The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/03/1992PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 3, 1992 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Tom Peterson The regular meeting continued from July 27, 1992, of the Planning and Zoning board began at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Bernie Strom, Vice -Chairman Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, Jim Klataske, Laurie O'Dell, and Jan Cottier. Rene Clements -Cooney was absent. Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Assistant City Attorney John Duval, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Kerrie Ashbeck, Mike Herzig, Patti Schneeberger, and Eric Bracke. Mr. Peterson presented the Consent Agenda which consisted of: Item 1 - Minutes of the June 22 and 29, 1992 meetings; Item 2 - Bauder School - Advisory Review, Case #36-92; Item 3 - Resolution PZ92-8 - Vacation of Utility Easement; and Item 4 - Resolution PZ92-10 - Vacation of an Access and Utility Easement. • Mr. Peterson presented the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: Item 5 - Referral by the Planning Director of an Administrative Change to Park Central PUD, Tract C; Item 6 - College Park PUD - Preliminary, Case #2-87G; Item 7 - Hill Pond East Subdivision - Preliminary, Case #35-92; and Item 8 - Timberline Court Apartments PUD - Preliminary, Case #32-83D. Member Carroll moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1-4. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed 6-0. Member Cottier wished that the Board reconsider the approval of 1216 Maple Street Multi - Family Use Request - Site Plan Review. She stated the reason for reconsideration would be to add a restriction of the number of occupants per unit to two. Member Cotner moved to reconsider 1216 Maple Street Multi -Family Use Request - Site Plan Review. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Cottier stated that her concern was that primarily in the event the property might revert to private ownership at some point that there be a safeguard placed against having four families occupy the small units. She felt that the Board should insure that the impact of the project is as minimal as possible. Therefore, she proposed to approve the project as discussed previously with the added condition that the number of occupants per unit be limited to two. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 2 Member Walker felt that the proposal was a good idea. He felt that the Board was struggling with the same issue last week. He felt that the Housing Authority targeted a certain group of clients which would imply the intent of Member Cottier's motion and felt it was appropriate to state the City's case and not just rely on the Housing Authority's position. Chairman Strom stated that the motion before the Board was strictly to reconsider. The motion to reconsider passed 6-0. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the reconsidered project. Mr. David Herrera, Housing Authority, was concerned about the reconsideration because he felt that at the previous meeting there was full discussion and understanding on this issue. The timing of the project was very awkward and difficult and asked that if the Board were to do this type of reconsideration again in the future that they realize the impact on the applicant. Mr. Herrera stated that the Housing Authority has entered into contracts and have begun the process for the project. Secondly, he is concerned about the impact of restriction on occupancy of two persons per unit. He assumed that occupancy was in regard to permanent residents and not visitors. The Housing Authority's administrative plan does permit guests for the unit and felt that guests changes the number of occupancy. What does occupancy mean to the Board? Thirdly, he felt that there is a potential for a fair housing/equal opportunity problem. The problem is while the units are intended to be restricted for elderly, disabled or handicapped it is entirely conceivable that there could be two disabled individuals who could have children. The impact of a situation of that sort is that if the zoning restriction were to be placed then that family would need to be displaced. He stated that type of discriminatory impact on a family could become a problem under the Fair Housing/Equal Opportunity Act. Another concern is if the project meets the requisites of the Westside Neighborhood Plan and the LDGS standards, etc. for approval then a use restriction seems to be beyond the review that is requested of the plan. He felt that this type of restriction, while it is consistent with the administrative plans, does constrain the Housing Authority's ability if market changes were to occur in the future. Member O'Dell asked that a clarification be made in regard to the Housing Authority's policy that in the event if a single parent were to be married would the Housing Authority plan to move that family and in what timeframe would that occur? P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Herrera stated that it would be the Housing Authority's intention to move the family as soon as possible. However, under the zoning restriction that is being reconsidered it would mean that immediate notice must be served; therefore, it would not provide ample time for the Housing Authority to find proper housing for that family. Member O'Dell asked what kind of timeframe does it take to move a family in that type of situation? Mr. Herrera stated it would be upgrading from a one bedroom to a two bedroom. Two bedrooms are more frequently available; however it could take up to 30 days to make a move available. That would only be providing that the family is in agreement to moving. According to the Housing Authority's guidelines one child and two adults would not be considered overcrowding the unit. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Herrera to state what under their guidelines would be considered overcrowding? Mr. Herrera answered that the age of the child would be an impact on overcrowding and if one • more person were to move in that would be considered overcrowding. Chairman Strom asked for some background on whether the Board has the authority to review a site plan item in terms of limiting the occupancy? Mr. Peterson stated that under the criteria and standards that are set fourth in the LDGS that the Board does have the ability to set reasonable terms and conditions in a project of this sort. Mr. John Duval, Assistant City Attorney, stated that whatever condition the Board may impose has to be reasonably calculated to offset the impacts that are being mitigated. He felt that the Board must find in the record evidence to support that criteria under the LDGS is not being satisfied and evidence to support the condition that would mitigate that impact. Member Carroll asked if there are any zoning regulations that limit the number of people that can be placed in a one bedroom apartment? Mr. Duval responded that the requirement would be that no more than 3 unrelated persons can reside in a unit. Member Carroll then stated that a unit could contain a family of 12.' Mr. Duval agreed. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 4 Member Carroll asked if it would be proper for the Board to consider that this project would need to be brought back for review on occupancy if it ceased to be owned by the Housing Authority or is this an option that goes with the land? Mr. Peterson stated that conditions of this sort go with the land not with the owner. If the Housing Authority were to sell to the private sector then that use would come back for review. Member Carroll felt that the Board approves apartment complexes that are one bedroom apartments and felt that in parts of town that unit could be rented to a family of six as well. Member Cottier stated that her concern was that the project brings a considerable increase in density to the area. She felt it is a small lot and that several things are being added. She felt that the Board is obligated to insure that the impact is as minimal as possible and the only way to do that is to restrict occupancy. Member Cottier moved to approve 1216 Maple Street Multi -Family Use Request - Site Plan Review with the condition that the number of occupants per unit be limited to two individuals. Member Walker seconded the motion. Member Walker stated that he supports the condition because if the units were ever to transfer ownership he did not want to see the use of the units get lost in the transfer of ownership. Member O'Dell asked if Member Cottier meant occupant being permanent resident? Member Cottier stated that occupant did mean permanent resident. She obviously would not presume to restrict guests, but if someone is visiting for six months then there would be a question on whether they are guest or occupant. Chairman Strom asked if a single parent were to marry or a couple have a baby would there be enough flexibility to accommodate those kinds of instances without undo burden on the Housing Authority and the occupants? Mr. Peterson responded that the enforcement actions in situations of this sort are usually generated on a complaint basis. It depends on the residents in proximity to the project to inform the City of the problem and it also depends on the Housing Authority to keep compliance with the condition such as this. Member Cottier felt the assurance of the previous meeting that this project is in compliance with the Housing Authority's standard operating procedures, but in the event that it does turn over to a private owner only then would that cause some concern to enforce the condition through zoning. Member Cottier asked if the resident that spoke at the last meeting was present? • -• P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Randy Debey, 414 Tedmon Drive, stated that he did attend the previous meeting and that he agreed with Member Cottier's concerns. Member O'Dell stated that she could appreciate the concerns of the neighborhood; however, she felt that the condition was unreasonable and would not support the motion. Member Cottier reminded the Hoard that this was similar to a condition that Mr. Herrera theoretically offered to start with, at least that was how the project was presented initially. Member Carroll stated that he would oppose the motion because of the number. He was concerned with the Board dabbling with the Housing Authority regulations. Mr. Herrera did indicate that two disabled people could have a baby and that would definitely make that immediately a violation of the condition. He felt that would put everyone in a difficult position. Member Klataske stated that he is concerned with the project at some point in time being turned over to the private sector; however, he'felt that the information given at the previous meeting was complete. He stated that at the previous meeting the Board had the option to not grant the variance or approval of use of the fourplex and felt at this time he would not support the motion. • Chairman Strom asked that under the motion to reconsider, is the Board reconsidering the entire action? Mr. Duval stated that passage of the motion to reconsider results in the Board being in the exact position that they were prior to the original vote. Therefore, the Board is reconsidering the whole project. Chairman Strom stated that he would not support the motion due to the limitation to two occupants was overly stringent and could create administrative problems. The motion to approve with the condition failed 2-4. Member O'Dell moved approval of this item without any conditions. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-1. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO PARK CENTRAL F-U. TRACT C. Case #24-80E Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed administrative change recommending denial. Mr. Mery Eckman, Adcon Sign Company, stated that he was petitioning for the free standing P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Mery Eckman, Adcon Sign Company, stated that he was petitioning for the free standing sign on Tract C. Under the general sign code the free standing sign is acceptable to be placed on Tract C due to there not being one present. It would be allowed 120 square feet; however, the sign has been designed at 82 1/2 square feet which is representative of the entry sign. He felt it was designed compatible to the area and is not out of proportion. Member Walker asked that by sign code the tract could have a sign depending upon interpretation; however, this project was approved by a PUD; therefore, the issue is of precedence. Mr. Shepard agreed. Chairman Strom asked if Mr. Eckman was specifically asking for an additional monument sign? Mr. Shepard agreed. Chairman Strom asked that there is no consideration of modifications of the existing sign? Mr. Shepard stated that was not a consideration. Member O'Dell stated that consideration was mentioned as an alternative proposal. Mr. Shepard stated that was what he heard, but that was never presented to the planning staff for review. If there were changes to the existing free standing sign that is in the median of the curb cut, then that would not require an administrative change and would properly be issued a sign permit at the building counter. Member O'Dell asked if the sign was increased in size would that be an administrative change? Mr. Shepard stated that it would probably not be an administrative change due to the fact that the exact sign allowance is not indicated on the PUD. Member O'Dell understood why the Neighborhood Grill would like to advertise on Lemay, but felt that the sign in the median was capable for exposure; however, Showtime Video is very visible from Lemay Avenue. If Showtime also wanted to share the sign in the median that would be fine, but she certainly would not support adding an additional sign. Member Walker felt that this was reviewed as a PUD which includes the signage and does not see any hardship for a request for additional signage. P & Z Meeting Minutes . August 3, 1992 Page 7 Member Cottier felt the additional sign would be out of compliance with the PUD and therefore should not be allowed. Member Cottier moved to deny the Administrative Change to Park Central PUD. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed 6-0. COLLEGE PARK PUD, PRELIMINARY Case #2-87 Mr. Ted Shepard gave a description of the proposed project recommending denial. Member O'Dell wanted to know where the proposed spur that staff was recommending to go. Mr. Shepard stated that the proposed site for the spur is where the bike trail makes a 90 degree turn to the south. By providing this trail would be a way to discourage the feeling that someone is heading in the opposite direction of campus. thus making a straight path to the center of campus. He stated that creating this spur would encourage safety on the trail, promoting bicycle commuting, avoiding conflicts with recreational users, and discourage and minimize the temptation to take Farm Tree to Whitcomb this is seen as a necessary spur. Member O'Dell asked how wide the bike trail directly to the south of this proposed project? Mr. Shepard responded that the Spring Creek Trail is 8 feet in width. Member O'Dell asked if that was adequate to carry the students where they access it to the place where the proposed spur is going to go? Mr. Shepard stated that more width is better, but that widening of the trail has not been requested. If the trail were built today it would be built to a ten or twelve foot width. Member Carroll stated that the site was configured with most of the buildings located a substantial distance to the north of the Spring Creek Bike Trail that the inclination of a person is to go the shortest distance between two points. The people to the north will exist to the north and feel that the Spring Creek Bike Trail is not a real factor. Does staff have an observation on what would make people move to the South and make the loop around? Mr. Shepard replied that the destination for a CSU student is to go to the center of campus versus the western portion of campus unless going to the phys. ed. facilities, towers, or Moby Gym. With most of the classrooms, library, and activity being located right on Center Avenue people would tend to be more attracted to that destination. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 8 Member Carroll asked what type of bike path exists between Sheely and Prospect? Mr. Shepard responded that it was an attached sidewalk that is about 3.5 to 4 foot in width. In his opinion inadequate to carry bike traffic. Member Carroll asked if there was a marked bike path on Prospect? Mr. Shepard stated that there was not a marked bike path and that the lanes were not wide enough. Chairman Strom asked if there was a plan to add lanes through "Choices 95"? Mr. Shepard replied that there was no plan unless one was right at the intersection of Prospect and Shields. Chairman Strom clarified that there was no plan to add bicycle capacity on Prospect. Mr. Peterson stated that no there was not; but there are plans to upgrade the bicycle capacity on Shields north of the Prospect intersection. Chairman Strom asked if that upgrade was with a bike lane? Mr. Peterson stated that the exact configuration of the bike lanes are not decided as of yet, but reviewing both on and off street configurations at this point. Chairman Strom asked for some insight on the ditch that would need to be crossed by the spur? Mr. Shepard stated that the ditch to be crossed is a main ditch. Chairman Strom asked if a bridge structure, not just a culvert, be constructed? Mr. Shepard replied that the bridge that would need to be constructed would be the same as they are constructed along the bike trail today. Mr. Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects and Planners, introduced Ken Sibley and Charles Silverstein, PolarBek, Inc.; Don Parsons and Associates; Matt Deiich, Traffic Engineer; and Jim Sell, Landscape Architect are all hear to answer any questions that the Board may have. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 9 Ken Sibley, PolarBek, Inc., stated that PolarBek is a fairly large company owned by two corporate parents. The two parent corporations which support PolarBek are Polar Construction Company and BEK an industrial design corporation. PolarBek was founded in 1986 and is one of the largest development companies in Alabama and the southeast. They are involved in numerous areas such as multi -family housing, retail, office buildings, land development, and overseas activities. Mr. Sibley stated that the College Park product was first constructed 5 years ago and since that point the program has been continually developed. PolarBek has know developed eight propertiesthat are currently under operation in various states. The prototype for the properties are generally the same. The courtyard concept is constructed throughout all of the properties to provide a communal feeling to the residents. Their properties have a very strong amenity package which allows a lot of the recreation hours to remain on site. The package includes: pool, hot tub, tennis courts, basketball courts, sand volleyball, weight room, aerobic room, study centers (with computers, typewriters and printers), and a clubhouse. There are privacy officers which patrol the ground at all times and for the surrounding property owners as well as the residents there is a privacy fence that keeps the property secure. • The units are set up to accommodate one person per bedroom and that the apartment is leased by the bedroom. Each unit has a kitchen, bathroom and living room. The units are inspected several times a year. The units are also fully furnished. Mr. Vaught felt that the measure of whether the proposal wins a favorable or non -favorable vote from the Board should not be limited to what was presented at the hearing. It should also include the history of similar projects that have been presented before this Board in the past. He quoted sections from the Land Use Policies Plan that support the higher density residential units that PolarBek are proposing. Mr. Vaught went on to quote various objectives of the Land Development Guidance System which encouraged mixed use within the City. Mr. Vaught pointed out that in 1981 the Wind Trail PUD apartments were approved on the site by a unanimous vote that included 282 apartment units. In 1987 the Pulse PUD master plan was approved and currently in place on this piece of property. The neighborhood character is unique in having the greatest variety of mixed uses. Several times over the course of neighborhood meetings the question was asked "why this location?" The reason behind picking this location was because when going back through the history and looking at past proposals that were approved on the site, it appears that a proposal within the realm of apartments would certainly be feasible. When looking at the compliance with the Land Use Policies Plan it certainly is supportive of higher density residential on this site. The project achieved 120 points on the density chart, only 100 points were required. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 10 In reviewing the site, there are no vehicular connections to the neighborhood located to the east of the property. There is one controlled intersection at Stuart and Shields which would lead into the complex. The site has a great deal of natural amenities such as existing vegetation, Importation Canal, and the Spring Creek Trail which provide natural buffers on site. Over the period of 12 months several things have changed in regard to the specifics of the plan. PolarBek's concept to this project is a courtyard concept where all buildings cluster around a common courtyard. This type of concept provides security and gives tenants access to all recreation areas. The new plan has changed that concept. The original plan had 24-plex buildings and after meeting with the neighborhood and staff those buildings were separated into twelveplex buildings to separate the overall scale and mass of the building. Staff, in the evaluation of parking, determined that this project provided more parking than what was required. PolarBek's statistics were based on other cities and therefore an understanding was reached and parking was reduced significantly over the previous '91 plan. The buildings were lowered to two-story in scale on the eastern side of the property. The buildings were also completely redesigned. He stated that hip roofs, brick, painted siding, brick accents with arches over windows, and the balconies reduced in scale. He stated that also with the change of plan the parking was significantly reduced from a large area in the center was moved so that its access was more directly to its entrance off of Stuart. The parking was pulled internal. There are several issues that have been discussed with staff and the neighborhood over the past year, and feel that the three main issues are as follows: intensity, compatibility, and transition. The intensity issue can be measured statistically and visually. During this project that has been a lot of discussion that deals with density. A four bedroom unit is not common in Fort Collins and this project is proposing to build some four bedroom units. Rams Village was the first complex to have four bedroom units approved. Mr. Vaught made comparisons to several similar apartment complex's throughout Fort Collins. He felt that College Park created the same scenario as the other complex's around Fort Collins. Mr. Vaught stated that traffic has also been a major issue. He stated that traffic which would have been generated by the Pulse plan was around 7,060 average daily trips compared to the 1,600 average daily trips that would be generated by College Park. Therefore, those trip calculations for College Park would lower the intensity of this project. Mr. Vaught pointed out that there are single family neighborhoods directly across from Multi- family housing. In most of those cases they do not consist of the natural amenities that the College Park site has to offer. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 11 Mr. Vaught made some comparisons of building size and open space areas in relation to College Park and other apartment units within the City. He stated that there are examples in Fort Collins of similar projects in terms of their mass, height, scale, setbacks, density, and intensity that work for the community and College Park could be one of those sites. Mr. Vaught stated that compatibility can be a very subjective term, and felt that there are various definitions of compatibility such as: social compatibility and architectural compatibility. He stated that in order to achieve compatibility the situation does not need to be the same. He felt that compatibility should not be measured only by the level of opposition. He stated that the neighborhood can not be looked at on a immediate boundary level but rather on a broader picture of what the total neighborhood is like. If one looks at what the total neighborhood is there are several variations incorporated within each other. There are single family residences on the east side of College Park, there are apartments on the north side of the property, there are townhomes/condominiums on the south side of the property, there are commercial and retail spaces on the west side of the property and there are more apartments on the west side of the property as well. Therefore, it would appear that College Park would fit into the neighborhood. . Mr. Vaught pointed out that when the 42 single family lots were proposed on Wallenberg that the residents in the neighborhood were concerned with the damaging of the views as well as creating an incongruous neighborhood. Even at that point in time people were sensitive to development. He went on to point out the neighborhood's various concerns with other developments in the area and asked the question of what is appropriate to the neighborhood to build on that site. Mr. Vaught stated that this proposal supports the progressive approach to planning established in the Land Development Guidance System. It certainly is consistent with the Land Use Policies Plan and it provides a much needed housing type for the City of Fort Collins. This project also offers a superior alternative to single family conversions. He stated that housing is a critical issue for CSU and if projects of this sort are not built to accommodate that need then the alternatives would be single family conversions. Those types of projects provide a negative impact to a neighborhood. This proposal also supports alternative means of transportation. The use of bicycles, pedestrian and buses to create a better environment. He also stated that the project is less intense than the previously approved Pulse master plan. When compared to Pulse from a traffic standpoint, total building coverage standpoint, site plan, commercial uses, etc. College Park would be considered less intense. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 12 In closing, Mr. Vaught stated that there will be several opposing arguments in regard to this project and felt that the project was only at a preliminary level and that the developer will be flexible in terms of working with staff and the neighborhood to appease those opposing issues. Member Carroll stated that his concern was with the occupants of the complex leaving the north gate and exiting to the east either on bicycles or pedestrian and how was that issue addressed. Mr. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, found that on a person trip basis about 12 to 14 percent of the daily trips occur during 8 am and trails off quite dramatically to 5 and 8 percent on an hourly basis after 8 am. A person trip is considered as a person going from point A to point B, which means the trip could consist of a vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit trip. With the proximity of the development to CSU and in meeting with the City Transportation Department, it was concluded about half of the person trips to and from this development toward the University would be by motor vehicle. Mr. Delich stated that if an assumption was made in regard to the three modes of transportation, that are not motor vehicles, during that peak hour about 32 bicycles would be added to the system. Member Carroll wanted to know the specific route that the non -vehicular modes of transportation would take. Mr. Delich responded that in his judgement a bicyclist is going to take the path of least resistance. Depending on the improvements to Shields Street, he felt that street would be an attractive route to CSU. Probably the longest route would be via Spring Creek Trail. Mr. Delich stated that the most difficult way to get to the University would be through the subdivision. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Freeman Smith, 1000 West Prospect Road, felt that this property should be looked upon with great caution. He stated that the other projects the PolarBek has constructed were mentioned tonight as infill projects; however, they are not the same infill project as this site needs. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Land Development Guidance System and the Land Use Policies Plan are not perfect, and that the points Mr. Vaught referenced the attractiveness of high density development near the University are correct; however, the flaw in the density chart is that the project could come in with a requested density of 1,000 or 10,000. He also stated that the density changes that were made are mainly cosmetic changes. . P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 13 Mr. Smith stated that intensity is in terms of not daily traffic, but instantaneous traffic. Instantaneous traffic meaning that everyone arriving at Prospect/Shields intersection at the peak hour. That hour includes, students, professionals, and school children which creates pedestrian, bicyclists, and motorists. Ms. Emily Smith, Vice President of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association, stated that primary importance to the association is the promotion and the preservation of a sense of neighborhood identity, quality, compatibility and maintenance of residential stability. The Land Development Guidance System protects the character of new and existing neighborhoods against intrusive and destructive development. Any negative and adverse impacts shall be affectively mitigated in the Planned Unit Development plan. She felt the negative and adverse impacts of College Park, PUD have not been affectively mitigated. Therefore, the Association strongly opposes this project. Since August 14, 1991, neighborhood meeting when the first proposal was reviewed, the board members and residents have expressed concerns about College Park, PUD. On June 10, 1992, when College Park, PUD was resubmitted the same concerns were brought to the developers attention. At both meetings our neighborhood values, goals and objectives were delineated to the developers. Unfortunately the developers of College Park, PUD failed to address the following concerns of neighborhood compatibility: intensity of use, increased auto, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, increased air pollutants along Spring Creek Drainage, and increased noise pollution. The revisions to the current proposal have failed to address those concerns. Additional vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic created by 720 students can not be mitigated. She felt the increased traffic in the immediate neighborhood would be intrusive and destructive. Even if the bicycle traffic is routed from the project to the Spring Creek Trail, bicycle traffic problems will not be alleviated. Concerns remain about automobile and pedestrian traffic, because the residents of the proposed development are to be exclusively students, there peak hours of traffic will virtually be exactly at the same time of resident peak hour traffic. Not only would the peak hour traffic consist of automobiles, but would consist of bicycle and pedestrian traffic of children going to grade school. As residents of a neighborhood already impacted by parking, the residents know only to well that the parking space guidelines used by the Planning Department are not appropriate for student occupied rental units. Campus neighborhoods face very different parking realities. Students living near campus will have cars, and they will have visitors that will have cars; the planned 578 parking spaces are inadequate for 720 separately leased bedrooms. P &L Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 14 In summary, the current proposal for College Park, PUD has only superficial changes to the original proposal. These changes do not adequately address neighborhood compatibility issues and concerns which were voiced by residents at both neighborhood meetings. Mr. Stuart Citrin, 912 Shire Court, stated he commutes by bicycle and the students of this project would either drive or bicycle to class because it is too far to walk. Currently the present Spring Creek Trail is heavily congested and significant conflict between pedestrian and bicyclist and felt that adding this complex to the neighborhood would create additional problems. He stated that if students did not take the Spring Creek Trail and headed north on Shields it would create a potentially dangerous situation at the corner of Prospect and Shields. Mr. Citrin felt that College Park and Hill Pond East should be considered together, as they make a significant impact jointly on the neighborhood. Mr. Victor Koelzer, 1801 Sheely Drive, agreed that this infill project does meet only one of the City's established goals. One goal that this project will meet is alternative modes of transportation, such as bicyclist. However, that puts a lot more bicycle's on the road which creates more problems for motorists. Mr. Koelzer felt this project failed to accommodate neighborhood compatibility which heads the City's list of criteria that need to be met. He stated that Mr. Vaught made several comparisons between College Park and other complex's around town that were similar. He felt that one point was neglected and that would be occupancy of apartments. Mr. Koelzer stated that one major part of a good planning process is the investigation of reasonable alternatives. The developer has refused to look at any alternatives to the plan that he submitted to the Board. He has only made minor cosmetic changes to the project. Mr. Koelzer felt that just because his plan worked well in other communities does not mean it will work well for the Fort Collins community. He felt that the developer has not responded to a good planning process. Mr. Danny Cecil, 1820 Wallenberg Drive, stated that the number of bicycle's coming east from College Park would consist of a number greater than 32. In the peak hour of 8 am, those bicycle's would be moving in the opposite direction of elementary school aged children who travel to the west to Bennett Elementary. He felt college students are not known for there bicycle safety and is concerned for his own children's safety. . 1' &L Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 15 Mr. Cecil stated that he wished PolarBek had the same concern about the neighborhood issues as the planning staff does for the City. He pointed out that there have been a series of meetings between the homeowners and PolarBek at which nothing was resolved. He stated that PolarBek has presented no interest in working with the neighborhood on alternative ideas for the project and felt that they avoided one of the key elements of the criteria created by the Planning Department. He stated that he has participated in several neighborhood meetings between the developer and the homeowners and watched the give and take process work. On this project the only giving was on the neighborhood's side and the developer was just taking. Mr. Scott Townsend, 1805 Sheely Drive, felt that the density and variance for four unrelated people occupying one apartment felt that was unacceptable. He has a concern about the bicycle traffic that this project would produce and fears the safety of his elementary school -aged children. He stated that it is bad enough that they have to cross Prospect and Shields Street, but to have to contend with reckless bicycle riders only presents another problem. He felt that the height of the buildings are also unacceptable and create problems for the neighborhood. He wanted to know what would be considered a two-story building. The Landmark Apartments were supposedly two-story, however, there are three sets of windows and are 30 feet in height. He felt that height level was unacceptable since most of the two-story single family homes were only 24 feet in height. Ms. Janet Fritz, 1188 Westward Drive, stated that the reason for her moving into this area was because of the mix of people who lived in the area. The neighborhood was made up of not just young families, but retirees and students as well. She felt that the neighborhood is at a critical balance and adding more students is going to tip the scale. As more students move into the area that would become the norm for residents of the area. Ms. Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Drive, stated that she is reminded that the more things change the more they stay the same. She stated that 20 years ago for housing was also a problem for CSU. Ms. Hoffman currently owns a rental home for which students are always inquiring about. She felt students are looking more to renting single family homes rather than apartment complex's. She wanted to know if CSU was asking the community to solve the problem of multi -family housing units or is it just that an out-of-town developer is seeking a profit and not looking towards what the community needs. She felt that if this project were to be developed that Fort Collins could be looking at an over -built situation. Mr. Dick Lane, 1908 Winterberry Way, stated that College Park has 34 units per acre which creates twice the density at that site then at another site in Fort Collins. He pointed out that the 215 feet from the edge of one unit to the south to Hill Pond was incorrect. He stated that according to his measurements it would only be 60 feet from the corner of one Hill Pond unit to the corner of College Park unit. Mr. Lane stated that they do not oppose development in that area. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 16 Mr. Greg Osterhout stated that the intersection of Prospect and Shields has a traffic grade of "F" which is the lowest rating. He was told that after Choices 95 the intersection would also grade at an "F" level. Mr. Osterhout stated that this project is adding an additional 570 cars and the traffic consultant stated that maybe half of those trips taken by car would be to campus. That is adding an additional 250 plus cars to that already dangerous intersection. Mr. Osterhout gave some examples and situations that are occurring in that area for development and that this development if it were approved would add to the already congested traffic problems. Mr. Doug Edgerton, 1816 Wallenberg, stated that there is an already abundant amount of apartment projects around Shields and Prospect neighborhood and felt that this was an already very intense area. He stated that maybe transition more to the north or west would be acceptable. He stated that the trip ratio of college students to and from there units is a very high figure and felt that presents a severe problem at the Prospect/Shields intersection. The proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood and felt that the complex was too large for, the area. Mr. Charles Peterson, 1645 Sheely Drive, stated that if 720 college students going to campus one time per day that total comes out to be 1,440 individual trips per day. If half of the 720 student make two trips per day that figure comes out to be 2,160 trips. He stated that only one - quarter of the 720 students make three trips per day it totals out to be 2,520 trips per day. If one were to take an average semester having 15 weeks with a one week vacation, during one week there would be 12,600 additional trips through the Prospect/Shields neighborhood. Mr. Peterson went on to provide calculations through the summer months and the next school year. Mr. Larry Caswell, 1816 South Whitcomb, felt that a better job of blending residences on that site could be done. He stated that the residents depend upon the board to maintain balance within the community and felt that they need to really review this project. Ms. Linda Gough, 3737 Landings Dr-C9, stated that the PolarBek architect pointed out the many negative effects from converting single family homes into student housing and felt that the neighborhood would also suffer the exact same effects if this project were approved. Ms. Carolyn Peterson, 1645 Sheely Drive, stated that if there were 720 people that would give that would give the same amount of attention and care to the neighborhood as do the residents that reside there now, then there probably would not be as much opposition. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 17 Ms. Dorothy Tanton, 608 Balsam Lane, has been a resident there since 1977 and have seen the bicycle traffic increase. She stated that more of the homes in that area are becoming rentals and there are just not three residents per home. She also referred to the parking issue. A great amount of students already park along the side streets and with the addition of another apartment complex, she felt the problem of parking would be increased. Mr. Hank Hoesli, 1909 Wallenberg Drive, stated that he has never seen so little give and take between the developer and the community as he has seen with this project. He felt that the developers are trying to develop a loop hole in what the standard for density already is. He felt if this project were approved, then why wouldn't a five or six bedroom unit be approved. What the developer would like one to think is that if there are 720 bedrooms there is going to be 720 students. However, as the semester continues there will be more than one student per bedroom. Mr. John Roenig, 1800 Wallenberg Drive, stated that the comparison that Mr. Vaught made between College Park and the Pulse PUD was inaccurate. He stated that the bicyclist are riding to the north on Shields and east on Prospect and do not cross at the light; they cross anywhere on Prospect that they can cross. If they don't go that way, they ride through on the Wallenberg cutoff, which is a blind road with a blind corner at the top of the street. This route is essentially not designed to handle safely large amounts of bicycle traffic. Mr. Roenig stated that he was an alumni at the University of Missouri at Columbia and stated that the developer commented that the College Park units at that University were infill projects. He disagreed with the developer's comment because those buildings are built south of the football stadium in a heavily wooded area. Therefore, as one can see there is some truth's that are not being presented to the Board. The neighborhood compatibility has not been met and felt that this project would be destructive to the area. Mr. Craig Welling, President of Associated Student of CSU, stated that there is definitely a need for student housing and what CSU has seen over the past year is a 14 percent increase in rent prices. CSU has turned away 220 married students away from University housing. Renters Information, a student service, has seen over 300 people per day with not nearly enough listings to accommodate those students. There is also a definite need for disabled student housing. This project would be a very welcomed accommodation to disabled students of CSU. Mr. Welling felt that students are being generalized as an incredible nuisance. He stated that the inclination that one receives on putting 720 students living in the same area will wreck havoc on an otherwise peaceful neighborhood. He felt that in working with the neighborhood association that the management can address that issue. There have been many successful instances throughout the City such as Rams Village. He felt the best place for student housing is close to campus. The students have made a decision to invest $380,000 in the way of student fees in the City's Transfort system. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 18 Mr. Arthur Johnson, 927 East Prospect, stated that there are no affordable rental units in Fort Collins. He is particularly concerned for families who can not find suitable housing. He felt that if 720 bedrooms were to be approved for that site it should be for husbands, wives, and children rather than students. He stated that the developer has plans to charge each unit by the bedroom, how many families could afford to pay by the bedroom. He felt that CSU also needs to be a good citizen to this community. He felt that if CSU wants to have more students, then let them provide housing on campus for the students or place housing over by the stadium. He stated if CSU needs the space that they have a lot more money and they can provide housing for the students; just don't drive the families out of Fort Collins. Mr. Dick Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg, stated that staff has even taken a position against this project. He felt that this project should not be isolated, that traffic on Prospect/Shields and Hill Pond should also be taken into consideration of this project. He felt that the students are CSU's customers and therefore be taken care of by CSU. Mr. Don Larsch, 1928 Sheely Drive, stated that the issues on this project are quality and quantity. He felt that if the project were approved it would be as if someone was holding a gun to the property owners and taking thousands and thousands of dollars in the equity of the homes in that neighborhood. Mr. Eldon Jensen, 700 Blevins Court, has heard a common statement of people who have come to Fort Collins that have stated it was like living in Denver. Mr. Jensen asked if the project were passed would there be any alternatives for the problems that would arise. He felt one alternative would be to develop Centre Avenue completely. Mr. Todd Vess, CSU student, stated that at the time Collins West was approved he felt the developer also stated that parking and noise would be taken care of. During the school year parking is an extreme problem and also the noise. He felt that those problems too would arise at College Park. He stated that he is a married student and felt that this project would not accommodate his family needs. He felt the bed check of one student per room would not work, students know how to get around rules. He stated that the town does need more reasonable housing but this type of project would not help the community at all. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Member Walker stated that the Spring Creek Trail and the Import Canal as part of the project and wanted to know exactly what the status of those areas are? 0 • P & Z Meeting Minutes • August 3, 1992 Page 19 Mr. Shepard stated that the Importation Canal and the Spring Creek Trail are contained within the contiguous property boundary of the 21.17 acre site that is owned in fee simple by the owner. The public uses that are in there such as the drainage and bicycle functions are dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for flood plain and recreation. The City of Fort Collins has an easement to use those areas for specific purposes. The underlying fee simple ownership is owned by the owner. Member Carroll stated that the applicant has requested a variance to the three unrelated people per living unit and the approval of the preliminary, he questioned how the Board should address these issues. Mr. Shepard recommended that the Board include both the variance and the approval or denial as one. In other words do not approve one and deny the other. This project should be all or none. Chairman Strom asked that the project proposed is dependant upon receiving the variance? Mr. Shepard agreed. • Chairman Strom understood that there will be 578 parking spaces for 720 units and does that meet the City standard? Mr. Shepard stated that number of parking spaces exceeds the City standard. Chairman Strom asked what the City standard be? Mr. Shepard replied 450 parking spaces. Normally the Planning Department does not encourage the standard to be exceeded by such a great amount, but in this particular case the rate was appropriate due to the nature of occupancy being four bedroom units. The idea behind having extra parking was to accommodate employees, guests, visitors, parents, as well as occupants. Chairman Strom asked what the parking ratio is at Fort Ram Village. Mr. Shepard stated that Fort Ram Village is about 2.0 parking spaces per unit because the 2.5 parking space ratio for four bedroom units did not get passed until after that project was approved. Chairman Strom asked if that would calculate out to be half of a parking space per bedroom? 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 20 Mr. Shepard stated that there was such a mix of units at that complex that he does not have that calculation. However, Fort Ram Village is approximately at the level of the ratio's if one consider's all the one, two, three and four bedrooms combined. They do fall short on the four bedroom units. There are 62 four bedroom units that having parking at 2 spaces per unit. The parking code requires 2.5 spaces, but the overall parking for the entire facility comes in right at about 80 percent of its capacity. Chairman Strom asked that the traffic intersections are at the "D" level of service; however, a homeowner mentioned that Prospect/Shields intersection was at the "F" level of service can someone provide a clarification of the level of service for that specific area. Mr. Eric Bracke, City Traffic Engineer, stated that currently am operation of that intersection is at level "C" and pm operation is at level "D". The overall level of service into the future would be level of service "D" and that is with the Choices 95 project. Chairman Strom then asked that the projection with development on that site would be that the intersection would function at a level of service "D" into the future? Mr. Bracke agreed. Chairman Strom asked if the developers traffic analysis was reviewed by the Transportation Department and they were comfortable with what the traffic inclusions would be? Mr. Bracke stated that was correct and in working pretty closely with the traffic consultant in primarily determining the modal split due to the interesting nature of the development that there is a high opportunity in shifting some of the automobile trips into alternative modes. This is somewhat new territory for the City Transportation Department and they tried to use some of the best available information that they could obtain. It was approximately 40 - 50 percent of the trips that the assumption was made would be alternative modes. Chairman Strom asked that in the process of that analysis did the Transportation Department receive any information on peak hours from this type of development or what the frequency distribution would be? Mr. Bracke responded that traffic engineering is not an exact science and that assumptions have to be made. There were ITE - trip generation rates and special reports by TRB that were factors in determining this information. A college apartment complex does not have a typical peak hour, it is dispersed more throughout the day. He felt the assumption used in the traffic study were valid. Chairman Strom asked what the peak hour percentage was? 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes . August 3, 1992 Page 21 Mr. Bracke stated the am peak hour was approximately 14/15 percent and that generally goes down to 8/12 throughout the rest of the day. Chairman Strom asked how that would be compared with approximately the same size development with family units instead of students? Mr. Bracke stated if it were not college related the peak hour would be more significant. Chairman Strom asked if the peak hours would be substantially higher? Mr. Bracke stated that information was not available. Chairman Strom asked if the Transportation Department was comfortable with the information that was provided and felt comfortable with the modal split numbers. Mr. Bracke agreed. Chairman Strom asked if there was an analysis done on the best ways of moving bicycle traffic? Mr. Bracke responded that two Choices 95 projects impact this area. One being widening of Prospect from Taft Hill Road to Shields Street and the other being pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Shields Street from Prospect to Laurel. Both of those projects have pedestrian and bicycle components to them. One of the issues that the transportation staff is concerned with is once all these improvements are made to Prospect and Shields where do the people go from there. The transportation staff feels that in straightening the bike trail from Center Avenue through the Center for Advanced Technology is an asset of commuter traffic. Member Cottier stated that a number of citizens mentioned that the proposal was not acceptable to the Transportation Department, she concluded that those comments were wrong and was her conclusion correct? Mr. Bracke replied that it is not the Transportation Departments position to oppose or defend a project, but to evaluate and recommend mitigating circumstances to make the project better. Member O'Dell stated that there have been several arguments opposing this project and felt that even back when the Pulse project was being reviewed there were opposing arguments made on compatibility as well. She wondered what is compatible for that site? 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 22 Mr. Shepard responded that on the Pulse project there was a lot of evolution made and by the time the preliminary and final PUD were approved a restaurant and a car wash were deleted as well as the units along the importation canal were reduced in overall density. There was a lengthy process that consisted of a give and take situation. For the planning staff the largest area for improvement to this project was the physical compatibility, the number of 40 foot tall apartment buildings, and the overall physical scale. Mr. Shepard felt that the number one aspect in making this project compatible would be to mitigate the physical scale difference, difference of height, bulk, massiveness and transition down so there is a more sensitive relationship on the eastern fringe of the project as well as to the south. That concept could be achieved with smaller scale modules, greater architectural diversity, more individualized units, greater open space, buffering, landscaping and berming. He felt that in a lot of respects this project is a good location for multi -family. Multi -family in this location does meet a lot of policies; however, it just does not qualify in terms of neighborhood compatibility. Member Walker asked what the mix of units at Fort Ram Village is? Mr. Shepard stated that there are only 62 four bedroom units, 62 three bedroom units, and there are also a mix of 2 and 1 bedroom units available. Member Walker felt the density of this project was too high. He felt that if there was more of a mix at this location it might work not only for students but for all other types of people. He felt that putting that homogeneous nature of people in one place raises an intensity issue. He stated that this area is already very intense and to place this type of project in that location would make the area even more intense. He pointed out that the area is already very much impacted by CSU and felt that right now there is a balance in that neighborhood. He felt that this type of housing would be a great redevelopment project on the CSU campus to get rid of some of the outdated dormitory's. e Member Walker stated that the bicycle issue would also need to be resolved and that right now it is a dangerous situation. The transition area could not be considered to be a part of the development, due to the excessive use on the trail now by the public. Member Cottier felt that the density is comparable when one is talking of bedrooms per acre. She stated the Landmark Apartments is 27.4 bedrooms per acre, whereas College Park has 34 bedrooms per acre. She stated that according to the Land Use Policies Plan this project is an appropriate site for a higher density project. She felt that the neighborhood does recognize that but objects to the way in which this project has been proposed. She stated that while this is an appropriate site for a higher density project the transition simply is not adequate. She felt that this is a needed housing type in Fort Collins and a good alternative to single family conversions. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 23 She would approve a project similar to this, but less dense could be proposed for this site. Member Carroll felt that this project is an appropriate use of this particular property. He felt that this site fits the bill on every case stated in the Land Use Policies Plan. He stated, like it or not, the students are in Fort Collins, and whether that grows from 20,000 to 23,000 he is not sure, but felt that the Board did not wish to get into setting student levels at CSU. He felt that with the air quality concerns in regard to driving, would fit this site adequately. If this project were to be placed out at Overland Trail one would probably see more driving than bicycling, no pedestrian use, and felt that everyone would be driving. Member Carroll felt that the density issue was somewhat troublesome. He felt that no matter if this complex was 720 one bedroom, 362 two bedroom, or 107 bedroom apartments that it all amounts out to be the same amount of people on site. He that one person per bedroom in a four bedroom unit is not particularly troublesome to him and felt that the developer has addressed those issues with the recreational areas. He felt he was also persuaded by some of the analogies and comparisons between this project and other project around Fort Collins. The massiveness or the large buildings are troublesome to him. He felt that something better could be built to reduce the massiveness of the buildings from an architectural standpoint. He stated that the • neighborhood compatibility criteria for this project had not been met. Member Carroll was concerned about the transportation issue. He stated that the positive was that 720 people were not going to leave by car for CSU campus between 7:30 and 9 am and all returning between 4:00 and 5:30 pm. He felt that the people at this site would have tendencies to use bicycles or walking as a mean of transportation. He was concerned with the impact of bicycles with the elementary students. Member O'Dell felt that there were positive aspects to the proposal, particularly the site is good by evidence of it conforming to the policies of the City. She felt that the Spring Creek and the ditch are good potential buffering to the existing housing in the area. She stated that she would be tempted to make a motion to approve the project, but it concerns her that the neighbors feel that there has been very little progress made in negotiations between them and the developer. She felt that the scale, the height and the bulk are incompatible with the existing surrounding properties. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 24 Member Walker stated that this project does not fit the normal construct. He stated he did not consider this project to be multi -family. He felt that multi -family housing is a place where multiple families could reside in a smaller space than what a single family home provides. This unique development targets a very specific homogeneous group of people. He stated that there is no discrimination against students and that this neighborhood is a very good example of that. He felt though that this is a very limited housing opportunity. He stated that he does agree that a multi -family housing project is suitable for this site, but felt that this was not a multi -family development. Member Carroll stated that if there was one person per bedroom that they would not be related. He felt that he could not decide what to call this project, but it is a multi -person development. He stated that this project does serve a function. He felt that the applicant has an idea that appears to work for this location, but to mix it in with single family housing he was not sure it was adequate. Member Walker stated that he would like to see this site provide various housing opportunities other than just providing for one homogeneous group of individuals. He stated that the negative or adverse impacts on the neighborhood need to be mitigated to fit into the area. Chairman Strom stated that there is a lot he likes to the project, but it just is not close enough to meeting all criteria. He felt that the bulk, the conflict with bicycles, and others, and the intensity issue. He felt the site is appropriate for high density development, but this project being so homogeneous generates impact of a different kind. He stated that maybe if it were a mix of various bedroom types maybe it would work for that area. He stated that he was not convinced that this project met all the four bedroom requirements for 180 units of student housing. Member Walker moved to deny College Park PUD, Preliminary, because it does not meet All Development Criteria Numbers 2, 3, and 4. For those stated reasons the project is not appropriate for this site. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Member Carroll reiterated the fact that he reluctantly supports the motion. He felt that this is a good project and is well designed in terms of its ideas, but the scale and bulk is what is holding back the approval of this project. Member Klataske felt that it is an appropriate project for the location; however, for the same reason of bulk he supports the motion. He stated that the area is going from single family residences to a three story apartment building. He felt that transition was not adequate. He also has concerns with the bicycle traffic. • P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 25 Member Walker felt that this was a very monolithic type project in a neighborhood that has a very heterogeneous fabric to it. He stated that intrusive and disruptive are very ambiguous terms, but building bulk reflects other elements that are hard to nail down. He was curious on how this project would Knit into the fabric of the neighborhood surrounding it. Chairman Strom stated that four unrelated persons per unit presents a problem to him in not being able to justify that. Basically, he did not feel all the compatibility questions were resolved. The motion to deny passed 6-0. HILL POND EAST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY ace #35 92 Chairman Strom continued this item to the August 10, 1992, Board meeting. The reason for continuation was due to public objection to the late hour of the meeting. TIMBERLINE COURT APARTMENTS PUD PRELIMINARY Case #32-83D Ms. Sherry Albertson -Clark gave a brief description of the proposed project recommending approval with a condition. Mr. Dave Lingle, Aller-Lingle Architects, briefly stated that the overall Timberline Apartments PUD project was originally approved for 168 multi -family units. Some of that was rezoned for single family development, and has been redeveloped. This project is proposed as an infill project of 28 two bedroom units in two different floor plan configurations. The two configurations consist of a single level flat and a two story townhome. All ground level apartments would be adapted for handicap accessibility. Mr. Lingle stated that the density is just over 15 units per acre. The design is basically a continuation of the parking and site development pattern that was proposed for the original office building construction. The parking is central to the project with access only to Vermont. The buildings and landscape create buffers to both the single family development and the arterial. One site constraint is that there is a sewer main running through the property with a 30 foot sewer easement which has forced the plan to be designed in a certain way. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 26 Originally the proposal before the neighborhood meeting included the ratio requirement of 1.75 parking spaces per two bedroom unit. One concession that the developer negotiated with the neighborhood was that there was a need for additional on site parking to mitigate any overflow parking. It was agreed that 20 additional parking spaces would be built to accommodate any overflow parking. Mr. Lingle stated that the level and intensity of landscaping is quite intense. He stated that they tried to create a formal appearance to the interior of the development. On the perimeter it is a more loose natural landscaping that blends out into the stormwater detention area to create an open space ,tie. To further mitigate the potential of overflow parking occurring on Vermont and in the neighborhood additional landscape berming will be created along Vermont. He commented that the architecture of the project has been challenging because the original building that was built there for an engineering company utilizes a very residential character and building materials that are very singular to that one office building. The most troublesome area of that existing structure is the orange stain/cedar siding. He stated that with placing three larger buildings it would probably be a mistake to try to mimic the bright orange stain. Therefore, in tieing the entire property together the roof material, the roof pitch and the brick base of the existing building were taken into consideration of connecting the old building with the new buildings. Mr. Lingle felt that the project serves to support buffering between a single family development and the higher intensity uses of the light industrial/commercial uses to the south and the high school use to the southeast. He stated that Ms. Kirsten Whetstone has been of extreme help in working not only with the developer but with the neighborhood on this project. He felt that Ms. Whetstone has been very professional throughout this process and is an asset to the planning staff of the City of Fort Collins. Mr. John Giuliano, Giuliano & Father Construction, stated that their company would be acting as the developer and the builder for the owner of this project. He stated that the proposed site has two additional office buildings which could be constructed on this site as well as the existing building being doubled in size. He stated that in consulting with Matt Delich that if the two office buildings were to be built as proposed, the traffic would be almost double what the 28 unit apartment complex would generate. He stated that this project has targeted the young professional or single parent occupancy. All units are two bedroom units with a rent range of around $600 a month. He felt that in doing the market research and in talking with several apartment complexes on the south end of town that this project falls well within the range of other complexes. The smallest unit is around 900 square feet on up to just under 1,100 square feet so they are not the smallest units in town. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 27 He stated that this project has received some mixed comments from the neighborhood on this project that have been tough for the developer to understand. The neighborhood states they would rather have the office buildings versus apartments, but then come back and state that if the units were sold as townhomes then they would not have a problem with the project. Basically the neighborhood is stating that if the project is going to be rentals then they do not want the project constructed, but if the units are going to be built and sold then it would not be such a bad project after all. Mr. Giuliano feels that the density is appropriate for the project. Overall he felt that this is a really good project for that site. He felt that the project would be maintained and managed at the highest level of any apartment complex in the City of Fort Collins. Member Walker asked what the area east of the large office building was? Mr. Lingle stated that area is planned to be an active recreational area. If the complex were to house more adults then that area would be developed probably as a volleyball area, but if the complex leans more toward being family oriented than it would be constructed as a playground. Member Carroll asked for a description of the area to the north of the complex. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the detention pond extends to the northern edge of the single family area. Directly at the northwest comer there are some existing single family lots that curve around. There is also a cul-de-sac in the northeast corner of the single family area. There is also a detention area to the west of Eastbrook. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Chris Deimas, resident on Connecticut Court, felt that the Board should come out to the property before they make a decision on the project. He stated that the buildings are enormous for the neighborhood. He felt that the existing building on the site is three times larger than the single family homes to the north. He stated that the buildings are not compatible with the single family housing to the north. He submitted a petition with 48 individual signatures stating that they object to this project being developed in their neighborhood. Mr. Deimas stated that the neighborhood has discussed very clearly with the developer what projects they would like to see developed on that site. The neighborhood would like to see individual ownership of the units, no apartments, townhomes are acceptable, parking spaces numbered, parking spaces placed directly in front of the individual units, and a reduction in the number of units. He felt these criteria were very specific and would be easily met. He suggested that maybe duplexes could be constructed on that site instead of the present proposal. He felt that if the duplexes were constructed that the density of the site would decrease. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 28 Mr. Steve Lacey, 2013 Connecticut Court, felt that safety was a major issue with this project. He felt that an office building would not increase the traffic through the neighborhood just in the peak hours as this development would. He stated that if the apartments were built the residents of that complex would use the same route. He felt that if a family were to live in one of the proposed units that there would be no recreating area. He stated that children may have a tendency to play in the detention pond which could be an accident waiting to happen. He stated that anytime it rains he has seen the pond overflow and take on characteristics of being a raging river. He would not let his children play in that area anytime it has rained. One might think that children do not play in the rain; however, the water level rises for about 1/2 hour to 2 hours after it stops raining and creates a major safety issue. There are also three culverts that pass under Timberline and three culverts that pass under Eastbrook with nothing blocking the openings to keep children out. Mr. Lacey stated there have recently been numerous acts of vandalism throughout the industrial/commercial area. He felt that security in the area is low and stated that this project may encounter problems. He stated that the traffic on Timberline travels at a high rate of speed and that with the proposed widening of the road it is going to make it even more unsafe around the area. Mr. Lacey felt that the spacing between the buildings would be very slight which would essentially be creating one large building. This project just appears to be overcrowded with not enough open space to provide recreation. He strongly recommends that the Board take into consideration that the site is just not compatible for the uses it's proposing. As far as young professionals renting at this project, he felt that sort of person would not want to move into a complex of this kind because there is no pool, tennis courts, weight room, clubhouse etc. Mr. Gerrit Voshel, 2019 Connecticut Court, stated that the 240 feet between this project and his house is incorrect. The footage between the building and his home is more around 60 feet. He encouraged the Board to go out to visit the site and see how incompatible this use is for that area. He felt that the buildings are huge and would not allow for privacy in his backyard. The green space and open space referred to by the developer is just a drainage ditch, that is controlled by the City and only mowed about twice a year. He stated that there are 52 homes in that neighborhood and the developer wants to increase that by 28 units which over extends the amount of residences for that area. He felt Timberline is already a busy street and with the widening of the road to a four lane street would be even more dangerous. Not only is the road being widened but the new Fort Collins High School is going directly across the street from this complex would create even more traffic. There is also a new fire station going into the area as well. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 29 Mr. Voshel stated that his neighborhood is filled with young professionals and felt that his neighborhood is not high density. He feels the value of his middle class and well kept neighborhood is going to deplete. He felt that maybe duplexes instead of an apartment complex should be built. That type of housing is more architecturally compatible for that area than apartments. The reason that the neighborhood supports office use on this site is because most of the residents are gone from 8 to 5 when the business is in its prime usage. He felt the interaction between the community and the developer has been next to none. He stated that in meeting only once with the developer he has not changed the plan at all to address the neighborhood's concerns. They felt the developer was not concerned with neighborhood compatibility in that area and was just looking for a profit. , He stated that the neighborhood was going to lose privacy and quality of life. He stated that the future plan for the area is already a high school, a multi -family development, a single family development, and Timberline increasing to a four lane road -when will it stop? This project is very detrimental to the area. He felt that renting apartments is a transition, but that he would rather see people own the property under their home. He would rather see duplexes or townhomes instead of apartments. Ms. Julie van Gelder, 2007 Connecticut Court, stated that she calculated a density ratio between 7 and 8 people per acre and if the development that is proposed gets approved that raises the density figure to 56 people per acre. She felt that the buildings are too close to the existing housing development. Ms. van Gelder was also concerned that there are not appropriate facilities for children to play. She stated that she is a young professional and felt that people could purchase housing at that site instead of renting because the rent and mortgage payments are about the same. For example, these units would be rented for $600/month and her mortgage payment is around that same figure. As a young professional she felt that other young professional would rather own their home and get the equity and tax break. She stated that townhomes or duplexes would lower the density for that area and be more suitable for the neighborhood. Chairman Strom closed the public input portion at this time. Member Walker asked what is planned for that area other than the high school and fire station? 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 30 Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that to the east side of Timberline and north side of Vermont there will be Pinecone Apartments and a convenience store. To the south and east of the project site would be the high school and a city park. Directly to the south of the complex would be the proposed fire station. To the south and west of the site is the NCR building. Member Walker asked if the fire station would occupy the corner of Vermont and Timberline? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that was correct and that a traffic signal is planned for that intersection. Member Walker asked where the traffic signals would be placed? Mr. Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant, stated that Timberline is going to be a major arterial which would have signals at each mile intersection and other signals warranted within the mile would be as close to a 1/2 mile as possible. Mr. Delich stated that fire stations would not warrant a signal at all unless it is an emergency signal. Traffic signals would have to control all traffic not just fire traffic. Member Walker asked if there would be a light at Vermont? Mr. Delich replied yes, that a signal is as close to the 1/2 mile and beyond a collector street into the Pinecone Development. Mr. Peterson responded that Mr. Rick Ensdorff of transportation stated that a fire signal would be placed at that site upon completion of the fire station. Member Cottier asked if an assumption could be made that the first thing that could trigger sufficient warrants for a signal would be a fire station? Mr. Peterson replied that the only thing that would trigger warrants in the foreseeable future would be a warrant that would allow a light at that site. Chairman Strom asked when the fire station was going to be built? Mr. Peterson stated that within the next five year timeframe the fire station should be completed. Poudre Fire Authority purchased the property and it is their next major capitol improvement for the City of Fort Collins. Member Walker asked how the storm detention pond functions and how does the City deal with safety issues? 0 . P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 31 Mr. Mike Herzig, Engineering Department, replied that he could not adequately respond to the safety question; however, it sounds like the system is operating correctly at the peak of the storm. Member Walker asked what the maintenance schedule is for that detention pond? Mr. Herzig responded that maintenance takes place around 2 or 3 times a year at the detention pond. He stated that the ponds are planted with low maintenance dryland grass. The City does have the responsibility to mow if the grass grows over 8 inches in height. Member Walker asked what happens if the grass grows over 8 inches in height? Mr. Herzig stated that usually a homeowner or businessowner calls and complains about the grass being too tall. He stated that they usually responded fairly quickly to that complaint and go provide maintenance to the pond area. Member Cottier asked what would the traffic volume be for a 30,000 square foot office building versus 28 residential units? • Mr. Delich stated that on a daily trip basis the 28 residential units would generate around 165 trips. The 30,000 square foot office building would be around 360 trips per day. He stated that the uses peak for both around the same times of the day; however, the office building would be bringing incoming traffic, whereas the apartments would generate outgoing traffic in the morning and visa versa in the evenings. Member Walker stated that one of the City's goals was to create mixed uses throughout various neighborhoods. He felt if a business or apartment complex were placed on site that it would meet the City's goals for that area. He stated that once all signals were in place the traffic flow would be improved. Member Klataske asked what the dimension of the north wall on the NCR building was? Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that the existing building on site is 60 x 65 feet and that NCR is 120 feet on the east/west dimension. Chairman Strom stated that this use works pretty well for this site and that there would only be a short term traffic problem until a light was installed. He was concerned with the architectural scale. He felt the buildings appeared to be very monolithic and didn't see a problem with height, but felt the length should be broken up. 0 P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 32 Member O'Dell felt that offsetting the buildings in order to create a uniqueness to the area would be more appealing. She thought there would be ways to break up the buildings so they don't appear to be that large to the neighbors. She felt that the use is right and that multi -family housing is ideal for that site. She stated that the transition was good between this project and the single family homes. Member Cottier felt that the multi -family use is well suited for the area. She asked if the sewer line was the reason for the buildings not being angled on the site? Mr. Lingle stated that the sewer line cuts a 30 foot easement through the site which the project ends up losing 1/4th of the developable area. This site has a very limited perimeter to build on. Chairman Strom commented that if the buildings were broken up in some manner that this project would be less imposing to the neighborhood. Member Cottier moved to deny Timberline Court Apartment PUD, Preliminary. Member Klataske seconded the motion. Member Cottier felt that the use is appropriate for the site, but giving the building use constraint due to the sewer line it limits building placement. Given the constraint she felt that the developer was proposing too many buildings for that site. Member Walker stated that the overall concept is acceptable, but is concerned with the building height and scale. Member Cottier substantiated her motion for denial by stating that the project does not meet All Development Criterion Number 2. Member Klataske agreed and stated his concern was more with the length of the structure. It appeared to him that the building was a solid wall and was not architecturally compatible in length. Member O'Dell stated that she would not support the motion because there could be conditions added that would make the project compatible to the neighborhood. Member Walker stated that the project could easily be constructed around the utility easement. Member Carroll stated this preliminary project could be approved with conditions and on final the exteriors, etc. could be redefined. P & Z Meeting Minutes August 3, 1992 Page 33 Chairman Strom asked if a motion was made to table this proposal, would the Board need the applicant's approval? Mr. Peterson replied that a motion to table a project at anytime is acceptable. Mr. Duvall stated that rather then a motion be made to table the item, that a motion be made to postpone until a date certain. Member Cottier moved to withdraw the motion to deny to make a motion in favor of Postponing until the August 24, 1992, meeting, hoping that action would be taken in regards to scale and bulk. Member Carroll seconded the motion. The motion to postpone Timberline Court Apartments PUD, Preliminary passed 6-0. Member Walker was concerned with the density of the project. Member Strom felt that in terms of density, the site does benefit with the added acreage of public open space. He felt that mitigated the density to some extent. . Member O'Dell felt that the density needed to be decreased and/or design features considered to lessen the impact of the project. She suggested putting the larger building along Timberline. Meeting adjourned at 1:10 am.