HomeMy WebLinkAbout220 E. OLIVE ST. - MOD. OF STAND. - MOD120005 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESi/
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 26 '
Member Schmidt asked if she could make a motion to the positive. Member Stockover said he did not
think that was proper and that we should vote on the motion on the floor.
The motion passed 4:3 with Members Kirkpatrick, Schmidt and Smith dissenting.
Project: Pateros CreekX12 Wood Street, Modification of Staard, #MOD120004
Project Description This is a request fork Modification of Standard to ction 4.2(E)(2)(c) which caps
the maximum, overa aver/ocated
sity in clust d residential projects in the Urban
Estate (U-E) zone at 00 dunits per oss acre and 5.0 dwelling units per
net acre within a clust deent pla or Pateros Creek, a pending P.D.P.
While the proposal meIquest
tens' standard by proposing 4.75 dwelling
units per net acre, thek maximum density of 2.36 dwelling units per
gross acre which wouladditional dwelling units from 35 to 41. The
parcel is 17.34 acres izcated on the east side of Wood Street,
approximately % mile t Shields Street. The site is developed and
formerly known as thenile Home Park.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written
Evidence
The recorder reported since the wor session, ritten documents received were: Memo from
Environmental Planner Ex dated J e 19, ema from Gino Campana dated June 18 regarding response
to Gary Wockner letter, and a le r from Save a Poudre (Gary Wockner) dated June 21. Copies were
in the Board's read before Pack9t.
Environmental Planner Lind y Ex said Patero Creek is a proposed clustered residential development
project, pending the annex ion and zoning of t e property by City Council. This request is for a stand-
alone Modification of Stanard, which is allowe per Section 2.8.1 and, if granted, is valid for only one
year by which time a Pro' ct Development Plan ncorporating the Modification must be filed. The request
has been evaluated /bye criteria of Section2.2(H) and found to be in compliance due to the pending
P.D.P., with 41 dwelnits, being equal to or etter than a plan with 35 dwelling units. The plan, as
proposed with 41 dwg units, would only dive a from the standard in a nominal and inconsequential
to a plan that would been capped at 35 dw (ling units.
Several Board me hers requested additional inf mation on the comments by Save the Poudre relative
to detrimental to
a public good during the June Work Session.
Ex said she 'es rched the scientific literature on t e topic, obtained trail counter data for the Poudre
River Trail, met ith Natural Areas senior staff and ng-Range Planning staff, and additional
correspondenc from the applicant's ecological cons tant. When checking resources in scientific
literature, she and it was well documented that any velopment affects the ecological integrity of
natural syste . She could find no literature studying th ffects of 2.0 dwelling units (du)/acre against
2.36 du/acre r that is it detrimental to the public good. S provided a memo dated June 19 that
outlining a to I of eight studies, key findings are as follows:
1
r
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 25
Member Campana said his understanding that agreement is only on an annual basis. He'd feel a lot
better about it if it were a permanent solution. Chair Smith said if at some point the parking is no longer
available, it's a violation of the LUC and it's a risk the applicant is taking on himself so he must be feeling
confident that over the long term he's going to be able to meet that requirement. With demand, he'd
expect the cost of those spaces would go up and when appropriate (pencils out) there may be a parking
structure.
Member Schmidt asked if the modification with condition is approved and the PDP comes in but the
Board decides it's not compatible with the neighborhood; can they find it's not compatible based on the
information available at that time. Shepard said yes. Eckman agreed with Shepard. He said they
probably wouldn't want to use any parking incompatibility if the Board approved the modification. He
said if they are in compliance with parking (granted the modification); if would be difficult to find anything
negative related to parking to warrant denial at the time of the PDP review.
Member Schmidt said we'd have the mitigation condition —the number of spaces (40). Member Schmidt
said at the PDP stage, they'd still be able to discuss the ZipCar and the rent incentives —those aspects of
parking mitigation. Eckman said he doesn't think the ZipCar is part of the condition approval. Shepard
said it's also the Transfort annual pass and some type of shared vehicle arrangement. They were things
offered by the applicant. Shepard said he wrote the condition of approval based on the application he
received. Eckman said it might be good to list those mitigation measures in the motion and the applicant
would know that when they come back with a PDP.
Member Campana asked how long a modification is good. Shepard said 1 year.
Member Stockover said we're not ready for this project. He said its' not the right project in the right place
at the right time. He doesn't think we should force an ideal on the neighborhood. He thinks parking is
an issue in that neighborhood. It doesn't pencil out. The City is subsidizing.. They are trying to put too
much on too little. He thinks we need to send the message that they shouldn't be spending a lot of time
drawing up complete plans based on their initial thoughts. When it comes back, if he's on this board;
he's going to say too much in too little space at the expense of a great neighborhood.
Chair Smith said he can sense where we're going as a board and he thinks this is a missed opportunity.
He does think we have a history in the way that we've built this city and continue to build a vibrant
downtown based on innovation, best practices, and being data driven. He said the best management
practice in urban design and downtown management is to not be too far ahead of your demand when
you're supplying parking. This project could probably be a great pilot project to start a better way of
managing downtown parking.
Chair Smith said he's going to disagree with the board. The city subsidizes parking extensively whether
it's a spot out front of a store —we're already heavily subsidizing vehicles and parking. He said it
wouldn't be hard to find folks that respond to the financial incentives and disincentives that the developer
is offering. He thinks there would be folks lined up to do it. He doesn't want the developer to get the
sense that this is a philosophy we wouldn't support. He knows he's speaking in the minority but he does
believe it represents something that is very well articulated in the Downtown Strategic Plan and Plan Fort
Collins and speaks well to economic vitality, livability, and community health. He disagrees with a couple
of the comments that this is too much. He thinks it's about the perfect scale in the right location at the
exact right time. He thinks it's a bit of a missed opportunity and they make look back and wish they had
it again if they don't proceed with it.
Member Stockover made a motion to deny Item 7, 220 E. Olive Modification of Standard,
#MOD120005, based on findings of fact that it is detrimental to the public•good and not equal to
or better than what is required. Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 24
sort of a chicken and an egg thing. She realizes it's going to be difficult to make that transition. She
thinks the place to have density is in the downtown area. She thinks we can do a lot more with shared
parking. She thinks providing parking for everyone in a building is a difficult concept and as far as
meeting the goals of City Plan, this project goes far in trying to do that.
Member Schmidt said we haven't seen the PDP (Project Development Plan) and there's a condition in
the approval of this modification that requires mitigation. If it doesn't meet what has been proposed, we
could deny the PDP. She thinks there may be assurances by that point. In this situation, the parking lot
with empty spaces is right across the street. She thinks the tenants will use it, she thinks CSU
international and graduate students won't have cars and want a quiet apartment close to campus. She
can see how it could also work for CSU staff who like to bike to work. She's leaning toward supporting it
because it's an opportunity for someone to do something different. She thinks they've been creative in
the mitigation they're proposing. She's willing to give it a shot and see what the PDP looks like.
Member Kirkpatrick said she's inclined to agree. The fact that if they were a few feet over (across the
alley), they wouldn't have this issue. She said she's sensitive to the concern of the adjacent residents
but in this location she thinks it is not as big of an issue as some would think. She thinks the city is
committed to addressing the parking issues and will continue to do so as we fulfill the policy needs that
we've identified --increasing density and being more transit oriented. She thinks she would be remiss to
stump opportunities for economic development in lieu of parking uncertainty. She lived in a like situation
in graduate school and she did have a car but parked in some distance away which in this case could be
one of the parking structures. She thinks there are those who would like this situation. This is a project
that speaks to the policies we said we want.
Member Campana said he loves the idea of doing something different with that building and he loves the
idea of the City participating in parking. He's struggling with the City subsidizing 100% of the applicant's
parking needs. He would feel a lot better with a relationship between the developer and the City if there
was some participation where you were paying you own way. It's not right that our tax dollars are paying
for their parking at $60 per year. That cost is not even close to what the cost of parking is. He
appreciates they have put in as many dwelling units you'd like to have there but he's really struggling
with 42 dwelling units on that tiny lot in the context of that neighborhood. There are some multifamily
buildings there but nothing at that level. He said he's going to have some issues with density when the
PDP comes forward. He said maybe we're giving away the farm by the agreement we're trying to set up.
Member Carpenter said she agrees with Members Campana and Stockover. She's struggling to find a
way to make this equal to or better than when we have zero parking. Going from 67 to 0 is past her level
of comfort. She's also not seeing that it meets a community need. There are many condo or apartment
complexes built with parking so like Campana said we're all paying for the parking. She's not going to be
able to support the request. .
Member Hatfield said as he's studied the materials, he's recognized that they are using taxpayer
supported parking to subsidize a private enterprise. Secondly there has got to be other alternatives.
He's very much in support of infill development and he hopes they can find some way to figure out and
pay for their parking because that is what your tenants would expect. He couldn't support the project if
there's no parking provided.
Member Schmidt said she didn't see it as no parking provided. She thinks the city is making a
commitment to those 40 spaces. If they do get the modification approved, they may come back with a
PDP with a different number of units/required parking. She thinks we're penalizing the developer
because he's getting a good deal across the street. The city's the entity that's decided to charge $60 per
year. The City could raise it to a level that covers more cost. That's not necessarily the developer's fault.
v
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 23
Member Kirkpatrick asked staff if there were across the alley, would they be in the TOD (Transit Overlay
District) and would not have a parking requirement? Shepard said that is correct.
Member Schmidt asked Hensley if anyone could buy a permit on the surface lot. Hensley said permits
are open to the public. Schmidt asked what the threshold is for partnering with others to build a parking
structure. Hensley said there are absolutely no plans to do that. Hensley said the trend in the parking
industry is not to build stand alone parking garages but rather to have them in combination with other use
such as retail or residential.
Member Stockover asked how to build more than two levels at a reasonable cost. Hensley said you get
more parking by building up and that is more expensive than surface lot parking. Rates would have to be
penciled out just like any other development.
Chair Smith asked how many surface lots are under the City's management now. Hensley said 7 surface
lots in the downtown area. Smith asked how many spaces. Hensley said in the neighborhood of 1700.
Smith asked about strategy for long term parking management. Wilder said you start City Plan (policy
basis) and then the long term parking plan. The concept is to develop shared. parking opportunities
though public/private partnerships. Smith asked if that might include.a dedicated tax —a parking district
where developers paid in lieu of providing their own. Wilder said that could be one of the funding
options. Smith asked if there were any examples in peer communities of similar arrangements. Wilder
said this is a very common approach with Boulder having such parking structures.
Board Discussion
Eckman said before the Board considered a motion, he thought he would just go through the number of
findings that need to be made, The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public
good. Beyond that the applicant has proposed they consider that this is equal to or better than (etbt) or
alternates are community need or hardship. With etbt criteria, you need to make a finding that this plan
promotes the purpose of the standard which is sought to be modified equally well or better than would a
plan that complied with that standard. You have the parking standard, permitting on the adjacent lot,
and you have the rental incentives, etc. as the applicant has explained as the mechanism whereby this
advances the purpose of the standard etbt. In the making of the motion, you need to make a statement
as to how come this advances that purpose etbt. If looking at important community need, you need to
explain how come it advances that important community need without infringing on the general purposes
of the LUC. Same with the hardship; why the imposition of the law imposes a hardship upon the
applicant:
Member Stockover said transportation is something very dear to him. He's been at odds with the last
study and parking inventory. Private parking is private parking and he doesn't believe it should be
included in the overall number for the city. Parking is an important city need. He doesn't see how we
can keep doing parking studies and include privately owned parking spaces. People need cars on the
weekends. We're not New York City or Chicago; we drive to destinations for entertainment. He thinks
residents will ride their bikes all they want but they're going to need parking spaces. He likes the idea of
the warehouse look but if it doesn't pencil out then we're doing at the cost of others. This is at the cost of
others. What if the 42 or 75 surface parking spaces go away? If we're going to build a property, we
need to make it sustainable and not rely on a variable of a city owned space not controlled by the
applicant. He doesn't think the benefits outweigh the negatives. He can't support this application on any
level.
Member Schmidt said she hears people complain about Transfort and what a terrible bus system we
have. Part of the reason is we don't have the density to support the transit system and we're never going
to get the density to support a transit system if we constantly provide parking for people. She said it's a
Planning & Zoning.Board
June 21, 2012
Page 22
parking is they seem to be banking on 60% of their required parking on a site that is not owned by them.
It's a year to year lease and frankly there is no guarantee the surface lot will remain as such. That
seems a little tenuous. Also, with the planned convention center that may come done the pike some day,
it will also 'eat' up the downtown parking.
End of Public Input
Brad Florin said they would not be exceeding NCB height restrictions.
Florin said he's not sure where the $500 per month rent figure came from —they couldn't build it with
Formica countertops and rent them for $500. The rents will be market based. They do not have final
numbers.. These newer 'products' would most likely rent for $1,000 — not low rent nor geared solely to
students.
By end of construction, they're goal is to acquire as many parking permits are available and needed.
Should the City determine the demand for parking in the downtown area due to infill warrant another
parking structure, they would intend to be customers of the parking structure.
Florin said in the context of using a City lot to satisfy their on -site parking requirement, he thinks the
Board is aware of two other projects where agreement with the City was reached for surface lot parking
permits. Florin said when NCB was being considered for PDOD, they scored their project and it got a
score of 65. He'd like to continue to communicate with neighbors and downtown employers as they move
through the review process.
Member Campana asked when the project was approved in 2008 how many dwelling units were
proposed. Florin said 14. Campana asked how parking was satisfied then. Shepard said it was a condo
project with 14 units and they were proposing below grade parking. Campana asked if the current
project was 50 dwelling units per acre. Shepard said he hadn't made the calculation. Florin said the
previous infill project was not a good infill project... they were 1200-1800 square feet units. It did not help
create density downtown. Broyhill has built these same unit floor plans across the country. It's a 500
square foot 1 bedroom unit. One it is more affordable and it is ideal for in -fill with better density.
Campana asked if they thought it was going to be 3 stories. Florin said yes and the third story would be
taller with an interior (tall ceiling) loft unit.
Member Campana ran a calculation of 42 units at 500 square feet and asked if the 21,000 square feet
could fit on two floors without articulation. Florin said there would be common area hallways, two exits,
and 1st floor bike parking —they've squeezed pretty much every square inch they could within the 3
stories. Campana asked what the critical mass was for 42 units. Florin said it was to get the project
financial feasible.
Member Schmidt asked if they had looked at underground parking. Is that feasible for this building?
Florin said they've explored it and the cost of building underground parking even with the original project
was approximately $600,000. Today they would only get 14 spots and it would cost $600,000 or
$700,00. It's a very difficult payback —it doesn't work. Florin said they tried various options including
some combination with the bike parking and it would cause them to go back up to the four stories and
that was undesirable.
Member Schmidt asked if the new project would meet setback standards. Florin said they're currently
exploring that with staff.
Member Hatfield asked if they explored parking on first floor with units above. Florin said yes but it would
be a full three stories above the parking resulting in a 4 story building.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 21
concentrated cars in what is basically a residential area is a concern of hers. If they oversell the pay lot,
people will park where they can for longer periods.
Brian Gluth lives at 325 E. Olive. One of things he's concerned about is this is a request for modification
of standard for parking. What other changes may be put in place? He doesn't see how 42 units can fit in
the allowed three stories in an area that is predominately 1 or 2 stories. With, parking incentives, he's
concerned about the lot to the south being oversold. If they have a car and they don't want to pay for a
permit, they don't need to —they can park in front of his house or they can park in his driveway. He
wonders how this will work with the Laurel School Historic District or with historic preservation. From
personal experience and the time it took for him to get a variance for the construction of a ramp for his
wheel chair; he knows that will take some time. With this request for changes for parking, where will
zoning changes stop.
Gwyneth Robe lives,at 315 E. Olive. She is the closest owner occupied residence -to the proposed site.
Her house was built in 1880 and was essentially a Cape Cod style. It is a historically designated
landmark. The proposed site is an eyesore. There's vandalism and it does attract people who sleep on
the property. There are kids 'rock climbing' and using the property's roof top. Doing something is near
and dear to her heart; however, you have lots of traffic there due to the historic museum, playground and
library amenities. You're dealing with the fact that this is a family neighborhood and it's very quiet.
There are regularly kids crossing the street. It's not just parking; to have something with 40 plus units
right next to a historical landmark really does affect the entire neighborhood.
Scott Hayden is the property owner of 317 E. Olive — across the street from the children's park. He's
heard loft style and bicycle friendly community but none of these are backed by any guarantees. He
objects to it by it's size, by its height and by the fact as a taxpayer he's being asked to subsidize parking
and give them a,special right that is not available to other properties or business owners in that
neighborhood. The project is too large and the project should be required to have its own parking which
is in meeting with the community standards. He thinks the property should try to fit the neighborhood in
terms of height. He's opposed on each one of those points. To give them a special dispensation does
not recognize future growth in Fort Collins. That will always be the most popular parking spot ... they live
in the red zone already and this will make our zone even more red and it will harm other opportunities for
other people to come visit Library Park. Hayden said at that price'point you will have a large number with
likely more than one occupant per unit. This is opening a can of worms they don't want in their
neighborhood.
Cathy Norman owns 226 Remington. She thinks the applicant did a marvelous job marketing their
project. She thinks they want everyone to be excited about it. We'd really like to see something here so
she's not talking about his project. She is talking about the parking because that is what the Board is
here to address. If you're saying it requires 67, he's only thinking he might give 40 parking permits. That
means that there's a lot of the neighborhood that is really taking the brunt of all this. She does not think
they are being responsible at all. She's not sure the maps represent what happens down there. In the
evenings things really change and parking spaces become very precious. If you add 67 people to the
mix, it will be to the detriment of anyone who wants to come downtown.
Elizabeth Black lives at 103 Peterson Street. She frequently walks -the neighborhood so she's observed
that parking is very limited. They live just opposite of the library and parking for them is always a
struggle day or night. When they have festivals, you almost have to stake out your place and sit there all
weekend. This proposal would really cause a lot of stress on the neighborhood and those visiting the
area. To omit more parking would only cause more problems.
Mike Coley lives at 324 E. Magnolia. He's pleased that the property is being considered for
redevelopment. It certainly needs it. It's become quite blight over the years. His concern about the
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 20
owners. They want to build individual locking bike garages on the first floor. They will have a shared bike
shop. They want to give rent incentives (rent reduction) and free Transfort passes for those with no
vehicles for the duration of the lease. They also exploring a partnership with ZipCar but that has a high
administrative overhead and they're still not ready to do it on their own —they may want to tap into
something at CSU.
Florin said as much as they want to avoid it, some of the residents will have cars. They have been able
to secure 35 parking permits for the lot just south of them. They are on the waiting list for the next 8
permits. They will be 13 new on -street spots on Mathews and Olive. He said there is quite a bit of public
parking around the library with highest use during the day.
Florin said the request for modification is for no on -site parking because they do not have control of the
city lot in the future and they don't want to set up a situation where they are non -conforming. They want
to design it to be bike, pedestrian and transit oriented. They believe that will be lower impact than office
use. He thinks that will make it equal to or better than a plan that would comply. Secondly, he said their
PDP (Project Development Plan) would not be detrimental to the public good. Thirdly, he said this fulfills
the vision for Plan Fort Collins and the Downtown Strategic Plan. He said given the lots constraints, it's
an exceptional physical condition for a building plus on -site parking —it's just not feasible for an
apartment project. He said they plan to survey/market to downtown employees and that will result in
alleviating parking demands downtown.
He thinks this will be a very good net benefit for the city.
Board Questions
Member Hatfield asked how the cost of the public parking be absorbed by the tenant or the landlord.
Florin said they have not determined that yet. Their initial thought is to charge for the spots to
discourage car ownership. Non -vehicle owners would also be eligible for reduced rent and free annual
Transfort passes.
Public Input
Charles Clarke lives at 327 E. Magnolia and also manages the apartment building there. He said the
PDOD discussion earlier helped him understand the give and take in development. He said that is what
we're addressing here. They (the applicant) want less parking so what is it they are giving up. All they've
said is bike oriented residents and 'trust us' there will be less use of cars. He said they want 40 spots
when they need 67. In this case it's not even the minimum. Clarke said his girlfriend lives in a green
community and they all have cars. Some of them leave their cars parked all week but there are still cars
there. He said there are apartments along Mathews across from Library Park that use those spots.
Joann Ginal lives at 316 E. Magnolia. She said this is a great concept, however, there are no
warehouses in the old town area. It doesn't really blend in with the site. She's opposed to 42 units on
this very small lot. Most will be single bedrooms for $500—a very low cost. She sees that attracting
students and others. Most of the rentals in the area that are 1 and 2 bedrooms go for $850-900 or more.
She believes the law states no more than 3 unrelated people per unit so a three bedroom unit could have
more than what's allowed by law.. The numbers go up with families. All have potential negative impact
on the neighborhood. There could be problems with parking in alleys in the area. It's too many units in
too small a place at a low cost. She thinks it will not benefit their neighborhood but -it would benefit a
developer.
Doree Dufreson lives at 325 E. Olive. She said the issue at .hand is the parking. There will be 42 units in
an area zoned NCB on that lot that would probably not hold 42 units within the 3 stories allowed. Parking
around Library Park is higher than some areas because it is free parking, it is not limited to 2 hours, and
the areas that would be considered public parking would not utilized with this development. The issue of
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 19 ,✓
part of the plan such that any failure to perform shall result in a Land Use Code violation
subject to the full force and effect of a Land Use Code infraction.
Senior City Planner Timothy Wilder displayed maps that were prepared as part of the parking plan
process. They looked at the inventory of parking around the downtown area and they also did a follow-
up study to identify parked vehicles in those parking areas. The maps show color gradients that show
the more (red) heavily parked areas and the least (blue) heavily parked areas. The maps indicate
parking at on a Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m., 3 p.m. and 5 p.m Ito show change`of use.
Member Stockover asked if the maps represented both public and private lots. Wilder said yes.
Stockover asked if he had public parking data only. Wilder said it could be broken down by public.
Member Carpenter asked is the lot in question a public lot or a permit only lot. Parking Services Manger
Randy Hensley said it is a permit lot.
Member Schmidt asked Wilder when he spoke of the 50% vacancy, is that 50% open to the public
looking for a space. Wilder said it simply indicates how many vehicles are parking in the lot —it does not
indicate who can use the lot. Hensley said the map contains both public and private parking... in indicated
what was private, what is on -street (public) and what were public lots such as parking garages and city
surface lots. He said when it is a public facility; what determines who can park there is based on how it's
managed. For the parking garage they sell permits and also have hourly or transient parking. For
surface lots, depending on the lot, they have a mix of free open all day parking, 2 hour parking and
permit parking. The lot south of the site is strictly a permit lot.
Member Stockover asked how many spaces were in that lot. Hensley said 70 with 35 permits sold. He
said that does not mean there are 35 vehicles there at all times. They have an oversell factor (common
in the parking industry) and do not limit the number of permits to the number of spaces because not
everyone shows up for use of a permit parking space.
Applicant Presentation
Brad Florin has been the property owner of Olive Street Properties, LLC for the past 8 years. He
introduced Brad Broyhill, a prospective partner. He said he wished there was a 7 p.m. view of parking so
they'd show as relatively empty except for Friday and Saturday night when folks are looking for parking
within 2 blocks of the downtown area.
He showed pictures of the property and describe a history of the property's use. He said they are one
alley away from the downtown area zone and that's why they're in this discussion today. He explained
how 400 square foot condos had been approved but after 9/11 the financing was no longer available.
The bad news is it has become an eye sore. They have worked to lease as an office space or as a
micro -brewery but withdrew that idea in light of neighborhood opposition. They think apartments fit the
context of the neighborhood.
He said they have a new vision and he'd like to give Brad Broyhill credit for that as he has substantial
experience in developing apartments. He's lived here 1.0 years and he wants to do a quality project —
he'd like something unique that would extend old town over a couple of blocks. Their vision is for a bike
oriented loft. It's a new/old warehouse —looks like it's been there 100 years — a warehouse converted to
lofts. Broyhill said it would have character. and tie to downtown and Library Park. They want a brand
new old warehouse with large windows and loft style high ceilings.
Florin said they think there's a market for residents who make their bike their primary mode of
transportation. 16 order to achieve that, they are looking at sustainable/a model FortZed project. He said
there a lot of process to get through and this. is only a first step. They really want to push for non -vehicle
Planning & Zoning Board
June 21, 2012
Page 18
changed her mind is she thinks
thinks re -platting offers less prot(
Member Carpenter said as she
is compatible in a single family,
trill look compatible and has the greatest protections. She
neighborhood.
e she will not be supporting it because she does not believe it
neighborhood.
The motion passed 6:1 yti Member arpenter dissenting.
Project: 220 E. Olive Modification of Standard, #MOD120005
Project Description: This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K) (1)
(a) which establishes the minimum number of parking spaces for multi -family
dwellings. The Land Use Code requires a minimum number of parking spaces to
serve the proposed apartment building. Based on the mix of one and two
bedroom units distributed across 42 units, 67 parking spaces would need to be
provided on the site. The applicant is requesting zero parking spaces be provided
on the site. As mitigation, the applicant is proposing to provide 40 parking spaces
across Olive Street in the City of Fort Collins public parking lot. These 40 spaces
are available and would be secured with a long term lease in accordance with the
leasing procedures of the Parking Services Department of the City of Fort Collins.
The pending P.D.P. would be a residential project at 220 East Olive Street at the
northwest corner of East Olive Street and Mathews Street. The existing building
would be demolished. The new building would include 42 apartment units. The
parcel is zoned N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer.
Recommendation: Approval with condition.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
The recorder reported emails in opposition were received from Bob Hawes on 6/19, Bret Larimer on June
20 and Paige Lunberry on June 21. An email in support was received from Bruce Hendee on June 21.
Senior Planner Ted Shepard said 220 East Olive Street Apartment Building ("Library Lofts") is a pending
residential development project. A stand-alone Request for Modification of Standard is allowed per
Section 2.8.1 and, if granted, is valid for only one year by which time a Project Development Plan
incorporating the Modification must be filed. The request has been evaluated by the criteria of Section
2.8.2(H) and found to be in compliance due to the provision of 40 parking spaces being located across
the street and secured with a long term lease. With this arrangement, along with other mitigation
measures, the pending P.D.P. would be equal to or better than a plan that would have provided 67 on -
site parking spaces. A condition of approval is recommended regarding enforcement of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Shepard displayed photos of the adjacent properties. He said staff recommends approval of the Request
for Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a), which would allow the pending 220 East Olive
Apartment Building Project Development Plan to have zero parking on -site, subject to the following
condition:
At the time of submittal for Project Development Plan, the applicant shall .provide .
sufficient documentation and evidence that all mitigation measures as stated in the
application for the Request for Modification of Standard will be implemented and made a