Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATION & ZONING - ANX150002 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGCity Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of December. A.D. 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, N00°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 342.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: N85°40'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 953.72 FEET; 2. N65032'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DUFFY ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH LINES OF SAID DUFFY ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: N00°46'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.38 FEET; 2. N89°13'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 242.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4T" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00046'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 322.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, S89017'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,272.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, ALSO BEING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00040'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 645.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 708,577 SQUARE FEET (16.267 ACRES), MORE OR LESS Section 3. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the Property is not included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1st day of December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015. Mayor ATTEST: ORDINANCE NO. 158, 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE WOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning of the Wood Street Annexation property, as described below (the "Property") is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed zoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.(H)(3) of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the Property described below and has determined that the Property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Wood Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate ("U-E") Zone District, which property (the "Property") is more particularly described as: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 TO BEAR N89014'45"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 13155, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 20123, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT Passed and adopted on final reading on this 15th day of December, A.D. 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2. N65032'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE DUFFY ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: THENCE ALONG THE EAST AND NORTH LINES OF SAID DUFFY ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: N00046'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.38 FEET; 2. N89°13'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 242.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4T" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00046'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 322.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, S89°17'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,272.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, ALSO BEING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00040'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 645.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 708,577 SQUARE FEET (16.267 ACRES), MORE OR LESS is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Wood Street Second Annexation. Section 3. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 4. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (the "Subdistrict"). Upon inclusion into the Subdistrict, said property shall be subject to the same mill levies and special assessments as are levied or will be levied on other similarly situated property in the Subdistrict. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 1 st day of December, A.D. 2015, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of December, A.D. 2015. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 157, 2015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE WOOD STREET SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2015-088 stating the intent of the City to annex and initiating annexation proceedings for the Wood Street Second Annexation, as defined therein and described below, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the area proposed to be annexed has been entirely contained within the boundaries of the City for a period of not less than three years prior to this date; and WHEREAS, the Wood Street Second Annexation complies with all other requirements for enclave annexations set forth in Title 31, Article 12 of the Colorado Revised Statues; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the following described property, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 2 TO BEAR N89014'45"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 13155, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 3" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 20123, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, N00°40'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 342.30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SERVICE CENTER ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: N85040'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 953.72 FEET; Staff recommends approval of the annexation and requested zoning of Urban Estate with the approval of the Ordinances on First Reading. Foof ollins Planning and Zoning Board — October 29tn On consent 7-0 to approve consent agenda City of ort Collins Owner - Jeffrey Lebesch Annexation = 16.267 acres a 2ia 10 u" m JF�u Llyftld sm uo N cA A cYy un�a,ue. Won • Involuntary annexation • Enclave created in September 2012 • City initiating annex for energy project • Use cool air from lake bottom for climate control at Utilities building • Proposed zoning is Urban Estate (U-E) City of Fort Collins CCity of ••• "*�� wo Wood Street Second Annexation Initiating Resolution ,_'-_15 Clay Frickey Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 8 Member Hart made a motion to approve the Uncommon project PDP#150013 because it complies with all of the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. Member Heinz seconded. Vote: 5:2, with Member Hobbs and Chair Carpenter dissenting. Other Business None noted. The meeting was adjourned at 10:16pm. Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 7 to put the height on the alley side in order to avoid creating the "birthday cake" effect. Member Heinz suggested that it would be helpful to have more prescriptive code standards for transitioning. Chair Carpenter asked adding setbacks to the East side of the building would be helpful, and Planning Director Gloss stated that they would prefer to alter the setbacks on the west side. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planning Manager, stated that the length of the unarticulated east wall (which is closest to buildings in the national register district) is the most critical to maintaining proper historic preservation elements. The Landmark Preservation Commission had previously determined that this building is too large in this space. She also disputed some of Ms. Liley's statements that the compatibility is entirely about the massing, the transitioning, the setbacks and stepbacks, and the shape of the building, rather than just a comparison to other historic buildings. Member Hobbs asked about the 3D models presented by Staff, since they significantly conflict with the images presented by the applicant. He asked if the models shown by staff are objective and unbiased portrayals of the buildings. Both Planning Director Gloss and Planner Branson confirmed that these models are as accurate and unbiased as possible. Member Hansen commented on the various techniques of including landscaping in the mock-ups. The applicant also clarified that this project is not considered to be "affordable housing". Board Deliberation Member Schneider stated that this project supports the City plan and Strategic Plan, and he commended the developer for trying to make concessions where possible. Member Hansen agreed and stated that the challenge is in making the transition on the edge of the zoning district; he is in favor of the current transition, with the exception of the East side of the building, and he believes that the impact of that wall may be mitigated over time. Member Hobbs is not in favor of the project as it stands based on the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhoods. He feels this is a gateway project to the historic Downtown district, and, even though the arithmetic calculations are in line, the context of this project does not fit well. Member Heinz would support more prescriptive measure regarding the massing of this building, but she will still support this project. Member Hansen supports this project, and he added that these types of structures won't work in the future without confidence in the long-term plan. Member Hart supports this project and thinks that this is the future of Fort Collins, even though he agrees that the code will need some adjustments. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick is very conflicted with this project. She believes that this project is meeting the LUC standards; therefore, she is unable to find a good faith argument why it shouldn't be approved, even though she doesn't support the design of the east wall. Chair Carpenter does not support the project because it is right at the edge of the zoning district; she concedes that this is primarily a subjective decision. Planner Mapes gave an overview on the modification, saying that the lower portions of the building do comply with the specified materials. The applicant declined to provide a separate presentation. Member Hansen stated that he is in favor of the modification and believes that the use of these materials is appropriate. Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification of standard to subsection 4.1.6 (D)(5)(e) Exterior Fagade and Materials for the Uncommon project PDP#150013, based upon the findings of fact on page 11 in the staff report. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:1, with Member Hobbs abstaining. Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 6 Member Hansen inquired about the ground floor public space (including the paseo) and how it will be perceived. Mr. Illanes responded that there are no barriers to these public spaces, and they will be accessible thru an open walkway. He added that there will be an upstairs roof area and possibly an outdoor restaurant or retailer. Member Heinz clarified that the common space is for the public, and she also asked other questions regarding the retail strip and the parking spaces with regard accessibility by the public. She also asked if the alley to the south would be improved, and Planner Mapes stated that it will remain a parking lot. Member Hart asked Staff what kind of reduction of mass and scale would be adequate to improve the context of the building, and Planner Mapes responded that the extent of the 5th and 6th levels are the primary issues. Planning Director Gloss noted that this building is significantly higher than surrounding buildings, and he feels that the transitional areas are the core issues. The code does not prescribe a specific way to do that. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked why the taller heights were created for individual blocks. Planner Mapes gave some background as to how that evolved, saying that, at that time, there were competing objectives among various interests (citizens vs. developers). He detailed the criterion that was considered for this particular block regarding the number of stories allowed (5-6 stories, which can have variable heights depending on the floor height). Chair Carpenter also added how difficult those conversations had been, since the stories were not specifically decided. Planner Mapes said there had been opposition from the communities; therefore, standards were inserted with the idea that they should be broadly interpreted. Member Hart also asked about the massing of this and future buildings. Planner Mapes responded that it is always possible to have exceptions, and he showed slides indicating how blocks should be transitioned compared to a mock-up of what Uncommon will look like once completed. Member Hansen asked about setbacks, and Mr. Illanes responded that, from the street, we would see a step lower than what is being proposed. There was more discussion on the building heights and the appropriate number of stories, focusing on the transition of the proposed building and the surrounding areas. There was also discussion on what the standards require for lot coverage and whether removing the 75% standard would mean moving more toward an urban form. Planner Mapes stated that the purpose of the code change was to provide more of what was desired by the community. Discussion ensued regarding the 6- story wall on the Montezuma Alley; Planner Maps clarified that the design of that wall was left to the compatibility standards backing up the zoning district standards. He added that the factors that led to Staffs findings are the combination of the height, the extent of the footprint and construction, and the resulting East wall. While other buildings are taller or bigger, it is those elements taken together that led to Staff findings. Member Schneider asked for clarification on what element is more important: the code language or the Strategic Plan? Planning Director Gloss stated that there have been voids in the building that create some open spaces, but the building is still massive without significant relief. Mr. Illanes acknowledged that, while this is a large building, it is also divided into three sections. Planner Mapes also stated that one of the goals of the Planning Department is to allow change to occur over time with buildings gradually becoming taller, as opposed to this happening all at once. There was more discussion regarding scale issues with the historic district on the east side of the building and how the open space will be used by residents. The courtyard is 30 feet wide and 60 feet deep; therefore, Staff believes it is unlikely that there will be sunshine in those open spaces, although Mr. Illanes believes the sun will sometimes penetrate that area. The disposition of snow melt has not been considered by the applicant. There was discussion regarding the compliance to standards for the fenestration on the back wall. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick asked what impacts would occur if the 5th and 6m stories were stepped back, especially along the east wall; Mr. Johnson said the impacts would be incompatible with what has been done to date in ensuring success. The applicant had been encouraged Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 5 Public Input Steve Levinger, 511 Mathews Street, the owner of the Armstrong Hotel, spoke about the various buildings that had been built and destroyed over the last 10 years and how he is in support of this project. He doesn't feel that historic preservation issues should be a reason for denial. Dave Derbes, 618 Wabash Street, is a developer and spoke in support of this project. He cited the evolution of the project and appreciates the quality and thoughtfulness of the applicant. He also commended them for considering the City plans in place. Justin Larson, 419 Canyon Avenue, is a neighbor and also supports the project, saying the project meets the various codes, commending the design team overall. Joanne Eskildsen, 210 W. Magnolia, is a neighbor and spoke in support of the project, even though she initially did not support it. She also commended the developers. Spiro Palmer, 901 W. Mountain Avenue, who represents Palmer Properties and owns other local businesses, spoke in favor of this project; he stated his belief that this is a special project and is a good reflection of the downtown overall. Myrne Watrous, 723 W. Olive Street, spoke in support of City Staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission, saying she feels the building is too tall and large for that area and the parking is inadequate. She cited several other developments that do not have adequate parking, and she suggested another location for the project. Eric Nichols, 1401 Riverside, helped negotiate this building site transaction, and he spoke in favor of the project, saying the code standards have been met. He was also involved in other Fort Collins projects, and he commended the design team for providing a well -designed building compared to similar buildings. Board Questions and Staff Response Ms. Liley asked to submit several other items into the records (Exhibit 2). Mr. Johnson responded to the citizen's question about the origin of the name "Uncommon" by explaining that the name is chosen as the project evolves; they noticed that the project was named "Uncommon" because of the various aesthetic features which distinguish this building from others. Member Hobbs requested Planner Mapes to review the setbacks on all four sides of the proposed buildings, including City right-of-way areas. Planner Mapes confirmed that there is landscaping within the City right-of-way, and he discussed the setbacks on each street. He also reviewed the zoning requirements for the Canyon Avenue area. Marc Ragasa, Engineering, stated that the Poudre Fire Authority required a 5-foot setback to accommodate their truck loading needs. Member Hobbs also asked what the reason is for the discrepancy of lot coverage stated by City staff versus the applicant. Mr. Ragasa responded that the discrepancy is due to variations in data used by each (including rounding). Planner Mapes indicated that the paseo has been enhanced recently, and he feels that the applicant has met the prescribed standard. Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 4 He feels the applicant has responded with multiple design solutions during the planning process, since they were asked by Staff to consider reduction of the overall project by 1/3, which he said is economically infeasible. In response, more concessions were made to increase outdoor space, etc. In addition, they presented their project to the LPC and attempted to get more direction. They have subsequently obtained a letter of support from the Armstrong Hotel. The project was denied by the LPC; he believes that their recommendation was not warranted. They have continued their community outreach, receiving positive input overall. In conclusion, he reviewed the overall criteria that they used when developing the property, citing the desirability of higher density in the Downtown -Canyon Avenue subdistrict area. Lucia Liley, 419 Canyon Avenue, is the attorney representing the applicant. She discussed the significant, positive changes that the applicant has made in order to go forward with this project. The nature of the disagreement with Staff has been the height and mass of the building as it relates to neighborhood scale. These qualifications are based on subjective, qualitative metrics, which she feels can be difficult to interpret consistently. She discussed the context of the project and the zoning issues involved; she showed visual graphics of the neighboring blocks, the Downtown plan criteria and considerations, the historic development of downtown, and the 1989 Downtown Plan suggestions that taller buildings should be built amid historic buildings. She discussed the Downtown Strategic Plan criteria and demonstrated how the City has encouraged buildings that meet the criteria that this project strives to do. She listed the defining characteristics for the area and how they are expected to evolve over time. She also discussed LUC 3.4.7 and 3.5.1: including height, scale, mass and bulk, along with landscaping, architecture, pedestrian features, lighting, and parking. She questioned the historic considerations and how they should be considered with respect to this project. She said that Staff had acknowledged that the project had met all of the criteria for historic criteria, therefore, she questioned what the negative impacts were specifically, saying that the applicant had reviewed the historic structures recommended by Staff for consideration. She also discussed the LPC findings and comments, along with the comments made by dissenting LPC members. Eduardo Illanes, Architect representing CA -Ventures for the project, also gave a detailed presentation of the building architecture, including the integration of the LUC into the project and the considerations shown to uphold the Fort Collins landscape and heritage. He spoke of how daily life would be enhanced and the adjustments and concessions that had been made over the project development. He discussed in detail the building and surrounding area designs, including the rationale for the landscaping, sidewalks, and open spaces. He compared the various building facades with older surrounding buildings. He discussed the need for housing along with the higher desired densities prescribed by the City plan. He mentioned the creation of the paseo, and how this will further enhance the quality of life for Uncommon residents. Parking for residents will be mostly in the underground garage with several public parking spaces available to the public. He discussed at length the vision for downtown and how Uncommon fits into that vision. Ms. Liley concluded the applicant presentations by reviewing the 2006 Strategic Plan, which had been subsequently amended after adoption. She pointed out some of the changes, including the "75% coverage" rule that has since been modified. She reviewed some of the features of other buildings (setbacks, footprint, level of urbanization, height ranges, and historic significance) that had been approved in the past (some with modifications) and how they compare with Uncommon. She acknowledged that this project does not supply the required amount of open space, however, she pointed out that the paseo alone has enough space to satisfy this requirement. The Board took a break at 8:15pm and resumed at 8.25pm. Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 3 Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, 12 citizen emails had been received in support of the project, an email from Eric Sutherland with concerns relating to the prominent legal issues involved, various historic materials and evidence related to the project (857 pages) from Lucia Liley's office to become part of the public record, and a draft of the Quality Improvement Plans for Development Review Process prepared by Zucker Systems. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe also stated that he was presenting email correspondence between himself and Lucia Liley that will be designated as Exhibit 1. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a broad PowerPoint presentation of this project, including pictorial comparisons of the applicant's renderings and the renderings prepared by City Staff, which indicates significant differences with regard to building size and massing proportions, design and materials, and character/architecture. He also discussed the affected Land Use Codes and concluded that this project does not meet the prescribed standards, especially for adjacent historic properties, and he detailed each standard and demonstrated the incompatible aspects of the project. He stated that the buildings are not compatible with the surrounding buildings with respect to height, massing, and character. Planner Branson began his presentation by calling attention to the inaccurate renderings provided by the applicant, and he presented a set of images modeling these inconsistencies. He also stated that the images created by Staff were meant to be compatible with the ongoing Downtown Plan, and they were taken using a "human perspective" (approximately 5'/2' off of the ground). He made comparisons between the Uncommon building and other similar sites, concentrating on the percentage of the footprint that would be consumed. Uncommon will use 90% of the lot, which is significantly higher than other similar buildings. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe added that, regarding the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) findings, Ms. Liley had made an inquiry about adjacent historic properties, and he had provided her with information indicating that some of those properties are questionable for historic designation purposes. Chris Johnson, representing CA -Ventures as the applicant, stated that this location would not be housing CSU students and that it would be multi -family residential. He discussed the pedestrian scale regarding massing, mentioning that the models did not show the landscaping, so he feels that some of the Staffs models are inaccurate. He stated that the lot coverage is actually 84%, not 90%. He also discussed the parking situation. He gave some of his personal background and the need for this project in Fort Collins. He said that the zoning was considered, and all of the uses were allowed. He has also considered the future development possibilities, and the construction costs involved. He praised the density of the project and how it fits with the City plan. He indicated that his revenue has been affected already (materials, time, etc.). Mr. Johnson stated that due diligence has been employed through various "community listening" opportunities, and he said that the community has been very supportive of the project overall. The applicant is interested in maintaining economic feasibility, and they are striving to integrate this building into the community in a sensitive way. He noted that the surroundings continue to vary, which makes being sensitive even more challenging. He has spoken to neighbors and the community, and they have made some changes: • Because Old Town is made up of mostly young professionals, they have removed the 4-bedroom units and increased the smaller unit types to accommodate the demographics. • They have altered their renting model to renting by the unit, not by the bed. • They are changing their marketing practices to attract graduating CSU students. • They are reducing floor -to -floor heights and increased the setbacks. Planning & Zoning Board October 29, 2015 Page 2 Planning Director Gloss presented the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas. Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Wood Street Second Annexation Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the October 29, 2015, Consent agenda, which includes the Wood Street Second Annexation. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick seconded. Vote:7:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Uncommon — 310 S. College Avenue Project: Uncommon — 310 S. College Avenue Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is for development of a terraced 4- to 6- story, mixed -use building at the southeast corner of College Avenue and Olive Street. The site formerly contained Perkins restaurant, which was demolished and removed in early 2015 The property is zoned Downtown (D), Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. The proposed land uses are permitted, and the PDP is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The site is 35,000 square feet. Proposed building coverage is 30,600 square feet. The ground floor consists of street -front retail commercial spaces totaling 8,900 square feet, and the upper levels contain apartment units totaling 120 units. The units are a mix of studio and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units with a total of 248 bedrooms. Total floor area is 150,000 square feet. 125 parking spaces are provided. Parking is below grade and on the ground level below upper floor building space, with access from the alley. Recommendation: Denial Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair Jeff Hansen Gerald Hart Emily Heinz Michael Hobbs Jeffrey Schneider City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Special Hearing October 29, 2015 Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs, Kirkpatrick and Schneider Absent: None Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Branson, Wilkinson, Burnett, Mapes, Frickey, McWilliams, Schmidt, Ragasa and Cosmas Agenda Review Chair Carpenter provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following processes: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Wood Street Second Annexation Structure Plan Map ATTACHMENT 3 Hemlock St \\ i Hans�rib Ln / i Pe re goy Fa ratio Way 0*0 0 Annexation Area : Lee Martinez Community Pa- W Vine Dr- O a 0 210 Legend GRIA Downtown District Campus District ruati City Limit -Area Community Commercial District Employment District � Enhance d Travel Corridor:Trans rt} General Commercial District Industrial Dstrict Fort Collins GktA Neighborhood Commercial District ®Annexation Area Planning Area Feet 420 630 840 11 Urban Estate Low Density kimed-Use Medium Density Mixed -Use Open Lands, Fares and 'Pieter Ccnidcrs ATTACHMENT 1 inch = 333 feet Wood Street Second Annexation Proposed Zoning ATTACHMENT 1 1 inch = 333 feet Wood Street Second Annexation Vicinity Map Agenda Item 14 East Public Open Lands P-O-L Lee Martinez Community Park West Public Open Lands P-O-L Single-family detached Employment (E) City of Fort Collins Operations Services Fleet Service Center The requested zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The Land Use Code describes this zone district as follows: Purpose. The Urban Estate District is intended to be a setting for a predominance of low -density and large -lot housing. The main purposes of this District are to acknowledge the presence of the many existing subdivisions which have developed in these uses that function as parts of the community and to provide additional locations for similar development, typically in transitional locations between more intense urban development and rural or open lands. The property owner has expressed interest in a limited amount of additional development on the site following the annexation process. No detailed development plan has been prepared. The City of Fort Collins has been working with the property owner to install a geoheat exchange system that will pipe cool air from the bottom of the pond on the site to the City Utilities building abutting to the south. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS No direct economic impacts will result with this proposed annexation and zoning BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning request on October 29th, 2015. The annexation and placement of the parcel into the Urban Estate zone district was on the consent agenda. The board approved the consent agenda with a 7-0 vote. PUBLIC OUTREACH The public notification of the annexation and zoning request occurred two weeks prior to the item going before the Planning and Zoning Board at their scheduled public hearing on October 29th, 2015. A letter of notification of the public hearing was mailed to all Affected Property Owners within 800 feet of the property 14 days prior to the hearing. The Land Use Code does not require a neighborhood meeting for annexation and initial zonings and a meeting was not held for this annexation & zoning request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map(PDF) 2. Proposed Zoning Map (PDF) 3. Structure Plan Map (PDF) 4. Draft October 29, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC) 5. Powerpoint Presentation (PPTX) Item # 14 Page 2 Agenda Item 94 STAFF Clay Frickey, Associate Planner SUBJECT Items Pertaining to the Wood Street Second Annexation and Zoning. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2015, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2015, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of this item is to annex and zone a parcel in an enclave at 832 Wood Street. This is a City - initiated request to annex the 16.267 acre parcel #97023-00-034 at 832 Wood Street into the City of Fort Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Pateros Creek subdivision on September 18, 2012. As of September 18, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and annex the enclave in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106. The Wood Street Second Annexation abuts the City of Fort Collins Utilities building to the north. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (U-E) zone district. The surrounding properties are existing residential, office, park, and light industrial land uses in the City of Fort Collins. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This is an enclave annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. Wood Street Second Annexation became an enclave upon the annexation of the Pateros Creek subdivision on September 18th, 2012. As of September 18th, 2015, the City is authorized to initiate and annex the enclave in accordance with Colorado Revised Statute 31-12-106. The surrounding land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Exist! ng Land Use North Urban Estate U-E Pateros Creek subdivision: Single-family detached South Employment E City of Fort Collins Utilities facility Item # 14 Page 1