HomeMy WebLinkAboutBDR FOUR-PLEX, 621 S. MELDRUM ST. - PDP120030 - LEGAL DOCS - MINUTES/NOTES1 were going through when we went through the review process, and we had to kind of guess as
2 far as what we thought would be most appropriate and what everyone would be happy with, and
3 that's the assumption that we made, based on the feedback and the input that we had at the time.
4 So, that's kind of how that decision came about, and how the timber wall was incorporated into
5 the plans. And, as far as the drainage goes, just to kind of think a little bit more through what our
6 response was, and what the project engineer's response and thought was, based on the system
7 that was designed along the south, is that it was going to be better than what is there now, and
8 that, although the property is being raised up a bit, that from a drainage ... a maintenance and a
9 debris perspective, if you had a fence there that was installed without the retaining wall, that the
10 retaining wall doesn't add any more potential for debris than what is currently there now as.a
11 potential. So, we think that the impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
12 MS. CARBERRY: Anything else from the applicant? Okay, that concludes the hearing.
13 I'll issue a written decision within ten days, ten working days, but it'll be sooner than that. And,
14 thanks for coming.
16
r
1 MS. CARBERRY: Can you say your name please?
2 MR. SHUFF: I'm sorry, Ian Shuff... architect, and I think there's a valid point with wood,
3 which does not last forever. I think it would last, I would think at least fifteen to twenty years
4 before we might start having some issues. But I think it also gets into, it's the main ... and it's a
5 fence issue... it's the same. I mean, fences don't last forever either, and I think it's just kind of a
6 property management decision, and, you know, it's more about ... you hopefully trust that your
7 neighbor will take care of his property and take care of his fence and his wall, and if something
8 fails, that he would step up and do that. So, I think it's a valid concern. I think that it is a
9 maintenance issue, but I also think, you know, there's other materials that are more durable ... we
10 talked about that earlier, so ... from a financial standpoint, I'm not sure the difference between a
11 stacked CMU kind of a system versus a ... retaining wall, so there might be some cost
12 implications there, but, I think, you know, durability wise, I think we could achieve both aspects
13 of retaining and design with either a stackable CMU or a timber wall. I think the preference
14 right now is a timber wall, but I think either means could be achieved without a foundation, and
15 without having to dig down three feet ... I think there's some options there if that's a concern.
16 MR. EGGLESTON: Jeff Eggleston, co-owner. Yeah, I think we've been trying to work
17 with you and your brother, and I called you guys early on and, you know, wanted to be ... keep
18 you guys in the know of everything, and we talked about the easement construction, and I think
19 it was more confusing, because an easement to me is like ... we need to borrow some of your
20 property or use something to go through your property. But, it's more of like, doing any kind of
21 grading issues and stuff, and maybe move a fence, which we found out that your fence on the
22 south side actually is on our property line, it's on the other side of the property line, most of it.
23 So, I mean, that'll have to be moved anyway. But, you know, stuff like that, you know ... in Old
24 Town you have so many different kind of...for instance, like your house, I don't know if it's set
25 back ... or not, but there's a lot of unusual stuff in Old Town, and fences and garages and stuff,
26 so, you know, just want to ... from the beginning just wanted to work with you and it was just, I
27 don't know, your guys ... what you wanted to do with your property and development, and the
28 ditch kind of got in the way of that, and I see that frustration you know. You know, and you
29 guys ... that's disappointing, so, and but, you know, what we're doing on our lot, our project, it's
30 kind of just within our lot, so, you know, obviously wouldn't want to affect your lot or any kind
31 of future development you guys want to do.
32 MS. CARBERRY: Anything else from anyone?
33 MR. HOLLAND: I guess I just wanted to point out ... Jason Holland, City Planner... just
34 wanted to point out our thinking with the timber wall ... we wanted something that looked good
35 from the public street, you know ... as sensitive area as all the areas are in Old Town. And, it
36 seemed to be a material that had a nice residential character, would be ... would have some
37 longevity to it, and would be something that ... when people looked at from the street, they felt
38 that it fit in with the character of the neighborhood. So, that was kind of the thinking that we
15
1 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, and you record all my comments that my brother stated, so
2 you've got all that.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, that's all in the record. And, also if you'd like, if you want us
4 to make a copy ... I'm assuming we have the ability to make a copy, we could actually put in the
5 written one if you like, it's your choice.
6 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, that'd be great, thanks.
7 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, we can do that then.
8 MR. SKOWRON: And then any notes from the meeting, if you can send them to me too,
9 that'd be awesome.
10 MS. CARBERRY: I'll issue a written decision and then ... I'm not sure how you handle...
11 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, because my brother would be interested just hearing what
12 transpired at the hearing here today.
13 MR. HOLLAND: Anyone here who signs in will receive a copy of the decision.
14 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, I signed in. Okay.
15 MS. CARBERRY: Okay. Is there any other public testimony? And do you have any
16 other responses based on these questions...
17 MR. FEISSNER: I can respond to the ... this is Herman Feissner again with Northern
18 Engineering. So, in response to some of the concerns that have been raised about the swale and
19 the retaining wall along the south property line, approximately one-third of the total roof area of
20 the structure would be draining to this area. The roof drains for this section of the property, or
21 this section of the structure, would be connected directly to a below grade system. So that means
22 that that water coming from the roof will stay in a pipe, it'll go into a pipe below grade all the
23 way to the curb in Meldrum.
24 MS. CARBERRY: So it won't go into that retaining wall area.
25 MR. FEISSNER: You won't see it all on the surface, no. The only runoff that you'll see
26 on the surface in that area ... or water on the surface, would just be from very small local area, it
27 would be from the sidewalk adjacent to th buiding the landscaping in that area. So, the
28 flows in that area are negligible.
29 MS. CARBERRY: Are you concerned then about the ... about the material that is being
30 used.
31 MR. SHUFF: I think I can address that comment, I think there's a valid point...
14
I MR. HOLLAND: Three foot setback.
2 MR. SKOWRON: Setback I mean, sorry.
3 MR. HOLLAND: Yep, you could propose the exact same thing that they're proposing.
4 MR. SKOWRON: Even though they've already been kind of grandfathered in, or
5 whatever, into that.
6 MR. HOLLAND: Yeah, it's a complete separate proposal that you would make.
7 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, and so that would be totally independent of whatever easements
8 are on their side.
9 MR. HOLLAND: Right, yep.
10 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, that's what I was just trying to understand.
11 MR. HOLLAND: And there shouldn't be any issues with that.
12 MR. SKOWRON: I've got another question. It's from the tree standpoint. So you
13 mentioned ... I know there are a couple of trees ... I'm trying to look here ... that I know that were
14 right on the property line, and I wasn't sure if those would be ... yeah, maybe ... so, I'm not seeing
15 them, but I know there's some. There's a big tree like right, like right here, so, is that going to be
16 sawed down, or?
17 MR. HOLLAND: There are two, and we asked about these specifically, these two trees
18. that are to the south there that are on your property, and those are located accurately, and the
19 grading plan and the construction plans, the engineering plans all clearly indicate that there will
20 be no impact to those trees.
21 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, I was just curious, because it's hard to see them there, so I was
22 just wondering.
23 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, and they're actually labeled, it's hard to read, but there's two
24 labels that say...
25 MR. SKOWRON: And then those big circles, that's the proposed, the new trees or
26 something you're saying.
27 MR. HOLLAND. Yeah
28 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, now I see it, thanks
29 MS. CARBERRY: Anything else?
13
e
1 any issues with the parking configuration, and the proposed building itself, as it stands, won't
2 have any impact as far as the build -ability of a future building on your side as well. The building
3 code and the setbacks are dovetailed together, the way that they're written, so that the separation
4 between future buildings is ... works without any impacts as far as fire rating and so forth. So,
5 there shouldn't be any impacts from this development configuration to the future build -ability of
6 your ... of your brother's site. And, as far as the extending of the three feet further, it appears to
7 me that it's only going to go less than halfway through... halfway to the center of the property
8 line. So, I don't think that it's going to be next to any future building that you would have. The
9 district is set up so that the requirement is that the building be essentially on the front fifty
10 percent of the lot.
11 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, and I'm aware of the whole carriage thing... because we've
12 looked into that too.
13 MR. HOLLAND: So, I think you'll be okay there. I would actually, come to think of it,
14 if you were going to change the plan at some point to add two more parking spaces, because
15 there is a little bit of a turnaround neck in addition to the two spaces — if the two spaces are
16 eighteen feet and you want, say for example, five feet, maintain that five feet of backing space,
17 then eighteen plus five, you might want to ask for twenty-four feet of additional space to push
18 everything back. It may not be feasible to push it back that far, but it probably makes more sense
19 just to think it through to ask for twenty-four feet if you were going to ask for something.
20 MS. CARBERRY: The twenty-four feet would still probably go to what, though ... where
21 those three bushes are? Would that be about where twenty-four feet would be?
4pLAANn
22 - L: Yes, and I can get a scale if you want to look at that...
23 MR. SKOWRON: So like if we wanted to put...
24 MS. CARBERRY: Can you state your name again? I'm song.
25 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, I'm Alan Skowron, 625 South Meldrum, co-owner ofthe
26 property. So like, in the unlikely event that if we wanted to, let's say, put some parking on our
27 property adjacent to theirs, would there be an issue putting like a concrete flat top of asphalt
28 down? Even though there's only that three-foot buffer, you know, on their side. Would we be
29 able to do the same thing on our side? I mean ... in the event that we did develop it, you know,
30 you were saying that wouldn't affect any actual building structure because we would build on the
31 front half of our property, but in terms of parking or anything like that, would that implicate, you
32 know, what we could do later on with parking.
33 MR. HOLLAND: You could very conceivably propose the exact same thing that they're
34 proposing.
35 MR. SKOWRON: Even though they've already been granted that three foot easement.
12
S'
1 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, and then they were just requesting another eighteen feet beyond
2 that?
3 MS. CARBERRY: Oh, no, I'm sorry. To be clear...
4 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, if you just could clarify that a little bit.
5 MS. CARBERRY: Yeah, what I was asking is ... how far to the east would this setback
6 modification apply in the future. Because, really the setback is only necessary, from what I'm
7 hearing, for the parking area. So, what they're saying is they would like it to go eighteen feet to
8 the east of the parking area as shown on these plans, in case they want to add another parking
9 spot later...
10 MR. SKOWRON: Right, that's what I thought you were saying, yeah. I guess my only
11 concern, maybe, would be if...as long as it ... I guess that that still would be near our house, but if
12 we ever decided to modify our house if there'd be any constraints imposed on us because of the
13 three-foot ... you know what I mean ... the three-foot easement, instead of five-foot easement.
14 How it would affect us, as far as our ... you know, and I don't ... if it's just the parking, I don't see
15 that being an issue probably, but if it's ... if they can extend that all the way down, or you know,
16 farther down ... that was just my only concern, or comment.
17 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, do you have any response to that.
18 MR. HOLLAND: I guess just kind of running through, if I may, just give a few thoughts.
19 I think, really, probably going to want to hear from the consultant team, but what our thinking
20 was, just a thought as far as the long term maintenance thought, is that, if a different material
21 seems better from that perspective, that's...
22 • Are you talking about the retaining walls?
23 MR. HOLLAND: Right, totally understand that and I think that's really more of a
24 question for...
�lcowrr o�J .
25 Right, I think aesthetically I like what they proposed, but from a structural standpoint, I
26 guess my brother is concerned about wood, or some kind of fiber material that could ... in an
27 unusual event, if we get a heavy rainstorm, and it's a five year -old fence, or you know probably
28 ten year -old fence, and then, you know, something breaks, and you know, we have a bunch of
29 mud or something all over our backyard. I don't know ... that was just one of his points. And
30 then just water up against our house, too, that he was worried about...
31 MR. HOLLAND: Probably have to let the engineer speak to that. Secondly, just the
32 thought about the three-foot versus the five-foot, and potential future build -ability of your site.
33 That won't have an effect on where you're able to place buildings on your site. Your
34 site... essentially, you have a five-foot building setback on your side. So, if there... shouldn't be
11
I
1 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, public testimony. State your name and spell your name.
2 MR. ALAN SKOWRON: My name is Alan Skowron - SKOWRON, first name Alan —
3 ALAN.
4 MS. CARBERRY: And your address, please?
5 MR. SKOWRON: 4636 Brookwood — BROOKWOOD — Drive, Loveland, Colorado,
6 80538. And, I'm one of the property owners at 625 South Meldrum, I'm the neighbor to the
7 south. And, my brother, Eric, he's the engineer, but he's in Australia, so I'm here in his place. I
8 just have a public statement that he wrote that I wanted to say, and then I had a couple questions.
9 So, I don't know what order you want me to go in.
10 MS. CARBERRY: Go ahead, whatever order you like. Do you want to make your
11 statement first...
12 MR. SKOWRON: Okay, I'll just make my statement. This is our position, just based on
13 the hearing of the proposed development. We do not oppose an infill development in that
14 neighborhood or to the ... for our neighbor to the north of us to build. However, per the
15 information provided by Jeff and the City of Fort Collins for this meeting ... to be in accordance
16 with the planning code, the proposed Swale and irrigation landscaping/sidewalk on top of the
17 wooden retaining wall on the property line is not a sound solution. It poses a long-term
18 maintenance issue. It poses risk to our property if the wall should fail. We would like to see
19 more distance between the property line and proposed structure to address drainage and access
20 between the structure and property line without requiring a retaining wall, or a retaining wall of
21 material with a lower risk of decay or corrosion, such as concrete, and greater distance between
22 the swale bottom and top of the retaining wall. Ice, trash, leaves could block the storm drainage
23 swale. If coupled with blockage and sub -grade roof drain, storm drainage could flow up against
24 the house at 625 South Meldrum. Jeff Eggleston has requested an access easement from us per
25 requirement, which you brought up earlier, through the City of Fort Collins Engineering
26 Department. We would just like to confirm this requirement from the Engineering Department,
27 and we need to resolve any grading issues at the property line and understand the extent of the
28 proposed impacts prior to considering an agreement, though it sounds like, what I just learned a
29 few minutes ago, they don't really need an agreement from us if they're not accessing our
30 property. That's what my brother had to say.
31 MS. CARBERRY: And then you said you had some additional questions?
32 MR. SKOWRON: Yeah, as far as, you know, where the parking lot is, so on the west
33 side. So, that's a modification then, so it's a three feet barrier then from our property line to
34 where the...
35 MS. CARBERRY: They're asking for a three-foot setback instead of a five-foot setback.
10
1 site plan. That would be my recommendation as far as the general wording as far as how to
2 handle it, to make it site plan specific.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Do you have anything, based on my questions?
4 MR. FEISSNER: I think there's a possibility... he was looking... Jeff, the owner, was
5 looking into ... there's a way you can put a precast concrete slab over Arthur's Ditch
6 because ... you can park on the ditch as long as you provide structural engineering to allow you to
7 park on the ditch. And, he would desire maybe a few extra spots. At the most, it might be one or
8 two extra spots ... it wouldn't be very much. So, I guess if we did a condition, it might be nice to
9 allow for one or two more spots in the future, if that ... but just knowing that, it's kind of some
10 new information we received in the last couple days that that's an option, to actually park on top
11 of Arthur's Ditch. So, not something he necessarily wants to entertain now, but if we're going to
12 put a condition on that modification ... I think we're talking about one or two spaces. The site
13 really couldn't hold...
14 _ MS. CARBERRY: One or two spaces toward the east?
15 MR. FEISSNER: Correct. It would obviously have the impact of green space and
16 everything else, but I just might add that I guess. And ... I don't know if it's something you are
17 seriously looking at...
18 MS. CARBERRY: Again, I'm not trying to throw a wrench in things, I just want to make
19 sure that, you know, if what we're intending tonight is only to get this modification for the area
20 that's currently shown in the site plan, or if we want to make it further to the east, that's my only
21 question.
22 MR. FEISSNER: Like I said, I think we would definitely be open to a condition put on
23 that modification ... if we can just add eighteen feet to that, or something like that ... to the east.
24 MS. CARBERRY: You're saying add ... plus eighteen feet of what's currently shown on
25 the site plan?
26 MR. FEISSNER: That seems reasonable I think ... not to extend...
27 MS. CARBERRY: And, how do you think about that?
28 MR. HOLLAND: I think if you worded it something like "not to extend eighteen feet
29 further to the east from the face of the trash enclosure."
30 MR. FEISSNER: That still at least defines...
31 MS. CARBERRY: Sure.
32 MR FEISSNER: That easement better than...
W
1 work as well. So, we felt that we had everything that we needed. And, we did, just to ... that's
2 the answer to your question.
3 MS. CARBERRY: Okay, thank you. Do you have a response to their presentation ... or?
4 MR. HOLLAND: Is that the next step? Okay. Well, yeah, I guess just to add as far as
5 just backing up and giving a little bit of background on the retaining wall. You know, the first
6 thing that was proposed was a concrete wall and, you know, we felt that ... and the grades were a
7 little bit higher. So, when we were working through that, they did find a way to set the building
8 so that tiett helped. And in addition to that, we asked that they provide something else besides a
9 concrete wall solution, because that seemed like that wasn't really going to be a good feel for the
10 neighborhood, not a very good residential solution. We did discuss maybe some different ways
11 that theYcomwe wall could be textured, or, you know, addressed. Or, you know, maybe even
12 with som interva olor or something like that, maybe that's a possibility. But, this is the
13 solution that they proposed with the timber wall, and we felt that this was a more appropriate
14 solution and that it could be...it could be handled. So, that's kind of just some background about
15 how we got to this. So, we, you know, we felt that this ... to the maximum extent feasible, did
16 mitigate the impacts of what they were proposing to do, and did handle the drainage properly,
17 which was an added requirement, to make sure that the water wasn't draining to the south, that it
18 was actually moving out, you know, from the side property line to the east and to the west.
19 MS. CARBERRY: Another question, if I could ask. So, the modification to the setback
20 will only occur ... will only be applicable to the area next to the parking area, correct?
21 MR. HOLLAND: To the south, that's correct.
22 MS. CARBERRY: So, in other words, twenty years from now, somebody comes in, they
23 want to extend that setback variance... modification ... use the word variance ... but that setback
24 modification, it won't be able to move it to the east side twenty feet. You know what I'm
25 saying? That was just a question I had, does it apply to the entire property line or does it just
26 apply to that area of the parking lot?
27 MR. HOLLAND: Well hypothetically, if someone did come ... it depends on how its
28 worded I suppose. If someone did come in and ask to modify the existing project plan, final
29 plan, once it's approved, they ... we would evaluate that based on whether or not we would
30 consider that alteration to be minor or not.
31 MS. CARBERRY: I guess my question, do we need a condition that the ... and this is just
32 really a question... that the modification for setback should be for so many feet along the
33 southern boundary, you know, or...
34 MR. HOLLAND: We certainly could ... we certainly could. If you so chose, you could
35 refine that with a condition that says it applies to the parking lot configuration as shown on the
8
-r
1 south facing elevation. And, here's what you're going to see from the parking lot. This is
2 looking to the east. You can see these big step-ins we had dealing with the Ditch. And, really,
3 that concludes our presentation ... turn it back over to Jason.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Can I ask some questions? Would that be okay? I just noticed that, al
5 some point, there were some conditions about receiving easements from the neighboring
6 property owners, and it looks like, from what I can see, you have an agreement from one but not
7 the other. Is that ... is that going to be...it looks like what you're telling me is you don't need that
8 one anymore ... is that correct?
9 MR. SHUFF: Correct, the south property line ... we explored different ways to construct a
10 wall without one putting a footing in and having to over -excavate a large, deep, basically cross
11 wall, and really consulted with a landcape ... commercial landscape design installer, subcontractor
12 here in town, and reviewed that with them, and they thought that that wall that we were
13 proposing is a sound wall, it's a good ... because of that, we can achieve a wall on the lot line
14 really only digging a few inches down, just to kind of set that first timber. We can also, you
15 know ... we thought that wood is the most appropriate. There's other products out there like split-
16 face CMU stacked block retaining wall system that also can be installed without any
17 foundation... so, obviously a more durable approach, aesthetically, we felt like that was more
18 commercial, that look, and so that's why we ventured down the more timber retaining wall route,
19 just because we really thought that was a more softer material. So, I think there's other ways to
20 look at that, but that's what we are proposing.
21 MS. CARBERRY: Do you have any issue with not obtaining the... construction easement
22 from the other property owner ... or? I mean, I think what they're saying is it's not
23 necessary... do you guys have any issue with that?
24 MR. HOLLAND: We contemplated that... staff did, both myself and the staff engineer.
25 And, we felt that, with regards to the south property line, that if we couldn't get a letter or an off-
26 site easement, if they couldn't supply that, that if they could state a case, and the case made
27 sense, that they could build the retaining wall without impacting the property to the south, that
28 we had what we needed for them to proceed to hearing. And, part of the thought with that was
29 that ... and one of the things that I discussed with the staff engineer, is that we know that they are
30 going to need a silt fence that will be part of the construction requirement sequence... there will
31 be a silt fence that will be installed on th4t property line. And, I think that that will provide a
32 logical and real -world, good construction barrier that they can work off of, and I think that will
33 really help to ensure that, not only that this will work on paper, but that it'll work in the real
34 world ... that they can feasibly construct that wall from just ... just from their side. And, I think,
35 secondly, I think it's reasonable to, you know, based on that construction detail, based on the fact
36 that the fence itself is set back from the retaining wall, and any post hole digging that they'll
37 need to do for that fence will be behind the retaining wall, that they can't actually make that
7
.f
1 nicely with the ... fronts to Meldrum, which the section in the back is a foot to a foot and half
2 higher. Drainage design, the basic concept is that the building, structure itself drains to
3 Meldrum, whereas the rear portion of the site drains back to an on -site detention pond, which is
4 in the parking area, and provides for water quality in this area. Water quality for the front
5 portion of the site is provided for in the ... area.
6 MR. SHUFF: I want to address also ... my name is Ian Shuff, I'm again the project
7 architect with Aller, Lingle, Massey Architects at 712 Whalers Way in Fort Collins. We did
8 have to address the need, based on what Herman just said, we had to basically add some grade to
9 the site in order to get the flow to go to Meldrum. So, we looked at a lot of options for retaining
10 walls. We do have some retaining walls on both the north and south side of the property line,
11 most of which are about one foot tall, and there's a portion for maybe thirty, forty feet ... not a
12 real long length, but when the wall will step up to thirty inches high, maximum. And, really
13 wanted to make sure we provided a retaining wall that was aesthetically pleasing to both the
14 project and to the neighbor to the south, and also incorporate a privacy fence with that design.
15 So, this section is ... illustrates this thirty inch maximum height ... that we would have. We're
16 proposing to use cedar or pressure -treated timbers, also ... at every four foot on the center, so it's
17 structurally locked in. In conjunction with a privacy fence, that would be a wood cedar fence,
18 again, so the maximum height of this entire assembly would be five foot. In this case, it would
19 be a thirty inch wall with a thirty inch fence on top. As the site steps down, we'll have a
20 condition where we'll only maybe only have a foot for ... exposed wall. We're showing one foot,
21 two just based on the nominal dimensions of the retaining wall. And, here the fence actually
22 steps down. We're still not exceeding this five foot high total assembly, but it's just a way that
23 we feel like... aesthetically pleasing way to work with that constraint we had on the site.
24 Here's an elevation of what the typical fence design looks like. Obviously, the height of
25 it will vary. In some locations, it'll be thirty inches high, some areas will be four feet high, so it
26 just kind of depends. But, that's the design, so, once again, it's a nice fence. It has added trim,
27 horizontal bands, so both sides are enhanced. It doesn't really have a back side that a lot of
28 fences do have. So, just wanted to kind of illustrate the design of those sides of the lot.
29 I'm going to kind of briefly talk about the architecture; I think Jason covered it pretty
30 well. I think part of the articulation was due to Arthur's Ditch, but it ended up being kind of a
31 win -win. I think we got some good articulation and it ended up working out pretty well as far as
32 getting the four units in and breaking up the scale of the building, and really addressing the site
33 as well. So, I'll just go really quickly through these. I did provide some... imagery, just kind of
34 showing... we're using some stucco up high, some of that stucco kind of comes down low, and
35 then we have a mix of vertical siding and horizontal siding, to tie in both with the historical
36 materials in the neighborhood, but we ... kind of varying up the pattern design just to clearly
37 make the building look ... so people are obviously going to know it's a modern building, but you
38 know, still fit in, but kind of using more of ... those materials. Here is looking from Meldrum
39 facing ... this is the Meldrum facing elevation. This is the north facing elevation. This is the
6
1 which also helps alleviate that ... the impact of having only three feet instead of five feet of
2 landscaping in here. But, I also want to point out the parking lot is very small, this is only about
3 fifty feet of frontage. It's not big, it's not the whole property line that we're asking for, it's just
4 this small area, and plus, as Jason pointed out in his staff report, the parking is not heading into
5 the south, the parking stalls and cars are facing north, so it's really just that drive aisle. So,
6 you're not going to have the lights... headlights shining into the south property line, into the
7 neighboring property. And, again, I think most importantly is, the setback at two feet would
8 permit a parking area that would otherwise be infeasible, and we feel that the off-street parking
9 spaces are very important, not only to this project, but we feel they are important for the overall
10 neighborhood so people aren't parking ... the residents aren't parking along the street. So, we feel
11 that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good. So, that's the
12 modification request.
13 And, the other thing I just want to point out is several City Plan Principles and Policies
14 that Big Deal four-plex embodies. One of them is Policy EH 4.1 and LIV 5.1, which encourages
15 redevelopment in targeted infill and redevelopment areas, and this is definitely a targeted infill
16 and redevelopment area. Principle ENV 8, which is about air quality, and it talks about
17 continually improving Fort Collins' air quality. And, as Jeff mentioned, the residents are going
18 to be college students and they will use alternative transportation, they're close to campus,
19 they'll use public transportation, so that will help keep cars off the street and improve air quality.
20 Principle LIV 22, which is providing creative multi -family design, and we feel that this four-plex
21 is ... being a smaller multi -family building, it's really designed to reflect the character of the
22 existing single-family neighborhood. As Jason pointed out, it has pitched roofs, it has different
23 entrances and articulation, so we feel that blends in really well with the single-family
24 neighborhood. And, then lastly Principle T 10 is using... regarding using transit and bicycling.
25 And, again, the location of the four-plex will promote and support the idea of alternative modes
26 of transportation. There's existing Transfort bus stops on Laurel, there's the CSU Transit
27 Center, as well as the Mason Street Corridor and the MAX BRT rapid transit in the area. So, that
28 ends my presentation. I'll turn it over to Ian.
29 MR. IAN SHUFF: Okay, and actually I'm not ... what we have now is some of the civil
30 drawings, the plat, and I'm going to have Herman just talk a little bit about some of the overall
31 site constraints, really tying to Arthur's Ditch and really how that controlled a lot of
32 drainage ... do you want to just focus on the drainage plan?
33 MR. HERMAN FEISSNER: Yeah, I can talk briefly about the grading and drainage
34 design. Again, my name is Herman Feissner, I work for Northern Engineering, we provide the
35 civil design services for the project. As Cathy had mentioned, the Arthur Ditch presents a
36 significant challenge to redeveloping a site ... this particular site... in order to meet the needs ... our
37 objectives of the development plan, we had to raise the site. And, in order to offset that, and
38 minimize the impact ... the grading impact to the neighboring properties, we split the finished
39 floor of this building, so actually the finished floor in the front of the building is ... matches up
5
L7
1 little bit. The lot is 50 foot wide by 190 feet deep so it's very long and narrow. As Jason
2 mentioned, there's an existing house here that will be taken down and replaced by the four-plex
3 as well as a parking lot. One of the biggest constraints, and one of the biggest challenges that
4 we've had on this site is the Arthur Ditch which is running diagonally. It's an open ditch, been
5 around forever. I think Herman is going to touch on that here in a minute. One of the things we
6 had to provide was an easement on either side of the actual ditch. That easement ... we could not
7 construct the building in that easement, or the parking lot, or any foundations, so it really
8 created... it sort of split the site into two pieces. So, the building is pushed up against the
9 Meldrum Street frontage. We are fifteen foot setback; it meets the setback codes on the front.
10 We're five foot on the north property line; we're five foot on the south property line. We've got
11 four entrances to the building, there's one here, one there, here and here. We've got sidewalks
12 connecting Meldrum all the way back to the parking lot. Back here is the parking lot, accessed
13 off the alley. We've got four off-street parking spaces there, and as you can see in the middle in
14 the Arthur Ditch area, we have just some turf landscaping, some sidewalks, a little patio area.
15 So, one of the things I also wanted to point out was... landscaping and tree protection
16 becomes very important to meet that section of the Land Use Code. When you get into these
17 older areas and older homes, it starts to get kind of ... you get large, big, mature existing trees
18 along these property lines, and it's actually hard to tell which tree is on which lot. And so we
19 had two different meetings with the City Forester on site to determine and evaluate the trees.
20 And, mostly we found out that the trees were volunteer Siberian Elms, which could be removed
21 and taken out off our property without any significant impact. The only tree that was ... that's
22 right here, that's in fair condition is a crab apple tree. That will need to be removed because of
23 the redevelopment of the project, and we will have to mitigate that with two upsized trees which
24 means we would have to plant ... trees that are larger caliper in size than what the City Code
25 would normally require. So, we came to an agreement with the City Forester that we would
26 plant two, and I'm not sure which exactly... it might be this tree, this tree... are actually upsized
27 tree, per the City Forester.
28 So, I wanted to talk a little bit about the modification that Jason mentioned. We are
29 requesting a modification for Section 3.2.2(J), which requires that parking areas be set back five
30 feet from property lines. Due to the site constraints that I just talked about, plus a few others I'll
31 talk about, we are requesting that this setback be three feet instead of five feet. And the setback
32 I'm talking about is right here along the south property line. This is only three feet instead of the
33, required five. Basically, the physical constraints that we have on the site is the fact that the lot is
34. only fifty feet wide. We have a detention area with some retaining walls along this side that are
35 required, we've got our parking... another twenty-four foot drive here. So, by the time that's all
36 said and done, we were only left with three feet along that south property line; thus having to
37 request a modification of that standard. Our justification for this is that we feel that, basically,
38 we can still fit three feet of landscaping in here which helps screen, you know, the parking area
39 from the adjacent property. Also, we have a six-foot high privacy fence along that property line
4
1 some of the detailing that you see in the other buildings along the street.So, that's ... that was
2 some of the main focus of the approval was to make sure that the building was compatible and
3 that the impacts of the project were mitigated. And, that concludes my staff presentation.
4 MS. CARBERRY: Great, for the record, I do have copies of the staff report as well as
5 what I believe to be the application materials as well. Is that correct?
6 . MR. HOLLAND: That's correct.
7 MS. CARBERRY: And I have ... those as well. I guess we'll go ahead and hear from the
8 applicant now.
9 MR. JEFF EGGLESTON: Good evening, my name is Jeff Eggleston and I grew up in
10 Fort Collins, Colorado. I went to CSU and ... kind of been involved in rental property
11 management and real estate probably over the. last eight to ten years, and me and my sister and
12 my brother-in-law, we actually own this house together in an LLC and we thought it'd be a great
13 idea to do something with the house because it's pretty outdated and it's small, and it's in such a
14 great location less than half a block from campus. So, with the zoning, we could put up to
15 twenty-four units, but we decided to just do four, the minimum.... now. And, it'd be a great
16 opportunity to house ... for CSU housing with the big need, and just do a great project. So, I'll
17 introduce the team that... first of all, Ian Shuff, he's the head architect for the design with Aller,
18 Lingle, and Massey, and then Herman Feissner, he's with the Northern Engineering Group doing
19 - all the civil engineering, and then Cathy Mathis, she's with the Birdsall Group, she handles all
20 the landscaping and the entitlements for the project. So ... project and great team.
21 MS. CATHY MATHIS: Yeah, I'm going to give a little presentation. My name is Cathy
22 Mathis, 444 Mountain Avenue in Berthoud, Colorado, I'm with the Birdsall Group. As Jeff just
23 mentioned, we are the land planners and landscape architect. One of the things that I wanted to
24 touch on is, sort of the recent development trends going on in this area of town. We've got ... do
25 you have the aerial slide? I just kind of want to point out, here's the slide right here for
26 Meldrum, for the four-plex, and I just wanted to point out, just along here we've got.... Flats
27 development is going in right here on the corner of Mulberry, it's kind of off the street a little bit.
28 We also have, down here is the called the West Range project, and that's doing in in the
29 old... fraternity house. There's another project going on here called Sherwood Forts, and then
30 that's a redevelopment project, and then of course we have the Flats at the Oval, I think Atrium
31 Suites is here, Pura Vida ... so you're really starting to see a lot of redevelopment of these ?; I
32 properties that formerly contained, you know, single-family houses, student rental
33 redevelop into multi -family student housing. And we really feel that thi id eal Four-Plex is a
34 great site for this NCB zone, it's ideal for this type of density, we think, or just the four units
35 because it really provides a great transition in this zone area from the NCL zone, this is
36 predominantly single-family up in here, we've got a lot more intense development over here, so
37 this is a great transition area for this size of a project. So, I just wanted to touch on the site plan a
3
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER KENDRA L. CARBERRY: I will go ahead
2 and call this hearing to order. My name is Kendra Carberry, I'm the Hearing Officer for the City
3 of Fort Collins. This project is entitled BDR Four -Unit Multi -Family, 621 South Meldrum
4 Street, Project Development Plan Number 120030. I believe the first thing we do is have the
5 staff report, is that correct?
6 CITY PLANNER JASON HOLLAND: That's right, I'll go ahead with my presentation
7 now. First, I just wanted to give a brief background information on the project.
8 MS. CARBERRY: Could you state your name for the record
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
MR. HOLLAND: Sure, Jason Holland, the project planner with the City of Fort Collins.
This is a request to demolish an existing 626 square foot single-family home, located at 621
South Meldrum Street, and construct a multi -family four-plex building. The existing residence
was built in 1910 and has been functioning as a college student rental. The proposed building is
two stories in height and is approximately 4,900 square feet, and will contain three -bedroom,
two -bathroom dwelling units. And, as I said, a total of four units. The site is zoned NCB —
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone district, and it falls within the TOD, Transportation
Overlay Development zone. And, one modification of standard accompanies the project
development plan request. I submitted a full staff report into the public record with the project.
The result of the staff report is a recommendation that the project is in compliance with all
applicable standards of the Land Use Code and with the procedures outlined in the Land Use
Code. And, in addition to that, the staff report outlines one modification of standard, and we find
that the modification is in compliance with the standards outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land
Use Code, and we are also recommending the modification be approved.
Lastly, I just wanted to point out some of the features... some of the key features of the
project that we feel were an important part of our recommendation. We felt that, first of all, that
the project had a very traditional feel with the character of the proposed architecture, and that it
fit with the established character of the neighborhood and of the street, and was compatible with
the neighborhood. The overall form is well -articulated with recesses and projections, and the
recesses and projections really help control the overall massing and help scale down the building.
Additionally, the secondary elements that are used such as the bay windows and the porch
elements that you can see here, the projected dormer, the different roof lines that come down on
the side of the building, all really help to scale the building down and are very appropriate... and
the significant treatment along the sides of the building, along the side property lines in particular
really helps scale down the building and reduce the overall massing. And, you can see that,
especially shown in the back, that there are some pretty deep recesses here that step the building
back at the back, and that really helps to reduce the massing. Overall, we felt that it was a very
good job with the articulation all the way around, and then there's a number of really nice
elements, brackets and so forth that we asked for, and porch elements, that really help give a
good street appearance and a good people scale, street scale, to the building that really echoes
2
.14
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
BDR Four Unit Multi -Family, 621 South Meldrum Street
PDP #120030
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Kendra L. Carberry
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jason Holland, City Planner