HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/16/19930
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
December 16, 1993
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Rondall Phillips, Staff Support Liaison
The December 16, 1993, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:34
P.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included Chair Rene' Clements, Jan Cottier, Jennifer Fontane, Jim
Klataske, Bernie Strom, Lloyd Walker and Sharon Winfree.
Staff members present included Interim -Planning Director Ron Phillips, Deputy City Attorney
Paul Eckman, Steve Olt, Ted Shepherd, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Peter Barnes, Susie
Gordon, Eric Bracke and Carolyn Worden.
Mr. Phillips reviewed the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 019 - Changes to the
Sign Code, #38-92A; Item #20 - Fossil Creek Estates PUD - Preliminary, *50-92D; and Item #21
- Spring Creek Village PUD - Amended Preliminary, #2-87M.
s 6i
Mr. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator for the City of Fort Collins, gave a brief history of the
sign code and explained that numerous changes have been made over the years. He stated that
the City Council this last January adopted the residential neighborhood sign district which
enacted regulations which controlled signage for non-residential uses in residential zones. This
was the first phase of the sign code audit.
The second phase of the audit is being presented tonight. Specifically being addressed is the
review of the code and how it relates to commercial signage in the remaining portions of the
city. A review was started in March of this year to analyze our code and to conduct an audit,
the purpose of the review was to gather community input regarding perceptions of the code and
to conduct a staff review of the code to identify loop -holes, weaknesses and problem areas and
to recommend changes to the code where necessary and applicable.
Mr. Barnes summarized the citizen participation process and the poor attendance at the nine
public meetings. At the conclusion of those meetings, the staff put together a compilation of
recommended code changes for the Board's consideration. The City Council will be making a
final decision on these later on and will be adopting an ordinance so that the Planning and
Zoning Board's role is to make recommendation to City Council. The changes are two -fold:
(1) "housekeeping" changes in nature which are intended to build on already
solid base of the code, to close identified loop -holes and to add clarity to existing
provisions.
(2) "Substantive" in nature in that they establish new regulations or
significantly alter existing regulations. The substantive changes accomplish the
following:
(a) they create regulations for window signage
(b) they reduce the maximum allowed size and height
for certain types of signs
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
December 16, 1993 Minutes
Page ]
(c) they eliminate all bonus programs and sign transfer
provisions that are currently in the code
(d) they create adjacency and orientation requirements
for free-standing signs
(e) they establish a setback table for ground signs
(f) they prohibit certain types of product displays
At this time, Mr. Barnes, gave a slide presentation to help illustrate some of the more
substantive changes for clarification.
Member Walker asked regarding Section 38 a summary on the three options.
Mr. Barnes indicated that the City went through a process three years ago to more restrictively
regulate off -premise signs. The end result of that process was the adoption of the "cap and
replacement ordinance" which requires that before any additional new, off -premise signs could
be constructed in the city, 15 would have to be removed. At that time, there were 90 off -
premise signs which meant that no more than 76 signs were permitted. Any new ones that
would go up after that cap had been reached, are subject to more restrictive guidelines as to
size and height, separate distances from other off -premise signs. To date, 10 off -premise signs
have been removed generally through development of property, so no new off -premise signs
have gone up in that intervening period. Five more additional signs still would be need to be
removed before an additional off -premise sign could go up.
Option I leaves the "cap and replacement ordinance" as is, but adds a provision that new off -
premise signs cannot be illuminated nor could illumination be added to existing off -premise
signs.
Option 2 would repeal the cap and replacement ordinance and replace it with an ordinance that
would not allow any new off -premise signs at all and it would also add a provision that no
illumination could be added to any existing off -premise sign.
Option 3 would leave the "cap and replacement ordinance" in tact as is.
Member Walker asked for explanation of illumination concerning this proposal.
Mr. Barnes said the issue being addressed for light illumination is light pollution, and
aesthetics.
CITIZEN INPUT
Fred Gardner - Gardner Signs, Inc., President - He stated that he is past chairman of the Board
of National Electric Sign Association as well as the past president of the Rocky Mountain Sign
Association here in Colorado. His request was to table the issue until March of 1994. He stated
this was the busiest time of the year for businesses and they did not have time to review. His
recommendation was to hold a few more open public sessions to discuss specifics of the
ordinance. He endorses and recommends some of the changes, but he felt there is no immediacy
from the community regarding this issue and asked for more time to review the ordinance.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Masking
Decembar 16, 1993 Minutes
Page 3
Larry Stroud - co-owner of Miscio and Stroud Real Estate 300 S. Howes - He concurred with
Fred Gardner's comments. He felt there were good things about the code but unfortunately
has not reviewed it thoroughly. He attended a work session by the City, input was given for
signage in the real estate industry. He would like more time.
John Walker - one of the directors of Scenic Colorado - He reviewed and made comment to the
staff report by section number:
Section 29-1(8), page 6. The City of Loveland does not allow logo signs on directional signs.
Section 29-595, page 16. Menu signs have no setback requirements. A menu sign could be set
on a curb.
Section 29-596.1, page 17-18. His interpretation was a 7 foot height limit on individual letters,
but no limit on the width that the letters be set.
Section 29-1, page 20. Would vehicles on tilt racks still be allowed?
Section 29-595, page 23. Why is there is so much allowance for signage along
I-25? The way it is written it is twice the amount allowed in town. He questioned the necessity
of so many signs. Highway 14 and I-25 with large signs, demonstrated by the slides are just the
kind of problem needed to be eliminated.
Section 29-563, page 24. Why are signs allowed that are non -conforming under amended sign
code and do not have an amortization schedule?
He made a comment in regard to soda pop dispensary stations along the outside of buildings,
and asked there be a requirement in the code to locate them inside. Off -premise signs should
be regulated. He said we shouldn't wait until there is a problem, but take action through the
wording of the ordinance.
Stephen Pink - owner/operator of P. A. Signs - Agreed with statements made by Fred Gardner
and Larry Stroud. He commented on the subdivision construction signs which are temporary
signs. He said to downsize a 100 square foot sign to 60 square feet would significantly affect
the visibility of subdivisions that may or may not be on an arterial. He commended the present
sign code.
Kelly Ohlson - 2040 Bennington Circle - He was an early advocate of citizen participation for
review of policies or ordinances. He said the sign code is the first or second most popular
ordinance in the City. He felt there has been too much time spent on process. He summarized
believing this is a technical recommendation to the City Council and they may choose to
further delay the adoption of it. He commented on the lack of an amortization schedule and
suggested a reasonable, fair, very liberal amortization period, once every generation. Off -
premise signs was a topic of ground -swell concern of public opinion, Option 2, which prohibits
new off -premise signs is preferable.
Ed Robert - 1923 Linden Ridge Dr. - He supported the move of this phase of the sign code
adjustment. He did not support the delay of this review. He said that Fort Collins is behind
the curve or restrictive ordinances. One of the key recommendations is the adoption of a
limitation of commercial real estate signs.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
December 16, 1993 Minutes
Pap 4
Will Horton - Outdoor Image Advertising - He pointed out that the off -premise issue should be
separate from the on -premise. They are different issues. He pointed out that he was involved
in the review process three years ago as it affected his industry, off -premise signs. At that
time, there was a limit put to outdoor signage. He has realized a 25 percent reduction in
business as a result of that cap. Not only the number of billboards were stopped, but the
growth has been rolled back. He believed it is unfair.
Al Anderson - Owner of American Outdoor Advertizing - His statements were concerning off -
premise signs and felt this was a replay of the review three years ago. He referred the Board
to Section 29-603 of the current code on off -premise signs. He felt his industry is providing
a service for products, political campaign individuals, companies to use and they are using it.
The useable size of the sign has been reduced from 120 to 78 square feet, and the height was
reduced from 24 to 15 feet. There was a limitation on the radius of 300 feet, which is very
limiting for our business but went along with it. The tri-boards have been reduced to two
faces. Reduction of signage has resulted in a business loss of 25-27 percent. He pointed out
that three years ago, there were only 4 people who attended the off -premise sign meetings at
two different meetings. He had testimonials from other businessmen that he did not take time
to read, and he read two editorials to support his position.
Chair Clements asked Mr. Barnes about the menu board setback requirement.
Mr. Barnes said there is nothing specifically in that section that deals with setback, however,
the general section of the code that applies to free-standing signs, applies to any free-standing
sign. So the setbacks that are applicable to any free-standing sign would also apply to menu
board signs. The setback information for specific uses are contained in the tables and graphs.
Chair Clements referred to Section 29.596.1 regarding the width of letters, the height limit was
7 feet, but no limit on the width.
Mr. Barnes said there is no allowance for height or width. It has not been a problem of the
width of signs relative to height of letters, so it was not addressed and has not been viewed as
a problem.
Chair Clements then asked about portable signs. Will the changes in the ordinance allow
vehicles on tilt racks.
Mr. Barnes said it was the City's intent to word it in such a manner that automobiles displayed
in that type of display, due to the unorthodox manner of display, would fall under the portable
sign category (hot tubs, vacuum cleaners, methods and manner of display).
Chair Clements also asked about non -conforming signs and the lack of an amortization period
Mr. Barnes referred the Board to Section 37, page 24. The proposed code does require existing
signs to come into compliance to code when certain things occur. Staff does not feel it is
appropriate to deal with amortization again. Cities generally don't do that. There is an
amortization schedule when they first establish community standards and then have a
foundational code, unless the entire existing code is thrown out, and start over from scratch,
Planning and Zoning Board M«tin`
Dmember 16, 1993 Minutes
Paga 6
you are usually not dealing with amortization, but provisions that are presented here. He
presented supporting slides showing the differences before the code was in effect and after the
code went into effect.
The proposed changes maintain the sound foundation of the Code. Many existing signs will be
in non-compliance by a small percentage. The amount of money that the businesses in this
community would have to spend to remove a $10,000 sign and replace it with a new one are not
appropriate, and replacing existing signs with new signs would not significantly enhance the
streetscape to justify businesses spending potentially millions of dollars in new signs.
Chair Clements asked about the commercial real estate venture signs.
Mr. Barnes said that the code currently allows for sale and for lease signs to be 32 square feet.
The proposed code is to limit it to 16 square feet, the size limit is cut in half. In addition to
that, there are some abuses of it. Staff anticipates stepping up enforcement to ensure that
signage is current. The downsizing of 100 square feet to 64 square feet is for construction I.D.
signs, most of which are in residential zones. Commercial signs in those residential zones,
pursuant to the residential neighborhood sign regulations which were adopted this January, can
be no larger than 55 square feet, with a bonus of 66 square feet if there is no tenant directory.
Therefore, the 64 square feet size is consistent.
Member Walker asked about signs on I-25. Is it an issue for the City to consider at this time,
if we don't put this section in the code, there would be no such things as the tall signs which
are being proposed.
Mr. Barnes stated, at this time, there are no development proposals before the city for
commercial developments along the corridor. It is not a critical issue to address but may come
up in the future. A variance could then be sought and then code changes would be reviewed.
Member Walker asked about the soda pop machines.
Mr. Barnes said that the code doesn't address that, and there are many other signs that are not
addressed, citing examples. Staff believes it is not an issue that needs to be regulated or
further prohibited.
Member Walker had a question regarding "due process" and adequate time to review the
document submitted to the board.
Mr. Barnes indicated that the public process was frustrating in that meetings were held with
very little interest shown in attendance. He stated that the proposal is not really impacting
existing signs as proposed, other than window signage, which is not grandfathered in. Any sign
put up without a permit, or window signage, would have to comply within 90 days of the
effective date of the ordinance. A notice was mailed in November, to give opportunity to
people to review the proposed ordinance and to attend various meetings. Many of the proposed
changes were discussed throughout the review process. He felt there would never be perfect
consensus on a lot of these issues, so a decision was made to go forward.
Member Strom had a question regarding the I-25 corridor. Do businesses in Colorado have the
option of menu board type signs?
Planning and Zoning Bowd Meeting
Dezember 16, 1993 Minutes
Page 6
Mr. Barnes clarified the question as to advertising the presence of restaurants and gas stations
on signs which are located about a mile ahead of interchanges. The signs are regulated by the
State and he was uncertain about how they were obtained. He mentioned they are not in Fort
Collins.
Member Klataske asked Mr. Barnes if there was any work being done between the City and the
County on sign ordinance planning.
Mr. Barnes indicated that over a year ago the County began a review of the County's sign code.
He is a member of an ad hoc committee (with other members of the sign industry, business
communities in Larimer County and a member of the City of Loveland staff) which is working
with County staff. The intent of the process was the County would adopt a sign code that
contained elements of the City of Loveland and the City of Fort Collins code and would adopt
whichever is the most restrictive of the two cities for different types of signs. They would also
come up with an amortization provision in the County, after so many years they would have
to be brought into compliance. If that type of ordinance is adopted by the County, then when
the City annexes property, they will already comply with the City's sign code. The County's
project has been on hold for 6-7 months, their process will continue in the first part of 1994.
Member Klataske asked about moving signs, time and temperature.
Mr. Barnes said that all animation or moving signs are prohibited in Fort Collins. The only
type is the time and temperature type and is by permit only with a deduction in sign allowance.
Member Klataske asked if the architectural style of a building would be considered as signage
or a canopy, for example, Pizza Hut (the red roof is a corporate logo). Is there a consideration
in the sign allowance.
Mr. Barnes said it was hard to codify this type of consideration because it is so subjective in
nature. Architectural elevations of the buildings are considered. They are not in the sign
requirements but the LDGS.
Member Cottier asked about the "off -premise cap and replacement" rule in effect now. Please
address if it is fair to change rules while they are in process?
Mr. Barnes said the existing "cap and replacement" ordinance seems to be working fine. There
is a limitation, yet we have not had a full opportunity to see the fruits of that ordinance.
There was considerable public hearing negotiation on the part of the Council and the industry
to come up with it; stating he was not in a position to state if it were fair or not.
Member Cottier said with the ordinance in place why is the Board given other options to
consider at this point.
Mr. Barnes said members of City Council have throughout the last year approached staff and
expressed interest in illumination, revisiting the issue. Staff is not making a recommendation
on these issues. There has been no Council motion, just individually showing interest.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Mwting
December 16, 199E Minutm
Page 7
Member Winfree asked how many "off -premise" signs were in the City now?
Mr. Barnes answered 80.
Member Walker made a comment for consideration to the Board. One of the concerns he had
was the issue of the signs along I-25. The recommendation allows very large and tall signs to
be erected. He did not feel comfortable recommending a code that allows tall signs along I-25.
He thought I-25 signs should be considered as a separate issue in the future, perhaps in
conjunction with a corridor plan.
Chair Clements asked Mr. Barnes if this discussion between the Board the citizens and staff
would be sent to Council.
Mr. Barnes stated that was correct. The minutes of the meeting would be included in the
material given to Council.
Member Fontane said she agree with Member Walker about the signs along the I-25 corridor,
and that this is only a recommendation and not setting policy. Overall, the code is very good
and should go forth since there are opportunities for further process to continue. A
recommendation from the Board will not be a problem because there will be opportunity for
citizens to present modifications and changes if needed.
Member Walker said he did not believe it was appropriate to table the recommendation to
Council by the Board and that there had been adequate opportunity for public comment in the
process.
Member Walker moved that the Board recommend to City Council that Council approve the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, however, eliminate Section 36 which refers to the
I-25 signs, and that the motion also include the recommendation of approval of Section 38,
Option 1, for restriction of illumination.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member Walker further explained the issue on Section 38, Option 1. He believed the "cap and
replacement" has been in effect a short time, it seems to be working, while that needs to be
reviewed in the future, he was satisfied with the sufficiency of the current provision. He
believed the illumination issue is a valid one.
Member Strom commented on Section 36. He said there is some refinement needed in the
future, but supported the motion that sets the tone for not having large signs along the
Interstate highway. There should be long-term thought about reducing the size of existing signs
along I-25 in the future. He supported deleting Section 36.
The motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Deesmber 16, 1993 Minutes
Pap a
FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES PUD PRELIMINARY M50 92D
Kirsten Whetstone, project planner, presented the staff report with the following conditions
as presented in the staff report and a memo from Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director,
dated December 14, 1993.
That the property be zoned RLP, with a PUD condition, or another appropriate zone for
residential development, prior to final approval.
2. That the developer provide erosion control protection of the Cathy Fromme Prairie site
and wetland conservation areas during the construction of infrastructure and housing.
A complete erosion control plan adequate to deal with the special sensitivities of these
areas will be provided with final design drawings according to the requirements of the
City's Storm Water Utility, the Natural Resource Division, and good engineering
practice.
3. That the developer identify formal defined limits to areas where construction
disturbance will be allowed in the vicinity of wetlands and the Cathy Fromme Prairie,
and construction disturbance will not be allowed outside of those defined limits.
4. That the developer design and implement the project to ensure that post -development
surface runoff does not significantly affect the nature and quality of the wetland
conservation area or the Cathy Fromme Prairie. The developer shall prepare and submit
a wetland conservation plan with final review documents for approval by the City's
Storm Water Utility and the Natural Resources Division. Such plan shall define the
following:
a. "best management practices" to be employed to minimize the potential adverse
effects of future surface runoff on water quality and hydrologic regime of
wetlands and the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
b. permanent buffer zones to be maintained between wetland areas and adjacent
lots; such buffer zones are to be staked on the ground to allow visual inspection
by the City.
C. location of storm drainage discharge points to ensure that discharge points are
located outside of wetland areas and the Cathy Fromme Prairie.
d. design of storm drainage discharge points to ensure that stormwater discharges
do not cause erosion or alter natural drainage patterns in the wetland or on the
Cathy Fromme Prairie.
C. measures to be implemented to ensure appropriate surface hydrology to maintain
existing wetland conditions.
5. That the developer cooperate with the City to provide information to potential
homeowners regarding the environmental sensitivity of wetland areas and the Cathy
Fromme prairie. Specifically, the developer shall:
Planning and Zoning Board M«tin`
Deeambar 16, 1993 Minute
Pap 9
a. delineate the boundary of the wetland area and Cathy Fromme Prairie on the
final plat for the development and include the following notation:
City of Fort Collins
Cathy Fromme Prairie --
Sensitive Natural Area, Access Restricted
b. include the boundary and notation defined above on maps developed to assist in
marketing the development.
C. provide potential homeowners with information on the sensitive resources of the
Cathy Fromme Prairie and the access restrictions and other management plans
which may pertain to the area; such information shall be provided by the City
of Fort Collins.
d. allow the City of Fort Collins to install signage and other appropriate notices
regarding pubic use of the Cathy Fromme Prairie on fences constructed by the
developer on the perimeter of the wetland and Cathy Fromme Prairie.
6. That the developer shall conduct a study to assess the potential adverse impacts of the
development on the subsurface hydrology of the wetlands and Fossil Creek. The results
of such study, including measures needed to assure that the subsurface hydrology
including measures needed to assure that the subsurface hydrology of the wetland will
be maintained following development, shall be submitted with final documents for
approval by the City's Stormwater Utility and Natural Resources Division.
7. That off -site drainage easements be obtained and approved by City Council prior to
final approval.
8. That an off -site right-of-way dedication, for a portion of Fossil Creek Drive on City
property to the north, be approved by City Council prior to final.
9. That any variances to the City Street Standards, such as grades, widths, curve lengths,
medians, etc. shall be submitted for City review with the final documents and approved
by the Engineering Department prior to final approval.
Carter Ewing - c/o Jim Sell Design - Introduced himself as the developer and turned the
presentation of the project over to Mr. Sell.
A slide presentation was given by Mr. Sell. He reviewed annexation of the property to the City
of Fort Collins. The eastern portion is currently annexed and zoned RLP. RLP zoning is being
requested on the western portion. Trilby Ditch and Scenic Knolls run lateral on the south
portion of the development. His presentation showed how the project protects the wetland and
maintains the beauty in the area. The project meets standard requirements of development.
Greenbelt areas were created to allow people to connect with future trail systems/open space.
An access road is established as a joint -use road for the ditch company and homeowners. He
presented the configuration of the ditch that will be lined.
• 0
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
D«ember 16, 1993 Minutes
Page 10
Mr. Sell addressed the issues raised in 3 neighborhood meetings and numerous meetings with
staff and developers. He discussed the impact of lining the ditch on the existing trees. The
developers want to preserve the trees, an important part of the beauty of the area. The
drainage was discussed as it relates to the wetlands. The wetland will be preserved and
improved because livestock will be excluded from the area. He showed numerous slides
depicting the wetland area. The following summarizes Mr. Sells presentation:
1. Will the wetlands be affected by adjacent development? He showed slides of
developments around wetlands in other communities. There are many case where there
are wetlands and neighborhoods adjacent area. He showed a slide of the Cathy Fromme
Prairie area. The developers are committed to preserving the wetland with development
of the project. The buffer area around the wetland is still being studied. They are
currently discussing a 10-foot wide buffer. He showed an area that is being devastated
by cattle.
2. The use of organic kinds of fertilizers and non-commercial compost, will be regulated
in the covenants and literature. They believe people who live in the development will
be sensitive to the adjacent environment and take responsibility to care for the adjacent
sites. He hopes this will eliminate use of commercial chemicals for landscaping in the
area.
3. A minimum of 10-feet as a buffer around the wetlands, will be indigenous grasses. The
developer will provided a gravel filled ditch within the 10-foot buffer, with fencing
and signage to warn against dumping. The drainage will increase runoff, to protect the
wetland that is proposed, reconcentrating the water in a continuous trench. Studies are
still being conducted on the configuration of the buffer and trench. The gravel is
wrapped in fabric so it doesn't fill up with soil, creating an underground reservoir that
will seep water back into the groundwater, an artificial re -charge area. He used the
example in Florida for this type of water management. A syphon is proposed to
maintain water balance and augment the wetland if necessary. The wetland will be
recharged. He said that the water levels could be controlled by this process, insuring
the maintenance of the wetland. Mention was made of the concern for the wildlife
habitat.
4. In cooperation with the Natural Resource Department, there will be signage allowed to
protect the area.
5. It is unknown how much the wildlife will be affected but efforts to create a buffer will
preserve the natural sites adjacent to the development. The developer proposed a
possible density in the development to decrease the number of lots along the north
border from 16 to 10, but requested that preliminary approval be based on one plan or
another.
6. The terrain was addressed as a concern. A slope analysis was conducted. Mr. Sell used
Clarendon Hills as an example for positive use of steep grades.
7. According to Mr. Sell, the Ditch Company will allow the ditch to be lined. Each house
foundation will have a perimeter drain, draining into the storm water system.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
December 16, 199.1 Minutm
Page 11
8. There was a concern of large houses on Shields street and how setbacks would compare
to the Clarendon Hills Subdivision. He said the backs of the houses will be 65 feet from
the curb, compared to his example of 40 feet. There will be extensive landscaping along
the buffer with a meandering sidewalk, berming, street trees and evergreens and shrubs
near the fence.
Member Strom asked the developer for more information about the existing trees and the effect
the ditch would have upon them. The trees along the ditch are on the Robbins property.
Mr. Sell said the topography is such that the terrain falls off toward the north, with most trees
being locating on the southside. Nothing can be done on the Robbins property without their
permission. Every attempt will be made to save all existing trees, as they are an asset to the
development.
Member Strom asked if the ditch would be lined with concrete.
Mr. Sell said that has not been determined at this time. They are considering either concrete
or another synthetic material; with approval of the Ditch Company.
Member Strom asked about water rights for drainage recharge.
Mr. Sell assured him that those rights have been determined, that the developer owns
appropriate water rights.
Member Strom asked about the buffer needed for the wetlands.
Mr. Sell said the Natural Resources Department memo pertains to the question. A study that
will take several months to determine buffer requirements will be conducted. The study will
be on -going and would not interrupt development of the first phase, as the wetlands are not
adjacent to lots in Phase I. The buffer needed would allow the drainage and landscaping to
be attractive.
Member Strom asked if there is sufficient room.
Mr. Sell said 10 feet has been explored, but final approval of the Natural Resources Department
has not been determined. The lots have enough. depth for the buffer area.
Member Winfree asked about the temporary emergency lane between lots 7 and 8. How is that
going to be handled?
Mr. Sell said that an access would be developed with a standard barricade so the fire
department vehicles can drive through.
Member Fontane asked why the canal is to be lined?
Mr. Sell said because it is causing difficulty for development, concerning seepage and excess
ground water.
Member Fontane asked how is the organic yard care going to be enforced?
Planning sad Zoning Hoard Mating
Dezember 16, 1993 Minuta
Page 13
Mr. Sell said it is difficult but they hope peer pressure and that it is a sensitive area would
encourage people to put organic chemicals on their lawns and to use compost management.
Member Fontane asked if the dispersion trench is within the buffer zone?
Mr. Sell said it was within the buffer zone.
Member Fontane asked if it will be covered.
Mr. Sell said it will be determined by the width of the ditch and hopefully would allow 2 feet
of cobble path around it.
Member Fontane asked about seepage from the ditch.
Mr. Sell said it would be monitored. He expects several monitoring holes so they can look at
the wetlands periodically and measure the water table, to determine how lining the ditch will
effect ground water levels.
Member Fontane asked about water quality and if it would be filtered.
Mr. Sell said that everything that is discharged above and below ground will go into the trench
before it gets to the wetlands.
Bob Kulovaney - 1317 Hepplewhite Ct. - Current President of the Ridge Homeowner's
Association. He had no problem with the development, but was concerned with the impact
upon the wetlands. At a recent work session with the council the main concern is preservation
of wildlife habitat. Less than 3 percent of the land area in Fort Collins will be designated for
this use. He stressed this area is the only prime habitat area left in Fort Collins. He felt that
a 10-foot buffer is not adequate. He felt there are too many environmental concerns to approve
the preliminary plan. He would like to see the lower density proposal incorporated in the plans,
if passed. He commented on runoff from Fossil Creek and the runoff would not be protected
by the plan, and this needs to be addressed. He felt that it would be difficult to control
consumers choices of fertilizer. Erosion control was a concern and slopes. He felt that the
dispersion trench needed to be in place prior to any construction. He expressed concern about
Phase III, that it exceeds fire safety standards. He recommended minimal street lighting at
night for the sensitivity to natural wildlife. The policy issues from the Natural Resources
Department that will be out this spring should be used to consider buffering. He asked the
Board to wait for it and also guidance from City Council for inf ill development. He closed by
requesting that the Board not grant preliminary approval to give city staff time to complete
their task. More questions need to be addressed.
Jim Robbins - owner of agricultural land to the south of the development - He said that 3-units
per acre is too dense. He is President of Trilby lateral ditch company and wanted to mention
the lining of the ditch. Quality needs to be a consideration of the Cathy Fromme Prairie area
and we need to be visionary and in keeping with the environment balanced. He was concerned
about the trees, their preservation and habitat. The water issue needs to be examined closely,
considering the flows throughout the year of the water in the ditch. The Fromme natural area
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Dmernber 16, 1903 Minutes
Pap 13
is still being studied. He is concerned about the public use and of the transition of the
development to the agriculture use.
Robert Musselmen - 717 Scenic Dr. and President of Scenic Knolls Water Association - His
main concern was the maintenance of the integrity of the water supply and liability in the
areas of (1) seepage and (2) liability of access. He said more meetings need to be held with the
developer concerning the proposed lining of the ditch. He proposed that a fence be placed
along the ditch for safety. He made a presentation of the various ditches in question and
thought the easement allowance may not be adequate. He was not in favor of the higher
density and supported the traditional style of living in the area. He pointed out that the Cathy
Fromme Prairie area is the most valuable wildlife habitat in Fort Collins Urban Growth Area
and would like to see it maintained, specifically as it relates hawks and bald eagles. Air
quality needs to be considered.
Art McDaniel - Member of the Scenic Knolls Board - He addressed some comments concerning
the ditch and its leakage and borrowing animals. Every year there is maintenance of this ditch
and a more permanent lining, such as concrete, would be recommended. He was concerned
about the protection of pets and children and recommended a fence to detour dumping and
traffic. He felt the density should be reduced to 2-2 1/2 houses per acre.
Fred Nibbon-- He was concerned about the liability of the ditch. He asked the slope be
considered and the number of homes with respect to drainage and possible seepage into private
homes. He asked the Board if they would consider this special area and really listen to what
the people have to say. He mentioned the densities of the surrounding areas of not more than
2 1/2 houses per acre. School population and transportation was brought up. He was concerned
about the total build -out issue where buffering becomes a concern. The public access to the
wetlands and impacts on the wildlife habitat was raised. He believed the impact of cattle had
not adversely effected the wetland habitat area.
Sandra Robbins - 5801 S. Shields - She was concerned about density and compatibility issues.
Concerns about agriculture uses for the future. She feared, as has happened in other areas of
the City, that "agriculture uses" become the "bad guy". She was concerned about keeping the
density to one -house per acre. She had concerns about traffic generated by residents. She
mentioned runoff drainage and air pollution. She mentioned various studies of the area have
not been completed and the development of this proposal is premature. Once the natural areas
are gone, they cannot be brought back.
Frank Oldham - 1109 Hepplewhite Ct. - He had two concerns: (1) Impact on wildlife. He felt
that the area is fragile and the impact needs to be known. (2) He doubted that "peer sensitivity
and signage" will be adequate to control chemicals which will filter into ditches.
Rick Hoffman - He stated he was a prof essionaf wildlife biologist by trade for the past 25
years. He said there are no artificial fixes for natural processes. He believed the trench was
only a collection facility. He was very concerned about the runoff into the wetlands and its
negative impact.
Chair Clements asked how will the City deal with erosion control.
Planning and Zoning Board Meatin`
December 16, 1993 Minutes
Pap 14
Rob Wilkinson, Natural Resources, answered that it was an issue for Storm Water Management
who has the authority to review and regulate. His department views erosion when natural areas
are affected. In the final review process, the Storm Water Authority looks closely at this
subject. An erosion control plan is required by the developer and has been submitted.
Chair Clements asked about the liability, of lining, and fencing of the ditch.
Ms. Whetstone mentioned that the applicant is working with the ditch company to resolve the
lining of the ditch. It would benefit the ditch company, if done according to their
specifications. There is a 15-foot access easement right-of-way. The proposal shows a 3-rail
fence along the rear lot lines adjacent to the ditch.
Mr. Eckman addressed ditch liability as the ditch company has an obligation to properly
maintain the ditch. If they are negligent in their maintenance, such that the seepage is
unreasonable, when that occurs, the ditch company is liable for damages from excessive
seepage. Liability for safety in the event that someone is hurt, under Criteria I I regarding
irrigation canals, could be used by the Board, to require a fence to protect people from the
ditch. If the Board does not feel there is a safety issue, the ditch company always has the
option of fencing its own ditch to protect itself against liability.
Chair Clements commented on the dispersion ditch (to ensure water levels for the wetland)
going in prior to construction.
Mr. Sell said that it would go in prior to the construction of the phase of development draining
to the wetland.
Chair Clements asked about fire safety in Phase III of the project.
Mr. Ewing answered that Phase III requires a secondary access and final plans have not been
developed.
Chair Clements asked about school access.
Ms. Whetstone said the children would go to Johnson Elementary and would either be bused or
the sidewalk on Shields would be used.
Mike Herzig, City Civil Engineer indicated this detail has not been determined for school
provision access. It will be planned with the existing school pick up sites.
Member Walker asked about street lighting.
Ms. Whetstone said it was the purview of the Light and Power Department, and there is a
residential standard they typically use. Negotiations will be opened up between all parties.
Member Walker asked about impacts on wildlife.
Mr. Wilkinson answered that there will be an impact on the wildlife but it has not been
determined. A management plan is being conducted. This is an urban natural area, and it will
be subject to more impact with population than a wilderness area. He made some comments on
buffering of the wetland, indicating it needed more study prior to final.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Deeembar 16, 1993 Minutes
Pap 15
Member Klataske asked about the recharge ditch and runoff impacts regarding pollutants and
how that would be cleansed.
Mr. Wilkinson said that the Board would not be approving the ditch tonight, it needs to be
analyzed at time of the final. He appreciated the creative approach of the developer but there
are more questions needing answers before the final solution to drainage is determined.
Member Strom asked about extension of the ditch and related runoff and also the buffering
distances involved.
Mr. Wilkinson said that there is a substantial upland buffer to the north boundary than other
wetlands. There has not been negotiation regarding overland flows off the property. He saw
no reason to extend the drainage ditch along that upland boundary of the property as it didn't
drain to the wetland. The buffer is for the wetlands.
Member Strom asked if the erosion concerns will be addressed prior to final.
Mr. Wilkinson replied yes, the erosion and drainage plans would require final approval.
Member Cottier referred to the materials submitted by the developer as to a mitigation site
with the approval of the Natural Resource Department. She asked for Mr. Wilkinson to
respond.
Mr. Wilkinson said the developer has worked with staff and the idea is to expand the boundary
of the existing wetlands. The details need to be reviewed at the time of final but the idea
seems reasonable at this time.
Member Winfree asked for point of clarification of the Scenic Knolls and Trilby Ditch and
whether easements were 7 or 10 feet.
Ms. Whetstone said the plans she's reviewed show a 15 foot access easement along the ditch.
Member Fontane asked the width of the proposed lined ditch.
Mr. Sell said it would be 2 feet wide and could be stepped across easily.
Mr. Wilkinson added clarification to the changes of the conditions in the memo from Mr.
Shoemaker in regard to appropriate phase. He said the buffering will not be determined until
lot lines are staked. This might affect some lots and affect the density equation. It might be
appropriate to get the buffer zone defined before final approval on any of the phases.
Member Strom asked if Phase I is included in the drainage to the east, to the wetlands.
Ms. Whetstone said that Phase I comes down to approximately to the west median in Fossil
Creek Drive at Tract D. Tract D appears to be in Phase II.
Member Strom was concerned about what needed to be required for Phase II of the project in
relation to buffering, and specific erosion issues. Would the developer agree to adjust the phase
line so Phase I included only areas that didn't drain to the wetlands? Then the buffering
drainage and erosion conditions would apply to final approval of Phases II and III only.
Planning and Zoning Board Mestin`
Deeember le, 199E Minutes
Pap 16
Mr. Sell agreed that there are two lots in question and they would be willing to adjust the phase
line to put Lots 21 and 89 in Phase II, as they drain to the west.
Member Fontane asked the Natural Resource policy on wetlands in Fort Collins.
Mr. Wilkinson said "no net loss" is the City policy, and indicated the City of Fort Collins is more
restrictive than the Federal government in smaller impacts, down to a 1/4 acre. All areas are
considered to be important and mitigation for loss is expected. This development proposes
mitigation for disturbed wetlands.
Member Strom made a motion to approve the Fossil Creek Estates preliminary with the
previously stated conditions as modified in the memo dated December 14 by the Natural
Resources Director with two additional conditions:
10. That at the time of final, the mitigation program for large trees be addressed so
that they may be conserved, regardless if they are on the property.
11. That the Phase I line be changed so that Phase I drains to the east, rather than
to the west to the wetland, so conditions may be attached to each phase, as
appropriate, prior to final approval.
Member Cottier second the motion.
Chair Clements said that she would like to see another neighborhood meeting for all interested
parties and what will happen in the final phases.
The developer agreed that this could be done.
Member Fontane asked if the motion includes lower density in this area.
Member Strom indicated that proposed plan meets the absolute criteria of the LDGS plan,
related to density. The density of 3-units per acre appears to be an appropriate density.
Member Fontane had concerns about wildlife habitat protection, specifically LDGS Criteria
14, and would not support the motion.
The motion carried 6-1 Member Fontane in the negative.
SPRING CREEK VILLAGE PUD, AMENDED PRELIMINARY - N2-87M
Ted Shepard, project planner, presented the staff report and recommend approval with the
following two conditions:
1. At the time of Final P.U.D., the P.U.D. shall indicate graphically, and the
developer shall indicate in writing, a commitment to financially participate in
the design and construction of the "Arthur Spur" to mitigate the potential impact
of bicycle traffic generated by the P.U.D.
2. At the time of Final P.U.D., the landscape design of the Young Pasture shall be
reviewed and accepted by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility.
i 0
Planning and Zoning Bowd Mesting
Dftember 16, 1993 Minutes
Page 17
Lucia Liley, attorney representing Topanga Enterprises the developer of Spring Creek, said she
had preliminary comments to make before the planning presentation. Certain objections have
been made about procedural matters and the scheduling of this hearing. This item is being
remanded because of notice problems and procedural irregularities, she requested there be an
opportunity, at any point in the hearing, for anyone who may have a procedural objection that
they be heard and a specific ruling and finding be made on that by the Board, so there is no
delay in procedure.
With regard to the remand, it was remanded by the Council to the Board because of failure to
hold a fair hearing because previously established rules were ignored of procedure. In other
words, this was not sent back to you not for the purpose of rehearing an amended plan but
rehearing on the same plan. It wasn't for the purpose of coming back for amendments or
changes but simply the allegation that it wasn't a fair hearing; so the same plan comes back and
a new hearing given. This statement is made to address comments in the memo from Spring
Creek residents that there have been no changes in the plan. She stressed the fact that this is
a remand and the Council hasn't made any decision on the merits, but sent back for the purpose
of holding another hearing on the same plan.
It was also noted in the memo that the association was asking to incorporate the records of all
of the previous hearings and Council appeal and she wasn't sure that request was going to be
made at this meeting. If so, she would like opportunity to respond to the Board. There are
some objections of having it incorporated into the record for the reason of inconsistency with
the nature of a remand. She said if the records from previous hearings is requested to be part
of the record by the Spring Creek residents, she requested a ruling from the City Attorney that
there be some discussion concerning this. She believed that having records from previous
meetings as part of the record is not consistent with the nature of what a remand is.
She said this is the third time this plan has been presented, the tendency is to short-cut the
proceedings and asked the Board to consider this matter solely on the record of this hearing.
Given what happened at the Council appeal, when the final decision is made, that the LDGS
requirements be cited for any objections being relied on or evidence in the record being relied
on. There were a couple of the Council members at the last appeal who stressed that they did
not feel adequate direction had been given by the Board, they did not understand the Board's
reasoning, they did not understand the basis upon which the Board had made its decision and,
in Council's mind the Board had changed position between the two hearings. She requested on
behalf of all parties to avoid confusion for a clean record, that it just be clear on what the
basis of the Board's decision is.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, he is a practicing architect in Fort Collins since 1974,
a member of the American Institute of Architects, the Urban Land Institute and the National
Association of Home Builders. Two public hearings have been held and many hours have been
spent regarding this item, yet it has been alleged by the neighborhood by the appeals process
that a fair hearing was not conducted on September 27, 1993. Furthermore, the Board's
decision was alleged to be "arbitrary and capricious without support of competent evidence"
and the decision to approve was not "consistent with evidence within the record" You were
also accused of reversing yourself by approving this project after continuing, by a 7-0 vote on
July 26, 1993, and alleged that this constitutes an "abuse of discretion" The evidence which
was presented was claimed to be ignored and evidence which was not presented served as the
basis for your choice. Finally, the legitimacy of the whole system is at stake. There is a claim
that there is no "rational connection between the facts found and the choices made". Staff was
accused of being inconsistent, reversing their previous conclusions, based largely on
• 0
Planning and Zoning Board Maatins
Daeamber 16, 1M Mint"
Pap I6
architectural changes only. The proposal is accused of being intrusive and disruptive not
making any significant improvements. Loading 490 bikes over a narrow bridge and through
a neighborhood on a daily basis. Building a fleet of dormitories, furthermore accused of
proposing a drastic change with the introduction of high -density dormitory style housing for
600 plus students in the middle of what was and is today a quiet residential neighborhood.
Mr. Vaught said it was his opinion that you have not be arbitrary, that is to say that you did
not base your decision on a whim, and you have not been capricious, impulsive or fickle. This
Board has been charged with the enforcement of the City codes clearly contained in the Land
Use Policy Plan, in the LDGS, in the Air Quality Policy Plan and in Ordinance 142. There are
20 plus well -qualified City departments that have reviewed this plan. The Planning staff
provided on June 25, 1993, a 6-page letter documenting 29 items that were discussed, reviewed
and responded to. Their support for this project came only after long hours of work and
departmental review; and after many changes to the site plan that dealt with the issues of
density, transition, setbacks, landscaping, traffic, architecture, pedestrian and bike circulation,
open space, noise and light pollution. These have been the issues surrounding this proposal that
have been addressed by staff, by the developer and by the Board, and he thought it was a "gross
exaggeration and misrepresentation to suggest that this process is 'arbitrary and without
competent evidence and that only minimal changes have been made'".
These have been the significant changes in the plan, other changes have been eliminating tennis
courts on the eastside. Removing buildings on the eastside and increasing setbacks. We added
internal bike trails, we've added water quality ponds. We have agreed to participate in the
Arthur Spur Trail. We have changed building elevations and colors. These changes have
contributed to establishing a transition of density as it relates to surrounding neighborhood.
The higher density of 12-units to the acre is in the northwest quadrant of the site as it relates
to the higher density apartments as it relates to the northwest. A lower density of 8-units to
the acre has evolved along the south side of the site as it relates to Spring Creek Trail and
Hillpond Townhomes, and an even lower density of 6-units to the acre along the importation
canal trail. The overall average density is 9-units per acre. Traffic and air quality have been
issues that concern the neighborhood. We have demonstrated that a project at this location,
designed to serve a student population will have positive benefits with regard to transportation
alternatives; and thereby, reduce traffic over other possible land uses and this reduction can
only have beneficial effects on air -quality. He introduced Matt Delich who prepared the
original impact study.
Matt Delich, a Bachelors and a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering, specializing in traffic
engineering, a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado, over 25 years of
experience as a traffic engineer and presented a resume as part of the record. He performed
the traffic analysis for Spring Creek Village as well as a number of other development
proposals on this property over the last 8-10 years. He will address "level of service" as it
relates to traffic operation. The definition is a "qualitative measure of how well a street,
intersection or highway operates or functions." In the case of Spring Creek Village we are
dealing with a signalized intersection, predominately at the corner of Prospect and Shields.
The measure of the level of service at a signalized intersection is based upon delay -per -
approach vehicle. Level of Service is divided into 6 categories, A-F (A is the best and F is
failure). He defined the seconds for each category.
Mr. Delich said in Fort Collins, as in other cities in the state of Colorado, acceptable operation
is termed Level Service D or better. This is uniformly and applied by the City staff. He gave
some samples of level service in Fort Collins (Drake and Shields, Level Service C and D;
Planning and Zoning Board Muting
Da rnber 16, 1993 Minute
Page 19
Swallow and Shields, Level Service B all day; College and Horsetooth noon peak is at Level
Service D and evening at Level Service E). He reported at the intersection of Prospect and
Shields the following characteristics exist: Morning peak hour, Level Service B, evening peak,
Level Service D. With Choices'95 improvements at this intersection, two westbound left turn
lanes, southbound right turn lane, the level of service will improve to morning Level of Service
B and evening peak Level of Service C. The predominant movement of traffic is eastbound
and northbound with no improvement. However, in the evening, the predominant movements
are in the opposite direction with improvements under Choices '95, a 25 percent reduction in
delay.
Mr. Delich said with the Spring Creek Village traffic added at the intersection as proposed in
the morning peak hour will go to Level Service C, the evening peak hour will be also at Level
Service C. The delay only changes by .9 of a second per vehicle. It is concluded that there will
be little change in the operation, no significant deterioration of level of service with the Spring
Creek Village traffic added to that intersection, after the Choices'95 improvements are added.
The above analysis is based upon the assumption that 50 percent of the students use private
automobiles for school trips to CSU. A recent survey at Rams Village conducted this year
indicated that 81 percent used alternative means of transportation. The two villages are about
the same distance from CSU campus; therefore, the impact of the Spring Creek Village traffic
on the Shields -Prospect intersection will actually be less than he had reported in his statements.
He conducted a study of this complex to conventional apartments for this site and the
differences are 30 percent higher travel; with 20 percent higher in the mornings and 59 percent
higher in the evenings. It is concluded that student -oriented residential development at this
location will have less impact than conventional apartments. If student housing were located
further from CSU, then private automobile use would increase. This would have a negative
impact on the Shields -Prospect intersection, as well as other intersections within the city.
Mr. Delich said a survey was conducted by the Rams Village and the Landmark Apartments
by the adjacent neighborhood. This document was submitted to the Planning office last week.
The basic conclusion drawn from the survey is that Rams Village parking lot is never less than
65 percent of the base count. A conventional apartment complex is close to empty. From the
survey, the neighborhood drew the conclusion that Spring Creek Village residents would cause
an increase 215 vehicle trips originated at this site daily. This is 430 trip ends, assuming every
trip out is to have one back in. With the proposed development there will be 1,400 trip ends at
this development site. This is more than three times the neighborhood survey indicated. What
the neighborhood has demonstrated is that student housing at this approximation to CSU, will
generate even less vehicle trips than was used in his studies. The neighborhood has provided
proof that student housing at this proximity to CSU will reduce the travel to other residential
uses. He prepared a memorandum which reviews the neighborhood data and submitted it as
part of the record..
Mr. Vaught pointed out the LDGS Policy #4, Neighborhood Compatibility, states: "Is the
project designed so that additional traffic generated does not have significant, adverse impact
on surrounding development." The information presented and reviewed by the City
Transportation Department conclude that there will be no significant adverse impact.
Likewise, the Department of Natural Resources stated, "This site makes sense for the proposed
use." Information pertaining to air quality is not a requirement of the City at this time.
However, this issue was debated at the last hearing and conclusions, along with the Natural
Resources Department were questioned. We, therefore, concluded that more evidence would
perhaps set the record straight and support the application. A study has been made, which is
not a requirement of the City, that City requirements had been met and received staff support,
Planning and zaning Board Meeting
December 16, 1993 Minutes
Page 30
the study is based on the City Air Quality Policy Plan and it was produced with staff's
involvement. He introduced Bob Kitchell of Balloffet and Associates, Inc., and environmental
firm that produced the study.
Mr. Robert Kitchell, Balloffet and Associates, Inc., introduced himself and his qualifications
submitted to the Board in the form of a resume. He has 30 years of engineering experience.
The air quality study was done to address concerns of the neighborhood. The framework used
was the City's Air Quality Plan, adopted March 1993. The plan included several possible
options of development for the site. The policy MV-1, reductions in the growth of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) to provide alternatives to the automobile and to encourage reduction in tailpipe
emissions. The second policy is MV-2 that is to reduce area wide emissions. There are 6
criteria air pollutants as part of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Fort Collins is
non -compliant with the standard for carbon monoxide so that defines the pollutant of interest
in this case. He cited 5 types of possible uses of the development: One the student housing 218
units, and the second alternative is conventional non -student apartments, same number of units
and residents and the third is a commercial and residential development, 130 residential units,
the fourth is single family housing lowest density with 53 units and the fifth a student
apartment project at a remote site.
Mr. Kitchell submitted a detailed report by his firm to the Board dated December 13, 1993. His
presentation highlighted their findings. The conclusions of the findings was the single-family
type of development would be the least impact with the student housing following second, and
the others creating higher levels vehicular traffic. This Air Quality Study for Spring Creek
Village P.U.D. was presented as part of the record of the hearing. The development as proposed
meets the City Air Quality Plan requirements.
Mr. Vaught concluded that all the policies of the City have been met by the plans submitted
for the Spring Creek Village PUD and it is consistent with the LDGS and the prescribed
optimum density described. He stated that there are objections to the intensity of the project
by the neighborhood, suggesting a 57 percent increase in population. He stated this proposal
is not in the middle of a single-family area and the density of the proposal is 6.8 units per acre.
Without Spring Creek Village it would drop to 6.5 units per acre with existing multi -family
structures, a 5 percent increase. The mix of uses is compatible, and lower cost of capital
improvements. The neighborhood organization objects to the intense activities, rather than the
density, that would be generated. He defined intensity as follows: "Not having adverse traffic
impacts, not having adverse air quality impacts, providing mitigation through transition of
densities, the increased setbacks, landscaping, building architecture (size, height, colors and site
design), providing alternative means of transportation, providing adequate open space,
providing adequate on -site parking, agreeing to participate in off -site developments,
improvements, on -site management and security." Mr. Vaught stated their firm has
accomplished all of the above.
Mr. Vaught said the survey done at the Rams Village was not an independent survey, all of the
impacts of the questionnaire with the exception of air -quality and traffic are specifically
related to site plan issues and cannot be compared to this project. The characterization of the
response are inappropriate, measuring impacts. The bottom line is that the survey is not
relevant to the proposal. He showed intensity examples in Boulder and an example close to the
Spring Creek proposal. All five requirements established by the Ordinance 142 and
neighborhood compatibility have been met.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Detember 16, 1993 Minute"
Page 21
Mr. Vaught gave a report concerning the Young property and the importation canal with
surrounding areas. There are 7.1 open space, non -buildable acres dedicated on the site, with
1.8 acres of berms and landscaping on the east boundary, 40 percent of the area, not including
6 acres of open space within the development. He stated open space requirements have been
adequately met.
Mr. Vaught concluded that the housing needs of the students are just important as those needs
of the elderly, disabled and low-income. However, projects such as these are not subjected to
the kind of review this project has been because who the user is, is not a criteria of the LDGS,
the City Attorney has stated repeatedly that the Board is to focus on plan and the acceptability
of its relation to the criteria, irrespective of who the intended market might be. If this is your
charge, he was confident that the Board would be consistent with the previous review of the
proposal and requested approval of the preliminary plan. He stated the opportunity to reply
to questions or rebuttal to claims as a result of the information presented.
John Roehrig - 1800 Wallenberg Dr. - He represented the neighborhood and requested that the
records of the previous hearings be a part of the permanent record. Improper notification was
the reason for the remand of the hearing and not the procedures at the hearings.
Mr. Eckman stated that if the Board does not want to include the previous records, the
neighborhood may wish to make remarks that would not otherwise be made. He recommended
to the Board, based on agreement with City Attorney Steve Roy, that the hearings held on
inadequate notice would be incomplete and the record is called into question. For simplicity
and purity of the record, if it should go to the City Council in the event of an appeal, the
record should be a "trial de novo," a new hearing. Everyone who wants to make a record
tonight, should make it. The Board should not adopt the other records, only the minutes for
this evening. A motion for the decision needs to be made.
Member Strom moved that the statements made by Mr. Eckman become a motion.
Member Klataske second the motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Roehrig continued with his concerns of the neighborhood to be disruptive traffic flows,
unhealthy increase in local auto emission pollution, unsafe pedestrian/bicycle conflicts,
intrusive light pollution and excessive noise pollution, reduction of neighborhood safety,
decrease in neighborhood property values and destruction of neighborhood character. He
focused on the particular LDGS criteria that this proposal does not meet.
Mr. Roehrig said that the LDGS clearly states the neighborhood should be protected from
"intrusive and disruptive development." He said it does not meet Criterion 02, not compatible
architecturally in scale, bulk or building height with the surrounding neighborhood. He said
it does not meet Criterion #4 as it relates to pedestrian safety and does not meet Criterion #14.
Ordinance 142, Open Space Facilities, exists for protection of the adjacent neighborhood. The
Young Property, because it will not be developed, has become a "protection" to the
neighborhood. It only significantly prohibits further development on that property; therefore,
as a neighborhood do not feel we need to be protected from development on that property.
There is very little access to the property from north on Prospect. The neighborhood stands on
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
December 16, 1993 Minutes
Page ]S
the position that there is not significant "new" open space, excluding buildings and parking lots.
He stated that there has been no compromise for the number of units and students in this
development. He said the changes were only cosmetic and not substantial changes.
Mr. Roehrig made comments on traffic and pollution. There was an informal count on three
occasions numbering the amount of parked cars at the Rams Village. There are 526 in the
proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood has 600 plus car, the cars will be
doubled in this area. He stated the surveys conducted at Rams Village and Landmark are
relevant because they are similar developments. He said 40 percent of the cars are gone by
noon. The most convenient grocery shopping in no less than two miles away, or other journey
destinations, other than the campus.
Mr. Roehrig referred to a topographical map of the area to display traffic patterns. This area
is the coldest place in Fort Collins as reported by meteorological expert, Gene Woolridge, cold
air is like liquid and will essentially drain along the creek and buffet into the railroad berm
disallowing the air to escape Spring Creek Village. He also pointed out cold -starts for
automobiles with the highest pollution emission into the air. He made some remarks concerning
the air quality study and the results he felt were surprising comparing the site in the Spring
Creek area versus the same development in another location in the community. He mentioned
the Laurel and Mason study seemed irrelevant to the Spring Creek area.
Mr. Roehrig mentioned the bicycle issue, stating Emily Smith will address it in more detail.
There are 3 bike paths on the north and the east, the shortest route for the students to campus
is through the neighborhoods. He stated it is inaccurate to predict if there will be fewer auto
or bike trips made for transportation, but what is known by the Polarbek study there will be
490 trips daily. He said the impact is significant. There is a problem at the bridge and
presented a slide by the importation canal. This still has not been mitigated.
Emily Smith - 1000 W. Prospect - President of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association - Her
comments opened regarding communication, sending and receiving information. "Achievement
of communication on subjective issues requires establishment of common understanding." Her
neighborhood association is still trying to establish this level of communication regarding the
magnitude of impacts of the Spring Creek Village development upon the neighborhood. She
mentioned the uniqueness of the neighborhood with 14 high density developments, not counting
the dormitories on the CSU campus, they are carrying more density than any other area of the
city. She noted the highest number of students that reside there and the high intensity of
human activity. The population also includes senior, medium and young residents and families.
These differences mean that continued approval of high densities and high level of human
activity puts at risk our ability to maintain the precarious balance that currently sustains the
healthy mixed use character of our neighborhood.
Mrs. Smith showed examples of the high density of existing complexes and undeveloped
approved areas of Stone Creek. The southeast quadrant of our neighborhood is single-family
residential. The area serves to stabilize and counter -balance the intensity of use which is
generated by the neighboring high density. The balance of this area will be changed by Spring
Creek Village. The population of the area is 1070 today. The addition of Spring Creek will
increase population by 57 percent. The change will be drastic and the damage irreparable. The
LDGS is based on several assumptions and conclusion regarding the land development process
in Fort Collins. Any land use likely to occur in Fort Collins, can in most cases be made
compatible with any neighboring land use. The proposed project is an inappropriate land use
for the site and cannot be compatible with the neighboring single family dwellings of Sheely,
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Deeember 16, 1993 Minutm
Page fJ
Wallenberg, Hillpond and Sundering. Our position stems from the intense activity that will
inevitably accompany such a monolithic age and occupation group of residents. Such intensity
is fully substantiated by past experiences in our neighborhood and other neighborhoods
surrounding CSU. She stressed the inappropriateness of the site for the use relates to the
intensity of the activity, as opposed to the density of the housing units. They believe that the
very significant difference between these concerns has been misunderstood in the review of
the project and subsequent recommendations for approval.
The LDGS "shall protect the character of existing neighborhoods against intrusive and
disruptive development," Mrs. Smith quoted. She stated that Taft Marketing design an impact
survey for the neighborhood immediately joining Rams Village. The reason for the selection
is the identical type of development, sharing intensity of use, architectural size, scale and bulk
of buildings, 4-bedroom units, targeted and housing market, leasing and management policies.
There was no other comparison to make that would match the same guidelines or housing
market than at Rams Village. The survey was administered on the evening of Tuesday,
December 8, 1993.
Mrs. Smith continued to read from the report submitted by the neighborhood association to the
Planning and Zoning Board.
Victor A. Koelzer - 1801 Sheely Dr. - He is a registered engineer and have over 50 years
experience in planning. He addressed what he viewed the inconsistencies of the staff and its
recommendations over a period of time. There must be 46 LDGS criteria met and to ensure
neighborhood compatibility, Criteria 1-4 must be meet. A year ago the City stated that
Polarbek failed to meet Criteria 2, 3 and 4, and now for a project basically the same, staff is
approving. The reason given is that it is architecturally compatible, but there are more reasons
to be considered are the character of the neighborhood, noise and lighting, air pollution and
traffic. My comparison of statements by staff and for Polarbek are on the record of the
September 1993 meeting.
Mr. Koelzer stated that the staff stated Criteria in the LDGS for neighborhood compatibility
were not met when they dealt with Polarbek and now the staff is saying they were all met. He
disagreed. Mr. Koelzer read Criteria 2 from LDGS and cited the Polarbek project was not
acceptable in the established neighborhoods. He read from the minutes of that hearing in 1992
regarding the size, mass, height and bulk of the proposed structures. The current staff report
for Spring Creek Village show that it is compatible to the existing neighborhood. He stated two
positions inconsistent.
Mr. Koelzer said the neighborhood association has long contended that the neighborhood is both
uniquely valuable and uniquely vulnerable. The neighborhood has one of the most
heterogeneous residential mixes, but both the character and the location of the neighborhood
makes it vulnerable. The neighborhood is vulnerable to the accumulative effects of individual
land -use decisions such as this, that can fatally undermine the existing mix. We are at the
balance point beyond which higher density activity cannot be absorbed by our residents
without abandonment of our neighborhood quality. In August 1992, with respect to Polarbek,
staff agreed saying neighborhood identity and character is indeed balanced between single-
family, condo townhomes and apartments, voting further the magnitude of single use
apartment buildings imposed upon the existing fabric of the neighborhood, to the east and
south is an intrusive and an abrupt transition that jeopardizes the working residential blend
of the neighborhoods. Now in its latest report, staff is silent on this question of all important
balance of the existing neighborhood. Obviously, however, it hasn't changed in the last year.
Planning and Zoning Board Matins
Da mbw 16, 199a Minuta
Pegs 74
Mr. Koelzer read LDGS Criteria 3, open space. In 1992, staff said criteria had not been met.
He read from that record illustrating incompatibility. The current staff report for Spring
Creek Village states that it successfully mitigates this criteria. Meeting this criteria is a matter
of judgment. There are no absolute facts. It isn't different enough from last year to make it
compatible to the neighborhood.
Mr. Koelzer read LDGS Criteria 4, traffic impact. He referred to the City's goals and
objectives to separate bicycles and autos from pedestrian traffic, it does this but at a price.
The other item was to divert through auto traffic away from local traffic. The proposal does
not meet those goals. For those who argue that this goal may have been developed to keep autos
out of local areas, I would argue that it is a generic goal and any type of traffic that is
disruptive or hazardous to a local enclave such as our neighborhood should be minimized if the
LDGS is the standard. In August 1992, staff said Polarbek - College Park PUD fails to answer
yes to Criteria 4. If bicycle commuting is not made safe by being separated as much as feasible,
impacts could result in additional bicycle traffic cutting through the residential area. Now the
staff indicates the bicycle traffic is well distributed in three directions which disperses volume
and disperses impacts on surrounding local streets. He has, vigorous disagreement with this
diversion of traffic to three area. He elaborated on traffic studies conducted for Polarbek.
He predicted 90 percent of bicycle traffic would go through the neighborhood area and defined
those access routes, the shortest route is the Sheely residential route.
Mr. Koelzer was impressed with the studies of Balloffet & Associates, Inc. which was good and
scientifically correct, he believed it was irrelevant. He felt the comparison should be between
the project being built and the project not being built but felt it was an unanswerable question
because the students would need to live elsewhere and that is undetermined.
The last point Mr. Koelzer made was the population impact on the area. He believed that
Shields and Prospects corridors are barriers that cause people in the southeast portion (project
site) to be more severely impacted than those on the west portion and the north portion.
Furthermore, I think it is quite evident that large apartment complexes such as this impact
more on single-family dwellings than they do on apartments. It is a reason to excluded
additional apartments from the area.
Dick Thomas - 1901 Wallenberg - He stated the opening remarks for the hearing by the attorney
and Mr. Vaught seemed intimidating to the Board persuading the legality of the meeting and
acceptance of the proposal, with the threat of an appeal. He felt this was probable and said
the Polarbek did not appeal. The purpose of the Board he felt was to bring thought, reason and
analysis of projects. This is a development process but the advocate for the neighborhood is
left out. The Planning and Zoning Board offers the only balance in this process which is
heavily weighed in favor of the developer.
Mr. Thomas referred to page 2 of the LDGS, stating that the City may determine a criterion
irrelevant and doesn't apply to proposed development. The density chart awarded points to this
development within 4,000 feet of an approved regional shopping center. He concluded that no
points should be awarded and if points were awarded for the small market area along Shields,
this award is in favor of the developer. The developer received 20 points for being in
proximity to CSU, a major employment center. He read the definition indicating 100 full time
employees during an 8-hour shift. He felt this was not a probability for the proposed
development. He concluded that the density point chart has been improperly applied to this
project.
Planning and Zoning Board M«tins
December 16, 199E Minutes
Page 2s
Chris Erikson - resident on Wallenberg Dr. - His backyard is positioned to be along the project.
He understood the development to have individual bedrooms with separate leases, which is
unusual and for single students. He believed this was incompatible with the local area. He can
hear music from 200 yards away from the Landmark now, and tries to imagine what it will be
like 200 feet, which is distance from his home. The police do not monitor these complaints.
In the long run, this needs to be viewed. There are 614 bedrooms, 526 parking spaces. He
believed most would have a car. He pointed out there would need to be at least 614 parking
spaces because of individual teases, and more for visitors. He did not agree for acceptance of
the project. He felt in the future the design of the project would allow only for this type of
special housing for students and would not be used. He believed it was incompatible.
Corey Brockway - Resident Manager of Rams Village - He gave a report of the design and
functioning of the Rams Village. He enjoys the opportunity to serve the City of Fort Collins
and CSU in the type of housing provided at Rams. The management team consists of an off -
site general manager, two on -site resident managers, two office managers and 8 on -site assistant
managers, with 2 contracted security guards. The common goal is safe, secure, controlled and
clean apartment complex. The population at Rams is 60 percent female and is positive. He
further stated positive characteristics of the complex. He said there were non -student, working
professionals residents. Throughout the summer months, retired couples are occupants as well
as Athletes in Action and Campus Crusade for Christ. There have been no complaints from the
Skyline or Orchard neighborhoods for 18 months. The police have only been called once by an
outside resident in the past year. He stated it is a very positive living area and urged the Board
to vote in favor of the project.
CITIZEN INPUT CLOSED
Chair Clements had points of clarification. She asked Mr. Eckman about the comparison of
Polarbek to the proposed project.
Mr. Eckman said that the project should be measured against all of the criteria of the LDGS
and not against any previous projects that are not president setting for this project.
Member Walker had questions of the applicant. Intensity of use is a large concern and are
listed in the LDGS. Criteria 21 concerns noise and asked how that is being met.
Mr. Vaught said the greatest way to mitigate noise and light pollution is distance. Considerable
changes have been made, for instance, the swimming pool was relocated, tennis courts omitted,
and berms have been incorporated on the east side of the site, extensive landscaping with
oversized evergreens.
Member Walker had questions concerning lighting.
Mr. Vaught said it was an important issue. There will be no light -packs on the buildings, but
more of the soffit type under overhangs.
Member Walker referred to Criteria 32, privacy, and asked for comment.
Mr. Vaught referred to the mitigation he stated earlier along the eastside. He believed it was
a comment from the Hill Pond Association, for revisions to the south side of the project.
Originally there were 12-plexes along this area. That has been redesigned to included 6-plexes
and 10-plexes, smaller in scale and outdoor balconies not facing the creek.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
December 16, 1993 Minute
Page 26
Mr. Walker referred to Criteria 39, private outdoor areas, how is this issue being handled.
Mr. Vaught said the rest of the balconies are more internal to the project. Outdoor activity
occurs in open spaces with swimming pool and clubhouse recreation facility.
Member Cottier focused on air quality questions. Is there information on existing levels of air
quality in the Spring Creek Village drainage basin for CO emissions.
From the applicant's standpoint the answer is "no." The nearest monitor is at Laurel and Mason.
Member Cottier referred to the neighborhood notes with the belief that this project would
create a threatening air quality situation. Is it known if the National Standards been violated
in that area at this point?
Freeman Smith - Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association - Those standards are violated up
to 15 parts per million, where the standard is 9 p.p.m. This is information from the City of Fort
Collins, Brian Woodruff.
Susie Gordon - Environmental Planner - Natural Resources Division -The standard for carbon
monoxide is determined differently, 35 parts per million in an hour and over a 8-hours period
it is 9 parts per million, so it is an average.
Member Cottier asked if she agreed the standard was violated in the Spring Creek basin
currently.
Ms. Gordon said there was no data that would suggest that.
Member Fontane asked the criteria used to locate the monitor on Laurel.
Ms. Gordon said it has been located there a number of years determined by the Transportation
Department.
Chair Clements said from her understanding that the City doesn't look at "hot spots", but rather
the community as a whole.
Ms. Gordon said the Council has adopted an Air Quality Plan last March to continually improve
air quality as the City grows because of the relationship of air pollution to automotive traffic.
Carbon monoxide is the major pollutant in the city and its main source is from automotive
traffic. Rather than get into site by site analysis, staff was looking at overall impact of
providing for alternative transportation and trying to create some alternatives to the
automobile, so the dependency upon them is deterred.
Member Winfree asked how overall carbon monoxide can be measured if there is only a monitor
in one area?
Ms. Gordon said it is evaluated by VMT and traffic counts and a modeling process. She stated
Eric Bracke could provide more information.
Planning and Zoning Bond Meeting
Da mbw 16, 1993 Minuta
Page 77
Mr. Bracke said there was a calibrated model for estimating traffic for VMT 1.9 million
estimated vehicle miles of travel a day. It produces 68 tons of carbon monoxide in Fort Collins
per day.
Member Winfree asked Mr. Kitchell where his models for the VMT for alternative uses came
from.
Mr. Kitchell indicated those were from Matt Delich.
Mr. Delich said the traffic study for the commercial use was from the Pulse development in
1986 or 1987. The same number of apartments study from the trip generation factor out of ITE
Trip Generation Manual to those and distributed them accordingly. Single family residential
have a different trip generation than do apartments, student housing or commercial and apply
those factors to the development. The 50 percent alternative mode use for school trips only to
20 percent for that location as a reasonable change.
Member Winfree asked about the bicycle survey origin, period of time, total number of people
counted, questionnaire or actual numbers.
Mr. Delich indicated it was in September at the Rams Village.
Mr. Brockway of Rams Village said it was an informal, door-to-door and phone survey to get
a general idea of what the use was for management information as well as for the project. The
survey accounted for all of the tenants for approximately 1,000, through one contact for each
unit.
Member Strom asked about the air quality analysis conducted was it based on lower numbers
that were more accurate.
Mr. Delich said the VMT calculation for this development used the higher number; Rams
survey stated 81 percent use of alternative modes for school trips, I used 50 percent. This
means that there are a higher number of auto trips.
Member Fontane asked Mr. Vaught to address the letters from the neighborhood in regard to
safety.
Mr. Vaught said because this was a remand, they were not specifically addressed. The
applicant has the same attitude that they are willing to work with staff. Parks and Recreation
Department, there may be opportunity to place the path further north, another effort to
discourage traffic through the neighborhood. The bridge crossing has been viewed and other
options can be made.
Member Fontane asked the distance for the nearest location of a Rams Village unit to a
neighborhood household.
Mr. Vaught said he did not have that dimension at this time.
Member Cottier asked if the Board is to assume Spring Creek Village would have a similar
management structure and security guards?
Planning and Zoning Boud Meeting
December 16, 1998 Minutr
Page 28
Mr. Vaught said that is correct that Topanga Enterprises will use the same leasing program and
type of management philosophy with security guards.
Member Klataske asked about parking space per bedroom.
Mr. Vaught said that was a sensitive issue with great concern to the neighbors for off-street
parking, and staff not wanting anymore paving to be made than necessary. The experience at
Rams Village was a ratio of 80 percent of total bedrooms. It works with a small problem of
visitor parking. There are 40 spaces included in the Spring Creek development beyond 80
percent to handle the situation. The car is registered and stickers are used for monitoring the
lots. Visitors have parking passes, strictly enforced.
Member Winfree asked along the same vain, who would not get a parking place, are only 2 1/2
spaces per unit provided?
Mr. Vaught said the City Code has certain parking requirements based upon the bedroom count.
The development exceeds that count assuming that not every student will have a car, or will
not always be there at the same time.
Member Winfree asked Ted Shepard how many parking spaces are allowed for 3-bedroom units?
Mr. Shepard said the ratio is 1.75 for two, 2.0 for three, 2.5 for the 4 and 1.5 for the one -
bedroom units.
Chair Clements asked Mrs. Smith to answer regarding the survey done by TAP Marketing. Is
the person who conducted the survey in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Smith said the person lives on Sheely Drive.
Chair Clements noted that information was taken primarily from Rams Village and asked why
the other apartments in the area were not included.
Mrs. Smith said the survey was Skyline, Broadview and Orchard immediately close, with no
other apartments. Construction has begun for married student university housing. The survey
was random, whoever was there.
Chair Clements asked if there was a total number.
Mrs. Smith said 30 homes were counted out of the 61, 10 did not want to participate.
Member Strom asked her about the university housing proposed and some.opposition when it
went in. He asked if the survey was biased.
Mrs. Smith said there was no other way to make a judgment. She pointed out that
neighborhoods are volunteers and it is difficult to get data the P & Z Board may need. The
choices were limited because of the unique leasing arrangement and the summer impacts were
considered, and surrounding area only.
Planning and zoning Board Meting
D"ember 16, 1993 Minute
Pegs 29
Member Strom asked about traffic and a separate question on parking in residential streets.
Am I correct in thinking that traffic doesn't go through the neighborhood?
Mrs. Smith said it doesn't. She said they tried to line up the survey to match the LDGS. There
is an access from Skyline to Elizabeth but none through the complex to the neighborhood.
Member Fontane asked what are the boundaries to the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood.
Mrs. Smith gave specific boundaries for the neighborhood as the southeast quadrant, basically
the more stabilizing portion of the neighborhood of the southern side of Prospect Road. The
greater neighborhood is defined in the report submitted.
Member Strom has some questions regarding the 4 unrelated persons to the household for Mr.
Roehrig. From the presentation, is it fair to say the main concern is open space?
Mr. Roehrig replied yes, this open space of the Young property addition justified the 4-
bedroom situation.
Member Strom asked if there were other areas where this project falls short of meeting the
criteria?
Mr. Roehrig responded yes, protection of the neighborhood.
Member Strom said given the space between this development and the surrounding townhouses
to the south and single family to the east, which are the focus of the conflict, it appears to be
a substantial amount of open space and think of comparing other neighborhoods. It would be
hard to find another development in the City of multi -family residential that had that much
open space.
Mr. Roehrig replied that he had trouble understanding the disassociation of the overall impact
of the entire proposal for protecting the neighborhood, with a few berms and trees. In the last
six months, there has been a concerted effort by the neighborhood to explain how neighborhood
compatibility is not mitigated through the proposed development and impacts are not controlled
by the amount of open space.
Member Strom focused on the specific criteria that needed to be analyzed for the 4-bedroom
units.
Mr. Roehrig stated that it is the interpretation that open space is the problem.
Member Strom agreed open space is the focus of the discussion and agree that parking, public
facilities, and recreation areas are reasonably taken care of in the proposal.
Mr. Roehrig agreed.
Member Strom asked how much open space does it take?
Mr. Roehrig stated the neighborhood had not be asked that before this time. He stated he could
not give a figure at this time. He made comment to the ruling of comparing this development
4
Planning and Zoning Bond M«ting
Da nbw 16, 1993 Mint"
Pap 70
to other is not allowed. That the proposal has to stand on its own. The Polarbek proposal was
deemed to be inadequate and is very similar to the current proposal on the same parcel of land
to be adequate. Because the Young property had been added to the open space, he believed
Board members have voted for acceptance of the current proposal. The open space is
questioned by the neighborhood yet and at one time the Board questioned the open space
adequacy. The change in the decision -making process is not understood.
Member Walker made comments that a main concern is the subjective nature of the project.
Using all the criteria mentioned earlier in the record, the Board breaks down analysis. For
example, the terminology is a gray area. It is considered a multi -family residential unit, but
it is not that. It is not single family. He believed it is unique and is a category the system does
not cover. The individual contracts for individual bedrooms, one person per bedroom,
unrelated residents, unique parking arrangements, the population is different. He believed it
was private dormitory student housing. No where is that described in the LDGS effectively
or Land Uses Policy Plan. Ordinance 142 affords the opportunity to build this type of housing
and was passed but ramifications were not measured. Everyone recognizes the unique
population that will use the facility and a sense that it cannot be discriminated against,
resulting in a gray area. There is nothing specific for this type of housing. Mixed land use for
high density along the importation canal and density is overloaded. If this will happen, what
is the benefit to the community? He referred to the major employment center being the CSU
campus and questioned its relevancy to students. He pointed out there are no points for the
proposal being near a neighborhood shopping facility, the journey is too far to be independent
from an automobile. Noise, light, privacy issues are questionable in regard to the
neighborhood.
Chair Clements stated she would like to make some comments then entertain a motion and
further the discussion. She respected what Member Walker had to say but didn't agree with it.
This project is exactly what the LDGS is designed to do, enabling persons to come in and
provide flexible and creative development, to work with the neighborhood, to provide open
space and recreation areas, to complete a trail link, include the neighbors in the process. In the
Land Uses Policy Plan, *80 and *82 states this clearly. She read the definitions. This project
met 96 percent on the residential uses point chart, earning them from being 650 feet from a
transit stop, 4,000 feet from regional shopping, 3,500 feet from Rolland Moore Park, 3,000 feet
from a major employment center, 30 percent contiguity with existing urban development, 30
percent of the site in open space and recreation use. She said it was a fabulous project and the
applicant has bent over backwards to meet the concerns of the neighborhood and not a fuzzy
issue. It meets all criteria mentioned. "Monolithic" population is referred but there is a mix
with seniors coming in the summer. She stated this issue could be considered discrimination
and needed to be avoided. Overall density is 6.8 units per acre.
Member Strom asked if there needed to be two motions, one for the 4 units and one for the
project?
Mr. Eckman stated it is a procedural issue with respect to 4 persons in a unit in the past there
have been two votes. A finding needs to be made for the code, the developer has provided
additional open space, recreation areas, parking spaces and public facilities as necessary to
adequately serve the occupant and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. That should be a
preface to decrease the number of persons residing in a unit, if the Board so decides.
Planning and Zoning Board Mwtins
Da mbar 16,1093 Minutm
PW 31
Member Strom moved approval of the 4-bedroom units requested for 66 of the apartments. The
project does meet the requirements of open space, recreation areas, parking and public
facilities, to serve both the on -site residents and protect the adjacent neighborhood. He said
the adverse affect of off-street parking is limited. The public facilities are addressed at length
In the staff report, there Is adequate public facility provisions required to satisfy the units
requested, there is sufficient recreation space and access. Open space is a question of judgment.
With the setbacks and added Young property (which is not a requirement), the open space
adequately meets Ordinance 142 of the code.
Member Cottier second the motion. She stated that her support of the motion is not based on
the Young property. She believed the open space is sufficient to meet the needs of the project
and is considerably above the standards generally accepted throughout the rest of the City.
The fact that Ordinance 142 exists, indicates that it is appropriate to have this type of housing.
The student population was the impetus for this ordinance being passed, and it is preferable
to have the 4-bedroom units in this complex, in a controlled management living situation, rather
than 4 students living together illeegally in a single family rental.
Member Winfree said she agreed with Member Walker's comments. She believes this is a special
development that is not provided for in the LDGS. She also agreed with Member Cottter that
a development of this type may be appropriate, but felt it should be located on the CSU campus.
It is a dormitory and cannot support the motion for the ordinance, the developer has not
provided the increased open area nor does it provide the recreational areas for the intensity
of the use of the PUD, and does not meet some of the All Development Criteria in #2 and *3,
the scale and bulk of the development are not compatible, transitional nor sensitive to the
immediate environment. The noise has not been mitigated. Further, she said it does not meet
criteria *4 because the additional bicycle traffic that has been generated by the development
will have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Criteria *40 has not
been met, safety of pedestrians is an issue. She would not support the motion.
Member Walker mentioned Ordinance 142 allows 4 unrelated people per unit, a test has to be
passed to satisfy the point chart in the LDGS to protect the neighborhood. He believed it came
down to a question of intensity, based on the proposed number of units. He said it is a
judgment call and he believed the intensity has not been mitigated.
Member Strom commented on All Development Criteria *3, land use conflicts and the Conflict
Chart in the LDGS, specifically, low -density residential to moderate density is the areas of (1)
noise, odor, light and shadow, (2) aesthetics, and (3) privacy. Noise was addressed by the
applicant in terms of readjustment of facilities on the site as well as the berming and
landscaping on the edges of the site, odor is not an issue, light will be addressed in greater
detail at the time of final and is presently being addressed, the shadow aspect is not germane
to the project. Aesthetics is being handled well through color choices and extensive
landscaping to screen buildings from the privacy issue again is basically having to do with
extensive setbacks from any other type of development. Criteria *3 is met. Criteria *4, traffic
impacts, has been extensively addressed to meet City standards. The question comes to Criteria
*40, pedestrian, circulation, safety and ease of interaction. The pedestrian -bicycle interaction
at the bridge and how the traffic is handled there. The Board can condition approval for
safety needs on that point.
Motion passed 5-2, with Members Walker and Wiafree In the negative.
Planning and Zoning Board M"ting
D" mbw 16, 1993 Minute
Pap 32
Chair Clements said she would accept a motion on Spring Creek Village Preliminary.
Member Cottier moved approval on Spring Creek Village Amended Preliminary PUD with the
two conditions as stated in the staff memo and a third condition that states:
3. That a bike path be constructed to force a stop and walk in the vicinity of the
bridge.
Member Fontane seconded the motion.
Member Strom asked If an amendment to the light question at the time of final could be added
to the motion. Members Cottier and Fontane agreed. The motion for preliminary approval was
amended to reflect a fourth condition that the lighing must be something different than the
ligbt-packs that are on the buildings at Rams Village.
Member Fontane made a comment that air quality concerns have been addressed and Criteria
19, Federal Regulations for air quality has been met. She believed the community is proactive
to create a better living environment at the municipal level. The location of the density of this
development is near the core of the city and away from the exterior of urban growth area
where transit is not available as well as services. She felt the location was excellent and plans
are adequate.
Member Colder said she supports the project because she believes it complies with all the land
use policies in the city. Higher density projects should locate under Policy #80 and this project
meets all six individual items of location of this type density. Also said she agreed with
Member Strom's comments on compatibility. She also agreed with Member Fontane's comments
on Criteria #19, air quality. The proposed project complies with the City's Air Quality Policies
Plan, specifically policies MV-1 and MV 2 which pertain to reducing vehicle emissions by
providing alternatives to motor vehicle travel, and LU-1 which supports higher density
proposals if they enhance alternatives to vehicular transportation.
Member Winfree stated she would not be supporting this motion for the same reasons stated for
Ordinance 142. She further expressed concerns that the Board is discounting information given
by the neighborhood because it was perhaps gathered from a less professional source and she
hoped that it was not the case. She would not support the motion.
Member Strom stated he did not discount any of the information given, the nature of the LDGS
is subjective, gray areas that end up on the discussion agenda. It is not an easy decision. He
specifically responded to Member Walker's comments in applying the LDGS to density chart
with reference to CSU as an employment center. Admittedly the project is designed for
students and their "occupation" is being a student. For all practical purposes, their employment
center is the University. Although the development Is not as close to shopping as desired,
shopping is not daily and is on a more flexible schedule, traffic will be more dispersed.
Compromises for location focuses on the transportation to the campus rather than shopping as
primary consideration. His previous comments stand.
Member Fontane said it is important not to discount student being an integral part of the Fort
Collins population. They provide for employment needs of the community. It is not fair to not
except this population at specific locations. There is a trend for change and growth and they
will continue, for example, Neighborhood Compatibility. The Congestion Management Plan
0 9
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Detember 16, 1693 Minutes
Page as
will be enforced in the spring and will have an effect on land use. She hoped that all of these
changes in policy will be for the better. She encouraged more communication with the citizens
and encouraged them to share concerns with Council members.
Member Walker stated he would not support the motion. He addressed the intensity of use of
the site. He referenced LDGS guidelines for 021, noise; *32, privacy; and #39, outdoor areas.
His comments focused on privacy issues, outdoor space (one balcony per 4 unrelated adults is
insufficient), and noise are insufficiently met.
Member Collier wanted to back off from the LDGS criteria and neighborhood issues that have
been the focus and restate that this is a high -quality, well -adjusted project. There is incredible
buffering and there are physical barriers between this project and the adjacent neighborhood
that prevent intrusive impact, especially auto traffic. The layout changes made since the initial
proposal (moving the recreation complex to the interior and moving smaller buildings to the
south) are very positive features that enhance the buffering.
Member Winfree commented that the LDGS states that it "shall protect the neighborhood from
intrusive development". She thought the neighborhood has identified what is intrusive about
the development and provided information that these issues have not been mitigated by the
developement.
Member Fontane further stated the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood is much larger than the
Wallenberg area and encompasses more individuals than is represented, west of Shields and are
important to include.
Member Walker said that is the essence of the issue. It is a very dense part of the city,
especially the area to the west. This development is adding intensity of human activity along
the importation canal. The density is okay but the intensity is not met.
Motion passed 5-2, with Members Walker and Winfree In the negative.
Mr. Phillips indicated that there was no further business. The Planning and Zoning Board's
decision on the Preserve was upheld by the Council last Tuesday night, and the appeal was
denied.
The meeting adjourned at 1:52 a.m.