Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission - MINUTES - 08/21/20258/21/25 – MINUTES Page 1 Planning & Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2025 – 6:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – Adam Sass (Chair), Russell Connelly (Vice Chair), York, Shirley Peel, Ted Shepard b. Board Members Absent – Julie Stackhouse and Kent Bruxvoort c.Staff Members Present – Frickey, Kidwell, Myler, Yatabe, Mapes, Schumann, Kleer, Gilchrist AGENDA REVIEW Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, provided a review of the agenda. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. CONSENT AGENDA Miranda Spindel requested the Moor Annexation item be pulled for discussion due to concerns regarding the proposed zoning of the property. Laura Larson also requested the Moor Annexation item be pulled for discussion. Kay Lannen requested the Academy of Arts and Knowledge item be pulled for discussion due to concerns about playground noise. 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 25, 2025, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2.ENCLAVE AT REDWOOD SUBDIVISION – FDP250007 This is a request for a combination Major Amendment/Final 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 2 separate lots, and ten (10) tracts. There are no proposed changes to the Site, Landscape, Drainage, or Utility Plans approved with the Enclave at Redwood Final Development Plan. This is located in the Low Density Mixed Use Zone District and is subject to a Type 2, Planning & Zoning Commission review. STAFF: Clark Mapes, City Planner OWNER: Brian Bratcher, DR Horton 9555 Kingston Ct. Englewood, CO 80112 APPLICANT: Ripley Design, Inc. 236 Linden St. Ste. A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Commissioner York made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peel, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Yeas: Connelly, Shepard, York, Peel, and Sass. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. MOOR ANNEXATION – ANX250001 DESCRIPTION: This is a request to annex and zone 3.368 acres of land generally located at parcel 9710200008. The annexation is subject to a series of hearings including a (Type 2) Review and public hearing by the Council. A specific project development plan proposal is not included with the annexation application. This project is related to Conceptual Review CDR240025, previously known as 2000 Laporte Avenue Annexation. STAFF: Arlo Schumann, Planner 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 3 PROPERTY OWNER: RRT Investments LLC 6316 Jocelyn Hollow Rd. Nashville, TN 372053520 APPLICANT: TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Staff Overview Arlo Schumann, City Planner, stated this is a request for a recommendation to City Council for a voluntary annexation and zoning of 3.36 acres located northeast of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. He noted the annexation is contiguous with municipal boundaries and meets the State annexation requirements. He stated the proposal is for the site to be zoned Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN). Schumann showed an aerial image of the site and discussed the surrounding parcels and their zoning. He noted the Structure Plan map identifies the site and its immediate surroundings as the Suburban Neighborhood place type, which has a principal land use of single unit detached homes with a density of two to five principal units per acre. Other uses include recreational facilities, schools, places of worship, and ADU’s. Schumann discussed the Northwest Subarea Plan guidance for the area which calls out LMN and RL zoning and limited commercial areas. He also noted staff is recommending the site be placed in the residential sign district and lighting context area 1 (LC1). He stated staff finds the property meets the State law eligibility requirements to qualify for a voluntary annexation and that the requested LMN zoning is consistent with the City’s Structure Plan and Northwest Subarea Plan. Additionally, the annexation is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. He noted City Council accepted the annexation petition on July 15, 2025. Commission Questions Chair Sass asked about the role of the Commission in terms of providing a recommendation on annexations. Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe replied that the Land Use Code specifies that annexations are controlled by State statutes which were analyzed in the staff report. Additionally, the associated zoning is also part of the recommendation and is analyzed in the staff report as well. He stated the Commission should principally examine alignment with City Plan. Commissioner York asked how long the site has been an enclave. Schumann replied that it is not an enclave as there is unincorporated property to the north. He added that this annexation would create an enclave of the gas station and two properties on the west side of Taft Hill Road. Commissioner Peel asked how the Subarea Plans are supposed to be considered in this type of situation, given the Sanctuary on the Green ruling. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied that the District Court order directed that Subarea Plans are considered to be more than advisory and there must be compliance with the Plans. 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 4 Commissioner Peel requested a summary of why this annexation is in compliance with the Northwest Subarea Plan. Schumann replied that the framework map identifies the area as LMN. Chair Sass asked about a comment related to the property having previously been a landfill and noted any work would need to be done per CDPHE standards if applicable. Schumann replied that work would be part of the development plan. Public Participation Kathy Fieseler, 1950 Laporte Avenue, stated her property borders the entire east side of the subject property. She ceded her remaining time to Jennifer Beccard. Jennifer Beccard, Fort Collins resident, stated the Fieselers have lived at their home for 44 years and expressed concern that the project will significantly impact their property. She opposed the LMN zoning and recommended Low-Density Residential (RL) or Urban Estate (UE) zoning stating those zones would better align with the Northwest Subarea Plan and the neighborhood. She stated the project is contemplating a four-story building and noted there are no four-story buildings anywhere in the area. She also stated the site is in a floodplain and frequently floods. Additionally, she expressed concern about traffic and safety in the area. Raygina Kohlmeier, 273 North Sunset Street, expressed concern about the proposed zoning stating it is not appropriate for the surrounding area. She also commented on the insufficient drainage situation along Laporte Avenue that was only recently addressed. She questioned whether the existing infrastructure could support additional development without negative flooding, noise, lighting, and traffic impacts. Val Vogeler, 520 North Taft Hill Road, described the neighborhood as being quite rural and suggested LMN zoning is not appropriate for the subject property. She expressed concern about flooding, safety, and traffic impacts. Pastor Dee Highland of the church just north of the subject property stated a four-story building would not be bothersome given the height of existing trees. He expressed concern about the floodplain and drainage issues. Miranda Spindel, owner of the property just to the north of the proposed annexation. She stated any future development of the property will directly impact the neighborhood. She stated the framework plan provides guidance, is not regulatory, and is intended to be used together with the Northwest Subarea Plan guidelines. She noted the District Court did make a ruling establishing that the Northwest Subarea Plan is regulatory, and when the Land Use Code and the Subarea Plan conflict, the more stringent guidelines take precedence. She stated there was a conceptual review for a 78,000 square foot, four-story building which is completely out of alignment with the Northwest Subarea Plan. She suggested the property would be better designated as UE or RL. Bill Bertschy, 430 Peterson, commented on the Spring Creek flood and resulting work on changing floodplain designations and correcting flood mitigation deficiencies. He stated much of the natural drainage in the northwest part of the city was taken out by development with the idea that flow would go into irrigation ditches, which has proven to be inadequate. He also expressed concern about the impact of LMN zoning on the neighborhood character. Jiayi Shou, 1948 Laporte Avenue, concurred with the concerns raised by previous speakers regarding flooding, neighborhood character, and traffic, and opposed the proposed LMN zoning. She stated a four- story building will negatively impact the neighborhood and views from Puente Verde Natural Area. 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 5 Laura Larson, 320 North Impala, echoed the concerns of Ms. Shou and Ms. Spindel. She stated the proposed project does not conform to the Northwest Subarea Plan and is in direct opposition to the majority of the guidelines outlined in the Plan. She stated the property should be zoning either RL or UE and reiterated the Northwest Subarea Plan is regulatory in nature. Sam Coutts, 236 Linden Street, expressed support for the annexation application and stated plans, policies, and studies that have been completed should be relied upon. He stated it is clear that the framework plan and Structure Plan have the area designated as LMN. Staff Response Schumann acknowledged the points that were made but noted many of them are not related directly to the annexation. He stated there was a conceptual review plan; however, that was purely conceptual and there are no development plans being reviewed. In terms of the proposed zoning, Schumann stated the framework map that is in the Northwest Subarea Plan does speak to zoning a property RL if it is five acres in size or less and adjacent to an existing single-family neighborhood. He stated he was unsure that a single unincorporated neighboring property is in the spirit of zoning the site RL. Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, noted the specific stipulation that the City would zone parcels RL is for parcels that are currently zoned Farming in the County, and this property is zoned RR2 Residential and CC for Commercial; therefore, this property would not be eligible for being zoned RL per the guidance of the Northwest Subarea Plan. Commission Questions Commissioner Shepard requested additional information regarding the references to floodplain. Schumann replied there is a City floodway and a City floodplain, both predominantly on the north half of the property. He noted the applicant and property owner are well aware of those issues and that was part of the discussion during the conceptual review. Commissioner York asked if an outfall project recently completed in the area to help mitigate flooding. Schumann replied there are several recent projects and future planned projects in the area and noted floodplain staff members are in contact with the applicants regarding floodway issues. Frickey noted there was some recent work done to improve the outfall situation in the northwest part of the community; however, it remains under the City’s floodplain and floodway. Commissioner Shepard stated his understanding is that the West Vine Drainage Basin is a joint capital project between the County and the City which extends from Soldier Canyon Dam to the outfall on the Poudre. He noted the project is a work in progress. He stated many of the comments were accurate that much of the natural drainage swales were farmed over. Frickey noted that the flooding issues are not directly tied to the annexation and zoning and stated that upon development, stormwater staff would review any project for compliance with all floodplain regulations. Commissioner Peel asked if the Subarea Plan would be considered as part of the development review process for any proposed project. Schumann replied in the affirmative and reiterated there are no current developments being proposed. Commissioner Peel asked if neighbors would have another opportunity to weigh in on concerns. Schumann replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Shepard asked if a four-story building is permitted in the LMN zone district. Schumann 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 6 replied in the affirmative. Chair Sass asked how many land use categories are in the Northwest Subarea Plan. Schumann replied there are more than three types; however, there are three that are categorized as residential. Chair Sass noted that the Subarea Plan showed the property as being LMN. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated the principal review of a zoning focuses on consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and/or whether the zoning is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood. He noted the Land Use Code does list additional considerations that may be taken into consideration, though they are not mandatory: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Commissioner Shepard asked if a map amendment can be conditioned. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Shepard asked about a reference to the Fieseler property having a 25-foot-wide natural habitat buffer. Schumann replied he did not have much detail at this time; however, he stated the existing trees are considered a riparian forest so there would be applicable buffering in considering that a natural feature, which would be part of the environmental compliance portion of the development review process. Commissioner Shepard asked about the location of the Laporte access and whether it is considered to be too close to Taft Hill. Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations, replied that will need to be closely examined as was referenced in the conceptual review. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the zoning is part of a quasi-judicial process; therefore, the Commission is confined to considering the information that is being presented and what is on the record. Chair Sass asked if the Structure Plan is a controlling document for this area. Frickey replied the Structure Plan is a component of City Plan and provides specific guidance on the suggested zone districts for properties annexed into the City. He noted the proposed LMN zoning is consistent with the Structure Plan map designation in City Plan. Chair Sass asked if the Structure Plan would need to be amended to zone the property UE. Frickey replied the UE zone district would be more appropriate in a different Structure Plan designation and stated LMN is more consistent with the Structure Plan map than UE. Commissioner Shepard noted that the Commission cannot consider many of the concerns raised by the public participants, though he acknowledged there are challenges with the site in terms of access, drainage, and natural feature buffering. He also noted a shadow analysis, among other Code provisions, will be required to be addressed during the development review process. Commission Deliberation Commissioner Peel stated she agrees with the staff recommendation from a pure annexation and zoning perspective. Additionally, she stated she hopes the applicant and neighborhood can work together to develop a project that fits within the area. Chair Sass concurred. Commissioner Shepard asked if the Commission would be interested in adding a condition to the zoning to not allow four-story buildings on the property. He specifically cited height, mass, bulk, and scale, as 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 7 well as shadowing of the greenhouse buildings on the Fieseler property. Chair Sass stated those would all be standards of approval that would need to be modified should a proposal come forward with a four-story building. Frickey stated the LMN zone only permits three-story buildings unless there is an affordable housing component, which allows for an additional story of height. Commissioner York thanked the public participants for their input, but reiterated this decision is only about the annexation and zoning. He supported recommending Council approve the annexation and proposed LMN zoning. Vice Chair Connelly concurred and stated staff’s recommendation is appropriate. He stated this is only the beginning of the process and noted any project would need to meet all applicable criteria. Commissioner Shepard stated the Northwest Subarea Plan contains contradictory themes and there is some incongruity within the document that speaks to character and the definition of low-density. He added that the framework plan is quite black and white in terms of designating zoning. He suggested the Subarea Plan needs to be made more consistent with additional outreach at some point in the future. Commissioner York concurred the Subarea Plan could be improved. Chair Sass noted this will move through the development review process and many further discussions will occur. He stated the zoning makes sense for the site. Commissioner Shepard encouraged multiple neighborhood meetings on any future project. He commented on it possibly being beneficial to look at a designation between LMN and UE. Frickey noted LMN zoning allows between four and twelve dwelling units per acre and UE allows two. Commissioner Shepard stated he is persuaded by the framework plan which calls for LMN zoning but stated a twelve-dwelling unit per acre development plan would likely not satisfy the applicable compatibility and buffering requirements. Commissioner Peel made a motion, seconded by Commissioner York, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve the Moor Annexation ANX250001, and zone the property Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district finding the property meets the State law requirements for annexation, and the annexation is consistent with the intergovernmental agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Placement into the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district is consistent with City Plan, including the Structure Plan map and the Northwest Subarea Plan, and placement into the residential neighborhood sign district and the LC1 lighting context area is consistent with the City’s sign and lighting standards. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. This Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: York, Shepard, Peel, Connelly, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. ACADEMY OF ARTS & KNOWLEDGE – SPA250003 DESCRIPTION: This is a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) request to expand the existing school at include 4,790 sq. ft. of the second floor. The school currently occupies the first floor of the building. Building renovations include the first-floor 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 8 and is subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) review and will go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. STAFF: Arlo Schumann, Planner PROPERTY OWNER: Aurora Charter School BC 4424 Innovation Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80523 APPLICANT: 4800 Wheaton Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Staff Overview Arlo Schumann, City Planner, stated this item is related to a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) for the expansion of the existing charter school at 4800 Wheaton Drive into a portion of the building’s second floor. He noted the site currently has 218 parking spaces, one access drive off Wheaton, and street parking is available on Wheaton. He stated the primary issue is traffic impacts during drop-off and pick- up times. Schumann showed photos of the site and outlined the State requirements for a SPAR. He stated the Commission should consider the appropriateness of the location of the use, the character of the use in relation to the neighborhood, the extent of the use, that the proposed use conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that it is consistent with the land use designation described by the City’s Structure Plan map. He noted the site is within the mixed employment place type, which is principally professional offices, research and development facilities, laboratories, light industrial, hospitals, clinics, personal care facilities, corporate headquarters, vocational, business, and private schools and universities, and other similar uses. Schumann stated staff is in support of the proposal without any comments. He noted no building additions are being proposed, though interior renovations are planned and there will be an additional swing set in the playground area. Commission Questions Chair Sass asked if this would be a minor amendment application if it were not a SPAR. Schumann replied in the affirmative noting the use has already been approved. Chair Sass asked if the Commission would be the decision maker for a minor amendment. Schumann replied that it would be an administrative review. Public Participation 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 9 Kay Lannen, 1431 Silk Oak Drive, expressed concern about noise impacts from outdoor activities at the school. She noted the site was not originally designed to be a school; therefore, the playground is a small strip along the side of the building adjacent to houses and the sound amplifies from the brick wall. She asked if there might be an opportunity to address the noise by expanding or relocating the play area. She expressed concern that property values in the area will be negatively impacted. Wally Lannen, 1431 Silk Oak Drive, expressed concern about noise impacts from the playground and stated some neighbors have moved away due to the issues. He stated the playground seems to be in use throughout the day and it is difficult to avoid the noise. He suggested the playground could be relocated to have less impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Sam Kornfeld, Academy of Arts and Knowledge Board Member, introduced other school officials who are present online to answer questions. He noted the playground item mentioned is actually the replacement of a fixture and no expansion or improvements are planned for the building exterior. Tammie Perez, 1306 Silk Oak, asked if there will be an increase in the number of students, and if so, how that will impact the traffic on Wheaton. She also expressed concern about the noise impacts from the playground. Staff Response Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations, stated SPAR traffic analyses are generally limited to the drop-off and pick-up times, which was done in this case. He stated staff is looking for a continued commitment to traffic pattern improvement and setting up an operational plan for drop-off and pick-up procedures to minimize the queuing onto the public streets. He stated the school has done the best it can to try to mitigate traffic impacts and will continue to try to do that as it moves forward with expanded enrollment. Schumann stated the playground area is not being expanded or changed; therefore, staff did not thoroughly analyze any impacts. He noted he has not previously heard noise complaints. Commission Questions Commissioner York asked if Access Fort Collins could be checked to see if there have been any noise complaints about the property. Schumann replied that complaints could go through Access Fort Collins or directly through Code Compliance, which would be the staff assigned to follow up with any Access Fort Collins cases related to noise. He stated complaint information could be located. Chair Sass asked if there was a full traffic impact study completed. Gilchrist replied it is more of a memo looking at the basic impacts of the adjacent frontage, the access point, and the operational plan for drop- off and pick-up procedures. Chair Sass noted that there is a single point of access and asked if there was an analysis of Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) access to ensure the parking lot is not being overpopulated with vehicles prohibiting access. Gilchrist replied that the trip generation statistics were provided indicating the additional 180 students would result in an additional 300 potential daily vehicle trips for a total of about 440 AM and PM trips, which is well within the operational plan. He noted a queuing analysis was provided indicating queuing will occur on site to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, he stated the PFA review indicated access can be provided. Chair Sass commented on a buffer on the southeast side of the site and asked if the site is on two lots. Schumann replied that buffer is part of the subdivision, not the school site. Chair Sass asked if the HOA could put up some type of mitigating structures in that area if noise was 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 10 deemed an issue. Schumann replied landscaping or potentially a fence could be added. Commissioner Peel asked if the Commission could consider the playground noise in its purview. Assistant City Attorney Brad Yatabe replied one of the factors the Commission can consider is mitigation of impacts. Commissioner York noted that there is an existing chain link fence on the property line between the playground and the houses and asked if something could be added to the fence to help with sound mitigation. Schumann replied that the Commission could recommend additional fencing or additional plantings. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted the Commission will be providing a letter with comments as part of the SPAR process. He stated the current staff recommendation is that the application is in compliance with the SPAR requirements, though the Commission could add comments and request a response. Commission Deliberation Commissioner York concurred there may be some noise impacts from the playground; however, he was unsure what the Commission would be able to do to influence how that moves forward at this point, other than to include a comment in the letter. He stated the application as provided meets the SPAR requirements and added that he wished the noise complaints were made known earlier to allow for a better comment to be included. Chair Sass disagreed and stated the proposed site conforms with the adopted plan that is in place. He noted no changes are proposed to the exterior. Commissioner Shepard concurred with Chair Sass, but noted the impacted parties are present in the room and could work with Neighborhood Services regarding sound metering and mediation. He noted the allowable decibels at a residential property line is quite low per the Municipal Code and is likely violated by the playground noise. Mr. Kornfeld stated he would be interested in hearing more from neighbors. Chair Sass noted there is a process for Code Compliance addressing noise concerns and stated the Sound in the City policy is currently taking shape. Commissioner Shepard stated he would be opposing the SPAR, stating the second-floor expansion does not meet location, character, and extent requirements. He stated he would also consider a continuance to allow for mediation sessions to occur. Schumann noted there is a 60-day shot clock, which starts with the initial submittal, for a recommendation letter to be provided. Commissioner Peel asked if the Commission could just recommend noise mitigation rather than not recommending approval. Chair Sass noted there is nothing to require that recommendation. Commissioner Shepard stated this would not be the first SPAR denied and noted the Commission’s decision can be overruled by the Colorado Charter School Institute by no less than a 2/3 vote. He added that his opposition is due to the fact that there is no impact mitigation proposed and no willingness to cooperate with neighbors. Commissioner Peel disagreed and noted Mr. Kornfeld stated he wanted to hear more from neighbors. Mr. Kornfeld stated he did do a sound test a year or two ago and it showed a maximum decibel level of 65 with an average of 45. He stated he would be willing to look into the issue further, but noted the HOA 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 11 owns most of the property between the houses and the school. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe noted if the Commission determines the application does not meet location, character, and extent requirements, and does not receive a satisfactory response from the charter school board, it can request a hearing before the State Board of Education. At that point, the school may proceed with its plan unless prohibited from doing so by the State Board of Education. Carlene Clark, applicant team, provided additional detail regarding the State Board of Education appeal process. She added that this is the first time many of these concerns have been heard and stated the school does have an interest in being a good neighbor. Commissioner Shepard stated he would like to hear a commitment of time, energy, and effort from the school to meet with the neighbors and City mediators. Mr. Kornfeld replied he would be willing to make that commitment and noted the last noise complaint the school received was in 2022. Ms. Clark also committed to working with neighbors; however, she noted she cannot speak on behalf of her client without their permission. Commissioner York made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission direct staff to provide a letter to the Academy of Arts and Knowledge Board of Directors that their SPAR application meets applicable Land Use Code standards. The Commission finds that the location, character, and extent of the proposed development plan are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and satisfy the Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. This Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Shepard, Peel, Connelly, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 5. PROSPECT RIDGE MULTIFAMILY – PDP230015 DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to develop 226 multifamily residential units at the NE corner of the Prospect Rd and I-25 interchange. (parcel # 8715306001). The applicant proposes 226 multifamily dwelling units across six 4-story buildings. The plan includes 291 parking stalls and an amenity/clubhouse building at the NE corner of the site. Access would be primarily taken from a new local street and the future Carriage Pkwy to the east of the site. The site is directly east of Interstate 25 and directly north of E Mulberry St. The property is within the General Commercial District (C-G) zone district, and the project would be subject to a Planning & Zoning Commission (Type 2) Review. STAFF: Kai Kleer, Sr Planner 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 12 PROPERTY OWNER: PNE Prospect Road Holdings LLC 900 Castleton Road Ste 118 Castle Rock, CO 80109 APPLICANT: Kimley-Horn & Associates 3801 Automation Way, Suite 210 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Overview Kai Kleer, Senior Planner, outlined the proposal for Prospect Ridge Multifamily, which is a 226 unit, six building development on approximately 6 acres at the northeast corner of Prospect Road and I-25. He noted the project is being reviewed under the previous Land Use Code based on its submittal date. Kleer stated the project is part of an Activity Center overlay in the General Commercial zone district and includes 291 parking stalls, an amenity building, and a pedestrian connection to the regional trail. Kleer provided information about the surrounding properties and zone districts. He discussed some of the planning history for the Prospect corridor, which included mountain view preservation for the Prospect and I-25 interchange. He also discussed trail connections, the Prospect and I-25 Overall Development Plan (ODP), and Rudolph Farm Infrastructure Project. Applicant Presentation Andy Reese, Kimley-Horn, provided an overview of the Rudolph Farms subdivision, roadway network, and area improvements. He noted the original ODP for the site had anticipated 324 dwelling units, the traffic study was assuming 233 units, though the proposal is for 226; therefore, the traffic impacts will be reduced from the number of units originally approved. He further discussed the planned trail connections and pedestrian network. Reese stated the planned 291 parking spaces provide 1.29 per unit. Additionally, there are 401 bike parking spaces, which is 16 more than required. He stated the buildings are oriented outward toward streets or the adjacent open space and noted the internal circulation is made up of 24- and 26-foot internal drives with two access points to Prospect Ridge Drive and an emergency access point to the north. Reese discussed the locations of trash enclosures and the external building materials. He showed renderings of the façades and discussed the differentiation in building entrances. Resse also showed some renderings of the site amenities, including a dog park, central seating area, pool deck, and clubhouse/fitness center. He discussed the reasons for selecting this parcel for the multi-family use, including zoning, acreage, and the viewshed. Staff Analysis Kleer noted that a great deal of effort went into breaking down the irregularly shaped lot into two blocks. He noted the Land Use Code provides some exceptions for meeting the block standards due to physical constraints, but noted work was done to create an arrangement of buildings that best responded to the constraints of the site. 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 13 Kleer noted that the landscape plan meets landscape requirements, including buffering from future commercial uses to the east, species selection, and parking lot screening. Additionally, he noted air conditioning units will be located on the unit patios. Kleer discussed some of the applicable regulatory elements, including the natural habitat and feature buffer zone requirements, I-25 buffer standards, and the Prospect Road Streetscape Program standards. Kleer noted that the project exceeds the minimum requirements for a central feature or gathering space. In terms of architecture and compatibility, Kleer stated the I-25 Subarea Plan, I-25 Corridor Plan, Prospect Road Streetscape Program were used for guidance. Additionally, he outlined the Land Use Code regulatory requirements for compatibility, including those related to building materials and colors. He showed images of the Prospect and I-25 interchange and landscaping stonework that is being completed as well as images of the nearby newly constructed school. Kleer discussed the building architecture noting each building contains about five entries. He stated staff found the project is providing recognizable entries. He further detailed the proposed materiality of the buildings and discussed the trash enclosures and lighting plan. Kleer stated staff finds compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and its adopted elements, the Overall Development Plan, and the relevant Land Use Code standards, and is recommending approval. Commission Questions Commissioner Shepard asked about the potential signalized intersection at Prospect Ridge and Carriage, stating it seems like an odd location for a signal. Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations, replied that location is in close proximity; however, given the amount of commercial uses that will be in the area, that signal will probably be moved forward within the infrastructure project. Chair Sass asked about the activity center designation and I-25 buffer standards. Kleer replied there is an 80-foot buffer yard as well as a building line standard for activity centers. He noted activity centers were envisioned to be areas of more intensive mixed-use with multi-modal networks and public transportation. He noted the activity center standards modify the underlying zone district standards to require greater residential density. Commissioner Shepard asked who will own and maintain the walkways and trails. Reese replied that the metro district will own and maintain everything outside of the lot boundaries. Kleer stated the minimum setback in an Activity Center for any building on a lot, tract, or parcel adjoining the I-25 right-of-way is 205 feet from the centerline of I-25. He noted these buildings well exceed that measurement. Chair Sass asked for additional information regarding the air conditioner unit placement. Michael Noda, Neo Studio, replied that the mechanical systems will either be self-contained furnaces with a condensing unit in a closet inside the unit with a louver facing the balcony or a condensing unit behind the guard rails on the balconies, though the first option is most likely. Commissioner Shepard asked if the project contains any affordable housing units. A staff or applicant member replied in the negative. Public Participation Christopher Kavanagh, 4215 Nicks Tail Drive, expressed concern about the impacts the development may have on his neighborhood, specifically noting that Carraige Parkway opens into his neighborhood. He expressed concern regarding the building heights and requested they not encroach on the homes to the north. He also suggested the traffic study was not sufficient and asked about the lighting plan. Kathy Schmidtke, Kitchell Estates, expressed concern about traffic impacts and suggested ensuring signal timing is correct to ensure traffic does not back up. She also requested adequate weed management for the property. Staff Response 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 14 Kleer stated the property to the south of Fox Grove, where Mr. Kavanagh lives, is zoned Industrial and has similar height limits to the General Commercial zone district, though there are compatibility standards in the Land Use Code that offer various height mitigation measures and there are fairly robust regulations that could address any future application that comes in for that property. Kleer stated both the Industrial area closer to Fox Grove and this site are within the LC2 lighting area which allows for more illumination than the LC1 lighting area. He noted there are strict horizontal illumination level limitations and strict regulations around color temperature, back light, up light, and glare. Gilchrist stated that because this project is part of an Overall Development Plan, staff examines compliance for this individual parcel with what was projected in the larger traffic study. He noted that the number of proposed units is fewer than what was projected in the ODP. He noted the applicant team has offered to help fund some speed bumps for the neighborhoods to the north to help mitigate traffic impacts. Gilchrist noted the design of Carriage Parkway is a typical collector with parking that has more of a residential street feel to the north with less parking to the south, particularly between Prospect Ridge and Prospect. Kleer noted traffic has been a main concern of the infrastructure plan and there have been concerns about potential speeding and additional usage of Carraige Parkway with the frontage road being eliminated. He noted there have been efforts made as part of the infrastructure plan to try to constrain the roads and make people drive a bit more slowly. Gilchrist noted there are three different entities that own the signals on Prospect between Summit View and County Road 5: City of Fort Collins, CDOT, and Timnath. He stated work will be done to coordinate the signals. Reese stated the intersection of Carriage and Prospect was reviewed and approved as part of the ODP, and that intersection was identified as being a typical signalized intersection, not a roundabout. He stated the idea for a roundabout has been floated with CDOT; however, there are no plans to include one at this time. Gilchrist noted and intersection control analysis is required for the intersection and confirmed it is still planned to be a regular signalized intersection. Commission Questions Chair Sass asked if future developments on the lots to the north will be reviewed under the current Land Use Code. Kleer replied he believes this is the last project in the area that will be reviewed under the prior Code. Commissioner Shepard asked Noda about the project’s compliance with standards related to ‘variety in building form and product,’ ‘visual interest,’ and ‘unique entrance features.’ Noda replied the overall design involves a prairie-style community with one of the key functions being building entrances. He discussed the public entrance features for each building, which include a lantern, storefront door, and portico. Commissioner Shepard stated he does not see any visual differences between the building entrances. Noda provided further clarification noting the desire was to create subtle differences, though all have brick columns. He stated they are happy to provide additional variation if desired. Chair Sass asked if all of the building entrances are going to be addressed off the same street. Reese replied they will not know that until they are in the final plat process, though it is likely everything will be addressed off Prospect Ridge with buildings and units labeled. Chair Sass stated that addressing system leads to the desire to have a prominent, proper building entrance to each building. Commission Deliberation 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 15 Commissioner Shepard commented on the standard in Section 3.8.30 regarding building entrances and noted that many multi-family projects become repetitive. He stated the essence of the standard is variety, and variety can be achieved while still maintaining subtlety. He suggested the street- and trail-facing building entrances need to be embellished and upgraded. He concurred that the remaining aspects of the project do meet 3.8.30. Chair Sass asked which specific components of Section 3.8.30 need to be better addressed. Commissioner Shepard commented on some of the reasons for better meeting the standards, including wayfinding, and stated the specific standards are 3.8.30(A), (F)(2), and (F)(4). Chair Sass stated there is a difficult balance between providing a coordinated overall theme, uniqueness, and not so much variation that the sense of place is lost. He stated the efforts around the building entrances has clearly been intentional with unique features, including the windows and storefront doors, though he admitted the conversation is a tough one. Commissioner York stated part of the standard is to ensure the unique features stand out so one can immediately recognize the differences between the buildings, which he stated he does not see in the provided renderings. He concurred that the ground level would be the best place to create some type of uniqueness. He stated the plans seem to meet the letter of the standard, though perhaps not the intent of the standard. Commissioner Shepard suggested a draft condition of approval that is not prescriptive, but that provides a point of emphasis for the team to move forward with the conversations with planning staff. He read the suggested language: ‘at the time of submittal for final plan, and in order to comply with Section 3.8.30, all six buildings must feature the two street-facing primary entrances, with the exception of building B which has one in the middle, shall be architecturally upgraded so that such entrances are the building’s predominant entrances as compared to the others, by use of roof form, shape, exterior materials, or other design features, and with each such entrance being unique and distinctive from the other five building primary entrances.’ Chair Sass suggested using ‘enhanced’ rather than ‘upgraded.’ Commissioner Peel stated she believes the standard is met, and requiring enhancements or upgrades will result in a mishmash of entrances. Chair Sass suggested the upgrade could be as simple as additional landscaping and noted he does not want to see large changes that result in a mishmash appearance. Vice Chair Connelly stated he believes the project complies with the standard as is and noted there were no staff comments indicating otherwise. Chair Sass asked Commissioner Shepard if he would be non-supportive if his condition were not included. Commissioner Shepard replied he still sees repetitiveness and a lack of visual interest in the street-facing entrances, which he has not seen addressed by his fellow Commissioners. He stated that subtlety does not necessarily lead to compliance. Commissioner Peel stated she does see the subtle differences that make the entrances non-repetitive to her. Vice Chair Connelly stated there is a difficult balance between unique characteristics and a coordinated overall theme. He stated the project has done a reasonable job of finding a happy medium. Commissioner York stated it took him some time to find the subtle details that differentiate the buildings on the renderings and concurred with Commissioner Shepard on enhancing the entrances. Noda stated the team would be willing to work with planning staff to make enhancements to the public way. Chair Sass stated the residents will notice the subtleties that have been put in to make the entrances unique and added that there is already a uniqueness for the lay person approaching the buildings. 8/21/25 – MINUTES Page 16 Commissioner Peel stated she understands Commissioner Shepard’s concerns; however, she believes there are enough subtle differences on the buildings’ exteriors. Commissioner Shepard stated the conversation has led him to believe a condition of approval is not necessary; however, as a point of emphasis, he noted the applicant has expressed a willingness to enhance the street-facing entrances. Noda stated the applicant team is willing to work with planning staff on those enhancements. Commissioner Shepard commended the building orientation which does differentiate the project from other communities along I-25 in Northern Colorado. Commissioner York thanked the applicant for the additional information on multi-modal connections. He stated that it helps with the interconnectedness standard. Chair Sass stated this is a good example of what type of work can be done through a work session noting this would have been a much longer hearing had the applicant team not responded to the work session comments. He added this is a complex site and he commended the site design. Vice Chair Connelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peel, that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Prospect Ridge Multifamily Project Development Plan, PDP230015. The Commission finds that the Project Development Plan complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and Commission discussion. This Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the hearing staff report. Yeas: Shepard, Peel, Connelly, York, and Sass. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT a. Chair Sass moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted by Krista Kidwell Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Commission on 11/20/25