Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDTAIL PONDS - PDP - PDP130030 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 18 Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 17 • Less buffer to Woodley's Furniture • Increased construction costs to deal with change in elevation between building and College Avenue • Increased street maintenance costs to City Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0 Member Hart moved that the PDP complies with the Block Requirements of Section 3.8.30(D) (2) and (3) for Block Size and Minimum Building Frontage. It is infeasible for the PDP to comply with Block Requirements in Section 3.8.30(D) (1) Block Structure due to existing development adjacent to the property. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Member Hart moved that with the Modification of the Standards and findings of the Board previously made, the PDP complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 General Development Standards and the PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.2.1 General Commercial District of Article 4 Districts subject to the approval of Modifications of Standards, the part of the TOD Overlay Zone requirements for the General Commercial District. Specifically, the Modification of Standard Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off -Street Parking that are proposed with this PDP are approved. Accordingly, he moved approval Redtail Pond Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP#130030. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Deputy City Attorney said there was a condition offered by the applicant related to a Good Neighbor Policy. Member Hart said he did not put that in his motion because he didn't know if it is in the purview of the Planning and Zoning Board. He said if Eckman thinks it's within their purview, he'd be willing to amend the motion. Eckman said he thinks it is because it was offered up by the applicant. Chair Smith said he'd like to know if the board thinks that's necessary. He appreciates the applicant's offer but in his personal opinion, it's not necessary as a condition of approval. Member Heinz said she thinks that since the applicant went to the trouble of doing it in the beginning, it's in their heart to be that way. She doesn't think we need to make it a condition. Member Carpenter said she would agree. Member Hart said he'd go along with the board and he hopes the Housing Board will continue with their plan to keep the policy in effect. The motion was approved 7:0. Other Director Kadrich asked if it's okay with the board that they consider the Planning & Zoning Board 2014 Work Plan at the December worksession. Chair Smith said that'd be fine. Director Kadrich referenced a letter received by the Board in support of the Mall Redevelopment from the Chamber of Commerce. It will be forwarded to the board after the fact and will become a part of the record. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 16 With respect to Section 2.8.2(H) (2), the strict application of such standard would render the project practically infeasible, the granting of the modification does not impair intent and purpose of the LUC, and the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern including: LIV 7.5- Plan for and meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. Disperse residential -care facilities, shelters, group homes and senior housing throughout the Growth Management Area, LIV 8- The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing affordable housing supply, and LIV 8.5- Encourage the integration and distribution of affordable housing as part of individual neighborhoods and the larger community rather than creating larger concentration of affordable units and the request satisfies criteria for 2.8.2(H)(1) because the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the modification is requested. This is because the entrance drive and parking area provides street -like enhancements similar to a street -like private drive including narrower travel lanes, tree -lined borders, tree grates, sidewalks, angled parking, generous landscaped medians, corner plazas, pedestrian lighting and benches that create an appropriate alternative to a street. The strict application of such standards would render the project practically infeasible, and the granting of the modifications do not impair intent and purpose of the TOD Overlay Zone to foster and promote attractive street - oriented developments with enhanced design details, and the granting of the modification would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern by permitting the project to meet the housing needs of special populations within the community. And with respect to Section 2.8.2(H)(3), I believe by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. The Project is located amidst existing development in the Cameron Park/Redtail Ponds office park development on a narrow rectangular (approx. 225' by 555') 2.97-acre parcel with steep slopes down to College Avenue. Direct street access to the Project is only possible at its west end, where there is very limited frontage; street access to College Avenue on the east is not possible. Due to these unique conditions, it is not possible to position the building in close proximity to the street on either the west or the east. Finally, if FCHA were required to install a street into the Project to satisfy the TOD Overlay Zone development standards regarding building orientation and off-street parking, the result would create the following practical difficulties for the Project: • More pavement within the Project • 62% reduction in parking (13 spaces vs. 34) • 23% reduction in amount of functional open space for use by tenants Closer proximity to and greater visibility of parking lot from College Avenue 0 Height/mass are emphasized with location of building closer to steep slope Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 15 Member Hart said he hoped that all the people who were not in favor of the original project by their absence tonight are due to the work of the FCHA to bring those people around. Member Kirkpatrick said the project delivered to us tonight definitely meets all the applicable codes. As for the modifications that are being sought, she thinks they meet the intent of our code. She thinks they have taken our goals within our city policy documents and community initiatives. The project really reflected both our technical (LUC) nature as well as aspirations as a community and they have participated in moving us toward meeting our goals. Kirkpatrick said this is the first project the board's had since she's been on the board that seems truly transformational not only for the community but for individual's lives. She agrees with Member Carpenter — it makes her proud to be a Fort Collins resident. Member Heinz said she's impressed by their design, their mission, and the way they have engaged the community. She said the overall project is great. She thinks it's going to be awesome and that they're really going to set a high standard for architecture, development and community involvement. Member Schneider said he appreciated the FCHA's outreach. He said looking at the original renderings and looking at what came out in the end is definitely positive. It showed good faith that while we start with a block design; it can be turned into something that is quite impressive. He said with regard to the board's purview, he said the modification of standard requests makes good common sense. He said it definitely helped with the lot, location, and site developments. It's a great project and he looks forward to seeing it move forward. Chair Smith said a multi -family project in the TOD is something they've become accustomed to of late. He said their analysis is always about parking issues and are many times based on unusual sites. He said overall what was accomplished by this project was some very context sensitive site innovation that is intended for projects that go into the TOD. When we look at the technical aspects of what the applicant is seeking, specifically to the modification of standard requests, clearly that site innovation speaks well to their efforts. Ultimately they could have come in without any parking but instead they elected to do parking in a way that actually achieved the new urbanism being sought for the Mason Corridor. He appreciated how they worked with the College Avenue component —they set the front of the building in a way that is not offensive and put the parking field in the right place. They've also gone above and beyond with their landscape package. They made a very good case about being able to do something with an unusual block considering the challenges the site presents. He said it's in a place where our Comp Plan is trying to have these types of project built. It's ultimately protecting our investment in MAX. He hopes other applicants along the Mason Corridor will also achieve architectural innovations by siting their buildings and breaking the mass as this design team has done. It's a good project. Member Hart moved to approve the Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure that are proposed with this PDP that meet the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) and (3) as described on page 35 of the staff report. The granting of this modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 7:0 Member Hart moved to approve the Modification of Standard to Section 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and Section 3.10.4(C) Off -Street Parking that are proposed with this PDP that meet the applicable standard requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1) in the granting of this modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 14 Board questions Member Carpenter asked about the exterior. She said she cannot tell from the renderings what materials will be used or what the air conditioning units will look like. Will they be hidden? Cho said there are several HVAC systems that the building will be utilizing but the system Ms. Carpenter may be referring to is the PTAC which is on the exterior of the residential units. Cho said typically they are about 3 feet by 8 to 20 feet with grills that comes in many finishes and colors. He said you can either hide them or highlight them and they have employed both strategies in their projects. In this particular project, they are thinking the 3 foot wide/24 inches deep units will be minimized and not very visible from the exterior. They will be flush with the building. Member Carpenter asked if there anything on the roof that is visible. Cho said the building roof doesn't really house very many mechanical systems. With the building be set back 100 feet and higher from the street (College Avenue), not much would not be visible. Member Heinz asked Ms. Fritz how they came up with the group of people who met for the green enterprise meetings. Also. how did you come up with the group for the Good Neighbor Policy Committee? Fritz said a site selection committee helped in the selection of a site. Once that was done, an enterprise green community design charrette was scheduled very early on (May, 2012). Fritz said that the Neighborhood Services Department helped them identify the 200 property owners they invited to participate. Fritz said once they got their funding, they had their formal neighborhood meeting (July, 2013). After that meeting, they realized they wanted to do more outreach. They invited those who provided an email address to come to a Good Neighbor Workshop. It was professionally facilitated by the Institute for the Built Environment and others. That started the basis for the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) document. Member Heinz asked if that group will continue with monthly meetings. Fritz said the manual said they will host an annual public meeting and they will also form a citizen advisory committee that will include people from surrounding neighborhoods and office parks. Chair Smith said there were some concerns by commercial neighbors to the south. Would they please give the board information about that and specifically address fencing. Holland said ultimately FCHA decided to use an enhanced metal fence. The fence is also softened up considerably with layered landscaping on both sides of the fence. Brad Smith said everything to the south is much lower than the site. The closest building to the south is completely obstructed at the first floor level. You don't start to get views until you get to the second floor. Smith said the depressed roadway to the south as well as the vegetation they have added will go a long way to obscure the outdoor activities that happen on site. Chair Smith if there are any photos showing current conditions looking from the site south. Holland said they don't have any photos of those particular vantage points. Chair Smith asked is there a 'wrench room' for the bikes. Fritz said yes — they will be similar to what you see outside of city buildings that provide the tools that are used for maintenance. She said it'll be in the bike barn with all that covered bike parking. Member Kirkpatrick said she reviewed the packet materials and she's concluded the project is safe, direct, and provides convenient access for both bicyclists and pedestrians. Board Discussion Member Hatfield said he thinks it's a good project and agreed there is a shortage of affordable housing. Member Carpenter said she's proud to be a member of a community in which we can overfill this room. She appreciates our community and this project. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 13 also created a white paper that specifically addressed the impact of property values — what that paper has found is there is not an impact on property values. Fritz said with regard to moving people around town. She believes that relates to their residents needing to travel across the community to access the resources they might need. One of the benefits of permanent supportive housing is that they will be providing the majority of the needed services on site. Otherwise, they'll have access to the transit and trail system as any typical resident would. Fritz said with regard to railroad and highway safety, she will refer that question to Matt Delich, traffic engineer. She said people live all along the Mason Corridor/railroad track. They don't believe this population or this building is unique in terms of creating a greater safety risk. Matt Delich, Delich and Associates, said what he heard was a very non-specific reference to safety as it relates to the railroad and the highway. He said the fact of the matter is the railroad and College Avenue goes through the length of Fort Collins. There are neighborhoods and commercial developments adjacent to it. He said adjacency is not a hazard or else we couldn't do anything anywhere near a highway or railroad. City Planner Jason Holland said notice is required at least 800 feet exclusive of natural areas and public rights -of -way. A notification was sent out within that boundary zone. He indicated on an overhead what the notice area was which in some cases were 900 to 2300 feet from the project site. He said there is one required neighborhood meeting for this type of development. That meeting was held in compliance with the standards. Holland said they were also required to notify the HOA (Homeowners Association) in the surrounding neighborhood. Member Hatfield asked at the neighborhood meeting how did they come out with regard to those for or those against the proposal. Holland said there were a lot of concerns addressed at the neighborhood meeting. He said that was really a starting point as the FCHA characterized it. After that the FCHA followed up with a number of different neighborhood meetings that were not city sponsored. One thing they did get from that initial meeting was a pretty good list of email addresses that allowed them to contact them with further information about additional meetings. Holland said the general pros/cons; it would be difficult to say. There were a number of concerns. Some of those were relevant to the LUC. A summary of that neighborhood meeting is included in the board's packet. Holland said that information was also shared via email to those who provided their email address. Holland said at this point, we've received more correspondence in support of the project. Fritz said the neighborhood meeting was in July. In addition to the official notice, an anonymous postcard was mailed beyond the notification area. She said people received that postcard and believed it was a city notification and that it caused a lot of confusion about what the official notification area was. Fritz said prior to the neighborhood meeting, the FCHA did outreach to about 200 adjacent property owners. Following the July neighborhood meeting, they had a series of additional meetings with notice sent to everyone who attended the July meeting or anyone who contacted them in any way. Fritz said they also used the City's 'Next Door" program which posted notice with any neighborhood that is registered through that program. Holland said he had a couple of follow-up comments. With regard to the railroad proximity, there is not any code provision that discusses proximity of a project to a railroad or highway. With regard to the question about whether the outcome would be the same if the project was a big investment company, Holland said the LUC standards for this particular project are the same standards for any multi -family project with the exception of a few minor details related to plant sizing. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 12 Applicant/Staff Responses Liley said the Good Neighbor Policy has been a question. People appreciate having the policy but the concern is what happens if it doesn't stay in place. What assurance will they have that it'll continue to be in operation in accordance with best practices? One thing they don't want to do is put this adopted policy as the condition because it's meant to be a flexible document. It's meant to be evaluated by the board every year by listening to resident and citizens and adjusting as necessary. The condition they offer is: The Fort Collins Housing Authority has adopted a Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (GNSO) for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Facility. Prior to any occupancy of the facility, and thereafter, they shall keep this policy in effect for such facility at all times that the facility is in operation. The GNSO should include at a minimum provisions that address the following: eligibility and selection criteria, property management policies and rules, safety and security measures, community updates and collection of feedback and a methodology for addressing complaints. With regard to the question about net positive, Liley said she's not totally sure they understand what that would involve. The commitment of the Housing Authority is to do an enterprise green facility which is comparable to a Silver LEED — which is a fairly significant achievement. With regard to the question about a more expensive building in the TOD, Liley said she discussed that with staff and she doesn't know if they have any means to compare that. Intuitively, we don't know why it would be more expensive just because you're in a TOD zone. It might be less expensive given mass transit opportunities. She doesn't think they can definitively answer that question. Planning Services Manager Cameron Gloss said city staff examined height and massing of the proposed building. The LUC height standards dictate a maximum of 4 stories in this zone district. We define a story as being 12'8" so for 4 stories that would allow for a 50'2" building. The height of the proposed project is 46". Gloss said the gentleman had a question about the height relative to the roadway. He said using renderings # 3 and #4; you can see there is a grade change depending on whether you are on the north or south end of the site. He said the code does not specifically consider that in the height measurement referenced previously. Gloss said with respect to the mass of the building, the architect has employed several different techniques. Those elements were outlined in the applicant's presentation but to remind the audience and the board, there are a variety of materials that are being shown that break up that fagade. There is also a substantial articulation where you have projections and recessions of the building to create shadow and to make the building appear less massive. Staff thinks it is compliant with the standard. Jung Cho, Architect and Principal of Studio Completiva said careful thought went into locating the building on site. The length of the lot is 550 feet running from east to west. It is set far back enough that it is not a building that jumps out at you. It' begins to recede into the context. They think it's located in the right place. There is an 11 foot differential from the north to the south end of the property. The building was set with a finished elevation similar to the Woodley's Building just north of the site. Cho said they also used color to break down the mass. They've used projections and recessions within the building form. They've also used a layer of columns in the front which breaks up the 140-150' length of the building. Cho said they've coordinated very carefully with the landscape design. Brad Smith, landscape architect, said in addition to the careful siting, they worked very hard to add tree plantings and vegetation that will mature to add screening. In addition, at the northeast and southeast corner they have mature trees in place that do a great deal to screen. FCHA Project Manager Kristin Fritz said the FCHA produced a number of studies and reports that are full of data. They made those reports available both at the public workshop and on their website. They've Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 11 David Rex James, 5850 Dripping Rock Lane, said he directed a permanent supportive housing program in Chicago for 20 years and the programs do work for all the reasons the board has heard tonight. He also read a letter of support for a neighbor who is incapacitated (Martha Miller, 6615 Dessert Willow Way). Sarah Morales, 1819 Ridgewood Road, said she'd like to speak from two perspectives: one is as a health professional (from that perspective she likes there are supportive services in place and that the plan is very well thought out) and as a parent of an adult child with disabilities (an 18 year old son with mental illness and substance abuse). He is at risk of being homeless. This is a perfect opportunity for something we do not currently have. She urged the board to approve Redtail Ponds. Heather Meyer, 6738 Colony Hills Lane, said she strongly supports this program and to urge the board to grant the modifications that have been requested. She is a former homeless outreach worker as well as a former supportive housing coordinator here in Larimer County. She's been involved in housing and homeless issues for the past 10 years. She thinks the Redtail Ponds program is very much needed in this community. Fiona Jeursta, 5225 Castle Ridge Place, said she lives in the Miramont community. She's in the unique position in that she's worked with this population for over 6 years. Her reservations are not so much about the project but about the place and the choice of land. It's been chosen as an ideal site that is now requiring modifications to the LUC. In addition to that, she finds it ironic that a project that is focused on a vulnerable population is by a 4-lane highway and less than 800 feet from a major railroad. She would like the board to think carefully about those safety concems. Rich Stave, Fossil Creek Meadows, said he lives in one of the communities adjacent to this project. He said he also has a dissenting opinion. He's walked the neighborhood and looked over the site. He thinks the main issues for this particular project have to do with the size of the building. He said other buildings in that area are not 4 story buildings. This site has quite a bit of gradient from where College Avenue is. There's a 20 foot gradient from the low corner and then they're adding what he thinks is a 5'/Z story building on top of that. He said it will be quite a large monolith. He thinks massing is an issue for this particular lot. End of Public Input Chair Smith summarized what he heard were the discussion points: notice area, Good Neighbor Committee, whether the applicant was willing to make the project 'net positive', railroad and highway safety issues, size of the building (how many stories), elevation above College Avenue, data and accountability, moving people across town, hearing impaired captioning/accessibility of our hearings. (NOTE: Cable 14 staff noted we have two assistive listening devices for the Chambers. Chair Smith There was also a question about costs — is this building more expensive because it's in the TOD zone? Will it affect property values? Did the FCHA follow the rules and are the modifications within the rules? Chair Smith those last two questions are what the board is here to answer. Member Heinz said with regard to the massing question, she thinks we should be clear as to what the modifications cover. Applicant's counsel Lucia Liley said based on one of the citizen's request regarding the Good Neighbor Policy, they would be prepared to offer a condition in regard to that when appropriate. Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 10 hear any of the 'council members' (board). She said a famous Christian said you have the poor with you always. As a board member. she would not sign her name to the documents if she did agree that things are going correctly. She said they have taken quite a bit of time to put this (Redtail Ponds) project together and it really needs to be done. She is for this project. NOTE: After Ms. Keesling need was known. Cable & CDNS staff at the next break worked to give her access to the hearing enhancement equipment available in Chambers. Juan Torres, 105 Fairway Lane, said he's 700 feet from the Redtail Ponds proposal. He's just curious if a big investment company made the same request, would they get the same result. He's said he just heard of this development not too long ago. Will it affect his property value? It sounds like a really cool idea unfortunately it's dragging people all over the city. He also has a place by the library and he deals with homeless all the time. It's not as positive an experience as some are saying. He said not everyone is for it. Ron Barenberg, 113 Briarwood Rd, said he's a member of Spirit Crossing. Natalie Brown, 1337 Glen Haven Drive, said she is the Clubhouse Director of Spirit Crossing Clubhouse. They are a program of Touchstone Health Partners that serves behavioral health disabilities which include mobility and physical disabilities. She and Ron are speaking together because the model of their program is considered a partnership model — staff and members working side by side. They believe that meaningful work and the reassurance of support and belonging works toward well-being and is vital to long term rehabilitation. They support this development. Tatiana Martin, 80525, said she's a member of the Affordable Housing Board. The project is in a great location, it follows City Plan overall, and it serves the population of 50% or less of the AMI (Average Median Income). It will provide housing for the most vulnerable members of our community. Frank Gibson, 826 Ashford Lane, said a light emanates from our national experience to our own beloved city. It is commitment to the practice and exercise of inclusion. He shared anecdotal experience of overseas travel that highlighted the European Union and desperate humanity lighting on `its shores'. He said isn't this love overcoming fear? It's a global metaphor a fraction of which is playing out in Fort Collins. He believes there is sufficient goodwill among us to say to homeless and disabled `come we welcome you as neighbors'. Trinity Otten, 3416 Killarney Court, said she works at Spirit Crossing Clubhouse. She said she had some questions for the board: Did the FCHA follow the planning and zoning rules for this development? Are the modifications they are asking for within the rules of the planning and zoning plan? If the answers are yes, then this development should go through. She personally, working with people with disabilities, has seen the growth and recovery that opportunities like this provide. Zachary Penland, 1815 Falcon Ridge Drive, said he's the managing director of the Murphy Center for Hope. Others have already spoken eloquently about the positive impact of supportive services on individuals' lives. He said the greatest barrier we continue to face in the work they are doing is the lack of affordable housing in our community. Since the Murphy Center opened a little over 4 years ago, they have identified more than 40 individuals who have died while homeless on our streets. The majority are those with disabilities. He would encourage everyone to think of the disabled individuals and the veterans who have served our country who are going to be sleeping on our streets tonight and the impact of a program such as this. Carol Plock said she's the Executive Director of the Health District of Northern Larimer County. She strongly supports this project. Basically, it's for everything, the board has already heard. It is critically important to our community that we create this supportive housing project. She said it's a tragedy if we let this opportunity pass. Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 9 Renee Walker, 408 Duke Lane, said she's here to represent Foothills Gateway (for people with cognitive disabilities in Larimer County). She said her clients typically have SSI income, a maximum of $710/month. With the average cost of a modest one bedroom apartment at $888/month, you can see that is just not doable for them. Foothills Gateway, as an agency, is in support of this project. Josie Plaut, 1006 Mulberry, said she supports the project. She works for the Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State University. The Institute has worked with FCHA on this project since mid- 2012. They are committed to incorporating sustainable design principles and they have demonstrated their commitment to an open and transparent process for the community. Redtail Ponds sets a new higher level of architectural design standard for the area. In summary, the site and proposed development meets the objectives of City Plan, the South College Corridor Plan, the TOD Zone, and the requirements of the GC (General Commercial) District. Kim Larsen, 727 Colorado Street, said she works at Catholic Charities with the population that is currently without housing. She thinks it's in our best interest as a community to support those who need affordable housing. Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, said the question before the board is whether or not to permit the modifications that are requested by the applicant. The community is very fortunate to have an organization like the Fort Collins Housing Authority that went above and beyond the requirements to not only meet the needs of the community but also the intent of the Land Use Code. They've found a delicate balance that sets a high standard for other development that will occur in this area in the years to come. He said people will fear the unknown but that's beyond the charge of the board —theirs is a very specific technical decision. Troy Jones, 108 Rutgers Avenue, said he's the Vice Chair of the Affordable Housing Board (AFB). In the board's packet is a letter from the AFB. This project provides housing for the highest priority sector — 50% or less of the Area Medium Income (AMI). The MAX is nearby and that makes it something the AFB highly recommends for the residents. Because the facility is managed by the Fort Collins Housing Authority, they have such a good track record for managing properties. He said as an individual, it makes sense to put people with a high percentage of ridership next to the MAX station. Dave Edwards, 218 W. Magnolia, said as a member of the Homeward 2020 Board, he urges the board to accept and approve the staffs recommendation for Redtail Ponds. He firmly believes that while their decisions are LUC they are also implementing the values of this community. We are fortunate to have the applicant/developer/owner/manager of Redtail Ponds being our own Fort Collins Housing Authority. With its approval, he sees our community taking a big step forward and serving our most vulnerable population. Vanessa Fenley, 1602 Robertson Street, said she's currently serving as Executive Director of Homeward 2020, a community based initiative with the goal of making homelessness rare, short-lived and non- recurring. If we want to impact homelessness in Fort Collins, than housing is key. When we combine housing with supportive services, such as those offered at Redtail Ponds; the people are not only more likely to stay in that housing but they can also work toward building more stability and self-sufficiency. She said Homeward 2020 definitely supports this project. Mike Salza, 133 Second Street, said he lives in an RL zone surrounding by supportive housing units. He's got very good neighbors. He's here to encourage the board to support the Redtail Ponds development. Linda Keesling, 925 Glenmoor, said she's on the Financial Board for the Villages. She's hearing impaired and thought she could get some signing interpreters and some close captioning because she cannot Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 8 Christine Kneeland, 5226 Fox Hills Drive, said she supports the project. As the co-founder and chair of Homeward 2020 for the past 6 years, she can say with great confidence that Redtail Ponds is an example of best practices learned from all over the country. She said the land is zoned for its proposed use and they have diligently followed the planning processes for this particular project. Redtail Ponds is a critical component in their path to eliminating homelessness in Fort Collins. Richard Thompson, 636 Cheyenne Drive, said he's President of the Fort Collins Interfaith Council and they support this project. He said as the moral crisis of lack of affordable housing because even more apparent, they've concluded it's worthy of strong support. He said this project could be a model not only in Fort Collins but in the communities far beyond us for years to come. Melissa St. Clair, 5620 Fossil Creek Pkwy, said she's in support of this proposal. She's one of the pastors at the Heart of the Rockies Christian Church and also a resident of the Fossil Creek Condominiums which sit east of College across from this proposed development. She shared personal anecdotal information on finding affordable housing in this community. She said she believes in this plan and she'd be happy to be a neighbor. Bryan Tribey, 525 E. Drake, said until February of 2013 he'd been living in his 1990 Toyota Camry parked in front of Catholic Charities. He was homeless for 2 years. He said he's taken advantage of many of the opportunities presented to him through Catholic Charities and the Murphy Center. He now has a residence thanks to a HUD voucher. As a veteran he's been able to secure housing. He urged the board to approve the project. Monica Bland, 12905 North County Road 15, said she's in favor of the proposal. She said the issue of homelessness has been widely publicized. The community has become one of 450 to implement a 20 year plan with a goal of ending homelessness. A home is the centerpiece which provides the necessary life stability to best address mental health, substance abuse, education and employment issues. She said supportive housing is much more cost effective than temporary housing and emergency services. Jan Hawn, 825 Winchester Drive, said she's been involved with the Advisory Board of Spirit Crossing which is in the same area as the proposed development. She complimented the Housing Authority on a very well thought out plan. She thinks this is an appropriate use of this parcel and that it will be an asset to the community. Lisa Rephlo, 501 Parkway Cr, said she's in favor of the Redtail Ponds. She said she lives south of the proposed site. Initially, as a single mother, she was very concerned. Once invited to participate in the Good Neighbor Committee. she soon learned about the potential residents, Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA), the safety and security plans. and the lease requirements — so much so that it allayed all her concerns. She said her personal opinion is that this complex will have very little impact on her life but a great and positive impact for the long term residents who will have demonstrated their desire to improve their conditions in life. She thinks they'll be a positive aspect of the South College neighborhood. Mike Pruznick said he's Vice -Chair of the city's Parking Board. He's here in his role as a private citizen. He lives due east in the Miramont area near Werner Elementary. He strongly supports this project for all the reasons presented tonight. He suggests the Good Neighbor agreement is currently owned by the FCHA Board of Directors and can be unilaterally eliminated with 30-days' notice. He'd like to see more legal standing on this agreement, perhaps by a citizen advisory committee. He said now is the time to ask the question how can we make this building as net positive as possible. He'd like the board to ask the applicant and see what their response is. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 7 for this area. She thinks it's a testament to good planning. She said it speaks to the appropriateness of the use for this site that there are so few modifications being requested. Liley reviewed the Modification of Standards being requested. She reviewed the applicant's justification and the board's criteria for approving a modification and noted how strict application of such standards would render the project infeasible due to the physical constraints of the site. In summary, they are asking the board's approval of a modification to two related parking lot/TOD standards on any or all of the three request grounds: equal to, community benefit and need, and practical infeasibility. They are also asking the board make a finding of infeasibility to meet to the block structure element of the standards and that they also modify the block structure requirement. Ms. Brewen introduced Kevin Tomascik who shared his experience relative to homelessness. From his experience, he said without housing one cannot maintain the stability and presence of mind needed to truly benefit from other support services. He respectfully asked the board to approve this development application. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said staff report findings are different from those requested by the applicant's counsel so if the board is inclined to make a motion to grant the modifications, perhaps staff can work on the language for the motions during public testimony. Staff Response City Planner Holland said they'll work on those findings. He said to summarize a couple of aspects of site design, one of the key factors was the building orientation and the placement on the site (middle of the lot at an angle) It does have a lot of advantages with use of the code with regard to land use transition, privacy and shadow casting. Secondly, because the parking lot is located between the street and the building entrance; it really set up a situation where enhancements to the parking lot could be made through the use of the code to make the parking lot equal to or better than the standard. Holland said both enhanced the overall project. Public Input Mary Alice McComb, 912 Ashford Lane, said she's in favor of the proposal because it will provide needed affordable housing. She outlined why she thinks it's a good proposal. Kelly Notarfrancesco, 5409 Roma Valley Ct, said she lives just east of the proposed development. She is against this development. She's worried about the costs - $12M or $220,000 per unit. She's thinking because it's in the TOD, there's a lot more 'building code' required. She expressed concerns about the outreach process. Gordan Thibedeau, CEO of United Way of Larimer County, said he's in favor of the project. He said he'd like to speak to neighborhood concerns about the Redtail Ponds development. He said there were the same concems expressed about the Murphy Center (242 Conifer St). In fact, the center which has been operating for 4 years has not experienced any of the problems anticipated by the adjacent neighbors. He knows the concems expressed are heartfelt but experience shows that the population that will reside at Redtail Ponds will not be a threat. Mark Notarfrancesco, 5409 Roma Valley Ct, said he is a resident of Miramont. He said he applauds what they're trying to do here but he does have concerns. He said at outreach meetings he pleaded for data. He said intentions are great but there is no substitute for a plan for success. He said there are over a 1,000 units under the Fort Collins Housing Authorities control; he'd like to know how they're doing —what's the data. He said the benefit of this project needs to be proven at some level with some data. Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 6 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Jason Holland said this is a request from the Fort Collins Housing Authority for a Project Development Plan for the Redtail Pond Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan located on an undeveloped parcel at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. The proposed project has approximately 225 feet of frontage on the west side of South College Avenue and is south of and adjacent to Woodley's Fine Furniture. The site is accessed by the current terminus of Fossil Boulevard. The South Transit Center for the MAX Bus Rapid Transit System is located one block northwest of the site. The Redtail and Cameron Park Office Parks are located to the south. A drainage tributary supporting wetland, riparian and open water habitats exists to the west of the site and flows into Fossil Creek to the south. The site is approximately 2.82 acres, and the applicant proposes a four-story building, with a portion of the building transitioning to one-story to the south. The total building coverage proposed is 14,680 square feet, which is approximately 12% of the site. 36 parking spaces are provided and 66 bicycle spaces. The site is within the General Commercial District (C-G), and is also within boundaries of the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the South College Corridor Subarea Plan. The proposed multi -family use is permitted in the C-G zone district, subject to Planning and Zoning Board approval. Holland said they've submitted a staff report and slide presentation into the record and are recommending the project for approval. Applicant Presentation Julie Brewen, Executive Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, said their design and program is the result of several years of hard work by a great number of people in our community who have been researching and using the best practices discovered in the design of this project. Redtail Ponds is designed to address community need with 40 units for homeless individuals and 20 units for those making a little bit higher income at 40 and 50% AMI (Average Median Income). Brewen said that developing mixed -income housing is the best way to create healthy and stable communities. They've found that Permanent Supportive Housing improves housing stability, improves mental and physical health, reduces substance abuse, improves income and employment, and creates social and community connections. Senior Project Manager Kristin Fritz described the program, outlined the location, outlined the site selection process, and reviewed the general purpose of the zone (General Commercial District and TOD Overlay Zone), its access to South Transit Center, and the distance in all directions to single family homes. She outlined what City Plan policies (including Affordable Housing Strategic Plan) were met. Fritz described how Redtail Ponds meets a variety of City Plan goals and policies and how it met the requirements of the South College Corridor Plan. She reviewed the specifics of the Project Development Plan, existing conditions, and reviewed renderings with north and southbound views from College Avenue. She reviewed elevations and the materials that will be used. Fritz described the public outreach process including the Good Neighbor Statement of Operations (Adopted by the FCHA Board of Commissioners). She said it's a tool to address some of the community's concerns and it speaks to their commitment to maintaining ongoing communications with the neighbors. Lucia Liley, Counsel for the Fort Collins Housing Authority, said this is an interesting and challenging project. Both the CG and the TOD overlay zones would support this kind of use in this location as would many other policies and plans of the city. It is located in an interesting area where the existing development was approved in the county under far different visions, plans and land use regulations. She said little thought was given to important city elements such as connectivity, increased intensity to support mass transit and the like. She said it's very much a transition project. As an infill project, it has to fit in with this area while at the same time advancing and being compatible with the City's new vision Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 5 Public Input None Board Questions �" Lo n asked if his impression was correct — is Member Schneider's asking how the propert ets subdivi d in order for them to purchase just the northern portion. Schneider said his questions are: board materials received earlier this week talked about buying only'/z the property. qcwe have a revised site plir nd elevations? What are plans for landscaping? Lorson said that is the entire site plan and that it is t rea on the north section of the parcel that's north of the kTigation ditch. Lorson said the site plan before u is not changing ---only the amount of property 15emg purchased from the church has changed. Member Schneider said his second�uestion relates to the RL,Z6ne District. Would a parking lot be considered a secondary use since there i& no physical suctb re on that parcel? Lorson said since this process is governed by Colorado statutes, find defer t"ur attorney for that question. Eckman, the parking lot is considered accessory to the campus bat` it's not an issue for a Site Plan Advisory Review under Section 209. We're only directed to look at to on, character, and extent. Eckman said the zoning code also does not apply since it's a,sKatutory revew. Member Hart asked the Chair if we ,could explain to the audience- both in chambers and at home what the board's limitations are under this process. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said should a public entity wish to construct astructure}t-i�ias to go before the Planning & Zoning Beard for a review as to location, character and extent. Eckman said the statute doesn't give us any more guidance than that. He said it does give a specific tiTrd'Iimit. If it's not completed with a certain time, it will be deemed approved. Eckman said in the case of 'disapproval', the State Board for Community Colleges`and Occupational Education can ode -rule the decision by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Member, Hatfield made a motion to approve the Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA 130004 and in support of his motion he adopts the findings, facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. -The motion was approved 7:0. Project: Redtail Pond Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, # PDP130030 Project Description: This is a request for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing located at an undeveloped parcel at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. The project includes 60 multi- family dwelling units with a proposed purpose to provide housing for adult men and women. The site is within the General Commercial District (C-G), and is also within boundaries of the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) and the South College Corridor Plan. Recommendation: Approval of Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP #130030, a determination of infeasibility as to the Block Requirement regarding block structure in Section 3.8.30(D)(1), and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure, 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off -Street Parking. Planning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 3 can we just ask questions. Chair Smith said we'll just ask that there be an abbreviated presentation since he thinks staff understands the issues raised by Member Schneider. Chair Smith asked for a presentation of the Foothills Redevelopment Major Amendment and Final Plan item. Project: Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment & Final Plan, #FDP130040 Pro ct Description: This is a request for a consolidated Phase One Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Plan (FP) for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One. The project is located east of South College Avenue and north of East Monroe Drive at 3400 South College Avenue. As proposed, the existing Tres Margaritas restaura building will be removed and replaced with a 10,501square foot retail buil ' g. Recommendation: Approval of Foothills Redevelopment Phase One, Major Amendment and Fina. Plan #FDP130040, with one condition. j Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said this is a request for a consolidated Phase One Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Plan (FP) for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One. The project is located east of South College Avenue and north of East Monroe Drive at 3400 South College Avenue. As proposed, the existing Tres Margaritas restaurant building will be removed and replaced with a 10,501square foot retail building. The Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase One development area is 2.23 acres in size and will be located on the future Block 16 of the larger amended PDP and will replace a small portion of the previously approved Foothills Redevelopment Project Development Plan (February, 2013). The site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. Applicant Presentation Caroline White, land use counsel for the applicant, said on behalf of the applicant that they concur with the staff report. They believe the application meets all of the applicable criteria in the LUC. This represents a very minor deviation from what was previously approved — about 250 square feet out of a 10,000 square foot building. She said they do have their team present available to answer any questions. Staff had no comment relative to what the applicant just stated. Public Input Eric Sutherland said he'regrets this has delayed the other proceedings this evening. He does believe he was correct that he'd already created a person of interest in this matter by speaking to it on the consent agenda. If you wish to procedurally correct this situation in the future, he asked that the chair ask that people be asked to pull items of the consent agenda before the citizen participation portion of the meeting so they do not take up the public's time by speaking to items on the consent agenda. And then speaking to them again as he is now. Sutherland said he appreciates Deputy City Attorney's reference to LUC that speaks to relevancy. There are many times he would pray for a little more attention to the LUC because he thinks there have been times in the past when it's been abused --- not so much by the public but by city staff or developers. He thinks they manipulate the process to the detriment of the public. He thinks we have a pretty good code Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 2 this community. He thinks we're doing a lousy job. He said he's not arguing against the concept, he's arguing against the execution of it. He thinks the city needs the 'analog' of the board overseeing how we're 'doling out' these millions of dollars in public subsidies. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said since Mr. Sutherland has expressed a wish that he be given a party in interest status for the purpose of filing an appeal, we ought to take this item off the consent agenda He said the board can either take note of what he's already said or if you want to make a more pure process, to ask him to repeat his comments. Consent Agenda (Both items were eventually moved to Discussion) 1. Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR, # SPA130004 2. Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment & Final Plan, #FDP130040 Chair Smith asked if staff or any member of the audience or board wished to pull the item remaining on the Consent Agenda. No one did. Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consisted of Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Member Schneider said he had questions and he'd like to pull the item from consent He wondered how we sell a part of a parcel and referenced materials in the read before packet regarding selling a part of the parcel. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the LUC allows for non -regulated land transfers. Non -regulated land transfers allow anyone to sell any parcel of land no matter the size. As a home rule city we have legislation that you can sell parcels without going through the subdivision process. Eckman said you can't develop, however, unless it's platted as a subdivision. Member Hart withdrew his motion. Discussion Agenda: 1. Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR, # SPA130004 2. Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment & Final Plan, #FDP130040 3. Redtail Pond Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, # PDP130030 Chair Smith asked if the order items were pulled indicated the order of review. Eckman said he thought it might follow the order of the agenda but it's up to the chair to decide. Chair Smith asked for a show of hands of who was present to speak to either of the items. There were none except for Mr. Sutherland for Item 2 — Foothills Redevelopment. Eckman said there is a code provision in Section 2.2.7 that states the decision maker (the chair) may exclude testimony or evidence that it finds to be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. Eckman said the chair needs to decide if you're hearing testimony that is relevant to the LUC criteria for which you measure a development application. If you choose to, you may exclude testimony that is not relevant. Member Kirkpatrick asked if the chair thought it would be prudent to move the item that everyone was here to discuss to the first item. Chair Smith indicated no. He said he thinks we might be able to complete the first two items quickly. Member Carpenter said because no one appears to be here to speak to the Front Range Community College SPAR, do we need to have an applicant presentation or Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Member Heinz arrived late. Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Gloss, Lorson, Levingston, Holland, Barnes, Virata, Siegmund, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review CDNS Director Kadrich reviewed the agenda. 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 items. • 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: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he's going to take a leap of faith and speak to an item on the Consent Agenda to elevate his legal status to that of a person of interest should he wish to appeal. He said he objects to Item 2, the Foothills Redevelopment Consolidated Maior Amendment & Final Plan on the basis of the LUC chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4. The other thing he'd like to talk about is the fact that there is an increasing nexus between public financing of private development and the private development process itself. He said the board has the responsibility of reviewing development but increasingly there is this other component that is outside the board's purview. It does not have the benefit from the same review. He said there is no citizen review of how we subsidize private development using public funds in