Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY SENIOR RESIDENCES - PDP - PDP120015 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING2.8.2(H)(2) and 2.8.2(H)(3); and 2. Maintaining a building height of four stories where the building abuts a public street, which is justified by Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2); and 3. Increasing the frequent view/access standard from 125 feet to 180 feet, which is justified by Section 2.8.2(H)(2). Dated June 25, 2012, per authority granted by Sections 1.49 and 2.1 of the Code. Richard V. Lopez Richard V. Lopez Hearing Officer 30 While these modifications would not be detrimental to the public good, the Hearing Officer finds that the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city wide concern. The provision of affordable senior housing at this location will result in a substantial benefit to the city. This type of housing addresses an important community need that is specially and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan and adopted policies. The strict application of the "frequent view/access" standard would render the project practically infeasible. The Hearing Officer approves this modification pursuant to Section 2.8.2(H)(2). III. CONCLUSIONS The Hearing Officer has reviewed all of the evidence and testimonies submitted by the Applicant, citizens and staff and being fully advised, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. The Legacy Senior Residences PDP multi -family dwelling are permitted in the RDR District subject to an Administrative Review. B. The Legacy Senior Residences PDP complies with applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 and the land use and development standards of Division 4.17 RDR District with three exceptions. The Modifications of Standards Requests are as follows: 1. Reduction of the minimum vehicular overhang for a landscaped area from 7 feet to 5.95 feet (Section 3.2.2(L)(4)). 2. Maintaining a building height of four stories where the building abuts a public street (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1); and 3. Increasing the frequent view/access standard from 125 feet to 180 feet (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4). IV. DECISION The Hearing Officer herein: A. Approves Legacy Senior Residences, PDP # 12-0015. as modified below. B. Approval of the Modification of Standard Requests: Reducing the minimum vehicular overhang for a landscaped area from 7 feet to 5.95 feet, which is justified by criteria Section 9 29 d. Staff Evaluation of Applicant's Request. The purpose of the standard is not only to allow visual access into the river corridor but also to break up the visual experience a pedestrian has while on the Poudre River Trail. City staff held two design charrettes with the Applicant to determine how a wall that exceeds the standard could achieve the standard equally or better than a wall 125 feet in length. The Applicant has recessed the building for a length of 35 feet and provided significantly different landscaping treatments around the building in the recessed area along the river. In addition, the materials provided have brick in the recessed areas, which is darker than the other dominant materials on the building, which furthers the visual variability a pedestrian will experience on the site. While staff finds that the project has achieved a visual experience equal to or better than the standard, visual access into the River is still precluded by a 180 foot long building. Staff finds that the modification can be justified based on Section 2.8.2(H)(2) as the project meets the criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(2). e. Public Testimony. The STP spokesman objected to this modification in both oral and written testimony. "We contend that affordable housing can be built in numerous alternative places were modifications would not be needed and so this justification is erroneous ... We contend that although affordable housing is a problem of city wide concern, it is not justifiable to sacrifice other city wide concerns or values related to "Environmental Health" as noted in City Plans and Policies ... " Other members of the public testified in support of this modification, noting that this use is important to the City. The provision of affordable senior housing at this location was equally of value to the City and County. Other members of the public testified that a four-story building was not objectionable and submitted examples of other tall buildings in the downtown (Northern Hotel, 180 N. College Ave., 232 Pine Street and Mitchell Block, 252 E. Mountain Ave.). f. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the Applicant has proposed modifications to the "frequent view/access" standard are reasonable efforts to mitigate the 180 foot length of the building. As proposed the building is 55 feet longer than the standard length. With regards to the statements by the STP spokesman that "affordable housing can be built in numerous alterative places' the Hearing Officer finds that not one, let alone, numerous alternative places were identified by STP. Counsel for the Housing Authority testified that they had looked for several years for a potential site and proposed site was the only feasible site. 3. Modification of Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4) - Frequent View/Access. a. Standard. The Code requires that no building wall shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis along the River. b. Description of the Modification: The Applicant is requesting that the building wall be one hundred eighty feet in length along the River axis. c. Summary of Applicant's Justification. We feel that the plans as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would be a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. (1) The facade elevation facing the river has been modified to give the illusion and feel of reduction the building's length. (2) A 35 foot wide section of the pitched roof has been removed and changed to a flat roof. (3) The 35 foot wide section of the building is recessed by 8.5 feet. (4) All four stories have brick in this recessed area. The brick is darker in color than the stone therefore helping to enhance the feel of receding. (5) The roof covering the porch/promenade has been removed in this section. (6) The proposed alternative plan enhances the landscape in the 8.5 foot deep recessed area by utilizing denser, darker plant material and vines, give the area a significantly different look and feel than the rest of the building. (7) The United Way building and playground partially hide the building from the Poudre River trail. (8) The proposed alternative plan ensures sensitivity to the Poudre River view corridor. We feel that the proposed plan does not detract in any way from satisfying this purpose. 27 to enhance the pedestrian and human scale of a development. This project provides a pedestrian -scale environment by exceeding the street tree standards along Pine Street through a continuos tree canopy and landscaping to buffer the mass of the building from the pedestrians on the walkway. The building setback exceeds the 15 foot minimum setback required along a nonarterial street by providing a 23.13 foot setback. Staff noted that the City owned land adjacent to the PDP could be the site of a park structure at a future date. Therefore, the PDP does not touch or abut the River. See Division 5.1.2 Definitions, Abut or abutting shall mean touching. An abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization or division of land that results in incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel. (Emphasis added) The project meets the second highest priority need for rental housing units in Larimer County. This project provides found for the aging population of the City. The City recognizes the contribution of this project to its affordable housing goals through the $717,151 Community Development Block Grant award through the Affordable Housing Competitive Process. e. Public Testimony. Most of the members of the public testified in support of this PDP. They stated that a four story building at this location was desirable. They also stated that the proximity to the downtown area was a positive attribute. The STP spokesman argued that this was not a desirable location for senior housing and that there were other sites better suited for this type of housing. He also stated that the building should step down to one story because the PDP abuts the River. f. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the provision of affordable senior housing at this location meets numerous City principles, policies and goals. This finding supports the modification of this standard will result in a substantial benefit to the City by addressing an important community need as defined in the Comprehensive Plan and adopted policies. The strict application of such standards would render the project infeasible. The Hearing Officer finds that the pedestrian scale criterion is satisfied by the setbacks from the street, landscaping and trees on and adjacent to the site. In addition, the Hearing Officer finds that the existing pedestrian/bike pathway provides a buffer between the PDP site and the River. As Staff noted, a park structure could be built in this area between the PDP and the River. Therefore, by definition, the PDP does not abut or touch the River. Although the STP Spokesman argued that there were other equally suited sites for affordable senior housing, none were identified. The other members of the public who testified in favor of the PDP stated that the site selection process had been thorough and exhaustive. The Hearing Officer approves this modification pursuant to Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2). 2011 City Plan. The Principles and Policies are listed below. (For the entire descriptions, see the June 11, 2012 Staff Memorandum.) (a) Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. (b) Policy LIV 7.1 - Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations. (c) Policy LIV 7.5 - Address Special Needs Housing. (d) Policy LIV 7.6 - Basic Access. (e) Principle LIV 8 - The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. (f) Policy LIV 8.1- Support Affordable Housing Programs. (g) Policy LIV 8.5 - Integrate and Distribute Affordable Housing. (3) The proposed alternative plan seeks to provide substantial benefit to the City by addressing an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the priorities of the City of Fort Collins Affordable Housing Strategic plan 2010 - 2014. The purpose of the Plan is to establish goals and strategies for the City's affordable housing programs. Legacy Senior Residences addresses two of the four priorities of the Strategic plan: 1. Increase the inventory of affordable rental housing units. 3. Increase housing and facilities with special needs. d. Staff Evaluation of Applicant's Request - Section 2.8.2(H). Staff notes that the intent of stepping down to three (3) stories along any public street is 25 e. Public Testimony. No members of the public spoke to this request for modification. f. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the reduction of the landscape area by 1.05 feet is nominal and inconsequential. The parking lot landscaping provided exceeds the minimum amount required. The Hearing Officer approves this Modification of Criteria. 2. Modification of Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) - Height/Mass. a. Standard. The Code states that massing shall be terraced back from the River and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage; and (2) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. b. Description of the Modification: The Applicant is proposing to maintain four stories throughout the building and not set down when abutting the street. C. Summary of Applicant's Justification. We feel that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested (2.8.2(H)(1) and that the modification would substantially alleviate an existing defined community need (2.8.21-1)(2), and will continue to advance the purposes of the Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. (1) In order to mitigate the four-story building, the proposed alternative plan creates a pedestrian scale experience along the Pine Street frontage. This means: (a) Detached sidewalk which connect to the river trail between this site and the United Way playground. (b) Create two rows of trees on both sides of the walk, staggered to create an "entry" into the river landscape. (2) The proposed alternative plan seeks to provide a substantial benefit to the city by addressing an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the policies of the February 24 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 divert from the standards of the 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 purpose of the Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Modification of Section 3.2.2(L)(4) - Vehicular Overhang. a. Standard. The stall dimension indicated in the chart may be modified with respect to vehicular overhang as indicated in Figure 5, except that compact vehicle spaces may not be reduced in depth to a dimension that is less than the required depth indicated. b. Description of the Modification: The Applicant is proposing a reduction from 7 feet to 5.95 feet in the minimum landscape width requirement where vehicles overhang on both sides of the landscape island. C. Summary of Applicant's Justification. We feel that the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standard of the 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 Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 for the following reasons: (1) The interior paring lot landscape far exceeds the 6% minimum. By code, we are required to have 1,429 square feet of landscaping and we are providing 2,181 square feet, over double the amount required. (2) The width of the landscape area in proposed alternative plan is short by 1.05 feet. d. Staff Evaluation of Modification Request. Staff believes that criterion (4) applies to this request. Staff finds that the request to reduce landscape island width from seven feet to 5.95 feet where vehicles overhang on both sides of the landscape island is"nominal and inconsequential" when "considered from the perspective of the entire development." 23 persons rendering fire protection and emergency service by complying with Article 9, Fire Department Access and Water Supply, of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 9, of the City Code. All emergency access ways, easements, rights -of -way or other rights required to be granted pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code must include not only access right for fire protection purposes, but also for all other emergency services. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that the Legacy Senior Residences, PDP, has been reviewed by emergency access referral agencies, such a Poudre Fire Authority, and have been determined to have adequate access for their emergency services. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public testified regarding this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standard. C. Request for Modifications - Section 2.8.2(H) - Standards. The modification of the stand may be granted only if the Hearing Officer finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and; (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the stand 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 fo any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of the Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city byreason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specially and expressly defined and described in the citys 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 solar energy system, the strict application of 22 b. Staff Analysis. All buildings are no less than twenty-three (23) feet from the Right of Way. The lot width is greater than fifty (50) feet. There are no detached accessory buildings. C. Public Testimony. The members of the public did not testify regarding these setbacks. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the PDP complies with these standards. 25. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service. a. Standards. This standard requires that all development plans adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal Transportation Level of Service ("LOS") Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part II of the Multi -modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for purposes of this Section. In order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with these standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the transportation Impact Study guidelines as established in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that a Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed and evaluated by the Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning Departments. The project provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Standards. A 5 foot by 18 foot bus stop pad is proposed for the project per Transfort requirement. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public testified to.the proximity of this PDP to the downtown area and the availability of bus service. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standard. 26. Section 3.6.6 - Emergency Access. a. Standards. All developments shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those 21 b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that the trash collection is more than twenty (20) feet from any public street or sidewalk. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public testified about this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standards. 23. Section 3.5.2(C) - Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. a. Orientation to a Connecting Walkway Standards. This standard requires that every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. b. Staff Analysis. The building's front facade opens up onto a connecting walkway that is 305 feet from Linden Street. A second entrance, is 135 feet from Linden Street. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public spoke to this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets this standard. 24. Section 3.5.2(D) - Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Widths and Size. a. Standards. These standards set forth the minimum setbacks from every residential and detached accessory building at thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from nonarterial streets shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet. Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. The minimum side yard setback for all residential buildings and for all detached accessory buildings that are incidental to the residential building shall be five (5) feet from the property line except for alley -access garages for which the minimum setback shall be eight (8) feet. Minimum Lot Widths. A minimum lot width of fifty 50 feet shall be required for any single-family detached dwelling if the garage and/or driveway are served by access from the abutting street, unless such lot also adjoins an alley or is located at the corner of two (2) public streets. 20 pursuant to this Subsection. (1) Views. A building or stricture shall not substantially alter the opportunity for and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. (2) Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or strictures greater than forty (40) feet in heigh 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 d building or structures scale to human scale. b. Staff Analysis. The proposed building does not substantially alter the opportunity for, quality of; desirable view from public places, streets and parks within the community. The renderings indicate that views to the Foothills are already blocked by existing development. The RDR District allows buildings up to five stories. The Legacy building is four stories and similar in height to the Rooftops on the River and the Northern Aztlan Center. The shadow analysis shows that on December 21, no properties will be adversely impacted. A small portion the United Way play areas will be impacted by shadows. C. Public Testimony. Most members of the public testified in support of this PDP. The height of the building was acknowledged at four stories. However, other buildings in the downtown are also four stories. The STP spokesman argued that the building was too tall and would have negative impacts on the River corridor. See Section F for a more detailed description of the STP objections. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that a four story building in this location complies with the standard which allows five story buildings. 22. Section 3.5.1(1) - Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment. a. Standard. No areas for outdoor storage, tash collection or compaction, loading or other such uses shall be located within twenty (20) feet of any public street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way - Notwithstanding the foregoing, areas for trash collection may be located within twenty (20) feet of an internal pedestrian way. 19 throughout the contextual area. Although the building is long, its length is mitigated by recesses that create well-defined shadow lines. Different landscape treatments surround the building (ivy, tree massing). The building's pedestrian scale is highlighted by the promenade that surrounds the north side of the building. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public testified in support of this PDP and the architecture. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standard. 20. Section 3.5.1(D) - Privacy Considerations. a. Standard. 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 interaction among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. b. Staff Analysis. The proposed building is four stories. Trees will be planted between the building and the north property line. The United Way building to the north is separated from the proposed building by 60 feet of landscaping. Additional landscaping on the City's property to the north of the building will further buffer the project from the outside play are at the United Way building. The combination of landscaping and distance provide a sufficient amount of buffering to ensure the privacy of the occupants of the United Way building. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public testified in support of this PDP generally. Some stated that they believed that the proximity of this PDP to the River was a positive attribute, allowing' seniors to enjoy the River. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP at this location will create opportunities for interaction among neighbors within and adjacent to the Legacy Senior Residences. 21. Section 3.5.1(G) - Building Height Review a. Standards. The intent of this standard 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 view 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 18 d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this four story PDP meets this standard. 18. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. b. Staff Analysis. Although there are concerns regarding the compatibility of a four-story building adjacent to single family homes (historic), the Applicant has placed restrictions on the parcels of land adjacent to Linden Street. These parcels will be restricted to ensure that they are developed in character with the adjacent historic buildings. The Historic Preservation staff will review future developments to ensure that they are developed in accordance with the adjacent historic buildings. This restriction will be documented on the plat and approved by the City's Historic Preservation Planner and the City Attorney's office prior to recording. G. Public Testimony. Members of the public spoke about the compelling need for senior housing. Several neighbors also testified in support of this PDP. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets this standard. 19. Section 3.4.1 (E) and (F) - Building Materials and Color. a. Standards. 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 in materials. 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. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that the generous deployment of brick and stone throughout the structure and the utilization of a color palate consisting of earth tones. These materials and colors complement both the Poudre River and the historic nature of the RDR District. The materials and colors proposed blend well with existing materials and colors found 17 a. Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code (hereinafter "Code"), the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that the PDP utilizes brick and stone as the predominant building materials. These materials recognize the historic origins of the RDR District. Building proportions are emphasized through the use of different lintels, patterns of window placement and building materials to help minimize the scale of the building. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public testified in support of the PDP architecture. d. Hearing Officer. There is a dominant Architectural character in the RDR district. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed PDP architecture complies with this standard. 17. Section 3.5.1(C) - Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. a. Standards. Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater -comer block face at the nearest intersection. New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood through the repetition of roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of characteristic entry features. The RDR District allows buildings up to five stories. b. Staff Analysis. Staffs review of the PDP finds that the building is four stories in height. This height is similar to nearby developments such as the Rooftops on the River and the Northside Aztlan Center. In addition, recesses have been provided along with different building material for each story to break up the scale and mass of the building. The flat roof in the center of the building helps lower the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank walls. C. Public Testimony. A member of the Downtown Development Authority testified and submitted photos of four story buildings in the downtown area. Some of these buildings are historic. 16 C. Public Testimony. One member disputed that the PDP did not meet the storm drainage standard but did not submit any evidence to support his allegation. d. Hearing Officer. All storm drainage features meet City standards. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the engineering standards. 15. Section 3.4.1(A) - Applicability and Section 4.17(D)(1)(a). a. Engineering Standards. This Section applies if any portion of the development site is within five hundred (500) feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. However, these standards do not apply in the RDR District. See Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) which reads as follows: In substitution for the provision contained in Subsection 3.4.1(C) (Natural Habitats and Features) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuos landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition between development and the River. To the maximum extent feasible, the landscape buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and shrub cover. The landscape buffer shall be designed to prevent bank erosion and to stabilize the River bank in a manner adequate to withstand the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event. b. Staff Analysis. Staff has reviewed the PDP in light of these standards. This site does not abut the River. The PDP provides a "continuous landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of the transition between development and the River." This buffer is located on City -owned land and will be maintained in perpetuity by the Applicant. The buffer will be composed of 13 native trees, 44 shrubs and grasses. C. Public Testimony. The STP spokesman claimed "the site is within 500 feet of a natural area and so section 3.4.1(D)(1) requires that the applicant submit an "Ecological Characterization Study" (ECS). STP contends that the submitted ECS is inadequate." Page 5. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer notes that Section 3.4.1(D)(1) must be replaced by Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) and applied to this PDP because it lies in the RDR District. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standards of Section 4.17(D)(1)(a). 16. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. 15 Staff reviewed the shadow analysis in accordance with Section 3.5.1(G)(1). On December 21, there are no substantial adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. The shadows will not impact any views. The proposed building does not create any privacy issues. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public did not comment on this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standard. 13. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting a. Site Lighting Requirements. All developments, except single-family residential uses, are required to submit a proposed lighting plan that meets the functional security needs of the proposed land use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the community. b. Staff Analysis. A photometric plan was submitted with the initial project development plan. The parking lot lighting will feature down -directional and sharp cut-off fixtures. No light spillage occurs within the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. C. Public Testimony. The STP spokesman testified that the proposed "night lighting ... will definitely create additional impacts to the Poudre River corridor beyond those already occurred." Page 5. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed site lighting will be placed on this Legacy Senior Residences site. No additional lighting is proposed along the pedestrian/bike paths. All lighting will comply with City standards. 14. Section 3.3.5 - Engineering Design Standards. a. Standards. The project must comply with all design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services as certified by the appropriate agency or variances must be granted by such agencies: water supply, sanitary sewer, mass transit, fire protection, flood hazard areas, telephone, walks, bikeways, irrigation companies, electricity, natural gas, storm drainage, cable television, streets/pedestrians. b. Staff Analysis. Staff has reviewed this PDP and found that it complies with the design standards, requirements and specification for the services listed above. 14 To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles. b. Staff Analysis. A six-foot walkway providing access to the building causes a conflict with cars and bicycles in the driveway connection to Linden Street. This conflict will be mitigated by providing pavement striping to aid in pedestrian safety. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public testified regarding this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed pavement striping is an acceptable alternative to this standard. 11. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities. a. Bike Standard. Commercial, industrial, civic and employment and multifamily residential uses shall provide bicycle facilities to meet the standard for bicycle parking, location and design. This includes a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces equal in number to five (5) percent of the total numbered of automobile parking spaces provided by the development, but not less than one (1). b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that the project includes 51 vehicular parking spaces where none are required. The project provides six exterior bicycle parking spaces (11 %) in two bike racks. The bicycle racks are located near the building entryways. C. Public Testimony. Members did not comment specifically about this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with this standard. 12. Section 3.2.3(D) - Shading. a. Shading Standards. The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty -five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., MST, on December 21. b. Staff Analysis. 13 8. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. a. Standards. Existing significant trees within the LOD and within a "natural area buffer zone" shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and may help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this section. Such trees shall be considered "protected" trees within the meaning of this Section, subject to the exceptions contained in Subsection (2). b. Staff Analysis. The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees and determined a mitigation schedule. Only one significant tree will be removed with this project and will be mitigated by planting two boxelder trees. The mitigation schedule has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester. C. Public Testimony. The public did not comment on this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the landscaping complies with the standards. 9. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking. a. Parking Requirements - TOD General Standard. The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the development. Multi -family dwellings and mixed -use dwelling within the TOD Overlay Zone have no minimum parking requirements. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that this site is within the TOD. Therefore, there are no minimum parking requirements. However, fifty-one off street parking spaces are provided. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public commented on this requirement. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with this standard. The addition of fifty-one off street parking spaces will provide safe and convenient parking for residents. 10. Section 3.2.2(C)(1) - Safety Considerations. a. Standard. 12 6. Sections 3.2.1(E)(5) and 3.2.2(M) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping. a. Standards. As required in Section 3.2.2(M)(1) Access, Circulation and Parking, six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than one hundred (100) spaces and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with one hundred (100) spaces or more shall be landscape areas. All parking lot islands, connecting walkways through parking lots and driveways through or to parking lots shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in Subsections (a) through (f). b. Staff Analysis. This PDP provides 51 parking spaces. The parking lot has a central landscaped island and landscaping around the entire parking lot. The total amount of interior landscaping is 2,181 square feet (9.2%). The PDP does not provide any plant material greater than 24 inches within 15 inches of a curb cut. Landscaped islands feature canopy shade trees. The street trees along connecting walkways are spaced at forty (40) feet. Landscape islands are provided wherever a parking bay contains more than 15 parking spaces. C. Public Testimony. The STP spokesman questioned the location of the parking on the most visible portion of the site. He did not suggest an alternative location. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with this standard. 7. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) -Screening. a. Standards. Landscape and building elements shall be used to screen areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site elements (trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks and blank walls) from off -site view. b. Staff Analysis. The trash enclosure will be fully screened from all sides and the entry will face Poudre Place. Materials will match the building's exterior in accordance with Section 3.2.5(B)(5) of the Code. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public testified regarding this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this P.D.P. complies with this standard. 11 Staff had determined that the PDP complies with the standard with one exception. The Sensation Boxelder trees proposed on the north side of the property are mitigation trees which are explained in more detail below. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public did not testify about this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets the standard. 4. Section 3.2.1(E)(2) - Landscape Area Treatment. a. Standards. Landscape areas shall include all areas on the site that are not covered by buildings, structures, paving or impervious surface. Landscape areas shall consist only of landscaping. The selection and location of turf, ground cover, and pedestrian paving and other landscaping elements shall be used to prevent erosion and meet the functional and visual purposes. b. Staff Analysis. Staff has determined that the foundation plantings proposed along the building cover 50%. Turf grass is provided in high use areas. Finally, an irrigated native grass seed is provided in the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public did not testify about this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets this standard. 5. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping. a. Standards. Parking lot perimeter landscaping in the minimum setback areas required by Section 3.2.2(J) (access, Circulation and Parking) are required to meet the minimum standards set forth in the Section. The minimum required is 70%. b. Staff Analysis. The vegetation screening provided on Linden Street provides 74% screening. C. Public Testimony. No members of the public commented on this standard d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P complies with this standard. 10 exceeds the standards of this Section. a. Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a), (b) - Street Trees. Planting of street trees shall occur in the adjoining street right-of-way in one or more of the following methods described for separated or attached sidewalks. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that the PDP provides street trees at a 30 foot spacing in the parkway along Pine Street and Linden Street. The Linden Street Improvements installed in 2011 by the City. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public did support the overall landscape plan. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets this standard. 2. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) - Minimum Species Diversity. a. Standards. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. In projects where the number of trees on the site is from 40-59, the maximum percentage of any one species is 25%. b. Staff Analysis. Staff has determined that no one species of trees exceeds 25% of the total trees. The most of any one species, Greenspire Linden or Triumph Elm, is eight trees. C. Public Testimony. Members of the public did not testify about this standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets this standard. 3. Section 3.2.1(D)(4), (5) - Tree Species and Minimum Size, Reduced Minimum Size for Affordable Housing Projects. a. Standards. The Director shall provide a recommended list of trees which shall be acceptable to satisfy the requirements for landscape plans, including approved canopy shade trees that may be used as street trees. In any affordable housing project a separate set of minimum sizes are set forth. b. Staff Analysis. G7 and stone materials throughout the building. 6. Section 4.17(D)(4) - Site Design. a. Site Design Standards. The natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced, using plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor in the design of the site and landscape improvements. Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that native plants predominate on the north side of the building where the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone has been established. The project does not propose any walls or fences except around utilities and the trash enclosure, as required by the Code. C. Public Testimony. One member questioned the definition of a "buffer zone" as applied to this project. "We contend that the grassy area between the fence and the trees along the river is indeed an incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel, and thus that the project "touches" the river landscape. Indeed, the grassy area is the "River landscape frontage." d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer notes that the area in question, Poudre River Trail, contains bike and pedestrian paths serving pedestrians, cyclists and skaters. While no buildings will be constructed in this area, it is well used by the public. The Hearing Officer finds that no walls will be constructed in this area. The Applicant will be required to restore and maintain the land between its property and the trail for natural habitat. Finally, the Hearing Officer finds that this PDP meets this standard. B. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Where RDR District standards of Article 4 are more specific or stringent, they prevail over the less specific or stringent standard that may be found in the General Development standard of Article 3. 1. Section 3.2.1- Landscaping and Tree Protection. All developments shall submit a landscape and tree protection plan, and, if receiving water service from the City, an irrigation plan, that: (1) reinforces and extends any existing patterns of outdoor spaces and vegetation where practicable, (2) supports functional purposes such as spatial definition, visual screening, creation of privacy, management of microclimate or drainage, (3) enhances the appearance of the development and -neighborhood, (4) protects significant trees, natural systems and habitat, (5) enhances the pedestrian environment, (6) identifies all landscape areas, (7) identifies all landscaping elements within each landscape area, and (8) meets or minimum pitch of 8:12. Where hipped roofs are used alone, the minimum pitch shall be 6:12. Flat roofed buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatments on walls facing streets, the river or connecting walkways. b. Staff Analysis. The proposed building uses offsets and recesses to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall. The promenade along the north side of the building promotes the human scale of the site. The promenade also forms several outdoor spaces along the river. Windows within the project are individually defined and change as the building materials change. For example, the window materials, including frames and lintels, are one style when the brick material dominated and s different style when the stone is the dominant material. The PDP roof lines meet the minimum 6:12 standard. C. Public Testimony. The STP spokesman argued that the building as proposed violated this standard because the project as rendered, is a "massive 4-story wall that is not to human scale or human size abutting the River landscape frontage." Page 3. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer notes that the modification of this standard is discussed in more detail in Section F below. 5. Section 4.17(D)(3)(e) - Materials. a. Materials Standards. This standard calls for the use of textured materials with native and historic characteristics such as brick, stone and wood. Materials with similar characteristics and proportions shall be used in a repeating pattern as integral parts of the exterior building fabric, to the maximum extent feasible. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that this project uses brick and stone materials throughout the building. The materials and styles are repeated across a horizontal plane, providing unity while also providing variety across the vertical planes to increase the visual appearance of the building. C. Public Testimony. Some members did testify that the believed the building would be attractive, without commenting on specific building materials. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP complies with this standard with the use of brick 7 d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP complies with this standard. 3. Section 4.17(D)(3)(c) - Massing and Placement. a. Height/Mass Standard. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted; however, massing shall be terraced back from the River and from streets as follows: (1) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage; and (2) buildings or parts of buildings shall step down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. b. Staff Analysis. The Legacy building is four stories in height and is similar in scale to the Rooftops on the River and the Northside Aztlan Center. However to mitigate the size and scale of the building, recesses have been provided along with different building materials with each story to break up the scale and mass of the building. The flat roof in the center of the building helps lower the overall height. There are no large, massive blank walls. The parking lot is located in the interior of the block. The Applicant is requesting modifications to both Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) and (4). These requests are described in greater detail below in Section F. C. Public Testimony. The only member of the public that testified on these criteria was the STP spokesman. He claimed that the building as proposed violated this standard by not stepping back in height. He further claimed that the building would "mar the natural area scenery, the natural area experience, and the Poudre River Buffer as well as potentially negatively impact wildlife and the ecology of the area." Page 2. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer notes that the requested modification of this standard is discussed in the Section F below. 4. Section 4.17(D)(3)(d) - Character and Image. a. Articulation, Outdoor spaces, Windows and Roof lines. These standards set forth the standard for exterior building walls, open spaces the window details and minimum pitch of roofs. The goal is to add architectural interest and variety to exterior walls and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no reflation to human size. Buildings and extensions are required to form outdoor spaces such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards and integrate the development with the landscape. Windows are required to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion. Roof lines are to be detailed with Z b. Staff Analysis. The staff has determined that a buffer exists on City land and will be maintained in perpetuity by the Applicant. The buffer will be a mix of native trees, shrubs, and grasses that enhance the river landscape and wildlife habitat opportunities in the buffer area. An outfall along the River is required as part of the City of Fort Collins Old Town Stormwater Master Plan. The outfall location is within an existing rundown to the River and will not impact any existing trees. In addition, the outfall is designed so that all activities will occur outside of the River flood way. The outfall will be designed and constructed to the City standards and in coordination with City Parks, Stormwater, and Planning staffs. After installation of the outfall the City property will be restored and re- seeded with a native seed mix approved by the City's Environmental Planner. C. Public Testimony. The STP spokesman objected to the use of the existing buffer along the River. He argued that the "grassy area between the fence and the trees along the river is... incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel, and thus the project "touches" the river landscape." Others testified that the PDP will allow residents to enjoy the walking and biking paths along the River and will not have an adverse impact on the existing paths. d. Hearing Officer. The city owned strip of land between the PDP and the River is part of the Poudre River Trail. This PDP will improve the existing pedestrian/bike path along the River. The Hearing Officer finds that this PDP complies with the standard. 2. Section 4.17(D)(2) - Street Connections. a. Linden Street Standard. Redevelopment activity along the Linden Street frontage shall be designed to provide for the extension of the street scape improvements found between Walnut Street and Jefferson Street, including on -street parking defined by landscaped curb extensions, wide sidewalks with trees in cutouts and tree grates, and pedestrian light fixtures. Specific design details are subject to approval by the City Engineer in accordance with the design criteria for streets. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that street improvements along Linden Street were completed by the City in 2011 as part of the Capital Improvements Program. The developer will be required to repay their portion of the cost of these improvements. C. Public Testimony. There was no public testimony regarding this standard. 5 EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence from the hearing: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the Applicant to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for public testimony was provided during the hearing and members of the public were present and submitted a variety of documents. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following persons attended the hearing: From the City of Fort Collins: Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney From the Applicant: Cathy Mathis, The Birdsall Group Kristin Fritz, Fort Collins Housing Authority Lawrence Mazzotta, Cornerstone Associates Jim Martell, Esq. Fort Collins Housing Authority From the public: Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign -in sheet is attached hereto. 11. FINDINGS A. ARTICLE FOUR - RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS. The River Downtown redevelopment District is intended to establish a linkage between Old Town and the River through redevelopment in the Cache la Poudre River (the "River") corridor. Section 4.17(B)(2)(a) permits residential uses in the RDR District subject to administrative review. Section 4.17(D)(1)(a) - River Landscape Buffer. a. Standard. This standard requires the applicant to establish, preserve or improve a continuos landscape buffer along the River as an integral part of a transition between development and the River. To the maximum extent feasible, the landscape buffer shall consist predominatingly of native tree and shrub cover. The landscape buffer shall be designed to prevent bank erosion and to stabilize the River bank in a manner adequate to withstand the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event. 4 J. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zone Land Use N POL Public Open Land; Old Fort Collins Heritage Park and the United Way Building (Northside Aztlan Community Center); S RDR River Downtown Redevelopment; Existing single- family residence, a warehouse and a vacant parcel E RDR River Downtown Redevelopment; Abandoned industrial land (former concrete plant) and warehouse; and W RDR River Downtown Redevelopment; United Way parking lot. The property was annexed and platted on the Original Town Plat and replatted as Lots, 1,3,5,7,9,11,13, and 15 of Block 2, Fort Collins in 1870. The site is currently abandoned industrial land (formerly the Kiefer Concrete Storage Yard). K. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. At the start of the public testimony portion of the hearing, Gary Wockner, representing Save the Poudre (hereinafter "STP") claimed that he had not had sufficient notice or time to prepare his objections. The Hearing Officer allowed Mr. Wockner to make his objections as to adequate notice then announced he would take the objection under advisement and continued the hearing. Mr. Wockner then presented written, graphic and oral objections to the PDP. In his prepared request for denial of the PDP, Mr. Wockner claimed 'Impacted stakeholders were not publicly notified in a timely fashion." June 11, 2012 STP letter to Hearing Officer, page 2. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Hearing Officer denied Mr. Wockner's request for continuance. The Hearing Officer found that he had sufficient information, testimony and documents to make decisions concerning this PDP. The Hearing Officer finds that the public hearing was properly scheduled for June 11, 2012. The issues to be addressed were made public in both posted and advertised notices. The members of the public were permitted to provide testimony both in support and in opposition to the PDP. Mr. Wockner, on behalf of STP, made a lengthy presentation and submitted written and graphic testimony. L. PUBLIC HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers, M. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER 3 industrial land and an assemblage of six lots. The site is located within the Downtown Strategic Plan area and is highlighted within the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report. The proposed land use, multi -family, is permitted in the RDR District subject to Administrative Review. The River Downtown Redevelopment District is intended to reestablish the linkage between Old Town and the River through redevelopment in the Cache la Poudre River (the "River") corridor. The District offers opportunities for more intensive redevelopment of housing, businesses and workplaces to complement Downtown. Improvements should highlight the historic origin of Fort Collins and the unique relationship of the waterway and railways to the urban environment as well as expand cultural opportunities in the Downtown area. Any significant redeployment should be designed as part of a master plan for the applicable group of contiguous properties. Redevelopment will extend the positive characteristics of Downtown such as the patter of blocks, pedestrian - oriented street fronts and lively outdoor spaces. This proposal complies with the purpose of the RDR District as it provides a redevelopment of abandoned industrial land that reinforces the historic origin of Fort Collins through its building materials and enhances the relationship of the site to the River with the proposed habitat improvements ad trail connections. The development will reinforce the characteristics of Downtown by enhancing the pedestrian oriented street fronts along Pine Street and enhancing housing opportunities for affordable populations in the community. The Legacy Senior Residences also comply with the City Plan, Downtown Strategic Plan and Downtown River Implementation Program Summary. A more detailed review of these plans and programs is found in the Staff Memorandum. Legacy Senior Residences, PDP, compiles with applicable General Development standards of Article 3 and the land use and development standards of Division4.17 RDR District, with the exception of three Modifications of Standard requests: 1. Reduction of the minimum vehicular overhang for a landscaped area from 7' to 5.95' Section 3.2.2(L)(4), to be justified by the criteria of Section 2.8. 2(H)(2) and Section 2.8.2(H)(4); 2. Maintaining a building height of four stories along where the building abuts a public street (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1), to be justified by the criteria of section 2.8.2(H)(1) and 3. Increasing the frequent view/access standard from 125' to 180' (Section 4.17(D)(3)(c)(4), to be justified by the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(2). 2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION I. OVERVIEW A. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: June 11, 2012 B. PROJECT NAME: Legacy Senior Residences C. CASE NUMBER: P.D.P. 120004 D. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis The Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, Colorado 80512 E. OWNER: Cornerstone Associates LLC 209 South 19" Street, #600 Omaha, Nebraska 68102 F. HEARING OFFICER: Richard V. Lopez G. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a multi -family project known as Legacy Senior Residences. The proposed development site on 1.97 acres of abandoned industrial land (formerly the Kiefer Concrete Storage Yard), located west of Linden Street, north of Willow Street, and east of Pine Street. The site is in the River Downtown Redevelopment (hereinafter "RDR") District and within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay District (hereinafter "TOD"). The proposal is for 72 one and two bedroom affordable apartments for seniors (age 62 and over) who earn between 30 to 60% of the Area Median Income. The proposed building is four stories tall, with a maximum building height of 50 feet, 6 3/4 inches. As the project is located with the TOD, multi -family dwellings have no minimum parking requirements. However, the Applicant is providing 51 off-street parking stalls for the residences. All units (100%) are planned to be permanently affordable. H. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Approval of the request for modifications to Section 3.2.2(L)(4), 4.17(D)(3)(c)(1) and Section 4.17(d)(3)(C)(4) and approval of the PDP. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. This project is a 100% affordable housing project, redevelopment of abandoned City of _Fort Collins June 25, 2012 Planning, Development & Transportation Services 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 Attendee of the Legacy Senior Residences Project Development Plan, # PDP120004 Public Hearing, Please find attached to this letter a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions and Decision for the Project Hearing of the Legacy Senior Residences Project Development Plan, # PDP120008. Pursuant to Section 2.2.7(D) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, this Decision has been mailed to the applicant and any person who attended and/or provided testimony at the public hearing held on June 11, 2012. This final decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer may be appealed to the City Council, in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code, within 14 calendar days of the date of final action June 25, 2012 by the Hearing Officer. The deadline to file an appeal is 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2012. Guidelines explaining the appeal process, including the Code provisions previously referenced, can be found online at fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals.php; or may be obtained in the City Clerk's Office at 300 LaPorte Avenue. If you have any questions about the attached Decision or the appeal process, please contact me at 970-224-6143. Sincerely, V 1 Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner