HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE DISTRICT @ CAMPUS WEST - PDP - PDP120003 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORTI inch = 600 feet
The District
fulfillment of the adopted vision of City Plan is uncomfortable. Despite
these growing pains, this is how all cities evolve over time in response to
changing social and economic conditions. The development review
process has allowed for a robust citizen participation process that has
resulted in plan revisions that further promote neighborhood compatibility.
H. 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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of 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.
16
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 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 the P.D.P. is found to be in compliance.
9. Findings of Fact / Conclusion:
In reviewing and evaluating The District at Campus West, Staff makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions:
A. 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 Colorado State University campus. Such
redevelopment would fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone
as an urbanizing and walkable district.
B. The District at Campus West complies with the applicable standards of
Article Four — Community Commercial zone district.
C. The P.D.P.. complies with the applicable Article Three General
Development Standards with one exception.
D. A 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 to be not detrimental to the
public good and equal to or better than would a plan that would have
otherwise complied with the standard in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H).
E. Building Three setbacks are found to be equal to or better than a plan that
would otherwise provide for uniform 15-foot setbacks is because Building
Three features a level of architectural detail that exceeds the baseline, a
sidewalk along Plum Street that exceeds the minimum width, and because
with the proposed setbacks, there would be consistent relationship along
Plum Street with Buildings One and Two which promotes an attractive
urban design perspective for Plum Street.
F. In evaluating the overall impacts of the P.D.P., staff finds that The District
at Campus West complies with the applicable standards related to
compatibility. Staff acknowledges that the overall scope of the P.D.P.
represents a significant change when compared with the existing
development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. It has been the
common experience of most neighborhoods that re -development in
15
of these meetings are attached. Generally, the main issues, and the applicant
response, are summarized as follows:
A. Building Height, Mass, Scale, Bulk
The issues relating to the overall scope of the project remain at the forefront.
While the applicant has scaled down the project since the first neighborhood
meeting, those attending the second meeting expressed concerns that the P.D.P.
represents a departure from the existing development pattern.
In response, the applicant has indicated that the plan revisions result in a
reduction in 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.
B. Traffic
The increase in traffic on the surrounding streets remains a concern. In
response, the applicant contends that the 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.
C. Density
There is.a concern that with a density in excess of 50 units per acre, and given
that there are a significant number of four -bedroom units, that there is too much
intensity associated with the P.D.P. In 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.
D. Property Management of Student Behavior
Those attending the meetings 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.
In response, the applicant has indicated that there will be on -site managers who
are professional and adults, not students, as would be normal for an on -campus
dormitory. Further, the lease allows for eviction for tenants who violate the rules
associated with undesirable behavior.
14
D. Staff Evaluation and Analysis:
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.
It is important 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
streetscape. 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.
E. Staff Recommendation and Findings of Fact:
Staff recommends approval of the Modification. In evaluating the request, and in
fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1) Staff makes the following
findings of fact:
(1.) The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good; and
(2.) 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
the Modification is requested. This is because Building Three is an
attractive building along all 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.
8. Neighborhood Compatibility:
Two neighborhood meetings were held one on August 31, 2011 and the other on
March 7, 2012. Note that between the two meetings, the height of Buildings One
and Two was reduced as well as the number of units and bedrooms. A summary
13
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. Summary of Applicant's Justification:
The applicant states that 11.5 feet of additional right-of-way will be dedicated for
Plum Street in order to improve the operations and functions of the westbound
travel lane, bike lane, parkway and detached sidewalk. These improvements will
contribute to the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urban,
walkable district.
Further, from an urban design perspective, there is an aesthetic value in creating
a consistent setback for all three buildings along Plum Street. The Land Use
Code recognized the difference between mixed -use buildings and residential
buildings. The Code, however, did not anticipate that that these two types of
buildings could be aligned in sequence along the same street. In other words,
the streetscape would look unusual if all three buildings were not in a consistent
alignment in its relationship to Plum Street
The setbacks along Aster and Bluebell are mitigated by articulation in the
building. The building exterior consists of a significant number of recesses and
projections so there are no blank walls.
The applicant contends that the proposed setbacks for Building Three from three
public streets are not detrimental to the public good. And, in compliance with
Section 2.8.2(H)(1), the setback results in a plan that is equal to or better than a
plan that would have complied with the standard.
The applicant also contends that the Request for Modification is justified by
Section 2.8.2(H)(2) in that the provision of student -oriented, multi -family housing
substantially alleviates an existing defined problem of city-wide concern and
addresses an important community need. This is because the project is located
within the Targeted Redevelopment Area as described by the City Plan.
12
• 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.
J. Section 3.8.16(E)(2) — Occupancy Limits
The application includes the request for 123 four -bedroom units. This standard
requires that where multi -family dwellings include more than three unrelated
persons, such occupancy may be allowed but subject to the provision of
additional open space, recreational areas, parking and public facilities as may be
necessary to adequately serve the occupants and to protect the adjacent
neighborhood.
With regard open space and recreation, the P.D.P. provides 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
would otherwise be required under Section 3.2.2(K)(1). Finally, public facilities
have been enhanced with construction of a bus pull -in lane, 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.
7. Request for Modification — Section 3.5.2(D)(2) — Residential Building
Setbacks from Nonarterial Streets:
A. The standard At Issue
Section 3.5.2(D)(2) reads as follows:
(2) Setback from Nonarterial 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.
B. Description of the Modification:
property, and the shading of window or gardens for more than three months of
the years.
The shadow analysis indicates that there is shadowing on the garden level units
of Sunstone Condos on December 23`d under present conditions due to existing
trees along the shared property line with The District. 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 down to impacting the only the
garden level.
Staff concludes that even if Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. was not exempted by
3.2.3(D), that shadows cast by Buildings One, Two and Three would not have a
substantial 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.
H. Section 3.5.1(H) Land Use Transition
This standard requires that compatibility be achieved by consideration of scale,
form, materials, color, buffer yard and operational standards. The issues related
to scale, form, materials and color have been addressed. With regard to
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.
With regard to operational characteristics, the most important design feature is
that each level of the parking structure features a parapet wall that blocks
headlights. Other features include two trash dumpsters that are fully enclosed
within the buildings and, as mentioned, no lighting spillover in excess of the
standard. Finally, the active area of the pool and clubhouse is south -facing and
totally screened from Sunstone Condos.
Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service
A Transportation Impact Study was submitted and evaluated by the City's Traffic
Engineering Department. Plum Street is classified as 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
fulfillment of the C-C zone's emphasis on walkability. The Study makes 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.
10
This standard requires that 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, texture shall be utilized to ensure compatibility.
As mentioned, there is no defined architectural character in the immediate vicinity
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 color, in 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.
(5.) Building Height Review — Views and Neighborhood Scale
The provision of this standard relating to privacy has already been addressed in
previous sections. With regard to 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 mature
neighborhood with significant number of existing, fully -grown trees. Presently,
there are no desirable views as the mature trees already block views from the
public streets.
With regard to neighborhood scale, the north elevation of Buildings One and Two
achieve a height of 49 feet in comparison with 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 but is further away from other adjacent buildings. The
height of other buildings in the area, excluding the C.S.U. campus, are identified
and described in the applicant's material and range in height from 28 feet to 58
feet. While higher than most buildings in the area, the scale is compatible given
the height and mass of other existing buildings.
(6.) Light and Shadow .
As noted, Section 3.2.3(D) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that
exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section
3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). Nevertheless, it may be important
to evaluate compliance with this standard since shadowing was identified as a
concern by citizens attending the neighborhood information meetings.
The applicant has provided a shadow analysis. Section 3.5.1(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
9
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.
G. Section 3.5.1— Building and Project Compatibility
(1.) Architectural Character
As documented in the Campus West Area Study, there is no predominant
architectural character in the area. Consequently, the standard requires that new
development shall establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in
the area.
This P.D.P. sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of
quality exterior materials. Balconies add interest to the fagade and the flat roofs
are mitigated with cornices and overhangs. Although Building One is long, its
length is mitigated by recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow
lines. The pedestrian scale of Building One is highlighted by the common area
and courtyard being placed directly behind the sidewalk. This area features a
one-story component bringing the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale.
All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, such as overhangs, entry
features and seat walls so that there is both horizontal and vertical relief.
(2.) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale
The three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surrounding
area. As mitigation, the buildings are sub -divided into modules defined by their
projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lowering the overall
height. There are no large, massive, blank walls.
(3.) Privacy Considerations
This standard requires that the P.D:P. minimize infringement on the privacy of
adjoining uses. At the same time, the standard requires that there be
opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or
security.
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 Condominiums) are separated from the shared
property line by a parking lot that is 60 feet wide. The combination of
landscaping and distance provide a sufficient amount of buffering to ensure the
privacy of the existing residents occupying the southern portions of the Sunstone
Condos.
(4.) Building Materials and Color
8
A. Section 3.2.1 — Landscaping and Tree Protection
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 stormwater
collection containers. A continuous row of trees are provided along the north
property line as buffering.
B. Section 3.2.1(F) — Tree Protection and Replacement
As expected with an infill redevelopment site, there are a high number of existing
trees. The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees and 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 scheduled has been reviewed and approved by the City
Forester.
C. Section 3.2.2 — Access, Circulation and Parking
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 Transfort Route #11. A bus shelter is incorporated into the design of
Building Two. All connections tie directly into the city-wide system of public
improvements.
D. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Parking
The site is located within the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay District in
which there are no minimum parking requirements. The P.D.P., however,
provides 495 vehicle parking spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces. If the
project were not located in the T.O.D., 441 parking spaces would be required and
50 bicycle spaces would be required. The project, therefore, exceeds the
minimum parking requirements for vehicles by 54 spaces and for bikes by 282
spaces.
E. Section 3.2.3(D) - Shading
This section sets a maximum shading standard but it specifically exempts
structures within the Community Commercial zone district.
F. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting
There are seven pole -mounted light fixtures with no foot-candles exceeding one-'
tenth as measured 20 feet from property lines. Four of these fixtures will
A. Ground Level Treatment
This standard requires that where parking structures face streets, retail and other
uses shall be required along at least 50% of the ground level frontage to
minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity. The parking structure
includes dwelling units along its entire length facing Plum Street, to a height of
three stories. By placing dwelling units along Plum Street, the structure is ,
disguised and access operations do not impact the public street.
B. Architectural Elements
This standard requires that architectural elements shall be incorporated to
encourage pedestrian activity at the street -facing level. As mentioned, the Plum
Street frontage of the parking structure features dwelling units. These units
include seven entrances and windows and architectural materials associated with
a multi -family structure. This residential treatment activates the streetscape at a
pedestrian scale that significantly exceeds the standard.
C. Design of Auto Entrances
This standard requires that the auto entrance from the public right-of-way, be
designed so that pedestrian and bicycle safety is not jeopardized by conflicts with
vehicles entering and exiting structure. As mentioned, access to the parking
structure is gained from a private driveway, not public right-of-way. In order to
promote safety, the applicant has elected to comply with the standards as if
access were from a public street in the following manner:
• The beginning of the ramp is at least four feet behind the back edge
of the private walkway;
• The entry is separated from the private walkway by low planters;
• There are no blank walls on either side of the entry;
• The private walkway pavement is continuous across the drive aisle.
• There will be appropriate cautionary signage to alert pedestrians to
the presence of entering and exiting vehicles and to inform drivers
that pedestrians have priority.
6. Compliance with Article Three — General Development Standards:
The following General Development Standards are applicable to The District at
Campus West P.D.P.
R
Building Three is formed by two public streets and contains .75 acre. The District
P.D.P. complies with this standard.
F. Section 4.18(E(2)(c) — Minimum Building Frontage
This standard requires that 40% of each block side or 50% of the total of all block
sides shall consist of building frontage, plazas or other functional open space.
For the 2.7 acre half -block, there are 720 feet 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 145
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 District exceeds the required minimum of 40% of each block side featuring
building frontage. Since The District occupies only the southern one-half of the
total block, the standard requiring 50% of the total of all block sides to feature
building frontage is not applicable.
G. Section 4.18(E)(2)(d) — Building Height
This standard requires that all buildings be at least 20 feet in height and no
higher than five stories. The District features three multi -story buildings none of
which exceed five stories.
5. Compliance with Article Three — Parking Structure in T.O.D.:
Section 4.18(F) requires that projects located within the Transit -Oriented
Development Overlay Zone comply with the requirements of Supplemental
Regulation 3.10. Since The District at Campus West is north of Prospect Road,
the only applicable standard is the design of parking structure per Section 3.10.4.
The parking structure contains five levels, located within Building Two with
access gained by a private drive along the west side, not Plum Street.
This standard is intended to address access to a parking structure from public
right-of-way. The proposed parking structure, however, gains access from a
private drive along the west side so compliance is not required. Nevertheless,
because the standards address safety and the interaction among pedestrians,
bicycles and vehicles, the P.D.P. complies with the standard in the following
manner:
5
B. Section 4.18(D)(2) — Secondary Uses
This standard requires that since residential uses are considered secondary, and
since 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. 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 for this immediate
area. Further, 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. Section 4.18(E)(1)(c) - Integration of the Transit Stop
This standard requires installation of a transit stop. 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.
D. Section 4.18(E)(2)(a) - Block Structure
This standard requires that development in the C-C zone shall feature a series of
blocks. The District at Campus West is located on the southern one-half of two
existing blocks that are established by existing streets.
Buildings 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. 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.
E. Section 4.18(E)(2)(b) — Block Size
This standard requires that all blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven
acres. 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.
As mentioned, The District occupies the southern one-half of these two blocks.
Buildings One and Two are formed by three public streets and contain 2.7 acres.
4
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
university, for decades. For example, newer projects include two-story mixed -
use buildings oriented along the street exemplifying the principles of new
urbanism as well as older steel commercial buildings set back behind large
parking lots.
Several years ago, the City of Fort Collins funded a capital project resulting in the
construction of street improvements, sidewalk widening, crosswalk
enhancements, street trees, street furniture and decorative street lights along two
blocks of West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue.
More than simply a face-lift, these public improvements have enhanced
pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as the image of the area. The project is
helping to transition the area from an auto -dominated development pattern to a
more walkable district and acts as a catalyst for private sector re -development on.
a parcel -by -parcel basis.
3. Campus West Study:
The C-C zoning was placed on the Campus West area in 1997 in order to
implement City Plan. At the 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 at Campus West 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.
4. Compliance with Article Four, C-C Zone District Standards:
A. Section 4.18(8)(2)(a) - Permitted Use
As mentioned, multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone, subject
to Administrative Review.
3
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Request for Modification to Section
3.5.2(D)(2) and approval of the P.D.P., subject to one condition.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This project represents a significant redevelopment of 16 existing houses and
vacation of two public streets. The site is located within the Campus West Study
Area. The proposed land use, multi -family, is permitted in the C-C zone district
subject to Administrative Review. A Modification of Standard to Section
3.5.2(D)(2) regarding setbacks from public streets is requested for Building Three
and found to be justified by the criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). The vacation of
public streets is a separate procedure subject to approval by City Council. A
condition of approval is recommended that ensures proper completion of the
vacation of public right-of-way.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: M-M-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
offers the advantage of access to C.S.U. by means other than a vehicle. Plum
Street (local street) is a convenient east -west travel corridor that connects a
significant number of student-oriented.multi-family dwelling units to the main
campus of C.S.U. Its signalized intersection with Shields Street (arterial street)
allows for safe crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians and leads directly to the
heart of the campus.
The four short streets north of Plum Street, defined by Daisy, Columbine,
Bluebell and Aster Streets, presently serve 16 modest, one-story single family
detached homes primarily offered as rental houses for students. These houses
are approximately 50 years old and none are considered eligible for designation
as being structures of historic significance.
01
of
;,rt�'
ITEM NO :-
MEETING DATE RPRh o20ld,
STAFF TX-n .SHEP.9 P,
HEARING OFFICER
PROJECT: The District at Campus West, P.D.P., #120003
APPLICANT: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC
c/o Linda Ripley
Ripley Design, Inc.
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC
c/o Mr. Derek Anderson
Residential Housing Development
1302 Waugh Drive
Houston, TX 77019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to re -develop 16 houses along four short streets 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.
The dwelling units would be distributed among three buildings and 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 (64%). There would be a total of 674 bedrooms each of which would
be leased individually. There would be 495 off-street parking spaces and located
within a parking garage with five levels. In addition, 332 bicycle parking spaces
are proposed. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated.
Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive. The project includes a
clubhouse, pool, fitness center and computer lab.
Moving along Plum Street from west to east, Building One would be five stories
and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two would be a
five level parking structure featuring a three-story residential component facing
Plum Street. Building Three would be a five story building.
Current Planning 281 N College Av PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/currentplanning 970.221.6750