HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER FILING 3 (FORMERLY 1721 S. COLLEGE TOWNHOMES) - PDP ..... 8/14/17 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 7/10/17) - PDP160042 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: August 14, 2017 (continued from July 10, 2017)
PROJECT NAME: Choice Center Third Filing
CASE NUMBER: PDP #160042
APPLICANT: Sam Coutts
Ripley Design, Inc.
419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Mark Goehausen
Sr. Development Manager
Core Spaces
1643 N. Milwaukee Ave., 5
th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60647
OWNER: Core Fort Collins LLC
2234 W. North Ave.
Chicago, IL 60647
HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan (PDP) for a multi-family infill
development project located at 1751 South College Avenue. The site is approximately 0.35 acres
and was formerly occupied by Discount Tire (“Subject Property”). The Discount Tire building has
been demolished and the Subject Property is presently used as surface parking for the State on
Campus (formerly known as the Summit and approved by the City as “Choice Center”) mixed use
residential development adjacent to the west. The Applicant for this PDP, Core Spaces, owns and
manages the State on Campus development.
The Subject Property is located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone district and is within the
City’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay zone. Ten multi-family dwellings are
proposed in two townhouse-style buildings. All of the units include garage parking spaces that
satisfy the required off-street parking requirement. Additionally, ten (10) guest spaces will be
provided in the existing State on Campus surface parking lot located at the northwest portion of Lot
1, Choice Center Filing Second Filing.
2
The Applicant has submitted a Modification of Standard Request (to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) of the
LUC), seeking to reduce the interior drive aisle width between garages from 28 feet to 24 feet.
Additionally, one of the proposed ten (10) units contains five bedrooms and the Applicant has
submitted an occupancy increase request in accordance with Section 3.8.16(E)(2) of the LUC.
BACKGROUND: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North General Commercial (C-G) Choice Center Building 3 – commercial/retail
South General Commercial (C-G) Choice Center Building 2 – mixed use building
with multi-family residential and
commercial/retail (This is a student-oriented
housing development formerly known as “The
Summit”, now called “The State on Campus”
East General Commercial (C-G) Commercial uses
West General Commercial (C-G) Choice Center Second Filing Building 1; Lot 1 –
The State on Campus multi-family residential
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved.
ZONE DISTRICT: General Commercial District (G-C)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing on Monday, July 10, 2017, in Conference
Rooms A-D, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, at approximately 5:30 p.m. At the
request of the Applicant, the hearing was continued to Monday, August 14, 2017, at the same
location. The Hearing Officer re-opened the public hearing on Monday, August 14, 2017, in
Conference Rooms A-D, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, at approximately 5:30
p.m.
EVIDENCE: Prior to or at the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following documents as
part of the record of this proceeding:
1. Project Vicinity Map.
2. Planning Department Staff Report prepared for Choice Center Third Filing Project
Development Plan (PDP160042), as updated for the August 14, 2017 public hearing.
A copy of the Staff Report is attached to this decision as ATTACHMENT A and is
incorporated herein by reference.
3. Applicant’s Project Description dated December 7, 2016.
3
4. Modification of Standard Request – for Section 3.2.2(L)(1) of the LUC.
5. Request for Increased Occupancy Limit – submitted in accordance with Section
3.8.16(E)(2) of the LUC.
6. Choice Center Third Filing PDP Plan Set including Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Building Elevations, Lighting Plan, Unit Details, and preliminary plat.
7. Utility Plans for Choice Center Third Filing (12 Sheets).
8. Traffic memorandum/trip generation letter prepared by Kimley Horn (dated July 25,
2017) as updated for continued public hearing.
9. Traffic memorandum/trip generation letter prepared by Kimley Horn (dated
November 30, 2016).
10. Choice Center & Choice Center Second Filing – Minor Amendment (Sheet 2A).
11. Choice Center Site Plan dated October 4, 2011 (6 sheets).
12. Choice Center Landscape Plan dated October 4, 2011 (15 sheets).
13. Letter dated August 1, 2017 regarding temporary construction access easement on a
portion of Lot 3, Choice Center.
14. Emails dated July 6 and July 7 from Eric Sutherland.
15. Affidavit of Publication dated June 29, 2017 evidencing proof of publication of
Notice of Hearing in the Fort Collins Coloradan on June 29, 2017.
16. Notice of Public Hearing dated June 26, 2017.
17. The PowerPoint presentation prepared by City Staff for the August 14, 2017 hearing.
18. The PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Applicant for the August 14, 2017
hearing.
19. Administrative (Type 1) Hearing: Order of Proceedings.
20. Rules of Conduct for Administrative Hearings.
21. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Code, and the formally promulgated polices of the
City are all considered part of the record considered by the Hearing Officer.
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Jason Holland, City Planner
From the Applicant/
Owner: Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, Inc.
Mark Goehausen, Sr. Development Manager
From the Public: Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne Drive, Fort Collins 80525
4
FINDINGS
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that notice of the public
hearing was properly posted, mailed and published. The public hearing was opened on July
10, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. and continued to August 14, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. at the request of the
Applicant.
2. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials in the record
of this case, the Hearing Officer concludes as follows:
A. The Application complies with the applicable procedural and administrative
requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
B. The Application complies with the relevant standards of Article 3 – General
Development Standards.
C. The Application complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21 of the
LUC, General Commercial (C-G) District. Specifically, the proposed multi-family
residential units are permitted in the C-G zone district, and multi-family
developments with less than 50 units or 75 bedrooms are subject to a Type 1
administrative review and public hearing. The PDP proposes two-story buildings in
compliance with the four (4) story maximum building height established in Section
4.21(D) of the LUC
3. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted,
the requested Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) of the LUC – Parking Stall
Dimensions, is approved. Tables A & B of Section 3.2.2(L)(1) require, in relevant part, that
when garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or buildings, the
two-way drive aisle width must be increased from 24’ to 28’. In making a finding that the
Applicant’s request to reduce the 28’ two-way drive aisle width to 24’ is supportable, the
Hearing Officer specifically finds that the granting of the Modification will not be
detrimental to the public good and that:
Modification criterion 2.8.2(H)(3) is satisfied: By reason of exceptional physical
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property,
including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner’s ability
to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be
modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
The Hearing Officer concludes that that the depth and size of the Subject Property is
constrained, and that the relatively small size of the Subject Property (0.35 acres) is
suitable for the townhome style buildings proposed. The Hearing Officer concurs
with Staff’s conclusion that due to the depth constraints and South College Avenue
5
improvements required, including the 10’ sidewalk, 7’ tree lawn and right-of-way
dedication, the depth and size of the Subject Property does represent a hardship not
caused by the Applicant and that the granting of the Modification is justified in
accordance with Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the Code.
Modification criterion 2.8.2(H)(4) is satisfied: The plan as submitted will not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code . . . except in a nominal, inconsequential
way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Based on a review of the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer finds that the
Modification of Standard to allow a 24’ two-way drive aisle width is nominal and
inconsequential because the drive aisle reduction is limited to a constrained site and
the reduced drive aisle allows an overall better plan with a townhome style building
configuration that enhances the neighborhood scale and provides an appropriate
building transition from the taller buildings in the immediate vicinity. The Hearing
Officer notes that the record confirms that the 24’ drive aisle width has been reviewed
and accepted by Poudre Fire Authority.
The Hearing Officer further concludes that based on the project’s infill location and
approximate 14% reduction in the width of the two-way drive aisle, that the
Modification is nominal and inconsequential when considered in the context of the
overall Choice Center Third Filing PDP, and that the PDP will continue to advance
the purposes of the Land Use Code set forth in Section 1.2.2, including the following:
• Encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas;
and
• Encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile
travel and encourage trip consolidation; and
• Ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with
the Code, City Plan and its adopted components. Specifically, the Hearing
Officer finds that the Choice Center Third Filing PDP is consistent with the
following Community and Neighborhood Livability Principles and Policies
(“LIV”) set forth in City Plan:
o LIV 5.1: Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill (concentrate
higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that
are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future
and that can support higher levels of activity).
o LIV 30.4: Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking
o LIV 35.4: Transform through Infill and Redevelopment
6
4. Based on testimony provided and the PDP submitted, there is only one 5-bedroom unit. The
standards of Section 3.8.16(E)(2) are addressed through the provision of nearby amenities
and management available at the State on Campus development and through the design of
the 5-bedroom unit, which provides rooftop amenity space above the 5-bedroom unit in
addition to adequate living space and bicycle storage facilities within the unit. The Hearing
Officer is satisfied that the Applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either
public or private, to sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential
development, to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the
adjacent neighborhood.
5. The Application’s satisfaction of the applicable Article 2, 3 and 4 requirements of the Land
Use Code is sufficiently detailed in the Staff Report, a copy of which is attached as
ATTACHMENT A and is incorporated herein by reference.
DECISION
Based on the findings set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following ruling:
A. That the request for modification to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) of the Code is justified by the
applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(3) and (4).
B. That the request to increase occupancy limits for one (1) five-bedroom unit is approved,
based on a finding that the Applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either
public or private, to sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential
development, to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the
adjacent neighborhood, and that the applicable criteria set forth in Section 3.8.16(E)(2) of
the Code have been satisfied.
C. The Choice Center Third Filing Project Development Plan (PDP #160042) is approved for
the Subject Property as submitted.
D. The Applicant shall submit a final plan within three (3) years of the date of this decision. If
Applicant fails to submit a final plan to the City within said three (3) year period, this PDP
approval shall automatically lapse and become null and void in accordance with Section
2.2.11(C) of the Code.
DATED this 18
th
day of August, 2017.
___________________________________
Marcus A. McAskin
Hearing Officer
7
ATTACHMENT A
Staff Report Prepared for August 14 Continued Hearing
Choice Center Third Filing
Project Development Plan
PDP #160042
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 1
STAFF REPORT July 10, 2017
Hearing Officer
PROJECT NAME
Choice Center Third Filing Project Development Plan – PDP 160042
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Project Development Plan (PDP) for a multi-family
development at 1751 South College Avenue. The site is 0.35 acres
and was formerly occupied by Discount Tire. The Discount Tire
building has been demolished and the site is presently used as
surface parking for the State on Campus mixed use residential
development adjacent to the west (formerly known as the Summit;
approved as Choice Center). The applicant for this PDP, Core Spaces,
also owns and manages the State on Campus development.
The project site is located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone
district and is within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay
zone. Ten multi-family dwellings are proposed in two townhouse-style
buildings. All of the units include garage parking spaces that satisfy
the required off-street parking requirement. Ten guest spaces are also
provided in the existing State on Campus surface parking lot located at
the northwest portion of Lot 1 of Choice Center Second Filing. A Minor
Amendment has been approved to Lot 1 of Choice Center Second
Filing that confirms that the ten spaces shall be available for the use of
this PDP. The Minor Amendment also provides an additional shared
handicap space for the PDP, located on Lot 2 of Choice Center south
of the project. A Modification request is also required with the PDP to
reduce the interior drive aisle width between garages from 28 feet to
24 feet. Additionally, one of the proposed units contains 5 bedrooms
and an occupancy increase request is provided for this unit.
APPLICANT: Mark Goehausen
Sr. Development Manager
Core Spaces
1643 N Milwaukee Ave, 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60647
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 2
OWNER: Core Fort Collins LLC
2234 W North Ave.
Chicago, IL 60647
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Choice Center Third Filing Project Development Plan (PDP) complies with the applicable
requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
• The PDP complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
• The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial
(C-G) of Article 4 – Districts.
• The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) to reduce the garage drive aisle width
meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), and the granting of this
Modification would not be detrimental to the public good.
• The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development
Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard is approved.
• The PDP complies with the criteria in Section 3.8.16 – Occupancy Limits to increase the
occupancy of the PDP.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 3
VICINITY MAP:
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 4
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses
North General Commercial (C-G) Choice Center Building 3 – commercial/retail
South General Commercial (C-G) Choice Center Building 2 – mixed use building
with multi-family residential and
commercial/retail (This is a student-oriented
housing development formerly known as “The
Summit”, now called “The State on Campus”
East General Commercial (C-G) Commercial uses
West General Commercial (C-G) Choice Center Second Filing Building 1; Lot 1 –
The State on Campus multi-family residential
Land Use History:
The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins with the South College Consolidated
Annexation in December 1957.
The property is currently addressed as 1751 South College Avenue and had operated as a retail
store with vehicle servicing owned by Discount Tire. In April of 2013 the roof of the Discount Tire
collapsed due to snow, and the building was later demolished. The property was sold to the owners
of the Choice Center multi-family student housing development adjacent to the property to the south
and west, formerly known as “The Summit”, now called “The State on Campus.”
2. Compliance with Applicable General Commercial (C-G) District Standards:
The project is in compliance with all applicable General Commercial District standards with
the following relevant comments provided. Language in this staff report that is taken directly
from the Land Use Code (LUC) is shown in italics, with certain relevant elements underlined
for emphasis.
A. Section 4.21(B) – Permitted Uses
The proposed multi-family residential land use is permitted in the General Commercial
District. Multi-family developments with less than 50 units or 75 bedrooms are subject to
a Type 1 administrative review and public hearing.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 5
B. Section 4.21(D) Land Use Standards
This section states that the maximum building height shall be four (4) stories. The project
proposes two story buildings in compliance with this standard.
C. Section 4.21(E)(2) Development Standards –Site Design
This Section states that:
(a) Pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity areas that generate
the users (such as street corners, shops, stores, offices, day care and dwellings). Because
liveliness created by the presence of people is the main key to the attractiveness of such
spaces, to the maximum extent feasible, the development shall link outdoor spaces to and
make them visible from streets and sidewalks. Sculpture, kiosks or shelters are encouraged
to be prominently placed in outdoor spaces.
(b) In multiple-building developments, outdoor spaces and landscaped areas shall be integral
to an open space system in conjunction with streets and connections, and not merely
residual areas left over after buildings and parking lots are sited.
Staff Analysis:
This infill project is integrated with and contributes to existing open space systems and street,
sidewalk and trail connections in the vicinity of the project in accordance with this section.
This PDP provides pedestrian-oriented outdoor space by way of a new widened 10 foot
sidewalk and 7 foot tree lawn along the College Avenue frontage, not just in leftover areas of
the site. The new sidewalk links the development to other outdoor spaces nearby (Creekside
Park; Spring Creek Trail) and to surrounding activity areas (retail, restaurants and services all
along College Avenue, and the CSU Campus). Another pedestrian connection is also
maintained to the north of the site, which links the development to the State on Campus
amenities. The development also provides attractive dwelling entrances, with brick planters
and 10 feet of landscape depth visible from the College Avenue frontage. This configuration
satisfies the site design standards of Section 4.21(E)(2) in a manner that is appropriate and
proportional to the proposed project.
3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development Standards
The project remains in compliance with all applicable General Development Standards with
the following relevant comments provided:
A. Section – 3.2.1 Landscaping
Street trees are provided at approximately 40-foot intervals along College Avenue and the
connecting walkway to the west of Building B in accordance with the standards of this
section.
All building frontages, sidewalks and parking areas are adequately landscaped in accordance
with the minimum requirements, with deciduous shrubs, evergreen shrubs and perennials
provided with appropriate plant spacing. The PDP shows off-site landscaping to the north
and west which is required along with the reconfiguration of drive aisles, curb/gutter and
walkways in these areas. The developer is required to submit Minor Amendments to these
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 6
areas to obtain approval for the reconfiguration of these areas prior to the final approval of
this PDP.
B. Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking
Parking quantities for the proposed multi-family use are provided in excess of what is
required in the TOD zone. Parking is provided on a per-bedroom basis. Multi-family dwellings
and mixed-use dwellings within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone shall
provide a minimum number of parking spaces as shown in the following table:
Number of
Bedrooms/Dwelling
Unit
Number of
dwellings
proposed
Required
TOD
Parking
Ratio Per
Dwelling
Unit
Required
Parking Spaces
Per Dwelling
Unit / required
per unit totals
proposed
Parking
Provided per
unit
One or less 1 0.75 0.75 1
Two 1 1 1 2
Three 7 1.25 8.75 14
Four and above 1 1.5 1.5 3
Total 10 12 18
Additionally, because all of the parking provided is in enclosed garage spaces and cannot be
easily shared between tenants or accessed by guests, the applicant has agreed to provide
ten additional guest parking spaces within the State on Campus surface parking lot located at
the northwest portion of Lot 1 of the Choice Center Second Filing. A Minor Amendment has
been approved to Lot 1 of the Choice Center Second Filing that confirms that the ten spaces
shall be available for the use of this PDP.
In accordance with Section 3.2.2(K)(5) Handicap Parking, one van-accessible handicap
parking space is provided within the garage space of Building A, Unit 104. This Section
requires that one handicap parking space be provided for parking lots that contain 1-25
parking spaces. Parking lots are defined in Article 5 of the LUC as an off-street parking area
or vehicular use area. In addition to the handicap space in Unit 104, one shared handicap
parking space is provided in the existing adjacent surface parking area of Choice Center Lot
2 to the south of the project, as approved with the Minor Amendment attached with this staff
report.
Bicycle parking is provided in accordance with the standards that require one bicycle space
per bed. A total of 29 beds are proposed and 30 bicycle spaces are provided. 60% of the
spaces are required to be interior spaces and the plans provide alcoves within the garages of
each unit with bicycle racks to satisfy this requirement. Sheet 7 of 9 of the PDP plans show a
detail of the garage spaces and bike accommodations. 12 additional spaces are located
outside on the south side of Building A for guests and occasional use.
In conformance with the Purpose, General Standard and Development Standards described
in this section, staff finds that the parking and circulation system provided with the project is
adequately designed with regard to safety, efficiency and convenience for vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians and transit. A ten foot wide sidewalk is provided along the College frontage and
an east/west sidewalk and enhanced crossing is provided to the north of the development
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 7
which links the development and College Avenue sidewalk to the State on Campus and other
nearby destinations. The drive aisle configuration and site access has been reviewed and
accepted by Poudre Fire Authority and the proposed plat provides the necessary emergency
access easements.
A Modification request is required with the PDP to reduce the drive aisle width between the
proposed buildings from 28 feet to 24 feet. This is discussed later in the staff report.
C. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting
A photometric plan is provided with the project that complies with the lighting levels and
design standards of this section. Building and drive aisle lighting is provided by down-
directional and sharp cut-off fixtures.
D. Section 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures
The project provides a fully screened trash enclosure with walk-in access to recycling and
waste containers in accordance with the requirements of this section. The enclosure is
finished with brick which provides a high quality appearance consistent with the building
design.
E. Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility; 3.5.2 Residential Building
Standards; 3.8.30 Multi-family Dwelling Development Standards; Division 3.10
Development Standards for the TOD Overlay Zone
The PDP proposes building elevations for the two multi-family buildings that meet or exceed
the design and articulation requirements of these sections. The building design provides
variation in massing, juxtaposed materials and forms, and varied patterns of recesses and
projections that provide vertical and horizontal interest, breaking down the overall scale of the
buildings.
Unit entrances face streets and walkways, with entrance canopies used to define the
individual unit entrances. Unique, varied door designs are incorporated into the unit
entrances to provide additional visual interest and building variation. The use of materials and
patterns is balanced with an appropriate proportion of brick used on the facades that have
prominent public views. Colors and textures used are appealing and help emphasize and
articulate overall building forms.
Garage doors include windows to provide more detail. This is intended to help enhance the
appearance of the garage areas where portions of the facade may be seen from College
Avenue.
In compliance with 3.10.5(C) TOD Character and Image – Materials and Colors, brick
masonry and cast stone accents provide a high quality appearance around all four sides of
the buildings. The north and south elevations provide different material patterns, with
additional masonry used with the north elevation which will be visible from South College
Avenue. A base course of brick and cast stone is used along the interior facing building
facades adjacent to the garage doors, with masonry wrapping the ends of the interior facades
to provide a cohesive, four-sided masonry design.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 8
A fiber cement panel system supplements the masonry pattern used on the building facades
that are visible from the street, with the cement panels used more extensively on the interior-
facing garage facades. An appropriately scaled reveal pattern is incorporated into the cement
panels with a ½ inch spacing to provide a noticeable shadow line with the reveals.
In compliance with 3.10.5(E) TOD Character and Image – Walls Fences and Planters,
brick and cast stone planters are used along the College Avenue frontage to help provide
appropriately-scaled detail consistent with the TOD standards that encourage the use of
planters that match the building façade.
In compliance with 3.5.2(B) Residential Building Standards – General Standard, staff finds
that the proposed single-family detached building design continues to meet the standards of
this section by providing adequate architectural articulation and variation, with distinctive
building entrances that are oriented towards the public streets in accordance with the general
standard.
In compliance with 3.5.2(D) Residential Building Standards – Relationship of Dwellings to
Streets and Parking, all of the dwellings are oriented towards a street or connecting walkway
in accordance with the standard.
In compliance with Section 3.5.30(E)(3) – Minimum building setbacks for multi-family
dwellings, the PDP proposes a reduced arterial building setback along South College Avenue
from 15 feet to 10 feet. This is permitted provided that one of the five following criteria is met.
Staff recommends the approval of the reduced setback based on the plan’s compliance with
exception #2 below. The project provides extensive landscaping and tree quantities beyond
the minimum requirements, with low brick planter walls and appropriate design details to
provide pedestrian interest, comfort and visual continuity in compliance with the standard.
Additionally, the reduced setback from 15 to 10 feet is reasonable given the lower, two-story
height of the proposed buildings and the wide 10’ detached sidewalk provided along the
College Avenue frontage, which provides outdoor public space and additional setback depth
from the street to the building face. Additionally, the proposed building, with the 10 foot
building setback behind a proposed 10’ sidewalk, is set back farther than the 4 story State on
Campus building directly to the south, in which the building face is located approximately 3.5’
behind a 7’ sidewalk.
Minimum setback from the right-of-way along an arterial street shall be fifteen (15)
feet and along a non-arterial street shall be nine (9) feet.
(a) Exceptions to the setback standards are permitted if one (1) of the following is
met:
1. Each unit side that faces the street has a porch and/or balcony that has a minimum
depth of six (6) feet (as measured from the building facade to the far side posts,
railings/spindles) and a minimum length of eight (8) feet. If more than one (1) side of a
unit faces the street, then only one (1) side is required to comply.
2. An outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden is located between a
building and the sidewalk, provided that such space shall have landscaping, low
walls, fencing or railings, a tree canopy and/or other similar site improvements along
the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, comfort and visual continuity.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 9
3. All ground units that face a street are ADA compliant units that have street-facing
porches that are directly and individually accessed from the public sidewalk by a
connecting walkway that is at least six (6) feet in width.
4. All ground units that face a street with a transit stop that fronts the building are
affordable housing units, each having a street-facing stoop that directly accesses the
public sidewalk by a connecting walkway.
5. A project is within an area in the Downtown that is designated in the Downtown
Plan as allowing "main street storefront" buildings with zero or minimal setback.
F. Section 3.8.16 – Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed
This requirement is triggered by the 5-bedroom unit proposed.
This section limits the maximum occupancy allowed per dwelling unit in a single-family, two-
family or multi-family dwelling to either:
(1) one (1) family as defined in Section 5.1.2 and not more than one (1) additional person; or
(2) two (2) adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one (1) additional person.
The above limitation requires that any units with more than 3 bedrooms address an increase
in occupancy based on the following code provision (underlined for emphasis):
Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of
review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and
upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been satisfied, increase the
number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision
maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided
sufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to sustain the activities associated
with multi-family residential development, to adequately serve the occupants of the
development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such amenities may include,
without limitation, passive open space, buffer yards, on-site management, recreational
areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking areas,
sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and services.
The applicant’s justification for increasing the occupancy of the residential unit includes the
following summary. The applicant has provided a formal request for increased occupancy,
with the full narrative and justification attached to this staff report.
On site manager:
The adjacent State on Campus student housing development operated by the Applicant
features 24-hour, on-site management services which will extend to the Phase 2
development. This allows residents to have noise, maintenance, or safety concerns
addressed at any time of day.
Safe Pedestrian Spaces:
The streetscape along South College Avenue will add to the pedestrian experience by
providing street trees, built-up planters, grass parkway, lighted bollards, and convenient bike
parking.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 10
Recreation & Contextual Amenities:
Located immediately southeast of Colorado State University’s campus, residents can easily
access CSU’s numerous recreation facilities. The proposed PDP is adjacent to numerous
restaurants and retail stores along South College Avenue as well as Spring Park to the south
east of the project site.
Recreational facilities will also be made available to residents of the PDP at the adjacent
State on Campus student housing development. These include the use of exterior landscape
courtyards, pool, hot tub, fire pit seating areas, climbing boulders, and volleyball courts.
Interior study lounges, media lounge, fitness rooms, and game rooms will also be made
available to the PDP residents.
Staff Recommendation:
In order to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling
units, the applicant must provide sufficient additional amenities to sustain the activities
associated with the project, adequately serve the occupants, and protect the adjacent
neighborhood.
Staff is supportive of the mitigation efforts outlined in the applicant’s request. In this case
there is only one 5-bedroom unit and the size of the project is relatively small. The standards
of this section are addressed through the provision of nearby amenities and management
available at the State on Campus development and through the design of the 5-bedroom unit,
which provides rooftop amenity space above the 5-bedroom unit in addition to adequate
living space and bicycle storage facilities within the unit, as well as the guest parking
provided at the State on Campus development as approved with the Minor Amendment
attached with this staff report.
4. Modification of Standard Request to LUC Section 3.2.2(L)(1) -- Driveway Width
Land Use Code Standard proposed to be modified:
Driveway widths for all two-way drive aisles are required to be at least 24 feet in width in
accordance with Table A of this code section, and in cases where garages are located along
both sides of a drive aisle, this code section states:
When garages are located along a driveway and are opposite other garages or
buildings, the driveway width must be increased to 28 feet.
Request for Modification. The applicant requests a modification to allow the drive aisle
between the garages to be reduced from 28 feet to 24 feet.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 11
Land Use Code Modification Criteria:
“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of
the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without
impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing,
defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to
the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an
important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and
the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as
exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the
owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to
be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship
are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are
authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when
considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance
the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific
findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said
subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).
Applicant’s Justification:
The applicant has provided a modification request, attached to this staff report. The Applicant
requests that the modification be approved and provides the following justification for Criteria
1, 3 and 4:
Criteria (1): the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which
the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.
Applicant’s Justification for Criteria 1:
“The Applicant has undertaken a geometric study of typical car turning radiuses to verify that
the proposed 24’ driveway width provides adequate vehicle maneuvering clearances
between the proposed facing garages. These exhibits are attached. The results of this study
indicate that a 24’-wide driveway sufficiently allows the 90 degree head-in and back-in
movements of a vehicle into each garage as well as the outbound 90 degree back-out and
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 12
head out geometries. Therefore, the proposed modification request will serve the residents
as well as a driveway of the standard compliant width.”
Criteria (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical
conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical
conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict
application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional
practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property,
provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the
applicant;
Applicant’s Justification for Criteria 3:
“As previously mentioned, the proposed site layout maintains a connection between the
northern retail parking lot and College Avenue via a shared driveway, though this connection
severely limits the other uses on the site. The site of the proposed residential development is
123-feet wide. The parkway buffer, multi-use path, and utility easement along College
Avenue are a total width of 27-feet wide while the proposed utility easement and sidewalk at
the west edge of the property are 8’ wide, thus leaving 88’ in the center of the property for (2)
residential buildings and drive aisle. By providing a 24’ wide driveway, the Applicant can then
allocate 32’ of site width to each residential building. The Applicant has found that a
residential building depth of 32’ is the minimum dimension that provides adequate interior
living space and enclosed garage space for student housing residences such as this.
Therefore, granting the modification request for a 24’-wide drive aisle facilitates the
development of an exceptionally constrained building site.
Criteria (4): The plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code
that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to
advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Applicant’s Justification for Criteria 4:
“The applicant is requesting a 15% reduction from the 28’-wide drive aisle to a proposed
width of 24 feet. This 15% reduction is a nominal and inconsequential reduction to the width
of the drive surface because it does not require drivers to alter their driving patterns when
traveling through the development site nor does it hinder the turning geometries of residents
maneuvering into or out of the garages.”
“In summary, the Applicant asks that the proposed modification request be granted due to the
fact that it is not detrimental to the public good, it provides a driveway that functions equally
as well as the standard, it facilitates development on a tightly constrained building site, and it
grants a nominal and inconsequential reduction to the drive way width.”
“Finally, the proposed site layout, which is possible through utilization of the Modification
Request for reduced driveway width, produces a building design that is supported by several
City Plan Policies. These policies are: targeted infill and redevelopment within transit served
locations (LIV 5.1), reduced visual impact of parking from primary pedestrian streets and
public spaces (LIV 30.4), the creation of a more pedestrian-friendly environment through
parkway buffers and generous sidewalk widths (LIV 30.4), the creation of parking structures
that do not dominate the street frontage (LIV 30.5), reduced land devoted to surface parking
lots (LIV 30.6), and transform through infill and Redevelopment (LIV 35.4).”
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 13
Staff Findings for the Modification
Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) is justified by
the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H). This is because:
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good. While the
drive aisle will be narrower and potentially less convenient for some residents, the
functional use of the garages spaces remains viable and guest spaces are provided in
the State on Campus north parking lot for visitors (located on Lot 1 of Choice Center
Second Filing) as well as a shared handicap space on Choice Center Lot 2 located to the
south of the project. Additionally the size of the project is relatively small, urban in
character and will be marketed to students. The potential impacts to residents of the
project do not appear to be significant, as compared to a larger project where a similar
garage parking configuration could be more impactful to the viability of the project.
B. Criteria 1 (2.8.2(H)(1): The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the
standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan
which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested.
While staff is supportive of this modification, staff finds that the reduced drive aisle width
does not satisfy this criterion. The 28 foot standard drive aisle is intended to provide more
maneuverability so that there is less margin of error when entering and exiting the garage
spaces, allowing the configuration of garages to be safe and convenient. With this
purpose in mind, staff’s opinion is that 24 feet cannot be found to be equal to or better
than 28 feet in terms of convenience.
C. The project design satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(4): The plan as submitted will not diverge
from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be
modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective
of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land
Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Staff finds that the Modification of Standard to allow a drive aisle width is nominal and
inconsequential because the drive aisle reduction is limited to 18 garage spaces on a
constrained site and the reduced drive aisle allows an overall better plan with a
townhome style building configuration that enhances the neighborhood scale and
provides an appropriate building transition from the taller buildings in the vicinity. The
narrow drive aisle, as evidenced by the turning radius templates provided by the
application, will allow ingress/egress, and the potential inconvenience of the narrower
drive aisle is nominal. Because of the project’s urban infill location, limited scope of the
modification, and nominal reduction in the function of the parking area, staff finds that the
modification is nominal and inconsequential and that the plan continues to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2 including: targeted infill and
redevelopment within transit served locations (LIV 5.1), reduced visual impact of parking
from primary pedestrian streets and public spaces (LIV 30.4), the creation of a more
pedestrian-friendly environment through parkway buffers and generous sidewalk widths
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 14
(LIV 30.4), the creation of parking structures that do not dominate the street frontage (LIV
30.5), reduced land devoted to surface parking lots (LIV 30.6), and transform through infill
and Redevelopment (LIV 35.4).
D. The project design satisfies Criteria 4 (2.8.2(H)(3): By reason of exceptional physical
conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property,
including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness,
shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to
install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified
would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue
hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are
not caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
Staff finds that the depth and size of the site is constrained, and that the relatively small
size of the site is suitable for the townhome style buildings proposed. Staff concurs that
due to the depth constraints and College Avenue improvements required, including the
10’ sidewalk, 7’ tree lawn and right-of-way dedication, this condition does represent a
hardship not caused by the applicant that would justify the granting of the modification.
5. Neighborhood Meeting
A City neighborhood meeting was not required for this project and a meeting was not held.
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the Choice Center Filing 3 Project Development Plan (PDP), staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The PDP complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
B. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.21, General Commercial
(C-G) of Article 4 – Districts.
C. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) meets the applicable requirements of
Section 2.8.2(H) -- Criteria (3) and (4), and the granting of this Modification would not be
detrimental to the public good, because the reduced 24’ drive aisle will function
adequately for the intended purpose and use. As evidenced by the turning radius
templates provided by the application, the reduced drive aisle will allow ingress/egress,
and the potential inconvenience of the narrower drive aisle is nominal and
inconsequential in accordance with Criterion 4. Additionally, the depth and size of the site
is constrained and that due to the depth constraints and College Avenue improvements
required, including the 10’ sidewalk, 7’ tree lawn and right-of-way dedication, these
conditions represent a hardship not caused by the developer that would justify the
granting of the modification in accordance with Criterion 3.
Agenda Item 1—August 14 Continued Hearing
Item 1 Page 15
D. The PDP complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(1)
is approved.
E. The request for Increased Occupancy meets all applicable Land Use Code criteria; the
request for Increased Occupancy meets the requirements of Section 3.8.16 and the
applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities to sustain the activities associated
with multi-family residential development, including the following amenities on Lot 1 of
Choice Center Second Filing and Lot 2 of Choice Center -- on-site manager services, ten
guest parking spaces in the north parking lot of Choice Center Second Filing Lot 1, one
additional shared handicap parking space on Lot 2 of Choice Center, exterior landscape
courtyards, pool, hot tub, fire pit seating areas, climbing boulders, volleyball courts,
interior study lounges, media lounge, fitness rooms, and game rooms -- will also be made
available to the Choice Center Third Filing PDP residents to adequately serve the
occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of Choice Center Third Filing Project Development Plan – PDP160042 including the
Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(L)(1) to reduce the garage drive aisle from 28 feet to 24 feet
and request for Increase in Occupancy
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant’s Narrative and Planning Objectives
2. Applicant’s Modification of Standard Request
3. Applicant’s Increase of Occupancy Request
4. PDP plan set:
a. Site Plan
b. Landscape Plan
c. Building Elevations
d. Lighting Plan
e. Unit Details
5. Plat
6. Utility Plans
7. Traffic Memorandum (updated for the continued hearing)
8. Choice Center Minor Amendment Parking Plan
9. Original approved Choice Center site plan set
10. Letter of Intent from adjacent property owner (Choice Center Lot 3)
11. Letter from resident