Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/17/2001• Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Phone: (H) 484-2034 Vice Chair: Mikal Tor erson Phone: (W) 416-7431 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Roll Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Colton and Gavaldon. Member Meyer was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, Barkeen, Wamhoff, K. Moore, Virata, McWilliams, Brooks, Reavis, D. Moore, Wilder, and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (Continued), June 21, and July 19, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ01-06 — Easement Vacation. 3. #7-820 Collindale Business Park, 6t' Filing, Lot 1, GK Gymnastics — Project Development Plan. 4. #26-97A Pedersen Auto Plaza Expansion — Major Amendment. 5. #19-01 Westchase No. 1 — Annexation & Zoning 6. #19-01A Westchase No. 2 — Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 7. #32-01 Johnson Property Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment 8. #34-01 450 North College Rezoning Moved by Mr. Bernth, seconded by Mr. Colton: To approve Items 1, 2, 3, 4 on the consent agenda, excepting the minutes of 11/16100, and including items 5 and 6. Motion approved unanimously. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 2 FOSSIL CREEK REVIEW Pursuant to Board request, Staff offered a brief presentation of the transfer development unit program being implemented in the Fossil Creek area. The West Chase annexation is one of the items on the consent agenda. A quarter section of land is being annexed. It was reviewed pursuant to the Intergovernmental agreement between Fort Collins and Larimer County. A unique set of standards is applied to the Fossil Creek planning area, in that if land is eligible for annexation, the development is reviewed by the County with a specific set of standards to this area modeled after the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Annexation proceeds as soon as the property is eligible with a final PUD. The subject property is subject to County SA or SA-1, low -density, but Fort Collins has negotiated urban or high -density zoning. This involves using space to be preserved elsewhere. This process is not applicable to the West Chase annexation, since the annexation is already approved. The parcel that had the transferred development rights was pointed out to the Board. On the map, the pink areas with available development rights were displayed. The development rights are transferred to the areas in yellow. Pictures were displayed of the affected areas. In response to questions by the Board, Staff stated that 20 acres of land rights were transferred to development areas on the West Chase project. About 400 acres have been saved on the PDU program. Mr. Colton stated his wish for further review at a work session. Project: Johnson Property Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #32-01 Project Description: Request to rezone a 226-acre parcel east of Timberline Road and north of Drake Road. The property was zoned T, Transition upon annexation in 1997. There are 4 proposed zone districts for the property, UE, Urban Estate, LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood, MMN Medium Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood and I, Industrial Zone District. The applicant is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to remove the Industrial and Neighborhood Commercial Center P • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 3 designations from the site, and to slightly modify the boundary line between Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed Use Residential. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Structure Plan in accordance with the diagram titled, "Staff's Recommended Configuration." Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map in accordance with the diagram titled, "Staff's Recommended Configuration." Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Ms. Carpenter declared a conflict and excused herself from this portion of the meeting. A recess was taken while the applicants were gathered. • Troy Jones presentation. The site is roughly 217 acres. It is immediately north of the Rigden Farm development. The Board is to consider two items: A Structure Plan amendment and a rezoning. The site is currently zoned T, transition. South of the site is Rigden Farm. Other zones immediately adjacent to the property: NC, MMN, with LMN providing a transition farther south. RC is at the northeast corner, with I, industrial, and E, employment, zones to the north. The site has a feature called the "valley wall." This is a defining bank for the valley area of the Poudre River. The wall defines a lower and higher elevation of the property. A set of buildings was pointed out that comprises the Drake Waste Water Treatment Facility, with plans to expand to a nearby pond. Structure Plan Amendment. The current plan was demonstrated. Neighborhood commercial zoning presently exists in a corner, surrounded with an arc of MMN. Farther from the NC core is LMN, low -density mixed use. An upper corner of the site is zoned I, industrial. The eastern portion of the site is designated UE, Urban Estate. The first three elements of the application are noncontroversial. The applicant • responded positively to Staffs requests. When the Structure Plan was originally adopted, it could be moved south or north of the intersection or straddle it, but a Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 4 certain size of commercial area was envisioned. The red -dot commercial zone was satisfied by the Rigden Farm zoning. The next item may not technically need the Structure Plan, but it is included as part of the overall scope of the project. The MMN arc did not have a fixed boundary but was envisioned as a concept. The applicant proposed, in line with Staffs request, to move the MMN zone to the corner to provide transition. The next item would eliminate the industrial designation on the northern section. This section is abutted by two different industrial uses and was zoned as part of a broad -brush stroke for consistent zoning. Timberline will be developed up to a six -lane arterial. The railroad provides a barrier from the northern portion to other industrial sites. There is also a historic farm site on this section. The industrial uses across Timberline have greatly lessened in industrial profile. Staff feels that the northern farmstead should be included in the LMN zone. This would further make the subject area more compatible with uses other than industrial use. The next items are less uncontroversial. The urban estate boundary was shown contrasting the existing plan to the proposed plan. The applicant proposed a shift along this boundary between urban estate and LMN. There is a need to buffer the wastewater plant from incompatible uses. The State specifies a 1,000-foot buffer for intensive uses. A gray zone was shown at the eastern extremity with RC, or the least intensive, zone. This is the Staff proposal. The Board directed Staff to show options beyond that proposed. Scenario A (later referred to as 'Revision 1") was displayed with the RC zoning shown, Urban Estate for the area proposed, and LMN and MMN for the remaining portions. Scenario B (later referred to as 'Revision 2") proposed the line between LMN and UE remain as shown on the Structure Plan, with the lower portions of the property becoming RC and MMN. Staff noted that the applicant wished to propose other alternatives. The Land Use Code is very specific with T, transition zone, giving owners a timely right to rezone according to the Code. Negotiations have continued with the applicant for quite some time and they have been continued from prior hearings that they were entitled to, in terms of timing. The Staff does not have the authority to ask for delays under T zoning. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 5 The rezoning portion follows the Structure Plan amendment as being the appropriate zoning decided upon in the Structure Plan review. Various members of the Staff were made available at the meeting in the event of questions that included their individual specialties. In response to questions by the Board, Staff displayed the T zone, the surrounding area, and where the industrial zone designation comes across on the Structure Plan. 33.4 acres are involved. Staff recommends placing LMN between two industrial areas. Staff supported the change from industrial to LMN without a city-wide census of available industrial zones. There is no indication of a shortage of industrial zoned properties in the city. Ms. Craig stated that the city needs warehouses and like developments. There is a fear that if industrial zones are eliminated, more eliminations will follow, and those elements will be needed. Staff perceived nothing significant in terms of a loss of industrial space. The applicants are willing to protect the farm, which is contained in industrial area. • There is some push -and -pull involved on what is preserved. The applicant does not wish to use the farmstead or immediate surrounding area for industrial purposes. It did not seem to follow that the City should defend and stick to the industrial designation, given that the farmstead would not fit with an industrial description. No real future for industrial use exists at the site. The farm will probably be protected as part of the neighborhood, as more logically an extension of the neighborhood rather than as industrial space. Another concern expressed is that the industrial zone designation might define a de facto preservation of the farm, but there is other criteria that preservation concerns look at. The outcome of the historic preservation might result in the preserved farm line and buffer being about the same place. Ultimately, the area did not seem to fit the definition of an industrial zone. Ms. Craig asked how the established industrial would impact the LMN zone and whether there will be complaints of the residences that impact the industrial area, with the concern that this will further deplete the adjacent industrial area. Staff referred to ordinance language: If the neighborhood is built by a pre-existing noise source, it is up to the neighborhood's developer to deal with the issue. Staff is not concerned about losing the farm; it is not seen as an industrial use. When a historic buffer is looked at, the dimensions are unknown; but when placed between LMN and Industrial, the defining line should not be that buffer. It seemed more logical to zone LMN on both sides of the buffer and make it subject to ODP. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 6 Regardless of zoning, the farm will be saved? It is required to be preserved. The grouping of buildings and area features were shown on an aerial photo. The features to be saved were shown and the potential buffer areas displayed. The CDP is under review, and a historic consultant is helping with research on the issue. Nothing has been finalized with regard to historic buffer issues, and it is presently part of the ODP. Ms. Craig drew an analogy to the farmhouse on Rigden, which was simply moved. Troy Jones replied that the farmhouse was moved, as a result of the Streets Department needs. The proposed six lanes of the Timberline arterial will meander enough to miss the farmhouse. Ms. Craig did not perceive a good justification for changing the Structure Plan map, especially with industrial on both sides. Mr. Torgerson noted that industrial includes nurseries and animal uses. The farm could not function as a farm in LMN. He asked from historical preservation if it would be better served in industrial. Staff agreed to that from a historical preservation view. For a working farm, a lot of land is needed, and not enough will be saved here to accomplish that. A veterinarian facility and a small herb farm have been looked at; a working farm is unlikely. Mr. Torgerson mused whether those uses would be more appropriate, as well as small business office uses. Those things are involved in Industrial but not LMN. Staff noted that the applicant had come in with a truncated industrial area that bisected the farm and went through the barn, with the barn then being in two zones. Staff's concern was a potential battle over the buffer. Making it all one zone seemed to eliminate that battle. Mr. Torgerson noted that the present Industrial zone does not bisect the barn. Mr. Bernth asked what the farm needs in order to maintain its character? Staff responded that rather than hard and fast acreage, it needs significant buildings, outbuildings, and ground features, including pens and pit silos, with an appropriate buffer. No acreage numbers have been solidified. Staff is consulting in regard to legal underpinnings and like situations in other communities. A 500- foot buffer has been recommended, which would be a majority of the 33 acres, or about 20 or 25 acres. Ms. Craig inquired into Urban Estate for this area. Staff did not look at that possibility. Staff looked at the manipulation of the boundary and took into account the integration of the slope into the zones. Rezoning was seen as an extension of the larger neighborhood. There are two farmsteads: the Jessup and Johnson farms. These areas were shown on the aerial photo. The second farm is not within the buffer. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 7 Applicant's presentation. Jim Postal, president of James Company, has the Johnson property under option. This is his fifth development in the city. The zoning cannot be separated from the CDP and planning purposes. A slide was shown of the neighborhood. The property is interesting, with Timberline as a major arterial, creating a significant impact on residential property and demanding higher densities. The neighborhood commercial in Rigden Farm satisfies the commercial needs for this property. The industrial area across the tracks fits the industrial zoning well. The developer went to the City about a year ago in the early planning stages for a design meeting. It helped the applicant to focus on a direction for the property. Many studies have been done regarding a plethora of potential impacts over the period of planning for this property. An intensive effort was made to include the Cargill property in the planning. They chose to exclude themselves. Two farmsteads are included. The properties are in poor condition, but the . developer wishes to work with the City on the appropriate avenues. The development factors are negative and challenging and require very creative land planning by experts in that area and with regard to the surrounding uses. It has taken a year to get to this point in the planning process. A disappointment occurred with the latest requirement for a buffer zone from the sewer plant, particularly in light of the request at the beginning of the process to be informed of all applicable rules. A buffer and detention plan was initially incorporated in the plan. The iterations of the plan and the time it took to get to this point were not the result of the applicant's actions. Susan Wade, of Downing, Thorpe & James, spoke of the plan. The design intent of the issues is probably more appropriate for CDP. She said that four design strategies were to be illustrated, with concept images presented: 1) Create a community with heart or core, using circulation and open space elements to create one or perhaps two cores or hearts, gathering places, to bring the neighborhood together. 2) Provide unique and identifiable sub -neighborhood districts, based on densities, open space elements, and architectural massing. 3) Provide neighborly edges. The long railroad track was cited as an example. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 8 4) Provide architectural diversity, with seven or eight architectural types, to provide unique looks and textures to the neighborhoods and streets. Those strategies are mostly ODP oriented but presented to show that there is deeper thinking than mere rezoning. The first application had an Industrial placement. The line went through the barn, which was not the real intent. Since then, the applicant removed Industrial and maintained it Urban Estate. Requirements were changed recently concerning the river corridor concept. The applicant was told as late as 3:00 p.m. today that redesign was needed, in that an Urban Estate buffer is needed to buffer the river corridor. As a result of that notification, and with quick work in the car on the drive to Fort Collins, a Concept C (later referred to as 'Revision 3") was proposed to further redefine zonings. The black crosshatched area would be Urban Estate, with the conditions that 1) no residential development will be in that boundary; 2), the neighborhood park would be placed between the preserved Johnson farm and the 1,000-foot buffer. This satisfies the concerns of matching the existing Structure Plan, not introducing a new district, and not interfering with the zoning district. Under this plan, LMN does come down farther than the original Structure Plan. The applicant wishes to save the valley wall and its elements, both natural and historic. This way, it places those elements in a district that is already within the Structure Plan. Residential would be moved out of the 1,000-foot buffer. An overview was shown regarding these elements with roads overlain in the plan. Public input was invited. None was offered. Questions and discussion by the Board, Staff, and Applicant Ms. Craig stated that there is not a compelling reason to change the Urban Estate to LMN or Industrial to LMN. The applicant discussed with Staff the purpose of the Structure Plan and its genesis. The Structure Plan is a broad - based interpretation of community development. In looking closer at the site with the wastewater plant, the railroad tracks, the adjacent industrial uses, a more detailed higher use was seen rather than the broad -based plan. Rigden Farm was not required to do a Structure Plan, but its differences between the development plan and Structure Plan were huge. The applicant took information from the workshop, the Structure Plan, and development in other communities to see how the Structure Plan could be implemented, in balance with community needs. The original concept had • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 9 Industrial to the north, Urban Estates to the south, with a buffer to the wastewater treatment plant. The intent was to maneuver the lines softly, keeping the intent of the land use, but with different boundaries. The idea was also to look at the total site in concept of highest use rather than the broad scope of the Structure Plan. There is no problem in designating industrial to the north. The origination of that process was a City request to reduce some of the issues that were seen. The applicant met with the City and consultants on the site in a workshop, working out locations of a compound and buffers, with a full proposal on the way. The right direction is being sought, and the actual designation of this portion, whether LMN or industrial, does not matter so much to the use. The property will either be sold off or donated as a nonprofit. Mr. Gavaldon expressed concern about designing in -process at a Board meeting, using four iterations of the plan. Since Friday's work session, other iterations have been developed. He inquired about other options if the Board is not comfortable in proceeding with a particular plan. Mr. Eckman advised that under T zoning, the petition is to be considered unless time restrictions are waived by the petitioner. The Board may support Staff's, applicant's, or its own proposal. The Board cannot continue with T zoning and cannot postpone consideration of zoning. Mr. Gavaldon expressed his dissatisfaction with any finding without proper review in order to carefully consider and study and gather an understanding of the project. . Mr. Eckman further advised that the Transition zone does not have great latitude for possible uses. The property needs to be taken out of T zone quickly so that it does not constitute a taking of the property. This is a "holding" zone in the face of uncertainty, but once brought up for zoning, it needs to be decided upon expeditiously. This is a recommendation, with. Council making the final decision, relying on the Board's judgment. The applicant stated that this was not their preferred manner of doing business, with particular note taken of receiving information as late as 3:00 p.m. on this hearing date. Staff stated that the City will not have to buy anything it was not going to buy already, i.e., the neighborhood park. That is a requirement to provide to the City. The neighborhood park is a purchase of a 10-acre neighborhood park, as per the practice anywhere else in town. The black hash mark on the hastily drawn map will be Urban Estate, regardless of underlying color in that map. It will have no residential, will provide the required buffer from wastewater, with no residential in the park, no residential in the farm area, and no residential in the valley wall. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 10 Staff offered a point of clarification as to the thousand -foot buffer area. No residential will be allowed, but also any habitable structure is not allowed. No commercial uses are allowed. There will probably be a retention plan. Some uses in the Urban Estate would not be appropriate for that area. The applicant does not intend those uses to be placed there and is agreeable to that restriction. If the adjacent farm is developed for certain uses, trails may be needed for that portion of the property. Staff is in agreement if the farmstead is adapted to residence, but would not want new residences put in. Staff doesn't want residential in the buffer zone, and the applicant addresses that with the placement of the park. Conditional zoning would need to apply in order to have no residential units in the proposed park area, with universal agreement on resolving this. The park use cannot be specifically tied to that area; it becomes an ODP issue. Since the addition of the 40-acre zone to the wastewater plant, the City may have the obligation to pay for that property, since it must be designated as undevelopable. Mr. Eckman verified that this is not an issue for the Board to consider as a development cost. In response to questioning, the applicant affirmed the desire for decision at this hearing. Mr. Colton questioned the justification for LMN zoning below the valley wall. On the Structure Plan, it is kept Urban Estate. This change just puts in more houses, which is not a good justification. He inquired of the reasons for Urban Estate as opposed to RC. The applicant was agreeable to RC zone in the corner area. Mr. Colton stated that he did not understand the justification for making LMN into UE. The applicant was confused last week with a new river corridor designation request. This afternoon, the applicant then heard that there was concern about a drastic change from the Structure Plan. The land remaining as UE is more in conformance with land use and the Structure Plan. The lines are different; LMN is below the river wall; there are changes, but the applicant is trying to maintain the essence of the Structure Plan in light of all the requirements placed on the applicant. The applicant referred to a year ago, before the extent of compounds, buffers, slope bank preservation, 10-acre park requirement, thousand -foot buffer, and other issues were made known. While these issues are not the concern of the Planning and Zoning Board, every new restriction further handicaps the development of the site. This plan seeks to regain some of the density lost • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 11 through designation of the river corridor and the installation of buffers. This will allow retention of perhaps 1100 units on a property that could be zoned for up to 1600. The applicant has listened to every single request and has dealt with it. Tonight continues that process; it is unfortunate that it is occurring in front of the Board. Mr. Bernth commented on the efforts within the city to increase density, with increased density as a benefit and noted that this plan is attempting to do that. Ms. Craig stated that because this is in the Poudre River Corridor Plan, it is designed to go from lower density to higher density. Rigden Farm was not originally zoned in its present condition. The reason for the UE designation is for lower density along the valley wall. The vote on Rigden Farm set a precedent in the area for higher density. The whole intent of the Structure Plan, as assembled not only by Planning and Zoning Board and Staff and Council, but many others, was to take a plan not lot by lot, but area by area, with the purpose of UE as a transition. The wastewater buffer issue is brand-new. Designating a zone as RC is appropriate and takes out conditions. It fits the structure map and meets the State statutes. • Mr. Bernth stated that there are changed conditions, and the applicant is responding to those. Some mechanism, either UE or RC must be in place to meet the requirements. He inquired as to the acreage in UE that will now be LMN. The applicant stated that previously, UE was 95 acres in the Structure Plan. Probably less than half would transition from UE to LMN. While the Structure Plan was looked at area by area, it may not have been viewed in terms of the market. Homes in UE are large -lot. It is very difficult to sell large -lot homes next to wastewater treatment and industrial uses. The developer cannot feasibly put large lots next to those uses, and the shallow groundwater table would interfere with any basements. Mr. Bernth inquired if the issue is 47 acres of UE or LMN. Staff noted that no dwelling units or adaptive use of farm units could exist on the crosshatched area on the map. Staff inquired as to the following: If the UE on the Structure Plan is roughly 95 acres; approximately half of that would have no units; is the other half then to increase to LMN density as a balance for removing dwelling units from UE? The applicant affirmed that notion. The blue (proposed RC) area is about 32 acres. About 50 of the 94 acres would be UE. There was discussion whether neighborhood parks are permitted in the RC zone, with the conclusion that they are. The applicant noted their desire to maintain the look of the Structure Plan as an important element to the Board. Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 12 Staff stated that all scenarios would fit the requirements of the farm sites. The applicant agreed and offered to put that intent into writing. The applicant preferred Scenario C as more consistent with the Structure Plan. Staff inquired of the reasons for advocating RC over UE. If the land is not suitable for development — e.g., in sewer areas, the valley wall, farm, and areas representing the river valley - the purposes are then nailed down by the RC zone and UE would not be applicable. RC is directly applicable and would avoid applying conditions to the zone. The applicant was in agreement as long as there was not additional UE requested beyond that proposed in Scenario C. The amended scenario would reserve the blue area as RC, with the rest of the crosshatching reserved as UE. Mr. Torgerson mused if the condition of no dwelling units is applied, the park area would be more affordable for City purchase. Mr. Eckman cautioned the Board not to make a decision based upon affordability for the City but rather in conformance with good planning and zoning concepts. Mr. Colton stated the following: No development other than UE within the valley wall was in the original Structure Plan. Trading density was used in Rigden Farm, and he would resist having that procedure set a precedent. There is a need for more UE and large lots. The developer's concern about salability is not worrisome in the light of the desire of people to buy those properties. There is no reason to deviate from the Structure Plan. Although RC came up recently, it serves the appropriate purpose of buffering from incompatible uses. The developer's concern of unmarketable properties due to high water tables and sewage smells is not a concern for the Board's determination and not a reason to change the Structure Plan. Scenario B is preferable. Ms. Craig stated the following: The findings of fact and conclusions lay out the zone issues well. Discussion was held whether to address the Staff's report item by item. Mr. Torgerson noted that such a discussion would not result in a map. Moved by Ms. Craig, seconded by Mr. Bernth: To recommend approval of Staffs Finding No. 1 for removal of the neighborhood commercial center. Mr. Gavaldon recommended packaging an approval on Finding No. 1 into a blanket motion, in order to escape the process of making many motions, item by item. There was general Board consensus in agreeing to Finding No. 1. Mr. Gavaldon inquired as to Finding No. 2. General discussion was held on an Industrial designation, with anecdotes as to the available supply. Staff has been reviewing uses in the I zone. Many of the uses could fit well on the farmstead. The supply of industrial sites are many and varied. This is a unique site with the • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 13 preservation of farm buildings and the resulting various possibilities. Staff now questions removal of the I zone, in processing the presentations and the Board's concerns. The applicant noted that the uses as set forth in the Structure Plan and as needed on the property can be met by either I or LMN. The applicant has no particular preference; Staff expressed a concern about the boundary for historical purposes. The ultimate boundary needs to meet the property's needs. The applicant inquired whether the boundary between I and LMN can remain flexible, to be determined in discussions among the applicant, Staff, and historical preservation, or whether the line needs to be set tonight. Mr. Eckman stated that this is a recommendation, and latitude can be used in the type of recommendation. The applicant approved of a concept that a buffer can be a transition for land use rather than a set demarcation. Therefore, restrictions can be placed within buffers. Staff noted that there is leeway within the buffer for historical preservation, so it does not necessarily have to go through modification of standards. • Mr. Eckman stated that the Board can make a recommendation that is not graphic. There is not a convenient way to graph this out and draw lines to make a decision tonight, so the process may result in some trust being placed with Staff and the applicant to draw appropriate lines before review by Council. The Board reached consensus to leave Industrial as -is on the structure map. Staff noted that the l zone allows mixed -use dwelling uses and boarding houses. The Structure Plan map retaining its present industrial zoning would mean that residential is constrained to those limited uses. Mr. Colton noted that "mixed use" is wide open, and discussion ensued concerning the ramifications of the zoning. Mr. Mapes stated that the present uses would remain. No further issue was raised with retaining the industrial zone as per the Structure Plan. Ms. Craig and Mr. Colton did not wish to change LIE to LMN. Mr. Bernth disagreed on several bases: Infill development; promoting density; allowances are made with enough open space to cover the increased intensive use for those 47 acres. The applicant is asking for a change that applies to 20-25% of the land involved. Ms. Craig inquired how many more units will be in the valley in the most current scenario over the Structure Plan. Staff estimated that 95 acres of UE results in 190 units. 47 acres of LMN results in 235 to 376 units, depending on a density from three to five units per acre. Ms. Craig stated that this area is in the 500-year 181 floodplain, and higher density will put more people in the transition. Mr. Torgerson stated that LMN is appropriate here. This is across the tracks from an Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 14 industrial park, next to an arterial, so the transition to the river isn't occurring. Mr. Gavaldon agreed with LMN and noted that the transition goes to Johnson Farm in reverse. Mr. Torgerson inquired as to Finding No. 4. Wastewater has been trying to buy the property for 15 years; why has the 1,000-foot buffer not come up earlier? Staff at Wastewater stated that it had previously pointed out planned infrastructure and expansion and utilities. There were no numbers at the time regarding a buffer. There is a semicircle of City property, and they have not succeeded in acquisition into Rigden Farm and Johnson Farm. Wastewater saw development coming and changed direction to negotiate whatever could be obtained. It was after that point that the consultant informed Wastewater about the 1,000-foot buffer. Board consensus was to keep Finding No. 4 with RC zoning, without conditions. The Board reached consensus in agreeing with Staff on Finding No 5. There was general board consensus on Item No. 6. Mr. Colton expressed his desire for more area to be kept UE. Ms. Craig agreed with Staff that the proposed UE is not consistent with the Structure Plan but does not agree with any implication that Staff supports leaving UE as -is on the Structure Plan. Staff mentioned two applicable criteria; that the zoning be consistent with the Structure Plan, and the zoning be appropriate for the property. In further discussion concerning process and general desires of all involved, Mr. Gavaldon again expressed frustration and apologies with the speed of the process and the lack of preparation and background. He stated that the Board would nevertheless work through this in the best manner possible and meet the applicant's rights. Following a recess, the applicant pointed out the buffer line. Of the 33-acre parcel, half of it will be farm and buffer. The other half would still be industrial use, and the applicant is not sure that is the appropriate zoning next to the farm. The line should be the buffer and should not impose an industrial use next to the farm and next to residential. The railroad and Timberline act as true buffers, but there is no set buffer between the proposed industrial and residential. Staff stated that the area that contains the farm complex and the buffer placed around it contains less area than exists in the Structure Plan's I designation. By retaining I on the Structure Plan, it takes a larger area for that than originally foreseen. The boundaries will be set by the Structure Plan. Ms. Craig stated that Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 15 industrial uses would be appropriate with the farm and buffer. Neighborhood compatibility would be allowed in the I zone, and Staff would not let in incompatible uses. Ms. Craig continued that many uses would be compatible with and enhance the farm. She does not wish to isolate industrial across the street, and wants to keep industrial space available. Mr. Colton stated that he would be willing to trade I zoning for LMN in order to move the UE back to where it was on the Structure Plan. The LMN being so close to the wastewater treatment would generate complaints; the UE would be a more compatible use. Mr. Torgerson inquired how the 1,000-foot minimum buffer translates to an effect on the neighborhood. Wastewater staff replied that the fewer residences that are close, the greater the buffer, the better it will be. No numbers are available, not even as estimates. A comprehensive odor study is being done but is not completed. Mr. Torgerson shared Mr. Colton's concern with density near sewer lines. Ms. Craig noted that people in Rigden Farm are complaining about the smell. • Mr. Gavaldon invited a motion. Discussion centered around clearly communicating the intent of the Board to Council. Mr. Gavaldon said that four findings of fact are agreed upon, as articulated on the map. The drawing shows appropriate designations per the structure map; three out of five Board members expressed support with regard to the LMN. Moved by Mr. Bernth: That the proposed zoning map, Revision 4, would result in a logical and orderly development pattern because of the proposed configuration of the zoned district boundaries, and would promote a transition of intensity from the top of the high -intensity uses at the southwest corner of the site and lower -intensity uses at the southeast corner of the site; further, to adopt a structure map consistent with that zoning structure. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Torgerson notes that the findings must include a need for the proposed amendment and that it promotes the public welfare. He expressed concern that extra density in the LMN area did not promote the public welfare. Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To adopt the Structure Plan as it stands, with the exception of leaving RC where it is and putting UE where it was placed in the original Structure Plan, with MMN and I the way it is. Discussion revolved around the map. Mr. Gavaldon summarized that UE would expand to the railroad tracks; LMN is on the west area; MMN, RC, and I remain Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 16 the same. Mr. Bernth noted that the zoning would result in people living in very expensive houses and exposed to odors, as opposed to people in mid -level houses exposed to odors. The houses being next to a wastewater plant is a matter for the buyer rather than the Board. Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To recommend approval of the Structure Plan as redrawn, i.e., Scenario B, with Industrial in the upper left-hand corner as per the current Structure Plan. In response to questions, Mr. Eckman: stated that findings are not needed on the Structure Plan. Mr. Gavaldon stated that this is not the best plan that can be developed but the one that results from the time frame needed to meet the applicant's right to be heard at this meeting. Mr. Torgerson stated that he supported the motion because there is a concern about supporting the public welfare. Motion approved unanimously. Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To match the zoning to the approved Structure Plan; further, to adopt Staff Findings Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Mr. Eckman noted the clarification that the motion recommends adoption of the zoning plan to match to the Structure Plan as amended, consistent with the comprehensive plan, if adopted by Council. Motion approved unanimously. Project: 450 North College Rezoning, #34-01 Project Description: Request to rezone the former Light and Power Plant at 450 North College Avenue from Public Open Lands (POL) to River Downtown Redevelopment District (RDR). The subject site consists of 6.91 acres located east of College Avenue and south of the Poudre River. Recommendation: Approval • Planning and zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 17 Hearinq Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that the request was to rezone property at 450 North College from POL, Public Open Lands to RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District. He introduced the staff present and also indicated that the Police Department was not available to attend the hearing to speak on safety issues. Director Gloss introduced a letter for the record submitted today from Gerry Bomotti, Director of Administrative Services for CSU. In the letter he states his support for the rezoning application. Also at the request of the Board, Director Gloss supplied for the Board a summary of permitted uses for the POL District, RDR District and as a point of comparison, a number of other zoning districts that staff had potentially considered for this property. Director Gloss reviewed site shots of the property. He stated that the grotto, the fountain and the building itself are local landmarks and are also eligible for the National Register and the State Register. He stated that there are very poor pedestrian facilities along North College Avenue, but there is a project that is being pursued to do those improvements. The city did conduct a neighborhood • meeting that was held on September 12, 2001. A summary was submitted at the worksession. There were several issues that came up during that meeting and the main issue was the proposed day shelter for the homeless on this site. With this rezoning request, it would allow the shelter as a permitted use within that zoning district. Other issues were the consistency of the day shelter with existing plans that are in place, the public review process, the zoning district designations that were applied to this site before, other shelter locations within the community, public safety and the preservation issues with putting another structure or another use on this property in a way that is compatible with the historic character of the site. Director Gloss discussed the zoning designations and the permitted uses. He reviewed the matrix for the Board. He stated that there is almost nothing that is permitted in the POL district. The uses are very limited like public facilities (utility lines, substations), golf courses, cemeteries and parks. Given the allowed districts, it was narrowed down to some other districts; RC, River Conservation, RDR, River Downtown Redevelopment District, CCR, Community Commercial Center, C, Commercial and CN, Commercial North College District. On the zoning map, the properties that are east of College are zoned RDR, and from staff's perspective, it made sense to continue that zoning district. Also, in respecting the existing use, research laboratories are permitted in the RDR zoning district, but they are not permitted in the other zoning districts. The RDR and the CCR zone districts were the two that were in the running as far as designations and between the two, staff's perspective is that they both protected Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 18 the river, but the RDR district between the two was the better fit. Staff is making the recommendation that the zoning request be approved. Heather Brooks, City Managers Office spoke to the board. She gave a historic look at how it was arrived at in looking at this site and some of the operational issues that is being looked at for the homeless facility. How this began was with the closure of New Bridges at the end of March this year. Before it closed, the City Manager, United Way and other service providers began looking at whether there was going to be a problem or not and really looked at the issue. An intersection in north Fort Collins was looked at with a '/2 mile radius around it and determined what would be within walking distance of the other services that are provided to the homeless population. If this facility were created, we would want it in northern Fort Collins because all the other services they use are in northern Fort Collins and they would have to be within walking distance. That is what narrowed the search of all Fort Collins down to this area. The second step in the process was to take out those areas zoned residential, that are pure neighborhood and those that are zoned Downtown Business Area. Direction provided by City Council was that they do think that there is a need for this type of service in the community. However, they are not willing to take the next step saying that this is something that the city necessarily has to address completely. The direction from Council was that if there is city owned land that would work with this type of facility, then it might be something that they would want to pursue and work out an agreement with United Way. The city would provide the land at a low lease rate and then the United Way would do a fund raising campaign to raise funds not only for the construction of the building, but also for the operations. The city's participation would only be for the land. There is not very much land in northern Fort Collins for this type of facility when you take out all the other zoned areas that should be avoided. Ms. Brooks stated that in the pictures that were shown, there is not a barrier along the railroad. That is a significant safety risk. If some facility that created foot traffic were built on this property, considering that it is city owned land, we would want to abide by all the restrictions, including any safety risks that might occur. Some sort of fence or barrier would be constructed so foot traffic would be directed in a manner that would be the safest manner possible. Additionally, the city has no interest in participating in something that was similar to New Bridges. Where there is loitering that occurred outside that was uncontrolled and had a large impact on the surrounding areas. For outside uses some sort of fenced structure, hedges, or some sort of barrier would be constructed that would constrain the foot movement on the property to either inside the building or within the enclosed area. She stated that the city is very interested in the historic significance of this site and would not want to harm any designation of historical significance at this site. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 19 PUBLIC INPUT Dwight Whitney, 1901 Pawnee, stated he has a business at 1642 North College. He presented a petition with approximately 160 names in opposition. He stated that 1642 is at the corner of Willox and North College. He stated that the homeless move up and down North College. When new bridges closed in March, he could not say that because New Bridges closed, that there was a decrease in the homeless problems in the shopping center. There was an interesting coincidence, which was brought to their attention by the police department, that their problems this year are less than they have been in the past. He thinks, in part, that it is because New Bridges closed. New Bridges is 11/2 to 2 miles south of his business. What he is alluding to is the homeless problem, he is talking about how problem homeless are an issue all along North College. His association, which begins roughly at Cherry Street and goes all the way out to Country General. All of them have problems with the homeless. Mr. Whitney stated that what they are opposed to is the rezoning for the specific purpose of a day shelter. That is the only reason this rezoning is coming before the Board. The City Manager's office wants to present a rezoning so they can put a day shelter on this property. If this use goes in, and this was presented to them at the neighborhood meeting, the problem homeless (which consists of the people who are on the street panhandling, drunks, people who bother people trying to go about their day to day activities in shopping centers, etc.) will be increased in the area. Heather Brooks stated at the neighborhood meeting that if this shelter goes in, there would be an increase in the "problem homeless" in the area. There will be a problem with the trail, children of all ages and adults use the trail and the problem will increase in that area. There is already a problem at the Aztalan Center and that will also increase. The North College Business Association has been working for the past two years with the city Planning Department, city Transportation Department and CDOT to upgrade North College. There are very good cooperative efforts with the city. Putting this in is taking a step backward and it makes it more difficult for them. Mr. Whitney went on to say that the cost of the facility will be $300,000 and it would appear to him, that those monies could be better spent in renting other existing facilities or at least looking at getting a better coordination in working with other entities that supply aid to the homeless. He felt that efforts are being duplicated. With the increase in police protection, do you add more staff to the Police Department? Or do we call the Police Department and pull them from somewhere else where they are already needed? There is a cost factor here. It • was brought out that there is a pedestrian problem in the area, which they hope will be improved in the future. North College traffic flow is such that he did not Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 20 know how they would cross in addition to the railroad crossing in the area, which is a very significant issue for pedestrian traffic. The location presents some significant problems from the perspective of the pedestrian traffic. Lastly, this is a historic site, putting a building anywhere on this site would detract from what it is as a historic site. Dean Hoag, has a business at 1475 North College, concurred with the previous applicant. He stated that back in the 1990's he served on a committee that developed a plan on North College. It took a long time to go through the process. From his viewpoint, he did not think the vision was, at this site anyway, was to put a shelter. He believes this site is historical and according to the plan, if something is done on a site on North College, it needs to be pulled up to the street, which on this site is not feasible. Obviously, with this plan, the building would have to go in the back towards the river, which to him is an injustice to this site. He believes this site should be left alone because it is a beautiful site and could be used as a park or something. He did not think a shelter was their vision, and they have worked so hard in trying to take positive steps on North College and this is definitely a step backwards. Henry Hersh, has a business at 202 East Vine Drive stated that he was at the neighborhood meeting. He stated that Thursday night was the first he had heard of this proposal. It was brought up before on the proposal for 308 North Howes, how it was not a feasible site because of St. Joseph School with all the kids running around. At 202 East Vine, they are close to the river and they see the homeless down there all the time. They are trying to get the Poudre Trail cleaned up all the time because of the homeless because it is a safety concern. They have moved off of the trail area and are now on the north side of Vine Drive and are back there constantly all the time. They have had trouble with them at their business. His question is if the site at 308 Howes is not good enough because of the kids, why is it o.k. to put it down by the Atzalan Center where the kids are constantly doing soccer and other sports. Peggy Skibo, has a business at 1008 North College voiced her concerns. She spoke about the problems she has had at her business with the homeless. (Recording tape had trouble) Gordon Thibeadeau, Director of United Way in Fort Collins — (only a portion, recording tape had trouble) He felt that no one would vote, given a choice, to have some sort of homeless population in their neighborhood. Nobody is suggesting any location, every location that we have looked at has had its difficulties in that there are people that would prefer it to be anyplace but there. He felt that as a community we simply have to say that these are our least fortunate of our community with the least voice, and we do need to provide that basic level of dignity, safety and service to that population. Planning and Zoning Board • Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 21 Mern Watrus, 723 West Olive, member of the City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission commented on the rezoning. As was pointed out some time ago, the buildings on this site were locally designated. Earlier this year, the Landmark Preservation Commission gave a loan to CSU amounting to over $4,000 for the reconstruction of the art -deco fountain. She questioned what would happen if we would have a going fountain there and a homeless shelter within walking distance. She also pointed out that the site itself, with the big lawn around it was not designated, only the buildings. However, if you start putting more buildings on that particular site, obviously the historic value of those particular designations will be greatly diminished. On North College, there are moderately priced lodging for tourists. We would certainly like to present an attractive face to Fort Collins to the tourists who come here. She is not trying to diminish the homeless problem, it is a great problem. She has volunteered for many years at the Mission and has seen it up close and personal. She suggested that this is a problem that requires a community consensus, which is not in place at this time. It is going to take more that just a little tweaking of the zoning and putting up a building. It is going to require a great deal of funding. She urged the Board to not change the zoning on this site. She felt that there were compelling reasons not to change the zoning. • Don Butler, has a business at Cottonwood Plaza and was concerned about this rezoning. He asked where the people go at night if the shelter would only be open in the daytime? Will they roam the streets of north Fort Collins? His concerns are also the trail, Northside Atzalan and felt that the city would have a lot of liability by having this built on this site. He felt the site should remain the same and that the United Way would better spend their money by helping the existing groups that are working with the homeless, instead of building a place that would cause a lot of trouble and hurt the beauty of the plant. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Craig asked where on the site was the proposed shelter going to be put. Heather Brooks replied that the entire site is leased to CSU and one of the first things was to have discussions with CSU to find out how this would fit in with them still existing at the power plant and not impact their operations. She stated that they are still in those discussions. She visually showed on the site where the proposed building would go, a one-story, 4,000 s.f. building. After their initial discussions with CSU, they felt very uncomfortable with that location for several reasons. They wanted the city to move the access road and place the facility in the northwest corner of the site. Staff analysis concludes that if the shelter was built there, then that would significantly hurt the historic significance of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 22 property. Obviously that brings them back to the one and only possibility, so the city and CSU are still pending on that discussion. With the building being forced back, there may not be a comfort level that can be met with CSU, and thus the facility would not be able to go on that site. Additionally, if the storage building is deemed to be non -historic, and it can be moved to a different location, the storage building could be torn down to improve the site. Member Craig asked about the fence, and how much along the railroad would have to be fenced. Ms. Brooks assumed, that for safety reasons, which also may include hedges in the buffer area, the fence would go up to the access point outside the buffer area. She visually showed the board on the site shot. They would want to build something with a historical look and meet the buffer regulations that would control the foot traffic. It would not necessarily be a chain link fence. Member Torgerson read that the criteria states, "we should only recommend zoning changes for approval if the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and included in the subject property". He asked Ms. Brooks to address that. Ms. Brooks replied that what drew their attention to this site initially was the homeless shelter. That is when they began to look at the zoning and other issues. After much staff analysis, it was determined that this site may have been zoned POL in error to begin with. Ms. Brooks asked Director Gloss to continue. Director Gloss clarified that there are two criteria that we use and it is an and/or condition. It is that you meet the Comprehensive Plan and/or warranted by changed conditions. That is very specific in the Code. Member Torgerson asked if he felt that this was warranted by changed conditions. Director Gloss replied that he did not feel that the change in conditions were applicable, but from staffs perspective, the POL district probably was the wrong designation because the intent of the POL district is for publicly owned open lands. Discussing this with the Advance Planning staff, they concurred that POL was not a good fit and it was not understood why that change was made in 1997 when the Structure Plan was adopted and the zoning occurred. Member Torgerson commented that Lee Martinez Park has some large buildings that are operating as an industrial use and there is also some open space. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 23 Director Gloss replied that was more of an accessory use, the predominant use of the site is a park for active or passive recreation. This site is not for active or passive recreation. Member Carpenter asked to speak to the representative from CSU. She asked for their take on this, and how it would affect their operation there and how it would affect them staying in that location. Brian Wilson, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at CSU and Research Director at the Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory, stated that the designation does not really affect them immediately because they are grandfathered in with the current zoning. However, in the future, there is a good chance that they would want to expand operations on this site in some compatible way. It is their understanding, that if they were to seek an expansion of this site, then the zoning change would support that. The zoning change does facilitate plans that they may have in the future. Right now that is only on the zoning change itself. On the issue of the homeless shelter, there is a lot of unknowns, they have not seen a comprehensive plan that shows a 4,000 s.f. building put somewhere with some amount of fencing. It is very ambiguous right • now. They have not seen an operational plan for some things, to them, are very important before they can make a decision on whether they would be comfortable with the shelter on site. In terms of the zoning issue itself, it is something that they are neutral to positive on. Member Carpenter asked how far in the future were their plans. Mr. Wilson replied that a lot of the work they do now, is to try and develop new types of engines that will run with much lower levels of pollution and are much more energy efficient. That is something they have been working on for many years, but all of a sudden is becoming important again, and they have seen an increase in the demand on what they do. It is conceivable to say that it could be in the next couple of years. Member Colton wanted to talk about Historic Preservation. He was trying to figure out which is coming first, the chicken or the egg. CSU is in there, and we like them there because it is compatible with the historic site. If they want to add an addition on the back, would we like that from a historical perspective anymore that if they added on a day shelter. He also asked that if CSU did not want to use this facility anymore, what would be done with this site. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Department responded that CSU is a very compatible use for that building. It is a perfect fit for the use and the building was made for this type of use. If CSU wanted to build an addition onto the building itself, they would need to meet the same guidelines that all other Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 24 structures that come in and propose new construction on designated landmarks. That means that they would need to build an addition that was compatible with the building. It would need to be subservient and be placed on the back of the building and have many of the design elements of the existing building. Given the significance of the building, we would review very carefully any addition to the building itself. If CSU came in and proposed a new structure that did not actually attach to the building, but was located on the site, it would go through the same review process. A new building .that does not attach to the structure, would be preferable and face fewer of the restrictions and obstacles than something that was attached to the building. Ms. Williams went on to say that if CSU were to go away, at this point it is a large building and did stand empty for quite a long time because there wasn't a really good appropriate use for that structure. There has been a lot of discussion of the significance of the site and the site itself is eligible for the National Register as a planned historic landscape. How new construction or a change of use would affect that would be totally up to what that proposed use would be. It could be anywhere from a traiihead, which she heard at the worksession, to some other public use, to some other commercial enterprise, depending on the zoning. Chairperson Gavaldon. questioned why we were not utilizing current resources like the Open Door Mission and working along side them. Ms. Brooks replied that the broad answer is that a comprehensive approach to dealing with the homeless does not exist in Fort Collins. it did not exist at New Bridges, this is a completely new idea. What we mean by a comprehensive approach is that currently we do have all the facilities, mental health services, drug and alcohol counseling, preparation for GED testing, job bank, hope counseling; which in their own part make a person whole and help them overcome the homelessness. What does not exist in Fort Collins is a facility where these people can go and get case management. When referring to the Open Door Mission, they are doing a wonderful job for part of the population that are closer to escaping homelessness. They have opened up a day shelter, however, the resources are limited in providing the comprehensive approach. They do not provide the comprehensive case management approach. Chairperson Gavaldon asked why the United Way or the city has not worked with other organizations to get the expansion they may need to get the comprehensive case management. Ms. Brooks replied that information that has come to her from other organizations is that some of the processes they have ownership over them and they do not necessarily want to work with other groups on what everyone feels is • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 25 the right answer. Also, when you are providing funding, there is an expectation that the books will be completely open and there is an accounting of where the money is going. It has been questioned whether there could be that openness with that organization and the accountability that is needed. Chairperson Gavaldon commented that he was struggling with this process because why put another layer on top of something that we should be expanding and utilizing. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the power plant is rezoned to RDR, would Heritage Park remain POL. Director Gloss replied that it would. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the out buildings on the site and were they part of the historical significance on the site. Ms. McWilliams replied that a preliminary assessment of the building is that they were built approximately the same time as the power plan building. Probably in • the early 1940's. One of them was built with log pole construction and very early concrete work. The other one seems to be a little later. They have a Historic Preservation Consultant who is going to look at those two buildings and do a formal survey with a recommendation of whether they would be eligible. At this point we don't have concrete information. Member Colton asked about the extensive review of the Downtown River Corridor and looked at parcel by parcel on what we thought the proposed uses should be. It did not come up at that time that there was any problem with the zoning or the use. He asked what the findings were on this parcel in the Downtown River Corridor. Timothy Wilder, Advanced Planning Department responded that he would also review the Downtown Plan for the Board because he felt as though it was more relevant than the River Corridor Plan. He pointed out that City Plan talks about this area as being part of the Poudre River Corridor Sub -District of the downtown area, and there are a variety of land uses. Talking about new uses throughout that area is also echoed in the Historic and Cultural Core segment of the Poudre River Corridor section of City Plan talking also about preserving historic resources also allowing redevelopment opportunities. In terms of the Downtown Plan, there are a number of items that he has identified that are relevant to this particular site. One is the concept plan that discusses this area as a special river • area and that is further described in the document in the Poudre River Corridor Land Use section. It talks about permitting destination retail uses, light manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories, and similar uses in locations Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 26 within the Poudre River Corridor District that are compatible with the scenic natural, recreational and historic values of the river. Mr. Wilder talked about the zoning and how it changed from IG to it's current zoning. The Plan had a strategic action chart, which does not say a whole lot, but talks about eliminating the existing conventional zoning designations. It asked for a mixed -use zoning district based on the Downtown Plan. Under Special Land Use Opportunity, it talks about "encourage the development of the special river front area that mixes hospitality, hotel, recreation, entertainment, culture and some limited retail land uses in the Poudre River Corridor District being especially sensitive to the natural features of the river." "Specific activities that should be encouraged in this area include a performing arts theatre, an open area amphitheater, botanical gardens, preservation of important wetlands and vegetation, and water related recreation." More significant for this site is the policy that talks about the site "actively support and encourage the appropriate redevelopment of our architecturally or historically significant and under utilized buildings in the downtown". The most significant policy, in terms of this particular site, "was to encourage the redevelopment and adaptive reuse of historically significant and architecturally important structures, including but not limited to the Trolley Barn, the Power Plant and other sites'. In terms of the implementation program, is that it did not have a specific recommendation for that site. However, staff did talk about this site in context of the entire River Corridor. One of the things within the program itself that they developed was "themed areas", and these were general types of uses or activities that staff felt was appropriate for various areas along the river. Not all these were developed into recommendations. The theme for the power plant was to retain the existing public use, they felt that there could be additional recreational opportunities on the site, which refers to the buildings on the site. There should be a natural area buffer, and enhanced wildlife corridor in that area. There could be additional site restoration and revitalization, recognizing that it is within part of the natural area buffer. There could be potential new minor public uses behind the main power plant building, referring to those structures specifically, and conscience stewardship of the site. Member Carpenter asked about the proposed fence along the south side of the property. She asked what Ms. McWilliams take was on what that would do to the National Register eligibility and to the integrity of the historic site. Ms. McWilliams replied that a fence running along the area that Heather had shown, had indicated, pending on the fencing materials, would be allowed and • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 27 would probably not affect the historic eligibility to the site because that area is located against the railroad tracks. Member Craig asked if the homeless shelter is put in on the site, would it make it impossible for her to get a state designation. Ms. McWilliams answered that any new construction would have an impact on the State's review and actually this would be National Register designation and that is easier to get than State designation. Any new construction would be part of their review. If the building were to be done in a way that is wonderfully compatible with the existing structures and in a location that has the least amount of impact, it is still possible to get a National Register Designation. It is less likely. Member Torgerson asked that at this time full movement is being allowed at that intersection. Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planning replied that the short-term access management program for North College does show a full movement, non - signalized intersection at that site. That determination was based on a site that generated a low amount of turning movements. She also pointed out that the fencing requirement has been talked about and the access road. The Colorado Department of Transportation would also approve any changes to the access road, because North College is a State Highway. Also the fence requirements would probably be dictated, in large part, by the railroad and not by the city in terms of what we would like it to look like. Ms. Reavis informed the Board that the long-term plan for North College does show a change to a right-in/right-out movement at that site. She also complimented the North College Business Association for all their help in helping develop the Access Management Plan and their efforts and visions for that corridor. Member Craig moved to recommend to Council to deny the request for a change in zoning for 450 North College. She did not see any justification for the change. She referred to the Visitors Center and its zoning of POL and she felt that public facilities can be put on Public Open Lands, they don't have to be parks. She felt the whole reasoning behind this, is that this is a historic site and we want to preserve the building and we want to keep it under city ownership and the area around it. We still don't know how important that piece is and we should keep it open until we know for • sure. By the time we get the river buffer, there is not a lot of room left in Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 28 the triangle, and we are trying to design a site that does not have the space we need for it. Member Craig also commented that we have very few historical sites in Fort Collins, so many of them have been mitigated. She referenced Rigden Farm, Preston Farm, and even though it was saved, would we want to put a homeless shelter in its front yard. It would totally ruin the site itself it we did that. This is one piece of history that we actually own as a city and she would like us to keep it in tact and she would like to give direction to Council that they continue to look, but this is not the site. If CSU does decide to do an expansion, we need to bring that onto the table and there is a chance we might also see at this as a historic site and if they can work within our guidelines, it is hard for her to see us mitigate this away and expect to get any kind of respect from developers or anyone else when it comes to a historic site. She is against us changing the zoning. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Member Carpenter concurred with Member Craig. She felt this is a very significant historic site. It is historically open and park like and that is the way it has been since it was put there. It is one of the most beautiful things on North College, and next to the river. Why we would want to change that, fence it, add a building and also open up all the other uses under RDR that are possible does not make sense. She does not even believe for a minute that we would have entertained this had this been a private owner and she does not think for a minute that we should entertain it as a city. She believes that POL is the correct zoning for this property and that it needs to stay that way. She thinks that we may need to find a place for a day shelter, but feels that we need to work with some of the other day shelters that are already out there. She felt that it would be less expensive and she feels so strongly that this is an important historic site for us and it needs to stay that way. Member Colton also concurred with the previous comments and he felt that we need to seriously take a look a CSU if they want to expand. He does not support the request to rezone the property. Chairperson Gavaldon stated he would support the motion. He viewed this as a part of a large parcel that is a continuation from Martinez Park all the way along the Poudre River, which is shown on the zoning map and the Structure map. Breaking up this site and giving it another designation is a bad precedent. He also felt that the city should be working with other organizations that are already helping the homeless and expanding existing services. He felt the site should be maintained as public open lands. • Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 17, 2001 Page 29 Member Torgerson concurred with other Board members and felt that it was a fabulous historic resource and it is great that it is owned by the city because we can control what it becomes. He would be supporting the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Member Meyer was absent. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. RECEIVED CURRENT PLANNING MEMORANDUM Date: Sepiember 17, 2001 To: Cameron Gloss City of Fort Collins Planning Department From: Gerry Bomotti Vice President for Administrative Services Colorado State University Re: Zoning Change Proposal - Old Power Plant Site 07, a 74 Cc 01Picc of Vice Prv.,Wcnt for Administrative Services Fort CoMoa, Cotoradn 60521-6001 (970) 01-62S7 VAX: (970)491 2354 1 ant unable to attend the P&Z meeting this evening, but did want to formally shave with you our position relative to the proposed zoning change for the Old Power Plant site. We are not opposed to the zoning change, and in fact it is possible that this change could be beneficial to Colorado State University in the future. Our current questions and interests iv,late to the details of how feasible it is to share this site with a homeless facility. We have been working with the City on these questions/issues, and will continue to do so. Please know that Colorado State University very much appreciates the beneficial lease agreement we have with the City of Fort Collins for the use of the Old Power Plant Site. This facility has become a very important part of our engines lab program through the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Thank you. • WE ARE OPn,-)SE,D'ry I HE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 45011. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN RpoEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIA"I'E AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL )}LOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER U'ILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON GOLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENTON REM AL AND OR • EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS r 0 BoSz Ll WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT RDR FOR TIj$ EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS - THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE U90,0R A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. - THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIALIWS FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. AN INCREASE IN "PROBLEM" HOMELESS WILL INFILTRATE THE AREA. - THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. - CHILDREN AT THE AZTZAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM " HOMELESS. - PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. - THE CITY PLANNING AND TRA"W YNG%EERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINEW, 4SSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOMD BE A STEP BACKWARD. - THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLWF-PROTECTION DUE INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. - THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDINGEXISTTNG FACILITIES. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED • AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY, WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS 1MMEDIATL AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL $LOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'IO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. rrA?,= AnnDreo /0OU l PC(1 /a 55 Kn re D(1 Y PV I P/ ��l/y L1Y rre.1 ��rw lir A—e✓1�� �11 jG.! • • WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED • AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS • . WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY, WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL $LOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS ,15 .emu ✓�_. y-,ei 6' yid-a.7�..s�`r�nl/ fTli,c zdc tiz,5ansz, • WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL 13LOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL, BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL. OF NORTH COLLEGE AVF:. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR • EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME �.YGOS ADDRESS U Z.5_ ti Co &,- 4U� - i v 3 /U G'Co LG 2-- y'Z� ps WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL $LOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALI. OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST I.OR POLICE PROTEC•I'ION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS �r e 903 Al. C��l /V Cal Ilk c 930 AlC 4% 7-( / 1/ 41 N Cop/e q e 0 • WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS y=G co �S�S yo ems/ -z c.. Cold . 45a�,4 r� r'oUCnS Cz) goy �q WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS �ALc b- �p�o • WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE, RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD, • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR • EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS(( pp �Dy1.) Jal1v Lill) fV� (ulF WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE, RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD, • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS r� WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED • AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE. OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY, WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL. SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL, OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD, • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR . EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS r4, I! �1/l , c WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS IN THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES. NAME ADDRESS . WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THE OLD POWER PLANT LOCATED AT 450 N. COLLEGE FROM PUBLIC OPEN LANDS (POL) TO RIVER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RDR) FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF LOCATING A HOMELESS DAY SHELTER ON THE PROPERTY. WE ARE OPPOSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: • THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE USE FOR A DESIGNATED HISTORICAL SITE. • THERE IS A CONCENTRATION OF "PROBLEM" HOMELESS'IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH PRESENTS A DAILY ISSUE FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR SEVERAL BLOCKS SOUTH AND NORTH OF THE RIVER. • THE POUDRE RIVER TRAIL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA WILL BECOME LESS SAFE. • CHILDREN AT THE AZTLAN CENTER WILL HAVE GREATER EXPOSURE TO "PROBLEM" HOMELESS. • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THIS SITE IS ONE OF THE WORST IN THE CITY DUE TO HIGH TRAFFIC ON COLLEGE AVE., RAILROAD CROSSING AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS. • THE CITY PLANNING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND CDOT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPGRADE ALL OF NORTH COLLEGE AVE. THIS USE WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD. • THERE WILL EITHER BE LESS POLICE PROTECTION DUE TO INCREASED CALLS 1N THIS AREA OR MORE COST FOR POLICE PROTECTION. • THE COST OF A NEW BUILDING IS BETTER SPENT ON RENTAL AND OR • EXPANDING EXSISTING FACILITIES.