Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/21/1999• The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Colton. Roll Call: Bernth, Craig, Gavaldon, Carpenter, Torgerson and Colton. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, Jones, Stringer, Virata, Schlueter, Bracke and Deines. Agenda Review: Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the May 6 (Continued), May 20 (Continued), June 17 (Continued), July 15, August 19 (Continued) and September 16 (Continued), 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Modifications of Conditions of Final Approval. 3. #28-99 Olde Town North — Modification of Standard. 4. Resolution PZ99-10 Easement Vacation. 5. #19-99 Elizabeth Street Apartments — Rezoning. 6. #13-99D Fossil Creek Wetlands Annexation and Zoning. 7. #8-95D Glenmoor PDP — Modification of Standard (Withdrawn) 8. #1-97A Timberline Church P.U.D. — Final 9. Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Bi- Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. Member Craig pulled Item 3, Olde Town North. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (July 15, 1999 only), 2, 4, 5 and 6. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 2 Project: Modification of a Standard for Olde Town North, #28- 99 Project Description: Request for a modification of Land use Code Section 4.15(D)(1) that would require limiting single family housing to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • October 21, 1999 Page 3 Project: Timberline Church (formerly First Assembly of God), Final P.U.D., #1-97A Project Description: Request for a portion (Phase One and Phase Two) of a multi -use church campus. Phase One consists of 114,350 square foot assembly hall/gymnasium with offices and child care. The assembly hall/gymnasium would contain 1,352 seats. Phase One also consists of 5,000 square foot, four -bay bus barn. Phase Two consists of 86,400 square feet primarily for a sanctuary/auditorium which would contain 2,500 seats. The site is zoned LMN and located on the east side of Timberline Road, north of Pine Cone Apartments and approximately one-half mile south of Drake Road. Recommendation: Approval with the Condition: "The four foot high berm that buffers the western parking lot shall be enhanced • with additional evergreen trees, sufficient in number so that at the time of maturity, the combination of plant material shall form a solid screen as viewed from Timberline Road. Such additional evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight to ten feet in height at the time of planting." Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval with the following condition: "The four foot high berm that buffers the western parking lot shall be enhanced with additional evergreen trees, sufficient in number so that at the time of maturity, the combination of plant material shall form a solid screen as viewed from Timberline Road. Such additional evergreen trees shall be a minimum of eight to ten feet in height at the time of planting." Wally Webber, Pastor at Timberline Church gave the applicant's presentation. Pastor Webber spoke about the history of the project and introduced his consulting team. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October21, 1999 Page 4 Bruce Smith, Architect with the Larson Group presented the church design. Mr. Smith presented a massing model of the church and boards that showed the location, site design and layout of the church. Mr. Smith spoke about the parking and the parking layout, the entrances to the site, pedestrian access, the foothills trail, which is on the southeast side of the lot, building elevations and colors, and the activities and services that will the church will provide. The massing model they provided did show phases 1 and 2. Citizen Input Sara Lamnia, San Luis Street, commented on the project. Ms. Lamnia questioned the number of total seats in the project. She stated that her biggest concern was with the traffic. Public Input Closed Member Craig asked about the traffic report done for the preliminary and suggested to staff that the applicants do an amendment to the traffic report at final Member Craig asked about the preliminary traffic report and that it showed a full movement into Timberline, but at final it is showing as a right -in right -out. She felt the Board needed updated figures on how much traffic is on Timberline today compared to the preliminary report. Eric Bracke, Transportation Department replied that the northern access will be a right -in right -out, the southern access with what will be designed for Timberline, will be a three quarter movement. He stated that at peak hours for this project on Sunday morning, Timberline carries very little traffic, so it is not a fair evaluation to say that this project will add all this traffic to Timberline. Mr. Bracke stated that this spring Timberline will be widened to four lanes from Vermont north 1000 feet past Drake Road. It will be providing the two through movements and the intersection of Drake Road and Timberline Road will operate well within acceptable levels of service. Member Craig asked how the traffic would handle the bottle neck when it goes from a major arterial down to a minor arterial after the 1000 feet north of Drake Road. Mr. Bracke replied that there are transitions that would get traffic back into single lanes. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 5 Member Craig asked if the three-quarter movement was across from Sagebrush. Mr. Bracke replied thatthe southern most access point is north of Sagebrush. He stated that when Sagebrush is extended then it would become a full movement intersection. Member Craig asked what a three-quarter movement was, what would they be allowed to do. Mr. Bracke replied that it was a right -in, right -out with a left in. There would be a left turn lane, and a center median bay. Member Craig asked if the light at Custer would be in when the first phase of this project is build out. Mr. Bracke replied more than likely. Member Gavaldon asked what operational things would be in place that would necessitate a larger parking lot than the guidelines call for, and why do they need • that much more parking. Dan Finnegan, Larson Group responded that the parking ratio right now is a little under 1:3. He stated that he felt the accurate representation of the parking needs were more like 2:8 or 2:9 for this size of church, and that would be to meet the minimum needs. He felt that anything less would cause a spillover problem. Mr. Finnegan explained that the size of the parking lot was being driven by the size of the Sunday morning services. He stated that he did not believe there would be any operational changes. Member Gavaldon asked if the Board would ask the church to stay within the guidelines of the plan, how many parking spaces would be deleted. Planner Shepard replied that it was around 200. Member Craig questioned the parking requirements in the LDGS, and that the parking standard was 1 parking space per 5 seats in the auditorium or place of assembly. She asked if that was a standard and not a guideline. Planner Shepard replied that staff has interpreted the parking lot development guide to be a more specific guideline. Staff has not interpreted the LDGS • standards to be absolute standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 6 Member Craig asked if the Board could make them standards because it specifically is listed in the LDGS. Planner Shepard replied the Board could. Member Craig stated that the LDGS specifically states that it wants 1 parking space per 5 seats. Planner Shepard asked Member Craig to keep in mind that that was more restrictive than the Land Use Code offers. Member Craig asked about Fort Collins High School to the south and were they held to any parking guidelines. Planner Shepard replied that they were not, they were exempt from the zoning code. Member Gavaldon asked if the entire parking lot would be built in the first phase. Mr. Finnegan replied that the parking lot as well as the building is phased. Phase 1 would be 516 spaces, and approximately 300 to 400 in Phase 2. Member Bernth asked Mr. Smith about the discrepancies in the seating numbers reported of an of occupancy of 1,963 and the actual occupant load being 1,457. Mr. Smith replied that the code states a specified occupant level of 7 square feet per occupant, so when the Building Department reviews the plans, technically for conformance to the code, that would be the number of occupants they will be considering. The actual number of seats, with their physical design layout they have done of number of chairs, is 1,352 chairs actually provided plus the choir and staff. Mr. Smith added that if you take out the chairs in the code review, and stand people up, there is a potential to squeeze more people in than the 1,352. Legally by code, they could put 1,800 to 1,900 people in and not be violating the building code. Member Bernth stated the discrepancy the Board is looking at is 4 seats per parking space and the applicant is asking for 1 per 2.82 seats based on 1,457. He felt there was a big discrepancy and he was wondering how to mitigate that, at this point, large discrepancy. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 7 Member Bernth stated that currently the applicant has 516 parking spaces, and if he bases that on 1,457 seats, then they would be at the 2.82 mark. Per code the Board is looking at 4, and obviously the discrepancy is less if there are 1,963 occupants. Mr. Smith replied that they were just trying to be truthful about the number of seats. He stated that at times they may have some overflow, like during Christmas and Easter, and they can legally put more than their stated seating occupancy. Mr. Finnegan asked if the LDGS number is a minimum number, and in fact, if the Board would check churches throughout Colorado, he did not think they would find a single church at the 1 to 4 ratio that was not experiencing significant difficulties. The other occupancy issue is that at the same time they are holding services, they also have children in Sunday School classes. He thought that the occupancy load was for the sanctuary, however that would be another source of individuals in the facility at the time that would have to be counted in. Member Carpenter asked if shared parking was looked at with the commercial . area to the north. Planner Shepard replied that staff did not feel that was reliable, because the commercial portion of Rigden Farms was a phase that could not be pinned down as to when it will be built. Member Craig was concerned that everything is getting bigger and she has a problem with seas of asphalt and nobody trying to use other modes of transportation like carpooling. She wanted to not constantly alter the vision by continuing to say this is o.k. She was willing to mitigate, as it has been made clear by LDGS 2.4, that the Board can ask for 1 parking space for 5 seats. She would be willing to ask for 1 for 4. Member Torgerson asked the applicant where they would remove the 200 parking spaces from their space. Mr. Finnegan replied that the largest portion of the parking is on the east half of the lot and he would start on the eastern edge and work toward the building. Mr. Finnegan stated that the Phase 1 parking at a 1 to 4 would be a reduction of about 150 spaces. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 8 Member Torgerson stated that the Board is looking at a proposed condition to look at buffering the parking lots from Timberline Road with berming and plantings. He did not feel there was excessive parking between Timberline and the church and he had concerns with shielding the entire church from the road. Member Carpenter commented that the excessive amount asphalt concerns her, but so does spillover into neighborhoods. She does not believe that shared parking as been explored. She felt there was other options for parking. Member Gavaldon stated that he was comfortable with the latest data that Mr. Bracke shared tonight on the traffic. He would like to see less parking spaces to stay within the parameters of our criteria. He stated that he could go either way on the mitigation of berming. He supported a reduction of parking spaces up to 200. Member Craig felt that the proposed condition for additional berming would only keep someone from seeing the parking not the building because it is set back too far. Member Torgerson felt that the wording of the condition that "at the time of maturity, a solid screen as viewed from Timberline would be formed." He did not think that the church would be visible at all if we had a berm and a solid screen of trees and that is a problem for him. Mr. Smith asked that the Board entertain the possibility of the motion being a 1 to 4 ratio for parking based upon the code allowed occupancy. Member Craig asked how many spaces would be removed if the 1 to 4 occupancy ratio versus 1 to 5 seating ration. Mr. Smith replied approximately 50 to 100 Member Bernth stated that if they use 1,956 and divide by 4, it would be 489. They are proposing 516, so essentially it would be 27 different. The parking would be reduced by 27 parking spaces. Planner Shepard explained that the LDGS states that there shall be a "minimum of it does not give a maximum. • Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October21, 1999 Page 9 Member Gavaldon made a motion and the Board again discussed parking ratio's and number of parking spaces based on seating numbers. Member Gavaldons motion was withdrawn. Member Torgerson asked what other occupancies would be in use in this facility besides the sanctuary. Planner Shepard stated that the operational question should be asked, that when the 2500 seat auditorium/sanctuary is filled, will there be activity in the phase 1 gymnasium. Will you have full occupancy in both at the same time. Member Torgerson stated that the Board has only been looking at the sanctuary and they would be required to have additional parking for the other occupancies that are being used when the sanctuary is being used. Mr. Smith replied that other spaces, almost all of them, will be used. He was not sure that what the code would consider the occupancy of this use would be based on a cumulative pattern. The first sanctuary will be transferred to a • gymnasium, and it could very well be used. He felt the Board would find over time that the 1 to 4 ratio would be so restrictive that it would have safety issues and tremendous public complaint issues. Mr. Smith felt there were some great motivations to limit parking, but felt the Board was going a little too far, and because of that they will have to do gymnastics to get something to work. He suggested that they have a continuance for a couple of weeks to give the Board hard data and work with the people involved to come up with a solution that will work. Member Gavaldon moved to continue The Timberline Church (formerly First Assembly of God), Final P.U.D., #1-97A to the November 4, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board meeting to allow the applicant to come back with an operational plan and parking criteria and proposal based on the seating that would be consistently used. Member Bernth seconded the motion with the understanding that somewhere it is more than 2500 and less than 3862, but to take into consideration Sunday school and operational aspects of what would be happening on Sunday during particular services. Member Carpenter asked for a friendly amendment to look at possibilities in the area for shared parking. Member Gavaldon and Bernth accepted the • amendment. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 10 Project: Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. Project Description: Request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the biannual update to the Land Use Code. There are proposed revisions, clarifications and additions to the Code that address a variety of subject areas that have arisen since the last update in June. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff report recommending approval. Member Craig had questions on the mini -storage permitted in the "CL" zone. Planner Shepard replied that it is proposed to be a permitted use in the CL zone, in addition staff is also proposing that food catering be added to that zone. Member Craig was addressing 4.20 (B)(2)(c). She questioned what other zones were enclosed mini -storage facilities allowed in. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator replied C, CN and the I District. That were the three districts that allow enclosed mini storage. Member Craig would like to see this area moved more towards smaller establishments and more people friendly areas because it is so close to the river. This was not something she would like to walk to or walk along. The big lot next to Albertson's on Riverside and Lemay is also in this district, and it should be more envisioned as an area that is more pedestrian friendly. Planner Shepard clarified that the lot next to Albertson's is not in the CL Zone. That large property is zoned the same as the Albertson's. The CL Zone begins to the west on the old Flatiron property. n U • Planning and Zoning October 21, 1999 Page 11 • Board Minutes Member Craig was still not comfortable putting in the mini -storage in this zoning district. She stated that what was in the area now we have to live with, but she would like to see a transition of change and by adding this use, we are going backwards and not forwards. Planner Shepard responded that in working on this issue with Advance Planning, not to take lightly the planning process that went on with the East Side Neighborhood Plan and the compromises that were reached in a real planning exercise to come up with the CL zone. Staff is just honoring what we committed to back then. Planner Shepard added that in the information provided to the Board, it states that warehouses and enclosed storage were in the CL zone that was created as a result of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. That was part of the attachments to his memo. Staff felt that it was an oversight that it did not get carried forward when we switched over to the new Land Use Code. If you go back to the Advanced Planning work that was done on the East Side Neighborhood Plan, the creation of the CL zone at that time, warehouses and enclosed storage were included in the zone. Member Craig asked if that was because there were existing warehouses and storage in the CL zone and is that why it is listed as a use. Mr. Barnes replied that there are not any existing mini storage in the CL zone, but there are some on a property directly adjacent to the CL. There were not any enclosed mini storage facilities in the CL district when the CL zone was adopted and the list of uses included. Mr. Barnes added that there is a lengthy list of uses allowed in the CL zone, and not all of those uses exist or existed at the time. The list of uses that was adopted in the CL zoning as part of the East Side Neighborhood Plan, included uses that were not there, but were felt to be appropriate. Member Craig appreciated staffs input and that it helped clarify what uses should be in the CL zone. Chairperson Colton wanted to talk about issue 275, Addition of Theaters as a permitted use in the C zone. Chairperson Colton was concerned — that when City Plan was done, there were certain ideas on the way the city should run. We wanted uses spread Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October21, 1999 Page 12 throughout the city instead of having them all in one location that cause traffic impacts. He questioned why theaters were not included in the C zone at the time of City Plan. Planner Shepard explained why theaters were not included in the C zone at the time of City Plan because it was felt they should be located in the NC zone. Staff now feels that that is not where theaters want to located, but in the C zone. Chairperson Colton commented that he felt we were changing our vision to accommodate the industry because it does not support the size requirements in the NC zone and they want to locate in the C zone because of the size of the theaters now days. Member Craig commented that a positive note is that movie theatres over 25,000 s.f. cannot locate as stand alone establishments, they will still have to located around other activities. Chairperson Colton asked for other items to be discussed. There was none. Chairperson Colton moved that theaters not be included in the C zone. There was no second. Member Craig moved to recommend to City Council all of the Land Use Code clarifications, additions and revisions that staff brought before the Board tonight. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 9 PLANNING & ZONING MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1999 OLD TOWN NORTH MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS Commission Members Present: Glen Colton Mika[ Torgerson Sally Craig Dan Bernth . Jennifer Carpenter Jerry Gavaldon Staff Present: Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office Troy Jones, Planning Department Ted Shepard, Planning Department Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 or (800) 482-1506 . Fax: 482-1230 e-mail: meadors@frii.com E 1 MR. COLTON: All right. That brings up 2 discussion items. And per normal practice, we should go 3 ahead with the Old Town North, the item that has been 4 pulled, item number 3. And, Sally, would you like to have 5 a presentation, or would you like to discuss . . . 6 MS. CRAIG: I don't think I need a presentation. 7 If it gets to where the other Board members are a little 8 confused at what I'm saying, then we might start back at 9 square one to explain the modification. 10 I pulled it because I went ahead and looked up in 11 the Land Use Code this particular area which is called 12 CCN. And it referred to the North College Corridor Plan. 13 So I looked that one also. And after doing that, I didn't 14 feel that the modification met the intent and purpose of 15 the Land Use Code. And so I was going to check with staff 16 to find out why they felt like it met the intent and 17 purpose of the Land Use Code. So Troy. 18 MR. JONES: And just on the record, Bob Blanchard 19 is the planner on this project. And he is out of town 20 today, and he asked me to cover for him. 21 Just a little bit of background, just to make 22 sure I understand and everyone else understands what the 23 issue is. 24 MR. COLTON: And Troy, I wasn't there. Maybe you 25 can go ahead and give a little bit of a presentation, 3 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 setting the stage here. MR. JONES: Okay. All right. The proposal is for this property which is -- bear with me for a minute here. Okay. We've got 300 single-family homes that are intended to be affordable housing units. They will be single-family detached units. And they're -- they're intended to be on this site in the CCN zone. Just to orient everybody, this is College Avenue (indicating). We've got Vine Drive. The lake canal runs right here along the southern boundary of the property. It is currently vacant land. The -- the issue at hand is they are seeking a modification to the standard which specifies in the CCN zone that only 40 percent of -- of this piece of the CCN zone, or this geographic zoning district can be single-family residential units. The -- and the reason the applicant would like the modification to this standard is because they intend to put an application in for this project; although, the rule is that whoever -- whichever applicant, if there's a race side by side two properties trying to develop single-family homes at the same time, it would, in essence; be a race to see who gets final approval first to see who could get this allotted 40 percent within this zoning district. 4 1 The zoning district is approximately -- this -- 2 basically the piece of this CCN zoning district -- let me 3 refer to in my notes here. This -- well, this piece is 4 approximately 31 percent of this piece of the CCN zoning 5 district. So if they built single-family housing on this 6 whole site, then that would use up the majority of that 7 allotted 40 percent, which is allowed in this zoning 8 district. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now what the applicant would like to do is a modification so that they can be ensured that if the property to the north were to gain approval prior to this property's final approval, they would still be able to develop their property after spending all of the money and all of the engineering costs and that sort of thing. The dilemma that Sally brought up is that this could bring a situation into this piece of the CCN zone where the property to the north would develop with single-family units. And because of this modification request, this site could also develop, and upwards of 80 percent of this portion of the CCN zone would then have single-family units. And if I understand you correctly, Sally, the concern is that the intent and the purpose of CCN zone, according to what the -- defined in the Land Use Code, would not support 80 percent single-family houses, but 5 1 single-family would be a secondary -type use. 2 And your question is, why does staff feel that 3 that is satisfied. And I think my best bet would be to 4 defer and say I think I agree with you, Sally, and I think 5 we would need Bob Blanchard here to defend that particular 6 item. 7 So you may consider either -- if you feel 8 comfortable, I would recommend either one of two actions. 9 Either if the other Boards feel -- other Board members 10 feel comfortable about it to approve it anyway if that's 11 not an issue to them, or to continue the item to the next 12 planning and zoning session until that question can be 13 asked to Bob Blanchard. 14 MS. CRAIG: What I would like to put before the 15 other Board members is that I have no problem with the 16 project itself. What I have a problem with is that this 17 whole area could end up with single-family housing and 18 that was not the intent of this area. 19 What I'd like to see us do as a Board is to 20 continue this. And in the interim, possibly Paul and Bob 21 Blanchard and the applicant can sit down and figure out a 22 way that we can give them first rights, so to speak, 23 without us losing the 40 percent housing. 24 So somehow -- and, you know, I don't want to go 25 into it tonight because I don't know the legalities, and I G 1 would need a lot of help from Paul, is that we could look 2 at vested rights. There could be several options that we 3 have to say that this particular project gets first dibs 4 to the 40 percent. But if this project fails and doesn't 5 happen, then the whole area still stays at that 40 percent 6 single-family housing. 7 And I agree there is a problem with the whole way 8 this is written. And we need to look at it as a policy 9 issue. But for tonight, we're stuck with what we've got. 10 And that's why I'd like to request of the Board and 11 possibly go ahead and make a motion at this time to 12 continue this. 13 MR. COLTON: I think we need to hear from the 14 applicant first, and then see if there's any public input 15 after that. I think we can go ahead for -- I guess, since 16 we opened it up as an item, we should probably go ahead 17 and hear what the applicant has to say. 18 Would the applicant please like to come forward? 19 MS. SWEERE: Thank you. I'm biting at the 20 chomp. My name is Monica Sweere. I'm with Palladian 21 Construction Company. And just to add to -- I believe 22 it's Troy's comments on this issue. I'd like to emphasize 23 that there is a time factor involved here that's critical. 24 We have applied to the State of Colorado for 25 funding because our goal is to create affordable housing, W 1 over 300 units on this site, single-family detached. We 2 have been granted a conditional loan from the State of 3 Colorado, conditional upon this decision. And so much of 4 the impetus for getting this issue resolved was meeting 5 the conditions of that grantable loan from the State of 6 Colorado. 7 The issue at hand, I believe, is understood here 8 in that what the current policy does is pit one landowner 9 against the other. The way City plan doesn't vest the 10 developer's right until final approval. The question was 11 raised, what if we were trying to create these i12 single-family units and another developer were trying to 13 create these other single-family units. 14 Of course, we're both spending hundreds of 15 thousands of dollars in that process and may not be aware 16 of each other activities. And if one developer submitted 17 a day before the other, that developer would vest rights. 18 So this was a large risk for the State of Colorado. 19 The initial response from staff was that they did 20 not believe that there would be a likelihood that 21 single-family or residential developers would want to 22 develop in this area. And they did not believe it was a . 23 high risk that there would be a lot of single-family or 24 multifamily residential developed in the area. 25 The additional question was raised as to -- the L 1 language in this particular zoning district is that only 2 40 percent of the district can be -- can be residential. 3 And so the question was, well does that mean the entire 4 CCN district? Does that mean parts of the CCN district? 5 Because this particular district is broken up into a 6 number of parts. And so this also hoped to clarify that 7 particular question by exempting this project in its 8 entirety from that question. 9 If you choose to continue this issue, my 10 request -- and I don't know the logistics of how this 11 operates -- but my request is that it could be done in a 12 quick fashion. I don't know if your agenda allows a 13 revisiting of this at the next P and Z or how that would 14 happen. But the state funding is contingent upon this 15 decision tonight. And we were, of course, hopeful for a 16 positive decision so that we could proceed with the 17 affordable housing project. 18 MR. COLTON: Thank you. If anyone has any 19 questions. Yeah. You have a question? 20 MS. CARPENTER: Wait, wait. Don't sit down 21 yet. I have a question. what is your deadline for the 22 state funding? 23 MS. SWEERE: The deadline, frankly, is a matter 24 of land contract, not a deadline with the state funding. 25 And so the issue at hand is that the land is under 9 • 1 contract, and those contractual obligations need to be met 2 in a certain time frame. 3 MS. CARPENTER: What is that deadline? 4 MS. SWEERE: I must say I am reluctant to mention 5 that in a public forum. 6 MS. CARPENTER: Well, then, let me put it a 7 different way. If we -- if we continue this to the next P 8 and Z meeting -- 9 MS. SWEERE: Which would be? 10 MR. ECKMAN: Two weeks from tonight. 11 MS. CARPENTER: November 4th. 12 MS. SWEERE: That would be minimally acceptable 13 for us to proceed given that time. 14 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you. 15 MR. COLTON: Any other questions for the 16 applicant right now? Okay. Thanks. 17 I want to open it up for public input now. If 18 there's anyone else from the public who would like to come 19 and give us your input, please stand up or raise your hand 20 or come on down. I don't see anyone jumping up and 21 down. 22 MR. JONES: I've got another discussion that I • 23 didn't think of when I was -- 24 MR. COLTON: We closed public input. 25 MR. JONES: Oh, I'm sorry. When I was rattling 10 1 off the options that I was recommending, either 2 continuance or voting it in anyway, if there's enough 3 Board members comfortable, third option may be to come up 4 with a condition of approval that everybody feels 5 comfortable with this evening and perhaps approve it 6 according to that condition. And I don't know what that 7 condition would be. It might be up to the discussion to 8 determine that. 9 MR. COLTON: Does anyone from planning staff 10 know -- have there been any discussions on the other 11 portions of CCN with any plans or anything like that? 12 MR. JONES: Bob indicated that he's heard nothing 13 as well and I haven't and Ted indicates that he hasn't. 14 MR. COLTON: Okay. Jerry? 15 MR. GAVALDON: I've got a process question. And 16 one of the criteria is, I'm hearing a lot of information 17 about deadlines, reluctant to share contract information, 18 and want to push ahead with it with minimal risk. All 19 these are -- is great information to have. But is this 20 part of a process to evaluate? Are we supposed to 21 evaluate what does the plan.call for? What's the criteria 22 to evaluate? Does any of the stuff that was shared part 23 of this process? 24 MR. JONES: The official answer -- and correct me 25 if I'm wrong, Paul or Ted -- is that you're charged to 1 consider the items as far as the Land Use Code addresses 2 the issue, not necessarily those other issues. 3 And specifically the issue in the Land Use Code 4 is that in granting a modification, it seems that several 5 of the items that -- the item is tested against, are 6 satisfied. The one that's in question, is that the 7 granting of the modification request would not impair the 8 intent or purposes of the Land Use Code. 9 And it's Sally's claim is that the purpose of the 10 Land Use Code is not being satisfied with this request. 11 And that purpose would be the purpose for the CCN zone 12 district which would be in the Land Use Code. Let's 13 see. Let me find it. 14 Basically Article 4, page 103. That purpose for 15 the community commercial states, "The community commercial 16 North College District is for fringes of retail, 17 commercial core areas, and corridors. This district is 18 intended for the moderate intensity uses that are 19 supportive of the commercial core or corridor and that 20 help to create a transition and link between the 21 commercial areas and surrounding residential areas. This 22 designation is only for areas identified for its 23 application in the North College Corridor Plan." 24 And that is the purpose of question this evening, 25 that Sally feels is not being satisfied. 12 1 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. 2 MR. COLTON: Any other questions? Mikal? 3 MR. TORGERSON: I have a question for the 4 applicant. What stage are you at in terms of design or 5 process on this project? 6 MS. SWEERE: We are proceeding with work on the 7 project, engineering studies, traffic studies. We just 8 contracted for an environmental assessment. We are 9 proceeding fully with the project pending this decision. 10 MR. TORGERSON: So based on -- you must have 11 extrapolated that into some schedule. What would you 12 anticipate getting approvals? 13 MS. SWEERE: I don't feel competent to predict 14 approvals. However, it was our hope and expectation to 15 get -- now here, again, having all of the engineering done 16 and all of the review by the City, completed within 14 17 months. And we, of course, have waited nearly -- well, 18 quite some time, frankly. Almost two months from when we 19 initially raised this issue to this point. So it's been 20 two months just getting to you tonight. 21 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. 22 MS. SWEERE: Thank you. 23 MS. CRAIG: While you're up, could I ask a 24 question, also? 25 MS. SWEERE: Certainly. 0 13 1 MS. CRAIG: So have you submitted an application 2 to the City for this? You've got an official application 3 that's been submitted to the City for this project? 4 MS. SWEERE: Yes. We've gone through conceptual 5 review. And that was quite some time ago. And we are 6 proceeding with the rest of the engineering work on the 7 project. When you say "official application," maybe you 8 can help me. 9 MR. JONES: I think I might be able to clarify 10 that. The official application has been for the 11 modification request, but the project development plan has • 12 not been officially applied for. 13 MS. CRAIG: Submitted. 14 MR. JONES: Submitted. 15 MS. CRAIG: So they've come in for a conceptual 16 review, but they have not submitted -- 17 MR. JONES: Conceptual review and also the 18 modification request but not the project development plan. 19 MS. CRAIG: Okay. You talk about having -- 20 starting some engineering and stuff when your funding 21 hasn't been verified. Are you comfortable with that? 22 MS. SWEERE: I'm in a risky business. And I • 23 believe in the affordable housing that I'm trying to 24 create. And I believed that it was a priority in our City 25 to create such housing and hoped to get support from the 14 1 City on all levels. 2 MS. CRAIG: I don't think the housing -- the 3 affordable housing is not the issue here. It's the intent 4 and purpose of the Land Use Code. And that's what I'm 5 struggling with. Thank you. 6 MS. SWEERE: Uh-huh. 7 MR. GAVALDON: Troy, just for clarification -- 8 and I'm more numbers driven, so. It seems like this came 9 into -- the modification request came on September 7th, by 10 your letter? And that's when the clock starts ticking for 11 the modification? 12 MR. JONES: Now you're talking about the 13 application for modification request? 14 MR. GAVALDON: Yes, sir. 15 MR. JONES: Can you help me out where you're 16 seeing that information? 17 MR. GAVALDON: It's on the staff report. 18 MR. JONES: Okay. And bear with me since Bob was 19 the planner on this. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Sure. 21 MR.JONES: What is the question more precisely? 22 MR. GAVALDON: So it comes on September 7, and 23 here we are. It's about a month and a half. Is that 24 typical for a modification to go through the pipeline? 25 MR. JONES: I don't know that we have a typical 0 • 15 • 1 modification as of yet because each one of them has been 2 so different from the other one. 3 MR. GAVALDON: That's true. 4 MR. JONES: But if the question is, does that 5 seem like a long time compared to the others, that seems 6 about at least average, I would say. Some of them have 7 some very complicated things to work out before it's ready 8 to come to the Board. Others are fairly simple. 9 MR. GAVALDON: So this is a reasonable amount of 10 time. I just wanted to clarify that because the statement 11 was made "two months taking this long." It just seems 12 like this is a little shorter. It's more reasonable for 13 modifications to keep within our process code. 14 MR. JONES: Compared to the other four or five 15 modifications that have come before the Board as 16 stand-alone modifications, it seems about average to me. 17 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah. okay. Thank you. 18 MS. CRAIG: Ted, I wonder if I could ask you, as 19 far as the CCN district goes, when you and the advanced 20 planners sat down and put together this district, was your 21 vision to have it mostly single-family houses? 22 MR. SHEPARD: Actually, this zone district was 23 not a creation of the Land Use Code City planned 24 process. It was part of the North College Avenue Plan 25 which preceded City Plan by about three or four years as I 16 1 recall; although, it was a lengthy process. 2 I wasn't on that committee. And I was only on 3 the periphery of it. It's hard for me to go back into the 4 minds of the committee members as to what the pure vision 5 was. I know that a lot of work went into it. 6 I do know that, generically speaking, there has 7 been some loss of translation or some -- some loss of 8 intent or context when we adopted the new Land Use Code 9 and wrote purpose statements. And it will come up on our 10 discussion on the enclosed mini -storage in the CL. Again, it that was an old zone that got transposed in. 12 Some things got dropped out. The only thing I 13 can tell you is that when we wrote these purpose 14 statements, we didn't intend for them to be interpreted 15 literally. They were guidelines. They're not pure 16 code. I believe that the interpretation and the 17 administration of the Land Use Code is that the purpose 18 statements are explanatory text and that you do have some 19 latitude. 20 And when we wrote the purpose statements, they 21 were for the intention of clarifying the new zone 22 districts because we were going through the City Plan 23 exercise. 24 MS. CRAIG: But looking at the North College 25 Corridor Plan and the fact that they put 40 percent in NIN 1 it . . . 2 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah. That indicates a level of 3 specificness that probably indicates they put a lot of 4 thought into it. 5 MS. CRAIG: I would say so from looking at the 6 diagrams, what they did want, what they didn't want in 7 that area, that took a lot of thought. This wasn't quite 8 like the CL where they had to kind of go with what was in 9 the area. This was a vision that whoever worked on that 10 committee had. 11 And from looking at this, my impression -- the . 12 vision was not just that whole area ending up being 13 single-family housing. And that brings back my concern. 14 If we exempt this project from any formula, and 15 technically by this exemption they could come in with a 16 hundred percent. I mean, they could come in with 600, in 17 theory. And the property to the north would have to meet 18 the 40 percent. And so then they could come in with the 19 400, I think is about the round figure. 20 So we could even end up with a thousand houses -- 21 single-family houses, not just residential. They very 22 much wanted some residential, but they were looking at 23 more in your two-story, three-story condo, higher density, 24 the fact that even in the single-family, they talk about 25 five units per acre at that time. That was before City W. 1 Plan. 2 So they were looking at a higher density. Kind 3 of like we do now, we have commercial and then we have MMN 4 and then -- you know, then we transition into LMN. And my 5 fear is that we're going to lose that vision if we exempt 6 this one. And that still means that 400 more 7 single-family houses can go into this area. 8 But on the other hand, I am not saying that I 9 don't want this affordable housing project to not go. 10 And that's -- that again, brings me back to why I 11 was looking at a continuance, not a denial, until we can 12 all put our heads together and maybe come up with a 13 condition or something that does not lose the intent, but 14 still lets them be the first ones with the 40 percent. 15 MR. GAVALDON: Paul? This suggestion that Sally 16 offers is a good idea. Is this something that we could 17 continue and let them come in, first form on deck? 18 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 19 MR. GAVALDON: Would that be fair? 20 MR. ECKMAN: You certainly may continue if they 21 asked that you continue it, to quit the meeting. But 22 that's not a problem for you to continue this item for 23 further exploration. 24 I do remember that when Bob -- I believe it 25 was -- gave that interpretation some time back, we 19 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 discussed that. And there was a concern that if -- if this 40 percent, whatever it is, becomes vested too early in the process, let's say at the PDP stage, then there's no real assurance that that PDP will move on to a final plan and ultimately get developed. And we didn't think it would be in the City's best interest to tie up that 40 percent with a PDP that hadn't moved any further along in the process. And so the final plan was selected as the place where a person gets to tie up the 40 percent and have a assurance that they can move forward on it and no one else can, was that final plan. Even though even the final plan sometimes don't get built. But at least they've moved through the process. And then it's a question of financing and developer's interest. So that's why that was selected as the -- as the place marker for the 40 percent. I don't know of any way to resolve that dilemma through a condition. The practical resolution of it might be for those developers who want to tie up the 40 percent, to just have their -- in the cases where ODPs are needed as well, you can have a joint filing of an ODP and PDP and get them both approved at once. And then move directly to the final plan. And, of course, that means spending some money. But it means getting through the process probably before a competitor 20 1 would have a chance to get there. And that's not a legal 2 solution, it's a practical solution. 3 MR. GAVALDON: So in other words, the risk is 4 still there all the way to final for them. So tonight -- 5 or the next couple of weeks is merely something else that 6 is not a consideration so to stay within the scope of the 7 process. 8 MR. ECKMAN: What they've asked for is to exempt 9 from this rule. So that -- so that's what this 10 modification boils down to, that this rule won't apply to 11 this project. And, if so, even though another plan might 12 come in and move to final first and get their 40 percent, 13 this plan could also come in and get its 40 percent. And, 14 yes, and then -- well, 40 percent of the geographically 15 distinct area. 16 MS. CRAIG: If they become exempt, they could put 17 in whatever they want. That's what the modification -- 18 MR. JONES: But their property is only 31 percent 19 of the geographic area that we're talking about. The 20 maximum they could contribute is 31 percent of the total 21 of the 100 percent. Right. So that there's still 9 22 percent. Even if they built every square inch of their 23 property, the pink on the site plan, that's only 31 24 percent of the geographically distinct CCN zoning district 25 in this location. 21 • 1 MS. CRAIG: I see what you're saying. Okay. 2 MR. GAVALDON: So it becomes 71 percent. 3 MR. JONES: Right. If the other applicant filled 4 40 percent of the geographic area and this applicant had 5 their approval, then it would be an additional 31 percent, 6 right. 71 percent would be the maximum buildout of 7 single-family housing. Worst case scenario, if you 8 approved this tonight, and somebody else came in and built 9 40 percent. 10 MR. GAVALDON: If we deny it, then they go 11 through -- they don't get this exception, they just have • 12 to follow the process. 13 MR. JONES: That's correct. 14 MR. GAVALDON: If we give it to them and they get 15 this, then we have to deal with the other one later on 16 when it comes down the path. 17 MR. JONES: And it would only be an issue if 18 another developer got final approval prior to them getting 19 final approval. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you for the 21 clarity. Thanks Ted. I appreciate it. 22 MR. TORGERSON: I had another question for the . 23 applicant. You had mentioned that there was financing 24 that was contingent on this decision tonight. Is that 25 financing for the construction of this project or 22 1 financing just for the design of it? Or what is that 2 financing? 3 MS. SWEERE: The -- it's technically for land 4 acquisition. And that money is targeted, you know, for 5 the single-family affordable units. And it is targeted 6 for land acquisition. 7 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. And you're confident that 8 financially with that you can proceed with the project? 9 MS. SWEERE: Absolutely. 10 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. 11 MS. SWEERE: In fact, everything is in place to 12 proceed pending this decision. 13 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. I guess my 14 thought there is that this meets the purpose of the Land 15 Use Code except, as Sally pointed out, if the property to 16 the north is developed and we get more density there. 17 It's not meeting the purpose of the Land Use Code. 18 So for me it boils down to how confident am I she 19 will be the person to the north of her, I guess. And they 20 have an option on the property. They've already started 21 design and engineering on the property. And if they have 22 financing in place, it seems unlikely -- extremely 23 unlikely that they wouldn't proceed and beat anybody to 24 the north of them. 25 And if they do get vested rights at final, then n L� r] 23 1 nobody to the north can develop single-family, I think is 2 my understanding. And therefore, we wouldn't go against 3 the purpose of the Land Use Code. I assume that's what 4 Bob's thinking was as well. 5 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. That's not the way I 6 understand it. My understanding is that the modification 7 that we give them tonight exempts them from the rule 8 completely. 9 MR. JONES: But it doesn't exempt the entire 10 geographical zoning district, just their piece of 11 property. 12 MS. CRAIG: Your right. So their 31 percent 13 could come through final, just as Mikal said, and we end 14 up with those houses. And they make it in their building, 15 and life is good. Then the piece of property to the north 16 comes walking down to the -- 17 MR. JONES: And they'd be limited to 9 percent. 18 MS. CRAIG: -- building department, and they say, 19 "We want, you know -- we are 40 percent. And we want to 20 put in single-family housing." 21 MR. JONES: They'd be limited to 9 percent of the 22 geographical CCN area because this project has already • 23 eaten up 31 percent. 24 MS. CRAIG: No. 25 MR. JONES: -- and the second project -- 24 1 MS. CRAIG: This project is exempt from that. 2 MR. JONES: But the second property wouldn't be 3 exempt and so -- 4 MS. CRAIG: Yes. But this project is totally 5 exempt. So the property to the north is -- how much 6 percent of the district? 7 MR. JONES: That, I'm not sure. 8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So it could come in and ask 9 for 40 percent of single-family housing because the 10 project to the south is exempt. 11 MR. JONES: I don't -- I don't think that -- I'm 12 not sure, but I don't think that would be the way it would 13 be added up. I think because this property is exempt, 14 only applies to them. 15 The second property would have to look at the 16 whole geographical CCN piece, which is -- I forget the 17 acreage, and I can't seem to find it. But this piece is 18 31 percent of that. The second property would be 19 another -- probably like a 30 -- 30 percent, roughly. 20 They would have to have it docked against them that the 21 other property is already developed. 22 In fact, if that happened first, they would only 23 be eligible for 7 percent of the total -- or not 7, excuse 24 me. The remaining 9 of the 40 for their single-family 25 portion of their development. 25 1 MS. CRAIG: Is that how you understand it, Paul, 2 legally? 3 MR. ECEMAN: Yes. It's 40 percent of the 4 geographically distinct area, which is the portion of that 5 CCN zone that's freestanding. If there are islands of CCN 6 around it, that particular island of it, then it's 40 7 percent of that entire area that's counted. 8 But I was thinking of an idea. And I ran it by 9 Ted to see if it was something that's resonanted with him 10 at all. And that would be to consider this -- the 11 granting of this modification for a limited period of time is12 so that you kind of have an outside sunset on it. And 13 that keeps their feet to the fire to some extent to move 14 forward. 15 Because if you just grant an endless 16 modification, a blanket one, then there's no motivation 17 for them to move rapidly on their plan because they don't 18 have to worry about the competitor, if there is one coming 19 in. 20 And if you had a modification that was limited in 21 it's duration, that would keep the process moving along 22 and keep the City from being at risk for too long a period • 23 of time of letting that happen. 24 I don't know if that's appealing to the Board or 25 not. Ted thinks it might take six to nine months to get 26 1 the project through final planned approval, probably on 2 the long end of that side depending on various 3 circumstances that might come up. I don't know. 4 MS. CRAIG: I like the sound of that. I think 5 that that keeps us so that we know what's going to happen 6 in the future. 7 MR. ECKMAN: That's not an unusual concept. The 8 Zoning Board of Appeals grants variances. And even in the 9 code itself it provides that those variances are only good 10 for six months. So we have a history, at least, of 11 granting these things for a limited period of time. And 12 you have to act upon them diligently in order to preserve 13 them. 14 MR. BERNTH: I had a question for the 15 applicant. Two questions, actually. First question is, 16 what is the carriage house? I'm a commercial realtor. 17 I'm sorry. Carriage house. I live in a house. That's 18 all I know about them. 19 MS. SWEERE: A carriage house would be, say, a 20 mother-in-law suite. And a vision, here again of the 21 subdivision, is to create Old Town. And with small 22 single-family detached bungalows and the potential to 23 create a mother-in-law suite above a garage for multiple 24 uses, which is, in fact, our second housing type within 25 this subdivision. And so it's a -- either an attached or .an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 is 23 24 25 potentially detached living unit. MR. BERNTH: Okay. My second question is, Paul -- the idea that Paul had from a time standpoint, what is reasonable from your standpoint? Obviously, that's a compromised situation. And I know it's difficult to set up times when you're doing something like this. But what do you think is reasonable? MS. SWEERE: Well, I'm really at a disadvantage without my consultant here tonight and fully understanding the process. Can I ask a question of staff -- MR. BERNTH: Certainly. MS. SWEERE: -- and maybe better inform myself? If we proceed with an ODP, would we then vest in some sort of right at ODP? My concern is that if we proceed, we would likely achieve on ODP and the PDP for the first phase within the time frame that has been suggested. However, the PDPs for the second and third phase may not have been completed within such a short time frame. MR. SHEPARD: The answer is that an ODP does not vest. Only taking a PDP through final compliance grants vesting. My interpretation would be, that if a first phase PDP went all the way through final compliance, that would satisfy the proposed condition that Paul is asking you to W. 1 consider. Because that gets you through final engineering 2 and plans to record it and building permits can be issued. 3 MR. BERNTH: And Ted, you talked about it, but 4 what do you think is a reasonable time? I mean, again, we 5 don't want to give an unlimited time frame for this. 6 MR. SHEPARD: If it's going to be one phase of a 7 project, I'm comfortable in the 6- to 9- to 12-month time 8 frame. It's sometimes difficult to predict marketability 9 and market acceptance for an entire project. But I'm 10 comfortable with a 6- to 12-month window for a first phase 11 to go from PDP to final compliance. 12 MR. ECKMAN: Let me ask one question. Is it 13 contemplated that only the first phase is to be exempt 14 from this requirement, the 40 percent requirement? 15 MS. SWEERE: My concern, again, is that the 16 entire project being 300 single-family units will be 17 broken up into three phases. And we, of course, would 18 want this variance request to apply to all of the phases 19 of the subdivision so we would not be faced again with a 20 position where the property owner to the north may have 21 developed single-family and then we would not be able to 22 continue with phase two or phase three of the 23 single-family units we would hoped to build and complete. 24 MR. ECKMAN: Then it strikes me there would have 25 to be final approvals on all three phases within the 0 0 M • 1 length of the duration of this modification, if the 2 Board's going to have a sunset on the modification. 3 MR. BERNTH: Wouldn't the applicant plan on going 4 forward to get a final approval on all three phases prior 5 to building the first phase or is that not necessarily 6 true? 7 MS. SWEERE: It's not likely that we would seek 8 to do that because then, of course, we would need to 9 complete the additional engineering work for each phase, 10 and that's quite costly. 11 MS. CRAIG: Could we -- could the applicant -- 12 like we'll just say -- we say 12 months. Could the 13 applicant come back to the Board or staff and ask for an 14 extension? 15 MR. ECKMAN: You could -- you could -- yes. 16 MS. CRAIG: Thank you. 17 MR. ECKMAN: And you could even make it explicit 18 in your motion and your condition that that could be 19 allowed for. Sometimes we allow for additional extensions 20 of not to exceed one or two or three or whatever and even 21 have durations on the extensions. 22 But, yes, you could make it clear that they could 23 come back and ask for an extension. 24 MR. GAVALDON: I'm very confused and concerned 25 now. At first it seemed simple, these two work out. But 30 1 the applicant is asking for a lot on this. And then I 2 look back at the provisions of the Land Use Code and the 3 City plan. Didn't the City plan want some mixed -uses in 4 here? 5 So I'm looking at this. I'm going, we're going 6 to put all 300 homes in this first part. So that means 7 the north is going to be limited to whatever they do, but 8 they're going to have to patch some stuff up there without 9 spreading it evenly throughout this whole zone district. 10 That's an interesting paradox I see. 11 Two, the phasing in and trying to get approval 12 for everything, the time window, is starting to hit me 13 right in the face saying this is not realistic. I'm 14 beginning to really support continuing with some specific 15 efforts and action to be brought back. 16 One, I would be particularly interested in, if we 17 did not give the modification and we held them to the 18 process of mixed -uses in this zone, I would like to see 19 what the conceptual would be if they did not get the 300 20 home approval. How would they mix it within the scope of 21 their element contrary to when we see the north come in 22 we'll expect to see the same thing come in, too. 23 MR. JONES: Since this is an action item, I want 24 to make sure that I'm clear on what -- what the discussion 25 should be between now and next time, if it is continued, 31 1 and I didn't quite follow you on that. 2 MR. GAVALDON: I'm mainly looking at this 3 one. If they did not have the modification, what would 4 their plan look like if we were asking them to follow the 5 intent of the land use and following the City plan concept 6 for the zone? I would like to see that because it may be 7 something you're going to have to face. 8 MR. JONES: They could -- they could build 9 single-family on it without a modification. 10 MR. GAVALDON: They still could then. 11 MR. JONES: It's just a matter of -- vesting is • 12 the issue. And it would look identical to what they're 13 proposing. , 14 MR. GAVALDON: But if we gave them the process to 15 go with this modification -- on the other hand, I'm 16 looking at is, is this 12 months something real they can 17 get their three phases done in it, or are they going to be 18 coming back to us again? 19 See there's a lot of questions coming up. And 20 you can look at so many variables on this. And I'm almost 21 didn't want to sit here and design this thing. I would 22 almost want to send it back and bring it back in four . 23 weeks. Give them ample time, irregardless of what other 24 properties. 25 MR. JONES: For a redesign are you suggesting? 32 1 Because the -- 2 MR. GAVALDON: Or meeting or discussing. 3 MR. JONES: I don't believe there's really been 4 any design as of yet. We're just talking about the issue 5 of 40 percent. 6 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. And I'm focusing it to 7 that. Maybe I'm using too many words. I'm focusing to 8 that 40 percent to give a bonafide justification. If this 9 is going to work, it will be within a time frame that's 10 realistic and that we can support it. 11 I have to agree to Sally, I don't want to say no 12 to it, but so many things are coming up in this that are 13 raising a lot of questions. So I'm asking for help. 14 MR. ECKMAN: As I'm listening to this, too, I 15 said that you could specifically allow for extensions of 16 the condition. And then as I hear things playing out, 17 that other phases might be slow and they might come in 18 much later, it causes me to have some concern that you 19 might find yourself in a difficult position in denying an 20 extension later because -- as Ted has said, the train's 21 out of the station, you know, and you'd have a lot of 22 pressure on you to grant extensions in the future. 23 So maybe it would be better for you to think, 24 even in terms of a continuance or just an extension -- or 25 just a modification sunset that's long enough that you 33 1 wouldn't have to worry about extensions. 2 MR. COLTON: I just want to throw my two cents 3 in. I'm a little confused just because -- or concerned, I 4 guess, just because without knowing the specifics of the 5 project, having 300 single-family homes all together is 6 not what my understanding of the vision of anywhere in the 7 City is. And if this was a high -end home, we certainly 8 would not allow 300 single-family homes in an area. 9 I thought we wanted a mix of uses. I don't know. 10 Correct me if I'm wrong. In general, we want a mix of 11 uses within an area parcel this large. This is a pretty • 12 good sized parcel. 13 MR. SHEPARD: I think you're getting ahead a 14 little bit. That's not the issue before you. And they 15 could -- absent your action tonight, they could come in 16 and apply for exactly what they're proposing to apply for 17 and still probably meet the intent of the district. 18 I would hate for you to consider a potential 19 density in layout in your consideration of this item 20 tonight. 21 MR. COLTON: So you don't think in this district 22 that we have any requirements for mixtures of housing • 23 types like we do in LMN or MNN -- or MMN or anything like 24 that? 25 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, we do. But I have a feeling 34 1 that what she's proposing is going to conform to the 2 requirements of the zone district. What's at issue 3 tonight is the exemption from the 40 percent. 4 MR. COLTON: Okay. I'm still not sure if that -- 5 I don't know. 6 MR. SHEPARD: You have -- you're struggling with 7 a comfort level. How comfortable are you in what we 8 perceive to be a -- this is a risk request. The applicant 9 is asking the Planning and Zoning Board to remove some of 10 the natural risk that's inherent out there in the private 11 sector. And it's a competitive environment and a lot at 12 stake in terms of financing. 13 And we haven't seen a request like this before. 14 And I get the sense that's why you're struggling. And 15 it's an uncomfortable position for this Board to be in. 16 However, the request has been made. And if 17 you're comfortable with that kind of action, then you'll 18 consider the request. If you're not comfortable, I would 19 recommend a continuance of two weeks because the assigned 20 planner is not here tonight. In two weeks maybe we can 21 come up with something. We'll have another work session 22 and get all of these questions answered or take a vote 23 straightforward. 24 MR. BERNTH: I had a question for Paul. Could we 25 grant a -- this modification and offer three separate 35 1 sunset dates, one for each phase? 2 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 3 MR. BERNTH: I kind of see where MikalIs going 4 with that. And I'm kind of along the same line. Really 5 the only thing we're doing is trying to -- which is not 6 all together unfair -- trying to protect the applicant to 7 a certain extent from unacceptable risk, which they could 8 spend a year and a half doing this and then be the second 9 one in. 10 And, again, I look at it as purely a question of 11 99 percent chance they're going to be the first ones in, 12 anyway. They just want to eliminate that last one 13 percent. And I think by granting that modification, 14 especially on a time frame, I feel fairly comfortable 15 with. 16 And, again, looking at it from phase one, phase 17 two, phase three, what the applicant would feel 18 comfortable with and what we could possibly compromise 19 with I think gets us there. And quite honestly, I think 20 it gets us there only because it is affordable housing. 21 I'm not sure I would be so acceptable if it were not 22 affordable housing. That's what kind of gets me over the 23 mark. 24 MS. CARPENTER: I see where Mikal is going, and I 25 see where you're going, too, Dan. And I'm not saying that 36 1 I wouldn't go there in two weeks. But there have been so 2 many variables raised and so many questions raised tonight 3 that I just don't feel comfortable doing it tonight. I'd 4 like to see us explore it and have staff look at it 5 closer. Get Bob back here, since it was his project, and 6 see what we're doing before we jump into that -- into that 7 briar patch, to say. And so I'm ready to make a motion if 8 that's appropriate at this time. 9 I move that we continue this -- this item -- 10 let's see -- item number 3 to November 4th -- November 11 4th, Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 12 MS. CRAIG: I'll second that. 13 MR. COLTON: Okay. Discussion? 14 MR. GAVALDON: We probably should in the motion 15 look back at what specific things we want staff to explore 16 and come back with so that way we can give them some good 17 detail. And I would support a friendly amendment. I 18 mean, I think a friendly amendment would be appropriate 19 for this. 20 So if some -- Jennifer or Sally can go off with 21 what you think -- and maybe Sally if you want -- 22 MS. CRAIG: I think a lot of stuff has been 23 thrown out. I think staff is probably pretty comfortable 24 with what we're struggling with. And I think at this 25 point in time we just need to sit around the table and �yA 1 throw it all out until we are comfortable. 2 So to come up with specific directions, I think 3 that's already been explained. And from the way Ted's 4 nodding, he's comfortable with what we've already stated. 5 So I think just a straight motion to continue at this 6 point is appropriate. 7 MS. CARPENTER: Jerry, unless you have something 8 specific that you wanted to add, I'm open to a friendly 9 amendment. I agree with Sally. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Well, if they got it all, we did a 11 lot of talking. So if they got it all, I'm okay with it. • 12 I want to add one thing. I do see where Mike -- 13 Mikal and Dan are going with this. And modifications are 14 a new animal we're in. And we've gotten about five 15 different twists on the modifications. 16 And I don't want us to deny this. I want to move 17 forward so I have support in spirit. So I think 18 continuing it would help us understand our modification 19 process better and help us to really know where the 20 boundaries are and what the people -- what the applicants 21 are looking for. 22 So I'm going to support the continuing just on 23 that frame just to get us with more modification learning 24 under our belts. But I would say I'm with you on the 25 scope of your thoughts because they are good thoughts. RI:] 1 MR. COLTON: You know, I'll support the 2 continuance. But I also want to let you know that I -- 3 right now I would not support giving the modification just 4 because I think this area needs a mix of housing types. 5 And if someone came along with a plan beforehand 6 that would have a mix, I think that would be preferable to 7 having a big 40-acre block of single-family homes. So I 8 don't know -- the justifications I've been given do not 9 make me feel like it's better than the purpose, you know, 10 of what the Land Use Code has. 11 So -- I might hear something in the next two 12 weeks that I might think it would, but I'm willing to 13 listen. 14 MR. JONES: Ted just brought up a good point that 15 perhaps advance planning should be involved in this 16 discussion and specifically the folks who helped generate 17 the vision for this particular zone. 18 MR. COLTON: Any other comments? 19 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I won't be supporting the 20 motion primarily because in my mind the only question is 21 whether or not it meets the purpose of the zone district 22 is if the property to the north were to be developed prior 23 to her vesting her rights with this property. And I'm 24 confident that based on where she is in the process and if 25 we were to give her sunset dates that that could be 39 1 achieved. 2 And I'm a little leery knowing how critical 3 timing and deadlines are in terms of options on property 4 delay and everything. I guess it's just two weeks. I 5 hope you're able to proceed with the project. 6 MR. BERNTH: I'm simple -- I'm okay with the two 7 weeks, too. I don't think that should preclude the 8 project. 9 And the only specific direction I would ask, is 10 that the applicant and maybe Bob have an opportunity to 11 visit. And if we do go the route of the time frames, what • 12 is acceptable from the phase one, phrase two, and phase 13 three time frames. Because that's kind of where I'm going 14 with that. 15 MR. COLTON: Okay. Are we ready for a vote on 16 that or any other questions? Okay. 17 THE CLERK: Gavaldon. 18 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. 19 THE CLERK: Carpenter. 20 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 21 THE CLERK: Torgerson. 22 MR. TORGERSON: No. 23 THE CLERK: Bernth. 24 MR. BERNTH: No. 25 THE CLERK: Craig. 40 1 MS. CRAIG: Yes. 2 THE CLERK: Colton. 3 MR. COLTON: Yes. Okay. The item will be 4 continued for two weeks. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 41 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) 2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) 4 I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary 5 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the 6 preceding videotape, Request for Modification Old Town 7 North, were taken down by me in stenotype notes and 8 thereafter reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 9 41 pages; that said transcript is an accurate and complete 10 record of the proceedings so taken. 11 I further certify that I am not related to, employed • 12 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys 13 herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the 14 case. 15 Attested to by me this 7th day of December, 1999. 16 17 20 21 22 Anne Hansen Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 23 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 24 (970) 482-1506 25 My commission expires: 02/13/03