Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPURA VIDA PLACE - PDP - 4-11 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 13 Member Smith said the area is in transition and many times you're talking about regulations: what they should be and what over time you start to learn about the market, the neighborhood, and how to bring it back into equilibrium. He thinks parking around a commuter campus is typically much worse than those that have multi -family adjacent to them. He thinks it's a great project and fits to a "t" every single thing that's supposed to happen in the TOD overlay zone. He said this is kind of a poster child of what was envisioned. He's going to support this project. Smith said at work session the Board talked about shared parking arrangements that are financed through an improvement district. Staff indicated that would be brought up at the appropriate time with the appropriate folks. In the future, perhaps, it would be a partnership between the developer, CSU, the City, and a development authority that would provide structured parking adjacent to or on campus to take care of the commuter traffic. Member Schmidt asked the applicant if they would be renting by total apartment and not by bedroom. Bailey said that's correct it's too small to do roommate matching —it's going to be rented in total. Member Schmidt moved the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request for Modification of Standard to Section 4.9(E) (1) (g) — Roof Pitch. It's found to meet the criteria for approval in Section 2.8.2(H) in that granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, the plan will promote the general purpose of the Standard equal to or better than a Plan that would comply. The design of the flat roof, when combined with a variety of facade articulation and gables that break the roofline, results in a less overall mass and height thereby reducing the impact of the building. The Landmark Preservation Commission expressed a preference for the flat roof building because it would be less massive than a pitched roof building. Those are included in the Facts and Findings in Section D on page 8 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board approve the PDP # 110003 for Pura Vida Place based on the Facts and Findings found in the staff report on page 8. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion passed 7:0. Project: CSU — Washington School — Addition of Permitted Use and Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA11001 Project Description: This is a request to convert the Washington School frorn ublic school for elemen-tary and intermediate education to a chil e center. The building contains oximately 18,350 square fee 75 acres on Block 7 of the Scott Sherwood Sub ion. The building playground would be preserved. The east and west elevation woul _ ain unchanged but there would be renovations to the north and south el s to add an elevator and handicap ramps to meet access requirements.' -he site is ted between Shields Street and Scott Street and boundedby Olive Street on the soutli and the east — west alley on the north. The sUe is zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Recommendation: Approval of the Addition of Permitted Use and the Site Advisory Review Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 12 them to use transit but they still have to get to that transit (and may need parking there). If that becomes easier for people they'll use it instead of parking in the neighborhood. Things could change in the future with planning and the encouragement to use transit. That is a goal for the city and what we're working toward in the long run. She said she does appreciate the neighbors' comments. Chair Stockover said cars represent freedom of mobility. He said where we have parking issues in this city; it's just a slow growing problem that compounds itself. At some point we need to have a discussion about long-term parking. He can see how these residents could walk or ride to any place they'd like to go but at some point in time they may want to go to Rocky Mountain National Park or go skiing. He thinks this is a great location for student housing —it outweighs the parking issue. He doesn't want to dismiss or diminish the parking issue but he is in favor of this project mainly because of its location and parking is not an issue they will solve tonight. Member Campana said he'd like to echo what Chair Stockover has said. It's obvious if anyone goes to the campus area there is a parking issue. He said this project does exactly what we've asked them to do in the TOD zone and the Land Use Code in designing a project across from the university that houses students and alleviates some of the stress on our market. They've also done a good job on what the Land Use Code requires. He believes that over time, they'll sort out the facts that people who reside there who will be okay with the fact there is not a parking space for them. Member Lingle said it's not that he disagrees with what the Board is saying about parking in the TOD zone but he thinks there's a reasonable limit to what the TOD means. To him it's not "no parking" even though you could. He thinks there's some reasonable limit to what this really means. This project is at .5 parking spaces per bedroom and the Flats was just somewhere under .6 and we've all acknowledged that the Flats has had some issues with parking. He thinks we need to have a serious conversation about this at some point because he doesn't think it's reasonable to say you need zero parking and you meet the standard. He said at some point it falls into neighborhood compatibility and we'd need to decide if it meets neighborhood compatibility standards. He said in this particular case he's not making a particular issue because frankly they do meet the standard but he's just concerned moving forward what the compound result is project after project. Member Lingle said CSU's Brian Chase has said they've taken the parking structure at Lory Student Center parking lot off of the Master Plan which he thinks is a horrible mistake. He thinks CSU has some obligation for their students to park and not expect the adjacent neighborhoods to absorb all that. Member Lingle thinks the overall design of the project is solid. It's pushing the envelope right at the maximum allowable building area, it's at the maximum building height without a shadow study, its right at the minimum setbacks where it's starting to infringe on some privacy and light issues for its neighbors but he doesn't find anywhere he can say it's doesn't meet the standard. Member Carpenter says she echoes the parking concerns. She thinks that's an issue for us to look at. She thinks back to when we were talking about there being no standard for parking; it never really, truly occurred to people. They might have believed due to the market, there would be some parking. It's something as a Planning Board we're going to have to revisit (make it an item on their work plan). She thinks, however, this is a solid project in a great location. We love our students and we want them to have a nice place to live. Member Schmidt said those issues are very true. She thinks some portion of CSU students don't have cars including many international students. She said Laurel Street is so close to campus and there is overnight parking available across the street on campus so it's a little different situation than some other apartment complexes further away. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 11 Member Schmidt asked staff to speak to the feedback that because cars are parking on the side street it creates a blind corner. Does the City have any policy for painting the curb red a little further in to prevent people from parking there? Stanford said it could be done. Already knowing there's a need and desire for parking, painting the curb does not help. It is a place where a person has to use a high level of attentiveness. He's driven the area and does not perceive it to be a problematic area and the lack of accident history shows that. He said it hasn't risen to the surface of "need". Member Smith asked staff to speak to the functions and intention of the TOD (Transit Oriented Development). Senior Planner Shepard said the TOD was an outgrowth of an earlier policy of CPAC (City Plan Advisory Committee). One of the fundamental building blocks of new urbanism and City Plan was not to create suburban parking lots where you want an urban environment. We wanted to steer our urban development to a more -dense environment. The result was residential parking near urban activity centers would not be required to a suburban minimum required parking standard. The TOD came along because of the Mason Street Corridor. It was designed to incentivize density along transit. Transit and density need each other and we've made significant investments along the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) and the Mason Street Corridor. The LUC, as the Board knows, was modified to create more density along that corridor, downtown, CSU, and Campus West. The density is the fundamental building block of how you add more vitality and life to activity centers. Member Smith said in reality this project could provide no parking. Shepard said he's never seen that happen. We've always seen the private sector react to the standard with providing some parking not zero parking. Smith said that must be due to their market research. Member Lingle said to follow up he's never really understood when a project like this comes in, how does staff evaluate parking? Do you start from there is no requirement so anything is provided is a bonus or is there some reasonable number that's negotiated? Shepard said it's the former —it's not negotiated, the standard is clear. Shepard said we start with zero and anything is better. Chair Stockover asked if someone was to park their cars in that neighborhood how long can they leave it there. Shepard said that's a Parking Operations enforcement question. Stanford said he thinks they have 24 hour allowance. Stockover asked if CSU had any long term parking area. Shepard said no. Fred Haberecht of CSU Facilities said there is no prohibition against students leaving their cars at Moby Gym but it is not encouraged and there are issues related to snow removal and having the area cleared by 4 p.m. prior to any Moby event. Overnight parking is available in the lot(s) north of Lory Student Center with enforcement limited to day time hours. Board Discussion Member Schmidt asked staff if this building is at the maximum height allowed or could an adjacent property owner build something taller. Shepard said three stories is the maximum for the NCB zone which extends west to Grant and north to Mulberry/maybe all the way to Martinez Park. Member Hatfield said as far back as 1961 when he was a college student, available student housing was not as nice as what we have now. He thinks there is a real shortage of good student housing near campus, this project has a good location and it helps that there's limited parking because it'll encourage their residents to walk or ride a bike. He'd like to commend the planners and staff —they've done a great job on this. He's in favor of it. Member Schmidt said when she goes to campus, she sometimes need to park in the neighborhoods and at certain times of day it is extremely difficult to find a parking space. She's gone as far as the Mulberry Pool for a space. She understands how residents may be annoyed with always having someone parked in front of their homes. She thinks as a City we need to look at that. She understands we're trying to get Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 10 doesn't see anywhere in the proposal what will be done to improve the alley and what the long term maintenance plan will be. Norman said his other concern is with parking. With Transit Oriented Development (TOD), the parking requirements have been reduced but this does not mean students do not have cars. They may not drive them as much. He works in exclusive student property management and he did a survey of his tenants. Seventy-five (75) percent of them have cars. This project will push that further. With 102 beds/48 parking space and his estimated 75% residents owning cars; that means 27 cars will be on the street. He asked "how would you like having cars parked in front of your house all the time?" He'd like the Board to question both parking and alley improvement plans. Michael Oldham lives at 16131 W. Ellsworth Avenue in Golden. He's also a partner and a potential financial sponsor of this project. He's lived in Colorado since 1983, he has two college aged children, and he's pretty aware of the acute need in Fort Collins for student housing. He'd like to share why he thinks this is a fantastic project and a valuable asset to the community. The city has a severe need for more high quality student housing. He said he's known Chuck Bailey for 27 years and he thinks his track record speaks for itself. If he didn't think this as an absolute "A" quality project, he would not be putting his name or money into it. They've worked very closely with the City to make it that way. He respectfully asks the Board to approve this project. They will work very hard to build, lease and manage a high quality, multi -housing residence so that all will be proud. We're long term Colorado residents and we're not going anywhere in reference to the comment made earlier "to grab the money and run". End of Public Input Chair Stockover asked staff to address the issues of parking and alley improvements. Development Engineering staff member Susan Joy said with regard to the t-shared alley, the alley to the north is not paved while the east -west alley is paved. She said any development that comes in is responsible for either constructing their frontage of the alley (east -west in this case) out to the closest street or to repair any existing damaged areas. Pavement Management staff evaluated the condition of that alley and it's actually in very good shape. There is an existing ponding (drainage) problem where the "t" is formed and this development will fix that. They are not responsible for constructing the alley to the north —that would be the responsibility of the home owners along that alley to bring their alley up to standard if they so desired. Member Schmidt asked why is that? Are we assuming that Pura Vida residents would not use that alley? Joy said the standards say they have to improve/fix their frontage. They might have to "chase it out" to the street to the west to get it to drain correctly but that' the extent of their responsibility. Chair Stockover asked who would be responsible for maintenance from that point forward. Joy said the City maintains alleys. Stockover asked if there's a standard it has to be "built to" initially. Joy said the alley is built to an older standard. The current standard does require curb and gutter along the two edges but it would be almost impossible without redoing the entire alley to bring it up to that standard. She said we try to make the repairs or the requirements in line with the impact. Member Schmidt asked why the traffic study did not look at the traffic going north to Myrtle. She was not aware there was such an alley from the diagrams presented to the Board. Traffic Operations Stanford said there could be some that will use it. Motorists can drive wherever they want on public streets. He said is there some expectation that would be the preferred outlet, he said no. It's much too easy to go to either Sherwood or Whitcomb to get where you're looking to go. The unpaved alley is a little bit slower and a little more circuitous. He doesn't think it would be attractive for use. The limited use does not necessarily drive repairing it. Schmidt said should it be repaired more people might consider using it. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 9 regard to parking, he said Pura Vida has a better location than Flats being more centrally located to Rockwell Hall, Lory Student Center, the Student Recreation Center, and old town. He said once the property became available, he could get rid of his truck because of the availability of public transportation. Beau Brittenham lives at 1935 Waters Edge. As a student, it's a difficult thing to find an apartment. He still has friends unable to find a place late April for the school year starting September 2011. The trend is there are more and more students because of the affordability of CSU and how great an institution it is. He said the U+2 rule has really limited where they can look. West Laurel is a prime location with many students wanting to live in that area. He said if he lived there he'd likely not be driving because he could walk to campus and Old Town. He said he hopes the Board approves this project. Reggie Anderson, 3513 Red Mountain Drive, said he's one of the previous speaker's friends who's struggle to find a place to live at the end of April. Because of U+2, he's been "forced" to live in his cousin's basement. He frequents downtown and has dealt with the parking there. He doesn't think that you can say that parking is going to be more of an issue with Pura Vida because it's already an issue. He said many other complexes are poor —dirty and not anything he'd want to live in. He thinks Pura Vida is a great opportunity with its proximity to campus with its beautiful layout. Marianne Martinez, 3800 Pike Road in Longmont, said she knows the developer Chuck Bailey. He's does great work. She'd like to live in a place which he has built. She's a parent of two CSU students and she's actively involved in the process of identifying and leasing homes for her children. She said high quality student housing is hard to find. She asked the Board to endorse the Pura Vida as presented so it'd be available for Fall 2012. Walter Skowron resides at 2006 Frances Drive in Loveland. He'd owned property on Meldrum Street one block from this development for over 20 years. He's requesting the Board consider the private home owners in the area. He said over that 20 year period parking has been an issue. He says, as a former Loveland Planning Commission member, he understands the challenges. He asks for a master plan because without a master plan for parking and housing, there will just be more and more chaos. He doesn't understand how these developments can occur without providing adequate parking facilities. He asked the Board to please look at what the parking problems will be not only today but 10 years from now. Chase Eckert, ASCSU Community Affairs Director, said he'd like to offer his personal support for this project. (He said ASCSU does not have an official stance on Pura Vida but they could in the future.) He said student housing is one of the most important issues facing this community. That's putting pressure not only on the rental housing market but also on neighborhoods further away from CSU. He realizes this particular project is just a drop in the bucket but it's a starting point. He said its quality housing and students who participated in outreach efforts are generally in support of it. He said if we start building with a quality standard now it's something that will continue for future generations. He thinks we can not keep ignoring the problem. He thinks if we're going to have policies such as 3 unrelated in place, we're going to have to do something else to offset the effects. Finally, with regard to the Land Use Code; we're talking about one relatively modest modification —roof pitch. It's not going to change the character of the neighborhood. He hopes the Board will support the project. Tim Norman lives at 424 W. Myrtle and has lived in the neighborhood for 49 years. He's seen a lot of change. He said he's not opposed to redevelopment, he thinks the developer has a very nicely proposed building. His two biggest concerns are alley access to parking and parking adequacy. He said it appears that neither staff nor the developer have addressed these issues raised at the last neighborhood meeting at Mulberry Pool. He said the t-shaped alley empties onto Whitcomb, Sherwood, and Myrtle. That alley is a mix of dirt, asphalt, and concrete and in some sections is full of potholes. He Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 8 Public Input Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, said thinks this applicant has brought a very desirable development proposal before the Board. He believes there's a huge contrast between this proposal and other student housing proposals that have come before the Board in the past. He thinks it creates quality, affordable, student housing with a mind to sustainability. He said when projects do come before the development review process, City staff is not obliged to "hand out" dozen of variances and recommendations for modifications of standards. He believes they are compromises that should not take place. He said it's not a criticism of the Board. His criticisms are directly for the City organization in the way it has conducted its affairs with regard to other development proposals. He said we do try to do better in Fort Collins and one way to do that is not to "create a race" to the bottom of the barrel by granting modifications and variances to projects that really don't comport with our values. Richard Livingston lives at 608 W. Laurel. He feels like the guy in front of the tank at Tiananmen Square. He said at the first neighborhood meeting someone said the development was about 50 parking spaces short. Staff responded that this meets Code. He believes with 102 bedrooms there will be 115 people and the associated cars. He said with parking spaces removed from Laurel, Whitcomb and Sherwood fill up. He says people go as far away as Mulberry Pool. He said the City does not want a system of giving permits to residences like they do in Boulder, Seattle, and many other cities. He said in -fill is fine when it's a four-plex. This, he believes, is over fill. He invites the Board to visit the alley and see how the flow will operate. He said the exits would have parking right next to them causing blind corners. He said he's almost been hit on his bicycle by people coming out of the alleys as currently configured. He would ask the Board to completely review the traffic flow and to look at the Code with regard to parking. He's concern is the developers build it and the neighbors live with the results. Michael Duggan lives at 1821 22"d Street in Boulder. He said when he looked into going to CSU he didn't see any quality student apartments and if there were quality apartments such as those proposed with Pura Vida, he would have selected CSU over CU. Lori McGregor lives at 14776 W. Spires Place in Golden. She and her husband Keli were graduates of CSU. Her daughter, a senior, is also at CSU. The thing that really struck her about his development is it's proximity to campus. She said if you find a campus in the US without a parking issue, she'd like to see it. Its part of what comes with a university. She believes the students will walk if they live in a complex this close to campus. She also likes that its controlled access. She thinks it's a great fit with the campus. Steve Slezak lives at 231 S. Howes. He said he's a developer and builder. He's also a past member of the City Plan Committee and the DDA (Downtown Development Authority). He thinks the project will provide economic opportunity for the downtown. Slezak said when City Plan was written it considered community centers. It encouraged density in housing, infill, and certainly redevelopment. He thinks this project represents all three objectives. CSU, if not downtown, is one of the largest community centers. He referred to a recent article in the Colorado that speaks to housing needs. Of the 25,000 students at CSU only 1/3 live on campus. With 16,000 freshmen applications there could be between 1500 and 2000 new students in 2011. He thinks that growth, along with the City's 3 unrelated adult restriction, continues to stress the entire housing stock. CSU has said they have limited resources and they want to spend their money on classrooms and professors. They'd rather leave housing to the private sector. He said there is certainly a need with a project on Laurel benefiting CSU and the downtown area. He'd encourage the Board to approve this application. Ben Farrow, 1225 W. Prospect, Apt W101, said there are so many positive aspects to this project. He is a construction management major and is very familiar with Flats on the Oval. One of the major advantages that Pura Vida has over Flats on the Oval is that there is no commercial/retail space on the ground level. You don't have to worry about all the potential customers who "hang out" there. With Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 7 Bailey seeks the Board's support. He said the demand for housing is just not keeping pace with the demand, particularly for students. He introduced Mike Stratton, the first investor in this project whose connections to CSU and Fort Collins go "way back". Mike Stratton lives at 541 St. Paul Street, Denver. He said he's had an on -going relationship with CSU and the Fort Collins community and a real love for community. Besides being the 1976 ASCSU Student Body President he's twice been on the Board of Agriculture (now the Board of Governors). He was Chief of Staff for Governor Romer and he teaches in the Technical Journalism Department on an on -going basis. He continues to do a lot with CSU in terms of alumni activities and development fund raising. He said we've come a long way from the "predatory (rental) practices" of the mid-60s and 70s. The people who've invested in this project have a great love for CSU and want to see a quality product. He said they've done a lot of survey outside that which is required by Code. They've reached out to students and a lot of the input they had on technical elements of the project they will incorporate. Stratton said there's always concern about parking and traffic. Some of the features to mitigate that are parking on the north side are screened from the street and the accessibility to campus. He said there's been a lot of good planning by a guy (Chuck Bailey) who's done a lot of good development over the years. He's a quality guy and has a family interest in this community. He's reached out to people who have an interest in this community. He's hopeful the Board will think this is a good project and pass it on. Board Questions Member Lingle said it looks like a 3 story unit over a basement. Lingle asked how many units are in the basement. Bailey said 10. Lingle asked if they were fully below grade. Bailey said it's not a true garden level but it's not full basement. It's 28' off the main level of the street. Member Lingle said the staff report said there is space for 100 bicycles. He asked where they are on the plan. Bailey said there 12 spaces in front and 8 in back. More than that, they have corridor space interior to the building. It's a controlled access building and the corridors are over 10 feet wide in a number of places so they will have interior racks. They also have caged 4' x 6' basement storage. They think they'll be 1:1 in terms of bike storage. Member Lingle said he's the member that raised the concern about the east property line/compatibility/ proximity with the Atrium Suites. He was hoping for more of an analysis from the applicant than you're meeting the setbacks and by definition it's fine. He'd like to hear more about that. Bailey said there are 8 homes and 16 windows on the west side of the Atrium on the 2"d and 3rd level (they have parking on the main level.) In 2005 the Atrium got a variance and is only 5 feet from the property line. Bailey said on the Pura Vida side they have 4 levels (3 above grade). They have 36 windows on the west side facing the east side of the Atrium property. He referred to the arrows that are on the plan view depicting the articulation and the setback of the building. He said they've given that great consideration. He said the corner living areas provide opportunities (because of the windows on two sides of the living spaces) to not have to use those windows for views —you have alternatives to the north and south. Bailey said they also don't have balconies. That was a conscious decision to say let's not really live outside these homes, let's live on the inside (in the courtyards). Member Schmidt asked about windows for the basement apartments. Bailey said they will be window wells but the "6-8" header heights are even with the grade. There are 9 foot ceilings in the unit so there is a component inside the home above grade. Schmidt asked that landscaping does not provide cover for a potential "peeping tom". Bailey said with that level 28" above grade it did raise a number of issues in planning. They will have covers to eliminate the possibility of people falling in and they will address the issue of rain and privacy. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 6 He described the complex as an "H" type design and fits inside the setback parameters in the NCB zoning district. Other characteristics are: • "H" shape footprint equals dual courtyards • 24 corner living rooms & open floor plans • Extraordinary large windows • 52 homes — 100 beds with 20 studios, 16 two Bedroom/two Bath, 16 three Bedroom/three Bath • Controlled access with interior corridors • 47 parking spaces accessed from the back alley in 3 directions • Articulation of facade — bump outs & setbacks to focus living inwards • Complimentary exterior materials — the roofs, brick, cultured stone, sandstone • Juliet balconies that open it up for more air and light. • Pitched roof elements engineered to withstand heavy storms and to manage rain run-off away from the courtyards • Mechanical equipment (52 air conditioning units screened from view) placement on roof In response to a question raised at the Boards' work session, he said they relate to the Atrium Suites — an apartment community east of their property line. He said they do conform to the setbacks so they think that by definition they are providing adequate privacy between the two properties. He said through articulating the building they've pulled it back from the "absolute" setbacks. Green features he described were: • Individually metered in each home for water use • Low flow, water conserving faucets & toilets • Energy Star appliances • Energy efficient building envelope, R-20 exterior wall insulation • Low E glass & higher U values results in energy efficient windows • Electric car charging stations in parking lot • Xeriscape landscaping with native & drought tolerant plantings and minimal turf areas • Individually and automatically controlled thermostats • Occupancy sensor lighting in corridors • Recycle trash program for residents • Anticipates less traffic as an apartment community than as Woody's Pizza Parlor with less impervious area. He referred to Fort Collins/CSU rental information (Source: *Realtec, **CSU, ***Apartment Appraisers & Consultants) he provided was: • 3rd Quarter, 2010 overall vacancy rate = 2.8%* • Number of CSU Students — 2010 = 26,356** • Number of CSU Students — 2009 = 25,413** • Year -over -year student enrollment growth rate = 3.7% • On Campus Housing = 5,361 beds`* • Number of CSU Students living off campus = 20,000+ • CSU Students living off campus = 78%** • Average 1 bedroom rent in FoCo in 2010 = $771* • Proposed 1 bedroom rent in 2012 at Pura Vida = $900 • Estimated total # of apartments in FoCo = 10,000*** • Estimated total # of apartments within 2 miles of CSU = 3,300 • Number of new apartments built in last 11 years = 1,494*** • Number of new apartments built in FoCo in 2009 = 47 (Flats) • Number of new apartments built in 2010 = 85 (tax credit)*** Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 5 berg next to the Police station. She thinks traffic will be an issue and that's something yve }ust have to be prepafed to address in any PDP that comes forward. r Member Lingle said thaflnttiallyhe was uncomfortable with this became of not knowing why commitments were made. He sai-& wry ere probably som very good reasons including neighborhood input. He also agrees with Member Schmidt-Iftattheweyllhis has developed with the Police facility and the need for some additional buffering that w c&MtewklaHe's okay with supporting this proposal. The motion was passed7:0 Member arpenter returned to the hearing. = 0 Project: Pura Vida Place Project Development Plan, # PDP110003 Project Description: This is a request to redevelop the existing Woody's Pizza restaurant at 518 West Laurel Street and construct a new apartment building. The 52 units would be divided among studio, one, two and three -bedroom apartments. There would be a total of 102 bedrooms. Parking would be in the rear with 48 spaces gaining access solely by the alley that connects Sherwood and Whitcomb Streets. The building would be three -stories in height and contain approximately 41,238 square feet. The site is .95 acre in size. The zoning is N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. A Request for Modification regarding roof pitch is included in the P.D.P. Recommendation: Approval of the Modification and approval of the P.D.P. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard said multi -family is permitted in the N-C-B. The P.D.P. complies with development standards of the N-C-B with one exception. A Request for Modification to allow a flat roof has been submitted and found to meet the criteria for approval per Section 2.8.2(H). The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards. The existing restaurant is does not have historic significance and would be demolished. The site is within the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and that factors into some of the design parameters. A neighborhood meeting was held on January 26, 2011 with information available from that meeting in the Board's agenda packet. Applicant's Presentation Charles Bailey, 5320 Rosina Drive, Longmont said Pura Vida is a Costa Rican term for resiliency, perseverance, and celebrating the good life. He thinks those are good lessons for everyone really but especially for their student residents. He said the project is pedestrian friendly —its 500 feet to the Lory Student Center, the Transfort Center, and 1200 feet from the CSU Recreation Center . He thinks it's an ideal infill site for student housing. He said he's: • Based in Longmont, • Worked over 20 years dedicated and focused on multi -housing business, • A Property/Asset Manager of over 100 separate apartment home communities, • Completed over 1,000 attached homes, and • Past president of Colorado Apartment Association.