HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/09/1996The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Chairperson Bell.
Roll Call: Gavaldon, Weitkunat, Colton, Byrne, Bell. Member Davidson was
absent.
Staff Present: Blanchard, Jones, Schlueter, Stanford, Shepard, Duvall, Ashbeck,
Meisel, Ludwig, Olt, Frazier, Stroh and Dairies.
Agenda Review:
Director of Current Planning Blanchard reviewed the continued
discussion agenda:
10. #46-88F
Park South PUD - Amended Overall Development Plan
11.
Appeal of an Administrative Change for Timberline Storage
PUD.
12.
Harbor Walk Estates (Was Heard at the August 26th Hearing)
13.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Parking Plan
for CSU, and the Downtown and CSU Neighborhoods.
14.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding the Parks &
Recreation Policy Plan.
15.
Recommendation to City Council Regarding Zoning and Siting
Standards for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
16. #21-96
Recommendation to City Council Regarding Rezoning
Downtown Properties from IG, General Industrial to RC, River
Corridor.
17. #20-96
Sinclair Redevelopment PUD - Preliminary and Final
(Continued until September 23rd Hearing).
18. #6-96
Harmony Towne Center PUD - Preliminary (Continued)
19. #31-95C
Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary (Continued)
20. #49-95
Harmony Ridge - Overall Development Plan (Continued until
September 23rd Hearing).
21. #49-95A
Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase One - Preliminary (Continued until
•
September 23rd Hearing).
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 2
This item was appealed to City Council and a verbatim transcript is attached.
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, September 9, 1996
At Fort Collins City Council Chamber
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning the Amendment to the Park South
Overall Development Plan.
• Members present•
Gwen Bell, Chairman
Mike Byrne
Glen Colton
Jerry Gavaldon
Karen Weitkunat
For the City:
Bob Blanchard, City Planning Office
Mike Ludwig, City Planning Office
2
1 MS. BELL: Good evening everyone and welcome to
2 this evening's meeting September 9, 1996. This is a
3 continuation from the August meeting. Let's begin with roll
4 call, please.
5 (Roll call was taken.)
6 MS. BELL: Could we go ahead and have a review of
7 this evening's agenda, please.
8 MR. BLANCHARD: Good evening, Madam Chair, members
9 of the board. We have nine discussion items left over from
10 the last meeting. I'll go through those in order that they
11 are advertised for tonight.
12 I understand that you will be discussing which
13 items that you will try to make it through tonight and so
14 that we can announce that up front.
15 The first item under discussion tonight is the
16 amendment to the overall development plan for Park South PUD.
17 That's Agenda No. 10 from the advertised agenda from the last
18 meeting.
19 The second item on discussion tonight is the appeal
20 of an administrative change for Timberline Storage.
21 The next four items are items that the Board does
22 not have final authority on. You'll be asked to make a
23 recommendation to the City Council. These relate to various
24 policies and plans that have been developed. The first of
25 those, Agenda Item No. 13, will be a recommendation to City
s3
1
Council regarding the parking plan for CSU and the downtown
2
and CSU neighborhoods.
3
The next item tonight is a recommendation regarding
4
the parks and recreation policy plan followed by the
5
recommendation to City Council regarding zoning and citing
6
standards for wireless telecommunication facilities.
7
The last item for recommendation tonight is the
8
recommended rezoning of the downtown properties from general
9
industrial to the river corridor. That's Agenda Item No. 16.
10
Remaining items, again, the Board is final
11
authority on if we make it to them tonight. First of those
• 12
is Agenda Item 17, which is requested preliminary and final
13
PUD for Sinclair Redevelopment.
14
The last two items is the overall development plan
15
as well as the Phase I preliminary for the Harmony Ridge
16
Development. Those are Agenda Items No. 20 and 21.
17
MS. BELL: I'm just going to put forth a suggestion
18
to the Board tonight, and we can -- I just want some
19
feedback. I would suspect we will make it through Item 16.
20
I would recommend that on Item 17, Sinclair Redevelopment
21
PUD, the Board will give some sort of indication around
22
9 o'clock because we'll have a pretty good sense by then if
23
we're rolling through these other items whether we will get
24
to that or not.
• 25
We will not get to Harmony Ridge Overall
4
1 Development Plan and the preliminary, which is Items 20 and
2 21. How does the rest of the Board feel about that? I'm
3 getting nods from everybody that that sounds fairly
4 realistic.
5 So just for the benefit of the audience, once more,
6 we are very hopeful that we will get through Item 16. Item
7 17, Sinclair Redevelopment, come around 9 o'clock this
8 evening. We'll let you know because we'll have a good idea.
9 And if you're here for Item 20 and 21, you may go home
10 because we will not get to that this evening.
11 MR. BLANCHARD: Madam Chair, for the benefit of the
12 audience and those that might be watching at home, those
13 items that are carried over from tonight will be advertised
14 beginning with the second item on our next meeting. Our
15 first discussion item is a remand from City Council, and
16 anything continued from tonight's meeting will be advertised
17 to be heard immediately after that item.
18 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. With that then, I
19 think we're ready to begin Item No. 10 which is Park South
20 amended PUD overall development. Mr. Ludwig, would you
21 please start for us.
22 MR. LUDWIG: Madam Chair, and members of the
23 Planning & Zoning board, this is a request to amend a land
24 uses permitted on Parcel A, which is currently designated at
25 7.3 acres of neighborhood convenience shopping center and
1 Parcel B, which is designated for 3 acres of duplex housing
2 or office uses of the existing Park South overall development
3 plan to allow 75 single-family residential dwelling units on
4 a total of 13.3 acres. That acreage includes Parcels A, B
5 and the remaining undeveloped parcel -- remaining undeveloped
6 acreage in Parcel C, which is already designated for
7 single-family housing.
8 The applicant proposes a residential density of 5.6
9 dwelling units per acre. The property is located at the
10 southwest corner of West Horsetooth Road and Manhattan Avenue
it and is zoned RLP low -density planned residential. This
• 12 request for amendment to the Park South amended overall
13 development plan is consistent with the following land use
14 policies of the Land Use Policies Plan. Those are No. 3A;
15 3D, 12, 22, 79A, 79B, 79C, 79D and 79E.
16 However, this request is not consistent with
17 adopted elements of the City's comprehensive plan as it
18 eliminates all opportunity for mixed -use development and
19 varied housing types that were originally approved and
20 anticipated by the City of Fort Collins. Land Use Policies
21 3A; No. 22; No. 26; No. 67; Nos. 80A, B, C, D and E and the
22 neighborhood convenience shopping center design guidelines
23 policies and criteria were used in justification in approving
24 the existing Park South Overall -- Amended Overall
25 Development Plan. Those policies are still valid today.
6
1 In addition, the existing Park South Amended
2 overall Development Plan complies with numerous policies of
3 the Community Vision and Goals 2015 document. There have not
4 been significant changes in the area which staff deals more
5 in a change to the allowable land uses.
6 Continued residential development in the
7 surrounding area suggests that a neighborhood service center
8 at this location is still appropriate. The request to amend
9 the overall development plan for single-family housing would
10 reduce the number of daily trip ends from 12,660 vehicle
11 trips to approximately 720 daily trip ends. While this
12 decrease in volume would lower traffic impacts on Horsetooth
13 Road, the levels of service generated by a neighborhood
14 convenience shopping center were determined to be acceptable
15 in 1991 and remain acceptable today.
16 Staff recommends denial of the request, this
17 request to amend the Park South overall Development Plan. An
18 additional letter that was received was distributed prior to
19 the meeting from a member of the public. And I have slides
20 prepared for your viewing if you do choose. And I'm
21 available to answer any questions you may have.
22 MS. BELL: Do the members of the Board have any
23 questions at this time? Let's go on to the applicant's
24 presentation, please; and there will be 30 minutes.
25 MS. RIPLEY: Good evening, Madam Chairman, Members
r1
7
1 of the Board. My name is Linda Ripley with BF Ripley
2 Associates. And I'm here representing Mark Middle, the
3 applicant for the amended ODP.
4 Staff has stated a recommendation for denial
5 because the proposed amendment is not consistent with the
6 City's comprehensive plan because it eliminates all
7 opportunities for mixed -use development and varied housing
8 types. While we understand staff's position in that we are
9 eliminating mixed use in Mark Middle's 36-acre ODP, we
10 understand that that is significant to staff; however, I
11 would like to point out that the Board and staff routinely
12 approved ODPs with much more acreage with solid single-family
13 than 36 acres.
14 We disagree with staff's conclusion, that is, the
15 land uses proposed for this last portion of the ODP, the 13.3
16 acre site that the original land uses proposed that is a
17 convenience -- a C Store gas station and duplex housing or
18 officing is more appropriate than 75 single-family residences
19 in an affordable price range.
20 First of all, selling the property for a commercial
21 use would be more profitable. It would simply be easier than
22 developing single-family housing on this piece. So it's not
23 an attempt to maximize profits, it's simply an attempt to
24 complete the ODP in a reasonable time frame.
25 The ODP that was approved in 1991 put a 5-year
8
1 expected build -out. That 5 years has happened, and there is
2 not a market for commercial on this corner. Our presentation
3 tonight is intended to show that single-family housing at
4 this location is an appropriate and a desirable land use in
5 this neighborhood, and that the City's concept of mix -use
6 development is in no way being compromised; however, it is
7 being enhanced.
8 When considering mixed -use development you really
9 have to look beyond the boundaries of an ODP particularly if
10 the ODP is only 36 acres. If you're talking about 250 or 600
11 or a thousand, you get into issues of needing a lot of
12 different land uses within that one ODP area.
13 However, keep in mind the scale of what we're
14 talking about tonight. The original ODP was 36 acres. The
15 portion of that ODP that we're talking about tonight is only
16 13.3.
17 I've got some slides to help illustrate what I want
18 to depict. This is the original ODP. This is Horsetooth
19 Road, Manhattan Avenue. This 7-acre parcel was planned as a
20 C Store gas station. And this Parcel B, 3 acres was proposed
21 for either duplex housing or officing.
22 This map shows our proposed amendment, which is
23 simply to take the whole 13.3 acres and propose single-family
24 housing on it. We're proposing 75 dwelling units. That's a
25 density of 5.6 dwelling units per acre.
0
1 This slide, this is a map that we produced to
2 illustrate to staff how mixed use this neighborhood already
3 is. Our site is located right here, in the center. We went
4 out approximately half mile all around the site, in some
5 cases a little further.
6 The red indicates commercial uses. This use is a
7 Total gas station, C Store. This is a 7-Eleven gas station,
8 C Store. This is less than a mile in between the two. We
9 reiterate that we don't believe that is an appropriate land
10 use for this corner at this point in time.
11 The yellow indicate housing areas. The yellow
• 12 being single-family housing areas. The darker being higher
13 density housing. And the dark, the very dark yellow -- I
14 can't read my own map, but I believe this is in excess of 12
15 dwelling units per acre in those areas. So what this
16 demonstrates is that not only do we have a mix of land uses
17 in those areas, we also have a mix of housing types as well.
18 From our site you can walk to a convenience store.
19 You can walk to pick up groceries at two different locations.
20 This is the other C Store which is just kitty-corner from the
21 intersection -- actually, it's just a little east of
22 Alfalfa's but very readily accessible by bike or walking.
23 You can walk to a major grocery store or ride your bike.
24 You can walk to a health food store where you can
• 25 eat in or eat outside in a nice dining area. This is where
10
1 you can have a cup of coffee in the morning. Again, easy
2 distance to walk or bike from this neighborhood. You can go
3 to restaurants. This is Nate'.s . . . go to the Olive Garden
4 . . . all of these. This is a local bar. All of these are
5 within half to three-quarter mile, and there are bike lanes
6 and curbs to get to these places safely and conveniently.
7 These are shoe stores. There are dry cleaning
8 establishments. These are health clubs. This is a copy
9 center where you can get presents, another health club.
10 Whoops. GK Gymnastics, which is not only a gymnastics center
11 but is also a day-care center. It's within three-quarters of
12 a mile of this site. That can also be biked to.
13 Recreational opportunities: These are theaters,
14 the Carmike Theater, well, the Manhattan Cinema. Book store,
15 Barnes & Noble is close to this neighborhood, bowling alley.
16 There are office buildings, employment opportunities.
17 There is a mix of housing types as well. There are
18 duplexes, fourplexes. This is the Four Season development,
19 patio homes, I believe, about 8 dwelling units per acre.
20 Rose Tree Village, much higher density project. Cunningham
21 Corners also within a mile of this project.
22 Again, this is how you get to it. There is a well-
23 signed bike lane that's pretty well used. One of the times I
24 was out there taking these photographs, I saw several people
25 use the bike lanes getting to various places in their
E
11
1 neighborhood safely and conveniently. The curb cuts are
2 there.
3 In addition -- let's see if I can get back to this
4 map. In addition, there is property that is located to the
5 east of the Park South site. This piece is zoned HB and will
6 probably be develop commercial. Warren Farm to the north
7 will also potentially develop with commercial land uses.
8 Both of those, in our estimation, are more
9 appropriate for commercial land uses than this piece which is
10 more logically, we believe, single-family development because
11 these pieces are adjacent to commercial and also adjacent to
12 a railroad track here, making them less desirable for single-
13 family housing and more desirable for commercial.
14 Let's see. The housing that we're proposing looks
15 like this. This is a portion of Park South PUD that's
16 already developed at about the same density, 5.6 dwelling
17 units per acre. These houses range in price from 113 to 140
18 thousand. That's a price range that first-time home buyers
19 can afford. And a young family can live here and own one car
20 simply because it is so convenient to get to so many places
21 where you can work or shop or play.
22 We think that reason alone is why this piece of
23 property should be single-family. Mike Ludwig mentioned
24 traffic. I don't know if you're familiar with the traffic
25 situation at Mason and Horsetooth, but it's not very much
12
1 fun. I took my kids to GK Gymnastics all summer, and at 5
2 o'clock sometimes I couldn't even get there. It was so
3 ridiculously backed up. So I think since we don't have that
4 problem south, we already have a problem there.
5 We have more vacant land to develop. I think it's
6 a good opportunity to reduce the traffic generation by over
7 90 percent by going to single-family at this location. Then
8 with -- than adding a gas station, C Store, which we for -- I
9 don't know, we just can't see the need for it or why we would
10 want to promote a C Store gas station at this corner. In our
it opinion, the community and the neighborhood would not be
12 improved by this addition of more commercial in this area.
13 We think that adding single-family housing at 5.6
14 dwelling units per acre at the lower -end price range is a
15 good idea, a positive move for the community. In conclusion,
16 I just want to point out that in order to develop this
17 property at 5.6 dwelling units per acre, an amendment to the
18 ODP is necessary.
19 If the amendment is denied, my -- the applicant
20 does have the right to pursue a use by right on the property,
21 so he could pursue a single-family development as a
22 subdivision. He does not want to do that. Clearly, he gets
23 single-family that way, because not doing it as a PUD he
24 simply has to abide by the subdivision regulations. However,
25 to do that, one of those regulations states that minimum lot
13
1 size is 6,000 square feet; therefore, the density goes down.
2 We haven't actually done a layout under that
3 scenario, but it would probably be in the 4 to 4.5 dwelling
4 units per acre. That does two things: It makes the
5 development less compact, and it raises the cost of the
6 housing units. So we believe that it's to the City's best
7 advantage to have this property developed at the higher
8 density with the lower price range, because it gets at two of
9 the City's goals, which are compact development and
10 affordable housing.
11 That concludes my presentation. I would be happy
12 to answer questions, and my client is also here that would be
13 available for questions if needed.
14 MS. BELL: Does the Board have questions of the
15 applicant at this time?
16 MR. GAVALDON: I'd like to -- excuse me. I would
17 like to understand more about your exams on your slides
18 showing the distance three-quarters of the mile for day care
19 on a bicycle. And you just mentioned early that it's a real
20 chore to get to GK, for example, in an automobile; but yet
21 you advocate biking and walking to areas that are over three-
22 quarters to a mile. How reasonable is that to have an
23 expectation with the railroad as well there in the afternoon
24 or evenings. I would like to understand some of your
25 thoughts on that.
14
1 MS. RIPLEY: Well, any difficulty in getting to GK,
2 which is about in this area, was -- yeah -- is getting from
3 College Avenue on to Mason and being able to make a left on
4 to Mason. On this side, you can ride your bike from
5 Manhattan Avenue. On Manhattan Avenue there is a bike lane,
6 and it's striped. And you can ride your bike from the bike
7 lane to a sidewalk, and you can literally stay on a sidewalk
8 and go down Mason on, again, a striped bike lane. You avoid
9 College. You avoid the major traffic jams.
10 To me it's -- I don't think it's a problem bringing
11 people into the area. If it were, why are we having a bike
12 lane on Mason? Aren't we promoting people to use that
13 alternative means? What staff seemed to be saying to us in
14 this process is, Well yes, we want people to bike and walk;
15 but, gee, we don't want them to ever have to cross an
16 arterial.
17 Well, in this particular part of our city I don't
18 think that makes any sense. There are all of these
19 businesses, all these places that people can use and are
20 using. The existing neighborhoods are using these places now
21 safely and conveniently. Why would we want to discourage
22 that by building a gas station right in their neighborhood so
23 they never had to cross an arterial? It didn't make sense to
24 me.
25 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
15
1 MS. BELL: Just so I understand the area a little
2 better, south of this proposed change is single-family?
3 MS. RIPLEY: Yes.
4 MS. BELL: And west is -- are those apartments or
5 townhomes or?
6 MS. RIPLEY: There are some duplexes right here,
7 right to the edge, and single-family around.
8 MS. BELL: So the village at Four Seasons, those
9 are like duplexes? I'm sorry. I'm confused as to what those
10 are.
it MS. RIPLEY: Do you know, Mike, if there are
• 12 duplexes?
13 MR. LUDWIG: Directly west of this property line
14 are duplex units. To the east it's vacant, across the street
15 the other side of Manhattan.
16 MS. BELL: Could you -- is there somebody available
17 that could tell me what the difference in the traffic counts
18 will be from the original plan with the convenience store
19 versus the 75 single-family?
20 MS. RIPLEY: Can I address that?
21 MS. BELL: Go ahead.
22 MS. RIPLEY: I have handouts if you'd like, but it
23 was a letter from Matt Delich that stated that with a
24 convenience store we were generating 12,660 daily trips.
. 25 With a proposed 75 dwelling units we're generating 720 daily
16
1 trips.
2 MS. BELL: Thanks. I thought I had heard that
3 before, but I wanted to have it verified.
4 MS. RIPLEY: It's a whopping difference.
5 MS. BELL: Also, did you have any policies that you
6 have to support this change? I mean, you really didn't cite
7 anything in particular.
8 MS. RIPLEY: I didn't -- I tended to go with common
9 sense on this one. However, I agree with the policies that
10 Mike Ludwig picked out as the ones that we do meet. I notice
11 in the staff report that some of them we meet and don't meet
12 are the same policies, which leads you back to the policies
13 are fairly broad and it's a matter of interpretation.,
14 The single biggest issue seemed to revolve around
15 are we achieving mixed use? And I think our mapping and our
16 slides and just being out in this neighborhood, very clearly
17 we are in this neighborhood. If there is anything lacking,
18 we need more people using all of the ready available service
19 that's there.
20 MR. BYRNE: The commercial use, was that -- you
21 kept on mentioning convenience stores and gas stations. Were
22 those the only two that were considered or were there other
23 commercial uses?
24 MS. RIPLEY: That's what was stated on the ODP that
25 we're seeking to amend tonight.
• 17
1 MR. BYRNE: So are you restricted then to a
2 convenience store or gas station?
3 MS. RIPLEY: I assume that we are without amending
4 the ODP.
5 MR. COLTON: Regarding people getting across
6 Horsetooth, I know there are a couple of convenience stores
7 fairly close, but I'm wondering has there been any analysis
8 or studies done on the safety of getting across? I know
9 that's the busiest, one of the busiest areas or intersections
10 in town, and I'm wondering about the safety of getting
11 across.
. 12
MS.
RIPLEY:
Well, there are traffic signals and
13
there are crosswalks.
I wouldn't send a 3-year-old, no.
14
But, you know,
responsible older children and adults can
15
certainly get
across
safely.
16
MR.
COLTON:
And that's on Mason and Horsetooth?
17
MS.
RILEY:
Mason and Horsetooth.
18
MR.
COLTON:
There is crosswalks?
19
MS.
RIPLEY:
I can't swear to you.
20
MR.
COLTON:
Mike, maybe someone can give me --
21
MR.
LUDWIG:
I know there definitely is at College
22
and Horsetooth. I'm
not sure if there is at Mason. I don't
23
know if there
is a crosswalk at Mason from our Transportation
24
Department.
• 25
MR.
COLTON:
Thank you.
18
1 MR. GAVALDON: Back to another point I was making.
2 The amount of trips you're asking for going this route versus
3 what a convenience store or business would generate seems to
4 be quite a lopsided tradeoff. I was referring to some
5 letters from some residents asking about the number of trips
6 being created.
7 I'm a little concerned about some of your facts
8 that you're sharing with us and would like to understand more
9 about the trips. Also in walking, again, I want to go back
10 to another point I made, McClelland and Mason from any
11 observation shows that is a highly traveled area.
12 I know there is bike lanes, but it seems to be
13 quite congested and everybody together there. Are we opening
14 ourselves for some potential accidents?
15 MS. RIPLEY: Well, like I said, the bike lanes are
16 there. There are times of the day, peak hours, where Mason
17 and Horsetooth are congested, a lot of high traffic volume.
18 There are also hours of the day when it is very low. People
19 can choose when they want to make those trips. The bike lane
20 is wide. It's striped. That's what it is there for. I
21 think we should be encouraging people to use it.
22 Back to the first part of your question though, I'm
23 not sure what you are getting at. The traffic numbers were
24 if we build a gas station, convenience store on the corner as
25 well as for officing or duplexes, we would generate 12,660
•
19
1 daily trips in and out of that site.
2 If we developed it for single family and build the
3 75 homes that the applicant would like to do, that figure
4 goes down to only generating 720 daily trips. So what I'm
5 saying is we're improving the traffic congestion in the area
6 as well as promoting alternative modes.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Looking at the bigger picture
8 versus what Park South offers, is it that more trips will be
9 created with the other users around the neighborhood that
10 will need to go over to those other areas thus increasing it
11 versus what Park South had given up in trade-off?
12 MS. RIPLEY: You mean wouldn't people drive to
13 these other uses instead of driving to their convenience
14 store on the corner?
15 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah, if it was there at Park South,
16 so looking at the folks on Manhattan, Four Seasons and then
17 spreading farther south because there isn't anything there.
18 MS. RIPLEY: It's one way of looking at it, I
19 suppose, but it's irrelevant in a way in that there is no one
20 that wants to build a convenience gas station that close to
21 another one.
22 If we use that rational, we would build one in
23 every 36-acre neighborhood, which doesn't make any sense to
24 me because -- I mean, you can apply that same logic to every
25 place in the city. At some point it's reasonable.
20
1 I think if we're saying people have -- they can go
2 get gas; they can go get groceries; they can go play; they
3 can go work within one-half to three-quarter mile, that's the
4 range we're shooting for. When we talk about mixed use in
5 our city, we're not trying to shorten that to one -eighth of a
6 mile or half a block. At that point it gets unrealistic to
7 provide so many things within that proximity.
8 MR. GAVALDON: That's one way of looking at it;
9 however, the other side of the coin is minimizing traffic on
10 to Horsetooth, McClelland and Mason by containing it towards
it the Manhattan side where the bigger picture shows that's a
12 very good possibility.
13 MS. RIPLEY: There's been no interest. And like I
14 said, let's not lose sight of the fact that if this is
15 denied, then the applicant will do a subdivision. There will
16 still be single-family housing here; there wouldn't be a C
17 Store; and what happens is the housing price goes up, the
18 density goes down.
19 I'm not trying to put the pressure on, but that's
20 real. Personally, I would like to see the higher density.
21 The applicant would certainly like to do the higher density.
22 So don't lose sight of that fact.
23 MR. GAVALDON: I appreciate that, thank you.
24 MS. BELL: Are we ready to move on?
25 MR. LUDWIG: I just would like to clarify a couple
21
1 of points. The current overall development plan designates
2 this 7.3 acres for a neighborhood convenience shopping
3 center. That does not -- that is not just limited to a
4 convenience store. It is specifically subject to Point Chart
5 J in the Land Development Guidance System.
6 And the uses that are permitted on that site from
7 Point Chart J are retail services, personal services,
8 convenience/grocery stores with accessory gas pumps, standard
9 or fast food restaurants without drive -up windows, liquor
10 sales for on- or off -premise consumption, beauty or barber
11 shops, dry cleaning outlets, equipment rental. It lists
12 several.
13 In addition multi -family dwellings are allowed in
14 that as well. Probably the closest example of a neighborhood
15 convenience shopping center to this area is at the northwest
16 corner of Horsetooth and Shields where there is a, I believe,
17 it's a Schrader's Country Store, a Jiffy Lube and those uses
18 in that area. That's the closest one to this. That was the
19 first one.
20 The second point I wanted to clarify is the
21 applicant, if this ODP is denied, can submit a straight
22 subdivision on the property. It would be a decrease in
23 density. When staff looked at that, we were weighing, for
24 one, the PUD was submitted before our new street standards
25 came into effect; and so, from our prospective, the decrease
22
1 in density. We felt a straight subdivision there were things
2 we could get that we can't currently get through the PUD
3 process.
4 They are not subject to the new street standards.
5 If they did come in with a straight subdivision, it would be
6 a new submittal; and it would be after the street standards
7 are in effect. We would be getting the new street standards.
a It's one or the other. That was our analysis of it, so.
9 MR. BYRNE: Can you fill in a little bit of "we get
10 something," what does that mean?
11 MR. LUDWIG: I guess what I'm referring to is we
12 were looking at it from a prospective of -- we're very more
13 limited in what we can require. We can't mandate on this PUD
14 request that is already submitted. It's not before you
15 tonight, but it's already been submitted. It has attached
16 sidewalks, standard streets, standard cul-de-sacs.
17 Through a straight subdivision process we feel
is we'd be getting greater setbacks along Horsetooth as well as
19 detached sidewalks and street trees on each of the individual
20 streets in the development.
21 MR. BYRNE: Did you discuss the possibility of the
22 increased density with the new street standards? Do you see
23 what I'm getting to here? Is the applicant willing to build
24 the five point whatever it is units per acre with detached
25 sidewalks?
23
1 MR. LUDWIG: I can't speak to the applicant. They
2 had suggested, there was no way we could require it as staff.
3 The Planning and Zoning Board could try and reach an
4 agreement, I guess, with the applicant on that.
5 However, we, as staff, are not able to require that
6 under the code currently. So we still thought it was a bad
7 choice to amend the overall development plan and eliminate
8 mixed use on the property. Basically, the entire area south
9 of Horsetooth in this square mile, if you went west of Mason,
10 is single-family housing. There are a few duplexes, few
11 multi -family units. But like Rose Tree Village and those are
• 12 on the north side of Horsetooth in the next square mile.
13 MS. BELL: Okay. Are we ready to move on? Thank
14 you. We're now going to open up for public participation, so
15 if there is anyone present in the audience tonight who would
16 like to speak to us on this item, please come forward. Give
17 us your name and sign in. And how many people, could I see a
18 show of hands, are here to speak on this? Okay.
19 Why don't we go with 4 minutes. Will -- and you
20 please tell them -- could we have the little thing buzz at
21 3 minutes so they know that they've got a minute to go.
22 Come on down.
23 MR. SCHULTZ: Good evening, Madam Chair. I
24 represent about a half dozen property owners who live in the
• 25 villages which were described to you as being immediately to
24
1 the west. Speaking on their behalf I would ask the Board if
2 I could have 10 minutes to speak for people. And there are a
3 couple of them here tonight who would like to have just a few
4 minutes for themselves. Some have sent me in their stead,
5 and some of out of state on vacation. Lucky them.
6 MS. BELL: Yes, that would be fine since you're
7 representing a neighborhood group.
8 MR. SHULTZ: Thank you. I do want to indicate
9 where these neighbors live. If you would turn -- I think
10 it's better to look in your packet -- to the existing ODP
11 diagram that you have, which is right after the blue staff
12 report. You see the Parcel B duplex housing or office shown,
13 which is being sought to change to single-family.
14 Immediately to the west of that are the 5 duplex
15 units. Obviously, those are 10 living units there, but there
16 are 5 duplex units where the neighborhoods live that I
17 represent -- and a very nice portion of the villages. I'm
18 going to show you some slides of that in just a moment. If
19 Mr. Blanchard or Mr. Ludwig would help me out here.
20 This is looking at the villages. This is the back
21 of the villages that you see here, these various units. I
22 want to contrast these with what we'll see in a few minutes
23 with the type of housing that's being proposed to be built.
24 I think the primary features, as you know, of planned -unit
25 development is one that you have a mixture of uses.
• 25
1 Old-time zoning didn't give us that. They give us
2 what you basically saw, I think, on that area map a little
3 earlier where everything to the east of Mason is shown in red
4 as commercial and then everything to the west is shown in
5 being some sort of beige or yellow, some form of single-
6 family housing.
7 When you talk about them taking measurements from
8 this side, and say you're a half to three-quarter mile
9 distance from Mason or from Alfalfa's, we're not just talking
10 about the distance from there, this 36 acres. We're talking
11 about the distance for the blocks and blocks going to the
• 12 west, to the north, northwest, southwest, the south. And all
13 of that could be served by the mixed uses that were proposed
14 for this 36 acres.
15 I thank Mr. Ludwig for pointing out to you there
16 was no requirement in the neighborhood shopping center zoning
17 or PUD portion to require that you have convenience stores.
18 In fact, on the existing ODP there is a legend that shows all
19 of the types of uses that range from car washes to dry
20 cleaning establishments, to barber shops, to offices and
21 similar types of uses.
22 This does not have to be another gas station. I
23 think it's misleading to say we're talking about 36 acres of
24 houses for one gas station versus one gas station. There has
• 25 to be at least 7 acres and at least 4 types of stores under
26
1 common ownership to have a neighborhood shopping center.
2 That neighborhood center serves more than the row of houses
3 to the west or south.
4 It serves a whole neighborhood extending all the
5 way towards Shields and extending south for many blocks as
6 well as north. What I would like to point out to you,
7 because I think this is the basis for making your decision,
8 are the land use policies and the Land Use Policies Plan that
9 this proposal is inconsistent with.
10 I don't think -- and all due respect to the
11 planners who did a very good job of showing that there is no
12 need for change and the original policies support the
13 existing mixed use. I think it's important to show that the
14 proposed change actually violates many of the policies and
15 the Land Use Policies Plan. It violates Policy No. 1 that
16 talks about establishing policies to guide and manage growth
17 and maintain the quality of life in the community.
18 What you have here is an acceleration of
19 residential growth. You and I both know that this city has
20 witnessed an explosion in residential growth in all
21 directions. Here we have the opportunity for mix use
22 development. We have the development immediately to the west
23 and the south that was residential with the opportunity then
24 for some neighborhood commercial uses that clearly would be
25 within walking distance.
F
s27
1 Those have now been eliminated by this proposal and
2 you would simply have more single-family housing. And there
3 is no indication how building more single family housing fits
4 into any concept about the need for more housing in Loveland,
5 or Fort Collins -- go there next week -- or the need for more
6 residences.
7 I don't think that that is consistent with Policy
8 No. 1. Policy 3A, the applicant advocates that they are
9 providing the maximum utilization of land within the city. I
10 wish you would ask them why when they come up here a little
11 bit later -- why is building more housing a maximum
• 12 utilization of land.
13 I think a mixture of uses does that as was
14 contained in the original ODP. I would love to have the
15 original proponent of that ODP here tonight because we're
16 being told that it doesn't make sense to put a neighborhood
17 shopping center in a plan that at one time a few years ago
18 was sold to you as a very good idea and adopted by this
19 planning board.
20 Now, we're told that the maximum utilization of
21 land is building more houses. Also we have the location --
22 this is D, 3D the location of the residential development,
23 which is close to employment, recreation and shopping
24 facilities. I agree that we do not have that criterion met
25 when people who live to the west of this development are
28
1 having to go down Horsetooth and then hit Mason or hit
2 College to do all of their shopping or to go to their day
3 care or go to their barber or their dry cleaners. That can
4 be done on a more neighborhood basis.
5 Also Policy 12: The applicant claims to be
6 consistent with policy 12 in that they have more than 3 units
7 per acre, but that policy deals with urban growth area. The
8 urban growth area, by definition, is the area outside the
9 city limits but within the area designated for future urban
10 growth. So Policy 12, which is one of only five the
11 applicant claims to be consistent with, isn't even relevant
12 to this application.
13 You then turn to Policy 19 which the developer does
14 not mention. 19A talks about positive and negative
15 environmental impacts. I don't think you have positive
16 environmental impacts by putting more housing here and
17 requiring more vehicle trips to be made out of that housing,
18 again, going to those highly congested areas to the east
19 where the commercial development occurs.
20 Positive and negative social impacts. I'll
21 indicate for a moment to you why those positive impacts
22 cannot occur with this development. In fact, there will be
23 negative consequences. Positive and negative economic
24 physical impacts rather than having commercial which
25 supports, as you know, residential development in a town by
29
1 providing a proportionately higher amount of taxes is being
2 denied here.
3 Instead you're having housing that does not produce
4 those taxes. And then positive and negative impacts on
5 public services and facilities. Again, you're creating
6 housing here which has a need for parks. It has a need for
7 schools. The office and commercial development does not
8 create those kinds of needs.
9 Policy 20 perhaps is the most important one. Land
10 use planning that promotes a functional and understandable
it interrelationship through and between land uses. That's what
12 this original ODP was all about. It was to have single-
13 family housing. It was to have duplexes, and then it was to
14 have a neighborhood shopping center. That makes a lot of
15 sense to me in terms of what a PUD is all about, creating
16 some higher density, creating some open space and having a
17 mixture of uses.
18 Policy 41, as you know, talks about promoting
19 residential development in the northeast quadrant of the
20 city. This does not do it. This provides more housing in an
21 area where commercial development could be present thereby
22 encouraging the residential development to the northeast,
23 which is the preferred path for residential development
24 within the city.
25 Policy 75 calls for mixed -housing densities. You
M
1 don't have mixed -housing densities here. Part of this land
2 could have been used for duplexes under the current ODP.
3 Now, it's going to be a continuation of the same kind of
4 single-family housing that is seen to the south, to the
5 southwest and to the north. There is not a mixture of
6 housing types here. You've eliminated that from the plan
7 entirely.
8 Now, I want to make a couple legal points, and then
9 -- being a lawyer, I feel I'm obligated to do that. I think,
10 for the record, I probably neglected to say my name is
11 Michael Shultz, and I'm an attorney at 19 Old Town Square
12 representing residents in the villages.
13 A couple of legal arguments: I'm a bit confused.
14 The packet for this says that this property is zoned RLP, low
15 density planned residential. Now, at the Registry Ridge
16 Development, we were told that that meant that you had to do
17 a planned unit development in order to develop; that you
18 could not do a straight subdivision; that when you are zoned
19 RLP, low -density, planned residential, that requires that you
20 have a PUD.
21 Also, I would point out that in the Land Development
22 Guidance System it says that the effect of a planned unit
23 development, once there is a preliminary or final plan for
24 the property, is the property can only be developed in that
25 manner. I don't think that means just this portion of the
31
1 PUD.
2 I think it means when you have an overall
3 development plan that comes before you, and you're promised
4 how this is going to be built out in individual phases. How
5 can a developer build one or two phases of that and then say,
6 Oh, we're not going to do that third or fourth phase. we're
7 going to go in and do a straight subdivision of some other
8 kind that you never even knew about even though we promised
9 you something different in approving the overall development
10 plan.
11 Now, if I could, Madam, I would like to just flip
• 12 through these slides fairly quickly. I know we're not
13 looking at architecture here, but I think you can still look
14 at the kind of use that is occurring versus the type of use
15 that is existing to the west with the villages.
16 Now again, this is looking at the villages from a
17 distance, and you see the 5 units there, the 5 structures
18 that back up --
19 MS. BELL: You have about 2 minutes.
20 MR. SHULTZ: Okay. Thank you. This is looking
21 down the fence line for these village units. You'll see that
22 there is a fence there, and you'll see the individual
23 sunrooms that extend off of each one of them. Now, this is the
24 kind of housing that is being proposed to be extended into
• 25 that open field in place of the office and the duplexes
32
1 that's currently proposed under the existing ODP.
2 There would be ten of these units then placed back-
3 to -back to the 5 existing units that I just showed you. This
4 is a backyard of the villages. Because these duplexes are
5 with a home's association, that is a common area back there
6 with free -flowing backyard. And you can see the quality of
7 the landscaping that exists -- at least if it is well enough
8 in focus you can. This, again, is looking at the backyard
9 from a different direction, again, showing the common flow of
10 the backyard seeing the quality of the brick units that are
11 there.
12 This is the backyard of what is being proposed to
13 be placed immediately behind these very high -quality duplex
14 units. These buildings, these duplex units run at about
15 $350,000 a piece, again, with a common backyard, without
16 fence lines running up and down. This is the backyard of
17 what is being built now to the southeast of them, which would
18 be proposed to be immediately behind them.
19 This is looking now in an effort to look down a
20 fence line; but with a high privacy fence, it's a little hard
21 to see anything, obviously; but you can see can that there
22 are very shallow backyards here. You can see that you don't
23 have any of the type of landscaping that is existent in the
24 villages.
25 You're going to have ten homes with privacy fence
• 33
1 and individual backyards. You also have a rise, by the way.
2 If you notice from those slides of the villages, they sit up
3 on a rise. As they are going to look out their windows, they
4 are going to be looking directly to whatever housing units
5 are being built behind them and vice versa.
6 You have a total loss of privacy then both for the
7 residents of the villages as well as for those who live in
8 the homes that are proposed to be built. This is the other
9 side of the villages. I think it's important to get a sense
10 of streetscape to understand how incompatible the type of
11 housing that is being proposed is to be next to the villages.
• 12 This is the streetscape of these units -- very
13 clean, no on -street parking, nice narrow roads within this
14 development. I think these are private roads, if I recall.
15 This is the streetscape in the homes that are being
16 proposed. This is being built immediately to the southeast
17 right now. Lots of cars.
18 Admittedly some of these are construction units.
19 But you have houses wall-to-wall, the protruding garages.
20 And I suggest that this kind of single-family housing which
21 is being proposed is not at all compatible with the quality
22 of the duplex units that are there now. It does not provide
23 the appropriate type of mixed use that these neighborhoods
24 relied upon.
• 25 Now, several of the neighbors are going to speak on
34
1 their own behalf to explain to you how they relied on the
2 overall development plan, when they made the investment in
3 the villages, expecting office and neighborhood shopping
4 center facilities to be available to them and not the single-
s family houses.
6 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you. Who would like to
7 come and speak next? We'll go back to our 4 minutes.
8 MR. POLETTI: Madam Chair, Board Members my name is
9 Tom Poletti. I am one of the people that live in one of the
10 homes at 419 Walden Way; unfortunately, it's not one of the
11 $350,000 homes that the gentleman was talking about there.
12 We're very happy with our neighborhood. It was a house that
13 I could afford to buy.
14 And Mark Middle of Middle Construction has been
15 providing affordable housing for all of the people in the
16 neighborhood. Couple of issues I would like to address with
17 the Planning and Zoning Committee that I feel that the
18 property needs to be residential.
19 I think there is sufficient commercial property
20 already located in the neighborhood. One-half block away is
21 Alfalfa's Market. There is a Total gas station, convenience
22 store. A short distance from this is Albertsons, a
23 laundromat, shoe store, Subway sandwiches, a pizza parlor.
24 All of Mason, which is only a block way, is commercial.
25 A new theater went across the way to the east.
I It's only a half a block away. The vacant property located
2 directly north of the subject property that we're talking
3 about this evening has already been approved for mixed use.
4 If this is approved for mixed use, I believe it
5 will greatly increase the traffic in the neighborhood. At
6 6:45 in the evening cars are backed up to Shields, to the
7 west; College, to the east, if people are going to the
8 theater. If you add a train on top of that, you're lucky to
9 get home for dinner. According to what I read in the
10 newspaper the city is very much in favor of affordable
11 housing.
• 12 Mark Middle and Middle Construction has been very
13 successful in his housing development. He has provided us
14 with affordable housing. Thank you.
15 MR. NOEL: Madam Chair, members of the board, my
16 name is Earl B. Noel. I moved here 3 years ago. I bought
17 into the village as a retirement center. I was told at the
18 time that I bought my property that directly east of me,
19 beyond the fence, there would be no homes; it would be
20 duplexes, doctors' offices and so forth; there would be a
21 greenbelt between our fence and the continuation of these
22 offices or whatever.
23 i was told that there would be no homes there.
24 Upon that assumption I put $25,000 into my home. I built a
• 25 sunroom on the back for my wife who is inambulant. She
36
1 comes out -- I take her out there rather to the sunroom, set
2 her on the couch/lounge so that she can see outside.
3 If these homes are built, ten homes across this
4 area, and I'm looking upstairs into someone's bedroom or
5 bathroom, and they're looking down into my sunroom at my
6 wife, and I built a sunroom for nothing because I'll have to
7 close all of the blinds for her sake, the homes that were --
8 are going to be built there, as I understand, will not be
9 compatible at all with my (inaudible) home. And I hope you
10 will understand what I'm telling you -- asking you I should
11 say. I would like to see this rejected because I bought my
12 home and built too much money into it. I'm there until the
13 day I die.
14 MS. BELL: Sir, could you use the mike -- move the
15 mike over a little bit over a little bit so they can record
16 what you're saying.
17 MR. NOEL: Okay, now? I'm sorry. I say I bought
18 this home -- I sold a home in Albuquerque and bought this
19 home to retire. Now, I understand that everything I put into
20 it has been a waste of money. And living on Social Security,
21 I can't afford that; but I appreciate your time for listening
22 to me; and I just hope you will understand. Thank you.
23 MS. BELL: Thank you. Next.
24 MS. AGGERS: Good evening. My name is Betty
25 Aggers. Can you hear me okay? My husband, Jack, and I are
1 homeowners and reside in the village, in Unit 16. Thank you.
2 our unit joins to the east the property in question.
3 We would strongly urge the Board to consider the
4 existing neighborhood before making any changes or amendments
5 to the Park South ODP. It was our understanding when we had
6 our unit built that compatible housing would be developed on
7 the property referred to in the Park South 4688 F, i.e., one-
8 story patio homes or duplexes, some office spaces or
9 businesses, also a greenbelt or buffer. This is most
10 important to all of us.
11 We thought that it would be included in the overall
• 12 development when it was completed. The existing developed
13 property owned by Middle Construction Company, which lies to
14 the southeast of the Park South property, does not have any
15 greenbelt areas or other amenities, which I feel is necessary
16 in the neighborhood.
17 These homes are going to be two-story and will be
18 on 50-foot lots. It is also our understanding that water
19 runoff could be a huge problem and all of the neighborhood
20 would be in trouble. We hope the Board will consider our
21 request as we are all interested in keeping Fort Collins a
22 beautiful and wonderful city. Thank you very much.
23 If I might, Madam Chairman, I have a letter from
24 our neighbors who are on vacation; and I would like to read
• 25 that if I may.
38
1
We object to the proposed amendments for
2
several reasons: First, the proposal is a drastic
3
change from the prior ODP upon which we relied when
4
building our home. We believed that neighbors
5
purchasing their property -- I'm sorry.
6
We believe that neighborhoods should be able
7
to rely upon the existing overall development when
8
purchasing their property and that only a
9
substantial change in conditions should be
10
justified in an amendment.
11
Second, the type of home that is being
12
proposed is incompatible with the homes in which we
13
live. Presently our homes offer a open common area
14
that would now be bordered by ten individual
15
backyards and high fences. In addition, the style
16
and architecture of these houses is dramatically
17
different from our duplex units.
18
Finally the elevations of our homes will be
19
incompatible with the single-family homes that are
20
proposed. There will be no sense of privacy, and
21
people will be able to easily look into one
22
another's houses.
23
We feel that the original plan should be
24
maintained to provide the mixture of uses in our
25
neighborhood. Signed, Very Truly Yours, Joseph and
• 39
1 L.D. Maxmer. (phonetic)
2 And finally if traffic is so bad on Horsetooth, why
3 are we going to build these high -density homes along
4 Horsetooth? Thank you very much.
5 MS. BELL: Thank you.
6 MR. J. POLETTI: My name is John Poletti, and I
7 live at 430 Walden Way. Personally, I want to start off by
8 saying I feel insulted. My home may only be a $130,000 home,
9 but I'm awful proud of it. You know, you're showing pictures
10 of homes that have not had a chance to get landscaped.
it You know, if you do get a chance drive by this
• 12 area. It is a good neighborhood; good, clean people all with
13 good -- putting in good yards, good landscaping. These are
14 appealing -looking homes for all those of us that cannot
15 afford a $350,000 home. Not all of us can.
16 A couple of points that I would like to touch on
17 tonight are the fact of the increased traffic; 10,000 to
18 15,000 more cars a day if it is commercial. We already have
19 an abundance of commercial in the area. We have Horsetooth,
20 Mason and College are all considered high -commercial as it
21 is. We have gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores. The
22 mall is close. You really need to get an idea of how close
23 this area is to commercial.
24 We're talking a half mile, three-quarters of mile.
25 Folks, that's really not that far to an area to add more
40
1 commercial to the area. We need a -- there is a high need
2 for affordable housing. All the -- if you look at Mark
3 Middle's development, all of his homes are selling because
4 people can afford them. He builds a good quality home for a
5 good price.
6 I just got out of college. There is no way I could
7 afford a home unless I was able to get into a home such as
8 Mark Middle is building. Why would we want to stop a good
9 thing. There is nearby schools. Residential is good for
10 schools, not commercial.
11 My house will back directly to the new proposed
12 area. The last thing I want to see is lighted parking lots,
13 increased noise by commercial traffic during the late evening
14 hours. I would like to ask the folks living to the west to
15 consider the -- the disturbances of a commercial property
16 versus residential as well. I think it goes both ways.
17 The property to the north side of the development
18 that we're talking about has already been approved for
19 commercial use. The east side of Manhattan is becoming
20 extremely congested with the addition of the new movie
21 theater. The corner of Shields and Horsetooth is now being
22 developed commercial. I don't know if you're aware of that.
23 That's an area that has been approved and is currently under
24 construction. That's more commercial that is going to serve
25 this area that I think we have forgotten to talk about this
• 41
1 evening.
2 I would kind of like to end by saying, what kind of
3 commercial development could you put in this area that is
4 going to be of benefit to the neighborhood, you know,
5 something we don't have? We're talking about putting
6 commercial in an area -- I could understand if we didn't have
7 a convenience store, if we didn't have a grocery store, a
8 movie theater. If we were missing something, I would
9 understand that, but we're not. We have everything we need
10 within a close enough distance. Thank you.
11 MR. SMART: Hi, my name is Marty Smart and, I just
• 12 want to say a few words regarding this proposal as well. I
13 too, live in one of the houses that borders this area just to
14 the south. And I also too, wanted to point out that this
15 picture behind me was taken while every one of these
16 houses -- one that was under construction behind me, and
17 certainly we have to consider the fact that these yards are
18 not going to look like this.
19 When we looked at the picture that showed the
20 backyards, those houses that bordered the property, mine was
21 one of them. And, again, I would like to say that certainly
22 these are not going to look like this. I've lived in my
23 house now just a little bit over a month and a half, and
24 we're getting the yard put in. So it's by no means that
• 25 these are going to be blighted neighborhoods which are going
42
1 to come in and decrease the property value of those who live
2 to the west here.
3 The first thing I wanted to hit, and I think this
4 has been brought up tremendously, is the fact of the traffic.
5 My wife and myself walk often to the stores which are just to
6 the east of us. We cross Manhattan without any problem,
7 Mason without too much problem; and we have easy
8 accessibility to the Albertsons and all of the small services
9 in the strip malls nearby.
10 I think that just an overall Gestalt of looking at
11 what has happened with the movie theaters. I see the kids
12 playing out in the evenings on Manhattan. About the time
13 that the movies begin, there is a large increase of traffic
14 on that street. That's just with one -- granted a very large
15 business, but one business in general.
16 I run and ride my bike a great deal, and I've --
17 many times -- just nearly had a couple close calls with cars
18 making left-hand turns and right-hand turns into the movie
19 theaters. I think that a large commercial development at
20 this proposed site will only add to that kind of traffic.
21 Yes, building more houses will increase the
22 traffic; but I think it will be a little bit of a different
23 type of increase. I mean, we're talking people leaving their
24 homes and coming home from work and from their daily duties.
25 And, on the other hand, we're talking people hurrying down
........... ......... ......... .
43
1 trying to make it before the business closes, trying to get
2 their gas before they hurry to work. I think you can
3 separate the type of traffic that is going to be generated in
4 two different categories. I think we need to pay some
5 attention to that.
6 The third thing is my wife and myself just
7 purchased this house, and it's our first home purchase.
8 We're new to Fort Collins. As we looked around, it was hard
9 finding good quality housing in our price range. There is a
10 lot of housing out there, but most of it is overpriced,
11 especially if you want a relatively new house.
12 I think those concerns need to be addressed here as
13 well. I think Mark Middle has done a wonderful job in
14 providing quality housing that people can afford. I know
15 that we extensively researched the market and found that the
16 only new housing we could afford was in this area. At the
17 same time I think the neighborhood reflects that but reflects
18 people that are proud of their homes and are willing to make
19 added investments in both their money and time to make sure
20 that the neighborhoods are beautiful and attractive.
21 I don't see them imposing any type of decrease in
22 property values or decrease in the -- just the overall
23 eyesores of the area. I think that overall you'll have a
24 much more presentive and attractive corner without
25 businesses; without parking lots; without lights; without
44
1 horns being honked; without lights and traffic all, you know,
2 into the late hours of the night. So I think these are some
3 of the other considerations that need to be addressed. I
4 thank you very much for your time.
5 MS. BELL: Thank you.
6 MS. SMART: My name is Stephanie Smart, and I'm
7 Marty's wife. I have some pictures. Can I give them to you
8 guys? These are pictures of our home. (Inaudible.) When we
9 moved here, we had to find somewhere to live, and we were
10 renting a place for $700 a month, and it was a dump. But we
it had a dog, and it was the nicest place we could find that
12 would allow us to have our dog.
13 I was really bummed out about it. I was quite sad
14 to be living in a place after we had worked so hard through
15 putting him through medical school and renting and
16 everything. And, you know, we finally moved; and he was in
17 residency and going to be making some money; and here we were
18 still back to where we were 4 years ago.
19 So it was nice after 2 months of looking for a home
20 when we came across Mark Middle's home at 400 Walden Way. We
21 walked in and said, We want it. We want this house. Buying
22 that home was the happiest day of my life. And I just wanted
23 to point out in this picture all of those vehicles are part
24 of the -- they are construction vehicles.
25 The streets that we live on, the cars -- a two car
0
• 45
1 garage, everyone usually puts their car in the garage. You
2 don't have a lot of cars on the street. That's one of the
3 things we looked at when we decided to buy a home. This
4 weekend -- well actually, for the whole week, I've been
5 working in my yard trying to make it beautiful.
6 We worked all day Saturday and Sunday trying to get
7 the rock put in. And I'm proud of my home just as well as
8 everybody else. I'm so excited to have it and to be able to
9 entertain and to be able to have friends over and be proud of
10 it. Also, if you do have residential in there, what that
it does is people go out -- we bought our furniture from Rhodes
• 12 furniture. We support the existing businesses already. When
13 we bought our rock, we supported the sand and gravel
14 companies. Everything that we're putting into that house to
15 make it even nicer is helping these already existing
16 businesses.
17 As far as the gas, buying gasoline, say if it was a
18 gas station, usually people are out and about when they
19 realize that they need gas. They're not home sitting in
20 their houses and say oh, I need gas so I think I'll drive to
21 the corner and get it and come home. Usually they're out and
22 about.
23 Also I work for Federal Express and my route goes
24 from Horsetooth to Loveland and from College both sides all
• 25 the way to the Horsetooth Reservoir. I find that I stay
46
1 mainly on College and Mason. I use Mason an awful lot
2 because of the congestion on College, but I'm afraid that
3 people are going to cut through the neighborhood on Harmony
4 over into that commercial area.
5 I find that my route generally stays on College and
6 Mason, and it does -- you know, if I have a few residential
7 pick ups I do have to cut through the neighborhoods. But I
8 was thinking about that how I generally stay in that one area
9 because of the businesses. The businesses are mainly on
10 College and Mason.
11 I just have a bad feeling that people are going to
12 find the ways to cut through off of Harmony. I know there is
13 two ways and then there is another way off Shields. That
14 would just increase in traffic. But I just want to say one
15 last thing. We really don't want to have the commercial
16 development in our backyard.
17 And, you know, that the extra noise -- the train is
18 loud enough, and then the traffic from the movie theaters.
19 But I think also for the folks that live in the duplexes or
20 whatever you want to call them. I think that having
21 commercial -- I mean residential housing will cut down on the
22 noise for them as well.
23 People usually don't like to spy. I don't have any
24 blinds in my house right now. That will come after the yard.
25 My neighbor, she can see into my house; and I can see into
47
1 hers. Until we get blinds up, that's just what you do. And
2 we don't really -- I don't sit there and look in her window,
3 and she doesn't sit there and look into mine either. We try
4 and let everyone have their privacy. Thank you very much.
5 MS. BELL: Thank you. Are there more, is there
6 anyone else?
7 MR. ELLIOTT: Good evening. My name is Mike
8 Elliott, and I'm a resident on Park South. NIMBY, anyone who
9 is a city planner or a city engineer or on a city planning
10 board has heard the acronym NIMBY. The people to the west
11 are concerned that their privacy is going to be invaded by
12 these housing. But if you put apartments, a two- or three-
13 story apartment in there, it's going to invade their privacy
14 just as well.
15 Development of Park South as a mixed -use
16 development will result in degradation of the neighborhood;
17 increased traffic, which has been debated here, which is
18 already intolerable; 24-hour lighted parking; and a loud and
19 undesirable noise would all result if the remaining Park
20 South area is developed as mixed use.
21 The Park South neighborhood is presently a quiet
22 pleasant neighborhood with a school at Lopez and a nice park
23 at Troutman. The area does not need more convenience stores
24 or restaurants or an office building or more parking lots.
25 These things are already plentiful in the area.
48
1 Convenience shopping, as discussed earlier, is
2 already available at Alfalfa's market, at Albertsons.
3 Restaurants are plentiful, such as Boston Market, Nates
4 seafood, Archers and the Pelican. These are all within
5 walking distance of Park South and the establishments to the
6 west. Even the Foothills Fashion Mall is within one-half
7 mile from Park South.
8 There is unquestionably sufficient restaurants and
9 stores to service the present population. What we do not
10 need are more convenience stores such as a gas station or
11 restaurants. What we do need more of in Fort Collins is
12 affordable housing. This is what Middle Realty offers. A
13 great majority of Park South neighborhood supports Middle
14 Realty's plan to develop the housing as single-family
15 housing.
16 It is unincomprehensible how someone could want, in
17 their backyard, developed a parking lot. I wholeheartedly
18 endorse and urge you to change the classification to single-
19 family housing. Thank you.
20 MS. BASTIAN: My name is Cynthia Bastian. I live
21 at 543 Walden Way. I didn't make it on to that photograph.
22 I'll pass the insult. Obviously, all the construction --
23 most people have moved into their homes now. I want to talk
24 about that square mile that we live in Harmony, Shields,
25 Horsetooth and the railroad tracks by Mason.
1 Before I bought my home I lived on Goldeneye, which
2 is to the south of Troutman Park. I wanted to stay in this
3 square mile because I could walk, I could bike anywhere I
4 wanted to get to. Anything I needed was there. My son, who
5 is now ten, and his friends could easily get to any of those
6 places after I had gone with them several times to make sure
7 that they knew how to get there and I was comfortable with
8 letting them go across the railroad tracks.
9 So I already lived on Goldeneye, a mile from
10 Alfalfa's, a mile and a quarter to Albertsons -- whatever it
11 was. I already walked. I didn't care what part of that
• 12 square mile I was in. I could get to what I needed. So when
13 I went shopping for a house, I couldn't find a floor plan
14 that I liked that was affordable, but Mark had that. Mark
15 had that.
16 We decided to move in there on Walden, and we've
17 been really happy. It's been nice. The children get along
18 well together. The children do go over to the Carmike
19 Theaters. They do go over to Albertsons. They do ride their
20 bikes over to the bank, which is -- they have to go across
21 Harmony and down a little bit. Is that McClelland, I
22 believe.
23 I've gone with them several times to make sure they
• 24 can do it. It works. We don't need any more services in that,
25 square mile. We really don't. We have everything we need.
-3l�
1 We don't need any more traffic. We can get to what
2 we need to get to very easily, very conveniently. And the
3 children are learning responsibility getting across those
4 busy streets; and, yes, they are busy. Yes, we do have the
5 railroad to contend with, but it really has not been an
6 inconvenience.
7 You work around it. You know it's there. You know
8 what time these things happen if you have any sense
9 whatsoever. And, yes, you're able to adjust your schedule.
10 You adjust your schedule around the railroad. You adjust
11 your schedule around the high traffic times. You don't let
12 the kids go on their bicycles at 5 o'clock to go over to
13 Albertsons. And that's not an inconvenience, that's common
14 sense.
15 I really hope you seriously consider putting in
16 more houses and allowing Mark to build those very affordable
17 and very nice houses. And people are working hard on their
18 lawns. I don't have mine in yet. I have parts of it, but
19 it's going to be a while before it's finished. Thank you
20 very, very much.
21 MS. BELL: Thank you. Is there anyone else that
22 would like to address the board on this issue? Okay. Then
23 I'll be closing this portion of the public input and bringing
24 it back before the Board for additional questions and
25 comments. Who would like to start, please?
51
1 MR. COLTON: I guess I want to get to the heart of
2 this traffic issue a little bit more. I don't know if it's
3 Fred or Matt, but I assume we use kind of standard tables for
4 traffic generation for things like this. To me, the purpose
5 of a neighborhood service center like this is to service the
6 people from the immediate area, not to draw people in from
7 other areas.
8 I kind of question, I guess, whether this is really
9 a Tent X traffic generator by having commercial here versus
10 taking care of local neighborhood needs, and lessening the
11 number of trips. And I can't reconcile that in my mind.
12 I know what the purpose of these -- this is not a
13 neighborhood shopping center, which some of you are thinking
14 of, which grocery stores probably would attract people from a
15 larger area. This is a neighborhood service center which is
16 supposed to attract people from --
17 I don't know, Mike, maybe you can tell me from
18 exactly what the neighborhood is supposed to be, but it's
19 supposed to be a fairly close area. So I don't know. Fred,
20 can you give me your professional opinion on is it really
21 going to create that much more traffic coming to this place
22 or is it going to service the neighborhood?
23 MR. JONES: Well, the original traffic impact
• 24 analysis was based upon 100,000 square feet of commercial
25 development on that 13.3 acres. That is a very intense
52
1 commercial development. I really haven't seen any of the
2 site type plans or what the uses would be; but for a basic
3 gas station, convenience store, you would generate about
4 1,200 trips per day. This is, if it was developed, all 13.3
5 acres with a hundred thousand square foot of commercial
6 development. It has a potential at build out of generating
7 12,000 plus trips a day.
8 Those would probably not be self-contained trips to
9 only the neighborhood, but would also have some external
10 trips come in from the north side of Horsetooth Road or even
11 further west or possibly east of College Avenue. So does
12 that answer your question, Glen?
13 MR. COLTON: I guess I'm just a little confused
14 because my definition of a neighborhood service center does
15 not jive with 100,000 square foot commercial development.
16 And, I guess, I need some clarification of what we're really
17 looking at going on in this area, Mike.
18 MR. LUDWIG: As was provided in the staff memo, the
19 existing overall development plan shows that Parcel A is a
20 neighborhood convenience shopping center 7.3 acres, 50,000
21 square feet max. Parcel B shows duplex housing or office
22 use. If it was duplex housing, approximately 24 units, which
23 would be about 8 dwelling units an acre and approximately
24 30,000 square feet of office space. That's what is currently
25 on the approved overall development plan.
53
1 MR. COLTON: Okay. My understanding is office
2 space use would probably generate less trips than a house
3 would; is that correct? My limited knowledge -- a house
4 generates 10 trips per house. Maybe you can --
5 MR. JONES: It depends on what type of an office
6 use it would be.
7 MR. COLTON: Okay. As far as if it was a
8 convenience store, in my mind I don't see a lot of people
9 coming across Horsetooth to fill up on this side versus the
10 other side. They may just -- if they're coming down, headed
11 east, they may stop here instead of having to cross that at
• 12 Mason over to Total or someplace.
13 Is it really going to generate people going to this
14 one as opposed to going to the other ones if that turned out
15 to be the use? I don't know. That's just probably a
16 rhetorical question I guess. Someone else can ask.
17 MS. WEITKUNAT: I have a question for the
18 applicant. If I understood what I heard, the citizens are
19 saying in the letters that we received they don't exactly
20 object to a housing development as much as the height of the
21 development next to the neighboring properties.
22 And I'm wondering if you addressed any of the
23 concerns of the neighborhoods in thinking about this plan.
. 24 And is there possible consideration where it approaches the
25 Four Seasons property of using one-story properties as
54
1 opposed to double story? That seems to be one of the primary
2 concerns that I heard.
3 MS. RILEY: Yes, I think you heard correctly. That
4 is one of the primary concerns. I would like to make
5 several, several points with regard to that.
6 First of all, tonight we're just talking about the
7 amendment to the ODP and not the details of the plan. If the
8 amendment were approved, we would come back before this board
9 with a preliminary and a final PUD plan where you could look
10 at the specifics of that PUD relationship.
11 Yes, Mark Middle has worked with the folks in the
12 village. He has been unwilling to restrict those homes to
13 one story; however, he has been willing to plant trees. I
14 believe he did increase the lot size along there. Again,
15 that is a detail that I'm not prepared to answer because we
16 don't have that before you tonight.
17 If we go back to doing the subdivision, again, that
18 won't be the Board's prerogative to look at that. Another
19 point I would like to make is if we stay within the
20 parameters of the existing ODP of the proposed duplex units,
21 it is highly likely those duplex units or multi -family would
22 also be allowed. We would have at least two stories,
23 possibly higher.
24 That dilemma would be exactly the same as I see it
25 whether we did duplexes or whether we did single-family
• 55
1 housing. We need to take a careful look at that interface.
2 MS. WEITKUNAT: I was looking for a point of
3 compromise as opposed to the points of conflict. You
4 know, we're talking about housing over commercial. We're
5 talking about neighborhoods with two-story and one-story.
6 And I'm wondering, where we have areas that possibly the
7 conflict can be mitigated so that maybe we can come closer to
8 what is agreeable to staff and to the applicant and to the
9 neighborhood.
10 MS. RILEY: Okay.
11 MS. WEITKUNAT: That was the point.
• 12 MR. MIDDLE: Hi. My name is Mark Middle, and I'm
13 the applicant. And on the original ODP, they had (inaudible)
14 or the dimensions from their property line to the backyard
15 line of whatever would be proposed next to the village at
16 Four Seasons. We're not going to have that. Right now it's
17 a 20-foot setback for single story and 25-foot setback for a
18 multi, two-story unit.
19 All of our units would be well within that
20 requirement, but that is what was agreed to at the time that
21 we did the original ODP. And we'll even be further away than
22 what those original restrictions were.
23 MS. BELL: Excuse me, Mr. Middle. Oh, like middle
24 of the road. Oh, that's good. One of the -- a woman that
25 stood up talked about a greenbelt. I think you were talking
56
1 about that just now, a buffer; but she mentioned one-story.
2 Where does this conflict come from?
3 MR. MIDDLE: On the original ODP we had a height
4 restriction. And on the original ODP it shows a 20-foot
5 setback for single story and then 25 feet back for multi
6 story. And I have the --
7 MS. BELL:
In
essence, it was not a height
8 restriction it was
just
that you had to set back more if you
9 had a higher --
10 MR. MIDDLE: Right. That's correct. As you can
it see, their properties are quite a bit higher than what our
12 ground is so the same thing with drainage. Right now they'll
13 be draining through our property instead of keeping their
14 drainage on to their parameters.
15 Again, that was something different than the
16 original plan was they couldn't get rid of their water so
17 we're having to accept it. At the original it was 8 dwelling
18 units per acre. If I understand it, Tract C is the one that
19 some of the people who got up and addressed us tonight are
20 talking about. They're homes that are already completed.
21 We're talking about Parcel A and B at this point;
22 is that right? And on B, which is right by the existing
23 duplexes, it was proposed at 8 dwelling units per acre; is
24 that right?
25 MR. MIDDLE: We're going to be less density than
E
0 57
1 that. We're like 5.6 units per acre, so we're actually
2 coming down on that density. They have a total of 5
3 buildings. We'll have 10 single-family units backing up to
4 them.
5 It's really about the same density that they have;
6 but on their duplexes they don't have any -- you may say --
7 space between their units where we have space between ours.
8 We're actually even less dense than what they are.
9 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you.
10 MR. BYRNE: I have a question, Mr. Middle. Don't
11 go any place just yet. Are you familiar with the new street
• 12 standards?
13 MR. MIDDLE: Yes, I am.
14 MR. BYRNE: And had you considered perhaps being
15 one of the first affordable housing developments in the
16 community to adopt those, even though it wasn't mandated?
17 MR. MIDDLE: We submitted this plan in February of
18 this year, so we've already done all of our engineering
19 preliminary and finals already before we -- we didn't believe
20 that the ODP was being violated. All of our engineering is
21 completed.
22 MR. BYRNE: So you've already engineered this
23 project?
24 MR. MIDDLE: Everything, yes.
25 MR. BYRNE: Now, what is involved if you go back
58
1 and change it to adopt it to the new street standards?
2 MR. MIDDLE: We spent about $40,000 so far in
3 engineering so, I guess, we kind of scrap that and start over
4 again. So, again, we end up basically becoming less
5 affordable, and we start putting streets together that are
6 just different. I mean it's not any better, it's just
7 different.
8 MR. BYRNE: Well, you're familiar with the visual
9 preference survey results, right?
10 MR. MIDDLE: Right.
11 MR. BYRNE: And you saw where there was a
12 comparison about a street like this and then the same kind of
13 development where we had detached sidewalks, and people
14 scored those streets much, much higher. And then there was
15 also the investment potential in terms of appreciation on
16 those properties. Are you familiar with that as well?
17 MR. MIDDLE: I'm familiar with that. I guess the
18 thing that at the time we submitted this, they were just, I
19 guess, developing those standards. So I guess from my
20 standpoint, we've worked out all of the properties according
21 to the old standards because that is what we were working
22 with. We weren't working with a proposed change.
23 MR. BYRNE: Uh-huh.
24 MR. MIDDLE: So I guess that's where we're coming
25 from right now is we were supposed to be on the Planning and
• 59
1 Zoning Board the first part of June, but now we're September.
2 So I guess it all goes back to timing.
3 And, you know, we should have already been starting
4 to move dirt by now if we could have been able to get a
5 decision either yea or nay. So I guess in a perfect world
6 where we can go back and toss all that stuff away, I guess,
7 we could have the designers or engineers do whatever plan as
8 long as we can get the density and get the cost down and
9 trying to have that picture on the wall of who the customer
10 is and how much can they afford and what are you trying to
11 build for them.
• 12 If you get out of the picture, no matter how good
13 the streetscape is and no matter how good the density is, if
14 the house cost you $20,000 more, all of my customers are
15 going to be completely different customers again. So I guess
16 that's what we're looking for is trying to protect those
17 folks that are trying to be in that lower price range from
18 115 or 120 to 140, but we just can't be throwing money at it
19 and still meet those requirements.
20 MR. BYRNE: Now, by any chance, did you happen
21 to -- as a person who is a true expert in affordable housing,
22 do you have an estimate of what the new street standards
23 would cost?
24 MR. MIDDLE: I have not done that, no
25 MR. BYRNE: Do you have a rough guess?
m
1 MR. MIDDLE: I have no idea.
2 MR. BYRNE: okay. Thanks.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Mark, can you answer one more
4 question?
5 MR. MIDDLE: Sure.
6 MR. GAVALDON: From the observations and comments,
7 it seems to be that barrier, the ground between Four Seasons
8 and your proposed development which affects Parcel B. You
9 mentioned how you had done most of your engineering and you
10 have your investments in there. So is there a possibility of
11 meeting some of the concerns?
12 MR. MIDDLE: I guess we had a meeting with the Four
13 Seasons Board. At the time we had that meeting, we basically
14 agreed on a couple of things: No. 1, we would go ahead to
15 put like two trees in the back of our yards, and Four Seasons
16 would also add some additional landscaping to the back of
17 their yards.
18 We've agreed to share a fence of a new common fence
19 between our property lines. At the same time we've agreed to
20 raise our grade to allow the drainage off of their properties
21 through our properties. At the same time we're going to be
22 trying to mitigate whatever, you might say, nuisance that one
23 another can be.
24 The things I look at is those folks are actually
25 higher than we are. To me it's not a matter of us looking up
• 61
1 at them, it's usually the other direction where you're
2 looking -- they're looking down on my customers.
3 And if you know the folks are using their back
4 patios, and these other folks are up very high looking over
5 their balconies or sunrooms down into their yard, I think
6 it's the opposite where I think the privacy on my customers
7 are going to be hurt more than the privacy of the people
8 looking down on us. I'm going to do everything we possibly
9 can to screen that and to go ahead and build our homes in
10 such a way that we're protected; that we aren't basically on
11 top of one another.
• 12 In addition, we initially had like 95- to 100-foot
13 depth on those. We've extended those lots out so we have a
14 little bit more room there to add some additional
15 landscaping. If you look at the way we have our setback
16 requirements in the original ODP, we had 20 feet for
17 single -story and 25 feet for multi -story buildings.
18 Right now we would have almost 30 or 35 feet in the
19 backyards on single-family. Again, we've added to the area
20 between our neighborhoods. And the thing that I find is a
21 little bit interesting is most people's backyards, they don't
22 use backyards anymore.
23 It's the kind of thing where if you see all the
24 kids -- I never see kids in the backyard. You always see
25 kids in the front of the street in the front of the yard.
62
1 So, it's the kind of thing where the neighbors might find
2 some other neighbor maybe having a barbecue or whatever.
3 It's not going to be the kind of nuisance that people
4 visualize that here these folks are going to be either
5 Peeping Toms or looking into their neighborhood windows.
6 These folks are real busy working-class people so
7 they might enjoy them in the evening the same as the other
8 folks but, that's not different than living in the city. We
9 all get along and we all screen our properties and by the
10 time you do your landscaping and they do their landscaping,
11 it shouldn't be a problem.
12 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you.
13 MS. WEITKUNAT: I got a question for Mike. Am I
14 correct that the Land Use Policy Plan does not identify a
15 specific number in density. For example, both sides have
16 cited low density and the other side says this is high
17 density; however, the Land Use Policies Plan does not give a
18 number.
19 MR. MIDDLE: That's correct.
20 MS. WEITKUNAT: Therefore, it's subject to
21 interpretation on what is low density as opposed to high.
22 Considering that the city is basically at 6, am I correct --
23 near 6 -- as an overall density? The new densities are going
24 to 8 as medium overall.
25 MR. LUDWIG: I think the structure plan which was
11
63
1 adopted is showing an overall density in the future of like 6
2 over the entire city. I think right now we're currently less
3 than that.
4 MS. WEITKUNAT: But high density is considered 12
5 or something like that, isn't it?
6 MR. LUDWIG: I think it's higher than that.
7 MS. WEITKUNAT: But am I correct that possibly this
8 has changed since 1990 in the thinking of what is density. I
9 mean, I hear people saying this is too high of a density; and
10 I hear the other side saying this is too low of a density.
11 I guess in my mind I'm questioning whether or not
12 this is dense. Maybe it's me. You know what I'm saying?
13 It's not specifically spelled out. When he cites this does
14 not meet the criteria of low density, it is subject to
15 interpretation because this document does not tell us what it
16 is; am I correct?
17 MR. LUDWIG: That is correct.
18 MS. WEITKUNAT: Okay.
19 MR. BYRNE: I have a question for Mike, if the
20 request for the amendment is denied, Mr. Middle has the
21 option, I guess we've heard, of pursuing a subdivision. Can
22 you walk us through what the requirements would then be for
23 that development?
24 MR. LUDWIG: Yeah, it would be just a minute.
25 Actually I need to pull out the zoning code.
64
1 MS. BELL: I would like to attach another related
2 question to that. It was brought up tonight, and I'm curious
3 for a legal opinion on this, if you've already built several
4 phases -- I think it was Mr. Shultz who brought this up --
5 you can just change in midstream and say, Okay. Now, I'm
6 going to do straight subdivision?
7 MR. ECKMAN: The City Code provides that in the
8 event that a property has obtained final PUD approval that it
9 must be developed in conformance with that final PUD unless
10 it is abandoned or amended and a couple of other exceptions.
11 The Code isn't specific on what -- in terms of
12 whether you're bound to develop in accordance with an ODP or
13 a preliminary plan, so the interpretation has been that since
14 the Code doesn't provide specifically what the effect of an
15 ODP or preliminary PUD is in terms of whether you're locked
16 into developing in that way, the interpretation is that you
17 can then rely upon the use by right that may be available to
18 you under the zoning of that particular property.
19 So in this case, since it is an RLP zone, that
20 would allow a subdivision without going through a PUD. Since
21 this is now an ODP stage but they're not locked into it, they
22 can elect to develop a subdivision. And I can maybe just
23 answer one other question, one other issue that was raised by
24 Mr. Shultz, and that was that the Registry Ridge Development
25 which was developed as a PUD. He mentioned he was told that
r
65
1 it had to be developed as a PUD and couldn't be developed as
2 a subdivision.
3 And based upon what Mr. Ludwig told me earlier this
4 evening, it appears that when that Registry Ridge property
5 was annexed into the City that it was annexed under the
6 zoning condition of RLP with a PUD condition. That's the
7 difference here, that was part of the annexation. Here this
8 is a straight RLP zone which allows a subdivision.
9 MR. LUDWIG: As far as the differences on the
10 subdivision, a straight subdivision would still go before the
11 Planning and Zoning Board. Basically, it would just need to
12 meet the lot area requirements of the RL zoning district and
13 whatever applicable engineering standards are in effect at
14 that time, which would be our new street standards.
15 The minimum lot sizes, once again, are 6,000 square
16 foot lot. There are specified setback distances from the
17 front property line, rear property line and site. It's
18 fairly limited. The major difference is we do not evaluate
19 the project against the All Development Criteria of the Land
20 Development Guidance System, and it does not have to meet a
21 certain amount of points on our point chart because the LGDS
22 is not applicable.
23 MR. COLTON: Mike, on the point chart for
24 Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center J, I know we aren't
25 evaluating versus that now; but 2E says, "Is the center
m
1 located at least three-quarters of a mile from any existing
2 or improved shopping center or convenience grocery store."
3 Is that in there because you get points if you're three-
4 quarters of a mile area or within three-quarters of a mile of
5 an existing one?
6 MR. LUDWIG: I guess tonight on the ODP we're not
7 really evaluating it on the point chart, but --
8 MR. COLTON: Right. But say they were to come back
9 with a PUD for a neighborhood convenience center. Would they
10 get points or would they not get points because this is close
11 to an existing center?
12 MR. LUDWIG: Just one moment.
13 MS. BELL: I have a related question to that.
14 MR. LUDWIG: I guess I don't know the exact
15 distance between, say, the neighborhood convenience center at
16 the corner of Horsetooth and Shields. It's probably a little
17 over a half mile to three-quarters of a mile. Once again,
18 that's not a mandatary criteria that they gain points under
19 that criteria. And they can achieve a minimum of 50 percent
20 of the points from any of the combination of Criterion A
21 through J, so it would not be mandatory that they require --
22 achieve those points.
23 MR. COLTON: Right. I just wondered if City policy
24 thought they shouldn't be too close together, and they should
25 be further apart?
• 67
1 MS. BELL: Yeah, I think my related question might
2 get to that. Don't we have a policy or something that
3 convenience centers are about a mile, there is a mile
4 distance between them. I certainly remember that in my
5 neighborhood, when I was not on this board, when I was
6 talking about those issues that the kind of the standard rule
7 of thumb is one mile for convenience stores.
8 MR. LUDWIG: Not necessarily convenience stores,
9 but if you're looking at more of your shopping centers like
10 the size of Drake Crossing or Harmony Market.
11 MS. BELL: I'm looking at the gas station with the
• 12 convenience store attached to them. I thought there was some
13 kind of square mile.
14 MR. LUDWIG: No, I'm not aware of any separation
15 requirements.
16 MS. BELL: Has that change in 7 years?
17 MR. BLANCHARD: We're looking at examples right now
18 of them locating right across the street from each other.
19 The issue as Glen brought up is they may not get points for
20 that. When ybu go A through J you have numerous
21 opportunities to gain the number of points that you do need
22 in order to locate where your market studies have shown that
23 it's appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, there is no
• 24 absolute locational criteria right now.
25 MS. BELL: I think the only issue we might not have
68
1 tackled yet was drainage. There was some discussion by
2 neighbors about drainage, and do we have someone from the
3 city who can address that here tonight?
4 MR. LUDWIG: Glenn Schluter of our Stormwater
5 Utility will be here.
6 MS. BELL: While we're waiting, are there any other
7 board questions that we need to discuss while we're here.
8 MR. STANFORD: I have one clarification to make on
9 Mike's earlier comment on the sidewalks and the new street
10 standards. From a City standpoint the plans are not
11 finalized. They're still in for review. They have been in
12 twice for a review. One additional round, at least, will be
13 needed; but they are not finalized.
14 MR. BYRNE: You mean the street standards have not
15 been approved?
16 MR. STANFORD: The street standards are, but the
17 plans for their project are still being reviewed. They are
18 not finalized. We are still making changes.. We are still
19 working with the applicant on finalizing them.
20 MR. LUDWIG: I think to clarify that, the applicant
21 stated -- that was Ward Stanford of our engineering
22 department.
23 Basically, the applicant stated that they have
24 completed their design and engineering. And I think what
25 Ward is stating is that under the PUD process they have not
69
1 been granted an approval of their utility plans.
2 The difference is as long as they meet the existing
3 standards that were in effect at the time they submitted,
4 their PUD should be approved on those standards. However, we
5 cannot require them to go back and revise their plans to, you
6 know, abide by the new street standards because their project
7 was submitted before those were adopted.
8 MS. BELL: So do I understand that even though a
9 decision has not been made regarding the amended overall
10 development plan, the applicant has submitted a PUD, and
11 that's going through the system already?
• 12 MR. LUDWIG: That's correct. And basically there
13 are some drainage issues which have not been addressed on
14 that preliminary matter, and that's why it is not before you
15 this evening as a joint submittal or review by the Board.
16 MS. BELL: How is that possible for something to
17 occur like that?
18 MR. BLANCHARD: The LGDS requires, unless the
19 planning director decides otherwise, that you submit a
20 preliminary submittal at the same time you submit an ODP.
21 Typically, that's why you get so many applications, just like
22 what's on the agenda tonight, that's been continued with
23 Harmony Ridge ODP in the first phase preliminary.
. 24 MR. GAVALDON: So, Mike, we would see this if this
25 was approved? They would submit a preliminary and a final,
70
1 and would the drainage issue be resolved by the preliminary?
2 MR. LUDWIG: That is correct. And they have
3 already submitted a preliminary and final. We are currently
4 reviewing that.
5 MR. GAVALDON: If they went with the straight
6 subdivision would the drainage be solved at the straight
7 subdivision too?
8 MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
9 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thanks.
10 MS. BELL: Can we hear from the drainage. Glenn, I
11 guess I don't have a specific question other than those
12 brought up this evening, if you could maybe give us a brief
13 overview.
14 MR. SCHLUTER: I missed the discussion. I was up
15 in the lobby just for a second.
16 MR. LUDWIG: I believe your question was regarding
17 there were some storm drainage issues that were identified,
18 and it's my understanding that there were some issues that
19 were not been resolved on their preliminary and final plan
20 submittal.
21 MR. SCHLUTER: That's very true. The main issue is
22 that since there is no curve and gutter around Manhattan, the
23 water from this development sheet flows across Manhattan and
24 trespasses on property on the other side of the street. And
25 at this point we have not come to an agreement on how to
• 71
1 control that.
2 Every time we get a submittal back it just says oh
3 it's just shell sheet flow. It's not going to hurt anything.
4 We're a ways from that issue.
5 MS. BELL: And are there drainage issues that would
6 affect the property to the west? It's higher so there
7 shouldn't be.
8 MR. SCHLUTER: No, not really.
9 MR. GAVALDON: With the drainage issue, does this
10 affect the density of 5.5 in reducing it to achieve the
11 requirements?
• 12 MR. SCHLUTER: Not -- the density does not affect
13 the drainage that much. Either plan had quite a bit of
14 runoff actually. I think this new one might even have just a
15 little bit less. It just depends on the configuration in the
16 sub -basins where that water goes. It's not really a big
17 issue for us for density.
18 MR. GAVALDON: Next question: How would this
19 affect the neighborhoods to the east of this development if
20 you have continuous runoff from the west to the east and
21 across Manhattan?
22 MR. SCHLUTER: It definitely is a trespass on them
23 because there is an increased flow. We just couldn't allow
24 that because that would make the city liable too.
• 25 MR. GAVALDON: Would that be resolved too?
72
1 MR. SCHLUTER: Yes, it would have to be before we
2 would sign the plans.
3 MR. BLANCHARD: Madam Chair, if I could interject
4 something here without meaning to stifle discussion in any
5 way. I think the project that is before us tonight is an
6 amendment to the overall development plan, and it's most
7 appropriate for the Board to concentrate on land uses and the
8 impacts that occur from the land use and leave the design
9 issues for when whatever application that's consistent with
10 whatever's approved with the ODP comes before you at a future
11 date, and I think it might go a little smoother if we
12 concentrate on that.
13 MS. BELL: Thank you. That's good advice. Well, I
14 think we're probably -- I don't know, I think we probably
15 covered most of the territory here. Is there someone who is
16 ready to make a motion?
17 MR. GAVALDON: My first motion. I would like to
18 move that we approve the amendment development plan, for it
19 meets the criteria items as noted in the staff report. Do I
20 need to mention each of the items?
21 MR. BLANCHARD: It's not necessary if you just say
22 that it meets all of the applicable criteria of the City
23 Comprehensive Plan.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. It meets all of the
25 applicable criteria of the development plan.
• 73
1 MS. WEITKUNAT: I'll second that motion.
2 MS. BELL: This is a motion to approve the
3 amendment to the ODP. Are there board comments at this
4 point?
5 MR. BYRNE: I'll make a quick comment. You know,
6 this is one that I -- once again, we're trying to strive for
7 fairness in a situation that's pretty dynamic. We try to
8 make that decision based on, you know, traffic of all things.
9 Traffic to me is one of the great dilemmas of the late
10 twentieth century.
it We've got, you know, billions of cars; and it's
• 12 really a question of a problem of wealth almost. We continue
13 to see it in front of these boards, in front of this Board
14 issues of affordability on one hand and the problems created
15 from too much consumption on the other.
16 I have a real dilemma with that kind of stuff
17 because for me, I think if we live more simply we wouldn't
18 have quite as many problems. The -- I guess for me I won't
19 be supporting the motion because ultimately I am going to
20 have to back off on we do establish rules, and everybody is
21 an adult.
22 We all know that the rules, as established, require
23 that we go through a certain process in order to change
. 24 those. At a certain point, there has been a lot of people
25 who have made decisions based on what the rules were. It
74
1 gets harder to change the longer you go on.
2 I guess what I see here is something that has been
3 on the books since I guess we started this process back in
4 1988. To come before us at this late date to make a change
5 when we've seen a lot of the neighborhoods base some of their
6 decisions on something that they thought was final, just to
7 me seems like we're being unfair to them.
8 I can certainly understand the arguments, on the
9 other hand, where too many gas stations -- okay. I agree
10 with that we've got too many gas stations, but there
it certainly could be other commercial uses for that piece of
12 property that would be appropriate that could be a
13 neighborhood convenience.
14 MR. GAVALDON: Since I made the motion to go in
15 favor some of the arguments, I would like to share with in
16 favor. I feel there is still opportunity for the
17 neighborhoods to the west in Four Seasons to work with Mark
18 Middle on development to bring up some good opportunities for
19 buffer and to also address the drainage that could be in
20 favor of both areas as well as the neighborhoods.
21 I feel that there is ten points that covers in
22 criteria; however, there is opportunity to make more
23 enhancements to bring up more criteria in favor. Going the
24 other route, I feel it's a setback for all of the parties who
25 want to work together. I would like to thank everyone for
75
1 coming on out and bringing up their inputs because I think
2 there is opportunity for good dialogue and bringing the
3 groups together because I think it's important that we have
4 everyone's buy -in and support.
5 I don't think we'll solve every, every problem;
6 however, majority of the ones can be solved; and I feel that
7 they'll bring a lot of harmony. So, I feel that this is
8 probably the best of many worlds to work with.
9 MS. WEITKUNAT: As the supporter of that motion, I
10 feel strongly too that this is compatible with the
11 neighboring area. Since 1988 it has changed in the area as
12 is true with other parts of the city.
13 We have substantial commercial development in the
14 area that did not exist in the eighties when this was brought
15 to the Board originally. I think the housing does fit with
16 the neighborhood. The schools support it, the existing
17 neighborhood supports it. I would hope there would be
18 opportunities to work with the neighborhoods to make sure
19 that the compatibility remains as you move forward in the
20 other phases.
21 MR. COLTON: This is really a tough one. I can see
22 a lot of good reasons for both ways. I think the affordable
23 housing certainly is important. Now, I think we could still
24 get affordable housing some other way by having some multi-
25 family development in that one parcel as well. I'm not sure
76
1 if we would lose that entirely.
2 You know, I hear both sides of people living in
3 that area saying they want it, they don't want it. I think
4 there would need to be buffering under any circumstances.
5 And if it does come in like the original ODP there could be
6 multi -family dwellings backing up to the $350,000 homes.
7 There would have to be adequate buffering there as there
8 would here.
9 On the other side, as much as I would like to think
10 that people can safely cross Horsetooth, and it's just the
11 same going to a neighborhood service ood service center across a
12 road -- which some boy recently got killed crossing, albeit
13 further east -- I don't think it's the same crossing that .
14 to get to some of these locations as it is to have it located
15 in your neighborhood with just neighborhood residential
16 streets going up to it.
17 I agree with Mike. I don't think there needs to be
18 a gas station at this place. There could be some creative
19 uses alternative to that which would serve this mile square
20 area. So I also think that there does need to be
21 predictability in the future, and with the city plan we're
22 looking at having more predictability. And if you go in with
23 a plan you should pretty much stay there because people have
24 relied on it. At this point in time I'm leaning towards not
25 supporting this.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. BELL: Well, you're going to have to make a
decision in a couple of seconds. Are we ready for a vote?
(Board members were polled.)
MS. WEITKUNAT: Yes.
MR. COLTON: No.
MR. BYRNE: No.
MR. GAVALDON: Yes.
MS. BELL: Yes.
The amendment to the overall development plan is
approved: three, two. We will take a brief, 5-minute
recess.
(Discussion concerning Park South PUD adjourned.)
77
78
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) ss. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER )
4 I, Jessica K. Sanchez, a Court Reporter and Notary
5 Public hereby certify that the foregoing hearing, taken in
6 the matter of Park South PUD amended overall development
7 request to amend 13.3434 acres of the ODP was held on Monday,
8 September 9 at 300 West Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins,
9 Colorado; that said proceedings were transcribed by me from
10 videotape to the foregoing 77 pages; that said transcript is,
11 to the best of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate and
12 complete record of the proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to,
14 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
15 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
16 the case.
17 Attested to by me this 24th day of October 1996.
FM
19
20
/J)bssicl K. Sanchez(/ J
21 (/ 15 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
22 (970) 482-1506
23 My Commission Expires:
February 29, 1998.
24
25 u
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 3
Member Byrne excused himself from this issue due to not being present at the previous
hearing.
Director Blanchard gave a staff report recommending that the Planning and Zoning
Board overturn the July 1, 1996 Administrative Change approval and invited the
applicant to work with staff to identify an acceptable development plan that addresses
wetland issues. The new proposal could then be resubmitted as an Administrative
Change request.
Michael Schultz, representing the appellant stated that they concur with staffs
recommendation that the request for the administrative change be denied. Mr. Schultz
stated that he believes that this proposal should come in as a P.U.D. He believed that
the Board should decide whether there should be more storage units built on an
additional piece of land. He felt there should be neighborhood notification of a
preliminary plan so many of the issues that came up before could be analyzed to see if
. it should be allowed to have more of this kind of use on additional property. Mr. Schultz
asked the Board to have the proposal come back as a P.U.D. and give notice to the
neighbors.
Bill Vigor, applicant stated he has been working with the staff in regards to a request by
the Board to come up with a compromise to meet the criteria that had been established.
Mr. Vigor stated that he has met the criteria in keeping the buildings 100 feet out and
has also met the landscaping criteria set -forth. He asked the Board to keep in mind
that this plan was approved at one time, and because of the appeal, there have been
three hearings and many hours of discussion trying to come up with some kind of
conclusion.
Mr. Vigor stated he has not tried to fight the program, but rather compromise different
approaches to try and make this thing work. He stated that he has set his building back
100 feet from what it was, to provide the 100 foot buffer on the newly established
wetland boundary that Natural Resources established. He did not feel that there were
any adverse operational situations that exist that would affect what he is trying to do
with the new addition. He stated that they would continue to work with the Fire
Department on access and with Planning on maintaining the 100 foot buffer.
PUBLIC INPUT
0 None.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 4
Member Colton asked if the Board should ask the applicant to bring the project back as
an amended PUD?
Assistant City Attorney Duvall responded that it was his opinion the issue before the
Board tonight was whether to uphold, reverse, or approve with conditions, the decision
that was made by the Planning Director on the administrative change that was
approved.
The decision of whether it should come back as an amended PUD should be made first
at an administrative level by the Planning Director. In making his decision, if the
appellant disagrees with that and thinks it should be done in some other way, he could
appeal that decision back to the Board, just as they have this decision. That issue is
not before the Board tonight.
Chairperson Bell asked about the applicant honoring the 100 ft.setback, and that it
would reduce the space by 2500 s.f. She asked for a clarification of that.
Director Blanchard replied that Mr. Vigor would be removing some of the existing units
on Building 15. That would allow Building 16 (the proposed additional building) and any
pavement associated with that — that the setback from the newly identified wetland
boundary to be 100 feet. The applicant has proposed a number of ways to solve the
issue, it is a question of making sure we have adequate radiuses and making sure
Poudre Fire Authority can get their equipment in and out again.
Member Colton moved to deny the July 1, 1996 administrative change.
Member Weitkunat seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 4-0.
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PARKING PLAN FOR
CSU AND THE DOWNTOWN AND CSU NEIGHBORHOODS.
Tom Frazier, Transportation Services gave the staff presentation on the Parking Plan.
Mr. Frazier reviewed the CSU Neighborhood plan and it's associated costs.
Member Weitkunat asked if the numbers shown were capital investment or annual
amounts.
0
0
. Planning and
September 9,
Page 5
Zoning Board Minutes
1996
Mr. Frazier reviewed the on -going and annual costs. He stated that the annual costs
would be covered by fines for illegal parking.
Member Byrne asked for Mr. Frazier to talk some about the cooperation between CSU
and the City. Was the University trying to do anything to try and decrease the number
of students bringing vehicles and consuming neighborhood parking spots.
Mr. Frazier replied that the parking is anticipated to increase along with the student
population. In CSU's master plan, they are very focused on providing a non -vehicle
campus. They would like to maximize as much as possible, alternative modes. They
are very motivated in working with the City to try and provide options other than for the
automobile. Their master plan shows five parking garages over the next 50 years. In
the short-term, they would like to get a parking garage in the next 5 to 7 years. They
have determined that their on -campus parking needs are exceeded by 1,000 to 1,200
vehicles.
Member Byrne stated that we are still in the mode to try and supply the demand for
• parking, regardless of how we grow. He believes that it takes resources away from
other uses to focus on parking. He does not believe the demand curve is linear.
Mr. Frazier reported that the City is working with the University on negotiating a new
contract and the City is anticipating not only providing more service for the students, but
also providing some more structured and focused service for the faculty. CSU parking
service is also working to provide a shuttle lot somewhere for people to shuttle in.
Member Gavaldon was interested in the fine structure, the law of supply and demand
and making it cost prohibitive to park and get away with it. He wanted the City to look
at CSU's long-term strategy. He felt CSU's strategy is lacking and they are also lacking
research information.
Mr. Frazier responded that is why the city has been working with CSU because what
ever happens on campus will effect the neighborhoods. What ever is in the study CSU
did, is not released yet.
Mr. Frazier also added that in 1996/97 they would be adding three more surface lots on
campus to help impact the shortfall. The City is also working with CSU to construct a
main transit center adjacent to the student union building. The transit center would not
only be for buses, but for bikes as well. These are things that are part of their Master
Plan.
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 6
PUBLIC INPUT
Emily Smith, President of the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association, spoke on
behalf of the neighborhood. She stated that with the increased residential and student
off -campus parking occurring on many of their neighborhood streets, their Association
is appreciative of the joint study that has been done relating to parking issues in and
around the University campus. Some areas of their Association are severely impacted
by parking to the detriment of the quality of living for people residing in these areas.
Existing parking overload conditions are related to the conversion of single family to
over -occupied rentals with inadequate on -site parking provided, combined with
increased non-resident parking on the neighborhood streets. In addition, with the
current short -fall of off -campus parking being met on neighborhood streets around
CSU, we face even greater parking problems as CSU's enrollment increases.
Ms. Smith wanted to clarify one point in relation to some of the increased bike usage at
CSU. Neighborhoods next to CSU are seeing an increasing number of cars on the
neighborhood streets which have bike racks on them. Students are driving into the
neighborhoods, parking their cars, and taking their bikes off the cars and biking to CSU.
Ms. Smith went on to say that the Prospect Shields Neighborhood Association
recommends and supports adoption of the City Parking Ordinance, which would provide
residents of areas that are adversely impacted by parking, the opportunity to request
City implementation of a neighborhood parking restriction program. They request that
the wording of the parking recommendation, #5.2, more clearly state the three parking
options which could be implemented in the neighborhood area. The three options
being, the residential parking restrictions program, which addresses time restrictions for
parking during specified hours. The residential parking permit program, which would
make permits available - they would request permits to both homeowners that are in
residence in their home and to renter residences. The opportunity for a neighborhood
area to implement either one or a combination of these two programs. It is important
that all three of these options be clearly stated because parking problems and their
solutions may vary from neighborhood to neighborhood throughout the city.
Ms. Smith stated they were grateful that the parking study had advanced to this stage in
the process, however, they continue to face the problem of dealing with parking
situations as they currently exist in many neighborhood streets. Given their current
parking situation and the potential length of time before the ordinance could be
implemented, their Association would like to propose that they participate with the City
in a pilot neighborhood parking restriction program for sub areas 5 and 6, page 9 of the
study.
• •
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 7
Mr. Frazier continued with his presentation and gave the staff report on the Downtown
Parking Plan.
Member Byrne asked about the cost of the parking structure included with the Justice
Center and that he believed City Council will want more information than they were
provided in their packets on how this project would be funded.
Member Byrne asked if the cost would be recovered thru fees?
Mr. Frazier replied that what would be looked at would be to finance any future capital
project by tax increment financing or a general obligation bond, a sales tax initiative, or
by a special district being formed. One of the difficulties in charging a fee to recover the
cost of paying off bonds, is that the fees get high very rapidly. The proposed fees are
competitive for a community of our size and if we get too high, it tends to price
customers out of this area. Those methods of financing long-term capital needs would
be discussed at the time the garage is needed.
• Mr. Frazier stated that in building surface lots in the short-term, we could recover the
cost through permits, fines and fees.
Member Byrne believes what people should be charged is what it costs and if the price
gets too high and we have to subsidize then obviously the money has to come from
some place.
Member Weitkunat asked about the parking fine going up to $3 in 1997.
Mr. Frazier responded that it would be raised to $3.
Member Weitkunat asked if they would be looking to increase that fine past 1997.
Mr. Frazier replied that those fines would be going up incrementally as to what the cost
of operation would go up.
Member Weitkunat felt $5 would be a better fine.
Mr. Frazier explained the fee structure and how the $3 fine was established.
Member Colton commented that he agreed that fines should be more. He would also
• like to see the users of the parking structures pay for them.
Member Gavaldon was very satisfied with the parking plans and thought they have had
a lot of good input into it. He would like to lobby an action item for more efforts and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 8
hearing more from CSU on what they can work with staff to be equal and take
ownership of their situation with parking. Downtown is a classic example of good
efforts.
Member Byrne asked if there would be different rules for the evening hours.
Mr. Frazier replied that evening hours are not enforced.
Chairperson Bell felt that the fees should be higher for fines and that those are things
that shape peoples behavior. Regarding the CSU situation, she felt that — as much as
we can do to encourage alternative modes of transportation, we should.
Member Weitkunat recommend approval of the Parking Plan for CSU
Neighborhoods and Downtown with the comments made.
Member Byrne seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
L010MWi 11 =1\ M VI =12 W-Ij
Janet Meisel, Parks Planner gave the staff report for the Board.
Chairman Bell asked if there was some provision for natural grasses.
Ms. Meisel replied that the management plans that will be developed will address those
issues regarding turf and non -turf areas. Currently, most parks are maintained in a blue
grass mixture. What they would like to identify in the management plan is the key areas
that could remain in a more native state.
Member Colton stated he liked a lot of things in the document, but has concerns with
the funding. He sees several things that are not covered by impact fees and wondered
if that has been looked at for things such as swimming pools and recreation facilities,
that are currently being paid for by the citizens.
Ms. Meisel replied that she was a member of the Cost of Services Team, which was the
latest Capital Expansion Fee fund. There was significant discussion about collecting
fees such as recreation fees for an impact fee for recreational services. Other
communities in the area are currently collecting similar impact fees and she felt that
Council would support those additional impact fees in the future.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 9
Member Colton stated that he would like Ms. Meisel to forward to Council his comments
and recommendation that these specific fees be analyzed and information presented to
Council.
Member Weitkunat asked about the new Community Parkland fee and what would it be
used for.
Ms. Meisel replied that it would specifically be used for acquisition and development of
community parks.
Member Weitkunat asked if it would be in the area that the fees are generated.
Ms. Meisel replied that was correct, it needs to be built within the service area. Where
the fees are generated is where we should build the facility.
Ms. Meisel added that up until this year, there has not been any dedicated funding
source for Community Parks.
Member Weitkunat asked about funding mechanisms for the Parks Maintenance Fees
and was there a definitive conclusion reached in this plan.
Ms. Meisel stated there was not, but the one conclusion they do have is that we should
increase our recreation fee to cover costs for program sports.
Member Weitkunat asked if differential fees for residents and non-residents were
addressed as a possibility.
Ms. Meisel replied that there was a recommendation at the last study session from
Council to do that. It is not addressed in this plan, but Council has agreed to institute
some mechanism to identify residents from non-residents.
Member Weitkunat commented that this was a comprehensive document, it shows a lot
of work and a lot of thought. The areas she would stress is taking care of what we
already have and we should not build more parks if we can't take care of the one's we
have.
Ms. Meisel stated that the current impact fees cannot be used for maintenance.
• Member Weitkunat felt that was a problem and also that there were over 9 million
dollars earmarked for studies and felt that should be looked at also.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 10
Member Byrne asked about the implementation section and that he did not see
priorities listed.
Ms. Meisel responded that the priorities are in the timing. If it is a priority that needs to
be completed it would be something that would occur in the first 2 to 5 years.
Prioritizing was done based on timing.
Member Byrne commented on the trees in City Park and that all the parks should get
the same nurturing that City Park has gotten in the past.
Chairperson Bell asked about acquiring more open space in the northeast, and
according to the Master Plan Map there is not a lot of existing or high priority open
space in the northeast.
Ms. Meisel replied that the natural areas that have been identified are the same natural
areas that were identified in the Natural Areas Policy Plan.
Member Colton felt the plan was thorough and extensive and thought there was a lot of
good work and commended all the people involved.
Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Parks and
Recreation Policy Plan. He also added that he would like Council to have the
analysis of the impact fees for the areas previously mentioned at the Council
hearing.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
IT
•" • • _�� •
Liz Stroh, Information and Communications Department gave the staff report.
Member Byrne stated the Board was there to comment on how obtrusive the antennae
are, and if staff feels they have achieved that through this ordinance, he is comfortable
with that.
Ms. Stroh replied that was the intent of the ordinance was to encourage placement on
rooftop or affix to building as opposed to the monopoles.
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 11
Member Gavaldon concurred with Member Byrne and asked if the Board would be
seeing applications for these.
Assistant City Attorney Duvall reviewed the ordinance for the Board.
Chairperson Bell asked about neighborhood notification.
Attorney Duvall replied that there would be notice of any property owner within 500 feet.
It is the same process as the P.U.D.
Member Byrne was concerned with the health effects.
Ann Closser, Consultant with US West Cellular reviewed the wafts, number of channels
and stated that there are no known health affects what so ever from radio frequency.
Ms. Closser gave the applicants presentation.
. Member Byrne stated that he wanted to make sure it was clear that there are a list of
national and international standards that apply in terms of installation and health
effects. He felt that it would be helpful to have that outlined for City Council.
Attorney Duvall added that the definition for "equipment' would be amended to include
those kinds of accessory structures on the ground next to the building where the
antenna is located.
Member Colton asked if we had any of these structures in town already.
Planner Shepard reviewed other sites in Fort Collins in comparison.
Chairperson Bell asked about the heights.
Planner Shepard replied they were pretty substantial, 80 to 100 feet in height.
Planner Shepard also added that it is not know how many we would have.
Member Colton felt that the heights of the monopoles have not been addressed.
Attorney Duvall replied that the LDGS criteria would be applied and that any structure
• will be reviewed according to the 40 foot height limitation criteria. Most of the free
standing structures will all be in non-residential districts.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 12
Ms. Stroh stated that purpose of the ordinance was to encourage placement of
antenna's on buildings and not to put up monopoles. She stated that was also the
industries intent due to the cost of the monopoles.
Chairperson Bell asked in the City has to be inclusive and say a pole in some
circumstances may be o.k., instead of saying that we do not want any poles in the
community.
Attorney Duvall replied that the City cannot have the effect of prohibiting the providing
of the service so that if you just outlaw all structures and all poles, you could have a
provider that could come along and prove that without that pole or structure they could
not provide the service in that area.
Member Weitkunat recommended approval of the ordinance for the
telecommunications services facilities and equipment as noted.
Member Gavaldon seconded the motion.
Attorney Duvall stated that this would be an interim measure until this information can
be integrated into City Plan.
The motion was approved 5-0.
i [s?
Ted Shepard, Senior Planner gave a brief update on this previously heard project. He
stated that the Board had asked that we do some more processing and outreach with
the potential users in the IG Zone, who would become non -conforming uses. He stated
that those users have been identified and they have been contacted.
Planner Shepard stated that there were letters in the Board's packets in addition to
copies of a receipt from a courier service that those people had received the letter.
Staff has followed up and personally contacted by phone, or in three cases in person.
He stated that the people understand they will become non -conforming and what their
expansion potential would be under the RC Zone.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 13
PUBLIC INPUT
Jan Cottier, Owner of a building that is proposed to be rezoned RC. She stated that
she had addressed the Board previously about the Poudre River Trust Land Use Plan
and how she believed that the intent of that Plan was not being carried through with the
RC Zoning. The Plan does talk about zoning the Downtown properties something like
RC. She felt that zone has been defined and is no longer appropriate for the developed
areas Downtown. The Poudre River Plan talked about the need for special
consideration because of the inadequate streets and utilities there, that projects in the
Downtown should not be held to the same engineering standards or even the same fee
structure. She felt that all of that had been lost in the proposal to "lump" the Downtown
area with all of the existing River Corridor, which is largely undeveloped land.
Ms. Cottier stated that the whole reason for the Poudre River Trust Plan, the first
document, was that Downtown needed to be treated differently. That's been lost now
when it couldn't of been more clearer in the proposal pointing out the need to eliminate
Downtown from the definition of the River Corridor.
• Ms. Cottier felt that the point chart used in the LDGS for the River Corridor could not be
more inappropriate for the existing businesses, and in fact, any undeveloped property in
the Downtown area could not achieve 50% of the points unless they have river
frontage. Most of the criteria applies to river enhancements and are applicable only to
what was defined in the Poudre River Trust Plan as the preservation or the transition
area, not the developable area.
Ms. Cottier stated that the last major concern she has, based on the language being
developed in City Plan, that is defining what the River Corridor is, and that specifically
says that the River Corridor consists of land parcels contained in the 100-year flood
plain. Most of the area being talked about is on the southwest side of the river and is
not at all within the flood plain. She stated that where City Plan is heading with River
Corridor is at a minimum, a 300 foot landscape buffer, which obviously is not
appropriate downtown. On the southwest side of the river, the floodplain does not even
encompass these properties we are talking about rezoning. She felt that with the way
City Plan is heading, it should be rethought about what we are doing in the River
Corridor Zone.
Ms. Cottier suggested that it was probably appropriate for the areas that have direct
river frontage or for areas possibly within the flood fringe, not necessarily within the
• floodplain. At this point it has been applied inconsistently and there are properties with
river frontage that are suggested not to be rezoned RC. Those are the properties that
should be.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 14
Ms. Cottier felt that it would be appropriate to wait until City Plan is done, there is no
pressing need to do this and it is not fulfilling the original intent of the Poudre River
Trust Plan.
Tom Moore, Owner of Mawson Lumber Company, 115 Lincoln Street stated his
comments are the same as they were before. He thinks it just flies in the face of reason
to think of this as being a River Corridor area, it is an industrial area. It does not fit the
definition of River Corridor. The draft plan really reinforces that opinion. On a personal
level, City of Fort Collins is encouraging Union Pacific to remove the railroad tracks that
serve his business. Under the RC Zoning, he can have little hope of getting that
resolved in any way that would be satisfactory to him. It will allow an expansion of 25%
of the gross floor area, but if he has to relocate his rail unloading site to the other side
of Lincoln Street, he will need more room than that. He feels that will be damaging to
his business and he sees no reason to rush this through. He feels it does not fit the
new City Plan and asked for the Board to wait until that Plan is completed.
Judge Sloshburg, residential owner on Linden Street for 13 years stated that this is a
general industrial zone and is an industrial part of the city, but that is not all it is. It is
where he lives and has watched with dismay over the 13 years he has lived there,
affordable housing stock disappear and replaced with industrial structures or empty lots.
It is a residential neighborhood as well as an industrial neighborhood, and he is the
non -conforming user as of now. He thinks there needs to be some balance restored. It
is also a neighborhood that needs more commercial kinds of things going on. His
comments have to do with strongly supporting the integration of lower Linden. He has
lived surrounded by industrial noise and air pollution for 13 years and has had to be
vociferous in order to get the slightest kinds of improvements to the neighborhood from
a residential point of view.
Mr. Sloshburg went on to say that if this proposed rezoning -- without injuring the
industrial interests in the area, which he respects and thinks should be there — and
gives the residents in the area a shot at a decent quality of life, then he thinks that is a
very strong argument in favor of it. He wanted the Board to know that he "does" live
there and has an interest in the property and an interest in ifs appreciating along with
the land values in Fort Collins. With all due respect to the industrial interests in the
community, he does feel that the interests of residents like himself and renters should
be given their due. If this rezoning will help do that, then he strongly supports it.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Member Weitkunat asked about the RC Zone and the label that goes with it. She feels
that the problem is the change in name. Downtown River Corridor was the original idea
• Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 15
and it was meant to treat the downtown areas specifically different from the rest of the
Over corridor. She was concerned that there would be a massive leap in faith that this
zoning is the same thing that will happen in the future with the RC. She was concerned
with that we will end up with a 300 foot buffer that comes into the downtown area that
was not intended to.
Planner Shepard replied that staff agrees and are concerned about that too. That is
why the Parks and Recreation Department is in a process right now doing a parallel
plan process for the ribbon of the Poudre River as it goes from the northwest part of the
city to the southeast part of the City, and is under study at this time as a sister
component of City Plan to get us out of that dilemma. Planner Shepard gave a history
of the creation of the RC Zoning District and the Poudre River Land Use Trust Policy
Plan.
Member Weitkunat asked Planner Shepard what would happen to the RC Zone when it
becomes defined in City Plan? Will they become synonymous?
• Planner Shepard replied no, he was not sure he could make that leap. That is why
Parks and Recreation has funded and is undertaking a Poudre River ribbon plan to take
us the next step.
Chairperson Bell asked about the public comments that were made regarding waiting
and delaying this rezoning more. She asked citizens to comment on what they would
suggest if we don't move forward.
Jan Cottier, citizen, stated that she would like to see the downtown not locked into the
River Corridor as presently defined and envisioned with all these environmental
concerns. She feels that it is appropriate for what was defined in the Poudre River
Trust Plan as the preservation and transition area, not the developable area. She
would like to see City Plan finalized and the Poudre River Land Use Plan finalized. She
thought it would show that people downtown should not be the same as the rest of the
river ribbon, and she would also like to go back to the Poudre River Trust and the
special considerations that are talked about in that Plan codified in some way.
Chairperson Bell asked about Mr. Sloshburgs' question of whether the residents of the
area might have a better quality of life with this change.
Planner Shepard replied that right now under the IG Zone, residential properties are
• non -conforming. A rezoning does not guarantee a change of quality of life. There is
not any capital project funding at this time to do any infrastructure improvements in this
area. He felt with the RC Zoning he would be protected from heavy industry moving
into his neighborhood as a permitted use.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
September 9, 1996
Page 16
Chairperson Bell asked about the point chart and the comments made that a vacant
parcel developing could not score enough points to get a PUD approved.
Planner Shepard replied that the only time a point chart would be necessary in this area
is if a use is proposed that does not meet one of the 29 permitted uses in the RC. That
would probably be a heavy industrial use.
Member Byrne asked about the environmental mitigation that would apply if
redevelopment took place along the river corridor.
Planner Shepard replied that there are no special environmental or ecological
standards that would apply to this zoning district that would not apply any where else in
the City.
Planner Shepard stated that the City was looking forward to the study being completed
to take us to the next level, to further refine how this City is going to deal with the
Poudre River and the potential land uses. All we are doing now is trying to bring the
status quo into a codified situation.
Member Byrne asked if this change in zoning in any way affect, potentially some of the
adjacent property owners.
Planner Shepard responded no, not unless someone comes in with a totally new land
use or if one of the four non -conforming uses wants to expand more than 25%.
Member Byrne recommended to City Council approval of the Rezoning of Certain
Downtown Properties from I-G, General Industrial to R-C, River Corridor, and
Code Changes to the R-C Zone, #21-96.
Member Colton seconded the motion.
Member Weitkunat stated she had problems with this because of the grey areas still
being dealt with with the Poudre River. Those studies have not been completed and
she felt this still conflicts. She felt that there was not an immediate need to do this with
City Plan coming in the next couple of months and she could not recommend approval.
The motion was approved 4-1 with Member Weltkunat voting in the negative.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m.