The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - PDP - PDP120035 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT (5)DATE: May 21, 2013 STAFF: Courtney Levingston Joe Olson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s March 21, 2013 Decision to Approve the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the application for the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to demolish two existing single family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street and in their place, construct five, three story multi- family buildings, with a total of 57 units divided among one, two and three-bedroom apartments for a total of 97 bedrooms. The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) Zone District and is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. On April 4, 2013, Joel Rovnak (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal, alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading when approving the Project Development Plan application. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Applicant submitted a traffic impact study as part of the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan application and the traffic impact study was accepted by the City Traffic Engineer. The traffic impact study was provided to the Planning and Zoning Board as an attachment to the staff report for consideration. The staff report to the Board included analysis of how the Project Development Plan complied with the Land Use Code’s transportation Level of Service requirements (Staff Report, pg. 10). Under the appeals procedure contained in the City Code, the appeal is required to be considered upon the record, the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, the grounds for appeal cited in the notice of appeal and the arguments made by parties-in-interest at the hearing on the appeal, provided the arguments raised by parties-in-interest were raised in the notice of appeal. The City Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties-in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. Staff is prepared to answer questions regarding the allegations on appeal, if asked by Councilmembers. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD After testimony from the Applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6 - 0 to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan application with conditions. In support of its motion to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 13 of the staff report. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? May 21, 2013 -2- ITEM 26 ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL 1. The traffic impact study falsely attributes data to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board considered the traffic impact study which contained information relating to estimated trip generation which was substantially false and grossly misleading. The traffic impact study was included in the Planning and Zoning Board’s packet for consideration in its decision making, although the Board did not discuss the specific details of the traffic impact study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the data contained in the traffic impact study and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 2. Traffic projections were further reduced for alternative modes of transportation. In the notice of appeal, the Appellant asserts that the information contained in the traffic impact study was further skewed by a 25% reduction in trips to account for alternative modes of transportation. The traffic impact study was included in the Planning and Zoning Board’s packet for consideration in its decision making, although the Board did not discuss the 25% trip reduction contained in the study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the 25% trip reduction contained in the traffic impact study and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 3. Fort Collins Traffic Operations has established a policy that discriminates against student housing. The Appellant asserts that the City and/or the traffic consultant used a recent study of student housing trip generation in Minnesota (Spack Memorandum) to estimate trips for the Carriage House Apartments. The Spack Memorandum was provided to the Planning and Zoning Board at its hearing for consideration, although the Board did not discuss the details of the Spack Memorandum during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the Spack Memorandum and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 4. City Council has established policies prohibiting discrimination in multi-family housing. The Appellant asserts that the submitted traffic impact study was flawed because of the use of standards used in outside municipalities that relate to student oriented housing. The traffic impact study and the Spack Memorandum were provided to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration in its decision, however theBoard did not discuss the Spack Memorandum or specifics of the Traffic Impact Study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding the submitted traffic impact study and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. 5. The negative impacts of artificially reduced traffic projections extend beyond a single proposal. The Appellant asserts that the adjusted trip generation estimates used in traffic impact studies was also prevalent in other project approvals and have a negative impact. The Appellant also maintains that the flawed trip generation will negatively impact Street Oversizing fees collected. May 21, 2013 -3- ITEM 26 The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the impact of trip generation rates contained in the submitted traffic impact study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. Staff has prepared information regarding trip generation impacts and Street Oversizing fees and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the record and determine if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the Board for further consideration. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, with attachments 4. Applicant Materials submitted at the Hearing 5. Citizen materials submitted at the Hearing 6. Verbatim Transcript 7. Staff Powerpoint Presentation to Council ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal - Joel Rovnak, filed April 4, 2013 ATTACHMENT 3 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, Hearing held March 21, 2013 Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 2 The proposed three story multi-family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible with the surrounding context by its’ complementary architectural design featuring Craftsman architectural detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent single-family homes to the south and west. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential with free-stall barns and farm character); S: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential and Bennett Elementary School); E: H-M-N—High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (existing commercial); W: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential neighborhoods) In late 2011, the home located at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for Local Landmark designation by the Landmark Preservation Commission Chair and the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, under the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code. At that time, this decision was not appealable to City Council. Additionally, the Historic and Cultural Resource Section of the Land Use Code (Section 3.4.7) protected the home from being demolished, however the Applicant was still requesting to move forward with the redevelopment application and question of the demolition of the home came before the Planning and Zoning Board in 2012 not as a proposed development plan, but as two stand-alone requests for the modification of standards to Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Board denied the stand-alone modification requests and the Applicant appealed the decision to City Council in April, 2012. The City Council upheld the Board’s denial decision, and instructed Staff to revisit the determination of eligibility section of the Municipal Code. In summer of 2012, changes were made to the Municipal Code relating to the determination of Local Landmark eligibility process. In September 2012, the Applicant provided new information to the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding the home at 1305 South Shields Street and in October, 2012 the Commission overturned the previous determination that the home was individually eligible for Local Landmark Designation (please see page 5 of the attached Landmark Preservation Commission Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 3 minutes from October, 2012). As the residence at 1305 South Shields Street is no longer eligible for Local Landmark Designation, it can be demolished, as proposed. West Central Neighborhood Plan The proposed project is located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (Adopted, 1999). The West Central Neighborhood Plan Area (WCNP) identifies the subject parcels as a redevelopment area on page 2 of Chapter 3. For WCNP identified redevelopment areas, the predominant uses (in this case single-family) are not considered to be the most appropriate for the future and have potential for selective conversion to more efficient uses. Moreover, the WCNP continues on to state that, “the area along the west side of Shields Street,… are candidates for redevelopment in a manner that allows conversion from (single-family) residential to multi-family residential.” The WCNP calls for redevelopment to create a buffer for the single-family residential neighborhoods to the west from Shields Street. The proposed Project Development Plan is an appropriate redevelopment of the area, and creates buffer in conformance with the adopted policies of the West Central Neighborhood Plan. 2. Compliance with Article Four- Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Standards: As previously mentioned, the site is located within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B). The purpose of the N-C-B Zone District is: “…intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan.” To the east of the site is a commercial area and Colorado State University; to the west is primarily single family residential. The proposed project fits the intent and purpose of the N-C-B Zone District. A. Section 4.9(B) - Land Use In the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer zone district, the review and decision making body for multi-family housing projects are governed by the number of dwelling units and the residential net density. The proposed land use is considered multi-family and is permitted in the N-C-B zone district. The net area of the PDP is 1.45 acres. As 57 units are proposed, the density is 39.3 dwelling units per net acre. Since the PDP contains more than four dwelling units in one building, at a density of more than 24 dwelling units per net acre, the land use is permitted, subject to review and a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Section 4.9(D) - Density Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 4 The N-C-B zone district permits a building to contain an amount of square footage that equals the lot area, which in this case is 64,828 square feet. The proposed square footage combined total is 39,281 square feet, thus complying with the standard. Additionally, the Land Use Code requires there to be a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .33 on the rear 50 percent of the lot, or in this case, 10,433 square feet. The project proposes 10,272 square feet in the rear 50 percent of the lot, for a .325 rear Floor Area Ratio, meeting the standard. C. Section 4.9(D)(6) - Dimensional Standards PDP provides a lot width of approximately 400 feet, meeting the minimum N-BC-B lot width requirement of 50 feet. The project utilizes a contextual front yard setback of 30 feet. The contextual setback provision of Section 3.8.19 states that regardless of the minimum front setback requirement imposed by the zone district standards (in this case 60 feet for areas within the West Central Plan neighborhoods), Applicants are allowed to use a contextual front setback. The setback of the abutting home to the west at 1201Springfield Drive is 30 feet. Therefore, the project meets setback requirements. The PDP provides a 15 foot 5 inch rear yard setback from the property to the south, meeting the minimum requirement of 15 feet. The PDP provides a 76 foot side yard setback along the west side property line and a 27 foot setback along the east property line. This complies with the standard that the side yard setback be a minimum of five feet for the first 18 feet of height and then one additional foot for each two feet of height thereafter. With a building height of 40 feet, the 22 feet over the baseline of 18 feet requires 11 additional feet of side yard setback. The 16 feet consists of five feet plus 11 feet to accommodate a 40 foot high building. The building is three stories in height thus not exceeding the maximum allowed of three stories in height for the N-C-B zone district. D. Section 4.9(E)(1) - Building Design Since the buildings are rectilinear, all exterior walls are constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines. The primary entrances of the buildings are oriented to Springfield Drive. The entrances are enhanced by porches with overhangs. Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 5 The proposed roof pitches for the buildings are 5:12, meeting the minimum roof pitch of 2:12 and within the maximum roof pitch of 12:12. The front elevation features a variety of treatments creating a well- articulated appearance. E. Section 4.9(E)(5) – Site Design In the N-C-B District, permanent off-street parking areas cannot be located any closer to a public street than the distance of the setback of the building and the street. The parking stall furthest to the north is setback approximately 40 feet from the property line and Building 1 is set back 30 feet, satisfying the standard. 3. Compliance with Applicable Article 3 - General Development Standards: As illustrated by the previous section, the N-C-B zone contains numerous specific standards. Where N-C-B Zone District standards of Article Four are more specific or stringent, they prevail over the less specific or stringent standard that may be found in the General Development standards of Article Three, except in the case of the contextual setback regulations. The PDP complies with the applicable General Development standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1(C) & (D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection The PDP provides full tree stocking and foundation shrubs around the perimeter of the buildings. Existing crabapple trees will be retained. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) – Minimum Species Diversity This standard requires that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen) will exceed the allowable 25 percent of the total number of trees on the landscape plan. The landscape plan proposes 59 new trees, and no more than 15 can be of one species. The most of any one species is the Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry, with 15 trees, complying with the standard. C. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) – Water Conservation Standards Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the Carriage House Apartments PDP landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees and moderate water use plant materials where practical. An automatic, underground irrigation system will be designed to address specific needs of different plan species, soil conditions, as well as the Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 6 slope and aspect of the different hydrozones. An irrigation plan will be provided by the Applicant concurrently with their building permit application. The water budget chart provided by the Applicant calls out that the average water usage for the site is 13.48 gallons per square foot, under the maximum 15 gallons per square foot permitted. The project meets the water conservation standards. D. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The perimeter of the projects’ vehicular use area will be effectively screened from the residential uses to the south and west with a combination of plant material featuring evergreen trees and a 6 foot tall wood fence, meeting the requirements of this standard. E. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. This standard requires that existing trees be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. The City Forester conducted an on-site meeting with the Applicant and determined a mitigation schedule. Currently, there are 57 trees existing on this site. For this project, 19 trees will be protected (in place) and 43 trees will be removed. Of these 43 trees to be removed, 15 trees that are proposed to be removed require mitigation. These trees have a mitigation value of 23 trees. The Applicant is providing 28 upsized trees, meeting the mitigation requirement. F. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and Parking, The site is an infill location surrounded by existing development including Colorado State University to the northeast. A new 6 foot attached sidewalk will be constructed along Springfield Drive and a new 6 foot detached sidewalk will be constructed along South Shields Street before joining the existing attached sidewalk along Shields Street. The buildings will feature connecting walkways out to Springfield Drive. In terms of pedestrian connectivity to off-site destinations, there are existing crosswalks at the Prospect Road and Shields Street and Elizabeth Street and Shields Street signalized intersections. Additionally, there is a striped crosswalk (across Shields Street) with a pedestrian signal at Lake Street. The project meets connectivity requirements. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities This standard requires multi-family residential is required to provide 1 bike parking space per bedroom with a minimum of 60% of these spaces enclosed. The PDP proposes 97 bedrooms and requires 58 enclosed bicycle parking spaces. As proposed, the project provides 103 bicycle parking spaces total. Of these spaces, 59 bike parking spaces are Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 7 enclosed, located within the building, and 44 spaces will be distributed among 4 exterior fixed bicycle racks. H. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) – Parking Lots – Required Number of Spaces This Section of the Code states that Multi-family dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone have no minimum parking requirements. The project provides 58 parking spaces, thus meeting the Land Use Code requirement. The intent of removing the minimum parking requirements in the TOD was to alleviate a barrier to redevelopment in the area, and to reflect the fact that multi-modal travel options were available or planned for those areas. The removal of minimum parking requirements in the TOD was not meant to remove the entire obligation for development-related parking. Instead, the provision was intended to recognize that the need for parking should be a market-based decision based on specific project needs, the surrounding context, and available travel options and facilities. If Carriage House Apartments was held to the required minimum number of spaces as it would be elsewhere in Fort Collins (non-TOD), then a total of 96 parking spaces would be required. Instead, 58 parking spaces are provided and supplemented with both interior and exterior bike parking for 103 bikes. The site is served by Transfort route 19 and a bus stop will be located 20 feet directly east of Building 4. The proposed project encourages alternative modes and further reinforces fundamental polices of City Plan. The table below illustrates how the proposed project compares to existing projects located in the TOD in terms of parking provided. Comparative Parking Analysis for Multi-Family Projects located within the TOD Overlay Zone Project Name Location Units Bedrooms Parking Spaces Provided Parking Required if Not in TOD Pura Vida Apartments 518 W. Laurel 52 units 20 1-bd 16 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 100 49 spaces 90spaces Flats at Oval 306 W. Laurel 47 units 12 1-bd 19 2-bd 16 3-bd Total: 96 57 spaces 83 spaces Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 8 Willow Street Lofts 214 Willow 24 units 2 1-bd 22 2-bd Total: 46 35 spaces 42 spaces Proposed: Carriage House Apts. 1305- 1319 S. Shields 57 units 29 1-bd 16 2-bd 12 3-bd Total: 97 58 spaces 96 spaces As illustrated by the table above, the data would suggest that the market response is to provide one parking space per dwelling unit in the TOD. I. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking The code requires 3 handicap parking spaces for projects that provide 51- 75 total parking spaces. The Carriage House Apartments PDP meets the required three handicapped accessible spaces, including one van accessible space. J. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The Applicant submitted a photometric plan and the proposed site lighting complies with the requirements set forth in this section of the Land Use Code. Site lighting will feature down-directional, fully shielded, cut-off fixtures that are consistent in character with the craftsman bungalow style architecture proposed. Public street lighting has been factored into the lighting plan to avoid redundancy. K. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures The proposed trash collection/recycling enclosure satisfies the Land Use Code requirements. A new trash enclosure is proposed on the southwest corner of the site and is approximately 250 square feet in size on a concrete slab. As proposed, the enclosure will be 6 feet in height, constructed of masonry pilasters and cedar lumber. L. Section 3.4.7(F)(5) – Historic Landscaping Existing on-site, there are Crabapple trees along the south side of Springfield Drive, that the City Forester estimates to be around 100 years old. As such, these Crabapple trees will be preserved. M. Section 3.5.1 – Building Project and Compatibility This standard requires that new projects be compatible with the established architectural character and context of the general area. The standard also states that where the architectural character is not definitively established, new projects should establish an enhanced Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 9 standard of quality. Moreover, the compatibility standards of this section require that the characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the larger context of the surrounding area. The Land Use Code offers the following definition of the term “compatibility”: Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. The definition of compatibility is unique as no single element of the compatibility definition is essentially equivalent to a compatibility litmus test; rather it is a contextually driven notion and is derived based on circumstances on a case-by-case basis. The proposed buildings are three-stories (40 feet tall) in height and are compatible with single family homes on Springfield Drive to the east and the two-story (28 feet tall) single-family homes to the south on Bennett Road. The height of the project, in tandem with its location on an arterial, provide an appropriate and compatible transition from the high traffic and commercial east of Shields Street to the adjacent single-family neighborhoods to the west. Instead of one large, massive multi-family structure, the PDP responds to the existing residential character to the north, south and west, by breaking up the project into five smaller buildings that are articulated with front porches assisting with the project blending in with the existing streetscape composition. The architectural character borrows from the Craftsman Bungalow vernacular of the area and sets an enhanced standard of quality for future projects. The primary building material is horizontal lap siding with the inclusion of stone and brick at the base. The buildings are appropriately articulated, further breaking up each building’s mass, as they read more like large single-family homes. Detailing features such as hip and gable roofs, accented window trim and timber brackets enhance the architectural character and reinforce the compatibility of the project with the area. N. Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 10 This standard requires that compatibility be achieved by consideration of scale, form, materials, color, buffer yard and operational standards. Staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to neighborhood compatibility and pertinent issues related to scale, form, materials and color have been addressed. As previously stated, it is important to note that there is no one single standard in the Land Use Code that would be equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of “Compatibility” (above) specifically states that it “…does not mean the same as.” Rather, the Code further breaks the issues down. The PDP has been evaluated by these standards and the PDP is found to be in compliance. O. Section 3.5.2(C) – Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking This standard requires that every front façade with a primary entrance shall face the public street (smaller than an arterial) and be within 200 feet of a connecting walkway, to the extent reasonably feasible. Buildings 1 – 4 face Springfield Drive and feature porches with entrances and connecting walkways out to the public sidewalk along Springfield Drive. In the case of Building 5, the building has a connecting walkway to the sidewalk along Shields Street. The PDP meets the standards. P. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) memorandum was provided as part of this Project Development Plan. Since the site is close to campus, the standard practice of a 25 percent trip reduction was taken into account for utilization of multi-modal transportation options. The Shields Street and Springfield Drive intersection will operate acceptably based on adopted level of service standards. The TIS shows that the existing single family homes on site generate 28 daily trip ends and the trip generation for Carriage House Apartments is calculated at 204 daily trip ends. While the traffic on Springfield Drive will increase to the west of the site, it is still commensurate with that expected on a local street. Nevertheless, the project meets the City’s level of service standards. In addition, the PDP is in an area in which a pedestrian and bicycle Level of Service evaluation is required. In terms of pedestrian connectivity and level of service, there are existing crosswalks at the Prospect Road and Shields Street and Elizabeth Street and Shields Street signalized intersections. Additionally, there is a striped crosswalk (across Shields Street) with a pedestrian signal at Lake Street. The TIS shows that the Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 11 City’s levels of service standards for both pedestrians and bicycles are met. Overall, the Traffic Study concludes that with this project, the future level of service at the Springfield Drive and Shields Street intersection will be acceptable. Q. Section 3.6.5 – Transit Facilities Standards This standard requires new developments to accommodate existing and planned transit routes by providing transit stops and associated facilities. The site is served by Transfort Route 19 on Shields Street with both north and south service. Transfort Route 3 provides northbound service on Shields Street. Both Route 19 and 3 serve the CSU Transit Center. Route 19 runs every 60 minutes year-round and every 30 minutes at AM and PM peak periods during the school year. The PDP provides a Transfort bus stop concrete pad along South Shields Street. The project meets the standards of this Section. R. Section 3.8.30 – Multi-family Dwelling Development Standards Multi-family developments located in the TOD Overlay Zone are specifically exempt from the mix of housing unit types requirement, access to park, central feature or gathering place requirements and the building requirements. The multi- family buildings are not exempt from meeting the block or design standards. S. Section 3.8.30(D) – Block Requirements The block requirements mandate multi-family developments to feature a series of blocks, made up of public streets, private streets or street-like private drives, no more than 7 acres in size. The PDP is only 1 block with buildings fronting along Springfield Drive and South Shields Street. The site is 1.48 acres, satisfying the requirements. Section 3.8.30(F) – Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings This Section of the LUC addresses architecture and site design as it relates to multi-family developments. Moreover, this Section is intended to promote variety in multi-family buildings and enhance visual interest, reinforcing architectural elements. (1) 3.8.30(F)(1) – Orientation and Setbacks This standard states that setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single and two-family dwellings is 25 feet. There is an Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 12 abutting single-family home to the south at 1321 South Shields Street. This standard is not applicable because the N-C-B District standards contained in Article 4 would govern the rear/side setback due to Section 3.1.2. This Section states that, “In the event of a conflict between a standard or requirement contained in Article 3 and Article 4, the standard in Article 4 shall prevail.” The N-C-B District requires a 15 foot setback in this instance. The project provides a 15 foot 5 inch setback and meets the requirements. (2) 3.8.30(F)(2)– Variation Among Repeated Buildings These standards require developments containing between 3 – 5 buildings to provide two different building designs with two different muted, color palettes. The project meets this standard by the two different “green” and “white” designs. The green buildings contain 13 and 14 units while the while buildings are smaller and contain 10 units. The green buildings are a total of 8,092 square feet and the white buildings are 7,699 square feet. (3) 3.8.30(F)(4)– Entrances The project provides covered entrances that are visible from Springfield Drive and South Shields Street, meeting the standard. (4) 3.8.30(F)(5)– Roofs The two building designs employ traditional forms such as hip and gable roofs with articulation and accent brackets. Both building designs have low pitches, reflecting the Craftsman style. The secondary roofs transition over the second story balconies. The PDP meets the standard. (5) 3.8.30(F)(5)– Facades and Walls Each multifamily building is articulated with projections and covered entries, assisting with dividing the façade into human-scaled proportions similar to adjacent single family dwellings. There are no blank walls. The PDP complies with the standards. 4. Compliance with Applicable Article Two, Administration: A. Section 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings A neighborhood meeting was held on October 29, 2012. A summary of this meeting is attached. Discussion centered around the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods to the west and south, and the number of parking spaces. Carriage House Apartments, #PDP120035 March 21, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Page 13 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: In reviewing the request for Carriage House Apartments PDP, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. Multi-family dwelling units are a permitted use in the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable provisions of Article Four, District Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan #PDP120035. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan (architectural elevations included) 2. Landscape Plan 3. Tree Mitigation Plan 4. Plat 5. Planning Objectives 6. Traffic Study 7. Minutes from October 10, 2012 Landmark Preservation Commission. 8. Notes from the October 29, 2012 Neighborhood Meeting 9. Citizen Comments 12.19.2012 Page 2 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx storage is required on this site. We have provided 59 enclosed spaces within the building structures (we have 97 bedrooms total, so this equates to over 60% of the bedrooms having a storage space under the roof), and additionally, we have located a minimum of 40 fixed bicycle racks outside throughout the site for easy access. Site Plan: The concept of the site design is to allocate the density into structures that are more compatible with the square feet of homes. We have endeavored to maintain space between the buildings as well as gracious set-backs consistent with the adjacent lots. The proposed site layout places the front facades of the buildings toward Springfield to relate to the neighborhood context. We have designed the buildings to have front porches which face the street and to create an inviting sense of arrival. The placement of the buildings and the scale we have developed them at is consistent with intent of the principals and policies outlined in the city plan document which seeks to create a strong streetscape. Our front setback is contextual to the 1201 W. Springfield home immediately to the West, which we have measured at thirty feet. The subject property building façades along Springfield are currently thirty-one feet (31’-0”) from our property line. Our side yard setback is set to fifteen feet (15’-0”) from S. Shields street and our structures are fifteen feet (15’-0”) from the neighboring lot to the South on S. Shields. Building Design and Materials: The architecture is sensitive to the neighborhood context and all of the building facades are well articulated. The style of the buildings is reminiscent of the ‘shingle/ craftsman style’. In this architecture, there is a richness to the material pallet and a sense of crafted details that give a sense of scale to the buildings. The massing of the buildings use traditional forms such as hip and gable roofs, heavy grounded bases, timber bracket details and cozy covered front-porch features. We have used a variety of materials and colors to enhance the articulated facades, creating different textures within a well thought out composition. It is the intent that the two types of buildings are different in their look and material composition, yet that they blend together into one streetscape composition. We have carefully selected a variety of materials to ensure this. These include the following: • White Building: We have designed this building to have a natural color Sunset Stone base with a non- combustible siding in two styles and colors. The stone will be similar to Dakota Stone from Masonville which is used on many buildings in the city. We have both a horizontal lap siding and a shingle siding at the accent gables and are suggesting a pallet in buff or taupe tones to blend with the natural stone. Additionally, we have a combination of stained rough-sawn wood timbers and non-combustible stained fascia boards for the building railings, trim and accent brackets. The roof is made up of simple asphalt shingles and is low in pitch to reflect the craftsman style. • Green Building: This building has a brick base in dark red tone and also has a combination of a non- combustible siding in two styles and colors. We have both a horizontal lap siding and a shingle siding at the accent gables and are suggesting a pallet in green tones to contrast with the red brick colors similar to the buildings on the campus of CSU. Additionally, we have a combination of stained rough-sawn wood timbers and non-combustible stained fascia boards for the building railings, trim and accent brackets. The roof is asphalt shingles and is low in pitch to reflect the craftsman style. Landscape and Hardscape: The landscape is important to our proposal as well. The site has a beautiful row of Orchard trees to the North along Springfield. We have endeavored to keep these trees and have designed them into the site plan. Additionally, we meet the codes required for landscaping in this zone district with our plan. It is also an important design idea of our proposal that the buildings each have a ‘walk’ that attaches to the sidewalk on Springfield and creates a path to the front porches of each structure. This will be lit with residential style sidewalk lamp post and will create a neighborhood feel. To the North along the parking lot, we will have walks leading to each building and connecting to the parking. Between these walks will be landscape areas with a combination of grass, bushes and trees. 12.19.2012 Page 3 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx Neighborhood Concerns: We have held two neighborhood meetings to inform the community about our plans on this site. The concerns that the neighbors have brought up include the following: • Our design proposal at our first neighborhood meeting was to site 1 large building on the site. After much resistance from the neighbors we are proposing 5 separate buildings. The layout of the buildings on the site will relate to the adjacent single family homes and keep in characteristic of the neighborhood. • Height of the buildings – we have kept the buildings under the 40’ height limit and have reduced the height of the ‘White Building’ to the West so that the project massing steps down a few more feet to the neighbor on that side. • Parking – the neighbors were concerned about residents parking on the street in front of their homes. We have strived to park as many cars onto our site as possible to help keep what we can on our property. We have also provided ample bike racks for the residents. We feel with the location of this property, many of the residents will take public transportation or walk to their destinations. • During our second neighborhood meeting we received comments about the location of our trash enclosure. We have listened to the neighbors and have moved the trash enclosure away from the neighboring properties and located it to the South West of building one. This location is convenient for the tenants as well as the trash truck to enter and exit the site. • We have talked closely with our neighbor to the West and have discussed how to berm up the hill between the property line and our parking to provide a nice landscape buffer. Trees will be located on this berm to help buffer the properties. We will have a six foot high fence along the West and South properties lines to help separate the properties and block the headlights of the cars in the parking lot. Planning Objectives: The City Plan design attributes are listed in the following policies below are the objectives that we have strived to address in this submittal. Policy EH 4.1 -Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas • This development is located on the corner of Springfield Drive and South Shields street which falls into the targeted infill area. The run down houses on the site will be replaced with new houses to connect to the surround neighborhood and offices neighboring the project. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). • The city encourages higher density in locations on transit lines and where existing infrastructure existing. The higher density housing located on this site is in close proximity to the university for easy access for tenants Policy LIV 6.1 -Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas • Expand underutilized parcels that are surrounded by existing residential development. The multi family development will add more dwelling units to the area while reflecting the neighborhoods character. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing • The development provides 57 units and 97 bedrooms to help add to and maintain an adequate supply of multi- family units. Policy LIV 7.7 –Accommodate the Student Population • This development helps to bring more apartments to the area and place students into appropriate housing types versus neighboring single family homes located near the university. Policy LIV 10.1 -Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets 12.19.2012 Page 4 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx • No new streets will be built to complete this development. The existing streets will be enhanced by abiding to the latest ROW standards and incorporating existing trees on the site to enhance the new sidewalks. Policy LIV 22.1 –Vary Housing Models and Types • The development consists of 5 buildings that incorporate the detail of craftsman style architecture. The variation in details, colors, balconies and roofs bring a variation to the streetscape. The style of building reflects similar styles located in the neighborhood. Policy LIV 22.2 - Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design • The project has developed 5 multi-family homes versus 1 large building on the site. Each building has its own carriage style street lamp post leading up to the buildings front porches. These characteristics reflect the neighboring single family homes. Policy LIV 43.3 - Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns • The corner of South Shields and Springfield is an ideal site to support transit supportive development patterns. We are located near transit and close to bike trails for the apartment users to have easy access to. Policy T3.4 -Travel Demand Management • Our site is located close to the University which will help manage development in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence West Central Neighborhood Design Attributes Policy PD 4 - Pedestrian priority areas along the site will have new sidewalks with wider widths to make safer pedestrian traffic around the site and through it. Policy F7 - Endorses higher density near the University. Our site is in close proximity to the campus as well as has connections to transit and bike lines to encourage a safe site for student housing. HO 4 - Encourages multi-family development in deteriorated properties close to CSU which is what our project is doing. Future Housing Needs (B) - Encourages small scale apartment buildings to reflect with the surrounding buildings Housing Design (B) – Our development is in close proximity to CSU and will be student apartments which are encouraged to be 3 stories or more. With our project along Shields street and near other residential we thought that 3 stories was the appropriate scale for the site and to maximize student housing that is desired. Project Data: Below is the relevant project data for this submittal: • Applicant: Catamount Properties, Ltd 7302 Rozena Drive Longmont, CO 80503 Charles Bailey • Project Name: Carriage House Apartment Homes • Address: 1305- 1319 S. Sheilds Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 12.19.2012 Page 5 of 5 p:\2011\511131.00 1319 shields - student housing\131_project management\submittals to city of fc\statement of planning objectives.docx • Zoning: NCB with TOC overlay • Site Area: 64,828 SF (1.48 AC) • Gross Building area: 39,281 SF is less than 64,828 SF • Rear Site (back 50%) Area: 10,272 SF is less than (.33 of 31,614 SF = 10,433 SF) • Proposed Density: 38.5 DU/AC with 57 units • Proposed Height: Buildings do not exceed 40’-0” max height limit • Building Setbacks: Springfield – Front setback is contextual at 30’-0”. Side and Rear are set at 15’-0” • Proposed Building Coverage: 15,927 SF • Proposed Parking and Drives Coverage: 17,334 SF • Proposed Open Space/Landscape Coverage: 26,215 SF • Parking: 62 spaces total are located on the site • No new streets are a part of this proposal • Open space is calculated as 40.4% of the site. • There are no wetlands or other natural features that are impacted by this development. • The development will be maintained by the ownership group and a professional management company. • No commercial use is proposed on the site. We look forward to reviewing our project development plan submittal in greater detail with you. If you should have any questions or need additional information do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, Rebecca Stone, AIA, Principal OZ Architecture of Denver, Inc 3003 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80205 303-861-5704 East Mulberry Corridor Plan Harmony Corridor Plan I-25 Subarea Plan North College Corridor Plan Prospect Road Streetscape Plan South College Corridor Plan Downtown Plan East Side Neighborhood Plan Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Northside Neighborhoods Plan Northwest Subarea Plan West Side Neighborhood Plan West Central Neighborhoods Plan 00.0.25 511.52 Miles © Subarea Plans These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Growth Management Area Subarea Plans Printed: March 03, 2011 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES Structure Plan. In areas termed “low density mixed use district,” acceptable operation at unsignalized intersections along arterial streets during the peak hours, is defined as level of service F, which is considered to be normal in an urban environment. The Shields/Springfield intersection operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Figure 3 shows the site plan for Carriage House Apartments. Carriage House Apartments will consist of 57 apartment units (97 beds). Carriage House Apartments will be marketed toward CSU students. Access to Carriage House Apartments will be via a driveway on Springfield Drive. Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used as the reference document in calculating the trip generation. Persons (beds) was used as the trip generation variable. Since this site is close to the Colorado State University campus, a reduction (25%) was taken for the apartment trips that are expected to walk or bike to and from this site. Table 2 shows the trip generation for Carriage House Apartments. This trip generation was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. The trip generation for Carriage House Apartments is calculated at: 204 daily trip ends, 27 morning peak hour trip ends, and 31 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Using the cited reference document, the three single family homes generates: 28 daily trip ends, 2 morning peak hour trip ends, and 3 afternoon peak hour trip ends. It is expected that the proposed Carriage House Apartments will generate more traffic than the existing land use. One of the single family homes has direct access to Shields Street, a four-lane arterial street. The Shields Street access will be closed. Removing direct access to an arterial street is viewed as favorable from a traffic operations perspective. In addition to this, the number of driveways on Springfield Drive will be reduced to one and located approximately 400 feet from Shields Street. The trip distribution for this site is shown in Figure 4. The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 5 shows the site generated traffic assignment of Carriage House Apartments. Figure 6 shows the short range (2017) background peak hour traffic at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2017) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area. The counted traffic was increased at the rate of 1 percent per year. Table 3 shows the short range (2017) background peak hour operation at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The Shields/Springfield intersection will operate acceptably with the existing control and geometry. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Level of service F is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Figure 7 shows the short range (2017) total peak hour traffic at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Table 4 shows the short range (2017) total peak hour operation at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Calculation forms are provided in DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES Appendix E. The Shields/Springfield intersection will operate acceptably during the peak hours. The Shields/Springfield intersection calculated delay for the afternoon peak hour eastbound approach was commensurate with level of service F. Level of service F is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. Figure 8 shows the short range (2017) geometry at the Shields/Springfield intersection. This is the existing geometry at the Shields/Springfield intersection. Traffic on Springfield Drive will increase slightly to the west of this site. However, it will be commensurate with that expected on a local street. The Carriage House Apartments 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 Carriage House Apartments. The Carriage House Apartments site is located within an area termed as “pedestrian district,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A for all measured categories except street crossing, which is B. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Carriage House Apartments: 1) the Colorado State University Campus area and residential area to the east of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site, 3) the residential neighborhood to the north of the site, and 4) the residential neighborhood to the south of the site. There are small commercial components in destination areas 1, 3, and 4. It is not likely that there would be much pedestrian affinity between the residents of Carriage House Apartments and the residential neighborhoods in the area. There are crosswalks at the Prospect/Shields and Elizabeth/Shields signalized intersections. There is a striped crosswalk, across Shields Street, at the Shields/Lake intersection. This crosswalk has a pedestrian signal. Currently, there are sidewalks adjacent to the site along Shields Street and Springfield Drive. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Carriage House Apartments. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are two bicycle destinations: Colorado State University Campus and Bennett Elementary School. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F. This site connects directly to bike lanes on Shields Street, which achieves level of service B, as shown in Appendix F. Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 3 and 19, which serve the CSU Transit Center. It is expected that transit level of service will be acceptable. It is concluded that, with development of Carriage House Apartments, the future level of service at the Shields/Springfield intersection will be acceptable. The recommended geometry is shown in Figure 8. The level of service for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes will be acceptable. SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields Springfield Drive AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 4/24 1103/1278 7/12 760/1227 6/13 21/21 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield EB LT/RT C F (stop sign) SB LT A B TABLE 2 Carriage House Apartments Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartments 97 Beds Eq. 272 Eq. 7 Eq. 29 Eq. 26 Eq. 14 25% Reduction for Alternative Modes 68 2 7 6 3 Total 204 5 22 20 11 Springfield Drive TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street SITE 10% 45% 45% Springfield Drive AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 2/9 2/9 10/5 10/5 1/2 4/18 2/1 20/10 Site Access Springfield Drive AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 4/25 1159/1343 7/13 799/1290 6/14 22/22 DELICH Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield WB LT/RT C F (stop sign) SB LT/T B B TABLE 4 Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Shields/Springfield WB LT/RT D F (stop sign) SB LT/T B B Springfield/Site Access WB LT/T A A (stop sign) NB LT/RT A A Springfield Drive AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street 6/34 1159/1343 9/22 799/1290 16/19 32/27 28/36 1/2 11/38 4/18 2/1 20/10 Site Access Springfield Drive SHORT RANGE (2017) GEOMETRY Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Shields Street Site Access - Denotes Lane APPENDIX A 1 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX B 6 7 APPENDIX C 8 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Recent Am Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 6 21 4 1103 760 7 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 7 25 5 1298 894 8 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1557 451 902 0 0 0 Stage 1 898 - - - - - Stage 2 659 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 103 556 749 - - - Stage 1 358 - - - - - Stage 2 476 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 102 556 749 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 102 - - - - - Stage 1 358 - - - - - Stage 2 473 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 0 0 HCM LOS C A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 280 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.837 - 19.5 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.006 - 0.113 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.019 - 0.379 - - 9 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Recent PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 13 21 24 1278 1227 12 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 15 25 25 1345 1348 13 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2078 681 1361 0 0 0 Stage 1 1355 - - - - - Stage 2 723 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 46 393 501 - - - Stage 1 205 - - - - - Stage 2 441 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 44 393 501 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 44 - - - - - Stage 1 205 - - - - - Stage 2 419 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 66 0.2 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 97 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.567 - 66 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.05 - 0.412 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.159 - 1.7 - - 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 11 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Intersection type Commercial corridors Mixed use districts Low density mixed use residential All other areas Signalized intersections (overall) DE*DD Any Leg EEDE Any Movement EEDE Stop sign control (arterial/collector or local— any approach leg) N/A F** F** E Stop sign control (collector/local—any approach leg) N/A C C C * mitigating measures required ** considered normal in an urban environment 12 APPENDIX D 13 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Background AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 6 22 4 1159 799 7 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 7 26 5 1364 940 8 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1636 474 948 0 0 0 Stage 1 944 - - - - - Stage 2 692 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 92 537 720 - - - Stage 1 339 - - - - - Stage 2 458 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 91 537 720 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 91 - - - - - Stage 1 339 - - - - - Stage 2 455 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 20.7 0 0 HCM LOS C A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 262 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.033 - 20.7 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.007 - 0.126 - - HCM Lane LOS B - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.02 - 0.425 - - 14 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Background PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 14 22 25 1343 1290 13 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 26 26 1414 1418 14 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2184 716 1432 0 0 0 Stage 1 1425 - - - - - Stage 2 759 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 39 373 470 - - - Stage 1 188 - - - - - Stage 2 423 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 37 373 470 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 37 - - - - - Stage 1 188 - - - - - Stage 2 400 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 88.6 0.2 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 82 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.113 - 88.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.056 - 0.516 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.177 - 2.215 - - 15 APPENDIX E 16 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Total AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 16 32 6 1159 799 9 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 19 38 7 1364 940 11 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 1642 476 951 0 0 0 Stage 1 946 - - - - - Stage 2 696 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 91 535 718 - - - Stage 1 338 - - - - - Stage 2 456 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 90 535 718 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 90 - - - - - Stage 1 338 - - - - - Stage 2 452 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 29.6 0.1 0 HCM LOS D A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 202 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.064 - 29.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.01 - 0.28 - - HCM Lane LOS B - D - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.03 - 1.098 - - 17 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Shields & Springfield Short Total PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 19 27 34 1343 1290 22 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 22 32 36 1414 1418 24 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 2 2 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 2209 721 1442 0 0 0 Stage 1 1430 - - - - - Stage 2 779 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 38 370 466 - - - Stage 1 187 - - - - - Stage 2 413 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 35 370 466 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 35 - - - - - Stage 1 187 - - - - - Stage 2 381 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 130 0.3 0 HCM LOS F A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 75 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.367 - 130 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.077 - 0.722 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.248 - 3.385 - - 18 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Site Access & Springfield Short Total AM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 28 1 4 11 2 20 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 0 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 33 1 5 13 2 24 Number of Lanes 1001 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 34 0 57 34 Stage 1 ---- 34 - Stage 2 ---- 23 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1578 - 950 1039 Stage 1 ---- 988 - Stage 2 ---- 1000 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1578 - 947 1039 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 947 - Stage 1 ---- 988 - Stage 2 ---- 997 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 1.9 8.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 1030 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.288 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.025 - - 0.003 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.077 - - 0.009 - 19 HCM 2010 TWSC 5: Site Access & Springfield Short Total PM Synchro 8 Light Report Joseph Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 36 2 18 38 1 10 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 0 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 42 2 21 45 1 12 Number of Lanes 1001 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 44 0 130 43 Stage 1 ---- 43 - Stage 2 ---- 87 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1564 - 864 1027 Stage 1 ---- 979 - Stage 2 ---- 936 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1564 - 852 1027 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 852 - Stage 1 ---- 979 - Stage 2 ---- 923 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 2.4 8.6 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 1008 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 7.333 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.013 - - 0.014 - HCM Lane LOS A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.039 - - 0.041 - 20 APPENDIX F 21 SCALE: 1"=500' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields 22 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Pedestrian district Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification Directness Continuity Street Crossings Visual Interest & Amenities Security Minimum A A B A A 1 Actual A A B A A CSU/residential to the east Institutional/ Residential Proposed A A B A A Minimum A A B A A 2 Actual A A A A A Residential to the west Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum A A B A A 3 Actual A A A A A Residential to the north Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum A A B A A 4 Actual A A A A A Residential to the south Residential Proposed A A A A A Minimum 5 Actual Proposed Minimum 6 Actual Proposed Minimum 7 Actual Proposed Minimum 8 Actual Proposed Minimum 9 Actual Proposed Minimum 10 Actual Proposed 23 SCALE: 1"=500' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Carriage House Apartments TIS, December 2012 Springfield Bennett James Lake Prospect Elizabeth City Park Shields 24 Bicycle LOS Worksheet Level of Service – Connectivity Minimum Actual Proposed Base Connectivity: C B B Specific connections to priority sites: Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification 1 Colorado State University Institutional B B B 2 Bennett Elementary School Institutional B B B 3 4 25 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Carriage House Apartments, 1305 – 1319 South Shields Street MEETING DATE: October 29, 2012 APPLICANT: Charles Bailey, Developer, Catamount Properties CITY PLANNER: Courtney Levingston, City Planner, City of Fort Collins The meeting commenced at 6:00 p.m. with an introduction of City Staff and the Applicant’s team. After the introduction, City Staff explained the City’s review process as it relates to this development proposal and explained opportunities for citizens to engage in the process. At 6:20 p.m. the Applicant gave a project description and then took questions, comments and input from citizens as well as responding to questions and comments. The meeting adjourned around 7:27 p.m. Unless otherwise noted, all responses to questions and comments are from Mr. Charles Bailey, Principal, Catamount Development. Q: Is the application the same as development plans? When the application is put in, we’ll know what is in the plan? A: (City Planner) Yes. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 2 | P a g e Q: Why was the cooling off period May-October when the Landmark Preservation Commission decision was in October? A: (City Planner) Landmark Preservation Commission decisions are independent of the development cooling off period. The determination of eligibility process is located in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The “cooling-off” period is in the Land Use Code and applies to Development Review applications. The applicant applied for a “stand-alone” modification of standards to Planning & Zoning board, which was appealed April 3 rd . The “cooling off” period was Q: TOD code provision (LUC 3.10) shall include convenient outdoor area – what is the designated transit station for this area? A: (City Planner) That code provision applies to projects south of Prospect Road. The TOD parking requirements are not located in Section 3.10, they are located in Section 3.2 and are part of the General Development Standards. Q: Is there a section of the code that includes north of Prospect Road? A: (City Planner) Article 3 of the Land Use Code, the General Development Standards, minus Section 3.10, applies to north of Prospect Road and the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District standards. Q: Is there a main entrance off Springfield? A: Yes. C: I am concerned about the entrance being located on curve. Visibility will be difficult and I think there is a high potential for accidents. The fence on other side of the street was previously knocked down. Slowing bumps make it better. There are 20-25 cars parked on the street on a normal day. This project adding parked cars, in conjunction with the curve of Springfield Drive, creates a high potential for accidents. With 50 spaces proposed, there will be at least an additional 50 cars parking on the street & parking/traffic issues. A: Each building has 10 units. There are 5 buildings proposed for 50 units and about 100 beds. At Pure Vida, for example, not all residents have cars. Q: Coming off Springfield Drive onto Shields Street is adding a lot of traffic and there is also Bennett Elementary nearby. With this proposal, it will be even more difficult to make a left-hand turns going northbound onto Shields Street. Q: Will each unit be a 2-bedroom unit? Bedroom numbers have a profound impact on the neighborhood. A: The bedroom count is not finalized at this time. It will be a combination of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, for about 100 bedrooms. When the submittal is made, number of bedrooms will be known. Q: Is there a maximum number of units based on acreage? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 3 | P a g e A: (City Planner) The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District standards regulate density in this instance. It states that 24 units/acre and below, an administrative hearing, above and a Planning & Zoning Board hearing. The site is about 1.5 acres. 50 dwelling units/1.5acres is about 33 du/acre – that would mean a P&Z Hearing. C: This is the same plan as last time. The neighborhood had concerns of height (3- story buildings not fitting in the neighborhood and the number low number of parking spaces). I appears as though the concerns from neighborhood were ignored. A: (Developer) Neither is a code element. There are issues on the development end when taking height into consideration. C: There are single story buildings across the street from site and in the surrounding areas adjacent to the project. The doctor’s office across street is single story. The office building nearby is two stories. There are no 3-story buildings in this area. Q: What are the density requirements of the code for the site? What was the Code when it was originally developed? There must be some restrictions on number of units. A: (City Planner) No maximum density in terms of specific number of dwelling units. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district regulates density though minimum lot area size and Floor Area Ratio as opposed to strictly limiting the number of units. However, some zoning districts in the City (such as the Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District) have density maximums related to number of units. Code came into effect in 1997 and there are frequent changes to the code. Q: How often is the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone evaluated? Why is our area included in TOD even though we are far away from the Mason Corridor? I feel that this inclusion in the TOD doesn’t fit in our Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone with the inclusion of TOD zone with reduced parking requirements. A: (Planning Manager) Property already has an underlying zone assigned to it, in addition the zone can have the TOD overlay if within defined boundaries and brings in new/different requirements. Still using and evaluation the standards adopted by City Council. Q: What defines the TOD overlay? What does it even mean? A: (City Planner) Generally, the TOD boundary runs along the targeted infill and redevelopment areas identified in City Plan (City’s Comprehensive Plan). South of Prospect, there are additional standards that apply to the district. C: (City Planner) The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is evaluating parking and other impacts of student housing in areas around campus. Please contact Beth Sowder in Neighborhood Services from City to become involved in SHAP and provide input regarding this effort. Q: Do the requirements of TOD precede NCB zone district? How does the overlay district interact with NCB district? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 4 | P a g e A: (City Planner) The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone (NCB) is contained in Article 4 of the Land Use Code and parking requirements are not contained in zone district standards (Article 4), they are contained in Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards of Article 3, General Development Standards. Division 3.2 of the Land Use Code states that in the TOD Overlay, no parking is required. Division 3.10 TOD standards apply to lands south of Prospect Road and the High Density Mixed Use zone district. TOD assists in promoting multi-modal transportation, one of the policies of City Plan. Q: Less than a mile away is single-family development only. How did this get converted to multiple units? A: (City Planner) I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone district was never converted. The NCB has always allowed many uses such as single family homes, duplexes, multi-family, offices, medical clinics, funeral homes – many different types of uses within the NCB zone district are permitted. C: It is my understanding that the last time students surveyed students on if they owned cars, 80% said they bring cars with them. Even if they are riding bikes they need to park their cars somewhere. I believe the TOD and Mason Corridor will require a change of values and education. C: Students have to get to Fort Collins, they have their cars. If parking isn’t required, they will overflow on the public streets. Currently, Springfield Drive is heavily trafficked including many pedestrian, bicycles, skateboarders ect. Cars are being parked somewhere and City is allowing city streets to be overrun by cars on streets. With so many cars parked in front of my house it is difficult to get and out of my driveway, especially with the inability to see over cars, through tinting. A: (Developer) We are planning as much parking as the site will allow. Pure Vida has 47 reserved parking spaces, and the development so far is working well. It may not be the development at hand that is the issue. Commuter students are poaching spaces in residential neighborhoods as they drive into campus. There is no real density around CSU campus and until there is, students will drive in from outlying areas of the community and park their cars in the surrounding neighborhoods. C: I don’t see increasing density as a solution in areas around campus. This project is adding a potential 100 beds and maybe 80 cars. Cars are already lining Springfield Drive. Adding 50 cars could be parking on nearby streets and there aren’t many parking spaces. It will be difficult and dangerous to drive down our streets. There are safety issues for neighborhood children and college students. Springfiled Drive and Shields are already busy streets and increasing density in the areas dangerous situation to put people in. Q: You (developer) have been talking about the proposal for a year. There is a commitment in terms of time and cost and understanding the nuances of the process. We understand that development occurs and projects need to be viable. As more Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 5 | P a g e becomes clear in the plans, we would like to feel an assurance that you are listing to us and taking into account neighborhood suggestions. This will make it more livable for neighbors when you take our concerns into account. Q: (Developer) Has anyone been designated from the neighborhood as a spokesman? A designated person can help facilitate communication. A: (Citizens) After the meeting, we will look into designating one for you. C: I disagree about a lack of density near the university. Mulberry to Prospect & Shields to Taft is one of the most heavily populated square miles in the City. There are a lot of townhomes, duplexes, apartments. A: (Developer) Density is relative. Looking at 7 universities, only Laramie has less density than Fort Collins. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Kansas State has more density. This is what is happening (density) on Laurel Street and it is positive for the community. Densification allows students to live near campus and walk to CSU. Q: Assuming the project goes ahead, and creates a problem on Springfield Drive– can the city do anything about temporary parking or discourage what may happen with overflow from this project? A: (Planning Manager) Usually what happens is someone makes a phone call, and then enforcement happens. Over the years, there has been creative solutions, depending on location and land-uses opportunities for shared parking with adjoining uses. For example, residential units and nearby offices can share parking because they have different peak uses periods so a private shared parking agreement may be an option. Parking issues are somewhat difficult to deal with once units are already established. Onsite property management may be the first to hear complaints and then City. Students can be creative when finding parking spaces. This is a topic everyone in the vicinity of campus has to deal with. Q: Who do we approach to look into these solutions? A: The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is exploring idea of neighborhood parking permits and signage. Contact Beth Sowder to provide inputs/comments. SHAP is going up for Council consideration. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 6 | P a g e A: (Developer) We would endorse neighborhood parking decals. The problem may be Students and CSU staff from outside neighborhoods poaching parking spaces. These types of developments are desirable as they are close to campus. C: There are two huge CSU parking lots that are never full. One where they will be building stadium and off-college at west Lake. We need to ask CSU to get involved. CSU may not want to pay for the improvements, there parking lot fees force users to park in nearby neighborhoods. CSU has Emily Allen paid part time and she should be involved if students are not required to buy parking. Students save money by parking in the neighborhoods. Please pass this feedback onto SHAP. Q: Will there be onsite management? A: (Developer) Undecided at this point. We will look at if it is valuable. Another layer of supervision. One possible option could be that we could split management between Pure Vida and this development. C: On site management would be a good idea being that this project is so close to an elementary school so the school isn’t dragged into college antics. Q: Who considers the movement of people across Shields? It is incredibly difficult to get across the street to CSU. I am concerned for the new residents, CSU users, school kids and parents. How will adding another 100 students to the area going to increase safety in terms of crossing Shields? This is a very dangerous situation and a safety issue. A: (Developer) At Pure Vida, there was no access point across Laurel. A mid-block crossing (flashing light) was installed and helps break traffic speed at the location (Sherwood & Laurel). A: (City Planner) In addition to the application form, a traffic study will be required that looks at vehicular, pedestrian & bicycle traffic. How they move from place to place will be evaluated. Pure Vida may have be a tipping point in helping to get a mid-block crossing on Laurel Street. Q: Would you (the Developer) be an advocate of a similar mid-block crossing device? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 7 | P a g e A: I would try and help persuade the City. Q: You mentioned a plaza/common area on the back of the property. Parking impacts west/south side neighbors. Are there any plans for buffering those living next to the development from large gatherings, noise, headlights? You need to provide consideration for those living in the neighborhood. A: The plaza is a sitting area, gathering place. There will be community WiFi like at Pure Vida. It provides an opportunity for residents to take their laptops outside. No plans yet and we are looking for input. This plan would meet City requirements for landscaping the perimeters. C: People’s housing right next to the site and needs to be taken into consideration. A: This will be a professionally managed property and there will be no renting by the bed. We take this very seriously. This is a $10 million asset and we intend to manage it well. There will not be large gatherings if we can help it. Q: I have more questions regarding onsite management. Can you speak more about that? A: We will never have someone onsite 24 hours a day. Carriage House Apartments will have professional policies and we will enforce those policies. We do not allow smoking or pets or allow loud noise/music. This will be a high-end student housing community and can’t allow several bad apples to ruin the experience for others. C: Springfield Drive is a springboard for roaming freshman, looking for parties. If there are parties at the development, it can quickly grow. A: I can’t guarantee there won’t be parties. If a party gets out of hand it would be a lease violation and we would strictly enforce it. C: The police are so busy downtown they do not have time to take care of these issues on Springfield. The driveway of the project could be a congregating space. Students could be making a big circuit and students alert each other to this complex from Thursday-Saturday nights. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 8 | P a g e A: We will have exterior cameras to watch the parking lot for these reasons, including car vandalism. In the past at other properties we have looked at film when assessing lease violations. Q: Pure Vida comes right up to fence on Bluebird. The house on Bennett to the south of the project will be highly impacted by this project. What is the buffer from a backyard fence to the parking lot? What is the required buffer? There are trees right now on the site and homes close to the road. A: Building is 15 feet from site boundary, parking lot 5 feet. A fence/landscaping to help screen headlights. Q: If we meet again, will the next plan be radically different from what is shown, or marginally different? A: The plan will differ in terms of better detail, and an understanding of how buildings fit together. We are committed to smaller, separate buildings (as shown). This design will be a better match with the articulation, elevations to make them look like large homes. Q: What about those people with the greatest impact, will there be any compensation for the dust/noise/construction/overall long term negative impact of the development on our area? There will be trash from construction workers and I notice it can get messy around construction sites. I would like to ask you for compensation for the disruption this project will cause. A: We film the construction site to police it. There will be an erosion fence & fence around the site to mitigate dust and disturbance. Q: I would like to hear more about the proposed character of the development. What mitigates that these are 3-stories and nearby structures are 2-stories or less. I am concerned with the proportions and massing. A: We only have rudimentary drawings currently. Envision buildings with portions and articulation; they won’t be boxes. There will be differentiated roofs. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 9 | P a g e Q: Would you be agreeable to another meeting when plans are further along to comment on elevations/site plan? These plans are not far enough along to inform neighborhood. A: Yes. When the plans are submitted those details will be available. I am happy to attend another meeting. C: The neighborhood is asking you to consider single and double-story nature of the neighborhood and the surrounding buildings. Look at privacy and forestry issues to help fit in with the neighborhood as plans move forward. A: We are trying to save as many of the trees as possible and large evergreen on the corner. A lot of trees on site are nuisance trees such as Siberian Elms. Q: Is it possible this project will be built to resell and maximize your investment? What does your company do? A: We do not have a general agenda. It depends on the cycle and what the investment world/potential looks like. A tsunami of apartments in Fort Collins and it doesn’t take a lot to overbuild. We will gauge the market then evaluate our options. Q: Is it possible that this project will be resold and then the neighborhood will be dealing with a different management company with completely different viewpoints than yours? A: It is certainly possible. This project is designed as a high-end apartment community and is unlikely to be sold and run it into the ground. C: If the demand isn’t there, there will be cut-rate bargains to move into the property. A: People have to service debt obligations and can’t reduce rents too low. Q: What is the history of Catamount Properties and your experience? Do you currently own anything other than Pure Vida on West Laurel Street? Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 10 | P a g e A: Catamount is a personal company and we have been in business since 1991 and I am the sole proprietor for over 10 years. My previous experience is in building condominiums. This is my second apartment building built. A: Catamount Properties is not building the multi-family near DQ (Choice Center). That is Catamount Construction. Different company. C: The community recognizes a project is going to happen, but the neighborhood wants to be assured you care about the neighborhood and have invested and built the community. We want to make sure there are not so many people that it ruins the community and our neighborhood. The neighborhood wants their concerns taken into consideration. I am not coming away from this meeting feeling that my concerns are being adequately and appropriately addressed by you. A: I do want to take concerns in. I voluntarily met with the neighborhood in August 2011. We are going to pursue a 3-story development. If the neighborhood is going to try and defeat project on historic preservation issues or 3-story issues; you are not going to get there. However we can work together to find solutions on other issue the neighborhood may have. C: This neighborhood has not behaved as badly as others of contentious projects such as the Grove. The City wasn’t even aware of meeting you held in August 2011. The previous meeting created some distrust. What was the purpose of that meeting? We will look into appointing a community spokesman for the developer. A: The meeting in August of 2011 was a well-intended meeting of trying to present self to neighborhood proactively. I am not trying to end-run the system – I gave out contact information, but City would not have endorsed meeting as there was not a concept plan yet. A: What came out of the meeting in August 2011 was not to have a huge building, and we spoke of parking issues. Those issues have been ignored even before there were drawings. A: The code allows for a 3-story building and as it is in TOD, so it does not have to have 100 spaces. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 11 | P a g e C: An opportunity to sit down and talk about these issues – possibly having a spokesperson or a few people to discuss issues. C: This is the official neighborhood meeting however that doesn’t preclude other meetings from occurring. We encourage working together and some issues may always have varying opinions. A: (City Planner) I am not certain when submittal would come into City, but minimum 14 days after this meeting before a submittal could be made. Once there is a formal application, look for yellow-sign on site. Q: When the plan is submitted to the City, what is the timeline if it meets all requirements until it is approved? A: (City Planner) From initial submittal, the first round of review is 3 weeks. Staff review meeting with developer is on a Wednesday. Based on the first meeting with the City and Developer we provide comments and plans are revised for additional round(s) of review taking 2 weeks for each round. If it is ready to go to P&Z Hearing then we schedule it. Planning and Zoning Board Hearings occur on the 3 rd Thursday of each month. It takes about a month after we decide it is ready to go to P&Z. Typically there is about 4 months from submittal to Planning and Zoning Board hearing however it can vary depending on the submittal. Neighbors can e-mail or send written comments to me and I will submit with my staff report to the Planning and Zoning Board. Those written comments establish you as a party of interest in terms of an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision. All comments you submit to me will be forwarded on to applicant. It sounds like the applicant would be happy to meet with neighborhood again, on a one-on-one format, possibly with a small group of neighborhood spokespeople. A: (developer) Everyone loses when a neighborhood decides to dig in and try and kill a project (The Grove). If you can, find a spokesman and get behind that person and show, as a neighborhood, what you want to see. C: (City Planner) Part of reason meetings take place before plans are finalized/submitted is so there is a greater opportunity for changes to be made to the plans prior to the developer investing a lot of resources into drawing the plans. Having the meeting early is a great opportunity for the developer to incorporate what he hears tonight into the plans in some fashion. Carriage House Apartments Neighborhood Meeting October 29, 2012 12 | P a g e A: (developer) I am trying to be realistic. Three-story buildings are a very important component of project for feasibility. Q: If project goes ahead, what is the range of starting construction to opening? A: (developer) Around 8 – 10 months. 1 1 Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 March Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Courtney Levingston, City Planner 2 Site Location • 1.48 acre site • Located in Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N- C-B) • Located in Transit Oriented Development Overlay District • West Central Neighborhood Plan Area . S. Shields St. Springfield Dr. N 2 3 Proposed Project • 57 Units / 97 bedrooms – 29 1-bedroom units – 16 2-bedroom units – 12 3-bedroom units • Density = 38.5 dwelling units/acre • 58 vehicle parking spaces /103 bike parking spaces 4 Proposed Project • 5 three story buildings • “white” buildings – 10,580 sq. ft. 10 units/bldg. • “green” buildings – 11,080 sq. ft. 13, 14 units/bldg. 3 5 Carriage House Apts. & Parking • No minimum parking requirement in the TOD. • 58 vehicle parking spaces provided by project. • Project meets the Code’s parking standard. 6 Multi-modal Connectivity • Served by Transfort Route 3 and Route 19 • Bike lanes existing on South Shields Street. + 4 7 Architectural Elevation – White Building • Materials: – Lap siding – Brick – Stone • Height: 3 stories/ 40 feet 8 Architectural Elevation – Green Building 5 9 Renderings - Looking South Springfield Dr. 10 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035. ATTACHMENT 4 Applicant Presentation at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing March 21, 2013 1 A 57 home 97 bed community Located at 1199 W. Springfield Street Over 26 years in multi-housing business Completed over 1,000 attached homes Property/Asset Manager of over 100 separate apartment home communities = 10,000 individual homes Based in Longmont Dedicated & focused on multi-housing business 2 3  Initial introductory meeting Aug 11, 2011 • Conducted voluntarily • Open dialogue to engage input • No plans were yet prepared • Feedback was solicited and notes were taken • Concerned about the single large MF bldg.  Formal Neighborhood Mtg October 29, 2013 • Site plan was re-designed to blend into the neighborhood • Changes made to the location of trash receptacle • Requested the appointment of a spokesperson  Separately met with adjacent neighbors at 1201 W. Springfield and 1326 S. Shields 4  Building massing • re-designed to 5 separate buildings  Parking • providing maximum possible parking on site • no minimum parking requirement  Visiblity of Trash Enclosure • relocated, buffering, screening  Management • professionally managed • no tolerance policy • first offense police call results in eviction 5 6 7 8 9 10 Staff report finds compliance with • NCB (LUC 4.9)  as modified by TOD • General Development Standards (LUC 3.0) No variances, modifications or alternative compliance requested 11 Multi-family = permitted use in NCB Allowed density • 64,828 SF (1:1 FAR)  39,281 provided; approx. 60% of the allowed square footage • Max .33 FAR on rear 50% of lot = 10,433 SF  10,272 provided • Greater than 24 du/acre subject to Type 2 (P&Z) review  1.45 acres/57 units = 39.3 du/acre Building Height allowed in NCB: 3 stories • Height Provided: 3 stories Building Height allowed (in feet): 40 feet • Height provided: less than 40 feet Can exceed 40 feet with Height Review • Project is less than 40 feet – no Height Review needed 12 Required Parking: None per TOD Standards • Parking spaces provided: 58 Bike Parking Required: 97 • Bike parking spaces provided: 103  59 interior; 44 exterior Served by Transfort Route 19 Bus stop located 20 feet east of Building 4 Consistent with other multi-family within TOD • Staff report, p. 7 Market-based parking ratio • 1 space per unit 13 Policy EH 4.1 – target in-fill areas Policy LIV 5.1 – higher density in locations on transit lines Policy LIV 6.1 – expand in under utilized parcels surrounded by existing res. dev. Policy LIV 7.2 – develop adequate supply of housing Policy LIV 7.4 – maximize land for res. dev Policy LIV 7.7 – accommodate student population Policy LIV 10.1 – incorporate street trees Policy LIV 22.1 – vary housing types Policy LIV 22.2 - creativity Policy LIV 43.3 – support transit supportive development patterns Policy T3.4 – travel mgmt. demand Figure P-4 – pedestrian priority areas 14 Map 2 shows subject property as redevelopment area Map 3 depicts subject property in NCB Map 3 depicts rental property area Policy F7 endorses higher density HO 4 encourages MF development Future Housing Needs (B) encourages small scale apt buildings Housing Design B prefers 3 stories Existing predominant uses not ideal Redevelopment areas targeted for conversion to more efficient uses (single family to multi-family) to serve as buffer between single family and CSU 15 16 NCB redevelopment area -WCNP Conformance to City’s Land Use Code Residential development in Transit Oriented District SHAP – a new supply of new housing alleviates 1,500 bed per annum shortage High quality housing in a desirable in-fill location Substantial benefit to Community Not detrimental to Community 17  Carriage House is exactly what is envisioned by • City Plan  Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area • West Neighborhoods Area Plan  Redevelopment Area • LUC  Chapter 4.9 – N-C-B  TOD Overlay • Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP)  Complies with all Requirements  No variances, modifications or alternative compliance  Request approval 18 High quality housing community Professionally managed community  Locating student housing in appropriate area Pedestrian oriented site – Lory, Rec Center, Transfort bus station, Old Town, etc. Total Fees paid to City or Agencies = $650,000+/- Total Project Cost = $9 million Current taxable value = $500,000 +/- Proposed taxable value = $9 million + 19 3 stories; < 40’ 5 separate buildings • 2 different Lot area (including 1319 S. Shields) = 64,828 sf Floor area max. per NCB zoning = 64,828 sf • Floor area proposed = 39,281 57 homes proposed = 97 beds 58 parking spaces located in the back of the site 20 ATTACHMENT 5 Materials submitted by Citizens at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing March 21, 2013 ATTACHMENT 6 Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing March 21, 2013 1 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, March 21, 2013 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, #PDP120035 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., March 21, 2013 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant Kristin Kirkpatrick Courtney Levingston, City Planner Emily Heinz Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Gerald Hart Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations Gino Campana 2 1 CHAIR ANDY SMITH: Our next item for discussion is the Carriage House Apartments 2 PDP…and…Angelina, any written comments received on this item since our worksession? 3 ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Chair Smith, since our worksession, we received a letter 4 from Chuck Bailey, dated February 24th, with attachments, email from Eric Stembacken, Lewis 5 Wangarner, Hale Cochran, Barbara Fisher, and Kay Goeglein, and I think that’s it. 6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay thank you. Now, we’ll take a staff report. Please, Courtney, if you 7 don’t mind. 8 COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: Yes, Mr. Chair. My name is Courtney Levingston, I’m a City 9 Planner, and I’m the assigned project planner for the Carriage House Apartments Project Development 10 Plan. This is a request to demolish two single-family homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street, and 11 in their place construct five three-story multi-family buildings combining two lots for a 1.48 acre site. 12 The project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District and is within the Transit 13 Oriented Development Overlay District, and within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Area. The 14 project proposes fifty-seven units to be divided among one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, for a 15 total of ninety-seven bedrooms. Parking would be in the rear with fifty-eight spaces gaining access off of 16 Springfield Drive. As proposed, the project would have five three-story buildings. There are three white 17 buildings proposed which have ten units each and are about 10,600 square feet in size. There are two 18 green buildings proposed that are about 11,100 square feet in size and contain between thirteen and 19 fourteen units. As previously stated, the project is located within the Transit Oriented Development 20 Overlay District. There are no minimum parking requirements in the TOD. The project is providing 21 fifty-eight parking spaces and is meeting the Land Use Code requirement in this respect. This slide 22 illustrates how the project is served by Transfort’s route three and nineteen going directly to CSU Transit 23 Center, with routes serving the larger community there. The project is…also has bicycle connectivity by 24 making bicycling a transportation option for residents of the proposed project. The project meets Land 25 Use Code bicycle connectivity and transit standards. 26 This is the architectural elevation for the three white buildings. The proposed three-story multi- 27 family buildings were reviewed under the Code’s compatibility standards and found to be compatible 28 with the surrounding context by its complementary architectural design featuring craftsman architectural 29 detailing and pitched roofs, appropriately blending in with the adjacent single-family homes to the south 30 and west. Here are the architectural elevations for the green buildings. As you can see, the architectural 31 character borrows from the craftsman bungalow vernacular once again, and the primary building material 32 is horizontal lap siding, and the inclusion of stone and brick at the base. Detailing features such as hip 33 and gable roofs, accented window trim, and timber brackets enhance the architectural character and 34 reinforce compatibility of this project with the surrounding area. This slide illustrates the green and white 35 elevations more contextually with each other, looking south from Springfield Drive. The articulation 36 further breaks up each building’s mass as…actually more like single-family homes, not unlike the 37 Bennett Street Bungalows to the south. In conclusion, multi-family buildings are a permitted use in the 38 NCB zone district and the project development plan complies with the applicable Land Use Code 39 standards. Staff recommends approval of the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. 40 That concludes my staff presentation. Thank you. 3 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Any questions of Courtney right now, before we move into the 2 applicant presentation? Alright, please, if the applicant would please step forward and make your 3 presentation. 4 CHUCK BAILEY: Good evening. My name is Chuck Bailey, I’m with Catamount Properties, 5 address 7302 Rozena Drive, Longmont, Colorado. I’m pleased to present Carriage House Apartments, 6 it’s really, I think, maybe I can use slang and you can’t, but I think back to the future. It’s an old style 7 building, we think, but it’s innovative in that it’s a community of buildings rather than just a single 8 building. Lots of towns have fourteen- and ten-plex apartment buildings for sure, similar to this 9 maybe…but, this is a whole community, and that’s where we think it’s innovative. Commonly, what 10 you’re seeing, I’m sure, is a twenty-four plex, large apartment buildings, and this concept also conforms 11 to the new Land Use Code, in that we have two different plans on this five building site plan. The 12 home…what we’re presenting tonight…we’re presenting a plan that seeks no variances, it meets all the 13 City requirements and it’s fifty-seven units, and ninety-seven residences…it accommodates ninety-seven 14 residents. Presently the site accommodates six residences, the one and a half acre site. It’s about two 15 hundred yards from the southwest corner of the CSU campus, and it’s a high-end student housing 16 community. So, it’s…we think there’s only presently two hundred and fifty beds in this genre, and if we 17 add ninety-seven more, we get to three hundred and forty-seven. That’s about 1.3% of the off-campus 18 student market, so you’re seeing a lot of new student communities come into this city, but you’re really 19 not seeing a lot in this genre, and we think it adds to the overall appeal of the CSU situation for the 20 incoming students. 21 We don’t lease by the bed, they’re joint…leases, so you get parental guarantees, and we don’t 22 provide furniture. We’ll have thirty one-bedroom homes in this community, which is another interesting 23 thing that differentiates this community. And, we found that you get more serious students and more 24 graduate students in a one-bedroom type home. You certainly have less types of disturbances because the 25 units are very small…so it’s a nice fit being right across from campus and having that kind of a clientele. 26 My company, Catamount, I’ve been in the multi-housing business for twenty-six years. All I do 27 is multi-family development and management, and we were here in front of you a couple years ago and 28 developed the Pura Vida Place community at 518 West Laurel Street, which was completed last July…it, 29 too, being across the street from the Business School and the campus. Go ahead, Todd, one more. Sorry, 30 one more. 31 So this is an overview, Courtney did some of this, but again, you can see the proximity to 32 Ingersoll there in the upper right hand corner, and Shields Street being the yellow line running north 33 south, and it’s a corner site with about three hundred and thirty feet of frontage along Springfield, and 34 about a hundred and fifty feet of Shields Street frontage. It’s…Shields Street generates about sixteen 35 thousand cars per day. The overlay plan here will show you what we’re contemplating here, and there’s 36 the three yellow buildings are existing. There’s a 1950’s ranch style home at 1319 South Shields there in 37 the lower right hand corner of the site. And then 1305 Shields is the smaller residence there in the 38 northeast corner of the site, the upper right hand corner, and then there’s an old chicken coop that’s been 39 converted to a rental in the back northwest left corner. You can see the access point off Shields to the 40 1319 home, and that access will go away, obviously, and both the other two access points on Springfield 41 go away and the egress point will be at the far left side of the site. You see a lot of greenery; you see a lot 4 1 of trees. We’re going to retain the fourteen crabapple trees that run along the perimeter of Springfield 2 Drive, which…you know, we’re excited about bringing that sort of ambiance to a new community. And 3 all of the parking is in to the rear. Here’s just an aerial view of the same description. 4 So, how this all evolved was, we had a neighborhood outreach meeting about a year and three- 5 quarters, you know, a year and nine months ago, in August of 2011, and this was a preliminary meeting 6 where we brought no plans in, we invited all the neighbors to come in and try to gain feedback, and we 7 kept notes and heard lots of different things said to and about us, but at any rate, what we heard largely 8 was the neighbors were really…really concerned about another large-scale multi-housing building, maybe 9 not unlike Pura Vida or some of the others that are commonly built. And, so that was heard loud and 10 clear and became a major component into the site plan that we showed you. We subsequently had…well, 11 a year went by and we were involved in historic…a historic issue that was ultimately concluded last fall, 12 so that date is wrong. We ultimately had our formal neighborhood meeting in October of 2012, I’m sorry 13 about that, not 2013…it hasn’t happened yet. Back to the future, right? So, at any rate, we heard more 14 from the neighbors and we gained some additional insight into our site plan, and I was, you know, really 15 looking forward to seeking a spokesperson from the neighborhood, and Sarah was hired recently with the 16 City, and so she assumed some of that role, and we went forward from that point. Separately, I’ve met 17 with several of the neighbors that immediately abut the site, and I’ll get into more about that in a couple 18 more slides. 19 So, the concerns that really emanated from the meetings were building massing, and as you can 20 see, we’ve really heard that loud and clear and we’ve designed five separate buildings rather than the 21 single large building that’s so commonly done. And, certainly it’s more expensive, but the five separate 22 buildings give us greater green space, give us more windows, and it gives us that style that Courtney 23 described as being, you know, we think more in harmony and compatible with the neighborhood. 24 Parking, you know parking is always a big one, right? And, we’re in the TOD so we don’t have a 25 minimum parking requirement, but we…you know, we listened, and we underbuilt the site in order to 26 provide as much on-site reserved parking as possible, and as Courtney mentioned, we have fifty-eight 27 spaces on site. And I’ll show you some slides about parking in a moment. And then the trash enclosure, 28 that…you know, that’s always a sore spot, a necessary evil, and we’ve relocated and buffered and 29 screened that trash enclosure to the greatest extent possible. And, management’s a big one, you know, 30 everybody’s concerned about how this is going to be managed and what kind of intrusions that creates 31 into the neighborhood and I’ll speak to that. 32 So, here’s an exploded view of the site plan and the surrounding neighborhood. In the northeast 33 corner is a professional building called University Park Professional building, and that’s a medical 34 building, it’s two stories and it’s about thirty-five feet in elevation. And then immediately to the north of 35 the subject property…the same seller also owns that home, and it’s 1301 South Shields. It’s a two level 36 home that’s approximately twenty-eight feet in height. And then you see all of the five buildings that 37 comprise our site plan, and they’re generally thirty-eight to, you know, forty feet in height. So, nothing 38 exceeds the forty foot threshold for height. There are two homes on South Shields there, 1321, that 39 are…that have boarding licenses and there’s a detention pond that’s about a hundred and forty feet by a 40 hundred and forty feet square on the south boundary, so that creates some great spacing along the south 41 property line. And then there are two homes on Bennett Street that immediately abut the southwest 42 corner of the site, and then there’s a home on the far western edge, 1201 West Springfield. I have made 5 1 contact with the boarding home owners and talked to that family about their concerns and issues. I have 2 attempted to speak with the 1202 Bennett Street, the most adjacent homeowner, to no avail, and that home 3 recently sold in the last two weeks and there’s a new owner that’s taken possession of that property. The 4 1201 owner…I have met with that owner and, while she didn’t endorse the project by any means, I talked 5 to her at length about the egress points there at the far west side of the site, and thinking that she was most 6 affected by that, and it was her opinion that having the separation of eighty-eight feet from that building 7 one that you can see, to her house, was more…was a better plan than having that building be closer and 8 moving that entrance at some other point in the site plan. The other separation to the Bennett Street home 9 is a hundred and eight feet, almost a hundred and nine feet, you can see there, so we think we’ve created 10 some pretty good separation from the single-family homes. And…actually back up a slide, Todd. Hit the 11 backspace. The finished floor elevations are also depicted in this slide, and you can see that our finished 12 floor elevation for our building one there at the far westernmost point is thirty-two and a half feet, 13 approximately, and the Bennett Street homes, they’ve been bermed up for reasons, probably to create 14 basements, but their finished floor elevation is thirty-nine feet, so that’s seven feet higher on the main 15 level than our main level. And the Springfield home, the finished floor elevation is approximately thirty- 16 five feet, so we’re going to be lower on our first level and we’re certainly…the Bennett Street home 17 is…has been bermed up, and there’s a picture showing the four or five feet of berming that occurred on 18 the Bennett Street development, which I know was quite controversial, you know, when it occurred. 19 So, this is a comparison of the parking for the…for the development, and you can see…Courtney 20 presented some of the same…largely the same information. I added another comp, the Atrium Suites at 21 the bottom, but the presentation that Courtney made, most of these TOD developments have about one 22 space per unit, and I kind of took it another step to say, well, how about spaces per bedroom, because 23 that’s really sort of the acid test. We have more one bedrooms than maybe another community, so, 24 evaluating it on a per unit basis maybe isn’t the most objective way to look at it. So, looking at it on 25 space per bedroom, you can see that we actually have more spaces than certainly the Pura Vida comp that 26 I built, and the Flats at the Oval, and the others. So, that’s I think demonstrating our desire to really park 27 this thing off-site. 28 Heights, building massing, you know, was another thing we heard, and kitty-corner to the site is 29 the professional building, and in my letter that’s on file, I calculated that the building was thirty-eight feet, 30 and I had to do some voodoo math to arrive at that by counting siding and, so I found the architect in 31 between producing the letter, and he had his plans and he’s still in business, and he confirmed that the 32 building ridge is thirty-five feet. So, that’s a correction to my letter, but it’s not a three-story building of 33 course, but it’s a very large two-story building and it’s been there for thirty-one years. Adjacency from 34 multi-family to single-family in the community…I think you can see a couple examples here, the 35 Miramont, which is at 4900 South Boardwalk…it’s a twenty-four plex building and it’s less than ninety 36 feet from those adjacent single-family homes. So, you recall that we were eighty-eight to a hundred and 37 ten feet in our example of our site plan, and you can also see that the elevation of this building is 38 higher…it’s about mid-level to the single-family home elevation to the far right there. Another newer 39 example is the Terra Vida apartments over near Fossil Ridge High School, and these buildings are 40 approximately a hundred feet from these single-family homes in Observatory Village. These homes are 41 being built and sold, and, you know, it’s very desirable new home community in the city. And, these are, 42 again, twenty-four plex apartment buildings. 6 1 So, one of the things, with respect to management, you know, that came out of our interaction and 2 our neighborhood meetings, was the concern about management and how we’re going to handle 3 management. And these are just still slides from a web-based program, and AV program that we use, that 4 we require all of our students, our residents, and all of our…and their parents, to actually watch a, sort of 5 a…how to live in an apartment video. And, it’s quite educational. Teaches them how to maintain their 6 home, how to use…what to do when they have clogged up sinks even, and some of the lease components 7 are in that presentation so they understand that their rent’s due and what happens, you know, if they’re 8 delinquent. And a big part of this presentation is how to be a good citizen. And, so we present this, and 9 you know, again, this is a still slide, it has a narrative in it, and it also has a questionnaire, so when the 10 student is done, and the parents, they all have to do a small test to prove that they watched it. And, we’ve 11 really had some good success with this. And, basically what this says is that, if the cops come, you’re 12 going to get evicted, and your parents are guaranteeing your lease. And, it’s…you know, there’s a loud 13 noise slide there, and there’s a description of, you know, what’s not tolerated. There’s a, you know, you 14 can’t drink…and, now, believe it or not, we’re even adding a marijuana segment to it to say that you can’t 15 do this stuff in public. 16 So, here’s our site plan, in more detail. And, again, you can see the fourteen crabapples that are 17 along Springfield there in the circles, and we’re saving those trees, we’re even tunneling under the pair in 18 the upper right hand corner to preserve those trees…and, there’s a classic evergreen tree in the northeast 19 corner, there’s another fine tree in the southeast corner, and there’s a protective tree, you can see at the 20 lower south boundary line as well. So, lots of green space, we’ve got entry points from both sides of the 21 building so there’ll be these, you know, real nice front entries with porch lights and small single-family 22 like street lights out in front of each of those sidewalk areas. And, this is…I talked about the trash 23 enclosure and the controversy. We initially presented it where the trash enclosure is in…depicted as trash 24 one there in the upper left, and it migrated to the second spot when the City didn’t like it, out near the 25 street, and then the neighbors that abutted that certainly didn’t like the trash there, and so it’s migrated 26 inwards into the location where it is now. You know, we feel that’s a good solution for everybody. So, 27 with that I’d like to introduce Becky Stone with Oz Architects, and she’s going to talk about the architect 28 part and the, you know, the articulation of our buildings. 29 BECKY STONE: Hi, my name is Becky Stone, I’m with Oz Architecture, my address is 3795 30 South Jersey Street in Denver. We have had so much fun working on this project because we do, at Oz, a 31 lot of housing, but not where we get to scale it to the human scale where people actually would walk 32 down the streetscape…I mean obviously we have some of that, but we do a lot of urban, big housing, and 33 so this is so fun to be able to break it up and actually have four-sided architecture with student housing, 34 and so I wanted to talk a little bit about that streetscape. So, one of the bases for the design was to get a 35 front porch kind of community, so that when you walk down Springfield, and there is a walkway…and, 36 typically on the site plan, which we can go back to in a minute, but there’s a…there’s one sidewalk up 37 and then there’re front porches, which really makes it inviting, and sort of a warm, welcoming 38 community. And, again, it’s four-sided architecture, and so the backs of the buildings that face the 39 parking lot, that’s an entrance for the students, and so it was really important that the front side that faces 40 Springfield and Shields, and also the back side, are both inviting and welcoming kind of design. And, the 41 sort of craftsman style of architecture, that it’s designed as sort of a bigger house instead of a great big 42 building on this site, I think was just a fun, really good opportunity. Let’s go to the next one, maybe. 7 1 So, in terms of the architecture, and on the streetscape it was important that we varied the models 2 of the house too, so again, going after that sort of craftsman bungalow style that’s in keeping with the 3 community and some of the materials that come from CSU and the local community. So, this one, the 4 green elevation we’re calling it, but it has a combination of red brick and horizontal lap siding, and then it 5 accent gables, we used a shingle siding, and the roof forms, the gable and hip roof forms are sort of that 6 traditional massing for the cottage bungalow style. A lot of timber, posts and beams, and timber detailing 7 and brackets to give it a lot more interest and, you know, big…larger window headers. And so, and then 8 the next one…so this is the Springfield elevation of the, what we’re calling the white building. So this 9 one, being a little bit different, it has like two front porch entries, and very similar, but it has a stone base, 10 lap siding and the shingle and the accent gables. And again, a lot of use of timber detailing and brackets 11 and wood trusses and wood railings. So, one of the keys was to sort of ground the base with the stone or 12 the brick so it has that heavier base and gets lighter as you go up. And then at the top level, although it is 13 three stories, and we’ve sort of tucked the…I guess it’s the green one more than the white one, but we’ve 14 sort of tucked the top levels into the roof in some spots. One more…one more after this…maybe we’ll go 15 back to the streetscape one. So, and in terms of setback…so, we have sort of green space in between 16 these buildings and…to maintain a twenty foot buffer in between them with a walk between the parking 17 lot and, there’s some…there’s trees in there and grass, and so it allows windows on all four sides, and 18 people get a lot of light and air in those units, which is really important, and some outdoor space on the 19 decks and patios. So, we do have a setback of thirty-one feet from the Springfield side and at least fifteen 20 feet from all the property lines, and from South Shields. And again, as Chuck mentioned, it was really 21 important to keep the crabapple trees along Springfield because that sort of farm orchard look was just 22 another great opportunity to deal with the craftsman style architecture, and those orchard trees are 23 fantastic. Maybe that’s good. 24 CAROLYN WHITE: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, City 25 staff, and members of the public, my name is Carolyn White, I’m land use counsel for the applicant, and 26 tonight it’s my pleasure to present to you a brief presentation on how this project meets the standards in 27 your Land Use Code. It’s also my extreme pleasure to present to you a project that has no modifications, 28 no variances, and no alternative compliance. Every single component of this project is 100% in 29 compliance with all of the standards in the Land Use Code. So, the first applicable standard obviously is 30 the underlying zone district, which is the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, and I want to just briefly 31 read to you a statement about what the purpose of that district is, because it really describes exactly what 32 this project was designed to be. What that district is supposed to be is…intended for areas that are a 33 transition between residential neighborhood and more intensive commercial use areas or high traffic 34 zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted plan. And so, when you see 35 where this property is located in between the University and the single-family residential, this is exactly 36 what that type of district is envisioning. The other applicable standards, of course, are the general land 37 use standards in Chapter 3, and those are the standards that apply to all development. And, I might 38 mention that both of those standards are as modified by the TOD overlay, which this project is also 39 within. Next slide. 40 So, one of the key things that any project in, under 3.5.1 of the general development standards, 41 has to do, is to be compatible, and there’s a lengthy description in the staff report about how to evaluate 42 compatibility, and we do agree and concur with everything that’s in the staff report in that regard and with 43 respect to all of the other components and requirements of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.9. But, in particular, I 8 1 want to just mention a little bit about compatibility because it…that term encompasses, I think, the 2 majority of the concerns that we’ve heard from the neighborhood. So, in 3.5.1, what it says about 3 compatibility is that new developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible 4 with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complimentary. And 5 then there’s also some talk about achieving that compatibility through repetition of roof lines, the use of 6 similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationship to the street, similar window 7 and door patterns, et cetera. And that really summarizes exactly what the architect, Becky Stone, was just 8 talking to you about. In addition, we’ve heard a lot of talk about how, geez, this project is just too dense 9 to be located in this neighborhood. And, so I want to briefly mention density even though it is well 10 within all of the applicable standards related to density. So, one way that you mention density is the 11 FAR, and the allowed FAR on this site is 40% more than what is being used here. So, when Chuck 12 Bailey talked to you about how we really scaled this down, this project could actually be 40% bigger in 13 terms of the developed portion, and it could have significantly less parking and still be well within the 14 applicable standards. And, by scaling it down in this way, it is able to be much more compatible with the 15 surrounding development and to achieve that blend of massing so that these buildings look relatively in 16 size and scale, quite similar to the buildings that are nearby. Another way you look at density is the units 17 per acre, and there is no maximum units per acre within this zone district. The units per acre…the total 18 max density is really managed by all of the performance standards, so by the time you comply with the 19 setbacks and the height and all of the other requirements, what’s left is how much you can build. And so 20 it is well within that. It happens to be about 39.3 dwelling units per acre, which is over the twenty-four, 21 which is why we’re here before you. It could have been proposed as less than twenty-four units per acre, 22 in which case there would have been no public hearing, it would have been an administrative approval. 23 Next slide please. 24 So, again, on the concept of compatibility, there’s been some discussion about height in several of 25 the letters and the record proposed that this project would be just fine if it were only two stories. Three 26 stories is the allowed height within this district, so there is no special height review requested. Forty feet 27 is the maximum height, and it is within that limit, so it is well within the height limits allowed within this 28 zone district. Next…oh, one more comment I want to make on that is just to reiterate what Mr. Bailey 29 presented to you about the height of this project relative to the height of the surrounding buildings. While 30 it is true that there are some single-family homes in the neighborhood and even adjacent, when you look 31 at the actual finished floor area, and when you look at the thirty-five foot high two-story building that’s 32 kitty-corner, they’re actually quite compatible in terms of the overall height. There is not a dramatic 33 difference between the height of this building and the height of the surrounding structures. 34 Then, I want to mention briefly, parking, just reminding that again, the standard here…there 35 could be zero parking spaces here, there could be no parking spaces, and it would still be in compliance 36 with the Code. And, instead, what is being proposed is fifty-eight parking spaces for fifty-seven units, 37 and we talked a little bit about all the different ways you might measure that in terms of per unit or per 38 bedroom, or whatever, but however you measure it, the parking that’s being provided is greatly in excess 39 of what is required, it’s precisely what the market demands, and it is more than adequate to accommodate 40 the uses on this site. Just by comparison, you know, there’s no spaces required, fifty-eight are being 41 provided, ninety-seven bike spaces are required, a hundred and three are being required [sic], fifty-nine of 42 which are going to be covered, interior spaces, and there are, of course, these alternative modes of 43 transportation that are available an serve this site, which is part of the reason why it’s such a great site for 9 1 this particular type of housing product, multi-family student housing right across from the University. 2 Next slide please. Additionally, on the parking, just to mention that it is precisely within the range, in fact 3 provides more parking than the comparable TOD multi-family projects that have recently been approved 4 or that have been constructed under the TOD overlay, and that’s back to the chart that Chuck Bailey 5 showed you a little bit earlier, it has slightly more parking actually. And, we believe this is truly the 6 market-based parking ratio that is appropriate for the market. Next slide. 7 So, that concludes my presentation on the legal criteria, I’m going to turn it back over to Mr. 8 Bailey to talk a little bit about how this project furthers the goals of City Plan and the West Central 9 Neighborhoods Plan, and of course everyone on the team is available to answer any questions that you 10 may have at the conclusion of our presentation. Thank you. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. 12 MR. BAILEY: So, wrapping this up, we have…there’s eleven policies in the City Plan that this 13 community…attributes that this community conforms to, from higher density locations on transit lines, 14 develop an adequate supply of housing, LIV 7.2, LIV 7.4, maximize land for residential development, 15 LIV 7.7, accommodate student population, LIV 22.1, vary housing types, 22.2, housing creativity, and 16 then even a figure…pedestrian priority areas, which this is certainly right into the core area of that. The 17 West Central Neighborhood design attributes are many as well, maps showing this property in a 18 redevelopment area, map three shows that in the NCB, map three depicts this in a rental property area. 19 And, the most important one, I think, is that HO number four encourages multi-family development…I’m 20 sorry, the future housing needs encourages small-scale apartment buildings. So, I think we’re really 21 ringing true on that. And then the last one, housing design B prefers three stories. So, it’s a 22 redevelopment area, targeted for conversion, it’s going to create a buffer between the busy Shields Street 23 and the single-family area to the west. 24 A couple of density slides…I asked THK, a noted demographic firm in Denver, to take a look at 25 six or seven different college communities in our region…Lincoln, Laramie, Provo, Utah, Lawrence, 26 Kansas, Boulder and Greeley…and the number of persons per acre in a six block area surrounding CSU, 27 or surrounding any of these college communities, we kept that rigorous, was compared and…you know, 28 CSU’s at the lower realm of that comparison in terms of thirteen and a half persons per acre in that 29 immediate campus area. We looked at it in dwelling units per acre and, again, the same result. Kind of 30 lower quadrant, 5.3 development units per acre…comparable to, you know, Laramie is at 4.6. And then 31 here’s a project density comparison, again a lot of this has been discussed, but I’ll just sum it up 32 by…rather than going as dwelling units per acre, which I again think is…distorts the comparison based 33 on the unit mix. The better comparison is persons per acre, that’s really, you know, what the objective 34 measurement is. And you can see the subject property is sixty-five, Pura Vida was a hundred, Flats at the 35 Oval was a hundred and nineteen, and Atrium was a hundred and seven, and the Capstone choice is now 36 called The Summit, there right behind the Chuck-E-Cheese. The more two-bedrooms you have, the easier 37 it is to push that number up. But, again, I think you can see that we’re not really pushing, you know, any 38 sort of aggressive density on this. But, it’s going to push the needle, you know, from that 5.3 people per 39 acre, certainly, that you know, is the current average. 40 So, in conclusion, it’s a lot of the things we’ve been talking about, it’s the West Central 41 Neighborhood Plan, conformance Land Use Codes, transit oriented location, Student Housing Action 10 1 Plans, looking to accommodate this shortage, and this is going to do just that, in a way, it’ll help that, it 2 certainly won’t accommodate it. High quality housing in a desirable location…it’s a benefit to the 3 community, and it’s certainly not a detriment. I don’t want to repeat a lot of this stuff, but I think the 4 bottom line is that we are not the problem here, we are the solution to the problem, and I ask for your 5 support tonight. Thank you. Oh, and I do have packets of the presentation I’d like to bring up if that’s 6 okay. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. 8 MR. BAILEY: Thank you. 9 CHAIR SMITH: Courtney? Courtney, do you have any comments or clarifications based on 10 what we just heard from the applicant? 11 MS. LEVINGSTON: No, Mr. Chair. 12 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. At this point, does any member of the Board have a question they want 13 to just ask quickly before we move on to the next part of the hearing? Okay, okay, very good. Then what 14 we’ll do now is we’ll move to the public testimony. And, before I even start that, I just want to make sure 15 that a couple of the house rules are followed, and that is that we would keep it very civil and that we 16 would not cheer, jeer, or anything of the sort, please, conduct ourselves with some civility. What we’ll 17 do, is let me get a quick show of hands of how many folks would like to address the Board on this issue. 18 Just two of you? Just joking. Okay, is there a representative of a neighborhood that’s been designated 19 that would need more than what’s allotted, typically, and that would probably be normally for a citizen, 20 three minutes, but would you need more time than that? Okay…are you going to represent the 21 neighborhood? I mean how many folks here would appoint this gentleman as a representative of his 22 neighborhood, I mean…what I would ask is, I would give you more time, if they would defer some of 23 their time. Okay, okay, okay…let’s do this then. 24 JOEL ROVNAK: So, our true leader couldn’t be here tonight because it’s spring break, we’re 25 hoping that he might arrive…so I’m not a very good leader, but…I can’t say that I can speak for… 26 CHAIR SMITH: Do you have a presentation? 27 MR. ROVNAK: I do, yes. 28 CHAIR SMITH: You do? Okay. 29 MR. ROVNAK: We have some slides we’d like to put up and a couple of posters that we would 30 like to put up, if we could just have a few moments for that. 31 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, what I typically do, is…I’m sorry to belabor this, is typically give 32 everybody three minutes, I want to keep this fair, and so…and again, we typically would say that if a 33 neighborhood group is formed and they’ve appointed you to be their representative, they’ve all agreed, 34 and they’ve said, yeah, I’ll defer my time, then we’d allow that, but I’m not sure I get the sense that’s the 35 case tonight and so… 11 1 MR. ROVNAK: I’m not prepared to represent all of the issues that we would like to address, 2 either in three minutes or not…people have, I believe, prepared their own presentations. 3 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, would you have the ability to hand off your presentation to somebody 4 else that would use their three minutes? Because I guess what I want to do is I want to run a fair hearing, 5 and I’m reluctant to allow any person to have more than three minutes. 6 MR. ROVNAK: Then it will be three minutes, thank you. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let’s do that then. So, everybody will have three minutes, and if there is a 8 presentation that’s going to go a little bit longer, then have somebody come up and maybe continue your 9 thoughts. Again, a show of hands…how many folks? There was approximately fifteen or so. Okay, 10 okay, yeah, definitely…I am going to stick to the three minutes because of that, and here’s what we do, is 11 we have two podiums, two microphones, so I’d ask that you…you kind of line up on either one of those 12 and that you would, when it’s your turn, to state your name and address for the record, sign in as well. 13 You know…here, let me ask you to do this too, with the use of the audio…the props. Could we set them 14 up at a different place? Just…I want the applicant to have the opportunity to see it, and also the audience. 15 Ann, if you can be able to see it too, if it goes over here on camera, that would be good. 16 MR. ROVNAK: Actually, we did not know that we’d be allowed to have PowerPoint, we have 17 them on Power Point if that would be possible. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, yeah, I think that would be preferable. So, why don’t we do this then, 19 why don’t we get some speakers to step up, if it’s alright you can take down those old school props and 20 set up your PowerPoint, and then while you’re setting that up, we’ll have speakers go ahead and we’ll get 21 the ball rolling. Does that work for you? Everybody okay? Alright, alright, let’s go ahead and line 22 up…three minutes, please state your name and address for the record. If you can be very clear about your 23 position on this, whether you are for it or against it, and if those are going to go down, if maybe a friend 24 could take those down, it’d be good. 25 SANDRA QUACKENBUSH: Okay, so do you want to start, are you ready? 26 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, just…I want that to go down if you don’t mind, please. I know…well, 27 we take the whole fair hearing thing pretty serious around here. 28 MS. QUACKENBUSH: That’s fine by me, I don’t have any problem with that. 29 CHAIR SMITH: Please, go ahead, let’s start. 30 MS. QUACKENBUSH: Okay, so, good evening. My name is Sandra Quackenbush, I live at 31 1308 Bennett Road and I’m a professor, teacher, and mentor to many CSU students. I would like to ask 32 the members of the Board a few questions for your consideration. How many people live next door to 33 you personally? Are there four people, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four people? Are there a hundred 34 people living next door to you? Do they have second and third story balconies overlooking your bedroom 35 windows and backyard? And, how many people would you expect to live next door to you if you owned 36 your own single-family home in a residential neighborhood? Now, imagine a parking lot ten feet from 37 your bedroom with a trash dumpster and ninety-seven contributors. Of course if you live next to a 12 1 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone, you might have taken a careful look around at the housing and 2 businesses in that zone, doctors, dentists, lawyers, and twenty-four unit housing. If you look up the rules 3 for the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone, you would see just exactly what we see in our 4 area…uses designed to buffer the residential neighborhoods. There is an extended list of uses that are 5 extraordinary in this buffer zone, such as multi-family housing with more than twenty-four units. Their 6 approval requires a Type II review by a special decision-making Board, the Planning and Zoning 7 Board…not City Planning staff or even a Type I hearing officer. We are here tonight because you are the 8 decision maker. A Type II review in front of this Board reaches beyond the authority of staff or hearing 9 officers in considering all aspects of the project, including the detriment to neighbors. The role of the 10 Board is not to review the work product of Planning staff for accuracy, to do so would destroy the intent 11 of the Type II review, and disparage the authority of the Planning and Zoning Board. You have the 12 authority and the responsibility to serve the needs of all citizens when development conflicts with or 13 serves those needs. We intend to demonstrate negative outcomes of high intensity housing. We realize 14 that this Board and Council do not distinguish student housing from multi-family housing, and the 15 outcomes we describe do not make such a distinction. The negative impacts of the proposed project are 16 the same no matter the demographic. We only ask for your sincere consideration of a project that has, 17 and will continue to alter our neighborhood in a variety of negative ways. We ask for your evaluation of 18 the losses we face from this extraordinary project. And when I say extraordinary, I don’t mean great, I 19 mean without precedent in the NCB zone in our community. We request that the Board impose a 20 mitigation plan that reduces the size of this project by at least 20% to help reduce these negative impacts 21 on our community. Thank you very much for your consideration. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 23 PAMELA BANTHAM: Good evening, my name is Pamela Bantham and I live at 1214 Bennett 24 Road. I’ve lived in Fort Collins for twenty-six years; I graduated from Poudre High School and went to 25 CSU. As mentioned, I live on Bennett Road with my husband and my two-year old son. We live about 26 forty feet from the edge of this proposed development. We were the first family to move into the Bennett 27 Road Bungalows and we’ve lived there for over nine years. During that time, we’ve watched Bennett 28 Road develop into a wonderful neighborhood. It is a diverse neighborhood with young families, retirees, 29 a large number of residents who are directly connected with the University, including students, 30 employees, several professors, and a dean. The neighbors attend social events together and regularly 31 participate in City-sponsored events, such as Neighborhood Night Out. An important element of this 32 neighborhood is the Bennett Elementary School which is right across the street from our house. The 33 proximity to Bennett Elementary School is one of the most appealing elements of the Bennett 34 neighborhood to us, and I look forward to walking my own son across the street when he starts 35 kindergarten. There are a number of things that concern me about this proposed project, including the 36 prospect of having ninety-seven students live right next door. What concerns me most is the position of 37 the balconies. With the students thirty-five feet off the ground, looking down into our backyard, while 38 my son plays in the sandbox, or directly into our windows when we first wake up in the morning. 39 Another concern is the proximity of the apartment complex’s dumpsters, right next to the single-family 40 homes. Our bedroom faces that new proposed spot of the dumpsters, and I guarantee you can hear them 41 from my bedroom window. The thought of waking up in the morning to the sound of the garbage truck 42 emptying the dumpsters or waking up in the middle of the night to the crash of the beer bottles into the 43 dumpsters is truly unsettling. I understand that the job of this Board is to make sure that this project is 13 1 compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and the decisions you make tonight about this 2 development will impact not only the neighborhood, including whether is remains a place where parents 3 like me choose to raise their families and send their children to school, but it will also affect how future 4 projects around CSU are evaluated. Projects like this with the maximum density, the minimum parking, 5 setbacks, and landscaping buffers, virtually guarantees that wonderful neighborhoods like Bennett will 6 not continue to exist near CSU. Please take steps tonight to reduce the size and density of this project, 7 and I agree with the 20%. Please increase the setbacks and landscaping, please require a number of 8 parking spots consistent with the number of students we all know will bring cars to campus, and please 9 impose a requirement that limits balconies to the units that are adjacent to the major streets, not to the 10 units that overlook single-family homes and backyards. Thank you. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Please, step up. 12 CLAIR EMELDI: Good evening members of the Planning and Zoning Board, my name is Clair 13 Emeldi and I live in the Avery Park neighborhood. I am against the construction of the Carriage House 14 Apartments in my neighborhood, which is already densely populated. Besides long-time residents, we 15 already have too many students living in Avery Park, and with all the construction going on of student 16 housing in Fort Collins, I had hoped that Fort Collins would be able to reduce the number of students 17 living in this residential neighborhood instead of increasing it. Thank you. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead. 19 GREG DOURAS: Thanks, my name is Greg Douras, I live at 1205 Springfield Drive and I’d like 20 to address parking tonight. Although the TOD District was originally intended to reflect the goal of 21 having tenants within the District to walk or take public transportation to their destinations, we’ve become 22 aware that these are probably more aspirational goals of the TOD than they are accurate representations of 23 what happens. Based on statistics, 80% of students who come to CSU bring their own cars. Building a 24 large scale housing project with parking for only half of those tenants is simply not adequate and will 25 inevitably result in the remainder of the students parking their cars in the surrounding neighborhood 26 streets. I’ve been a resident of Springfield Road for two years and I can tell you firsthand, as I bike to and 27 from work at CSU, that road is parked past my house every day with cars of people coming to school 28 there. Although allowing a high-intensity multi-family housing project on a small lot with inadequate 29 parking will have a tremendously negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, one of the most 30 important duties of this Board is to take into consideration the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood 31 and to take steps to ensure the compatibility of any proposed project with the existing neighborhood. If 32 this Board plans to approve this project, I ask that you impose a mitigation plan which specifically 33 addresses the neighbors’ concerns. One of those concerns should be a requirement that on-site parking 34 spaces are necessary for 80% of the tenants who live in the units; this simply reflects what we know to be 35 a number consistent with the number of cars that come to campus with students. Maybe the changes are 36 made to the TOD District in the near future, but proposing a mitigation plan that requires parking spaces 37 for 80% of the tenants is something this Board can do tonight. This not only addresses the concerns of 38 the neighbors and ensures more compatibility with the existing neighborhood by taking cars off the street, 39 but it also accurately reflects the reality of the parking situation around campus. Please don’t ignore this 40 issue tonight with the assumption that these issues will be addressed on future projects through a change 41 to the TOD District. Please don’t let the Bennett and Springfield neighborhoods become a cautionary tale 14 1 in support of why the TOD District should be changed in the future. If this project is going to be 2 approved, please include a requirement that on-site parking spaces must be included for 80% of the 3 tenants. Thanks. 4 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 5 KARLA CUMMINGS: Good evening, my name is Karla Cummings, I live on Springfield Drive 6 a few doors away from the proposed project site. I’m here to discuss the parking issue. I’ve lived there 7 for twenty-eight years. I’m retired now, but I worked forty years at CSU and walked most of the days 8 since 1985. A lot of my neighbors work at CSU or have retired from CSU. A lot of them are CSU 9 students dispersed in single-family homes, three or more to a house. Lately, in public venues, people 10 have told me that I should have known better than to buy a house next to a University if I didn’t want to 11 live next to students. They suggest that I should move away and abandon my home if I don’t like the new 12 development. I haven’t had a problem up until this year, when an out of town developer came to my 13 town, right into my neighborhood, to make some money on a student housing boom. They build as big as 14 they can get away with to make the most money they can before they sell it off and leave us holding the 15 bag. Now I find myself out here fighting for the integrity, safety and quality of life that I thought the City 16 would project for me. Sorry if I take this a little personally. What I really want to point out is the failure 17 of the Transportation Overlay District. Despite someone’s dream to the contrary, CSU students have and 18 will continue to have their cars for the foreseeable future. They have cars and they will park them 19 somewhere, and that somewhere will likely be on my street. I know this because student commuters 20 already park up to my house almost every day. The project will add another twenty to thirty permanently 21 parked cars to my street that curves on the east end. We have a high car, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic 22 area, not to mention the traffic that the project alone will add. Whoever put the Transportation Overlay 23 District a mile away from the new MAX system clearly hasn’t lived on the west side of campus. It’s a 24 mile to a grocery store with connection by bus. Do any of you go shopping by bus? The students who 25 can afford to live in this new project certainly won’t be doing the bus to grocery shop. Students in 26 Northern Colorado have cars and will continue to have them to go shopping, hiking, skiing, or out at 27 night. That won’t change any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime. I’m asking this Board take 28 responsibility and use your authority to require a reduction in the size of this project…a reduction of one- 29 fifth would allow space for adequate on-site, free parking for each student…each resident. This reduction 30 would also allow real setbacks and landscaping, not just five feet with a couple of bushes. The NCB zone 31 is supposed to conserve neighborhoods. This project is already destroying ours. Thank you for listening. 32 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 33 PAM TREANOR: Good evening, my name is Pam Treanor and I live at 1332 Bennett Road, and 34 I was asked to read a short letter from one of our neighbors who couldn’t attend tonight because she’s at a 35 family birthday. Her name’s Deanne Kelly, she lives at 1313 Springfield…I think for well over thirty 36 years. Her letter says, I would like to state my sincere concern regarding the conceptual plans for the 37 Carriage House Apartments. The Land Use Code does not support three-story buildings being placed 38 right next door to one-story and two-story single-family homes. All of us elderly…I have to join that 39 group…neighbors are devastated by this conceptual plan. At last year’s meeting, Mr. Bailey stated that 40 the building would be professionally managed. At our neighborhood meeting, he stated there would be 41 no on-site management. Parking is a major issue and needs to be professionally addressed as well as the 15 1 trash issue. One other issue is the noise and disturbance problem. Please assist all of us in disallowing a 2 three-story building to be constructed. Thank you for attention to this major issue. 3 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 4 BUELAH KENNICUTT: Good evening, my name is Buelah Kennicutt and I live on Springfield 5 Drive eight houses from the project. I bought my house new forty-seven years ago. I taught at Bennett 6 Elementary and walked to work eighteen years. I’ve been retired for a while now. I’ve seen a lot of 7 changes in the neighborhood, and especially with the students moving into rentals. Most of them have 8 been very good neighbors, although they don’t always take care of things like the homeowners, but that’s 9 to be expected. A few have been a real bother. About ten years ago, they developed…pasture with the 10 bungalow houses. I wasn’t too excited about that, but now I’m really enjoying the neighbors to the back 11 when they’re out in their gardens and taking care of their yards just as I do, and they watch over me. Four 12 years ago, we started the Neighborhood Night in August, and have become a real neighborhood again, 13 until this project. And, since then, we’ve lost six families that have moved away just in my block, and 14 three of those were rentals now…and three of those families took away children from Bennett School. 15 Retired people have bought those houses, but that’s fine, and we’re not quite the same at Bennett School. 16 All the damage that is done, and here they don’t have the project started yet. I’m afraid of what will 17 happen, more will be moving away. I don’t have it in me to move, but still, I remember what my house 18 was when it was new and I’d like to keep it that way. Like I said, most students are good neighbors, but 19 not all of them. Put ninety-seven into one and a half acres, there’s bound to be more problems. And, my 20 neighbors are good to call the police whenever there are these problems, otherwise they’d know who I 21 was. Please consider protecting my neighborhood and making this project smaller. Thank you. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, go ahead please. 23 MELYSSA MEAD: Hi, I’m Melyssa Mead, I live at 1244 Bennett Road, and I also, interestingly, 24 have grown up here, and Michael Baute who spoke earlier about the urban agriculture is my family’s farm 25 who is right on Taft Hill that has gotten developed all around it. But, how great is it that you all approved 26 that for them to continue to do that, which I find a little ironic when we still have some of that right 27 behind our houses. We have a horse pasture by us, we have this undeveloped area that’s right in town, 28 and I’m thinking…I celebrate that. I moved into Bennett almost six years ago, I have two kids that go 29 across the street to Bennett and it’s already nerve-wracking enough with the college student traffic, but 30 you know, we deal with it, and we got a speed bump, and like we’ve said, as a neighborhood we’ve pulled 31 together. Do ninety-seven students that don’t have adequate parking start driving down that street with 32 elementary school children? That obviously is kind of a little bit of a record for disaster, and so I just 33 would warn that, and I think with my kids, and you’re obviously so protective of them, and to have that 34 student development right behind us, that’s not what I moved into. And the reason why I love Fort 35 Collins and why I love that we’re doing things like urban agriculture, is that we respect the land around us 36 and that we’re not going to overdevelop and we’re not going to develop in a way that compromises all 37 these people’s livelihoods and the way we chose to live by living there. Thank you. 38 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 39 ANN HUNT: My name is Ann Hunt and I live at 1800 Wallenberg. Clearly I don’t live in the 40 Bennett neighborhood, but I do live in the neighborhood that’s just south of Prospect Street and east of 16 1 Shields; it’s a neighborhood that’s very impacted by parking by CSU students. And so, I’m here to speak 2 to the real parking problems and not the theoretical parking that is assumed by the TOD. And, the TOD 3 sort of runs right down the middle of Prospect so the people on the north are in the TOD, the people on 4 the south, we still have a requirement for 0.75 spaces per person. And even…we’re worried about that 5 because we have faced the development of many student housing complexes, and none of them have yet 6 been built, but there’s a new proposal, and we feel that they’re not going to have enough parking 7 places…the need for the parking is going to overrun into our neighborhood. I live right kitty-corner from 8 where this development will be, and I know that the students will park there, because they can just walk, 9 if they can’t park in the lot that’s being developed for those students. And I think that if you live in these 10 kind of neighborhoods close to CSU and where students are, you know that these things are going to 11 happen. It’s not theoretical, it’s real, and those are things that have happened and will happen, and so I 12 really am sympathetic with the problems that these people face, compounded by the fact that there’s an 13 elementary school across the street. So thank you very much. 14 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 15 DEBBIE COOK: Good evening, my name is Debbie Cook and I live at 5983 Starview Drive in 16 Broomfield. I own the houses just south on Shields of the proposed development at 1321 and 1325 South 17 Shields. These two houses are single-family residences that have been upgraded to allow four or five 18 unrelated tenants. And, in doing so, I had to provide four extra parking, on-site. And I did so, I created 19 more parking than was necessary to make sure that my tenants and their visitors didn’t park on the 20 street…as much as, I mean when they have parties, then what can you do? But, for the most part, all my 21 tenants park on my property. The southeastern most building is fifteen feet from my property line, in 22 places it may be thirty feet from my house. A three-story building will tower over this ranch. It’s a short 23 ranch, and a three-story building will seem like a monster next to it. The proposed six foot fence will 24 provide no privacy from a thirty-eight foot tall building, and the third story balconies will…will take 25 away any privacy that any of the neighboring houses have. The same berm and tree buffer that was 26 offered along the west side should also be installed along the south border of this proposed property. A 27 fifty-seven unit apartment could legally house three people per unit, or in this case, a hundred and 28 seventy-one tenants. Having fifty-eight parking spaces for between ninety-seven and a hundred and 29 seventy-one tenants, plus their visitors, will create a parking nightmare. Now, Mr. Bailey can claim that 30 he’s going to hire a property manager that won’t allow more than one person per bedroom, but kids break 31 the rules, and when he decides to sell the building, who knows if the next property manager is going to 32 follow that same policy if it is a policy that Mr. Bailey imposes. So, there could legally be a hundred and 33 seventy-one tenants in that building. The City doesn’t monitor that, and they wouldn’t monitor it until 34 there was more than three unrelated tenants in an apartment building. I called Neighborhood Services this 35 morning, and they confirmed that. So, I’m a landlord and I’m student friendly because I mostly rent to 36 students, but I’m only a proponent of this development if it’s done in harmony with the neighborhood. 37 Thank you for your time. 38 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 39 BETH KRANSKE: Hello, my name is Beth Kranske and I live at 1208 Bennett Road. I’ve lived 40 in Fort Collins since 1990, I grew up here and went to Fort Collins High School, I currently coach at the 41 high school, so I consider myself pretty involved in our community. The proposal is directly behind my 17 1 house. I’m not sure if you noticed, by my house is the second one in on the picture, it was labeled 2 incorrectly on the first slide, but it’s the second one. So, I’ll be one of the people who is affected the most 3 by this. You’ve heard all these people stand up and tell you how great our community is, and I couldn’t 4 agree with them more. But, one of the things that makes our community so special is Bennett Elementary 5 School. But, with that, it also prevents challenges in regards to safety. Twice a day in front of Bennett 6 School is packed with cars, both sides of the street, picking up and dropping off their children. Large 7 groups of parents and kids stand on the sidewalk and chat, taking up every space on the sidewalk and 8 every available parking space. One of the things that concerns me the most about this proposed 9 development is, there aren’t enough parking spots for all the residents that we know will be bringing cars 10 to campus. We know that cars that aren’t parked on-site in a development like this will be pushed into the 11 surrounding neighborhoods, including right in front of Bennett Elementary School…which, these parking 12 spots are already being used to maximum every single day when…that school in in session. In my 13 opinion, the parking for this proposed development will not only negatively impact the surrounding 14 neighborhoods, but will directly affect the safety of the children being picked up and dropped off from 15 school. If you read the newspaper, I don’t know if any of you have young kids that you take to 16 elementary school every day, but it’s crowded. And, if you read the newspaper, you hear about so-and-so 17 getting hit by a car next to a school. So, in an area that we know is already full of cars, why would 18 we…it’s our job as the community to look out for these kids and to protect them and not create problems 19 that we already foresee coming. I understand the importance of student housing; more than most, I’m 20 aware of some of the challenges that come along with that. Multiple times, myself of members of my 21 family, have lived in our house have drunk students attempted to break in, and unfortunately successfully 22 broken in to our house. And, it’s…many times, the police were required. So, I understand that. But, I 23 understand that it’s also important to have student housing. So, I’m not opposed to student housing; 24 however, this project appears to have done everything possible to maximize the density and to minimize 25 the parking, landscaping, setbacks, and scale of the project. To me, this is the opposite of compatibility. 26 I’m also concerned about students hanging on their third story balconies. It’s kind of been inferred that 27 the surrounding houses are multi-story, but my house, as you can see…it’s the left one on the top 28 slide…is a one-story house, and my property is adjacent to where this structure is proposed to be built. 29 Please take our concerns into consideration, please reduce the size of the project by 20%, please require 30 parking for at least 80% of the resident that will live there, please increase the setbacks between my house 31 and the development, please increase the height of the fence and require additional evergreen landscaping 32 to shield or buffer the project from the surrounding neighborhoods. Above all, please don’t approve a 33 project that is so incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods that neighborhoods like Bennett and 34 Springfield cease to exist in our city. Thank you. 35 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir, you ready to go? Okay, okay. Mam, please go ahead. 36 BRIGITTE SCHMIDT: My name is Brigitte Schmidt, I don’t live in this neighborhood, but I was 37 on the Planning and Zoning Board the first time this project and the following one came before us. So, I 38 do have…and as you guys well know, do have a lot of concerns about neighborhood compatibility. I 39 think it is a lot more than just the architecture. I think City Plan has policies there to preserve our 40 neighborhoods and I think it’s very important to think of lifestyle conflicts. And those can be addressed, 41 I’m not saying that they can’t, but I think it’s…because compatibility is such…if you want to call it…an 42 iffy topic, I think it’s really the purview of the Board to try to decide because you’re not going to get 43 everyone to agree on what is compatible and what isn’t. It’s unfortunate that having no modifications or 18 1 variances is considered a good thing; I tend to consider it as a lack of creativity myself, and I think that 2 possibly I have some questions on this project in areas that they may not have addressed. For one thing, 3 is the parking lot behind an apartment complex considered public parking, a public area. So, you know, 4 when they say you’re not allowed to have marijuana in public, but if you’re having it in the parking lot 5 behind your house, is that a public or private area? Who notifies the management of police violations? I 6 don’t know if the police do, or if you’re in an apartment and you’re ticketed for a noise violation, how 7 does the management find out? They say that that means you’re going to be evicted, but maybe they’re 8 not even notified, so that’s kind of moot. Is it possible to have a pedestrian cross-over on Shields? I 9 really feel a lot of the students are going to take bicycles and walk, and the most direct place is to go 10 down Pitkin. If you take a car, you’re going to go Lake or maybe Elizabeth, but if you’re on foot or on 11 bicycle, you’re going to just wiggle-waggle your way across Shields. And, I read in the staff report that 12 they felt it was too close, but on the north side from Laurel, there’s that church area and it has a pedestrian 13 crossing, and it’s relatively close. So, I really am concerned about people crossing on Shields and the 14 impact on that. One of the things I think is possibly…a lot of people have talked about parking. Is there 15 a way that there could be parking agreements made with, let’s say, Cambridge House, to have a trade-off. 16 Cambridge House has a lot of empty parking spaces, so if students want just a long-term car, could there 17 be a lease agreement made there, or something in the lease requiring people to get parking stickers that let 18 them park at Moby. Those kinds of creative thinking, I think, could really make this project a lot better, 19 and so I’d say it’s not ready yet, although it’s…whenever it’s presented to you, it’s like this is the best, 20 we’ve done a lot of work on this…and I want you to think of the project that follows this, and what is 21 being presented tonight compared to what they presented before, and I think they’ve done an excellent job 22 of reworking their project and making it much more compatible to the neighborhood. And, I suggest that 23 maybe this project could use a little more work too. Thank you very much. 24 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir, you ready? 25 MR. ROVNAK: I believe so. Good evening, my name is Joel Rovnak, I live on Bennett Road. 26 I’ve submitted copies of Table 2 and two attachments from the traffic study for this project that you have 27 in your packet. Also, copies of a report by Spack Consulting, documents from a Student Housing Action 28 Plan meeting, and a letter from a representative of Traffic Operations. On attachment A, under other 29 traffic studies, the Traffic Engineer was not aware of any. Another person crossed that out and identified 30 a Bennett Road Bungalows study and an area requiring special study. They wrote, discussion of traffic 31 from project on Bennett Elementary drop-off, pick-up traffic. The same pen crossed out all of the 32 responses in both boxes, were other traffic studies included in the evaluation of this project. On the 33 second attachment, trip generation, a factor of 2.82 per dwelling unit was applied to yield 282 trips for a 34 hundred beds. This was then reduced by 25% to 212 for alternative modes of transport. The trip 35 generation factor 2.82 is based on a study by Spack Consulting of six student housing projects next to the 36 University of Minnesota in downtown Minneapolis. The Minneapolis metropolitan area has 3.3 million 37 people, the University of Minnesota has a downtown campus of 49,000. This is the data from the Spack 38 report where the 2.82 factor was derived. These data were presented to attendees of a SHAP meeting. 39 Have a look at the values used on the attachment, 282, compared to those in the SHAP handout in page 40 three of the Spack report, 2.82 per dwelling unit. I’ve heard many rulings from this Board and from 41 Council that student housing is indistinguishable from multi-family housing, yet trip generation data for 42 student housing were used for this project. Also note the value of 6.65 average rate published for 43 apartments code 220, in the industry reference trip generation provided to SHAP attendees. Table 2 19 1 shows the final correction for ninety-seven student housing beds and the 25% reduction. Also note that 2 the source code is 220 apartments from the trip generation reference. In Fort Collins, all housing is multi- 3 family housing code 220 apartment. This study defines this project as student housing and uses 4 advantageous trip generation data and then reduces it by another 25%. Aside from a three-fold increase in 5 traffic, trip generation determines offset fees that are applied to all transportation needs city-wide. The 6 traffic impact study used for this project is flawed because it fails to account for other traffic in the area 7 and is based upon an incorrect standard. I ask that the Board deny approval of the project tonight and 8 send it back to the staff for review. Thanks. 9 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 10 NANCY PIPER: Yes, I’m Nancy Piper, I live at 2424 Newport Court and I own a property at 11 1118 City Park. I would just point out that…two things, that in that area they pointed out that across the 12 street from this complex is a medical building that’s two-story high. Nothing else around there on the 13 other side…on the west side of Shields in that immediate neighborhood…they are older homes, they are 14 all very, very small one-story homes, so this three-story apartment is something that is really going to 15 tower over those small homes and I would like to see that readdressed to have a smaller area. And, a 16 major concern with this property is, as everyone has said, is the parking. If you drive down Shields 17 toward campus, Bennett Street, all the streets along there…Springfield…they are all, on a college day, 18 they are packed. You could not find a place for a bicycle. And, yet we’re talking about brining basically 19 at least ninety-seven more cars into that with only fifty-seven parking spots. Where are those other cars 20 going to go? Because we all know those cars are going to be there, and there is no place for blocks in 21 either direction on the west side of Shields to park anything. So, I would really like that to be readdressed 22 and considered. Thank you. 23 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead. 24 DONNA FAIRBANK: My name is Donna Fairbank. I live at 1712 Clearview Court, which is 25 next to Avery Park. I’ve lived there for thirty-seven years. My son and his family live in the same area 26 so we’re involved, depending on the weather, in either transporting our grandchildren by bike or by car to 27 Bennett School. I know this neighborhood well; you’ve seen my face here before. I lent a lot of time to 28 quality of life issue in Fort Collins. By all rights I should be at a family reunion in Estes Park, but we 29 brought it home Wednesday because this is important. I’m not going to reiterate the issues, you’ve heard 30 them. What I want to ask you to do is imagine that you live where we live, and ask you to do what feels 31 right in your heart to protect our quality of life. I’d like to retire and work in a flower garden, instead I 32 put on my calendar where the meetings are and who the meetings are with, to try and find balance in 33 encouraging student housing. My husband is a professor at CSU, we like the students; we want them to 34 have a good quality of life too. But, our neighborhood is under a tremendous amount of pressure and 35 people are already selling because of the fear that we’re not going to be protected from these projects. 36 Please think about what is going to happen as more and more pressure is put on. We hear too many 37 people speaking to us as though we should have known better than to buy on the west side. The west side 38 is defensible as a student area, but it’s equally defensible as a faculty area. It doesn’t have to do so much 39 with who is living there with whether or not they’re required to behave themselves and have compatible 40 housing. So, think about the issues of parking and of behavior and of numbers as you make your 41 decisions tonight. We really need your help, thank you. 20 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Sir and mam, please. 2 MIKE SMITH: Good evening, my name is Mike Smith, I live at 2320 Chandler Street. I actually 3 used to rent a home on Bennett Road. It was a great neighborhood and the families there embraced me, 4 welcomed me. And you know, I was a graduate student here at CSU and I know how student parking is 5 and I know how students can be. Living on Bennett Street on any given weekend, you just didn’t know 6 how many cars you were going to have in front of your street. It was sometimes difficult when you come 7 home and the cars lined up in front of your street made it difficult to actually get into the driveway. So, 8 you know, I’m…I know how parking is and I know how the student population is. So, please, when you 9 make a decision, you know, please think about the parking. And, you know, since I don’t live there 10 anymore, I still think you need to think about the residents that do live there and how the parking is going 11 to affect how they live and, you know, how the residents are going to look over into the backyards of 12 those homes so, you know, I appreciate your time and so does she… 13 CHAIR SMITH: She has three minutes too. Thank you. Sir please go ahead when you’re ready. 14 PETE KRANSKE: Thank you. My name is Pete Kranske and I live at 4131 Harborwalk Drive, 15 but my wife Patty and I own the property at 1208 Bennett where our daughter, Beth, lives. And, you 16 already heard from our daughter Beth and probably by the time we’re done, you’ll see somebody else 17 besides Pete taught her how to speak in public. But, I’m a graduate of Fort Collins High School and I left 18 here and I went to California to UCLA and I stayed out there for twenty-five years. And then in 1990, I 19 decided that I wanted to come back here, and the reason that I wanted to come back here…there’s about 20 four. One was the quality of life here, I knew what the quality of life was because I grew up here, okay. 21 The next thing was the quality of the schools. I knew that my children could go to school in a public 22 school here and get just as good an education as they could if I paid $40,000 a year for them to go to some 23 private school in L.A. And, thirdly, I knew that the people in this city do what is right, and I wanted my 24 kids to grow up in a place where people would set an example of what is right and how to do the right 25 thing, even when it’s difficult. You have a tough job here tonight, because we’ve already heard that this 26 project meets the Code. And, it would be easy to rubber stamp this project and just say, go forward. But 27 I believe that’s not what we do in Fort Collins. What we do in Fort Collins is we consider everything and 28 then we make a decision to do the right thing. It’s my understanding that the NCB zoning creates a 29 transitional zone intended to serve as a buffer between high-density or commercial uses and single-family 30 residential neighborhoods. To me, this project, the way it is today, is the exact opposite of that. It places 31 high-density, high-intensity housing adjacent to single-family houses with no plan for any reduction of 32 heights in the areas adjacent to single-family housing, and no plan to mitigate the impact of bringing all 33 these people together onto two quiet streets. Since the first meeting that Mr. Bailey talked about, over a 34 year and a half ago, our requests have been consistent. We asked for four things: scale the buildings 35 down to two stories when they’re adjacent to the single-families, ensure that there’s adequate parking, and 36 increase the setbacks and landscaping to create more of a buffer between the housing, and also eliminate 37 the balconies in the units that face our property. We could talk about the TOD plan and whatever, but we 38 know that that is not a realistic plan, okay, and we know that…I’d like to use the little girl’s three minutes 39 if I could, or at least one minute of it. 40 CHAIR SMITH: I don’t think she would grant you that. Finish your thoughts, please, and then 41 we’ll… 21 1 MR. KRANSKE: We know that the students at CSU, 80% of the students bring cars. They’re 2 going to bring those cars, okay, and like everyone else said, they’re going to park on our streets, and 3 they’re going to create more traffic on our streets, which is going to make the quality of life there less 4 than it is now, and all I’m saying to you is, tonight we had an opportunity to do things to mitigate what 5 the effect of that apartment. We’re not saying don’t build it, we’re not saying we don’t want students in 6 our neighborhood, what we’re saying is four things: increase the parking, increase the setbacks, increase 7 the landscaping between the project because there’s a lot in the front, but not much in the back, and 8 remove balconies that will look into our bedrooms and look into our backyards where our children are 9 playing. And I just ask you to take our consideration seriously and do the right thing for the citizens of 10 Fort Collins. Thank you very much for your time. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else want to address the Board? This will be your only 12 opportunity to do so, so if you even think you might want to address the Board, you probably should. 13 BOB JONES: My name is Bob Jones and I live at 1699 Redwing Lane in Broomfield, Colorado. 14 My story is that I’ve been involved in student management housing for almost ten years now, and it’s a 15 story of ah-hah moments. Our focus has been at CU Boulder, and the first ah-hah was that students 16 typically want to do the right thing, but they don’t have the life experiences yet to know how to do the 17 right thing, or what the wrong thing is even, in some cases. So, in our small company, we developed a 18 process of educating kids before they moved in. That second ah-hah was that those kinds of behavioral 19 problems that we experienced initially in our online business changed dramatically. The things that 20 shouldn’t have happened stopped happening, by taking that time. The way we take that time, and we 21 evolved, is we developed what Mr. Bailey is…has referred to as moveinsuccess.com, which is our 22 company that we own that has developed a software platform that he has now been using for some time 23 on his properties, and other folks are using it in other areas of Denver. What we do is we provide a series 24 of tutorials that help to educate and also modify behavior, and in that process of education, most people 25 want to do the right thing most of the time, and what we’re able to do is to teach those tools to those 26 future residents prior to them getting their keys. My experience with Mr. Bailey has been that he seeked 27 [sic] out our company because he had heard about we do and the performance values that we brought to 28 the table, and he’s been very aggressive with us frankly, in making sure that we have…are doing some 29 custom work to educate his residents prior to moving in. And, it’s our belief that what we’re doing is that 30 we’re helping to make those residents better residents in the long run, not only for this particular resident 31 turn, but also into the future because we sensitize them to being better community members, better 32 neighborhood members. We just spent the last six weeks developing an entire module that works on 33 behaviors in the community, outside the four walls of the apartment. So, I’d like you to think about that 34 as a piece of technology that we’re using with a very…that is very native to these young people to help 35 them become better, better residents, okay? Thank you. 36 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. Mam, please go ahead. 37 VALERIE MCINTYRE: Hi, my name is Valerie McIntyre, I live at 1217 Springfield Drive. I am 38 a graduate of Colorado State University, I am a twenty-four year employee there, and I work in the 39 student legal services department, so I hear a lot about students’ misbehavior. And, we’re there to help 40 them become good citizens and learn about the things that they want to do as well. However, the 41 gentleman that just spoke was talking about helping them do the right thing. The things that the 22 1 neighborhood has a problem with don’t really have anything to do with students doing the wrong thing. 2 I’m not saying that there aren’t concerns of the neighbors related to behavior, but bringing a car to 3 campus is not a wrong thing. Having a car to get from Longmont, or Colorado Springs, or Pueblo, to 4 come to Fort Collins, that’s not wrong. The problem is that this complex doesn’t have enough spaces for 5 those cars. It’s not wrong to spend time on your balcony, if you’ve got a balcony, why not? But, if that 6 balcony overlooks the neighbors and takes away their privacy, then that’s a concern for the people that 7 live around that complex. So, while I admire, you know, their attempt to educate their tenants and help 8 them learn to be good neighbors, which is always a good idea, I agree with what’s been said previously of 9 the four things that are the concerns of the neighborhood, that have been the concerns of the 10 neighborhood from the very beginning, and that I really would strongly stress that the Planning and 11 Zoning Board take into consideration. I walk to work a lot of the times, I jay-walk across Shields along 12 with hundreds of people every morning. Cars, you know, it’s really dicey to get across there. And, if you 13 add a hundred more people, either jay-walking with me, or trying to get out that corner, then traffic is also 14 a huge concern. So, I would reiterate the same things that everyone has said before me and just say, I 15 really feel it’s your responsibility as this Board to think of those of us living in the neighborhood and our 16 desire to try to maintain our lifestyle and take into account those things that have been mentioned. Thank 17 you. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Anyone else want to address the Board on this issue? Again, this 19 will be your last opportunity, so if you even think you might want to address the Board, you probably 20 should. Anyone else? No takers, going, going, gone. Alright, we’ll move to the…at this point, the 21 applicant’s response to everything that they’ve heard. What I’d like to do, unless anybody in this room 22 objects, is take a ten minute break. And so, we’ll come back here at 8:50 and we’ll pick back where we 23 left off, and that’ll be with the applicant response. 24 (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 25 CHAIR SMITH: Welcome back to the February 21st, 2013 [sic] Planning and Zoning Board 26 hearing. We’re continuing now with an item, the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, 27 and we just heard the public testimony and we are now moving into the applicant’s response to what we 28 heard in the public testimony. Please, go ahead. 29 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Once again, Carolyn White, land use counsel for the 30 applicant. In the interest of trying to be as efficient as possible, we took all the comments that we heard 31 during public comment, and broke them down, I think basically into four major categories. We heard 32 some concerns about balconies and privacy, we heard some concerns about the on-site management and 33 how that would be handled, and Mr. Chuck Bailey, the developer, is going to come up and answer those 34 two issues for you and answer the questions that were raised. Then, we also heard some concerns about 35 compatibility and parking, which are sort of interrelated, and I’m going to come back and we’re going to 36 answer those. There was also one question about the traffic study. I’m not real clear on exactly what the 37 issue was, but if you want to hear more about that, I just wanted to mention to you that Matt Delich, our 38 traffic engineer, is here and available to answer questions, but we weren’t planning to spend a lot of time 39 on that unless you want to hear more about it. So, with that I’ll ask Mr. Bailey to come up and talk to you 40 about the balconies and the privacy issue and the management. 23 1 MR. BAILEY: Hello, this is a photograph taken at dusk, so I apologize for the lack of clarity, but 2 this is from the center of the property looking southwest, and you can see a large tree there that I’ll 3 reference in the next picture as well, but that is the home…there’s the large tree. Go back to that 4 Courtney. On the far eastern most home on Bennett Street, so go back to the darker one then. So, what 5 we’re really talking about is one home, possibly the second one. This one I think is 1208 Bennett, and the 6 second one in, as having exposure to this side, and then the 1201 Springfield home, which is at the 7 immediate western boundary. I don’t count the two boarding homes on Springfield…or Shields, South 8 Shields, certainly one of them is adjacent to the site, but those have boarding licenses, they’re not really 9 single-family in their make-up and use. 10 So, with respect to what I heard tonight, I think a potential solution to the exposure issue is, 11 talking about the balconies. Go back Courtney to the other side. And this is a picture from the Bennett 12 Street Elementary School looking at the playground and looking to the northeast, so, I really don’t think 13 that there’s any exposure from the school to the site. It’s going to be…as I mentioned, these homes are all 14 lifted up four and five feet above the street level. They’re eighteen foot…I’m sorry, they’re twenty-eight 15 foot to the ridgeline so they’re another four or five above that, so they’re really at thirty-two feet. And, 16 their finished floor elevation, remember, is seven feet over our building one finished floor elevation, so 17 they’ve been pulled up by the developer, probably to create basements. But, at any rate, that’s the reality 18 we live with. So, in terms of the architecture, we don’t have a slide on it, but as an explanation, there 19 are…on building one, which…could you race back to the site plan maybe, it’s about half way through this 20 thing… 21 Building one is the most western…there you go…you can see building one on the left in the most 22 western part building. If we were to switch building one and building two, we could still conform to the 23 Land Use Code requirement of having just two identical buildings, not more than two in a row, 24 so…presently, it’s every other one, but I think we could switch…if the staff and the Board would be 25 agreeable, if we flip-flop building one and two, we could eliminate the balcony on the second floor in the 26 back of that building, so there wouldn’t be any second level balconies looking toward those Bennett 27 Street homes that we just talked about. And, the third level does have a landing, but that’s not a balcony 28 that’s associated with a residence. It’s part of the interior stair configuration tower to get to the third 29 level. So, it’s an open, railed condition, but it’s not a balcony of any sort of privacy, you know, we think 30 it affords ventilation and safety issues and all of those kinds of things for the architecture. So, let it be 31 known that there’s not a private third level balcony in any of these buildings. But, again, there is a second 32 level balcony that’s depicted in building one. If we switch those buildings, whether it’s…yeah, we’d put 33 a green in building one’s place, and we’d put a white in building two, we could eliminate those southern 34 balconies on that building. 35 The second thing I’d like to talk about is parking. It’s been stated so many times…we have fifty- 36 eight spaces reserved and dedicated on-site. We have three hundred and thirty feet of frontage on 37 Springfield, so dividing that by 20 spaces per car…that’s a standard regular size parking space, there’s 38 seventeen parking spaces immediately in front of the site, so that number equates to seventy-five spaces. 39 So, if you divide seventy-five by ninety-seven residents, you get a number that’s in the upper seventy 40 percentile for parking. We’re meeting that norm that we’ve heard…I’m not sure it’s accurate. As a 41 landlord of Pura Vida, we just did a lease last week with an international student, doesn’t have a car, you 42 know, the rents here are higher, admittedly, and you can live here and you don’t need a car. That’s the 24 1 whole concept behind the TOD. If you build it, they will come, and we find that we don’t know what our 2 actual number is because we just don’t have that statistic, but we don’t think it’s 80%. But, even if 3 applied that number, I think we’re right at that threshold with parking that’s immediately in front of the 4 site. And, these students are going to get there, they know that poachers come in to park here, and they 5 can get there and park on the street immediately in front of the property. 6 The second issue I’d like to talk just quick about is the dumpster. We…if any of you have seen 7 Pura Vida, we take great pride in our dumpster. And, it’s expensive, and it’s a Cadillac, but it has a roof 8 on it, it has an overhead garage door, and it has a keypad, and so we don’t take the trash from, you know, 9 anyone. And, if you saw the inside of this dumpster, it’s mind-boggling. It’s clean because people aren’t 10 hook-shoting bottles into our dumpster, and we’re able to recycle and sort trash in our dumpster. So, 11 we’re going to have an overhead door and a lockable man door and a roof on our dumpster. So it’s not 12 the norm that, you know, everybody is fearful of just being a cesspool of odor and filth. And that’s part 13 of the overall scheme of the community. 14 And then, finally, I’d like to talk about management. You know, it’s often said that, you know, 15 gee, are you going to have a manager? And, I don’t know honestly. When I started Pura Vida, I didn’t 16 have a plan to have a manager. We have an on-site manager there now, and it’s very conceivable that we 17 will have an on-site manager here in this community as well. I don’t know, and you k now, you often 18 hear about, gee, are you going to have a 24-hour manager, are you going to have a manager that lives on- 19 site? And, we hire the best manager we can, and if the first criteria of hiring a manager is, will you live 20 on site, we’re not going to get the best manager, we’re just going to get the manager that’s willing to live 21 with college students largely. So, that’s not our first criteria. You know, it could happen that we find 22 somebody that’s, you know, their upper 20’s that…they’re single, and you know they need a place, and 23 that’s all part of the compensation package, but we’re looking for the best manager, not somebody that 24 can cohabitate. And, if they do live there, they’re not there 24-7. We have a very exclusive and very 25 aggressive program of managing our properties and, you know, to my knowledge, we haven’t had any 26 police complaints at Pura Vida. And, we have security cameras; we’ll have security cameras in this 27 community, on the parking area, in the corridors, and all of those sorts of things. How does the manager 28 find out if there’s a problem? It’s just like the neighbors find out, and that manager serves as a buffer, 29 because the neighbors inside the community will alert our manager. And our manager will live in the 30 immediate area you know, we can be sure of that. And that manager will be there if it’s twelve midnight, 31 whatever, somebody kicks the door down, that’s part of the job description. So, it’s, you know, we’re 32 very particular about who lives in these communities and we have to be, and that’s just part of the 33 program. So, in conclusion, Carolyn will speak to a couple other issues. 34 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I just would like to address now the two, I think, 35 overriding issues of compatibility and parking, which are interrelated in some ways. There were a lot of 36 comments about compatibility and so, just so we all know what we’re talking about, I want to come back 37 to what the definition of compatibility is in the Land Use Code, and it’s contained in your staff report. 38 They don’t have page numbers; I think it’s at about page five or six. Compatibility does not mean the 39 same as, compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow 40 them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility 41 include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular 25 1 traffic, circulations, access and parking. Compatibility does not mean the same as, rather compatibility 2 refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development. 3 Then I want to mention that Neighborhood Conservation Buffer concept and the idea that the uses 4 that are allowed here, including as a use by right, multi-family up to three stories, are intended to buffer 5 the single-family from the more intensive uses. In this case, the more intensive use on the other side is 6 the University. There was a comment about this project being high-density or high-intensity. In fact, by 7 all industry definitions and by the defined terms in the Code, this is very low-density multi-family 8 housing. This, in and of itself, is the buffer between the higher density use of the University and the 9 lower density of the single-family homes in the neighborhood. That’s exactly what the West Central 10 Neighborhood Plan is talking about in terms of designating this area. Further, in the West Central 11 Neighborhood Plan, it talks about how areas that are designated as development or redevelopment 12 parcels, which this parcel is, is a recognition that the predominant use and intensity of use around it is not 13 necessarily the most desirable use overall and that there ought to be a transition to more intensive uses. 14 Again, that’s exactly what this project is designed to be. So, in every possible way it’s as compatible as it 15 possibly could be. And, another way that you can make uses which are different…admittedly, multi- 16 family is different from single-family, but another way that you make two different uses compatible under 17 that definition, and under the 3.5.1 definition, is architectural and building massing. And, you heard 18 Chuck Bailey talk about how the very first neighborhood meeting he had, you know, prior to the required 19 neighborhood meeting, he was thinking about building a regular old, twenty-four unit, single block, one 20 unit, relatively massive, compared to the rest of the neighborhood, type project. And you heard loud and 21 clear this concern about compatibility with the neighborhood, and at much greater cost, both in terms of 22 construction and architecture, turned around and broke the project up into five separate individual 23 buildings, all with four-sided wrap-around architecture, and unique features like porches, and overhangs, 24 and hip roof, and gabled roofs, and front porch lights, and those balconies, which are not on the third 25 floor, to be clear. And so, this project is designed with great sensitivity to the neighborhood and is 26 exceedingly compatible. 27 That brings me to parking, which is another element of compatibility. It was pointed out to me 28 that, in addition to the actual numerical standard of zero parking on-site contained in the TOD overlay, 29 there’s also this general standard contained in Chapter 3 that says that location and number of off-site 30 parking is one of the things you consider in determining whether or not something is compatible with the 31 neighborhood. I again would turn to that table that was both in the staff report and in our PowerPoint 32 presentation talking about the actual number of parking spaces that exist for other similarly-situated 33 multi-family developments in the TOD overlay district. Now, another…one of the citizens said that this 34 project has the maximum amount of density and the minimum amount of parking. That’s not technically 35 correct; the minimum amount of parking would be zero on-site parking spaces. This project has fifty- 36 eight parking spaces, which is actually quite a lot given that there’s none required. And, the reason for 37 having those parking spaces, and some of the buildings were moved around in order to try to maximize 38 the parking spaces, is to try to ensure that compatibility with the neighborhood, that there would be 39 adequate parking for the type of market that this product is designed to attract. Similarly, this is far from 40 the maximum amount of density that can fit on this project. As I mentioned earlier, this project could be 41 40% larger and still be well within the FAR that is the maximum allowance for this zone district. And, 42 it’s not, it’s at this level in part because that’s how, when you take into account all of the setbacks and the 26 1 buffering, and the desire to add those fifty-eight spaces of parking, that’s how much is left that you can 2 actually build in. 3 So, all of these factors were taken into consideration. And, at the end of the day, a lot of people 4 talked about how they’ve felt uncomfortable with the TOD zoning overlay as a whole, and that may be 5 the case, and perhaps that needs to be revisited. But, right now, today, that’s the zoning that applies to 6 this property and that is what your Code says is allowed on this property. And, if you were to deny this 7 project because it complies with the zoning, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. So, I would ask you to take 8 those factors into consideration as well as the concerns expressed by the neighborhood. And we believe 9 that this does meet all of the requirements for compatibility, it meets all of the requirements for parking, 10 and it meets all of the other requirements in all of the applicable chapters. There was a comment made 11 that if you’re not asking for any modifications, you’re not being creative enough. Believe me, designing a 12 project that meets within all of those modifications, including the TOD overlay and the sensitivity and the 13 compatibility, requires a great deal of creativity. And, you heard Becky Stone, the architect, talk about 14 the fun, creative architectural challenge that presented for her as an architect. So, with that, we would ask 15 for your recommendation of approval, and I would just reiterate what Mr. Bailey offered at the beginning, 16 and that is to address that concern about the potential for privacy…concern about privacy as a result of 17 the balconies, that by switching those two buildings, one and two, that that concern can be completely 18 eliminated, because there is only one location in the entire project where there’s even the potential that 19 somebody standing on one of those balconies could see into somebody else’s backyard. And, there’s no 20 potential that anyone could see into the Bennett Elementary School. So, if you did choose to approve this 21 project and you wanted to impose that as a condition, of switching those two buildings, the applicant 22 would be amenable to that. Thank you for your time and attention and we’re happy to answer any 23 additional questions you have. We ask for your favorable recommendation. 24 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. While we have the applicant there, ready, and before we get into 25 the staff response, does any Boardmember have a question they’d like to ask of the applicant? Or a 26 clarification? 27 BOARDMEMBER GERALD HART: I have a question about the applicant…I don’t know if this 28 is the appropriate time. It seems that you’re attempting to deal with concerns that the people on Bennett 29 Road had with their privacy…one of the other concerns I had was the third floor structure. Is there any 30 way that could consider moving building one to make that a two-story structure and leave the rest of the 31 buildings as three? 32 MR. BAILEY: I guess what we’re trying to accomplish here is, like I said, back to the future, 33 we’re doing something that we think is innovative and different and we’re starting to put one hand behind 34 our back and, you know, we’re willing to find solutions that are amenable. If we could…if building one 35 as switched would need to become a two-story building to make the project a success with the Board, we 36 would be willing to consider that, yes. 37 BOARDMEMBER HART: Thank you. 38 CHAIR SMITH: Emily, did you have a question? 27 1 BOARDMEMBER EMILY HEINZ: Yeah, Mr. Bailey, I have a couple questions for you as well. 2 It seemed like…I took notes on the things that seemed to be concerns, so I wanted to ask you if it would 3 be possible to move the trash further east anywhere on site? Just as a thought…further east, away from 4 the houses. 5 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, one of the issues is that we have permeable pavers in the core area of the 6 south parking area, so these trash trucks come into that, and they’re going to probably destroy that 7 component. I’m very concerned about that, because, you know, originally…I would like to put the trash 8 back at number one, and you know, the City staff admonished me for that, and I understand why, but I’ve 9 built communities with the trash dumpster near the entry, and we use it as a signage opportunity. Again, 10 as I told you, we’re going to have an overhead door, we’re going to put the same roof material on it. So, I 11 would be willing to move it back to site one, and that would certainly get it away, farther away, from that 12 back area. 13 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I guess I don’t know where site one is… 14 CHAIR SMITH: That was out by the street right? And what was staff’s issue and reasoning? 15 MS. LEVINGSTON: There was a twofold concern, one was related to engineering requirements; 16 the other concern is about accessibility for all the units. When it’s placed in the first position right here, 17 it’s basically very accessible to building one, but there was concerns about the distance from, you know, 18 building five, building four, it was far away. It was easier access with the sidewalks in this location to get 19 to this final location. It seemed to make more sense. There was also an engineering standard that either 20 Tyler or Marc can speak to. I must have been mistaken. 21 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, you mean mistaken about the engineering standard? 22 MS. LEVINGSTON: The engineering standard. 23 CHAIR SMITH: So it was exclusively about proximity for building five? 24 MS. LEVINGSTON: As far as planning was concerned, yes. 25 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, okay. 26 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay thank you for that. A couple other questions were…there was 27 comments from the neighbors about wanting increased landscape buffer, like increased evergreens. Is 28 that a possibility? 29 MR. BAILEY: We meet the Code and that’s certainly been established as the norm for this 30 development, so I don’t know what we can do to enhance that. It’s pretty strong Code for landscaping. 31 We’ve got a mitigation plan, all the trees that we’re taking down, a lot of them are, you know, older…but 32 we’re mitigating all those trees 100%. 33 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay, and I know that we don’t require parking, but when I look at 34 your site plan, there’s something here in the parking lot in the southwest corner…southeast corner, there’s 35 like a…is that a little concrete island maybe? It looks like it could conceivably be two extra parking 36 spots. 28 1 MR. BAILEY: The bump that Courtney’s pointing to? 2 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I don’t see you pointing at anything. Yes, that. 3 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, that’s a tree that we’re protecting, and forestry asked us to do that. 4 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Okay. 5 MR. BAILEY: You know, we could…we’d be happy to… 6 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Leave that there, leave that there. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, let’s do this. Let’s move to the staff response to some of the public 8 testimony. I think we might…I don’t want to get too far into discussions with you, you know, on what 9 you might or might not be willing to do, until we’ve had the opportunity to hear from staff, I think, 10 especially, Ward, I think you read our mind about what we want to probably talk about soonest, and that 11 is…if we can I want to get into what we heard from one of the citizens about some flawed traffic impact 12 studies, and just some of that rationale. I got lost in it a little bit there, so we might even need to go back 13 into it. But, Ward, if you tracked what was being said, if you could comment on it and clarify for us, I’d 14 be grateful. 15 WARD STANFORD: Good evening Board, Ward Stanford with Traffic Operations. Going 16 through the items that I had heard from Mr. Rovnak, they talked about…on that attachment A there were 17 the changes at the bottom of it, the other traffic study’s component, that showed Bennett Bungalows, and 18 then the special study about Bennett School. Those…that attachment A was my document, and those 19 changes are my changes. I conducted the review, the attachment A creation, and the changes. The aspect 20 on the other traffic studies at Bennett Bungalows, I put that down there at first and then recalled and 21 realized that, well, Bennett is already built. The people are there, the traffic is already on the street. It 22 doesn’t need a traffic review to estimate what’s already existing and happening on the roadways. We did 23 counts out there so we captured that traffic actual versus the estimate from a traffic study. So, that’s the 24 reason I took the traffic study back off, it doesn’t provide anything additional that we don’t find in doing 25 the review of the traffic on the street. 26 CHAIR SMITH: Ward, excuse me real quick. I just want to make sure the applicant has 27 everything that we got in this packet and you’ve had a chance to review it…okay, okay, do you want one 28 of our copies? I just want to make sure that you have the opportunity to look at this. Thanks Emily. 29 Maybe Gerry will share with you. Alright, sorry, Ward continue, please. And, if you don’t mind, 30 because I think this was…this is information we got kind of late, so if you would, you know, every now 31 and then, if one of the Board…maybe pause for a second to show us exactly what you’re talking about, 32 that would be helpful. 33 MR. STANFORD: The attachment A that is, that was being referred to, should be in the first part 34 of the appendix of the traffic study, one of the first sheets. And, you’ll see at the bottom, the red crossed 35 out stuff, surprisingly I almost always write with a red pen, and so…why it’s in black to begin with, must 36 not have had a pen that day. But, anyway, the cross-outs are mine. 29 1 The second item which is at the very bottom of that attachment A was the special study statement 2 and I had put in there talking about the Bennett School area. But after considering it, after we concluded 3 the review, I also thought about how the traffic patterns and human behavior, because traffic is a human 4 behavior study much more than it is moving cars. Why would somebody go over into that area from this 5 site? As they spoke of, around the school in the morning drop-off, it is congestion. There is a…with the 6 current…I can’t think of the right word, the open drop-off…the school of choice aspect…traffic has 7 picked up considerably around area schools due to parents taking their children to schools and dropping 8 them off. And certainly elementarys have always had that. But they have a considerable drop-off and 9 pick-up in the morning rush hour, in the afternoon period also, and it is congested with the parents 10 coming in, dropping off, turning around to go back out, as well as the homeowners there trying to use 11 Bennett as well. For this location, for this site, to decide to double back around, go up Springfield, over 12 City Park, and back down Bennett into that…they’re not gaining anything by doing that as far as we see 13 it. We see they’re walking into a more difficult situation than just coming out of their drive, going to 14 Shields and Springfield, and trying to make their left of right turn there. The conditions are the same as 15 far as, once they get to Shields, there’s a lot of traffic on Shields. They’re going to have difficulty making 16 a left turn out no matter what street they’re using out there, unless they go back to the signal light at City 17 Park and Elizabeth. The other considerations of being at that location, again why it’s in our view, worse, 18 is being at Bennett, you’re closer to Lake Street and also to Prospect. Lake backs up…congests back up 19 southbound left turn onto Lake backs up across Bennett. So, getting an opening to make that left turn out 20 sometimes can be quite difficult. So, Springfield’s further away. Little less problem with the congestion 21 backing up and actually blocking the roadway. Both of them will have a southbound sight distance 22 problem, looking to the south to see if the northbound traffic is clear to make a left turn out. Bennett will 23 be worse, again it has the congestion from the two close intersections. As you move north from there, 24 that improves somewhat. You get away from the queues of traffic, you get a better view of northbound 25 traffic as well as southbound. You can make a quicker decision, take a quicker gap. And, I’ll break if 26 anybody has questions. 27 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I do. Ward, my understanding, and maybe I got 28 this wrong from the citizens, wasn’t so much about traffic trying to exit out onto Shields as it is about kids 29 coming in to Springfield to park, having it be too parked out, and going on to Bennett to find their parking 30 so that they can then walk over to campus. And so then, you know, there’s that high drop-off and pick-up 31 time at 9:00 and 3:00, but then the rest of the day, it perhaps seems more appealing from a parking 32 standpoint. I know that’s not exactly in the purview of a TIS, but that was some of my understanding of 33 why the neighborhood was concerned about Bennett in particular. 34 MR. STANFORD: That aspect I’d probably have to pass over to planning, the parking is not 35 something that I address. And the TOD background, and all of those characteristics, it’s just not 36 something we’re involved in or have a conversation on. 37 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I ask you one related question that I do think is in your 38 expertise? Is Springfield too constrained to do diagonal parking in front of the site that’s proposed? 39 MR. STANFORD: There’s pros and cons to the diagonal parking. There’s cons to it for bicycle 40 use…the backing out into bicycle use, much as you might have found on Mountain down in Old Town 41 and stuff…the visibility of folks. Some believe that the bikes should be closer to the back of the cars. 30 1 I’m more of a supporter, they ought to be more in the middle of the roadway because it gives them grace 2 space. But, there’s that characteristic that diagonal…or that parallel parking doesn’t have. Parallel is 3 safer in that regards to the use of bikes and stuff out there. It’s a forty foot wide roadway, same as 4 Bennett is, so there’s a decent amount of width for parallel parked vehicles and bike lanes, and travel 5 lanes to all coexist fairly well. When you put them on the diagonal, you’re going to use up a good bit of 6 that space and make it tighter, make it feel a good bit more constrained. Is it a positive or negative or 7 could it be done? I won’t say it couldn’t be done, I just think it’s….especially in that area where we are 8 truyly hoping for a high level of alternative modes, a high level of bicycle use. We would want to try and 9 do whatever is the best and most safe for the bicyclists. 10 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: On that note, is Springfield going to be planned to be re- 11 striped? I don’t think that there’s any painted bike lanes on it now are there? 12 MR. STANFORD: I do not think so, and typically neighborhood streets, we don’t stripe them on 13 there. 14 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: And, just while I’m in this vein, sorry Courtney…and then, 15 I know that Shields has had a lot of discussion over the years about what we can do from a safety 16 standpoint, if there is a long term plan to do a median and to do some of those right in right out, left 17 turn…multiple turn movements in Shields. And, can you speak at all to that and sort of the long-term 18 vision for how the City might address some of those issues. 19 MR. STANFORD: Well, I know my supervisor, Joe Olson, the City Traffic Engineer, has meet 20 with some various folks…I think Transportation Planning, I believe a little bit of the biking 21 community…it isn’t in recent months, but it isn’t all that far past. I’ve not been involved in it, but I know 22 they’re starting to look at areas…is what can we do out here for the pedestrian and cycling safety out in 23 that area. Very tough thing to deal with from the standpoint of space, for like overpasses and stuff, or 24 even underpass tunnels. But again, even when we provide certain facilities, it doesn’t necessarily mean 25 people use it. You can go over by the hospital at Doctors Lane and Lemay and watch any given morning 26 and thirty feet away from the head crossing, people will walk out and stand in the middle of morning rush 27 hour traffic on that double yellow line. Baffling to us, but at the same time we also recognize they have a 28 high level of attention going on, a lot better than the average walker across a crosswalk does. So, looking 29 at what will work, what will get people to use it and stuff, is going to be a pretty good effort, but I know 30 it’s in the works, I know it’s desired to be done. 31 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I thought it was of note that Bike Fort Collins has been 32 doing bike counts on some of our streets, and they noted 204-224 daily bike use trips on Springfield 33 coming out onto Shields, and so that seems like maybe it would warrant some sort of treatment. 34 MR. STANFORD: It was interesting, even that last snowfall we had about a week ago, and just 35 watching as some congestion we had out there due to the bad driving conditions, and we still saw cyclists 36 come out from I think it was south, or the street that’s right beside the football field, come across, go to 37 the west side of the southbound traffic in the left turn lane and drive up that against the opposing traffic 38 and maneuver their way across, so, yeah, I fully agree with you that we’ve got some vision to work out 39 down there and to find some answers. 31 1 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, so Courtney, do you have any, I mean, anything right away that you want 2 to be able to hit on that we’ve talked about? And I think maybe, you know, the Board can probably ask 3 you some questions unless you have something that you specifically want to get into. I guess one thing, 4 if…I’m sorry I probably just interrupted you. You were about ready to speak. I’m sorry, okay…one 5 thing is, you know, I want to just kind of put away this whole idea about the dumpster, and to me I guess, 6 if we can go back to it for a moment. That…I think it was the site plan…there’s…you know, I want to go 7 back into some of the rationale for staff to have that moved, because it seemed to me that they’re about 8 the same distance, and so I guess I’m not really sure if it would be too onerous for the applicant to move 9 back to his preferred site, number one, which also seemed it would be a little bit more agreeable to the 10 neighborhood perhaps. 11 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes, at first I thought it was a sight distance triangle issue, and that’s why I 12 was looking at engineering for that answer, and apparently it’s not an issue with sight distance triangle 13 from that access point. So, if the Board would like to consider having the…an alternate location for the 14 trash, that’s something that City staff will definitely work towards at time of final, and include that in the 15 plan. 16 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: If you think that that’s a preferable location. 18 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 19 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PAUL ECKMAN: Rather than just to trust that would be on final, 20 you could probably include that as a condition of approval. 21 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, that’s where I was…yeah, kind of going with. I mean it seems like we 22 could probably knock down some of these low-hanging fruit type things, we can get to the meat. But, 23 hold on one second, if you don’t mind, we’re going to continue with staff and then we’ll come right back 24 to you on a couple things. What else do we have, questions for Courtney? Go ahead Jennifer. 25 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: Well, I guess back on the trash thing, I guess I 26 don’t quite understand why our only two choices are where it is and…it seems to me that it would be 27 better incorporated into the center of the project rather than in…on the outskirts of it. And, I guess I’m 28 not sure what the reason was, why we…why it couldn’t be moved further east so that it really is 29 more…with closer to all of the buildings and would be better for the neighbors. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Gino? 31 BOARDMEMBER GINO CAMPANA: I was going to say, you had a site plan that showed the 32 surrounding homes and the detention pond that would be advantageous to be looking at. We have a very, 33 very small one in our packet so…yeah. 34 CHAIR SMITH: There you go…proximity. Do you have it? 35 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: While you’re finding that, I think the answer that the applicant 36 gave on that was, in order to reduce the requirement for detention, those are impervious pavers, and the 37 wear that a heavy trash truck puts onto a parking lot could cause problems with those impervious pavers, 32 1 that haven’t been used all that frequently in our community, which there could be some truth to, and I 2 don’t know if there’s a way to design a lane or something that a trash truck could travel on, but it seems 3 like moving the dumpster area across the parking lot adjacent to the detention pond would probably be the 4 best location. 5 CHAIR SMITH: I think that…I mean the, you know, the trash truck likely would be backing in, 6 or at least backing out, so you’d have some… 7 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I think those pavers have to hold a fire truck in traditional 8 design, so I’m guessing it probably will be okay. Normally we won’t…I’m going to diverge here a little 9 bit from what we normally do…normally we don’t sit up here and design someone’s project. 10 CHAIR SMITH: Try not to. 11 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: We try not to…I think that the applicant has done a great job 12 meeting our Code. I think that this is a situation that our TOD policy, and the need for housing, and the 13 fact that this is a true infill site, has a lot of conflict, and I think my objective here tonight is to try to find 14 a compromise that the applicant could build, and the applicant may say it’s cost prohibitive because we 15 can’t build that project with that number of units. But, this is an infill site and when we have an infill site, 16 meeting the Code isn’t the full burden. And, I think if this was a site that’s out by Observatory Village 17 and you have an apartment project next to a potential residential neighborhood in a field, meeting Code 18 works. Compatibility comes into play much, much more on an infill site like this. So, I think you…the 19 applicant has gone out of the way with the architecture and trying to be compatible with the architecture 20 in the neighborhood, trying to be sensitive to massing of the buildings, but even if we’re in a new 21 subdivision…we travelled as a Planning and Zoning Board a year or two ago, probably ten or twelve 22 apartment sites throughout Fort Collins, to look at what density is. You know, what does a fifteen 23 dwelling unit per acre project look like, versus a twenty-two dwelling unit per acre. And, what are the 24 transitions that are used between homes…single-family homes, and apartments. And, I can tell you that 25 at the twenty-two dwelling unit per acre site, and the fourteen dwelling unit per acre sites, look drastically 26 different. And this is pushing forty dwelling units per acre. That’s the first thing. Second thing is, even 27 in these neighborhoods, we always would prefer a transition of a two-story next to a single-family house, 28 to a three-story. Great example of that is the Sidehill condominiums at Drake and Timberline. All those 29 buildings are designed two-story to three-story and they abut single-family houses, and the massing feels 30 right. So, I heard…we heard from eighteen people, citizens, tonight, seventeen of which have issues with 31 height of the buildings next to the single-family house, parking, privacy, and the sheer mass and size, 32 quantity of residents. And, there was some on the dumpster. I think the dumpster is an easy solution, any 33 designer could come up with a solution for that that continues to meet Code and solves some of these 34 problems. 35 And, I don’t believe…there’s not a single infill site that we’re going to see…I’ve been on this 36 Board for seven years, and I think between Andy and myself and Jennifer, we figured it’s like twenty-six 37 or twenty-seven years…we’re never going to have an infill site that comes before us that doesn’t have 38 citizen input. And, usually it’s the citizens that have issues with the project. The ones that like the 39 project don’t usually stay here until ten o’clock at night to tell us what’s going on. So, I don’t think it’s 40 right for citizens to come and design your project for you when you’re meeting Code either…I understand 41 your sentiments on that. But, on the other hand, it is an infill site. We have to find some compatibility 33 1 here, and I encourage you, and I think you are doing that. You’ve already made several compromises 2 here. And, but, it seems to be that if you lowered the height of building one and building five…I’ll 3 summarize this because I’m going on and on here. But, one and five, if those were decreased to two-story 4 units, you’d have that transition from single-family to your three-story in the middle. That would give the 5 reduction that many people are asking for, it would decrease the burden on the parking; you could still 6 maintain the same number of parking spaces. The adjustment that you’re already offered, taking the 7 balconies off looking into somebody’s yard, I think that’s a valid compatibility issue. I think you’re…the 8 project’s pretty close with those. Now, you may come back and say, well I can’t afford to build a project 9 losing those units, but my position is to try to find a compromise here that allows everyone to leave here 10 tonight content. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Jennifer? 12 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I would have to say I basically agree with everything that 13 Gino said, I think that there’s too much…the mass and scale. The one thing I don’t agree with…I don’t 14 think it actually does meet our Code in every way, because we have compatibility standards and building 15 height, bulk, mass, scale…the differences between this and the single-family residences…I don’t believe 16 they are compatible in the mass and scale. So…what Gino has said about taking building one and five 17 and making those two-story, and those kinds of things, I think it’s a great idea. I think we’re close but 18 we’re really not there. So, it’s something that I would have to see some changes on. It bothers me to be 19 here tonight designing a project, or making those kinds of changes to your project. But, I think you’re 20 getting our thoughts of what it would take to make this, for me anyway, feel like it could be compatible 21 with the neighborhood and fit in. 22 CHAIR SMITH: I think we’re moving into deliberation, but before we do, just, you know, 23 formally, is there any questions that we have right now? 24 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: The only reason why I kind of went into that dialogue, because 25 usually when we’re in deliberation, we’re not allowing the applicant to address us. And, so I was 26 throwing it out there a little bit early in case there was some further compromise that the applicant wanted 27 to have, we could hear that before we deliberate. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, alright. Well, let’s do this, let’s continue with our deliberation and 29 what we might do is kind of pull together thoughts, questions perhaps that we would want to have staff 30 address or the applicant to respond to. So, I welcome some more thoughts and comments from the Board. 31 Gerry, go ahead. 32 BOARDMEMBER HART: I fundamentally agree with Gino, I’m not totally convinced that 33 building five that fronts on Shields Avenue needs to be only two stories, because the transition is to the 34 parking lot, and then there are the houses to the south, but are they long-term as single-story structures or 35 are they going to also get redeveloped as multiple-family? So, I’m not as convinced on building five. 36 But, it appears to me that the developer has, with the tentative agreements I guess we’ve had, addressed 37 most of the concerns, and the biggest one is, is that…that hasn’t been addressed, is the parking. Reducing 38 the number of a couple of units, I think, will help that parking situation somewhat, but our objective here, 39 in the NCB area and in this area along Shields, a hundred yards from the University, is to get some 40 intensive development in lots that are not very intensively developed so that we don’t have all the traffic 34 1 running around town. And, I think this development does that, particularly with the things that we’re 2 talking about for compromises now, with minimal impacts on the neighborhood. So, that’s kind of where 3 I’m coming from. And, it’s not the fault of the developer that we have a TOD zone that doesn’t require 4 him to provide any parking. I mean, I think they’re providing fifty-eight times more parking than they’re 5 required to provide by our Code. Is the problem with us or is the problem with our Code? I think the 6 problem is with the Code and the TOD district. Enough. 7 CHAIR SMITH: Emily, were you going to speak? You don’t have to…okay. One thing I think 8 is important to recognize…like I said when we started the meeting, is that we do have two different roles 9 on the Board. One is a legislative function, one is quasi-judicial, and when we do quasi-judicial, we’re 10 the guardians of the Code and we’re enforcing the Code. Do you meet the standards; do you not meet the 11 standards? When we do legislative, we make recommendations, we change policy…or, we don’t change 12 policy, City Council does…we make those recommendations, we do an analysis, we…and the citizens 13 often have, and often have had, a very significant role in the way that policy is shaped, the policy that’s 14 articulated in our Land Use Code, and then that becomes the law, the rules, for everybody to play by. It 15 provides predictability for all the stakeholders and so, where I think that what makes our function unique 16 is that we operate, in this case, where we’re very much limited by…and our focus is narrow in its purview 17 to be what the Code allows. What the zoning is, and what the zoning should be, are really two different 18 issues for two different times and two different discussions. And, so, you know, I think that that’s 19 something that we…everybody in this room, citizens, staff, Boardmembers, should probably recognize 20 for a moment, is that we might want to change things, and especially since we’ve been dealing with very 21 emotional TOD issues, and redevelopment issues, and established neighborhood character in areas where 22 there’s redevelopment pressure, but also even, you know honestly, the…like in this case, the West Central 23 Neighborhood Plan, that citizens were involved in to develop, calls for targeted redevelopment areas that 24 are in close proximity to activity centers and transit. This is one of those projects that follows what has 25 been called for in a comprehensive plan. And now we’re faced with, okay, how are we actually going to 26 implement this, and I think the developer’s been…how does he do a project that fits that? Because there 27 was allegedly a lot of thought in that process, a lot of community outreach, a lot of citizen engagement, 28 and so now we’re at a point where even the citizens…I mean, obviously with a lot at stake, are being 29 asked to hold up what’s going on with the implementation of those comprehensive plans, with, okay now 30 this is actually…I can see that, it’s on my street. And, we’re going to continue to have these problems, or 31 these challenges. And, we have talked…and I’ll get into some more focused discussion here in a second, 32 but we’ve talked about the need, perhaps, to continually review implementation of the TOD as it being 33 either an aspirational goal or functional or both. And, we need to have that discussion; we need to 34 continue having it. One thing, it’s clear…I think we’ve got [sic] better as a community as this is not 35 about student behavior. I think the first time…we had a discussion about student housing, it was almost 36 all about student behavior, and that was very uncomfortable and it wasn’t one of our proudest moments I 37 think as a community to be honest. We’ve…I’m very proud that this community’s gotten beyond that 38 and we’re talking about, you know, this is just multi-family and more of the real issues that we are 39 supposed to be dealing with. 40 I do think that, largely if not entirely, this project is meeting the letter of what’s required. And 41 so, I do see that there is some opportunity here that the applicant has presented with, you know, 42 modifying the project perhaps in a way that would be responsive and sensitive to the citizens. A lot of 43 times, and this is another point, is that, a lot of times we hear the citizens will say, just absolutely not, 35 1 don’t want it at all. And, what was so far refreshing in the discussion we heard tonight was, you know, 2 we want this to be scaled back a little bit, scaled back, not just a no, so I’ve been very proud that the 3 citizens have been reasonable in saying that…it could happen, something should happen, but let’s just 4 take the edges off of it a little bit. So, you know, I want to hear some more from the Board a little bit 5 before we kind of tie this us, but I do want to make sure we probably get to a conclusion here pretty soon 6 on it. 7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Mr. Chairman? Maybe before you go any further in 8 the debate, I think you might be asking the applicant once again about some of these possible changes so 9 they might have a change to come before you again. There’s one section of the Code that we haven’t 10 talked about very much, and we’ve talked an awful lot about the TOD requirement, which basically says 11 that multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings within the TOD zone shall have no minimum 12 parking requirement. Not to say they can’t provide parking, they just have no minimum. And that’s 13 under the category of parking lots, required number of off-street spaces, designed I think for the needs of 14 the development and the development’s occupants. And, it’s under the theory that if there is the TOD 15 zone in place, the development occupants will ride the bus or do whatever they do in the TOD zone, and 16 don’t need the parking spaces. The part that we haven’t talked about much is the compatibility part of the 17 operational, physical compatibility standards. And it says, conditions may be imposed upon the approval 18 of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing 19 neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on, and 20 then there a list of seven things…the seventh one is location and number of off-street parking spaces. At 21 first I thought, well, we should apply the standard rule that, when you have two provision of a law, you 22 try to read them in harmony and figure a way to read them together, and as hard as I tried, I thought it 23 would be pedagogory to do that, it’s like I’m dancing on the head of a pin. To say well, one says no 24 requirement and the other one says maybe, depending on compatibility, which took me then to the 25 conflict standards of the Code, and in the conflict of interest provisions of 1.7.2, if you have a conflict in 26 the Code itself, one saying no parking, the other saying maybe some parking…and all of this, I should 27 say, all of this…isn’t prefaced on any idea that this doesn’t meet either of those requirements, because 28 there are fifty-eight parking spaces provided, but the conflict says that the more specific standard will 29 control, and if you can’t figure out which is the more specific, then the more stringent one controls. So, 30 then I’m trying to think, which one’s the more specific? One deals with the TOD and says zero; that 31 seems like a specific number doesn’t it? Zero, as in no parking requirements, while the other one deals 32 with compatibility and says you can address the issue of, and condition approval on the location and 33 number of parking spaces. I’m sure Carolyn White will disagree with me. I think, in my mind, these are 34 equally specific. One specific to the requirements of the occupants, that’s the TOD requirement, the other 35 specific to compatibility with the neighborhood, so…if I’m right about that, and you can disagree with me 36 as well, then the question is which is the more stringent? To me, I’ve always felt the more stringent one 37 is the one that makes the applicant the most uncomfortable I suppose, to put it in kind of a vernacular, 38 otherwise it wouldn’t be as stringent. And that just, I just want you to know that so that in case you need 39 to address the parking a little bit more in your discussion…maybe you don’t, maybe the fifty-eight 40 parking spaces is perfectly fine, complies under either standard…certainly complies under the TOD 41 standard, and it might comply under the operational compatibility as well, but I wanted to call that to your 42 attention. 36 1 CHAIR SMITH: Thanks. I think you helped inform our discussion, but I don’t think you really 2 made a decision…I mean, okay, we’re back to square one. 3 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Not my job to make a decision. 4 CHAIR SMITH: We’ll start with the staff presentation again…okay, anybody else have some 5 comments at this point? 6 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I just wanted to say that I’ve been so impressed with your 7 neighborhood, we’ve seen several projects and I’m continually impressed that your neighborhood is so 8 organized, and very articulate, and very thoughtful. You, by far, are some of the most engaged 9 neighborhood residents that we have who actually speak to the things that are before us, and I really 10 appreciate that. And, I think that even…even if we end up making decisions that don’t completely satisfy 11 you, I think that the City is very much hearing that your neighborhood feels threatened, and I think the 12 SHAP is going on, the West Central Neighborhood update is going on, the Parking Plan is looking at 13 ways that they can address parking in your neighborhood, and so I think that I want you to feel heartened, 14 regardless of what happens tonight, because I think that we definitely take your issues of compatibility 15 very seriously, and we definitely are concerned about meeting the quality of life that you have enjoyed 16 and we hope that you continue to enjoy, as well as seeing the things that we have outlined in our City 17 Plan the policies that we have for infill and redevelopment and higher density along these corridors. So, I 18 just wanted to say that as well. 19 CHAIR SMITH: Any other comments real quick before…go ahead, please do, yeah, any 20 questions. 21 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Would…I think Brigitte brought up the traffic across Shields, 22 getting to the college. Is it possible to have any sort of an extra traffic light, anything to help with all that 23 cross traffic? 24 MR. STANFORD: At that Springfield location, a traffic light would be difficult due to the 25 proximity to Lake Street; it’s only about six hundred feet away. Now you would have, in that reversible 26 left turn lane, you’d have competing cars trying to be in that same space with that high volume of traffic. 27 It is not a location that we’d…we’d have a real high difficultly with putting a signal there. 28 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Crossing guard maybe? 29 MR. STANFORD: Not to say that couldn’t be something worked out; I mean the city does have 30 that around schools. 31 CHAIR SMITH: Well, clearly, I mean…I think you know, having lived around there and gone to 32 school there, been there…I mean it’s, you know, I think there’s been I don’t know how many guys, I 33 mean…I’ve seen three or four of them where a car hits a bike, and there was a guy that got killed, I think 34 maybe a couple times. I mean, it’s playing Frogger and it’s a free-for-all there largely. And, I would just 35 hope at some point that we could find the resources and the will to address it, perhaps even like, you 36 know, I think they’ve done a good job with, you know, like…in Boulder with Broadway, you know 37 where it turns, you know, going underneath pedestrian tunnels and what have you. But, just to be able to 38 get creative with it before somebody else…to many folks get killed there, it’s pretty rough. So… 37 1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: It is one of our highest ped/car conflict areas, isn’t it one of 2 our highest accident areas? 3 MR. STANFORD: I couldn’t address that straight out, it’s just not the area that I study. 4 CHAIR SMITH: I used to fly down that on my bike to school, going down Springfield, and I 5 could time it enough where I would not even stop. I hate to say…I mean I could roll, and I was late to 6 class, I’d roll…I’d pop through there and you just hit the brakes if there’s a car coming, and I’ve seen it 7 now…yeah, I wouldn’t do it now, but I mean I see it all the time. Anyway, we can digress on that. 8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think the Parking Plan stuff has also come out of 9 planning. And I know…I guess the sense that we have is that they’re not yet ready to sort of hit the 10 ground, is there a way that we could implement some of those things sooner? And, particularly, on 11 Bennett Street, if the issue really is concerned with kids crossing, could we do like a one-hour parking, or 12 do permits with the neighbors, or some sort of solution to mitigate some of those issues? 13 MS. LAURIE KADRICH: I believe Courtney is giving the nod over this way. I know that we are 14 working on the Residential Parking Plan, in that we could…I could certainly forward this neighborhood 15 for consideration as to one of the first neighborhoods to look at. 16 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I think that it would be great…if I had a magic wand, I 17 would hope that the City would do something about the parking in this neighborhood sooner rather than 18 later, and I think we’ve discussed this several times. And, also prioritize safety along Shields for bike and 19 peds, because I think that it is…it has been one of our top areas I think for many years, and we still 20 haven’t prioritized it or resourced it, so… 21 CHAIR SMITH: And I think we’ve…we’ve identified, I mean, for everybody’s information, is 22 we’ve identified a discussion about TOD to be urgent in the sense that we’re going to take it up at our 23 annual retreat here in…next week. And so, I think that I would hope that staff might be able…let’s, I 24 think we need to not only kind of restart TOD, the discussion, but broaden the scope a little bit to have all 25 the implications downstream included in that, and just be a little bit…I mean very comprehensive in the 26 discussion about it. So, anyway… 27 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Gino, I know you want to start; can I just finish my last 28 thought? I definitely agree that I would feel like this development was more compatible if building one 29 was two stories. I agree with Gerry, however, that building five to me is not as much of a concern. 30 CHAIR SMITH: I agree as well. Gino? 31 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, I think with the issues we heard tonight, there’s five or 32 six, transportation…I’ll give you my opinion on it, I don’t have the concerns…I’m not concerned with the 33 traffic impact study, I think there was a good study that’s been done, the traffic is what it is, and another 34 crosswalk won’t prevent guys like Andy from just riding across the street, and hopefully someday we 35 have an overpass, ped overpass. But, people will still have to go to the overpass and use it, so, maybe we 36 just need more police officers there giving tickets when they’re crossing illegally. I think that the other 37 comments I heard were the height of the buildings, particularly when they’re adjacent to the single- 38 family. The parking, which I think I heard several times tonight a 20% reduction in dwelling units and 38 1 keep the same amount of parking, and the privacy issues. Dumpster came up quite a bit and I think we’ve 2 got some solutions for dumpster. I think that the building one balconies and reducing to two stories 3 solves a lot of it. I think we’re very, very close to having a compromise where we’re not going to see this 4 project in an appeal. And, I think we’re good enough at what we do, and we’ve got a great applicant, and 5 a great neighborhood. We can find a compromise here and stay out of the appeal process, because I agree 6 with Andy, what I heard from the neighbors, all eighteen, well, with the exception of one, was, we 7 understand this project…there’s going to be some student housing in our neighborhood, we just want it to 8 be more compatible with our single-family houses. So, I would support the project with the dumpster 9 being relocated and the balconies being removed on building one, and I’m going to throw it out there 10 knowing that there’s two of you that don’t agree with me, but I’d like to see buildings one and five 11 reduced to two stories rather than three, I think that does accomplish the transition because we’re 12 speaking to what is there today, which is a single-family house, not what could potentially be developed 13 there, but also that does reduce the number of dwelling units that are on the property…doesn’t hit the 14 20% reduction, but it comes closer to it than one floor, and I could support that now. 15 CHAIR SMITH: So now is probably a good time…if the Board’s agreeable…sorry, it’s my 16 penalty points for having that…remember I said at the beginning, too…sure enough here, cell phones. 17 So, sorry about that. I’d like to maybe see if we could have the applicant step up and maybe let’s just 18 have a little bit of some feedback as to whether or not what Gino is proposing might be feasible. 19 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for the opportunity to respond one more 20 time since you are talking about proposing, I think, some conditions of approval. I don’t want Paul to 21 leave the room because I don’t want him to miss this opportunity to say that I’m going to refrain from 22 disagreeing with him on this…I do disagree with the interpretation advanced by Paul but I think it’s 23 probably a moot point, because whether you consider both standards, or whether you consider only the 24 compatibility standard, or only the TOD standard, whichever standard you consider, I believe this project 25 is well in compliance. So, I think the TOD is the more restrictive…is the less restrictive, but the more 26 specific standard, and if there were a conflict, that that one should govern, but I don’t think it matters, 27 because even when you consider the compatibility standard with fifty-eight parking spaces, this project 28 certainly meets that additional standard as well. With that said, the Board has indicated that there are 29 some potential changes it would like to recommend to the plan, and that if those changes were made, it 30 might be interested in considering this favorably. I’m going to ask the applicant himself to respond on 31 whether or not these are compromises he can make. But, just as an overall statement, I’d like to mention 32 that all of these things always are requiring trade-offs and balances. So, for example, if you move the 33 dumpster in one location, you might gain some additional parking spaces, but you might lose some open 34 space. And…or you could move it where the protected tree is, but then you would also gain more parking 35 spaces, but you’d lose the tree. So, the current configuration was designed to try to balance all of those 36 things. If there’s a different prioritization that the Board would like to recommend, then I think that’s 37 definitely something that the applicant would be willing to consider. So, with that, I’ll let Mr. Bailey tell 38 you which of these compromises he thinks the project can live with. 39 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. 40 MR. BAILEY: Number one… 41 CHAIR SMITH: Sorry Mr. Bailey, real quick, Courtney? 39 1 MS. LEVINGSTON: Mr. Chair, I wanted to draw your attention to Section 3.5.1(I) regarding the 2 dumpster, and the reason why…the location on the north did not work. Upon further review of the Code, 3 there is a provision that dumpsters cannot be closer than twenty feet from a public sidewalk or right-of- 4 way, and so when it’s placed in that location that is closer to the street, it is in conflict with the Code 5 provisions. 6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. 7 MR. BAILEY: Just first off, does anybody have a CSU score? 8 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah, we do, I think. 9 MR. BAILEY: Now, to less important items. Courtney, in looking at the plan, the buildings are 10 thirty feet…it seems like we can move that dumpster and stay with the contextual setback of thirty feet 11 from… 12 MS. LEVINGSTON: Well, I looked at the plan and scaled out. Because of the curvature of 13 Springfield Drive and where it would be located, it looks like it would be right at eighteen, nineteen 14 feet…with the scaled plan. 15 MR. BAILEY: Well, I mean we could trade parking and gain parking where the dumpster is now, 16 lose some parking and push it, you know, farther…there. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Oh, push it down this way, as long as its twenty feet. 18 MR. BAILEY: Now to the issue about will the residents take their trash…they’ll take their trash 19 there. We’re not going to have trash, you know, lying around the property. In our Pura Vida community, 20 the trash dumpster is in the alley and it’s probably a hundred and fifty feet from the back door, and people 21 are coming down three stories…I don’t think that’s a reason to hang up on that subject, so, we would be 22 fine with that. And, we could dress this thing up. Again, it’s going to have an overhead door, it’s not 23 going to be something that you drive down the street and look into. It’ll have signage on it; we had our 24 signage there anyway, you can see a small monument, so we can dude up the side of this thing quite 25 nicely. 26 With respect to the change of building one, as Boardmember Mr. Hart had asked me, I would be 27 agreeable to making…if we could switch those buildings and, I don’t…you know the footprints are 28 substantially the same I think. But, we would switch the green building to that location and then we 29 would limit that building to a two-story building, we would be agreeable to that. I don’t think there’s a 30 need…I respect the idea of building five being two-story because it’s adjacency…but those are boarding 31 house…I mean there’s only a handful of boarding house licenses in the city…four-bedroom 32 accommodations, and those are two of them right there. So, I don’t see the sensitivity for building five 33 that I see for building one. So, I’m agreeable to building one but not building five. And then finally, just 34 to sum this up, you know, moving building one, the new building one, to two-story, we lose six residents. 35 So, we’ve gone from ninety-seven to ninety-one, and that’s 7%. We didn’t hit their 20%, but there’s a 36 7% reduction in residents there. I think that’s, you know, I’m agreeable to it but I think that’s going the 37 wrong direction for density around the campus as I explained, but I would be willing to accept that and, I 38 think you’ve got to now look at the parking ratio being, you know, over a smaller denominator. So we’ve 40 1 just pushed that number up to something in the low 80’s, so I think we’re in conformance, if again…if 2 you include the fifteen spaces that I think exist immediately in front of this community on Springfield 3 Street, so…I think that’s all I have to say. Thank you. 4 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Okay, let’s move into final deliberation and maybe a motion. What 5 do you think, are we there? One thing before we do, I guess…I think that if everything that the applicant 6 was willing to do, I would be welcome to for sure. I do think that building five could stay three stories, in 7 my opinion. I don’t think that one would need to be dropped down. 8 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: It’s on an arterial, and I mean that is where we have always 9 concentrated a lot of our density in our Land Use Code. I think I’m okay…I think that is consistent with 10 what we typically do. 11 BOARDMEMBER HART: From my perspective, this gives us some housing oriented towards 12 students, in close proximity to the University. I think we’ve done everything we can legitimately do to 13 reduce the impacts in the neighborhood, and I think the dumpster, since it is an enclose area, is not going 14 to be that big of an effect, however, I would like to see it be moved as far as possible from the residential 15 area, single-family areas. And, I think staff can work with the applicant in that. That would be my… 16 CHAIR SMITH: Alright. I think one of these days it would be nice to even have some, you 17 know, especially in these targeted redevelopment areas, to have a standard for a dumpster to be somewhat 18 like what the applicant is proposing. That might, you know, this is an issue that’s not going to be the last 19 time we hear it. Emily? 20 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Like a dumpster hut. Yeah, I don’t want to define the location of the 21 dumpster, but I was starting to get a little concerned about the house to the west as well, so whatever. I 22 think just what Gerry said was very concise, like far away from residential areas. I also just am very 23 impressed by both the neighborhood and the applicant to have specific requests, not just like yes or no, 24 and being really reasonable to work together to meet…I mean I’m new on this Board, but it feels like a 25 really great step forward in compromise and I guess, in a way, deal making, but not…like making 26 something really work, so it feels really good. And, I feel really good about the reduction and the 27 switching of the buildings that you’ve offered, so…that’s my two cents. 28 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, anybody else have comments or do we want to make a motion and let’s 29 move? Gerry, want to go ahead? 30 BOARDMEMBER HART: I move to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project 31 Development Plan number 120035, and in support of my motion I adopt the findings of fact and 32 conclusion as contained on page thirteen of the staff report. And, I would…in my motion I would say 33 that there be three conditions: that the dumpster be moved to a more amenable location to have less 34 impact on single-family residences, building two be moved to building one…on our site plan, and that the 35 new building one be limited to two stories. 36 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Second. 41 1 CHAIR SMITH: One thing, too, I would just maybe, to clarify or it might need to be a friendly 2 amendment, is just to better clarify the…the dumpster condition. Because I think we were talking about it 3 being more north, is that right? And across the parking lot? 4 BOARDMEMBER HART: Having the least possible impact on the residential area, the single- 5 family residential area. 6 MS. LEVINGSTON: So would that be north or more east…I’m just confused as where exactly 7 are you talking about to move it...north or to move it east and more internal to the site? 8 BOARDMEMBER HART: I was kind of hoping…I was kind of hoping that you could work with 9 the applicant to get it away from the single-family area and put it in an acceptable location to meet the 10 Code, but I didn’t want to design the specific location. 11 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: Well I think the staff ought to have better direction 12 than that when they… 13 CHAIR SMITH: Well I think it’s got to be. My sense is on the other side of the parking lot. And 14 I’m not sure whether the applicant would feel comfortable… 15 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Andy, were you going to say north of the retention pond, when you 16 reference north? 17 CHAIR SMITH: Yeah I was going to say…yeah. Well, north of there to where the applicant had 18 originally proposed. 19 MS. LEVINGSTON: In that location there is a plum thicket that that would…have to be removed 20 and mitigated for as well. 21 MS. KADRICH: I think that what, if I could clarify…didn’t the applicant propose near building 22 one? 23 MS. LEVINGSTON: This is where the trash is located currently. 24 MS. KADRICH: Right, and go…go north of there, go towards Springfield…and isn’t that where 25 the applicant would like to have it now? And that that was the original area, but because of the twenty 26 feet, we weren’t able to get…and I’m only clarifying this because I think this is the location that the 27 applicant would prefer due to the type of paving that is in that parking lot, and not wanting to have the 28 trash trucks go through there all the time. So, if the Board’s agreeable with that, then that’s the location 29 we’ll work towards, and that should move it further from the residential areas. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, if we’re getting clear on it, let’s make sure that we’re clear with the 31 applicant as well. 32 MR. BAILEY: I think location one…it probably needs to move a little bit south because, like 33 Courtney mentioned, it’s too close to the setback and all, but we can find a location moving it just slightly 34 south where she’s got the arrow. We’ll lose a little bit of parking there, and we’ll gain it where the 42 1 corner…where we vacated, where location three is…just put the arrow…yeah, so we’ll pick whatever we 2 lose up, so it’ll be no worse for wear on parking. 3 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 4 MR. BAILEY: And we can also, because of that location, we can pour concrete in the parking lot, 5 so the trucks…and it was mentioned that, you know, fire trucks drive in here, but the trash trucks drive in 6 here twice a week, and the fire truck drives in here, hopefully, never. And the landscape area 7 immediately to the west of the dumpster location…up, no, farther north…there. That’s big 8 enough…we’re going to lose a tree on our landscape plan, but we can put it back there and provide 9 additional screen, berming, and all that for the neighbor that’s immediately west right there. And, 10 again… 11 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Then could you add parking so that you’d get a couple more 12 parking places in where it is now? 13 MR. BAILEY: Yeah, I believe we can pick up three spaces there. And, we probably lose 14 two…maybe we can pick up one, I don’t know, that’s wishful thinking, but you know, we can try. I think 15 it’s a win-win, at least from that perspective. 16 BOARDMEMBER HART: So should I amend my motion to say move the dumpster to 17 location…location one as provided on the visions in the site plan? 18 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ECKMAN: I think so, or at least in the vicinity of that location. 19 BOARDMEMBER HART: In the vicinity of location one. I so amend my motion. 20 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 21 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: I second the new motion. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Alright. We have a motion on the table, any discussion, further comments? 23 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I’d just like to say thank you for being willing to compromise 24 here tonight, makes our job a lot easier. And I think the changes will make the project a better project, 25 more compatible with the neighborhood. 26 BOARDMEMBER HART: I agree with that. 27 CHAIR SMITH: Alright. You know the one thing is I remember…last thing I’ll say about it is, I 28 remember Mayor Ann Azari saying, you know, almost twenty years ago, you know, let’s build a city. 29 And, I wish that she was still around to be able to see us actually do it, you know, in neighborhoods that 30 were special to her, so…absolutely. Alright, roll call please? 31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 32 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes. 33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hart? 43 1 BOARDMEMBER HART: Yes. 2 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Heinz? 3 BOARDMEMBER HEINZ: Yes. 4 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 5 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 7 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 9 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. Alright, we’re done with the Carriage House Apartments Project 10 Development Plan. 11 BOARDMEMBER HART: And again, I also want to thank everybody for coming, working with 12 us in trying to resolve this. ATTACHMENT 7 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council May 21, 2013 1 1 Appeal of the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer Courtney Levingston, City Planner 2 Background: Site Location . S. Shields St. Springfield Dr. N 2 3 Project Background • 1.48 acre site • 57 Units / 97 bedrooms – 29 1-bedroom units – 16 2-bedroom units – 12 3-bedroom units • Traffic impact study submitted to Planning and Zoning Board as an attachment to staff report. 4 Planning and Zoning Board Action • The Board voted 6 - 0 to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan application with conditions. • In support of its motion to approve the Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 13 of the staff report. 3 5 First Assertion • Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. – The Appellant maintains that the submitted traffic impact study contained information relating to estimated trip generation which was substantially false and grossly misleading. – The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the traffic impact study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 6 Second Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the faulty information contained in the traffic impact study was further skewed by a 25% reduction in trips to account for alternative modes of transportation. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the 25% trip reduction contained in the Traffic Impact Study in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 4 7 Third Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the City and/or the traffic consultant used a recent study of student housing trip generation in Minnesota (Spack Memorandum) to estimate trips for the Carriage House Apartments. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the Spack Memorandum during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 8 Fourth Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the submitted traffic impact study was flawed because of the use of standards used in outside municipalities that relate to student oriented housing. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the Spack Memorandum or specifics of the Traffic Impact Study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Project Development Plan. 5 9 Fifth Assertion • The Appellant asserts that the adjusted trip generation estimates used in traffic impact studies was also prevalent in other project approvals and have a negative impact. The Appellant also maintains that the flawed trip generation will negatively impact Street Oversizing fees collected. • The Board did not discuss the impact of trip generation rates contained in the submitted traffic impact study during the hearing or in connection with its decision to approve the Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan. 10 • The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties-in-interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. • Staff is prepared to answer questions regarding the allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers. 6 11 Questions for Council • Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading?