HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAX FLATS PDP - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL - PDP120034 - AGENDA - MINUTES/NOTES1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
2 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright so all four requests to modify standards have been approved.
3 Anybody want to make a motion on the overall PDP?
4 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: As you can tell, our A -tern for making motions is out
5 tonight. I move to approve the MAX Flats PDP Number 120034 and in support of my motion, I adopt the
6 findings of fact and conclusion as contained on page nine of the staff report.
7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: And page ten?
8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And page ten, sorry.
9 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Actually, as far as the PDP is concerned, I think the
10 findings for it are really E, F, and G on page ten. The rest of those pertain to the modification of
11 standards.
12 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect, I adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as
13 contained in E through G on page ten of the staff report. Thank you Paul.
14 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Kristin, you did a good job with making the motions. As a lot of folks
15 here know, one of our members recently graduated to the City Council, and he had been doing motions
16 for a few years. But, you did a good job, thank you for doing it. Any other discussion? Roll call please.
17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
18 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
24 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, so MAX Flats PDP 120034 with four requests for modification
25 has been passed.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
25
1 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, further discussion? Roll call please.
2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: No.
4 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
5 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
9 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, the third request for modification has passed. On to the fourth
10 one, please.
11 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification for standard to parking
12 stall dimensions 3.2.2(L) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the benefit of having
13 increased parking in this district is worthwhile of having an increase in compact cars.
14 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Is that based upon nominal and inconsequential
15 analysis, equal to or better than, or what?
16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Equal to or better than, we'll change it up.
17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Second.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Any further discussion?
19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: On the equal to or better than standard, the language
20 of the Code is actually that it advances the purpose of the standard equally well or better than would a
21 plan which complies with the standard, just so you're clear on what...
22 CHAIR SMITH: I would recommend making a modification to the motion to be based on
23 nominal and inconsequential as opposed to equal or better than.
24 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Okay.
25 CHAIR SMITH: And who was the second? Were you the second? So first and ... they both have
26 to be agreeable? Are you both?
27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes, that's fine.
28 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so the motion has been modified. Further discussion? Roll call please.
29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
30 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
32 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
34 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
24
1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Because within the interior of the parking lot, the site is so
2 constrained there already... it's such a small modification for the landscape interior and the benefit
3 exceeds the...oh shoot... sure, the benefit exceeds the detriment.
4 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Alright, so moved. We have a first and a second. Any discussion?
5 Paul, are you okay with that? Okay, okay. Any discussion? Roll call, please?
6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
7 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
11 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
13 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, let's move on to the second one.
14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification of standard for bicycle
15 facilities 3.2.2(C)(4) because it is not detrimental to the public good, nominal and inconsequential
16 because providing bike facilities in the public right-of-way is a larger community benefit than having
17 them housed exclusively on the property.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Paul? Any discussion? Jennifer? No? Okay, roll call, please.
19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Yes.
21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
26 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, the second modification request has been approved. On to the
27 third one, please.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the parking lot setback 3.2.2(J) because
29 it is not detrimental to the public good and the parking lot setback modification is truly nominal and
30 inconsequential when taken into consideration that the fact that the site is only a hundred feet in width and
31 it's providing as much buffer as possible while accommodating the benefit of parking on the site.
32 CHAIR SMITH: Second. Further discussion? Jennifer?
33 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I can't support this one. I just am feeling like it's just one
34 step too far for me, and I really think that it's setting a precedent to be able to ... all of these sites are going
35 to be pretty narrow along here and I think, for me, that's where we have to hold tight so I can't support it.
23
1 CHAIR SMITH: Especially as we urbanize that ... you know, if we're going to be talking about
2 activated sidewalks, pedestrian activity, design is going to become more important than it ever has been in
3 this community and materials are going to drive a lot of that. Jennifer, go ahead.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I guess the concern that I'm having as we see these projects
5 come in ... it's another concern that we might want to put on our work program, is ... I'm pretty much of a
6 neighborhood advocate, and I think while we are going to see huge changes along Mason Corridor, I
7 think it's really important that we protect the folks and the neighborhoods that are already there. So, I
8 would really like to be able to look at ways and to have ways that we can ... that we can do that better than
"9- we are doing it. This to me. is, partially because... and I think you're right Kristin, partially because the
10 neighbors are so close in to the property line. But, I think we need to maybe find some creative ways and
11 some kind of a requirement or a place where we can make sure that we aren't intruding so much onto the
12 neighborhoods that we lose the neighborhoods that we have now in ... especially in the Old Town area, but
13 really it's going to impact all along the Mason Corridor. So, I really think we need to come up with some
14 ways to do that better than we are doing it now.
15 CHAIR SMITH: If ... one thing for the applicant... if ... good fences make good neighbors, then for
16 Mr. Michlove's concern about the wood fence... that'll be your maintenance project?
17 MR. BRINKMAN: Correct, yep.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay.
19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Was it going to be a double fence if there's already a fence
20 there? Is that one coming down, how is that going to work?
21 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, that would be coming down and we'd be building a new fence.
22 MR. MICHLOVE: Excuse me, that's my fence and I don't necessarily want to take it down.
23 MR. BRINKMAN: We could put a double fence if he wants to keep that fence up, that's fine.
24 CHAIR SMITH: We'll trust that perhaps you would work with him outside of this... okay.
25 Let's... go ahead, Kristin.
26 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I was just going to say, Jennifer, I definitely agree. I think
27 that our standards on what we expect from the staff and the applicant really focus heavily, on that big �Pc�
28 pedestrian front, and not necessarily on the back side of the house, which is equally important. That's 51
29 what most of the neighborhood is looking at from blocks and blocks away. And so I definitely think we
30 could institute some process improvements on that end.
31 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, I would entertain some motions.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I move to approve the modification of standard for parking
33 lot interior landscaping, 3.2.1(E)(5) because it is not detrimental to the public good and it's nominal and
34 inconsequential. Paul, what do I have to add?
35 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: You have to add how come it's nominal and
36 inconsequential.
WJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
CHAIR SMITH: Any other comments? Alright, generally I'm going to say that, you know,
we've been faced with more and more of these types of projects and it's been a very active ... I'd say now
two years when it comes to projects in the TOD of an urban flare, and you know, I think that our Board
has recognized the need to have continuous improvement in the way that we are actually implementing
urban style development in the TOD to be able to support BRT and some other larger goals in our comp
plan. And, so, you know, we've said that this year, quickly, we're going to revisit TOD and the
implementation, we're going to have discussions about the policies, and look forward to making, you
know, some recommendations to Council about how it's implementing. You know, in that process I think
that we're finding, by specific projects, that we could and should have more available creative mitigating
factors for some of the requests for modification. For instance, you're talkin about a green wall ...t at�S
might make a request for a modification seem to be a little bit better. Vnd, I think that the app scant as
met the standards, they've done a ... you know a fairly creative project with coming in, you know, asking
for ... well, we're asking for this modification but this is what we gain as the community and in the project
by, you know, not just doing a project that has zero parking for instance ... big issues. And, to be able to
say, if you want the parking, we're going to have to give up on some of these little pieces, but because
they're nominal and inconsequential and they're not against the public good, that they do meet the letter
of law when it comes to the technicality of how you request a modification to a standard. So, I
would ... you know I think that they've done a good job of it.
I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process question where we had some
neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two different systems really, and I think
that's unfortunate and it doesn't feel good, but I think it's been explained well as to why it happened and
going forward, the improvement for the community is that a project like this will come before this Board
and there will be greater outreach, and so that's the right direction. I would say that, you know ... the
project ... I like what the applicant's team has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it.
This is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason
Corridor come to life and be functional, and I think this sets a tone to start moving south along Mason,
and even across the street, to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very
eclectic architecture in that neighborhood ... very eclectic.
I would just... one thing I want to be able to say is that I'm ... I am definitely concerned about, you
know, as we start to really develop projects like this along the corridor from north to south, we have
plenty of bike parking. And I think that's something that we've also discovered in this process is
that... do we have enough bike parking being provided. And so, I think if somebody wants to start
making some motions on the four requests, I'm supportive of all four of them and based on the findings
that the staff has presented.
('2o LGSs
OVIS'(n /1)
35 BOARDMEMBERKIRKPATRICK: I just want to add a general comment as well. I was really
36 glad to see your changes in material selection and even though we don't have any purview over that in the
37 Land Use Code standards, other than the mix and some of the articulation. When I first looked at it, I did On I"
38 definitely agree with some of the neighborhood concerns that it felt like it wasn't quite of the same
39 standard and quality that you guys have been building elsewhere and other developers have, and I think
40 the brick on that north side definitely helps with the transition from downtown where you see more of it/
41 and. I was really, really glad to see the changes that you guys made. It definitely placated some of the
42 concerns that I have that we're not allowed to really talk about, but I was really glad to see them. I
21
1 CHAIR SMITH: Actually I think we'll deliberate a little bit and then we'll go each modification
2 one by one, the four, and then if we get all four of them then we'll hit the PDP, if we're in agreement. Go
3 ahead, Jennifer, I interrupted you.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, I'm struggling with this because I feel like a lot of the
5 reason for the modifications is that ... and we do want density on Mason Corridor, but this just seems to be
6 [that
ffing too big a project for ... onto this piece of property to me, which means we're having to have
7difications where we're not getting the amount of buffering that we should have between the houses
8 are already there. I'm a little concerned... not really sure how long a bike is ... whether six feet is
9 going to fit or whether it's going to protrude really out into the right-of-way where it's going to be a
10 constant problem for pedestrians, which is another one of our big things. I love that there's parking,
11 because that's one of my hot buttons, even though it's not necessary... or at this point, it's not required in
12 the TOD. But then my other hot button is that we need to be getting the services in the mixed -use that I
13 don't really think we're getting here,. but I don't think that's something I can really hang my hat on
14 tonight because we haven't gone there. So, that's my struggling... the increased percentage of compact
15 parking spaces, I don't think that has really much of an impact on the public. And the reduction in the
16 parking lot landscaping, the interior, doesn't have... doesn't really have any impact on the public either,
17 but the buffering between already existing areas and the fact that we have such a small amount of space
18 between the older places that are in here and the parking lot and all of that, so that's... that's where I'm
19 going. I'd like to hear what everybody else is thinking.
20 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin? John? Either one?
21 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: If I look through them one by one, the parking lot interior
22 landscaping, I would like to see green walls or something in the parking lot because I think it would be
23 important from an overall aesthetics feel; however, we don't have a requirement to make you do that, and
24 so that would be something that I would like to see. But, I think that the modification of standard, given
25 the limitations for the infill site, makes sense. For the bike facilities, I was initially opposed to them, but I
26 hadn't understood that those wouldn't be spaces in the right-of-way anyway, and so I do think that it's a
27 benefit to have those extra spaces in the right-of-way and I definitely agree that I think many students, or
28 other people who might be living there, will be parking their bikes within their units anyway. For the
29 parking lot setback, I struggle with that a little bit, but I also think that your site is a hundred feet wide,
30 and that is just tricky. And so I think that the buffering that is available is ... it's a relatively small change
31 in setback and I would wonder, Jennifer, if these apartment buildings, because they're situated so far back
32 on their lot, would be conforming with our setback standards anyway for side yard. My guess would be
33 that they're ... that they're too close anyway. And then for the last one, for the parking stall dimension, I
34 think that's no problem. I feel like I could usually fit in a compact spot, even though I technically don't
35 drive a compact car, so I think that's fine.
36 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, Kristin, do you not feel like it's going to be a problem
37 with the bikes protruding out into the...
38 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I don't... if they're saying that there's an eight foot
39 sidewalk in addition to where those wheels are coming out, I think it would be ... you would have to be
40 like me and travelling with kids on a bike trailer, and I doubt there will be many of those in this particular
41 sense.
20
1 MR. BRINKMAN: And what we've found... that in comparable projects, is that a lot of times,
2 you probably see it around town, that their bikes are worth more than their cars so they end up taking
3 them through the elevator up into their room. So, I think, practically speaking, a lot of the bikes will be in
4 the rooms and then that should leave adequate bike parking on ground level in our mind.
5 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Time to deliberate? Jennifer? We're
6 all looking to you. Okay, I think that what our process would be is that we would take each one of the
7 modification requests and knock those down one by one, get a decision, and then we can move on to the
8 overall PDP. How do you all feel about that?
9 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, you're thinking about getting to compatibility last? Is
10 that where you're wanting that to be?
11 CHAIR SMITH: I think so. Yeah, I think it makes sense. Yeah, if you'd like to ... sure.
12 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I make a motion to approve the MAX Flats project proposal,
13 number PDP 120034, along with the proposed modifications which are not detrimental to the public good,
14 aqd to the ... and the proposed modifications A, B, C, and D which are nominal and inconsequential.
15 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Mr. Chair, the City Council has, in the past,
16 requested we take each modification by a separate vote, and then finally the PDP, again, by a separate
17 vote.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. I think ... let's do that if that's alright with you, John, is let's
19 go... if you want to make a motion toward one of the...
20 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I'll make the same motion, we'll just go with modification
21 number A.
22 CHAIR SMITH: And go through your findings real quick too, the ... your two ...one's the public
23 good and then the second one is...
24 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: I'll amend that then to say ... make a motion to approve the
25 MAX Flats project proposal number PDP 120034 along with the proposed modification A which is not
26 detrimental to the public good, and the proposals... the modifications which are nominal and
27 inconsequential.
28 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so I think you got the whole PDP in that one as well. So, what I want to
29 do is try to get just one at a time.
30 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Maybe we should deliberate a little bit before we jump to
31 that, I don't know that I'm really quite ready for...
32 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let's hear your thoughts.
33 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: There is a motion on the table at the moment, I don't
34 know if you want to try to have that motion withdrawn, or failed by a lack of a second.
35 CHAIR SMITH: It sounds like...
36 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Failed by a lack of a second? Okay.
19
N
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Sorry, I didn't quite finish. So, we're not losing... by losing
2 the eight inches between the west boundary and the parking lot, we're not losing any of the landscaping
3 along there that's meant to buffer between... is that correct?
4 MR. LORSON: As proposed, 1 haven't seen any landscape lost because of the ten inches. I think
5 there would be , obviously less impervious area due to the ten inches, but as far as the area that would
6 buffer from the neighbors, I don't know how much difference that ten inches would make. They are
7 providing a six-foot privacy fence right there on the property line.
8 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
9 CHAIR SMITH: Seth, go ahead.
10 MR. LORSON: Thank you. The final modification is an increase in the percentage of compact
11 parking spaces. The Code requires a maximum of forty percent compact parking spaces, and the
12 applicant is providing fifty-eight percent compact parking spaces. Staff feels like this is not detrimental
13 to the public good and doesn't diverge from the standard except for in a nominal and inconsequential
14 way, and this is because it's internal to the site. It's inside their own parking garage. This is their own,
15 private parking and it's another symptom of trying to put more parking in where they aren't required to do
16 parking by the Land Use Code anyway. And so, staff feels that it meets the standards for modification of
17 standard. Thank you.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, does the Board fully understand the four requests for modification? Do
19 you have any questions of staff about those? Trying to break this into some pieces that we can manage
20 and move forward on. Okay, alright if we understand that then go ahead ... any other questions? We need
21 to be able to understand where we're going. Kristin, go ahead.
22 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Seth, can I ask just one more clarifying question? I read
23 somewhere, but I can't find it now ... so there was a dedication of right-of-way on Mulberry, is that right?
24 Of seven and a half feet for the right-of-way that Mulberry will need for their ultimate street
25 improvements? My question is, when and if that gets improved, how will that be changing the Mulberry
26 side? I think that you said that perhaps... do we get rid of that street tree lawn or what would happen?
27 MR. LORSON: The applicant is prepared to speak to that.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect.
29 MR. BRINKMAN: So, Kristin, I think what you're asking is seven and a half foot wide right-of-
30 way right here? So that's for potential ultimate Mulberry expansion. And, so the potential road would go
31 to that southern edge.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
33 CHAIR SMITH: I've got a question for the applicant. The amount of bike spaces being provided
34 in each of the dwelling units... it's one per unit, is that correct? And that's even in the units that have
35 more than one bedroom?
36 MR. BRINKMAN: No, it's one per bed.
37 CHAIR SMITH: It is one per bed?
18
1 to this would be to provide the parking in the public right-of-way. The reason it cannot be considered
2 towards the standard is because they have to get a revocable permit, and at any time the City could revoke
3 their ability to have that parking there and then they would no longer have the adequate amount of
4 parking spaces. Nevertheless, staff considers the request to be not detrimental to the public good and that
5 the modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential way.
6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks, continue... sorry.
7 MR. LORSON: You're welcome. The third modification is a reduction in the parking lot setback
8 from five feet, which is what the standard requires, to four feet two inches. This is because what they are
9 doing is providing... trying to provide at least one parking spot per dwelling unit. Now, without that ten
10 inch difference, they wouldn't have adequate space for the drive aisle to provide that entire row of
11 parking that you can see along the west side of the property. So, staff finds that it actually meets two
12 elements of the modification standards. The first one is that it's not detrimental to the public good and it
13 doesn't diverge from the standard except for in a nominal and inconsequential way, being ten inches.
14 And that also it will result in a substantial benefit for the City, being that they wouldn't be able to do the
15 project and provide the parking without having that drive aisle and without having that extra ten inches.
16 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks. Yes, hang on, Jennifer, go ahead
17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: So, where we're losing the spaces on the west side ... I'm
18 looking at the landscape plan now... so it's on the west side along there, that's where it's going from five S
19 to 4.2?
20 MR. LORSON: That's correct.
21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, and that's also where the landscaping which is meant
22 to be a buffer from the neighbors... that's where we're losing landscaping as well?
23 MR. LORSON: Not necessarily. Basically what we're talking about losing the landscaping is
24 internal landscaping. The buffer that you're talking about, the setback ... the five foot setback along the
25 west, is perimeter landscaping in the Land Use Code. What also the Land Use Code requires is the
26 interior... interior landscaping, which is the paved area. And that area requires six percent of that paved
27 area to have landscaping inside it to soften the actual parking lot itself.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRPATRICK: I just wanted to ask about that, going back to modification
29 A ... the intent of that is sort of for that perception of safety and to soften it so that you're not just in a
30 concrete jungle, right? 1 know that...
31 MR. LORSON: The interior landscaping? Correct.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I know that our requirement is for six percent surface. If
33 they were to do, say those green walls again on that first floor in the parking lot, would that ... that
34 wouldn't still count, right, towards the six percent standard?
35 MR. LORSON: No, we have very specific diagrams in the Land Use Code that it would have to
36 actually be area between parking spaces.
37 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think maybe that's an area that we could look at in the
38 future for infill sites.
39 MR. LORSON: We will, thank you.
17
I 1
2
3
4
5
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The developer
and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on the timeline that
they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the.time of the
neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held. And, I'd invite Paul to correct me if I've
erred in this description.
6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, do we have any ... what is our definition for mixed -use?
7 Is there any kind of a percentage of what you have to have of each to have it be considered mixed -use?
8 MS. KADRICH: Not yet... it's one of the topics that's come up by staff and by the Planning and
9 Zoning Board members that we would consider at a later date in defining whether there needs to be more
10 than the idea if there's more than one type of use, does it have to be a certain percent of the project, or
11 some other way to define mixed -use. But, currently, this project would qualify under the Land Use Code
12 definition.
13 CHAIR SMITH: What other questions do we have?
14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
15 participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we've been changing all sorts of things
16 about our process lately, and we're trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught sort of in the
17 middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job.
18 CHAIR SMITH: True... alright, what other questions do we have for staff or the applicant at this
19 time? John? Okay ... you know I think it'd be important for us to do ... maybe, Seth, if you could do this.
20 Could you lead us through the requests for modification please?
21 MR. LORSON: Yeah, absolutely. So, the first request for a modification is a reduction in the
22 parking lot landscaping. The Land Use Code requires six percent of interior parking area to be
23 landscaped, which would be five hundred and five square feet in this case. What they're doing, is they're
24 providing two hundred and twenty-four square feet, which would be 2.7 percent. Staff has made a
25 determination that it meets the standard in the modification Section 2.8, that the modification is not
26 detrimental to the public good and that the standard divergence is not detrimental... except in a nominal
27 and inconsequential way. What this is really a result of, as you heard the applicant say, is that they're
28 trying to get one parking spot per unit. So, what ... as you know, this is a TOD overlay zone, and there are
29 no parking requirements, there's no parking minimum. So, they could take out a parking spot and meet
30 their interior landscape requirement, but then they'd have to take out a parking spot which could possibly
31 impose more parking on public streets in the neighborhood, which, as you know, we've heard recently is
32 a concern for the community.
33 The second one is to provide off -site bicycle parking to meet their standard. I think we've
34 already gone over this well enough.
35 CHAIR SMITH: Seth, could you go back real quick, just on B... just go through the rationale.
36 MR. LORSON: Okay, yeah, absolutely. The rationale for the modification of standard is that, for
37 all intents and purposes, they're. providing the adequate amount of parking spaces. And, honestly, there's
38 a section in the Code that comes right after this that talks about alternative compliance. I think this would
39 ' actually have met the alternative compliance a lot better than a modification of standard, although they
40 had requested a modification of standard so we processed it as such. But, the alternative way to comply
16
1 MR. ILLANES: It's a hand -applied stucco system that is applied in coats. It's the traditional �co
2 stucco that's been used forever, it's not Dryvit, which is a material applied to foam.
3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Right, but is it like the stucco board that's applied to the wall
4 or is it actual stucco?
5 MR. ILLANES: No, it's hand -applied on the wall.
6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin, go ahead.
8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I was wondering if you could also respond to the citizen
9 testimony questioning the landscaping and setback modification?
10 MR. ILLANES: In regards to landscaping, as you can see, there is a ... let me change seats okay?
11 As you heard, the parking is not required, but clearly it was a great amenity to also bring at least one
12 parking space per unit. As the parking is organized around the building, you saw that most of it is
13 underneath the building. And, the spaces that are along the property lines that are in a
14 diagonal... currently, the landscaping is maintained as a straight line, and that width is where the
15 requirement is asked for. The building along all the entire perimeter has landscaping. I don't think we
16 have a landscape plan here with us, but one of the things that is happening is that we are using a lot of
17 trees along the street fagades. Now, what you saw in regards to the compact spaces... the compact spaces
18 are the ones that are located underneath the building for the most part.
19 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Just ... not to design your building for you, but I'm
20 assuming that there's not enough room to do the full-size parking within the building and to make those
21 spaces compact to have more of a buffer between your property and the single-family out in the parking
22 lot?
23 MR. ILLANES: Full-size spaces, they will not fit here, right.
24 MR. BRINKMAN: And, if I could say, that's the number one concern we had from all the
25 neighbors is parking. So, we tried to optimize it as best as we could.
26 CHAIR SMITH: Kristin, do you have more questions... follow-up on that? Jennifer, go ahead.
27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I do, and maybe this is for staff, I don't know. I just am
28 wondering why the neighborhood meeting was so late in the process... that's kind of an unusual place to
29 have...
30 LAURIE KADRICH: I think I can help with that since Seth has to switch seats there. This was
31 one of the projects that got caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the
32 Student Housing Action Plan and then the transition of some Land Use Code... where you might>r5S
33 remember as a Board, you made a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require,
34 instead of Type I hearing review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the
35 developer applied the fact that they were in a mixed... they were having a mixed -use development and the
36 discussion that we had around the threshold was about multi-family'development. So, Seth and the
37 developer proceeded ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it
38 included a definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change
39 made on the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
15
1 CHAIR SMITH: Emma could you use the mouse and show us with the cursor where you're
2 talking about please?
3 MS. MCARDLE: So this is the pad for the station, the shelter is this dashed line here. Our bike
4 parking is right here and that's six spaces. We do know that... we've heard from a lot of people that we're
5 under bike parked across the board for all of our stations so any additional bike parking we can get near
6 stations is a good thing from our perspective.
7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, are there any plans or processes in order to bump that up if you've heard
8 that it's under parked?
9 MS. MCARDLE: Yes, we are planning to get a project underway this year to address additional
10 bike parking throughout the corridor. That's on our work plan, but we haven't started it yet.
11 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks. I mean I guess just comment aside from this proposal is that, you
12 know, with MAX we have an opportunity to do something pretty great, and I'd like to see us plan for
13 greatness. I guarantee three to six bikes is not going to be adequate... not even close. Okay, so what other
14 questions do we have along these lines? Go ahead Jennifer.
15 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I'm sure it's on here somewhere, and I've been over these
16 and I can't find it, but on the bikes that are going to be up next to the building, that are going to be
17 protruding out onto the sidewalk.... how far are they going to protrude out into that space?
18 MR. ILLANES: The sidewalk is eight foot in width and the bicycles are outside of that width, but
19 within, or inside, of the right-of-way. If you follow the cursor please... so you see in the indent right there
20 as well as here, right? So, the bicycles are placed that the wheel is going to project just a little farther than
21 this blue line, but the sidewalk width ... you can see it there.
22 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How deep is that indentation for bikes?
23 MR. ILLANES: Six feet.
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I'm sorry?
25 MR. ILLANES: Six feet.
26 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Six feet, okay, thank you.
27 CHAIR SMITH: I guess a real quick question ... I may have missed this, but where you are
28 requesting to place bike racks in the right-of-way, what material will they be sitting on? Is that concrete?
29 So it'll be in the tree lawn but -it'll be on a concrete pad?
30 MR. ILLANES: Yes, it's a continuation of the material used for the sidewalk.
31 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay, thank you.
32 MR. BRINKMAN: If I can add, we did some very similar at Flats at the Oval. So, if you go by
33 Laurel and Howes, there's the same attribute there.
34 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thanks, what other questions do we have right now?
35 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I have a question about the stucco. So, this is stucco board,
36 not stucco. Is that correct?
14
1 citizen talk about and whether or not we're really getting enough parking for bikes in particular for the
2 public.
3 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, Seth, just to tag team that, do we have biking
4 standards as part of our transit stop plan and requirements?
5 'CHAIR SMITH: And I guess maybe let's have that discussion now, because I think maybe Emma
6 would come up ... is I think it maybe illustrates a larger concept and maybe we need to punt on a couple
7 other things, but just this idea about, as MAX is developed, that the projects... what's kind of the standard
8 for those stations for what they have provided for bike parking facilities, and how this one fits into those
9 standards... how this project fits in.
10 MR. LORSON: Okay, I was just told that there is no standards for the stations as far as for
11 developers to provide bicycle parking at a MAX station. The City will be providing three parking bike
12 racks to accommodate three bicycles at each station. As you can see here, this is the modification image
13 for bicycle parking, where the two red dots at the bottom are where they are proposing, or the applicant is
14 proposing to put ten of their required parking spaces off -site, off of their own area, that would help serve
15 both the transit station and the public realm to meet that standard. Just recently we did increase the bike
16 parking standard. Right now the standard is at one bike parking space per bedroom with sixty percent of
17 them being enclosed, or you know, inside the units, or in lockers or something like that ... forty percent
18 outside. So, overall, this project is providing a hundred and six bicycle parking spaces. For our review,
19 we feel that moving them off -site is actually just nominal and inconsequential modification to the
20 standard.
21 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: How many of those are off -site?
22 MR. LORSON: Ten of them, and the ten are right where the two red dots are on the site plan
23 there.
24 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you.
25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: So, Seth, can I just clarify. So, they're providing a hundred
26 and six bike parking spaces, ten of which are in the right-of-way. But, if they were to provide those
27 hundred and four required spaces on site, there would not be any bike parking in the right-of-way, except
28 for the three that you're requiring in the station?
29 MR. LORSON: That's correct. I'm sorry ... I misspoke, the transit station will have six spaces,
30 three racks, and that's provided by the City.
31 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And that's in addition to the ten that's provided through
32 this project?
33 MR. LORSON: That's an addition to the ten, yeah.
34 CHAIR SMITH: Where would those be located? Emma, your mic's not on ... it's good to see
35 you, it's been a while.
36 EMMA MCARDLE: Nice to see you ... Emma McArdle with Transfort by the way, for those of
37 you that don't know. We have the three racks just to the north of the station, which is to the right of the
38 grey ... the grey pad is the station for anyone that doesn't know.
13
1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else? This would be your only opportunity to address the
2 Board on this issue. So, if you even think you might want to talk to the Board about this, now is your
3 time. Anyone? Okay, with that ... did I hear somebody? Alright, then we will close the public testimony
4 component of this item and we'll move into the applicant's response to what they just heard from the
5 public testimony. And, I think that what we might do is ... if the applicant could step up and; you know,
6 respond to what we heard, the Board will probably have a few questions in order to direct you back to
7 maybe some of the concerns we've heard from the public. One second... sorry. Okay, I'm sorry, go
8 ahead.
9 MR. BRINKMAN: You bet ... so, a couple comments. On the trash trucks, they will have access
10 directly back to the dumpsters and they will be able to access the trash right there and access back out.
11 So, they will not need to access that from Mason. A couple other things... could you touch on the
12 materials real quick?
13 MR. ILLANES: Clearly, the materiality of this building is very diverse with a very hard strong
14 material that reminisces downtown, with this block and the brick. The body of the building, stucco,
15 which as you might know is not a soft material, has been used for centuries and it is a very long-lasting
16 material. It's a hard cement board with a cement finish in front of it. And then we have a lot of detail that
17 articulates the upper floors that, in the insets, that is a siding that's also brought up from the neighborhood
18 quality of the residual project that the previous gentleman was talking about in regard to the smaller
19 homes that you see around.
20 MR. BRINKMAN: A couple other items... it is in the TOD so there really is no parking
21 requirement and we've worked pretty hard, and that's why there are the modifications, to optimize the
22 parking as well as we can. The balconies on the west side, really that came about from comments from
23 the neighbors, how they thought that would create more noise and nuisance out there, and so that's one of
24 the reasons why we pulled those back. And then also on ... you know, the predominant material. It's just
25 so difficult to determine what the predominant material is. I'd argue in this block, it's probably siding
26 and so that's something that we're trying to kind of establish a precedent for future infill, mixed -use
27 projects along the corridor.
28 MR. ILLANES: There was also a question about bicycles, and clearly we are providing a lot of
29 bicycle storage within the building. But, when you think about transit -oriented development and a bus
30 stop right there, you want to make sure that you're also responding to the needs that bicycle parking will
31 allow to the community as a whole. Most of the parking is within the property. As you have seen, there's
32 a couple of spaces where we're proposing to articulate some of the use at it relates to the station itself,
33 mostly facing Mason.
34 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, one thing... Jennifer, did you have... okay, we've probably got quite a few
35 actually. But, one thing I wanted to maybe touch on right at the beginning was ... you know, I think... and
36 maybe we need to actually go through, have staff help us go through all of the requests for modification
37 here shortly, just because I think that's probably the meat of the discussion. But, I think a point was
38 raised about, you know, as we start to, you know, build TOD projects that, you know, the need for
39 accommodating bikes for public use. And so, one of the concerns I had, or at least a question, was that in
40 particular, there's four spaces to be, I guess, dedicated to the commercial space. And, I'm wondering if,
41 in your opinion, that's truly adequate. And, I think that goes along the lines with what we heard the first
12
I anticipate moving trucks needing to park along Mason to serve MAX Flats. If larger service vehicles
2 park along Mason south of the project area, the sight lines for traffic southbound on Mason and eastbound
3 on Myrtle will be impacted and would definitely increase the probability of accidents near the intersection
4 with Myrtle. I think the City of Fort Collins has an outstanding resource coming in the bus rapid transit
5 system. I hope the City of Fort Collins will ensure that no situation is permitted that would negatively
6 impact that system in this area. Thank you for the chance to comment.
7 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Board on this issue? Please, step
8 forward, state your name and address for the record and sign in as well.
9 DAVE MICHLOVE: My name is Dave Michlove and I live at 208 West Myrtle just west of ... my
10 property is adjacent west of the building. I only became informed about this project based on the
11 neighborhood meeting last week, so I'm sort of new on this but my concern is with the fencing betweeri
12 their property and our property. Right now they are talking about a wood privacy fence. Living next to
13 King's, the wood privacy fence that's up currently is mine. It kept getting knocked.over over and over
14 and over again by people ramming into it with their cars. I would like to see a little bit sturdier... maybe a
15 masonry type fence put between our properties that will sort of ensure a little bit less of an issue between
16 the people parking, as well as things being thrown over walls. I have two dogs that bark, I don't really
17 want college students that will probably be inhabiting here be throwing things at my dogs. Perhaps a
18 sturdier, maybe even a higher fence would help protect some of that from occurring. I also am concerned
19 about the parking. There is no parking in that area and during the day right now, CSU pretty much fills it .
20 up and you're going to be taking away parking from the CSU students that use that as an access. Usually
21 it empties out at night, but with this building I'm sure it won't be emptying out. So, those are basically
22 my concerns, as well as what other people have stated. Thank you.
23 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Anyone else like to address the Board
24 on this issue? Please.
25 RICHARD TARANOW: My name is Richard Taranow, I live at 2731 Granada Hills Drive. I
26 own a building directly... house directly behind the project to the south, actually next door to his. The
27 infill I've seen in the last twenty years in the neighborhood has been kind of low quality duplexes and
28 four-plexes that already look dated. I like the fact that someone is planning a building that will look good
29 not just for our generation, but maybe one or two after ours. It won't look dated or need to be torn down.
30 Parking certainly is an issue, but there's people who don't live in a neighborhood that come and park
31 there, so I don't see an issue why people who do live in a neighborhood ... if they moved into that why
32 they couldn't park in the street. So, again, parking situation will never be great. Seems like we want
33 more density, we want public transportation to work ... this type of infill will help that. Most of the new
34 student housing that I've seen built recently is ... had no architectural flavor like this. So, I think
35 compared to what could go in there, you know, I'd rather see this type of development than another 7-11
36 or some car lot that was previously there, and it seems like the projects this developer has brought to town
37 recently have been very successful. I have not seen any issues with... problems with any of the
38 construction ... neighbors in their last few developments they've brought to town, so I would have to say
39 in lieu of whatever else I've seen planned, that this is a good use for that land. The University's going to
40 grow, we're going to have more density ... let's do it at least with some design flare like these folks here
41 are presenting. Thank you.
11
1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. And, so you know, we did get your ... your letter, and we've had the
2 chance to read through it ... well written, so we'll consider that as well. Anybody else? Speak to this
3 item? Please step forward and state your name and address for the record and sign in as well.
4 BRUCE FROSETH: My name is Bruce Froseth and I live at 524 Spring Canyon Court in Fort
5 Collins. Members of the Board and staff, I want to thank you for this opportunity to voice my concern
6 and opposition to this project. I maybe a little disorganized tonight because our neighborhood meeting
7 was just last week. Your actions tonight will greatly influence the character and livability of this
8 neighborhood and guide future projects along the Mason Street Corridor. This project was first presented
9 to staff in the fall of 2012 with a total of 46,000 square feet and sixty-six parking spaces. Staff comments
10 were based on this proposal. According to the City -approved flow chart, there should have been a
11 neighborhood meeting after that initial submittal. The original concept with transitioning roofs has been
12 changed to what is proposed today ... 64,000 square feet, sixty-four units, a hundred bedrooms, sixty-four
13 rented parking spaces. This looks nothing like what was presented in the fall, it's 18,000 square feet
14 larger. The project is called mixed -use, but it's less than three percent other than residential. The project
15 being five stories is one of the few in the TOD and CC zoning district, and I believe requires you to use
16 some forward thinking and more scrutiny. I believe it is not compatible with the neighborhood in size,
17 character and mass, and makes no attempt to transition to the surrounding properties. I believe that stucco
18 is not the predominant fapade of properties in this area. I believe even though there are no requirements
19 for TOD... parking in the TOD... thirty additional cars parking the neighborhood streets around here do
20 not contribute to compatibility. This area is already the hardest place in the city to find a parking space. I
21 believe placing trash enclosures next to the single-family residence shows a lack of concern this
22 development team has towards this neighbor. I believe projects like the Flats at the Oval and Pura Vida in
23 old Woody's Pizza, have higher quality material and better transitioning techniques. They were both
24 larger sites but they ended up with less units than this. This project is ninety units per acre. I believe the
25 request for modifications show the developer's Zack of concern to be compatible with their surrounding
26 neighbors. I would hope that there will be a building on this site that would truly be a mixed -use and
27 contribute to the fabric of the neighborhood, providing more than a cup of coffee. I would like to finish
28 by saying I'm opposed to this dorm -like building on the Corridor and I do not believe this project will
29 help us become a world -class city. Thank you.
30 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else? Please step forward and state your name and address
31 for the record. And, for the folks that are in the back of the room that are standing, there are at least four,
32 five, six seats up here if you'd like to sit down ... and I see a couple over here as well. Sir, go ahead.
33 ED SEELEY: I'm Ed Seeley, I live at 415 South Howes in Park Lane Towers about one block to
34 the west of the proposed project. I have a concern about the proposal as I understand it. I'm looking
35 forward to using the bus rapid transit system when it comes on line next year and in particular to using the
36 station just south of Mulberry. I'm concerned about the impact that MAX Flats will have on traffic along
37 Mason between Mulberry and Myrtle, but especially on an increased potential for accidents at the
38 intersection of Mason and Myrtle. If there is an accident at the intersection, getting vehicles, and even a
39 bus, out of the area with the confined lanes created by the railroad will not be easy. There may be
40 significant delays for bus service. I see this potential problem because it looks, from the project plan, as if
41 larger service vehicles such as garbage trucks would not be able to drive into the site, but will need to
42 park along Mason south of the project. Also, the intended population for MAX Flats looks to be a more
43 transient population that will have a more frequent number of move -ins and move -outs. So, I would
10
1 System, I've never really heard of somebody coming up with an explanation about how people are going,
2 in large numbers, ride their bicycles into town and catch the BRT to go elsewhere in town, and leaving
3 their bikes in town. You know, our bike parking at times is very strained in that area, as it is right now,
4 and as we try to infill in that area it's on. It's pretty obvious that a building structure of this size, this
5 much square footage, it's not hard to contemplate that a certain percentage of the square footage could be
6 dedicated to indoor bike parking for the residents there, meaning that they would not have to take up
7 bicycle parking that we might provide as an amenity... public access, public right-of-way in that regard.
8 And, I just wonder really what the rationale is there, and if it's really justifiable in terms of the request for
9 modification that's being made. And, really, there's really no project that can come forward in any tax
10 increment district in this city that does not merit a little bit of concern about everybody in this community,
11 about how Fort Collins is using tax increment financing, and the burden it is placing on the taxpayers, the
12 limitations it's placing on other taxing agencies to provide services as our population grows. I don't
13 think, in any way, shape or form, that that topic is being given anywhere near the weight it deserves.
14 And, certainly the rationalizations that are being made, and justifications for using tax increment here,
15 there, everywhere, probably need to be reconsidered in light of what the realities are for our libraries, our
16 schools, our health district, our County social services as well. So, I'll just throw that in a little bit on top,
17 even though it doesn't really pertain to LUC. Thanks a lot.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, anyone else? Please step forward.
19 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Good evening Board and staff, my name is Susan Kreul-Froseth, I
20 live at 524 Spring Canyon Court. It's hard to write and talk at the same time here. So, I have a limited
21 amount of time and I'll try to speak quickly, thank you for the opportunity to speak, it's an obligation too.
22 We've been aware of this project since January; quite frankly it's been a convoluted process. We met
23 with the developer two or three times ... two times I guess, and staff multiple times. I wish I liked this
24 project; I have to tell you, I do not... several reasons. It fails on several levels in my mind to actually feel
25 like some of the images that we saw proposed when the Mason Street Corridor came into view to the
26 citizens. Without question, it is a precedent -setting project and I think you all realize that... probably most
27 of the citizens that are even aware of the project know that it's extremely precedent -setting. We are going
28 to see development along the Mason Street Corridor based on some of these new projects. So, I urge
29 you ... you know, ask questions like, let's see the elevation instead of looking at a perspective from the
30 corner at a worm's eye view. Look to see what the neighbors see from the west. There were balconies
31 showing up initially in this project, very early on, and suddenly they were gone... associated with
32 economic situations the developer mentioned, just can't simply afford those types of things. Articulation
33 is incredibly important on this project. So I urge you, ask to see the elevations... not portions of buildings,
34 not half of the building or a third of the building. It's a mirror image, and that's been said over and over
35 about staff... about the project. I have several pages to talk to you about and one minute left. So, I urge
36 you to also look at the modifications of standards related to landscaping. It is not nominal and
37 inconsequential, it's very important to the neighbors that the landscaping and the setbacks are maintained.
38 If we start to let this project slide now, others will follow. When the Mason Street Corridor was proposed
39 to us, we saw vibrant city streetscapes, we saw human scale, we saw setbacks, articulation, use of good
40 materials. Quite frankly, this neighborhood meeting occurred one week ago. So my responses are based
41 on what I saw at that meeting, not at this one. So, I know the developer and the architect have made
42 strides to respond to the neighbors, but it's a little too late in a lot of cases. We're left with no time to
43 consider these things, thank you.
0
1 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, alright... Jennifer, you have a question real quick? Alright.
2 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Seth, on that... so the only place that we've added brick is up
3 that column? Or was the piece across...?
4 MR. LORSON: You mean down here at the base?
5 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes, was that added as well?
6 MR. LORSON: That was already... so, in your packet, it's already designed that way. As you can
7 see, where it comes up here, formerly that was metal ... that'd be great.
8 MR. BRINKMAN: So, the ... there's probably four different changes. The brick is one that we
9 heard from several neighbors that it's a real material that's present a lot in Old Town, and so we did have
10 metal paneling there before, so all of that area went to brick. The setback was a big thing for us, as it
11 really affects the economics of a project, but it was important for the neighbors so we need to set that
12 back right here, that goes all the way towards the south. Another element that we did, we created
13 these ... this element on the top of each stair tower there, so that brought, what we heard, was a better
14 element to the project, and we also created this base so it wasn't one mass going up. We created this
15 bottom base here with material. So, those are a lot of the things we heard over the last couple weeks ... we
16 heard -at the neighborhood meeting, and the changes we made since then to today.
17 MR. ILLANES: We also added brick along the Mason facade. So you're seeing that ... was block
18 now is brick as it progresses through, moving to the south.
19 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, so the stair protrusion, or whatever it is out there,
20 is ... that's metal tile? Is that what I'm seeing? The part that sticks out ... that's the stair?
21 MR. ILLANES: No, that is concrete block.
22 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Concrete block? .Okay, thank you.
23 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. John, you have a question?
24 BOARDMEMBER JOHN HATFIELD: Not a question, but I just wanted to compliment the staff
25 and the applicant on the detail and all the work they put into this. It's quite extensive here ... the audience
26 has no idea how much more there is that we have to look at here than what you even have to talk about.
27 So, I just want to compliment you on the detail and the ease of reading and studying of this project.
28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, we'll move into the public testimony component of this item. So, if
29 you are here to address the Board on this item specifically, would you please raise your hand so I can get
30. a count? How many folks? Okay, okay... so what we'll do is, we'll give you three minutes each to step
31 up to the microphone. We'll have both podiums active and available. When you come up, please state
32 your name and address for the record, sign in as well, and be kind. So, please, sir, go ahead.
33 ERIC SUTHERLAND: Thank Chairman, my name is Eric Sutherland, I live at 3520 Golden
34 Currant in Fort Collins and I do want to express some concern about the modification that has been
35 requested that would allow the applicant to depart from our standards for bicycle parking. That wasn't
36 really presented in their explanation here; perhaps there might be more details that might justify that
37 modification. But, I don't know that that's really something that we want to be compromising
38 on ... pushing bicycle parking out into the public right-of-way in this particular district of town might
39 create problems. You know, honestly, as much as I've heard about the Mason Bus Rapid Transit
8
1 in the building to allow these openings to the parking garage, and potentially retrofits for retail, we are
2 allowing that opening to be infill with a green wall which is a material ... you might want to open that box
3 for me please... it's a material that allows vines to grow in in such a way that what we have is almost a
4 living wall in lieu of just a blank wall or a solid wall. You see also that the insets that the building creates
5 where the balconies are up above, have on the back, almost a wood slat fence, if you will ... very nicely
6 articulated... that allows the backdrop for the bicycle parking that's inset into the building. We're
7 proposing some signage to define the use ... the commercial use on the bottom, as well as some signage to
8 define the name of the building on the fagades.
9 Now here again you get to see the entire composition of this building, as it defines pretty much
10 this transit -oriented corner that you have created on your... well, a block away from main street, if you
11 will. This is the material that I was articulating ... this is what ... the green wall comes like this; it's a three-
12 dimensional space frame that allows then, the vines to grow on them. It's being used ... I think it's being
13 used also here in your community already. It's a very interesting product introduced into the market
14 about ten years ago, and it's worked pretty successfully for everybody. Questions?
15 CHAIR SMITH: No, I don't think so ... not yet anyway. Do you have more of your staff ...I mean
16 your applicant presentation? Do you have any more team members coming up?
17 MR. ILLANES: That's it.
18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, Jennifer you have a question right now?
19 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: No...
20 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, alright.
21 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: Can I ask one quick question? The modification
22 that you're seeking for the parking landscaping requirements from the six percent down to the 2.7... does
23 that include other vertical green walls in that percentage as well... or?
24 MR. ILLANES: No.
25 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Because it's not in the parking area? Okay.
26 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, what we'll do is, at this point, if you're done with your presentation, we'll
27 ask staff to step back up and maybe clarify, or if there was any other pieces to the presentation we might
28 need to hear, Seth? And if you don't want to, you don't have to. Thank you to the applicant for your
29 presentation.
30 MR. LORSON: There's one element that I would like to highlight. There's been a lot of
31 interaction with this project and staff, and staff with the neighbors, and the neighbors with the applicant,
32 and a lot of conversations have gone on about the impact on the neighborhood, the architecture, and these
33 kind of elements. I just wanted to highlight something real quick that ... the original design, as you can
34 see up here on the screen, you see that this is not brick, and this corner here is kind of full, if you will.
35 What they have done is ... they've done a couple of elements that was [sic] trying to step down towards the
36 neighbors and bring a little bit warmer character to the building, and that's what I've been told is different
37 than what you even have in your packet, so there were some last minute changes there with that step
38 down. So, I really don't have anything else to add other than those. I think the applicant would be able to
39 speak a little further towards any changes that may have happened.
7
1 be here in such a way that we could modify those locations with storefront and create a small retails
2 space.
3 Farther, I wanted to illustrate to you what happens with the building when you ... the base is
4 terminated then the building on top is highly articulated on layer [sic] with not only vertical elements but
5 also a lot of horizontal elements that are allowing us to create that activity that not only represents what
6 happens inside of the building, but also projects with these balconies such that we are articulating the
7 events that are happening along the street. That happens both on the Mason side and on the Mulberry
8 side. One other important component of the building, clearly, is the definition of this comer of Mason
9 and Mulberry on which we are not only creating this void that articulates a plaza on the ground floor, but
10 it also has an element that is more distinctive...
11 One of the questions, clearly, that ... kind of requested for all of us to articulate in terms of
12 understanding how this building hits the face of the street, if you will, as it goes up, was in section... and
13 I'm going to show you three sections, two along Mason and one along Mulberry, that articulate first. The
14 first one coming on Mason going up north, what you see is the street, landscape strip, an eight -foot
15 sidewalk, the property line, a building inset, and that's the place where we're proposing to have
16 bicycles... bicycle parking, if you will, in such a way that the wheel of the parking... or the wheel of the
17 bicycle is projecting a little bit beyond the property line but not crossing the sidewalk. Therefore the
18 sidewalk is clearly articulated in such a way that the bicycles are not interrupting the traffic. But it
19 changes as you move forward up the street where now the bicycles are on the other side of the sidewalk,
20 allowing in between the sidewalk and the building and on all these insets, the potential furniture, if you
21 will, by creating benches and more activities along the street. Clearly when you go to the Mulberry cross-
22 section of how the building hits the ground, the pedestrian is faced with ... the retail space is projecting
23 into the street such that the building sits far behind. We have a much wider section between building and
24 street, anticipating that potentially that street can change with time such that the sidewalk may move in,
25 and as such we have enough space between the automobile and the building as well. So you are also
26 seeing how the building is not just one flat ... but articulates and the balconies, allowing us to create a lot
27 of dynamic movement throughout the building.
28 In terms of materiality, and this was a discussion that involved City staff as well as the neighbor,
29 the idea is that we are going to have a very strong pedestrian base that's more tactile, following a bit the
30 vocabulary created in your downtown with brick and stone, clearly the stone is way too expensive to be
31 utilized here, so we are mimicking the base of the building with ground face block that mimics limestone,
32 if you will, in such a way that there's a wainscot at all the retail fronts as they continue throughout Mason,
33 and at the stair towers, a base that's a little bit higher but it defines the water line, if you will, of the
34 pedestrian base of the building. You're seeing the plaza, the coffee shop, the retail projection into
35 Mulberry, and then what you're seeing is the front facing Mason. So, we went from limestone -looking
36 material to brick, and eventually the body of the building is stucco in several colors. We are looking at
37 the creation of balconies that are recessed into the building and railings that project... and in places one is
38 different than the other such that the building has enough articulation not only horizontally as well as
39 vertically.
40 Now one discussion that we had with the neighbors as well with staff, is how we could bring
41 more of this brick to that iconic corner on Mason and Mulberry, so now we are bringing the brick all the
42 way up to the top of the fourth story, pretty much creating a lantern on the upper floor with a different
43 material, again in that instance we're going to use stucco. There are some other materials that we're using
6
I specifies, the Transit Oriented Development Overlay zone district is intended to incentivize higher
2 density, pedestrian friendly mixed -use development along the BRT corridor, with particular emphasis at
3 station areas. And so, that's what we set out to do. We took that as a vision and then we brought in Oz
4 Architects, who's an award -winning architect, and we set out to design a project that... its target market is
5 Old Town employees... or excuse me, Old Town employees and CSU student... faculty. We want it to be
6 really a bridge catalyst project between Old Town and CSU. We really wanted to integrate with that
7 MAX transit stop, and also wanted to create a plaza and retail space that promotes tenant and pedestrian
8 interaction. So, with that I can hand it over to Eduardo to go through the design. Thank you.
9 EDUARDO ILLANES: Good evening, my name is Eduard Illanes, I'm with Oz Architecture,
10 representing the project as you just heard. As I get my bearings...I want to start by giving you a reference
11 of how this building hits the ground, as clearly that's the best reference, if you will, to understand how a
12 project fulfills the need of neighborhood fabric. First thing I could tell you is that I applaud the fact that
13 infill projects have been developed in the core of your city to create the densities that are going to allow
14 your downtown to thrive ... that would be more people and more activities... you're doing it with the MAX
15 station as is [sic] providing that connectivity, bridging the University with the downtown. In that regard,
16 this building, on this plan is illustrating the corner of ... of Mulberry on the north with Mason on the east
17 side of the building. What you see in here then is that on the ground level we have a building that's
18 coming pretty much to that build -to line ... the property line... in such a way that it defines the activities of
19 the pedestrian interaction that is happening in the building and also with the neighbors that are navigating
20 through the site. On the corner, we have a community space. We're creating a plaza that pretty much
21 opens up the visual interaction of automobiles as they approaching [sic] the corner to see farther out to
22 what's going to be the future station that is almost completed by now.
23 Phasing... Mulberry also, on the north of the building ... the built area facing the street is a retail
24 space that also then faces the plaza on the east. As it turns around, what we have is the residential entry to
25 this mixed -use project and a wall that... allows us to invite activities with bicycle parking, benches and so
26 forth, that not only relate to the building, but it will also allow the people waiting on the station to either
27 sit on those benches and/or utilize that plaza beyond. So when you look at that in building mass and
28 design, what you see in a building, that's addressing on the ground level the pedestrian, but it also allows
29 the building to have a body on the upper floors, and then eventually on the top of the building, a pretty
30 distinctive cap, if you will, that frames how the building ends on the upper floor. But, more importantly,
31 as the building turns the comer, it's creating a space for the community activity... that community pocket
32 park almost on the corner where we are incorporating not only sitting areas, but we're hoping to
33 incorporate activities like a piano, sitting tables, benches and so forth.
34 Now, when you look at that in more detail, you'll see on the lower left the blow-ups that I want to
35 show you a little bit on the top here where we are incorporating activities that allow us to connect the
36 building to the street in such a way that it's soft, it's engaging, it allows the people to participate. And,
37 not only that, but it also is very porous, it's ... I think it's critical for the building to allow that interaction
38 between people and uses. So, you see in the corner on the top of Mason and Mulberry, and now on the
39 bottom, number two, you are seeing right in the middle of the building here, the station connected with
40 the main entry to the residential tower up above. What you're seeing also is that the ground level that you
41 saw ... was a parking garage pretty much, it has this wall that is articulating pretty much the bulkheads for
42 future development if indeed retail was going to become a use that this street ... the market could afford to
5
1 that goes I think pretty much the whole duration of the site. And then if you go out a little bit farther and
2 you look at the corridor, you have a little bit of everything. You have eleven to twelve stories here on the
3 two Park Lane Towers, Cortina is seven to eight stories, everything from the Schrader's gas station to the
4 large. church across the street to Sports Authority to the new 415 restaurant. So, very eclectic architecture
5 and uses, and the challenge that that brought was when we ... we reached out to all the neighbors and I
6 think it was in December and January, and there was a little bit of competing interest on a lot of the
7 commercial users wanted us to create as much density as possible to help their businesses, and create as
8 much parking as possible so it wouldn't spill out on the street. The residential neighbors wanted less
9 density but more amenities that would kind of help their renters. So, we heard a lot of kind of conflicting
10 feedback.
11 And this is, I think, just helpful to understand the process that we went through, and I can go
12 through it quickly. We started our first conceptual review in August 2011, and for almost nine months we
13 worked through all those issues that we found that are inherent in that infill site. We went back through a
14 PDR just over a year later, and then we went through a specific plaza review with City staff. We met
15 with the DDA staff on the project, we had a first PDP submittal January 2"d, and we bought the property
16 at the same time period ... a specific review for the faVade with City staff, a specific design review with the
17 DDA staff. One of the things we did there was just making sure that we coordinated the BRT transit stop
18 and make sure that interacted perfectly with the project. We met... reached out to all the property
19 owners ... we met with several of them. A design review with the DDA staff January 30d'... first time
20 presenting at the DDA Board meeting ...implemented some of their design suggestions. Second round of
21 PDP submittal in March, second DDA Board meeting where we received approval. Our process was
22 changed to a Type 11 review process... again we met with individual meetings with staff and neighbors.
23 We had the neighborhood meeting on April IOh, and then we've provided the ... what we heard from the
24 neighborhood meeting, we've revised since then, and that's what we're presenting today. And so we've
25 gotten that out to all the neighbors of interest since then. So, that's a little bit of a history of how we got
26 here.
27 Vision for the project... we've really looked at City Plan to provide a lot of the vision, and as all
28 you know, it's the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fort Collins and it illustrates how we envision Fort
29 Collins over the next twenty-five years and beyond. And, we just pulled out a couple of things that we
30 thought applied to this project that we thought you'd find interesting. This is one... concentrate higher
31 density housing and mixed -use development in locations that are currently, or will be, served by high-
32 frequency transit in the future and can support higher levels of activity. Another one... encourage higher
33 intensity infill and redevelopment ... at the bottom it says, encourage vertical mixed -use but, however,
34 limit maximum building height to five to six stories. So, our project is five stories, and then we also
35 found in the Refill Fort Collins document, it identifies this side is on the list of Fort Collins areas of
36 redevelopment/infill potential and it notes this actual site is having TOD building heights and incentives.
37 And then also, the City is promoting the site just "across the street — it's about fourteen acres ... so you can
38 see our site in the very bottom left corner there. This is Schrader's, this is Sports Authority, and they're
39 promoting seven to nine stores, a hundred and fifteen feet, so we felt our height is very appropriate as the
40 Community Commercial zoning district allows five stories, and this abuts the transition up to seven to
41 nine stories. So that's why we felt that our height was appropriate. Also in City Plan and Refill Fort
42 Collins, this is from our site looking to the northeast, and so you can see a project that's very similar in
43 character of what we're proposing. Also in Plan Fort Collins, this is another transit stop location and it
4
1 standards for approval for the four modifications. All of those are available and details are in your staff
2 reports. I'm here to answer any questions. Additionally, we have Emma McArdle here from Transfort to
3 answer any questions about the MAX station. The applicant is here to answer ... to give a presentation as
4 well. Thank you.
5 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you Seth. Let's go ahead and have the applicant make a
6 presentation please. Whatever microphone you prefer.
7 KEVIN BRINKMAN: Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners, we'll be the developer, contractor,
8 and we'll do the property management and leasing on the project. This is Eduardo Illanes with Oz
9 Architects and he'll be talking about the design today. So, we're excited to be here. We feel a little bit
10 like the opening act with all these people here, so I think we'll get through our part here fairly quick. Our
11 project we've been working on since August of 2011, and it's the MAX Flats project here ... let me go to
12 the slideshow.
13 Alright, so just to orientate ourselves, this is on the southwest corner of Mulberry and Mason, and
14 the vision that we set out for is to do a project that's very similar to Flats at the Oval, our project there at
15 Laurel and Howes, and to make a project like that successful, there's many attributes that we look at for
16 site selection. So, one, as you can see here, it is on ... right between Old Town and CSU, and is right on
17 the transit stop, that's something that drove us to the site. Another very important factor for us is that it's
18 in the Community Commercial zoning district. This allows us to go to five stories, which is important for
19 the economics of the project to work. And also, it's in the TOD overlay. This allows us to park it more
20 in line with what market is, and that allows us to get all the characteristics to work for the project.
21 Additionally, we look for projects in the DDA boundary. This is the DDA map, and this project
22 was in kind of the growth area of the DDA boundary, so we're actually annexed into the DDA. So we
23 were awarded with money to go to public improvements in the right-of-way. So, that has been through
24 the DDA's Board twice and has been through the City Council with two readings to get into that
25 boundary.
26 So, you know with all those things that we look for and site selection, usually the challenge is it's
27 an infill site that usually has inherent challenges. So, the site here ... these are existing photos. It was
28 King's Auto before, and ... auto sales and repair shop. So, it's been vacant and on the market for about
29 two years. Another challenge is it's in the City of Fort Collins flood... high flood fringe, so that means
30 that we couldn't do residential units on the main level, or subterranean, and we had to flood -proof all the
31 ground floor, and so that was a challenge. The other challenge, as you can see here, we didn't realize this
32 until we went through our conceptual review, that there's a sewer line that goes through the alley to
33 Mason, and when they vacated the alley, there wasn't an easement put on the land there, and so we found
34 that out downstream. So, we have to relocate the sewer there and tie it into the homes there to the south.
35 So, that's one thing that's in our development plan. The other challenge, the site is almost identical
36 dimensions of a football field, so it's ... the width is just very narrow, and so you can see parking ... to
37 optimize parking is a challenge. We needed to do one-way diagonal parking and we needed more ... some
38 of the modifications you saw to be able to park it the way that we felt we needed to.
39 And the other challenge is just the eclectic area and architecture. This is a view of all the
40 properties that are on the block, and so you can see definitely a variety from ... this one is on the corner of
41 Myrtle, it's currently condemned. There's a couple modular units. This is the property just to the west
3
1 CHAIR ANDY SMITH: The very next item that we'll discuss this evening is the MAX Flats
2 Project Development Plan 120034. We have one Boardmember that will be stepping out for this item and
3 before we get into the staff report, Angelina, have there been any written comments received since our
4 worksession?
5 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes, since the worksession there's been letters from the
6 DDA, Todd Danger£eld and Matt Robenault, and a letter from Bruce and Susan Kruel-Froseth and some
7 renderings for the MAX station from staff.
8 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Alright, well let's move into the staff report. Seth, please.
9 SETH LORSON: Just one quick correction, Angelina, there should be one more from Ann
10 Hutchinson.
11 CHAIR SMITH: Oh, we did get that.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: I'm sorry, I must not have it on my log, but I did distribute it.
13 MR. LORSON: You did distribute it you say?
14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes.
15 CHAIR SMITH: Yes, I've got it. Go ahead.
16 MR. LORSON: Good evening Planning and Zoning Board. I'm Seth Lorson with Community
17 Development and Neighborhood Services. The applicant for MAX Flats is requesting approval of a
18 mixed -use building at the corner of Mulberry and Mason. It's in the Community Commercial zone
19 district and it's a mixed -use building of fifty plus units, therefore it's subject to your review. Here is the
20 site plan for the building up here. There is about 1,400 square feet of retail on the corner, a plaza, as well
21 as some other elements along the Mason Street ... the MAX station, there is the entry to the building,
22 there's bike parking and there's some interesting landscaping elements that are called green screens. This
23 is a rendering of the proposed design. Another rendering, this one is from the north end, as you can see
24 the adjacent properties to the west in this rendering. Again, this is an elevation as opposed to the
25 perspective drawing. This one is from the east side looking at it; this is how it will be experienced from
26 the Mason Corridor.
27 There are four modifications being requested for this project. The first one is a reduction in the
28 parking lot landscaping from the required six percent to 2.7 percent. The second modification is to meet
29 the parking... the bike parking standard, by providing parking in the public right-of-way. When they do
30 provide that in the right-of-way, they will have adequate bike parking. In order to do that, they will be
31 required to have a revocable permit through our Engineering Department. The third modification is a
32 reduction in the setback to the west from five feet to four feet, two inches. And, the fourth modification is
33 an increase in the percentage of compact parking spaces from forty percent, which is the maximum in the
34 Land Use Code, to fifty-eight percent. I have some additional information that will serve some of the
35 questions. Staff has reviewed this Project Development Plan and finds that it's in compliance with all
36 sections of the Land Use Code with the exception of the four modifications, but that they do meet the
rA
HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, April 18, 2013
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
MAX Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034
Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., April 18, 2013
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez -Sprague, Administrative Assistant
Kristin Kirkpatrick Seth Lorson, City Planner
John Hatfield Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
Emily Heinz (**Boardmember Heinz recused herself from the discussion of this item)
LAOwF 's (KPtP1T'-1P�Tt0,) of QQ'=r-ESS Pq, kS