HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/15/2004Council Liaison: Karen
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson
Vice Chair: Judy Meyer
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (W) 416-7435
Phone: (W) 490-2172
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Schmidt, Craig, Meyer, Gavaldon, Lingle and Torgerson.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Stringer, Smith and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the December 19, 2002, February 19, (Continued) and
March 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. #13-82CROakridge Business Park, 36t" Filing, Holiday Inn Express — Project
Development Plan.
3. #4-04 Resource Recovery Farm Rezoning.
Discussion Agenda:
4. #43-02 Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning.
5. #7-04 Atrium Suites, 502 W. Laurel Street — Modification of Standards.
6. Recommendation to City Council — Floodplain Regulations.
Member Lingle pulled Item 2, Oakridge Business Park for discussion.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the consent agenda for Item 1, less the
February 19, 2004 minutes and Item 3.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Project: Oakridge Business Park 36th Filing, Holiday Inn
Express, Project Development Plan, #13-82CR
Project Description: Request for a four-story 89-unit hotel on 2.167 acres.
The total square footage of the building will be
51,808. The property is located at the southeast
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 2
corner of East Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive.
The existing Comfort Suites Hotel is to the south and
the existing [HOP Restaurant is to the east. The
property is in the HC, Harmony Corridor Zoning
District.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Lingle pulled this item. He was disappointed that the Board did not receive the
staff review of the modification request until 20 minutes before the meeting. He did not
think the Board has had an adequate amount of time to review the request.
Planner Olt responded that the modification request is for the north elevation of the
Holiday Inn Express Hotel. It would be the building elevation facing East Harmony
Road. We are looking at an expanse of the building of about 180 feet, therefore the
panels of the building exceed the thirty feet without significant articulation as defined in
the Land Use Code to break up that expanse and mass of that building elevation and
bring it down to human scale. Planner Olt explained that he received the modification
request just prior to worksession and was unable to respond at that time.
Planner Olt read from page 9 of the revised staff report:
"The north fagade of the buiding contains, essentially, three separate wall planes (bays)
that range in length from 51' to 75'. There is a T to 8' horizontal separation between the
center bay (51' long) and the two end bays (62' and 75'). The center bay, which
projects 3' out (on levels 2 — 4) and 8' out (on the ground floor) from the end bays,
incorporates a gable at the top of the wall panel and brick columns at the corners that
vertically project to the roof eaves, replicating these architectural details on the front and
ends of the building. On all 3 bays there are windows that comprise 50% of the fagade;
and, a change in texture of building material and color between the ground floor and the
upper 3 floors. These elements, in combination with the extensive landscaping along
the north side of the building and the existing masonry sign wall at the northwest corner,
divide the walls into human scale proportions. Staff is supportive of the applicant's
request for a modification of the standard set forth in Section 3.5.3(1))(2)(a)1 of the Land
Use Code."
Steve Dewald, from Lightowler Johnson Associations representing the applicant Jeff
Lamont spoke to the Board. He stated that their intent was not to "skirt" the issue of any
kind of standards or ordinances. Their true belief and feeling architecturally, they have
met the intent of the ordinance by way of the significant amount of windows that are
displayed and by the use of two different types of textures. Also, as Mr. Olt had
indicated, the significant amount of landscaping materials that they have provided as
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 3
part of that. It should be noted that specifically from the view of Harmony, the existing
trees that are there, are very mature healthy trees that provide that human scale. As
also indicated the existence of the wall and the concrete and brick on the northeast
corner also amplifies that. They felt that they have provided the intent. Likewise, the
architectural standard that they have put forth has nothing to do with corporate image, it
is more in keeping with the philosophies of the architecture that they present. To add
additional projection and detail to the outside of the building, specifically the sides they
are referring to, they don't think it enhances the architecture, but in fact takes away from
it. They have provided a brick band around the bottom to anchor the structure and
visually shorten the building. They investigated in the front and the ends and have
brought vertical element and brick all the way to the top to enhance the entrance area or
to break the fagade again. Their concern is that if they add more vertical element to it,
in the form of projections or relief of some form, what it will do is the opposite of what
the standards are trying to do.
Member Lingle asked about a memo included in the Board's packet in which the
applicant spells out their rationale for requesting the modification. In the second and
third paragraphs, they reference a comment 63 and a comment 96 which came from the
staff report that questioned the compliance of the design with those standards. Has the
design they are showing tonight been modified in anyway to address the modification
request where it looks like staff was not supportive of it meeting the requirements of the
Land Use Code in the case of those two comments. In the revised staff report, it looks
like it has been but with no changes.
Planner Olt replied that those were comments from the last staff review. It is staffs
opinion that with their latest submittal, does in fact address those comments. Those are
not comments from the staff report but rather staff review several weeks back prior to
the latest round of submittals from the applicant.
Member Lingle asked to be walked through what changed between that staff review and
the current proposal.
Mr. Dewald replied that he was not sure he could. His staff made the changes. He
believes that the brick was added in between. They did work diligently with the
franchise to do a combination of where the number of suites and where they were to
meet both the needs of the feasibility study and the needs of the franchise. The rest of
the structure really meets the function of the building. What specifically has changed in
between, he could not directly answer that question.
Chairperson Torgerson asked in what ways does the design as presented deviate from
the standard prototypical design that corporate would suggest.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Dewald replied that normally you would not have the groupings of units in the
fashion that they are in. They were rearranged specifically to meet the projection
requirement for the fagade they were referring to. Another thing that has been added is
that as part of the EFIS it is a pattern EFIS design which again plays with the texture of
the overall exterior. That is also non-standard to the franchise. Those two items were
done specifically to meet the standards for this particular structure
Chairperson Torgerson asked how the regrouping of the suites express itself in the
exterior fagade of the building.
Mr. Dewald referred to a slide that shows the different groupings of the suites and the
rooms that have been provided. The number and the selection were chosen as a result
of a feasibility study representing the market in Fort Collins. How they are grouped and
where they are placed was specifically done to try and provide relief in the detail.
Member Lingle asked about staff comment 63, which states "the 50% rule for features
such as windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, awnings, trellises with vines details as
not being represented." He asked if that has been satisfied now, so that those kinds of
elements we see in the proposal can be gauged against the two or more options.
Planner Olt pointed out on the site plan, the upper imaged showed the front of the
building that is broken up into five different panels. He pointed out the elements that did
not exist with the previous plan. Based on comments, which has enabled staff to make
the recommendation that they are meeting the requirements of the Land Use Code.
That comment has been met and satisfied.
Member Schmidt commented that the trees that are there are relatively sizeable, the
Austrians and also the Cottonwoods, and could they give any kind of statement as to
how tall they are right now in relation to the building. She felt the trees would visually go
to buffer some of the effect of the building.
Mr. Olt replied that there were three cottonwoods on the west side of the building, two
are to remain and one will be eliminated. Those are 22"caliper cottonwoods; they are
easily 50 feet tall. This building is just in excess of 50 feet tall. There is also a stand of
cottonwoods, about 5 along Harmony road that are equally as old and of the same size.
The Austrian pine are all 14 to 15" diameter with a height of 30 feet at this point in time.
There are seven Austrian pine along the existing sign wall, the westerly 4 would be
removed, and three would remain. The applicant is proposing a significant
replacement trees and mitigation trees for the one's that will be removed.
Member Lingle still questioned whether they need a modification at all?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 5
Mr. Olt replied that was somewhat questionable and is marginal. He feels that the
standard is being met, he is responding to the modification request. We do have "bays"
that are 51 to 75 feet in length and that is well in excess of the 30 feet, but in staffs
estimation, one of the elements being windows as a way to break up the building mass
are certainly there at 50% or in excess of 50% of the wall plane. It is a close call as to
whether they need a modification or not. They have done a significant job trying to
accommodate the language in the code to make this building meet the intent of the
Land Use Code.
Member Lingle stated that the Board needed to make a finding that the modification
request is no longer needed as part of the Board's action on the PDP.
Director Gloss offered a point of clarification. He referenced the code section
referenced on page 8 and 9 of the staff report. It says that "it is to subdivide the wall
into human size proportions" and Chairperson Torgerson had already mentioned that
there are already some standards about verticality. There is a requirement for base,
middle and top of the building and the applicant has already talked about the base
treatment that definitely distinguishes and grounds the building and makes it seem
shorter. The top really does bring a conclusion to the building. Those are all good
things, but you have to look at it from the perspective of breaking up the building. One
thing that a lot of traditional buildings do is use shadow and all the elements mentioned
here have some shadow with them. During a lot of the day, you will get very strong
shadow elements that tend to bread up the building from a variety of distances.
Member Schmidt commented that her feeling was that she could go either way. She
thinks that the south side of the building is more attractive than the north side. She
thinks the mitigating element is the large trees and in that respect she can see if they
tried to add additional brick for something like that it would make it more "busy" and
actually detract. In this particular circumstance, would it not be for that and the fact that
there is not a large parking lot in front of the north part, it will be close to the road and
mostly have greenery, those are mitigating circumstances enough to her that she feels
that this proposal is as good.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Oakridge Business Park, 36th Filing,
Holiday Inn Express, PDP, #18-82CR based on the Facts and Findings and
Conclusions on Page 9 of the Staff Report, 1, 2, 3 and 4, excluding the last
sentence on 4 that the applicant is requesting a modification of standard.
Member Lingle seconded the motion.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked for clarification of the motion and that the motion
would mean on number 4 that the finding is basically that the project development plan
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 6
complies with all applicable general development standards contained in Article 3 of the
Land Use Code.
Member Gavaldon replied that was correct.
Member Carpenter would not support the motion. She does not feel like this project
meets the standard in any way, or that it is better than or equal to the standard.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that this clearly needs a modification in his view. He
probably would not have supported a modification because he does not feel that the
modification was equal to or better than. He would not be supporting the motion.
Member Gavaldon suggested a continuance for the applicant to address some of these
issues.
Mr. Dewald rebutted that one of the second issues that is in the test, refers to a trellege
with vines or an equivalent element. They are with landscaping materials, providing that
equivalent element. He still believes that they still have the two elements there, but the
Board needs to be open minded to consider that. He feels that they have met the test
of two in their opinion.
Member Gavaldon withdrew his motion.
Chairperson Torgerson felt it was entirely appropriate to approve a PDP without a
modification and condition that they meet the architectural section of the code and that
would be left up to the staff.
The applicant asked the Board to respond to the PDP alone without the modification
and they would be more than please to work specifically on the architectural detail and
that it is compliant.
The applicant withdrew their application for a modification of standard.
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Oakridge Business Park, 36th Filing,
Holiday Inn Express, PDP, #18-82CR based on the fact and conclusions on Page 9
of the staff report, 1, 2, 3 and 4 to read, "the project development plan complies
with all applicable general development plan standards contained in Article 3 of
the Land Use Code, with the exception of the architectural design standards
3.5.3(d)(2)(a)(1)." Also with the condition that the staff work with the applicant to
make sure the code is met architecturally.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 7
Chairperson Torgerson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-2 with
Members Craig and Carpenter voting in the negative.
Project: Trailhead — Annexation and Zoning, #43-02
Project Description: Request for annexation and initial zoning of 88.79
acres located on the north side of Vine Drive, west of
1-25. The requested zone district is LMN, Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Board recommend that City Council approve the
Trailhead Annexation and Zoning #43-02 with initial
zoning to the Employment (E) Zone District and deny
the requested Mountain Vista Subarea and Structure
Plan Amendments.
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation. He stated that this item has
been before the Board on February 19, 2004 and at that time the Board recommended
approval of the annexation with initial zoning of E, Employment zoning district, which
was contrary to the request by the applicant which was for Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood. Since then the applicant has been meeting with city staff to resolve the
primary issue associated with the LMN zone district on this parcel which is the net loss
of Employment land within not just Mountain Vista, but the city as a whole.
A solution has been proposed by the applicant. The applicant owns a piece of ground
immediately north of the Trailhead Annexation and it is between 40 and 50 acres
depending on how much right-of-way you take out of it. Immediately north of that is
land that is owned by Anheuser Busch. Right now on this property, which through the
staff initiated Mountain Vista Amendment Plan, staff is proposing that the Anheuser
Busch property north of Trailhead be zoned E, Employment. Staff feels that it is
appropriate for that land use designation given the access to 1-25 and also the desires
of Anheuser Busch to not have any non-residential uses within their property
immediately adjacent to their brewery operations.
Right now, this property is encumbered by flooding that occurs on the property during a
significant event. During a 100-year storm event, it is estimated that about 90 acres of
this land is inundated with floodwater. What the applicant is proposing, and has been
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 8
working with our Stormwater Department is to purchase the majority of the northern
piece of the Trailhead property and convert that to a regional storm drainage detention
pond. The theory behind that is that we now use 40 to 50 acres of the north property for
detention. It would then free up 'Y' number of acres of land to be designated as
employment on the Anheuser Busch property for future employment uses. Through the
property purchase negotiations, there has been some drainage plans to determine what
would this affect and how will this work. It is estimated that about 30 acres of detention
would be located on the northern property and about 60 acres would still be located on
the Anheuser Busch property. We are only looking at a net gain of about 30 acres of
future Employment land within Anheuser Busch. Given that, staff is still recommending
that the Trailhead property be annexed into the Employment zone district rather than
the LMN zone district as proposed by the applicant. The reason behind that is that we
are still at a net loss of Employment land not only within Mountain Vista, but also within
the city as a whole. With this proposal, we are about a 60 acre net loss, whereas before
we were at a 90 acre net loss. We are making up some ground, but we are still not
quite there yet.
Again, staffs proposal is that we continue to work through the amended Mountain Vista
Plan, continue to work with Anheuser Busch to transfer the Employment designation on
the Trailhead site up further north within the land owned by Anheuser Busch, more
compatible with Anheuser Busch and has better access to 1-25, via the Mountain Vista
interchange.
Member Lingle asked about the approval of this on February 19, 2004, would the Board
have to rescind that?
Planner Barkeen replied that technically, this is a brand new application. They have
refilled their annexation petition, map and paid the applicable fee for that. The action
the Board took previously is still out there, but hopefully this will override or supercede
that previous action.
Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates was here tonight representing Vista Ventures, the
applicant on the Trailhead property. She appreciated the opportunity to bring the item
before the Board again to once again clarify information because it is such a complex
issue, specifically what has changed since the last time they were here.
In the way of background, she wanted to reiterate that her client and herself started
working on this project two and a half years ago. She knows that the Planning and
Zoning Board is concerned about time, but they have been very patient in two and a half
years to get the zoning, all the while having a lot of support from the staff, because
eventually, they would like to see this property zoned LMN as well. What they were
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 9
talking about was whether they could move forward with that or whether they need to
wait until the Mountain Vista Plan is completed.
Originally, their reasoning for wanting to change the zoning was because there were
changed conditions in the area. There is no interchange being planned at East Vine
Drive any longer, there is no Vine Drive truck route and there are no railroads for
opportunities at the Trailhead location. All three of these were strong reasons why this
would have been an ideal Employment zoned property, but those conditions no longer
exist. Now it is just a property that has that designation, but perhaps would not if it were
being done today. They thought they had a strong case to move forward with
suggesting rezoning. Staff has been wonderful in working through all the issues with
them. There is a whole litany of reasons why LMN makes sense at this location:
• It is an attractive location because it is adjacent to Waterglen.
• It is an opportunity to build entry level affordable housing. Habitat for Humanity
has built several homes in Waterglen. There are no more for them to build.
They are very anxious for the Trailhead property to move forward so they can
build homes in a new project.
• Waterglen would become less isolated as a community.
• The property to the south of Trailhead is designated LMN already.
• If the property were rezoned to LMN, it would put housing close to employment
opportunities as well as shopping opportunities.
• The housing in this location would support the employment potential that will
exist further north.
• Open space and raw water are there for irrigation of this development, as well as
the green space associated with it.
• Greenfield Drive would be extended north and it is another opportunity to help
that area further north to become more accessible so that employment uses will
become attractive for employers that want to move to Fort Collins.
• It is an opportunity to establish a below grade crossing for the bike trail. That
opportunity may come again, but it is right here on the table now with this
Trailhead development if they can just move forward.
• In the end, this is what everyone agreed, that LMN makes a lot of sense in this
location.
The changed circumstance since they were here last really had to do with the fact that
staff has continued to be gracious enough to work with them to try and move this
forward. They are still not able to have all the issues resolved with Anheuser Busch, but
one of the big issues has to do with storm drainage. The Storm Drainage Department
worked with her client and with her clients efforts and help, did some investigations in
order to determine whether or not utilizing the area to the north as stormwater detention
could help relieve flooding further north, land that is more accessible for employment
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 10
uses. That has occurred; not only has the applicant offered to sell this property to the
city at half of its appraised value, but he will also dig the detention pond for the city.
That makes a double savings for the city if this could be allowed to move forward. It is
also a benefit to her client because he will be taking that dirt and moving it down to the
southern part of the Trailhead project in areas where he needs the fill. Irregardless if it
is a benefit to her client, it is also a benefit to the city. It is just one of those situations
where it is a "win win" for both and she thinks that the Board should consider that in
their decision tonight.
Ms. Ripley showed a detailed drawing showing the area of the detention pond that
would be created in order to resolve some of the flooding further to the north. In
summary, conditions have changed since this property was initially designated to be
zoned Employment. More recently, more progress has been made in moving the
Mountain Vista Plan forward and alleviating some of the stormwater concerns. They
would happy to be patient and wait until all the remaining issues in the Mountain Vista
Plan were completed, but months and months go by and there is no indication that it is
going to be rapped up in three months or more. In the meantime there are some real
community benefits that she believes the city could gain by allowing the Trailhead
portion to move forward.
• First the city would gain a project that would provide housing for families at the
affordable end of the market.
• The Trailhead development would benefit that the local economy immediately
versus needing a very long time for an employment use that may never
materialize. It is just not an attractive location now and no one knows how long
would take before it might be.
• Greenfield Drive would be extended north providing additional access for
Employment zoned properties further north.
• The city gains an opportunity to get a trail easement.
• The city would acquire a regional detention facility at a substantial savings and
move forward with resolving the Anheuser Busch stormwater issues.
For all of those reasons, they were asking the Board once again tonight to consider
recommending to the City Council that this portion of the Trailhead development be
zoned LMN rather than E.
PUBLIC INPUT
Colin Deal, with the law firm of Fadry (?) and Benson in Denver spoke to the Board or
behalf of Anheuser Busch. Mr. Deal stated that they received notice this morning that
this was going to be on the agenda again today and he really did not know what was
going to be proposed until he just listened to it. He stated that their concern was with
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 11
the representations that have been made regarding acreages for stormwater. They are
in detailed discussions with the city Stormwater Department right now over how to
design a stormwater system for this drainage. It is a very complicated issue. He is not
a stormwater engineer, but he has learned more about it that he cares to know. He
would say that there is a lot of water coming down this drainage and that water has to
be dealt with. The acreage figures that are being thrown around, he did not think that
anyone knows whether those acreage figures are accurate and where they are actually
going to have to put detention ponds in order to fix this problem. Anheuser Busch's
comment on this would be that the cart is being put before the horse. We really need to
figure out where we are going to put all this water and where it is going to go. He did
not think that anyone knows the answer to those acreage figures right now. He did not
think that anyone know that answer whether the water crosses the railroad to the east
side or stays on the west side of the railroad. All those things are still in discussion and
until those are worked out, he did not think they could make assumptions about
detention ponds and where stormwater is going to be placed on any of this property.
Other than that, Anheuser Busch really does not have any objections to zoning requests
by this applicant. They were concerned that the Board make decisions based on
incomplete information about how much stormwater detention will be needed both on
Anheuser Busch's property up in the county and also other properties in the vicinity.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Chairperson Torgerson asked if it would be appropriate to look at the Transition District
for a property like this so an applicant could proceed as a city project, but request a
zoning further down the road when the subarea plan might be finished.
Planner Barkeen replied that the Transition zone could be an option on this property, it
is considered a holding zone until such time, as in this case, an area plan is completed
and then rezoned appropriately. He thought the concern the Board was hearing from
the applicant was that that was just as useless as the Employment or any zoning at all.
Director Gloss responded also that since this application was already initiated and was
going towards first reading of the ordinance at Council, we accepted a development
plan and they paid their fees for the city to start their reviews of the PDP, so that action
is already started. The city will accept an application after the annexation has gone
through an initiating resolution. If an applicant would like to spend the money with no
assurances that an annexation would occur and an annexation does not occur,
obviously we don't take action and they will have spent those fees with nothing to show
for it.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 12
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend approval of the Trailhead annexation
and zoning, #43-02 with initial zoning to E, Employment zoning district and deny
the request to amend the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan.
Member Craig seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter would not be supporting the motion. As she said the last time this
came before them, LMN is a reasonable and good use of this land. She did not have a
problem with the Employment because tonight they just took 156 acres out of
Employment into Public Open Lands on the consent agenda. She thinks that this
citizen has been in the mist of this for a long time and she did not see any reason not to
make this LMN. She would not be supporting the motion for employment.
Chairperson Torgerson would also not support the motion. He concurred with Member
Carpenter and also felt that it was worth noting that this is one of the few opportunities
for affordable housing that we have seen for some time.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Carpenter and Torgerson voting in
the negative
Project: Atrium Suites, 502 West laurel Street Request for
Modification of Standard.
Project Description: Request for a Modification of Standard for a pending
PDP known as Atrium Suites at 502 West Laurel
Street. The standard at issue is Section 4.8(D)(1)
which pertains to density and minimum lot area. The
applicant is requesting that the proposed building
square footage exceed the lot size by 2,041 square
feet. The site is located at the northwest corner of
West Laurel Street and Sherwood Street. The site
presently contains a large residential structure that
was formerly a sorority and now houses two programs
of the Larimer County Corrections Department. The
site is 19,221 square feet in size and zoned NCB,
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer.
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Don Brookshire, 3207 Kittery Court, Fort Collins representing the applicant gave a
presentation to the Board. He stated since the Board received their packets, the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 13
number of units had decreased from 28 to 24. There will be 20 two -bedroom units and
4 three -bedroom units in the project. Mr. Brookshire gave a slide presentation showing
the site that is currently being operated by Larimer County Community Corrections.
They estimate that there is 104 residents in the group home in addition to employees
and officers that are the 24 hours a day. Currently the site has 18 parking spaces along
the back. The new project is proposing 48 to 52 people living on site with 28 on site
parking and the remaining parking located on an adjacent site.
The modification mentioned is for the density in the zoning portion of the NCB zoning
district where the lot is 19,110 s.f. and therefore the building would need to be 19,110
s.f. What they are proposing is for an additional 2,041 to the building. This difference in
area would be added to the courtyard space in the design of the project. He showed a
diagram of what the footprint of the building looked like that meets the standard and a
diagram of what the building would look like with the additional living space and
reduction in the courtyard space that they are proposing with this modification. The
diagram demonstrates what that difference is in total square footage. it will be spread
over two levels, so approximately 1,000 s.f. on each level. The overall difference
physically, is 7 feet in the courtyard.
Mr. Brookshire stated that they feel the project meets many of the various city plans and
the solution is equal to or better than what the code states. Through the West Side
Neighborhood Plan, this is the type of project that was envisioned for this area as a
transition and buffer zone between the university campus and the neighborhoods to the
north. All along Laurel Street there are commercial, sorority and multi -family uses in
existence. The difference in the overall perception of the building with the modification
does not change at all because the additional square footage is actually taken up on the
interior of the courtyard. The building also provides many design features with new
urbanism principles, including addressing the street having the front doors and main
entry coming out to Laurel Street; in addition to screening the parking area, under the
building and behind the main portions of the building.
The design with the courtyard feature allows the project and the individual units to have
both windows on the interior of the courtyard with their entry doors as well as exterior
windows to the outside of the project so the units are able to get light from both sides.
The additional area they are asking for in the building is a result of the units having
more livable area. The extra square footage is really a benefit to the residents who will
live in the Atrium Suites. Mr. Brookshire also gave other elements of City Plan that this
projects meets.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 14
Member Craig asked about the courtyard and what exactly was it
Mr. Brookshire provided a diagram of the courtyard. He stated that the courtyard is
open air all the way from the second floor to the third floor.
Member Craig stated that all she saw was a gap, and to her that meant that it is
separated and is not solid. Can the people on the third floor walk across the courtyard?
Mr. Brookshire replied that it is a "donut' shape and they can walk the perimeter and
they can walk from their unit to stairs.
Member Craig was concerned in decreasing each side by 3 feet that the "students"
would try and jump from one side to the other.
Mr. Brookshire replied that distance was 20 feet and he doubted that they would try and
jump 20 feet.
Chairperson Torgerson asked how wide the walkway was.
Mr. Brookshire replied that it was approximately 3 and one-half feet.
Member Lingle asked for the applicants justification was for how the Board would
determine a small courtyard is equal to or better than a larger courtyard because a
smaller courtyard would have less air and light and less privacy. He was having a hard
time understanding how that could be equal to or better than a larger courtyard.
Mr. Brookshire replied that the courtyard design will still allow light to come into that
space. One benefit of a smaller courtyard is that you will not get as much direct sunlight
hitting the walls, but you still will get the natural light. The space that you do gain in
return for that smaller outside space is the living and study areas which become of more
importance. The development team has felt that those are very important things for the
students to have and that is where the emphasis has been placed.
Member Schmidt stated that the modification is actually for allowing a larger building,
more square footage on this lot. It is being done by making the apartments bigger and
the courtyards smaller. She thought that the Board could use the idea that the living
spaces are going to be larger in part of deciding whether this modification is a good
thing. By making the apartments larger that is what is increasing the square footage
and that is what the modification is being approved for.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 15
Member Lingle stated that the point he was making was that they would not normally
see floor plans as a part of a submittal and whether a bedroom is 12 feet wide or 15 feet
wide doesn't normally come into plan in what the Board is charged to review.
Chairperson Torgerson felt in order to make that a relevant point, that would have to
play into why this is equal to or better than the compliance with the standard and this
particular standard doesn't really deal with interior spaces or bedrooms.
Member Carpenter asked what would be on the ground in that courtyard.
Mr. Brookshire replied that it is not detailed at this point in time, the discussion has been
to provide glass blocks so that light can filter down into the parking area. There would
be the opportunity for planters with trees, greens and softer materials on the ground
floor so it would serve as a courtyard.
Member Carpenter asked if the change in the two sizes of courtyards would change
anything below.
Mr. Brookshire replied no, there is still sufficient space. There is still the 22 feet
between the two buildings on their proposal using the additional square footage. That
supplies ample space for light and plants to grow in potted areas.
Member Schmidt asked it this courtyard would be a place to congregate for the
students.
Mr. Brookshire replied yes, on the second floor. One of the things they are trying to
achieve is there is a walkway on the third floor so that light can penetrate down clear
through and we get the glass block to the garage. On the second floor, for code
reasons, for fire protection, it will have to be closed off from the parking below, but it
also provides a place for planters and benches; yes, there could be congregation.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if they were making the argument that their plan is equal
to not better than.
Mr. Brookshire replied equal to and better than because the tenants receive the benefit
of the courtyard and the better units.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that when he looks at that section of the code it seems to
him that those who drafted the code did not want to see too much program forced on a
site and therefore limited the FAR on the site.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 16
Planner Shepard replied it was interesting to him about this zoned is that it is not a City
Plan zone, it is a Westside Neighborhood Plan zone. The Westside Neighborhood Plan
was a very delicate balance to try to preserve the characteristics that were the best
about the neighborhood and yet allow for some redevelopment for some areas where
they thought the neighborhood would need some improvement. Not to have the Laurel
Street shopping area encroach too far west, not to have single family come down to
Laurel Street and not to have too much multi -family go down to Mulberry Street. It is a
real delicate balance and there is a lot of stuff in there about design and he felt that this
project just "nailed" it. He thought that since the way the project is perceived by the
public streets and sidewalks would be "equal to" a plan that would have met the
standards. It is not a City Plan purpose, it is a West Side Neighborhood Plan purpose.
Member Gavaldon asked if the building complies with ADA requirements
Mr. Brookshire replied that the building meets those requirements by providing units on
the ground floor.
Member Gavaldon asked to see sight shots of the surrounding buildings in the area.
Planner Shepard reviewed that site shots for the Board.
Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Modification request for Atrium
Suites based on the fact that it is not detrimental to the public good, that it is
equal to the standard as it stands and she also believes it is better than because
it provides better housing what would normally be offered.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
Member Lingle would not be supporting the motion. He has no argument with the
project itself, but could not support the modification because there was no way he could
see that it as equal to. The FAR's as well as set back requirements are based on
provision of light, air, ventilation and privacy and constricting the courtyard will only cut
down on those things and not enhance it. He did not see that as equal to.
Chairperson Torgerson concurred with Member Lingle. It was difficult to say
numerically that increasing the FAR is better that keeping the FAR the way it is. It
clearly creates a relatively constrained courtyard where it is only going to be about 12
feet from balcony to balcony and reduces the amount and quality of light.
Member Carpenter stated that the reason she is supporting the modification is that while
you have less light and air and that is meant to be for peoples comfort. When looking at
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 17
the floorplans you do actually have more comfort for people and still achieve the same
result of having the light and air.
The motion was approved 4-3 with Members Craig, Lingle and Torgerson voting
in the negative.
Project: Recommendation to City Council for Citywide
Floodplain Regulations (except for the Poudre River)
Project Description: Provide a formal recommendation to City Council and
with that recommendation comments the Board feels
is appropriate.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Bob Smith, Stormwater Director gave the staff presentation. He stated that they were
talking about all the floodplains within the city except the Poudre River. Staff has been
working on this for two years and has talked to the Board a number of times in study
session. They are going to City Council on June 15t" and they are looking for a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board in addition to any comments.
He stated that the floodplain is broken up into components. There is the center, which
is the floodway and that is the area with the higher velocity and depths. There is the
fringe area on the side, where the depths are lower and the flows are slower and that is
development is allowed. There is a floodway that is a 6" rise; basically you encroach
from side, the water moves to the center and that is where you get your floodway.
Something new that will be part of the code which will be the buffers. Streams will
naturally meander and what they have done through the Master Plan, which the Board
recommended approval of last month, identifies the erosion buffer limits to keep
encroachments high enough so when that stream does move, we don't have to worry
about reinforcing that bank. That is in place and the buffer limits are always from the
top of the bank back, it is not from the center of the streams. It varies across depending
on what stream you are talking about.
Chairperson Torgerson asked if that would apply to canals as well.
Mr. Smith replied no not canals, just natural streams.
One other component of the recommendations if that we have FEMA designated
floodplains and city floodplains. Staff is recommending that we stay at or better than the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 18
FEMA floodplains with the FEMA regulations. There are a couple of recommendations
to be less than in the city floodplains.
Mr. Smith reviewed a map that showed the areas and their designations. He explained
what the designations mean and what sort if any development would be allowed.
There was no public input.
Member Craig wanted to discuss the regulations that are below the FEMA minimum.
Usually FEMA is very lenient and Fort Collins tends to be more conservative. She
asked because there are only three why does FEMA have it the way they do and why
the city is considering going below their standards.
Mr. Smith replied that the first one is being responsive to the customers, the timing of
where a capital project is, which is basically the Utilities Service Director could waive the
regulations for a structure if the project is under construction. That is a judgment where
you look at the project and the map may not have been changed yet, but staff knows
that the property is going to be removed so the Director can waive the regulations.
FEMA basically says that you can't waive anything until the maps are officially revised
and that takes quite a long time to get the letter from Washington. That basically allows
some flexibility in the city floodplains to do that.
Mr. Smith added that they can't change anything for the FEMA floodplains, the city has
to follow their regulations, this is just for the city floodplains like Canal or Old Town or
West Vine or Fossil Creek.
Member Craig was trying to understand why FEMA has left it that way.
Jim Hibbard, Stormwater Utility responded that the FEMA regulations are really
nationwide regulations and they have to be able to cover properties along the
Mississippi River as well as anywhere where there is a floodplain. What we are dealing
with in Fort Collins is a lot of these floodplains are urban floodplains, not that there
aren't FEMA floodplains that aren't urban, but we have gone below them in these three
cases primarily to balance risk with regulation. They don't think that the risk is there that
justifies that strict of a FEMA regulation for the type of things that we see in Fort Collins.
What we are trying to do is take a more common sense approach that adapts them to
us than going by nationwide minimums. If a project is under construction or even
completed and all we are doing is waiting for paperwork to clear FEMA, so some of the
things we are talking about is more common sense based approach because the
structure is in place or will very shortly be in place.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 19
Member Craig asked about FEMA insurance and if FEMA has not taken that property
out of the floodplain, then the owner still has to pay flood insurance on it.
Mr. Smith replied that yes, FEMA goes with what the map shows and if the map has not
been changed, then they are required to meet the requirements of the flood insurance
program.
Member Lingle stated that the majority of the Council was in favor of moving from a
class 4 to a class 5, would that jeopardize the city's ability in the future to get grant
money by lessoning the restrictions and dropping the rating.
Mr. Smith replied that CRS is a relatively new program and it is becoming established
nationwide and FEMA is starting to review applications for grants and one of the
parameters that they are starting to use is CRS rating where they want to reward the
"higher class" communities. Is there a difference between a class 4 and a class 5, he
could not say. Is that a deal breaker or not, he could not tell the Board, but we did learn
with the last go round is that the higher the class, the more favorable the application is
looked at. As far as a benefit cost ratio, they have not done that. He was not sure how
many applications the city will pursue.
Mr. Hibbard added that as a class 4, there is only one community in the entire nation
that is higher that the city. As a class 5, there is a dozen, so it is not like we are going to
be dropping from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap. We will still be in with
the leaders on a nationwide basis. We are also participating in some new grant
programs and are actively pursuing grants. Some of them come with so many strings,
we are not sure we want them and that is a hard fact of dealing with the Federal
Government anymore.
Member Craig moved to recommend the Citywide Floodplain Regulations as staff
has presented them tonight.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Member Craig strongly commended staff for how they put this together. This is a very
complicated issue when you get into the regulations and they have worked with the
Board since summer. The table with the different colors and the way the staff report
was put together was wonderful and she thanked staff. She wanted to pass onto
Council the time and effort that was put into these regulations.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 15, 2004
Page 20
Member Carpenter agreed and when this first came to them she was concerned that we
were adding more regulations and she was really pleased to see what we were doing is
making some common sense changes and in some places a little more regulation
where it was needed.
Member Schmidt seconded those comments and felt the presentation was easy to
understand and especially the way the changes that were made were highlighted.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Meyer and Gavaldon voting in the
negative.
There was no other business.
Director Gloss let the Board know that the next worksession would be a lengthy one
because of the length of the agenda and also some special projects that the Board had
asked to be covered. Two are items are related to the Land Use Code Amendments,
one specifically for the Natural Habitat Buffer Standards. Also the Southwest Enclave
Annexation is being contemplated and has a lot of background information. Given that
he would like to dedicate 4 hours to the worksession.
Member Gavaldon expressed his concerns regarding one worksession and one meeting
a month.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning and Zoning Board 6/20/04