HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - PDP - PDP120035 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES (5)Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 14
housing in close proximity to campus. He thinks we've done everything we can legitimately do to reduce
the impacts on the neighborhood and he thinks the dumpster since it's an enclosed area is not going to
be that big an effect however, he'd like to see it moved as far as possible from the single family areas.
Member Heinz said she's impressed by both the neighborhood and the applicant and their willingness to
work together. She also likes the switching of the building and the reduction in units.
Member Hart moved to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #
PDP120035. In support of his motion, he adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained
on page 13 of the staff report. There would be three conditions: the dumpster to be moved to the
vicinity of the original location, Building 2 be moved to Building 1 as shown on the site plan and
the new Building 1 would be limited to two stories. Member Heinz seconded the motion.
There was some discussion as to the specificity of the dumpster location. Director Kadrich said the
applicant proposed near Building with placement meeting code (20 foot setback requirement). Bailey
said it probably needs to be moved slightly south of original location 1. They'll lose a little parking there
and gain some where they vacated (location 3). Member Hart agreed to amend the motion to the one
reflected above.
Member Campana thanked the applicant for being willing to compromise. He thinks the changes will
make a project more compatible with the neighborhood. Member Hart agreed.
The motion passed 6:0.
roject: Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017
Proj Description: This is a request for an eleven unit multi -family infill redevelopment project. As
proposed, the two existing homes located at 705 and 715 Remington Street
would be demolished and replaced with two multi -family buildings. The historic
home at 711 Remington Street would remain and be rehabilitated, containing a
two bedroom unit. The site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation,
Buffer Zone District.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments an her Evidence
City Planner Courtney Levingston said multi -family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The project,
with its' two new, three story multi -family buildings were reviewed under the Code's compatibility
standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context of the Laurel School National
Register district by utilizing a,domplementary design featuring historically appropriate architectural
detailing, roof pitches and overhanging eaves. This complementary design, in tandem with the reduced
massing and scale, reinforces the compatibility with the overall neighborhood context.
Levingston described the proposed project (11 units, 28 bedrooms, 5 2-bedroom units, 6 3-bedroom
units, density =24.07 dwelling units/acre, 21 vehicle parking spaces and 28 bike parking spaces). Using
a graphic representation, she described the east elevation on Remington and compared the elevations
of Building C (715 Remington) and Building A (705 Remington) in the context of the adjacent properties
(719 and 701 Remington).
C
Planning 8 Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 13
Member Kirkpatrick said she's impressed with the neighborhood in they are so organized, articulate and
thoughtful. They are by far the most engaged residents she's observed who speak to the issues
considered by the board. She said even if we make a decision that does not completely satisfy you, the
city is very much hearing that your neighborhood feels threatened. She hopes they feel heartened by
the fact the city is working on SHAP (Student Housing Action Plan), West Central Neighborhood Plan
update, and the Parking Plan is looking into addressing parking in their neighborhood.
Member Heinz said one of the citizens spoke about the safety of pedestrians crossing Shields. Is it
possible to have an extra traffic light? Stanford said at the Springfield location a traffic light would be
difficult due to the proximity to Lake Street — you'd have competing cars trying to be in same space
where there is a high volume of traffic. Director Kadrich said she does know we're working on the
residential parking plan and she could certainly forward the request that this be one of the first
neighborhoods to review.
Member Kirkpatrick said she's also like to see the city prioritize the need for safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists along Shields. Member Kirkpatrick said she definitely agrees that she would think this project
more compatible if Building 1 was two stories. She agrees with Member Hart that Building 5 is not as
much of a concern.
Member Campana said he's thinks we can find a compromise here. He would support the project with
the dumpster being relocated, the balconies being removed on Building 1, and he'd like to see Buildings
1 and 5 reduced to 2 stories. He thinks that it better accomplishes the transition to the single family
houses and reduces the number of dwelling units.
Chair Smith asked the applicant to step forward to hear their thoughts relative to Member Campana's
proposals being feasible for them. Carolyn White said she does disagree with the interpretation
advanced by Mr. Eckman. She believes this project is well in compliance. She thinks the TOD is the
less restrictive but the more specific standard but she doesn't think it matters because even when you
consider the compatibility standard, this project certainly meets that standard as well. She said if there
is some prioritization the board would like to recommend, then that is definitely something the applicant
would be willing to consider.
Staff member Levingston asked the board to consider Section 3.5.1(i) regarding the dumpster. She said
the reason why location 1 did not work was there is a provision that dumpsters cannot be closer than 20
feet from a public sidewalk. Bailey said in looking at the plan, the buildings are 30 feet from the street. It
seems like we can move that dumpster and stay with a contextual setback of 30 feet. Levingston said
that with the curvature of Springfield, it's more like 18 or 19 feet. Bailey said they could trade parking
with where the dumpster is located now to meet the code. Bailey said to the issue of whether the
residents take their trash, they'll take their trash there. From his experience at Pura Vida, people are
coming back 3 stories and walking 150 feet. He doesn't think that's a reason to get hung up.
Bailey said with respect to a change of Building 1 they would be agreeable to switching Building 1 to a
'green building' and limiting that building to two stories. He doesn't see the sensitivity for Building 5
because of their proximity to boarding houses. He said moving the new Building 1 to two stories they
lose 6 residences so they'll go from 97 to 91 bedrooms. That would make a 7% reduction in residents.
He's agreeable to that but he thinks that's going in the wrong direction for density around the campus.
You could then look at the parking ratio over a smaller denominator — it will be in the low 80s if you
include the spaces on Springfield immediately in front of this community.
Chair Smith with everything the applicant is willing to do, in his opinion Building 5 could stay 3 stories.
Member Kirkpatrick said it's on an arterial and that's where we've always concentrated our density in our
Land Use Code. She's okay with that. Member Hart said from his perspective, this gives us some
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 12
said the 22 and the 14 dwelling units per acre (DUA) sites look drastically different and this is pushing 40
DUA.
Member Campana said even in this neighborhood we'd prefer a transition of a two story next to a single
family house to a three story. He said we've heard from 18 citizens tonight, 17 of which have issues with
height next to single family, parking, privacy, and the size/number of residents. He said he's already
seen the developer's willingness to make some compromises. Campana said if he would be willing to
lower the heights of Building 1 and 5 to two story, they'd have the transition from single family to 3-story
in the middle. It would give the reduction that's been requested and maintain the same level of parking
spaces. Campana would like to see everyone who leaves here tonight content.
Member Carpenter said she basically agrees with Member Campana. She thinks there's too much
(mass and scale). She doesn't think it meets code in every way because we have compatibility
standards (building height, mass, and scale). What Member Campana has said about taking Building 1
and 5 and making those two-story is a great idea. She said we're close but we're really not there. It
bothers her to be here tonight designing the project but she thinks the applicant is getting the board's
thoughts of what it would take to make this (for her at least) feel like it would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
Board Discussion
Member Hart said he fundamentally agrees with Member Carpenter. He's not totally convinced Building
5 (which fronts on Shields Avenue) needs to be 2 stories. The transition is to the parking lot and the
houses to the boarding houses to the south. He thinks the developer (with the tentative agreements) has
addressed most of the concerns. The biggest concern is parking. He thinks reducing a couple of units
will help the situation somewhat. He said our goal is to get some intensive development in lots that are
not very intensely developed so that we can reduce traffic. He thinks this development does that
particularly well with the compromises they've agreed to. He said it's not the fault of the developer that
we have a TOD zone that doesn't require him to provide any parking. They are providing 58 times more
parking than is required by code.
Chair Smith said when the board makes quasi-judicial decisions they're guardians and enforcers of the
code. It provides predictability for all the stakeholders. Smith said there was a lot of citizen engagement
in the development of Plan Fort Collins and the West Central Neighborhood Plan in which more intense
development is called for in this area. We've talked about the need to review implementation of the
TOD as it being either an aspirational goal, functional, or both. This project is meeting the letter of what's
required so he does see some opportunity that the applicant has presented with modifying the project in
a way that would be responsive to the citizens.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the board may want to speak to the applicant about the possible
changes so they could have a chance to come before them again. He said we've talked about the TOD
and no minimum parking requirement. The part we have not talked about much is the compatibility part
of the operational physical compatibility standards. It's says conditions may be imposed on the approval
of development applicant to insure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods
and uses. Such conditions may include but need not be limited to restrictions about location and number
of off-street parking spaces. The conflict standards of the code (1.7.2) say that if you have a conflict in
the more specific standard will control. If you cannot determine the more specific standard, than you use
the more stringent standard. He thinks both are equally specific — one specific to the requirements of
the occupants (TOD requirement) and the other specific to compatibility with the neighborhood. He said
maybe the 58 parking spaces are perfectly fine — it certainly complies under the TOD standard.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 11
Member Heinz asked if it would be possible to move the trash container further east. Bailey said one of
the issues is they have permeable pavers in the core south parking area so trash trucks would probably
destroy them. He's like to place the trash at the first location considered closer to Springfield. Member
Smith asked staff why that original site would not work. Levingston there were concerns related to
accessibility for all residents.
Member Heinz asked about the neighbors requests for increased landscape buffering. Bailey said they
meet the code as proposed.
Member Heinz asked what is what appears to be a concrete island in the southwest corner — could that
be two extra parking spots? Bailey said that's a tree that Forestry asked them to protect.
Staff Response
Chair Smith asked staff to speak to what one citizen identified as a flawed Traffic Impact Study (TIS). He
asked if staff tracked what was stated and clarifies what had been said. Traffic Systems Engineer Ward
Stanford said what he heard was referenced to Attachment A which was his document. He said those
changes are his changes. He realized that Bennett was already built and the traffic is already on the
street. They captured actual counts versus an estimate from a traffic study. He said that's the reason
the TIS does not provide anything additional to doing a review of the traffic on the street. He said the
second item (bottom of Attachment A) was the special study statement. After he concluded the review,
he considered why anyone would go into that area from the project side. They'd be moving into a more
congested situation and not gain anything. He said they'd more likely use Springfield and Shields.
Member Kirkpatrick said her understanding wasn't so much from traffic trying to exit onto Shields as it
was to having Springfield 'too parked out' and going onto Bennett to find parking to walk to campus. It
might be more appealing from a parking standpoint. She said that was her understanding of why the
neighborhood might be concerned. Stanford said he'd probably have to pass that onto a planner as
parking is not something he addresses.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if Springfield was too constrained to do diagonal parking in front of the
proposed site. Stanford said there are pros and cons to diagonal parking with one con relates to the
safety of bicycle use in areas with diagonal parking exist. Member Kirkpatrick asked if Springfield will be
paint striped. Stanford said they don't typically stripe neighborhood streets.
Member Kirkpatrick asked about any long term plan to do a median on Shields to reduce multiple turn
movements onto Shields. Stanford said his manager has met with Transportation Planning and the
biking community. There're starting to look at pedestrian and bicyclist safety for that area.
Chair Smith asked to go back for a moment to the issue of the dumpster location. He'd like to get into the
rationale from staff for moving it. Levingston said at first she thought it was a sight/distance triangle.
Member Carpenter said she doesn't understand why it wouldn't be better to incorporate it in the center of
the project (further east). Member Campana said the applicant had a site plan that showed the
surrounding homes and the detention pond. He thinks the answer given by the applicant was that in
order to reduce the requirement for detention, an impervious paver is planned and there is a concern
about the wear a heavy trash truck puts on them.
Member Campana said the board doesn't normally try to design someone's project. He thinks the
applicant has done a great job of meeting the code. This is a situation where our TOD policy, the need
for housing and the fact that this is an in -fill site is causing conflict. When we have an in -fill site, meeting
the code is not the full burden. Compatibility comes into play much more on an infill site such as this. He
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 10
Bailey said with regard to on -site management he didn't have a plan for one at Pura Vida but there's an
on -site manager there now. It's conceivable they'll have an on -site manager there. They have a very
aggressive program of managing their properties and to his knowledge they've not had any noise
complaints for Pura Vida. Neighbors will alert their manager and their manager will live in the immediate
area.
Carolyn White said she'll speak to compatibility and parking which are inter -related in some ways. She
said the definition of compatibility can be found in the staff report
Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow
them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting
compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include
pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important
characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture.
Compatibility does not mean "the same as. " Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of
development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.
She said she'd like to point out that Neighborhood Conservation Buffer concept and the idea that the
multi -family up to 3 stories are intended to buffer the single family from the more intensive uses. In this
case, that more intensive use is the university. She said by the defined terms in the code this is a very
low density multi -family housing project. It is itself the buffer. She said the West Central Neighborhood
Plan stated there ought to be a transition to more intensive and that is exactly what this project was
designed to do. She said in every possible way it's as compatible as it possibly could be.
White said Mr. Bailey heard loud and clear feedback from the neighborhood early on that his original
design (a 24 unit, relatively massive single structure) was of concern to them. At a much greater cost
(both in terms of construction and architecture), he broke the project up into 5 separate buildings with
four-sided wrap -around architecture and unique features. She said this project is designed with great
sensitivity to the neighborhood and it is exceedingly compatible.
White said parking is another element of compatibility. It was pointed out to her that in addition to the
actual numerical standard of zero on -site parking contained in the TOD Overlay, there is also this general
standard contained in Chapter 3 that says that location and number of off -site parking is one of the things
you consider in determining whether something is compatible with the neighborhood. She referred to the
table in their PowerPoint presentation that reviews the actual number of parking spaces that exist for
other similarly situated multi -family developments in the TOD Overlay District. She said that one of the
public stated this project has maximum density and minimum parking. That is not technically correct.
The minimum amount of parking would be zero on -site spaces. This project has 58 on -site parking
spaces. Similarly this is far from the amount of density that can fit on this project. This project could be
40% larger and still be well within the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) allowed for this zone district.
She said if the board were to deny this project, which complies with the zoning, it wouldn't make sense.
She asked the board to take all those factors into consideration as well as the concerns expressed by the
neighborhood. They believe they meet all the requirements for compatibility, for parking, and for all other
requirements in all applicable chapters. With that they ask for their approval.
Member Hart said they seem to be dealing with concerns related to privacy. One of the other concerns
was the third floor structure. Would they consider making Building 1 a two-story structure and leave the
rest of the buildings as three? Bailey said they are willing to find solutions that are amenable. If Building
1 would need to become a two story building to make the project a success with the board. they'd
consider that.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 9
stories when adjacent to single family homes, insure there's adequate parking, increase the setbacks
and landscaping to create more of a buffer. They'd also ask they eliminate the balconies in the units that
face their property. Kranske said they're not saying don't build it or they don't want students in their
neighborhood. They ask they increase parking, setbacks, landscaping, and remove balconies that look
down into their back yards.
Bob Jones said he lives at 1699 Redwing Lane, Broomfield, CO. He's involved in student housing
management and had been for the past 10 years. He said students typically want to do the right thing but
they don't have the life experiences yet to know how. He said Mr. Bailey works with them and uses their
product (a process of educating kids before they move in) for his complexes. They believe it aids the
residents to become better residents in both the short and the long term.
Valerie McIntyre, 1217 Springfield Drive, said she is a 24 year employee of CSU and works in the
Student Legal Services Department. She hears a lot about students' misbehavior. They're there to help
them learn to be good citizens. She said bringing a car to campus is not a wrong thing. The problem is
this complex doesn't have enough spaces for those cars. She said it's not a problem to spend time on
your balcony but if that balcony overlooks the neighbor's and takes away their privacy that's a concern
for the people who live around that complex. While she admires their attempts to educate their tenants
and help them to be good neighbors, she agrees with what's been said previously stated as the concerns
for the neighborhood. She asked the board to take those concerns into consideration. She asked them
to help them maintain their lifestyle and take into account those things that have been mentioned.
End of Public Input
Applicant Response
Carolyn White. land use counsel for the applicant, said they took all that they'd heard and broke it down
into four major categories: balconies and privacy, on -site management, compatibility and parking. She
said there was also one question about the traffic study. She's not real clear on exactly what the issue is
but if the board wants to hear more about that, their traffic engineer Matt Delich is available for questions.
She said Mr. Baily will speak to balconies, privacy and management.
Charles Bailey reviewed photos of the area in question including the easternmost home on Bennett
Road. He said there's really just one home having exposure with partial exposure for the home next to it.
There is also one home on Springfield west of the site. He said he's not counting the two boarding
homes on S. Shields in that they're not single family residents in makeup and use. He said the homes
on Bennett are lifted about the street level — 28 to 32 feet to their ridge. They are 7 feet over their
Building 1 finished floor elevation. He said if staff and board are agreeable, they could switch Building 1
and Building 2 and still conform to the LUC requirement of not having two identical buildings next to each
other. That would then eliminate the balconies on the 2"a floor that overlook Bennett Road homes. He
noted the TO level has a landing that is a part of the interior stair configuration.
Bailey said with regard to parking in addition to 58 parking spaces on site there is 330 feet of frontage on
Springfield. If you divide that by 20 feet it translates to 17 additional parking spaces. The total (75)
divided by 97 residents is 77%. That translates to a recent survey that said 80% of students bring cars to
campus.
Bailey said with regard to the dumpster. It is similar to their dumpster at Pura Vida — it's expensive/a
'Cadillac'. It has a roof on it and an overhead garage door. It has a key pad. It's clean because people
aren't 'hook shooting' bottles. They're able to recycle and to sort trash. The net effect is it doesn't have
odor or filth.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 8
compatible. She asked the board to please: reduce the size of the project by 20%, require parking for
80% of the residents, increase setbacks, and require evergreen landscaping to shield or buffer the
project from the surrounding neighborhoods. She asked the board to please not approve a project that is
so incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Brigitte Schmidt, 932 Inverness, is a former Planning and Zoning Board member and she was on the
board the first time this project came before them. She has a lot of concerns about neighborhood
compatibility in this situation. She said City Plan has policies to preserve our neighborhoods and it's
very important to think of lifestyle conflicts in the context of the board's purview with regard to
compatibility. She asked who notifies the management of nuisance violations. She is concerned about
people crossing safely on Shields. She asked if there is a way to have parking agreements for long term
parking with Cambridge House. She thinks this project is not ready yet and some creative thinking could
make it a lot better.
Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett Road, identified a number of copies he's submitted (via exhibit) for the
Board's consideration. He referenced, compared and contrasted data used both in the Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) and information made available to him as a member of the Student Housing Action Plan
Team. He said in Fort Collins all housing is multi -family housing. This study defines this project as
student housing and uses advantageous trip generation data and then reduces it by another 25%. The
TIS used for this project is flawed because it fails to account for other traffic in the area and is based on
an incorrect standard. He asked the board to deny approval of the project and to send it back to the staff
for review.
Nancy Piper, 2424 Newport Ct., said she owns property at 1118 City Park. She said the homes in the
surrounding area are one story homes so this 3 story apartment is really going to tower over them. She
thinks providing 57 parking spots will not be enough. Where will the excess cars go? She said there is
no place for parking for blocks on the west side of Shields. She would really like that to be addressed.
Donna Fairbank said she lives at 1712 Clearview Ct near Avery Park. Her son and grandchildren also
live in that area and they transport the children either by bike or car to Bennett Elementary. What she
wants to ask the board to do is imagine that you live where they live and do what feels right in your heart
to protect their quality of life. She's worked to find balance in encouraging student housing. They want
the students to also have a good quality of life but their neighborhood is under a tremendous amount of
pressure and people are already selling because of the fear that we're not going to be protected from
these projects. The west side is defensible as a student area but it's equally good for others. She
asked the board to think about the issues of parking, behavior, and numbers as they make their decision
tonight.
Mike Smith, 2320 Chandler, said he use to rent a home on Bennett Road when he was a graduate
student. He said on any given weekend you didn't know how many cars would be parked on Bennett
Road. It actually made it difficult to get into the driveway. He asked the board to think of the residents
and how parking will affect how they live and how the residents will look into the back yards of their
homes.
Peter Kranske, 4131 Harbor Walk Drive, said he owns the property at 1208 Bennett where their daughter
Beth lives. He's a native who lived in California for 25 years but returned in 1990 for the quality of life
and the Fort Collins schools. He knows the people in this city do what is right. He wanted his children to
grow up in a place where people set an example of doing the right thing even when it is difficult. His
understanding is the NCB zone creates a transition intended to serve as a buffer between high density
and single family residential neighborhoods. This project places high density, high intensity housing
adjacent to single family houses with no plan for reduction of heights and no plan to mitigate the impact
of bringing all these people onto two quiet streets. They ask for four things: scale buildings down to two
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 7
Greg Douras. 1205 Springfield Drive, said he'd like to address parking. Although the TOD (Transit
Oriented Development) reflects the goal of having tenants to walk or use public transportation; they are
probably more aspirational goals. He said 80% of students who come to CSU bring their own cars. He
said providing parking for only one-half of the anticipated tenants simply is not adequate. He asked the
board to impose a mitigation plan which addresses neighbors' concerns including adequate on -site
parking. He said please don't let the Bennett and Springfield neighborhoods become a cautionary tale in
support of why the TOD should be changed in the future. He asked if the project is approved to require
parking for 80% of the tenants.
Karla Cummings, 1213 Springfield Drive, said she's here to discuss the parking issue. She's here
fighting for the integrity, safety, and quality of life that she thought the city would protect. She wants to
point out the failure of the TOD. CSU students have and will continue to have their cars and they will
likely park them on her street. The project will add another 20-30 parked cars. She asked the board to
require a reduction of one -fifth in the size of this project.
Pam Treanor, 1332 Bennett Road, read a short letter from a neighbor who could not attend. The
neighbor's name is Jeanne Kelly, 13013 Springfield. The letter stated her concern regarding plans for
the Carriage House Apartments. On -site management, parking, trash, noise/disturbance problems are
concerns for her. She asked that the 3 story building not be constructed.
Buelah Kennicutt, 1221 Springfield Drive, said she's lived there 47 years. Before retirement, she used to
teach at Bennett Elementary. She said most students have been very good neighbors although they
don't always take care of things like home owners. A few have been a real `bother'. If you but 97 of them
in 1.5 acres, there are bound to be more problems. She asked the board to please consider protecting
her neighborhood and making this project smaller.
Melyssa Mead, 1244 Bennett Road, said her children attend Bennett Elementary. It's already concerning
about the traffic on Bennett but they've mitigated that with a speed bump. She asked if 97 students who
don't have adequate parking will start driving down the street full of elementary school children. She
thinks that's asking for disaster. She asked that we don't overdevelop and that we don't develop in a
way that compromises their lifestyle.
Ann Hunt, 1800 Wallenberg Drive, said her neighborhood is impacted by parking by CSU students.
She's here to speak about the real versus the theoretical parking problems 'assumed by the TOD'. She
said projects south of Prospect still have requirements for .75 spaces per person. Even with that they're
worried. She's concerned about all the projects planned for that area and the probability there will not be
sufficient parking. She's sympathetic for the problems this neighborhood will face compounded by the
fact that there's an elementary school across the street.
Debbie Cook lives at 5983 Star View Drive in Broomfield. She owns the two houses just south on
Shields from the proposed development. She said the southeastern most building will be 15 feet from
her property line, the three story building will tower over that ranch style home, and the third story
balconies will take away privacy for the neighboring houses. She thinks the project parking far exceed
their needs. She's only a proponent of the development if it's done in harmony with the neighborhood.
Beth Kranske, 1208 Bennett Road, said the proposal is directly behind her house. She thinks she'll be
one of the most affected. She said one of the things that make their community so special is Bennett
Elementary and with that it creates challenges for safety. She thinks there will not be enough parking for
residents of the proposed project. If there is not enough parking on their site, she thinks they'll park in
the neighborhood and directly affect the safety of the Bennett Elementary School children. She thinks it is
our responsibility to look out for and protect these kids. She thinks the project is the opposite of
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 6
featuring Craftsman architectural detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent
single-family homes to the south and west.
Levingston provided information on the site location and layout, the number of proposed units/bedrooms,
density, parking (vehicle and bicycle), its multi -modal connectivity to Transfort Routes 3 and 19 and
nearby bike lanes. She reviewed elevations and the building type renderings. She said staff
recommends the approval of Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035
Applicant Presentation
Chuck Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd., 7302 Rozena Street, Longmont, CO 80503 provided a history
of Catamount Properties and described the plan overview. He described their neighborhood outreach
efforts and a summary of what he thinks are their concerns. He said he believes its building massing,
neighborhood parking concerns, location/visibility of trash enclosure and complex management. He
provided a comparative analysis of parking provided by other multi -family projects in the TOD (Transit
Oriented District) and compared it to other Fort Collins complexes (Miramount and Terra Vida
Apartments) with regard to massing and their proximity to adjacent single family homes.
Becky Stone of Oz Architecture, 3795 Jersey Street, Denver said she did not normally scale projects to
pedestrian level and enjoyed doing so on this project. She described the `front porch' community with
four-sided craftsman type architecture. She described the setbacks and the green space/outdoor space
on decks and patios. She said they kept the 14 crabapple trees on Springfield to maintain the farm
orchard look.
Carolyn White, land use counsel for the applicant, said she'll review how this project meets LUC. She
said the project meets criteria in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code (LUC). In particular she wanted
to describe how the project meets compatibility standards as defined in LUC Section 3.5.1 reading that
section from the code. She said multi -family is an allowed use in the NCB zone. It meets density (60%
of the allowed square footage) and FAR (Floor Area Ratio project is .33 with .5 is allowed). The parcel is
1.45 acres and 57 units are proposed resulting in 39.3 dwelling units per acre. In the NCB, 3 story
structures (less than 40 feet) are allowed. The height is less than 40 feet. No parking is required in the
TOD Zone and they've provided 58 spaces for vehicles and 103 for bicycles.
Bailey said he believes they meet the intent of the West Central Neighborhood Plan. He said the
Carriage House Apartments is exactly what's envisioned by City Plan/West Central Neighborhoods Area
Plan. It complies with all requirements with no need for a variances, modifications or alternative
compliance for this infill project. He requests approval of the Project Development Plan
Public Input
Sandra Quackenbush, 1308 Bennett Road, said she opposes the project. She requested the board
impose a mitigation plan that reducing the size of the project by 20%.
Pamela Bantham, 1214 Bennett Road, said she will live 40 feet from the proposed project. She has
concerns about the position of the balconies overlooking her back yard and the proximity of the
dumpsters next to the single family homes. She asked the board to take steps to reduce the size and
density of the project by 20%, to increase setbacks and landscaping, to require the number of parking
spots consistent with the number of students, and to impose a requirement that balconies are adjacent to
the major streets and not overlooking single family homes back yards.
Clair Emeldi, 1241 Constitution, said she lives in the Avery Park Neighborhood. She is against the
construction of the Carriage House Apartments in her neighborhood which is already densely populated.
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 5
for an existing or a new farm. He's hoping existing operations would be granted a 'pass'. Member Haft-<'�
asked if Mr. Stenson was aware of Colorado's Right to Farm provision. He was not. Staff member' tx_
said the licensing process is fairly benign. It's more about having the dialogue about the regulations that
apply o those types of uses. She thinks having the 12 month grace period with no cost -Will also help
that. \ j
Member Carpenter said many of the Home Owners Associations have reg�tfons against animals and
she's assuming this ' not going to change any of that. Ex said correct.
Member Campana said he likes the idea of no cost to get the farms licensed. He said he assumes the
farms that exist today within the city are in zone districts that allow them. He thinks what's proposed will
clean things up -- requiring farms to come in for licenses and to have the dialogue with staff especially if
there are any non -conforming uses.
Member Heinz said she likes the implement�atio of transparency of growing practices.
Member Heinz made a motion for the' lanning and Zoning board to recommend to City Council
the adoption of Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code — Division 3, 4 and 5
— Urban Agriculture including the condition of the 12 month grace period and the change related
to deleting `all' as relates to parking. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Member Campaj id g areat work. Member Heinz agreed.
Member Soh said he'd like to see us continue this trend. He thinks this is a vvb important element of
our co unity from an economic, social and ecological standpoint. \\
e motion passed 6:0 \
Project: Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035
Project Description: This is a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319
South Shields Street and in their place, construct five.. three story multi -family
buildings, combining the two lots for a 1.48 acre site. The project is located in the
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District and is within the Transit -
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Courtney Levingston said multi -family is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The Project
Development Plan (PDP) complies with development standards of the N-C-B Zone District and with the
applicable General Development Standards of the Land Use Code. After additional information was
presented by the applicant to the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding the existing single
family home at 1305 South Shields Street, the property was re -reviewed and found not to be individually
eligible for Local Landmark designation thereby allowing it to be demolished under the provisions of the
Municipal Code and Land Use Code.
The proposed three story multi -family buildings were reviewed under the Code's compatibility standards
and found to be compatible with the surrounding context by its' complementary architectural design
Planning & Zoning Board
March 21, 2013
Page 2
that the board or hearing office might make is appealable to the City Council. He sees no legal
justification for that policy and thinks it goes against the intent of our entire democratic process. He
thinks people should be well advised as to the purview of this board so they can specifically address the
elements on which the board makes their decisions.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the February 7, 2013 Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Hearing
2. Addition to the Land Use Code — Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments
3. Waterglen PUD Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D
Member Campana made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes
of the February 7, 2013 Special Hearing and the February 21, 2013 Hearing, the Addition to the
Land Use Code — Section 2.2.10(D), Parkway Landscaping Amendments, and the Waterglen PUD
Self Storage Extension of Final Plan - #71-93D. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The
motion passed 6:0.
Discussion Agenda:
4. 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Code — Division 3, 4 and 5 — Urban
Agriculture
5. Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035
6. Remington Row Project Development Plan, #PDP110017
Pra'ect:
.
Protect Desc�ption:
Recommendation
2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions of the Land Use Coder&vision
3, 4 and 5 — Urban Agriculture
This request is for a recommendation to City Council to update the Land Use Code
so it:
1. Establishes an urban agriculture licensing system that addresses
neighborhood compatibility concerns raised during the outreach process
instead -of requiring urban gardens to go through a full development review
process;
2. Allows farmers markets in more zone districts in the City;
Staff recommends that W Planning and Zoning Board make a formal
recommendation for adoption of -,the Land Use Code changes related to urban
agriculture
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence \'
Senior Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said urban agriculture is the Food production and distribution in
the urban environment and includes community gardens, farms, farmers markets, and animals. This
project addresses one (policy barriers) of many local issues - Land Use and Municipal Code Regulations
Land Use Code (LUC) only allows urban agriculture practices in four of the twenty-five zone districts as a
principal use: Agricultural activities — River Conservation and Public Open Lands and Farm animals —
River Conservation, Residential Foothills, and Urban Estate. The project goal is to ensure1the LUC
supports the community's desires in relation to urban agriculture practices both when and where
appropriate. Ex described the public outreach process (focus groups, boards and commissionsr
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Campana, Hart, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, and Smith
Unexcused Absence: Hatfield
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Sowder, Porter, Levingston, Stanford, Siegmund,
Vrata, Schleuter, and Sanchez -Sprague
Chair Smith said in an effort to make the process a little more citizen friendly he would provide
background on the order of business. He described the following processes:
• Citizen participation — an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not specifically
listed on the meeting agenda.
• Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of
the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and
discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda.
• Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and
questions by board members, staff comments 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 and he
encouraged them 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.
• The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon.
• He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda.
Citizen participation:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said over time he's noticed that many individuals who speak
during public input do not restrict their comments to areas to which the board has purview — Land Use
Code (LUC). He said many times the public's remarks pertain to eminent domain, social, economic or
environment components on which the board does not have purview. Additionally, he said there's some
sensitivity from himself and others in the community relative to prohibitions on speaking to their elected
representatives (City Council) on issues that relate to the Land Use Code process because the decision