HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/07/20010
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Craig, Bernth, Colton, Torgerson, Meyer, Gaveldon, Member Carpenter
was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Moore, Grubb, Stringer, K. Moore, Virata,
Stanford, Waido, Dairies, Williams.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent
and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1, Minutes of the April 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing.
2. #54-87AA Miramont Tennis and Fitness Center — Referral of a Minor
Amendment
3. #1-95C New Belgium Brewery — Overall Development Plan (Continued
to 6/21 at Applicant's request)
4. #17-OOA Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying Heights (Pulled
for Discussion by Member Colton)
Discussion Agenda:
5. #3-0OA
Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment
(Continued to 8/16 at Applicant's Request)
6. #9-01
Modification of Standards — Brophy Property
7. #26-9813
Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -Storage —
Project Development Plan
8. #19-99A
Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project Development Plan and
Modification of Standards
9. #37-94C
Park South Commercial Plaza — Project Development Plan
Other Business:
• 10. Resolution PZ01-03 — Easement Vacation (Moved to Consent)
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 2
Member Torgerson declared a conflict of interest on Item 4, Cherokee Flying
Heights Modification Request.
Member Colton moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items 1, 2, and Other
Business item 10.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Member Bernth moved to continue Item 3, New Belgium Brewery, Overall
Development Plan, to the June 21, 2001 Board meeting.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Member Bernth moved for approval of Item 4, Modification of Standards —
Cherokee Flying Heights, #17-OOA.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Colton asked for Item 4, Cherokee Flying Heights, Modification of Standards to
be pulled for discussion.
Project:
Modification of Standards — Cherokee Flying
Heights, #17-OOA
Project Description: Request for a modification for the building
placement and orientation along with the
private drive length. The project is located
north of Mulberry Street, south of Laporte
Avenue, and west of Taft Hill Road, directly
across from Grandview Cemetery. The
property is zoned LMN — Low Density Mixed
Use Neighborhood.
Recommendation: Approval
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 3
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Mrs. William Young, who owns property adjacent to the Cherokee Flying Heights
development, stated that she had heard about affordable units for the elderly being
developed on the property. She expressed concern about making sure the
neighborhood remained quiet should the affordable aspect be lost.
Planning Director Gloss stated that this is a request for a Modification of Standards for
the Cherokee Flying Heights Project Development Plan which is being reviewed as a
Type I plan. There are three Modifications of Standards that are being requested. If
these modifications were to be approved, the application would still need to go through
the Type I review process which would involve an administrative hearing conducted by
a hearing officer; public notification would occur within 500 feet of the subject property.
The site is located midway between La Porte Avenue and Mulberry on the west side of
S. Taft Hill Road. West Oak street terminates just west of the property. A series of
single family homes and businesses front the property immediately west of S. Taft Hill
Road. City Park 9 golf course is across the street. The application does not include the
single family house that fronts the lot on the northeast corner of the site.
The application being considered today is for three modifications of standards. The first
is for private drive standards — there is a maximum private drive length of 150 feet which
is primarily to serve the fire district. The length of this lot is 651 feet. To satisfy the fire
access standards, the applicant has provided two turn -around areas, a hammerhead
shaped parking area/circulation drive on the west side, and an area for full movement of
a fire truck in the center of the lot. Also, there is a fire standard that this lane be a
minimum of 20 feet wide, unobstructed. This lane is about 24 feet wide. The fire
department has stated that they will support the request for the variation from 150 feet.
The second standard to which a modification is requested, is for the fronts of buildings
to face, to a feasible extent, a public street. The third standard to which a modification
is requested, is that all entrances be located within 200 feet of a public sidewalk.
Criteria used to evaluate modifications of standards are that: 1) the modification
request, with the changes is equal to, in performance, or better than a compliant plan; 2)
there is some physical constraint or hardship that is forcing the applicant to not meet the
standard; 3) there will not be any community harm in making the modification request.
Staff has found that the three modification requests are appropriate.
The City does not have right-of-way to extend Oak Street through but anticipates that it
might eventually extend through to S. Taft Hill Road.
1
J
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 4
Lucia Liley, 110 East Oak Street, represented the applicant in their presentation. She
noted that this is a 100% City -certified Affordable Housing project. The project is
completely privately funded and is not seeking any public funding, although it does meet
all the City standards for Affordable Housing. In order to qualify for Affordable Housing
status, a certain percentage of the units must be set aside as affordable for a 20-year
period of time. In this case, the applicant has agreed to set aside 100% of the units. The
use is a use -by -right in the zone. When the PDP is submitted, all City requirements will
have to be met, including the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement.
This requests for modification center around the public street issue. Seventeen of the
twenty units will face the private drive so the intent that structures face a public street
will be met, only with a private drive instead of a public street. The other three units will
face a public walkway that will connect to the public sidewalk on Taft Hill Road. A
financially feasible project would not occur if this were to be a compliant plan with no
modifications. The Poudre Fire Authority was satisfied with the alternative design, thus
satisfying the criteria that developments do not harm the public good.
This project is equal to or better than a compliant plan because if a public street were to
be put in instead of the private drive, it would be too close to the future alignment of Oak
in order to meet standards.
The City will support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by
offering incentives and reducing local government barriers to the construction of
additional units.
The applicant asks for approval of this modification with the understanding that a
neighborhood meeting will occur in order to address the PDP issues.
CITIZEN INPUT
David Neighbors, 109 S. Taft Hill Road, stated that this project far exceeds any other
development that could ever be planned for this neighborhood. He continued to
express concern about noise and vandalism with affordable housing projects. He also
expressed concern about the density of the project being too high.
William Young, neighbor, stated concern about the density of the units and stated that
City Council had already denied the construction of a north -south road due primarily to a
large irrigation ditch on the property.
Member Craig asked whether or not the applicant could have made the private drive a
public street but chose not to because the City requested otherwise.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 5
Planning Director Gloss replied that was correct. Staff did entertain the notion of this
being a public street but found that the Oak Street alignment would be preferable.
Member Craig asked if the applicant could legally make the private drive a public street.
Planning Director Gloss replied that the City grants access onto a public way and has
jurisdiction over where access points are taken. This is based primarily on traffic
operations.
Member Craig asked what the intent was in terms of neighborhood meetings.
Planning Director Gloss stated that the neighborhood meeting was not required as part
of the PDP application because it is a Type I review. He added that it would be
appropriate to have a meeting given the concerns heard tonight.
Member Craig asked what 80% of A.M.I. is.
Ken Waido, Advance Planning Department, stated that the Average Median Income for
the Fort Collins area is $58,000 per year for a family of four. Eighty percent of that is
$46,400. This is the cut-off line for families to qualify for affordable housing.
Ms. Liley stated that the applicant has no objection to a neighborhood meeting and that
they would commit to doing that prior to the PDP hearing.
Planning Director Gloss stated that a neighborhood meeting would be scheduled.
Member Craig asked for the definition of Neighborhood Compatibility.
Mr. Eckman stated the definition of Compatibility as follows:
"Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or
design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony.
Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of
structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic,
circulation, access, and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that
affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture.
Compatibility does not mean 'the same as,' rather compatibility refers to the
sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing
development."
Member Craig stated that that information was what the neighbors needed to work with
for the neighborhood meeting and that all neighbors will be notified.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 6
Planning Director Gloss stated that the notification area is 500 feet.
Member Colton asked about permitted uses and density requirements/limitations for this
zone.
Planning Director Gloss replied that the project is 11.5 units per acre and under the
Affordable Housing exemptions, this would be approaching the maximum number of 12
units for the LMN zone district. This would fall under a Type I review.
Member Colton asked about the intent for the Oak Street alignment and whether or not
it would run right south of where the three separate units are.
Dave Stringer, Engineering Department, stated that it was best for the alignment to run
through just south of this property, it is about 15 feet from the south property line of this
property to the right-of-way line of the future Oak alignment.
Member Craig stated that the staff report states that "there does not appear to be a
physical constraint of sufficient magnitude for there to be considered a physical
hardship."
Planning Director Gloss responded that a physical hardship is akin to a variance. There
is some physical constraint on the site that is not brought upon by the applicant. This
site does not contain any such physical constraints. The lot is unusually shaped but not
to the extent that a project cannot be built on it. Therefore, it seemed to be a stretch to
apply the physical hardship criterion to the property. The two standards which apply
here are the Affordable Housing criteria and that the plan is equal to or better than the
compliant plan given the need for Affordable Housing.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Cherokee Flying Heights, Modification
of Standards, File #17-OOA, based upon the findings of fact and conclusion
outlined on page 6 of the staff report.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Colton stated that in automatically assuming that any Affordable Housing
project is for the public good, we also need to consider the public good of the neighbors.
He added that perhaps this project was not appropriate for this lot. He asked if the staff
had any input as to why these standards were in the Code.
Planning Director Gloss stated that this application has presented a challenge with
engineering concerns, drainage, and site layout. It was decided that the modification
requests were reasonable given the community need for affordable housing. The private
. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 7
drive length standard is in place for fire safety reasons. The fire authorities have found
this request acceptable. The standard for dwellings to face public streets is more difficult
to meet due to the lot dimensions. The standard regarding distance to a public sidewalk
is similar. It is very difficult to do this with the given lot.
Member Craig asked if three houses were to be developed on the lot, if the private drive
length standard would have to be modified the same as with the current proposal.
Planning Director Gloss replied that it would require a modification for houses. He
stated that infill projects are challenging.
Member Craig asked if the project could change if the modifications were approved,
allowing a different type of development.
Planning Director Gloss replied that was correct.
Member Bernth stated that the City is looking for compact growth and this is a good
situation for being creative with an infill. This project will be scrutinized with the
neighborhood concern and will be a good project when it is complete due to this
process.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that there are more streets in the City that will have issues
with affordable housing and that it is important that we have the flexibility of the
modifications because some project will go in there. The neighbors should add their
input and affordable housing should be placed throughout the community in harmonious
relations with neighbors.
Member Craig stated that the modifications would need to be dealt with regardless of
what type of project goes on the site. She encouraged the neighbors to attend the public
meetings and hearings and add their input.
Planning Director Gloss stated that he was incorrect in stating that these modifications,
if approved, would continue if this project would not go forward. This is incorrect. If the
modifications are approved because they are providing affordable housing, the motion
should be amended to state that they are for a 20-unit affordable housing project.
Member Craig stated that she could support the modifications if it were based on the
fact that the modifications would further the public good. She would not support the
modifications based solely on the affordable housing aspect.
Planning Director Gloss stated that the modifications would not go forward with a
different project despite the fact that any project on this lot would likely need a
modification.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 8
Member Craig asked Member Bernth if he would be willing to amend his motion such
that the approval was not dependent on this being an affordable housing project.
Member Bernth agreed.
Members Bernth and Meyer withdrew their original motions in order to clarify the
affordable housing aspect of the motion.
Chairman Gavaldon asked if the applicant should have an opportunity to respond to the
potential changes being made with a new motion.
Lucia Liley, representing the applicant, stated that if the Board did not want to 'lock
themselves' in to affordable housing considerations, they could pick two of the criteria
(i.e., affordable housing and the equal to or better than standard), in order to make the
modifications viable if the affordable housing component goes away. She suggested
against using the physical hardship criteria.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Cherokee Flying Heights, Modification
of Standards, File #17-OOA, based upon the findings of fact and conclusion
outlined on page 6 of the staff report.
Member Meyer seconded the motion.
Member Colton stated that he would not be supporting the motion because even though
there is a public good associated with the affordable housing and it does belong in LMN
neighborhoods, the granting of the modifications in this particular area is very out of
character with the neighborhood. The public good of disturbing the character of the
neighborhood does not outweigh the public good of the affordable housing.
The motion was approved 3-2.
Member Bernth moved to continue Front Range Rezone and Structure Plan
Amendment, File #3-OOA, to the August 16, 2001 discussion agenda.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
LI
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 9
Project:
Project Description:
Recommendation:
Modification of Standards — Brophy Property
Request for modifications of Sections
4.4(B)(3)(c)1 — Neighborhood Centers,
4.4(D)(3)(b) — Location of Neighborhood
Centers, and 4.4(E)(2)(i) — Drive-in Uses in the
LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood
Zoning District of the Land Use Code. The
property, 1109 W. Harmony Road, is located at
the southwest corner if West Harmony Road
and South Shields Street and is in the LMN —
Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zoning
District.
Denial
This project was appealed to City Council. A verbatim transcript is attached.
n
U
•
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Held Thursday, June 27, 2001
At City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the matter of a modification of standards
concerning the Brophy property
Mark and Mary Brophy, Applicants
Commission members
Jerry Gavaldon, Chair
• Glen Colton
Sally Craig
Judy Meyer
Mikal Torgerson
Daniel Bernth
Staff present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office
Steve Olt, Planning Department
Ken Waido, Planning Department
Cameron Gloss
• Meadors Court Reporting, LLC Phone: (970) 482-1506
140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Toll -free (800) 482-1506
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Fax: (970) 482-1230
e-mail. meadors@reporterworks.com
2"
1 MR. GAVALDON: Next project, please, Number 6,
2 modification of standards, Brophy property.
3 MR. OLT: Okay. This is a request for
4 modifications of standards to three standards in the City's
5 Land Use Code for the Brophy property located at 1109 West
6 Harmony Road. To put this into context for everyone, the
7 site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection
8 of South Shields Streets and West Harmony Road.
9 This is a -- actually, I'm not exactly sure
10 exactly how big the property is. Approximately five and a
11 half to six acres in size. It is zoned LMN. Adjacent to
12 this is the Front Range Community College. To the east, as
13 you can see, the Westbury PUD surrounds the property to the
14 south and to the west.
15 I would like to point out that there is a small
16 parcel of land that intervenes Westbury PUD and the Brophy
17 property. It's an acre to two acres in size. I'm not
18 exactly sure. It has one single-family residence that is
19 separate ownership and is not part of this request.
20 The request is for modifications of, again, three
21 sections of the Land Use Code dealing with neighborhood
22 centers, location of neighborhood centers, and drive-in uses
23 in the LMN zoning district.
24 The three sections that we're dealing with
25 tonight are section 4.4(b)(3)(c)(1). That states that
0 3
•
1 neighborhood centers consisting of one or more of the
2 following uses: Standard and fast food restaurants, artisan
3 and photography studios and galleries, or convenience retail
4 stores with fuel sales that are at least three-quarters of a
5 mile from any other such use and from any gas station, and
6 that three-quarters of a mile is critical.
7 The second section that is being requested to be
8 modified is section 4.4(d)(3)(b). This states, dealing with
9 the location, a neighborhood center shall be planned as an
10 integral part of surrounding residential development and
11 located with a network of local streets, provide direct
12 access to the center. Neighborhood centers with retail uses
• 13 or restaurants located on the arterial streets shall be
14 spaced at least three-quarters of a mile apart. Again, that
15 three-quarters of a mile is critical and germane to this
16 discussion.
17 The third section to be modified is Section
18 4.4(e)(2)(i). I think that should be -- yeah, (e)(2)(i),
19 that's correct, of the Land Use Code, stating that drive-in
20 uses shall be prohibited in the LMN zoning district.
21 There's a couple items that are critical to this.
22 The three-quarters of a mile, as stated, for neighborhood
23 centers that contain restaurants and convenience stores with
24 fuel sales is critical because three quarters of a mile --
25 within three-quarters of a mile to the west of the site,
IE
0
1 where Harmony Road, now the new Harmony Road curves upwards
2 to the north and west -- and it's not shown on this location
3 map -- there is an approved and currently under development
4 neighborhood center that does have fuel sales and some
5 retail and potentially some restaurant uses.
6 Therefore, this neighborhood center, to allow
7 those type of uses, again, restaurants, fuel sales, you
8 would have to approve a modification to allow that to occur.
9 Under no circumstances are drive-in facilities or drive-in
10 uses permitted in this zoning district.
11 I wanted to point out, too, that this is a
12 request only for modifications to the three standards that I
13 cited. There is no site -specific project development plan
14 for this property at this time. So you're dealing only with
15 the request for modifications of standards to allow uses
16 that are not permitted in the Land Use Code.
17 Conclude the presentation, in that staff has
18 determined several things.
19 The intended convenience retail store with fuel
20 sales, retail uses, restaurants, and drive-in uses are not
21 supported by the Land Use Code.
22 Granting of the request for modifications would
23 be detrimental to public good and would impair the intent
24 and purposes of the Land Use Code.
25 And that there are no policies that support more
0 0 5
•
1 frequent spacing of high -intensive vehicular use retail
2 development along arterial streets in and around
3 neighborhoods. And in this case, again, we're looking at
4 two arterial streets, being Harmony Road to the north and
5 South Shields street to the east.
6 The proposal as submitted will not advance or
7 protect the public interests and purposes of the standards
8 for which the modifications are requested equally well or
9 better, which is one of the tests, then, with a plan which
10 complies with the standards.
11 A permitted neighborhood center without a
12 convenience store with fuel sales, restaurant uses, or
• 13 drive-ins, would not require modifications. A neighborhood
14 center would be permitted on this site, but it would be a
15 much less -intensive type of neighborhood center with things
16 such as offices, financial uses, personal service shops, and
17 even some retail uses of 5,000 square feet or less, so very
18 small retail uses. Therefore, that is permitted without
19 requiring a modification.
20 The third item is the strict application of the
21 standards sought to be modified would not result in staff's
22 determination in unusual exceptional practical difficulties
23 or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the
24 property, in that no exceptional physical conditions of the
25 property suggest the need for a drive-in, drive -through,
•
d
1 commercial development, as opposed to other uses that are
2 permitted in a neighborhood center in this zoning district.
3 And again, a neighborhood center without
4 convenience store, with fuel sales, without restaurants or
5 drive-in uses would be permitted without requiring
6 modifications to the standards.
7 With that, I'd actually like to show, briefly
8 show, some site shots, and then I'd open it up to questions
9 of the board if they have any of me.
10 This first shot is looking -- I'm standing at the
11 corner of Harmony Road and Shields Street. I'm looking
12 south along the east property line of the Brophy property,
13 which is to the center and right of this photo.
14 This is looking southwest across the property,
15 again from the intersection of Harmony and Shields. You can
16 see the structures in the houses back here in the trees.
17 I'm not exactly sure. This might be a garage or some other
18 structure.
19 Looking almost due west along Harmony Road. This
20 would be the Brophy property. The west edge of the property
21 is somewhere in this location.
22 I am looking down the west property line of the
23 Brophy property, Harmony Road, again, in the foreground.
24 This is the Brophy property. This is a residence in the
25 Westbury PUD to the west of this site, looking -- looking --
0 • 7
11
1 now where am I -- I am looking southwest -- or, pardon me,
2 southeast, across the Brophy property from Harmony Road.
3 I am now at the southeast corner of the property.
4 This is the entry into the Brophy site, looking northwest
5 across the property.
6 Looking north on South Shields Street, the
7 intersection of Harmony Road is in this location at the
8 stoplight.
9 Actually, I think -- this is the only street
10 that, in terms of a neighborhood center, really is defined
11 to be integrated into surrounding neighborhoods by virtue of
12 a street network, other than arterial streets. It's a local
• 13 collector street. This, at this point in time, is really
14 the only street outside of the arterial streets to the north
15 and east of the site that would provide access directly into
16 the Brophy property, but you do have, again, the intervening
17 property here. It's another -- under other ownership, a
18 single-family residence and pasture in this location.
19 With that, I'll turn it back to the Board.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much, Steve. Nice
21 street name, by the way.
22 If it's okay by the Board, could we go ahead with
23 the other presentation and citizen input and then
24 consolidate our questions?
25 Okay. At this time, we would invite the
•
0
1 applicant to come forward and share their presentation with
2 us. You have up to 30 minutes -- less would be preferred --
3 and then we'll go to citizen input. Please state your name
4 for the record.
5 MR. BROPHY: My name is Mark Brophy. As you can
6 imagine, I was also shocked that Steve wouldn't want a nice,
7 long road named after him all over the city.
8 I'd like to correct something that Steve said.
9 He said that there was a neighborhood center six -tenths of a
10 mile, less than three-quarters of a mile. This was the
11 project that you approved last May. It was something
12 similar to a neighborhood center under LDGS, but it's not
13 actually a neighborhood center.
14 And the reason why we're asking for these
15 modifications is because the former Planning Director had
16 made an administrative determination that said that you
17 violate the separation requirements if you're less than
18 three-quarters of a mile from that. I don't know what it
19 was, in LDGS. I'm not familiar with that Land Use Code.
20 So those are the first two, are what I -- I don't
21 even consider them a violation at all. A modification at
22 all. All you have to do is rule that's not a neighborhood
23 center and be done with that.
24 The equal -to -or -better issue is also important in
25 that case. There's nothing in the City Plan that says what
• • 9
1 the purpose of those separation requirements is. And I
2 asked Steve, and he said, "Well, there is no purpose to
3 them. It was just something that we brought over previously
4 because it had been part of the LDGS."
5 But there's nothing in the principles and
6 policies that says that there's a purpose for those
7 separation requirements. So it's really difficult for me to
8 tell you that -- that I can do equal or better, because I
9 don't know what the purpose of them in the first place was.
10 The hardship issue, I think, is important in this
11 case. Steve didn't mention this, but Harmony and Shields
12 are going to be widened. And they're going to take a lot of
• 13 my property. There's going to be two left turn lanes on
14 Shields Street going onto Harmony Road to the H-P and the
15 rest of the employment centers on East Harmony Road.
16 In order to do that, they're going to take a very
17 large portion of my property along Shields Street. And
18 also, when they take a portion of my property on Harmony
19 Road, they're going to take a lot of my trees. I have
20 about seven cottonwood trees that are, oh, well, 60 or 70
21 feet high. They're a hundred years old. And seven or eight
22 spruce trees. I've moved a couple of our spruce trees, but
23 there's still a whole bunch of them left. And all those are
24 going to have to go.
25 When Steve showed that picture of the property,
E
10
1 you've never seen my house, and that's why it's livable for
2 me now as a residence. But once the road is widened, it
3 will no longer be useful as a residence. Not only for that
4 reason with all the cars, but those entrances are about 150
5 feet from the intersection.
6 If the road is double the size that it is now,
7 the access points along Harmony and Shields will have to
8 change. They all have to be at the edge of the property,
9 something like 500 feet, which means that my access points
10 won't lead to my front door anymore. They'll lead to my
11 back door, and I can't just turn my house around 180
12 degrees. So when the road is widened, I have to move.
13 So what I'd like to do is live in a house on the
14 southwest corner of the property, which is also surrounded
15 by trees, and have a mixed use of retail and office uses on
16 the rest of it.
17 Right now, there's a glut of office space in Fort
18 Collins, and my property has been on the market for about a
19 year and a half. And no one is interested in making a pure
20 office development. It is possible to sell it as a mixed
21 use, because people like insurance agents or chiropractors,
22 dentists, something like that, who can benefit from being in
23 the neighborhood would be interested in being there. But
24 not somebody who just wants to put in offices and make it
25 100 percent office stuff.
r 1
LJ
1 When one convenience store was approved last May,
2 Mr. Colton, you had said it was a good idea because somebody
3 could get a roll of toilet paper without going to South
4 College Avenue and we could reduce the vehicle miles
5 traveled.
6 But typically, in a convenience store, they don't
7 sell toilet paper, because the store just isn't large enough
8 to do that. They tend to sell junk food and things like
9 that along with the gas. If you allow a drive-in use on my
10 property, it will be possible to put a pharmacy with a
11 drive-in window there, and pharmacies do tend to sell toilet
12 paper. And the 5,000 foot limit that Mr. Colton -- that
• 13 Steve was talking about is too small for those pharmacies.
14 They like to have about 14,000 feet.
15 So the hardship issue is really, one, my property
16 is spot -zoned. It's the only LMN property at the corner of
17 two arterials in the city.
18 Two, they're taking away my property and making
19 me move. That building you did see in the picture is my
20 office. I have a home -based business, and that would also
21 be disrupted when the facility is -- when the street is
22 widened. And I'd still be able to get in there, but I
23 wouldn't be able to walk to work 50 feet anymore. I'd have
24 to live somewhere else and drive to it and add some more
25 vehicle miles to it and clog the intersection.
•
12
1 So I think that's about all the issues I have.
2 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
3 At this time, we would like to open it up to
4 citizen input. If anyone has a comment, please come
5 forward, state your name, and sign in the register. The
6 log, I guess, you call it. And please share your thoughts
7 with us.
8 MR. LEAK: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
9 My name is Marty Leak. I'm a resident of Westbury. My
10 property adjoins the Brophy property directly to the west.
11 I've been a resident here in Fort Collins for 24 years. Not
12 that that is important, but I think I'll wrap up in my
13 summary, talking about some of the things that have happened
14 in Fort Collins over those 24 years.
15 First, before we go further, I'd like to just
16 show the Board and the Planning and Zoning Department a
17 representation of our neighborhood that has come out in
18 opposition of this change of the zoning. So those that are
19 opposed to this, if you'd just raise your hand for a second
20 and let the Board know that there's more than two or three
21 of us that are going to talk, but there's a significant
22 number of people that have some concerns about this request.
23 To respect your time and to respect the Avs game
24 activity, we're going to limit our input to you to just
25 three people, rather than have 30 people come up and address
0 • 13
•
1 you individually and talk about the same things over and
2 over. So in the three people that are going to be speaking,
3 I'll start, and then I'll turn it over to one of my other
4 neighbors, and then we'll wrap up with a third neighbor.
5 What I'd like to do to you -- with you tonight is
6 review a summary of the concerns and positions of the
7 neighborhood and the families that are represented. So I
8 will talk a little bit about these concerns, and then I'll
9 turn it over to Mr. Blank, who will comment on a few
10 additional concerns, specifically on Olt Court. You saw the
11 picture of Olt Court. But he has some issues that he wants
12 to address with that, and then we'll wrap up with Mr. Starr
• 13 talking about the process that the City has gone through and
14 review of this and the findings that have been presented so
15 far this evening.
16 As I sat and tried to think about what I was
17 going to say at this hearing, I don't know how your lives
18 are, but I don't get a chance to sit and think very often.
19 I'm running kids around or baseball games or whatever.
20 So I found myself at 3:00 o'clock in the morning
21 about a week ago not able to sleep, wondering what I was
22 going to say during this five minutes that have I to address
23 you. And as I was laying in bed, thinking about this, I
24 realized that the two great horned owls that are nesting on
25 that property were hooting back and forth. You'll have an
0
14
1 opportunity here in a moment, if you'll indulge us, to see
2 some pictures and photographs of some wildlife, including
3 the great horned owls.
4 After the great horned owls hooted for a minute,
5 the baby owls started chiming in. They kind of squawk. If
6 you haven't heard them, it's an odd sound, but it's kind of
7 neat to listen to while you can't sleep. Eventually, the
8 foxes started chirping.
9 And as I was laying there, it hit me all of a
10 sudden that this issue isn't really about me and my property
11 adjoining the Brophy property. It's not about our
12 neighborhood. It's about doing the right thing. It's a
13 bigger issue than just simply a few neighbors squabbling
14 over whether or not we're going to be able to get toilet
15 paper out our back door.
16 There are many issues that affect us, as
17 neighbors and residents of this area, including, and I'd
18 like to -- I don't know if this is appropriate, so Mr.
19 Chairman, I hope you'll indulge us, but we have a copy of a
20 letter I'd like to distribute to the Board, and it has
21 signatures of roughly 40 people who are opposing this zoning
22 change. And with that, a map of the Olt Court area that
23 will be affected. And also some photographs.
24 I apologize. I'm not a photographer, but if you
25 haven't seen great horned owls in Fort Collins, there are a
• • 15
•
1 nesting pair on the Brophy property, and they have three
2 young. Again, I apologize for the photography. I'm not
3 very good at that, but I thought it might be interesting to
4 you.
5 It also, some of the photographs
show you the
6 back of the property.
We were privileged to
see some of the
7 shots from the front.
But those who adjoin
the property are
8 looking at the back of it, and granted, we feel that the
9 back of the property is more attractive than the front of
10 the property.
11 So what I'd like to do, if you'll indulge me, is
12 to take you just briefly through the eight items that are
• 13 identified on this letter that you have in front of you, and
14 I'll try to be brief.
15 The first one is, and these aren't necessarily in
16 order, but we believe this is a piece of pristine property.
17 I think the Brophys are very fortunate to have found this
18 property five -- or less than five years ago when they
19 bought it and they moved in. But it's really a beautiful
20 spot.
21 Mark had mentioned there's some hundred -year -old
22 trees. I estimated they were 80 years old. But regardless
23 of that, the Brophy property was formerly known as the Cress
24 Gallery, some of you may recall, and it's really considered
25 a local landmark in Fort Collins by many of the long-time
r 1
U
16
1 residents who have been here, particularly residents who
2 have been here more than the five years that the Brophys
3 have been here.
4 So we're concerned about the disruption of that
5 property and the significant changes. I don't know how
6 personally -- I'm not a builder or developer, but I don't
7 know how you could put a shopping center in there and have
8 that property maintain any character like it has today. So
9 that would be a shame if that were destroyed.
10 The wildlife. I mentioned the great horned owls.
11 Beautiful birds, if you get a chance to see them. They do
12 kind of startle you sometimes if you're not paying attention
13 and they swoop down by you, but it's really kind of nice to
14 watch. There are raccoons that live in the area. There are
15 rabbits. Raccoons and rabbits provide food, obviously, for
16 the owls. Occasional deer, which can sometimes be a menace,
17 but then again on Christmas Eve two years ago when I looked
18 out my back window and saw four bucks standing in the yard,
19 the first thing I thought of was, call the neighbor kids and
20 say, "Hey, look, Rudolph's out back. Why don't you take a
21 look out your back window." Obviously, those kinds of
22 things would be significantly altered if this were to be
23 developed into a neighborhood center.
24 The third thing I want to talk about is there
25 really is no public need. Everybody that we talk to, there
• • 17
11
1 are two efforts canvassing our neighborhood to address this
2 issue and to get support for it. Absolutely everybody that
3 was confronted with this issue said, "I do not want this in
4 our back yard." And we have signatures, and you'll see
5 another petition of another some 40 households that said,
6 "We don't need toilet paper sales in our back yard." We
7 didn't buy our properties less than five years ago to have a
8 convenience store, you know, out our back window.
9 We have, obviously, the Wal-Mart center, the
10 College and Harmony center, is less than a mile away.
11 Anything we need, we can walk to in 10 minutes if we choose
12
to walk, or we can drive there in one minute or less. We
•
13
don't see the public need, as mentioned by the Planning
14
Department. There is a development already approved less
15
than three quarters of a mile away, so those of us who can't
16
walk the mile, we can walk the three-quarters of a mile.
17
There's also a property directly north of this property
18
which has been on the market for quite some time, which I
19
don't know the exact zoning. I apologize. I didn't have
20
time to do that research, but I know it's being marketed as
21
a commercial property as well.
22
Safety is an issue. The chairman of the Planning
23
and Zoning Board mentioned safety earlier not being a
24
concern next to the low income housing area, but we do
25
believe that next to a shopping center, there are concerns
•
m
1 of safety with our children and security in our homes.
2 The increase in traffic. I can't, for the life
3 of me, figure out how people are going to get in and out of
4 this shopping center down Olt Court. That just makes no
5 sense whatsoever. And we already have, as we know, a
6 traffic problem at the corner of Harmony and Shields, and
7 that's why the City is going to lay that street out and
8 widen that street, to allow for more traffic. So currently,
9 we have problems with traffic in our neighborhood where
10 people cut through the neighborhood to avoid that
11 intersection.
12 A drive -through restaurant, a drive -through
13 store, will have some sort of mechanical or automated
14 loudspeaker system to communicate with people in their cars.
15 The additional traffic going through that area; we believe
16 that there will be an increase in noise and it will make our
17 properties -- it will devalue -- not necessarily devalue,
18 but it will interfere with our right to enjoy peaceful
19 enjoyment of our property, which I believe is an actual
20 right in the state of Colorado.
21 I've listed some environmental concerns. I won't
22 go into those in detail, but wherever you have a
23 conglomeration of cars in and out, you're going to have
24 issues such as exhaust, noise, byproducts, gas, oil, and so
25 on.
• • 19
•
1 And lighting. I would invite you to come to
2 Westbury, if you haven't in the past, and walk through the
3 neighborhood, as most of us do at night, and enjoy the
4 country -like atmosphere that we enjoy because we have a
5 buffer between ourselves and that intersection. If a
6 shopping center were to go in there, even if it were planned
7 to reduce the infringement of lighting, we think that we're
8 going to end up being a very well -lit or overly -lit area.
9 So in summary, I will wrap up and turn it over to
10 one of my other neighbors.
11 First, again, I want to thank you for allowing us
12 to come and talk. We heard this earlier with one of the
• 13 neighbors regarding one of the other issues. I believe the
14 only real motive that the Brophys have in making this change
15 is for profit. If you look at the fact that they paid
16 $620,00 for this property less than five years ago and
17 they're currently asking well over a million dollars for the
18 property, even if you take the eight percent increase in
19 real estate values compounded over that five years, they're
20 looking for a 43 percent bonus on top of that, because what
21 they're asking -- and I think that's the motivation. They
22 want to make that change so they can get that kind of money
23 for the property. It's not worth it. Right now, that
24 property is worth, on the market, about $911,000. So
25 they're asking for a bonus of 43 percent over what the
is
2 0'
1 current value is.
2 Clearly, this proposal is not compatible with the
3 neighborhood. I think that the Planning and Zoning
4 Department made that clear in their earlier comments.
5 And the last thought I want to share with you is,
6 when you think about what makes Fort Collins great, many of
7 you are long-time residents of Fort Collins, and I have
8 been, too. What really is it that makes this city a great
9 place to be? Is it the climate? Partially. Is it the
10 mountains? Probably, to some degree. Is it the people? I
11 think that has a big impact. Is it the business climate?
12 Maybe.
13 But I think the real thing that makes Fort
14 Collins a great place to be is we tend to do the right
15 things by each other. The City does the right things by its
16 citizens. The citizens do the right things by each other.
17 And when it comes to managing our city and our environment,
18 we can all cite many examples of we, as a community, doing
19 the right things for each other.
20 This request is clearly not the right thing to
21 do. I know it. The City Planning and Zoning Department
22 knows it. And I think you know it as well.
23 At this time, I want to introduce Mr. William
24 Blank, who's going to talk for just a couple of minutes
25 about the Olt Court issue. Thank you for your time.
• ! 21
1 MR. BLANK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board,
2 staff members. My name is Bill Blank, and I'm the past
3 president of the Westbury Garden Homeowners Association and
4 a current resident of that area. And if you want to refer
5 to the map that was handed out to you a few moments ago,
6 you'll notice that the Westbury Garden Homeowners
7 Association is made up of Belleview Drive and Olt Court.
8 This association consists of 25 townhomes and
9 patio homes, and it's a high -density residential area.
10 Consequently, we're all very concerned about the increased
11 traffic that would be expected from this type of
12 development, along with the noise that would go with it as
• 13 well.
14 If you notice the numerous petitions that have
15 been signed by virtually everyone that had been talked to, I
16 think you'll see that there's consistency among us in terms
17 of our feelings about rejecting this modification to the
18 Brophy property.
19 What I want to talk about specifically is our
20 concern about the modification to use Olt Court as an
21 alternate entrance and exit for this proposed modification,
22 strip mall, neighborhood center, however you want to refer
23 to it.
24 If you'll look at the map, you'll notice how Olt
25 Court is a dead-end off of another dead-end court, and we
0
22'
1 really appreciation the quiet, the calm, that we sense
2 there.
3 As previous speakers have talked about, this
4 project would result in a very dramatic change in the
5 character of our neighborhood, and it would absolutely not
6 befit the neighborhood. And so on behalf of myself, my
7 family, and my neighbors, I behoove you to consider this
8 carefully before agreeing to any type of a modification.
9 MR. STARR: Good evening, Board, Mr. Chairman.
10 My name is Kim Starr. And I also live in the Westbury
11 development, but I'm also the vice president of the
12 homeowners association. It's for that reason that I'm here.
13 Before I even get started, I'd like to present to
14 the Board a petition that was developed by the homeowners
15 association, circulated in the neighborhood, containing 58
16 separate homeowners who seasoned it against these
17 modifications, representing 47 different homes.
18 I see the secretary's not here. May I? Thank
19 you.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Please feel free. And also, the
21 photographs, we'll need to retain them for the record in
22 case there's an appeal. So if you don't mind. Thank you.
23 MR. STARR: As Marty expressed, and as Bill also
24 expressed, we do, as a community and a neighborhood, feel
25 very strongly that the staff has, in fact, hit these issues
• • 23
•
1 as they should be hit, that these modification requests
2 should be denied.
3 As a homeowner and as a board member, we really
4 appreciate the opportunity to be able to come to the Board
5 and speak to you all here tonight. Considering we're
6 between periods, I'll try to be brief also. But there are a
7 lot of points I really feel compelled to hit.
8 The board of directors of Westbury Homeowners
9 Association went, basically, down to the staff and asked
10 questions and pulled the modification request, pulled the
11 actual -- excuse me, the Land Use Code, as well as the staff
12 report. So we've taken quite a bit of time to try and
• 13 educate ourselves with actually what's being presented here
14 and what the request entails.
15 We're against the request, obviously, as I've
16 already stated. And primarily, we're very concerned, number
17 one, about traffic. Mr. Colton mentioned earlier, with
18 respect to a modification request, is it out of character of
19 the neighborhood. Well, a strip mall is absolutely out
20 of -- I'm sorry, a neighborhood center is certainly out of
21 the character of this neighborhood.
22 Now, one of the issues that, as a Board, and I'm
23 sure you struggle with this all the time, whether you modify
24 the code -- or the code is to determine whether it's
25 detrimental to public good. Is what you're doing, if it's
•
24
1 modified, going to be actually to the detriment of the
2 neighborhood or the city?
3 We believe strongly this will be. It's dangerous
4 from a traffic standpoint. To have a gas station and a
5 drive -up -- and I don't care if you call it a pharmacy; you
6 may call it a pharmacy -- the applicant may at this point in
7 time, but down the road, who's to say it's not a Taco Bell.
8 Our pristine -- this sound of rustling at night is going to
9 be replaced by the effect of, "May I take your order."
10 That's not what I purchased.
11 Would it be a substantial benefit to the City?
12 No. The only is going to be to the market value of the
13 property. It may open up the ability to go out and market
14 that property. I really don't know.
15 Does it substantially address an important
16 community need? We don't need more commercial development.
17 In the actual modification request, there's
18 discussion about, that we really are lacking. It's at page
19 2, commercial development in that area. That's simply not
20 the case. You go merely eight -tenths of a mile north of
21 this particular intersection. You've got three restaurants.
22 You've got a Volt. You've got a health store, a bank, a New
23 York Life, a mortgage company, McLeod USA, dry cleaners,
24 real estate, and a liquor store. Across the street from
25 that is a 7-Eleven. You go catercornered, there's
• • 25
[l
1 Schrader's. There's an Urgent Care. There's also a travel
2 agency. And that's not to go west of the new development
3 that Steve talked about earlier. So we have plenty of
4 commercial development in the area. We don't need more.
5 One of the issues to look at is whether the
6 modification would substantially alleviate an existing
7 problem, and one of the things that this staff -- one of the
8 things that staff so aptly pointed out, in this type of a
9 situation, would be traffic congestion. If you can
10 alleviate that, maybe you can look at the modification.
11 This will be just the opposite. To say that
12 we're going to put in this commercial site and not bring in
• 13 flux of traffic is naive at best. There is no way that you
14 can put in the type of center being suggested and not pull
15 traffic in from outside the area. Otherwise, those
16 businesses won't stay open. You have to draw in outside
17 traffic, and I'll get into that in a little bit. But this
18 is -- what's being proposed really would require
19 high -intensive vehicle use.
20 One of the things that I found interesting is in
21 the modification request, there's a suggestion that because
22 there's no neighborhood center in the Woodlands, there's not
23 one in Clarendon Hills and the Coventry lacks one, and with
24 the exception, perhaps, of the development, the commercial
25 development west, that even Clarendon Hills -- or, I'm
•
26
1 sorry, even The Ridge lacks a neighborhood center, for that
2 reason, please consider this modification.
3 Well, the bottom line is that, in fact, on the
4 one hand, they're promoting, "We need a center so that we
5 can cut down on traffic." But on the other hand, they're
6 suggesting to you, "Look, we're going to bring in all of
7 these homes from all these other communities to the corner
8 of Harmony and Shields." They just fly in the face of each
9 other. Those arguments, they're totally against one
10 another.
11 In fact, I remember a professor once saying, a
12 Southern professor, that you can put feathers on a
13 groundhog. You can't make it fly. Well, that would be this
14 proposal. Because to suggest to you all that, "Look, we can
15 put in this strip mall and not bring any additional
16 traffic," is just ludicrous.
17 And when you look at the site itself, if you have
18 a strip mall in there, traffic, to get back onto Shields and
19 head north, can't. And Steve, forgive me, but I don't know
20 what time it was you shot the picture that showed the line
21 of cars coming east on Harmony. But that's not unusual,
22 even now. And you add a strip mall, it's only going to get
23 far worse.
24 So the only way that that traffic can be diverted
25 and get back the direction it wants to go, say, north on
27
1 Shields or to go west on Harmony, would either be to come
2 back down Shields and then through the Westbury -- on
3 Westbury Drive, through the neighborhood, or out Olt Court,
4 which then, again, brings all the outside traffic into the
5 neighborhood. It's dangerous.
6 One of the things that I think is important and
7 certainly for me, being, I have two small kids, additional
8 neighborhood traffic. And for the reasons I've just laid
9 out, I think you can't avoid that if these modifications are
10 granted. That's going to happen. We're already seeing it
11 somewhat. But if you add a strip mall at Shields and
12 Harmony, it's going to make it even worse. And the
• 13 congestion out on Shields and Harmony isn't going to change.
14 It's just going to get worse also. Just logic would dictate
15 that.
16 Really, for a modification like this, as I read
17 the Code and what the staff came up with, the requested
18 modifications, as they are, they're not going to invite a
19 pedestrian -oriented neighborhood focal point at this corner.
20 It just isn't going to be. Anyone in their right mind is
21 not going to want to go to that corner on foot or bicycle.
22 It just doesn't make sense.
23 The additional street traffic will be, again,
24 directly through our neighborhood. I also had a concern
25 with respect to Olt Court, not only, again, for the traffic
•
w
1 coming through the neighborhood, but interestingly, the
2 modification suggested would require that that parcel of
3 land to the south, which is about two acres -- in fact,
4 Mrs. Bates is here tonight -- that would require the
5 purchase of that land or some type of easement.
6 Now, if, in fact, there's an additional two acres
7 to the already existing five, then that's in violation of
8 the Code, because that violates 4.4(d)(3)(c), which says a
9 neighborhood center will not be above five acres. It can't
10 go over five acres. So that's also a problem.
11 Again, I think the staff report nails the request
12 with pinpoint accuracy. This is a request, basically, to
13 pave the way for a strip -- commercial development. I'm
14 sorry. I've been calling it a strip mall. It's probably
15 not politically correct. But the public doesn't need it.
16 We don't need a mall at Shields and Harmony.
17 The requested modifications will be detrimental
18 to our neighborhood and really, I think the surrounding
19 neighborhoods, whether it be Clarendon Hills, The Ridge,
20 Woodlands, whatever. These neighborhoods contain a lot of
21 young families with children. The modifications invite
22 higher traffic. The high -intensive vehicle traffic use.
23 It's not in the best interests of your families.
24 It's not in the best interests of the neighborhood. And
25 we're requesting that you deny the request for modifications
9 0 29
LJ
1 4.4 (b) (3) (c) (1) , 4.4 (d) (3) (b) , and
2 4.4(e)(2)(i). Thank you.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. For the
4 interests of the audience, we usually allow organized groups
5 more time, so it was an organized group, so we recognized
6 the three speakers.
7 At this time, we would like to invite any
8 individuals to come up and speak, and your time is limited
9 to three minutes.
10 MS. BATES: Three minutes. I'll keep it brief.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
12 MS. BATES: Board, Mr. Chairman, my name is
• 13 Marsha Collins Bates. I live at 4621 South Shields, which
14 is on the map, the property that we've been talking about
15 and around, which is immediately south of the Brophy
16 property. Steve had some pictures that actually showed my
17 driveway rather than the Brophys' driveway.
18 Always I said, I'd like to keep it brief. I have
19 been kind of following this with interest. I've read the
20 staff reports and noticed that my property is involved in
21 drainage issues from this property. It's involved in access
22 issues, Olt Court, as well as the 500-foot rule from major
23 intersection for right and left turn. And I finally decided
24 I better speak up.
25 The things that I have to say really, if you give
0
30
1 me a minute here, I'll find my notes. I had my notes.
2 Well, anyway. Probably of the people that have
3 spoken, my friends on Westbury, as well as others, my
4 property would be impacted the most by this development. Or
5 this request for modifications that would lead to more
6 extensive development.
7 I'm concerned, number one, there is no easement
8 across the back of my property for Olt Court to continue to
9 connect to a neighborhood center. At some point in the
10 future, it may be well to consider these two properties that
11 did belong to Mrs. Alice Cress as a unit for development of
12 some kind. Certainly, progress is not going to stop here.
13 But at the moment, my family and I live in a
14 single-family dwelling on the front of this property, facing
15 South Shields. And our property line to the north of this
16 property is exactly at the 500-foot requirement for access
17 to the corner property. So if we -- I guess we think about
18 access. I'm concerned about what sort of impact
19 modification of access would have on my property.
20 We're also aware that South Shields is going to
21 be widened. That will include part of my front yard.
22 Hopefully, with the help of you folks, that will be
23 minimized. We can still live there. But as that goes
24 forward -- and probably, my understanding is, it may be next
25 year -- as that goes forward, then the issue of access to
• • 31
•
1 these -- both of these properties would have to be
2 reconsidered.
3 I have a driveway that runs along the north
4 side -- is that two minutes? May I please beg your
5 indulgence?
6 MR. GAVALDON: One more minute.
7 MS. BATES: The property line, my north property
8 line, has a driveway that runs the entire length of my
9 property, which is 500 feet long and 125 feet wide. So that
10 any access for the corner property would need to consider
11 that I'm within probably less than 20 feet of that property
12 line with my house. Okay. So something would have to be
• 13 considered there.
14 So I guess I'm not particularly taking sides
15 here, but I think the results of this modification, the
16 three modifications, need to be taken under consideration
17 very carefully, because there are going to be changes in the
18 future. Obviously, Fort Collins is growing and developing
19 at an amazing rate. But for the moment, these are some
20 serious issues. My family and I would not, at the moment,
21 like to have to move somewhere else.
22 So thank you very much. That's my three -minute
23 mark.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Is there
25 anyone else that would like to come up and speak to the
32'
1 subject matter?
2 MS. BROPHY: Please correct me if I'm out of
3 order. I'm Mary Brophy. Can I speak at this point or not?
4 MR. GAVALDON: As an individual, you can.
5 MS. BROPHY: As an individual, I can? Okay.
6 Thank you. I had three comments I want to make. One is, we
7 aren't as money-grubbing as I feel like maybe our neighbors
8 think we are. One of the plans that my husband and I have
9 definitely considered with this is moving our house, which
10 we have had a guy come out and take a look at the
11 feasibility of that, or perhaps constructing a new house at
12 the southwest corner of the property, which borders two
13 sides of the residences over here.
14 So we are not thinking in terms of abandoning
15 this area. We are thinking in terms of what also could make
16 the City well. And we know that some of the City's goals
17 are compact development, making neighborhood access to
18 commercial office space and retail, things like that, and
19 making those, neighborhoods around us, having access to
20 those things. And we -- we had our house there, of course,
21 too. We'd be thinking along those same lines and providing
22 the same kind of input, hopefully, that our neighbors would
23 in terms of what would make sense for that development.
24 Okay. That's point number one.
25 Point number two is, I think we all know that
• • 33
n
LJ
1 there's progress going on here and more and more intensity
2 of traffic and commercial conveniences that are a natural
3 part, particularly of the south end of the city where we
4 are.
5 If you take a look at Shields, particularly from
6 Horsetooth down, there's not a lot going on right now, but
7 if you look at the current zoning plans that the City has
8 already established in those areas, you can see a major
9 grocery store being slated for Shields just north of us and
10 a lot of other types of more intense development that are in
11 the works that have been approved by the City. So we are
12 not really, in the future, impacting the Shields Harmony
• 13 corridor as much as what it may sound like.
14 And finally, I was also talking to neighbors,
15 people who used to live in the neighborhood where we are
16 right now. And that neighbor has since departed, but she
17 used to use words like, "Yeah, well, the noise has
18 increased. It's not as peaceful as it used to be. I can't
19 walk across Harmony and Shields as much because of the
20 traffic. This used to be very country -like." And she also
21 used to be able to say that, "I used to have a mountain
22 view."
23 That person is a prior owner of our property who
24 left because of the increased development, not only on
25 Harmony and Shields, but the fact that Westbury development
34
1 didn't used to be there and is now there. So I'm just -- I
2 realize what you have to say about the property and the --
3 MR. GAVALDON: Ma'am?
4 MS. BROPHY: -- the wildlife --
5 MR. GAVALDON: Ma'am, your comments need to be to
6 us.
7 MS. BROPHY: I'm sorry. I realize what they have
8 to say about the changing development, but it's sort of the
9 nature of the city and what's going on. And we would like
10 to minimize impacts, too, but we also know that things need
11 to move forward. Thank you.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Any other
13 individuals that would like to come before the Board.
14 MR. ECKMAN: Not to change the subject, but it's
15 four to nothing and six minutes left.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Bob. I was going to
17 ask for the score.
18 MS. ROGERS: Hi, I'm Sharon Rogers. Our property
19 is the northernmost, bordering on Harmony, on Westbury -- I
20 mean, on Mariposa Court, and I would just like to have you
21 guys visualize, just for a moment, all of Westbury and
22 Mariposa, all of the surrounding people, our back yards, all
23 face that property. And if you can imagine being on your
24 back deck, having a barbecue, and looking at a 7-Eleven
25 or -- an asking for your order, please, imagine it in your
• • 35
n
LA
1 house, how that would be. It would be devastating for all
2 of our properties. Thanks.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Anyone else
4 who would like to come up to speak to the Board?
5 Thank you for the score, Paul.
6 MR. INGHAM: Hi. My name is Chris Ingham. I
7 live at 4606 Mariposa Court, and our property actually also
8 borders the back of the Brophy property.
9 I've lived in Fort Collins now for almost exactly
10 one year. In fact, tomorrow is the anniversary date of our
11 closing, so I feel I don't have much of a leg to stand on to
12 talk about, you know, when I look objectively at the map
• 13 here and I look at the intersection and I see two major
14 arteries of Harmony Road and Shields, I'm kind of actually
15 surprised, just looking at the map, that there's not already
16 a gas station at the southwest corner of Shields and
17 Harmony.
18 But the fact is that we made it this far and
19 there still isn't. It's not there. And one of the things
20 that drew me to this area, particularly, what was that stand
21 of trees that's at that corner.
22 And I really feel for the Brophys, quite a lot.
23 I think their property is being pretty much destroyed by the
24 widening of those two roads. But if you've ever been parked
25 at -- I know there's quite a line of cars there, waiting to
•
36
1 go west, coming from Harmony. But if you've ever been
2 stopped there, and watching Horsetooth and just watching
3 that stand of trees right there, the cottonwoods, it's
4 really beautiful.
5 The reason why we bought our house is because our
6 back yard borders the back of the Brophy property and
7 there's beautiful, lush trees. They've got a gazebo and
8 everything back there. But it's not ours. It belongs to
9 them, and they have the right to sell it if they want.
10 But the fact is that the current zoning is for
11 light commercial, and if, you know, there's a lot of traffic
12 going through that intersection and if a bank or some small,
13 you know, office building or something wanted to set up
14 there, that would make sense to me. There's quite a lot of
15 traffic going through there.
16 But I think just as an -- offering my opinion as
17 an outsider, something that drew me to the area was the
18 beauty of that corner, and I think to choose to put a gas
19 station or drive-in restaurant there would be pretty sad for
20 everyone. Thanks.
21 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
22 Unless we have anyone else who would like to
23 speak, I'd like to go ahead and close it. Last call.
24 Okay. We'll close public input at this time.
25 And Paul, I think we're going to need to go surrebuttal for
• • 37
1 five minutes by the applicant, as we have done.
2 So, Mr. Brophy, you have five minutes for any
3 last comments or any rebuttals to the comments made in any
4 presentation to your modification only.
5 MR. BROPHY: There's been quite a few comments
6 from my neighbors, but I think most of them are basically
7 telling you they don't want any development at all. They're
8 not addressing the modification request, although a couple
9 of the people actually did so. If you put offices on my
10 property, you'll lose the character that it has today. And
11 you don't need any modifications to do that.
12 One of the two things can happen here. You can
• 13 deny the modifications. The inventory of office space in
14 Fort Collins will burn off in three to five years. I'll put
15 offices there. The entire neighborhood will change.
16 Or you can grant the modification action and
17 it'll happen when the road is widened. Which is what makes
18 sense. You develop 25 percent of the property. I develop
19 75 percent.
20 So I ask you not to make me provide a public park
21 at my expense. Thank you.
22 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
23 At this time, we'll bring you back to the Board
24 for any questions. But if you want -- if the Board wanted
25 to address any of the comments made by the public, feel free
0
W
1 to share them. But it's open for Board members.
2 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I have questions for staff.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Sure.
4 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Steve might be the one that
5 can help me on this one, since he's been here the longest.
6 I'm looking at the zoning map, and all I can figure is the
7 only reason that this piece of property was zoned LMN has to
8 do with the gallery? Is that why it was even zoned LMN?
9 Because it's a single-family residence all around
10 it, and I'm looking at other arterials, such as Timberline
11 and Drake, and they were all left as RL. So all I can --
12 the only thing comes to my mind is because the gallery was
13 there?
14 MR. OLT: That's conceivable. however, Lne prior
15 zoning was not RL on this property. It was RLP. Which is
16 low density, planned residential, which allowed other uses
17 through the planned unit development or Land Development
18 Guidance System process. So, therefore, being at the
19 intersection of the two arterials, it certainly was
20 considered and conceivable that, you know, there could be
21 something other than low -density residential.
22 And I think at this point in time, I'll turn it
23 over to Ken. He seems to have some thoughts.
24 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Ken, did you hear my
25 question?
• 39
E
1 MR. WAIDO: The question is, why is the property
2 zoned LMN?
3 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
4 MR. WAIDO: Okay. In the development of the
5 structure plan, all of the areas, when we were converting
6 the structure plan into a zoning code, all of the areas
7 shown in yellow on the structure plan were initially
8 proposed for LMN uses. Or LMN zoning.
9 When we began to further develop the Code and
10 look at some of the impacts that an LMN zone may have on an
11 existing single-family subdivision, the decision was made to
12 retain all of the existing single-family subdivisions into
• 13 the RL zone.
14 And so what you have is a major subtraction of
15 LMN zoned areas for any developed single-family subdivision.
16 That left all the yellow areas that were not part of a
17 single-family subdivision in the LMN zone.
18 And so the Brophy property -- I think you also
19 are familiar with the Worthington property further north on
20 Shields Street, and there are a number of those types of
21 small pieces of property in single-family neighborhoods that
22 were retained in the LMN zone to provide the opportunity in
23 some of the cases -- the residents, the single-family
24 neighborhoods, had no sort of convenience services or
25 opportunities for mixed uses, whether it be multifamily
•
W
1 residential, lower -scale multifamily residential, or office
2 development that would be consistent with the mixed -use
3 characteristics of City Plan. So that's why these areas
4 were retained as LMN areas.
5 MS. CRAIG: Okay. I'm looking at the structure
6 map, and you know, we've got the MMN and the NC just north
7 of this corner on the structure map. So we've taken care of
8 multifamily, et cetera. And then, as a matter of fact, this
9 specific corner is green. So obviously, we were looking at
10 trying to buffer something.
11 MR. WAIDO: I believe the green designation there
12 is because of Mayo Creek, which was just an attempt to show
13 that there was a possibility of some type of natural green
14 corridor through the area. I don't think that the intent of
15 the structure plan was for this to be an open lands area.
16 MS. CRAIG: No, I agree with you there. But
17 obviously, we felt it had enough significance to leave it as
18 a green corridor. So I guess --
19 MR. WAIDO: And that's --
20 MS. CRAIG: What my question is, if Mayo Creek is
21 there, it doesn't quite match that we want to turn it into a
22 neighborhood center.
23 MR. WAIDO: Well, it depends on what -- you need
24 to look at the broad uses of neighborhood centers.
25 Something like along Lemay Avenue, just south of Stuart
• 41
r-I
LJ
1 Street, where there's some professional offices there that
2 integrate into the Stonehenge entryway are the types of
3 things we were looking at providing --
4 MS. CRAIG: So that was kind of what you had in
5 mind and it would complement this Mayo Creek buffer?
6 MR. WAIDO: Recognizing that this area -- and
7 I've heard people talk about the neighborhood shopping
8 center that's planned for about a quarter mile north of the
9 intersection. We have a convenience shopping center being
10 built at Seneca and Harmony further west. And there's
11 another LMN area where Harmony curves back to the west,
12 Harmony and Taft Hill Road, the southwest quadrant of that,
• 13 is also zoned LMN, again, because it was not part of a
14 single-family subdivision when we were doing the Land Use
15 Code.
16 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you. I think you were
17 very helpful.
18 MR. WAIDO: You're welcome.
19 MR. GAVALDON: Any other Board questions?
20 Okay. I have one, if I can jump in. Steve,
21 Mr. Brophy made some statements about distance to the other
22 centers and some of our approvals he made, and it's kind of
23 in contradiction to what we presented earlier. Can you shed
24 some light on that?
25 MR. OLT: Well, if I'm not mistaken, the
0
42
1 references were to, you know, the location of this site to,
2 for instance, the Seneca Center. Which is just under
3 three-quarters of a mile to the west. And in fact, that
4 is -- well, I shouldn't say "in fact." Mr. Brophy indicated
5 that is not a neighborhood center.
6 I quite frankly don't know if it was reviewed and
7 approved under the Land Development Guidance System or the
8 Land Use Code. However, regardless, it was either a
9 neighborhood convenience shopping center under the old
10 system, which, basically, is the same type of center as the
11 neighborhood center in the Land Use Code.
12 We're looking at a site that's seven acres or
13 less. The nature of the uses are identical. The separation
14 requirements were there. They have obviously been carried
15 over from the Land Development Guidance System for spacing
16 between neighborhood centers so we don't have a
17 proliferation of neighborhood centers along the arterial
18 streets. It's been carried into the Land Use Code for a
19 neighborhood center.
20 Yes, there's a property to the north that's zoned
21 NC. That's neighborhood commercial. That's a larger
22 center. That's a different anchor base type of facility.
23 But it could have some of the uses also, if that were to
24 develop first and there were a convenience store in there,
25 for instance, that would preclude the ability to have, let's
•
43
E
1 say, a convenience store with fuel sales here, because of
2 the separation requirement.
3 So, really, I don't think there's any
4 contradiction of the Code in terms of that separation
5 requirement from this site and the intended uses that have
6 been expressed to us by the applicant to the -- well, what
7 is now existing, because the Seneca Center is under
8 construction. That is existing development or the proposed
9 development to the north.
10 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you for the clarity. I just
11 wanted to make sure we got it on the record. Any other
12 thoughts? Any other Board questions?
• 13 MR. COLTON: I was just trying to clarify, what
14 are the permitted uses on this court? Because I see on one
15 place, small retail, less than 5,000 is permitted, but --
16 that's in -- whatever -- 2C.3 --
17 MR. OLT: Well, are we talking about from the LMN
18 zoning district in the Land Use Code?
19 MR. COLTON: Yes.
20 MR. OLT: All the permitted uses, or are we
21 talking, for instance, a neighborhood center?
22 MR. COLTON: Specifically around a neighborhood
23 center. I guess my question comes down to, are -- okay --
24 MR. OLT: Okay. Right out of the Code, a
25 neighborhood center which is permitted in the LMN zoning
•
1 district that would not require a modification would
2 contain -- and I'm reading this from the Code. Neighborhood
3 centers consisting of at least two of the following uses.
4 Mixed -use dwelling units, which is -- in one building, you'd
5 have a residential unit and some other use, such as retail
6 or office use. Retail stores with less than 5,000 square
7 feet of gross floor area. So we're talking about small
8 retail uses. Convenience retail stores. Note, however, it
9 does not say with fuel sales. You can have a convenience
10 retail store, but it cannot have fuel sales associated with
11 it. Personal and business service shops. Small animal
12 veterinary facilities. Offices. Financial services and
13 clinics containing less than 5,000 square feet of first
14 floor area. Again, those type of uses would have to be very
15 small.
16 And then you can have community facilities,
17 neighborhood support, recreation facilities, schools, child
18 care centers, and churches. Those are permitted in a
19 neighborhood center as, quite frankly, a type 1 use or an
20 administrative review use, without modifications.
21 MR. COLTON: Okay. In section -- well, a couple
22 pages back, page 24, article 4(3)(b), Location. It says a
23 neighborhood center shall be planned as an integral part of
24 a surrounding neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera, and it
25 says neighborhood centers with retail uses or restaurants
• • 45
n
LJ
1 located on arterial streets shall be spaced at least
2 3,000 -- or three-quarters of a mile apart.
3 MR. OLT: Correct.
4 MR. COLTON: So if I read that one, then it seems
5 like it contradicts or it has a location requirement which,
6 if we define this other place as a neighborhood center,
7 would say, we can't have retail uses on this corner as well?
8 MR. OLT: Right. Of larger than 5,000 square
9 feet.
10 MR. COLTON: Well, this just says neighborhood
11 centers with retail uses or restaurants.
12 MR. OLT: That's the way I interpret it.
• 13 Obviously, "restaurants" is clear. You can't have
14 restaurants within three quarters of a mile of one another.
15 MR. COLTON: I think maybe for everyone's
16 benefit, we might want to clarify, figure out what really
17 applies here. Because in one place, it sounds like it's a
18 permitted use, but given the locational criteria, it sounds
19 like it's not a permitted use.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Paul, can you shed some light on
21 this, please?
22 MR. GLOSS: I wanted to make a correction,
23 because I think that was a little bit off. In that
24 neighborhood centers as a type 1 or administrative use, it
25 would include restaurants are acceptable under that type of
•
1 review, if they had a three-quarter mile separation. I
2 think Steve had mentioned that would not be permissible
3 under a type 1 review.
4 MR. GAVALDON: So they're tied together then?
5 MR. GLOSS: Yeah, actually, retail and
6 restaurants are tied together.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay.
8 MR. COLTON: So they aren't permitted under a
9 type 1 --
10 MR. GLOSS: They still have to be spaced at
11 three-quarter miles, but that would be permitted as a type 1
12 use.
13 MR. COLTON: But not in this particular location.
14 MR. GLOSS: That's correct, yes.
15 MR. COLTON: Because we've determined, or at
16 least staff has determined, that this is less than three
17 quarters of a mile --
18 MR. GLOSS: That's correct, yes.
19 MR. COLTON: Okay.
20 MR. OLT: Yes, and that interpretation was made.
21 That's attached to your staff report. There was an
22 interpretation done two years ago by the previous planning
23 director as previously noted, indicating that, that at that
24 time, the center to the west was only planned. Now it's a
25 reality. And at that time, Mr. Blanchard made an
• 47
r1
LJ
1 interpretation that it's within three-quarters of a mile.
2 Therefore, a neighborhood center with certain uses on this
3 site would require a modification or modifications.
4 MR. COLTON: Right. Yeah. I was just a little
5 unclear, because I think we specifically stated it wouldn't
6 allow a convenience store with fuel sales, it wouldn't allow
7 a restaurant, but it didn't say it would not allow retail.
8 MR. OLT: Stand corrected.
9 MR. COLTON: None of the three of those would be
10 allowed, given that interpretation.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Anybody got any more questions?
12 Are we getting ready for a motion? Just want to be clear
• 13 that the recommendation is denial of the modification as
14 noted in our staff reports. So I want to make sure we're
15 clear with the direction.
16 MR. COLTON: Well, I just had another question on
17 this issue of the trees and the park -like nature of this.
18 What part of those trees are going to be destroyed by the
19 road alone, even if there isn't any development going on in
20 this property other than that? Is there anyone on staff
21 that can address that? Because I'm wondering if people are
22 thinking they're going -- that they're still going to have
23 this park -like atmosphere and part of it might be destroyed
24 anyway, just because of the road widening.
25 MR. GAVALDON: Ward's coming down.
•
M.
1 Mr. Brophy, you need to come up and speak to the
2 microphone, and we'll have Ward chime in.
3 MR. BROPHY: I've spoken to the streets people,
4 and all the trees on Harmony will be destroyed. There will
5 also be a couple of elm trees that aren't valuable on
6 Shields destroyed.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you very much. Ward,
8 can you help out with the answer, please.
9 MR. STANFORD: The drawings I've seen Eric
10 working on and with Matt Baker, a fair amount of them on
11 Harmony, adjacent to the roadway, would be. "All of them,"
12 I think, is not quite accurate, but a fair amount of them
13 would be.
14 Now with the roundabout possibility that we're
15 also looking at, it would take fewer amount of them. The
16 four -lane concept is taking more.
17 MR. COLTON: Okay. It looks like someone from
18 the homeowners association can maybe address which trees
19 they really think are the ones --
20 MR. LEAK: I actually counted them. There are
21 five large cottonwood trees that would be removed as a
22 result of widening the street and the possibility of four,
23 if I remember the trees as well. And I don't have the exact
24 number of the total number of trees on the property. Maybe
25 Mr. Brophy does, but I would estimate it's about 15 percent
Wo
1 of the trees, the large -growth trees, that are currently on
2 the property.
3 MR. COLTON: So the trees you're talking about
4 with owls are other trees.
5 MR. LEAK: I'm sorry?
6 MR. COLTON: The trees you're talking about with
7 owls and so forth are not the ones along Harmony, then.
8 MR. LEAK: Right. The nests I referred to
9 earlier in my discussion are not in the trees that will be
10 removed as a result of widening this street.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
12 Ward, I know this is probably off the subject,
• 13 but it has been brought up about the widening. So right
14 now, we're unclear whether we go roundabout or four -lane.
15 So a number of trees will have to be assessed by the City
16 Forester. And I know we made quite creative designs to
17 retain trees as much as we can, like on north on Shields
18 there, past Horsetooth, where they saved the trees and still
19 widened Shields, and I think we've done that in other areas.
20 So the view I share is that we're not sure yet, but there
21 will be some impact, but that's a separate process. Would
22 that be correct?
23 MR. STANFORD: They will have to look at some of
24 the tree issue, all right. Part of the issue on where it's
25 sited is also due to the property that's on that northeast
0
50
1 corner. And it is reasonably close to the intersection. So
2 you're constrained by that as to how far north you can push
3 the intersection. So that has some of the elements as to
4 how it's sited and being able to joggle it around a little
5 bit. And the roundabout is one of them that we're looking
6 at to try and improve that condition, as well as the
7 mobility.
8 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
9 Any other questions?
10 Are we getting close to a motion?
11 MS. CRAIG: I'll make a stab at it.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you, Sally.
13 MS. CRAIG: I move that we deny the modifications
14 with the findings of facts, conclusions, put down in the
15 staff report as our justification.
16 MR. GAVALDON: Okay.
17 MR. BERNTH: I would second that motion.
18 MR. GAVALDON: The motion is for moving -- the
19 motion and second is for denial of the modifications as
20 noted on the staff report. Discussion? Okay.
21 MR. COLTON: I'll be supporting the motion
22 because I think it's pretty clear that these uses weren't
23 intended to be allowed that close to another neighborhood
24 center. And certainly on the drive-ins, however, for the
25 neighbors, I guess, I live fairly close to this area, in
• • 51
r1
LJ
1 Clarendon Hills, and frankly, if it could be done well, I
2 would have actually appreciated an area with a small little
3 restaurant, maybe some little walk-in retail type things,
4 where we could go to without driving somewhere.
5 I don't think it's any small deal to get into the
6 car and drive over to Horsetooth and Shields. I think
7 that's a big deal, compared to being able to ride your bikes
8 or walk into a place. And I think it would serve your
9 interests to work with the Brophys on what you think should
10 be going in this and what you could work with him to
11 support, because there are a lot of other uses permitted
12 that may do away with this park -like atmosphere anyway.
• 13 One idea would maybe -- there's enough of you out
14 there, maybe you should go in and buy that property from him
15 and make it into your own little park or something if you
16 value it that much. Otherwise, there are a lot of other
17 uses that are permitted that you may not like any more than
18 this. Now, certainly, I wouldn't want to -- with a gas
19 station there, but a restaurant? I don't know. Depending
20 on what it is. Not a drive-in. But maybe a small little,
21 you know, South China type little restaurant or something
22 which I go to, would have to get in my car to drive to, but
23 not necessarily be a bad idea.
24 So I just want you to, you know, be thinking
25 because probably something is going to happen here, and
•
52
1 you'll be better off working with him as opposed to just
2 saying nothing -- or with them and figuring out something
3 that can be both your needs and their needs as well.
4 MR. GAVALDON: I'd like to add some comments, and
5 that is, one, I thank the neighborhood for a thorough
6 presentation and detailed analysis of the Land Use Code and
7 citing the policies and information. I think that was well
8 done, and I think that makes it very important, to be
9 prepared.
10 However I have to appreciate the lady who has the
11 property, offering her concerns, whether she agreed with the
12 proposal or not, but she's going to be impacted. And I
13 think the applicant needs to recognize that there's a --
14 what's called a partnership, and that's with your neighbor
15 to the south and the neighbors in the neighborhood. Because
16 their back yards do back up to it.
17 I've lived here for 46 years. I was born here.
18 So I've watched that area go up and down, and I've been
19 caught in the traffic, too. So my view I share is that
20 staff's findings are sound. The policies are clear,
21 concise, and they do link to each other. And I believe that
22 Steve and staff has done a very fine job in recognizing it
23 and the neighborhood has pointed it out very strong but
24 doesn't say what's going to prevent something from happening
25 in there.
0 0 53
•
1 But I do agree with Glen. You really need to
2 look at a strong partnership and involve the neighborhood to
3 make it a success. Otherwise, we'll meet back here again,
4 and I think it's important that we have a partnership to
5 work together. And I'll be supporting the denial -- the
6 motion for denial as well, because the findings are very
7 sound.
8 Any other thoughts?
9 Vote, please.
10 THE CLERK: Bernth?
11 MR. BERNTH: Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Colton.
• 13 MR. COLTON: Yes.
14 THE CLERK: Torgerson.
15 MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
16 THE CLERK: Meyer.
17 MS. MEYER: Yes.
18 THE CLERK: Craig.
19 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
20 THE CLERK: Gavaldon.
21 MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
22 Motion passes for denial.
23 (Matter concluded.)
24
25
•
54
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Registered Professional
5 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby
6 certify that the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter
7 of the application by Mark and Mary Brophy, and recorded on
8 Thursday, June 27, 2001, 2001, at 300 West Laporte Street,
9 Fort Collins, Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and
10 reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 53 pages; that
11 said transcript is an accurate and complete record of the
12 proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16 Attested to by me this 5th day of August, 2001.
17
19
•C�
�$ J on T. adorn
20 ro., a . eadors ourt Reporting, LLC
T�•.. �4+° 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266
21 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
22
My commission expires January 6, 2001.
23
24
25
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 10
Project:
Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32, Midpoint Self -
Storage — Project Development Plan
Project Description: Request for a mini -storage facility on 3.4 acres
consisting of 49,535 sq. ft. of storage units, a
1,124 sq. ft. office/maintenance unit, a 1,048
sq. ft. residential unit and outdoor storage for
motorhomes, RVs, and boats. The property is
located on the south side of Midpoint Drive,
south of East Prospect Road, east of South
Timberline Road, and north of East Drake
Road. Zoning is I - Industrial
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Steve Olt, Planner, gave the staff presentation stating that this is a request for a mini -
storage facility located on about 3.5 acres consisting of 49,500 sq. ft. of storage units,
1,124 sq. ft. office/maintenance unit, and a 1,000 sq. ft. residential unit. There will be
outdoor storage for recreational vehicles, motorhomes, and boats on the rear of the
property. The site is located in the Prospect Industrial Park which is south and east of
the intersection of East Prospect Road and Timberline Road. Access into the area is
from Midpoint Drive off Timberline and Sharp Point Road off East Prospect Road.
The site will be fenced completely, or the back of the buildings will act as the 'fencing.'
There are several existing trees on the site. There are two large cottonwood trees on
the site. City Staff, in particular Tim Buchanan, City Forester, has determined that one
cottonwood tree is significant and must be preserved under the Land Use Code
guidelines. The applicant has requested a modification to the standard that would allow
the tree to be removed. Mitigation would be provided with the planting of 6 additional
trees. Staff is recommending approval of that modification request.
Barry Sherman, representing Midpoint Development LLC, gave the applicant's
presentation. He stated that various options have been explored regarding the tree
removal and the applicant feels that the submitted option is the best.
Citizen Input
None.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 11
Member Craig asked about setback requirements for the buildings, pointing out that
there is no setback for some of the buildings.
Planner Olt replied that the zero setback was deemed appropriate rather than having a
'double -fence' situation where the buildings are functioning as a fence.
Member Craig asked if some sort of setback could be arranged such that there would
be a landscaping buffer between the storage building and the neighboring development.
Planner Olt replied that was a possibility.
Member Craig asked if the applicant submitted any drawings to try to work around the
one significant tree.
Planner Olt replied they did not.
Mr. Sherman stated that the applicant did meet with City staff prior to submittal and
found that fire access and waterline loops became a problem when the tree remained in
the design. There is question as to how long the tree will survive, particularly when
pavement is added around it. The City Forester determined the tree to be approximately
80 to 100 years old.
Member Craig asked what the caliper of the mitigating trees could be.
Mr. Sherman replied that staff recommended six trees as mitigation, it was a negotiated
amount. Two trees were to be placed in the front and four in the rear. The caliper of the
trees was estimated to be 2.5 to 3 inches.
Member Craig asked what species the trees were.
Mr. Sherman replied that they are all 3 inch caliper Autumn Blaze Maples.
Planner Olt stated that the 3 inch caliper is one inch smaller than required. Tim
Buchanan found this caliper to be adequate for this particular mitigation.
Member Craig asked why Tim picked a Maple rather than a more native species.
Planner Olt replied that he was not involved in the negotiations.
Member Torgerson asked about the potential uses for the property across the rail road
tracks that is currently zoned T — Transition.
Planner Olt replied that the area is potentially planned to be residential.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 12
Planning Director Gloss stated that the original concept plan did include residential but
the final decision has not yet been made.
Member Torgerson asked about a knoll that looks over the industrial park and how that
might be buffered if the area were to be residential. He stated that the significant tree
would have made a good buffer.
Member Colton asked how the 3 inch caliper trees were decided upon and for cost
estimates on the trees.
An unidentified member of the audience replied that the trees were approximately $400
each.
Member Colton asked if $2400 worth of trees was adequate compensation.
Planner Olt replied that the City Forester has deemed the mitigation to be appropriate.
He added that the Code states that mitigation can be no less than one and no more
than six trees.
Member Colton asked how tall 3 inch caliper trees would be.
Member Bernth asked if there would be any flexibility in the size of the mitigating trees.
He stated that, according to the map, approximately 12 units would be lost in the plan if
the tree were to remain.
Member Craig asked what the Code criteria was for setback requirements.
Planning Director Gloss replied that he would research it.
Member Bemth asked if there would be any possibility for greater mitigation.
Mr. Sherman replied that their clients were completely open to any type of mitigation
although the ceiling seemed to be 6 trees. A 3 inch caliper tree is fairly large. Larger
trees may not tend to grow as well. He said they would be open to suggestions of
adding other trees if the location would work.
Member Torgerson asked about the four trees in the back and if they were clustered
together to avoid the water quality pond.
Mr. Sherman replied that it was.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 13
Chairman Gavaldon suggested continuing the project so the City Forester and the
applicant could discuss planting more trees and location of trees.
Member Bemth stated that he did not think that was necessary, he was comfortable
with Mr. Buchanan's assessment.
Member Colton asked whether or not Mr. Buchanan truly felt this to be adequate
compensation or if it was the best that could be done after deliberating with the
applicant.
Doug Moore, Natural Resources, stated that the Code calls for no more than six
mitigating trees per lost significant tree. This is according to Code section 3.2.1.
Mr. Sherman stated that he had a letter from Planning Director Gloss which contained
the suggestions from City Forester Buchanan.
Chairman Gavaldon asked for copies.
Planning Director Gloss stated that Code section 3.2.1(i)(7) states that larger than
minimum sizes shall be required for replacement trees but it does not set a specific
caliper size so that is to be at the discretion of staff. With respect to the setback issue,
there are no specific setbacks for the rear or side yard unless it abuts a residential use
or residentially zoned property. This is an unusual circumstance because this property
abuts one that is in the T — Transition zone. There is some discussion from the
developer that it could be residential. If the area were zoned residential, the required
landscape setback would be 80 feet.
Planner Olt stated that the setback in question was along the side property line which
does not abut the potential residential neighborhood.
Planning Director Gloss stated that no setback requirement exists between buildings in
the industrial park.
Member Craig stated that the structure map shows the area currently zoned as
Transition, as -Urban Estate, making it almost necessarily residential in the future. She
asked if that could be used as criteria since it is currently zoned T — Transition.
Planning Director Gloss stated that the zoning is different than the Structure Plan
designation.
. Paul Eckman, City Attorney, stated that if the structure plan shows Urban Estate and if
the zone were to be changed from T to some other zone, it would seem to have to go to
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 14
Urban Estate unless the applicant could show justification for changing the structure
plan.
Member Torgerson asked if the buffer between the industrial zoning and the residential
zoning only applies to areas that are currently being used as residential, not to areas
that could potentially be residential.
Planning Director Gloss replied that the standard cites a residential land use or a zone
district. He added that the railroad right-of-way provides a definite buffer.
Member Torgerson asked if a railroad track next to vehicles parked along the rear of the
property was really a buffer to a residential zone district.
Planner Olt stated that there is still a 20 or 30 foot setback from the property line to
where the vehicles would be stored, then the railroad right-of-way, then the
neighborhood.
Member Torgerson stated that there is another application in the process where the
applicant went to great lengths to buffer the same use from a residential area. He added
that the cottonwood would make a great buffer. He stated that it might be detrimental to
the public good to remove the tree by virtue of the aforementioned buffer standard.
Member Colton asked if it would be possible for the applicant to add two or three more
trees along the rear of the property to provide a continuous screen to help improve the
buffer and provide mitigation for the cottonwood.
Member Torgerson stated that he did not believe the Board would be within their rights
to ask the applicant to do that.
Member Colton asked if the applicant would be willing to do that, even though the Code
does not require it.
Mr. Sherman replied that the applicant would be willing to add the trees if that would get
the project approved.
Mr. Eckman stated that the Board could place conditions on modifications and those
conditions could be focused in any way the Board feels necessary to mitigate the
circumstances.
Member Torgerson moved for approval of the Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32,
Midpoint Self -Storage Modification of Standards with the condition that three
additional 3 inch caliper trees be planted between this property and the Urban
11
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 15
Estate property across the railroad tracks; the location and species of those trees
should be discussed with the City Forester.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that she would not support the motion because she cannot
support cutting down a 100-year-old tree. Going from three trees to one tree has
already provided mitigation and the loss in units, which may create about $1000 per
month in income, does not make up for the loss of the tree.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Prospect Industrial Park, Lot 32,
Midpoint Self -Storage Project Development Plan, File #28-98B.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Craig voting in the negative.
Project:
Project Description:
Recommendation:
Elizabeth Street Apartments — Project
Development Plan and Modification of
Standards
Request for a 50-unit, single building
apartment on 1.95 acres located north of
Elizabeth Street between City Park Avenue
and Constitution Avenue. The applicant is also
requesting modification of two City Standards.
The property is zoned MMN — Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Brian Grubb, City Planner, gave the staff presentation. He stated that this is a combined
application for approval of a PDP and two modifications. The site is located north of
Elizabeth Street between Constitution and City Park Avenues and is zoned MMN. It is
surrounded on three sides with MMN zoning, one side with commercial, and one side
with CSU property. The multi -family use is allowed in the MMN zone district. There are
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 16
two criteria that need to be considered for the modification. The first modification is a
request for a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 78 to 50. The second
modification is for a reduction in the required amount of outdoor gathering space from
10,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet. Staff is supporting the parking modification due
to similar modifications on other similar projects. Staff is also supporting the outdoor
gathering space modification. The applicant is also proposing indoor gathering space.
Kevin Homer, Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC, gave the applicant's presentation. The
proposed community is a 50-unit, affordable senior community. All units are considered
affordable at 40% of Larimer County's median income. This equates to $400-$500 per
month rents, targeting a two -person household with less than a $20,000 per year
income. The location of the site is convenient for senior living as it is close to shopping
and transportation.
With regard to the modification request for the relief of the 10,000 square foot park
requirement, Mr. Horner pointed out that this is an infill site. Although the site is listed as
1.94 acres, the easements and setbacks limit the usable space to less than 1.5 acres.
The outdoor gathering space consists of an open, landscaped gathering area with
benches, umbrellas, and trees to provide a park -like setting. An area with benches is
also provided along the Elizabeth side of the building. A 2,800 square foot interior
gathering space is also provided. Interior space in a senior community is often more
flexible than exterior space given sensitivity to weather conditions and so forth. The
combination of the exterior and interior gathering space does meet the purpose and
intent of a pending Code revision by providing more than 6% of the land area for
gathering purposes. The location of the property is actually 5/10 of a mile from Avery
Park and 7/10 of a mile from City Park.
With regard to the modification of the parking requirement, the applicant referred to the
space restraint as well as the examples of other projects. There will be a deed
restriction against this property for 40 years that will keep this a senior, affordable
community.
Citizen Input
None.
Ken Waido, on behalf of the Affordable Housing Board, stated that the Board strongly
urges the Planning and Zoning Board to approve this project because of the need for
rental housing, especially lower -income rental housing for seniors, in our community.
The Affordable Housing Board also recognizes that this project needs some
modifications to Standards but feels it is sufficiently close to public parkland and that
lower -income seniors do not create parking demand like a college project might.
0
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 17
Member Craig asked about traffic impacts on Elizabeth Street.
Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations department, replied that about 10,000 cars drive
Elizabeth Street daily. He added that Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations department
reviewed the project and felt very comfortable with it's impacts on the traffic situation on
Elizabeth.
Member Craig asked about access to the outside park area.
Planner Grubb replied that there are pedestrian islands in the parking lot and that it is
24 feet across the parking lot. With only about 28 parking spaces on the east side of
that crossing, the volume will be low. Striping or pavement raising was not discussed.
He added that the access to the park was ADA accessible.
Member Craig asked for some other type of striping or raised pavement for the area
between the building and the park.
David Klockeman, JR Engineering, replied that striping has already been proposed and
• has been included throughout the application.
Chairman Gavaldon asked how many of the applicant's prior projects were in an area
with student or international housing nearby.
Mr. Horner replied that none of their previous project were surrounded by student
housing.
Chairman Gavaldon asked for justification for compatibility with the surrounding
environment.
Tom Erickson, Simpson Housing, replied that although they have no senior housing
projects next to college or international housing projects, many of their senior housing
projects are next to affordable family housing projects.
Chairman Gavaldon asked for data on how these projects worked and fit together.
Mr. Erickson replied that they had no data with them but when locating a senior housing
community, they look for location in relation to other services. In this case, the location
has good access to shopping, alternative transportation, sidewalks, and the senior
center.
0 Chairman Gavaldon again asked for justification for the location.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 18
Planner Grubb stated that he received a call from CSU's International Housing manager
who said he was excited about creating some partnerships between the international
students and seniors. There are seniors who would like to be in the college campus
environment, closer to cultural activities and educational opportunities.
Chairman Gavaldon asked what the plan would look like if it were held to the 10,000
square foot requirement for outdoor park space.
Mr. Erickson replied that they would not be able to move forward.
Chairman Gavaldon asked if they had any proof that it would not be feasible or what the
plan would look like if it were closer to the 10,000 square foot requirement.
Mr. Erickson stated that site water detention was also a consideration. The only usable
plan that will incorporate the setbacks, easements, required detention, and some
outdoor open space, is the one submitted.
Chairman Gavaldon asked if they had looked at breaking the building up
Mr. Erickson replied that they had and it did not work as well.
Chairman Gavaldon asked if they had considered a smaller number than 50 units.
Mr. Erickson replied that 50 units provided the most financial feasibility.
Member Colton stated that the open space area was smaller for 50 units than most
single family homes have for one unit. He expressed concern over cutting down the size
of the outdoor space. He stated that the number of units could be decreased.
Member Torgerson stated that if the City is to encourage affordable housing, everything
that is expected in a high -end development cannot be expected for this project.
Member Colton stated that he disagreed with the perception that seniors could not live
next to college students. He added that most people will not use a park if it is more than
'/, mile away.
Member Meyer stated that she has the same concern as Member Colton about making
an exception.
Planner Grubb stated that they probably won't see many similar modification requests
because it is so much more expensive to provide the interior gathering space. The
reason this developer is making the trade-off from exterior space to interior space is
because it is so important to seniors.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 19
Chairman Gavaldon stated that he supports affordable housing but won't let it lessen
the City standards. The users deserve the required outside space.
Member Bernth commended the applicant's creativity in utilizing the space and
mentioned that infill projects should be welcomed.
Member Colton stated that the criteria for privately -owned parks go beyond just
requiring 10,000 square feet, they also require high visibility, accessibility, and safety.
He felt that this park does not meet any of these standards.
Planner Grubb states that the visibility criteria relates to safety and added that this park
area is extremely visible and highly secure.
Mr. Waido stated that across the country, governmental regulations are considered a
barrier to the development of affordable housing and strict application of standards is
always at issue.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Elizabeth Street Apartments,
Modification of Standards, File #19-99A.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated that she would support the motion because people enjoy walking
in the evening, not sitting in a park. The gained amenities outweigh the losses.
Member Gavaldon stated that he would not support the motion because the
modifications are not enhancing. Affordable housing is important but it is also important
to create well -designed projects.
The motion was approved 4-2, with Members Meyer and Gavaldon voting in the
negative.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Elizabeth Street Apartments, Project
Development Plan, File #19-99A.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 7, 2001
Page 20
Project:
Park South Commercial Plaza — Project
Development Plan
Project Description: Request for a development proposal located
just west of the existing Carmike Theater
building near the intersection of Manhattan and
Horsetooth. The 4.81-acre site consists of lots
3A, 3B, 3D, and 4 and the Park South
Commercial Plaza, and is zoned C —
Commercial. The applicant proposes a mini -
storage complex with two supplemental two-
story mixed -use buildings, which would house
the mini -storage manager's office and
residence and would also have office space
available for lease.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
The Board opted to treat this item as a consent item.
Member Bernth moved for approval of the Park South Commercial Plaza, Project
Development Plan, File #37-94C.
Member Torgerson seconded the motion.
Member Craig stated her concern about locating mini -storage in the area.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Other Business
Planning Director Gloss stated that the Mason Street Corridor plan would involve use
and design standards that may change the allowable uses for the area. He suggested
that the Board use a worksession to look at the work plan for Current Planning.
Member Craig stated that it may be worth looking at the mini -storage issue in all zones.
Chairman Gavaldon stated that he approved of having the Land Use Code revisions be
the only item for a meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.