HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/19/2002Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron G
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7431
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Meyer, Colton, Carpenter, Torgerson, Craig, Bernth, and
Gavaldon.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Barkeen, Stringer, Moore,
Schlueter, and Dairies.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and
Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the September 19, October 17 (CONTINUED), and
November 4 (CONTINUED), 2002 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearings.
Recommendations to City Council:
2. #36-02 First Free Will Baptist Church, Annexation and Zoning.
3. #20-00 State Highway 14, East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning.
4. #50-02 CSU South Dormitory Rezoning.
Discussion Agenda:
The Planning and Zoning Board are the final authority on the following
items:
S. #46-02 Modification of Standards — In -Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln
Avenue.
6. #20-02A Modification of Standard — Garth Commercial Plaza.
7. #42-02 Major Amendment and Modification of Standard — 419 West
Mountain Avenue.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson declared a conflict on Item #2, First Free Will
Baptist Church, Annexation and Zoning.
Member Craig asked to pull Item #3, State Highway 14, East Frontage Road
Annexation and Zoning, to discussion.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved for approval of Consent Item #1, less
the October 17 and November 4, 2002 minutes, and Consent Item #4.
Member Colton seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 2
Member Carpenter moved for approval of Consent Item #2. Member Bernth
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with Vice -Chairperson
Torgerson abstaining from the vote.
Project: State Highway 14 — East Frontage Road
Annexation and Zoning
Project Description: Request to annex and zone a 47.15 acre
parcel. The site is located on the east side of
the 1-25 East Frontage Road approximately
one -quarter mile south of State Highway 14
(East Mulberry Street). The recommended
zoning is LMN, Low Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Chief Planner Ted Shepard gave the staff presentation, recommending approval
He stated that the property is 47 acres located on the east side of 1-25, south of
Mulberry Street. The recommended zoning is LMN, which is the indication from
the final draft of the 1-25 Sub -Area Plan which will be fully adopted in the spring.
Member Craig asked why City Council had continued the initiating resolution of
this item from its last agenda.
Planner Shepard replied that it was pulled from the City Council agenda because
the smoking ordinance was also on the agenda and this item was on consent as
all initiating resolutions are. One council member had a question about
annexation policy in general and staff was unable to find out the nature of the
question because he wanted to reserve it for public discussion. A pulled consent
item is not heard until last on the agenda and with the smoking ordinance, it
would not have been heard until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning. Planner Shepard
recommended that it be moved to January 7th where it would be scheduled for
discussion.
Les Kaplan, Imago Enterprises, gave the applicant's presentation. He stated that
the Structure Plan calls for E — Employment and POL — Public Open Lands
zoning for the site. Mr. Kaplan stated that the proposed LMN zoning for the
property and the voluntary setting aside of the FEMA Floodplain area and more
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 3
property for open lands is 100% consistent with the public interest vision of both
the 1-25 Regional Plan and 1-25 Sub -Area Plan. Mr. Kaplan also noted that the
LMN zone district is the zone district with the lowest density that still allows for
affordable housing opportunities.
Public Input
Steve Pfister, 531 Del Clair, has been very involved with the 1-25 Corridor for the
past three years. He felt that the proposed LMN zoning was very consistent with the
meetings and hearings that he attended during the three year time period. He has
also been involved with the Sunflower project, just immediately north of this
property, for the past four years as it has gone through the County approval process.
There is just a little under 200 units, which is about 5 units per acre. The Clydesdale
project is 225 units, which is also high density. Just north of Highway 14, there is
the Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park, which has about 400 units and is very high
density. There is already existing high densities in four different projects north of this
property. The intersection of 1-25 and Prospect has been identified as an activity
center that would provide the housing areas with shopping and services. To provide
affordable housing, we need higher density and this project would have a mix of
housing with an affordable housing component.
Jim Mokler, 4424 East Mulberry stated that he is the developer of the Interchange
Business Park, which is immediately north of this site. He is also lives across the
street from this project on Mulberry. It is his understanding that City Plan, with the
LMN zoning encourages having employment centers next to the LMN zoning. What
they are building at Interchange Business Park is in fact an employment center,
which creates many jobs in the area. They would be happy to have additional
housing in the area that would afford people to be able to walk or ride their bike to
go to work. As part of their development plan, they dedicated a trail easement that
wraps around the east and south part of their property and immediately adjoins this
site that is being talked about tonight. He believes that the LMN zoning is consistent
with what City Plan says and he is in full support of the annexation with LMN zoning.
Public Input Closed
Member Colton agreed that we should annex this property, but he has concerns
about having it LMN as opposed to Urban Estate. He thinks that this property could
become a much higher density that the other three neighborhoods next to it. He
thought this could become anywhere from 5 to 10 units per acre. He did not think
that this is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods in the area. On the 1-25
Sub Area Plan, which the Board has not seen in almost a year, the Board has not
heard what Council's comments are. All he knows is that they have asked for a soft
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 4
edge, and that we don't want a lot of housing on the east side of 1-25, we don't want
mixed -use activity centers over there, because that is not the option that Council has
been given direction on. He thought that the draft plan that Council has is going a
long way in the direction, but he thought there was a possibility that if Council had
more discussion, that Council would say that this should be Urban Estate and not
LMN. He felt that the 1-25 Sub Area Plan needs another round of review, and he is
not hanging his hat on that document. He is looking at the surrounding properties
and seeing that this could potentially be a much higher density and it would be
density on the east side of 1-25, where he had heard Council at a worksession or
two say that they really don't want that mixed -use higher density east of 1-25. That is
why he would not be supporting this, because he does not think that there will be
any parks, little neighborhood commercial centers, it would be driving into town and
he feels it is an inappropriate place to put high density.
Member Craig concurred with Member Colton and would not be supporting the
change of the Structure Map to LMN. When she remembers when the Board
reviewed the 1-25 Sub Area Plan in January of 2002, it specifically showed this piece
of property as Urban Estate. Then in July, the draft showed it as LMN. She did not
feel, as a Board, that they discussed any of these changes, and she does not know
how these changes came about. She does have a draft that does shows this
property as Urban Estate at one time, and she does agree that it should be part of
the feathering that goes into the existing development that is out there under Larimer
County as well as some of the development that is less dense than Urban Estate,
which is adjacent to and just south of this property, along with the Industrial. We
have put Urban Estate as a buffer to some of the County development. She feels
that Urban Estate is more appropriate.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved for approval of the Structure Plan Map
Amendment for the State Highway 14, East Frontage Road Annexation and
Zoning.
Member Carpenter seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the
negative.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the annexation of the State Highway 14,
East Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning based on the findings of fact and
conclusions on page 7 of the staff report, specifically items A and B and that
an Open Space Agreement needs to be in place by the February 18, 2003 City
Council Hearing.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 5
The motion was approved 7-0.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson moved for approval of the requested zoning of
LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood for the State Highway 14, East
Frontage Road Annexation and Zoning.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Colton and Craig voting in the
negative.
Project: Modification of Standards, In -Situ, Inc., 105
East Lincoln Avenue
Project Description: Request for a modification of two standards,
Secion 3.4.1(E)(2) Buffer Zone Performance
Standards and Section 4.16 (D)(3)(a)(3) and
Buildings — Frequent Views/Access. The
proposed structure encroaches into the Poudre
River buffer zone more than the allowable
20%.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
THIS PROJECT WAS APPEALED. A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT /S
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Held Friday, December 19, 2002
At City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the matter of In -Situ Modification of Standards
Commission members present:
Jerry Gavaldon, Chair
Glen Colton
Sally Craig
Dan Bernth
Judy Meyer
Mikal Torgerson
Jennifer Carpenter
Staff present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
II
2
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: We're going to move to the
2 discussion agenda. We'll take a break after we do the
3 modification of standard of In -Situ Incorporated at 105 East
4 Lincoln Avenue. Is that okay with the board or do we need
5 to take an earlier break? Okay.
6 And it's Ted. Thank you, Ted. Very good work on
7 the past one.
8 MR. SHEPARD: Okay. On this next item I'll read
9 the introduction first and then I'll go to some of the
10 slides. But I also want to tell you that in response to the
11 work session, I went out and took more slides from the bike
12 trail. So I know that we had a pretty heavy work session
13 item last time, so I've got a lot of information for you.
14 This is a request for a modification of two
15 standards. Section 3.4.1. E(2), which is the Buffer Zone
16 Performance Standards, and Section 4.16 D(3) A(3), which
17 refers to buildings, frequent views and access.
18 The proposed structure and parking lot encroaches
19 into the Poudre River buffer zone by more than the allowable
20 20 percent. The length of the structure parallel to the
21 Poudre River exceeds the maximum of 125 feet.
22 The site is approximately 4 acres in size and
23 located at 105 East Lincoln. This is on the south side of
24 Lincoln across from the Buckingham subdivision between
25 what's known as Alliance Construction and Team Petroleum.
91
1 The site is directly north of the Poudre River
2 trail, which is directly north of the Poudre River. The
3 site is zoned CCR, Community/Commercial/Poudre River.
4 Staff is recommending approval. I'll remind the
5 board that this is what we call a standalone modification
6 and that based on direction that we had with the board, that
7 we tend to bring to you at this time what's referred to as a
8 preliminary plan, which is a horizontal layout of a plan as
9 opposed a fully civil -engineered document that we would give
10 with the PDP.
11 So I just want to show you some of the aerial
12 photographs that we've got in here because it will help us
13 with our discussion. Now these -- slow, slow.
14 Go back two.
15 Go forward one.
16 This will be the site plan that the applicant
17 will talk about. And the arch line in this line reflects a
18 300-foot buffer. They'll go into this in more detail.
19 This reflects the 20 percent reduction, that's
20 240 foot, but I'll leave most of that to the applicant's
21 discussion.
22 This is the preliminary plan and, again, I'll
23 leave most of that to the applicant.
24 And this is a demonstration of what it would look
25 like if the building were perpendicular instead of parallel.
4
1 This would achieve the 125-foot parallel access.
2 Now these are the aerial photographs. These are
3 from the Downtown Strategic Plan that we also had presented
4 to us last Friday as well.
5 This site is located right there. And this is
6 Lincoln Greens. This is the Poudre River. This would be
7 Alliance Construction. This is Team Petroleum. This is
8 Ranchway Feeds, used to be Miller Brothers Trucking.
9 Lincoln is to the north. That's the Buckingham
10 neighborhood. The Buckingham park. Mulberry. Lemay over
11 in this area.
12 And the preliminary boundary is the study for the
13 Downtown Strategic Plan, more of a land use kind of graphic
14 that was prepared for the Downtown Strategic Plan. This
15 gives us a little closer view.
16 The site is located right here; it's this square.
17 You can see its proximity to the Poudre River. This is the
18 Udall open space.
19 This is yet another aerial photograph. You can
20 see the relationship to the residential neighborhood. The
21 Udall open space. The Poudre River. The trail runs along
22 the Poudre River and the proximity to Lincoln Greens.
23 I'll skip through this next eight because I think
24 these will be more of the applicant's presentation. And
25 we've got some slides at the end of this that I just want to
5
1 point
out to you. Again
because of the work session, we
2 didn't
have a whole lot
of time.
3
The next two
slides are from the Ecological
4 Characterization
Study.
I think the ones that were in your
5 packet
came out a little
dark.
6 These were taken in August or September of this
7 year when there were still a lot of trailers out there. The
8 image that's shown here just demonstrates that the former
9 use used to be sort of a salvage yard and that the ground
10 area is pretty compacted and rather denuded of vegetation.
11 You've got a copy of that Ecological Characterization Study
12 in your packet.
13 Same view.
14 This is a view looking to the south and to the
15 west. Beyond the tree line is the Poudre River. Beyond
16 that is the Udall open space, which is now the storm water
17 detention and filtration ponds for the east side outflow
18 project.
19 The present site is storing an old house.
20 This is a closer view towards the back of the
21 property looking towards the river.
22 This is looking more directly south from that
23 same area.
24 Directly south again.
25 This is looking back to the west slightly north
1 along Lincoln. And that's Ranchway Feeds in the background.
2 That's the sign for Team Petroleum. Lincoln
3 Street is in the foreground.
4 This is a shot taken out on the railroad
5 embankment looking back toward the northeast.
6 This is a newly -constructed water filter pond for
7 the Stonewall Water Project.
8 The Poudre River then lies beyond that. The
9 trail and then the site is beyond the tree line.
10 We didn't have these slides at the work session
11 and one of the members wanted to know what's it like from
12 the trail so these next series of slides are taken along the
13 trail. I'm sure you've all been along it so we'll just kind
14 of zip through these.
15 And so you can see, I'm sure it's familiar to you
16 now, that it's right next to Lincoln Greens right before you
17 get to the Lincoln Bridge, north side of the trail.
18 And with that, I think I'll just have Doug get us
19 back to where the applicant wants their images to begin.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Should we just let the
21 applicant go and then go to public input, that way we can
22 save some time and be more efficient?
23 Linda, welcome, good to see you back again.
24 Welcome, Linda. It's good to see you again.
25 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you, Chairman Gavaldon. And
7
1 members of the board it's good to be here again.
2 I'd like to start by kind of introducing members
3 of our team so far. Right now I'm here tonight, Linda
4 Ripley, for anybody who doesn't know me. I'm a planner and
5 landscape architect with the Everitt Lee Associates.
6 I'm here tonight representing Chris and Craig
7 McKee, owners of In -Situ, Inc. They're with me here in the
8 audience tonight and later on Chris will speak to you and
9 tell you a little bit more about his company. I'm just
10 going to cover that very briefly.
11 Also with me tonight are members of our project
12 team that were needed to get this far into this process. We
13 have selected an architect. The architect for this project
14 will be Neenan Company, probably as well as being the
15 builders of the project. So some of the preliminary
16 architecture we've been working with them.
17 And we've also worked with Mike Fallen of Cedar
18 Creek Associates to do the initial Ecological
19 Characterization Study that was needed to get us this far.
20 Chris and Craig came to see me back in September.
21 They have a business that basically they assemble, produce,
22 sell products and technology that is environmentally
23 oriented. They assemble products and sell products that are
24 used to help environmentalists monitor the environment,
25 particularly water resources. So the very nature of their
e
1 company is very environmentally oriented.
2 Most of the people, cities, whatnot, that use
3 their products are doing it to monitor the health of natural
4 resources.
5 Right now they're located in Laramie, Wyoming.
6 They have got 65 employees and they're looking to move their
7 business and they have come to Fort Collins to look.
8 They haven't necessarily decided to locate their
9 business in Fort Collins, but when they were evaluating
10 sites in Fort Collins, they hit on this site. And they were
11 very attracted to it ironically because it is very close to
12 a natural environment because it is on the Poudre River.
13 That appeals to them because it would give them
14 an opportunity to actually utilize their water monitoring
15 equipment. Actually as part of this process they have
16 actually offered that monitoring as something they can
17 provide to the city. It is a way to monitor the quality of
18 water in the Poudre River if they ever located there.
19 So, anyway, the fact that it is a natural
20 environment was a big plus for them. They like the idea of
21 being close to a river because it's so tied with what they
22 do and what they are about as a company.
23 They also like the idea that it's very close to
24 Old Town. And as such, being right on the Poudre trail,
25 they could encourage their employees to ride their bikes or
0
1 walk not only to Old Town for lunch but since that trail
2 connects to a wider community trail system, to also commute
3 to work that way.
4 So those were some of the reasons why they like
5 the idea of this particular site. They wanted to move from
6 Laramie to get a little more closer to vendors that they do
7 business with on a regular basis. So we started looking at
8 programming what they needed in terms of their business.
9 What they want to do is build a facility that's
10 about 25,000 square feet initially. However, they
11 anticipate that the demand for environmental monitoring is
12 going to grow and they want to grow with that demand. So
13 they want to find a site where they can expand in the
14 future.
15 The expansion that they have in mind is just to
16 get to about a little over 40,000 square feet eventually.
17 So they want to find a site that will allow them to do that.
18 So we began putting their needs on this site,
19 that large of a building, and the parking that would
20 facilitate that. And we discovered right away that it
21 doesn't -- it doesn't fit if we have to provide a 300-foot
22 buffer from the Poudre River.
23 The Land Use Code provides a chart in the code
24 for various natural resources that the city wants to
25 protect. Provides a chart that states how large a buffer
10
1 should be provided. In this particular area along the
2 Poudre River, the chart says a 300-foot buffer is kind of
3 the starting point for discussion.
4 I think that's a fair way of stating it, because
5 the code allows -- automatically allows that buffer to vary
6 in width and even allows a 20 percent reduction in that
7 buffer. But if you go beyond a 20 percent reduction in the
8 buffer, the requirement is that we come before the board
9 and look at that a little more closely. But it clearly
10 gives the board -- empowers the board to provide or to
11 approve a smaller buffer if the applicant can meet the test
12 of providing a plan that's equal to or better than a plan
13 that would meet the code. And I think we can demonstrate to
14 you tonight that we can do that.
15 So one modification that we're requesting is a
16 reduction in that 300-foot buffer.
17 And then the second modification is to a standard
18 that's actually in the zoning district itself, so it's
19 specific to this area along the Poudre River. In terms of
20 building mass and placement, it says that the building in
21 its access that's parallel to the river can be no more than
22 125 feet wide.
23 I had never seen this particular standard before
24 because I'd worked in this particular zoning district, but I
25 didn't understand it. And I had to ask staff people to
11
1 explain what the purpose of it was. And as I talked to
2 different staff people, I actually got different answers.
3 It was a little bit unclear.
4 It has to do with views, but it's unclear whether
5 we're trying to protect views of people driving down Lincoln
6 Avenue to the Poudre River corridor or whether we're
7 worried about views of people on the trail along the river
8 being able to have more open space. I don't know.
9 The building apparently is supposed to be
10 narrower so that we have gaps along this area, but there's
11 this hard and fast 125 feet. So supposedly even if we had
12 10 acres, our building still couldn't be wider than 125
13 feet.
14 I thought it was an odd standard, and I would
15 just, as an aside, encourage staff and board to look at that
16 a little more closely. Because as this area starts to
17 redevelop, which I think is something we would all like to
18 see in this community, that might be a restriction that
19 you're going to bump into more and more.
20 But, anyway, with that I'd like to go to our
21 slides and walk you through what our preliminary plan looks
22 like. I think Ted did a great job of showing you what the
23 site looks like. I hope maybe some of you had a chance to
24 go out and look at:
25 There is vegetation on the south side of the
12
1 Poudre Trail between the trail and the river. It's not
2 very wide, but that area does have vegetation. It is a nice
3 natural habitat.
4 But everything to the north of the river,
5 including the chain link fence, is really quite
6 unattractive. And there -- I don't think anybody would
7 disagree with me that there is no natural resource value
8 that exists there at all. What vegetation is there is kind
9 of weedy species. There are a couple of very small trees
10 that actually could be retained if we want to. No problem
11 with that.
12 But our focus is going to be on enhancing that
13 area and actually creating a natural environment, getting it
14 back. The 300-foot buffer that the code talks about is
15 clearly intended to protect a natural resource and to limit
16 disturbance of an existing natural resource.
17 I think in this case we have something quite
18 different. There's nothing there that deserves protection,
19 but we certainly have a piece of land that desperately needs
20 enhancement and we've got an applicant here that would like
21 to do that, but they need some help from you folks tonight.
22 So let me walk you through what we're proposing
23 and then we'll open it up. I'll have Chris talk a little
24 bit more about his company, introduce himself, and then
25 we'll open it up for questions.
13
1 Okay. This first slide 2 apologize, it's kind of
2 light, but basically -- do you think you could take the
3 little arrow and show the swath?
4 That line there shows the 300-foot buffer from
5 the edge of the Poudre River that would be the ideal setback
6 if the Poudre River were a wonderful riparian corridor all
7 along its length here.
8 Next slide. This one shows that same 300-foot
9 line and then down a bit from it is a line that represents a
10 20 percent encroachment that would be allowed
11 administratively. But if we could stay in that zone, we
12 wouldn't even be here tonight.
13 Unfortunately, to get their facility on this
14 site, meet their program requirements not for their initial
15 phase but for their ultimate buildout, we would need to
16 encroach an additional percentage and that is shown in the
17 shaded area.
18 That would still allow a setback along the Poudre
19 River in this area of approximately 200 feet. They actually
20 don't own this land right here, but there's such a small
21 piece you really couldn't have a development that occurred
22 between here and the river.
23 So essentially by them developing that far, this
24 much of a buffer would be guaranteed, which averages about
25 200 feet rather than the 300, which would be ideal.
14
1 Next slide. This is a plan that represents a
2 real preliminary conceptual landscape plan. But it
3 indicates about how large the building would be, how the
4 building would be placed on the site in relationship to the
5 parking, which with the exception of the building being
6 wider than that one code section allows, it meets the other
7 requirements.
8 The building is a one-story building adjacent to
9 the river and the parking is placed to the side of the
10 building so that parking isn't completely along the river
11 nor is it completely along Lincoln Avenue.
12 And then in between the building and the river,
13 that's where In -Situ would really like to enhance the area,
14 plant quite a bit of vegetation. All of it they're
15 committed to it being native vegetation.
16 The building would be well buffered with trees.
17 The parking lot would be screened. They would provide some
18 facilities for their employees. On that side of the
19 building would be a nice south -facing facade there. And, of
20 course, a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Poudre trail.
21 They also have a desire to actually create a
22 wetland on -site if they are able to. They haven't gone to
23 the expense to evaluate that yet, whether they will be able
24 to do that. But that would be ideal for them because,
25 again, it would give them an opportunity to demonstrate the
1 water monitoring equipment that they market and sell. So
2 that's the bluish area indicating a wetland development on
3 their site.
4 Next slide. With this I'll just talk about that
5 second modification a little bit, the width of the building.
6 This was just kind of a graphic we put together to show you
7 if we did do a building that was only 125 feet wide then,
8 unfortunately, we encroach even further into the buffer. It
9 makes the problem of encroachment worse.
10 So this shouldn't be considered an alternative
11 plan because the layout, this shape of the building really
12 doesn't work for them, but it kind of demonstrates what
13 happens if you limit one dimension of a building.
14 Next. Maybe we just go back to the landscape
15 plan.
16 I think with that I am just going to introduce
17 Chris McKee, one of the owners of In -Situ Development, and
18 then we will listen to your questions and, hopefully, we'll
19 be able to answer them.
20 I'm sorry, maybe before that I should go through
21 the architectural drawings. Where were those? Okay.
22 That's right, we had to skip.
23 Neenan Company has been working with us in
24 helping us determine what size of a footprint we're going to
25 need. We absolutely needed their help in order to determine
0
1 how small we could get this footprint and still meet their
2 program needs. However, getting this far has been quite
3 costly for these guys and they really couldn't afford that
4 next step of doing a conceptual design, full scale design of
5 their building, but they do have certain characteristics
6 that they want.,
7 They want a building that demonstrates -- that's
8 not an ordinary, typical building but one that demonstrates
9 that they're environmentally oriented and that they're
10 creative.
11 So these slides are some other buildings that
12 Neenan has been involved with that have the kind of
13 characteristics that In -Situ would like to incorporate into
14 their building.
15 We'd like to have you pay attention mostly to the
16 materials and maybe the style, but not necessarily the size
17 and not like these buildings in every respect. I think some
18 of these buildings are quite a bit larger than the one we're
19 talking about here but human scale elements at entries,
20 mixed materials that are natural stone, wood, have a
21 Colorado feel, fitting into the landscape so that native
22 landscaping is used, boulders, a lot of stone, that kind of
23 thing.
24 Next. I'll just go through these quick because
25 if you want more information, I'll have Ray Tig with me and
17
1 talk about them more specifically.
2 But, again, creative -looking architecture,
3 fitting into a very natural environment. Mixed pallet of
4 materials.
5 Again, outdoor spaces for people to enjoy on the
6 appropriate sides of the building where they can enjoy
7 sunshine. Architectural integrations. Sun, shade, light
8 control.
9 Again, same kinds of materials. Outdoor spaces.
10 Seating areas adjacent to natural areas. And, again,
11 xeriescape and native plantings.
12 This happens to be the building that Neenan is
13 housed in that is along the Poudre River right now. And
14 they have done a fantastic job of doing the kind of thing
15 that In -Situ would like to create on their site.
16 And these then are the side shots which I won't
17 belabor.
18 So with that I will turn it over to Chris, and
19 I'll be available for Chris.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you, Linda.
21 MR. MCKEE: Well, thank you very much. My name
22 Is Chris McKee. I'm president of In -Situ, Incorporated.
23 Craig McKee is also here. He's vice-president and my
24 brother.
25 Just to give you a little background on our
m
1 company, it's been in business since 1976. About seven
2 years ago Craig and I took the company over and have been
3 attracting best of the breed and talent around the country
4 in different managerial positions and throughout the
5 company.
6 What we do is we're a high-tech company. We do
7 software and hardware design and we do light assembly. So
8 what we'll do is we'll spec and design these problems and
9 then they'll be manufactured -- pieces manufactured for us
10 along the Front Range, and we get the final components and
11 do a hand assembly and ship them. And our products are sold
12 both nationally and internationally.
13 Our instruments are primarily for measuring water
14 quality and water level in aquifers or rivers, lakes,
15 streams and oceans. They help people monitor and protect
16 the environment and that can be anywhere from government
17 entities to local municipalities, environmental consultants,
18 things like that.
19 So a little background on why we might want to
20 move to Fort Collins here is we are a high-tech company.
21 What we depend on are top-notch people, creative, highly
22 intelligent people to think about new novel ways of putting
23 sensors together to measure under all kinds of rugged
24 environmental conditions.
25 What we would see in Fort Collins is a city that
19
1 is committed to building a nice looking building, a city
2 that attracts people that we can attract and a city that
3 also has a large amount of high-tech businesses here from
4 which we can get people to help us grow our business.
5 Another reason is, of course, now with this, what
6 we like about the site itself, it's downtown. Right now we
7 are downtown. What we like about that is we're close to
8 coffee shops. Employees, they can easily walk and have
9 lunch. So this site affords that.
10 There's a bike path in the back. We can
11 encourage people to ride their bikes or walk to work, part
12 of our environmental initiative. And we have the river that
13 works very well with the type of products we make.
14 We want to have that close to us so that we can
15 always keep that in mind. We design products to help
16 protect the environment or help people monitor its health.
17 Some of the things we want to see in the building
18 to go along with our strategies as a company and what we do
19 is a campus -like look or feel to the building. We want
20 people to feel like this is a creative place where I can
21 work and where highly intelligent people work.
22 And we want to put a lot of trees in it. We want
23 to have a very nice place out in the back there so that it
24 just meshes with the riverbank so people from both the bike
25 path can have a nice view and then also the employees in the
20
1 company have good windows and they can see out the back.
2 And that's part of -- that's an asset as well.
3 So I think we could really become in some
4 respects stewards of that section of the river at least.
5 Our equipment does monitor a variety of water quality
6 parameters and it would be an ideal place for us to put a
7 piece of equipment or to monitor its health.
8 So that kind of gives you a bird's-eye view of
9 what our ideas are, and I'd be happy to answer any questions
10 you might have.
11 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you. We'll go ahead
12 and go with public input and then we'll come back to any
13 questions that we may have. I'm sure they will.
14 Thank you very much for the overview and thank
15 you, Linda.
16 At this time I'd like to invite members of the
17 audience to come up and speak to the board about the pending
18 application. And if you could state your name and address
19 for the record and please let us know your thoughts.
20 MR. STEINER: My name is Chip Steiner. I live at
21 626 East Oak Street. As most of you know, I am the
22 director of the Downtown Development Authority.
23 This project is not in the DDA district, although
24 the boundary runs right along Lincoln Avenue to the north of
25 it, and we have talked briefly with Chris McKee about his
21
1 proposal.
2 I did a little or participated in a little
3 downtown study up in Laramie, Wyoming last year, and I spoke
4 with everybody in that community from the president of the
5 university down to the mayor and the city manager. And
6 every single one of them -- this company, incidentally, is
7 located in the central business district up in Laramie --
8 every single one of them spoke awfully highly of the
9 company.
10 It is precisely the kind of business that we
11 would like to attract not only for Fort Collins, but, at
12 least from my perspective, the central business district.
13 It brings in high paying jobs, people who will participate
14 and shop in the central business district.
15 You may not be aware, but we recently lost a
16 high-tech company, Realtech, which was in Old Town Square.
17 Has recently moved out into, I don't know, some business
18 park south of Prospect. And it would be really wonderful to
19 be able to bring another one back into downtown. We'd
20 actually net a few more jobs if they came in.
21 So from -- I'm not speaking on behalf of the
22 Downtown Development Authority, but I do think I'm speaking
23 on behalf of downtown, we would strongly encourage Planning
24 and Zoning Board to consider positively these modifications.
25 Thanks very much.
22
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you, Chuck. Appreciate
2 it.
3 Do we have anyone else who would like to come on
4 down? Please. We have two microphones.
5 MR. EHLER: My name is Michael Ehler and I live
6 at 3945 Landings Drive. I'm a commercial real estate broker
7 and met Chris I think it was last spring, and we talked
8 about the company, what they did and so forth. And he gave
9 me a list of criteria to look for sites, and I'll just go
10 through these quickly.
11 One was he wanted a high quality -- the highest
12 quality possible working environment, both inside the
13 building and outside the building.
14 He wanted to be near water, hopefully the Poudre
15 River.
16 He wanted to be near services for his employees
17 because of restaurants, whatever. He was familiar with Old
18 Town, very familiar with Old Town. He wanted to be close
19 to that if at all possible.
20 And he, again, had expressed a great sensitivity
21 to using the environmental elements or the environment
22 around the building not only to promote his business, which
23 is attuned to the environment, but also the quality of the
24 working environment for his employees.
25 He already had a very good idea of the employment
23
1 base that he'd be bringing here and needed a site that would
2 accommodate about 40,000 square feet. That was kind of a
3 parameter well upfront.
4 So given that very simple list of criteria, I
5 went to work and tried to identify sites that met this
6 criteria. And one of those sites was this one. I did my
7 best to pursuade him not to build there because of the
8 difficulty to develop. We looked at many other sites north
9 of Lincoln Avenue, but we keep coming back to this one.
10 I just wanted to express again what's been said
11 many times, that they have a great sensitivity to their
12 employees but also to where they're located and a
13 sensitivity, of course, to the environment around them.
14 So, again, I would ask you to seriously consider
15 this and hopefully approve it.
16 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much, Mike.
17 Do we have anyone else who would like to come
18 down and speak to the board?
19 We've got an extra microphone over here if anyone
20 is interested in using that one.
21 MR. HOLTER: My name is George Holter and we're
22 here a little later in the agenda for something. And I
23 didn't plan on speaking for anything, but this is really
24 interesting to me because I do have a farm just east of this
25 a little ways and I drive by this site quite often on my way
24
1 to Ranchway Feeds. And it seems to me that it would be an
2 ideal thing to have that there.
3 It looks like they're doing a lot of good
4 planning, and I think it would be a really good thing to
5 have it on that side of town. And I would sure encourage
6 trying to help them get it there. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Thank
8 you.
9 MR. GEORGE: Good evening. My name is Dan
10 George. I live at 425 West Mountain Avenue.
11 I'm sorry, I wasn't here on the initial
12 presentation. I am curious as far -- do you have a slide as
13 far as where the location is?
14 One of the concerns I do have about this is
15 because of the floodplain, I'm not sure if it extends or
16 where the location site is going to be within the
17 floodplain or not.
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Dan, you need to speak to the
19 board, not to Stan.
20 MR. GEORGE: I'm sorry.
21 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Because we're going to make
22 the decision tonight. So speak to us and we'll get your
23 questions and/or your concerns addressed.
24 MR. GEORGE: Okay. I'm concerned about the
25 floodplain. And also what the bi-products from the
25
1 processing, whatever they do there as far as how it impacts
2 the city utility system.
3 You know, I think it's -- from what I've seen,
4 it's a well -planned -- it looks like a good site or good
5 project, but those are one of the things I am concerned
6 about.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay.
8 MR. GEORGE: Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
10 Do we have anyone else who would like to come
11 down before the board and speak before the pending
12 application?
13 Okay, we're closing public input. We'll bring it
14 back to the board. And if Linda or Ted could address the
15 individual questions about floodplain and bi-products.
16 And, Doug, if you want to chime in, please do.
17 MS. RIPLEY: There's a line just below that
18 300-foot buffer line that kind of zigzags across. That one
19 right there. That's the hundred -year floodplain line.
20 So we have talked to the floodplain
21 administrator and stormwater and the City of Fort Collins,
22 and we can develop in this area. We will have to make sure
23 we're above the base flood elevation for anything that
24 goes -- encroaches into that hundred -year floodplain but in
25 this portion of the Poudre River, we are allowed to develop
W
1 in this area.
2 So that was something we checked early on, and it
3 doesn't appear that the floodplain will be a particular
4 issue for us.
5 In terms of bi-products, there aren't any because
6 they don't actually manufacture parts. They simply
7 purchase parts from other vendors and assemble the equipment
8 in this building.
9 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you. If I can ask Doug
10 or Ted any comments on that? Linda, thank you.
11 STAFF: Actually, the portion in the floodplain
12 is in the flood fringe and none of the building is in the
13 product corridor or the floodway, so it is allowed. We
14 encourage them to move a little bit more, but it's legal and
15 it will work.
16 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you. Doug. Ted?
17 MR. SHEPARD: I don't have any comments on the
18 floodplain in this area.
19 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Very good. Thank you. Then
20 we'll bring it back to more questions. Dan.
21 MR. BERNTH: Doug, you seem to be kind of a
22 freak about that 300-foot buffer. What got them to convince
23 you?
24 STAFF: I've been called worse. I am very
25 protective of our buffer standards here in Fort Collins.
27
1 One thing if this modification is approved, keep
2 in mind that they will still need to comply with the
3 performance standards, which are very restrictive. They'll
4 need to comply with every single one of those. So the
5 development within that area will be held to very high
6 standards for developing in that area.
7 And then also when you talk about the types of
8 material that they'll be working with, they'll be held to
9 3.4.1 (I), which is the design and aesthetics. And they'll
10 need to blend with both section I(1) and section 2, which
11 is visual character of a natural feature. So this will all
12 need to fit within that context when this comes through the
13 PDP process.
14 So it's my feeling that this will be fine within
15 this buffer area.
16 MR. BERNTH: The second question, Doug. One of
17 the buildings they showed was the Neenan Company building on
18 Prospect. Obviously, that was prior to the 300-foot buffer
19 going into effect?
20 STAFF: That was prior to the Land Use Code, yes.
21 MR. BERNTH: How far is that, the Neenan Company?
22 What is the closest -- I know Ray is here. I don't know
23 what the closest encroachment is to the river or distance it
24 is from the river.
25 STAFF: I haven't calculated that. I don't know.
IN
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: You need to come up to the
2 microphone, please.
3 MR. TIG: Ray Tig with the Neenan Company.
4 As you noted, our project was done before the
5 Poudre River corridor zoning even existed. At the same time
6 we had our own issues of sensitivity, so we wanted to really
7 fit into what was going on there and tried to be very
8 sensitive to it.
9 I would speculate that on average our building is
10 probably in the 200-foot area. There are places where it
11 comes much closer.
12 On the, what would be the east side I guess, would
13 be the best way to describe it, along the bike path we are
14 probably 125 to 150 feet from the bike path, which would put
15 us in the 150-foot range from the bank of the river. So
16 that's an approximation.
17 Any other questions?
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: No, none at the moment. If
19 we do, we'll sure call you up. Thank you.
20 More questions? Sally, please.
21 MS. CRAIG: Ms. Ripley, would you come back up,
22 please? I need some clarification.
23 I was looking at the site plans and I was looking
24 at the landscaping plans, and I'm trying to get a feel of if
25 I were on the bike path and I were looking at this building,
29
1 how close is it? And I came up with everything from 160 to
2 170 because when I worked off of your scaling, they weren't
3 the same. They weren't consistent I guess, is what I'm
9 trying to say.
5 MS. RIPLEY: We just measured that right before
6 the hearing because as I was reviewing the drawings, I
7 realized we didn't have that dimension on there.
8 It varies. In fact, Louise, could you measure
9 the very closest point that we would suggest that we might
10 be? I suspect we're in the neighborhood of 150-160 feet
11 right here to the corner of the building that --
12 MS. CRAIG: Okay, is that hundred -- Excuse me,
13 I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Is that 150-160
19 feet, is that from the bank of the river or is that from the
15 north edge of the bike path?
16 MS. RIPLEY: No, it's from the bank of the river.
17 The city gave us a particular contour line that
18 sort of represented a high water line of the river, I guess.
19 MS. CRAIG: So if I were standing on the bike
20 trail, the building would be similar to what Mr. Tig said,
21 about 150 feet?
22 MS. RIPLEY: Similar to where their building comes
23 closest to the river. Yeah, it sounds like that would be
29 similar.
25 MS. CRAIG: Okay, that was very helpful.
30
1 And, also, one of the slides that Mr. Shepard
2 showed us on the site itself showed a little, white
3 building, and I'm trying to get the feeling of that 150
4 feet. If that building is 150 feet or --
5 MS. RIPLEY: Ted actually measured the dimension
6 we were just talking about. He said it's actually 170, so
7 we're actually a little further back.
8 MS. CRAIG: Well, see, If you look at the site
9 plan, it's 160 from the riverbank to the building, to the
10 building envelope. If you look at the landscaping plan, it
11 shows it's 170 feet from the north edge of the bike trail to
12 the building and that's where I got confused because we're
13 talking 30 feet or more.
14 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, I think where we should
15 measure from is this line, the 4940 contour and actually to
16 there. A portion of the building could potentially be
17 there.
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Do you have a scaling on this
19 that could be consistent? Maybe we're not measuring -- do
20 we have a scaling on these maps? There is a scale?
21 (Inaudible.)
22 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Sorry about that. We had to
23 do some math there.
24 MS. RIPLEY: Do you want us to go through the
25 site shots to get to one that you can ask a more specific
31
1 question about?
2 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Linda, I think there was one
3 with a building on it that Ted had. I think that's what
4 Sally's looking for.
5 MS. CRAIG: Yeah, he showed the fencing and he
6 showed as if I were standing on the bike trail looking into
7 the site. Here you go. One more. Try again.
8 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Is that it, Sally?
9 MS. CRAIG: No. There it is. See, there's that
10 little, white building. Is that 150 feet? I'm just not
11 very good at looking at the --
12 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I think someone may know.
13 Okay, would you come on down if you know, sir, please? Help
14 us on this.
15 SPEAKER: Where the arrow is pointing there, that
16 is actually in the part that is right on the edge of the
17 corner that's not part of this property. You remember where
18 it jogs up like this on the corner?
19 MS. CRAIG: Right.
20 SPEAKER: So that's not on it. The house is on
21 stilts which is to be moved, that's on the property. And I
22 don't know what that dimension is, but that's I want to say
23 is in the 150 to 180-foot range.
24 I want to make a point, too. It's too bad we
25 can't pan over a little bit because the upper bank of the
WA
1 river is just within a few feet, I would say 6 or 8 feet of
2 the south boundary of the asphalt of the bike trail. It's
3 pretty narrow if that helps any.
4 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
5 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. I'm just trying to envision if
6 I'm going along on the bike trail, how close this building
7 is. And the reason I'm trying to do that is to get the
8 feeling since it's going to be more than 125 feet, how much
9 building and how close is it going to be as I go by on the
10 trail? Especially since you're 45 percent into the buffer,
11 that's putting you well down along that area.
12 MS. RIPLEY: 150 to 170 feet, somewhere in there.
13 I don't know.
14 MS. CRAIG: If we think of biking past the Neenan
15 Company, that's probably how close this building is going to
16 be.
17 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Excuse me, your name?
18 MR. RICE: Rodney Rice, 301 East Lincoln. I'm
19 the owner of the property adjacent to this.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, would you go ahead and
21 share some --
22 MR. RICE: On that building that you're talking
23 about right there, sits right on the floodplain line. So
24 whatever the distance of that floodplain line is on your
25 map is the edge of that building.
33
1 MS. RIPLEY: The building on stilts?
2 MR. RICE: Yes. And it is Hydro Construction,
3 not Alliance Construction, sir. For future, it is Hydro
4 Construction, not Alliance Construction.
5 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, thank you very much for
6 clarifying. Okay, just a second, let's get --
7 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, so do you want to go back to
8 the slide that shows the floodplain line?
9 MS. CRAIG: No, as a matter of fact, my fellow
10 board member, Dan, helped me try to get a better feeling so
11 we've got the site map here. That helps me visually, and
12 I'm sorry to make it a big exercise.
13 MS. RIPLEY: As you continue your visualization,
14 you have to imagine quite a few trees planted between that
15 trail and that building as well. And remember, it's not
16 your typical industrial kind of building, you know. A very
17 attractive building that will have windows and facade
18 treatments on all sides. So this isn't going to be a back
19 of a building that's uninteresting. It will be an
20 attractive structure.
21 MS. CRAIG: You were talking about the building.
22 Did the McKees look at the possibility instead of going so
23 far into the buffer, of possibly buying a piece of land to
24 the east or to the west and work with the building more
25 horizontally so they didn't have to go 45 percent into the
M,
1 buffer?
2 MS. RIPLEY: They would have to answer that
3 question. I can assume that they're trying to do a -- you
4 know, buying four acres of land, they thought they had a big
5 piece of property. The fact they had to provide a 300-foot
6 buffer came somewhat as a shock because knowing
7 approximately how much of a site their building and parking
8 would take up, four acres seemed like a plenty big site.
9 I don't know, would you guys want to add
10 something to that?
11 MS. CRAIG: Thank you.
12 MR. CRAIG McKEE: Craig McKee with In -Situ. We
13 did talk to the neighbors of those properties, Hydro
14 Construction and Team Petroleum, and discovered that both
15 were not particularly interested in selling either property
16 at the time. So that kind of left us with that same
17 property.
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Okay.
19 I think Glen had a question. Okay, Dan, it's yours.
20 MR. BERNTH: Linda, you said you had a concern
21 about the site size compared to the building size -- four
22 acres -- yet the plan is to build a 40,000 square foot
23 building on that four acres, so 25 land coverage. To me
24 that's a fairly good land coverage in any kind of
25 development. Is that an incorrect statement? I mean, do
35
1 you see what I'm saying, Linda?
2 MS. RIPLEY: Could we go back to the landscape
3 plan just so we have an image that we can kind of get?
4 Well, there are lots of sites that are developed
5 a whole lot more intensively than this site, not that this
6 site should be. You know, I'm fully in support of buffers
7 along the river and along our natural areas.
8 In this particular case, though, I think what
9 we're proposing to do really does represent a plan that's
10 meeting the criteria or meeting the purpose of the standard
11 better than a plan that might technically meet the standard
12 which would be set back the 240 feet, or whatever the 20
13 percent encroachment would allow, but wouldn't be providing
14 the enhancements that we're intending to provide that would
15 do more normal landscaping.
16 I think what this company is proposing to do and
17 add to this site and really develop it into real natural
18 area that has wildlife habitat and native vegetation is
19 above and beyond what we would get with a 300-foot buffer
20 and regular landscaping.
21 MR. BERNTH: Again, I just hate to characterize
22 the site as that you're doing a lot of, you know, excessive
23 landscaping or excessive buffering for a 300-foot buffer
24 simply because again you have a 25 percent land coverage.
25 To me that's not an unreasonable amount or not a small
92
1 amount.
2 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, and I'm not indicating -- I
3 didn't mean to indicate that. If I did, I apologize.
4 MR. BERNTH: I didn't mean to yell at you either,
5 Linda.
6 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thanks, Dan.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, thank you, Dan.
8 MR. TORGERSON: Ted, quick question. The
9 modification isn't really tied to any of these site plans
10 since it's a standalone modification. And although I have
11 confidence that Neenan will do a nice design, and I have
12 confidence that they want to do a nice landscape plan, we're
13 not suggesting any particular conditions of approval by the
14 modifications?
15 MR. SHEPARD: No, we are not. I think that based
16 on the degree of corroboration that we've had thus far, based
17 on the written materials that have been presented to the
18 record, based on the testimony this evening, I'm confident
19 that conditions aren't necessary at this point and that
20 we've got the full force and effect of Article 3 to back us
21 up on anything.
22 MR. TORGERSON: But if we're saying that this
23 additional landscaping is better than the standard, which
24 I'm inclined to believe, wouldn't it be appropriate to
25 make that additional landscaping a condition of the approval
37
1 of modification?
2 MR. SHEPARD: My feeling is that the landscape
3 plan that's shown is equivalent to what we used to call a
4 preliminary landscape plan as part of a preliminary PUD.
5 And we didn't used to really condition preliminary PUDs, but
6 we held the final to be in substantial conformance with the
7 preliminary. And that's the thinking that we're having at
8 staff is that what they're showing tonight, they will be
9 held to substantial conformance with the preliminary
10 landscape plan.
11 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, even though the code really
12 doesn't really allow us to do that?
13 MR. SHEPARD: The code allows us to approve a
14 landscape plan that meets or exceeds the standards. We're
15 relying on the statements that are being made for the public
16 record, that they will substantially exceed that. The
17 illustration is documentation of that.
18 If you would like to add a condition, that would
19 be your prerogative. I wouldn't object to that. But we're
20 not thinking we need it.
21 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I don't want to beat it to
22 death. And, actually, just based on what their company does
23 and the applicants -- consultants -- I'm sure they will do a
24 good design, but it just seems that might be an appropriate
25 condition.
m
1 MR. ECKMAN: I think that's certainly appropriate
2 for the board to consider. On the other hand, I agree with
3 Ted that when this comes for approval, it would, as I
4 understand it, be a Type 1 administrative hearing, but it
5 would come with these modifications as part of the package.
6 And the modifications were based upon these promises, so it
7 will all fit together as a Type 1 review, too.
8 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, I think Doug wanted to
9 add something. Doug, please.
10 STAFF: I wanted to say I wouldn't have a
11 problem as well with the condition if you wanted to add that
12 but I also feel it's not necessarily because of the strict
13 standards of 3.4.1.
14 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I have one question. Go
15 ahead, Glen, you've been waiting. I'll wait.
16 MR. COLTON: Doug, I don't know if you were
17 involved in actually writing the standards for the buffers
18 and all that and the discussions that went on. I guess I
19 know a lot of people are highly reliant on a 300-foot buffer
20 along the Poudre to protect it from encroaching development.
21 And, you know, that's a general statement. That's why we
22 have it. And I realize existing conditions there aren't
23 such that there is much of a natural habitat, but I think a
24 lot of people are feeling that, well, it would be eventually
25 enhanced beyond where it is today and so forth. And I feel
39
1 like they're doing that, but I also feel like, you know,
2 it's almost a 50 percent encroachment in areas.
3 And if we do this here, are they going to come
4 along at the golf course and say, well, that's not an
5 existing natural area so I can put buildings up within 150
6 foot to 200 foot of the river when they redevelop the golf
7 course, or if they come along with another project?
8 I mean, how -- what can we say or to assure me
9 that or give me some assurance that we aren't going to be
10 bringing this buffer in so it's 150 foot when all is said
11 and done along the Poudre because that was the precedence we
12 set with a company that was going to do a good job of
13 landscaping and that we wouldn't just automatically all of a
14 sudden say, well, we don't need that buffer anymore because
15 these are good companies, they're doing this landscaping,
16 therefore, we have a 150 buffer instead of 300?
17 STAFF: Sure. And believe me, it is not our
18 intention to eliminate the 300-foot buffer in the areas that
19 you've talked about. You know, I think it's very important
20 to protect those in this area.
21 We do have the Udall natural area to the south of
22 the site which is a large open area. It's part of the
23 natural area program and the stormwater program but it is a
24 natural area property.
25 And what we worry about, in addition to wildlife
1 movement through this area with a 300-foot buffer, is the
2 water quality that would be leaving this site. Obviously
3 this company is very concerned with that as well.
4 But that's something that we look at in the
5 development and we'll evaluate that through the PDP
6 process to make sure that that stays in place.
7 It seems like a very appropriate use in this
8 area. And even when you look at the overall downtown plan
9 and how those pieces fit in, this could play an important
10 piece as integrating all of that in as one, you know. And
11 so to me to back off on the buffer in this particular
12 section with this project, like I said across the street or
13 across the river from the Udall natural area, would be
14 appropriate. So I hope that's --
15 MR. COLTON: Did the NRAB have a chance to take a
16 look at this and make any comments?
17 STAFF: They have not. But, obviously, if it's a
18 concern of this board, I'd be happy to make a presentation
19 with this project through the approval process and include
20 that as well.
21 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: With due respect, I have a
22 process question about asking other boards to weigh in on a
23 P and Z board's facts and findings, Doug. I think we must
24 be careful because they have a different scope and charter
25 to work with and they advise City Council. They do not
ELI
1 advise us on land use or anything. So, please, I don't want
2 to go down that path.
3 MR. COLTON: Sir, with all due respect, I didn't
4 ask if they made a recommendation. I just asked if they
5 discussed it with them.
6 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I don't think we should be
7 discussing it with them. They should be working on
8 policies. Doug, chime in on this. What's your role?
9 STAFF: That's fine. And what I intended to say,
10 and I thought I had but maybe I missed that, is that if
11 it's, you know, at the discretion of the board, if the board
12 would like me to do that, I'd be happy to.
13 But you're right, your board does have say over
14 this modification request and over the Land Use Code, so it
15 is your place to make the decision.
16 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I want to keep our decision
17 here. And let the boards and commissions advise City
18 Council on NRAB, air quality, status of women, library, on
19 all of that, let them do all of that, and we're staying with
20 the land use program.
21 So I did my two cents. Sorry guys, but I want to
22 keep us on process. Thanks for your thoughts.
23 MS. MEYER: Doug, from my point of view,
24 personally I know there's nothing natural left in that area
25 because it's been pretty battered and destroyed over the
42
1 past few years, but I trust your judgment because you are so
2 protective, just as Dan noted. The 300 feet is pretty
3 sacred to you so I respect your judgment.
4 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Go ahead Sally, please.
5 MS. CRAIG: I think that Glen brought up a good
6 point, Doug. Now let's take this scenario on around to the
7 golf course and we'll say another company as wonderful and
8 reputable as this company wants to do the exact same thing.
9 And they say, you know, the golf course has no natural
10 habitat value, so we should be able to -- we should be able
11 to go into the buffer 150 feet also.
12 STAFF: There are more floodplain issues down on
13 that property that would keep that from happening. Glen has
14 already left but that's the discussions I've had with him
15 on that.
16 MS. CRAIG: Okay, so theirs are more in the
17 floodplain than this piece of property is?
18 STAFF: Yes. As it drops down, the floodplain
19 increases.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Jennifer, go ahead. We'll go
21 to Jennifer.
22 MS. CARPENTER: I think we need to be real
23 careful where we go here because I think what we need to
24 look at is on a case by case basis and our criteria is it
25 equal to or better than.
43
1 I think we need to be looking right at this
2 particular project and then if one comes on the golf
3 course, we need to look at that and say, again, is it equal
4 to or better than.
5 That doesn't mean just because this one is, that
6 the next one will be. And I think that's an important piece
7 that we need to keep in mind.
8 MR. BERNTH: I would agree with Jennifer. I
9 don't look at this as setting any precendent. I look at the
10 buffer as somewhat sacred to me also.
11 So, again, I don't look at the buffer -- I'm not
12 going to vote -- I'm going to vote positively for this, not
13 because these are good guys or a great company or they would
14 be an addition to downtown, we're needing companies or the
15 architecture or anything like that because, obviously,
16 that's not part of our decision process. But I do think
17 it's going to be a quality development.
18 I do not think we're setting precendent for the
19 future. And right now when I go down that trail I look at a
20 6-foot chain link fence with barbed wire on top of it, so it
21 would be difficult to vote against it based upon that.
22 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Dan, I totally agree with you
23 there, because I used to -- I right there, I saw a lot of
24 broken down milk trucks for a long time. And you know what?
25 I played down there as a kid in that area and I think we'd
44
1 improve this greatly, so I do agree.
2 MR. TORGERSON: I guess this would be a question
3 for Linda. I was just running the numbers. You said this
4 was a 40,000 square foot building at buildout?
5 MS. RIPLEY: Yes.
6 MR. TORGERSON: The parking that you're providing
7 on this conceptual site plan is exactly the maximum
8 allowed --
9 MS. RIPLEY: Yes.
10 MR. TORGERSON: -- under the code. I was
11 curious, they were sort of alluding to the fact that they
12 wanted to locate here because people might bike to work and
13 that sort of thing and yet were maximizing the parking.
14 MS. CRAIG: Well, they are hopeful that their
15 employees will walk and bike to work.
16 Again, I want to just say that they're not going
17 to build this entire buildout in the first phase. They
18 certainly won't build all the parking in the first phase.
19 They won't build all the parking, if it's not needed.
20 But they have been advised if they ever have to
21 vacate this building or sell it or whatever, a new use were
22 to go in, they might need the parking that's allowed by
23 code. So that's why they thought, well, as businessmen
24 maybe we should put this much.
25 But they won't build it if they don't need it.
45
1 It's their intent to get by with as little as possible.
2 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I'm sure that's true. I
3 was just sort of thinking that if you didn't have that last
4 leg of parking there, it would be pretty easy to meet the
5 buffer standards.
6 MS. RIPLEY: We'd still be encroaching.
7 MR. TORGERSON: You'd be encroaching some.
8 MS. RIPLEY: We'd still be here tonight is what
9 I'm saying.
10 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, that may be. Thank you.
11 MS. RIPLEY: But it would be less.
12 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, go ahead and make a
13 motion. Well, go ahead.
14 MS. CRAIG: While you are up there, my question
15 deals with lighting because, you know, a lot of times we see
16 all of this pretty stuff but then when the building goes up,
17 we've got lighting. When we've got the parking lots, we've
18 got lighting. And to me this is another issue. If we're
19 going to encroach the buffer area by 45 percent, what is the
20 lighting? Because lighting does spread and will impact the
21 rest of the buffer area.
22 MS. RIPLEY: I don't know anything about the
23 lighting. We haven't talked about it. In your discussions
24 architecturally did you even go to lighting yet?
25 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Would you come up and speak
m
1 to the board, please?
2 MS. RIPLEY: Staff member might know also because
3 in other projects Ted could probably give me a feel of what
4 the lighting is.
5 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Sally, with due respect --
6 MR. SHEPARD: We will require a lighting plan at
7 the time of PDP and there are restrictions on foot candles as
8 measured from the property line. And we have restrictions
9 on the type of fixture. They must be down directional. We
10 have light meters we can go out and inspect afterwards.
11 We've been, I think, doing a very good job in
12 lighting lately because we've been getting better at it, but
13 I'll leave it to Ray to talk about the details.
14 MR. TIG: The only thing I was going to say is I
15 think our intent is to meet the requirements of the city
16 with regard to lighting.
17 Our main concern is going to be the safety of the
18 employees when they're going out there after dark. And,
19 obviously, we want to be sensitive to the buffer area.
20 And I think in that particular area especially
21 we're going to pay attention to what the city would like to
22 see there because, frankly, I don't know what you want to
23 see along the bike trail. Do people use the trail at night?
24 Is it prudent to be lit or not?
25 MR. SHEPARD: I think I'd like to hear from Craig
47
1 Foreman on that at the time we do a PDP. I use the bike
2 trail a lot at night and there are places where I like it to
3 be dark but there are places where it curves and there's
4 underpasses where I like it to be light.
5 So I would -- that's a performance issue that I
6 would like to get more information on.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: And, Ted, that's not in your
8 process to be going into lighting because it's opposed to
9 PDP. So I think we need to keep focus to the modification
10 and what it entails, too.
11 MR. COLTON: Jerry, I'd like to just disagree. I
12 guess you seem to like to cut us off so strictly but a lot
13 of these things have to do with whether it makes sense to
14 give us a modification on this buffer to the degree they're
15 asking for because it's a natural wildlife buffer, among
16 other things, and lighting and other things would affect how
17 much we should do. So with all due respect, please let us
18 continue to ask questions that impact whether we should
19 allow a buffer to be impacted by over 50 percent.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: But, Glen, with due respect I
21 will disagree because, one, these are standard law
22 modifications. We don't have anything else that they
23 brought up. In fact, I believe they brought more than they
24 should in terms of these drawings and what they want to do.
25 We're not holding them to it. I don't mean to cut people
1 off but I want to see us stay with the process because we go
2 down these long paths.
3 So with due respect, I don't have any lighting
4 criteria to work with. And we don't have Craig Foreman
5 here and we're in the performance standards. And now if
6 we're going to do this as a performance standard, then they
7 should have brought a PDP with everything attached and with
8 modifications. But that's the process on standalone
9 modification. Ted --
10 MR. COLTON: No, the process is do we find it is
11 not detrimental to the public good? And if we set 300-foot
12 buffers to protect wildlife and dangerous species and
13 habitat and so forth and they're going to have lights at
14 night which would perhaps disturb the wildlife, then that is
15 relevant to the decision on whether we should be doing a
16 buffer or not.
17 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: With due respect, I think
18 Doug would have probably said no to this if there was going
19 to be issues with this. We would have saw a denial.
20 So I still feel I'm holding to our process. I
21 apologize for cutting off. I don't mean to. I just want to
22 keep us on target because I've seen this board go down a
23 different path.
24 MR. COLTON: Well, if we can't ask the questions,
25 then I'll just be forced to say no, I guess, because I don't
1 get adequate information.
2 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Well, that's your
3 prerogative. We'll follow the process. Doug, do you want
4 to chime in?
5 STAFF: Just one thing to add. You know, I
6 appreciate the comments. We are very concerned about these
7 same issues. In fact, we're also concerned about the
8 possible effects that glazing may have on this project. So
9 we'll be evaluating all of that through the PDP process to
10 make sure that this complies, because we're concerned about
11 this encroachment. We feel that we'll be fine but we want
12 to make sure that this is the best case of encroachment
13 that can happen.
14 And like I said, our standards within 3.4.1.,
15 performance standards and the design and aesthetic standards,
16 give us the ability to make sure that happens.
17 So I do, I appreciate all of your comments. I
18 appreciate you looking out for these. I feel that we can
19 adequately protect it, so thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Dan?
21 MR. BERNTH: I think the ironic thing about this
22 is the company that plans to locate here, In -Situ, the
23 reason they're locating here is because of the process
24 that we have right now.
25 I do not think it's inappropriate for Glen to ask
50
1 those questions. I do think at some point we're having to
2 rely on staff, hopefully with the discussion that the staff
3 has had, specifically when it comes to Doug, as to the
4 300-foot buffer you certainly understand, you know, our
5 emphasis on making sure it's done correctly.
6 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Any other questions or any
7 comments before we get to a motion?
B Glen, do you have any questions you want to ask?
9 Okay, are we getting ready for a motion?
10 Jennifer?
11 MS. CARPENTER: I move approval of the two
12 requests for modification of standard for In -Situ to allow
13 encroachment on the Poudre River buffer area and for the
14 south elevation of the building to exceed 125 feet along the
15 access of the river based on the findings of fact in our
16 staff report.
17 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, second?
19 (Inaudible.)
19 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Good question there, Glen.
20 Paul, could these two modifications be done in one motion?
21 MR. ECKMAN: The only risk there is that you may
22 have some members of the board who may agree with one
23 modification but not with another. If you feel that
24 everybody's of the same mind on both, then there's no harm
25 in having one motion.
51
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, we'll go with one and
2 see what the flavor is on it. And then if we like, we
3 can go different.
4 Do we have a second?
5 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I'll second Jennifer, but
6 could I add a friendly amendment? That the final product be
7 substantially in conformance with what we've been talking
8 about tonight.
9 MS. CARPENTER: Absolutely.
10 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Moved and second. Board
11 comments?
12 MR. BERNTH: The only thing I would mention is I
13 do think we need to look at the -- Linda brought up a very
14 good point about the 125 foot. Had they built a different
15 building, they would have done 125 feet wide, I don't think
16 it would have been as good as that plan.
17 So we do -- I think that's something we probably
18 would look at in fall review, right? So that was the only
19 thing I would add.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, Ted, did you get that
21 down?
22 MR. SHEPARD: We've had that conversation. It
23 seems like it's a standard that would lend itself a little
24 bit more to a performance kind of standard that you have in
25 3.1.4 (E), A through H, because not one size fits all.
52
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay. Comments? Glen, do
2 you have one?
3 MR. COLTON: Well, first I just want to say it
4 sounds like this is a great company and you would be good to
5 Fort Collins, and I trust that the landscaping will be done
6 very well.
7 It does bother me that it seems like we're trying
8 to shoehorn too much onto this site given what the buffered
9 standard would imply in that it just -- I know Doug says
10 it's going to be okay, but it just feels like it's
11 encroach -- when you're encroaching up to 50 percent with a
12 parking lot and then even parking or a little outdoor patio
13 and so forth beyond that, I start feeling, I guess,
14 uncomfortable and saying is it better to make this
15 modification or wait until someone comes along who might
16 have a smaller footprint who could do something on this site
17 and still have a larger buffer?
18 So it just, I don't know, it concerns me that we
19 aren't having as much buffer as we probably should even with
20 the landscaping that's being done.
21 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Good comment. Anyone else?
22 Sally, please.
23 MS. CRAIG: I very much agree with what Glen
24 stated. I also was on the Poudre River Floodplain Task
25 Force and went to a lot of the Natural Resource Advisory
53
1 board meetings when they were trying to put these buffers
2 together just as observing to kind of get their input, etc.
3 And one of the reasons for the 300-foot buffer was to let
4 the Poudre River naturally flood so we don't start in to
5 canalization.
6 So that was one of the reasons why I was glad
7 that we did bring up the floodplain on this piece of
8 property and that the stormwater staff said that this piece
9 of property is different from the property as we head on
10 into the golf course as far as the floodplain goes.
11 So I probably will be supporting this tonight but
12 I very much agree with Glen in regards to it really bothers
13 me that we're encroaching this far into the buffer. And I
14 wish that they had been able to work something out with
15 their neighbors so that they could get the size of the
16 building they need, but we could also at least have kept
17 them within that 20 percent of this buffer.
18 And I think they also know that we're all going
19 to be standing on the bike trail as this goes together to
20 make sure it goes together this way, because it will be
21 setting a precedence in my mind for future developments that
22 come along and whether I will agree to encroach the buffer
23 to this extent.
24 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, any other comments?
25 Thank you, Sally.
54
1 MR. TORGERSON: This had nothing to do with my
2 decision to support the modification, but as a downtown
3 business owner and downtown advocate, we welcome you guys
4 with open arms. It's great to see a major company like this
5 locating downtown and especially with this kind of
6 dedication and quality. So welcome.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer, please.
8 MS. CARPENTER: I would like to state that I
9 don't feel like this is setting a precedent for what we
10 will do as far as the river goes and encroaching on into
11 that 300-foot buffer. We're all very sensitive to that.
12 It's something that we cherish here in Fort Collins.
13 I think this is a special case because of where
14 it is, what is on the property, the way the floodplain
15 works here. So I don't feel like it is going to be a
16 precedent at all.
17 I'm not going to feel when the next one or if the
18 next one comes, any pressure from this that we did this on
19 this particular piece of land. I think this truly is equal
20 to or better than what we would have gotten if we had not
21 encroached into the floodplain.
22 So welcome to Fort Collins and take care of our
23 river.
24 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I'd like to add some comments
25 to it, if I can and that is one, I'll be supporting it.
55
1 Two, I don't see a precedent being set. There's
2 buildings a lot closer to the river than we had talked about
3 and that's what resulted in this buffer being in. But the
4 companies that are closer have done a very fine job on it.
5 Two (sic), Don, I don't want to say you're highly
6 overzealous but I'll say you're very passionate about the
7 buffer and I have to go on your judgment. And if you are
8 very comfortable with this, I'm going to go on your stamp of
9 support.
10 I feel you've taken into account the lighting,
11 encroachments, other mitigation factors that could happen.
12 And you've probably thought through this already. Our
13 modification just tells us is it equal or better than and
14 all that stuff, but together that allows us to make these
15 decisions. I feel you already probably worked through that
16 with the staff and through other factors, and so I'm relying
17 heavily on your judgment that you came forward with this and
18 you're making it feasible.
19 I like the comment you made about Lincoln Greens.
20 Well, they've got their own issues. And I think those
21 issues on Lincoln Greens have been very well known to this
22 board for years because we heard of things coming up about
23 it in those areas and we already know that a sizeable
24 portion of that is going in trouble -- is going to be
25 problematic.
WA
1
And I don't know what's going to happen to
their
2
neighbors to the east or to the west but I'm going to
let
3
that process run its course, because I think we're not
doing
4
precedence, we're just taking each case by case. One
shoe
5
doesn't really fit everybody, huh?
6
So, again, gentlemen, welcome to Fort Collins
and
7
we're looking forward to it. And I'm a frequent user
of
8
that trail. We'll be, equal with Sally and Glen and others,
9
riding on it happily and seeing something good there.
So,
10
again, welcome.
11
May we have a vote, please?
12
STAFF: Meyer?
13
MS. MEYER: Yes.
14
STAFF: Colton?
15
MR. COLTON: Yes.
16
STAFF: Carpenter?
17
MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
18
STAFF: Torgerson?
19
MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
20
STAFF: Craig?
21
MS. CRAIG: Yes.
22
STAFF: Bernth?
23
MR. BERNTH: Yes.
24
STAFF: Gavaldon?
25
CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Yes.
57
1 Okay, motion is approved. Thank you.
2 (Matter concluded.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i[!
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 6
Project: Modification of Standard, Garth Commercial
Plaza.
Project Description: Request for a modification to Section
3.5.3(B)(1) of the Land Use Code, more
specifically Relationship of Buildings to Street,
Walkways and Parking, Orientation to a
Connecting Walkway.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss gave the staff presentation,
recommending approval. He noted that two other modifications relating to
building orientation and having a parking area between the building and street
were previously granted by the Board. The present request is relating to
pedestrian connectivity. The standard in the Land Use Code for which this
modification is requested is Section 3.5.3(B) which stipulates that when there is a
main entry to the building, it should open directly on to a connecting sidewalk
which does not require that the pedestrian move across a vehicle circulation
area. The compliant request would provide 45 parking spaces in front of the
building and the requested plan would provide 47. The site is located on the west
side of Mason Street just south of Boardwalk. The proposed site plan requires
pedestrians to cross over the drive aisle to the hotel site to the north; the
applicant does propose enhanced pedestrian crosswalks. The compliant plan
would have a walkway connecting the public sidewalk to an entryway sidewalk
along the front of the building that would require that the area be essentially
closed to through traffic connecting the two sites. Given the Board's decision to
grant the previous two modifications, staff does not have any specific
reservations about this requested modification. The applicant is proposing two
connecting walkways between the public sidewalk and the building, one on the
far south end of the property and one on the north end.
Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design, gave the applicant's presentation. She
stated that the original, approved plan on this site did show connections between
all three buildings on the site — the new one and the two existing buildings. She
stated that the two pedestrian walks would be enhanced with landscaping,
lighting, and signage if necessary.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 7
Public Input
There was no public input.
Public Input Closed
Chairperson Gavaldon asked how the pedestrian crossings would be defined so
that vehicle traffic will be at a minimum and pedestrians will feel safe in using
them.
Director Gloss replied that, as the applicant stated, the materials would be
continuous in that the sidewalk paving would be continued from the public
sidewalk all the way to the private sidewalk in front of the buildings. Whether they
are raised or not would be largely dependent on storm drainage.
Ms. Straw replied that the enhancements would be applied specifically on the
walks that are coming from the streets. The majority of the traffic that goes
behind the buildings is more service oriented and probably is not going to be
happening during the times that people are walking there. A striped pedestrian
walk is shown in the back but additional enhancements could be done.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked the applicant to work with the Transportation
Planning staff to make the crosswalks safer.
Member Colton moved for approval of Item #6, Modification of Standard,
Garth Commercial Plaza, citing the findings of fact and conclusions in the
staff report.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that she would support the modification but wanted to state
that she was not happy with the layout of the building, particularly given that the
Mason Street Corridor is set to be visually appealing and this plan does not seem
to do that at all.
Chairperson Gavaldon stated that this building design was not the intent of the
Mason Street Corridor Plan Committee and that the safety of the pedestrians
should be kept in mind.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 8
Project: Major Amendment and Modification of
Standards, 419 West Mountain Avenue
Project Description: Request to convert the existing building at 419
West Mountain Avenue from a two-family
residential building to a multi -family residential
building with three dwelling units. Also, request
for modification to the Land Use Code Section
4.7(E)(4), Dimensional Standards, (2)
requests, and Section 4.7(E)(1), Dimensional
Standards.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Current Planning Director Cameron Gloss gave the staff presentation,
recommending approval. He stated that the building under consideration, at 419
West Mountain Avenue, is currently a two-family building and the proposal is to
add one unit and make it a three -unit building. All of the construction would take
place on the northern half of the building. The existing first floor would be
remodeled and the footprint would be maintained as is and a second story would
be added with a second -story balcony. The modifications specifically relate to the
side yard setbacks. There is a side yard setback from the east property line of
3.5 feet, where 8 feet is required, and a request on the west property line to
reduce the setback from 5 feet to 3.25 feet. Finally, there is a minimum lot width
in the zone district of 50 feet and the lot is presently at 35 feet, so that is an
existing condition.
Director Gloss stated that the property is the first property west of the transition
line between the Downtown zoning district and the Canyon sub -district and the
NCM, Neighborhood Conservation Medium -Density zoning district. He noted that
a letter from some neighbors concerned about shade impacts and parking had
been presented to the Board. Parking has been provided to meet standards.
Sue Froseth, Kreul Froseth Architects, gave the applicant's presentation. She
stated that most of the residential structures in the area are two -stories, so this
would match that. There will be other architectural features to keep the building
congruous with those around it. She stated that the Landmark Preservation
Commission does not have jurisdiction over this building as it is not over 50 years
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 9
old; they did comment that the plans would be an improvement over the existing
structure.
Public Input
Dan George, 425 West Mountain Avenue, gave his testimony to the Board. He
stated that he had some concerns with the west side setback and the tight
parking situation. He asked that the NCM zoning designation and Type II review
be clarified. He also asked what the distance between structures should be.
Director Gloss replied that the 10 foot separation between buildings is from wall
to wall; therefore a chimney, mechanical equipment, or a roof line may encroach
into that space. That space, being 11 feet or slightly more, would clearly comply.
Bruce Froseth, applicant, replied that there are two 2-bedroom units existing,
which requires 1.75 spaces per unit, which has been rounded to 4 for both units.
The new addition could be a 3-bedroom unit, which requires 2 parking spaces.
The three units will then total 6 spaces. The proposal does include a garage unit
which can be used in the parking count so the total number of parking spaces on
the site will be 7, one more than what is required.
Member Carpenter asked how many of the 7 spaces are garages.
Mr. Froseth replied that just one was a garage; the other six will be in the back.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if there had been a change in the Land Use Code
regarding charging extra rent for garages.
Director Gloss replied that it is a moot point in this case but it would apply in a
multiple unit building.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if any windows are being proposed on the
west elevation.
Mr. Froseth replied that he was — they would be glass block likely, and would not
be operable or open.
Member Carpenter asked how much taller this structure would be than the house
to the west.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 10
Ms. Froseth replied that the existing peak on the house is estimated at about 18
feet. The wall height will be about he same height as the peak of the existing
house to the west.
Member Colton stated that there must have been a good reason for the 50-foot
lot width requirement and it was difficult to understand why the 35-foot width
should be considered a hardship for which a modification should be granted.
Director Gloss replied that this lot was designed for a commercial building. The
area is now predominantly residential and this is a substandard lot with a
substandard setback which creates an unusual circumstance. It is logical to builc
up rather than out. The new design probably more closely matches the
surrounding structures than does the existing structure. From staff's perspective,
this is an improvement.
Mr. Froseth stated that the lot to the west is also 35 feet wide and would not be a
conforming residential lot, according to the standards which require a 40-foot
width for single-family or two-family units.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the option to step the second floor in to the
5-foot setback was explored.
Ms. Froseth replied that she did explore that but that it was very uncharacteristic
of historic structures and does not feel right with the streetscape.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson asked if the fence would be brought to the front of
the building along the property line.
Ms. Froseth replied that it would not go all the way to the front; it is just for
screening along the side. The idea was to take out the concrete parking spaces
in front and replace it with landscaping in order to keep with the streetscape.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the owner has a driveway to the back lot or if he
uses the alley.
Member Meyer stated that the residents who currently live at this site use the
alley and that the next door house uses the driveway to access their garage.
Ms. Froseth stated that there is an easement on her property which allows the
neighbors to get to their property in the back.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page 11
Member Meyer moved for approval of the Major Amendment for 419 West
Mountain Avenue.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Member Meyer moved for approval of the three Modification Requests for
419 West Mountain Avenue citing the findings of fact and conclusions on
pages 6 and 7 of the staff report.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Vice -Chairperson Torgerson stated that this would be a dramatic improvement in
architecture for West Mountain.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Director Gloss reminded the Board that election of officers would take place at
the next hearing on January 16th and that the worksession and hearing will likely
be long. Colorado State University will be there with 5 projects to discuss.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Minutes approved 4/15/2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.