Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/16/2003Council Liaison: Karen Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Jerry Gavaldon Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone:(H) 484-2034 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Bernth, Meyer, Torgerson, Gavaldon. Members Colton and Craig were absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, McWilliams, Barkeen, Moore, Sanford, Schlueter, Dodge, Stringer and Deines. Election of Officers: Member Meyer nominated Member Torgerson for Chairperson. The motion was approved 5-0. Member Carpenter nominated Member Gavaldon for Vice Chair. The motion was approved 5-0. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: 1. Minutes of the September 5, October 17 (Continued), and November 4, (Continued), 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes. 2. Resolution PZ03-01 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ03-02 — Easement Vacation. 4. #65-02 Streamside Annexation and Zoning. 5. #54-02 Peterson Annexation and Zoning. 6. #47-02 Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning. Discussion Agenda: 7. #35-00 Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development Plan. 8. #38-02 South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation and Zoning. 9. #18-02 Caribou Apartments — Project Development Plan. John Trowbridge, citizen pulled Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning for discussion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 2 Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent Items 1 (September 5th only), 2, 3, 4 and 5. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Project Description: Recommendation: Strauss Lakes Development Annexation & Zoning, # 47-02 Request to annex approximately 17.79 acres of privately owned property located on the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road. The requested zoning is LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Troy Jones, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Jones showed an aerial photograph of the property and the surrounding uses. The site was recommended to be zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood and that is consistent with what the Structure Plan shows. Public Input John Trowbridge, lives in the Stoneridge Townhomes which is adjacent to this property. Mr. Trowbridge was concerned that this zoning would permit a trailer park. They were interested in the type of use, type of buildings, density and commercial uses. They were interested in knowing if any environmental impact statement has been done. He was mostly interested in what the use would be. Planner Jones responded that from a zoning standpoint, LMN is one of our residential zone districts, which are low density and which do allow mobile home communities as a permitted use. It is not to say that this will become a mobile home park by any means, that is just one of the long list of permitted uses that is allowed within that zone district. Given the topography, he would be very surprised if it would be physically possible to put mobile homes on this site. The density that is permitted within the LMN zone district is between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre. At the annexation stage we do not get into what is being proposed and we don't get to the environmental analysis. An annexation is Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 3 simply a change in jurisdiction from the County to the City. When any development application comes in then we would apply all the standards. Member Carpenter asked if there were any structures on this property. Planner Jones replied that the closest thing would be cement foundations for the irrigation ditch. There are no buildings. Chairperson Torgerson asked for the applicant's presentation. Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design stated that at this point they were just there to bring the property into compliance with City Plan and the Structure Plan. They don't have any formalized plans for the development right now. Planner Jones explained the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County to the public. Public Input Wayne Rothgary, owns property to the south that is zoned UE, Urban Estate. He was curious if this property were to come into the city, could it also be zoned Urban Estate. He was concerned that the property was being given low density zoning as well as the commercial part of it. Planner Jones responded that the zoning for this property in the County is FA-1, Farming Zone District. That zone district allows a fairly rural density, it is one unit for 100,000 s.f. lots. The UE zone district is a city zone district and the County does not have that particular zone district. Chairperson Torgerson added that the proposed zoning is consistent with the city Structure Plan. Robert Hendrickson, who lives in the Stoneridge Townhomes questioned whether there was another zoning designation that could be applied, rather than the one that is being proposed that would allow a lower density. Eight Units per acre is pretty crowded. He was concerned because the neighborhood they live in has houses that run anywhere from $250,000 to $700,000. They were not interested in apartments or a lower grade housing. Planner Jones clarified that across the Fossil Lake Inlet Ditch to the east and to the north of this site, that is the boundary on the Structure Plan Map for what is designated as Urban Estate and what is designated as Low Density Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 4 Neighborhood. Just this vacant corner of this piece of vacant area of town is at the LMN designation, whereas the remainder of quite a bit of the property to the north and east of it is designated as Urban Estate. The Structure Plan would have to be amended to zone this property something else. Bryce Neff, lives in Stoneridge Townhomes and also has concerns about the density. Planner Jones stated that there would be a neighborhood meeting held on this property as soon as there is something solid being proposed here. Cindy Lodes, lives in Stoneridge community and also had concerns about what development would take place on this property. Her concern was that if some big development goes on there, what would happen to traffic and schools. She was not happy with the notification area and would like to see it expanded for this project. Erin Stall, homeowner in the Stoneridge Townhomes asked if their community does not like what is proposed, what recourse do they have to get it rezoned. Planner Jones replied that as far as an application to rezone goes the only parties that could do that is the City Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Director of Planning or the property owner. To rezone this property something else, that would also require a Structure Plan Amendment. Citizen, asked if the property to the south was in city limits. If not were there any plans to bring that property into the city. Planner Jones replied that it was not in the city, and if in the future those property owners don't want to change from being a single family house or come into develop their property, it is very likely that it will stay in the County rural residential. Keith Lodes, lives in Stoneridge asked if the Project Planner was a city employee and did he have a personal interest in this project. Planner Jones replied that he is a city employee and no he did not have any vested interest in this project. Mr. Lodes stated that it was mentioned to him that this parcel was in the floodplain and that basement construction would not be possible. Any structures there would have to be put onto slabs. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 5 Planner Jones replied that he had not heard that this was in the floodplain, but again this is just a review of the change in jurisdictions. If it is we will find that out as an application comes in for development. Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility responded that this particular parcel is not in the floodplain. The floodplain goes up to the ditch from the river in this area. Mr. Schlueter also stated that the groundwater conditions would be looked at the time of development review. Mr. Lodes felt that this proposal should not be considered until a groundwater study is done. That could seriously limit the LMN option for possible single family homes. He also has a concern with Horsetooth Road as it proceeds from Ziegler down to the wildlife refuge if basically a dirt road. Any type of development will necessitate a paving of that road from Horsetooth to Harmony ruining that natural area and creating a shortcut from 1-25 into Fort Collins. He would just as soon leave this in Larimer County's jurisdiction. He felt that much more needed to be known about this property before it should be annexed into the city. Chairperson Torgerson reminded the public that the city is required by an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County to look at this annexation tonight. Public Input Closed Member Gavaldon asked what the density was of the townhomes to the west Planner Jones replied it looked consistent with 5 to 8, but without measuring he did not want to be giving out false information. It looks like a density that would be possible in the LMN zone district. Those townhomes are in the RL, Low Density Residential District. Member Gavaldon asked what the density was in the RL district. Planner Jones replied 3 units per acre, it also does not allow the same variety of uses that LMN does. Director of Current Planning Gloss added that the RL District conceivably could accommodate up to 7 units per acre according to the Code. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 6 Member Gavaldon recommended to City Council approval of the Strauss Lakes Development Annexation and Zoning with a zoning designation of Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, LMN, #47-02. Citing facts and conclusions on page 2, numbers 1, 2 and 3. Member Bernth seconded the motion. Member Carpenter would be supporting the motion. This is what we need to do to get this parcel into the city. She appreciated the public coming out and encouraged them to pay attention and come out when there is a Project Development Plan application. That is the point where they really have input about what happens to this piece of land. Member Gavaldon commented that he felt that what would be going into the east of Stoneridge is similar. There would not be development that would disrupt their neighborhood. Their chance is still there to make a difference and he encouraged the neighborhood to continue to participate in the process. He would be supporting the motion. Deputy City Attorney Eckman reminded the public that this is a recommendation to City Council and the first reading of this application would be March 18t". That would be another opportunity for their input. Chairperson Torgerson commented that they had heard a lot of really good input tonight, unfortunately a lot of it was irrelevant to what was being heard tonight. He also explained that the Neighborhood Resources Office has staff that could also help in the process. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street) — Project Development Plan, #35-00 Project Description: Request to subdivide the existing lot at 611 Peterson Street into 2 lots and construct a new residential building containing 3 dwelling units on the rear lot adjacent to an existing alley. The existing single family residence on the front of the property is to remain. The property is zoned NCM, Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 7 Conservation, Medium Density Zoning District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Steve Olt, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. Planner Olt reviewed slides of the site and surrounding properties. Susan Froseth gave the applicant presentation. She stated that she and her husband were representing themselves as owners of the project. Ms. Froseth is also the architect on the project. Ms. Froseth gave a brief history of the project. She stated that the Code would allow up to a 4-plex unit. Ms. Froseth reported that on October 9, 2000 a neighborhood meeting was held to open the lines of communication with the neighborhood and get design input. At that time they introduced a proposal for three -two bedroom townhome units with 6 parking spaces on grade. Including one that was accessible. As a result of the neighborhood meeting, they came away with the neighbors wanted them to reconsider the design. The project was redesigned in its entirety. It was downsized to two -two bedroom smaller townhome units with a two -car garage and a single studio unit above the garage. A landscape architect redesigned the landscape plan and they were very happy with what she came up with. On January 24, 2001, a sub -committee of the Landmark Preservation Commission to receive comments and specifically get some design input reviewed the project. The comments were overall favorable, there were no significant design changes suggested. On February 13, 2001, staff agreed to facilitate a courtesy neighborhood meeting to show the neighbors the new design. The new design included showing the neighbors the site plan, elevations, the landscape plan and the architectural scale model of the site and buildings, which addresses scale and massing. Ms. Froseth stated that the footprint for the proposed two two -bedroom townhomes is similar in size to the existing house on Peterson Street. The existing garage on the site is larger than the garage that is proposed. Ms. Froseth highlighted specific features that were related to the general development standards of the Land Use Code and how the design meets or exceeds those standards. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 8 Ms. Froseth closed by saying that they were pleased to present this project. They do feel that it is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. She also felt that it meets or exceeds all code requirements. PUBLIC INPUT Phil Hendricks, 605 Peterson Street, just north of this project, stated that he had been concerned about this for quite sometime. They have lived and worked downtown for twenty years. They feel that the downtown is one of the best neighborhoods in Fort Collins. There a lot of new discussions about new urbanism and diversity. Themselves and many of their neighbors are upset about this project. As a neighborhood group, they fought the alley houses back in the 80's and put a stop to those. Because of many reasons, significant issues with traffic, compatibility with the surrounding historic neighborhoods, density and many other issues. As a neighborhood and other folks in downtown, they submitted a four -page letter and a 14-page attachment to that explaining their issues they see with this project. Being a landscape architect, he does feel this is a very poor project for downtown. They object to the statement made by planning that this project meets the design standards of the Land Use Code. He did know feel that they have met either the land use guidelines or the intent of the land use guidelines. You could go back to those 18 pages and understand that they have objections, or at least their opinion as to why it does not meet guidelines. They felt some of the larger areas are access, circulation, parking, solar, shading and it disrespects the historical and cultural resources of downtown. Infill development is not something that is compatible. Transportation issues of turning an alley into a street or roadway. There is also compatibility with the adjacent residences that is a high -density multi -family unit in the backyard is not compatible with the adjacent single-family houses. The staff report states that this project is in conformance with the East Side Neighborhood Plan. He quoted from page 15, "if the East Side Neighborhood is allowed to decline or is unduly disrupted by unwise land use conversions, substantial changes in traffic patterns with in the study area, or other external factors, all the above concerns will suffer along with the neighborhood. It is clear that a plan to preserve and enhance this neighborhood is in the best interest of its residents, property owners, businesses and in deed all of Fort Collins." The East Side Neighborhood Plan also talks about infill developments and why it is an unwise land use conversion for the neighborhoods in downtown. Some of the other issues that were brought up and talked about were — they believe that there a lot of lots in downtown that are sub dividable under the current land use plans. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 9 If this project is starting and allowed to happen, what it will create is a real transition in the neighborhood. Their neighborhood right now has a lot of diversity; there are a lot of single family residences living next to a lot of rentals. They live there because of that diversity and because of those issues, but he thought that there was a fine line with a neighborhood with a lot of single family residences in it and projects like this. All this is going to do is to turn this property, which is currently a potential single family live in residence, although it has been a rental unit for about 15 years. Projects like this are going to make a big transition of the downtown neighborhood. It is going to take single family residences out of contention and it is going to transition them into a high -density rental neighborhood. He did not know if that was a very good intent for really preserving the downtown. He thinks the transition is a very big issue and he feels that projects like this are really going to affect the impacts of property values of the single-family residences. They can't believe that some one would really want to live next door to this and go walking in your backyard and you have four units of houses five feet from your fence line looking down at your backyard. It is unbelievable to him how that could even happen. Doug Buffington, lives at 628 Peterson and agrees with Mr. Hendricks on all his points. One additional point is the ongoing use of the neighborhood. They all moved there for the same reasons, the wonderful diversity, the access to downtown and all those great things. They have tried very hard to work on the design and accommodate the neighborhood. His concern is the long-term domino affect. In the aerial photo, there were about 4 lots similar to this one. Considering if this one, who would want to look at that in their back yard, so the best use of the lot next door and next door are going to be developments like this. He asked the Board to consider that when they are making their decision here. Marilyn Weiss, 605 Peterson wanted to express her sadness and distress about this project. From the plans that she has seen there seems to be a kiosk on the landscape plan that did not show up on the site plan. If you consider that this is only a 50-foot lot in its width, what they are proposing is a parking space off of Peterson to accommodate this rental house, which is a single-family house that has two units in it right now. They are going to have a 4 foot sidewalk, a 7 '/: foot wide parking space, a kiosk which leave a horrendous front to Peterson Street. She believes that in the Land Use Code they are supposed to provide 1.75 spaces for a single-family residence, off street parking. This really only provides one and it does not even align with the present curb cut. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 10 Ms. Weiss stated that she also is a landscape architect and has looked closely at the landscape plan. The fence that is proposed does not address the problem of windows looking out onto the adjacent properties because they are all above the fence by quite a distance vertically. As far as the planing is concerned, they have done a lot to address the alley but have done nothing to Peterson Street. As well as to the north, she did not think that any of those plants would be able to grow in that environment. There is not enough horizontal space and it is too dark for those plants to survive. They put a lot of effort to nothing there. She thought that as a city we need to think whether or not we want our alleyways to become roadways. She does not want to see this happen to their neighborhood and is very distressed about it. Public Input Closed Ms. Froseth gave her rebuttal to public comment. She stated that the project meets or exceeds the requirements for the stated reasons. It meets the intent of the land use guidelines. In regards to the concern regarding solar shading, specifically, the plate heights were lowered and are no higher than most single family one story and a half buildings throughout the neighborhood. The setbacks are no different than any single-family residence on any single-family lot. The kiosk is actually a small pedestal that is required by the city to identify the site. It is not large at all and sits adjacent to the 4-foot walkway. It is an address marker. Mr. Froseth presented a map showing the NCM zoning east of College to Smith Street. The yellow markers show the properties that are over 10,000 S.F., which could be possible development, sites. Of the identified 15 properties, 4 are already developed. Of the 11 that are left, two are under 11,000 s.f. and could be a one or two unit project. That would leave nine that could qualify for a possible 4-plex. He thought there was a feeling that there would be mass development in the area and he just wanted to make the point that there are not that many properties that qualify. Member Gavaldon asked about the existing home and was it a single residence or two residences. Mr. Froseth replied that there is a one -bedroom apartment on the lower level that has been there since they bought the property. There are two bedrooms on upstairs on the main floor. Member Gavaldon asked if the basement apartment is a legal apartment. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 11 Mr. Froseth replied that it was. Member Gavaldon asked how many parking spaces there were. Mr. Froseth replied presently two and a driveway. The existing curb cut that is there is going to be realigned and moved over and there will still be one space of off-street parking. Member Gavaldon asked if there would still be two units in the single family home and two parking spaces that will be used between the two bedroom and the single bedroom in the basement. Mr. Froseth replied that was correct. Member Gavaldon asked Planner Olt what our process says on that. Planner Olt responded that this was the first he knew about the legal apartment in the basement. Staff considered this a single-family residence and that would require one off-street parking space, which it has on -site today and then there is public parking or street parking. Member Gavaldon asked if the current driveway would go away to allow the sidewalk to come through. Planner Olt replied that the site plan shows a sidewalk and a parking pad. Member Gavaldon asked about the parking for the units in the back. Mr. Froseth stated that there would be one extra for a guest. It was a concern at the neighborhood meeting that there was not enough parking, so they added an extra parking space. Member Gavaldon asked if they would be willing to have that parking space designated for the house. Mr. Froseth replied that would be fine. Chairperson Torgerson asked bout the new information about the second unit in the existing house and would the applicant not need a modification to the parking standards because a non -conforming parking status is being created on the front lot. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 12 Planner Olt replied that is being discussed. This was the first he know about the second unit and based on the parking code requirement for a two family dwelling that would require 1.5 spaces for each one bedroom unit and 1.75 spaces for each two bedroom unit. Discussion was held regarding continuing this item to answer all the questions regarding parking and the second unit in the basement. Member Gavaldon moved to continue Peterson Place (611 Peterson Street), Project Development Plan, #35-00 to the February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Directing staff to work with the applicant on the issue of the second residence in the single family home and also address the parking issues. Member Bernth seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Project: South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation, #38-02 Project Description: Annexation and zoning of a County enclave that is completely surrounded by properties that have been annexed into the City. The request area is composed of approximately 220.22 acres of privately and publicly owned property generally located south of West Drake Road, lying to the west and east of South Taft Hill Road, and including the South Taft Hill Road right-of-way. The recommended zoning is a combination of the UE, Urban Estate and the LMN, Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 13 Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. Director Gloss gave a visual presentation of the boundaries and existing conditions of the annexation area. Director Gloss discussed the neighborhood meeting and the concern with Moore Lane. Moore Lane is on the west side of the annexation area. Moore Lane is in the city on the north end and terminates in a cul-de-sac. On the south end it runs through the annexation area and it terminates at a vacated public right-of-way. That area extends further on and you have a disconnection where Moore Lane, to connect together, would have to cross Spring Creek. It is an elaborate project that the city has calculated that cost would be substantial. There were no immediate plans to construct such a project, nor funding to do so. Staff has made it clear to area residents that as such time in the future that development warrants and extension of the roadway that under city regulations that may very likely occur. There was a lot of opposition both by residents inside and outside of the annexation area. They want a commitment from the city to not make that extension go through and potentially have that as part of an annexation agreement that that occur. Director Gloss stated that the road conditions vary greatly. The streets do not meet city standards. The city will not be improving these road upon annexation. The city will acknowledge that the roads exist in this condition and the city will do basic maintenance of the roadways, snow removal and patching. The road would not be reconstructed at the city's expense and there maybe a situation in the future where property owners could get together and create a special improvement district. Staff does anticipate as development occurs that the streets will be improved at the cost of the developer. West Swallow, which is on the east side of the annexation area, and is shown on the city's Master Street Plan as connecting at some point in the future. That would entail extending West Swallow from the east edge of the annexation area for a quarter of a mile through to South Taft Hill Road. Staff would anticipate that would largely occur at the expense of developers, although street oversizing could potentially contribute to that. That would also be triggered by development. Director Gloss discussed the costs of annexation. The revenue the city would get from this area is relatively limited because it is predominately residential. The city would see a very slight revenue source and property tax. The difference is minor between the city and County. Over the entire 220 acres, the city would only see about $6,000 additional in property tax revenue. Most of the additional tax money for this area would go to Poudre Fire Authority. We would derive some sales and use tax. If you live in this area and you go out and buy large ticket items, you would now pay city sales tax, whereas now you don't. The other remaining item would be the city stormwater fees that would be assigned to properties in the area. If you add all the costs up, the revenue is just under Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 14 $42,000 per year (estimated). When you go to the cost side to the city, the biggest individual cost, is the cost to provide additional police service. That would be an additional $30,000 of additional manpower to bring it up to our city service standard. The other cost to the city would be the street maintenance. When looking at the numbers, it is not a great advantage to the city and is not a big money making venture for the city to do the annexation. In the long term the city may derive quite a bit more revenue as areas infill and redevelop. It is hard to say at what pace that would occur. Obviously, based on the zoning, the LMN parcels have a lot greater development potential, but the areas that are Urban Estate, we probably don't anticipate a lot of changes in the near future in those areas. Director Gloss summarized that this annexation does meet State Statutory Requirements and has followed the city's Land Use Code as far as the public process. Member Carpenter asked if there were any residents that won't meet the city requirements for animals and might be in a position to have to get rid of them. Director Gloss replied that he is not aware of any, but that is not to say that there aren't any out there. If you have an existing legal conforming situation in the County, you can continue that in the city unless if poses a health or safety issue. Public Input Philip Snow, 2625 McKeag Drive presented a letter from the Fox Creek Subdivision Board of Directors. The letter stated that regardless of the outcome of the proposed annexation, they oppose the connection of the two ends of Moore Lane. They ask that the Board ask City Council to stipulate that Moore Lane extension plan be removed from the South Taft Hill Annexation proposal. Their reasons for opposing the extension loop are, but not limited to Moore Lane connection does not seem to benefit anyone; McKeag Drive will become a through street for Quail Hollow; increased traffic on Moore and McKeag will be dangerous to children and use these streets to access schools. It will disturb an environmentally and sensitive wetland area. Because the road would be of minimal use to the community, this project would be a poor use of tax dollars that could be used for maintenance. To their knowledge, this extension is not desired or supported by anyone in the surrounding area. The road will travel through a flood zone and will be expensive to maintain. A committee has been formed to organize opposition to this proposal, please contact them with any upcoming meetings that would affect Moore Lane, and let them know about the status of their request. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 15 Scott Krenning, 2218 Primrose Drive asked that in the State Statutes that states within three years you may annex into the city. There are stipulations for the city if you annex prior to that three years, what are those stipulations and how did that affect the chosen date to wait for three years. Mr. Krenning stated that the city requirements to bring services up to city standards will have a significant financial impact to many of the residences in place. Some of these may be triggered by development, which is sure to happen whether this annexation takes place or not. These requirements will not be placed on existing homes in the County, where they will be placed upon existing homes if this property is annexed. Numerous homes could have up to $10,000 in costs just to bring their sewer up to code if this property is annexed. Because of these requirements, significant financial burden could be placed on some of these homeowners. Ultimately City Council will make the decision and representatives of people who had no vote as to who they are. As County residents they could not vote for City Council, but City Council will decide whether or not they become part of the city. Robert Cooke, 2238 Moffett Drive asked if their septic system fails, would they get a choice as to repairing it, or would they have to go onto a sewer line. He felt they should know what the expenses are going to be and what the chance of a sewer line being put in in the next four to five years will be. Rob Haas, 1994 Kinnison Drive stated that unless he is missing something, this is a clear case of "we don't want you" and "you don't want us." It boils down to they have more regulation in the city that they do if they were in the County. Potentially, there is some control over if a septic tank fails, but if he was in a situation that he had to pay $15,000 to connect to a sewer or dodge city regulations to fix his septic tank, he would not hesitate to dodge city regulations. The stormwater utility fee they would consider a stormwater tax. The stormwater utility fee will not help them. They would also be paying sales and use tax on big ticket items and it is just extra money they have to spend that they are not spending now and they are getting nothing in return. Eventually the city will be in a position to do something about the dirt roads. There are also a couple of bridges in the area that are being annexed and neither of those bridges are even close to being safe for pedestrians, and they are both one car bridges. There is no compelling reason for the city to take on this additional risk and there are no immediate funds that the city has for improvements for this annexation. He asked that that the Board recommend denial of the annexation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 16 Linda Tipton, 2411 West Drake Road stated that she was the person who initiated at the neighborhood meeting, for people to put a mark by their name if they were in favor of this annexation. No one said anything. She asked the Board to open their minds and ask what was wrong with the way things are. Why do they have to develop every inch of the city of Fort Collins? You have a group of people coming before you saying that they love Fort Collins as they have lived in it, in the County, they appreciate the open spaces, what is wrong with having people who want to continue this lifestyle. Why do they have to be annexed into the city when there really is no benefit? Audrey Horton, 2407 West Drake wanted to know whom the people are that made the request to annex. Is it the people who live in the 220 acres? Was anyone there who requested to be annexed, or is it the city? Does this affect anyone who does not live in the 220-acre space? Is it that nobody else really cares or that there is no reason for them to have an interest in whether they annex this or not. If it is just the people who live there, it is a pretty negative response. She asked at the last meeting what were five benefits for the city to annex the property, and she did not get any answer. She also asked what were five benefits that the property owners would have by annexing into the city. None of the benefits would be in sewer, water, electricity, roads, streetlights or taxes. There is no benefit for the people who live there to want to do this annexation. Neal Carson, 2601 McKeag Drive spoke to the board about his concerns. He does have many, but would not want to be repetitive. One concern that has not been raised and that is because they live on Moore Lane on the east side as it flows southward into the cul-de-sac. There are a great number of families and dogs on leashes that use that portion of Moore Lane to come from Quail Hollow, Fox Creek Subdivision, and the Meadows at Fox Creek Subdivision who use that as an access to Spring Creek and the trail. He could just envision, god forbid that Moore Lane goes through and connect on the other side, the problems that would exist with safety. Large groups of families anytime of the day and weekends use the trail. He is mostly concerned that the concept that the city is even thinking about extending Moore Lane southward past Spring Creek. Rodney Schmitz, 3315 Millford Lane stated that at the neighborhood meeting that the city sponsored residents all vocalized their opposition to this annexation. Many of the things that were discussed that created everyone's opposition was the amount of infrastructure upgrades that would be required. People are very content with their service levels in the County. There were concerns with safety if the Master Plan was developed. There Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 17 were also concerns with destruction of the wetland property up near the Moore Lane extension, which is part of the Master Plan. He noted that there were many people at the meeting and there was no one there in support of the annexation. Ted Hall, 2138 Moffett Drive wanted to stipulate that the only reason this meeting is going on tonight is because they are surrounded, per se, by state statute because of the open lands and the park that was bought to the west of their subdivision. It is going to maintain a park and open lands so that surrounded them and now they can be brought into the city. They have heard talk about roads being upgraded when there is development. In their subdivision, there is only one undeveloped plot, so there will be no road upgrades on his street. He will not get sidewalks or sewer, he will not get anything. He will have to pay city taxes on the high dollar items he buys. He asked that his area not be brought into the city. Public Input Closed Director Gloss addressed the public comment. He stated that there were a lot of concerns expressly given about sewer service. He wanted to explain the septic systems if not something that the city regulates. The County regulates those and they have made it clear that they will allow septic systems to continue until such time as they fail. If they do fail, if they have enough capacity on their property to put in another system, it is likely that they can continue to do so and operate with a septic system. The exception to that is if the property is located within 400 feet of a city sewer main. At that point, they would have to extend that service to their property. That could be a substantial cost to a property owner if they are within that area. That would not apply to quite a few properties within the annexation area. There are mains running in South Taft Hill Road and the service is largely to the east. Unless there is a developer that would come in and put in a system, it is pretty unlikely that the city could go in and force them to build the sewer structure to support the neighborhood. With respect to streets, we do an inspection when an annexation occurs and it they don't meet the city standard, then we don't maintain them except for basic maintenance as he mentioned earlier. The city will not force a neighborhood to construct at their expense a street to bring it up to standard. We would just maintain it at its current level. The city is not the water provider in this area, Fort Collins Loveland Water District is, so water is not an issue for this annexation. In the staff report there is a list of services that are provided by various entities before and after annexation. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 18 Deputy City Attorney spoke about the extension of Moore Lane. He would have concerns about the city entering into any kind of agreement, where it agrees not to build a road, or to take a road out, or take out amenities or anything that has to do with traffic and safety. He would be fearful that that would be contracting away the city's police power. Member Bernth moved to recommend approval to City Council the South Taft Hill Seventh Annexation, #38-02. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion. Member Berth made the motion to recommend approval of the enclave annexation. He knew it would be the most unpopular position in the room, especially when you have 100 people that are totally against it. Some part of him says why would you even do it, but the practical part of him says that there is an enclave that is completely surrounded by the city. It is impractical in future to have enclaves like this throughout the city. The state legislature felt strong enough to legislate a mechanism that would involuntarily do this. Member Gavaldon seconded the motion because he is a strong believer in our process. The state legislature is the authority. If they say we have an enclave, and we need to follow this process. In looking at the table, he sees a lot of amenities that the residents are enjoying in the city and felt that everyone should be pitching in for taxes. He knows that this is very unpopular, but this is what we need to do. Member Carpenter did agree that it was impractical to have County enclaves in the city that are not the city. Member Meyer commented that she heard a lot of the residents talk about development and not wanting it. The fact that they are in the County, does not protect them from developers. Be aware that if they can find your land, they can build on it. So whether you are in the city or the County, you can be developed. It just depends on who's rules you want to follow. With that said, as opposed as the residents are to this annexation, she does not know why we would want them. As opposed as you are, there is no reason to be as unhappy as they are over the whole thing. The city is doing this because the law say we will do this. There is not a lot of choice, and we have to go through the process. The process has been painful from the public meeting on October V up until tonight. She would not be voting for the annexation because if the residents are that unhappy, then maybe it is not a good idea. Just remember every time you go into a city park, just remember who's parks those are. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 16, 2003 Page 19 The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Meyer voting in the negative. Project: Caribou Apartments, Project Development Plan, #18-02A Project Description: Request for a 193 unit multi -family complex located along the west side of Timberline Road and south of Caribou Drive. The project is located on 10.8 acres of land and will yield a gross density of 17.8 units/acre. The property is zoned E, Employment. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached or can be obtained at the Current Planning Department. Other Business: There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Approved by the Board on April 10, 2003. 1 2 3 4 5 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 6 Held January 16, 2002 7 At City Council Chambers 300 West Laporte Street 8 Fort Collins, Colorado 9 In the matter of Caribou -Apartments Project Development Plan 10 18-02A 11 12 Commission members present: Mikal Torgerson, Chair 13 Jerry Gavaldon Dan Bernth 14 Judy Meyer Jennifer Carpenter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC Phone: (970) 482-1506 140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Toll -free (800) 482-1506 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Fax: (970) 482-1230 e-mail: meadors@reporterworks.com OA 1 MR. TORGERSON: Welcome back to the January 16th 2 Planning and Zoning meeting. We have one item left on the 3 agenda and that's the Caribou Apartments Project Development 4 Plan, 18-O2A. 5 Bob, take it away. 6 MR. BARKEEN: Thank you, Mikal. Again, the next 7 item on your agenda tonight is the Caribou Apartments 8 Project Development Plan. 9 This is a project development plan consisting of 10 193 multifamily residential units. The project is located 11 in the southwest corner -- southwest corner of South 12 Timberline Road and Caribou Road, generally in the southeast 13 quadrant of Fort Collins. 14 The property is currently zoned "E" employment 15 district. The use of multifamily residential in the E, 16 employment, district is considered a secondary use type 17 within the number of uses that are permitted within that 18 zone district. 19 You may recall that, and 2 believe it was April 20 of last -- last year already, that we presented to the 21 Planning and Zoning Board a modification against the 22 secondary use standards within that E employment zone 23 district. That modification request was to allow an entire 24 project development plan to consist of secondary uses versus 25 the 25 percent that is restricted to under the normal 3 1 employment zone requirement. 2 That modification was granted and then allowed 3 the applicant to submit the project that is before you 4 tonight. 5 Taking a look at the aerial photo of the site, 6 there is an existing single-family residence located 7 generally central on the site. The site is about a little 8 over ten acres; 10.8 acres to be exact. 9 The existing house is not part of the project 10 development plan. It would -- it would be removed upon 11 development of the site. Generally.around the site, it's 12 fairly well undeveloped. The house is rather centrally 13 located on the site. 14 One of the more prominent features of the area, 15 it's actually a storm water detention pond, and it's just 16 immediately south of the site, but it -- it's actually 17 considered a natural area because it has over the years 18 developed as a wetland area and quite a nice wetland area 19 actually on that. 20 I'll kind of discuss a little bit more how this 21 project relates to the wetland areas. Wetlands are all 22 off -site of this site but yet since it is adjacent to it, we 23 do need to take a look at that and make sure that we do 24 maintain enough buffer from those wetland areas to limit the 25 disturbance that this project may impose on the buffer area 4 1 itself. 2 This is a -- The Caribou Apartments is a 3 qualified affordable housing department -- or qualified 4 affordable housing project by the Advance Planning 5 Department. I think the -- it qualifies as having 40 6 percent of its units -- 45 percent of its units to be 7 considered as affordable housing. 8 This is the general site layout. It's -- The 9 site is generally broken down. The units are broken down 10 into six individual units. One of those units will front 11 along Caribou Drive. This is Caribou Drive up here. One of 12 the units would actually front onto Caribou Drive. 13 Two additional units would front onto Timberline 14 Drive. And then there would be three units internal to the 15 site but yet they would front on this internal street, which 16 is being provided within the project. 17 This is a -- it's a private street but it will be 18 developed and built to our local street standards on that. 19 And it will accommodate on -street parking just like the 20 normal local street will. 21 The parking is generally laid out within the 22 internal to the site. Again, the buildings generally shield 23 the parking from both Timberline Drive and from the internal 24 street. There is a clubhouse, recreational amenities 25 included within the project. 5 1 Probably one other -- the project -- part of the 2 parking is being provided in -- in detached accessory garage 3 units. Now as you all know, we did pass a ordinance about 4 the middle part of last June that required that these garage 5 units, if -- if they are included in the determination for 6 meeting the required numbers of off-street parking spaces, 7 that they be included within the base rental price of the 8 units themself. 9 The applicant is not proposing that, but they 10 are -- they don't need to. This was submitted prior to that 11 ordinance becoming into effect, so they are not subject to 12 that ordinance. So that's one of the -- one of the 13 requirements that they're not meeting but they're not 14 subject to that, so I just wanted to point that out to you. 15 Again, the wetland area is down to the south 16 here. And I'll forward to the slide to that. 17 These are some of the elevations of the units 18 themselves. There's I believe three different building 19 types arranging in heights from three stories in the center 20 and tapering down to two stories. 21 This is the site as you see it. This is 22 Timberline Drive here, Caribou Drive. This intersection is 23 signalized already. You'll see this is the existing house. 24 Again, that's not part of the -- the actual development 25 plan. 6 1 You'll notice there are a number of existing 2 trees on the property, several nice trees. The majority 3 of -- almost all of the evergreen trees will be saved. 4 They'll be relocated elsewhere on the site. But the 5 deciduous trees that you see on here would not be saved and 6 several of those are considered significant, so they will be 7 mitigating for the loss of those trees. 8 This is again looking off Caribou Drive. 9 The project is against an existing mini storage 10 warehouse units, which is just immediately to the west of 11 the site. 12 Another view off of Timberline Drive. 13 Timberline Drive as well. 14 This is the storm water detention area 15 immediately to the south. You can see there's significant 16 wetland vegetation that's established itself within that 17 area. And this project is going to respect that -- that 18 vegetation and that wetland feature itself. 19 Another view from the south. This is from the 20 south from Harmony Drive looking north. And, again, this is 21 where the project would -- would be developed, this existing 22 single-family house out there now. 23 This map shows the buffer that's being provided 24 with the project. Pursuant to the Land Use Code, there's a 25 hundred foot buffer from the perimeter of the existing 7 1 wetland inward to where development can take place. 2 Development, of course, being buildings, parking areas, 3 sidewalks of that nature. 4 You'll notice -- on here you'll see several 5 features that are shaded in a darker area. The buffer area 6 is the stippling marks. And again this is in Exhibit 13 of 7 16, and it's provided in your packet if you're having 8 trouble seeing this from this distance. 9 Basically the encroachment here, our code allows 10 up to a 20 percent encroachment within that one hundred 11 foot buffer. Any greater encroachment to that and the 12 applicant would have to seek a modification from the 13 Planning and Zoning Board as well. ,But they are -- they 14 are encroaching on that, but generally under 20 percent. 15 The encroachment generally consists of a couple 16 of garages and a small area of the parking area. These 17 garages have their -- this is the rear of those garages and 18 they have their backs to there. And the Natural Resource 19 Department thought that that was -- really would limit the 20 impacts on the garages since there's no activity back there. 21 It actually acts more of a buffer from the 22 activity, which would occur more in this parking area and of 23 course around the buildings itself. So they were pretty -- 24 so they were fine with the encroachment as the applicants 25 proposed. A 1 Also there is some of those evergreen trees that 2 were included in the -- around the single-family. Those are 3 being transplanted within this buffer area to help mitigate 4 the loss of the distance on that. And we're going to see a 5 number of those evergreen trees actually be transplanted 6 within the area. 7 This is a grading plan of the area. And some of 8 the detention will be actually provided -- water quality 9 ponds will be provided within that buffer area. Those will 10 be graded up to the adjacent edge of the wetland area 11 itself. 12 Another shot of that. 13 That's generally going to conclude my 14 presentation of the project itself. I'm going to turn it 15 over to the applicant, and I believe Linda Ripley is going 16 to start the presentation to the applicants. 17 Unless there's any questions of me now, I'll turn 18 it over to Linda Ripley. 19 MR. TORGERSON: Jerry? 20 MR. GAVALDON: Bob, before you go, on these 21 320 -- Bob, before you go, on these parking spaces of 320, 22 265 will be surfaced and 55 in garages. 23 MR, BARKEEN: Yeah. 24 MR. GAVALDON: If the folks don't pay extra for 25 the parking spaces or garages, where would you put the 55 at OJ 1 or where would they go? 2 MR. BARKEEN: Well there is -- We're fortunate 3 with this individual project where again that internal 4 street network that I pointed out to you, that will allow 5 on -street parking lot for that. 6 MR. GAVALDON: How many spaces? 7 MR. BARKEEN: I'm not quite sure. I would 8 imagine it probably -- I'm going to guess between 30 and 40 9 spaces. 10 There's also parking available on Caribou Street. 11 Parking can -- there's on -street parking that's permitted on 12 Caribou Drive already, so there's an additional -- 13 MR. GAVALDON: How many? 14 MR. BARKEEN: There's along the frontage of this 15 project, I would guess maybe 15 spaces. Probably a little 16 bit more on that. There's quite substantial frontage along 17 there. 18 MR. GAVALDON: Do we have other developments 19 using the street that probably would be competing for those 20 spaces on Caribou? 21 MR. BARKEEN: The land to the north of this site 22 is currently undeveloped. There is a business kind of more 23 north and west of the area that's just immediately across 24 the street from that. So there really isn't any development 25 right now that is utilizing the street for any parking. 10 1 But there is -- you go out there, there are 2 vehicles out there. There's some -- a couple of semis and 3 everything that just kind of seem to be continuously parked 4 out there. But generally the streets are pretty free of, 5 you know, of on -street vehicles. There are some -- there 6 are still some out there, though. 7 MR. GAVALDON: So if the developer goes to the 8 other property and they want to develop, and whatever they 9 can bring, and they have to use that parking, has the 10 applicant taken into account any mitigation? 11 MR. BARKEEN: You'll have to repeat that, Jerry, 12 I had a hard time understanding. 13 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, if anybody wants to develop 14 north of them and wanted to come in and that created 15 problems and they had to compete for those spaces, is the 16 applicant prepared to discuss that with us tonight? 17 MR. BARKEEN: I think that's certainly a 18 question we can answer them -- or ask them. 19 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, I'll save that for their 20 presentation. Thank you, sir. 21 MR. BARKEEN: Okay. Yes. 22 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, Linda. 23 MS. RIPLEY: Good evening, Chairman Torgerson and 24 members of the Board. 25 I'm here tonight, Linda Ripley, with V.F. Ripley 11 1 Associates. I'm here tonight representing MJT Properties, 2 Mark Hendricks, the owner of that company. And I'd like to 3 introduce our design team. 4 We've got V.F. Ripley in charge of planning. 5 Architecture and landscape architecture are by Martin 6 Design. And Tom Kline and Doug Wagner here tonight with us 7 to talk about those parts of the project. 8 Civil engineering, we have North Star Design. 9 Mike Overschmidt is here. He'll be able to answer questions 10 regarding grading or storm water. 11 Traffic engineering, we have Matt Delich on 12 board. And we have Mike Phelan representing Cedar Creek 13 Associates who did some wildlife biology consulting for us 14 in regard to the wetland area. 15 So that's our team. We're all here tonight. 16 Have been here for quite a while, actually, waiting to 17 present this project to you. 18 As Bob mentioned, we were here actually back in 19 May, last spring with this project because we had to seek a 20 modification because we represented more than 25 percent of 21 our development plan as a secondary use. 22 And that evening you approved our modification 23 and basically gave us the green light to pursue the design 24 of this project. So that was about nine months ago. 25 And so during that time we've been working really 12 1 diligently, constantly, for that nine -month period trying to 2 resolve all of the site planning and design issues. 3 This hasn't been an easy site, but we're happy to 4 report that tonight we're presenting a project that not only 5 meets the city's objectives in terms of site planning and 6 design but also achieves a primary city goal of providing 7 affordable housing. 8 Mark Hendricks of MJT Properties, also here 9 tonight, is not new to Fort Collins or to the affordable 10 housing industry. He developed Fox Meadows Apartments, 11 which is just on the other side of Timberline a little 12 farther north than this project. It sits right south of 13 Fort Collins High School and the McDonald's on the corner 14 along Horsetooth and Timberline. 15 That project I believe was completed in 2000. 16 It's fully leased now. There are 138 units there. 17 Sixty-three of those are affordable, meaning they're leased 18 to families who have incomes that are 60 percent or less 19 than the median income in Fort Collins. 20 The nice thing about that project, I think you've 21 probably all seen it, it's a very attractive project, and it 22 allows low income families or individuals to live in a 23 housing project and not have the stigma of living in an 24 affordable project, because the income -- the low income 25 units are virtually indistinguishable from the market rate 13 1 units. They're the same units. So it gives people an 2 opportunity to get some help without -- without the stigma 3 that sometimes have been attached to that. 4 The project we're representing tonight, Caribou 5 Apartments, is modeled in the same way. The architecture is 6 different. There's certainly diffefences in the project, 7 but in terms of affordability, the idea of mixing market 8 rate and income restricted units is the same. 9 The project we're presenting tonight has 193 10 total units, 87 of them will be income restricted. The 11 project's already received private activity bond allocations 12 from the Affordable Housing Board. 13 If the board has more questions about the 14 financial structure or income qualifications, Mark will be 15 happy to answer for those -- those for you later in the 16 presentation. 17 But, meanwhile, the site plan that we have before 18 you tonight meets the criteria in the E zone and complies 19 with all the applicable general criteria in Article 3 of the 20 Land Use Code. 21 Getting to this point was -- was not an easy 22 task. At last count we had over 20 alternative site plans 23 that we presented trying to staff, trying to satisfy all of 24 their concerns. 25 I'm just going to point out a couple of the major 14 1 issues that we face and then I'm going to turn it over to 2 Martin Design to walk you through the project more 3 specifically. 4 First of all, access was quite a challenge in 5 this site because there really only -- when it was all said 6 and done, there were only two possible access points. One 7 on Timberline that had to be a certain distance from the 8 intersection of Horsetooth and also had to be offset a 9 certain distance from access point further to the south. 10 Similarly on Caribou, access point had to be a 11 certain distance from other -- other connecting points and 12 there was very little flexibility on where we could put 13 access points. 14 Then the next -- the next very, I guess, 15 constraint, the Land Use Code is pretty restrictive about 16 multifamily development in terms of build -to lines and 17 connectivity standards. You really have to get those 18 multifamily buildings on a public street. 19 In this case it's a private street meeting public 20 street standards, but the important point is that we were 21 forced to create a street through the project that we 22 couldn't put perpendicular parking on. So it utilized some 23 land in a different way than we might have done if we didn't 24 have that Land Use Code restriction. But we were able to do 25 it we think quite successfully. In the end we were able to 15 1 work that out. 2 The existing house on the site with quite a few 3 mature trees was something that needed study and a lot of 4 evaluation to determine which trees could be transplanted 5 successfully, which ones needed to be mitigated. 6 The wetland to the south was always a primary 7 concern of staff as well as ours. That was one of the 8 reasons why this was an attractive site to the developer in 9 the first place, so we were certainly always trying to 10 protect it. 11 And in the end we think we've done a great job 12 there, not only by meeting the setback requirements in the 13 Land Use Code but also in terms of dramatic landscape 14 enhancements and also paying attention to storm water 15 quality. 16 So with that overview, I'm going to turn it over 17 to Tom Kline of Martin Design who will walk you through the 18 site plan and landscape plan. Thank you. 19 MR. KLINE: As Linda mentioned, my name is Tom 20 Kline. I'm a landscape architect with Martin Design, and 21 I've had the pleasure of working on this project. 22 Although we did do 20 or 30 iterations, I think 23 they have all been in the interest in creating a great 24 neighborhood and a great community. And I think that's what 25 this plan represents up here. 16 1 I know it's late, and without belaboring the 2 points that have already been made, let me just reiterate a 3 few things about this site plan. 4 I think it truly -- it becomes a neighborhood in 5 itself because of some of the streets, the pedestrian 6 connections, the thing the City of Fort Collins is trying to 7 accomplish. 6 The site plan for -- in a great extent plans 9 itself. The buildings face the street along Caribou, 10 Timberline Road. Verbina and Shoreburg, which are the new 11 streets that are internal to this, really become an 12 important public thoroughfare and do more than just connect 13 Caribou with Timberline. They also further organize the 14 buildings internally. 15 The parking moves to the interior, so you're 16 really accomplishing I think what's at the heart of what the 17 City is trying to do, which is make this less of an 18 automobile -oriented development and more of a 19 pedestrian -oriented development. 20 Further reinforcing that you'll see -- my arm's 21 not long enough, so how does this work? Yeah. You'll 22 further see this large area of open space, which is placed 23 along the street and becomes a community focal point again 24 in public view. It's not hidden. It's out for the public. 25 It's for everyone's use in the community. And the community 17 1 center as well down here located on the visual access along 2 Timberline Road and Shoreburg and at the intersection here, 3 again in a very prominent point, with some of its amenities 4 backing up to the buffer area to the south. 5 In terms of developing the concept after -- after 6 the site plan, we really looked at this -- the buffer area 7 really as an opportunity, and a design opportunity to create 8 some visual interest within this development when it gets to 9 the landscape concept. 10 Urban along Caribou and Timberline as it moves 11 south and to the west. Towards this natural area you've got 12 the more native vegetation if you'll remember from the 13 slide. We've pulled that up into the site, and you can see 14 probably not as clearly as we would have liked to on this 15 slide, I apologize for that, but you're seeing some native 16 vegetation here. Some urban dryland mixes in concert with 17 some of the plant materials that we've introduced here. 18 And, by the way, we've worked with Steve Long in 19 developing this plant list both for slope stabilization as 20 well as the promotion of wildlife habitat along here in the 21 south and then used this as a design opportunity to try and 22 carry that out through the site even up to the corner of 23 Timberline Road and Caribou. 24 The -- just a little bit more detail about this 25 buffer zone, and I think Bob did a good job of sort of M. 1 framing the issues here. Let me just clarify one thing. 2 We are slightly under 19 percent in that 3 encroachment zone. But half of that 19 percent, it's about 4 6200 square feet, just a little under half of that 5 encroachment is because of the spruce trees that we've 6 introduced here. So 51 percent of that may be the backing, 7 and if you want to move back so that slide and maybe we 8 don't need to, but if you'll remember that. The 9 encroachment area is here. That's maybe over 51 percent of 10 it. The rest of it is a result of these Spruce trees, which 11 are not native species and, therefore, considered to be an 12 encroachment in that buffer zone. 13 And let me just mention one other thing. You 14 asked about the parking? And I apologize. We didn't have 15 that at my fingertips because we weren't not using the 16 parking along the street to satisfy the parking 17 requirements, so I went back out there and got my scale out 18 and ran a number, which we can get a little bit more detail. 19 But that's about 38 or 40 parking spaces, it looks like to 20 us, along these internal streets. 21 And, by the way, normally in a project that Mark 22 Hendricks would develop, you'd have a garage count roughly 23 around 50 percent. This is much lower than that. Closer to 24 20 or -- if my math is right, 25 percent, something like 25 that. 19 1 Again, I think those are the high points, and 2 it's getting late. I'm going to have Doug talk a little bit 3 about the architecture and then I think we'll be ready to 4 answer some questions. 5 I don't know how to operate all of this high-tech 6 equipment to get it to the slide, I guess. 7 MR. WAGNER: Actually, could we go back to the 8 site plan? Sorry. 9 Good evening. My name is Doug Wagner. I'm with 10 Martin Design, too. And I'm with the architectural 11 department side of Martin Design, and we worked on the 12 buildings and they've changed quite a bit along with the 13 site plan. 14 That's one of the things that I wanted to talk 15 about the site plan. The shape and the orientation of the 16 buildings is a direct result of working with the site plan, 17 the internal street, the internal parking and all those 18 things that Tom talked about. 19 The site in large part created the buildings, the 20 shapes, the massings, the locations and all those issues 21 that are the beginning points of the design of the 22 buildings. 23 Now we can kind of go back to those elevations. 24 But just wanted to point out that the site really 25 pushed the building shapes and the locations that we had. 20 1 This is a typical building. It's actually one 2 of our larger buildings. We have three different building 3 types. 4 This one shown here is shown to -- we have three 5 of these slides, and they demonstrate the different color 6 pallets that we're using. We have three different color 7 pallets for the three different building types. 8 All of the buildings, whether they're the longer 9 buildings or the shorter buildings, have two-story elements 10 on all ends. And these two-story elements all have 11 individual front door entries. 12 This front door would access the lower residence 13 here. This front door leading into a stair would access the 14 upper residence. And that's a typical design that we've 15 done in this project to have kind of ground floor front door 16 porches for a large percentage of the residential homes that 17 we have here. 18 We've introduced a lot of single-family 19 residential elements that you can see. The gabled roofs, 20 the siding, the mix of brick, typical roof shingle for 21 residential products, and we tried to reduce the scale at 22 the ground level to a pedestrian feel and something that's 23 commensurate with the residential communities that we have, 24 neighborhoods we have around, not necessarily adjacent but 25 across Timberline and also to the sduth across the wetlands 21 1 area. 2 So we've tried to break up -- this facade creates 3 single-family residential style elements, arched windows, 4 gabled roofs, individual entry points around the building. 5 So I'm not going to speak a whole lot more about 6 that. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have about 7 that. I think your packets have more elevations than this, 8 but these were provided in the slide show to talk about the 9 different color pallets we have on the buildings. 10 The single-family garages'will demonstrate the 11 same mixture and materials that we have in the buildings. 12 They're only one-story in height. And as Bob talked about 13 earlier, the ones along the wetlands were kind of set up 14 there as a buffer from the internal to the wetland space to 15 the south. 16 That's about it for the architectural part. 17 Really a lot of it was driven by the land planning and site 18 planning. We think it's going to be a really nice project. 19 I like the way the site plan has internalized the parking 20 and kind of given it that real neighborhood community feel 21 that Tom and Glen were talking about earlier. 22 We're here to answer any questions. We've got 23 civil engineering and traffic and architecture and land 24 planning and landscape architecture, whatever you'd like to 25 talk about. 22 1 Do you want to say any final words, Linda or are 2 we set for questions? Thank you very much. 3 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, do we want to go directly 4 to public input or does anyone have any thoughts? 5 Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that's 6 waited this long? We'll let you speak your mind. You've 7 waited long enough. 8 Again, please state your name and address for the 9 record and sign in. 10 MS. WINTERS: You bet. My name is Janet Winters. 11 I live at 4345 Gemstone Lane across the street from the 12 project. 13 And, pardon me, this is the first time I've been 14 up here so I may miss a couple of things. 15 There's been -- this is the third meeting. The 16 first meeting was to change the -- or make the modification 17 to a hundred percent density. And the piece that was a 18 little bit confusing to me was after going through this 19 whole formalized process, one of the statements by someone 20 sitting on the Council was that this was just a formality. 21 So it felt like it wasn't even in question about the process 22 going forward. 23 The second meeting, they did a wonderful 24 presentation, same maps and everything. 25 My concern -- one of my concerns is living 23 1 directly across the street from it, and they didn't take any 2 pictures across the street. 3 I've got a map printed from your website, and I 4 don't know if that might be helpful to take a look at. 5 MR. TORGERSON: If you can give it to the clerk. 6 MS. WINTERS: There's somewhere around 20 units 7 across the street that are all going to face this. So one 8 of my questions was from balcony to balcony, what's the 9 distance? Because living straight across the street, I'm 10 now looking in people's living rooms and balconies. 11 So one of the questions that I asked at their 12 presentation was if there was a reason that the layout of 13 the buildings was -- was it required to be laid out a 14 certain way based on the strike of the land or anything 15 else? 16 What I asked was -- and they said no to that. 17 They said that they had tried to budget the iterations and 18 you guys talked about that again tonight. 19 My request was can you put the lower buildings, 20 the back of the garages and that sort of thing, parallel 21 with Timberline so that the people Who live in Sunstone are 22 looking up and the taller buildings are in the back? 23 Because behind it is nothing but storage units, so that's 24 not going to impact anyone. 25 One of the other pieces that came out of the 24 1 neighborhood meeting was that we were supposed to get 2 meeting minutes and open communication as changes go on. 3 Tonight they mentioned they've had 40 meetings. 4 I've had no communication. I've had no meeting minutes. 5 I've had no open ongoing communication about the process of 6 what's going to be happening with this, so really no chance 7 to put input in. 8 Two meetings for something that's going to 9 impact -- or two chances really for me for something that's 10 going to impact a bunch of people that are homeowners versus 11 renters and transient tenants. 12 So that was another concern I brought up. And, 13 again, I apologize. I'm a little bit nervous. I haven't 14 done this before so . . . 15 Another issue that I had and asked in the 16 neighborhood meeting was around traffic. The Timberline 17 corridor has a lot of projects tapping into it. Harmony was 18 just widened. Caribou Apartments. There's another project 19 going in on just south of that, and I don't know what that 20 is at this point. King Soopers wants to put one on Drake. 21 And I asked about who's watching the bigger picture of this. 22 With the widening of Harmony, half of our access 23 into our road was cut off by turning left. Now it's only 24 two streets. That is half. So there's a signal there, 25 traffic zooming down Timberline, but there's no left-hand 25 1 turn lane. 2 And when I asked about that, I was told that that 3 was someone else's department. That the traffic folks would 4 worry about that in a bigger picture. 5 This project's going to bring in more traffic. I 6 can't turn into my subdivision without fear of getting 7 clobbered. So I think those are things that need to be 8 considered as each of these projects, you know, tap in. 9 The speed and the volume of the traffic along the 10 whole corridor is an issue. And as these projects are 11 built, I think Drake and College are one of the safest 12 intersections because of the camera. People actually go the 13 speed limit through there. So are those things being 14 considered? 15 You know, we just spent a ton of money on the 16 Harmony corridor and there's no speed cameras there and that 17 just seems kind of crazy to me so . . . 18 So those sorts of things in the bigger picture of 19 things. This complex, I mean, it's lovely. They've done a 20 great job for it in and of itself, but how it impacts 21 everyone else, again, there's no pictures for how it impacts 22 across the street. 23 The other complex is just down the street, so now 24 we've got two low income projects going on or affordable 25 housing projects going on in a very small distance. So 1 the impact of that will impact the entire neighborhood. 2 So, again, who's responsible for the big picture 3 of all of that? The traffic and flow and all of that? 4 So the items I'd like to see addressed are the 5 signals and how they're going to be synchronized through the 6 entire Timberline corridor, King Soopers and that whole 7 complex. 8 Drake, I'm sure Drake's going to be widened. 9 Semis use Drake to bypass the weigh station. The police set 10 up weigh stations quite often because they know they do 11 that. So are there going to be truck routes sorted out 12 so that we're not dealing with that so much? As, you know, 13 the roads get wider to accommodate the businesses, the 14 trucks are going to use them. 15 And it just seems like, again, in the big 16 picture, how do we address all of these? It's not just this 17 one project. 18 Left-hand turn signal into our subdivision I 19 think is going to need to be taken care of. 20 Also, clarification. On all of the different 21 maps it's kind of difficult to determine where the wetlands 22 are truly and where -- where that correlates with the 23 project across the street with the Sunstone. 24 In some maps it looks like the wetlands are 25 beyond -- and I think the name of the street is Sunstone. 27 1 In other pictures, it looks like it's on the other side. 2 And, you know, not knowing where these buildings 3 sit in conjunction with our buildings makes it difficult to 4 say this might work out; it might not. We just -- there's 5 nothing to tell. Forty meetings, two minutes, you know, 6 it's a little bit difficult. 7 So from the traffic I already mentioned what I'd 8 like to see addressed. 9 And from the buildings, I would really like to 10 see that the lower ones are set in the front and the taller 11 ones in the back so that the people who live along Sunstone 12 can maintain their view. They're the homeowners of -- along 13 that stretch. 14 The other -- the other piece that we talked 15 about, and I've talked about the lower buildings, is if the 16 garages are put parallel with Timberline, then we're not 17 looking in each other's homes. We're not looking balcony to 18 balcony. It really helps to have some privacy, if you will, 19 to some degree. 20 I mean, I know that there's going to be a 21 building there. You know, I'm not saying don't build 22 anything there. But I'm just saying, you know, can we 23 minimize the impact on the people that have been living 24 there? 25 So I know they've done a lot of work. I feel Kn 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 like the homeowners haven't really been involved to the level that we have. We haven't had meeting minutes. And I think that there needs to be more involvement before a final decision's made and that's what I'd like to ask for. So I thank you for your time. MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else out in the audience that wanted to speak to the project or consultants? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public input. MS. WINTERS: Yeah, I was going to ask one more question. I'm sorry. MR. TORGERSON: Okay. MS. WINTERS: The one meeting I attended before this, all of you brought up excellent points after you closed it to the public. And when do we get to interact with those kinds of statements, based on your expertise of what you've done for however many years? MR. TORGERSON: A lot of it is just in the interest of keeping the meeting moving along. We're going to run late as it is, but appreciate your thoughts. Bringing it back to the Board, Ward, it looks like there's probably a lot of questions for you here. MR. STAFFORD: Good evening. It is pretty late. Out there on Timberline Road, a left turn will go in when it becomes warranted and when we can't find a better 29 1 solution to avoid putting in another signal light. 2 It's been I think over a year since that one's 3 been evaluated. We certainly can evaluate it again. It 4 didn't meet warrants a year ago for the left turn. That 5 certainly doesn't say it's not changing as the southeast 6 corridor is growing considerably. So we can certainly take 7 a look at that. 8 Other issues as far as say truck route or truck 9 lanes and the growth of Drake and all up and down, the 10 bigger picture is overseen by the Traffic Department. 11 We do monitor streets on a routine basis for 12 their growth. We continually have studies done on the 13 various roadways around the city as well as, you know, 14 reviewing these plans that come in that keep you abreast of 15 the changes. 16 Drake certainly probably will grow. It will go 17 to four lanes more than likely when the development on the 18 north side comes about. Its truck use at the moment is one 19 due to a rock plant down there off of Ziegler due partly 20 because of the construction activity that's going on there. 21 And as long as that plant's there, it probably will continue 22 to use that route. It is certainly a roadway rated for the 23 trucks. 24 Signal timings and operations will be tuned -- 25 fine-tuned to accept them as well as possible. It's not a 30 1 given that trucks dominate. Certainly the cars are the high 2 volume of traffic, and they are more on what we key on as 3 well as trying to avoid enough flexibility in it to deal 4 with the trucks' needs. 5 Overall picture of Timberline, it is a major 6 arterial, slated to be six lanes in time. The major 7 arterials are allowed to run from 35,000 cars up. Not 8 really a cap on it per se. 9 And this street currently 24-hour operations is 10 running in the neighborhood of about 28,000 cars a day. 11 That's within the capacity adequately of a of a four -lane 12 highway or four -lane roadway. In time, yes, it will grow to 13 a six -lane. 14 What have I missed? 15 MR. TORGERSON: There was a question about speed 16 cameras. 17 MR. STAFFORD: Speed cameras are not dictated by 18 us in the Traffic Department. They're handled by the police 19 force, and I think Council actually, if I'm not mistaken. 20 Paul, you may be able to address that better than I can. 21 We don't have any involvement per se as far as 22 the operations and stuff of it. We may oversee some of the 23 installation characteristics, but that's about as far as we 24 go. 25 Doubtful that we would be looking to put cameras 31 1 out there on Timberline. It has not been something we've -- 2 we've discussed and considered and there's numerous pros and 3 cons to the uses of them. So at this point in time, there's 4 nothing planned. 5 MR. TORGERSON: Aren't the speed cameras 6 roving? Don't they travel around in a -- I notice I get my 7 picture taken every once in a while different places. 8 MR. STAFFORD: As far as the police force, they 9 do have one in the vehicle that is dictated by themselves. 10 Where it is, we don't even have notification of. 11 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. 12 MR. STAFFORD: And it certainly has, I used to 13 live on the southeast side of town, and I certainly saw it 14 out on Timberline. 15 If you would like to see*it more, certainly 16 contact the police department and make a request. They're 17 quite obliging to that. 18 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. I think those were the 19 bulk of the traffic questions. 20 Bob, she also asked if garages could have been 21 placed along Timberline between the buildings and 22 Timberline. Is that allowed by the code? 23 MR. BARKEEN: It would be permissible, though, 24 but I think the reason that you see -- 25 MR. TORGERSON: I think your mic's off. 32 1 MR. BARKEEN: What's that? 2 MR. TORGERSON: I think your mic's off. 3 MR. BARKEEN: The reason I think you see the site 4 plan, the arrangement that you see it, the way it's presented 5 tonight with the buildings accessing off the adjacent 6 streets, is that's one of the requirements of the City Plan 7 within the Land Use Code. 8 We know that we've sort of heard that discussion 9 before as far as putting the garages around the perimeter of 10 that, and we really were not very excited at all about that 11 as far as having the garages blocking the streets, either 12 via Timberline or Caribou. 13 So we were actually quite excited when the site 14 plan was presented the way that it is now because it does 15 have that direct connection to the adjacent streets, very 16 much like what the Land Use Code and City Plan really asks 17 for. 18 MR. TORGERSON: Right. That's what I kind of 19 thought. Is there anyone -- Jerry. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Bob, Janet expressed a concern 21 about no meeting minutes being shared with her community. I 22 checked my packet, I don't have any either. Do we have 23 minutes available? 24 MR. BARKEEN: Only what's in your packet. 25 MR. GAVALDON: Did they get minutes? 33 1 MR. BARKEEN: No. 2 MR. GAVALDON: She said they were assured 3 minutes. What happened here? 4 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, yeah. And that is the 5 responsibility that we need to take on ourselves. As a 6 policy, we do try to consolidate -- they're not minutes, 7 they're just -- they are notes of the meeting of what items 8 were discussed, and we do try and make those available soon 9 after the neighborhood meeting as soon as possible. And it 10 was just unfortunate that it wasn't done for this particular 11 project. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I get concerned when 13 minutes are not -- when notes are not available. I see us 14 as credibility and if the citizens are assured of them, they 15 got to have them. You know, because if they get questions, 16 they can follow up with the applicant. They can get things 17 resolved without having to wait at the last hour and late at 18 night to bring them to us. And here we don't have them and 19 they don't have them. 20 I just want to make sure that -- that the 21 neighbors are given that, because I think this has happened 22 a couple of times this year that we just don't get -- they 23 don't get communicated back on with these notes. So that's 24 my concern. 25 I was looking at this project here, and I noticed 34 1 that we're getting pretty intense with apartment buildings 2 along Timberline. We've got the, oh, what's those? 3 Pinecone ones over by Fort Collins High School. Then we've 4 got the ones on the southeast corner of Horsetooth and 5 Timberline. We have this new project. We have condominiums 6 across the street. And then we start going south, and we 7 get over here to these more upscale units on South 8 Timberline by the new theater. 9 So that makes one, two, three, four, five 10 multihousing units within from, what, about three -- two 11 miles? Three miles? 12 Are we starting to get intense -- are we starting 13 to overintensify this area here? Is that what City Plan 14 wants to do is intensify or are we supposed to disperse? 15 MR. BARKEEN: Well, I think the intent of city 16 plan was to, first of all, create that true mix of housing 17 types, multifamily, single-family and then, of course, the 18 range, you know, the range in between -- between those ends 19 of the use spectrums there. 20 I think when the City Plan was put together that 21 the location for the zoning, which was appropriate for 22 single -- I mean, for multifamily residential was looked at 23 in relation to activity centers, major transportation' 24 corridors such as Timberline and the Harmony corridor on that. 25 Areas where multifamily truly does make sense to have. 35 1 This is within a larger employment zone, which 2 does have a lot of the support of uses, you know, your -- 3 you know, your tech parks and your other similar -- other, 4 you know, similar types of uses on that where you do -- 5 where they are able to support, you know, multifamily such 6 as we're seeing here tonight. 7 You know, whether or not we're seeing an 8 overintensification of multifamily in this area, you know, I 9 don't think we've seen anything to indicate that. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Well, if we're looking at 11 affordable housing projects for specifically, aren't we 12 supposed to have them dispersed? Because you got two right 13 back on top of each other within a small distance and this 14 one's four-X'd size of the other one that they were talking 15 about, the one by Fort Collins High School across from 16 McDonald's on southeast corner Horsetooth and Timberline. 17 And if you look at just the square footage, you 18 know, just looking at the plot, that's almost four times the 19 size. 20 So that's my worry. It was just a comment. 21 MR. BARKEEN: I think the one we're referring to 22 is the Fox Meadows at the corner of Horsetooth and 23 Timberline. I think it's actually very similar in size of 24 this one. 25 MR. GAVALDON: It looks a lot smaller on this -- KL 1 on the maps here I'm looking at. 2 Ward, I got something for you. Service level 3 deferred peak operation on traffic report. I'm starting to 4 see a lot of D level surface at Timberline and Harmony. 5 Then if you're looking at 2005 projection by 6 Matt's reports -- and, thank you, Matt; I appreciate that -- 7 I start seeing more Ds showing up at 2005 and some Es 8 starting to show up at 2020. But it's starting to concern 9 me a little bit that we haven't really done -- Janet brings 10 up a good point -- the big picture. 11 Okay, you know, I'm not interested in traffic 12 signals. I'm more interested in even flow and in and outs. 13 But whether you put traffic signals at Caribou, it's a moot 14 point because your Harmony and your Timberline -- your 15 Horsetooth and -- your Horsetooth intersection and Harmony 16 intersection is starting to get tucky. I know you called 17 that acceptable, but when do we say we're getting tucky -- 18 too tight with this at service? 19 MR. STAFFORD: Well, they're allowed to go to 20 level service E without levels of mitigation. Level of 21 service F is what's considered failure. On a 22 arterial/arterial intersection, unfortunately commonly they 23 run in that D and E range. I mean, that is the highest 24 volume locations on almost any street. 25 As far as trying to govern it, it comes down to 37 1 us being able to, one, hopefully have good city planning to 2 make good use of the land and -- and provide those elements 3 to try and help mitigate some of the roadway impacts. But 4 on top of that, it becomes our job to try and help it flow 5 better. 6 And the additional signals isn't necessarily an 7 answer to flow. I mean, we constantly fight putting in 8 signals. Putting in a signal is a downhill trend in the 9 operation. It helps certain functions, but overall it slows 10 down the flow. So we look for other methods to do it. 11 If we can ever get a traffic circle accepted 12 around here, that will -- people will find that will be a 13 good thing. 14 As far as working it in on Timberline, yes, we 15 watch the overall picture, hoping to create enough 16 connectivity in neighborhoods, enough accesses. Not too 17 many, because accesses, as you see on College, has turned 18 that six -lane roadway into a four -lane, because the right 19 turn lanes are basically driveways into the businesses. 20 It hurts the flow, so we try to not allow those 21 to happen but it's a constant competing exercise to do so. 22 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, well, just hear my point. 23 I'm concerned about it. At this stage we just finished 24 Timberline and we're at D already? We're getting where we 25 use our money wisely and did we use it appropriately to keep T] 1 it from going to D. 2 I would have been happy with C and I wouldn't 3 have a problem. But I have a problem -- I have a concern at 4 D right now. And then I start seeing some Es, then you're 5 not too far from an F on that one. 6 MR. STAFFORD: I can't say I disagree with that. 7 I'd like to see them flow at a C, I mean, because that would 8 even make my job easier to maintain that ability. But that 9 is the hottest growing section in our town and has been for 10 quite a few years. It is -- it's a work in progress, that's 11 for sure. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much, Ward. That's 13 all I got for you. 14 MR. TORGERSON: Bob, just a moment ago you talked 15 about the range of housing types from residential to 16 multifamily, and I'm curious about what the range of housing 17 types is in this project. 18 I know it was mentioned in the staff report that 19 the caretaker's unit is one type and the apartments were the 20 other. 21 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, the Land Use Code within the E 22 zone district requires projects over -- greater than 10 23 acres in size to F2. Separate land use types or two 24 separate types of residentials. Those residential uses are 25 defined elsewhere within the Land Use Code. 39 1 One of those is multifamily, which is the vast 2 majority of the units within this project. The other one is 3 called a mixed -use dwelling unit, which basically means 4 it's -- mixed -use dwelling unit means it's kind of a work at 5 home dwelling units. You work out of your home. 6 The caretaker's unit meets that definition. So 7 they do meet the definition of providing those two units. 8 There's not a criteria within the E zone district 9 that a certain percentage of the -- of that mix occur, just 10 says you have to have at least two. And they are providing 11 that. 12 MR. TORGERSON: But the purpose statement 13 essentially says that -- that it's intended to promote a 14 variety of housing types within development plans. And I'm 15 having a hard time swallowing just the guy that manages the 16 property is one type and then the property manager as the 17 other. 18 Bob and I think had we taken a strong stance 19 on that, we really need to ask the question, well, do we 20 really want to see another residential unit type in here? 21 They could probably put a single-family dwelling in here, 22 but we didn't think that was really serving any purpose on 23 that, particularly when there is -- the project is providing 24 such a well needed type of residential. It's -- this type 25 of affordable housing is hard to come by even in Fort ►n 1 Collins. And so 2 MR. TORGERSON: I certainly agree with that. It 3 just seems like the intent -- I agree with the intent of 4 this part of the code and that is I think to avoid 5 building -- I call it condo-opolis. You just drive by and 6 it's an enormous condo-opolis. It's so homogenous, I guess, 7 is what I'm trying to get at. 8 Is the caretaker's unit, is it unique 9 architecturally or is it -- maybe this is a question for the 10 architect. 11 MR. BARKEEN: It does follow the City Plan. 12 MR. TORGERSON: Is it recognizable? 13 MR. BARKEEN: We'll have to go back. We can 14 probably go back. I know -- I'm pretty sure it's in the 15 presentation. Go back to the January 16th Planning and 16 Zoning meeting. I know it's in your packet. 17 It's on 11 of 16 in your attachment on the 18 drawings. 19 MR. TORGERSON: Isn't that the club building? 20 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, it's located within the 21 clubhouse. 22 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. But it's just another 23 apartment really? 24 MR. BARKEEN: It would be a for -rent rental unit. 25 MR. TORGERSON: But because they took it from an 41 1 apartment building and put it in the clubhouse, we're 2 considering that a new housing type? 3 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah, and it is certainly a 4 different function where it's overseeing the, you know, 5 basically the management of the complex itself. 6 MR. TORGERSON: Right. Okay. Any other 7 questions? 8 MR. GAVALDON: Ward, I was talking earlier about 9 the parking and on -street parking in the development to the 10 north of it. There's nothing on that property to the north of 11 this apartment complex. And so folks -- or maybe this is 12 a Bob one, too -- so we've got 15 some cars going to be 13 parking on Caribou street, Caribou Road, I mean. And if you 14 get the development to the north going in and they want to 15 park on the street, how are we going to mitigate this so the 16 apartments won't take all the spaces and they have none? 17 You know, it has to be available for everybody. Any 18 thoughts? 19 MR. STAFFORD: We believe that most of that is 20 certainly dealt with, with the policies of the park and 21 regulations in our city as far as the developments provide 22 their own needs. 23 The roadway certainly allows for additional 24 capacity, especially for holidays or whatnot. But, yes, 25 they will compete under any scenario. 42 1 In a neighborhood residential, the people have 2 their driveways and their garages but they also can park on 3 both sides of the roadway. And, you know, for different 4 needs, uses and activities, they both compete for their 5 needs also in that scenario. It's a -- it's a constant 6 competition if it's so desired. 7 Does it happen every day on most streets? No. 8 But it certainly will happen on some days, yes. 9 MR. GAVALDON: The reason why I bring this up 10 because poor Mikal, we worked him over. We worked over 11 development on -- over by CSU with the same thing. Parking 12 on the streets, making them poor folks put all the parking 13 in. But these guys have garages. They're going to charge 14 extra. They beat the code, getting it under the code 15 enforcement. And just, you know, it happens, you know. We 16 got it out of process. 17 But it concerns me that these garages are going 18 to sit empty because they don't want to pay extra and there 19 will be some vacancies. And I wish they would come forward 20 and say we want to make them available to everybody because 21 affordable housing, who's going to pay for their garages 22 when there's affordable housing? I don't think too many 23 people will. 24 And those are just going to sit there and become 25 -- what do you call them? Boat anchors. And I think I'd 43 1 rather put a boat anchor on a ship in the water but not a 2 garage. And that's my worry on it, guys. 3 Bob, any thoughts on that? 4 MR. BARKEEN: Well, they do meet the code. 5 MR. GAVALDON: I know they do. 6 MR. BARKEEN: I think you're going under the 7 assumption that these garages are going to be a hundred 8 percent vacant, and I don't really think that's going to be 9 the case. 10 I think that they certainly will be utilized. 11 Whether they're a hundred percent utilized, we'll obviously 12 have to -- you know, we'll just have to see on that. 13 MR. GAVALDON: And I do agree. They do meet the 14 code. I just wanted to put in my two cents and hopefully 15 we can do better next time. 16 MR. BARKEEN: Yeah. One nice thing about the 17 fact that this is a residential project is that it should 18 not compete with, you know, we're assuming that businesses 19 that are established across the street, your highest parking 20 demands for residential is at night. Whereas, your highest 21 parking demand for businesses is during the daytime. 22 So, you know, we think, you know, we really don't 23 see this becoming a parking issue, because there's lots of 24 parking opportunities out here so . . . 25 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, thanks for the 44 1 clarification. We appreciate it. 2 MR. TORGERSON: Bob, this is within 3 three-quarters of a mile of a neighborhood center? 4 MR. BARKEEN: Yes, it is. The area up there 5 between Horsetooth and Timberline. There's a number of uses 6 up there that qualifies for a neighborhood center and this 7 is within three quarters of a mile of it. 8 MR. TORGERSON: McDonald's? 9 MR. BARKEEN: There's a -- there is a convenient 10 store. There. TheConoco gas station up there. There's 11 some additional offices up there. There's a dental clinic. 12 A few medical offices up there. 13 There's additional -- when you go further south, 14 too, there's additional across from Harmony and Timberline 15 down there. 16 MR. TORGERSON: Actually; yeah, that is another 17 area. 18 MR. BARKEEN: Ironically, there's one across the 19 street that's been approved but our code won't let us jump 20 the street so . . . 21 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, right. Any other 22 questions? Anyone feel like making motions? 23 MR. BERNTH: I'll make a motion. It's time to go 24 home. 25 I would recommend that the Caribou Apartment 45 1 Project Development Plan, Number 18=02A, would be approved 2 based upon the following facts and conclusions outlined on 3 page 8 of the staff report. 4 MS. CARPENTER: I'll second. 5 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, we have a motion on the 6 table. Does anyone have any comments? 7 MR. GAVALDON: If I'm going to look at the 8 process, I'm going to support the motion. But my gut says I 9 should not because I have some concerns about the traffic, 10 the layout. The resident brought out some good points about 11 the orientation of the buildings. The encroachment on the 12 buffer of the natural area there. Though it's okay, but I 13 think mitigation could have been -- I think our natural 14 resources could ask for some mitigation to make it more 15 feasible. 16 I'd eliminate some garages in a heartbeat, very 17 quick, and turn them into flat lots and try to make a better 18 buffer. And I feel that the prime streets and the layout 19 and all of that, it will work. 20 But that's my gut that says that, this thing has 21 some problems with it. And the bigger one I have is it's 22 too close to another affordable unit. I'm in favor of 23 affordable housing, mind you. I think it's an important 24 value to our city, but they're too close to each other. 25 And if we're going to turn the east side into 46 1 affordable housing and not on the north and not on the west, 2 I'm worried about that. I believe in dispersion of this and 3 I think that it needs to be done. 4 I haven't even touched on architecture. I'm 5 going to leave that to my -- my colleagues here are more 6 skilled in it and all that. But I just hope this thing is 7 not going to be in -your -face unit like this where you see it 8 in some of the other affordable housing projects. 9 And I hope that it turns out to be a quality, 10 and -- I hope it does do what it is intended to do. But if 11 it don't, we'll have some comments from citizens down the 12 road. But I'm going to support it, but I just want you to 13 know where my concerns are. 14 (A comment was given from the audience, not 15 audible.) 16 MR. GAVALDON: I can't -- but I appreciate the 17 comments by the citizen. I appreciate the efforts that 18 you're trying to do, but I'm going to support it. 19 MR. TORGERSON: Anyone else have any thoughts? 20 Let's take a vote. 21 THE CLERK: Bernth? 22 MR. BERNTH: Yes. 23 THE CLERK: Meyer? 24 MS. MEYER: Yes. 25 THE CLERK: Gavaldon? 47 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 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. THE CLERK: Carpenter? MS. CARPENTER: Yes. THE CLERK: Torgerson? MR. TORGERSON: Yes. Okay, the project passes. (Matter concluded.) 0 m 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) 2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) 4 I, Karen Voepel, a Registered Professional 5 Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Colorado, do 6 hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings, is an 7 accurate and complete transcription of said videotaped 8 Planning and Zoning meeting held in Fort Collins, Colorado 9 on January 16, 2003. 10 I further certify that I am not related to, 11 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or 12 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of 13 the case. 14 Attested to by me this 20th day of February, 15 2003. 16 17 18 Karen V epel, RPR, CSR 19 February 20, 2003 20 21 22 23 My commission expires May 22, 2005. 24 25