rapid re-
housing would likely yield strong results.
5. Engage Providers Not Currently Participating in HMIS. A key obstacle to conducting effective system
planning in Nashville is the relatively low rate of participation in HMIS. With many key programs not
currently contributing data, it is very difficult to have a complete system-level understanding of
where clients are entering the system, what programs they access, and the results of the
interventions. To support the development of a Housing Crisis Resolution System, the CoC and the
new leadership/governance entity must continue to engage non-participating providers and develop
strategies to include them in the system.
2.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Nashville Homeless System Report & Recommendations | Prepared by Focus Strategies | March 2016 | Page 333 of 333
Appendix A: List of Stakeholder Interviews
Interviewee Organization Date of Interview
Erik Cole Mayor’s Office (MHC Commissioner Ex Officio) 12/29/15
Will Connelly Metro Homelessness Commission 1/6/16
Glenn Cranfield Nashville Rescue Mission (MHC Commissioner) 12/11/15
Liz Allen Fey Strategy and Leadership LLC (MHC Chair) 12/15/2015
Rachel Hester Room in the Inn 8/28/2015
Jessica Hoke Nashville CARES 8/12/2015
Angie Hubbard Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency 12/10/2015
Joyce Lavery Safe Haven Family Shelter 8/19/2015
Rusty Lawrence Urban Housing Solutions 8/28/2015
Daryl Murray Welcome Home Ministries 8/10/2015
Traci Pekovitch Mental Health Cooperative 9/1/2015
Steven Samra Center for Social Innovation (MHC Commissioner) 1/11/16
Beth Shinn Vanderbilt University 8/17/2015
Tom Ward Oasis Center 8/10/2015
2.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Nashville Homeless System Assessment Report and Recommendations (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Special Agency Session
Exit Survey
Results 12/2015-5/2016
(This is an anonymous survey. We appreciate your honest responses)
1. Do you feel that you were able to complete goals that matter to you?
Strongly Agree 44% Agree 33% Disagree 21% Strongly Disagree
2. Do you feel that the amount of contact with the resource specialist was…..?
The right amount 67% Not enough Too much 22%
3. Was the Special Agency team considerate and helpful with your situation?
If yes…how?
“To find better ways to be more stable & find place to live”
“Very helpful”
“She was the(re) whenever I needed her. She is a wonderful woman”
“They were always all about me & my household & what we need to do to successfully become
stable”
“Let me graduate”
“Yes. She is a great person with a great heart”
“Helped me make connections needed & listened if a bad day”
If no…why?
4. Was the length of time in the program…..?
The right amount 56% Not enough Too much 33%
5. What was the most beneficial part of this program?
“Got things going”
“To meet with someone that knows the right material to help you. The meetings & resources /
Andrea very awesome”
“Visiting”
“Getting back on my feet. She did a great job, I couldn’t ask for anyone better”
“Being able to come to court every month & have at least one goal accomplished to tell the
judge”
“Not going to jail”
“Friendship-openniss(ness)”
“Easy to get ahold of & ask a ?’s – if she couldn’t answer gave advice on who could”
6. What was the least beneficial part of this program?
“The meetings when could be getting more done”
“None-it was all helpful”
“Everything was fine”
“There is none”
“Walking”
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Special Agency Session Exit Survey Results December 2015 through May 2016 (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
7. Would you recommend this program to someone else?
Yes 78% No 11%
8. Do you feel that your quality of life has improved due to participating in this program?
Yes 78% No 11%
Thank you for your feedback and for being a part of the Special Agency Session!
“Thank you”
“Andrea is awesome and is for the job. Nice pick. She is helpful and I can tell she cares about
me”
2.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Special Agency Session Exit Survey Results December 2015 through May 2016 (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
1
2016 Action Plan to Make Homelessness Rare, Short-Lived, and Non-Recurring
Introduction
In January 2016, a group of about three dozen stakeholders met to review progress on the 10 Year Plan and prioritize action items for the upcoming year
during the Community Conversation 2.0. This Action Plan reflects those priorities. Additional work is being conducted throughout the community to
address the immediate and long-term needs of people experiencing homelessness, and those activities are also acknowledged in this Action Plan. Each
year, Homeward 2020 will convene the affiliates of Homeward 2020 to review progress on action items and set priorities for the upcoming year.
Participants in the 2016 Community Conversation 2.0
Lynn Barker, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition Gary Darling, Larimer County Criminal Justice Services
Marcia Davis, Homeward 2020 board member Jason Dennison, Downtown Business Association
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition Dave Edwards, Homeward 2020 board member
Melanie Falvo, United Way of Weld County Vanessa Fenley, Homeward 2020
Joe Frank, Homeward 2020 board member Alison Hade, City of Loveland
Amanda Hodge, Homelessness Prevention Initiative Eddy Hopkins, Peak Community Church
John Hutto, Fort Collins Police Services/Homeward 2020 board member Ken John, Homeless Gear/Homeward 2020 board member
Diane Jones, Homeward 2020 board member Bill Kneeland, Kneeland Law/Homeward 2020 board member
Christine Kneeland, Homeward 2020 board member Kathleen Lane, Fort Collins Municipal Court
Guy Mendt, Catholic Charities/Homeward 2020 board member Jeff Mihelich, City of Fort Collins
Patty Netherton, Fort Collins Municipal Court Bob Overbeck, Fort Collins City Council
Randy Ratliff, SummitStone Health Partners/Homeward 2020 board member David Rout, Homeless Gear
Beth Sowder, City of Fort Collins, Homeward 2020 board member Bryan Tribby, Homeward 2020 board member
Wade Troxell, Mayor of Fort Collins Kevin Unger, UCHealth
Laura Walker, Larimer County Human Services Tatum Webb, Cheyenne VA Medical Center
Lin Wilder, Health District of Northern Larimer County Marcy Yoder, United Way of Larimer County
Annette Zacharias, Faith Family Hospitality Cheryl Zimlich, Bohemian Foundation/Homeward 2020 board member
Mary, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition Jessica, Fort Collins Homeless Coalition
Gordan Thibedeau, United Way of Larimer County, Homeward 2020 board member
Matt Robenalt, Downtown Development Authority, Homeward 2020 board member
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Priority Populations for 2016: Veterans and Chronically Homeless Households
Homeward 2020 and affiliates are working to meet the needs of all individuals experiencing homelessness. To best leverage resources, including federal
and state funding, current momentum in the community, and political will, priority populations will be identified. While still progressing towards creating a
system that helps every person and family move out of homelessness and retain their housing, focusing on certain priority populations can demonstrate
to the community and funders that Fort Collins is capable of creating systemic change for those specified populations, and that the systems and
processes put in place to create change for those populations can then be expanded to the full breadth of populations experiencing homelessness in Fort
Collins. Based on trends in current funding resources, political will, and momentum in the community, veterans and chronically homeless households are
designated as priority populations for 2016.
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
2
Action Items Timeline 2016 Tasks Accomplished Related Long-term Goal
(from 10 Year Plan)
Improved data collection via HMIS
Lead: Homeward 2020
Participants: Catholic Charities,
Homeless Gear, 211, City of Fort
Collins, Fort Collins Housing Authority,
SummitStone Health Partners,
Volunteers of America, Veterans
Affairs
Q1 • Assess validity and utility of community-level
reports for Q4 2015
• Decide on adjustments needed to community-level
reports pulled quarterly
• Input all client data from Murphy Center to HMIS
• All new staff (Homeless Gear and Murphy Center)
trained on HMIS
• Clarify the Demand
• Sustain Efforts
Q2 • Pull community-level reports for Q1 2016 and
review data
• Collectively craft resource strategy for local data
administrator
• Execute contract for temporary local database
consultant/trainer
Q3 • Pull community-level reports for Q2 2016 and
review data
• Secure resources for local data administrator
• Request integration of swipe cards for Catholic
Charities Overflow and for Murphy Center
Q4 • Pull community-level reports for Q3 2016 and
review data
• Secure resources for local data administrator
• Implement swipe cards at Catholic Charities
Overflow and Murphy Center
• Create protocol for pulling 2017 sheltered PIT from
HMIS (where possible)
• Craft action steps for 2017
Increase permanent supportive
housing supply
Lead: Fort Collins Housing Authority
Participants: SummitStone Health
Partners, Homeward 2020, Larimer
County Criminal Justice Services,
Catholic Charities, Neighbor to
Neighbor, Veterans Affairs
Q1 • Secure property for project
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
Q2 • Apply for low-income housing tax credits
Q3 • Continue with development process
Q4 • Continue with development process
Increase rapid re-housing supply
Lead: Homeward 2020
Participants: TBD
Q1 • Review current data
• Gain additional information from local providers
• Use information to assess community’s rapid re-
housing needs
3
Outreach Fort Collins – Downtown
response
Lead: Fort Collins Police Services,
Homeless Gear, DDA, City of Fort
Collins, UC Health, Homeward 2020
Q1 • Secure fiscal sponsorship
• Post for outreach worker and supervisor
• Secure remaining resources needed for program
implementation
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
Q2 • Hire, train, and onboard staff
• Establish evaluation measures
• Begin implementing program
Q3 • Implementation and evaluation
Q4 • Implementation and evaluation
Implement robust homelessness
prevention and shelter diversion
strategies
Lead: Homeward 2020
Participants: TBD
Q1 • Convene gathering of likely participants to review
current assessment of national best practices and
local resources
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
• Enhance Housing
Retention Efforts
Q2 • Outline current gaps in local prevention/diversion
system
• Identify gaps that could be filled by current
providers (potentially with additional resources)
• Identify resources needed and possible sources
Q3 • Create prioritized implementation plan
Q4 • TBD – dependent on implementation plan
Coordinated entry and access
Lead: Homeward 2020, North Front
Range Continuum of Care, and
Balance of State Continuum of Care
Participants: Fort Collins Housing
Authority, Homeless Gear, Murphy
Center, 211, Larimer County Veteran
Services, SummitStone Health
Partners, Catholic Charities, City of
Fort Collins
Q1 • Participate in the Coming Home Colorado Action
Lab to develop the structure for coordinated entry,
focused first on veterans
• Streamline Housing
Access
Q2 • Complete 100-day intensive coordinated entry
pilot, as a follow-up to the Coming Home Colorado
Action Lab
• Report on results from Coming Home Colorado
Action Lab
Q3 • TBD – dependent on outcomes from initial pilot
with Coming Home Colorado Action Lab
Q4 • TBD – dependent on outcomes from initial pilot
with Coming Home Colorado Action Lab
1 of 2 | P a g e
City Manager’s Office
PO Box 580
300 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 30, 2016
To: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
From: Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Analyst
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Re: Continued Enforcement of The City’s Camping Ordinance
Bottom Line
City Staff does not recommend any changes to the camping ordinance, which prohibits camping
on public property, including parks and natural areas. Staff believes this is an important tool to
maintain and improve the safety of all people in Fort Collins and ensures responsible
stewardship of public land.
Background
The camping ordinance in Fort Collins has been a source of community concern over the past
year and a half, with those against the ban on camping asking Council to direct staff to at least
stop enforcing the law and preferably repeal it. Others believe that the camping ban is
necessary for safety reasons and for the preservation of our parks and natural areas. As a point
of reference, staff has researched other jurisdictions to learn about their experiences and
regulations surrounding public camping. Staff especially looked for municipalities that have had
success with allowing public camping, but were unable to find a model that had demonstrated
positive results.
Comparison Cities
Eugene, Oregon
Eugene has a homeless count of approximately 3,000 individuals according to the City’s
website; although the official point in time count numbers are far less. The City continues
to see growth in their homeless population year after year.
The City of Eugene has a camping ban in place that applies to most public spaces.
Eugene has a car camping program and also has one sanctioned camping site, which
allows for 15-20 people to camp legally on a parcel of City-owned land for up to ten
months. The City provides this service as a part of their transitional housing plan, and
trash, sewer and electricity are provided on site. This program has an extensive waiting
list and has stringent entry requirements.
Anecdotally, on-street camping, while technically illegal, largely goes unenforced. Police
and non-profit outreach teams respond on a complaint basis to camping issues. The City
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Memo to Council June 30, 2016 re: Continued Enforcement of the City's Camping Ordinance (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives
2 of 2 | P a g e
has occasionally issued exemptions for periods of time or events, such as “Occupy
Eugene,” only to have camps grow so large, unruly, and at sometimes violent, that police
needed to clear them.
Positives to this approach include a perception of positive relationships between police
and the homeless.
Vancouver, Washington
Clark County, of which Vancouver is the primary population center, has a homeless
population of 663 persons.
In response to the federal government’s statement in September, 2015 related to the
City of Boise “criminalizing homelessness,” Vancouver leaders voted to amend their
camping ban to allow public camping from 9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., in large part because
of their lack of shelter (they have approximately 200 beds)
Sanctioned an existing “tent city” of approximately 80 people.
Large, additional permanent camps began to spring up around the City’s largest year-
round shelter, which is noted as the only place that both homeless men and women can
get three meals a day.
The number of campers who were originally located in one camp near the shelter
increased from about 20 individuals to approximately 150 in three months’ time.
Eventually, due to the unsafe and unsanitary conditions and complaints from neighbors,
police were instructed to clear established camps, though some remain or resurfaced
shortly after police efforts. Pushback from the community has been steady and
newspaper articles have raised concerns about the safety in newly established camps.
Denver, Colorado
The City of Denver has approximately 5,200 homeless individuals
Prior to May, 2012 Denver did not have a ban on public camping.
The Occupy Denver protests, in addition to business owner and tourist complaints about
cluttered and unsafe sidewalks, helped trigger a Council response in the form of a 24/7,
City-wide camping ban.
Upon passage of the law, it was noted by several Councilmembers that the ban was
needed to improve safety, image, and address concerns related to transients and
“Occupy” protesters.
Denver has performed multiple sweeps of homeless camps since the passing of this law
in 2012, the most recent one occurring this spring due to the continual build up.
Portland, Oregon
The City of Portland has approximately 3,800 homeless individuals
Portland does allow for camping in City-sanctioned sites.
o In order to be sanctioned, camps must be affiliated with a nonprofit, located on
City-approved land, and have no more than 25-30 people.
o The city provides basic sanitation and restrooms to these sanctioned camps.
o The City has nine service-provided sanctioned camps.
In addition to allowing sanctioned camps, the City allows for camping public places with
the following conditions:
o Only sleeping bags and tarps on sidewalks
o Tents allowed from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. on rights of way other than sidewalks
o No more than six people in a location.
2.4
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Memo to Council June 30, 2016 re: Continued Enforcement of the City's Camping Ordinance (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives
3 of 2 | P a g e
Camps that are in violation of these policies are cleaned up or “swept” by City officials on
a nuisance or interference basis and recorded on the City’s website.
o Portland swept 40 camps from January to April of 2016.
Portland has seen a 17% decline in chronic homelessness over the last two years,
though the number of unsheltered homeless has remained constant over the same time
period.
Nashville, Tennessee
Nashville has a homeless population of approximately 2,300 persons. At the last point-
in-time count, they were providing shelter to almost 2100 of those individuals through
their congregational model and permanent shelters.
Despite their ability to shelter a majority of their homeless population, concerns about
growing camps in the city’s parks led to a decision to implement a ban of camping in
2015.
Enforcement of this policy has been limited to widespread camps where concerns of
safety and public accessibility to parkland became prominent.
Nashville has focused on providing those in encampments with support to find shelter
rather than enforcement and citation of the ordinance. The number of people in known
camps went from 50 in March of this year to about 20 in mid-April.
Viable Alternatives
To support a ban on camping, the City has to be active and committed to helping the community
provide viable alternatives to camping. In recent years, the City has taken many steps to help
those most likely to camp, including:
Providing funding for overflow shelters,
Annual direct funding for service providers,
Land for permanent housing solutions,
Utilizing Special Agency Sessions in lieu of fines or jail time for offenders.
Additionally, staff is working with community partners to continue to assist the homeless
community, including efforts to:
expand the number of available shelter beds,
update the emergency shelter plan,
launch Outreach Fort Collins,
implement a program similar to Nashville’s Room In The Inn community-based shelter
model.
Council will be updated on these efforts as a part of the work session.
Staff Recommendation
Given the experience of other communities, with some allowing for public camping, some
having long-standing camping bans and others having just recently enacted them, it is clear that
not all communities have agreed on how to address these problems. Given that Portland and
Vancouver, who allow camping, have large numbers of unsheltered homeless persons, staff
does not view our situation as similar.
When looking at this research in conjunction with City priorities and the concerns expressed by
residents and visitors about camping individuals, staff currently recommends that the camping
ban remain intact. Given other efforts, we presently don’t view camping as a short or long-term
2.4
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Memo to Council June 30, 2016 re: Continued Enforcement of the City's Camping Ordinance (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives
4 of 2 | P a g e
solution that will make inroads in our housing first model. We are looking forward to a productive
dialogue with Council about this subject.
2.4
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Memo to Council June 30, 2016 re: Continued Enforcement of the City's Camping Ordinance (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives
Camping Violations Filed in Municipal Court
Jan 1st thru June 28th
Violation 2015 2016
17‐181 Camping on Public Property 89 73
17‐182 Camping on Private Property 9 7
20‐193(d) Natural Areas Violation‐Camping 11 30
23‐203(d) Recreation Area Violation‐Camping 4 3
Total 113 113
ATTACHMENT 5
2.5
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Report of Camping Violations Filed in Municipal Court January 1 thru June 28 for 2015 and 2016 (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives
1
Homelessness Initiatives Update
Jeff Mihelich, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Beth Sowder, Vanessa Fenley
7-12-16
ATTACHMENT 6
2.6
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Direction Sought
2
1. What feedback does Council have on
existing and proposed programs, and
are there other programs related to
homelessness that the community
should focus on?
2. What changes, if any, does Council
wish to make to the Camping
Ordinance at this time?
2.6
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Background
3
Homeless
Population
Percent
Unsheltered
Population Rate
(per 10,000 people)
United States 564,708 30.7% 17.7
Colorado 9,953 28.8% 18.6
Fort Collins
(2015)
301 24.6% 19.0
Fort Collins
(2016)
290 21.0% 18.0
2.6
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Homeless Assistance
4
• Need both emergency shelter
options and permanent housing
options
• National
• Colorado
• Fort Collins
2.6
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
System Recommendations
5
• Nashville, TN study:
– Recommendations
– What is being done in
Fort Collins
2.6
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Complete Housing First
Homelessness Response System
6
2.6
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
7
Complete Housing First
Homelessness Response System
2.6
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Mostly Resourced in Fort Collins
• Transitional Housing
• Connection to Mainstream Resources
8
2.6
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Additional Resources Needed
Fort Collins
• Emergency Shelter
• Outreach
• Prevention
• Permanent Supportive Housing
9
2.6
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Significant Resources Needed
Fort Collins
• Coordinated Assessment and
Housing Placement System
• Rapid Re-Housing
• Shelter Diversion
10
2.6
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Outreach Fort Collins
11
• Summary
• Staff
• Metrics and Outcomes
2.6
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Special Agency Sessions
12
• Summary
• Improvements
• Data
“Getting back on my feet”
“Meeting someone who
knows how to help you”
2.6
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Community-based Shelter Model
13
• Nashville, TN –
Room In The Inn
• Work done to date
• Implementation and Timeline
• LUC changes to enable
additional shelters
• Desired outcomes
2.6
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Schedule Overview
14
April -August
Outreach &
Recruitment
• Volunteers
• Facilities
(churches, non-
profits, etc.)
• Administrative
help
• Transportation
August -November
Training and
Preparation
• Aug meeting
with participating
partners
• Volunteer
Training
• Identification of
final needs
November
Program
Launch
• Goal: 5-10
community
organizations
• Will run through
April, 2017
• Evaluation
throughout
2.6
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
2016 Action Plan – Homeward 2020
15
1. Coordinated Assessment and
Housing Placement System
2. Rapid Re-Housing
3. Homelessness Prevention and
Shelter Diversion
4. Permanent Supportive Housing
5. Data Collection – HMIS
6. Outreach Fort Collins
2.6
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Camping Ordinance - Research
16
• Some cities with large numbers of
unsheltered persons have allowed public
camping
• Many still have performed
camping sweeps
• Camping bans continue to be
implemented/enforced in other cities
• Enforcement effectiveness varies
• Unsanctioned camping is not seen as
safe, reliable tool to assist people
experiencing homelessness.
2.6
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Camping Ordinance – Recommendation
17
No changes are recommended at this
time for the following reasons:
• Availability of shelter
• Not a short or long-term solution
to reach homelessness goals
• Viewed as unsafe to people and
habitat
• Ongoing efforts in other areas will
have far greater positive impacts.
2.6
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Next Steps
18
Updates for all programs:
OFC – after summer
SAS – annual
Shelter Program – prior to
implementation; after winter
HW2020 – end of year
2.6
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
Direction Sought
19
1. What feedback does Council have on
existing and proposed programs, and
are there other programs related to
homelessness that the community
should focus on?
2. What changes, if any, does Council
wish to make to the Camping
Ordinance at this time?
2.6
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
20
Homelessness Initiatives Update
Jeff Mihelich, Jackie Kozak Thiel, Beth Sowder, Vanessa Fenley
7-12-16
2.6
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2016
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Short Term Rentals (STRs).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review draft regulatory concepts and public feedback regarding short-term rentals
(STRs.) Council and staff have been studying STRs, including potential impacts, benefits, and community desire
in advance of considering an ordinance to regulate the activity.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What, if any, changes would Council like to add to the proposed regulatory concepts?
2. Does Council support consideration of an ordinance on September 6, 2016?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Short Term Rental (STR) refers to rental agreements for less than 30 days. With the creation and growth of online
platforms, the STR market has become much more mainstream and widespread. Vacation Rentals by Owner
(VRBO) and Airbnb are two of the most widely known and used companies supporting the online short term rental
market, however, many other platforms exist. Staff and Council have been working to scope and define the
potential positive and negative impacts of a growing STR market and potential regulations. Work to date
includes:
June 9, 2015 Council Work Session-direction:
o Utilize tools City already has in place
o Better define problem and problem severity
o STR definition and more outreach
October 27, 2015 Council Work Session-direction:
o Create draft regulatory framework
o Continue public outreach
February 23, 2016 Council Work Session
o Regulatory ideas presented
Since February, staff has further refined regulatory concepts and continues to seek public feedback. The
proposed framework includes definitions and a revocable, non-transferrable licensing mechanism with minimum
standards.
Concepts are described below:
Short Term Rentals-Definition
While all rentals for less than 30 days are considered STR, staff is proposing the following also apply:
3
Packet Pg. 77
July 12, 2016 Page 2
STRs may only rent to a single party at a time (not multiple parties like a B&B or hotel)
STR are not open to the public (cannot walk in off the street)
No signage
There are two distinct types of STRs to be defined:
Short Term Rental-Primary
STR is the owner’s primary residence as verified through billing information or voter registration.
Short Term Rental-Non-Primary
Non-primary residence STRs may have owners that are in town or out of town but who do not live at the
residence.
Taxes
Anyone operating a STR unit must obtain sales and lodging tax licenses from the City’s Finance Department.
Licensing
License:
License is for the person not the property.
License is non-transferrable and revocable.
License number would be required to be included on all advertising.
Licensing Process:
Application
Written notice to neighbors for non-primary STR
Affidavit of smoke and CO2 alarms
Proof of ownership/residence
Proof of insurance
Confirmation of required parking
o Primary STR: 1 per 2 bedrooms plus one for owner
o Non-Primary: 1 for every 2 bedrooms
Other Considerations:
$200 Fee/ $100 renewal
Renewal required at one-year and then every two years following
City provided “Rules and Norms Sheet” available in all STRs (Attachment 1)
Waiving of fee for handicap accessible STRs (City would provide a checklist of required attributes and owner
would provide photos and sign affidavit of proof)
Limitations:
No more than three Non-Primary licenses per person
No more than one STR per block face in the NCM and NCL zones
HOAs can continue to prohibit
Concentration limits are proposed in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium and Low Density zones due to
proximity to CSU, downtown and other attractions, and the number of STRs currently operating in these zones.
3
Packet Pg. 78
July 12, 2016 Page 3
Those that have been operating since January 2016 would be allowed to apply for a license even if it exceeds the
concentration limit.
Enforcement
Enforcement policies have not been discussed at length; however, any ticket issued at a property would be
tracked under the City’s current public nuisance process and considered at time of license renewal. Fort Collins
has been contacted by emerging businesses focusing on STR host compliance. These services range from $8K
annually for address identification to $21K annually for proactive monitoring and a 24/7 hotline for neighbors.
Public Outreach
Staff hosted a public meeting/open house on June 22 to present the outlined regulatory ideas. Approximately 45
people attended. Throughout the month of June there was also an online feedback form to rate and comment on
the ideas. Feedback results can be viewed at Feedback_Results. A shorter summary (no comments) is included
(Attachment 2).
Citizen input continues to be divided. The STR operators participating in the outreach process tend to be those
currently utilizing best practices and supporting some level of regulation. Some of those opposed to STR activity
have had negative experiences ranging from over-parked streets, loud noise/dogs, and general disrespectful
guests. Others in opposition feel strongly that STR activity is a commercial activity that is benefitting from quality
neighborhoods while not returning anything to the neighborhood.
The most divided opinions involve allowable zones and concentration limits and the non-primary STR use. See
below for general stakeholder desires.
REGULATION
DRAFT
PROPOSAL
MORE LENIENT MORE RESTRICTIVE
Non-Primary STR
Allow in all zones;
limit to 3 per person
Don’t limit to 3
Don’t allow in residential
zones; limit to less than 3
Neighbor Notification
Mailing and Dev.
Review sign for
Non-Primary
Mailing only; no
development review sign
in yard
Require for both Primary and
Non-Primary STRs
Concentration Limit
One per block face
in NCM and NCL
Non-Primary only
Both primary and non-primary;
would prefer 3% of census
track and/or proximity criteria
Zoning Limitations
None, only the
concentration limit
Allow in all zones
Define use by zone and do not
allow in all zones
Fees $200/$100 renewal
High, especially for
Primary STR
Non-Primary fees should be
higher
Other Communities
Staff has highlighted other community actions here and in previous work sessions. (Attachment 3) Since
October, both Denver and Boulder have adopted ordinances. Boulder is in the implementation phase and has
July 12, 2016 Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fort Collins Norms and Rules Sheet (PDF)
2. Short Report for STR Feedback Form (PDF)
3. STR Comparison Matrix (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 80
FORT COLLINS NORMS AND RULES
Welcome to Fort Collins! We have a great community here
and as we see more short-term rental visitors there are a
few things nearby neighbors would like the City of Fort
Collins to let you know.
Noise
The noise ordinance is in effect 24/7 and takes into
account the type of noise and time of day. Your neighbors
may not be on vacation so please be considerate if
windows are open, people are coming and going, or if you
or any pets are outside on the property.
Parking
While street parking is all public, people do like to park in
front of or near their home. Please be considerate of all
neighbors and use as much off-street parking as you have
available.
Trash
Trash containers must be screened from view and can
only be out on the street 12 hours prior to and after pick-
up. Fort Collins has curbside single stream recycling that
takes glass bottles and jars, aluminum, paper, cartons
(like milk) and plastic.
Call of Doodie
Please pick-up after your dog and keep
your dogs leashed.
Snow and Sidewalks
If you are visiting during the winter (or spring!) months you
may see snow. Residents are responsible for clearing
their sidewalks of all ice and snow within 24 hours of snow
accumulation.
Mosquitos and West Nile Virus
If you are here in the summer months, please adhere to
the Four D’s - Drain any standing water; Dress to avoid
mosquito bites; DEET-or other types of repellent when
outside; Dawn/Dusk-is high mosquito time so limit time
outdoors.
Good Numbers to Know
Emergencies: 911. You can also text 911
Police non-emergency: 221-6540. Auxiliary aids and
services are available for persons with disabilities. V/TDD-
711.
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Fort Collins Norms and Rules Sheet (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
!
#
! 3
%%
)1 4%%
0# $
! 3
%%
# 4%%
$
#0 ! 3
%%
4%%
0 $
! 3
%%
) 4%%
0# $
1 ) ! 3
%%
4%%
$
)1 ! 3
%%
00 4%%
# $
SHORT TERM RENTAL COMPARISON MATRIX
CITY
PRIMARY
RESIDENCE
NON-
PRIMARY
RESIDENCE
TAX
REQUIRED
LICENSE
REQUIRED
N’BOR
NOTIFICATION
CONCENTRATION LIMIT ZONING LIMITATIONS OTHER FEES
FORT COLLINS Yes
Yes. No
more than 3
per person
Sales and
Lodging
Yes, non
transferrable
Yes
1 per block face in NCM
& NCL
No, except for concentration
limits
$200 first time; $100
2-year renewal
BOULDER Yes No Yes
Yes, non
transferrable
No No
Occupancy limits determined
by zone
$130 first time; $105
for 4 year license
DENVER Yes No Yes
Yes, non
transferrable
No No No
$25 annually
DURANGO Yes Yes
No? no
mention
on
website.
Yes, non
transferrable
Yes, 300 ft
radius
Yes, concentration limits
by zone including total
number & by block face
Yes, only allowed in certain
zones
Site visit and
inspection.
Property posted.
Parking
1
Ginny Sawyer
Ted Shepard
City Council Work Session
Short Term Rentals (STRs)
July 12, 2016
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
1. What, if any, changes would Council like to add to the
proposed regulatory concepts?
2. Does Council support consideration of an ordinance on
September 6, 2016?
2
Questions and Direction Sought
3.4
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Background
Best Approximation:
§ ~ 300 listings among multiple sites
§ ~ 103 existing STR sales and lodging tax licenses
§ ~ .44% of housing stock
§ Exact address and owner contact information is not available on
Airbnb and limited on other sites
§ Listings are inconsistent, hard to search, with overlap between sites
3
3.4
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Background
June 9, 2015 Council Work Session-direction:
• Utilize tools City already has in place
• Better define problem and problem severity
• STR definition and more outreach
October 27, 2015 Council Work Session-direction:
• Create draft regulatory framework
• Continue public outreach
4
3.4
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Background
February 23, 2016 Council Work Session-direction:
• Continue with the definitions including Primary and Non-Primary
residence.
• Move forward with options that:
- Ensure appropriate tax collection
- Address concentration and dispersion of STRs
- Aren’t overly regulatory but still position Fort Collins to be nimble
and address issues as needed now and in the future
5
3.4
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Definitions
Short Term Rental: Any rental less than 30 days
• STRs may only rent to a single party at a time
• STR are not open to the public (can’t walk in off the street)
• No signage
Short Term Rental-Primary: STR is the owner’s primary residence as
verified through billing information or voter registration.
Short Term Rental-Non-Primary: Owner does not live at the residence.
6
3.4
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Proposed Regulatory Concepts
Taxes:
Anyone providing STRs must obtain Sales and Lodging tax licenses
from the City’s Finance Department.
Licensing:
• License is for the person not the property.
• License is non-transferrable and revocable.
• License number would be required to be included on all
advertising.
7
3.4
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Licensing Process:
• Application
• Written notice to neighbors for Non-Primary STR
• Affidavit of smoke and CO2 alarms
• Proof of ownership/residence
• Proof of insurance
• Confirmation of required parking
- Primary STR: 1 per 2 bedrooms plus one for owner
- Non-Primary: 1 for every 2 bedrooms
8
Proposed Regulatory Concepts
3.4
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Other Considerations:
• $200 Fee/ $100 renewal
• Renewal required at one-year and then every two years following
• City provided “Rules and Norms Sheet” available in all STRs
• Waiving of fee for handicap accessible STRs (City would provide
a checklist of required attributes and owner would provide photos
and sign affidavit of proof)
9
Proposed Regulatory Concepts
3.4
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Limitations:
• No more than three Non-Primary licenses per person
• No more than one STR per block face in the NCM and NCL
zones
• HOAs can continue to prohibit
10
Proposed Regulatory Concepts
3.4
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
11
3.4
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
Overall, what do you think about the proposed STR regulations?
12
Public Outreach
In Favor
Strongly Opposed
Oppossed
Strongly In Favor
35.9%
13.0%
24.4%
26.7%
In Favor or Strongly in Favor: 48.9%
Opposed or Strongly Opposed: 51.1%
3.4
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
13
Public Outreach
REGULATION DRAFT PROPOSAL MORE LENIENT MORE RESTRICTIVE
Non-Primary STR
Allow in all zones; limit to 3
per person
Don’t limit to 3
Don’t allow in residential zones; limit to
less than 3
Neighbor
Notification
Mailing and Dev. Review
sign for Non-Primary
Mailing only; no development
review sign in yard
Require for both Primary and Non-
Primary STRs
Concentration
Limit
One per block face in NCM
and NCL
Non-Primary only
Both primary and non-primary; would
prefer 3% of census track and/or
proximity criteria
Zoning
Limitations
None, only the concentration
limit
Allow in all zones
Define use by zone and do not allow in
all zones
Fees $200/$100 renewal High, especially for Primary STR Non-Primary fees should be higher
3.4
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
1. What, if any, changes would Council like to add to the
proposed regulatory concepts?
2. Does Council support consideration of an ordinance on
September 6, 2016?
14
Questions and Direction Sought
3.4
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
requirements.
$750 first time
NASHVILLE Yes Yes Yes
Yes, non
transferrable
Only to n’bors
sharing common
wall or driveway
Yes,Non-Primary only;
3% limit by census tract
No more than 4
sleeping rooms.
$50 annual
SANTE FE Yes Yes
Not
originally,
just
started.
Permit in
Residential
zones;
Registration in
nonresidential
zones
Yes, within 200
ft
Cap of permits in some
areas; number may be
revisited and changed
whenever cap is met;
Some units may not be
rented more than 17x a
year; no directly
adjoining units
Yes Inspections
$100-$325 annually
depending on type
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: STR Comparison Matrix (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
'
! 3
'
,
" *- "
&! ) ,( '-
; + +( '
0
" '- /( +,
&!
" ' ( ,
.
,
!
"
&
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
'
1 ! 3
'
,
" *- "
&! , )( '-
; ( .
0
" '' ( +
&!
" , '(
.
1
-
!
"&
&
!
7
&
!#
) ;"%2
!
&
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
'
1 ! 3
'
,
" *- "
&! -( /
; . )( +
0
" + /( -+
&!
" , (
.
#
+
!
2"
&
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
'
! 3
'
,
" *- "
&! / +( )
; ( ,
0
" . +( '.
&!
" ' ( +'
.
0
!
"&
&"
#
'
!
2!
!
&
2
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
'
1 ) ! 3
'
,
" *- "
&! . ( ',
; / ( -
0
" '- ( +)
&!
" , )( '
.
!
"
2"
#
!
"
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
'
)1 ! 3
'
,
" *- "
&! - .( '+
; ) ,(
0
" + /( -+
&!
" ) ,(
.
/
!
2
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
&! , ,( '.
; / ( )
0
" ' +( +'
&!
" /( '
.
1
-
!
"&
&
#
! 3
4% 4% $
' ! 3
'
& .
,(
'
' (
+-
'' '(
'
' (
! ,
)(
'
/ )(
-+
+ (
-
', .(
- ,(
)
/(
-'
'/ )(
++
' .(
,
.(
-
'(
+)
'+ )(
--
+ +(
!"
,
,(
'
/ ,(
+-
'' )(
-/
++ (
)
!
"
"#
,
!
"
#
3.2
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
&! ' ( +
; + ( '
0
" '+ ( +-
&!
" )( +
.
+
!
2
&
7
4
!
2
#
1 1 ! 3
%%
0 $
' # 4%%
# ! 3
'
3.2
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
&! / ( +
; + .( '+
0
" '' )( +)
&!
" +( ,
.
1
!
"
#
'
!
#
! 3
%%
0 4%%
0 $
'
) ! 3
'
3.2
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
&! - -( '.
; / -( /
0
" ' /( +)
&!
" + ( ')
.
0#
!
"
&
#
!
#
# ! 3
%%
0 4%%
) $
'
0 ! 3
'
3.2
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
&! ( '+
; ' (
0
" , /( +'
&!
" ', ( -,
.
0
.
!
"&
&
&
&7
#
/
!
#
! 3
%%
# 4%%
# $
'
0 ! 3
'
3.2
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
&! / +( ,
; , ( '
0
" -. '( -
&!
" - ( ,
.
)
!
"
"#
,
!
&
&7
#
! 3
%%
4%%
1 # $
'
1 ! 3
'
3.2
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
0
6 / ,( +
0
"
!
&
- ( -
0
" : 2
- ,( -
0
" :
'( '
2 '(
;
4 0 . ( ',
-
!
#
#0 ! 3
%%
1 4%%
0 $
'
! 3
'
3.2
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
.4 + (
-4'+ , '( '-
'-4++ '( +'
+-4-+ , .( ')
--4)+ ) ,( -+
)-4,+ . +( ,
,-5 ( +
2 - +(
.
+
!
67
8
!9#
0
6
0
"
0
" : 0
" :
;
4
0
'
+
-
)
3.2
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
" *- "
$
% & ' ( )'
$
%*& ' ( +,
% & - .( '
%*& / ( '/
0
1"
' /( .
2 ) /( +
.
' 32! #
/ 0000000000
1 /0 0000000000000
/00 0000
1 0 / 0000000000
)1 /)0 0000000000000
0 ) /100000000000
1 22222222
0 *
+
3.2
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
!! "#
!"
# !"
# $
% &
'
(
)# *
+
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Short Report for STR Feedback Form (4609 : Short Term Rentals (STRs))
chosen to not allow non-primary resident STRs; however, many ads are still active. Boulder application fee is
$130 and is not conducting any on-site inspections.
Denver prohibits non-primary STRs; the program includes a $25 annual fee and no on-site inspection.
Next Steps
Staff has reserved a spot on the September 6, 2016 regular meeting for consideration an ordinance regarding
regulations of STRs. If Council supports this timeline, a draft ordinance will be made available for public review by
August 15.
3
Packet Pg. 79
Other activities that were discussed and considered as potential priority action items for the 10 Year Plan include the following:
• Access to evening and early morning shelter
• Develop a landlord engagement strategy
• Develop medical respite care
• Develop processes to ensure people do not transition into homelessness when leaving hospitals, jail, or other institutions
• Examine strategies to decriminalize homelessness
• Develop a Pay for Success process to create sustainable financing for permanent supportive housing
• Address personal property storage issues
• Enhance education-focused communications and marketing strategies
• Monitor legislation related to homelessness
Many of these activities are currently underway and may still be pursued by Homeward 2020 and its affiliate organizations in the coming year. But the
majority of time and effort of the staff and board of Homeward 2020 will focus on the six priority action items identified above.
2.3
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
• Develop/Identify Housing
and Services Needed
Q2 • Research available resources and other
communities’ strategies for providing rapid re-
housing
• Outline implementation plan for building rapid re-
housing stock
Q3 • TBD – dependent on implementation plan
Q4 • TBD – dependent on implementation plan
2.3
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: 2016 Action Plan for Homeward 2020 (4611 : Homelessness Initiatives Update)
of these resources (149 Housing Choice Vouchers and units) were dedicated to veterans.
2
Packet Pg. 4
a..
0 w 0
w > _J
X 0
w
� 0 w
w 0
w
_J I-
en
>-
CL a::
<{ <{
� z
�
w
a::
CL
Date: 03/16/2016
Drawn By. SL
Checked By. CR
Sheet
LS001
Attachment 1
1.4
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Staff report to Hearing Officer, with attachments (4604 : 320 Maple Appeal)