Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFEEDER SUPPLY - PDP - PDP130012 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 16 Chair Smith said Feeders Supply Project Development Plan #PDP13 was approved. Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan, #ODP130001 Proje t Description: This is a request for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) located at the intersection of East Prospect Road and South Timberline Road. The site 30.57 acres in size and four areas within the parcel are managed by differen 6ity departments. The intent of the ODP is to establish a general land us pattern in each of the four areas. The current uses include parks and open space, outdoor storage and public facility uses (Timberline Substation). The p�bposed uses include recycling facilities, light and heavy industrial uses, p!A`nt nurseries, offices, and other open space and park uses, e.g., a disc golf cou#e. The ODP is zoned ustdal (1) and Employment (E). Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Damon Holland of Ripley Design, Inc. provided information on the Spring Creek Trail, Timberline Substation, Parks' storage yard ary ODP is to formalize land use for the areav cluding the Integrated storage, public facilities, light and heavy industrial, plant nurs ries life including Coterie Natural Areas, i silo site. He said the purpose of the Recycling Facility, open space, outdoor , and disc golf. Holland outlined how the ODP was in compliance with t Land Use Code. He said access to the site is available via 3 vehicular entrances (one north of ski s tion, one to the substation, and one via gravel road to the Parks' storage yard.) It's that access th ill be used for the Integrated Recycling Center. He said pedestrian access is via the Spring Cree rai . Existing traffic is 28,000 vehicle trips per day with the recycling facility adding 120 vehicle tr' s per day during the week and 130 vehicle trips per day on the weekend. Holland said a neighborhood meeting s held June 3 with the feedback received related to how the old (Rivendell) site would be used, how ffering would address visual and noise pollution, what would be recycled and how would hazardou materials be handled. They also had questions about the impact on Timberline traffic. Staff Presentation Senior Environmental PlaXner Lindsay Ex said in addition to the presentation staff has submitted a staff report. Staff finds that the ODP is consistent with the permitted land uses within the Industrial (1) and Employment (E) zone'districts and it does meet the requirements outlined in Section 2.3.2 of the LUC. Staff recommends,aooroval of the ODP. Public Input None / Board Member Carpenter made a motion to approve the Timberline and Prospect Overall Development Plan, #ODP130001, in accordance with findings of fact on page 6 of the staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 15 Member Carpenter said we have very good advice from the State Historic Fund office and from our historic preservation office that this fails to comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards so maybe her friendly amendment would be they use the existing door and not put a door and two windows in. Member Carpenter asked if Member Hart would accept the friendly amendment. Member Hart ask if it would be reasonable to add "if practicable". Member Carpenter said she doesn't think so. Eckman said the only way to get past that point is we interpret that the purpose statement renders Section 2.4.7 to be applicable to the maximum extent feasible. He said if the Fire Code conflicts with the historic standards, the regulation that is the most specific controls. Eckman said if you cannot ascertain which is most specific than it's the regulation that is most stringent. It would take some studying to determine that. Director Kadrich said she heard Mr. Prouty say he would use the door so it sounds like the applicant is willing to modify his application and voluntarily agree to use the existing door. She said that may remedy the situation. Prouty said he has a historic matter of concern. If they put the door in the alley, we'll rip out 12 feet of wall. If we put the fire room door behind the landscaping where previously McWilliams thought would be okay, we only take out 3 feet of wall. He's not in favor of ripping out 12 feet of wall in that alley. He said he'd be agreeable to putting store front glass in the existing doorway and no more windows. Gonzales said he's had an opportunity to look at some plans and he has an idea of what's going on here. This fire door is not necessarily required. PFA can get into the building through the front door —they don't necessarily need a special door. He does object to something he heard from Mr. Prouty earlier about hiding the door behind landscaping. PFA has to have access; it cannot be hidden with landscaping or anything that would block PFA's access to it. Eckman said we need the applicant to tell us whether there's going to be a door in the alleyway. If it's to be removed and it's a non -issue, there is nothing to review at final plan stage. Member Schneider asked if the applicant desired access from the exterior into the sprinkler room, is there an understanding it would have to be off the alley and not off of Willow. Member Hart asked if that would be resolved when the final plans go to the Fire Department. He doesn't think that's our purview — he thinks that a matter of design for PFA. Gonzalez said they do not mandate direct access to the sprinkler riser room from the perimeter --it's only a recommended preference. Eckman said it seems that door is optional as far as PFA is concerned. Eckman said it became an issue for tonight's hearing because of the historic preservation aspect. It would make sense for the board to determine that the sprinkler room door is at the applicant's option and if he elects to include it has to be on the back side (alley). Member Hart said he'd offer that addition to the motion using Eckman's language. Chair Smith (2ntl) accepted the addition. It's included in the above motion. Member Carpenter wondered if Mr. Prouty said he'd get rid of the new door and two windows and use the existing door. Director Kadrich said she believe he said he'd keep the existing door and remove the windows. Prouty said yes they could secure the door open and install store front glass — rehabilitating the existing door to the extent possible. Member Carpenter asked for confirmation that two new windows and a new door would not be cut into the building. Prouty responded yes. Eckman said with Mr. Prouty having come to the podium and stating that makes it a part of the application and there does not need to be a condition. Member Hart called for the question. The motion passed 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 14 included in the recommendation. Also,• it would make sense for the board to determine that the sprinkler room door is at the applicant's option and if he elects to include it has to be on the back side (alley). Chair Smith seconded the motion. Member Carpenter asked if we could add a recommendation for the new windows and the fire door if it doesn't comply with Fire Code. Carpenter said at this point we don't know if it's feasible so she'd like to leave it up to staff to work it into the design. Chair Smith suggested "to the extent that accessibility and fire issues are met, as few new doors and windows are added to the western half of that northern side". Carpenter agreed. Member Kirkpatrick said it seems that a lot is still being flushed with regard to negotiations between the applicant and our historic preservation office. Can we just use a more general condition? Member Kirkpatrick said Mr. Prouty has a letter different than the one the board received. Chair Smith asked Mr. Prouty to hear what your thoughts are relative to the letter from the State. Prouty said he thinks the Board's task is to look at LUC Section 3.4.7. He thinks the reason the State, the city, and he hired a consultant for a historic structural assessment was among other things to come up with the building's character defining features. He said there's all kind of advice but at the end of the day the criteria in LUC Section 3.4.7 is what should be considered when the board makes their decision. He's concerned the different advisory groups appear to be taking precedence/responsibility they don't really have. He thinks it's dangerous to have too many advisory voices offering differing interpretations. He would like the board to consider making decisions based on the Land Use Code and not get off track on relatively smaller advisory items. Member Carpenter said she really appreciates the overall care that Mr. Prouty has taken with this building. She doesn't feel like the Secretary of the Interior Standards are advisory. It's what the board has to evaluate whether or not we are impacting the building. The new entrance definitely does not meet Secretary of the Interior Standards 1, 2 and 9. She said that is an important part of this building and it would change the character of the building. Chair Smith said at this point we either amend the motion or take a vote. Member Carpenter asked Chair Smith for some language he'd used previously. He said, "Keeping accessibility and fire consideration the primary concern. As much as possible, historic integrity considerations should be preserved on the western half of the northern elevation." Carpenter added "and we direct staff to do that". Eckman said that's a problem. In Section in 3.4.7(D) (2), the LUC states that the Secretary of the Interior Standards must be complied with. One board member thinks 3 standards are not being complied with but it has to be a majority decision. If we have a majority of the board that thinks that any of the Secretary of the Interior Standards are not complied with than this plan should not be approved under the LUC. Member Hart said if the motion on the floor is to be passed, in future design wouldn't staff require the applicant to meet the section of the Land Use Code that is in effect. Eckman said it's a PDP (Project Development Plan) issue —you apply this code when it comes to the board for PDP approval. After that it's an administrative process to get to final. Eckman said the purpose statement says this section is intended to ensure that to the maximum extent feasible, historic sites are preserved and new construction is designed to be sensitive to that. It's intended to protect designated historic sites, structures, or objects as well as other sites, etc. Eckman said maybe the purpose statement is not regulatory. We can conclude from that we might be able to extrapolate from the purpose statement that the whole section is applicable only to the maximum extent feasible. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 13 Member Hatfield said he says no problem with three windows. He thinks it's beneficial for several reasons, including: it adds to solar heating, it provides more light, and it could be a fire exit. He's in favor of three windows. Member Schneider said he's more inclined to follow staff recommendation. Member Kirkpatrick asked if there are any windows on the west side. Prouty said no. There is a grate and a cupola that could be restored in the back. There is a cupola in the front. On the ends of the buildings that are looking into the grain bins there is only one small window facing Willow Street. Member Carpenter said she thinks two windows is a good compromise. It's an important piece as far as this architectural type goes. She thinks leaving the window out in the front is not going to be detrimental. Member Schneider said he agreed with the State's recommendation that the two foot protrusion onto the sidewalk is not detrimental to the district nor does it compromise the historic character of the district. Member Kirkpatrick agrees they do not think it's detrimental to the historic district but they'd still like to see it recessed. Member Hart said Staff Historic Fund staff member Anne McCleave said that they don't support a protrusion. McWilliams said to clarify —the one person (Heather Peterson) is evaluating the property to see whether the changes would affect the National and State Register Districts standing and the other person (Anne McCleave) was using the Secretary of the Interior Standards and looking at the impact of the new construction. Member Hart said he doesn't necessarily agree with that and he doesn't think the new building would substantially affect the character of the area. He would support dropping condition 2. Member Kirkpatrick agreed. Chair Smith agreed. Chair Smith said the applicant has done a good job of providing examples of how it's worked well in other locations. Note - Staff Report language is: E. Section 3.4.7 — Historic and Cultural Resources — is satisfied but only with the two proposed conditions of approval recommending changes to the proposed number and shape of the windows on the southwest elevation of Feeders Supply and recessing the central tower by two feet back from the front wall plane of Apartment Building. Staff recommends approval or approval with conditions or continuance of Feeders Supply P.D.P., #PDP130012, subject to the following two conditions: 1. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, and in order to comply with Section 3.4.7, the applicant shall provide architectural elevations for the Feeders Supply Building that depict two windows on the upper level of the southwest elevation, and that this window shall be subordinate in size to the existing windows so as to not compete visually with the existing building details. 2. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Apartment Building tower feature along Willow Street shall be recessed back from the front wall plane of the by at least two feet so as to promote a more pedestrian scale. This also has the effect of physically interrupting the front building line to more clearly define the area between the building and the public street which is more in character with the surrounding area. Member Hart moved the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Feeders Supply Project Development Plan, # PDP130012 subject to a revised condition 1 in the staff report which basically goes from one to two windows based on the conclusion and findings of fact on page 19 of the staff report except for item E which would have to be changed to reflect we no longer have a condition 2. It should be changed to read satisfied but only with a condition of approval Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 12 Board discussion Member Carpenter asked as they deliberate, could they separate the historic building from the other one. We're really talking about two different things. Member Hart said it seems we have a proposal and a recommendation from staff. One condition relates to the historic building and the other condition relates to the non -historic building. Is there more to be added to those conditions? Carpenter referred to the materials received from the State Historic Fund — one is closing off an entrance and adding a new, one is the indoor/outdoor patio, and one the fire sprinkler door —they would all be something to consider. Hart wondered if the project had been designed to that degree. Carpenter said the elements she just noted are on the plans the board have been given to review. Director Kadrich said it's the opinion of the staff that we do not need to condition those items tonight. They could be worked out (and typically are) between the 50% and 100% completion of the design. Chair Smith said the conditions (if accepted by the board) are referenced in the staff report. Member Carpenter said she's more concerned with the existing door being taken out and new doors being put in. She thinks that definitely changes this building. Deputy City Attomey Eckman said it would have to be more than a recommendation if you want it to be binding on the staff at final review — it would have to be a condition. Member Carpenter said she'd like to see them use the existing door rather than putting in a door and two new windows. She'd like to keep the building as historically pristine as we can. She said as far as the fire sprinkler room access goes, she thinks that should be worked out with PFA. Eckman said the LUC in Section 3.3.5 requires that we comply with all the requirements of the Fire Authority. To the extent we have a conflict between LUC 3.3.5 (Fire Code) and 3.4.7 (D) (2) Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation then we can address that with the conflict of laws provision in the LUC. Carpenter recommended we leave that to staff to address. Member Carpenter said she does not think there is a reason we'd have to do anything against what the State or historic preservation staff has recommended. She'd like to see them keep the sliding door rather than add anything new. She also.doesn't see any compelling reasons to go beyond the two windows recommended by staff. Member Schneider asked how the rise (30+ inches/loading dock elevation) would work when dealing with an accessible ramp. McWilliams said they have not really investigated design solutions. One suggested early on is that we bring the ramp further out. Director Kadrich noted the board cannot place a condition and then leave it in the hands of staff. In the past when the board had concems, e.g. Discount Tire, the concerns expressed were incorporated into the project and staff followed up with the board to show them how that was done. Member Carpenter said that could work for her. Chair Smith said staff does a great job of honoring the integrity of the implementation of the design standards. He would be okay with staff working on a solution that is compliant with health and safety, accessibility, and historic integrity as much as possible. It's important as we get going in the River District that we're not saying anything goes. He said historic preservation is a very important community value. Chair Smith said let's move onto the windows on the existing building — which he believes is the first condition. The amended staff recommendation is the final plan depicts two windows. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 11 Member Carpenter asked if the tower is left out front would it affect the district's eligibility. McWilliams said the State has weighed and said no. This one building by itself will not have an impact on the district (it would not be 'de -listed'). Carpenter asked if it would affect the district or the eligibility of the building itself if we aggregate proposed changes to the historic building and the slightly protruding tower. McWilliams said the State looked at the eligibility of the building itself; they did not look at the eligibility of the alterations to the mill for the impact on the district. What the State National Register Coordinator Heather Peterson stated was that the alterations as proposed would not affect the buildings' continued eligibility on the National Register. Chair Smith asked if we had a series of projects in which the district's character was starting to change would that affect the district. McWilliams said it's a sum total sort of thing. One 'egregious' building could affect the entire district yet you could have several new buildings constructed if they comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and not have impact on the district. Chair Smith asked McWilliams to comment on whether architecture or human history is more dominant in designating the district. McWilliams said if you have a building that is socially important (event or deed), the building itself has to have 'integrity' to be able to represent that history. McWilliams said architecture plays a larger role. She also added this building is very significant to Fort Collins history. Member Hart said there are quite a few comments related to design from the State office. When will the rest of these comments be addressed — how do their comments weigh into the design? Shepard said one opportunity would be this evening. Another would be at final plan submittal if this project proceeds. Member Kirkpatrick said let's say we approved the PDP without condition, what would that look like in terms of compliance with those noted by the State. Would it be staffs recommendation at final plan submittal? McWilliams said the State has weighed in in an advisory role. The project would also need to comply with our own LUC which is 3.4.7 (D) (2) which requires the structure shall be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Member Kirkpatrick asked staff for information in terms of timing for the improvements proposed on Willow. She would also like to know about connectivity from the site — the TIS (Traffic Impact Study) said bicycle and pedestrian LOS (Level of Service) requirements would be met at final design. Are there any plans for connectivity on the north side of Willow in the interim? Development Review (Engineering) Manager Sheri Langenberger said the project is responsible for providing local street improvements adjacent to the project. Staff has been working with the applicant in designing that frontage to get curb, gutter, and an attached sidewalk with tree wells in accordance with the area plan. Langenberger said the Linden Street frontage is completed. The Willow Street area plan shows parking down the center. That would not occur with these improvements because we don't have the improvements on the north. Langenberger said that as far as the timing for the rest of the improvements, they are currently discussing how to fund the remaining improvements. At this point, they have not been identified or funded through a grant or a capital project. Member Carpenter asked if the developer paying into a development fund? Langenberger said yes they will pay into the Street Oversizing Fund. Langenberger said with regard to pedestrian connections, right now there is enough shoulder for a bike lane on the north side. There will also be a bike lane on the south side of the roadway. The sidewalk connections will not be extending any further west than this project. Langenberger said she did not have the Traffic Impact Study before her but she thought they were able to meet the Pedestrian LOS (Level of Service) though the connections down Linden, Riverside, and into the old town area. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 10 they typically do not accept alley access because: they cannot make it into a fire lane/emergency access easement, there is no addressing, and there are no utilities. Shepard said at the PDP (Project Development Plan) stage, we sometimes don't even get into this level of detail. Typically its 50% designed and some of these things get resolved between 50 and 100%. Shepard said they work very closely with PFA. Member Hart asked if this is something we should be pursuing or will it be resolved based on what PFA requires. Shepard said he'd like to refer the 'conflict between codes' (LUC and Fire Code) question to Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman Member Hatfield asked if the three windows on the west elevation would be considered for fire escape. Gonzalez said no, he thought they were more ornamental and probably not sized correctly for egress.. Member Hart said fundamentally -there were 2 outstanding issues at the time of the staff report — one was number of windows on the southwest side and the second was the tower feature on Willow Street.. Have they been resolved between staff and the applicant? Shepard said they've made a little more progress on the first. Working with the State, the number of windows has been changed to two. He's thinking that is not to the satisfaction of the applicant and that's why it remains a condition of approval. Shepard said the second issue —the tower feature on Willow Street —has not been resolved. Member Hart asked if we could ask the applicant to briefly address those issues. Prouty said as far as the windows are concerned, he's been speaking to restaurateurs about how to make that space useable as a banquet room and the consensus has been there needs to be some day light. Prouty said in the mill building design the dominant tower is a key element. They do have a tower of glass and steel that protrudes 2 feet. It meets code requirements of 'breaking mass'. It is an appropriate interpretation of what a mill design looks like. Hart asked staff to comment particularly as relates to the windows and the protrusion of the tower. McWilliams said the mill building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places so their concern in reviewing the project is to make sure any of the alterations or changes comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. One of those standards notes you do not want to change character defining elements of the building. As the State noted in its memo, the flat walls without holes punched in it are very character defining elements of an old mill building. By adding windows, there is a concern you actually change the feel and perception of the building. Staff concurred that two windows would work on the west side/upper level. The windows would be those most tucked into the patio area. McWilliams said the third window is much more visible and is the window that is most contentious. McWilliams said in terms of the tower element, their interest is to try and minimize the feel of the building's impact. Can we break up the massing into smaller blocks of massing that will fit more with the character of other building that historically or currently exist in the National Register District? If you recess the tower, it comes across as two smaller masses with a glass connector. If you have the tower protrude, it looks like one large building with a prominent entrance. It was thought it would be more in compliance with the standards if the entrance was recessed slightly. Chair Smith asked McWilliams what buildings are being used to establish character for the historic district. McWilliams said there is certainly recognition this is a new building so it will not mimic a historic structure. The idea is to have it blend in as much as possible. Building such as Ranch Way Feed are comprised of several smaller massing blocks with many set back in. Chair Smith asked if this property's gotten any State Historical Fund grants which would further restrict design aesthetics. McWilliams said no. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 9 Public Input Sandy Knox, 2309 W. Vine Drive, said she's a resident of Fort Collins since 1967. Her concern with this development is the parking. She said the parking needs for the apartments and the restaurant are not being addressed. She thinks the addition of traffic to Willow will create a mess. She thinks a lot of people use Willow to get to Cherry Street —it's a better alternative than Jefferson to College to Cherry. She thinks the tenants will all have cars. Where will guests park? Where is handicapped parking? She thinks it's a shame the City of Fort Collins is encouraging large developments that are pushing out smaller, family -owned businesses. Hunter Harms, 1738 E. Beam Reach Place, said he supports the project. He thinks it enhances the intersection and he'd like to see it move forward. Applicant Response Jon Prouty said he'd like to speak to parking and the Willow Street Improvements Development Program. When Willow is completed, there will be approximately 220-240 new parking spaces. It'll be diagonal parking in the middle of the road and parallel parking along the side of the road. There are also about 50 spaces on Linden and 35 spaces on Pine. He said the time has come for Willow between Linden and the Aztlan Center to be done. Chair Smith asked what his response to Ms. Knox's comment about pushing out small business. Prouty said 'Dennis' came to him and with that there would have been no project. Staff Response Shepard had no comment. Board Questions Member Carpenter asked staff to help her understand where the new entrance will be on the Willow side. McWilliams said the applicant's proposal is to maintain the existing door and two windows in the patio area, to add a door and two windows adjacent to that, to fix the historic '5-0' door, and to add a fire access door. Carpenter said her understanding that that is not in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. What do we suggest there? McWilliams said what has been suggested is that the 5- 0 door, which is wide enough to be handicapped accessible, be fixed open — which is a common practice in historic preservation. The opening could be in -filled with a glass door front. They recommend he not add the extra door and two windows there. They recommend the fire door be moved to the back of the building instead of on the Willow side. Member Carpenter asked about the workability of moving the door around the corner (to the alley) and making it less visible from the street side. Prouty said the challenge is how to gain efficient access to the core area. They think the stairs and elevator should be in the new addition and not in the warehouse addition. He said at one end of the warehouse you could have your fire room and at the other end of the warehouse you could have access to the core area. Carpenter asked if you left the existing door.in place and did not add a new door and two windows would that require you to put a hallway inside to get to the core area. Prouty said yes. Member Kirkpatrick asked Mr. Prouty to expand on the fire access door in the rear. Is there a reason it's proposed on the southwest elevation? Prouty said if you put the fire door in the alley, you'd have to add a 12 foot header to recess it properly. Members asked what concerns PFA might have. PFA Assistant Fire Marshall Ron Gonzalez said typically sprinklers are on the street side because you have your fire main on the street. They would recommend a door directly from the outside to the sprinkler riser room — that keeps them from having to go inside the building to access the sprinkler system. Gonzalez said Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 8 seating and tables. All restaurant equipment, plumbing, and mechanical will be located in the new addition and will not impact the mill building. Prouty said an apartment building similar in design to a mill building will front on Willows and be located north of the restaurant. It is comprised of 23 two -bedroom units, 23 one -bedroom units and 8 studio units (which are designed to be converted to retail space when the market dictates.). Each unit (except for studio apartments) will have a private deck and a vehicle parking space. Prouty described the architectural features of the structures. He said he respectfully requests the board approve the project as proposed without conditions. Staff Presentation Chief Planner Ted Shepard introduced the staff team which included Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams, Development Review Manager Sheri Langenberger, and Civil Engineer Tyler Siegmund. Shepard said a lot of material has been distributed since the work session. It includes: cover memo from with responses to questions raised at the work session, a revised traffic study, a letter from Rich Shannon in support, two memorandums from the applicant, a memorandum from Karen McWilliams, a memorandum from An McCleave of the State Historic Fund/History Colorado, and a letter from Todd Dangerfield of the Downtown Development Authority. His presentation included an aerial (site plan) map, a landscape plan, a graphic related to apartment parking (the project is in the TOD (Transit Oriented Development) and provides 54 parking spaces), elevations, and photographs. He said the full size (24"06") prints provided in the board's agenda packet are the official plans of record. He said the existing wall sign facing Linden Street is not historic and based on their latest communications with the State of Colorado, the State and local historic preservation staff have agreed to 2 windows. Staff Responses Shepard said relative to the applicant's comment about the 8 studio apartments on the 1' floor being convertible to retail uses should the market allow. Staff thinks it could be broader --they can be non- residential land uses and wouldn't necessary be restricted to retail. Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams had no staff comments. Board Questions Chair Smith asked what the process would be used to convert the studio apartments to non-residential land uses. Shepard said these are very diverse mixed use zone districts and a lot of uses are permitted. The minor amendment process would be the most logical unless the land use changes character. If it's a change in character, it would be a major amendment. Smith asked if the owner or tenant were interested in a live/work use, would that be a simple process. Shepard said the Home Occupation provision of the Land Use Code (LUC) allows a home occupation. You cannot have more than 50% of your floor space devoted to your non-residential land use. When you go beyond 50% or you have more than one employee you are then a live/work situation and that would require a minor amendment. Member Carpenter asked what would have to happen if someone decided they were no longer going to live there and they wanted to open a store or an office with no residential. Shepard said that would be permitted in the zone and would probably be a minor amendment. They would be looking for no exterior changes, no change in character, or anything that would disrupt the final parameters of the recorded final plan. Member Kirkpatrick asked how signage plays into the above. Shepard said we have a custom of not looking at signage during the PDP (Project Development Plan) and Final Plan review stages. The Sign Code has a separate permitting process. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 7 The historic Feeders Supply building would be adaptively re -used primarily for a restaurant or other permitted commercial uses. Both floors would be utilized and served by an elevator. A small patio would be added along Willow Street. There would be no major exterior changes. The New West Addition along Linden Street would also be two stories and further set back from Linden Street than Feeders Supply to offer views to the historic structure and allow for a small, off-street patio. The proposed design, exterior materials and colors are intentionally basic and relatively unadorned allowing emphasis to remain with the historic and distinctive Feeders Supply building. The Apartment Building along Willow Street would contain 54 dwelling units and be four stories in height with the fourth floor stepped back from the lower three floors. The building includes three stories of residential dwellings over a ground level parking garage which is faced with studio apartments along Willow Street. The building is accented by a glass tower feature which projects forward and is not stepped back. The ground floor apartments would to allow for conversion to commercial space if justified by future market conditions. The building consists of red brick, stone accents, cornice details and the central glass tower is topped with a gable roof. The garage contains 41 spaces, and combined with 13 surface spaces, results in a total of 54 spaces achieving a ratio of one space per unit. The site is 1.19 acres in size and located within the National Historic District and zoned R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment District. Recommendation: Approval with condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Director Kaddch said this is a request to renovate the existing Feeders Supply building at 359 Linden Street, demolish three non -historic additions, and construct a new building addition along Linden Street for a restaurant or commercial use. Jon Prouty of Feeders Supply LLC said he will move through the material quickly as much of the information had already been distributed to the board. He'll be making his presentation primarily by the use of photographs. He said that A-E Design was hired by the State and the city to do a historical structure assessment. Prouty said some important conclusions of that assessment are the building's character defining features. They include: • The multi-lite windows flanking a recessed entrance on the east fagade (facing Linden Street) • The stepped parapets with the gable roof on the east fagade • The original, historic windows in the office/retail and grain elevator • The historic sliding doors in the grain elevator and the warehouse • The grain elevator structure that extends above the gable roof of the warehouse (mill building) • The stucco finish on the exterior walls Prouty provided an orientation of the adjacent streets. Their plan is to rehab and preserve the mill building and warehouse addition, demolish the existing west additions (four small additions that are structurally deficient and least historic), and add a new addition on the west of the mill and an indoor/outdoor patio on the east. The mill building first and second levels will be used primarily as is for Planning & Zoning Board August 6, 2013 Page 6 $oard Discussion ber Hatfield said he doesn't believe in fixing something until it's 'broke' and he doesn't' think thi 's bro to the point of changing it right now. He hasn't heard enough evidence to support it. He's in favor\said Memer said his hardship comes with the residential aspect. He'd like to see protocol that wouldsier than the existing variance process. He'd prefer to see more res rch. If the freeba changed, he'd like to see more work on how to make it easier r citizens to protect their la thing he'd like to see are homes being torn down to comp with that extra 6 inch of freebaid h annot support it the way it's presented. Memderstand t ,concerns people have but he doesn't rem see the city has a lot of options. He thinks however that in bettn�een a recommendation from the PI mg and Zoning Board and the City Council adoption there is a grea'1`deal of time to make changes t city may feel is appropriate. There may be some issues associated w\thealso t he thinks it's mor important we have it in place by January. Member Kirkpatrick said she thinkneeds t dopt these regulations. She agrees with Member Schneider. She lives in nd it's alre, y more expensive to do an adaptive use of a semi -historic structure. They'd far more likely,be wwhg to scrap it if it wasn't historically eligible and they had to jack up the existing foundation. She wo prefer the city does what they need to do to be compliant because she thinks it only makes s s to do so but she thinks we need to prioritize the things that are within /de trol through a capital 'niprove ent program. Member Carpeid it doesn't app r to her that they ave much of an option. She said this comes down from the nd from FEM and we just need to d t. Chair Smith sainks the are a political question and a to nical question thatis more related to land use and oing p em throughout our community. He thinks the political question should be answered by Cnc' orking with their attorneys to determine whether or not it is something they want to pursuewith our limited purview of speaking to the Land Use Code, he can't in good faith recommeity Council to make these changes. He doesn't thinklt ley should adopt the floodplain reguas presented. The implications are too unknown and potentially too widespread in some areas. Member rt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the adopti of the proposed statewide floodplain regulations and the additional pro�osed policy and rocedural changes and clarification in Chapter 10 of the City Code. Member Kirkpatrick se onded the motion. The motion failed 3:3 with Members Hatfield, Schneider and Smith dissenting. Project: Feeders Supply Project Development Plan, # PDP130012 Project Description: This is a request to renovate the existing Feeders Supply building at 359 Linden Street, demolish three non -historic additions, and construct a new building addition along Linden Street for a restaurant or commercial use called the New West Addition. The request also includes a new four-story apartment building along Willow Street. The original Feeders Supply building is designated as a historic structure. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2013 Page 2 Chair Smith asked if anyone (audience, board or staff) would like to pull an item from consent. An audience member asked that Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Item be moved to Discussion. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the July 18, 2013 Hearing 2. Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehab Hospital Project Development Plan, # PDP130018 3. Rigden Farm 14`h Filing Extension of Vested Rights, # 56-98-AS 9. Land Use Code Amendment related to Definition of Large Base Industry 10. Land Use Code Amendment related to Extension of PDOD Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the July 18, 2013 Hearing, Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehab Hospital Project Development Plan, # PDP130018, Rigden Farm 14`h Filing Extension of Vested Rights, # 56-98-AS, Land Use Code Amendment related to Definition of Large Base Industry, and Land use Code Amendment related to Extension of Planned Development Overlay District. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 7. Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items 4. Feeders Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012 5. Prospect and Timberline Overall Development Plan, #ODP130001 6. Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, #PDP130020 8. Land Use Code Amendment related Transited Oriented Development Minimum Parking Requirements Project: Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items Project Description: The CWCB adopted minimum state-wide floodplain regulations in January 2011. All communities must adopt these new standards by January 2014. The City of Fort Collins already has adopted many of these standards. Therefore, there are relatively few changes needed to meet the CWCB state-wide regulations. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council the Adoption of the CWCB Floodplain Regulations Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Director Kadrich said the purpose of this item is for the board to consider a recommendation to City Council for the adoption of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items. Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Hart, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Excused Absence: Heinz Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Levingston, Holland, Varrella, Shepard, McWilliams, Langenberger, Siegmund, Ex, Stanford, Lorson, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas and noted this is the first hearing using the recently modified LUC order of proceedings. The most significant change is the applicant will make their presentation first. Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non -agenda related topics. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Citizen participation: None