HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST - PDP - PDP120003 - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING7-bg- 0 / J` 7- PV- , c 7- l9 T G f!-, 2 opu.y` C✓e 7- - /%P.e 14 a'2 3 02 o ( .,
Name
'AfY"/4�,1 'Est-F c .mil Y -n Ls *"i
Address s a% _ x : �< , Y .
N
one :Emaily3�,
-�2ts
37761
3-`iFt„h
���a ��c rN
►�2p G,oc.DFx� �.��c-GaW �,Rt
GIcJ�Cbci�(.✓o ��a►v��5�.�.
8 �
or-1.
r7ozzie
tv Q
C; w A,, 63a35
��v,3 i, �a
4;,cksoIN �-� :I, c0A-
bveL4 Q cwk pepL W
LLA, WAu4s2
(SL C15t
1?c �
MOO(
CDNCIOz'r> 72
Wyy\
Fr9
a Zl f' 9 (
% 7'r�@CN62.C�ncoSTkr�vf�7�
C0 (as�Q
bV y a
4 /k
71
R4
4
Administrative Public Hearing Sign -In
Project: TrI 0 <S7'1c,c7 R'r r; A-y'7 Pu r c✓c-s 7-
Meeting Location: G!71 coynicrc eH,4/nA&--gJ - 3 e a z—A 0,0,—E /,r
acc,
Date: l9 PFi< S� o� 3 f ac; cNf co
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Name
Address
Phone
Email
doeorr 7
S SD
?OS
U -yG
L , v
C , a,.k
cR
►soq w Piuln
7Z-3 I3 I
.IN a -
CO lo5+49.ed
AO
TNaloC�f
n`(I
x
it
9�U- 90-07G
�?O-r-Iao- 7S
ll�
IV JoAj
Sao C,� cwt;Ave � 39
420 e.,ra PAS'- ��
&22-3
g2o�'Za•0$(n$
S+UYSkrnYtN�nK@ a.I.�or�
7
L
Building Three setbacks are found to be equal to or better than a plan that
would otherwise provide for uniform 15 foot setbacks. Building Three
features a level of architectural detail that exceeds the baseline and a
sidewalk along Plum Street that exceeds the minimum width. The
proposed setbacks are consistent with Buildings One and Two, thus
promoting an attractive urban design perspective for Plum Street.
4. In evaluating the overall impacts the P.D.P. complies with the applicable
standards relating to compatibility. The overall scope of the P.D.P.
represents a significant change when compared with the existing
development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. However this
transition in use and scale was contemplated when the C-C zone and
TOD were implemented. The development review process has allowed
for a robust citizen participation process that has resulted in plan revisions
that further promote neighborhood compatibility. The two public hearings
provided ample time for the applicant and public to express their concerns
and receive responses.
5. The vacation of two public dead-end streets is a separate process that
must be properly completed in conjunction with P.D.P. and Final Plan.
DECISION
The Hearing Officer herein approves The District at Campus West P.D.P.
#120003, subject to the vacation of two public streets as a separate procedure subject
to approval by City Council.
Dated May 7, 2012, per authority granted by Sections 1.49 and 2.1 of the Land Use
Code.
Richard V. Lopez
Richard V. Lopez
Hearing Officer
28
5. Staff Evaluation of Issues and Responses.
Staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to neighborhood
compatibility. It is important to note that there is no one single standard in the Land
Use Code that would be the equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of
Compatibility specifically states that it " ... does not mean the same as.." Rather, the
Code breaks the issues down to number of specific standards that are intended to
address impact mitigation. The P.D.P. has been evaluated by these standards and
Staff finds the P.D.P. to be in compliance.
FINDINGS
The Hearing Officer agrees with Staff and finds that the P.D.P. is compatible with the
neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Officer has reviewed all of the evidence and testimonies submitted
by the applicant, citizens and staff and being fully advised, makes the following findings
of fact and conclusions:
The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea
Plan) which calls attention to the redevelopment potential of this mature
neighborhood adjacent to the CSU campus. Such redevelopment would
fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urbanizing and
walkable district.
2. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standard of Article Four -
Community Commercial zone district.
3. The P.D.P complies with the applicable Article Three General
Development Standards with one exception:
Request for Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) - Residential Setbacks
from Non -arterial Streets to allow less than 15 feet of setback along three
public streets has been evaluated and found not to be detrimental to the
public good and equal to or better than a plan that would have otherwise
complied with the standard in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H).
27
Response: The applicant has indicated that the plan revisions result in a reduction of
the height and density of the project. The applicant acknowledges that the P.D.P.
represents a significant change compared to the existing context of the area. The
overall scale of the project, however, complies with the City's vision for the C-C zone
and the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code.
2. Traffic.
Issue: The increase in traffic on the surround streets remains a concern.
Response: The applicant contends that he surrounding streets can accommodate the
anticipated increase in traffic. For example, Plum Street is classified as a collector
roadway capable of carrying up to 5,000 trips per day. With the addition of The District,
this capacity is not reached. Similarly, Shields is classified as an arterial street and
capable of handling the expected traffic generated by the P.D.P.
3. Density.
Issue: There is a concern that with a density in excess of 50 units per acre, and the
significant number of four -bedroom units, there is too much density associated with this
P.D.P.
Response: The applicant has indicated that there is no density maximum in the C-C
zone and that the provisions related to four -bedroom units have been addressed,
primarily by adding extra parking spaces for both vehicles and bikes.
4. Property Management of Student Behavior.
Issue: Those attending the meetings and public hearings have expressed a concern
about the concentration of college students who may be living independently for the first
time. Such an arrangement could lead to undesirable behavior such as late night noise,
rowdyism, loud music, littering and the like.
Response: The applicant has indicated that there will be on -site managers who are
professional and adults, not students. The leases provide for eviction for tenants who
violate the rules associated with undesirable behavior.
26
e. Public Testimony.
Public testimony was primarily directed at the overall scale and density of the proposed
development. There were a couple of persons who were concerned about setbacks.
FINDINGS
The Hearing Officer has reviewed the applicants' request, staff evaluation, testimony
from the public hearings and all exhibits and documents submitted into the record and
makes the following findings of fact:
The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public
good; and
2. The plans submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for
which the Modification is requested equally well or better than would a
plan which complies with the standard for which the Modification is being
requested. Building Three is an attractive building along al three
elevations facing the three public streets. There is no established context
of building setbacks in the larger neighborhood. Further, from an urban
design perspective, there is more value to the larger C-C district in having
all three buildings aligned in a uniform arrangement than having two
buildings at the build -to line and one building at the setback line.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Two neighborhood meetings were held with citizens. The first was on August 31, 2011
and the second on March 7, 2012. Staff notes that between the two meetings, the
height of Building One and Two were reduced and the number of units and bedrooms
reduced. The main issues and the applicants' responses are summarized below:
Building Height, Mass, Scale, Bulk.
Issue: This issue relating to the overall scope of the project remains at the forefront.
While the applicant has scaled down the project since the first neighborhood meeting,
those attending the second meeting express concerns that the P.D.P. represents a
departure from the existing development pattern.
25
b. Description of the Modification.
Building Three, unlike Buildings One and Two, is not a mixed -use building and is
governed by the setback standard, not the build -to line standard. Instead of being
setback from the three public streets by the requisite 15 feet, it is setback in the
following manner:
Street
Required
Proposed
Difference
Plum Street
15'
12.5
2.5'
Aster Street
15'
10,
5'
Bluebell Street
15'
11'5'
3.5'
C. Applicant's Justification.
The applicant's justification is contained in Tab 3 of their application report. The staff
report provides a summary of the applicant's justification. Briefly, the applicant states
that 11.5 feet of additional right-of-way dedicated for Plum Street will improve
operations and functions of westbound travel lane, bike lane, parkway and detached
sidewalk. Setbacks along Aster and Bluebell are mitigated by articulation of the
building. Setbacks for Building Three from the public street are not detrimental and
result in a plan that is equal to or better that a plan that would have complied with the
plan. Lastly, the modification is justified by the provision of student -oriented, multi-
family housing that alleviates an existing defined problem of city-wide concern and
addresses an important community need. The project is located within the Targeted
Redevelopment Area as described by the City Plan.
d. Staff analysis.
Staff noted that Building Three is well -articulated along all three public streets. As a
residential building, it contains entrances, windows and a variety of exterior materials.
There are no blank walls. In addition, there is no established context of building
setbacks in the general vicinity. A slight divergence from the 15-foot setback would not
cause a glaring inconsistency and would not look out of place in the neighborhood.
Staff found from an urban design perspective that all three buildings demonstrate a
consistent relationship to Plum Street. The on -street bike lane, parkway, street trees
and detached sidewalk are public improvements all of which contribute to an urban,
formal and pleasing arrangement of the street scape. Aligning all three buildings with a
consistent setback enhances the organization of the project and creates a uniform
development pattern. A consistent setback contributes to the urbanization of the area
as envisioned by the Community Commercial zone district. Staff recommended
approval of the Modification with specific findings of fact.
24
would otherwise be required under Section 3.2.2(K)(1). Finally, public facilities have
been enhanced with the construction of a bus pull -in land, a detached public sidewalk
that exceeds the minimum required width and accompanied by seat walls, planters and
decorative lighting along Plum Street to encourage gathering and social interaction.
C. Public Testimony.
The public concerns about increased density and occupancy of this proposed
development were varied. Many of these concerns have been detailed above.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer has reviewed the documentation provided by the applicant (Tab 4),
reviewed the plans and considered all the testimony provided at the hearings. The
provision of open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities should
adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent
neighborhood. Four bedroom units have become a popular lifestyle alternative for
many students throughout the nation. It allows four students to share an apartment in a
well -managed environment. There is added security compared to single-family home
rentals. The four bedroom unit costs are less per bedroom and offers a more
affordable option for students. The applicants' written justifications include open space
and recreational amenities, parking, public facilities, architectural design and
sustainability. These justifications and the testimony of the applicant at the hearings
have been considered by the Hearing Office. The Hearing Officer finds that the
request for four bedroom units is justified and herein grants this request.
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION -SECTION 3.4.2(D)(2)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS FROM NON -ARTERIAL STREETS
a. Standard at issue.
Section 3.5.2(D)(2) reads as follows:
(2) Setback from Non -arterial Streets. Minimum setback of
every residential building and of every detached accessory
building that is incidental to the residential building from any
public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-
way shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors
to the nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects
with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet.
23
zone's emphasis on walkability. The Study made the following conclusions:
• Operation at the key intersections will be acceptable under full build -out of
the project.
• No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required with the
construction of the project.
• No auxiliary lanes will be needed.
• Crosswalks should be added to Plum Street at City Park Avenue and
Bluebell Street.
• Multi -modal Level of Service Standards can be achieved.
• Overall, the project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint.
The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to
maintain the City's adopted Levels of Service standards.
C. Public Testimony.
The concerns raised at the public hearings concerned all modes of circulation. The
adequacy of the existing sidewalks, roadways and transit services were questioned.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Office has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study submitted by ELB
Engineering LLC and took testimony from the City's Traffic Engineer. The Hearing
Officer finds that the P.D.P. meets the Level of Service standards.
15. Section 3.8.16(E)(2) - Occupancy Limits.
a. Standards.
With respect to multiple -family dwellings, the decision maker may, upon receipt of a
written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all the applicable criteria of
the Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number off unrelated persons
who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said
number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided such additional open space,
recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately
serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that with regard to open space and recreation, the P.D.P. provieds a pool,
clubhouse and computer lab of sufficient size to serve all tenants located in Building
One. As to parking, there will be both vehicular and bicycle parking in excess of what
22
will be different. The efforts to mitigate these differences to the maximum extent
possible have been incorporated into the design and location of certain facilities. The
pool and clubhouse have been located on the south facing side of the development,
away from the Sunstone Condos. These two features and any noise will be screened
from the Sunstone Condos to the north. The concerns about spill over parking or guest
parking are addressed by the 495 parking spaces in the garage which includes 50
guest parking spaces. The concerns about trash accumulation during the move in
periods was addressed with the provision of extra dumpsters to accommodate trash.
The applicant commented that these issues are known and given experience in other
similar developments, can be controlled. The design of the parking garage parapet
walls will block headlights and noise from neighboring properties. Bus, pedestrian and
bicycle traffic was analyzed and found to be acceptable. This is a TOD where bus
service is available. The proximity to the CSU campus will result in pedestrian and
bicycle use, reducing the need or desirability to travel to and from the campus by auto.
This proposed development will improve the pedestrian walks along Plum Street and
one bus stop will be located adjacent to the development. The concerns about student
parties and possible spill over should be addressed by the on -site management
personnel.
14. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service.
a. Standards.
All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service (LOS)
standard contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal Transportation Level
of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and
pedestrian. The transit LOS standards contained in Part II of this Multi -model
Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section.
In order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with these
standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a
Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with
the Transportation Impact Study guidelines, as established in the Larimer County Urban
Area Streets Standards.
b. Staff Analysis.
A Transportation Impact Study was submitted and evaluated by the City's Traffic
Engineering Department. Plum Street is classified as a major collector (meaning there
are two eight -foot wide bike lanes but no on -street parking). The detached sidewalk
has been widened by two extra feet from the required minimum of five feet to seven
feet to accommodate the expected level of pedestrians and in fulfilment of the C-C
21
13. Section 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition.
a. Land Use Transition.
When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to
each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of
the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve
compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding
scale, form, materials, and colors, buffer yards and adoption of operational standards
including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise -generating activities
and similar restrictions.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the issues related to scale, form, materials and color have been
addressed. In terms of buffering, the north property line will include the preservation of
the existing trees that have been determined to be of value and the planting of new
trees. In terms of operational characteristics, the most important design feature is the
each level of the parking structure features a parapet wall that blocks headlights. Other
features include two trash dumpsters that are fully enclosed withing the buildings and,
as mentioned above, no lighting spillover in excess of the standard. Finally, the active
area of the pool and clubhouse is south -facing and totally screened from the Sunstone
Condos.
C. Public Testimony.
There were several concerns about the belief that this concentration of students would
lead to parties with noise, on street parking, lighting and noise from the parking
structure and the concentration of people in a small area. Others feared that parties
would grow to hundreds of students and spill over into the neighborhood. Still others
were concerned about automobile traffic in the area, trash build up during the times that
students move in and out of the development. There were some comments about
pedestrian traffic and linkages to the CSU and some missing pedestrian walks. There
was some concern of crowded buses being unable to serve the new students who
would reside in the development. Finally, the concerns about the scale of the proposed
development was mentioned. The slides that were presented created a false sense of
scale because of the type of perspective used to illustrate building heights of the
development and Sunstone Condos.
d. Hearing Officer.
The gradual transition of land uses is not possible given the size of this development.
The proposed development is located in a high density zone, TOD and is 3.34 acres in
size. The visual character of this proposed development and the neighboring properties
20
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C
zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with the shading standards.
Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(2) duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). The shading of adjacent
properties was identified by neighbors as a concern at the neighborhood informational
meetings.
The applicant provided two shadow analyses. Section 3.4.1 (G)(1 )(a)(2) states that
adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent
property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating
glare, such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the
accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of
windows or gardens for more than three(3) months of the year.
The shadow analysis indicated that there is shadowing on the garden level unit of
Sunstone Condos on December 23 under present conditions due to existing trees along
the shared property line with proposed development. With the addition of Buildings
One, Two and Three on December 22"d, this shadowing impacts the second level of
Sunstone Condos. On the 22°d of November and January, the shadows cast by The
District are reduced back to impacting only the garden level.
Staff conceded that the shadows cast by the proposed development would not have a
substantially adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent
public and private property for more than three months over and above that which is the
present condition. However, this proposed development is specifically exempted from
this standard.
C. Public Testimony.
Considerable testimony at both public hearings focused on the shading of not only the
Sunstone Condos, but the sorority. Members of the public presented their own
shadow analysis to dispute the information provided by the applicant.
d. Hearing Officer.
This provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial
district. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community
Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading
standard. However, the Hearing Officer notes that two modifications were offered by
the applicant. The Hearing Officer encourages the applicant to incorporate these
modifications which would demonstrate their willingness to mitigate the shading that will
occur on adjoining properties.
19
and designated activity centers.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that the views, the three new buildings do not substantially alter the
opportunity for, quality of, desirable views from public places, streets, and parks within
the community. Campus West is a mature neighborhood with significant numbers of
existing, fully -grown trees. Presently, staff found that there are no desirable views as
the mature trees already block views from the public streets.
In considering the neighborhood scale, the staff noted that the north elevation of
Buildings One and Two achieve a height of 49 feet in comparison to the Sunstone
Condos which are 32 feet in height. The south elevations are 67.and 58 feet in height
respectively. Building Three is 61 feet in height but is located further away from
adjacent buildings. The heights of other buildings in the area, excluding the CSU
campus, are identified and described in the applicants material and range in height from
28 feet to 58 feet. (Tab 5) While higher than most buildings in the area, the scale is
compatible given the height and mass of other existing buildings.
C. Public Testimony.
As noted above, concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the
proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed
buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character.
d. Hearing Officer.
The C-C zone and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development.
The surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condos, apartments and the sorority
are higher density developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit.
The transition from the existing single-family homes to high density development will be
accomplished, in part, by this development. The neighborhood scale will also change
as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets this standard.
12. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
a. Light and Shadow.
Section 3.2.3(D)(1) states that this (shading) provision shall not apply to
structures within the following high -density zone districts: Downtown,
Community Commercial.
m
10. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
a. Building Materials and Color.
These standards call for the use of building materials that are either similar to materials
already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are proposed, other
characteristics such as scale and proportions, form architectural detailing, color and
textures, be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be
compatible despite the different in materials. Building color standards call for color
shades to be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the
development. The color shades of building materials should be drawn from the range
of color shades that already existing on the bloc or in the adjacent neighborhood.
b. Staff Analysis.
As noted above, the Campus West Area Study found that there is no predominant
architectural character in the area or in the C-C zone district as a whole.
The proposed buildings use a combination of cultured stone, masonry and fiber cement
board as the primary exterior materials. Proposed building colors are muted earth
tones. The arrangement of these materials and colors, including combination with other
features such as covered entries, balconies, overhangs and cornices, create an
interesting building that sets a new standard of quality for the surrounding area.
C. Public Testimony.
The public concerns were mainly mass, scale, height and density. No one was
particularly concerned about the proposed colors.
d. Hearing Officer.
There is a lack of a predominant architectural character in the immediate vicinity or in
the C-C zone district as a whole. Therefore, the proposed building materials and colors
meet the standards.
11. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
a. Building Height Review - Views and Neighborhood Scale.
This standard governs buildings that exceed forty (40) feet in height. The intent is to
encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site design with a context of
harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect
access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown
17
a. Privacy Considerations.
The standard calls for elements of the development plan to be arraigned to maximize
the opportunity for privacy by residents of the project and minimize infringement on the
privacy of adjoining and uses. Additionally the development plans should create
opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.
b. Staff Analysis.
The north elevation of Building One is four stories. Per the landscape plan, there will
be trees planted between Building One and the north property line. The buildings to the
north (Sunstone) are separated from the shared property line aby a parking lot that is
60 feet wide. The combination of landscaping and distance provide sufficient amounts
of buffering to ensure the privacy off the existing residents occupying the southern
portions of the Sunstone Condos.
C. Public Testimony.
Privacy was a major concern expressed by the residents of Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority in a
petition submitted by a representative. The concern expressed was that the sorority is
not air conditioned and that the residents leave their windows open and curtains open
during the summer months. Residents of Sunstone Condos were also concerned with
privacy issues.
d. Hearing Officer.
This standard requires that the proposed development minimize infringement on the
privacy of adjoining uses, but simultaneously requires that there be opportunities for
interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.
The applicant stated that efforts were made to meet with the Sunstone Condos
residents to formalize a pedestrian connection between the two properties. While not
abandoned, the Hearing Officer believed that this conversation should take place and a
walkway or linkage of some type would benefit both properties.
The security and privacy of the sorority are a different issue. Privacy is a concern
anytime two buildings are constructed within visual distance from one another. Both
buildings will undoubtedly contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority
cannot be guaranteed nor can the privacy for the residents of the proposed
development be guaranteed. The best control of privacy is with each individual. The
individual can control the windows and shades of their respective room as well as their
own conduct.
16
a. Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale.
As stated above, the existing architectural character is not definitively established.
Therefore, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of
quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff notes that the three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the
surround area. As mitigation, the buildings are subdivided into modules defined by their
projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lower the overall height.
There are no large, massive, blank walls.
C. Public Testimony.
Concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed
development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were
not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Some persons objected to
the visual impact of parking structure facade facing the Sunstone Condominiums. They
believed that it would be years before the trees could grow tall enough to soften the
scale of the facade. For some, the density was the biggest issue, too many people for
the area.
Other members of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. They cited
the overall benefit for the community by locating a convenient state of the art student
housing close to the CSU. They cited the existing ranch style homes as an
underutilized land use at this location. The redevelopment of this area, located in the
TOD, would facilitate walking and biking by the residents. In addition, the proposed
development would be built to the Silver Leed standard. One person stated that the
construction of student housing at this location would help mitigate the defacto policy of
students living in single family homes, originally built for employees and CSU staff. The
thought was that the construction of high density student housing would free up single-
family housing for nonstudents. Others cited the anticipated growth of CSU over the
next ten years.
d. Hearing Officer.
It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of
condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and
architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a
predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the
elements and treatments sought by the standards. The P.D.P. meets this standard.
9. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
15
Staff noted that the Campus West Area Study found that there is no predominant
architectural character in the area. Therefore, the standard requires that new
development establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects. Staff found
that the project sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of
quality exterior materials. Balconies are added to the facades and flat roofs are
mitigated with cornices and overhangs. The length and bulk of Building One is
mitigated with recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow lines. Building
One features common area and courtyard placed directly behind the sidewalk. In
addition the first story features bring the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale.
All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, including overhangs, entry features
and seat walls that provide both horizontal and vertical relief.
C. Public Testimony.
Concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed
development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were
not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Some persons objected to
the visual impact of parking structure facade facing the Sunstone Condominiums. They
believed that it would be years before the trees could grow tall enough to soften the
scale of the facade. For some, the density was the biggest issue, too many people for
the area.
Other members of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. They cited
the overall benefit for the community by locating a convenient state of the art student
housing close to CSU. They cited the existing ranch style homes as an underutilized
land use at this location. The redevelopment of this area, located in the TOD, would
facilitate walking and biking by the residents. In addition, the proposed development
would be built to the Silver Leed standard. One person stated that the construction of
student housing at this location would help mitigate the defacto policy of students living
in single family homes, originally built for employees and CSU staff. The thought was
that the construction of high density student housing would free up single-family
housing for nonstudents. Others cited the anticipated growth of CSU over the next ten
years.
d. Hearing Officer.
It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of
condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and
architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a
predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the
elements and treatments sought by the standards.
8. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
14
the Hearing Officer notes that two modifications were offered by the applicant. The
Hearing Officer encourages the applicant to incorporate these modifications which
would demonstrate their willingness to mitigate the shading that will occur on adjoining
properties.
6. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting.
a. Site Lighting Requirements.
All developments, except single-family residential uses, are required to submit a
proposed lighting plan that meets the functional security needs of the proposed land
use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the community.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff reviewed the proposed lighting plan. There are seven pole -mounted light fixtures
with no foot-candles exceeding one -tenth as measured 20 feet from the property lines.
Four of these fixtures will illuminate the top deck of the parking structure. These
fixtures are placed in the middle of the deck, not on the edge, to minimize exposure.
C. Public Testimony.
One member of the public expressed a concern over possible lighting impacts from the
proposed development on the Sunstone Complex to the north.
d. Hearing Officer.
The proposed lighting plan has been reviewed by Staff and found to be in compliance
with design standards. The P.D.P. meets this standard.
7. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility.
a. Architectural Character.
New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with
the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively
established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Coded, the
architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future
projects or redevelopment in the area.
b. Staff Analysis.
13
parking agreements the manager will enter with residents and stated that there is no
intention to allow the parking garage to become a public garage. Lastly, the applicant
stated that they would take the screening of the parking garage under consideration.
5. Section 3.2.3(D) - Shading.
a. Shading.
The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent
feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent
property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty -five-foot hypothetical
wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m., MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures
within the following high -density zone districts: Downtown, Community
Commercial.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that this section sets a maximum shading standard but it specifically
exempts structures within the Community Commercial zone district.
C. Public Testimony.
There was considerable testimony from members of the public, specifically residents of
dwellings to the immediate north of the proposed development. Concerns of ice and
snow on adjoining parking lots and sidewalks were mentioned by many of those who
testified.
d. Hearing Officer.
This provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial
district. The public testimony and concems regarding the shadow analysis and
depiction by the applicant were discussed at length. The applicant requested a
continuance to ensure that the shadow analysis presentation was correct. Members of
the public also presented their shadow analysis which challenged that of the applicant.
During the second public hearing the applicant offered two modifications that would
reduce the shadows cast upon adjoining properties. The first was the reduction or
sloping of the roof by five feet on the north side of the Building One. The second was
the sloping of the parking garage structure roof which also would reduce the shadows
on adjoining properties, but would eliminate nine parking spaces in the garage.
Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial
district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard. However,
12
Members of the public were concerned with the additional density and possible vehicle
trips that could result in congestion and unsafe conditions. They also were concerned
that the greater number of pedestrians and cyclists could compromise safety.
d. Hearing Officer.
The introduction of up to more than 600 students at this location is noted. The
proximity to the CSU campus and the TOD zone mean that most traffic will be
pedestrian and cyclists. The Staff Traffic Department reviewed the Transportation
Impact Study provided by the applicant and found the estimates to be acceptable. The
Hearing Officer agrees that the primary impacts will be the increased pedestrian and
cyclists traffic to and from the CSU Campus. The P.D.P. meets this standard.
4. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) - Parking Requirements.
a. Parking Requirements.
Multi -family dwellings and mixed -use dwelling within the TOD Overlay Zone have no
minimum parking requirements. The site is located within the TOD therefore there are
no minimum parking requirements. However, the P.D.P. provides 495 vehicle parking
spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces. According to the applicant, the provision of
onsite parking where none is required is considered "essential from a leasing
perspective."
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that if the project was not located in the TOD, 441 parking spaces and 50
bicycle spaces would be required. The spaces provided exceed the minimum parking
required for vehicles by 54 and 282 for bikes.
C. Public Testimony.
Members of the public questioned both the number of spaces provided and the
possibility spillover parking into the nearby neighborhood. In addition there was a
concern that the parking garage could become a public garage. An additional concern
was the possibility of objects being thrown from the parking garage onto cars or people
below. The speaker asked the applicant to consider screening the openings in the
garage.
d. Hearing Officer.
Although there is no parking requirement in this TOD, the Hearing Officer asked the
applicant to address the concerns raised by the speakers. The applicant explained the
11
and requirements of the code.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff explained that with infill redevelopment there are a high number of existing trees.
The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees ad determined a mitigation
schedule. There are 130 existing trees. Of this total, 10 trees will be preserved and
120 are to be removed. For mitigation, 128 new trees will be planted. The mitigation
schedule has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester.
C. Public Testimony.
Members of the public were primarily concerned with the trees to be planted on the
north side of the parking structure and buildings. These concerns were addressed by
the City Forester.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer believes that the concerns expressed by the speaker were
addressed by the City Forester satisfactorily. The P.D.P. meets this standard.
3. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking.
a. General Standard.
Parking and circulation systems within each development are required to accommodate
the movement of vehicles, bicycles pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed
development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently and shall
contribute to the adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest as
security as defined by the standards in this section.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that the site is served by four public streets and one private driveway
serving the parking structure. Plum Street will include two, eight -foot wide, on -street
bike lanes. The existing sidewalk along Plum Street is attached and only three feet
wide and will be replaced by a detached walk that is seven feet wide. This exceeds the
standard sidewalk width by two feet. A new bus pull -in lane will be provided for the
Transfort Route #11. Weather protection for buses is incorporated into the design of
Building Two. All connections tie directly into the city-wide system of public
improvements.
C. Public Testimony.
10
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that despite the objections of members of the public, the
P.D.P. meets this standard.
ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection.
a. Tree Planting Standards.
All developments are required to establish groves and belts of trees along all city
streets, in and around parking lots and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty
(50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree
canopy.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff noted that street trees are provided in the parkway along all four public streets.
Foundation plants are provided in the form of planters which also double as storm water
collection containers. Finally a continuos row of trees are provided along the north
property line. Concerns about the row of trees were reviewed by the City Forester who
approved the landscaping plans as submitted. The concerns about the spacing were
duly noted and reviewed.
C. Public Testimony.
Members of the public questioned both the spacing provided for the continuos row of
trees along the north side of the parking structure. The concern was whether the trees
would survive and grow.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer believes that the concerns expressed by the speaker were
addressed by the City Forester satisfactorily. The P.D.P. meets this standard.
2. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement.
a. Protection and Replacement Requirements.
Existing significant trees are to be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Where
it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing trees or to transplant them to
another on -site location, the applicant is required to replace such trees per the schedule
G�
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found for the 2.7 acres half -block. There are 720 feet of frontage along Plum
Street and 165 feet along City Park Avenue. The Building frontage along Plum Street is
390 feet or 54% of the total frontage. The building frontage along City Park Avenue is
147 feet or 88% of the total frontage.
For the .75 acre half -block, there are 200 feet along Plum Street and 165 feet along
Aster Street. The building frontage along Plum Street is 180 feet or 90% of the
frontage. The building frontage along Aster Street is 125 feet or 76% of the total
frontage.
The P.D.P. exceeds the required minimum of 40% of each block side featuring building
frontage. Since the P.D.P. occupies only the southern half of the total block, the
standard requiring 50% of the total of all block sides to featuring a building frontage is
not applicable.
C. Public Testimony.
The public did not comment on the minimum building frontage standard.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. exceeds the 40% required for each block side
standard. However, the 50% of the total of all block sides requirement is not applicable.
7. Section 4.18(E)(2)(d) - Building Height.
a. Standard.
This standard requires that all buildings be at least 20 feet in height and no higher than
five stories.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the P.D.P features three multi -story buildings none of which exceed five
stories.
C. Public Testimony.
The public objected to the height, massing and scale of the three buildings.
1.1
Building Three is contained within a block formed by Plum Street on the south, Bluebell
Street on the west and Aster Street on the east. Due to existing buildings, Aster Street
is prevented from continuing north to intersect with Baystone Drive. Given this existing
block structure, the P.D.P. complies with the standard.
C. Public Testimony.
The public did not object to the block structure.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with the standard.
5. Section 4.18(E)(2)(b) - Block Size.
a. Standard.
This standard requires that all blocks be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres,
except that blocks containing supermarkets be limited to ten (10) acres.
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the blocks are established. The block defined by Plum, City Park,
Baystone and Bluebell is 5.29 acres. The block defined by Plum, Baystone and Aster is
1.47 acres. The P.D.P. occupies the southern half of these two blocks. Building One
and Two are formed by three public streets and contain 2.7 acres. Building Three is
formed by two public streets and contains .75 acres.
C. Public Testimony.
The public did not object to the block size.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with this standard.
6. Section 4.18(E)(2)(c) - Minimum Building Frontage.
a. Standard.
This standard requires that forty (40) percent of each block side of fifty (50) percent of
the total of all block sides consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional
open space.
7
appropriate use. The more appropriate use is high density residential given the
proximity to the CSU campus.
3. Section 4.18(E)(1)(c) - Integration of the Transit Stop.
a. Standard.
This standard requires installation of'a transit stop. Transit stops, to the maximum
extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the core commercial area.
b. Staff Analysis.
West Plum Street is served by Transfort Route #11. A transit stop is provided in front
of Building Two. This stop is incorporated into the design of the building and weather
protection is provided by a projecting overhang. A separate, dedicated, pull -in bus lane
is provided so that through traffic is not impeded by passenger pick-up and drop-off
operations activity.
G. Public Testimony.
The public expressed some concerns that the bus service would be adequate to serve
the increased population of the area.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer finds that the transit stop will meet the standard. The dedicated,
pull -in bus lane is a significant improvement over the current curbside loading. This
standard is met.
4. Section 4.18(E)(2)(a) - Block Structure.
a. Standard.
This standard requires that each Community Commercial District and each
development within this District be developed a series of complete blocks bounded by
streets (public or private).
b. Staff Analysis.
The proposed development is located on the southern half of two existing blocks that
are established by existing streets. Building One and Two are contained within the
existing block formed by four public streets - Plum Street on the south and City Park
Avenue on the west, Baystone Drive on the north and Bluebell Street on the east.
151
a. Permitted Use Standard.
Multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone, subject to
Administrative.
b. Staff Analysis.
Multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone.
C. Public Testimony.
The concerns were not about the residential use, but primarily the concentration,
density, scale and mass of the building.
d. Hearing Officer.
The use is an appropriate use in this area.
2. Section 4.18(D)(2) - Secondary Uses.
a. Secondary Use Standard.
This standard requires that if residential uses are considered secondary, and the
project is less than ten acres, the P.D.P. must demonstrate how the project contributes
to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area but shall not be required to
provide a mix of land uses within the development
b. Staff Analysis.
Staff found that the P.D.P is located on Plum Street which is not a street suitable for
commercial activity. Consequently, residential is an appropriate land use of this
immediate area. The location of the P.D.P. is only 700 feet from Elizabeth Street which
is the commercial core of Campus West. This proximity between residential and
commercial uses will contribute to the walkable character of the area and further
urbanize the C-C zone district.
C. Public Testimony.
The public did not object to the residential use, but was concerned about the density,
mass, scale of the proposed building.
d. Hearing Officer.
The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff analysis that commercial would not be an
5
The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:05 P.M. on April 5, 2012 in
the City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. The April 5,
2012 Public Hearing was continued at the request of the applicant when it was
discovered that some of the shadow analysis information was incorrect. The Public
Hearing was continued to April 23, 2012.
HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE:
The Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence from both hearings: (1) Planning
Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents
submitted by the applicant to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for public testimony
was provided during the hearing and members of the public were present and
submitted a variety of documents. The Land Use Code, the City's Comprehensive Plan
(City Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of
the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer.
The following persons attended the hearing:
From the City of Fort Collins:
Ted Shepard, Planning
Ward Stanford, Traffic Department
From the applicant:
Ms. Linda Ripley
Brent Cooper, Ripley
Nick Haws, Northern Engineering
Erick Bracke, ELB Engineering
Derek Anderson: Residential Housing Development, LLC
From the public:
Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign -in sheets are attached hereto.
FINDINGS
ARTICLE FOUR - C-C ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS
1. Section 4.18(B)(2)(a) - Permitted Use.
4
The four short streets north of Plum Street, Daisy, Columbine, Bluebell and Aster
Streets, presently serve modest one-story single family detached houses, primarily
used as student rentals. These houses are approximately 50 years old and none are
considered eligible for designation as structures of historic significance.
Campus West not only features a mix of land uses but a mix of structures of different
ages. The area has continually evolved, along with the growth of the CSU for decades.
For example, newer projects include two-story mixed use buildings along the street in a
new urbanism style and older steel commercial buildings set back behind large parking
lots.
The City of Fort Collins funded street improvements, sidewalk widening, crosswalk
enhancements, street trees, street furniture and decorative street lights along the two
block area of West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue.
These public improvements have enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as the
image of the area. The project seeks to transform the area from an auto dominated
development pattern to a more walkable district and act as a catalyst for private sector
redevelopment.
3. CAMPUS WEST STUDY
The C-C zoning was placed on the Campus West area in 1997 to implement City Plan.
At that time, there was concern that the vision of C-C zoning (ambitious redevelopment
incorporating new urbanism principles) was incongruous with the character and existing
development pattern of the area. Consequently, the City studied the area to rectify the
vision of the zoning with the constraints on the ground. In 2001, the study was
completed but did not achieve adoption as an official Sub -Area on equal status with the
other plans such as the Harmony Corridor Plan.
The primary focus was on the commercial core along West Elizabeth Street. With
regard to multi -family development, parking was identified as a constraint and
structured parking was recommended as a viable option. In general, The District
represents an incremental step toward redevelopment and upgrading the Campus West
neighborhood so that it is more urban and walkable by constructing new physical public
and private improvements.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the two hearings were
properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3
The three buildings will vary slightly in height. Building One at the western edge will be
five stories and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two in the
center would be a five level parking structure with a three-story residential component
facing Plum Street. Building Three at the eastern edge would be a five -story building.
The applicant has requested one modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) and approval of
the P.D.P. subject to one condition (vacation of streets).
The District will redevelop this four -block area by replacing the 16 existing houses with
three large student housing buildings. A parking garage will be constructed and two
public streets will be vacated. This site is within the Campus West Study Area. The
proposed use, multifamily, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative
Review. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding the setbacks from
public streets is requested for Building three pursuant to criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(1).
The vacation of public street must be approved by the City Council in a separate
proceeding. One condition of approval is that the vacation of two public dead-end
streets proceed separately.
SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE
CONDITION
BACKGROUND:
1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES
Direction Zone Land Use
N N Existing multi -family
S C-C Existing multi -family
E C-C Existing sorority house
W Not zoned Colorado State University - Married Student Housing
2. CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
Campus West is a mature, mixed -use neighborhood with the highest residential density
in the City of Fort Collins. Its proximity to Colorado State University ("CSU") offers the
advantage of access to CSU, by means other than a vehicle. Plum Street (local street)
is a convenient east -west travel corridor that connects a significant number of student -
orientated multi -family dwelling units to the main campus of CSU. Its signalized
intersection with Shields Street (arterial street) allows for safe crossing for cyclists and
pedestrians and leads directly to the heart of the campus.
2
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: April 5, 2012 continued to April 23, 2012
PROJECT NAME: The District at Campus West
CASE NUMBER: P.D.P. 120003
APPLICANT: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC
c/o Linda Ripley
Ripley Design, Inc.
401 West Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC
c/o Mr. Derek Anderson
Residential Housing Development
1302 Waugh Drive
Houston, TX 77019
HEARING OFFICER: Richard V. Lopez
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to redevelop 16 houses along four short blocks in the Campus West
neighborhood for a multi -family project consisting of 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres
located on the north side of West Plum Street between Aster Street and City Park
Avenue. The parcels are zoned C-C, Community Commercial and within the Transit -
Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD).
The District at Campus West (The District) is a student oriented housing development.
It will consist of three buildings which include a mix of two, three and four -bedroom
units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two -bedroom (14%); 42 three -
bedroom (22%) and 123 four -bedroom. The total number of bedrooms is 674 with each
bedroom leased individually. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and
computer lab. A total of 495 off-street parking spaces will be located within a five level
parking garage. In addition, 332 bicycle spaces will be located within the parking
garage on five levels. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated.
Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive