Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
THE SLAB - PDP - PDP150016 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
A rn •r Kw� � �fYH;QR7 -` .. �1'�i+P• .ry <ij A>'� ''�J'..d! •�� � p 1 za" �wi I Ifldl� Iu IR y3' ff 1 ` �' •i Mil dill°1I�i, ��4. i11t1f1'1 'I ���� �Ifiii�lll1 � I WvMwl 313M I r f P'e� 9 Oo 125 25 so 808 Prospect Road Conceptual Site Plan M 3/19 f- 532/1260 1075/838 1071 /831 4/7 --*— 531/1275 /---- 0/3 d c m fn U N a 0 0 a r v v La SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _-/«-DELICH -71 [—ASSOCIATES N f AM/PM Prospect Road Figure 8 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 145 TABLE 3 Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Prospect Road/Prospect Lane (stop sign) EB LT/T A A NB LT/RT D E TABLE 4 Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Level of Service kdwseWon Movement AM PM Prospect Road/Prospect Lane EB LT/T A B (stop sign) NB LT/RT D E Prospect Road/Site Access (stop sign) SB RT B C /I LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -7,1 rASSOCIATES 144 N f AM/PM f 528/1256 0/3 Prospect Road 1071 /831 4/7 v v in SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 -/,/ L-DELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -1 FASSOCIATES 143 aD c a7 J a) a 2 a SITE GENERATED Prospect Road 4 N AM/PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 --//_`DELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -7,1 rASSOCIATES 142 N 808 West Prospect Road Lake Street 25% 5% Prospect Road 55% En 15% �y M N ��� U a L> Spring Creek Trail SCALE: 1 "=500' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 -// I DELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -71 [—ASSOCIATES 141 9 TAF AD SAI,IaT 1Pl11� d _ .(-TS _ [lceesue ------------------i-o'w�ww.---._-� A[f1S9 A OURIA AFMIMDS d-0, _ S � .. BLUE MINE w.WlMtMI_ awrc lm - J •'. , I I I 9 .. OIFIM,MIC lfy' `'� D1T,%10Y q.0' WA II/ s, VMfGY s' n3a 9�'p T 1 1 q NQ L 11 aT eAI!!r'rr✓c1,ww MQLZ55 1 m ,m c,Mln YM, d OaT DATt �� SRfI FFILf F M]LGMIMI 11(11I waxi eAa PAW ucaum - ea Wwnlc bl uTel A ,MroAElrn I (i- w TMus[- l CNIM In TAIB�L (II)—u — 1 7t' ^' �.•� 'xlr= r IT �� I I �l" 10 Ca Valet R aaa (MIT To _ A4NIR'TMl owns -- y RMI ", IMawlm) I e I y unn I- ttm I� i r-- IknFlrew A9fA Dnlfc � aMM,Ic' 1 1h1bF _Win 1_ { f151M. . AIriM!-A, /ANTI!-CII! e, �—Aoa! nKalw.� W � M• 0N 9MEN (.Iw US du 9D. ABA LOU sm f17A. L`i: DL16M GiNui)gb lmn,0 caw MAIM KI o[MmY WIIIQP E `Illj DMwWI osnml Ias! a cr®!mY ITTAVaYMR MIAMI" =w I'MR11 Sla W.W 9 (I N I[) pMAl xlfl Y A{C=M) ,19 1,d9 Yaw, EYp1NL W _ % I SIwi Ia0 USI MK,p,1 - SIM M IWI lAMI)XDI aSA (SHRUB GM) .oN 2= IDYL GM Ea/CF. - AdM15lp IYD M HIM, NAT .'AII R!/[I!T COIO[1C 90lTAI.M an I YM (%IOI: dM1R . 949 JIB13/ WAMJ%I PRICIP m VADK "VW Ad I1 SIDAISS) [M71[3D 0=116. flaOt,VNa LW Wt ®YDSIa AA4NII ,Mw 16[ MN low DA M IMIS . N • (v l Ic n SIOrr wf ShTis MSM(aMQ:I !M un (5C 7rw MR M mx- _ I.N .0 - as x ([1TYlbw. MfAt YUIT-lAYLY ATYI� M!T 1a.a1D 4 W M l u ARI[MD) A wwy)) - ?Je a: IMIRm iun .IYOrrYee rt wrs,r.. 4" u+YrJE ewDllc .n le.em no DB.9[ rcmcu t aoclD VaBWIc Do WMw. I RMrsgITMYfIlr > 19.,b JD.6 , -- D aI�CcNmWnOCmfwT_lm:r MAT i441I 1)4 me a oVd lIWOr �- 1B NWI.rim. 9TN! BEN. Ytln 17 IIA) I" 5lapR}' 17 LMS 27 i! Malls 19 a(a.1) a (9W t 9XI WITS . 1t„nrgg m 'M ms IwAarwsc ps'.Ir - rDaw t 1EMIMIA uxrs �W TbTa - !(1.7 9MS/BDDd1) I71M. WN0[MAwY (Bm3Y• )D _W vrx.YY WeXAME MD Mir)) m m a) 7J60 al AS DK= a¢ PAR M as (six) caaarz nmTTN [-W lBaD w A4NaC y MITI .a .w TDIX - n SITE PLAN Figure 4 -/I LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -7,1 rASSOCIATES 140 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement of Service _ ___Level AM PM Prospect Road/Prospect Lane (stop sign) EB LT/T A A NB LT/RT C E TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rea Trips Ru In Rea Out Rota In Rate Out 220 Apartment 70 Beds/Persons 2.65 186 0.04 3 0.15 11 0.27 19 0.15 11 J/ LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -7j rASSOCIATES 139 --o-- 478/1138 0/3 970/753 4/7 v v U-) a� c �v U a N 0 a RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _-/A-DELICH -71 [-ASSOCIATES AM/PM Prospect Road Figure 3 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 138 CURRENT GEOMETRY _—// _LDELICH -7 1 [—ASSOCIATES N an - Denotes Lane Prospect Road Figure 2 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 137 N 808 West Prospect Road Lake Street Prospect Road m .r a� .f m m (n y N y �io O U U) Spring Creek Trail SCALE: 1 "=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 —/I LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -7,f r—ASSOCIATES 136 Figure 8 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane and Prospect Road/Site Access intersections. Table 4 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane and Prospect Road/Site Access intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing control and geometry. The recommended short range (2020) geometry is shown in Figure 9. The right- in/right-out access should be designed to discourage other traffic movements. This is the existing geometry. A westbound right -turn lane is not required based on Figure 8-4 in LCUASS. According to Figure 8-1 in LCUASS, left -turn lanes are required on all arterial streets. This segment of Prospect Road is constrained and does not have a left - turn lane. This is addressed by the City of Fort Collins in the "West Central Area Plan" (adopted March 17, 2015). The 808 West Prospect Road site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the 808 West Prospect Road site. The 808 West Prospect Road site is located within an area termed as "pedestrian district," which sets the pedestrian level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories, except for Street Crossing at LOS B. There are three destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed development at 808 West Prospect Road: 1) the residential area to the west, 2) the residential area to the south, and 3) Colorado State University to the north. The primary pedestrian destination is CSU. There is not likely to be a significant pedestrian affinity between this site and the other residential areas shown. Pedestrians will have direct access to Lake Street via the emergency access. The adopted plan for this corridor shows a multi -use path on the north side of Prospect Road. It is assumed that this multi -use path will be implemented. Practically speaking, the only significant pedestrian destination is CSU. For that reason, it is suggested that CSU be the only pedestrian destination considered in this evaluation. With the availability of the emergency access to Lake Street, the pedestrian level of service will be met for CSU. This development will build the 10 foot multi -use path along the site frontage. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Based upon Fort Collins Bicycle LOS criteria, there is one destination area within 1320 feet of the 808 West Prospect Road site: Colorado State University to the north. Appendix F contains a Bicycle LOS Worksheet. Bicyclists will have access to Lake Street via the emergency access. Lake Street has on street bike lanes. With the multi- use path and direct access to Lake Street, the bicycle level of service will be met. Currently, this area is not served by Transfort. The nearest bus stop is at the Prospect Road/Shields Street intersection. It is concluded that, with development of the 808 West Prospect Road, the future level of service at the key intersections will be acceptable. The Prospect/Site Access intersection should be designed as a right-in/right-out access. -// LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS, September 2015 -71 rASSOCIATES 135 Road/Prospect Lane intersection. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection currently meets the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with existing control and geometry. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. A description of level of service for unsignalized intersection from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 (revised per staff comments regarding type of intersection) showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The 808 West Prospect Road site is in an area termed "mixed use districts." In areas termed "mixed use districts," acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/arterial, arterial/collector and arterial/local intersections. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. At unsignalized collector/local intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. Figure 4 shows the site plan for the development at 808 West Prospect Road. The development at 808 West Prospect Road is a 70 bed apartment complex. Currently the site is vacant (foundation slab). Access to the site will be via a right- in/right-out access to/from Prospect Road. There will be emergency access to Lake Street that will, also, serve pedestrians and bicyclists. Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contain in Trip Generation, 9`h Edition, ITE is customarily used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at a site. However, the City of Fort Collins has performed a trip generation study for apartments in Fort Collins. Therefore, the trip generation rates calculated by the City will be used. A person/bed was used as the trip generation variable. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of the 808 West Prospect Road development resulted in 186 daily trip ends; 14 morning peak hour trip ends; and 30 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for 808 West Prospect Road site and is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment of 808 West Prospect Road. Figure 7 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour traffic at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2020) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. Traffic volumes at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection were increased at a rate of 2.0 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection will meet the City of Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards during the morning and afternoon peak hours with the existing control and geometry in the short range (2020) future. _// LDELICH 808 West Prospect Road TIS. September 2015 -71 [—ASSOCIATES 134 DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 7, MEMORANDUM TO: Robin/Christian Bachelet, Maxiimo Development Group City of Fort Collins �QPDO� VQN M. FROM: Joseph Delich DATE: September 17, 2015 : 4 SUBJECT: 808 West Prospect Road Transportation Impact Study o4ess (File: 1564ME01) sm This memorandum addresses the transportation impacts of the proposed development at 808 West Prospect Road. The site location is shown in Figure 1. The development at 808 West Prospect Road is a 70 bed apartment building development north of Prospect Road Street in Fort Collins. The scope of this study was discussed with the Fort Collins Traffic Operations Engineer. A brief memorandum was requested. The Base Assumptions form is provided in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the current geometry at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Prospect Road is to the south of (adjacent to) the proposed 808 West Prospect Road site. It is an east -west street classified as a four -lane arterial street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has a four - lane cross section in this area. At the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection, Prospect Road has a westbound left-turn/through lane, a through lane in each direction, and an eastbound through/right-turn lane. The Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection has stop sign control on Prospect Road. The posted speed limit in this area of Prospect Road is 35 mph. There is an approximately 4 foot sidewalk along both sides of Prospect Road. There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Road. Prospect Lane is to the south of the proposed 808 West Prospect Road site. It is a north -south street classified as a local street according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Prospect Lane only has south leg at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. Currently, Prospect Lane has a two-lane cross section in this area. At the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection, Prospect Lane has all movements combined into a single lane. There is no posted speed limit on Prospect Lane. There are sidewalks along both sides of Prospect Lane. There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Lane. Figure 3 shows recent peak hour counts at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection. The traffic volumes at the Prospect Road/Prospect Lane intersection were collected in September 2015. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix B. Table 1 shows the current morning and afternoon peak hour operation of the Prospect 133 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 6 Another participant stated that they had taken an under -performing asset and made something quite nice. Architecture is nice, less bedrooms, more parking, etc. Well done. There was a suggestion that additional detail and scaling to bring the building to an even further personal level would be beneficial. They suggested window sills and similar improvements. There was a question about the project timeline. The presenters stated that they have to go through the planning process and do not anticipate being finished with this until November/December. They thought it was likely they would break ground this spring. There was an area on the site plan related to access to the site that was dashed in. There was a question on why. The presenters clarified that this is somewhat tentative right now. There is some concern that the geometry and radius gets so fine that people might try to do a left turn anyway, then curb gets destroyed, etc. So, this area is still being worked on and they intend to continue to work with Traffic Engineering on this item. Participants reiterated the importance of getting this right and wanted to stress what a problem allowing people to turn against traffic would create - would cause a lot of traffic congestion. There was a question about how far the City's median would go and whether it could be extended in an effort to keep people from turning left. The presenters thought there might be some room for negotiation in this regard. There was concern about getting rid of the chance for people to U-turn as well. The City Planner stated that at the time the project gets submitted to the City, all related documents will be placed on the City's website. Anyone interested would have access to the plans, could see how things have changed, etc. He added that there will be several additional opportunities to provide feedback as the plan progresses through the process. Adjourned at 8:30 pm. M 132 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 5 A participant encouraged having outdoor gathering space where residents could interact and get to know one another. He stated that this helps people break down the sense of having a little cubicle where they simply come and go and don't get to know their neighbors. He stated that having this type of space is good and asked about the number of spaces provided. The presenters mentioned that they are looking at developing a couple other spaces throughout the site that can be used for this. Someone added that it would be nice to do an inside/outside space that would serve this purpose as well. The presenters clarified that they have looked at a leasing office and could combine this purpose with some lounge space. It was mentioned that it is important for people to know who they are living with and to have some interaction. Someone added that opportunities for engagement with neighbors are good. Think people using the walkway and bicycle access will get this type of interaction as well. The presenters committed to continuing to explore this. A question was posed as to whether the detention basin on NE comer could be adapted for this type of use (gathering space). The presenters mentioned that the City's criteria does allow for multi -use in these types of areas. There might be an option to put some benches or picnic tables in there if allowed. Red Fox Meadows is a good example of how this has been done effectively. Think there are opportunities for these spaces to have more uses. There was some question about the pavers being used to capture stormwater and whether these were problematic (ones in Old Town were mentioned as having plugged up). It was clarified that they do have to be maintained and that the key is to do routine and timely maintenance. There was some question about how lighting is going to work. Have bushes close to the building — great place for people to hide, etc. The presenters stated that the previous design had grates over the egress areas from the basements to keep people going down — they could only go up. They were open to provide more lighting in these areas to make this safer. The added that their goal is to ensure they meet dark skies requirements and light closer to the ground versus having light spill into the sky. The lighting plan will at least meet any minimum requirements of the City for parking lots and walkways. There was a question about whether a fence would be installed. The presenters stated that they are looking at doing a boundary fence to create some privacy. Not sure what fencing will be made of — cedar or steel (with vines growing up). Do want to make sure they are being sensitive to light issues. The owner of the Blue Ridge Apartments stated that he has not had any trouble with break-ins or safety. He stated that they are all fortunate to have a neighborhood where safety issues are not as prevalent. Others added that they want to keep it that way and build in whatever features they can to do so. The developer added that they will be installing a security camera system on the premises as well. He also mentioned that they have reached out to City Police to see if they are interested in any of the basement space for a substation. Nothing finalized in this regard. There was a comment to the presenters that they had done a great job with the architecture. Like that the building is scaled and more compatible with the neighborhood. Think they are respectful of the historic buildings. Hope it will be the example for future developments. -5- 131 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 4 CSU to see of the Round the Horn bus service on campus could provide any service from this location. It was noted that some of the lack of service today may be due to the fact that so many roads are closed on or around campus due to construction activities. There was brief discussion on when Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code (Historic and Cultural Resources) comes into play. It was clarified that this occurs whenever a proposed project is adjacent to a historic designated or eligible property. A participant asked if CSURF owns the property that is being developed. It was confirmed by a CSURF representative at the meeting that CSURF does own the property and that they are a separate entity from the university. CSURF is contemplating entering into a ground lease with the developer so that they can build the project. He also clarified that over time the two houses next door to the proposed project were combined into one parcel and reiterated that 808 is a separate parcel. There was a question regarding whether CSURF is subject to City zoning. It was confirmed that they are since they are considered a private entity. There was some discussion about the type of units on the project. The presenters stated that there will be a mix of studios, one -bedroom and two -bedroom units. They plan to lease by unit, not by bedroom. They clarified that there are a higher number of one -bedroom and studios units in this project and, it has been their experience that people tend to have less parties with this type of unit mix. They stated that providing a high quality project and a mix of this type of units is likely to encourage a different type of renter and not necessarily typical students. A participant asked whether the project will have a swimming pool. The presenters confirmed that it will not, just outdoor seating/gathering areas. The owner from Blue Ridge Apartments stated that the kids at his complex are different these days and he doesn't have anyone using his pool. But, there was some concern expressed about the huge welcome back pool party that was experienced a couple of years ago that caught so much attention. A participant mentioned that it is challenging to develop something economically more feasible, with a large amount of density, and still provide a nice building that has some interest. He stated that this project shows much more effort in this regard than other projects he has seen recently. He wanted to give the development team kudos for making these extra efforts. There was a question as to whether the geo-thermal system that was started with previous project would be used. The presenters stated that they are hoping to use the wells that have been drilled, but are not sure whether the system is viable at this point. If it is intact, they will look at using it. There was a question about the basement units having only one window. The presenters mentioned that most units only have one exterior wall and, therefore, only one window that gives natural light. Some of the two -bedroom units have more. -4- 130 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 3 reiterated that most of the time their cars sit in the parking lot. There was some question about vehicle access to the north of the project to help avoid Prospect impacts. It was mentioned that the easement obtained for the walkway which will be used by pedestrians, bicycles, and for emergency access does not allow for regular vehicle traffic. A participant mentioned that if we cannot get access for cars to the north then we should eliminate the damn stadium. Participants were highly supportive of keeping the proposed building within the historical context of the neighborhood. A building to the west of the project site, the Kaufman House, was identified as a historical home that is being preserved. Craftsman -type homes, such as Blevins house, were also mentioned as important historical properties. Participants think it is important to continue this Craftsman -type architecture. They think it might provide an example so that future projects would do the same thing — create buildings that would have the same elements and that would maintain the character of the neighborhood. It was suggested that the developers add window treatments or other exterior detailing that would more solidify the Craftsman style. Participant would like to see the whole block from Whitcomb down to Prospect incorporate this style. Another participant had just moved his 96 year old dad to McKenzie Place. He really liked the way the development picked up this type of architecture, even in the way they did the porticos outside as well as sloping vertical elements. It was his opinion that this really defined the building as a Craftsman style. The presenters stated that their goal with this design is to make enough of a statement with some modem elements that people know it is a building of today while still maintaining respect for the past. Some participants stated a preference for sticking to a true Craftsman style and not mixing metaphors. It was suggested that the more modern features really take away from the Craftsman style. The presenters added that one challenge with staying true to a Craftsman style with a building of this size is not creating something that tends to look like a resort property. They added that nothing shown is final and mentioned that they do have time to make some changes. There was some discussion on whether there were any plans for the adjacent historic buildings. The presenters stated that the scope of this project did not include the historic properties at this point and clarified that these are on a different parcel. They are just addressing the 808 parcel at this point. There was a question about the density of project. A participant stated that this project would be an extension of campus as far as housing goes. He was in favor of the project stating that this is the whole idea — to put higher density projects where they make the most good. There was some discussion about whether bus service from either CSU or the City would serve this property and whether residents would gain any advantage due to this. A participant stated that a Transit line currently goes along Prospect now but doesn't stop there. The presenters clarified that there are future transit stops planned as part of the West Central Area Plan improvements that may provide additional access then. This was an item identified for follow- up - verify with City Transportation Planning. It was also suggested that a follow-up occur with -3- 129 Neighborhood Meeting — 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) June 18, 2015 Page 2 right out is what is proposed) and about the sight difficulties that might be created later on as the landscape trees planted start to mature. There was a question about the elevation of the 3'd story. The presenters estimated the height at the mid-30' to 40' range. The highest points of the building were described as having a parapet with a membrane roof below it. Questions followed about the height of the Juliette balconies — how high off of the slab are these? The height was estimated at about 10' and 22' off slab, depending on their location on the building. There was a question as to whether the Juliette balconies were a final design feature. The presenters noted that nothing is final at this point — everything is still in the conceptual phase. They mentioned that they have also looked at just using larger windows. The goal is to try to bring natural light into the units since the units are kind of deep due to design and lot. Participants just wanted to ensure that there would be no open balconies or patios on the 3'd floor. It was confirmed that there would be none. A development at 1335 W Elizabeth, near Five Guys Burgers and Fries, was mentioned as a finished product that has these Juliette features. They encouraged people to go by and take a look at these. There was a question related to the variance requested for the cantilever sections of the building that extend out past the plane of the building. The presenters confirmed that the cantilever portions do extend out into the setback. They stated that there was a flat building face in the previous architectural plans but they chose to come back with the cantilevers to give the building more interest. There was some discussion about bicycle access to the campus. Is the expectation for bicyclists to head to the north to get to campus? Would they use the emergency access? The presenters stated that a component of the West Central Area Plan, as well as the previous project plan, included an 8' pathway which extends out to the emergency access. They have included this in the proposed project as well. It is anticipated that the path will be concrete and pavement or asphalt. They clarified that this path will be closed to vehicle use and primarily open to pedestrian, bicycle and emergency vehicle use. Focus turned back to traffic issues. A participant mentioned that the traffic on Prospect now is atrocious, evidenced by the accident earlier tonight. When the north/south bus system on Mason was put in place, this participant thought the buses would be the problem. He stated that he lives in the Sheeley addition with Prospect being his only way in or out of his subdivision. He is finding that pedestrians and bicyclists are way worse than the bus problem he expected. He suggested a need for an over- or underpass to help mitigate this. He asked if there was any access to the north of the project onto Lake Street for pedestrians. The presenters confirmed that there was and highlighted the pedestrian/bike access that hooks into Lake Street from the project plans. The participant added that he thought having access to Lake Street was a crucial element versus increasing the traffic impact on Prospect. The owner of Blue Ridge Apartments stated that his development has more units and twice as many beds as the proposed project. He stated that his parking lot is only half full and that the kids who live there do so because of easy access to the campus. He added that they generally travel by bike or walk, at least to campus, and that any traffic generated by them generally occurs after hours when this would have less impact on normal traffic patterns on Prospect. He -2- 128 Planning, Development & Transportation City�� Community Development & Neighborhood Services Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 / 970.416.2740 970.224.6134-fax fcgov. com Notes from Neighborhood Meeting for 808 W. Prospect Road (the Slab) Meeting Date: June 18, 2015; 7:00 — 8:30 p.m. Ian Shuff, Principal of alm2s Architects and Craig Russell, Principal of Russell -Mills Studio provided an overview of this project. Generally, the proposed project is for a 3-story, multi -family apartment building, with 59 dwelling units, 70 bedrooms, 83 parking spaces, and 70 bike parking spaces on a 1.44 acre lot in the H-M-N (High Density Mixed -Use) zoning district. The project is designed to work with the new plans for the Prospect Corridor and the vision created by the West Central Area Plan for this area. Although the HMN zone allows for five stories, the building has been scaled back to three, and steps down in places to be sensitive to surrounding historic properties and to stay in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The project strives to balance open space with the increased density that is allowed. The presenters mentioned that they had given this same presentation to the Landmark Preservation Commission who had some interest in the project due to surrounding historic properties. The presenters provided a comparison from a previously approved project to the proposed one and then described their project in more detail. Public input followed: There was a question about whether the large Spruce trees would truly be able to stay since the City is taking 20' for the Prospect changes. The presenters stated that they are working with the City Forester to see how they can work around this and find ways to make accommodations that would enable them to keep the trees. They think the trees can be maintained. A participant asked if this meant that the sidewalk at the proposed building would move back. The presenters confirmed this but stated that the curb line is not changing. The participant asked whether on the parkway where landscaping trees are being placed the area would get narrower to help accommodate the trees. The presenters confirmed this and stated that they had worked on an inventory and really think they have found a way to keep the trees. They added that if something happens where trees would have to be removed, they would alter the project accordingly to make something else work. They stated that they could make some adjustments to the plan and have the sidewalk go around the trees if needed, etc. There was some concern about the difficulty of in/out access off of Prospect Drive — there were a couple of mentions of an accident that had happened on Prospect just prior to the meeting. Concerns included ensuring that there were no left-hand turns from the property (right in and 127 /;1V hom SoAhEat 3 EAST ELEVATION Z RORTR EIEVATIOIY _ fm•rr L NOTE: w� mmEo �u<rwui nurmc wm w�ouxrx rux�rz mw�i� nremx�uurrtoaam�wx¢ ixe �uemw. Al,10 O O b- a V a � N 0 C �o a Nco 3 0 d v 000 LL v Vlewfrom Sank West �wEsr ELEVATION NOTE: ru mauo eurn� nurwi.s. wo «Ecwnux �awuer wo uEnr ue m re warn a mxnw�u rr,wuorow�w mi unnxz x )♦ � a ■ _ - — f Opp �� � ■ �. it �� i � , __a � � r ■ ©r - 10 m m 0 C u O o. u a N N .0 0 C m m = Lm 3 � v 00 LL Bll[ fiOa A9NDSMR rpxw w+ « sx r.orfxtt tts efrsrm YDv ---------------------------------------------- YfXNCM1 91FDW14 ' �fa aft aww i iR - BIRMD aNts ]0 - at[x ME(aIW�4 w[ - �f f•rs O1Y• fp> - NsfwY w¢fxwa >t - 5.O pbPSfFD f0 - Adll NiafA.4 SI - Mtllf /lO 1M/DaA4 Hill �.' 6Nx UW WM =Y-e 0 f epsYa[ ANRFfY 6YIYMPI (XF1 Yw nDxc wDsc[n inu) [nman }1 ED D S !Dp 1pIC NtlWIW armor FYrcwnos W nnxas xDranamf _ --r- Nf•16 oxxnis anDF+ rtY,rs xfn oHc OW[PO5 •YItlGYBI. dM DVI -�� (r(MT }'�J aM AYFPoGw ME9LW YMIIM IY(ElY -If lul —y W 'Mturx vnxY I .ux ca•DDfxf.nr ew�mm wnc (Wn-sn) .�a 6 � wvfoe. Y w.onaa .muu an�wcf p 9 . n RIV f 9ms� mxww Alf �� t 3 1q1 ..•anrs auwdr vmmar .NE. 2 H E E �• °a" aa�n¢ YaDlq Y a �®19R «I ' �.D O MD5'O•Bx�f DfliMdtl6.9&� p nxrw. mum amUSD amf xwvue (•� taNs swan twm swn maam a (7 nvann.s Yuonnuus unfft[K •Donxr•a � z w � wt.s ern 'x.�tY tmnt[ •nrts s•o aurt� n 3 u RMM Y m1DN Pf.MSC lFK ilW � W OJ � 5H5 4I1[ W mml aIRPIMf m a n w Q Mlf%xx oast g N � m[xrnx p IYRRE IIDIRDINiE YItDY LMRi l.MOI N �Q PW$ •IDD'PL.Itl' Dwr W00 M I J Z •• GVNYGb5161 ILVfRDM f(A1fFR ftID P/9 � W 'YMl ittNS1FR' R • iacfaf•Dw sfrtsan au wvw a _ � saxanus �tYmdns w•• ov vn PAS - wD Ialfu Y LDIMbYYE' •00lN•C YNWD• oaf.: DD m :ofe Nn rxrtDsx iRDIDx E D Wi / / fw fn••c. nYnm. nDeYc cmwft D,« er a or N ^ „ fsf rorsmox wema srru* uza wsma si«f xv a iD m m x LPJ OI I 5 ■, Rmlfa fmiw iR[ a . I 11eB eMBclrr IeSea I. Nl f1611E 11etS'/IIN M IYIS a M at[IOYNI NO xlNl rIx w11M1 .Y(A B/riN roles swu mlw NN a rnoluim uwm xwm w Ms rlN6 rw Wool]. ]. Mw M � u1[ a Nn MORCRo Oenw n¢ tINH slwl H M an w ru 18Q • row-xw arm w]ss •arum N■oNtt w menu rsR fNILWm NID NnMlelt M dsnnevrt ]. NI nMrtafo f1151xc llm sI1M ■ xaxm ro M 1m a roar aua rwfmx nNovms. Mf we■a No a5vul stINS a RKaYI(D n • elaess nai a•w • a1x10rr as a DIELAMELLUM ran uvula BMormt lrnr¢ xae nfa■m ar woc •. row ro No ow.a caamrt1n11. avnua ■as z fnfam Nano Ns ROaLIFo oeslea ] 1 s e aWm ■m Ieix 1-rods, M Isa4B 11BN m (0 rm IIIb M 1NIB1 a vi-rsvr !W) a _ _ — _ _ _ M MP VE a1C11AfA 6 I>rARq. BEI[ 9Y11 a M nR■cf w eafepl 6 faRBxl. WIWY. aBldS w iLL ■ow M iflYt[D leFf nwRtl'a11 tDlt la 5. nUBAa M aMBlNrIaM nrcf a aKsalNxl, M Ne+111rerl 511YL RfYB1r1 M c1ENMo a faxlaJll Q IMIOIxI w M $Iwra Np n9V54 a V61r WIfR1l mM 4G V/IIIB. w$. Nrpa saaxla NnMNI, wwert. Intro a w NN ollea wiFIN MSfrLL to M Irt a • MF wnw M op u[ a Nn nMRtRo t1m w lmle a 1� e. M DY.wa NWeflll. IMFS SYe6 w rtaB13 IMY B[ ralElm 10 MY PRORLi[B iIBF. i4WI 14r3 MO SPNxitD rROY W16 W.- TI INO I f16Wr MfAS. xY➢ eOIR-a-•in Na UMT UYIEMIS WY Y z x (6 (3) WMe wW rnfcr]a xroRcmc rooa Nara as llef u lea]nu x v■nolox (cN]) MosB. tna wY a f 1 Mla■BB � �_ J n /UNMIIwEo W N•aa Bait i-ron nNlS • WIA■N a rBR (W) rFFI NMAI Na IYe1G .. eRBal w MPf riW swe-io-SM£ km Im ONSa RNeIF%a 901 MeK I'M - L M r�6irWllfx a NNq M6.VO1 U6 w Nn uWOrTAO m i si,r prMlnx M Mw m (e) 111M A IdII Bf BLttBeBBm 0. Bala aa01 M Inor 331nr a MarclfB 0651ea IBBaS N • MMN CPIs R Belnl'-la■ (]I) 106 M NBB oBT6 alnllal 1 61NlIDm fla■ M rIQ a M ME (dlRn bAe) NO 6 4/IID row 11M welalw •T NlEk 1 1 BaAa NfAlr AB a9aeetD M M 6Wn Qaf. All • o-] I e 3-• B sa 10-11 s to ts-le u IB DIx R 13 '- Q e. Ml e[[ al10rIL SIaM Slal BC a}IRBIlD dnm a M SPa9a IFSSx6 SWWII (rF8 1 - MY ]t) w CbeeCl • $IwFY 6 IIbE fIBI1Nr M nanB IeeR • M NFA I / TREE MWATREE TM pNRT (, / 11 1 SElwl pN 15• rM ApFa i ] BBFIBW FIII rY MY 110Ye B 3 ealvn F111 r aM 1f] o Be3aM rut r aM Icoe e s BIB■ rut r aM IBaF e �iii:+tS e®Iln e sleuw ful r Mae e u55 10 r rM oo[ 1 anaeae mM e x1■ID aBl■■Bm ( w I'm IBI]ea ] e 11�m11■ww ID' rM IIIW u sr ,r to sa■ ]-rM lntosB ] li II MI■O wlpBa'p 5Y rM Ixllftr ] Ii MrYEMI IY FM 5 ♦ raIENt 3 isaew ■uur Ir aM rau[ a Ir li Q ]I• FM rYllEa ] II IB 9Mrf Il,' rM� xama ]8 �. B ]r vec rr ;M - Aafa M - r11o1evr s ] — I T l I II \\ �f"`-ter 1 � aMA0 n ID to ae¢ a 9aQ ]Y FM - rn1[a rM - T4r IaN ■ xsr3 eoa 5s y Bs 1 l2aim MT R clAN xY8 ^ ^ I 10 xv o iv m Iv �ontx a ¢71� wmv ar s tr.rsr ay: cB sls.l TR5101 THE SLAB PROPERTY LANDSCAPE PLANS ❑ THE SLAB ZONING MAP: HMN ZONE nuarn CONTEXT MAP v n0{TP IAI$ I i ], MRCPNM PW WNIINM, CIN a FW COLLINS, =NV V INtlY[R, STAR w WLIMN (7w 6 No r PRx,vry mI) StlaI Lml I.WMf/P[ CMR n,oi wl s * M PRBi Pun WIN IMONMC SfI[Bu[ MO wn wioi wawa Aux LPN' Was � 4 2=5 GtlW BY dl LP001 SLUE "ICE— - - C9Maa[ - A' MMJI. Sm ONY OaR1116 WIN PM EMR ':..,.,:.. - BILE RDa r m ME m01, Sul moa IpxxWNIxls IAMIExR MRWIP ml cacErE - e' 1x"x, sm aW gwlm rural DaryM 2'4' OhwWRC "' f-0<OEO CPIs - .' IIRCN. MOSED I� OD"11 y R0� PswacI% FNWoww(w,W m CaN sEErs FW "BRT BIR/PEfMSII1W1 IIiCMI\llgl) _ _ _ _ _ _ le' P-a' 911EEI ':;IJi' Y•:.d' CRUSxIR 1111E5 PMHRI _ _ �' rlFa1"D rT4 /• I-0. I fagF ____ MOEm scuscow Wo M"ALLMG � � PR u Hm) r PROVEN ma 'O i � FAglfaa M6 -IY-O' I-y e'_r •q 1•d M PI E / oxsr"c Alas M ^ M PI.WIML NIG OIU 00 PAKMf Ia I"MIMG ai m . KDEMRSW WIMC M e' y I..�J CEUP4BIE BOIW9 1 �F- BW Rx]l O-W IT _ M eJl tpp]pp ®VI - 1 pp MOO TsI E 4.-0• ESHMILI r_ MRE i' ♦` EA91/PFLlL010 ECEPBLIE e _ Is..I AM MITI— 1. E — -- — -- -- — I -- BxC� WRLssII NHIR WI6� m\@ FOR ["CI I lcffl; a stab uPNxM 5'IIRICMIf$ I o -0 1. IEim m M Else. as [IOmsg M."6 ME, a1ME0 xFuaV, x REO"D"g SEE ADS Mvmlr � MAR I J. mm M SL®RdM PW R FOR E MI Itt�lla6. wMt ,wo 1 Wa M1 MSEIil115, M. MKn SMEIS. WIG ON) FIBER SUIMY CPN® EF PMgRC (I lj d �....I� t ARBOR Ram ra -- - NMriIE[IIM allt•IQ4 '' I. M 1{' 1I 1 L—Ln I A. xEm6DrtDx"1 NIS cvErtx OUST HCOW nNOld: PNE LIIESS A Mx91C RLW 6 SNOW YRM TES p.N6. .. 5. ILL RWFMV xD OgaD xOWIEO ECx"eEx EWIP1011 "UST E WREEIE0 F1DII REM W fRW .Nl1a1R1 PHPanY ND PIWC 9ELIJ. M MSFS W[E BIIP➢eg PAR/PEIs 00 IDI ACCdgLLW ORnaalr SCEaOFG 11EM fRa-Srl1(IMi SCEaI eE1S WiCEFO M R- ?R WFOaWWI WIOR 6 M 9MAIG 9W1 E L0R6rMClm BIMaI MNOR [aWOB SLCII .K OiC SU. Wl NO 0.1"9i MMR 9ML E stlE01m 0" PNRIN m wrlN t - saMaRDxc ExO"c gWrc¢. +y IMOxIxx e. WI Iee1R110 mmW ILLKOURWI urns ME9m "ex F Hg USE l s1Ell WH MRx M iBOr-GVQE EMXRFYFMrs x SFCIgM x1A E rxE Ulq USf CODE .fM Yllx _... — __� —��_ _ _ _ M • b... f.. 4 COY a iMr Ld116 LONr MD POEM UOUa HEMWOl6. ALL U01nK aanlEs * - M - MOA00 Mm M Ofl90PINla 9ML LH A fAML4.11m, NLLY SEFIOm IAxr Santa MD SIWl (FAME 9WP M-0ri GVYIIM1 se K m fxM@ OP-UOR. 5r4 IIPrt. _ _ _ _ Y e`O COxWa rx ). SV1"OC MO /UpOS91C MF r01 PFIYIim IIIM nB M"l RM6 MO WST H WPRJ.m E 9mMgh CM PEMr PRDR m CIMSaHID" See6 "I6r CO/RT YMM i � I T{JS � M 10'-0_Mlll-IrE M [M5xE sIaYW% fIM1 YM [OH aS6S 1. 9PEOAC WIWRCE R CMMIm Of M CIIT _ IRbT MVAOE M PPP10� Eg [S11MOU6MME SYSIFY. - - - P. Ill MAE Rg16 MEgm 1115i H PEM"1ENRT MICMd10. -' • .... ROBE �� 10. ML StlfWl3 .tld RYR Yllb'I Ca"aY m CIIY SIxOlA6. Ia.E4q[ RNVS WSI H Oga1RD Ri NL SIHLL ME dIME MIHHCIO6 M9 R /LL ESe"xim .1[®Hf . � McWC SPI(II ALCE59E[ PIMIMC SpL[$ YIbT SIDE MO YaIE rMM I:N M PIII YQI MIR' fl.'1 II010 OIECIIOI /LL MC[SSBF HN6 WSI STOP[ Ml YNE TWI 1:10 M HECIEM a alhl MD "RN MO "aE 11EW I:E CIp500PE —_—_—_—_—_—�_—_—_—_—_—_—______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ — _ — 11. MRAIE MYHIAM. COMIWIIS MIO R61PYIgl6 (tlMYsi. fN Nff 011ER PMMR RJR /\ � FOR EMrakfO I"NXG 111E 6Ma1HIMG a1�LWI�rrH 4TMIAIgx a Pilo hMsaP[ LV105f%APIO, salts/PIIOrO-1VLgC COLLFCIa6 (E "aMl[0 RIIDI CEOM AMY xx m w NO"Tx LSMBIIslRFO RW! UEI. CIOBES UM5 (r IHAIF➢ M EGt TMOSA OOM-COMIIpIIID COYP651 Bel£ M Mbl w1E M 6RIr a IEOMMO n"r f PoMIpN a Wr RDAgIE M E M."Ilm M MW fM$ Iz Vg OW"m aeE aural xD sDnxRx a"D.e Mp m WI61M5CI1011, As IIB1 As snlEts sDEH56, ages xn auras, BESMnm. Iwwxo a PaWEu aE m ra6MaI1W OF ms MBIFCr, swu BER[ftICEB a SOARED TO as a FORT Allis SIMDLDR AT WE OflflOPfrS UKW MDR m M CtmalrE OF CONFIEO SWIaF51p16 WO W M6R m M 6suwa a WE MD CDRFICRh OF O¢uPAxc 11 MID m aMl M ML r [,(S v Iw Na HdG1M6. R'� Oml1R0 ICONSMM Aeal BaEa "mD-us[ xmmemo mtMcp SR is a___Moiim,IlrRwtxrs NIG r Sllr NK. fcn 1r� r,MgEp� DEIeD PWIm Sur erseR D Ru Ac) ORrAIxv (EERaET Pmssl 1. aas rass ExEuxc u1rs - so DH51P. LED IbE PMNa - sLv x PLYE IAW6fNR Awn (SxxtN EBI nu zm5 mass ang xxAa - I.0 MdvEO IAE IRH R1M - gMn-MrY AnApEO caxcElr slawxx on I,wS am a16nr - w1 uers/IaE W"MM MOPOHO 11MM110 EDN1 N' (J HEEIFJ) NLiEIIRm MDmge Mom u1D lag oIg PMp6ln Mrxlwr. nnlx xx• aiA lass oe11UE uers - UP MMLkQcI. Iln�ax WIE yLx¢ ySA1LMt4) !µ Iw0 rEl MIN 1R MMNE - I.M M - OP K pWoA D xg/S EAM-FxaT ATUCEO "ant M..m sr SO NXIN) - IJe ss "Er OE16B1' . 45.) wwI& E DEHSP M ISM Ma aRSH lgap A MMEMM"Ic pU PVVOD" O - ASP T r 11.15E m.e MIT& cc MHS MHOS MD aDEgSr - PEAII(PaE PMMN (4&* ]R SPm 14.2 T11E a PAWK n""sEln [Ent MIss I)WIUE MIR - SP IMDHJIE PIER (IUD. SHRUB EA. SEED) T Ii,rle ILI SINexW PNMxG 19'.I)' - ]' O.mxVlW eJ SMIX IMIIS - fe COOEIE Dlls .IA vo 1.6 La1PAt1 PMMW (e'.IS) a (42a1) r E11100a UMrs - OI Cg11gR PM6 MgaIFW .We rb PDJ lald-f.E PyxxO (IS.IT - T OM PJAG) B 1 EMOO" WOKS . I I star-HyEe "VOV1Vxrt mass - I1 p.S svm/®Imh ITM Mnuxc OaJVMN.T (SEW). A .Ig 1T M EII0.06m eW nMeOD D 1 .Sesc,' E ■E(Bur A ) 1510 ID f0f0 BE MRDIIO NEI[tE 5r0lggN COCIVE .E 1e11 .01 mass - n ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY OBSERVATORY PARK SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (730 & 808 WEST PROSPECT ROAD) r I Irwvlmfm: x "`R xrl I...n.:"'u""" .,.• 141@igl I.rY 1 sJ:. .1711E Ml. nl ,v1wro:. m,r. . RW'LTNY/1x1 �Yn mo, rHnORVATINY PNNK 1141NVINl1N. 11.1E' cN WFol l\Illru r LM'11.1 IeNY nflJrlolw. Xb4rllalmY. - - w _ I ILIILq � m4r , II FWeIIry WIr..11111v Irm:mmfrypNY.[mLppl.., I IJn,\MryMiW141Y1.Mll„Wpl'Anury111.mIJY1'IYI.m. w.nu.Jn1Y \. We .nmx.a.MgxubAW quelm�YNe•w.Y ud full:rvW NnNm[tlurlb p x.YYY•-Rw.bY2RurIYY, v of � � iw,x. x�w nYNn IN u. Nn.•®.rllY,n N.gwrxnlo.M ulxn. rl I.ml �MxXnlniknl..n lwAlnxrr tl.M V. 0.m.d43w: Iry1 �I Y ItanWIIM Nu: IWY ILLY4a SIJ. AYYNY/N+nNA'/r.n.Mr�M Ilan ln.lanrL.Im,Wrulqu.I x::n:n.N. uvlxNulmrumbllnmm:. t - �� n OYlw m. ilwlmYl: c r urr.n'mnn'n. Anpne .x1.vIW xaamOnpUs. INIWwN IVw Nm:xdµ No.: Pamgxn Nr YgNV,W. NupVgA'In.xwr.km.Mrvl:n MM1lux'rl n.rvnd/xapny. Ixml-In•nmx. I. Mln.psl.l.bm NYY r.4LY mMm11bM. vn/Wnl'MI� IYXr:r.e n tNn:n.n x.oumRlwu: M.r X. ]Ox'. RmNinRNn.: Nmrlxxn Nn. ]00]Ig11Po. x.A:mm A:mry /mm�lnMAe/ ..r.WAwx.m I a.TmmReuvLN.Y. PublulA inYrrm4Mlo..'mre. l :w xr Imo... r An..r b r bxs cnA.w: ru.r� rIURIr ]. nv.Y..RrvO1.IrY Rn. n1e4 f.YN: Irw A. H W I RVN1nx Nx: Nrv.q:n Hu. ]rlllrrlylL . IMI in IMkn:m:...rwl nrlpY IT. LIOI N xYtrlM W m4mLY1#t. n..l:rnm M1rrnm -n rnxN.. r.ry YwRMYIb 1 enl x� I ♦. nJ nmbr,. x I I .rvm: w0 Nlb 4N. n.M.inulN n mn, Ix, w im.N�.x 1 F I,nminxe.nL I xbl NmnA41 W Iv I MO) RsxMny NN RnegMn Nu .IXI'IgILe1f I. Ae eMrnn lvmn. SItl.6.nf11ewpelb XWLlnenrin l,IMYrrmyM WMNtlpx ly IwYIYMR:.IJ'w IrNIW hvINI w0..1� t)llnrv...nrvM:xx:Mme.:f0n eY Y. nAtl'.u4�.p.YLsrly I.xill .I Ts IbN .,II Y,I�Ys Be OY OwY4 N 11.R. Nxw1 Pr .I cummlly nrJ Y NLQlpY2J,00WN MhWLI1YN.Ip1YMd1 — 1 I ®iY,ra n ,I I LOT2 C ��r I- I 1 I I I 'I I 2 tlIMMgNI i I I I 11419&fJ I I — I i I.ao� • � ,• � 2 ..I I L1f ---- ��p .• V � �• �r ieewrs er���..-- V IA .J -. 1- I II 1 •—._.� _ _ _ _ .e 1 s,o YYwm r:e.nrn-. R / / ' � I I L I I F-7 g,l _L r.mlo-1 bnf/CAncn..rw.uc.Ir..rYawmm..e.rrrwYurnl.f.I.YF IM umm,llr IYOb.AmYbrO. v.x Yw4mYb0�A.w�leb.m%o MbYIDII MWM baN Ikbl R.piYxnYALTNAgO11a011b WmbM1r.MIYYtlrtlnwly N�TArIMA W inh:x.11mm I.;A, A. MXII.L.III.1.1]rr n.rTJA, Atlwl 1F,lNl.M wvaYrlMmMYllbyml.. �OMIR rm r m bblraxw.. mMry Y1.4.Ix. v.wv.allNMe R.Ij,Y.fIYtl Y.,4. renr.Ry4xhww.ILm w.I.RYa --. �—oLWMorAxrxm -rtRTFCSt — — — — — rwnmun - w�N'ronulr ourlwsmuM - wAnxb4lwe�--- ________IWIOrRNxI aupili Wxli _ YI.IR1 '. —_� r�.OYIIYxAD11R11R rOL ♦♦ [CM141pMp 2YSWIIIT O mYYnn Y pMW x Is. uIDY QMIr�11411�'ll�— IMI • arAbwL LULxq NM olsrMu ACCE. ®NORTH .wi nr•Y�IFYn m 0 1 r YILw4nrvaRww+..wr'n.x w�,:Rmm�Own.+� T w0 OU aZ — NJ WO CU CO '5O �LL M (N 1 9RIR1 IA THE SLAB PROPERTY SITE PLANS cars i s x, aes[FRmn Rxa s�Rsw, ¢ry a wW cnua. c¢wn a irFRx, sRrt a mrnwo . (i.W � we Rcs rrasRcci Row) ❑ THE SLAB 490 ZONING MAP: HMN ZONE CONTEXT MAP // ..... sd .a tw, 41[ a R AW. [W CON}IWM SLM� csiai srt nRn csso. srt mrs .N, sm macs a nR vWomaa aas�ao xaxF canry �r i/R[ Rvr M wru aRRRRs ¢ nR �Rx WRRn a91i➢ ¢1116 9R np.Va D] 1EI®I ¢.Rr 114r I/1[ C¢T 11[ NU rR �Rsrn ars sfl rmR o. 5w snE n,F. nrtR is�c N�I011RRIWHd7¢F 116 Wra A .F�Rl4WIW0 M QM1R Y!L 141MIA� wv�. MM� F P( NRY1 .4C1a� ¢ RMMf 6 R( OIR R fVf fdK MOM[U. MS V A anr.. M/15/2a15 w. er s GM.! By CR 4 ..R LS001 % _-"-"C u- z .�yraP�r„vevG mr.Ks� f gVwff /iYPf/NC/ IAP+I G6 ,4s AYAY77-I* iS- P>iTy O o ¢ss m 808 Prospect Road Conceptual Site Plan Earthwork/Grading/Utilities Drive And Sidewalk Construction Parks, Amenities And Landscaping Residential Construction May 2016 July 2016 September 2016 October 2016 — July 2017 117 A modification request is submitted for a variance to the width of the parking lot island within the parking lot. Due to existing site constraints, a 4' wide bioswale is provided with 2' overhang on each side verses the 7' minimum width required per Section 3.2.2L.4. A modification to the building overhang into the 15' ROW setback is submitted. This modification will allow for a more interesting facade to the public side of the building. A modification request is submitted for the allowable number of compact parking. A maximum of 40% compact parking is allowed (section 3.2.2L.2), 42.8% is provided. This plan works well because of its proximity to CSU and the MAX, the current percentage is negligible. 6. EVIDENCE OF COMPLETION FOR APPLICABLE CRITERIA. 001 7. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF HOW CONFLICTS BETWEEN LAND USES OR DISTURBANCES TO WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES AND OR WILDLIFE ARE BEING AVOIDED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE OR ARE MITIGATED. The primary land use conflict is between the multi -family attached use on -site and the adjacent single family detached residential uses to the south and west respectively. Transitioning/buffering is accomplished with privacy fencing and columnar deciduous and evergreen trees, providing a buffer between the on -site uses and adjacencies. 8. WRITTEN NARRATIVE ADDRESSING EACH CONCERN/ISSUE RAISED AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING(S), IF A MEETING HAS BEEN HELD. Concerns about protecting the Spruce tree to the east of property were raised (shown as tree #14 on the tree protection plans). Following direction from the City Forester the retaining wall will be 16' from the spruce to to protect the root system and preserve the tree. Additionally, concerns were raised about the architectural character of the building within the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. This is addressed with step backs and architectural modulation. 9. NAME OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS ANY PREVIOUS NAME THE PROJECT MAY HAVE HAD DURING CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. This project shall be titled The Slab Property 10. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Phase I Finalize Demolition March 2016 116 Open space enhancements are provided along the pedestrian and bike access on the east side of the property and within the proposed detention area at the northeast corner of the property. These include a picnic table, native seeding, and low-water use plantings and trees. Visual buffering and transitional landscapes on the north and west property edges are accomplished with 6' privacy fencing and columnar evergreen and deciduous trees, providing a buffer between the single-family to the west and multi -family attached residential uses to the north. 3. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS The property owner or property manager shall perform all maintenance on private residential lots. In addition, the property manager shall maintain all sidewalks and landscaped common areas, and any other non -private amenity and or feature. The City of For Collins shall only be responsible for typical ROW maintenance of infrastructure and snow removal within the roadway. Storm water infrastructure Landscape maintenance and trash removal within storm water infrastructure including detention areas, swales, culverts, inlets, etc. shall be the responsibility of the property manager. This maintenance shall include all required mowing, weeding, cleanout, removal of trash and debris and other typical maintenance required in order to ensure storm water infrastructure and features function according to their designed intent. Landscape - All landscape maintenance within the lot other than ROW adjacent to residential lots shall be the responsibility of and performed by the property manager. Snow Removal - The property manager shall perform snow removal within all common areas, trails, private drives and parks. Trash - All trash removal on private lots or within the sidewalk/parkway areas adjacent to private lots shall be performed by property owner or tenant. The HOA shall perform trash removal within common areas and other non -private lots. 4. ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES. N/A. 5. DESCRIPTION OF RATIONALE BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS AND CHOICES MADE BY THE APPLICANT. 115 LIV 14.2 — Promote Functional Landscape All planting will be designed with native/adaptive plants, emphasizing foundation planting. LIV 14.3 — Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Native and adaptive planting and a minimized turf area, reserved for functional/multi-use lawns will allow a minimum of maintenance. Shrub beds will be maintained without excessive pruning or'snow-balling' of shrubs. LIV 21.2 — Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network The street and pedestrian network will allow access from Prospect Road through to CSU's campus at Lake street by utilizing the proposed pedestrian walkway and emergency access easement. LIV 21.4 — Provide Access to Transit The sidewalk connection from Prospect Road to Lake Street provides connection to the Mason Street Corridor to the east. LIV 22.5 — Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes With native landscape and street trees the streetscape on Prospect Road will be visually interesting and will provide foundation planting, anchoring the building to the site. LIV 22.6 — Enhance Street Design and Image Prospect Road sidewalk and R.O.W. will conform to future conditions outlined in the West Central Area Plan. A 10' wide sidewalk with a 10' wide tree lawn will provide safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. LIV 23.1 — Provide Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces With the limited space on Prospect the development will have a combination of lawn and native landscape combined with a seating plaza and picnic area. LIV 26.3 — Promote Compatibility of Uses The multi -family attached building provides a compatibility with the adjacent single-family residential uses to the east and west in through building step backs, massing and residential scale elements. The landscaping at the west edge of the site also establishes effective buffering and transitioning between the site and existing single-family home. LIV 30.2 —Connect to Surrounding Neighborhoods Sidewalk connections enhance pedestrian connectivity and bicycle connectivity on Prospect and Lake street frontages in front of the site and to the north. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPEN SPACE, WETLANDS, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, CIRCULATION, TRANSITION AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERING ON SITE AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROJECT. The site plan works to preserves several existing cottonwood, hackberry and spruce trees along the east side of the site with walkways meandering around trees and structurally engineered walls protecting existing trees at detention areas. Several dead trees on the north boundary and SE corner will be removed. iiE,! Stormwater/Detention The Slab Project was previously designed and approved in 2007. Within the current design, it is proposed to maintain the previously approved drainage patterns. The site is broken into two major basins, Basin N1 and Basin S1. Basin N1 routes stormwater to the northeast corner of the site into a proposed detention pond. The detention pond releases into a swale and discharges directly into W. Lake St. Basin S1 routes stormwater to the southeast corner of the site into another proposed detention pond. The detention pond releases directly into W. Prospect Road. 1. CITY PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES ACHIEVED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN City Plan LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. Access points, sidewalks and street trees/roadway landscaping within the project will be paid for by the developer. LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. This site is within Figure LIV1, Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas of the City Plan and meet this policy. The HMN Zone district emphasizes inf II and increased density. LIV 5.1 — Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill This site is within Figure LIV1, Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas of the City Plan and meet this policy. LIV 5.4 — Contribute to Public Amenities This site will provide pedestrian connection from Prospect to Lake Street for flow in and out of CSU's campus and residential areas to the south of the site. LIV 6.1 — Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas Adjacent to CSU campus this site will add additional needed residential living space. LIV 6.2 — Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods Located in the HMN district, the architectural design shall be in context of its surroundings. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass, similar window pattern, use of materials that have similarity on color shade and texture. LIV 7.1— Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Multi -family attached housing will provide an additional housing type along the south end of CSU's campus in a primarily single-family detached area. LIV 10.1 — Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Well lit private drives and pedestrian plazas and walkways with low-water use planting and pedestrian amenities such as tables and benches are included within the development. LIV 10.2 — Incorporate Street Trees Five additional street trees will be added to the Prospect Road R.O.W. at 40' o.c. 113 A previous project on this site was originally designed and approved as a 4-story apartment building with a basement and included 61 total units with (7) 1 bedroom units and (54) 2 bedrooms units for a total of 115 beds. The basement foundation was installed in 2008, but the project came to a stop shortly thereafter for various financially - related issues with the previous developer. The current proposed project has been reduced to a 3-story apartment building, utilizing the same existing basement and overall building footprint. This change will help in reducing the overall scale and visual impact to the neighborhood which has been encouraged by the Planning Department, Landmark Preservation Commission and surrounding neighborhood residents. The proposed project now consists of (27) studio units, (21) 1 bedroom units and (11) 2 bedroom units with a total of 70 beds. This represents nearly a 40% reduction in density over the previously approved plan. The architectural design and use of building materials, massing and fenestration has also been completely redesigned since the original project. The building has been broken into a series of 3 larger masses on both the north and south elevations, with prominent side gabled roof elements utilizing shed dormers at the 3rd story, 1 bedroom loft spaces. The gable roof forms have extensive overhangs with large supporting brackets that are designed to be in scale with the building, yet relate to the historic craftsman style structures in close proximity to the site. The masses include extensive use of brick veneer with stucco at the third level. Other materials being utilized are synthetic stone veneer, and lap siding. The window fenestration has also been designed to relate to the surrounding neighborhood with use of single hung windows that are placed in single and double window unit configurations. Adjacencies The project site is currently a vacant parcel with an existing foundation slab located to the north of the Sheely Neighborhood on the Prospect Road. Single-family detached residential land uses are located to the west and south and CSU campus to the north. Access, Vehicular/Pedestrian Circulation and Parking Primary vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided from Prospect Road and a 16' wide emergency access (EAE) alley connecting the property and pedestrian flow from Prospect to Lake Street. A 24' drive aisle from Prospect Road provides access to a parking lot with 87 spaces. Pedestrian access is provided from the southeast corner of the property via a 10' wide sidewalk, this connects into the 16' EAE to Lake Street. • 77 bike parking spaces are provided with 63 (81%) covered on the NE corner of the building and by the main entrance and 14 (19%) uncovered on the NE corner and west side of the building. • A total of 66 parking spaces are required for the project. 87 parking spaces are provided. 47 spaces are standard, 36 spaces are compact (42.8%), and 4 spaces are handi-cap. 112 The Slab Property PDP 808 West Prospect Road Statement of Proposed Planning Objectives August 5, 2015 This project shall be titled The Slab Property - consisting of the following components: • Multi -Family Attached (54 units) This project includes development within the High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone District. Site Area Information Parcel Size: 62,564 SF (1.44 AC) Right -of -Way Improvement Area: 6,629 SF (0.15 AC) Parking and Drive Area: 28,075 SF (0.645 AC) Landscape Area (turf & shrub areas): 11,875 SF (0.27 AC) Dwelling Units: 59 Gross Density: 40.9 DU/AC (min. 20 DU/AC) Net Density: 43.3 DU/AC Project Description The Slab Property is located on the north side of Prospect Road, approximately halfway between Shields St. and College Ave. and in the High Density Mixed -Use (HMN) zone district. Colorado State University's campus in to the north of the property while single- family detached homes surround the property to the east, south and west. Tenant access is provided from Prospect Road. Emergency access is provided through an easement to and from Lake Street. A patio area with tables and chairs will be located on the west side of the building at the main entrance. A low wall and planting to the north will screen the parking lot from neighboring apartment buildings to the north. Screen planting and a privacy fence on the east and west side of the property will screen from the existing single-family home to the west and the property to the east. The West Central Area Plan outlines goals and visions for redevelopment in this area. The property is within the HMN zone district where taller building and higher densities are encouraged to provide for the residential needs of the university. The development includes fifty-nine (59) multi -family attached units, within one building. Basement: (12) studio units, (3) 2-bedroom units First Floor: (5) studio units, (6) 1-bedroom units, (3) 2-bedroom units Second Floor: (5) studio units, (7) 1-bedroom units, (3) 2-bedroom units Third Floor: (5) studio units, (8) 1-bedroom units, (2) 2-bedroom units 111 Planning, Development & Transportation city of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Port 281 North College Avenue Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM DATE: October 27, 2015 TO: Planning and Zoning Board TH: Tom Leeson, Interim Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services Seth Lorson, City Planner FR: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager RE: Landmark Preservation Commission (UPC) Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Slab Project, 808 West Prospect Road. As provided for in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(F)(6), in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to designated, eligible or potentially eligible sites, structure, objects or districts, the Decision Maker shall receive, and consider in making its decision, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This memorandum contains the Commission's Findings of Facts and its motion for this project. 1) The development project known as the Slab is located adjacent to the Sheely Drive Landmark District; the Landmark designated Emma Brown/Susan Winter property, at 720 West Prospect Road; and the Benjamin Harris Property at 730 W. Prospect Road, which has been previously determined to be individually eligible for Landmark designation. 2) At its August 12, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the development project known as the Slab, and as authorized under LUC Section 3.4.7(F)(6), made the following findings of facts: a. The new project is compatible with the historic character of the buildings to the east. b. The east elevation of the new building is compatible in materials and design in relation to the historic buildings to the east. c. The new building pays homage to the character of the historic buildings in materials, roof slopes and other architectural details. d. There is an appropriate buffer and use of space between the new building and the old, as described in Section 3.4.7, Fl. e. The massing is appropriate in terms of scale, and is mitigated by the setbacks 3) At its August 12, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the Development Proposal for 808 West Prospect Road, finding that it complies with Land Use Code 3.4.7. ,moof t` Collins MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board THROUGH: Tom Leeson, C.D.N.S. Director Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner's DATE: November 12, 2015 RE: The Slab Property P.D.P. — Update Planning, Development and Transportation Services Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 -fax fcgov. com/currentplanning Since the November packet was distributed, the applicant has made some minor adjustments to the number units, the mix of bedrooms and the number of parking spaces. The changes are summarized as follows: Per Staff Report New Difference Total Units 59 62 +3 Studio units 27 31 +4 1 b.r. units 21 31 +10 2 b.r. units 11 0 -11 Total b.r.'s 70 62 -8 Parking 87 86 -1 Spaces/b.r. 1.2 1.38 +0.18 N 1 inch =600feet The Slab Property PDP W E 5 Agenda Item 6 approval of this request and makes the following findings: (1.) Staff finds that the granting of the Modification would not be a detriment to the public good. (2.) This is because the plan, as submitted, is well -designed at three stories (versus five stories permitted under zoning) in a manner that promotes neighborhood compatibility. The landscaping and buffering on three sides will mitigate the impacts associated with traffic in and out of the parking lot. The west elevation is the most articulated and detailed with the entry plaza, pergola, two entrances, and outdoor gathering area. (3.) Staff finds that the granting of the Modification is justified 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, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional 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. (4.) This is because the site is essentially developed with grading and installation of underground utilities to a finished condition. A building permit was then issued. A full basement and foundation were constructed. Five years after this activity, the Orientation to Buffer Yard standard was adopted. Applying this standard retroactively represents a legitimate hardship per Section 2.8(H)(1). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following: 1. The Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30 (F)(1) - Orientation to Buffer Yards; and - G 2. The Slab Property P.D.P. #150016. G - 0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Plan Objectives (DOCX) 2. Rendered Site Plan (PDF) 3. Site Plan (PDF) 4. Landscape Plan (PDF) 5. Architectural Elevations (PDF) 6. Neighborhood Mtg Summary (DOC) 7. Traffic Impact Study (PDF) Item # 6 Page 10 110 Agenda Item 6 The applicant is requesting a Modification of Standard. As justification, the applicant states that the subject standard was adopted 2012, seven years after the original Final Plan approval and five years after the construction of the basement and foundation. Further, the adjoining property is similarly zoned H-M-N and the West Central Area Plan creates an expectation that this area will undergo significant redevelopment. No issues with regard to buffering, land use transition or compatibility have been raised by the adjoining property owner(s) during the years that development was contemplated for the subject parcel. Finally, the landscaping along the west property line includes a six-foot solid wood fence and a screen of both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. Per Section 2.8.2(H)(1), Staff finds the following: ❑ Staff finds that the granting of the Modification would not be a detriment to the public good. ❑ This is because the plan, as submitted, is well -designed at three stories (versus five stories permitted under zoning) in a manner that promotes neighborhood compatibility. The landscaping and buffering on three sides will mitigate the impacts associated with traffic in and out of the parking lot. The west elevation is the most articulated and detailed with the entry plaza, pergola, two entrances, and outdoor gathering area. ❑ Staff finds that the granting of the Modification is justified 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, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional 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. ❑ This is because the site is essentially developed with grading and installation of underground utilities to a finished condition. A building permit was then issued. A full basement and foundation were constructed. Five years after this activity, the Orientation to Buffer Yard standard was adopted. Applying this standard retroactively represents a legitimate hardship per Section 2.8(H)(1). K. Section 3.10 - Development Standards for the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone As mentioned, the TOD standards apply only to areas south of Prospect Road. 5. Neighborhood Information Meeting: A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 18, 2015. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, with the reduced height, the enhanced architecture and the new ten -foot wide shared path, this P.D.P. is seen as an improvement over the previous development plans. As is typical for a neighborhood meeting, a wide range of topics were discussed. Overall, the various issues have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: A. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. B. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the applicable standards of the High Density Mixed -Use zone district. C. The P.D.P. is in compliance with the applicable General Development Standards with one exception. D. A request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Orientation to Buffer Yards - has been submitted and evaluated. This standard requires that along the west property line, a 25-foot buffer yard i; required. The P.D.P. indicates that the buffer yard ranges from six to 23 feet in width. Staff recommends Item # 6 Page 9 109 Agenda Item 6 In response, the architectural design of the building reflects the Craftsman character of the two houses. Per the formal recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission, issued on August 12, 2015, the P.D.P. is found to be in compliance with this standard. The following is an excerpt from the memo to the Planning and Zoning Board from Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager (full memo is attached). At its August 12, 2015 Regular Meeting, the Commission adopted the following motion on a vote of 5-0: That the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker, the Planning and Zoning Board, the approval of the Development Proposal for 808 West Prospect Road, finding that it complies with Land Use Code 3.4.7. Section 3.5. 1 (B)(C)(D)(E)(F) - Building and Project Compatibility This section of the General Development Standards is superseded by more specific standards in Article Four. The standards in Article Four are considered more specific and, therefore, in accordance with Section 1.7.2, prevail over the standards in Article Three. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service A Transportation Impact Analysis was performed for this P.D.P. The number of dwelling units, 59, represents a slight increase over the original Observatory Park, 55 dwelling units but the mixed -use component has been eliminated. Because the use is expected to be mostly student housing, the evaluation was based on the proposed number of beds, not just the number of units. There will be only one vehicular access - a driveway off Prospect that will be geometrically restricted to right-in/right-out only, since Prospect Road doesn't currently have a center left turn lane. The emergency access easement that ties into Lake Street to the north will allow bikes and pedestrians to gain convenient and direct access to the main campus. A pedestrian connection will be provided north to the adjoining apartment complex and the P.D.P. will be required to accommodate any future walkway connection when the parcel to the east develops (presently under the same ownership as the subject site). The primary difference between the former project and the current P.D.P., however, is the addition of a ten -foot wide, detached sidewalk along Prospect Road. Known as a "shared path," this walkway is provided in fulfillment of the West Central Area Plan and the Prospect Corridor Plan which calls for improved bicycle and pedestrian safety along West Prospect Road between South College Avenue and South Shields Street. By providing a shared path on the north side of Prospect, east -west bike and pedestrian traffic will be safer than using the sub -standard sidewalk on the south side. The site is also within one-half mile of the Around the Horn transit service which is the free on campus shuttle with a stop at Prospect and Center Avenue. J. Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Multi -Family Dwelling Development Standards - Orientation to Buffer Yards - Request for Modification (As mentioned, since the P.D.P. is within the T.O.D., Section 3.8.30 subsections (C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place, and (E) Buildings do not apply.) The Orientation to Buffer Yard standard requires a 25-foot wide landscaped area if the abutting property contains a single or two-family dwelling. There is a single family home to the west. The landscaping yard along the west property line ranges from six to 23 feet. i ,L 0 OLi ve wtt',- Item # 6 Page 8 108 Agenda Item 6 4. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) -Landscaping and Tree Protection The P.D.P. provides street trees along Prospect Road and full tree stocking and foundation shrubs around the perimeter of the building that does not face the driveway or parking lot. The entry plaza features a variety of plants to soften the traffic associated with the entry drive. Existing trees have been inventoried by the City Forester. Most of the existing trees that are to be removed are Siberian Elms. The one Ponderosa Pine that is to be removed will be properly mitigated. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) - Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping As mentioned, the parking lot is located to rear of the building in order to be obscured from view from Prospect Road. The western and eastern edges of the parking lot adjoin residential properties. Accordingly, the west property line is screened by a six-foot high solid wood fence. The east edge is screened by landscaping and four -foot high metal fence as the adjoining lot is owned by CSURF and future integration between the lots is anticipated. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) - Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Since the parking lot contains less than 100 spaces, 6% is required to be in the form of landscaping. The P.D.P. meets this minimum standard by providing landscaping in the form of islands and along the entrance drive. D. Section 3.2.2(B) - Access Circulation and Parking The site is an infill location surrounded by existing development and Prospect Road. Connections for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians are provided. Sidewalks will be constructed in three directions to link the dwelling units to adjacent development and the Colorado State University campus. The emergency access lane that ties into Lake Street will double as a bike and pedestrian lane. Bike racks are provided as well at the northeast corner of the building, next to the emergency access lane allowing for convenient connection to campus. E. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) - Bicycle Facilities: With a total of 70 bedrooms, 70 bicycle parking spaces are required with 60% (42) to be enclosed and 40% (28) that may be in a fixed outdoor rack. The P.D.P. provides for a total of 77 spaces with 63 (81 %) that are enclosed and 14 (19%) in fixed racks. X�DonS F. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Parking Lots - Required Number of Spaces _ 7 /-y7 There are 27 studio units, 21 one -bedroom units and-l- a bedroom units. This number of units, at the proposed mix of bedrooms, requires a total of59 parking spaces. 87 spaces are provided thus exceeding the standard. The extra 28 spaces will accommodate the employees in the leasing office, potential tenants and guests. G. Section 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources: There are two existing houses to the east that require the P.D.P. to be sensitive to their historic character. The first house is the larger of the two and is located on Lot Two at 730 West Prospect Road. This house is known as the Harris House which is set back from Prospect Road, and is not designated as a historic landmark but is potentially eligible for such designation. The second house is smaller which is located close to Prospect Road, and is located one parcel to the east of the Harris House. This house is known as the Brown/Winter House and has been designated as a local historic landmark. Item # 6 Page 7 107 Agenda Item 6 exceeds 35 feet) would require that the front setback be 19 feet. At 15 feet, the front setback deviates from this standard by four feet. If a Request for Modification were to be processed, Staff would find that the 15 foot front setback is nominal and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and based on the hardship of the existing conditions. E. Section 4.10(E)(1)(a) - Buildings - Doorways Facing Streets: There are two main doorways to the building both located in the southwest corner. One entry faces south along Prospect Road and one faces west and is associated with the entry plaza. Both entries are accented with architectural features to further establish a presence. F. Section 4.10(E)(1)(b) -Relationship of Doorways to Streets: As mentioned, the south -facing doorway along Prospect Road allows the building to establish a connection to the public street as well as the Sheely neighborhood. G. Section 4.10(E)(1)(c) -Front Yards: The building, in conjunction with the site plan, provides for landscaping between the back of the public sidewalk and the building. In addition, the front yard includes a low entry wall, a seat wall with a column, and a walkway that connects to the west entrance. H. Section 4.10(E)(1)(d) -Roof Form: The building features both flat and sloped roof forms. The building has been broken into a series of three larger masses on both the north and south elevations, with prominent side gabled roof elements featuring shed dormers at the third story. The gable roof forms have overhangs with supporting brackets. The various components combine to form an interesting three-story building where the height, mass and scale are mitigated in a proportional manner. 1. Section 4.10(E)(1)(e) - Fagade Variation: The facades of the building are varied by use of recesses, projections, balconies, roof overhangs and shed dormers. Along the east elevation, facing the existing house, the third floor is stepped back to reduce the mass. J. Section 4.10(E)(1)(0 -Outdoor Activity: The outdoor active area is located at the entry plaza at the southwest corner of the building. This area is partially covered with a pergola and includes seat walls, benches, patio furniture and grills. These features complement the main entrance to accommodate informal gatherings. K. Section 4.10(E)(2)(a) -Street Sidewalks: The public sidewalk along Prospect Road will be detached and 10 feet wide in accordance with the recommendation of the West Central Area Plan and the Prospect Corridor Plan so that it will function as a shared path allowing safe and comfortable travel for bikes and pedestrians in both directions. This shared path compensates for the narrow attached sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Road. Street trees planted on 40- foot centers in the parkway will accentuate the urban design of the streetscape. L. Section 4.10(E)(2)(b) -Parking Lots: As with the previously approved plan, the parking lot is located to the rear of the building and thus screened from Prospect Road. Item # 6 Page 6 106 Agenda Item 6 Section 1.4.9 - Interpretations: "In the interpretation and application of any provision of the Land Use Code, such provision shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of the Land Use Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than another provision of the Land Use Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. In other words, the more stringent controls over the less stringent. Section 1.7.2 - Conflict with Other Laws: "Except as is provided in Section 3.1.2, if the provisions of this Land Use Code are internally conflicting or if they conflict with any other statute, code, local ordinance, resolution, regulation or other applicable Federal, State or local law, the more specific standard, limitation or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict. If neither standard is more specific, then the more stringent standard, limitation or requirement shall govern or prevail to the extent of the conflict." Staff interprets that lacking any clear front yard setback standard under H-M-N, Multi -Family Development or TOD sections, reverting back to the General Development Standard of Section 3.5.2(E)(1) would prevail as this standard is the most stringent. This standard requires a 30 foot setback from Prospect Road. (6.) Staff Finding Since the adoption of the Land Use Code, Staff has consistently interpreted both required minimum setbacks and mandatory build -to lines in such a way as to not be applied to existing buildings. It has never been considered reasonably feasible to move or demolish existing buildings to satisfy these standards. This allows the Code to be administered to the extent reasonably feasible for projects approved under prior law. For reference, the definition of "extent reasonably feasible" is as follows: Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation. 0 In this case, the existing foundation is substantial due to both its depth (full basement) and its size (118' x 83' not including window wells). The only portion of the building that is constructed is the basement and foundation (along with utilities). While there may be a 600 square foot leasing office, Staff finds that this non-residential component does not rise to the level of being mixed -use, but is still significant enough to be considered equivalent to an existing structure By utilizing the existing foundation, there is an efficiency that is gained resulting in a more sustainable development. Further, the foundation was established per an approved Final Plan and Building Permit (2007) that preceded the adoption of Section 3.8.30 - Multi -Family Development Standards (2012). Finally, if a modification is requested, it is not clear exactly what standard would need to be modified under a Request for Modification procedure of Section 2.8. For these reasons, a Modification of Standard is not warranted and that the 15 foot front setback from West Prospect Road complies with the Land Use Code as interpreted for existing buildings. Given the existing placement of the basement and foundation 15 feet behind the front property line, and assuming that this 15 feet represents a valid starting point for measuring the front setback, a proposed building height of 43 feet, Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) (one -foot beyond the minimum required setback for each two -feet of wall height that Item # 6 Page 5 105 Agenda Item 6 The P.D.P. contains 59 dwelling units on 1.44 acres for a density of 41 dwelling units per acre which exceeds the required minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. C. Section 4.10(D)(2)(a) -Dimensional Standards -Maximum Height: The P.D.P. is three stories which is below the maximum allowable height of five stories. D. Section 4.10(D)(2)(b) -Dimensional Standards -Setbacks: This standard requires that for all setbacks, building walls over 35 feet in height must be setback an additional one foot beyond the minimum required, for each two feet of wall that exceeds 35 feet. The issue at hand for interpreting this standard is determining the minimum required setback. Unfortunately, the Code is not clear. To wit: (1.) 2005 - Mixed -Use Building - Section 3.5.3(C)(2)(c) In 2005, the Final Plan (now expired) included 812 square feet of non-residential lease space for a tenant capable of providing goods or services for the residents. This qualified the building as "mixed -use" which then required compliance with the build -to line of Section 3.5.3(C)(2)(c) (between 10 and 25 feet) and not the minimum required setback. As a result of the build -to line standard, the building was placed 15 feet back from the front property line (as measured from the new property line after a dedication of public right-of-way of 21 feet). Note that if the building was not considered mixed -use, then the required minimum front yard setback, at that time, per the H-M-N standard 4.10(D)(2)(b), was 45 feet, a standard considered unrealistic due to the shallowness of the parcels fronting on Prospect Road, and since deleted. Now, The Slab Property P.D.P proposes a leasing office of 415 square feet. Staff interprets the leasing office to be accessory to the principal use and, without offering goods and services to the public, is not sufficient to qualify the building as mixed -use. Therefore, Section 3.5.3(C)(2)(c) does not apply. (2.) Residential Building Setbacks - Arterial Streets - Section 3.5.2(E)(1) Since the front setback standard of 45 feet has been deleted out Article Four H-M-N zone district standards, the governing regulation is found in the General Development standards of Article Three. Section 3.5.2(E)(1) requires buildings to be setback from arterial streets by 30 feet except for those buildings regulated by Section 3.8.30. (Emphasis added.) (3.) Multi -Family Development Standards - 3.8.30 These standards, under Section 3.8.30(E)(3), require that the minimum front setback along an arterial street shall be 15 feet. But, under the applicability section of 3.8.30(A), the standard states explicitly that: "Multi -family developments in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone are exempt from subsections (C) and (E) of this Section. " (4.) Transit Oriented Development - Section 3.10 But, under the applicability section of 3.10.1(A), the standard states explicitly that: "These standards apply to applications for development within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road..." (5.) Staff Interpretation - Section 3.5.2(E)(1) Applies When confronted with internal conflicts within the Code, Staff is guided by two sections in Article One: Item # 6 Page 4 104 Agenda Item 6 utilities, excavating the basement and pouring the foundation. Due to the great recession, this project was abruptly terminated, building permit fees were refunded, vested rights were expired and foreclosure proceedings involved not only the owner but also a failed bank and the F.D.I.C. Since 2007, the exposed foundation and security fencing was all that resulted from Observatory Park, hence earning the name "The Slab." After foreclosure proceedings, the 808 and 730 West Prospect Road were purchased by C.S.U. Research Foundation. The current P.D.P. utilizes the existing utilities and the basement and foundation as the building footprint. The project represents a collaborative effort between the applicant and C.S.U.R.F. but only for 808 West Prospect Road, Lot One of the Observatory Park Subdivision. 2. West Central Area Plan: The West Central Area Plan was adopted in March of 2015 and reaffirmed the validity of both the existing geography and development parameters of the H-M-N zone. This is the area south of the C.S.U. campus bounded by West Prospect Road, Shields Street, Lake Street and Whitcomb Street. With regard to the H-M-N zone, the W.C.A.P.states: "Given the numerous parcels that comprise this area, new development will likely occur through multiple small or medium scale projects. Sensitivity to historic structures will require careful design solutions and collaboration with the Landmark Preservation Commission." "This area is expected to build out in accordance with the existing zoning, with residential density at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. While five -story buildings are allowed, the height, mass and scale of buildings will be critically evaluated to achieve compatibility with adjacent development and to positively impact the neighborhood and community. The allowable density and proximity to campus create opportunities for mixed -use buildings and campus -related uses as well." "Land Use Policy 1.9 - Neighborhood Character: The height, mass and scale of new development in the High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (HMN) zone district... should be compatible with adjacent development and sensitive to the context of the area." "Land Use Policy 1.10 - Emphasize and respect the existing heritage and character of neighborhoods through a collaborative design process that allows for neighborhood dialogue. The neighborhoods are generally characterized by Craftsman, Prairie and Mid -Century Modern architectural styles (and their various derivations). These styles are well -accepted and should serve as a starting point for achieving neighborhood compatibility." Staff finds that The Slab Property P.D.P. fulfills the vision of the Plan in the following manner: • The P.D.P. demonstrates sensitivity to the historic houses to the east. • The P.D.P. exceeds the minimum required density of 20 dwelling units per acre. • The building is three stories, not five, to achieve compatibility. • The building is influenced by the Craftsman style and the height, mass and scale are mitigated by a variety of architectural elements and details. • The placement of multi -family housing at the south edge of campus will promote alternative modes of transportation to and from the main campus. 3. Compliance with Applicable Standards of the H-M-N Zone: A. Section 4.10(B)(3) -Land Use: As a residential use consisting of more than 50 multi -family dwellings, the P.D.P. is permitted in the H-M-N zone district subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board- B. Section 4.10(D)(1) - Density: Item # 6 Page 3 103 Agenda Item 6 1"=ewfee The Slab Property PDP 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows N H-M-N Existing Apartments and Existing Fraternity House S R-L Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Units E H-M-N Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit W H-M-N Existing Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit The lot at 808 West Prospect Road once contained a single family detached home In 2002, planning efforts to develop the property began and the project was known as 808 West Prospect Road - The Frazier Subdivision. The first request for a P.D.P. was for a four-story multi -family building but this proposal did not proceed to a public hearing. This was followed by a resubmittal in 2004. In 2005, The Frazier Subdivision Final Plan was approved, with conditions, and consisted of a four-story building with 55 multi -family dwellings with 812 square feet of mixed -use in the form of ground floor commercial space. In 2007, under new ownership, Observatory Park Subdivision replatted the Frazier Subdivision and the project now included the existing house to the east, 730 West Prospect Road. This project consisted of a four-story building and 66 multi -family dwelling units with the existing house at 730 West Prospect Road being designated as an office. This Final Plan began land development and building construction which proceeded as far as installing Item # 6 Page 2 102 Agenda Item 6 PROJECT NAME THE SLAB PROPERTY PDP#150016 STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner ?V-V� V;A"-/� /VCW ' PROJECT INFORMATION * i - sT V OD, os 3 c I - 8 . Q-' < /t nn ®6�epE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a three-story multi -family building containing 59- dwelling units and -70 bedrooms. There would be47-parking spaces and 77 bicycle parking spaces. Primary access is gained via a driveway on Prospect Road that is limited to right-in/right-out turn movements only. An emergency access and bike and pedestrian access connects the project to Lake Street to the north. The P.D.P. is within the Transit - Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The P.D.P. represents the re - submittal of an expired project but with significant design changes. The site is located at 808 West Prospect Road and is 1.44 acres in size and zoned H-M-N, High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Christian and Robin Bachelet MDAG, LLC c/o Russell + Mills Studios 141 South College Avenue, Suite 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Colorado State University Research Foundation c/o Mr. Rick Callan 601 South Howes Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The P.D.P. represents the resubmittal of a partially constructed project called Observatory Park which is now expired. The new P.D.P. complies with the policies of the West Central Area Plan. The P.D.P. also complies with the land use and development standards of the High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, H-M-N, zone district of Article Four. And, the P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three with one exception. A Request for Modification to Section 3.8.30(F)(1) - Orientation to Buffer Yards has been evaluated and recommended for approval. Item # 6 Page 1 101