HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/17/2005Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Judy Meyer
Vice Chair: Dave Lingle
Phone: (W) 490-2172
Phone: (W) 223-1820
Chairperson Meyer called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Carpenter, Stockover and Meyer. Member
Torgerson was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Armstrong, Wamhoff, Moore, Shepard and
Deines.
Citizen Participation: None.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the November 18 and December 2, 2004 and January 20,
2005 (Continued) Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2. #28-04A The Human Bean Coffee Drive-Thru - Project Development Plan.
3. #2-05 Front Range Baptist Church — Modification of Standard.
4. #39-03A 300 Smith Street, Old Town Commons — Project Development Plan.
5. Recommendation to City Council for a Land Use Code Text
Amendment.
Discussion Agenda:
6. #20-04A Feather Ridge Project Development Plan — Modification of Standard.
Member Lingle pulled consent Item 4, 300 Smith Street for discussion.
Member Lingle moved for approval of the Consent Agenda consisting of items 1,
less the January 20, 2005 minutes, 2, 3 and 5. Member Schmidt seconded the
motion. The motion was approved 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2005
Page 2
Project:
300 Smith Street, Old Town Commons —
Project Development Plan, #39-03A
Project Description: Request to demolish the existing single family
house at 300 Smith Street and construct a new
residential building containing 3 two -bedroom
dwelling units. The property is located at the
southeast corner side of Smith Street and East
Olive Street and zoned NCM, Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density Zoning District.
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Lingle had concerns specifically in reference to Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use
Code that deals with historic and cultural resources and specifically related to
architectural context of the neighborhood. He wanted justification for the design. He
stated that after the worksession, he visited the site and he thought that the single
family house that faces Smith Street is appropriate to the neighborhood, but what he
found disturbing was the architectural character of the duplex that is attached to the
east. The two story aspect of it is fine and relates to the commercial buildings along
Riverside and across the street. It is the style of the buildings that he has a problem
with. He thought that the only thing that relates, in his opinion, to those commercial
buildings is the stucco material and the height. He thought that the motif is not
consistent with anything in the neighborhood and he wanted to discuss that.
Steve Olt, City Planner responded that the concern would be better directed to the
applicant in terms of how the design evolved and the specifics about that.
Rosita Bachman, applicant on the project addressed the Board. She stated that in
designing the second property she canvassed the neighborhood many times. She
requested from the city to show some pictures of the stucco material, but also she tried
to take from both the East and West Neighborhood Plans some of the characteristics
that were special. Ms. Bachman showed slides of properties that she felt related to her
projects architectural characteristics. She tried to mix some of the characteristics in the
guidelines that were given to her as guidelines, which were the East and West
Neighborhood Plans. She tried to stay within the parameters of about 5 or 6 blocks
from the property. She stated that her property faces a building that is very massive
and also to the east another commercial building and she tried to take that into
consideration and she tried to imitate as much as possible similar characteristics that
she found in the designated neighborhoods that were given to her as guidelines.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2005
Page 3
Member Lingle stated that his point was that 3.4.7(E)(2) dealing with new construction
relative to historic and cultural resources simply says that new buildings are to be
designed to be in character with existing historic structures but not be an imitation of
historic styles. He thought that what this was representing to him was an inappropriate
compilation of historic aspects of buildings all over downtown. It does not have anything
to do with the immediate context of the neighborhood. He thought that a more
appropriate design solution would have been to continue the clapboard siding style that
the house facing Smith Street is designed in to make it more harmonious. He was not
going to support the approval of this item because of that.
Member Craig felt that Member Lingle brought up a good point and the fact that they
made the house that faces Smith Street to replicate the houses along that block says
that they knew what should be expected and then hooked right onto it a Mediterranean
character. If they had carried over across some of their characteristics from the little
house that they put in front of the lot over to the larger two-story it might have been
more appropriate for the area.
Member Carpenter stated that she sees what Member Lingle is saying and this may not
be the way she would design it, but to her it reads as almost two different structures.
She appreciates that the structure facing onto Smith Street does fit in with that piece of
the neighborhood and when you get over to Riverside it changes quite a bit. When she
looks at this building, she understands what they are saying, but it is not something that
she would deny it on, just because to her it reads as two separate structures.
Member Schmidt felt that the second part of the building is designed more to fit in with
what is on Riverside and that area is more commercial and basic buildings.
Planner Olt showed slides of existing development directly related to this that is across
the street to the north. Directly to the north is a two-story stucco material office building
and next to it is an existing single family residence. He did not think that it is connected,
but it relates from a scale and mass standpoint.
Member Carpenter moved for approval of the Old Town Commons, Project
Development Plan, #39-03A based on the findings of facts and conclusions on
page 12 of the staff report.
Member Stockover seconded the motion
Member Carpenter commented that she would be very concerned if this was an historic
structure that we were attaching this to. Since this a new structure and a non -historic
structure is being demolished for it, it gives the developer much more leeway than they
would have if this were a historic structure.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
February 19, 2005
Page 4
Member Schmidt agreed with Member Lingle's assessment that the two buildings
together are somewhat awkward and especially the style on the second unit. She can
live with it just because the larger building is going to be so close to Riverside, which is
much more commercial and a larger street. If this was in the middle of a residential
neighborhood then she would feel much differently about it.
The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Craig and Lingle voting in the
negative.
Project: Feather Ridge Project Development Plan —
Modification of Standard
Project Description: Request for a Modification of Standard to
Section 3.8.27C of the Land Use Code that
relates to all buildings be located a minimum of
300 feet from the nearest dwelling unit on
adjacent properties and 250 feet from the
property line adjacent to undeveloped property.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Member Lingle declared a conflict of interest on this project.
This item was denied 3-2 with Member Torgerson absent and Member Lingle having a
conflict of interest. An appeal was filed and a verbatim transcript is attached.
Other Business:
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
These meeting minutes were approved April 21, 2005 by the Planning and Zoning
Board.
1
Feather Ridge Project Development
Plan Number 2004-A
Hearing held Thursday, February 17, 2005
6:24 p.m. - 8:02 p.m.
at City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Board members present:
Jennifer Carpenter
Sally Craig
David Lingle
Judy Meyer, Chair
Bridgette Schmidt
William Stockover
Planning Staff:
Cameron Gloss
City Attorney's Office:
Paul Eckman
K
a
1 MS. MEYER: Now we go -- have to move on to the
2 discussion agenda.
3 MR. LINGLE: Madame Chairman, I have a conflict
4 of interest on Item Number 6. So I'm going to recuse
5 myself.
6 MS. MEYER: Okay. Cameron, could you please
7 explain what we're going to discuss tonight?
8 MR. GLOSS: To go over what I discussed briefly
9 in the agenda review, this is a request solely for a
10 modification to the standards of Section 3.8.27(c) of the
11 Land Use Code, which relates to the separation between
12 existing dwellings and a small-scale event center in the
13 urban estate zone. That section was one that was recently
14 added to the Land Use Code when we adopted performance
15 standards for small-scale reception centers.
16 1 just want to remind the Board that that is the
17 only aspect of the project that we're looking at. The
18 action by the City Council is considered an approval of the
19 project development plan, and that other aspects of the
20 application -- and there was a lot of discussion at the
21 hearing in December, the Planning and Zoning Board, about
22 the direct connection requirement to an arterial street.
23 The City Council made it a specific finding on that, that
24 indeed, there was compliance with that Code section. There
25 was direct connection to Ziegler Road.
3
1 So with that, if I could just very briefly go
2 through our assessment of the application relative to the
3 modification criteria.
4 The standard calls for this 300-foot separation.
5 We have a situation where three houses in the adjacent
6 Woodland Park Estates Subdivision are closer than that. One
7 house is 220 feet. That's the closest. The next is 257
8 feet. And then the last, the furthest, is 262 feet.
9 So the question for us is: Is the buffering
10 that's being provided -- I think it's really the intent of
11 this section of the Code, this 300 feet -- is that buffering
12 adequate to mitigate the potential impacts of the use? And
13 from the staff's perspective, it does.
14 And the principal reasons are that the main
15 activity on the site is going to be outdoor weddings that
16 relate to the historic farmhouse that will be taking place
17 outside. That area is more than 300 feet from the adjacent
18 existing dwellings. it's about 330 feet.
19 There's kind of a layering effect of landscaping,
20 both recently installed landscaping and very mature trees
21 that are out there, and existing structures, including the
22 farmhouse, that are sandwiched in between existing
23 residences and that outdoor space. And from staff's
24 perspective, that's where most of the activity is taking
25 place.
4
1 So
the modification
for the farmhouse doesn't
2 seem really that significant.
The farmhouse itself,
3 activities are
taking place in
the house. The sound impacts
4 are much less,
obviously, than
they are being outdoors.
5 There's a real
functional problem with what you do with the
6 farmhouse.
7 And we have a historic structure, and I've handed
8 to you a historic survey this evening, that was paid for
9 through a State grant, and it found it was one of the most
10 significant farmhouses in the Fort Collins area, significant
11 for its architectural style as well as the quality of
12 construction and its reflection on the agricultural history
13 of the community.
14 So it doesn't seem practical, from the staff's
15 perspective, that you would have another use in that
16 building when you have a viable use here with a small-scale
17
events center
and the
impacts are largely mitigated, because
18
the activity
is going
to be indoors.
19 We understand that the Board expressed some
20 serious reservations about the reception center being in the
21 smaller farmhouse because of the septic system. And we've
22 invited Doug Ryan, with Larimer County's Health Department,
23 here this evening to help address that issue, if you have
24 questions, as well as Roger Buffington, you heard from at
25 the last Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He's from our
5
1 water and sewer utility.
2 So looking very strictly at the criteria, the
3 staff is recommending approval, finding that it would not be
4 detrimental to the public good to use the farmhouse and have
5 this lesser distance for the small-scale reception center,
6 and that compliance with this section would result in
7 unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or
8 exceptional undue hardship on the owner of the property, and
9 that this hardship was not caused by act or omission by the
10 applicant.
11 And with that, that concludes our staff report.
12 MR. ECKMAN: I'd like to add a little bit to
13 that, because I think that in the findings in the staff
14 report, we might be -- if you were to find in favor of this,
15 I'd like to have you embellish upon that to make sure we
16 comply with the provisions of the Land Use Code pertaining
17 to that particular criteria; and either Cameron or the
18 applicant may want to explain how, because I -- I wouldn't
19 know that. I only know what the Code says we must do.
20 And part of what is missing there is, we find in
21 that Number 3, in your staff report, the language about the
22 hardship, the exceptional, undue hardship, and why or how it
23 happens that there is a hardship, because that is required
24 of the Board to make a finding of how come there's a
25 hardship, and that is to some extent explained in Number 3
0
1 in your staff report.
2 The thing that is missing, in my mind, is that
3 the Code requires you to find some unusual condition about
4 this property. I'll just read it. It says, "By reason of
5 exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
6 exceptional situations unique to such property, including
7 but not limited to physical conditions such as narrowness,
8 shallowness, or topography. Those unusual conditions create
9 this hardship that is mentioned.
10 So I think that either Cameron or the applicant
11 might want to explain to the Board what's unusual about this
12 property from that physical standpoint. Or such other -- or
13 other exceptional situations unique to the property. What
14 makes this property unique, such that the application of the
15 Code standard that is sought to be modified generates a
16 hardship?
17 MS. MEYER: Does the applicant have something?
18 MS. RIPLEY: Good evening, Chairman Meyer,
19 members of the Board. My name is Linda Ripley with V.F.
20 Ripley Associates. I'm here tonight representing the
21 applicants, Julie Baker and Wendy Meyer. They're also with
22 me tonight, as is Jim Martell, their attorney.
23 I'd like to just start by giving a little bit of
24 background. Do we have anybody that could run slides for
25 me? Otherwise, I suppose I could sit there. A little short
7
1 of staff tonight. I apologize.
2 The historic house that's on this site, could we
3 slip down to about the maybe seventh slide? There's a
4 picture of -- that just shows four different slides. Yeah,
5 it's probably about Slide Number 7, I think. Further. That
6 one. That gives you a picture of all the sides of the
7 house.
8 The historic house and barn are really integral
9 to the character of the site and to the proposed function of
10 the Feather Ridge reception facility. The house is
11 historically significant, and you have a statement about
12 significance in your packet, and I just want to read, not
13 even a whole paragraph, just a couple of sentences from
14 that, because I think it's important.
15 The Cook Tyler Farm, as it's known, is
16 significant under the National Register of Criterion A for
17 its association with the development of agriculture in the
18 Fort Collins area. Architecturally, the house is among the
19 region's older and larger farmhouses. Its brick
20 construction is relatively rare. Most area farmhouses were
21 of wood frame construction, and its vernacular design is
22 distinctive among Fort Collins' remaining farmhouses.
23 So I think it's clear that it is a significant
24 structure. It obviously is a beautiful, historic house.
25 The applicant purchased this property, to a large extent,
F,
u
1 because the house and the barn and various outbuildings were
2 on it. All of these buildings contribute to the pastoral
3 quality of the landscape. It's what makes the site so
4 special.
5 The design team worked very hard and took great
6 care to design the rest of the facility to respect and to
7 enhance the historic value of this house, which was always
8 intended to be part of the facility. To now exclude the
9 house from being part of that reception center facility, in
10 our opinion, would be inconsistent with historic resource
11 values of this community.
12 We believe that this is an excellent opportunity
13 to reuse an historic structure in a way that allows members
14 of our community to see it occasionally and enjoy its -- its
15 historical significance. And it's also a way to ensure that
16 this particular structure will be well -maintained and
17 preserved for future generations.
18 I'd like to go now to the aerial photo slide
19 that -- a little bit before this. This puts the house in
20 context with the neighbors' houses that we are less than 300
21 feet from. To the -- and all three are to the west. And as
22 Cameron explained, the closest is 220 feet away.
23 We believe that 220 feet is enough distance to
24 ensure that any activity occurring inside of the house --
25 and I want to emphasize what Cameron already addressed, is
PI
1 that we're really talking about activity inside of the
2 house, because activities outside of the house are well
3 away. They're actually -- the edge of the outside activity
4 is 335 feet from these residences. So it's really about
5 what happens inside the house.
6 First of all, there are approximately 2,000
7 square feet on the first floor of the house that would
8 actually be appropriate for the uses intended, such as
9 meetings, seminars, small parties. The upstairs bedroom
10 would also be used as a bridal dressing room, but the main
11 activities would be on the first floor. There's a kitchen
12 facility, kind of a combination dining room/living room, a
13 small bedroom area that's off of that. But it's not that
14 huge.
15 There would be a maximum of 70 people that could
16 be accommodated, and most -- most events would probably have
17 50 or less people in the house itself. Your previous staff
18 reports, you may recall seeing numbers like 120. That would
19 be for a small wedding that would occur outside. You
20 couldn't put 120 people in this house.
21 So the best way, i think, to think of this is,
22 it's very similar to the Avery House that we have downtown
23 here in Fort Collins, with the exception being that the
24 Avery House, the edge of their activity area is only 8 to 10
25 feet from the nearest residence. 8 to 10 feet, compared to
10
1 220.
2 so it's just a good point of reference. If that
3 seems to work, people don't seem to be unduly
4 inconvenienced. I don't think the residents in this
5 neighborhood will be, either.
6 I'd like to go now -- Georgiana, if you could
7 help me go back to those little site plans. Yeah. When we
8 first envisioned this project, the idea was that weddings
9 would be held behind the house, and that's what that circle
10 indicates. That was the original vision.
11 What this slide also shows is kind of the canopy
12 taken from an aerial photograph that we had that shows the
13 existing tree canopy that's on the west side of the house.
14 And then kind of puts you -- shows the houses to the west so
15 you can kind of see visually where they are in respect to
16 the house.
17 And you also notice that there's no garage in
18 this slide, because Julie's first preference was to get rid
19 of the garage, because it's not historically significant,
20 it's not that attractive, and she felt like she wanted to
21 demolish that. Also note in this slide where the circle
22 drive for the future facility comes off.
23 Okay. Now, the next one. Because -- Julie's
24 been working really hard with the neighbors to the west,
25 because she wants to be a good neighbor, she lives in the
11
1 neighborhood, she wants to operate this facility and have it
2 work, even for the adjacent neighbors. So her and her
3 husband, last summer, went ahead and planted additional
4 trees that are west of the existing canopy trees so that,
5 whether or not she got this project approved -- she owns the
6 property. Whether or not she had the project approved, she
7 wanted to go ahead, spend the money, get the trees there, so
8 that a buffer could be growing.
9 And she -- she just didn't feel like she wanted
10 to wait until everything was done, because perhaps she could
11 get another year or two growth in those before a new
12 facility was there. I think that speaks to how much she
13 cares about this and how much she cares about the neighbors.
14 The other thing about this slide is that, because
15 the neighbors to the west said, "We don't want to see a
16 wedding ceremony or any kind of activity in back of that
17 house because we can see this that from our back yards. We
18 don't want that. We're concerned about people leaving the
19 party, wandering over to our yard," and Julie listened to
20 that. She respected that, and she said, "Okay, we could
21 move this activity zone to the east of the house."
22 So if you can see the surface of the east of the
23 garage, is where she moved her activity zone. In order to
24 do that, we rearranged the circle drive, and Julie also
25 agreed to keep the garage so that it buffers the exterior
12
0
1 activity. When we initially did that, we did move the
2 surface drive closer to the neighborhood. The neighborhood
3 objected to that as well.
4 Next slide, please. We went back to the drawing
5 board and determined that we could take -- we could provide
6 access to the farmhouse off of the circle drive. So now on
7 the west side of the house, adjacent to the neighborhood,
8 there's really no activity. No service activity. You know.
9 Somebody might stand in front of the house for a wedding
10 picture, like they do at the Avery House, but very minimal.
11 Ceremonies. Any outdoor dining. All would take place east
12 of the garage, and you can see how that activity is screened
13 from the neighbors' houses.
14 So to sum up, the things that my applicant did to
15 mitigate the neighbors' concerns were moving the activity
16 zone. They kept the garage. They moved the service drive
17 to get it further away. They agreed also to relocate a
18 chicken coop, which you can see a little bit further to the
19 north there, putting it in a location that it would provide
20 more screening, at the request of the neighbors.
21 in addition, the applicants have agreed to, on
22 approval, plant some additional juniper trees and provide a
23 screen fence that would shield any headlights from our
24 service area that might shine over to the neighbors.
25 The neighbors specifically ask that the
13
1 applicants not build a privacy fence along their shared
2 property
line.
So there's -- that's usually the
solution
3 when you
have two neighbors that don't like what's
going on
4 on either
side,
but the neighbors enjoy viewing this
5 property.
That's
completely understandable. It's
a
6 beautiful
piece
of property. We think it's going
to become
7 more beautiful
over time. It already has. That's
the
8 mitigation story.
9 The last topic that I want to address has to do
10 with septic. That was brought up as a concern at our last
it meeting. And I just want to state a few things about that;
12 and then if you have additional questions, I'd really
13 encourage you to ask Doug Ryan to talk about it a little bit
14 tonight, since he's so graciously agreed to be here.
15 While we understand that the Board would be
16 reluctant to approve a use on a septic system, because we've
17 all become aware, especially because of our Laporte issues
18 recently, that septic systems can become old and outdated,
19 and sometimes there'll not maintained, and they can -- they
20 fail and can be a real health and environmental hazard. So
21 you're absolutely correct in being cautious about this.
22 However, I believe what we can offer you is really a
23 fail-safe situation here.
24 First of all, only the farmhouse would be on
25 septic. The septic use would -- would probably be less than
14
1 a single-family home, because there's no food preparation
2 planned to occur, and there's no laundry facilities planned.
3 So it's simply the -- when the events are there, people
4 using the rest room.
5 This would be a brand-new system. We're not
6 talking about using the existing septic system there. We're
7 talking about building a brand-new system that is sized
8 appropriately and permitted through the Larimer County
9 Health Department.
10 When the larger facility is built -- and Julie
11 hopes to be able to do that in one to two years -- both
12 facility, the house and the large facility, would be on a
13 public sewer system. Her hesitation or her inability to do
14 that right now is because -- because of where the site is, a
15 lift station and a force main is required to pump the sewage
16 all the way back to Ziegler Road. So it's a huge expense.
17 Their most recent cost estimate led them to believe it would
18 be over a hundred thousand dollars. So they really want to
19 be able to operate their first phase, get some business
20 generated, before they have to make that huge investment.
21 So they want to be able to operate the farmhouse
22 on septic for only one to three years before they have to
23 invest in a public sewer system. So I -- like I said, I
24 encourage you to talk to Doug Ryan more about that if you
25 still have concerns, but it is -- it's a new system, and
15
1 it's a temporary situation.
2 I think that's all I have to cover, but I'm
3 certainly available for questions.
4 MS. MEYER: Thank you. Are there any people in
5 the audience who wish to speak to this issue, the 300-foot
6 versus . . .
7 okay. We'll limit you to three minutes each, and
8 if somebody in front of you says what you wanted to say,
9 would you please, if you could -- I know somebody might
10 steal your thunder, but we don't need to be told the same
11 thing 17 times. We do listen. So if you want to come down,
12 we have two microphones. So if you want to line up so we
13 can do this.
14 And you have to tell us your name and sign in.
15 SPEAKER: Should there be^a sign-up sheet here?
16 MS. MEYER: Yeah.
17 THE CLERK: Did someone take it? There was one
18 there.
19 SPEAKER: It's a collectable.
20 MS. MEYER: And please remember, you have to
21 speak into the microphone for us to hear you. Thank you.
22 SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Jim Hurley.
23 I live at 3138 Grand Teton Place. I'm here tonight as a
24 homeowner, a member of the Woodland Park Homeowners
25 Association Board.
16
1 Candidly, I'm disappointed that I have to be here
2 tonight. This Board has already spoken by voting three
3 times to deny approval of the Feather Ridge, and we're here
4 to ask you to do that one more time. The City already has
5 given the developer early enough chances: Amending urban
6 estate zone definition to allow the development; giving
7 dispensation on the requirement for a second point of access
8 to the site; telling the developers they won't be bound by
9 the limits of the length of the private access road; and on
10 February 1st, the City Council overruled this Board's
11 determination that the quarter mile access road didn't meet
12 the City's requirement of direct access from an arterial
13 street.
14 What we're facing now is a request from one --
15 yet one more variation on the septic system and one more
16 assault on the neighboring homes in an attempt to negate the
17 minimum 300 foot barrier between the development and the
18 homes.
19 If you override this minimum 300 foot distance,
20 this is what will happen. First, by allowing the use of the
21 farmhouse that's only 220 feet from the nearest dwelling, it
22 will allow multiple events to run at the same time,
23 magnifying the noise, congestion, and disruption to what has
24 been a tranquil neighborhood.
25 True, as the developers have conveniently pointed
17
1 out, we
are adjacent to an industrial property,
but H-P is a
2 perfect
neighbor at nights and on the weekends.
It's
3 totally
silent, just in time for the parties to
kick in at
4 Feather Ridge.
5 And what will this increased noise and light
6 pollution, congestion, traffic, and alcohol consumption in
7 our back yards yield? Decreased property values. Our
8 neighborhood, Mr. Roselle, and the folks on Mariah Lane will
9 tell you that this is a great project because it won't bring
10 traffic right behind their back yards. They'll get to look
11 at the beautiful facility from a distance. Then they'll
12 look at -- but they won't hear the engines racing, the car
13 radios blaring outside of their windows, while their
14 children are trying to sleep.
15 Should we mention economic impact? This is a key
16 point. City Attorney Steve Roy admitted that the City,
17 quote, never used economic impact considerations as a factor
18 in making development decisions. He called them, quote, not
19 relevant. But they are relevant, particularly if we allow
20 Feather Ridge to be built uncomfortably close to our homes.
21 A professional appraisal on the 14 homes that
22 abut the access road to the project show that the homeowners
23 can expect to see a 10 to 15 percent loss in the value of
24 their homes, more than $500,000 among them. This is, in our
25 view, an exceptional hardship on the neighbors and one that
Nu
1 the City seems to be ignoring.
2 Lastly, the City's own Joe Frank reported that
3 this development is a bad fit with the neighborhood, even
4 with the 300 foot minimum. on December 22nd of 2003, he
5 wrote, in his words, 'my research confirms my original
6 belief that reception centers are a commercial use, not
7 appropriate for any zoning district."
8 The City must enforce the 300 feet distance from
9 Feather Ridge to the homeowners, which was established as a
10 minimum. Less than that is unacceptable. Woodland Park
11 neighborhood can't move, so Feather Ridge should, to a
12 better suited location. Thank you.
13 SPEAKER: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Susan
14 Pollack. I live at 4014 Mesa Verde, which is one of the
15 properties that is adjacent to Feather Ridge; however, not
16 one of the ones that is encroached on by the 300 foot
17 variance request.
18 This issues creates somewhat of an ethical
19 dilemma. A year and a half ago, the developer worked very
20 closely with the Planning Board to create this ordinance,
21 and as part of that ordinance, agreed to and helped create
22 the standards that include that 300 foot setback. Now that
23 same developer is asking a variance to that setback, which
24 reduces that distance by almost a third. A variance that,
25 if approved, will encroach on the rights of the property
19
1 owners.
2 The canopy that you saw in the overhead is
3 somewhat misleading. Those trees that include that canopy
4 are over 50 feet tall, and virtually all of the foliage is
5 well above the roof line. So the buffer that they
6 anticipate from that canopy does not exist. In addition,
7 the trees that they put in are somewhere between 4 and 6
8 feet tall and, in the developer's own words, will take over
9 ten years to reach maturity to the point where it ask can
10 buffer the property.
11 Progress is generally a positive thing. However,
12 progress has to include a certain amount of responsibility
13 to the community. Every business coming in has to have,
14 exhibit, a certain amount of corporate stewardship. The
15 developer is not exhibiting that corporate stewardship with
16 requesting a variance to a standard that it not only helped
17 create but agreed to.
18 The performance standards include that any
19 development done should be done in such a way as to mitigate
20 or reduce the impact to the neighborhoods. If this variance
21 request is approved, not only is the 300-foot setback being
22 affected, but that minimal impact standard is being affected
23 as well.
24
As a
Board, I
see your
ethical dilemma as not
25
only whether to
vote yes
or no for
the 300-foot setback but
20
0
1 also whether you are for or against minimal impacts to the
2 neighborhoods. With this in mind, I hope that ethics
3 prevail and you vote no to the variance request. Thank you.
4 SPEAKER: My name is Thomas Welch, and live at
5 4033 Mesa Verde Street. Feather Ridge is already being
6 allowed to build a reception center business in the UE
7 residential zone. Tonight you're being asked to grant a
8 variance to let them create a second additional reception
9 building.
10 To grant this variance, you would need to
11 conclude that sufficient reasons exist to release standards
12 which have been set to protect the adjacent neighborhood
13 from detrimental impact and to do this by ensuring
14 separation and buffering. This variance should not be
15 granted, because it will significantly impact and greatly
16 harm the abutting neighborhood.
17 When seeking your approval for the small-scale
18 reception center ordinance, let's review some public
19 statements made to you and the City Council. In their own
20 words, Julie Baker and Linda Ripley will tell you why this
21 variance should not be granted. Let me share a video.
22 (Video played.)
23 MS. MEYER: You have --
24 SPEAKER: Thank you, and I ask you not to approve
25 this variance.
21
1 MS. MEYER: Thanks.
2 SPEAKER: My name is Kim Welch. And I live at
3 4033 Mesa Verde Street. Here we are, many months into this
4 process where our neighborhood is still trying to be heard.
5 The developers have told you, as you've seen in the video,
6 with respect to the traffic problems, they're completely --
7 they're telling us -- telling you that they're completely
8 surrounded by commercial except on one side and the traffic
9 will not pass by any homes.
10 The map that they show there does not indicate
11 any homes. It's an older map. This is information shown to
12 you on the night that the ordinance was passed. As you saw,
13 Linda Ripley also stated on the video that they've solved
14 the problem and can accept every standard. The ordinance
15 passed without involving the community and without any input
16 from the neighborhood.
17 The developer's been granted every benefit by the
18 City and ignoring the impact on preexisting homeowners.
19 This process has been a travesty to the respect for our
20 privacy, safety, and our investments.
21 The City has granted variance after variance.
22 First, the release of the restrictions that limit the length
23 of the road. Second, the release of requirements for
24 multiple points of access. And third, allowing 13 homes,
25 which apparently do not exist, to be sandwiched between two
22
1 streets. And today, they asked for a variance of the 300
2 foot minimum separation from the reception center to the
3 neighboring homes.
4 The developer states that she doesn't want to be
5 in a commercial zone. She wants the serenity and peace.
6 And I have to tell you last summer or last fall, I was
7 outside in my front yard, and I live in that cul-de-sac just
8 a little over 300 feet from the home. And I heard the most
9 beautiful male voice singing alone, no music whatsoever. He
10 sounded like he was in the cul-de-sac, singing to me. So
11 the -- the sound does carry extremely well in that area, and
12 any buffer zone with plants and stuff is a delusion as far
13 as buffering from sound, pollution, light, and so on and so
14 forth.
15 I would ask you, today, to consider individual
16 homeowners who have chosen this quiet area to raise their
17 families in a residential area, not a commercial area. We
18 deserve our peace, our quiet, safety, and also hard work and
19 investment in our homes to be preserved and realized.
20 Over 80 homeowners from the Woodland Park Estates
21 has signed a petition against Feather Ridge. We ask the
22 City cease providing exemptions for the sake of business
23 development. We ask you to enforce the codes and standards
24 that are meant to serve the public. And we ask you to say
25 no to this variance.
23
1 I have to say on a more personal note, too, that
2 I spent the last 23 years here in Fort Collins trying to
3 contribute to the community as best I can. I was one of the
4 few people that helped start the hospitality kitchen at St.
5 Joe's, which has now evolved into the mission, on a
6 volunteer basis. I have, over the years, held many a
7 mother's hands when their child was told they had diabetes,
8 and I hope that you will give back that same caring and
9 responsibility to look after the residents in neighborhoods,
10 and also for responsible growth. Thank you.
11 MS. MEYER: Thank you.
12 SPEAKER: Good evening. 4021 Mesa Verde Street.
13 My name is Koichi Matsumara. I am against the Feather Ridge
14 development, and I'm here to urge you to uphold the
15 performance standard and deny the exception request.
16 How can a disruptive reception center be allowed
17 in an RL residential area? City Council lost sight of the
18 true issue. The issue has been distorted and lost in
19 details of technicality debates, direct access, private
20 drive, private street.
21 No matter what you call it, and what lawful
22 definition it carries, the fact of the matter is the access
23 road drives right by 14 residential homes and brings
24 life -threatening problems. Technicality of the letter of
25 the law is very important. From that standpoint, Feather
24
1 Ridge does not meet the requirements and is clearly in
2 violation of the law, hence now requesting for an exception.
3 But more importantly, I ask that you go back to
4 the principles, the intent of the ordinance, and maintain a
5 holistic view of the issue. The real issue is, a disruptive
6 business like a reception center should not be allowed in an
7 RL zone.
8 Our situation is very unique, with a quarter -mile
9 long access road passing right behind 14 homes in an RL
10 zone, and everything is happening at the border of the zone.
11 This is no different than setting up a reception center in
12 an RL zone.
13 Alcohol concerns with party business is true and
14 real. It's not about developers' misconduct or absence of
15 rules. The problems are caused by rule breakers, which are
16 the customers. They will be driving through the
17 neighborhood under the influence of alcohol. It takes only
18 one accident to ruin a person's life, and it cannot be
19 undone. One of your board members called us a NIMBY. Is
20 protecting one's family and guarding their peace of mind,
21 health, and safety a selfish act?
22 Please examine the details. Do the technical
23 analysis. But please don't lose sight of the true question
24 before you and what you are about to judge. Are you okay
25 with destroying the peace and life of 18 families, trading
25
1 off more than 60 innocent people's safety, just so that
2 three developers can pursue their personal wealth? Your
3 ethics should lead you to the right answer. Please uphold
4 the law and reject the plan. Thank you for your time.
5 MS. MEYER: Just a second. You all need to
6 understand that whether or not we grant this modification,
7 they have gotten the go-ahead with this.
8 SPEAKER: I understand.
9 MS. MEYER: So what we do here is not going to
10 stop this project.
11 SPEAKER: Yes.
12 MS. MEYER: Okay. You all understand that. Just
13 so we're all clear on that. Okay.
14 SPEAKER: Are you done?
15 MS. MEYER: Yes. I'm sorry.
16 SPEAKER: Okay. I'm Jen McKee. I live right
17 smack in the middle of this. I'm one of those homes that's
18 not there. I'm about the seventh one out of the 14 that is
19 there.
20 Linda Ripley spoke of Julie caring so much about
21 we neighbors that we made -- that she made some untrue
22 statements and cropped us right out of the picture she
23 showed you, when you changed the ordinances, because you
24 just didn't know.
25 This neighbor has been -- has never been
26
1 considered. This neighbor has three young children and has
2 never been thought of. Many of you stated that you had no
3 idea that this was taking place when the ordinance passed.
4 And that's why it has not passed through P and Z, because it
5 was not what you planned on.
6 Cameron, you stated this was -- this will not
7 pass through the heart of our neighborhood. Will you show
8 those slides, please? A neighbor is helping me out with the
9 slides.
10 SPECTATOR: It doesn't appear to be working at
11 this time, Jen.
12 SPEAKER: Okay. Well, I've got pictures that I
13 can show you, since they're not working. This is the heart
14 of the neighborhood.
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 MR. ECKMAN: We'll need to keep those for the
17 record. We'll mark them when they come back to us --
18 SPEAKER: And this right here is my back yard.
19 This is how close those cars are going to be passing, right
20 past my babies. Right past my babies, and right past -- and
21 some of those pictures -- we've got a friend here who lives
22 in the neighborhood, too, and her children will pass -- will
23 be in my back yard. I will certainly say that 200 cars
24 passing my babies that close is in the heart of it.
25 Should you pass this 300-foot modification again,
27
1 another modification, this absolutely is in the heart of it,
2 and it absolutely will cause an inconvenience in my life,
3 and all 14 of us. Should you pass this, would you want your
4 children, your grandchildren, over in my children's back
5 yard and my children's play area? There's no way. There's
6 no way you would want that.
7 We depend on you to protect us and to really
8 listen to what we have to say, every word we have to say.
9 Please protect us and say no.
10 SPEAKER: My name is Susan Baylor, and I live
11 at -- my family and I live at 4020 Mesa Verde Street.
12 I appreciate you all being here. I know this
13 must be a hard job. I appreciate the chance to address you,
14 and I appreciate the chance that we had last time, and I
15 thank you for denying the request for the modification in
16 December. I feel a little bit like Princess Leah in Star
17 Wars, when she says, "Help us, Obiwan Kenobi. You're our
18 last hope," but we have to speak, and I appreciate your
19 hearing us.
20 I know you're under pressure from the City and
21 the developer to approve this modification. Some other
22 citizens have also expressed approval of this project, but I
23 can tell you that their homes are not -- are not less than
24 300 feet from this property. Their homes are much further
25 away. They won't be nearly as impacted as we are.
m
1 I ask that you go back and remember the reasons
2 for the 300-foot distance requirement. That was a minimum
3 distance designed to give us homeowners at least a small
4 amount of consideration in this development.
5 The only thing unusual about this property is
6 that it's a historical house that a developer wants to use
7 at our expense. City staff has said that screening is
8 adequate. We strongly disagree with that. Julie may care
9 about our concerns, but we haven't seen evidence that she's
10 respected our request.
11 Have you ever sat in your car in traffic and
12 heard the resonance, the strong resonance, from a bass from
13 a car somewhere around you? Imagine us homeowners hearing
14 that from bands during the day and at night, every single
15 weekend. Do you think trees are going to mute that sound?
16 Would trees stop the sound of that bass and traffic? Will
17 those trees stop us from seeing the countless cars that will
18 drop off patrons at the farmhouse?
19 The 300-foot distance is all we have now to
20 protect ourselves from this commercial enterprise. Julie
21 and Linda tell all of us how elegant and gracious this
22 business will be. But what's gracious about noise pollution
23 and light pollution and gas pollution, from service vehicles
24 bringing their loads into bridal fairs and business retreats
25 at the farmhouse? What's elegant about serving alcohol to
W
u
1 people that should not be served? What's elegant about
2 intruding on private residences with the sounds of a band or
3 any kind of PA system?
4 Julie and Linda have used Lion's Gate in
5 Lafayette to show what Feather Ridge will be like. Look at
6 what the Lafayette police say about calls -- about calls
7 protesting noise and intrusive activity on the property. To
8 quote from the Lafayette police, "The common thread in most
9 of the complaints was noise. Amplified music and speaking.
10 Numbers at these parties ran from 25 to 200." Does that
11 sound elegant and gracious and serene to you?
12 We've always planned for some kind of development
13 on the Thomas property. We'd welcome an enterprise like a
14 school or church or a neighborhood. If you approve their
15 request, we will be impacted by that decision forever.
16 Please deny this request again and support us private
17 citizens in our request. Thank you.
18 SPEAKER: My name is Bruce Harris. I live at
19 3120 Mesa Verde Street. And that you -- you've obviously
20 been hearing a lot of discussion and rhetoric tonight, and
21 none of which seems to be germane to the modification that's
22 in front of you tonight.
23 But for a number of years, a primary issue for
24 the City of Fort Collins, the planning, the department, and
25 this Board has been the historic preservation of buildings.
30
1 And we have strived as a City to preserve them for our
2 children, for future generations. We've restore them to
3 their previous beauty. We have also improved their
4 functionality so people of all ages can gain access to these
5 buildings and enjoy both the history and current use of
6 these buildings.
7 We now have an opportunity to do this again. The
8 modification as it's coming out is not on the new building
9 that is being planned. It is on the existing building. It
10 is not something that the developers wanted to do by placing
11 the building there. The building was simply there. It
12 seems to me that the buildings that are in contention within
13 the 300 feet were certainly built after this, so they're the
14 ones that are in violation of the 300 foot. It just happens
15 to be that the Feather Ridge project wants to use this
16 building and to keep up with the historic preservation.
17 We have -- we have an opportunity for the
18 preservation of this building. We should not only be
19 granting the Feather Ridge project, this modification; we
20 should be requesting and encouraging their use of this
21 building.
22 This is such an easy position to make, it seems
23 to me. The owners have agreed to buffer their neighbors
24 from any potential commotion in a variety of ways. The
25 building will have its history preserved and will have
31
1 gained a very gentle use. This whole process has been drug
2 out, I think, far too long, and I urge you to approve this
3 modification.
4 SPEAKER: Hello. I'm Janet Zuniga. I live at
5
4026 Mesa
Verde Street.
6
First, I want to
thank you for your previous
7
support for us. You know, we come here; we feel like we're
8
fighting,
you know, Godzilla
or whatever, one little person,
9
you know,
fighting the City,
and I just appreciate your
10
support.
11 I have to say that I'm appalled that the City has
12 allowed this project to go this far, considering all the
13 legal obstacles that have been ignored and the immense
14 impact that it will have on everyone who lives in our
15 neighborhood. I suppose I'm the closest neighbor to Feather
16 Ridge.
17 This project does not meet the minimum setback
18 requirements. The farmhouse is 80 feet too close to my
19 home. If approved, they supposedly would not be using the
20 space in front of or behind the farmhouse; yet they just
21 constructed a very large front patio. This picture is the
22 view from that patio to my home, not a great distance.
23 Like most people, we live in the back of our
24 home. My children's bedrooms and our family room are
25 located in the back. We home -school, so we're always there.
32
1 The noise, lights, and intrusion of privacy will be
2 overbearing, to say the least. With the possibility of two
3 simultaneous events, the impact will be enormous.
4 These are my children. Right now, we can hear
5 the coyotes howl and the owls hoot as we lay in our beds at
6 night. I would like to be able to sleep at night and not be
7 counting the minutes until the events are over. There will
8 be hundreds of people across the fence every single weekend
9 from now on, watching me do my gardening, watching my kids
10 at play. I want these people to be pushed back as far as
11 possible, which I'm sure you can understand.
12 Imagine this events center 80 feet too close to
13 your house. I appeal to you as moms and dads, as family
14 people who love to barbecue and work in the garden, and who
15 love the privacy of your own back yards. We're talking
16 about changes that will last forever.
17 We love the old farmhouse and think it's a great
18 asset to the City, but only as a historic property that
19 gives access to the general public. It would be perfect as
20 an extension of the library, as an art school, a day school,
21 or a church, something quiet, beautiful, accessible to all.
22 You must consider the compatibility of its use with the
23 existing neighborhood.
24 Fort Collins is known for its quality of life.
25 Don't miss this opportunity to say yes to quality of life.
33
1 Please uphold the standards that you yourself set. This
2 portion of the events center is too close. Please vote no.
3 And just as an aside, I'm concerned about the
4 septic system possibly damaging the trees. Thank you.
5 SPEAKER: My name is Justin Zuniga. I love the
6 quiet behind my house. I go to bed at 8:00 o'clock. Please
7 vote no.
8 SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Bob Pollack,
9 and I live at 4014 Mesa Verde Street. I'm here representing
10 my property and also as a member of the woodland Park
11 Homeowners Association Board of Directors.
12 Per your request, Madame Chairperson, I will not
13 review what's already been talked about tonight. We'll try
14 to make this as short as possible. But I think there are a
15 few points that need to be brought out.
16 Number one is, we've heard over and over again,
17 in correspondence that's been sent to you, to City Council,
18 and I quote, "Staff is confident that these standards are
19 thorough and rigorous." Second quote, "Staff has worked
20 closely with two private parties on expanding and refining
21 the performance standards that would be necessary in order
22 to ensure neighborhood compatibility."
23 That 300-foot setback was part of those standards
24 that was reviewed by the Planning Department, by Mr. Gloss's
25 staff. It was reviewed here before Planning and Zoning, and
34
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
it was reviewed by City Council. And it was not changed
when the ordinance was approved. And now we're asking that
that setback be reduced by almost -- well, it's over 30
percent.
What I'd also like to do is point out that maybe
we've all been blinded, that there are other options for
this property. As much as Julie would like to use it for a
reception center, there are other uses in the Land Use Code
in the urban estate that this house can be preserved as a
historical property and used as perhaps a bed and breakfast.
Maybe a child care center or a daycare center. Those are
not as an intense use as a reception center.
We've also asked -- we've been asked to be open
and receptive to having this in our neighborhood. I would
also ask the developer to look at these alternative uses for
this property. The house can be preserved. The house can
be preserved. The farm can be preserved. i agree with
Bruce. I think we need to preserve our historical
properties in this town and in the city. But it shouldn't
be at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood.
The comparison of Avery House, well, that's not
even in an urban estate zone. That's in a separate part of
the city. Has nothing to do with our situation. And to use
that comparison, I think, is -- is a little bit ridiculous.
Again, I will ask you to please not approve this
35
1 modification of standards, based on what you've heard from
2 my fellow residents and the things that I've just said to
3 you. Thank you very much.
4 MS. MEYER: Anybody else? Okay. Then I'm going
5 to bring it back to the Board. Linda, do you want
6 something? Oh, you want rebuttal. And you have rebuttal,
7 yeah. Short.
8 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you, Madame Chairman. I'll be
9 brief. First of all, I wanted to address, myself and
10 Cameron, at the previous meeting, way back when. I stand by
11 that statement. I think that performance standards are good
12 ones. When I said we could live with those, I said we could
13 live with those, because I knew we would have to request a
14 modification to use a historic house.
15 I was also confident that given the amount of
16 buffering that we had, that we would probably get it. I
17 could be totally wrong, and I certainly don't want to
18 predict your vote tonight. But the reason I said that the
19 performance standards were good ones is that when there is a
20 structure that's closer than 300 feet, I think it should be
21 looked at very closely.
22 And that's what you're required to do if a
23
modification is needed. Then you
have to
look at that
24
situation a little closer than you
might
ordinarily look at
25
it. But a modification request is
a part
of the system. It
9M
1 was always intended to be. That's why the performance
2 standards are modifiable.
3 Anyway, so I didn't intend to lie or mislead
4 anyone at all. Like I said, I think the performance
5 standards are good ones, and that brings me to the point
6 that Paul had hoped that I would address, and I didn't in my
7 initial presentation, of where's the hardship.
8 I believe the hardship is that that house exists;
9 I can't move it. It -- it just simply is -- is a situation
10 that we cannot change. We can't make it 300 feet away from
11 the neighboring house without moving their houses or
12 moving -- either -- both are impossible.
13 The other situation that I believe is somewhat of
14 a hardship and that's been talked a little bit about from
15 the neighborhood are the alternative uses. There aren't
16 very many. It can't be used as a residence because then the
17 other facility is too close. That would require a
18 modification. A bed and breakfast essentially is a
19 residence, because someone has to live there. That would
20 require a modification. Church, school, would require
21 significant remodeling and change to that historic
22 structural, which may be technically legal. I don't think
23 it's desirable. And I also would say that I'm not sure that
24 the impact to the neighborhood would necessarily be any less
25 with those uses.
37
1 Julie does own the house. It's a perfect
2 opportunity to use it for meetings, seminars, small parties.
3 Remember, it's inside the house. It's way too small to have
4 a band in there. Band and dancing would occur in the
5 ballroom facility much further away, not ever in this tiny
6 house.
7 I think I'm about done. I just want to end with
8 one last slide. Georgiana, could I ask you to go back. So
9 it would probably be back down eighth or ninth slide. I
10 want to show this slide that shows the area between the --
11 there. The houses to the left, the trees that Julie and her
12 husband planted last summer, the existing trees that are
13 there, and then the historic house is on the other side of
14 that. And that -- that's where I'll stop. Thank you very
15 much.
16 MS. MEYER: Thank you. Now we can bring it back
17 to the Board? Just a minute.
18 MS. BAKER: Good evening. My name is Julie
19 Baker. I'm the infamous person who keeps being referred to
20 in the video you saw. That video that continues being
21 referenced is frustrating for me, I guess, because I am new
22 at the end. If I had known in the beginning that I was on
23 the stand, that I would have to say an oath for everything 1
24 said, I would have done so, and I apologize. I know that
25 I've never lied, and I've never tried to mislead anyone
M.
n
1 along the way. I stand by what I said in that video. In
2 fact, I was further going to continue on. I had no ill
3 intent in that. And I apologize to anyone who thinks that I
4 confused that, that way.
5 We have been with outright full intent to meet
6 with the neighbors. We've had three official neighborhood
7 meetings. From what I understand, that's fairly unusual.
8 Each one lasted a fairly long time. We felt like we heard
9 everyone. we communicated. And we even went home and met
10 and revamped our plans every time. Every time, we made new
11 changes. And on top of those meetings, we also had numerous
12 meetings with the neighbors to our west.
13
And I know,
hopefully, you've read your
notes. I
14
don't want
to have to
reiterate everything, but we
have
15
attempted
to do as much
mitigation as we could ahead of
16
time, and
it wasn't to
bribe anybody. I know that
hasn't
17
come up in
that form.
It -- to get us started on
things, to
18
get us started on the
buffering, because it takes
so long
19
for it to
grow.
20 So we did meet with each one of them on an
21 individual basis and as a group. And we never seemed to
22 come together with a conclusion as to what each of them
23 wanted, as a group. It was everybody had different things
24 they wanted, and so we did the best we could to come
25 together with a consensus.
39
1 Our idea was a fence. But they don't want that
2 because they do love their view. I remember one of them
3 saying, "Oh, we love the Rockefeller house." Well, we do,
4 too, and we are trying to come up with a happy median so
5 that we can both enjoy it.
6 we have done everything in our power, honestly,
7 to try to make this a good thing, and if we could build the
8 fence, I think it would mitigate a lot of problems, but I
9 don't -- I know that wouldn't make them happy. And so we've
10 done the best we could with alternatives in terms of live
11 plants and the chicken coop, and they referred to the -- the
12 canopy of trees.
13 Georgian, are you available to -- sorry. Do we
14 know which slide that is? In the summertime, which -- I
15 have to say a significant amount of events happened in the
16 summertime, and because of that, that's a pretty big deal,
17 because of it being a seasonal business, we do depend on
18 the -- the tree line there. Although those trees are tall,
19 there's an enormous amount of undergrowth that does create a
20
wall. You can
see
through
it. I'm not saying
you can't.
21
But there is a
lot
of dense
shrubbery through
there.
22 And so a majority of the weddings are taking
23 place in the summertime; and in the wintertime, they're not
24 going to want to be outside when there isn't a lot of
25 shrubbery. You have to imagine -- it's hard to visualize, I
40
1 know it is,
but it is
very seasonal, and that garage, that
2 garage that
was built
in probably 1970, 19 -- late 170s, is
3 an eyesore,
but we're
going to keep it, and we're going to
4 try to work
with it,
because that was their request, to help
5 with the buffering.
6 And I can see their point. That farmhouse, if we
7 do have events inside of it, it isn't going to be loud,
8 because the windows and doors are closed and the landscape
9 center issues came when their door got propped open. She
10 has mitigated that by having a quick -release system that
11 closes all the time, and she has a door person at each event
12 to keep it closed, because it's when the door is open, is
13 when they have issues.
14 So thank you for allowing me a minute to speak,
15 and I hope that you will approve our project for the
16 modification. Thank you.
17 MS. MEYER: Thank you. Now back to the Board.
18 MS. CRAIG: Cameron, could you tell me, can that
19 house be physically moved? I know they did it at Rigden
20 Farm, and I just don't know what the circumstances are on
21 this particular house.
22 MR. GLOSS: we haven't done a survey, and you'll
23 just have to -- I have to just give you basic professional
24 experience, that brick structures like this, of this age,
25 can be moved.
41
1 MS.
CRAIG:
Was that a can or cannot?
2 MR.
GLOSS:
It can --
3 MS.
CRAIG:
Okay.
4 MR.
GLOSS:
It can be moved, yes.
5 MS.
CRAIG:
So it could physically be moved.
6 MR.
GLOSS:
Typically, that's correct.
7 MS.
CRAIG:
Okay.
8 MR. GLOSS: But I -- but we don't have a survey,
9 structural survey, on this house, so we don't know
10 absolutely, but I've seen structures like this of a similar
11 vintage that have been moved.
12 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Because I think that's a very
13 important part of Number 3 when we talk about exceptional
14 hardship, et cetera. This can be physically moved.
15 MS. CARPENTER: I would tell you, Sally, though,
16 that if it is moved, it losses some of its historical
17 significance. It also loses the ability to have the kinds
18 of grants that you get through the landmark designation. So
19 it does have effects. Maybe not physical effects, but it
20 does have effects to move it.
21
I have another
question, too. My main concern
22
here is that septic tank,
and I readily admit
that I know
23
very little about septic
tanks. So if someone
could
24
enlighten me on what happens when you have 123
people going
25
through at one time and a
septic tank? Is it
going to be
42
1 adequate public facilities?
2 MR. RYAN: Thank you. My name
is
Doug Ryan, and
3 I work with the Larimer County Department
of
Health and
4 Environment.
5 We started looking at this issue back in August
6 of last summer, when we consulted with staff, with the
7 applicant, about various options for sewer. And I can tell
8 you that the Health Department's first option is always for
9 public central sewer in these kinds of uses and kinds of
10 events.
11 The developer and their engineer presented -- did
12 some feasibility studies and presented several options to
13 us. The option that we told them, that is the Health
14 Department, that we would find acceptable and protective of
15 public health and safety would be potentially to have a
16 septic system for the first phase, for the use of the
17 farmhouse, and then to connect both facilities to public
18 central sewer when phase 2 was constructed.
19 Now to directly answer your question, a septic
20 system really is a pretty good way to treat sewage to a very
21 high level of treatment and return it back into the
22 groundwater if you have moderate flows -- in other words,
23 not real high flow rates -- and sewage that has
24 characteristics that's similar to what we call domestic
25 sanitary waste; in other words, not processed or industrial
43
0
1 waste from different kinds of facilities.
2 And that's one of the reasons that we had some
3 concerns about the kitchen, because kitchens typically have
4 very, you know, hot, soapy waste that -- that sort of is a
5 large flow, can sometimes damage septic systems. And we've
6 had some of those experiences, for instance, with some
7 restaurants up in -- up in the canyons above Fort Collins
8 and Larimer -- and Loveland.
9 But where we're at now, with a facility that's
10 designed to serve up to a maximum of 120 people outside
11 without a catering kitchen where the caterers would come and
12 bring hot food and take the dishes and everything with them,
13 the flow rates would be -- really, pretty similar to a
14 single-family dwelling, which is the kind of flow that these
15 systems are really designed for.
16 And so we believe that a septic system in this
17 kind of incidence, or the kind of population that's planned,
18 and excluding the caterer's kitchen, would be safe and would
19 protect public health and safety.
20 MS. CRAIG: Since this has been opened up, Doug,
21 when you talk about this system is similar to a normal
22 family, whether the people are outside -- I can understand
23 the kitchen part, you know. You've explained that quite
24 well, but we've got to remember, these people are going to
25 be drinking alcohol, so they are going to be using that
44
1 facility unless Port -A -Potties are going to be put on.
2 So to me, this does not compare to a normal
3 family environment; and having stated that, what size septic
4 system are you putting in? And also, because of the
5 topography of this area, how does the groundwater, the
6 wetlands, all of that,,how does that figure into a facility
7 big enough for a hundred people within a -- well, even say
8 within 12 hours. You have three events that go. Go to the
9 bathroom, probably, two to three times within that.
10 MR. RYAN: Well, assuming a hundred people in one
11 event, the sewage flow would be about 600 gallons per day on
12 that day, that weekend day. And that's roughly equivalent
13 to, you know, a large house, some of the large houses that
14 we see built in Larimer County out in some of the rural
15 area. And that's why I say the flow that would be
16 generated, we figure, without the caterer's kitchen, about
17 five gallons per person per day, would be the amount of flow
18 that would be generated.
19
In terms of --
your question about the ground
20
water,
where it moves and
how it moves, in this case, with
21
the real strong slope out
on that side, the ground water
22
moves
sort of to the -- I
guess it would be to the north and
23
east,
towards the Fossil
-- downhill, towards the Fossil
24
Creek
reservoir inlet ditch. We administer technical
25 standards that have setback requirements from -- from that
45
1 ditch that are meant to protect water quality in the ditch.
2 I would say that this process certainly hasn't
3 moved to final design phase. If the City approves this
4 center, and the -- your utility department concurs with the
5 recommendation that it was not feasible at this first phase
6 to implement public sewer, then the applicant could submit a
7 design prepared by a registered professional engineer -- and
8 they have presented us with a preliminary design, but it was
9 on both facilities. We would evaluate that based on the
10 regulations we administer and then issue a permit and then
11 do inspections on the system as it's installed.
12 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So your feeling, having gone
13 on -site, that with the pond and everything to the north,
14 that none of that will be affected by a septic system that
15 needs to be big enough to accommodate this kind of facility.
16 MR. RYAN: That's right. Based on the soil
17 percolation rate, that is, the ability of the soil to accept
18 effluent from the septic tank and into the leaching field,
19 and the projected flow rates, a sewer system, a septic
20 system that was a reasonable size, that could meet all the
21 technical standards in terms of setbacks from the pond, from
22 the reservoir inlet ditch, from the property lines, is
23 technically feasible.
24 And like I say, what really -- what really
25 clinched it for us, because our strong policy preference is
EV
1 for public central sewer in these city -- city uses. what
2 really clinched it for us was the agreement that at the time
3 that the large facility was built, that then the whole
4 facility would be converted over to the public sewer system.
5 And that's not to say that we don't think that it
6 can be safely done, but we had concerns, for instance, that
7 a facility that has to operate long-term without a caterer's
8 kitchen, you know, that there could be pressure on, you
9 know, sort of changing the operation and then maybe
10 potentially overloading the system over time and things like
11 that. And I think that the compromise that's been worked
12 out in terms of the sewer, and that's all I'm talking about,
13 is a reasonable one that can -- that can protect public
14 health and safety.
15 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you, Doug.
16 MS. MEYER: Wait, wait. As fascinating as this
17 is, back to what we're supposed to be discussing. Okay?
18 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
19
MS.
MEYER: The modification.
20
MS.
CARPENTER: Well, to me, this is --
the
21
septic
system
is a major issue to the modification,
whether
22
or not
it is --
there's adequate public facilities
and
23
whether
it is,
indeed, a detriment to the public.
I think
24
that's
a major
part of this modification, Madame Chairman --
25 Woman.
C
47
1 MS. MEYER: Okay. If that's the case, then if
2 you approve this, you're going to have to put something in
3 there, aren't you? I mean, if we're going to spend time
4 discussing it and basing it on that, right?
5 MR. ECKMAN: One of the things you do have to
6 look at is whether or not this is detrimental to the public
7 good, so I think that the question about the septic is
8 certainly instructive on that -- on that point, for sure.
9 And of course, you also have to look at the question of what
10 is unique about this property and how does that uniqueness,
11 when coupled with our Code, create a hardship.
12 You had some information you got from one of the
13 neighbors about financial hardships. And the law is kind of
14 weird in that regard. Maybe that's why I enjoy it. But
15 you -- you can talk about issues that might give rise to
16 financial hardships, and that's perfectly admissible and
17 relevant. For example, you might have heard evidence
18 regarding the impact that this would have on the
19 neighborhood. And that's relevant.
20 It's just when you boil it down to dollars that
21 it doesn't -- it doesn't sound right. And so we don't -- we
22 don't want to talk about financial impact, "Oh, it's going
23 to cost me so much money on the depreciation of my house."
24 Same thing with regard to moving this house. You asked the
25 question of whether it could be moved. If that's a hardship
F
1 to move it, because it takes it out of the its historical
2 context or it's brick and it's likely to fall down, that's
3 okay. But if it's going to cost $20,000 to move it, and
4 therefore, "I don't want to move it. That would be a
5 financial hardship," so that's not relevant. What it would
6 cost to move it is not relevant.
7 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my concern is just, Doug,
8 who's going to monitor this, if, as you said, the use
9 changes and caterers start having kitchens, you have more
10 extensive cleaning, because this is a public facility, not
11 just someone's house, where if it's like my house, there's
12 quite a bit of dust there, you know, so they are going to be
13 using a lot more cleaning agents and that kind of thing,
14 impacting a sewer more than a regular home might be. Is
15 there a monitoring that goes on with septics at certain
16 points in time or just if it fails?
17 MR. RYAN: well, two things. Really, there --
18 just like in a private home, there is not a normal, routine
19 monitoring program. So, in other words, the County Health
20 Department doesn't routinely come out and inspect systems.
21 One issue, though, that -- and in the -- in the
22 unincorporated county, we worked this out, is that
23 typically, the -- you know, the building permits are issued
24 for certain types of uses, and if there's a change that
25 requires a building permit -- say, an interior remodel --
M
1 that then that permit can be flagged and that the Health
2 Department then would be asked to, you know, sign off and
3 see if that was a reasonable change.
4 The other issue is, as you know, the County
5 Health Department regulates food service establishments in
6 the county, and we've met with the applicant in this case
7 and talked a lot about the requirements for kitchens and,
8 you know, what has to go in a kitchen. And in this case,
9 you know, if you use a caterer, what kind of caterer,
10 because you're somewhat limited. You have to have a caterer
11 that's basically self-contained, that can come on the site,
12 and set up, and then take the dirty dishes away, and do all
13 of that, at their commissary, where they have the full range
14 of equipment.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: One other quick question. Can
16 septic tanks go under roads, you know, where they have the
17 circular drive? I'm just thinking if the septic is going to
18 be put in now but they want to have the road for the
19 catering trucks and everything to come in. Because I always
20 thought that that was a difficulty, that you weren't
21 supposed to be driving on top of the --
22 MR. RYAN: You're right. A septic system -- the
23 leach field component of the septic system cannot be driven
24 on or go under a road or go under an impervious surface. It
25 has to have grass planted on the top. Now, the sewer lines
50
1 that run to that, of course, can -- they can be . . .
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Oh, so they might put the septic
3 out further, with longer lines --
4 MR. RYAN: A septic system really has two main
5 components, a septic tank -- that's where the first level of
6 treatment occurs -- and then the leaching field, which is
7 that gravel bed with the perforated pipe in it, where the
8 sewage leaches through the soil. That's what has to be
9 grass -covered over -- over a pervious surface.
10 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Just one other
11 question. There is -- there is no possibility that they
12 could build the other facility and stay on some kind of a
13 septic situation? Because you said once that you looked at
14 a preliminary plan, but that was for both facilities. So
15 was there at one point in time a discussion that both of
16 them -- both buildings would be on a septic system?
17 MR. RYAN: Now, that was discussed, and -- and
18 our office and -- and your city utility office expressed,
19 you know, our reluctance, and in the back -and -forth, the
20 applicant came back then with the option that they presented
21 to us that I just talked about, the dual option.
22 We're certainly -- you know, we're not in favor
23 of -- of using an on -site sewer system for that large
24 facility. We think it -- it limits way too much the use and
25 the capacity of that facility and -- and it really, to build
51
u
1 value in a facility like that, it needs to be on public
2 central sewage.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: And what is the approval process
4 that someone goes through to -- like if they want to have a
5 variance for that or something? Is that through the Health
6 Department, or . . .
7 MR. RYAN: Well, it's partly through the Health
8 Department because the Health Department is statutorily
9 charged with issuing permits for on -site sewer systems. But
10 I think the City's land use approval process can -- can
11 place conditions on those approvals, and one of the
12 conditions can be that it meet adequate public facility
13 requirements. The City -- that big facility needs to have
14 public sewer.
15 And that really, then -- that forestalls the
16 issue of the County issuing a permit, because the County is
17 not going to issue a permit inside the City for a septic
18 system without the concurrence of your -- of your City
19 utility staff. We always work with your staff and make sure
20 that, by policy and by regulation, that they concur that
21 it's not feasible and that it's acceptable to have a septic
22 system.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Could we go on with
24 another question?
25 MS. MEYER: Yeah.
1 MS. SCHMIDT: Now I wish I could read my
2 handwriting. Let me sort of discuss the scenario the way,
3 if I'm understanding it correctly, what we're asking for
4 here. We're asking to be able to use the farmhouse as a
5 small-scale events center until -- sort of, as a money
6 raiser until in several years you feel like you have enough
7 money to build the other facility.
8 So part of the letter that we have is that even
9 if we would deny this modification, then the chance might be
10 you just might wait and build the facility later? Or is
11 there -- the other option, as people said, some other uses
12 for the farmhouse, like a bed and breakfast or something
13 that you could still use it for other purposes that would
14 still be income -producing but not necessarily small-scale
15 events center. Because I don't believe, like, a bed and
16 breakfast has a 350, 300-foot setback, right? Or some of
17 those other uses mentioned.
18 MR. GLOSS: Well, it's arguably a residential
19 use. And the purpose of the ordinance is to provide
20 separation between a dwelling.
21 MS. SCHMIDT: But I guess what I'm saying is --
22 MR. GLOSS: Because it's a dwelling, it doesn't
23 specify, it's a single-family residence, a multifamily
24 residence, a bed and breakfast. If someone resides -- would
25 be --
53
1 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I'm presuming at the point in
2 time that the larger facility is built, and you're having a
3 lot of events happening there, you would not necessarily
4 need to keep using the farmhouse except maybe as an
5 auxiliary. That's not true.
6 MR. GLOSS: Actually, I think -- I want to take
7 that back, because a bed and breakfast, even though it's a
8 residential use, it's still considered commercial under our
9 Land Use Code. So I take back what I said. You could do a
10 bed and breakfast. It would be a Type 2 use, so the
it Planning and Zoning Board would have to give their blessing,
12 and given that the applicant has not comported with that,
13 they would have to -- I suspect, unless this evening, if
14 they wanted to provide some assurances about the design of
15 the bed and breakfast and its occupancy and that sort of
16 thing, it would be -- they would have to come back for that
17 at a later time.
18 MS. RIPLEY: Can I just add a bit to that? I
19 know. In the interests of time. But just -- the bed and
20 breakfast, I just wanted to point out, there is not enough
21 bathrooms. There's -- extensive remodel would be required.
22 It's not a reasonable alternative use.
23 But I wanted to clarify for Board member Schmidt
24 that the intent is to use the house long-term for things
25 like teas, luncheons, a fund-raiser luncheon, a seminar, a
54
1 meeting, things that you wouldn't want to be in a larger
2 facility and really enjoy the ambience of a historic house,
3 that's a historic house in your community that you learn
4 something about while you're there. That's the purpose here
5 tonight. That's why we think it's a great idea, a great
6 opportunity. It's not a temporary situation. This is
7 something that Julie really wants to do long-term for the
8 house.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, guys. This will be my
10 last question, probably. What did we approve on Mulberry
11 Street, that family that turned their house into like a
12 group meeting facility? Yeah. And remember, they wanted to
13 have it as a facility that people could come and meet at?
14 No -- well -- no, it was right on -- yeah, so they made
15 it -- but I mean, what sort of -designation was -- was that?
16 Do you know? Is that -- is that something that, again,
17 could be used by this facility so you could use it for small
18 indoor meetings and retreats, but it's not the same
19 intensity as a small-scale -- but -- okay. My point being,
20 I guess -- I guess there are other options that maybe we
21 need to look at, and that's why i don't consider this to be
22 an absolute hardship situation. Okay. So, sorry I said
23 that. Thank you.
24 MS. CARPENTER: Okay.
25 MR. STOCKOVER: I just have one quick question.
55
1 Is the house going to be air-conditioned?
2 MS. BAKER: That's an interesting Question. We
3 have deliberated about that. Any kind of change or
4 alteration to the original character of the farmhouse is
5 what we're trying to avoid, the changes. Because of fire
6 codes, we're already going to be implementing a sprinkler
7 system if this use was approved tonight.
8 Hopefully -- to answer your question, though, we
9 are hoping in the future to do air conditioning. Right now,
10 it's a very cool house in the summertime. The brick
11 maintains the coolness and there's a lot of shading going on
12 with all of the trees and the canopies that we have. So
13 that -- that would possibly happen. I think it's just,
14 let's see where we're at. I'm sorry. It was a long answer.
15 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, the reason I bring that up
16 is, you say most of your events will be in the summer.
17 Noise is one of the major issues. When I go to these types
18 of events, the first thing you do is shed the sport coat.
19 The second thing you do is prop open every door you can.
20 So I see that as an issue. If we were to approve
21 this, I would say we should also put the condition that it
22 is adequately air-conditioned, so you don't have people
23 trying to prop open, because you said indoors is where
24 you'll have the -- any type of sound system or whatever. So
25 1 just saw that has a small concern.
56
1 MS. BAKER: That's a great concern, and we've
2 talked a lot about it as we've been trying to restore the
3 house through the summertime. We've been in there, in the
4 intensest, most intense of the hottest days, and it's been
5 great inside. So at this point, we put in ceiling fans as
6 forethought for that, but in the back of our heads, we've
7 known that that could potentially occur.
8 And one more thing I just want to allude to is
9 the bed and breakfast thing, just to highlight what she said
10 real quick, is when you think of a bed and breakfast, you
11 think of baths in every room. And that's what makes them so
12 special. A lot -- a lot of them here in town have their own
13 baths. And we don't want to alter that internal character.
14 And that was -- there's only -- there's just not enough
15 bedrooms to do that with it, too. So we've talked a lot
16 about that, though. Thank you.
17 MR. STOCKOVER: Thank you.
18 MS. MEYER: Any other question? Does anybody
19 want to make a motion?
20 MS. CARPENTER: I'm going to make this motion,
21 and then I'm going to comment on why I made the motion.
22 I move approval of the modification of standards,
23 and if I do this wrong, Paul, are you listening? Approval
24 of the modification of standards for the Feather Ridge
25 Project Development Plan Number 2004-A, based on the
57
0
1 exceptional physical conditions and practical difficulties
2 unique to the property; and those, to me, are, it is a
3 historic property, and it is already there where it is.
4 Moving it would be problematic and certainly probably not in
5 the best public interests.
6 Do I need to say anything else? Do I need to add
7 another --
8 MR. ECKMAN: So you've described the exceptional
9 or uniqueness about the property. How does that generate a
10 hardship when you apply the Code to that unique situation?
11 What is the hardship?
12 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Cameron, this --
13 MR. GLOSS: I think you made mention of there
14 being an adverse impact to its historic nature due to the
15 change in location. That you mentioned something about the
16 context of the house, and if it was moved, that would have
17 an impact on its historic significance.
18 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. It goes.
19 MR. GLOSS: You didn't use those exact words.
20 It's a paraphrasing.
21 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. The reason I believe that
22 it is unique is because it is historic, and when you move a
23 historic property, it does lose some of its integrity. it
24 loses a lot of its ability to get grants and tax help. And
25 it is one of the things that we try not to do with historic
M
1 properties. It does have a significant impact on its
2 integrity, its historic integrity. Is that enough?
3 MR. ECKMAN: Then you also want to think about
4 Finding Number 2 and Number 4 in the staff report, because
5 you are required to make a finding that it would not be --
6 the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to
7 the public good and the finding that the hardship is not
8 caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
9 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. So I need -- I do not
10 believe that it would be detrimental to the public good,
11 according to the findings of fact and conclusions of the
12 staff report on Page 4. The reason I don't believe that it
13 would be with a septic system, I've been assured that that
14 is not going to be a problem, and it won't affect the houses
15 next to it that are in this neighborhood. And -- now am I
16 okay? Okay. That's my motion.
17 MS. MEYER: Is there a second?
18 MS. SCHMIDT: I'll second to get it on the table.
19 MS. CARPENTER: Okay.
20 MS. MEYER: Comments?
21 MS. CRAIG: I won't be supporting this. I've
22 looked this over. I think that we've brought up enough
23 examples that I don't think that it fits the strict
24 application of the standard within Section 3.8.27(c), which
25 would result in unusual and exceptional practical
41
1 difficulties.
2 I know that we've moved -- Ridgen Farm. They
3 moved a very significant house, and now it's a beautiful
4 little kind of a clubhouse and it's doing just fine and
5 dandy. So it can be moved. You've told me that it can be
6 physically moved. I think that we've brought out tonight
7 that it can have a different use.
8 So I think in two very strong areas, we've shown
9 that it isn't necessarily an unusual or exceptional
10 practical difficulty. So I don't agree with that one.
11 And the granting of the modification to Section
12 3.8.27(c) would not be detrimental to the public good. I do
13 not agree with that, because I feel like it would be
14 detrimental to the public good because of the fact that
15 there are three houses, because of the fact that when we put
16 together these standards, the 300-foot minimum was just
17 that. Minimum. So that should have kind of been the line.
18 If you want to go further than that, depending on
19 the impacts, et cetera, then I can understand that. But the
20 300-foot minimum, the word there is "minimum" and -- so I do
21 not see that this would not be detrimental. I see that it
22 would be detrimental in regards to noise and the other
23 activities that will be going on around this house for
24 people getting in and out, and I do tend to agree with --
25 which, in this kind of a situation, the windows and doors
M.
1 are the first thing to open up. It's one thing for a couple
2 of people to be working in a nice cool little brick house.
3 It's another when you have a group in there, and activities
4 going on and drinking and so forth.
5 So as I said, I will not be supporting it for
6 those reasons.
7 MS. MEYER: Jennifer.
8 MS. CARPENTER: With this motion, I want to say
9 that I do understand the problems with the neighborhood. We
10 are charged to look at one particular piece of this. Now,
11 we don't have a choice of looking at whether it's direct
12 access or not. We don't have a choice of looking at even
13 whether it's the right use. We're talking about the right
14 use. That the not a part of the modification.
15 So given the limitations that we have, and where
16 we're at in this process, for me, it just -- this is what
17 makes the most sense. It's not going to change whether it
18 happens or not. Whether we do this modification or we don't
19 do this modification.
20 So I would rather see with it the historic home
21 left intact in its -- in the place that it historically has
22 been. I don't think moving it 80 feet one direction or the
23 other is going to change the impact to the homes.
24 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I'd like to make some
25 summary comments. I agree pretty much with everything Sally
61
u
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
said, so I won't repeat that. I agree, too, just the
closeness to the other houses, if you can't open the window
and the doors are supposed to stay closed, what's going to
happen is, people are going to walk in, walk out, walk in,
walk out, to get air constantly.
And I think when you're as close as you can see
from those pictures and noise in those areas does carry, I
think that it is going to be definitely a detriment to the
public good, and that's one of the reasons that I feel the
300 should at least be a minimum; and I think, you know,
that's some of the problems in dealing with the older homes,
if they're not able to put in air conditioning, because it
ruins the historic value. Then again, you're looking at --
you know, she said that was a concern that they might not be
able to modify it for the air conditioning.
MS. CARPENTER: No, you definitely can
air-condition historic homes if it's done correctly.
It's -- that's not -- I mean, that's something that could be
done.
MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think that's something that
definitely should be considered. Because I think Butch's
concern was really valid there. I mean, we were in that
house, and 70 people is going to be a lot to be in that
house.
MS. CARPENTER: I might be open to a friendly
T
1 amendment that they have to air-condition it in order to
2 make it work, but . . .
3 (Pause in proceedings.)
4 MR. STOCKOVER: This one's been a very difficult
5 one for me, because everybody is so passionate on both
6 sides. And I'm not sure I'm totally in support of it, and
7 still totally undecided, actually; but the only way I would
8 be tipped to support it would be with that amendment, that
9 if approved, it would be air-conditioned. Because I truly
10 think that is an issue.
11 MS. CARPENTER: Absolutely. I accept that.
12 MS. MEYER: Do you accept the amendment?
13 MR. ECKMAN: What is the amendment?
14 MS. MEYER: Add air conditioning.
15 MR. STOCKOVER: We're saying that because as it
16 is, we are giving them a variance to be closer. That one of
17 our concerns is noise.
18 MR. ECKMAN: I'm just wondering if adding air
19 conditioning solves the problem. Would an amendment be
20 better that this required all windows and doors to be closed
21 during functions?
22 MR. STOCKOVER: Then you put the burden of
23 monitoring it on who?
24 MR. ECKMAN: That's true.
25 MR. STOCKOVER: I think it's better to just cure
63
0
1 the problem than to --
2 MR. ECKMAN: May be both, because if you just
3 require the building to be air-conditioned, that doesn't
4 mean they'll turn the thermostat on.
5 MR. STOCKOVER: Very good point. Right. Well,
6 then I would add to the amendment that it would be required
7 that the windows on -- not having been in the house, I
8 wouldn't know if that is effective enough, whether the north
9 and south --
10 MR. ECKMAN: Well, the reason I suggest that is
11 because even on a cool day, when you wouldn't need air
12 conditioning, you'd still want those windows closed, would
13 you not?
14 MR. STOCKOVER: I would like to add to the
15 amendment that during events that the windows be closed. I
16 truly think it's a noise issue. And that's a very good
17 point. In the middle of winter, you prop the windows open,
18 and then you've accomplished nothing, as far as noise
19 abatement.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: I think the whole discussion shows
21 that we're trying to put a square facility into a round
22 hole, and this never should have been approved to start
23 with. Excuse me.
24 (Applause.)
25 MS. MEYER: Please. Not again, okay, or you'll
64
1 get to leave.
2 Unfortunately, we're
the end of
the train this
3 time instead of the front of the
train, and
this
4 modification, this facility, is
going to go
ahead whether or
5 not, and based on this hardship,
whether or
not they can
6 move the building, I agree with
Jennifer.
You start moving
7 these buildings; that creates other
issues
that nobody wants
8 to go to.
9 The property, they allowed the 220 feet, and one
10 thing that I'm really concerned about is, she was going to
11 put up a fence. That would be my solution. That would
12 solve all the problems. And -- but, no, now the neighbors
13 don't want it.
14 Now, you can't walk both sides of the street.
15 You don't want the fence, but you don't want the noise.
16 You've got to go on one side or the other. So she's put up
17 buffers. She's done the best she could without the fence.
18 So I think she's gone as -- you know, she's done the best
19 she could, and it may -- we've done the best we can to try
20 and protect you from the perceived things that are going to
21 happen here. I'm not sure that they'll all happen. But
22 change is always difficult.
23 And just for edification, when you live next to
24 an empty field, always be concerned, unless you own it.
25 Because somebody may come in and want to develop it. We see
1 it here all the time. And that's what happens. It sits
2 empty for 25 years, and somebody buys it. So when you buy a
3 house and there's an empty field, you need to know what can
4 go in that empty field.
5 So -- but our -- our only concern here is this
6 modification, and I agree that the hardship is the house.
7 SPECTATOR: What about traffic for 120 people?
8 MS. MEYER: We aren't voting on any of that.
9 We're voting on the modification here. We were not given
10 any of that. We were brought back, and one thing we can
11 vote on is this modification. That's it.
12 SPECTATOR: You expressed that you agreed with
13 concerns for noise. Wouldn't traffic for 120 people --
14 MS. MEYER: Excuse me, but you're out of order.
15 MS. CARPENTER: Could I -- could I call for a
16 vote, please.
17 MS. MEYER: Yes.
18 THE CLERK: Carpenter.
19 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
20 THE CLERK: Stockover.
21 MR. STOCKOVER: No.
22 THE CLERK: Schmidt.
23 MS. SCHMIDT: No.
24 THE CLERK: Craig.
25 MS. CRAIG: No.
M
1 THE CLERK: Meyer.
2 MS. MEYER: Yes.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: Judy, I have one thing I'd like to
4 ask Cameron, since you brought it up about living next to
5 the empty field and always being worried. At the point in
6 time that we -- that this came up for consideration as
7 changing the zoning in the urban estate zoning, and we saw
8 all those videos and everything, was there a neighborhood
9 meeting at that time for these particular neighbors, if the
10 site was in question, to be able to voice their opinion to
11 whether a reception center should go in the UE zone?
12 MR. GLOSS: There was not.
13 MS. MEYER: Okay. We're adjourned.
14 (Meeting adjourned at 08:02 p.m.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
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
STATE OF COLORADO )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Jason T. Meadors, a Registered Professional
Reporter and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby
certify that the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter
of Feather Ridge Project Development, Plan Number 2004-A,
were taken on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at City Council
Chambers, 200 West Laporte, Fort Collins, Colorado; that
said proceedings were taken down by me in stenotype notes
and thereafter reduced under my supervision to the foregoing
66 pages; that said transcript is an accurate and complete
record of the proceedings so taken.
I further certify that I am not related to,
employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
the case.
Attested to by me this 14th day of March, 2005.
Jason T. Meadors
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
My commission expires January 26, 2009.