HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/18/2004Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Phone: (W) 416-7435
Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Phone: (W) 490-2172
Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Lingle, Meyer, Craig, Schmidt, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Member
Carpenter was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Wilder, Hibbard, Buffington, Avrill, Moore, Aspen,
Wamhoff, Moore, Stokes, Shepard and Deines.
Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion
Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes of the October 21, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
(Continued)
2. Resolution PZ04-31, Easement Vacation.
3. Resolution PZ04-32, Easement Dedication.
4. Resolution PZ04-33, Easement Dedication.
5. #38-04 Running Deer Natural Area Rezoning.
6. Recommendation to City Council for the 3-Mile Plan Update.
Discussion Agenda:
7. Recommendation to City Council for the LaPorte Water/Sewer
Services Policy.
8. #6-96O Settlers Creek at Harmony Centre – Project Development Plan.
9. Recommendation to City Council for the Fall 2004 Land Use Code
Changes.
The Board was in consensus to move Item 8 moved to the Consent Agenda.
There was no public input on the Consent Agenda.
Member Gavaldon moved approve Consent Agenda Items 2 through 6 and Item 8.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0, with
Member Carpenter absent.
Approved 2/17/05
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 2
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the LaPorte
Water/Sewer Services Policy
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City encourage the
property owners to form a single service entity
through the provision of city sewage treatment
(Alternative 4), with the following conditions:
(1) Within the service entity, the boundaries wherein sewer service would be
provided shall correspond to the area as illustrated in Figure 5 (identified as
“potential”)*;
(2) Development projects within the area illustrated in Figure 5 shall be consistent
with the LaPorte Area Plan and its current (January, 2004) land use
designations;
(3) The same conditions and agreements listed in Sec. 26-651(b) and Sec. 26-652
(a) – (d) of the City Code (see Attachment B) if applicable;
(4) A service agreement between the City and developers for the City to collect a
one-time fee to pay for the impacts of the development on City services,
including utilities, parks, library, and transportation, in return for the extension of
City utilities. The City Manager should be directed to determine the appropriate
fees.
*The exception is two areas located south of the river and west of LaPorte, wherein
the City should provide full service (alternative 3). These areas cannon be
reasonably serviced by a new district.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Cameron Gloss, Director, Current Planning: Item #7, the Planning and Zoning Board
also is making a recommendation to City Council, on the LaPorte Area Water and
Sewer Service Extension Policy. And we had a recent application for sewer service out
in this area, as well as several discussions with you through work sessions on this
particular item.
Timothy Wilder, City Planner, Advance Planning: Thank you members of the
Planning and Zoning Board. I’m going to do a slide show, go to go through it pretty
quickly. You’ve seen most of this already, so I’ll try to keep it brief.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 3
You’ve seen a lot of the background already; you’ve seen this at work sessions.
Essentially the City provides service currently already, outside the Growth Management
Area, to the LaPorte Area, a portion of the LaPorte Area. And what we’re discussing
tonight is whether or not we should extend our services to an area outside of the current
LaPorte Sanitation District boundaries.
Some of the issues out there are existing septic systems. There is the LaPorte Area
Plan, which increases the intensity in certain areas to 2 to 4 units per acre, and there’s a
potential for about 2,000 new units both east of the current core area of LaPorte and
within the core area itself. These are new units.
Existing conditions, I mentioned, are septic systems, there are about 200 units on septic
systems that should get served by new sewer services and the area in the blue is an
area that is requiring to be on sewer services in order to get that kind of density.
This is a map showing the LaPorte Area Plan; the area in a peach color on the map is 2
to 4 dwelling units per acre. The area in yellow is equivalent to their SA-1 density and
that does not necessarily require public sewer. So the areas we’re concerned with is the
area 2 to 4 units per acre or above.
I mentioned the City currently provides service to the LaPorte area; we have 2 lines in
the area, we have a 12-inch line going to the existing LaPorte area, providing though an
agreement to the LaPorte Sanitation District. We have a 15-inch line that goes to the
Heron Lakes Campground just north of the Poudre River, along Taft Hill Road. And the
capacity is there, we think, for most of that new development that could occur in the
area.
One of the issues with this is the City policy; we talk about discouraging the extension of
utilities unless there is a community benefit, that is, a benefit to the City. Also this is a
little bit in contradiction with our outside City service process that talks about how we
could extend utilities outside the City limits, and this also applies to the Growth
Management Area.
The other thing that applies here is the Section 208 Water Quality Plan. This is basically
a coordinating document that identifies where different service will be provided. I’ve
shown you a map here; there is one area around the Growth Management Area that is
not identified for a service provider, and that’s the area we’re talking about. And so this
is partly why this has become an issue, because no one there has been identified as
providing sewer service.
As far as various options that are outlined in the report, there are several options. One,
if there were lower densities, there could be septic systems out in the area, but with the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 4
higher densities, which are likely, there are a few options, some better than others. One
is a community sewer system. This is basically a sewer system that is built for one or
two neighborhoods. Treatment typically happens on site. There is also what’s called a
new sanitation district, like that is being discussed there today. And this could be a
larger facility that could serve either a number of neighborhoods or the whole area. And
then there’s the Box Elder Sanitation District; this is probably less likely for this area
because of the cost and expense for extending lines to their current service area, which
is off State Hwy 1, Douglas Road. And then, finally, City service.
We want to identify some of the environmental impacts. If a new treatment facility is
created in the LaPorte area, one is obviously it creates an upstream source of effluent; it
has to meet state standards for that effluent. But it is still a concern because there is
some degradation of water quality into the Poudre River with any new treatment option
up there.
We’re also concerned about the potential for the proliferation of new districts in that
area, and the potential that with that proliferation could occur additional of new
treatment facilities upstream of the city. And what comes with that is possibly a change
in standards, increase requirements from the State; it could increase the City costs for
its treatment facilities. The other thing is we don’t have any jurisdiction to mitigate some
of the issues that could occur. There could be odor issues, there could be noise, there
could be other things that we really don’t have any control over.
One of the big issues is the management issue. Typically smaller districts will have a
harder time staffing and maintaining their facilities. And the problems that causes is with
poor maintenance you could have a greater risk of upsets or problems for the system,
and a greater chance that releases will occur with those smaller systems, as compared
to a larger public system, like Box Elder or like the City facilities.
We’ve identified some impacts in order to really get a scope of how much new
development will impact the City. And these are just some numbers you’ve seen before
discussing those impacts. We have outlined 4 possible City action options, and the one
we’re recommending at this point is that the City to work with the proposed entity for the
area in order to provide treatment only for that area. We hope that it limits really the
creation of new districts in that area. And this would have to comply with a number of
conditions. One, we’ve defined the area to correspond with the LaPorte Area Plan,
serving that 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, that development is consistent with that, and
conditions being the same as the outside city limits process that we have in place today.
And then finally, there is some agreement to pay non-utilities fee for service into the
area.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 5
And the blue area is the area that references the 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre that we
propose to serve with treatment only. And here is just a list of benefits we identified for
the City; I already talked about most of these. I’ll let you view it on your own. And that’s
basically it. Thank you.
Mikal Torgerson: Thank you, Timothy. Is there anyone in the audience who would like
to speak to the item before the Board? Please, sir, come down, state your name and
address for the record and sign our log there if you would.
Doug Ryan: Good evening, I’m Doug Ryan, I work for the Larimer County Department
of Health and the Environment, and we’re on 1525 Blue Spruce Drive in Fort Collins. I
think Timothy did a great job of presenting the staff report and I was one of the staff
members that had input into the report that your staff put together. I thought it would be
helpful, though, if I could very briefly state the position of the County Health Department
in relationship to this issue.
Certainly, the LaPorte Area Plan anticipates a pattern of development that if that pattern
is going to really come true, and we’re going to achieve that vision, it’s going to need
some kind of central sewer for the build-out to occur. The preferred option, in our view,
is definitely consolidation with an existing treatment provider. I think there’s really two
main reasons; those are water quality and the management issue.
The water quality issue really has to do, I think, with consolidation of a discharge point
downstream from the city, in our view would be preferable than to put a new treatment
plant above the city. And even though that treatment plant would have to maintain state
water quality standards that have adopted for the Poudre River, that stretch through the
city would be cleaner and more pristine that it would be with a treatment plant.
And the second issue has to do with management, and I really want to second what
your staff has indicated. The City has the infrastructure to have 24-hour oversight, to
have emergency, weekend, and holiday response to issues that might occur. Not that
we wouldn’t expect that a district would develop and have those same kinds of
responses. But realistically just because of economies of scale, the City has a better
opportunity to do that.
Certainly there are other options that are possible. If for some reason it was determined
that the City couldn’t provide sewer, some of those other options that Timothy had up on
the side, we’d have to look at. But we really do want to try to support the issue of
consolidation if it’s at all feasible. Thank you.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 6
Mikal Torgerson: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to
speak to the item before the Board? Seeing none, I’ll close public input and bring it back
to the Board for questions.
Sally Craig: Timothy, if I understand correctly, LaPorte is not incorporated, so it isn’t an
entity right now?
Timothy Wilder: That’s correct.
Sally Craig: OK, so when we talk about the City speaking to somebody to create an
entity out there, who exactly are we talking about? Who will be coming to the table?
Timothy Wilder: It’s equivalent to how we made an agreement with LaPorte Water and
Sanitation District. That is an entity, that was the identified, back in 1970, the entity to
provide water and sewer services for the LaPorte area. So, in terms of a new entity
being created, we don’t know exactly what that might be. It’s been discussed that there
would be a metropolitan district that’s formed by the developers out in the area. And if
that is the case, that would be the group that we’d work with in terms of providing
treatment services.
Sally Craig: OK, so I guess if I’m hearing you correctly, whatever the recommendation
is, we’ll go through Council and they’ll make that recommendation, and then we have
this piece of paper. Do you just kind of flap it around and say, “Is anybody interested in
becoming an entity?” That’s what I’m not understanding what the next step would be.
Timothy Wilder: Our recommendation is that we work with the group that’s working out
there today, that’s trying to form this metropolitan district. And if it fails for some reason,
the report discusses this, then we’re back to option #3, or recommendation #3, which is
the City, would be the provider of collection and treatment services if the demand was
out there for that.
Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering/Field Services Manager: Sally, I think maybe what
you’re getting at is the property owners will form the district. All it will take is one or two
interested property owners. They draw up a potential district boundary, they petition the
court, and then there’s an election. And after that, the district is formed. So it’s not like
we’re going to go out there and form the district, the property owners have control over
forming their own district.
We would hope that we would work with them on that, and so that we understand the
kind of district they’re forming, and then give them a foreshadowing of what we think
we’d like to see in our agreement, so that their district can be kind of tailored around
that. Irregardless of that, once they form their district, assuming that their district
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 7
election provides it to be approved, then we’d sit down and negotiate with the board of
directors of that entity and any agreement, just like any inter-governmental agreement,
would have to be approved by their board of directors and our board of directors,
basically the City Council.
But the people that will form the district are the interested property owners out there.
Sally Craig: OK, that was very helpful. Thank you, Jim. Having said that, if we’ll say
alternative #4 is the one that is picked and goes through Council, and we go to the land
owners and they go, “Well, we’re thinking about it,” and 5 years down the road they still
haven’t put together this district, I’m assuming that the City will just continue to add taps
and do the service and do the billing and go on as if there was no change? Which is
what #3 is if I understand correctly.
Timothy Wilder: Yeah, that’s correct. I think we would have a pretty good idea if a new
district was going to form or not. If it looked like it wasn’t going to happen, then we
would go ahead and provide services directly to that area.
Sally Craig: And do the billing and do the maintenance, etcetera?
Timothy Wilder: Right, exactly.
Sally Craig: OK, now having said all that, could you explain to me the advantage of the
landowners to put together a district versus just heading down the road and letting you
do as you’re doing right now.
Timothy Wilder: Yeah I think we felt that recommendation was maybe stronger right
now just because there is this district that is being discussed. But there may be some
other ancillary issues that Utilities can address on that. But I think the difference
between the two is relatively minor in terms of a policy standpoint. We felt that the
treatment is sort of reacting to what’s going on out there. Providing service is seen as a
little bit more proactive in terms of the sewer being provided for that area. Jim, do you
want to speak to that?
Jim Hibbard: I’ll give you a few thoughts. Generally speaking, we feel that it’s probably
better to let the district manage their own business. It’s a step towards potentially
incorporation for the Town of LaPorte, it gives them some identity and, really, the City,
Utilities, would just as soon not be running out there to take care of those sorts of
things. It’s kind of half a dozen, one of six of the other, but we have a slight preference
for having this district, because that makes life simpler for us, we just provide treatment,
they do all their own billing, and everything else. It’s a step towards incorporation. But if
for some reason they don’t get that district formed, the reasons that we talked about
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 8
here, the environmental impacts and benefits to the City, are still there. And perhaps not
outweighed by the fact that they failed to form a district. And in either case, I think when
we go to City Council, we’ll have to make it clear that Option 4 is our recommendation,
but our backup position would be Option 3, and see if Council would go along with that.
Does that help?
Sally Craig: It does, but I still am confused. It doesn’t seem like we have a carrot or
stick. I can understand why for the City, for them to form their own district would be very
beneficial to us. We would service it, they would bill it, maintain it, etcetera. What I still
haven’t understood is what is the benefit to them to become a district? Why would they
even bother? Once you’ve said you’re going to give them the service, they’ll just go
down their merry road. And that’s what I’m not understanding.
Jim Hibbard: The primary benefit to them, Sally, is the financing capability of the
district. This isn’t like the sewer sitting on their front doorstep. They’re going to have to
make extensions of line and provide service and that gives them the opportunity to
either sell bonds and tax themselves through a taxing assessment to pay for it, or
through some mechanism for building the infrastructure to serve it, which is going to be
as you come down in the system, multiple property owner beneficiaries. It’s not like this
property owner can build this line, and that will serve him. It provides them a mechanism
for building shared infrastructure, and financing that shared infrastructure in a way that’s
commonly done in the State of Colorado.
So I think that’s their motivation and our discussions with them have really confirmed
that they want to form a district, it’s a way they can finance the improvements and
allocate the costs of those shared infrastructure improvements in a joint way. If they
don’t do that, then it’s going to be kind of this nightmare system of well, there’s a line
that has to be built, the City doesn’t want to build it, we’re not going to put our capital out
there, so somebody’s going to have to build it, and collect back from other people, and
it’s workable, but it’s certainly not preferable from their point of view. Probably the
number one issue on their minds is financing.
Sally Craig: OK, that answered the question. If I understand correctly, we’re willing to
service, but we’re not willing to put in the infrastructure. And the only way, logically, to
put in that infrastructure is for them to become a district so that they can bond and pay
for it.
Jim Hibbard: Yes
Sally Craig: Thank you.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 9
Brigitte Schmidt: But doesn’t Option 3 say that we’ll provide full service, which would
mean putting in the infrastructure?
Jim Hibbard: Well, it means we’ll provide service without a district out there, but it
doesn’t specify how the infrastructure will be installed. It’s not really any different than
the typical developer coming in inside the City; he has to build his own infrastructure.
The difference is they’re a little farther away, and they’re going to have to cross
intervening lands, and in the current policy, the way we do that inside the City, is a
developer or group of developers still has to build that infrastructure. And then we
usually end up writing a re-pay agreement so we say, OK, when this other developer
comes along that maybe wasn’t a part of your consortium, or whatever, and wants to
connect to the line, that we’re going to collect from him and give money back to the
original builder of the line. That way, it’s not the City’s capital out there; it remains a
developer-driven process. We used to do that in the City more than we do now because
we don’t have that much undeveloped land.
Brigitte Schmidt: So for our capital expenditure costs, there no difference between
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. But then Alternative 4 has the recouping through the
fees, right? Is that part of Alternative 3 also?
Timothy Wilder: It is.
Brigitte Schmidt: OK. So, I understood with #4, they create the district and everybody
votes on the district. I presume that vote is then what allows then to charge these fees.
Jim Hibbard: The vote then is certified by the court, if I understand right, and that forms
the district. And then the district board, as the governing body for the district, then has
all the authority, and the election forms the district and elects the board. They have the
authority the same way the City Council has the authority, to set fees, make policy, and
do all sorts of things like that.
Brigitte Schmidt: so under Alternative 3, if you didn’t have that board, who would have
the authority to charge the fees?
Jim Hibbard: The City would actually be billing the customers for sewer, so they would
receive the City bill, it says you owe us $15 this month. But when they would come to
hook on, say I want to build a new house, we say, OK, you owe us a $1,500 tap fee and
we would say as a condition of that, you owe us $1,500 for library, roads, and other
fees. It would just be collected directly somehow on the City’s utility permit and
transferred to the other departments, whereas, if there was a district, it would probably
be handled a little more centrally.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 10
Brigitte Schmidt: OK, but so either alternative, the financial income to us would
probably be the same. We wouldn’t be at a real loss if things fell apart and we had to go
to Alternative 3.
Jim Hibbard: Yes.
Brigitte Schmidt: OK.
Mikal Torgerson: Are there other questions? Jerry.
Jerry Gavaldon: Timothy, is all this we’re going through just to improve water quality on
the Poudre River?
Timothy Wilder: I don’t think it comes down just to that.
Jerry Gavaldon: Then what does it come down to?
Timothy Wilder: I think one of the main things is it allows us to be a participant at the
table with what’s happening in the LaPorte Area. You know, we talk about collection of
fees that we don’t have the ability to do there today. That’s another benefit that I think
we see. So, I think there are some other benefits, just besides the environmental
benefits, although I believe that’s probably the greatest reason we’re recommending the
option that we’re recommending.
Jerry Gavaldon: OK. So, along that line, if we said “no” to this, business would go on
as usual, they’re going to have to do something down the road. Poudre water quality
isn’t going to go down the tubes because the state is going to ensure that we still got
decent water there, right?
Jim Hibbard: In theory, Jerry, that’s correct. I think regardless of the type of plant
they’re going to build up there, there’s no such thing as zero discharge, so even if they
build a plant just as fine as ours, there is 10 milligrams per liter of biochemical oxygen
demand, 10 milligrams per liter of suspended solids that’s going to be going into the
river at that point and that will degrade the quality of the river as is goes through Fort
Collins.
Will it be enough to notice? Will people wake up one day and say, “Man, that river
stinks.” I’m not sure about that. But there will be an effect, and what we are concerned
about in the Utilities Department, is that at some point in time as the State Health
Department and the EPA -- the EPA operates through the State Health Department –
continues to clamp down on ammonia restrictions and other things that we have in our
discharge permit, pretty soon they start looking at the whole river and going, “You know,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 11
that’s enough, we got to stop adding any more pollutants to the river, no matter how
small.”
And at the point that they do that, then they start allocating that capacity to the various
customers along the river, the various point discharges, and if they do that, that could
affect our discharge permit. They could come back to the City of Fort Collins and say,
“You know, your permit says 10 milligrams per liter of B.O.D. and 10 milligrams per liter
of suspended solids, we want that to go down to 5, and by the way, you have a total of
phosphorous loading that we don’t want you do exceed.” If that were to happen, we
could end up spending millions, ten millions of dollars, upgrading our facilities. That’s
kind of a worse-case scenario, but we want to try to make sure that that doesn’t happen.
So, that’s a benefit; it’s a cost-avoidance for our customers. It’s a benefit to the river in
terms of water quality, and then as Timothy alluded, these homes and business out
there, if they are built, they will impact our library, they will impact our roads, and by
offering this, we get a mechanism to recover some of those costs of those impacts that
we wouldn’t have if we just said, “Let’s not do it.” It’s not solely water quality, that’s the
way I look at it from the larger perspective: benefits for the City.
Jerry Gavaldon: Is it worth all this to do that? Is it really worth it?
Jim Hibbard: I believe it is. I mean, a $10 million upgrade to the City’s water treatment
plant? Our wastewater treatment plant? When we have very few new customers to pay
for it, is going to come down solely on the heads of our existing rate payers. And given
the attention that the river is given in town, the upgrades we’re trying to do, the natural
areas acquisitions along the river, it’s really being a main focus, a jewel of the downtown
asset to the community. So, in that respect, I think the Utilities, working with Natural
Resources, and Planning, and everybody else together is working at trying to pull out all
the stops, to protect that resource, because it’s real hard to bring it back once it gets
any further degraded.
Jerry Gavaldon: Well, I can debate on bringing it back. You can bring it back over time,
it’s been done before. So that’s a real weak comment, in my view. But, I want to get to
the river. Is it really worth it for all of us to do all this because someone else upstream
can make a mess of it and we have no control? Someone in the mountains, somewhere
else? Because I don’t want us to be the white knight, saving the virtue of a river, where
we don’t have total control on it. And…there are all these other areas that contribute to
it? I’m just trying to look at it from a logical perspective that, yeah, we got capacity, your
model was great, thank you. But we have a finite capacity like anything else. And you’re
right, if you get these discharges changed, your capacity’s impacted. But I just really
want to get down to the bottom line: is it really worth it to do all this because we don’t
totally have control of everything? Tim, you want to comment on that?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 12
Timothy Wilder: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Jim; I don’t know if I can add too much to
that. I think just looking outside Utilities, I think we think it is significant looking at the
non-Utility impacts to the City, and we haven’t had the ability to collect those fees before
that we think will really help offset some of those impacts. So, I think that’s a pretty
significant benefit that we see as well. So, I’ll just add that to what he said, the
environmental benefits, too, very significant. We didn’t mention the risk of upsets; in my
mind that’s a pretty large issue. We had a chance to tour the Wellington plant; very well
staffed, very well maintained. However, it’s a small facility, it’s a small operation. When
you get into smaller operations, you have fewer people. We talked to some of the facility
people there and they have fewer people on staff than we would have at some of our
facilities. And they do have some issues, you know, that can come up. And I would think
that that is another compelling reason. Yeah, we’re trying to avoid certain things from
happening, but we can see that as a benefit as well, avoiding situations that could
happen, that could even worsen the water quality, maybe for a shorter period of time,
but I think that is a demonstrated, a very real benefit.
Jerry Gavaldon: Have either Jim or Tim, have either of you talked to the State, and
talked to them about changes in some of their regulations, that maybe we could avoid it,
working through the State process instead of us trying to do everything?
Jim Hibbard: Our experience has been that the State would like to see a regional
facility here. They feel like it’s better for the river, but in the past our experience has also
been that if the City doesn’t provide service that they haven’t played the bad guy.
Twenty years ago, we were working very hard to consolidate with the Box Elder
Sanitation District, and I think we had a reasonable shot at it. It could’ve been that with
just a little bit more input from the State that we could’ve had it done, but there’s only so
much that the State will do. We have talked with the [Section] 208 agency, Dave
Dubois, and basically what’s he’s told us is he supports the regional effort, but if the
regional effort fails that they feel like they need to designate a service provider for this
area.
So, we have touched base with the State. I guess I – I respect your point of view – Do I
think it’s a good question? I think, in my opinion, it’s worth it. In life, there are a lot of
things we control, and a lot of things we don’t control. We don’t control the land use out
there, but we do control our response to it. And, in this case, I think our response to it is
doing the right thing for the citizens of Fort Collins even though we didn’t control the
land use. So, I think that’s kind of the bottom line for the way I look at it, but I can – it
was a very good question – I can understand your perspective.
Jerry Gavaldon: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 13
Mikal Torgerson: Other questions? Are we getting close to a motion? Move away, so
to speak.
Jerry Gavaldon: OK. Mr. Chairman and Board Members, I move for approval of a
recommendation for City Council for the LaPorte Water/Sewer Service Policy as
outlined in the staff report, and the facts and findings on the staff recommendations on
page 2 and 3.
Mikal Torgerson: Jerry, a couple of us missed that. Was that 4 or…?
Jerry Gavaldon: Yeah, recommendation 4.
Mikal Torgerson: OK, is there a second?
Brigitte Schmidt: I’ll second.
Mikal Torgerson: It’s been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Jerry Gavaldon: First, I want to compliment Jim Hibbard coming to the Board on Friday
for Work Session, because he provided the most comprehensive, most articulate and
most professional and straight answer to this whole thing. Thank you. I hope Mike
Smith, your manager, is watching TV tonight, otherwise I’ll give him a phone call and
compliment because prior to your attendance here, Jim, we were lost, totally lost. But
you have brought so much concise-ness here, because this is a very important matter
as Sally and other Board members have pointed this out, but before then, we couldn’t
get the information we needed. You have provided me so nice. You have provided the
capacity model, awesome work; I read it cover to cover. Roger [Buffington], next time
someone asks for it, please help us. Because I do read it cover to cover.
[Board Member][speaker?]: Jerry, you need to get a life, buddy.
Jerry Gavaldon: No, I love data, that’s why…are analytical. But it’s a piece of important
work, very important, and it should have been here for some of us to read because it
clearly gives you the answer right there. Timothy, I appreciate it, I’m going to support
this. I do have some questions about trying to be the one-all to save all, we cannot be
the shining knight in armor for everything. I caution that we don’t take on any more
because you do have a finite capacity, and Jim, you said it, if the government comes in
and says, x-this and x-that, and you will cut the capacity. And that scares me. And I
appreciate you being honest and forward on that there, because the model is awesome.
Well done, and thank you very much. Jim, you made a difference, a total difference for
me. Thank you, Timothy, and Roger, too.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 14
Brigitte Schmidt: I just have one question and comment. During the time of this
agreement, as things move on those fees would be subject to review, just as all our
present fees are, right? So that they could be renegotiated and raised or whatever,
depending on how the impacts turn out. And I’d also like to second it was a great job,
the reports were all thorough. I appreciate it, all the information.
David Lingle: Just a comment. I agree with Jerry to a certain extent. I tend to look at
these things more from a regional basis and whether or not we should be overly
concerned about a 3-mile stretch of the river when downstream in Fort Collins it’s not
going to make any difference one way or the other. I kind of, I’m not sure we should look
at that quite so isolationist. However, I do agree with a couple of points Timothy made.
One, that we have a seat at the table in the area around LaPorte and what goes on
there, and secondly, that we do have an opportunity to assess some fees where
appropriate for City services that are currently being used or will be used by residents
that would live in these areas served by this, so I would support the motion.
Mikal Torgerson: Other thoughts? Can we have the vote, please?
Craig: Yes
Schmidt: Yes
Gavaldon: Yes
Lingle: Yes
Meyer: Yes
Torgerson: No
Mikal Torgerson: The recommendation is for approval of the LaPorte Area
Water/Sewer Services Policy. We thank you.
______________________________________________________________________
Project: Recommendation to City Council for the Fall 2004
Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the
Land Use Code.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner gave the staff presentation. He reviewed for the Board
their packet materials and stated that the packet did not include the proposal that we
reduce the multi-family parking for two-bedroom dwelling units from a 1.75 per/du basis
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 15
to a 1.5 per/du at the request of City Council due to the concern about the issues
surrounding three unrelated persons. We are also at this time, not recommending in
this Code packet, that we include drive-in restaurants in the NC zone. He stated that
there would be some citizen input on that issue tonight. Staff is adding something that
is not in the packet and not in the ordinance, but in a separate memo because it was
brought to staff after the packet went to print. The request is to expand the infill map to
include two additional areas and the Board received a graphic and map on that item.
There are also some materials in the back of the ordinance that talk about the issues
that he has just went over.
Public Input
Patrick Reeves, 810 Maple Street stated he would be speaking to the draft revisions for
Section 4.7(E)(1), which concerns dimensional standards for the NCM zoned regions of
the city. He stated that he owns property and resides at 810 Maple Street in the Capitol
Hill neighborhood, which is zoned NCM. He would read a prepared statement to be
entered into the record on behalf of himself and the following 9 residents of the Capitol
Hill and Martinez Park neighbors:
Pat Kendall, 502 N. Shields St.
Robert and Elisabeth Cuff, 400 Park St.
Jeff Derry, 219 Wood Street
Diane Reiser, 4087 Wood Street
Jim Wurz, 425 N. Sherwood Street
Don Flick, 520 N. Sherwood Street, #14
Nan Reed, 308 Park Street
Derek Marchi, 429 N. Grant Street
In addition, these comments have been endorsed by the Capitol Hill Neighborhood
Organizing Group.
“Martinez Park and Capitol Hill encompass an area of Old Town Fort Collins that is
predominantly zoned NCM. The approximate boundaries of the area are Meldrum
Street on the east, Vine Street on the north, Shields Street on the west, and Laporte
Street on the south. Ours is a neighborhood consisting primarily of modest, one-story,
single family homes, interspersed with the occasional duplex and multi-family dwelling.
While our homes are not the stately mansions of the Mountain and Oak historic districts,
there can be no question that these neighbors form an important record of Fort Collins
history. A quick walk down Cherry or Park streets will make that fact abundantly clear.
Our neighborhoods contain a large concentration of the unique architecture that has
come to be known affectionately as the “sugar shack”—those small square houses with
a single brick chimney emanating from the center peak of the roof—which were built at
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 16
the turn of the century to house workers for the now defunct Great Western Beet Sugar
Refinery. It has been a fortuitous twist of fate that these working class neighborhoods
remain largely intact 100 years after their construction, and have not been “scraped off”
to make way for more profitable housing developments, as has been the case in areas
adjacent to the historic downtown commercial districts of many growing municipalities
nationwide.
We believe that the proposed changes to the Land Use Code will provide a measure of
protection for the historical character of our neighborhoods. Accordingly, we support
the spirit of the draft revisions to the Code. The changes will promote the preservation
of these historic neighborhoods by decreasing the potential for shoehorning of
extremely narrow single family homes and duplexes side by side within a single lot with
a minimum street frontage dimension of 40 feet. Furthermore, the changes do not
conflict with the goals for redevelopment and infill in Old Town set forth in the City
Council approved Comprehensive Plan, or City Plan. We believe that the planned
amount of growth can be easily accommodated by infill of existing vacant lots,
consolidation of underutilized partial lots that are adjacent to one another, and where
appropriate, through the construction of carriage houses behind existing dwellings.
After all, it is in our long back yards that the majority of our undeveloped land exists.
However, we are unsure why the draft revisions appear to be limited to single family
homes and duplexes, and are not extended to other permitted uses (such as multi-
family dwellings of up to four units, bed and breakfasts, group homes, child care
centers, and so forth). Under the proposed revisions, it will continue to be possible to
shoehorn extremely narrow structures of the aforementioned types side by side,
provided a minimum street frontage dimension of 50 feet is met. We believe that failing
to give the same treatment to these uses as to single family homes and duplexes will
promote an alteration of the historical pattern of development, and will provide an
economic incentive for the “scrape off” of existing structures, followed by the
construction of high density multi-family developments to the detriment of our
neighborhoods’ unique character.
This concern is not purely hypothetical. There are many parcels with street frontage
dimensions of between 50 and 100 feet that will remain particularly vulnerable unless
the draft code revisions are modified to include all currently permitted uses. For
example, on the Maple Street side of Block 293, there are four such parcels (one of
which is my own), that collectively encompass more that 50% of the total street
frontage. This block is not unusual in this respect, and in fact is representative of the
rhythm and spacing of development in much of Martinez Park and Capitol Hill. Under
the proposed revisions, half of this block (and many others like it) could be converted
into stacked rows of “skinny” three and four-plex dwellings.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 17
Secondly, extending the revisions to include all permitted uses will greatly simplify and
regularize the Land Use Code. Retaining two logically distinct types of street frontage
requirement in the same section of code is unnecessarily confusing. If the revisions are
not changed to include all permitted uses there will be one minimum dimensional
requirement (the 40 foot requirement for single family homes and duplexes) that will
apply to each principal building, and another (the 50 foot requirement for all other
permitted uses) that will apply to a development as a whole, regardless of the number of
principal buildings to be stacked side by side along the street frontage.
Therefore, we urge the Planning and Zoning Board to support the draft code revisions at
the upcoming City Council hearing with the following modifications: Extend the
clarification (that the lot frontage requirement standard be applied to each principal
building on the lot) to multi-family dwellings and all other permitted uses.” (Exhibit 1)
Scott Beard, 1712 Silvergate Road stated he owns and operates the Sonic Drive In on
West Elizabeth Street. He appreciated the opportunity to speak the Board tonight and
also the input that city Staff has had on their proposed Code change. There are
requesting that “drive-in” be dropped from the NC, Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district. In the beginning, they submitted two petitions to the city, one of which would
drop “drive-thru” and on of which would drop “drive-in”. Over time they have come to
the conclusion that a “drive-in” would be sufficient for them, after all that is what they are
is a “drive-in”.
Sonic Drive-In by its nature is similar to a sit down restaurant. It just so happens that
half of their dining area is in the patrons cars. They pull in, they park and they turn off
their car and they sit and eat there. The Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, by
nature is a mixed use commercial core for serving the demands for frequently needed
goods and services. The emphasis is on serving the surrounding neighborhoods,
including eating. Sonic Drive-In, by its nature, is a local neighborhood family oriented
restaurant. He would feel that it would be vital and useful in the Neighborhood
Commercial areas which are distributed throughout the city of Fort Collins.
Mr. Beard went on to say that some of the things that would benefit from that. A good
share of their business (he would use their Campus West drive-in as an example) is in a
neighborhood commercial zone, it is on the lot line in the front, up next to the street, the
design of the store adheres to most of the design requests that the city asks of us today.
That being up next to a street or sidewalk that it does not allow for cars to drive around
the building. In essence, it makes it pedestrian friendly. They get a good share of walk-
by traffic, good share of bicycle traffic and a good share of people who pull up, park and
use their picnic facilities there at their location. He thinks that would fit within the
neighborhood commercial throughout the city as he understands it.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 18
Neighborhood Commercial as he understands it, is designed to help minimize cross-
town traffic. Right now people in certain areas of town, for example, over by Harmony
and Timberline, in order to go and grab a burger or something similar, they have to drive
at least a mile up to Horsetooth and Timberline or College and Harmony to get what
they are looking for. By allowing them to located within the neighborhood commercial
areas, it would minimize the cross-town traffic serving those customers who would
probably go across town anyway to get what they are looking for. A good share of their
customer base in Campus West, actually comes from other parts of the city, which to
him makes it more of a destination location. People are willing to drive across town to
get what they are looking for. By locating throughout the town in neighborhood
commercial zones, would allow them to minimize across town traffic, congestion and
pollution. He asked for the Board’s support and asked that they vote for the proposed
Code change, dropping “drive-thru” from the neighborhood commercial approved list.
Danielle Bilyeu, 406 Wood Street stated that she supported the previous speaker’s
comments that the minimum frontage requirements be applied to all permitted uses in
the NCM zone. She would like to also voice an idea to reduce the minimum frontage for
single family homes from 40 feet to 35 feet. In the Capitol Hill and Martinez Park
neighborhoods, there are many homes that have a 35 foot frontage. It is common to
this area and she thought for accommodating the city’s plan to infill these areas, it is
more desirable to permit slightly narrower lots, than to promote the building of carriage
houses in the rear. It was hard for her to imagine restrictions on carriage houses that
could prevent them from becoming reoriented towards the alley. She would rather see
slightly narrower lots allowed so that more houses could be in-filled with street frontage.
She was proposing that the minimum frontage for a single family home in these
neighborhoods be reduced from 40 feet to 35 feet.
Public Input Closed
Chairperson Torgerson would like to address the “drive-thru” “drive-in” issue first.
Because this is a legislative issue, and for the record he did take a call from Scott Beard
today and did indicate to him that he would offer the opportunity for him to petition the
Board to bring the issue up. It was taken off of the Code changes by City Council and
the reason he felt the reason to at least entertain the matter is that he is engaged in a
process with staff in good faith and it seems that he deserves his day in court at least
before the Board with a recommendation to City Council.
Member Lingle asked for some background as to how this came about. His
understanding was that in those zones, a fast-food restaurant like Wendy’s or
McDonald’s, if they did not have a drive-thru window, would be permitted.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 19
Planner Shepard responded that it was correct to the extent that you would find a
Wendy’s or McDonald’s without a drive-thru window. We think of it more in the terms of
a Subway or Dairy Queen.
Member Lingle was struggling with the distinction made between someone who drives
and parks their car to a Subway or Dairy Queen versus someone who drives and stays
in their car at a Sonic and eats their meal in their car. The number of cars is the same,
the traffic is the same. It’s just a matter of whether they are getting out and walking into
a building or not. He was having a hard time understanding what the rationale behind
making that distinction in the Land Use Code.
Planner Shepard replied that as they discussed this at the Land Use Code Team
Meeting, the feeling was that we kept trying to compare this to a Subway or a Dairy
Queen. What is the primary difference between a Sonic or a hypothetical drive-thru
restaurant and a hypothetical fast-food restaurant. In Fort Collins, fast food means no
drive-thru lane. That is a distinct definition. It is the auto relatedness of the restaurant.
The drive-in restaurant celebrates the automobile, it provides a shelter for the
automobile and has an outdoor menu for the automobile. It has outdoor lighting for
people in their automobiles, signage, and site layout for the automobile. These just are
not parking stalls. This is a celebratory car hop kind of atmosphere that exalts the
automobile. You don’t find canopies and outdoor menus and lights at a Subway or
Dairy Queen. It is that auto related essence that makes this different.
Member Lingle asked why that was a “bad” thing from a code point of view.
Planner Shepard replied from the neighborhood center point of view, it represents an
opportunity cost of putting in a land use that doesn’t cater to the automobile, it caters
more to a walk-up pedestrian. It does not celebrate the car and has more pedestrian
connections. Keep in mind that this prohibition is only in the NC zone. The community
is not shutting down drive-in restaurants. They are permitted in several zone districts. It
is only out in the neighborhood, and the Board has a map in their packet, where you see
that the NC zones are all flanked by the MMN zone, which is out highest density multi-
family zone. We are trying to generate enough density and activity to create walkable
neighborhoods that can support transit along arterial streets. That is one of the
essential fundamental visions of City Plan. To insert an auto related use of this
magnitude into the NC, to staff on the Land Use Code Team, seems counter to City
Plan.
Member Craig agreed with Planner Shepard and was thinking, like tonight, if somebody
went to Sonic and sat in their car, would they have it turned off, probably not. That is
another issue that has not been thought out, that someone would drive up and turn off
their car and sit there for an hour in the cold while they eat, which she doubts would
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 20
happen. She thought that was another issue to consider, especially in a neighborhood
community center. She did not know if staff has had the chance to go out and see if
that is what they do in the cold. This gets back to the process question Member
Torgerson was asking and maybe first the Board should take a vote and see if they
want to even consider this or not because at this point in time Council has pulled it.
Member Gavaldon moved to include this topic into the Board’s recommendation
to City Council allowing drive-in’s in the NC zone.
Member Lingle seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2 with
Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the negative. Member Carpenter was
absent.
Member Gavaldon asked why we can’t have this that both satisfies both drive-up and
walk-up as in Mr. Beard’s current situation in the NC zone.
Planner Shepard replied that his understanding would be that they would include a walk
in component. That by itself did not dissuade staff from thinking that this is still
essentially an auto-related use.
Member Gavaldon asked if there was still an opportunity for the team to go back and
look at it with a more regional mind.
Planner Shepard replied that they never did not look at it that way, we always looked at
these as having a walk in dining room. That did not solve the problem of the essential
auto related character of a drive-in restaurant.
Member Gavaldon thought that this prohibition of this is killing an opportunity that we
can have in the city and meet the Goals and Objectives both ways. He asked how staff
presented this to Council at their study session.
Planner Shepard replied that they gave them some written material, it was in the form of
a memo and it explained to the City Council that the Land Use Code Committee was
divided and mixed on this issue, as was the Planning and Zoning Board at their October
worksession.
Member Schmidt voted no on the previous motion because she thought that if we were
going to discuss this in detail, she would have asked for a couple of other items. Is it
necessary to have these in the NC zone when you can go half a mile down the road and
there is a Community Commercial. Are we usually talking a half mile difference, in
which case, to her there seems to be ample opportunity in other zones to have these
dispersed throughout the community?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 21
Planner Shepard answered one mile difference. There are two exceptions at College
and Trilby and College and Carpenter Road, there are two NC districts that not only
abut a MMN, and they also front on South College Avenue. Those are the exceptions
most of the other NC zones are strategically located about a mile off of College Avenue,
which would be the Shields Corridor, the Lemay Corridor, Taft Hill and Timberline
Corridor’s as well. The idea is that north of Trilby you don’t see NC zone districts on
College Avenue. College Avenue is more for the C zone. The other zone is the CC,
which is Campus West, Foothills Fashion Mall, and Mountain Vista and these are not
allowed in the CC.
Member Schmidt asked if you could do one in the E, Employment zone.
Planner Shepard responded that in the Employment zone there is a land use permitted
in the Employment zone district called the Neighborhood Convenience Shopping
Center, it is very “tightly” defined. You can do one of those in the E, inside the
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center, a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru or
drive-in.
Member Schmidt asked how this description then fit into McDonald’s and Wendy’s and
if we change the Code does that mean any drive-in restaurant is eligible.
Planner Shepard replied that in the Land Use Code, three different kinds of restaurants
are defined. The first is a standard sit-down restaurant. The second is a drive-thru and
the drive-thru and the drive-in are coupled as one. Then there is the fast-food. The
fast-food is like a Subway or a Dairy Queen which has no drive-thru or drive-in.
Member Schmidt asked if the Code change would be to allow drive-in.
Planner Shepard replied drive-in only in the NC zone, drive-thru and standard and fast
food are already permitted.
Member Schmidt asked what the difference was between a drive-in and a drive-thru.
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator responded that a drive-in restaurant is all-inclusive
and includes a restaurant like Sonic on West Elizabeth, but does not have a drive-thru,
it also includes a McDonald’s that has a drive-thru, but no drive-in. We don’t make a
distinction between the two; they are the same use even though they may operate
differently.
Member Schmidt asked how then it would be that we would allow a drive-in and not a
drive-thru.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 22
Mr. Barnes replied that in the list of permitted uses, you put drive-in restaurants with no
drive-thru lanes. It’s possible in that manner then, to exclude a McDonald’s with a
drive-thru, but still allow something like a Sonic.
Member Craig asked if a Sonic could go in the newly created center at Prospect and
Timberline Road.
Planner Shepard replied yes.
Member Craig asked about the new Lifestyle Center. Planner Shepard replied no.
They would not be allowed anywhere in the Harmony Corridor Zone, the nearest place
to Harmony and Timberline, would be on the west side of Timberline Road, north of
Caribou in the Horsetooth Business Park area. That area has within it a sub-set, a
neighborhood convenience center and that is how the newly constructed quick-lube was
able to locate there.
Chairperson Torgerson asked about the Neighborhood Center at the corner of Lemay
and Drake, the Scotch Pines Center. He stated that he designed a drive-up for the
Runza Restaurant at that located several years ago that was approved by the planning
staff.
Planner Shepard asked if that was before the adoption of the Land Use Code.
Chairperson Torgerson replied no. It is a drive up box that you talk into and someone
comes out with your food. It is multiple and operates just like a Sonic.
Planner Shepard replied that he was not sure how that was permitted.
Planner Shepard went on to say that the way the Committee talked about this issue,
and keep in mind that this is an informal committee and this project was not submitted
as a text amendment, is that the group discussion was mixed, the group discussion was
split and there are arguments on both sides. If the question is what the difference is, he
would reply that the committee felt that because of the canopies, the proliferation of
those auto-related characteristics such as menu boards and lighting, the interference of
drive thru lanes with crosswalks and just the essential auto relatedness. There is no
getting around the fact that this is such an auto-related land use, it just seems
incongruous to put it into an NC zone that we are trying to densify in a new urbanism
fashion with walkable, bicycle access and density.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 23
Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Recommendation to City Council for
the change for item 665 for drive-in, in the NC zone based on the facts and
findings of Board Members.
Member Lingle seconded the motion.
Member Craig obviously would not be supporting the motion. To go back to the process
itself, when Council pulled it to receive more information, she thought it was important to
remind the Board that there was three definite no’s from Council, there were two yes’s
with conditions, including Councilmember Weitkunat’s recommendation for the
economic development issue be reviewed by the EVSAG. Council Member Kastein
thought we should look at design standards. She felt that in fairness to staff who have
not had a chance to do some of that and bring it to the Board, that we are being
premature at this time.
Member Schmidt agreed with Member Craig and felt that they have not had the
opportunity to add conditions at this point in time not having a chance to review it
thoroughly. Her main concern is no guarantee, unless there is a condition that people
are going to turn off their autos and that also leads to a lack of pedestrian use. One of
the goals of the NC zone is to encourage the pedestrian and the bike and you are not
going to do that by adding cars sitting and running.
Member Gavaldon disagreed and do not see any difference between this and the drive-
thru lanes we have created with the drug stores. He feels that although Council may
have some reservations, he questions how well this was presented and if they did have
a full scope of this. He thought that the citizens do have a right to bring these things to
us. He thought that staff needs to look back at the Runza Restaurant. He also really
gets perturbed when we continually beat up the automobile and he thinks that we are
going to use the automobile and it is not going away.
Member Lingle thought that it was important to be on record of how each of them feel so
when Council looks at this they can hear what they are talking about. He thought that
the distinction being made between drive-in and other restaurants that people would
park and go in was an unnecessary distinction in his mind. Staff is using Dairy Queen
as an example, the Dairy Queen on South College on a July night has far more traffic
than almost any restaurant in town and people park in their cars, they sit there, they get
out of their cars, they sit on their hoods and talk and that has been his experience at
Sonic. People don’t necessarily sit in their cars, they sit at picnic tables and it is very
pedestrian oriented.
He did not see a big distinction between a canopy being over a parking lot or just having
a parking lot from a land use point of view. The point about people not turning off their
cars, he thought we were assuming that is in the winter time and he thought that drive-
up banks and people lined up in drive lanes is far worse than someone idling waiting for
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 24
their order at Sonic. For those reasons he thought that it was a distinction in the Code
that we should not be making at the detriment of one particular market segment, he
thought it was blatantly unfair in comparison to some of the other kinds of restaurant
uses that are out there.
The motion was approved 4-2 with Members Craig and Schmidt voting in the
negative. Member Carpenter was absent.
Chairperson Torgerson moved to Item 666 regarding the “skinny houses” since there
was so much sentiment about that. He stated that there was a group of people who
presented on this item and suggested that multi-family, group homes and other uses
also be added to the list. There was also someone who suggested that the setback
should go from 40 feet to 35 feet in a certain zone district. He stated that he and
Director Gloss had spoke prior to the meeting about this and asked him to reply to this.
Director Gloss responded that overall this testimony this evening and worksession
discussion might be underscoring the need to do a larger project and look at the design
standards within the Old Town area. If the Board would recall an exhaustive process
was done over the last year to look at how alley house development was treated. We
came up with new carriage house design standards and went through a very rigorous
process to do that involving a huge range of stake holders, development community,
property owners and citizens and preservation specialists have very involved. We had
al the specialists represented there to give their view point and come up with a very
comprehensive approach to the problem.
He felt this may fall within that same group. This all started when Mr. Reeves sent him
a request for an interpretation of the Land Use Code asking whether extremely narrow
buildings, “skinny houses” can be built in the NCM zone district. His response was,
given the setbacks and lot sizes and widths, and it would result in houses as narrow as
15 feet. What he brought to staffs attention was there are some jurisdictions where 15
foot wide houses are being built. Director Gloss showed slides depicting an area in
Portland and he stated that these units, in staffs perspective are quite incompatible,
very narrow with houses in a neighborhood that are typically 35 to 50 feet in width.
From our perspective, trying to take that experience like a place like Portland and try
and apply it to Fort Collins, it seemed like a no brainer that we would go ahead with this
Code change. Now we start to introduce other types of units, how we address the
duplexes or a bed and breakfast or some other type of use that is allowed in the zone
district, to him it gets a little more complex.
Given this diversity of use, staff’s perspective is that we should go ahead and
recommend this particular Code change, but that we would also delay until the
Spring/Fall change cycle some additional changes to address the other issues Mr.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 25
Reeves brought up in his testimony and our second speaker brought up and look at it
more comprehensively. That will take a special project and a significant effort of staff
for the next four to six months to do that.
Chairperson Torgerson asked to clarify that he was still continuing to recommend Issue
666 but would like to see it un-amended and discuss the other issues separately.
Director Gloss replied that was correct and if the Boards pleasure was to go ahead and
continue that item as well, staff understands that, but staff is confident that this
particular code change is appropriate.
Member Gavaldon agreed that the Board should go ahead with Issue 666. He lives in
Martinez Park and he was just made aware of this tonight through email from the
neighbors and he honestly did not think that they had full support from Martinez Park on
this one because there are many who have not weighed in, given that and the setback
change from 40 feet to 35 feet, he has reservations about as well, he would like staff to
look at the other issue in a larger scoped project.
Chairperson Torgerson also thought that not a lot of people have weighed in on the
“skinny house” question.
Member Lingle thought that they talked about this during the Carriage House discussion
in terms of the number of garages and accessory buildings that can be on a particular
lot in relation to the alley, but not the principle street and as long as they did not exceed
their allowable floor area there could be multiple buildings side by side on the alley.
Maybe that part needs to be looked at too, if we don’t want the same effect on the alley
as on the street.
Director Gloss replied that may be true, thinking back to the review process and
standards that were created for carriage houses that there is actually a limited footprint
of those buildings. While it is true that you can have multiple buildings in a backyard,
there is a limitation to the amount of coverage and staff’s perspective going through that
process is that we would not have the bulk of the development in the rear it would be in
the front as a result of those standards.
Member Lingle asked if what he was saying was that part of his concern with these is
not just the width, but the proportion of the width to the depth as opposed to the 600 s.f.
carriage house.
Director Gloss replied that is seems to reason that if you build a 15 foot unit, that the
end result would be very “skinny” in terms of width, but also very long in order to get a
reasonable and usable square footage within the unit to make it functional and also
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 26
often times it will be very tall. The City of Denver recently enacted some standards in a
few neighborhoods that regulated not just the width of the house, but the depth of it.
Chairperson Torgerson clarified for the Board that staff was recommending that the
Board include the item with their recommendation, but study only additional uses other
than single family. It occurred to him that this could benefit from the same study as
carriage houses.
Member Meyer’s concern was that if this gets put aside for nine or ten months, can the
city protect them for that long, and if not do we need to staying action tonight.
Member Craig agreed with Member Meyer and Member Gavaldon. She thinks that staff
has looked at this and wants to protect that person until they have had those nine
months to look at it like they did the “skinny houses” and then whether they permit it or
not, they have gone through the process and put some design standards and what goes
through at that time is more appropriate. She felt that the people that brought this up
should be protected until we have a chance to go through it thoroughly.
Member Lingle thought that there was not an imminent threat, it was just happening
some where else that someone knew about and we were looking at it from that point of
view. It was not like there is a development application on file to do this kind of thing
that we are responding to.
Member Craig agreed with Member Lingle in that regard, but since we are limited to
only twice a year that we can look at this, possibly we should close the loophole before
it becomes an issue that staff is trying to rush through to protect that neighborhood at
that time. It has been looked at in Denver, so it is not like this is new.
Chairperson Torgerson said that there were also neighborhoods that encourage it. If
somebody built that next to him, he would be much happier than his current neighbor.
Member Gavaldon moved that the Board include Item 666 to the current
recommendation list to City Council as currently written and supported by staff.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-2 with
Members Lingle and Torgerson voting in the negative.
Public Input Reopened
Linda Hopkins stated that she received notice from the Natural Resources Department
regarding the code changes for trash enclosures. She was sent draft guidelines and
was asked for some public input. The 17-page guideline document came just one day
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 27
after she had received a memo from the City Council bemoaning their budget woes.
The next day she gets a 17-page guideline document and truthfully it gave her a bit of
an “attitude” that the incongruent message to the public. It caused her to look more
carefully at those guidelines and look with some interest at the Code changes. She
engaged the staff in some conversation about actual dimensions and costs and staff
was very responsive and was curious and attentive about her concerns. The staff
actually came out to her place of business and looked at their trash enclosures and
generally receptive to her comments, however it is clear that there were no changes so
she was compelled to come and asked the Board to look more carefully.
As a code change, there is nothing really in the language as she understands it that
allow for variances and exceptions. It is clearly a code change that is designed to
ensure provision. Each paragraph and point is designated as a “shall”. She finds that
in the development review process, code changes like these can be more successful if
there is certain latitude with the guidance. She thought that latitude is critical. In
conversation with staff, she thought we tried to make the distinction for those buildings
that are designed, and in this instance we are talking major commercial facilities and
multi-family developments. For those commercial developments, basically two kinds,
ones that are owner specific, user specific and some that are spec buildings. She
referenced the building that she is part owner, The Group, Inc., and that they know how
they handle their trash, they know their confidentiality of certain documents and in that
case they prefer to recycle inside their building and take care of it in a very protected
manner. Building another additional square footage for a building that is owned by the
user, she thought should be given a separate consideration.
Ms. Hopkins spoke with Planner Shepard in the course of this discussion and he
mentioned a bank, again discrete confidential documents that could be held in a
different recycling mode. She thought that it should be given serious consideration. By
the same token, a spec building where the user is unknown and the trash generation is
undetermined, she thought that additional flexibility to potentially expand, shrink building
the enclosures to meet the needs of specific users might be warranted. But, without
certain latitude in the code, she was not sure that was available. She wanted to raise
that point.
Further, the staff and herself had several laps of conversations regarding the costs and
her concern was that the costs are significantly understated and primarily again
because we are talking about commercial development along Harmony Road and
Timberline Road, along important segments of the streetscapes where there are in fact,
other design guidelines. The enclosures cannot be on Harmony Road on Timberline
Road and are many times interior to parking lots on islands that are landscaped and
have additional costs. The memos are generally silent on that and she knows from
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 28
Planning’s perspective and the perspective of the P & Z Board, that it is something that
could be given additional consideration.
She was not arguing about the need and without accurate costs, if the Board approves
this, they should do this with the full knowledge that they are approving this at “any”
cost. She thought that was the message to Council that the Board should convey.
Public Input Closed.
Chairperson Torgerson asked for any comments on Item 668.
Member Lingle asked if it made allowance for particular allowance for business owners
who wish to recycle inside their buildings to do that.
Planner Shepard read a section of the code: “The amount of space provided for the
collection and storage for recyclable materials shall be designed to accommodate
collection and storage containers consistent with the recyclable materials generated.
Areas for storage of trash and recyclable materials shall be provided in a number
adequate in capacity, number and distribution to serve the development project.” There
is then and (*), which provides a range of options, which are suggestions. The essence
of the standard is to provide something, Section 6 of the Ordinance under 3.2.5, Trash
and Recycling enclosures.
Chairperson Torgerson stated that it was brought up that there was no allowance for a
variance. He asked if this was subject to the modification procedure.
Planner Shepard replied that all Article 3 standards are.
Member Craig asked staff for an overview of Ms. Hopkins concerns.
Susie Gordon, Natural Resources Department explained that she believed that the
issue of an exact cost is pretty hard to refine. There are a lot of variables, the cost of
real estate, construction materials, the paving, the concrete pad that goes underneath
trash enclosures and recycling bins. Staff did end up with a fair spread and eventually it
will depend on the type of building that the enclosure is associated with and the types of
materials that are used in the construction. She did not believe that they were too far off
on the numbers, but it is not an exact calculation.
Ms. Gordon stated that if you have a building that is over 10,000 s.f., you are going to
need as much space as 45 square feet and at the high end of $75 a square foot that
looks like $3,375 that will cost in addition to the trash enclosure
that is already required for that building.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 29
Chairperson Torgerson asked if there was any Board Member that would like to vote on
this separately. There was no response, so it would be voted on with the remainder of
the items as a whole.
Member Craig would like to discuss items 654 and 676.
Item 654, Pet Hotels:
Member Craig had one concern and that was it was included in the Harmony Corridor
and yet a lot of Harmony Corridor is residential. Were we putting this into residential
areas?
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator replied that staff had not thought about that or that
someone would put one in their house. When you allow it in a zone which means all the
uses are allowed in all the zones. Harmony Corridor zone already allows restaurants
and things of that nature, we were not too concerned about people turning their house
into a restaurant. If you look at Pet Smart located in the Harmony Corridor zone and
they are getting into providing indoor kennels and what they do is all internal to their
store. They take a portion of their square footage and make that into an indoor kennel.
Member Craig asked if it should only be allowed in the primary areas of the Harmony
Corridor. She asked if staff would consider the change.
Mr. Barnes suggested that a qualifier would be put in and it would be included before it
goes to City Council.
Planner Shepard suggested it could be as easy as defining in the Harmony Corridor,
which already has the definitions for us, restricting these to designated centers, the
Regional and Community and even maybe the Neighborhood Centers. There is only
one Neighborhood Center in the Harmony Corridor and that is built out anyway.
Member Craig asked if that would be added, or did the Board need to vote on that
separately?
Planner Shepard replied that they would be putting that in.
Member Craig asked to talk about Item 676, Buffer Standards.
Member referred to the problem statement.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 30
Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department referenced a read before memo that had
gone out to the Natural Resources Advisory Board to provide more information and also
covered that statement as well.
Member Craig stated that she had concerns about items 3, 4, 5 and 6. Item 3 says that
“the size of buffers is too large and constitutes an unfair appropriation of land and buffer
radius. She did not see anything from staff regarding the hiring of consultants to
originally work on the buffers and how the possibility of reducing them would be
addressed and also looking at mitigation. She was wondering why there was nothing in
the packet to this particular problem statement. How was staff addressing this particular
problem statement?
John Stokes, Director of Natural Resources replied that what staff tried to do in the
memo to the Planning and Zoning Board was to provide the feedback that staff received
from Council. There were four members of Council that had asked staff to bring forward
a proposal like this. Some of these statements, 1 through 8, were feedback from
Council. Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 were thoughts that staff shared with each other regarding
this particular code provisions. In terms of Item 3, he would need to know more
specifically, what Member Craig was interested in because there are two things going
on in Item 3. There is discussion we could have about the size of the buffers and
whether they are too large or not and that depends on your perspective; depending on
whether or not you are looking at it from a habitat point of view or if you are looking at it
from the point of view of the landowner who thinks you are taking their property away
unfairly.
Member Criag asked to have it addressed from the scientific basis from studies and
documentations that staff accumulated to even go down this road.
Mr. Stokes replied that if you are looking at this from the scientific perspective, what
staff heard from our consultant is that a buffer zone from a hawk should be in excess of
1500 feet, and it differs from species to species, some species are more or less
sensitive to human disturbance. When we made changes last summer we had a
conversation about we have a buffer of 1320 feet of radius, so that is actually a 2,600
foot circle around a hawk nest. That number had been selected earlier because it was
close to some of the research that had been done on flushing distances for hawks.
Flushing distance is when somebody starts to get close to a hawk nest, the hawk begins
to get agitated and at some point will lift off of the nest and fly away, it is disturbed off of
it’s nest.
The research that has been conducted on hawks is typically done on wild land and rural
settings, and in urban settings. What we have found is that there is a real dearth in
information on urban hawks, there really is not any real good information out there.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 31
However, there is quite a bit on rural and wild land settings. What that tells us is that
the setback, the flushing distance, or the buffer zone should be about 1500 feet or more
than that depending on the species. We took that down to 1320, which was considered
to be too large and too prescriptive by some, so what staff tried to do this summer was
come back with a zone of 900 feet that you can encroach on before 50 if you in return
provide one to one land mitigation and you can pay for that at $10,000 an acre and you
can’t drop below 450 feet unless you are in certain zone districts and 7 zone districts
were excluded when the code was rewritten last summer. In terms of what science is
telling us about the buffer, probably ought to be pretty large.
Member Craig asked after going through that process and come up with this, how is it
that staff is recommending no buffer.
Mr. Stokes replied that one of the problems staff perceives with this code, and the
reason that staff thought about it and after it passed and what staff and some members
of Council because concerned about was the perception from landowners was that the
code was really prescriptive and they did not want it to apply to their piece of property.
Staff was concerned about people going out in the dead of night and cutting down trees.
This was potentially a counter productive piece of legislation, and staff was concerned
that it may have an unintended consequence. That because it is so prescriptive by the
landowners, that they in fact avoid having to comply with the code altogether by
removing the nest tree.
Member Craig stated that staff had just come before them four or five months ago
recommending these buffers, that is one questions she would like addressed and the
other one is if we have no buffers for these particular hawks, is there anything in the
Land Use Code that would protect them, and if so could he address specifically what
that is.
Mr. Stokes replied to the first part of Member Craig’s question and that was that staff
has changed their minds. After we drafted this code staff started to think about it and
the practical effects, and after four members of Council were quite concerned about this
we started to think a little harder about it.
In regard to the second question, the code that we have proposed would provide a
limited development around an active hawk nest during the first season of construction
it would not do that during the second season. If a developer came in and had a multi-
year project, they could not encroach on the 450 foot buffer during that first season of
construction, however if the hawk leaves in the fall and goes back to South America,
they could build right up to the vicinity of the tree. That is a temporary limited
development during the first nesting season. They are not allowed to take that nest tree
out, there is a prescription against that, there are exceptions to that however,
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 32
encouraging them to leave the tree there based on the hope that some hawks,
Swainson’s and some Redtails are highly adaptable and will come back to that tree.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is a Federal
Law, protects active nesting trees, so no person can go and disturb a tree where a hawk
is actively nesting. They are not allowed to disturb that tree or cut it down.
Member Craig asked if what was included is what the Federal mandates anyway.
Mr. Stokes replied that was correct. There also was an additional sentence added
recently to make sure that we have made it abundantly clear to any landowner that they
had to be compliant with Federal law. We did not want them to think that after that first
season of development, that they can just go in the next summer when a hawk was
there and just cut the tree down.
Member Craig asked if we were talking a housing project and the first year they were
working way north of the tree, so they have protected it. The second year, they are
going to go right underneath it and the bird comes. Is he going to go out, as city staff
and protect that, or is he going to call the Federal Agent to come and protect it.
Mr. Stokes replied that we are saying that they can build up to the tree; they can’t take
the tree that is against Federal Law.
Member Craig asked when Mr. Stokes was talking about several cases of Swainson’s
and Redtail hawks that have handled urbanization to this point where there is
development under the tree and could he be more specific and could he give her at
least two sites.
Doug Moore, Natural Resources Department replied that there is a Redtail over off of
Trilby and Timberline Road that there has been development with the Westchase
Subdivison before staff realized there was a nest over there.
Member Craig asked what encompassed the tree.
Mr. Moore replied that the tree is actually on a lot where someone has a home already
built there. It is also up against Timberline and Trilby Road. If they have not been out
there, it is a very busy intersection. The Coloradoan did a story on the raptor issues.
As for a nest, there is one in a residential neighborhood, in a greenbelt area and there
are homes on both sides of that in an established neighborhood on the southwest part
of town.
Member Craig asked how close the homes were.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 33
Mr. Moore replied he had not gone out and measured, but approximated 100 feet on
one side and about 150 on the other.
Member Craig asked on the Timberline and Trilby site how close was the single house
that was near the tree.
Mr. Moore replied it is in their backyard and the resident there sent him some
photographs of the hawks out in the yard when the kids are out playing. They were
sitting on top of the cover of the hot tub. That nest hangs over Timberline Road and
another nest is directly above it. It is an Urban Estate development but estimated it to
be about 100 feet.
Member Craig said that we have these two cases that we have a 100 foot buffer in that
the hawks have some way of getting away. From these cases, without any input from
the Consultants or anybody except in house from staff, it has been concluded that
Redtail’s and Swainson’s have proved highly adaptable to urban environments therefore
they do not need a buffer.
Mr. Stokes replied that he would not say that every Redtail and Swainson is highly
adaptable, but what we were told when we were looking at this more carefully last
spring was that some are, but we don’t really know what percentage of those birds are
or are not.
Mr. Moore added that we did go out and look as far as down into the Denver area at
different sites where there was nesting going on and close proximity in some cases
nests within the center of the diagonal highway, state parks along the interstate and
there are some examples where subdivisions are building right up to nests and the
nests are still there. He is not saying that every single Redtail hawk will put up with that,
we don’t know. What we are saying is that we do see and we do notice that some will
adapt.
Mr. Stokes added that among hawk species, those two birds seem to be more
adaptable than others.
Member Craig said to be quite honest, she did not think that anything is going to nest
when it has no buffer what so ever. She thought this was a door being opened without
any scientific basis what so ever.
Member Craig moved that the Planning and Zoning Board send a
recommendation to City Council that we leave the buffer standards as we
proposed them May 20, 2004.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 34
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Member Schmidt would like Council to consider something. She understands peoples
concern that the cost of mitigation is costly. She feels like then, take that option out,
you can still leave a 450 foot buffer and not offer any mitigation. Then the whole deal
about paying twice is a mute point. Her point is that she feels that there are still other
compromises that need to be discussed and she can’t support the Land Use Code
changes at this point because she just sees crossings out that they are not being
considered and she thought it was mentioned an additional proposal that was being put
forth. She did not think that there was any guarantees at this point that another
proposal would be coming forward. Was that something that is already part of this
package?
Mr. Stokes replied that other than what is proposed in the Board’s packet, no there is no
other additional proposal that would be coming forward, other than the change that is
being proposed now. Keep in mind that staff was asked by four members of Council to
prepare a proposal very much along the lines of what is before them tonight.
Member Meyer asked for a friendly amendment to add to the motion that more
study be done and the standard from May, 2004 be looked at to see if it is right.
Member Craig stated that she would consider it and her concern was that if she
asked to continue this to talk more about it, there might not be support there.
Member Meyer stated that what she was asking is for a friendly amendment that
says leave it as 2004, but go back to the drawing board and bring them something
else and do more research.
Member Meyer also accepted the friendly amendment.
Member Lingle agreed with Member Schmidt and the two issues of the buffer and the
mitigation should be separated. He did not know if that was something that Council
wanted. He thought it may not be in the best of interest; if they are expecting something
that we are giving them something 180 degrees from there that they may not even
consider it.
The motion was approved 5-1 with Chairperson Torgerson voting in the negative.
Member Gavaldon moved to recommend to City Council approval of the
remainder of the Fall 2004 Land Use Code Changes and Revisions, excluding the
items voted on separately 666 and 676.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 35
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 6-0.
Other Business:
Street Oversizing Fees:
Chairperson Torgerson stated that they did not need a presentation because it was
talked about in worksession. Rather than send a memo, the Board decided that they
would vote to support or not support the street oversizing fee increases.
Member Craig moved to support the staff recommendation for the oversizing fee
increase. She felt that Matt Baker gave an excellent presentation and justified it
very well.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Member Gavaldon felt that growth is not paying its own way and then we look at these
fees and his concern is that we are going to price ourselves out of the market and it is
going to affect affordable housing component and livability in the city of Fort Collins.
The motion was approved 5-1 with Member Gavaldon voting in the negative.
There was no other business.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
November 18, 2004
Page 36