No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/16/2011HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Tuesday, June 16-17, 2011 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: The Grove Overall Development Plan, MJA 110001 The Grove Project Development Plan, 16-10B Meeting time: 6:10 p.m., June 16, 2011 to 2:45 a.m., June 17, 2011 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Stockover, Chair Jennifer Carpenter Gino Campana David Lingle Brigitte Schmidt Andy Smith 1 CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: So now I'm sure a lot of people were here, at the last meeting, but I just wanted to go down real quickly with the steps of what the meeting will be before we get started. And please keep in mind, we're having two separate discussions. We have two items we're discussing this evening, so we'll have two separate presentations and we'll follow certain steps twice. First is staff report. Staff will give us a report, and we'll be able to ask questions of staff. Next, the applicant will give their presentation. We're able to ask, as the Board, questions of the applicant. Staff has time set aside to where they can respond to the applicant. And then the fourth step is public testimony. So we will have time for everybody to speak to the issue. The applicant is then allowed time to respond to public testimony. Staff is allowed time to respond to the public testimony. And then we go into Board discussion. That's when we deliberate, make our motion, and our final discussion. So doing the numbers, looking down at this tonight, we do have, you know, quite a bit of time allocated for each one of these steps; and also, we do have a couple of neighborhood groups that we are going to allocate a block of time to so that they can give us organized presentation. 2 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 Then our request is that -- we realize this is an emotional issue. We do listen. But time is going to become an issue at some point in time, you know, probably around 11:30 tonight, and we'd like to be deliberating while people are still here and able to talk to us. So we will ask, if I could have a raise of hands, who was here to represent a group this evening? I have the one group over here I recognize that was for the neighborhood -- would you guys maybe come down and tell me what groups you're with so we can figure out how much time we're going to have this evening? MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chair, I think there was a question about whether it was the ODP or PDP you're asking about right now. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I was thinking both. What I'm told is that the groups want to speak to each. Is that correct? I see a show of hands. Okay. Yes, sir, your name? MR. WALKER: I'm Lloyd Walker. Do you mean me to -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Who are you representing this evening? MR. WALKER: I'm representing a group called Neighborhoods and Students United. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Were you wanting to 3 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 speak to both issues or just one? MR. WALKER: Both issues. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: How much time are you requesting? MR. WALKER: We would like an equal amount of time as the other groups receives. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. And your name again was what? MR. WALKER: Lloyd Walker. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Next? SPEAKER: We're all with the same group. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. That answers that. Anyone else who is an organized presentation for a group this evening? Okay. I saw a sign outside, Students for The Grove. How many people are with Students for The Grove? Okay. Do you represent any organization, student body? Or just individuals here? MR. EGGERT: I can -- I can explain us a little bit, maybe. I'm Chase Eggert. I represent ASCSU, which is the student government. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MR. EGGERT: I believe these are students -- they are separate from us. If that clarifies that. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Were you asking for any -- 4 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 MR. EGGERT: No, I'm with the Neighbors and Students. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. There weren't other groups? Lloyd and the neighbors. Okay. That helps me decide how long we can give each person to speak this evening, and we'll make that decision after we get through step 3. So we're ready for a presentation, please. MR. OLT: Thank you. I'm Steve Olt with the City Current Department Planning, and I'd like to preface the staff report to follow up on what Mr. Stockover said. We are very aware that there are, you know, several groups that want to make group presentations, and there are probably some individuals. So we know we're looking at a significant amount of public testimony tonight. So I'm really going to make my staff report very short and succinct, because, you know, through the City staff review, we have prepared the staff report and recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board tonight, based on our evaluation of the project against the Land Use Code and making recommendations accordingly. This is all in the staff report. It has been provided to Planning and Zoning Board, the public, everyone that has either requested it or has accessed it online. So in essence, I wouldn't be saying anything other than what's 5 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 in the staff report, so I'm going to make it very, very short so that we have time for applicant and public input. So with that, I'm moving on to the amended CSURF, Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan. That's file number MJA 110 -- 0001. This is a request for an amended -- pardon me. Let me get that up on the -- the amended ODP up on the screen. This is a request for an amended CSURF, Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan. The purpose of the ODP is to -- the amended ODP is to realign the proposed future Rollie Moore Drive street connection through Parcel C, between Centre Avenue and South Shields Street and to eliminate the proposed future Northerland Drive street connection from Parcel C north to Gilgalad Way and then went on to Spring Creek PUD. The properties contained on the ODP are cumulatively 116.7 acres in size. They are located in the MMN, medium density mixed use neighborhood, and E, employment, zoning districts. The amended CSURF, Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP complies with applicable review criteria in the Land Use Code with one exception I'll go to momentarily. The OPD criteria set forth in the Land Use Code, the E, employment, and MMN, medium density mixed use neighborhood zoning -- zone district standards and the general development standards, with one exception, as I will get to, and the 6 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 adopted street master plan. I'd like to go to Section 2.3.2(h)(3) in the staff report. That is on Page 4. That's consistent with the Street Master Plan, and it does reference that in this section of the Code, the ODP must conform to the City's adopted Master Street Plan and the street pattern connectivity standard, both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the lands required by Section 3.6.1 and Section 3.6.3(a) through (f) in the Land Use Code. Section 3.6.3(f), utilization provision of sub-material street connections to and from adjacent development and developable parcels. The standard requires that development plans incorporate, continue all sub-material streets, stubbed to the boundary of the plan. The proposed ODP eliminates the connection of Northerland Drive to Rollie Moore Drive. That would be to the north of the property. By virtue of doing that, that would take away a street connection to a developable or redevelopable property adjacent to this Parcel C; therefore, it wouldn't satisfy Section 3.6.3(f). They have requested the elimination of that. They are also not proposing any street connections to the south of Parcel C, and I will get into the reasons for why momentarily. Actually, what I would like to do is go to the findings, because that's where that -- it states the reasons 7 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 for the alternative compliance. In essence, by virtue of not satisfying 3.6.3(f) in the Land Use Code, the ODP would not be in compliance with, unless an alternative compliance plan were approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. The criteria set forth in the Land Use Code is -- is within the -- contained within the staff report. You will have to make a decision on the alternative compliance request accordingly. Staff's findings of facts, conclusions in evaluating the request for the amended CSURF, Centre for Advanced Technology, ODP, staff makes the follow findings of fact: The amended ODP was submitted on March 30th, 2011, in the -- and it is in conformance with the plan of Fort Collins and the structure plan map adopted in February of 2011. The amended ODP satisfies the applicable requirements of Article 2, administration of Land Use Code. The ODP complied with the applicable standards as stated in Section 2.3.2(d), 1 through 8, in the Land Use Code. Another finding. It's infeasible for the structure of potential blocks 1 and 3, because we're looking at potentially three blocks within Parcel C that, again, we'll get further into with The Grove Project Development Plan. And potential blocks 1 and 3 are to be defined by features set forth in Section 4.6(e)(1)(a) of the Land Use 8 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 Code. And it's infeasible for them to be able to do that because of existing development adjacent to the site. Another finding is the realignment of Rollie Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the Master Street Plan and enhances reservation of the existing wetlands. The last finding is the Alternative Development Plan proposed in this amended ODP does not extend Northerland Drive to the -- to the south into Parcel C from Gilgalad Way and does not propose crossing the Larimer Number 2 -- Larimer Canal Number 2 with streets. However, the alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(f) equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard, and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles, maintains facility for bicycle/pedestrian transit to the maximum extent feasible for the following reasons. The Alternative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the amended ODP. The pedestrians/bicyclists will be able to access parks, recreation opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within the mile section. The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without exceeding level of service standards. And lastly, the Alternative Development Plan 9 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 eliminates negative impacts to high-quality wetlands, and that would be to the north, towards Gilgalad Way, avoids constructing -- constricting an important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA floodway, and avoids negative impacts to the natural habitats and features associated with the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal Number 2 to the south. Hence, they do not want to provide street connections in that direction. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approved the amended CSURF, Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan Number MJA110001, based on the preceding findings of facts and conclusions that I have just stated. And that ends my presentation. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Do we have questions of staff at this point? No? Okay. Would the applicant please step forward? MS. LILEY: Chairman Stockover -- that's not on, is it? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I think it's on. SPECTATOR: All the way down at the base? In the back? Got it? No? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: There you go. SPECTATOR: Got it? Better? Okay. MS. LILEY: Chairman Stockover, members of the Board, my name is Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes Street, Fort 10 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 Collins. I represent the applicant. To the greatest extent possible tonight, we'd like to try to keep this a land use hearing focused on the planning merits of the ODP and the PDP. Linda Ripley will be presenting the bulk of the materials on both the ODP and the PDP, but before she starts that presentation, there are two brief things we'd like to do. Stuart McMillan is here tonight, and he's representing Colorado State University Research Foundation, the owner of the property within the ODP, and he would like to make a few brief comments abut it at the outset. After that, I would like to spend just a couple of minutes, talking to the Board about a few legal anomalies, if you will, in how the ODP was submitted and will be reviewed tonight, and it relates to all those things that Steve was talking about just a minute ago in the findings that you need to make. And then Linda will handle the presentation on the ODP itself. Thank you. Stuart? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. McMILLAN: Good evening. I'm Stu McMillan. Most of you know me from Everitt McMillan Development, but also, I'm with CSURF and run the real estate department there. In addressing the ODP, as you all know, CSURF is 11 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 the owner of the land where the ODP is. But Campus Crest is the developer, and they're going to need to develop -- or address the very specific issues that are part of their plan. We are, CSURF, is obviously concerned about the decision on the proposed ODP amendment, which is the more general document. A little background information. For approximately 25 years, this site has been slated for some type of multifamily use. A CSURF representative participated in the development of the west central neighborhoods plans adopted in 1999, and they did that along with the City representatives and representatives from the affected neighborhoods. The primary amendment to the ODP proposed tonight is the realignment of Rollie Moore Drive, to be consistent with the City's Master Street Plan. Any future development of this site will require this amendment. The alternative compliance requested in the ODP will also be required, regardless of the specific development project, as it will never be desirable to cross the wetlands with a road. It will always be important to the site to provide enhanced bike and pedestrian connections. It's also important to CSURF to have the proposed amended ODP provide -- approved to preserve the 12 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 long-standing vision of this property in CSURF. I want to say a couple of other things too. And I think it's a little later tonight, we're going to talk about the realignment of Larimer County Ditch Number 2, and I think most of you know where it is. It sits up at the top of the hill, and there's a number of trees along it. It's -- it's really put in a place where I think it's susceptible to leaking and drainage. In one of the discussions we've had with -- with Campus Crest and with Larimer County Number 2 is to move that. So we're going to grant an easement for -- for them to move the ditch farther to the south, where it's a lot more flat, and be able to rebuild it. They'll talk about how they do that and how they prevent the leaking in that area. But what's going to have to happen is that at a time when water is not flowing, that's when they're going to have to rebuild that. It'll be rebuilt -- and I'm not sure. I think Linda will talk about it later, exactly how many feet to the south. But one of the things that's included in that -- and it's really key to CSURF -- is the reclamation of the older ditch. What would happen is, if we abandon that ditch, a lot of the older trees along there, it's possible that they would die. We'd like to come back in, fill in some of that 13 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 area with dirt, keep it as a natural area for -- and keep those trees there as well. And that won't happen until the other ditch is built and it's flowing. The other thing that I want to bring up, and it's really important to the University, and it's the responsibility of the CSURF and the University, to provide student housing that is close to campus. And there's a number of reasons for this. Obviously, it's -- you know, I put on my citizen hat and want to have more and more student housing that is spread throughout Fort Collins and the neighborhoods. But it's also that we found that when student housing is close to the university, students usually perform better, and we have a higher graduation rate. So at this location, since I've been involved with Everitt McMillan and we had some involvement in the Centre for Advanced Technology, I've always seen this as a good place for student housing, and we are very much for that -- for that project. MS. LILEY: Thank you, Stu. You will note that there's a lot of PDP-type material in the record for the ODP, and I'd like to take a minute just to explain why that has become necessary. Otherwise, you would be looking at a very straightforward ODP amendment, essentially. It would be the realignment of the road. There would be few or no changes, 14 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 but essentially, that's what it would be. You can see from the staff agenda that there are a whole bunch of other things that have been introduced and findings you need to make; and again, I'd like to explain how that has come about. Last fall when you approved the earlier version of the amended ODP, after that approval, project opponents appealed that to City Council, and one of the allegations was that the ODP did not demonstrate compliance with the block size requirements. Now, an ODP, as the Land Use Code tells us, is a pretty general planning document. And you know that the type of criteria that you have for that and the submittal documents and level of detail is quite different between an ODP and PDP. Nevertheless, the City Council ruled that this Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code, in that the ODP did not show compliance with the block size requirement. Now, an ODP can't really show compliance with the block size requirement because you have to have blocks, and you don't have blocks with ODPs. You have blocks with PDPs. To make a long story short, that has created a dilemma for any developer in the MMN zone, because there are a number of ODP-type criteria which you are required to comply with; but in order to comply with them, you've got to 15 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 show -- at least based upon the Council's recent decision, you have to show PDP-type criteria to be able to demonstrate the compliance. It used to be addressed, and it was in the earlier ODP, by a note that said, All future PDPs will comply, and that gets you to the same place. But that isn't where we've ended up. So for tonight, Linda and also Steve in his staff report have gone through, and they've identified those types of ODP compliance requirements which relate to things like block size, like housing product type, which, again, would typically be PDP, not ODP, and they carry their own findings with them, and those are going to be presented, and we're going to ask you to make those findings. It's going to take a little bit longer, because, obviously, you've got to address every one of them and there's going to be a lot duplication because when you get to the PDP, you're going to have to make exactly the same finding, have the discussion, and have the same document in the record to support that. So we apologize for that kind of cumbersome process, but if this project is approved, or either way, not, and it's appealed, we would like it decided on the planning merits of the project and not on some sort of interpretation that was never intended to apply to an ODP. 16 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 So I just thought it would be important to have that explanation as to why we have these additional findings and additional discussion and additional material in the record tonight. Thank you. Linda? MS. RIPLEY: Good evening, Chairman Stockover and members of the Board. It's good to be here tonight, again. I'm Linda Ripley with Ripley Design, Inc., and I'm here tonight representing Campus Crest. Also with us tonight as part of the ODP team, we have Ted Rollins and Mike Hartnett who were, I believe, co-chair, chairman of the board of directors of Campus Crest Development. Nick Haas with Northern Engineering, our civil engineer is here, and Matt Delich, our traffic engineer, is also part of the team representing the ODP tonight. And last but not least, my employee Grant Cooper is here, who's going to run the PowerPoint for us, and also, he'll be running the cursor, so I won't have to stop and point out, and that should take a little less time. So if something's confusing, just raise your hand, and we'll try to clarify. The site location of the ODP is the square mile bounded by Prospect, College, and Drake and Shields, arterial streets. The land is owned by CSURF. And this land is basically a transitional area between commercial development and institutional land uses, between those and residential areas. It kind of sits on a diagonal right 17 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 between, and that's very much the purpose it serves. So land uses to the east and south include CSU, the Vet Hospital, the Natural Resource Research Center, The Gardens on Spring Creek, the Hilton Inn, and the Centre for Advanced Technology mixed use area to the southwest. Then as you go west and north of the property, that is represented by residential, and that includes, right next to the property, of CARE Housing, Windtrail Park Condos, Sundering Townhomes, Hillpond Condos and then single-family neighborhoods further to the north and to the west. We've included a map of the West Central Neighborhood Plan, because I think it speaks to how this area really is a transition. You see the lighter colors towards the west, or larger lots, and then you get into orange areas where densities increase. And they keep increasing right up to the edge of our ODP area. And it's why, when zoning was put on this ODP, a portion of it was zoned at that end, to continue this very appropriate land use transition of large lots, smaller single-family, attached single-family, to multifamily, which the MMN portion has always been slated for. So the ODP is consistent all the way through with this. It has been since the 1980s when master planning for this area started. Since 1988, we -- I actually researched all these various master plans that have occurred over the 18 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 long history, and even as far back as 1988, this particular land that is now Parcel C was identified as multifamily. So the Overall Development Plan, though, of record, was approved in 2003. So the plan you see tonight is the same as the one approved in 2003, except for basically three changes. The first is the realignment of Rollie Moore Drive. The second, the elimination of the proposed connection to Northerland Drive. And the third -- I kind of lumped all the note changes as a third item that has changed. Now, most of those notes were changed as a result of staff asking us to change the note, to clarify them, to make them -- to update them so they read and refer to current regulations and standards that didn't exist in 2003. LUCAS standards is a good example. Wasn't around in 2003. So the notes are updated, and then there are a couple that I'll talk about that were applicant changes as well. But we're going to start with Rollie Moore Drive. This slide shows the alignment of Rollie Moore Drive on the original, the 2003 ODP, and you can see that it just goes right through wetland. It would require filling in the wetlands. It would require impacting the floodway. It would destroy wildlife habitat. It would disrupt ecologically sensitive national areas. And even beyond that, it would constrict a drainage way that exists in this 19 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 area that's already problematic. So for all of those reasons, our design team and staff has agreed that it's not a good location for Rollie Moore Drive. We worked with staff to explore other alternatives for how that street could go through, and looked at several, including not having a street at all; having a circuitous connection that could get vehicular traffic through but in a more circuitous way. None of these ended up being the winner. They all had issues and problems. And in the end, the only alignment that we could come up with that was consistent with the Master Street Plan and acceptable to staff was the one that we're showing you tonight. There's really only one place for -- one other place for Rollie Moore Drive to connect on to Centre Avenue, and then obviously, it already exists on the west side, and we don't want to have it too tied up to the ditch either. So this is the alignment that made the most sense, and that's how it came to be. The second item is the elimination of Northerland Drive, and it's being proposed to eliminate -- Northerland Drive connects to Gilgalad Way and would have connected to Rollie Moore right there. However, for all the same reasons, it would go through the floodway now. It wasn't floodway in 2003, just for a little bit of background. So that was one of the major changes that caused an update now. 20 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 So it would go through the floodway, it would impact wetlands, and it would further constrict the drainage way. So again, we think it makes total sense to completely eliminate that connection. At early neighborhood meetings, neighborhood representatives agreed with that analysis and didn't particularly want it to be connected anyway. So that leads me to number 3, the note changes. Most were requested by City staff, but there are two I want to talk about just briefly. The first has to do with secondary land use. Kind of a complicated thing in general, and my attempt was to change this note to try to draft out a note that said the same thing in a clearer way. I have failed in that attempt. I will readily admit it. I've had several people read it. Nobody thinks one is clearer than the other. And on top of it, I actually made a typo in my proposed change, where my proposal says 62 acres are in Parcels D and E. It's actual only 52. 52.3 acres. The gist of it is, is that CSURF doesn't want to be -- since Parcel D and Parcel E, which is 52 acres combined, is all in the floodway, as the Board is aware, there's not much that can be developed in the floodway. I'm not talking about the fringe. I'm talking about that very important area called the floodway that has to be reserved for flood water. 21 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 So the only kinds of things that occur in there are recreational kinds of things. Like you could do a golf course. You could do a baseball field. You could do a parking lot. But you couldn't do a primary use. So whatever happens in those areas, it's going to be a secondary use. CSURF just wants to try to make it clear that their secondary use will be calculated based on the developable land, not land that's in the floodway. If the Board would like us to leave the note the way it was, we're happy to do that tonight. The original note was -- everything was the same in 2003, so the Board approved it then. It still should be okay today. The Board can decide if it should change or go back to the original. The second note that I want to talk about has to do with floor area ratio. CSURF, back in 2003, put a note on -- at their -- just because they wanted to at the time, put a maximum floor area ratio of .37. It is not a City requirement. We do not have a requirement for a floor area ratios in the context of an ODP, or a PDP for that matter, and so it's not relevant. It could cause confusion in the future. So they said, Let's just take it off if it's not a City requirement. So we did. Just for reference, though, since it is calculated, the note says a maximum .37 on the parcel. If we take Parcel C that we're developing and we apply The 22 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 Grove project to it for the whole parcel, so it would include the open space associated with our project, our FAR is .25. So we do meet it, but we'd still like to remove the note from the ODP. But it doesn't have anything -- neither of these notes have anything to do with the proposed project tonight, and these didn't have anything to do with bringing the ODP forward. It was just sort of considered housekeeping. Enough on that. In October of last year, we were here for the ODP. The P and Z approved the Overall Development Plan back in October. Subsequently, the neighborhood -- a portion of the neighborhood opposed to the project appealed it to City Council, and as Lucia explained, City Council did overturn P and Z approval based on the block standard, saying that because we knew, because we were processing a PDP simultaneously, we did know where -- where local streets were on Parcel C, and we should have shown them, and if we couldn't meet the block standard, we should have applied for a modification. So this time around, we are not making that same mistake. After it was denied, we resubmitted an ODP. We held another neighborhood meeting in January and began processing the new one. The current PDP does meet the block standard, however, so we don't have to request a modification for the 23 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 block standard. It not only -- it meets it in terms of block structure, in terms of block size, in terms of minimum building frontage, and with building height. All four of these things are part of the block standard, and our proposed project on Parcel C meets the criteria for all four of those. Going back to the big picture, looking at the principles and policies of the new City Plan. When we first started this project, we were under the old, and now we're under the new, so we went through all the new principles and policies that are contained in the new City Plan and found the ODP to be very consistent with policies having to do with environmental policies about protecting and enhancing natural areas, wildlife corridors, wetlands and drainages; livability policies, having to do with infill development; neighborhood compatibility, providing a variety of housing types, land use transitions, and accommodating the student population; and transportation policies having to do with encouraging alternative travel modes, such as bicycling and transit. You have a much bigger document in your packet that goes through all those various policies, but I just wanted to remind you of those. The ODP is also consistent with the West Central Neighborhood Plan, approved in 1999, and achieves several of the goals that are in that plan. For example, utilizing the 24 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 area more effectively to meet and accommodate the growing demands of Colorado State University. Ensuring that high density infill development is sensitive to the existing neighborhoods, preserves the appropriate open space, and creates and maintains a desirable character of the neighborhood; that it sustains or increases the inventory of affordable rental housing near campus without destroying the positive residential characteristics of the neighborhood. That new development, or redevelopment, should be designed in such a way that it minimizes impact on the areas, natural areas, wetlands, wildlife habitats, as well as impacts on historic structures and landscapes. Sense of community goal. Seek some solutions to problems associated with short-term tenancy, differing lifestyles, and overcrowded living conditions in areas within the west central neighborhood. I think this policy obviously speaks to student rentals and neighborhoods, and how much of an issue that can be if it becomes -- if it comes to a tipping point. I have student neighbors, and I love having them in my neighborhood, but I've also seen neighborhoods in this city where they've reached a tipping point. Landlords don't care about housing, don't manage the students, and it's a real problem. And the west central plan obviously wanted to address that. That was one of the goals. 25 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 Housing goals. A couple of those. Create development opportunities for multifamily housing in appropriate locations, including but not limited to vacant or deteriorated properties close to Colorado State University. Another one, encourage and support Colorado State University in development of student housing on Colorado State University and Colorado State University Research Foundation property. So the very neighborhood plan of this area actually says, We want to encourage and support student housing on CSURF property. Lastly, the ODP does comply with all the standards in the Land Use Code with one exception, that having to do with transportation connections to adjoining properties. In order to meet this requirement, Northerland Drive would have to be extended across the floodway and into the wetlands. And in addition to that, we would -- the requirement says that you have to connect two surrounding parcels every 660 feet all around your development. So we don't connect at all to the north. If we brought Northerland down, we could comply to the north. On the south, we would need to put two connections across the canal in order to meet that requirement. However, that portion of the Land Use Code allows you to apply for alternative compliance. And the way you do 26 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 that is you propose an Alternative Development Plan that is basically equal to or better than. So first of all, I want to talk about the extension of Northerland Drive. That would go through high-quality wetlands. It would disrupt an ecosystem. It would further disrupt things if you actually brought cars through. Could we go back to -- yeah, let's stay there for just a minute. Right there. You can imagine filling them. We constrict the wetlands. If we manage to be successful in getting a street through, then you've got headlights, and just all kinds of disruption that isn't consistent with what that area is for. In terms of the Larimer Canal, the same sorts of thing. It's an official wildlife corridor on the City's mapping. To put streets across would violate the City's own regulations that says those are to be protected. Building streets would disrupt the very flow of wildlife that we're trying to encourage. Also, given the elevation of the canal, it sits up -- as you know, if you've been out there, it sits up high on the land, so in order to meet city street standards, we'd have to do quite a lot of filling and grading changes in order to even accomplish the task. So another reason that it doesn't make sense to even cross the streets. And lastly, the ditch company probably would not 27 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 at all support a crossing, especially if an Alternative Development Plan made more sense. So our alternative development plan that we're going to show you tonight is really in three parts. The first one deals with vehicles. The plans provides vehicular street connectivity to Centre Avenue at two locations on the east and connects to Shields Street to the west. This connection is important to the City. And we've been waiting a long time for it, and the project that we're proposing tonight would finally get that accomplished, if approved. When we extend Rollie Moore Drive to the west, it allows a connection to Bridgefield Lane, so that people can -- that may live further to the east can go down Rollie Moore Drive, and they can get further north, and all those people that live in that neighborhood just to the north get access to the rest of the square mile without going out to an arterial street. And that's one of the things that a whole connectivity is all about, is trying to give people alternative ways to get to places without always going to the arterials. The second is enhanced bicycle connectivity. And this is a quite long list of things. There is quite a bicycle network that we would be tapping into, both providing with our project -- we're proposing Parcel C -- and then what already exists in that square mile. 28 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 So beginning in Parcel C, we will have bicycle lanes on Rollie Moore Drive, where we're creating it new, and we'll also have bicycle lanes on that little connector, local street -- right there, Brent -- along that connection to the existing Rollie Moore Drive. And then our Luke Street, is kind of what we call it, a local street right there. That has -- bicycles can be on it, but there won't be striped bike lanes on it. However, we have provided a detached, 8-foot-wide trail along the outer edge of it, all the way through there, so student or other members of the community going through this neighborhood can be off of the street with their bikes, and felt like that was kind of going above and beyond what was required for bicycles. We've emphasized bicycle traffic here a great deal because we are so close to campus. Students can get right out onto Centre Avenue and shoot straight north, and the campus is right there at the top of the screen. They can also connect with Spring Creek bike trail and go either to the east or to the west. If they to go to the east -- I mean -- yeah, if they go to the east -- let's go to the east, Brent; okay, there -- it takes you over to the Mason Street bike trail corridor, which people can connect north and south. It also will connect students to the bus rapid transit system, which is in our future for Mason Street, an existing project, and 29 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 students will be able to get there quite easily, and then they can connect virtually anywhere in Fort Collins. So we're really proud of that connection and think that it works really well. In addition to that, the PDP, which is on Parcel C, will provide 294 bicycle spaces when only 20 are required. Again, over and above. Rooms -- in addition to that, rooms in that project are designed to accommodate inside bike storage. The PDP will also include a bike pump station and a fix-it station, as part of their clubhouse. And lastly, in response to safety concerns that we've heard, Campus Crest management has requested assistance from the City of Fort Collins and the CSU Bike Advisory Committee to help educate their residents in regard to bike safety, the safe routes, and the rules of the road, et cetera. The third part of our Alternative Development Plan has to do with transit. And it's pretty -- I think I've pretty much spoke to it already. There is a bus stop right at the corner of Rollie Moore Drive and Centre. So very convenient for the students living in the project. And then again, they can, on bike or by foot, follow Centre Avenue and then get on the bike trail, get under a tunnel, get to Mason Street and to the bus rapid transit system. So in summary, the Alternative Development Plan 30 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 will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the ODP. The pedestrian and bicycles will be able to access parks, recreation opportunities, schools, commercial uses, employment uses, all in the section mile and beyond. The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without exceeding level of service standards. And lastly, if you approve the Alternative Development Plan, you're going to eliminate all those negative impacts to the wetlands, the constricted drainage way, the wildlife corridor. And those can stay as they were intended to, as natural areas. Last October, this Board supported the ODP and approved it. The only changes since then have been the addition of information having to do with the block standard, having to do with this alternative compliance issue, and the inclusion of buffers along Spring Creek and along the canals that go through the ODP area. Those are the substantive changes, so we're hoping that you will vote in favor of the ODP again this evening. Lucia, did you have something you wanted to add? Okay. With that, I'm going to conclude our presentation of the OPD, and we're ready for questions. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Who wants to go first? 31 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 David? MR. LINGLE: First for staff. Linda went through the note changes, the ODP note changes, and there were a couple specific ones that she talked about concerning secondary uses and then also the FAR. Are you, Steve, okay with those proposed note changes? MR. OLT: Yes. Yes, we are. And as Linda had stated, we had expressed a little concern about the revised note that's on the amended ODP before you tonight, and they have indicated that the note, as previously stated on the ODP of record, February 2003, it's satisfactory to them. If the Board would prefer, we would have that changed prior to recording of the ODP. If it were approved, we could have that note changed back to the note of record, since 2003. So, yes, we are good with that evaluation, and the floor area ratio, again -- there's really nothing in the Land Use Code dealing with that. It's an irrelevant note for an Overall Development Plan. So the elimination of that certainly is appropriate. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. And then one other question for Linda. I understand from your presentation that there are three significant changes to the ODP, the first being the relocation of Rollie Moore Drive. Could you tell us, from your previous ODP amendment, has Rollie Moore Drive's location in this one changed at all, tweaked in any 32 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 way, that we need to know about? MS. RIPLEY: I don't believe so. I probably have that slide in my pack. We could go back and look for it. I'd like to say that it doesn't, and we'll confirm that if we find it. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Well, it looks like it didn't, but I just -- MS. RIPLEY: It's very, very close. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I just wanted to ask. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Brigitte? MS. SCHMIDT: Steve, on top of what Dave was saying, if I understand this correctly, a new note would be on the ODP that says the future uses in Parcel D and E will not be counted against secondary use allowance. So that is not on the ODP, but it will be if we approve it with this note? Or am I getting that wrong? MR. OLT: There -- that note that I think you're referencing is on the current amended ODP that you're reviewing. The language has changed from the ODP of record, approved February 2003. They essentially say the same thing. I think staff essentially would prefer the previous, the old note. That would be acceptable to us. But either would work. They're essentially addressing the same thing in terms of the primary versus secondary uses that split and 33 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 the fact that, you know, those parcels are completely contained within the floodway. And it was evaluated back in 2003, that we can't hold that against the land uses. MS. SCHMIDT: But I'm wondering. So when we -- when we go to calculate the 25 percent of employment that can be in the future, a secondary use, we would not count that acreage at all, even though it looks like it's E, employment, on the ODP. Or are we saying we would count it and say there's 70 acres when we know -- I'm just making up these numbers -- but that 20 of them cannot be used for employment, but we're saying there's 70 of employment. That's kind of what I don't -- I mean, my personal feeling is if we know already that that land cannot be used for employment, why are we keeping it zoned employment on the map? MR. SHEPARD: We don't unzone floodway property. Floodway properties are zoned. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. But if we know it's going to be a secondary use of some kind, can it be rezoned to something that qualifies for that -- MR. SHEPARD: No, we don't use zoning as a tool like that. We'll use Article 3, General Development Standards, to address that issuing. We won't use Article 4 standards. We won't use zoning to govern floodway -- MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. 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 MR. SHEPARD: -- and floodplain. MS. SCHMIDT: So I -- how would the calculation, then, on the remaining employment that we have left on this ODP -- how would the calculation of secondary uses be done? On just -- on just those lower parcels? MR. OLT: I think that's correct. Yeah, we'd have to look at that. We'd have to evaluate on the developable land, I think as the note says. And obviously, Parcels D and E -- MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. MR. OLT: I can't speak to F at this point in time, but that could very well be in the floodway at this point in time. But -- and realize that D is essentially already developed. Parcel D is the CSU ropes course facility. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you. And the other question I had -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Was the applicant wanting to respond to that in any way, shape, or form? MS. LILEY: I think, Brigitte, just to clarify. In 2003, when that note was put on -- and the Land Use Code for a secondary employment has not changed in that period of time -- it made sense, and as the staff evaluated it, it was the only way to do it, because if you included D and E, which are, again, largely not developable, you wouldn't 35 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 really end up with any residential uses at all, and that wasn't the intent of this. The intent of this provision was to keep a 25 percent/75 percent over developed areas, so you always kept that ratio. But not to use undeveloped areas as basically getting rid of all the secondary uses that would be noncompliant -- MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I'm thinking -- I was thinking the other way, that you could say, Well, it's all employment, and therefore, my secondary could be a much higher percentage of the acres, which you know already those acres are not ever going to be used for employment. So I was thinking we could end up with all secondary, you know, uses and not much employment. MS. LILEY: Absolutely not, and that's not -- MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. MS. LILEY: -- our intent, and that's maybe why it would be better to go back to the original note so that's very clear. And then there's no change. It's as you approved it in 2003. And we're fine with that. We're fine with that, because we don't intend to change that. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MS. SCHMIDT: The other question I had is if -- what exactly is part of the Alternative Development Plan? 36 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 On Page 8 of the staff report, there's heading that says, The Alternative Development Plan, and then it has all those bullets before it gets to the summary. So all the items -- if we say -- and what I understood was that we would need a vote to approve this Alternative Development Plan. If we say we agree with that, are we agreeing to all those particular items? Or is it only those three road connections? Yeah, Linda, if you can. . . MS. RIPLEY: Okay. First of all, the way the alternative compliance is explained in the Code is that you need to bring forth an Alternative Development Plan, an alternative way of solving the process or doing the project, whatever. We have three slides. Just because we couldn't show all that information on one slide, you don't have three plans. They're all combined together as one alternative plan. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. MS. RIPLEY: All of those issues and things that I spoke about are part of our Alternative Development Plan. And I also wanted to clarify that the Board does not vote on that as a separate issue. If you find the ODP to be in compliance, that is automatically approved. It is not a separate issue, like a modification would be. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. I guess the only reason I'm really asking is, because it says, The Alternative Development Plan provides for striped bicycle lanes on Rollie Moore, and I had some questions about how Rollie Moore was going to work, but there's more -- I presumed they were sort of PDP-type questions, but if that's part of the Alternative Development Plan, then I didn't want to, you know, possibly have one plan approved, and then later, we have questions about the bike lanes versus the road width on Rollie Moore. You know, so my preference is sort of not to, yeah, include too much detail on this Alternative Development Plan on -- we're about -- I don't know how this is -- MR. OLT: And again, you know, that's where we're kind of getting out of the norm with this ODP, in that the level of information that they've really gone to in this Alternative Development Plan far exceeds what we've really ever really seen on an ODP. So that really is more Project Development Plan information, that's correct. MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess it doesn't -- it doesn't give any specifics on road width, or bicycle lane width, or something, so we could talk about that at the other, or this talks about that in general. So we're not approving any particular road design when we're approving this particular bullet. I don't -- 38 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 MR. OLT: That wouldn't -- that wouldn't really be possible. MS. SCHMIDT: All right. MR. OLT: At this level. MS. SCHMIDT: All right. MS. LILEY: Yes, and I just wanted to clarify that, too, that this finding is more to satisfy the alternative compliance, that this is an adequate plan that meets the four tests that Linda talked about, and it certainly doesn't preclude you from going into more detail on that PDP, if that's appropriate. So, yeah, some of each of that there. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Any further questions? MS. SCHMIDT: I have some more later, but we'll hear. . . CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Looks like we're through with questions for now. Would staff like to respond to anything the applicant has presented to us? MR. OLT: No, I have no response at this time. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Now we have public testimony. And I'd like to hear from the two groups first. If we can start with this group over here, please. Now, what we've allowed them is 20 minutes this evening. Paul, do we need to know everybody who's coming, or just the 39 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 speaker's name and address for the record? MR. ECKMAN: Just the speaker. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. ECKMAN: There may be more than one speaker representing that group, though. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: And then just so everybody knows, we're going to take a quick break after their presentation. We're trying to take a quick break about every hour and a half. And then we'll hear the other group. MR. FIEMAN: We have some documents that we're submitting for the record, and also setting up a Power -- our slides. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. If you would state your name and address for the record. I presume you're going to be the presenter? MR. FIEMAN: I am. My name is Jonathan Fieman (phonetic). I live at 959 Gilgalad. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: And which group to do you represent? Is it the homeowners? MR. FIEMAN: Yeah. It's a group of homeowners and residents from the neighborhoods surrounding the develop -- proposed development area. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you. And is this a copy of the slides that we're going to have up there? SPECTATOR: Yes. 40 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 MR. FIEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: So we can either follow along here or up there? MR. FIEMAN: And there's also, obviously -- in 20 minutes, I couldn't read the entire contents there, and so there's more information in there that supports the points that I'm going to make. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. FIEMAN: We will speak tonight about many points where the proposed ODP and PDP do not comply with the City of Fort Collins' Land Use Code, along with the supporting design guide, the City Plan, and the west central neighborhoods plan. But our focus will be on the Land Use Code, which provides a framework for this hearing and for the resident report we are submitting. Our PDP presentation will cover the following points: A, the amended ODP and PDP combine to erode the employment district through a process of borrowing secondary use acreage. Note 2 of the ODP lays the groundwork for this process. B, the amended ODP deletes the .37 floor area ratio that already exists inside the 2003 ODP of record. The FAR is a reasonable and substantive limit controlling the scale and intensity of development. 41 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 C, the amended ODP removes a prohibition on residential building on the hundred-year floodplain that already exists in the 2003 ODP of record. D, the amended ODP unnecessarily destroys connectivity to the south, contrary to the Land Use Code 3.6.3(f). E, the amended ODP proposes an alignment for Rollie Moore that may not be as safe as alternatives that modify rather than abandon the alignment shown in the current 2003 ODP of record. First, the employment zone being eroded. Over 9 acres of employment district land, comprising 70 percent of the employment district, is being used for multifamily housing and its buffers in the PDP. Only 3.8 acres of Tract A, or 30 percent, is left for future employment uses. This does not comply with Land Use Code 4.27(d)(2). Only 25 percent of an employment district may be developed for secondary use. In 2009, staff and the applicant recognized that this could require modification or rezoning, but the City Plan provided an interpretation of the Land Use Code and Note 2 in the ODP as a way around this problem. The ODP has 96 acres of employment district, so 25 percent, or 24 acres, could be developed for secondary uses. The 62 acres of Parcels D and E are zoned for employment but 42 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 are entirely in the floodplain and cannot be developed for primary uses. Past discussions have suggested using them for playing fields, which is a secondary use. Note 2 of the ODP seeks to establish that such future uses of D and E will not be counted as the secondary use percentage applied over the entire ODP. This means 25 percent of the 62.3 acres in D and E, which is 15.6 acres, can be borrowed indefinitely to increase the percentage of employment district used for secondary nonemployment uses in the individual PDPs. We believe this note should not be allowed. In response to the applicant's concerns, the City Planner made the following three points in an internal email to staff on October 30th, 2009: 1, there are no secondary uses elsewhere in the ODP. 2, therefore, no modification is required to allow 9 out of 12 acres of the employment district in the PDP to be developed as secondary use. And 3, this process has been used before at the Centre for Advanced Technology. We respectfully disagree with Mr. Olt's interpretation. First, both the CSU ropes course and the CSU seasonal overflow parking lot are located in Parcels D and E, respectively. These community and public facilities are secondary uses of significant size that have not been subtracted from the 24-acre limit on secondary use. Note 2 43 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 in the ODP appears to allow these secondary uses to be ignored. Second, this process has indeed been used previously. The same City Planner used it to justify 100 percent secondary use of 18 acres of the employment district for the Horticulture Center. You will note that the ODP before you excludes The Gardens at Spring Creek because it is no longer CSURF property. And now the City Planner is allowing the applicant to borrow the same secondary use acreage from Parcels D and E that were averaged over the entire ODP previously in the case of the Horticulture Center. The 18 acres of the Horticulture Center should have been carried forward as a debit against the credit of 24 acres for secondary use in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Not doing so is an abuse of Section 2.3.2(h)(7), which requires the mix of uses to be applied over the entire ODP, not to -- not to individual PDPs. If the city does snot keep tabs on how much secondary use is used for each PDP, the secondary use acreage of those floodway parcels could be borrowed again and again to erode the area of the employment district, developed for primary high-paying employment uses. We estimate that 55 percent of the employment zoned in the ODP could end up developed for secondary uses. This is contrary 44 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 to the intent of Land Use Code 4-27(d)(2). We recommend that the Board put a stop to the repeated use of the language in Note 2 to justify borrowing secondary use of the floodway parcels. Past uses should be added up and carried forward. Better yet, the note should be eliminated from the amended ODP altogether to stop this process of eroding the employment zone in the Centre for Advanced Technology. The next point, the amended ODP eliminates the maximum floor area ratio 0.37, previously through for the Centre for Advanced Technology ODP of record 2003. This floor area ratio was a substantive promise to the community that future development would not be out of scale in context with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Ms. Ripley has said that the note was included as a matter of choice by CSURF. We find no documentation to support this statement. Why would the owner voluntarily limit its options? It is more likely that the FAR was offered in consideration for approval of the ODP of record. The Board should require a strong showing as to why removal of the FAR is in the best interests of the city. Land Use Code, Section 5.2, defines floor area ratio as the gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block divided by the total area of the lot or block. The PDP drawings include a table on Sheet 2 of 21 45 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 where the floor area ratios are calculated by the block in compliance with LUC Section 5.2. This floor area ratios range from .53 to 0.90, far in excess of the maximum floor area ratio permitted by the ODP of record. The applicant asserts that the FAR is being removed as a housekeeping issue in order to remove, quote, possible confusion in the future. This is a misleading understatement. The Grove at Fort Collins PDP cannot proceed without removing the .37 limit on the floor area ratio. The applicant tries to explain this away in the ODP planning guidelines, submitted March 31st, 2011, and shown tonight by creating an invalid FAR of .25 for the overall ODP. The parcel dividing the total square footage of all buildings by the entire parcel acreage, including floodplain and wetlands. This calculation method does not comply with Section 5.2. The City recently implemented FAR limitations on development in the central neighborhoods as a means of controlling intensity of use. The City seems to prevent construction of dwelling units that are too large for the neighborhood context which otherwise meet current zoning density requirements. The .37 FAR limitation in the ODP of record is a reasonable provision for controlling the intensity of development next to an existing neighborhood of one- and 46 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 two-story condos, townhomes, houses, and affordable housing. It was included in the ODP not on a whim but for a reason. The Planning and Zoning Board should sustain the FAR in the ODP of record and deny its removal from the amended ODP. The next point, secondary development in the hundred-year floodplain is prohibited by the ODP of record but allowed by the proposed ODP. The PDP includes fill for two buildings and two streets in the flood fringe, which is part of the hundred-year FEMA floodplain. Note 3 of the 2003 ODP of record says, quote, Land uses proposed within the Spring Creek hundred-year floodplain shall not be considered secondary uses. City staff determined on November 6th, 2009, that this note does not allow residential construction in the floodplain. The amended ODP proposes to allow such development by the simple expedient of deleting the note. This is not clear whether City staff requested removal of this note or why City staff would do so. Prohibition of residential construction in the Spring Creek floodplain on Parcel C reduces risk to lives and property of neighboring landowners, potential tenants, and first responders. The purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare, specifically in Section 1.2.2.E by avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and reduction of flood 47 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 damage. The Board should deny the amended ODP which proposes to eliminate the existing prohibition on secondary use in the hundred-year floodplain, thereby allowing residential development in the flood fringe. Next point, the alternative compliance request asks permission to eliminate all connectivity to the south. The applicant admits that residents who wish to travel to nearby retail areas to the south, including Starbucks, Vincent's, Columbine Cafe, Cinema Six, and other businesses will have to travel by foot, bike, or car by one of two busy streets, Shields Avenue or Centre Avenue. The Land Use Code, Section 3.6.3(f) specifically provides that connectivity shall be subarterial. The applicant focuses on the disruption that would be caused by the extensive grading necessary to provide streets crossing the canal from the proposed Rollie Moore Drive alignment. The alternative compliance request does not discuss connectivity using alternative transportation, another requirement of the Land Use Code 3.6.3. There are many natural areas in Fort Collins where bike paths and trails coexist with wildlife corridors and irrigation canals. What is the true reason for these extreme grades? The PDP associated with this ODP is simply too big for the site. The only way to shoehorn Rollie Moore Drive and 12 large buildings onto the site is to make a 48 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 drastic cut into the hillside below the canal, supported by a high retaining wall. The applicant has frequently stated in neighborhood meetings that the proposed route for Rollie Moore Drive is the only possible realignment. The fact is, Rollie Moore Drive has many feasible alignments that could work with rather than against the existing terrain and make crossing the canal more feasible. According to Land Use Code 3.6.3(h)(2), the decision-maker must find that the proposing alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of the Code equally well or better than would a plan or design which complies with the Code for connectivity. The applicants has not demonstrated that the proposed alignment is better or safer than other possibilities. The Board should deny the alternative compliance requested in the amended ODP because it unnecessarily makes future connectivity to the development and services south of the project impossible. The last counterpoint. The alignment proposed for Rollie Moore Drive is not the safest route. This was determined previously in 2003, when City Planner Ted Shepard testified that the alignment shown in what is currently the ODP of record was chosen as the safest alternative. He said that to design a collector roadway that is safe and workable, the alignment cannot deviate too much between its 49 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 two established points and still be pulled far enough north away from the hill on Centre Avenue because of traffic safety. It is true that the 2003 route has problems. It runs through jurisdiction wetlands and the FEMA floodplain. But the solution to these problems is not necessarily to abandon the original plan entirely. The City thought it best to end Rollie Moore as far north as possible, and now, instead, we are looking at an intersection as far south as possible, right at the crest of the hill. What changed between 2003 and 2011 to make the better -- this the better or equal choice? The Board should respect the original safety first intent of the 2003 ODP of record and under Land Use Code 3.6.3(h)(2), find against the amended ODP which does not provide a better or equal condition for Rollie Moore Drive. To summarize: The reservation of secondary use called out in Note 2 of the ODP should be denied and -- as borrowing which is being used to develop more than 25 percent of the PDP employment zone for residential use without modification or rezoning. Furthermore, the determination from staff did not account for existing secondary uses nor did it account for and carry forward previous borrowings. The Board should deny the practice of borrowing of 50 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 secondary use from the floodway parcels to increase the percentage of employment district that is not developed for primary employment uses, contrary to Land Use Code 4.27(d)(2). Note 5 of the 2003 ODP sets a .37 floor area ratio that is a reasonable and substantive method of controlling the scale and intensity of development. The proposed ODP deletes the FAR in order to allow ratios of up to .90 in the associated PDP. The neighborhoods have consistently opposed such intense development. The City Council has imposed a similar FAR to protect other parts of the City from excess development. The Board should honor and sustain the promises made in the past and deny the amended ODP that deletes the FAR. Note 3 on the 2003 ODP of record prohibits secondary uses in the employment district within the flood -- within the hundred-year floodplain. The amended ODP deletes this restriction, allowing the PDP to fill a portion of the floodplain for residential use. This increases the risk to lives and property of neighbors, tenants, and responders contrary to LUC 1.2.2(e). The Board should support the purpose of the Code to protect lives and deny the ODP of record that deletes note 3. The amended ODP contains an alternative compliance request to omit connectivity from the south. This is 51 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 necessary only because the oversized PDP needs to cut Rollie Moore deep into the hillside, which blocks connectivity in compliance with Land Use Code 3.6.3(f). Connectivity in this square mile is already compromised by natural barriers. The ODP necessarily makes the situation worse. Other less disruptive routes for Rollie Moore are possible and could make sensitive connectivity to the south feasible. The Board should reject the amended ODP that blocks connectivity solely to accomplish too large of a PDP. Finally, the amended PDP proposes an alignment for Rollie Moore that may not be as safe as alternatives that modify rather than abandon the alignment shown on the 2003 ODP of record. That route was selected as the safest alternative, and the proposed route is not equal or better as required by the Land Use Code 3.6.3(h)(2). The Board should reject the amended ODP and proposed alternative route with less safety and connectivity in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. At this point in time, because it's kind of a natural break, we're going to give the recorder and anyone in the audience and ourselves a quick break. I'd like to reconvene in exactly 7:30 by that clock, which is about eight minutes from now. Thank you (Break from 7:24 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.) 52 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 CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: We are ready to reconvene. We're back. If you would state your name and address for the record and what homeowners association you represent, and we're allowing you 20 minutes. MR. WALKER: My name is Lloyd Walker. I live in the Rollie Moore West neighborhood. I'm representing a group called Neighbors and Students United. There will be three of us sharing this 20 minutes. Let me explain this group. I'm a member of this group, Neighbors and Students United. We formed to provide support for the development project know as The Grove. Our group is a coalition of representatives of two neighborhoods -- of two neighborhoods, of Avery Park and Rolland Moore West, and a representative of ASCSU on behalf of CSU students. All the groups have been addressing the issues of student housing for a long time. Some of us have served on the committee formed in 1995 that prepared the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 1999 as an element of City Plan. The West Central Neighborhood Plan tailors City Plan principles and policies to neighborhoods west and south of CSU. We engaged in the debate the beginning of 2003 in addressing the occupancy ordinance as one method the City 53 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 uses to address student housing, affordable housing, and preservation of neighborhood character. We represent two neighborhoods in close proximity to CSU which have firsthand experience in matters around student housing. We bring the perspective of students to this discussion through ASCSU, which has long recognized the need for housing to keep up with planned enrollment both now and in the future. Some of the members of our group have participated in the review of the recent City Plan that was adopted, and one of our members serve on the housing committee of University Connection. So we've had a long experience in addressing these issues. The vision articulated by the West Central Neighborhoods Plan is to maintain and enhance the diverse character of the west central neighborhoods, strengthen the collaboration between the City, CSU, and the west central neighborhoods, and continue to provide housing opportunities, infrastructure and lifestyle options to meet the needs of a diverse group of neighborhoods, improve transportation modes, and adapt to meet the needs of dynamic and ever-changing west central neighborhoods. We recommend you approve The Grove ODP as meeting the City goals and visions, as articulated in the West Central Neighborhood Plan and City Plan which serve the greater good of Fort Collins in the following ways. I 54 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 should mention that, obviously, because we're talking about ODP, but there's -- there will be some overlap, perhaps, with PDP issue. First of all, The Grove, as proposed, conforms to the City vision as expressed in the zoning of this site and the surrounding area. The Grove meets the conditions of the west central neighborhood recommendations of creating development opportunities sometimes for higher density housing on properties close to CSU. And in fact, specifically, in the West Central Neighborhood Plan, it states, CSURF land should be used for student housing. It will maintain a wide range of housing opportunities and accommodate innovative solutions, as suggested by the plan. The need for such housing, I think, is evident. I mean, we've got low apartment vacancy rates, rising rents, and this suggests that there's an inadequate supply of such housing, and such housing is needed in the City. The Grove is in a location that's going to make the most efficient use of city infrastructure -- roads, bike paths, utilities -- which is a requirement of the community and neighborhood livability principles of City Plan. The site is centrally located within the City's infill area, and it meets logical criteria for orderly development where infrastructure exists to serve it. The proposed plan will complete this long-planned 55 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 street connection to improve traffic flow in the area and is articulated, again, in the West Central Neighborhood Plan and the transportation principles of City Plan. Centre Drive was completed as an action item in the West Central Neighborhood Plan probably within the memory of most of us in this room. And augmenting the usefulness of Centre Drive will be the completion of Rollie Moore Drive to connect Shields Street and Centre Drive. The routing proposed by Campus Crest will conform to the environmental health and community and neighborhood livability principles of City Plan by locating the street on the far south of the site, away from neighborhoods, away from the wetlands, and away from Spring Creek Gardens. The Grove will conform to the West Central Neighborhood Plan in stating plan principles regarding environmental health, community, and neighborhood livability and transportation, the encouragement of the use of alternative transportation. It's obviously located within convenient biking distance of CSU and well connected to the bike paths and bike lanes. And students tend to be among the biggest users of bicycles and bicycle infrastructure in the city. On average, up to 15,000 bicyclists enter the campus on any school day. And so the location of The Grove will add more housing for a population likely to use bicycles and not add 56 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 to the auto traffic and thereby reduce auto emissions. Campus Crest is further enhancing and encouraging bicycle use by providing a network of bike lanes on-site, to facilitate internal circulation and providing connections to the city bicycle infrastructure. It's providing bicycle facilities far in excess of City requirements. City standards for a project this size requires 25 bicycle parking spaces. They're providing three -- close to 300. So I think that's an over and above enhancement. They also mentioned that -- earlier that the air pump, the fix-it station, the locations for secure bicycles. So I think they're doing a great job of meeting a City goal which is, we want to be able to enhance and promote alternative transportation used, particularly bicycles, and particularly in this segment of the population. The Grove is addressing environmental health policies that the City has followed. It's preserving and enhancing wetlands, including a buffer zone along the wetlands in excess of City requirements. It's adding native plants for a visual buffer and enhancing wildlife habitat. It's dedicating 12 acres to open space for drainage easement, and I think it's demonstrating some new concepts in flood management. So, you know, in summary, I'd say that Campus Crest has met and exceeded City requirements, and has 57 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 provided good alternatives in terms of why you should approve the ODP as it's been presented. I'm a former member of the Planning and Zoning Board. I understand that you -- I've sat in your place. I've made difficult decisions like this. But I think that you should consider the applicant in this case with the ODP where it's met or exceeded City requirements, provided reasonable alternatives, and I would encourage you to vote in favor of the ODP for The Grove. And I'll -- we'll have our next speaker come up. MR. McMASTER: Good evening. I'm Greg McMaster, and I live at 1409 Skyline Drive. I currently am a member of the Avery Park Neighborhood Association steering committee, and I'm also chair of their quality advisory board. I have been a member, in the past, of West Central Neighborhoods Planning Committee, was on the City Plan Revision Committee that was -- about six years ago, I think we met, and had been on the bicycle advisory committee. And the reason -- I also want to say, stress, I'm speaking only for myself. The reason I'm mentioning these affiliations is that I've been involved in neighborhood housing and environmental activities for over 20 years in our community. And this project, obviously, has been an interest to me, and it also has been brought and discussed 58 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 at the Air Quality Advisory Board meetings. And this was done in the context of when we were reviewing the proposed green building Code that the City has been working on. When the proposed project first came to my attention at the Air Quality Advisory Board, I think it was fair to say that the Board members were very concerned about the environmental energy requirements of the proposed heating technologies for such a large project, in terms of aspects such as the climate action plan and so forth. Although City staff did point out that the proposed -- the proposed understanding of it, it was allowable under City Code. Since that time, I've been trying to keep track of the project to the best of my abilities, and one thing I've noticed is that, clearly, the feedback from the community and the involvement of the CSU Institute for the Built Environment has resulted, I think, in a lot of substantial and very beneficial changes to the original proposal. At this point, it looks to me like the project is now looking very positive regarding providing needed student housing in an environmentally positive manner. And I say this especially when I compare it to the existing apartment complexes that I know of that are surrounding CSU and the rental housing that surrounds it. Some of these positive environmental impacts, I 59 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 wanted to point out, and I haven't really heard much discussion about tonight, is that some of these include -- as I understand it, they're working towards LEED certification and the sustainable practices that they've dealing with, with the Institute for the Built Environment. And as Lloyd pointed out, if you look at the location of it, it's perfectly located for a convenient walking, bicycling, and the transit routes that would lead to the main activity center that they'd be involved with, CSU. And there's also -- I've noticed that they've added considerably more bicycle parking on it than Code requires, and I think this also further encourages and supports bicycling, and helps all these things help reduce car travel and the impacts of that. And there's been talk about some of the land adjustment that they've been doing. And last, it kind of seems to me from a -- that if you put students in a smaller building environment, that's a little bit less of an environmental footprint than if you're putting them in residential housing, the student residential housing that's typically surrounding CSU, if they're following the occupancy code. In conclusion, I think the proposed environment, or proposed project, rather, sets a much higher bar than what we've been seeing and community expectations for future apartment complexes. My dream would be that we could find 60 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 incentives and encouragement to apply these higher standards that they're now applying to the project towards -- and community expectations to the renovation of our existing complexes and the investment properties surrounding CSU. So I think they set a nice bar, from what I've seen. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. ECKERT: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your time. My name is Chase Eckert. I've served as the governmental affairs director for ASCSU. I'm a senior, communication and political science major over there. Originally, I am from Fort Collins. I graduated from Poudre High School in 2007. So I'm not somebody who's here for four years and out the door. I mean, I genuinely do care about the direction that the city is going in, and I genuinely do care about these kinds of things, because I'm going to raise a family here one day, and I think it's important that we decide a good direction for the city. On another note, this group that we've kind of formed in response to this whole issue is an interesting composition in and of itself. I mean, these are people whom I've been fighting with for years on student-related issues. You know, we've been at each other's throats. We can't agree on anything. 61 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 But for some reason, we agree on this. And I think the reason is because all of us realize that collectively, it's in the best interests of Fort Collins to -- excuse me -- to, A, begin addressing the student housing issue once and for all; and B, this is good for all the people in all of the different groups that we represent and that we're a part of. I would also say that this project has been uniquely different than some of the other things that I've had experience in. I mean, one, The Grove and Campus Crest have shown a tremendous ability to work on a pretty deep and comprehensive level both with me personally, with CSU, with different aspects of the university, to make this a viable concept and to make this something that works for Fort Collins, and I think that's a good step. We haven't done that in the past. A lot of times, developers come in, they set up shop, they're out of town. But when you talk to students, work with different elements around the university, you get creative solutions that probably aren't going to turn up anywhere else, and you get a design that fits the unique characteristics of Fort Collins. And that's something that we wouldn't get if we hadn't had that kind of approach. I am also drawn to the overall concept that this project represents. So for those of you who are in any way 62 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 familiar with student housing, you know, kids coming out of high school -- and I certainly did this. They graduate from the nice safe, controlled environment of the parents' house, they go to the dorms, and then, boom, they're off in the community. Using myself as a personal example, that step from the dorms to the community can be problematic, to say the least. I was a terrible neighbor my first year out of the dorms. I was rude, loud, inconsiderate, didn't take care of the yard, all those things, because we were ignorant of what it took to be a good neighbor. And I think most people in this room would argue that going into an apartment complex when you're coming out of the dorms, particularly one like the concept that this company is proposing, is a good step, because it's a kind of a moderately controlled environment rather than just throwing people off into the neighborhoods. But here's the reality. It doesn't matter. Because if we don't build more apartment complexes, we can't put more people in apartments. It's that simple. But we can put them in more houses, and we're doing that. In record numbers. We're artificially constricting the rental -- the apartment housing complex, and we're forcing people to live in three-bedroom houses, and they're going further and further away from campus. 63 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 My junior year of college, I lived on Harmony and Lemay to find an apartment complex. Now, how green is that? That's the reality of the market we're living in right now, and I think, tonight, we have a chance to maybe begin the process of changing that. I'm not going to stand up here and tell you the numbers about student housing or about the rental rates in Fort Collins. You all know those. You all know that we're in a precarious situation. This is a precedent-setting moment for us where we decide where we're going with the student housing issue. We've been talking about it for a long time. And make no mistake, other companies are looking at this and deciding whether or not they want to set up shop in Fort Collins. If we pass, we continue the problems. If we pass, we kick the can down the road, and this community has historically been better than that. And we all know it. People come here because we're willing to tackle the most difficult and divisive issues that are presented to us. That's why I stayed here. The Grove is certainly not going to solve all of our problems, and I think we're all aware of that. But it lays the framework for how we want the student housing debate to go from here on out, and I think that's a good step. 64 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 So I'm asking you tonight, as a student, as a long-term resident, to not continue to kick the can down the road. Set a precedent and do what people in Fort Collins do best. Let's solve the problem. Because after all, that's why everybody wants to live here in the first place. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Okay. At this point, we're going to open the podium for public testimony. Could I -- and please keep in mind we have two separate issues here this evening, and there is a lot of spill-over, and I understand that it's hard to stick with just the Overall Development Plan at this point, but could I have a show of hands for how many people want to talk about the Overall Development Plan? All right. I believe -- I wish I could give everybody all night to talk, because I'd love to hear what you have to say. I'm going to limit the time to three minutes, please; and if you do have repetition, we do hear that, and I would like to hear, Yeah, I agree with that point, but in the essence of time, so we can hear both items tonight, I do need to limit it to three. Thank you. And as you come down, please line up so we don't have a lot of space between speakers, and state your name and address for the record, please, and sign in. MS. ALBERT: Hello. My name is Barbara Albert. I 65 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 live at 603 Gilgalad Way. Note Number 4 the amended ODP lists student housing as a type of land use. Number 4 begins, The CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, the Overall Development Plan, is planned to be mixed use development. That may include stick-built housing, office business parks, and it goes on. In fact, student housing is not a Land Use Code designation. Such a designation contradicts the Fair Housing Act. It implies that students are a Federally protected class of citizens, which they are not. Student housing as a designated land use is wrong and should not appear on this or any ODP. Since it is not consistent with our Code. You should vote against the ODP. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Could you just clue us in to what you handed us? MS. LUNIN: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Would you tell us what you've handed us there? MS. LUNIN: Yes. This is a copy of statements that I -- a statement I'm going to read for my husband. He is living and working out of state right now. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MS. LUNIN: My husband, James Lunin (phonetic), is a professional engineer, licensed in the state of Colorado, 66 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 and his specialty is land development. He has worked in this area for about 15 years, and he has been a civil engineer for 30 years. As you're aware, the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan has Rollie Moore Drive classified as a two-lane collector. According to figure 75(f) of LUCAS, a minor collector is used when a collector street is shown on the master plan or when the traffic volume on the street is anticipated to be in the range of 2500 to 3500 vehicles per day. According to the June 2002 transportation impact study for CSURF, Parcel C would generate 5,735 daily trips, thereby causing Rollie Moore Drive to be classified as a collector. Mr. Delich stated in his March 28th, 2011 memorandum that the student housing development would generate 2300 vehicles per day. However, the ODP does not rezone or limit the development of Parcel C. The ODP must be able to stand on its own merit for the maximum allowable development. Once the ODP is approved, Parcel C could be developed in a more intensive use than the proposed student housing development. The most intensive use of Parcel C would generate more than 2500 vehicle trips per day threshold. Given that Master Street Plan designates Rollie Moore Drive as a collector and the most intensive use as a parcel would 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 generate more than 2500 vehicles per day, Rollie Moore Drive should meet the standards for a collector street. The ODP labels Rollie Moore Drive as a minor collector. However, the proposed alignment of Rollie Moore Drive does not meet LUCAS standards for a minor collector in Fort Collins. LUCAS table 7.3 states, the minimum center line radius for a collector street is 600 feet. All of the center line curves of the proposed Rollie Moore Drive fail to meet this standard. The ODP does not show the center line radius; however, the plat for The Grove has Rollie Moore Drive, from my observation, conforming to the layout of the ODP. The plat has the center line radius of Rollie Moore Drive shown. A 275-foot radius was used for three of the four curves of Rollie Moore. The fourth curve has a radius of 450 feet, all of which does not meet the minimum requirement. According to LUCAS figure 7.5(f), the designed speed for a minor collector is 40 miles per hour. Since motorists drive faster than the posted speed limit, the designed speed is typically five or ten miles high -- per -- per -- per hour higher than the posted speed limit. According to Exhibit 316 of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, the 2004 edition, a policy on geometric design of highways and streets for a standard crowned street of minus 68 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 2.0 cross-slope, the minimum radius for 40 miles per hour is 762 feet. If the street is super-elevated, or banked, as to allow a reduction in the radius, depending on the steepness of the cross-slope, for a 40-mile-per-hour speed, the minimum radius that AASHTO recommends is 381 feet, which is still larger than three of the radii for Rollie Moore Drive. Furthermore, AASHTO's 381-foot radius requires a 12 percent super-elevated cross-slope. Due to winter conditions in Northern Colorado, a super-elevated street could result in a vehicle -- in one -- in a vehicle in one lane sliding across the street into the path of another. The vehicle, therefore, with the exception of state highways' super-elevated streets, are typically not used in this area -- may I finish real quick, as fast as I can -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yes. MS. LUNIN: For your information, AASHTO is the standard-setting body which publishes specifications and guidelines that are used in highway street design through the United States. In addition, according to LUCAS Section 7.4.1(a).4, to reduce the appearance of kinks in the street, the minimum lengths of curves shall be designed with the minimum arc lengths as shown in Table 75. According to Table 75, the minimum arc length for a collector street is 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 300 feet. All four curves of Rollie Moore Drive have arc lengths less than the minimum. According to LUCAS Section 8.2.4(a), the horizontal alignment of streets through an intersection shall be designed in conformance with Tables 73 and 74. Inspections may be placed on horizontal curves, provided that the tangent links given in Tables 73 and 74 are provided on the minor street, and the required site distance is met. According to Table 73, the minimum tangent for a minor collector at the nearest intersection is a hundred feet. The proposed alignment of Rollie Moore has zero tangent length at the intersection of Rollie Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. LUCAS Section 7.4.1(a).2(a) states, whenever a minor street intersect the street of higher classification, the tangent measure from the nearest gutter flow line of the intersected street to the point of curvature in the intersecting street shall be provided for safe distances and safe traffic operation. The proposed alignment does not conform to this section of LUCAS. LUCAS Section 7.4.1(a).5 states, the corner site distance provides for vehicles to enter traffic and accelerate to the average running speed. Corner site distance shall be measured as shown in Figure 716. 70 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 According to LUCAS Figure 716, the corner intersection site distance for a design speed of 40 miles per hour for a collector street is 650 feet. As shown on the attached exhibit, the proposed Rollie Moore Drive and Centre Avenue intersection will require a significant site distance easement from Parcel B of the ODP. The site distance triangle would encroach as much as 40 feet into Parcel B. There should be a restriction placed on Parcel B, requiring a site distance easement. In my opinion, the above-mentioned issues could create a safety problem at that intersection. The intersection of two collector streets should meet the LUCAS standards unless it is prevented by physical restrictions. I have observed the location on the proposed intersection, and there are no physical restrictions that would warrant a less-than-minimum tangent length. The approval of the ODP as submitted could result in a substandard intersection, and substandard street would affect public safety. Thank you for your considerations. And you have an example of a tangent intersection compared to what this developer wants to do. And finally, I had some comments I wanted to make, but I'll just give them to you, if you would read them and 71 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 take them into consideration for me. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: You're a fast reader. Okay. Name and address for the record, and please sign in. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Oh. My name is Paul Anderson. I live at 2107 Constitution. I thought I would have -- would give a bit of perspective to this discussion that we have at hand today. A couple of years ago, I was on the housing committee of the university connections project. The joint CSU citizens of Fort Collins, sort of a think tank, to discuss ideas for sustainable, positive, affordable future between the City and CSU. And our specific task, being the housing committee, was to address the housing in the city and the CSU's growing populations of student. The members of the group were rather diverse. There were CSU administrators. There were students, developers, members from Housing Authority, and low income housing people, and also members from the community such as myself. The group met almost weekly for quite a long time, four or five months, maybe six months. I can't quite remember. And actually came up with a variety of premises and actually some goals, and I thought I might just give you a couple of those that we came up with. 72 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 One of the key premises was that the family neighborhoods that surround CSU are critical to the economic health of downtown Fort Collins. And that the City cannot afford to lose its economic base for support of the arts and cultures. Let me repeat that. That one of its premises was that family neighborhoods that surround CSU -- so this is a one- or two-mile radius -- are critical to the economic health of downtown Fort Collins, and the City cannot afford to lose its economic base for support for the arts and culture. The committee recommended a variety of recommendations, and the ones that relate to CSU are rather interesting. One was that CSU would become a world leader for creating sustainable living housing solutions for students. Transportation would be a critical element of any solution and which -- reducing the use of gasoline is an important part of a renewable energy solution. Number two, CSU would commit to creating 10,000 living units over the next 10 years in partnership with private entities. And that existing lands of CSU and the Mason Street corridor would be primary locations for these housing units. And the last would be that CSU would provide engineering help with designs to help mitigate the cost of these smaller projects. I'm sort of amazed that these were 73 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 just -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: 30 seconds. MR. ANDERSON: A minute, it says here. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Oh. MR. ANDERSON: I was amazed at how close these recommendations were followed, even though no one really transferred the information back and forth to each other. We should applaud CSU and The Grove project for their joint effort. We have here a model not only for CSU and future developments but for college campuses everywhere. The Grove projects makes sense economically, environmentally, and for the greater good of the entire city. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. MS. PONCELOW: Good evening. My name is Stacy Poncelow (phonetic). I live at 620 Gilgalad Way. As part of the many meetings we have attended on this proposed ODP, the same picture has been shown outlining the size of the buildings, and we saw it earlier tonight, placed on The Grove property, small brown buildings. I believe this picture is grossly out of proportion and misleading to the public. As stated earlier in our neighborhood's presentation, the FAR limitations on development in central neighborhoods is a means to controlling the intensity of use. In the West Central Neighborhood Plan, it also states that the City, quote, 74 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 should ensure that high-density infill development is sensitive to existing neighborhoods, preserve appropriate open space, and creates or maintains a desirable character for neighborhoods. With the help of my nephew, an architect, I've created two visuals to show you just how insensitive this ODP will be to our neighborhood. This small box represents my neighbor Paul's house, a ranch-style house of 1900 square feet. There are three ranch-style homes from 1700 to 1900 square feet that will be directly impacted by one of the largest of the Campus Crest three-story buildings. At 24,408 square feet, you would be able to fit 12 of Paul's houses in one of these buildings. And you might note that Paul's house will be only 300 feet from this building. So you can imagine what that would look like to their home. There is no amount of trees that'll going to make this desirable living for our neighborhood. Our neighborhood has been asked what we would like different in this ODP. The answer has always been, reduced intensity. Multifamily is fine. Just reduced intensity. To the Rollie Moore neighbors, do you think that students really will want to live in this? When they could live in this, in your neighborhood? Where they can have a driveway, a parking place, a yard? This is not going to 75 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 change your neighborhood. This will only make it worse for all of us. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. FISCHER: Good evening. My name is Gere Fischer (phonetic). I live at 608 Gilgalad. I come to you with no prepared statement. Just some thoughts. I could go. I'm a little bit conflicted, standing in front of you tonight. I get what they're all about. I see the point. And the point is about money. It's always about money. The City wants tax revenue. They want 619 beds to charge rent. It's always about money. I get that. And I make that point specifically to bring up the fact that when we hear things like, This is the best alignment, what's the best alignment when you want to cram 11 buildings into the property that's allowed? I say that simply because I just have to control myself, sometimes, because in many cases, I'm -- I'm with Mike and Ted. I run my own company. I make decisions every day, financially. I'm not here to say, they should make it 400 units or 200. I have no idea. What I do know is that when I hear things like Ms. Ripley saying, We've got through all these, you know, different alignments, and this is the absolute best one we can come up with, and it's plenty safe, and the ODP is fine, 76 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 I always wait for the part of, Well, that's if you want to build this particular project at this density on this land, because that caveat is kind of critical to the whole process. I mean, duh statement, but I have to just bring it up again, that it's not necessarily always remembered. We have Land Use Codes that these guys -- that everybody is fighting for. That's supposed to set the stage for what is and isn't allowable. And sometimes in my own business -- I run a 30-person software company. I sometimes take limiters. I think, well, would 27 acres be good with one building? Yeah, I think that would fit. How about five? Yeah, maybe. Ten seems like it's pushing it. 20. You know, whatever decision you make -- sometimes I take it from the very least all the way to the highest. And you know, decision-making through quantitative analysis, the rental market is hot. These guys want nothing more than to go back to their investors and show that they can deliver on projects they've made statements on. They have a group of people called "the street" that they're beholden to, and I get that. But I do have to point out that we are beholden to more people besides "the street" and the tax dollar. We're beholden to the neighbors and to this community. And we 77 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 need student housing. I'm not here saying we don't. But I think the intensity of use is truly in question, and I would just ask you to consider every time you hear it's the best, maybe it isn't. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. BACON: Hi. I'm Bob Bacon, and I live at 720 Gilgalad. And I have friends on both sides of this discussion. And it really is somewhat heartwarming to see citizen participation with people having strong opinions and points of view on both sides of this issue. At one time, I lived in the neighborhood that is an advocate for this Grove at Campus Crest, The Grove. Now I live in another area. And I think that Gere said it really succinctly. It's too many people. None of us really recognize that we were going to be scot-free and not have a student housing close by. This has been the plan for a long time. And we thought that perhaps the married student housing adjacent to Prospect and Centre might be something similar to what we might have in the area. But when Stacy came with her big box and the small box, what we have here is putting -- is, together, too many units, too many students, in too small an area. None of us really object to student housing and all of the issues that people in the Village West area are saying. And if I were living there, I would say the same thing. 78 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 And I think that the proposal really is -- and the objections which many of us have -- is that we don't object to student housing. We object to cramming so many students into this one area and really potentially destroying a quality of life and causing a myriad of other problems. So I suppose I want to emphasize that none -- much of what has been said is true on both sides. But it is the scope of the project that is being proposed that I think many of us object to. So for what it's worth, listen to us, and try to have Campus Crest come back and say, Yes, we'll do it, but we're going to do it in a much lesser scope in order to be compatible with the neighborhood. And so with that, thank you so much for listening to me. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Next, please? MR. STITTER: My name is Richard Stitter (phonetic). I live at 727 Gilgalad Way. We realize that the university is looking for student housing. And on -- about 1010 West Prospect, there's a project now up for sale that has been approved for two buildings. One will have 59 units. The other would have 60 units. Assuming there's a minimum of two per unit, you've got close to 250 student housing there. We all know that Woody's Pizza went out of 79 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 business, so that property could be used to develop for additional student housing. Also, it's interesting to note that the University had a plot of ground on Centre between Prospect and Lake, but -- and it would have been ideal for student housing. However, they deemed it was a higher priority to put a parking garage there. So I think their complaining about needing additional housing falls on deaf ears when they don't use the properties that they have for that purpose. The major concern is the density, as Bob Bacon mentioned. We did not expect the campus to move into our back yards. The project has a barrier in the wetlands, but they breached that barrier by running -- running Rollie Moore Drive through. It seems to me that you ought to segregate the campus from the residential neighborhood. The traffic flow in day time will be off Centre. At night, it will shift over to Shields, up toward East -- or West Elizabeth and Moby Gym. So the density is the real sticking point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MS. NASH: Hi. My name is Patti Nash, and I live on Manchester Drive in the Village Greens development, and I'm definitely for getting more student housing. I'm in an unusual attendee tonight, because I've been a full-time student at CSU for the past two and a half years. I've been 80 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 taking a full load in addition to working part-time. And living in a neighborhood that when I first moved, there was -- rife with overcrowded student housing. We moved into our house in the summer of 2007, and that first summer was hell, because we had several houses all around our house, and we don't enjoy the wonderful view at Gilgalad Way. We live on a quarter of an acre that's surrounded by houses, and at some point on our property, you can see eight rental houses. And within a five-mile square radius of our house are 25 rental homes. And in the summer of 2007, most of those houses were overcrowded before three unrelated started really taking effect and being enforced. So we moved to a wonderful neighborhood street in Fort Collins, and myself, my husband, and my two teenage children felt like we were embattled. We felt like we were in a war zone, because there was too much density for that -- that type of neighborhood. And it wasn't zoned for that much density. So I really got involved in three unrelated. And I'm one of the people that Chase mentions yelling at, because last year, I was in a public deliberation class, and I really wanted to know why there was so much lack of support for three unrelated. I went to see Wade Troxell, and I yelled at him, and I went to Chase, and I yelled at him, and I wrote a big paper. 81 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 And what I found myself doing, surprisingly, was coming more to the center about three unrelated, because where I had been a resident on my street who just wanted to sleep through the night -- and it wasn't parties. It was the perfunctory lifestyle of students who live in dense situations that aren't meant for dense situations, who park too many cars on the street, on streets that are meant for single families. So the woman that showed the little box and says the students want to live there. They can't live in our neighborhood anymore, because they can't afford to live in houses where only three people can live. Most of the houses have like a $2,000 mortgage a month. Students can only afford to pay between 300 and $500 a month. So when this gentleman talks about density, what he's talking about is a development where students couldn't afford to live, because students, like at Rams Village, pay at the very outside $500 a month. Well, you can't build a development and say it's for students and then make it above the ranges of what students can afford to pay. And I also heard people laughing about the parking garage. Well, let me tell you something. I was late to a lot of classes in the past two and a half years because I could not find parking with my parking sticker. CSU will sell you a parking sticker, but then it's up to you to find 82 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 parking that's legal for your sticker, and there wasn't enough parking before that parking garage. So it was a very needed item. Now, I got on board, and I fought to make three unrelated happen in this city, but you can't turn your eye away from what the students were doing. I used to applaud when five and six students would move out of the neighborhood house on my street, but then I had to ask myself, where did they go? It's mid-semester. They didn't have a choice for living. They had to break the law and hope they wouldn't be found out, but when they were found out -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MS. NASH: -- where did they go? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: We really do need to try and adhere to the time limit. But we do hear you. Thank you. MS. NASH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Next, please? MS. POTTER: Hi. My name is Jane Potter. I live at 627 Gilgalad Way, and I've lived in Fort Collins for about 30 years. My husband and I built our home about 13 years ago. We've always known and expected something to be built in the CSURF land adjacent to our home. This is not a surprise to us. Tonight, I want to talk a little bit about the 83 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 erosion of the employment potential in the CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology. The Centre for Advanced Technology includes much-needed prime employment real estate in the center of Fort Collins. One of the major issues during the last mayoral campaign in an election was the need to improve employment opportunities in the city. While desirable temporary construction jobs will be created by the project under review this evening, the permanent, long-term employment force is only a few people. Any other project built on this site would most likely create an equal number of construction jobs and potentially create many more permanent positions. Many parcels in this ODP were zoned for employment as primary development when zoning maps were redrawn in 2001. Since then, Centre Avenue employment zone has been eroded in the following ways: The Gardens on Spring Creek is an 18-acre site developed with all secondary uses. The residences on Spring Creek is 2.4 acres of secondary uses taken from an employment zoned parcel. The re -- excuse me. The remaining employment zone area will significantly erode further due to the amended ODP and other development in progress, such as the Larimer Canal Number 2 relocation, which will take two acres of secondary use from Parcel B, which is zoned for 84 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 employment. The amended ODP takes up to 24 additional acres of employment zoned for secondary uses. If this ODP is approved, 44 acres of employment development potential will decrease to just 20 acres. I ask that the Board deny the amended ODP before it tonight. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Next, please? MR. KERNAN: May I do just a few slides? It's only three minutes. I hope you can read my writing. Good evening. My name is Ed Kernan (phonetic). I'm at 632 Gilgalad. I listened to our arguments tonight, and it sounds like many of us are on the same side, actually. I've had opportunity to work as a soldier in the State Department, where we tried to find things that we agree upon. We all here agree upon that we need student housing. First, I want to thank each of you individually for your work. If you ask many athletes who have achieved some greatness, they will tell you that it is extremely difficult to become number one, and it's even more difficult to stay number one, and that is the type of challenge that you and this Board face every time you meet, because we have a number one community. Tonight, we discuss the ODP, whose ultimate goal 85 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 we all know, and I'm going to talk about the ODP. The ODP is for an infill area that we've talked about for student housing. The ODP is primarily considering the realignment of Rollie Moore Drive for this housing project, and I want you to consider the impact beyond the immediate area surrounding the ODP and really look beyond some of the statistics, and that's what I'm going to be talking to you about. So I'd like to introduce you to CSU census tract 11.11. It's a square mile bounded by College, Drake, Prospect, and Shields. It has residences in this square mile that only occupy a quarter of that square mile. It's just up in the northwest corner. The tract's openness is deceptive, given that many of the areas are condoned off, and we've talked about that. We've got Federal facilities. We'll see these things. The tract does have a significant relief feature, this hill, which impacts the noise levels in that valley, as well as the viewsheds. And the tract has at least two major water features that I think you've talked about. This is the overhead view that we've talked about, and it's pretty much the map we showed earlier. And one more, if you're not absolutely 100 percent sure what I'm talking about, by gosh, here's 2400. Next, please. The geography, of course, is beautiful. This is 86 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 the land that we'd be developing, looking from the other end. That's the way it looks from The Gardens on Spring Creek. So this map here gives you an idea of where the tract is going to be; and of course, we have Centre Avenue as a commuting. Rollie Moore is going to connect Shields to Centre Avenue. And of course, you have shopping over to your right. The problem with this whole thing is, as you see, we start building all the barriers that are around this particular property that inhibits students -- and I don't want to just leave it at students, because our argument is not students. It's residents. It's the -- it's the intensity, as we've talked about. There -- go back. Can you go back? Previous. There you go. Of course, we have the one way under the railway tracks. We're hoping for an elevator, I guess. And it's very difficult. It's a mile-long trip, at least a mile, to get to the store from The Grove right there, if that would go in. It's not the half mile as it looks. Go ahead. So here's your trip to the store right now before the Masonville corridor. On the way home, you have this -- go ahead and hit it, Kevin. You can see that she's trying to navigate this piece of territory, this traffic here -- go ahead; hit it again -- and of course, 87 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 this is where this bus is coming through. We're hoping that the Mason Street corridor addresses these questions. There's a lot of opposition in the city, even though it's -- you know, it's been approved, and there's even some opposition in the City staff, I know. Go ahead. So this is the problem. We're building this area in this confined -- building this property in this specific area that's fairly intensive use that is, by design -- people are supposed to go one of three directions, and two of those directions take them into our neighborhoods, including the CARE Housing and the Sunderling and Gilgalad. Go ahead. Now, let's compare that to another housing unit, Campus Crossings. Equivalent number of people. We've got Elizabeth Drive. It points directly to Elizabeth, and it gets them out that way. They're shopping across the street. One more. This is the new one that we've just approved here in the City. 660 -- 76 beds that occur on College. That's bigger than The Grove, and it's almost as far away from us as The Grove. It's probably a little bit further away. We have no problem with that because that makes sense. It's on that particular path. It makes sense. Go ahead. So this is the problem that we see. And the intensity of that building is an issue. 88 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 Go ahead, Kevin. So to get to the university -- I want to put in my bid -- this is my ride every day. So you get to navigate this car -- or this traffic all the time. And this -- I sat there for three minutes before I took this picture yesterday. This happens all the time, every day. This is dangerous. Go ahead. So this makes sense. Next one. This makes sense. Next one. One more. I question whether that makes sense. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MS. BURNETTE: Good evening. My name is Sarah Burnette (phonetic), and I live at 714 Gilgalad Way. I'd like to talk about predictability and promises that are made through -- that have been made through prior land use decisions. My family moved here in '96 and settled in South College Heights. As a lot of the neighbors who are here in support of the project, we also experienced quality of life issues in our neighborhood. And finally when we were being awakened too many times at night, we decided we needed to move. We didn't want to. We -- we loved our neighborhood. Before -- I want to set the context, because before we bought our next house, we wanted to be -- to understand to -- what to expect. I called the City, and I 89 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 was directed to Ted Shepard, who I've met now a number of years later, and he explained to me what the zoning areas were and about the connection to Northerland and how that might occur. We learned about CSURF's plans for the parcel where neighborhoods were told -- neighbors were told in the '03 CSURF amendment, CAT amendment, that the MMN portion of the site might be developed for married and international students and their families. With what we felt was a reasonable understanding of the facts, we went ahead with the purchase of our home. I can assure you that if we thought for a moment that ever a project of this scale could go in adjacent to our neighborhood on Parcel C, we would have never considered purchasing our home. We trusted the promises made by the City and by CSURF. We trusted the City Plan. We trusted the Land Use Code. This is not what was promised at that time; and not only that, it's not what can be built with the existing ODP. The FAR ratio, removal. There is no evidence -- I provided copies to the applicant and to you of the 2003 review process. There's nothing in there that says, that was put there at CSURF's option. There was no -- there's no proof one way or another. One thing that they certainly didn't emphasize, it also removes the restriction on building in the floodplain, 90 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 secondary uses in the floodplain. This project puts two parts of two buildings and two public streets in a floodplain, directly across from neighbors who are already in the floodway. I understand Chapter 10 of the City Code allows that, the Municipal Code allows that, but take a look at the purposes of the Land Use Code which were cited earlier, and you need to seriously consider the changes that are being made that allow incompatibility and life safety. I wanted to talk about the West Central Neighborhoods Plan. We'll be submitting something to you later. But it -- it does talk about some of the things that the neighbors have talked about with trying to locate housing close to CSU. But it also says that it's imperative that further developments not be permitted in the floodplains in the west central neighborhoods. We are a part of the west central neighborhood. It talks about the importance of -- of the CSURF parcel and to make sure that the neighborhood south of Prospect are not adversely impacted by the development that goes in on the CSURF parcels. And -- and the zoning is not being complied with. They're looking for ways around the intent of the zoning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue? 91 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 MR. BROCHE: Good evening. My name is Doug Broche (phonetic). I live at 1625 Independence Road, known as the Rollie Moore neighborhood. Been a lot of different points of view expressed tonight. What it seems to boil down to is that we have a problem in this town. We have a problem with adequately housing our students. That problem is only going to get worse as time goes on, when you look at the projections of the -- the projected growth of CSU. And what -- what is really the problem is, that no one wants to deal with this particular issue where they live. We would all like to live in a perfect place. We would all like to live in a neighborhood that is just -- just -- just utopia. But unfortunately, in Fort Collins, for the foreseeable future, that's not going to happen. But what we need to do is come together as a community and work on this problem and try to settle it as best we can. What is -- what is really unfortunate about this is that it is pitting neighborhoods against neighborhoods. I mean, tonight is a perfect example of how that is happening. Campus Crest development has gone above and beyond the call of duty in trying to work with the community and come up with a complex that is going to work in this particular area. It's not perfect. It's maybe not the 92 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 perfect site for a development. But we need to be looking at possibilities of where we can house the students that are coming to our town. They're a big part of our town, and we need to welcome them here and provide adequate housing for us -- for them. Our neighborhoods can no longer take the burden of the student housing as it is existing now. Other developers are looking at Fort Collins. Fort Collins is a -- is one of the most prime markets in developing, is the student market here. And other developers are looking at Fort Collins, watching this process proceed, to see just how it plays out. We need to make sure we don't send the message to these developers that we are not friendly, and we are not receptive, and we do not realize the problem that we face. We need to face this problem. We need to work together to solve this problem and provide housing for students. And The Grove is certainly a step in the right direction for doing so. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MS. STICKLER: If I may have a few minutes. My name is Heather Stickler (phonetic). I live in the neighborhood, and I'm a Fort Collins citizen. I'd like to talk about employment district erosion equating to fewer jobs for Fort Collins citizens. The Centre Avenue corridor has been planned for a long time as a 93 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 high-tech employment district for years. If you go to the CSURF website and you dig around just a little bit, they say on their own website that their plans are to use the remaining developable land in this ODP for, quote, a unique mixed use development, end quote, with an objective of creating a, quote, mutually beneficial relationship between CSU's research programs and private industry. And I think that Fort Collins lands need some developable land for businesses to build upon. Fewer employment zone acres means a reduced ability to retain, expand, and attract businesses that diversify and grow our economic base. Fewer employment zone acres is not conducive to effective partnering with the business community to underpin a healthy economy. If this ODP is approved, the door is open to dramatic reductions in land available for primary jobs, creating developments. Secondary uses will consume a majority of remaining developable employment district land. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. MS. STICKLER: You're welcome. SPECTATOR: Mr. Chair, is it possible (inaudible). He's on a (inaudible) mission. He did video something, and I just wanted to know if we could show it tonight. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Does it apply to the ODP? 94 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 SPECTATOR: Yes, it does, to the ODP. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: As a citizen, you can bring us anything you feel is appropriate as long as it's within the four-minute time frame. SPECTATOR: Okay. SPEAKER: Three minutes. SPECTATOR: Can I plug it in? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I'm so sorry. How many people are wanting to speak at this point? Once we close citizen participation, that'll be your last chance to talk to this portion of the meeting. So it looks this will be our last one. Is that microphone on? MR. OLT: Yes. SPEAKER: No. Do we have some kind of sound coming out of this? I guess not. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: No. Not yet. SPECTATOR: I don't think that works. SPEAKER: I think you're right. Would you like to read his -- no. So we don't have sound for the computer. So -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: You're more than welcome to -- to recap his thoughts. SPEAKER: I can barely understand his thoughts. He's a very bright guy. And he knows this stuff, and I don't. 95 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 Can we turn in -- just, I think we've got -- or turn in the video or a two-pager? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: A video at this point would not facilitate our discussion, because it has to come to a conclusion tonight, and we have no way of viewing it. SPEAKER: I understand. Okay. Well, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you for your -- SPECTATOR: I can recap it like in one minute. MR. SMITH: We do have testimony from Mr. Podmore in writing. SPECTATOR: Oh, it's in there? MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. SPECTATOR: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. All right. Well, the public testimony portion of the meeting has concluded. SPECTATOR: Mr. Chair, could we have a couple more speakers, please? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: No. We've closed it. I asked. We closed. And it's -- be mindful that we're two and a half hours into this, and we still have a whole 'nother presentation to go. We probably have another hour at least on this, and that puts us to 2:00 o'clock if we stay at the same pace. And we're trying to be mindful that we do need to hear both issues tonight to make a proper 96 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 decision on both. So I do have to be a little firm in our time management. So in the next step of the process is the applicant response to public testimony. If they choose. MS. LILEY: Mr. Chair, at the outset, maybe, I have a question about Mr. Podmore's letter. I don't remember who asked that question about -- was the letter from Dr. Podmore? SPECTATOR: I asked about it. MS. LILEY: Okay. What letter were you referring to? Just so we don't have any confusion on the record, to make sure that -- SPECTATOR: He has written a letter. Is it in the book? MS. LILEY: Because I want to make sure that it really is, if. . . MS. SCHMIDT: Well, there's a letter, and the one that we have is part of citizen participation at the City Council meeting on April 19th. So, I mean, I haven't looked further. Is that the one you were referring to, Andy? SPECTATOR: There's another one. MS. LILEY: Well, I just -- I just wanted to make -- to be clear about whether there was or wasn't. Just a -- just a few comments. I've got a few, and then I think Linda and Nick will address the rest. 97 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 With regard to the secondary uses, again, it's not a situation where we say, Well, just take that note off. I mean, this is an approved ODP. It's an approved note. It was approved in 2003 under the same Land Use Code. And so it was found to be in compliance with the Land Use Code. And as we said, we're fine not even changing the wording on the note. Having said that, I hear the concern. I heard Brigitte say it. I heard some of the neighbors say it, about borrowing from secondary uses or from the employment and putting them elsewhere. That -- that isn't the intent. That's not how CSURF has ever interpreted that note. I don't think the staff has ever interpreted it that way. Nor would we. We would be very much amenable to working out a condition with the staff that could turn that into a positive statement to say something to the effect of, that no -- no E, developable E, zone would have less than 75 percent. I mean, something along those lines, so you're turning it into a positive statement, so Brigitte, your scenario could never occur, because that isn't what's intended here. So we would offer that up. We do want to keep the same note that was approved in 2003 but have no problem at all with making it say what we all intend it to say, because 98 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 we don't want to borrow. We don't want to reduce those E employment percentages. I think Linda is a going to talk in a minute. There's also had a little bit of confusion. This project will not, in fact, eat up 24 acres of E employment. It will -- it will take up seven. And Linda's got the math on that, and she can talk about that a little bit more. With regard to the FAR note. That's an interesting one, because in 2003, when the FAR note was put on, there was in Land Use Code requirement. You didn't have to comply with any FAR. If it was put on, it had to be a voluntary condition because this Board would have absolutely no legal authority to put a FAR note on that was not required by the Land Use Code. It's not required today. And so I'm wondering, what would be the basis for not allowing the removal of the voluntary note when it wasn't required in 2003 and it's not required now? Even so, this project does meet the FAR note. If you calculate it by the method that is embedded in the note itself, it meets it. And that's the way you would have to do it. If the note was put on and there was no Land Use Code provision and the note says, Here's how you calculate it, then we meet it. If you apply a different calculation, no, probably not, but why would you do that? So, again, I think there's just a little bit of confusion about -- about 99 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 the FAR note. Linda's going to talk about alternative compliance. And I think Matt and Nick want to briefly address the letter that was read into the record by Mr. -- Mr. Lunin's wife. The other comment I guess I would make is that a lot of the comments tonight, although they were -- they were valuable comments, and I'm sure everybody wants to hear them, a lot of them related to the PDP and not the ODP, because they were talking about buildings and, you know, what's the buffer setback from the neighborhood and compatibility. We've not had a chance, of course, to put on all of our information about how we meet all of those standards. So I would just ask you to keep that in mind, and we were fine with letting that into the record, but it really is a PDP issue, and that can have a full discussion. Likewise, the density comments, and we'll get into that more with the PDP, but as you all know, there are minimum densities, and you have to comply with minimum densities, and this project is in the lower -- is on the lower end of the scale. And Linda, again, will be dealing with that a little bit more on the -- on the PDP presentation. I think with that, I'm going to let Linda pick up 100 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 on a couple of comments, and then maybe Nick and Matt. MS. RIPLEY: Okay. Thank you, Lucia. Quick, on the crazy secondary land use. I heard all of these neighbors talk about eroding the E zone, the amount of E zone, and this is -- this is just terribly confusing. And Brigitte, you took it the negative way, and obviously, half the neighborhood did as well. So I think Lucia's idea of drafting a different note that makes it clear that we just take the undevelopable out of the equation, the developable land that is left, which is about 44 acres, that would be 75 percent E and 25 percent secondary. So that's -- that's all we want, and that can just be made very clear. Enough on that. Alternative compliance. There was -- Mr. Feinman said that it shouldn't be approved, that it didn't meet the alternative plan criteria. The alternative plan criteria that you have to consider are that the alternative minimizes impacts to natural areas. Obviously, we do that. That's the whole purpose of asking for it, is to not disturb the wildlife corridor or the wetlands or the floodway, that it fosters nonvehicular access. I think we've made a good case that we're fostering bike and ped access to a very high level, but we do not exceed the level of service, and our traffic study confirms that we do not, that he we enhance connectivity. We've done 101 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 that by extra bicycle connectivity. And then the last point is that you provide subarterial access. And he assumed that Centre Avenue was an arterial. He spoke -- and it is not. It's on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. And that's how his neighborhood gets to the neighborhood center that is south of them. I don't think it's a ridiculous out of -- out-of-the-way way to get to a neighborhood center in your square mile. Centre Avenue does carry a lot of traffic. I'll agree with John on that. But normally, the alternative compliance asks you to look at the square mile, and Centre Avenue kind of goes diagonally through the middle of it. So I think we clearly meet the objective of all those criteria that have been put in place for alternative compliance. Again, density is not something that you typically look at in the ODP other than to say that any PDP that comes through has to meet the minimum densities. The minimum density in MMN is going to be 12 DU per unit. We barely meet the minimum. E at seven DU per acre. I think that's the only ones that I'm going to cover. I'll let Nick and Matt speak a little bit about the Lunin letter, and then we'll move on CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. DELICH: Matt Delich, Delich Associates, 102 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 traffic transportation engineers. The -- speak to the last point that Mr. Feinman made with regard to the location of the Centre Avenue intersection. The former location or -- well, actually, the existing location right now, which is at the bottom of the hill, across from one of the Federal buildings, and the proposed location which is at the -- the crest of the -- the hill, just to the north of where the ditches cross Centre Avenue. There's really no foundation that the new location is less safe or less operationally efficient than -- than the former location. Both are four-legged intersections, and they're both across from other driveways that access employment centers. And both of them have adequate sight distance, meet adequate sight distance criteria by the City of Fort Collins. So those issues, in my opinion, are not valid. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Matt, we'd like to ask you one quick question, please. Sorry to interrupt. MS. SCHMIDT: Well, Matt, I was just wondering. You're saying that they do meet the sight distance, and so are you saying -- what part of his argument is not correct, then, the definition of the LUCAS standard or -- or -- so you're saying it doesn't need a 660-foot sight distance, 103 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 that Parcel B issue, or. . . MR. DELICH: Well, Mr. Feinman that the -- the new location had to be as good or better than the former location of the intersection. And my contention is that it -- as good as. It meets the sight distance criteria. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Are we referring to the same information? MS. SCHMIDT: Yes, I'm just -- and you're talking about Mr. Lunin's letter? MR. DELICH: I'm talking about Mr. Feinman's last point. MS. SCHMIDT: Oh, Mr. -- okay. All right. Sorry. I must be talking about something else. I'm sorry. I was confused. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I thought we were -- MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: -- possibly doing that. MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Are we good there, or do we have more questions? MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I presume we'll discuss some of that later, the other -- Mr. Lunin's point, or do you want to discuss that, or does -- I don't know if Linda was going to -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Were you given a copy of 104 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 this? MR. DELICH: No. No, I was not. And it was very difficult to absorb that as a -- MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I think it would be -- let me ask Paul this. Would it be relevant to give Matt this? MR. ECKMAN: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: And then refer that question during Board discussion? And then you can -- SPECTATOR: The applicant has a copy. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. So -- MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah. So it's in there. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. So -- MS. SCHMIDT: So -- he can get one from us. That's fine. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: And then we'll refer that -- we'll refer back to that question at a later point during Board discussion. MR. HAAS: Nick Haas with Northern Engineering in Old Town. I may be able to offer a little clarity to some of the roadway and traffic, you know, geometry issues. Those are typically PDP criteria that we don't have anything in the record at ODP that would either support or deny those very specific LUCAS criteria that was referenced. We -- if 105 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's okay with the Board, we can get into that at PDP. That would allow staff, who's reviewed the PDP application, to say whether it does or does not comply with LUCAS. It's not a requirement of ODP, and there would be nothing within the ODP itself that would be able to, you know, ascertain whether the roadway geometry meets certain radii or tangent -- MS. SCHMIDT: But so what happens, then, if we approve the road on the ODP that doesn't meet those? MR. HAAS: The staff can perhaps correct me if I'm wrong, but the ODP roadway alignments are not intended to be that -- that specific. So things such as center line radii, arc lengths, tangents, are not really discernable nor locked into with an ODP approval. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Do you want to speak to that -- STAFF MEMBER: We would concur with Nick's viewpoint. Frankly, an ODP is not an engineer drawing. It's not required to be signed, stamped, by a civil engineer. And we don't mean to -- I just think -- it could certainly be part of the discussion for the PDP, but my -- I guess my personal thought, and Paul and Ted and others may have other viewpoints, is that it isn't necessarily relevant for the ODP discussion. But we can. . . MS. SCHMIDT: I guess -- would we be somewhat 106 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 hampered by the fact that we want to create an intersection there, aligning with the other street on the other side, so although the placement won't be possibly exact, are we -- I mean, we have to sort of line up with that other road. STAFF SPEAKER: I think there's certain levels here. So I think, certainly, a discussion about whether or not that location in alignment with the forestry building across the street can certainly be, I think, an ODP type of discussion. I would just perhaps offer the thought that tangent lengths and curve radii are frankly not -- you can't discern what those are -- MS. SCHMIDT: Sure. STAFF SPEAKER: -- on an ODP. MR. LINGLE: Could I follow up on that, Brigitte? I'm assuming, then, that the intersection location, which I think would be relevant from an ODP standpoint, that intersection location, since it aligns with the access to the Federal building across the street, had been evaluated? STAFF SPEAKER: That's correct. MR. LINGLE: At that point, so that would determine the site distance triangles, for instance, would work? STAFF SPEAKER: Specific to that intersection, the City staff looked at that crossing and thought it would be a suitable location if Rollie Moore were to be realigned, and 107 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 in fact, it's probably the only location, I guess, other than where it's currently designed in which would feel that it would meet standards, basically. Anything else shorter, closer to the existing Rollie Moore would probably require a variance request due to spacing requirements. And Ward may want to add to that. MR. STANFORD: Good evening, Board. Ward Stanford with the City of Fort Collins Traffic. The intersection aspect, one, that they have to meet criteria wherever they go. They either are aligned with others, or there's a set amount of distance that they have to be offset. So they would have to still be governed by that at the PDP stage. That's why in the ODP it's somewhat generalized. Have we looked at that location? Yes, I physically have driven out there, set up there, looked to see the sight distance problem. I do not see a sight distance problem. I have gotten out of my vehicle and walked around the area where the road is supposed to be as well as the other connection up by the Spring Creek Gardens, and both of them have fine sight. They meet our criteria. MS. SCHMIDT: Ward, can I also ask. What is the on the Master -- City's Master Street Plan right now? Is that design -- is there a road there penciled in on the plan 108 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 that it makes the connections to? MR. STANFORD: There is the -- Rollie Moore is shown on the Master Street Plan connecting from Shields to Centre Avenue. And the alignment is shown in a given method or a given manner, but that is not hard. It's just an aspect that we want a connector street in there, a connecting street in that location. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And what is that connecting street designated right now? As a collector, or just a connector? MR. STANFORD: Collector. MS. SCHMIDT: Collector. Okay. MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chair, I don't know if the applicants finished their response, but it's starting like -- starting to sound like -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yeah, I know. MR. ECKMAN: -- we're getting into the staff part of it, which comes after the applicant response. MR. HAAS: I did have one more response, and it was with respect to the modification of the floodplain note, and maybe it is getting into staff. Because that was that specific staff request of the floodplain administrator, primarily to make it in line with current Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code for regulating floodplains and not allowing the ODP to -- they can further expound upon that, but there 109 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 was no intentional attempt to allow or disallow any uses that would be contradictory to the municipal Code. So specifically address floodplain comments. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. So we're in the phase of the applicant response to public testimony. Do we have anything further? Okay, no? Next phase is -- okay. We do. MR. DELICH: If I may. I looked at Mr. Lunin's letter, and I can speak a little bit to that, and then you can ask me questions. Is that fair? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yes, sir. MR. DELICH: In the second paragraph, Jim referred to the 5,735 trips for Parcel C, which was in the -- the ODP that was approved or of record in 2003. And then the new proposal, which is the PDP, The Grove housing project, plus the parcel of land which is just in front of it, to the east of it, which was assumed to be office development, employment development. That combination of The Grove development and that office development would generate the 20 -- actually, I think he marks it down as 23 -- 2300 vehicle trip ends per day. He refers to that as just the student housing project. But it's the combination of both the employment use and the student housing use. The student housing project would generate on the 110 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 order of about 1,550 trip ends per day. So that's a correction in Mr. Lunin's letter. In that second paragraph. I'm not correcting his letter. I'm just pointing out an error. And I guess, do you have questions on that? Let me ask that at this point. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Jennifer does. MS. CARPENTER: I guess I'm a little confused. The original ODP; what caused the trip generation to go down by more than half from the original ODP? MR. DELICH: Because we had the whole site in the analysis, in the traffic analysis, as office. MS. CARPENTER: What do you mean by the whole site? MR. DELICH: All of Parcel C. We used a higher -- the highest and -- use in that particular site, in the 2003 ODP and traffic analysis. And the fact of the matter is, the -- the proposal, if you will, the student housing project and a potential office development in the front, would generate around 2300. So the point being, this proposal will reduce the traffic in the ODP. Generated in the ODP. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. MR. DELICH: But by that amount, 5700 down to 2300. MS. CARPENTER: Because you're using a smaller 111 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 area? Is that why -- I'm still trying to -- MR. DELICH: Because of change of land use. Because we did not have any -- in that analysis that we did in 2003, we had no residential in the traffic analysis. MS. CARPENTER: So that's what made it higher? MR. DELICH: Correct. We had it all employment. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. MS. SCHMIDT: But the MMN was already there, wasn't it? MR. DELICH: That is correct. We just -- in our analysis, we just used a worst case, if you want to call it that. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MR. DELICH: Other questions on Mr. Lunin's letter with regard to traffic? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Doesn't look like it. MR. DELICH: Okay. MS. CARPENTER: Maybe at the PDP. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Just to confirm, does the applicant have anything further at this point? Okay. We'll now move to staff response to public testimony. Does staff have. . . MR. ECKMAN: Staff can respond not only to public 112 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 testimony but also to any comments that were made by the applicant in response to public testimony. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MR. OLT: Well, we had a lot of -- as you say, a lot of comments and concerns, and I don't know if there are specific ones that the Board would be interested in. But you know, as I look through, there was discussion about the traffic, traffic counts, collector versus minor collector street. I think that's just been addressed, if I'm not mistaken. There was discussion about the -- the floor area ratio, the FAR being important to controlling the intensity of the use. We have stated on several occasions that, you know, at the ODP level, the FAR is really irrelevant. It's not a Land Use Code requirement of the -- of the Overall Development Plan. Therefore, we have no objection to that previous comment being taken off of the current amended Overall Development Plan. A lot of discussion about the intensity of the project. Remember, this is MMN, medium density mixed use neighborhood. It does carry with it a minimum 12 dwelling unit per acre requirement that we'll be discussing further in the PDP discussion. And this project is approximately 14 dwelling units per acre, so it's really barely over the minimum requirement for that property for that location. 113 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 I'm not sure. There was a comparison to other projects, one on Prospect and I'm not sure where that one was. Another student housing project. Woody's piece of property. Again, they're going out of business. Their belief is there's a proposal there. I'm not really familiar with that one. However, you know, that aside, I don't know how many more units are being proposed, if in fact, they're going to be student housing, but how they relate to a student housing project in this location, to me, would be somewhat irrelevant. Permanent long-term employment of the project, being short-term. And again, I think that -- first of all, as we look at the employment portion of this, and I know there's concern about the dilution of that employment, recognize the fact that with Parcels D and E being addressed with that note about being in the floodway and probably being able to develop only secondary uses, which is really very true, that still leaves approximately 44 acres of developable land in the employment district. As has been said, there's between seven and nine acres of employment in Parcel C, just -- just seven to nine acres, so -- and the majority of that is going to develop as some sort of nonretail, commercial -- or nonresidential commercial retail use. There is no other secondary use currently, even on 114 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 Parcel B. I think there was a mention that the current facility, the ropes facility on Parcel B is a secondary use. That's not correct. There was lengthy discussion between Planning and Zoning, and that actually is more addressed in the Parks Master Plan and is considered to be a parks recreation and other open space use as a primary use in the E employment zoning district. So currently, in this overall -- within the bounds of this Overall Development Plan within the 96 acres, on the current Overall Development Plan and this proposed amended plan, there are no secondary uses. The only secondary use would be a small portion of the student housing project that does overlap into the E employment portion of the Overall Development Plan. I really think that's all the responses I had at this time relative to these comments and would certainly entertain any questions of the Board. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: All right. MR. LINGLE: Steve, just let me follow up on that last part of what you're talking about. And I think I heard Linda say, and then you also said, that the net change in the E zoned land, Parcel C, is between seven and nine acres; is that right? Between the currently approved ODP and the proposed ODP? Did I hear that right? MR. OLT: I said the seven to nine acres, and I 115 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 believe, you know, Linda had thrown the number seven out previously. The seven to nine acres, the way we read it, is the amount of acreage that's in the E employment portion of Parcel C. Parcel C is a total of 31 acres in size, if I'm not mistaken. And seven to nine acres is in the E employment portion of Parcel C. That line actually dissects the Parcel C, north and south, but it's only a third, let's say, of Parcel C. MR. LINGLE: Okay. I guess that's the same result of what I was saying, would be that the change in what was -- what would be remaining developable E zoned land would be seven acres less with the new ODP than the previous -- or the current ODP. Is that correct? MS. CARPENTER: Than the 2003 ODP? MR. LINGLE: Well, the current one. MS. SCHMIDT: The ODP essentially stays the same. It's just the fact that when we -- if the PDP is approved, that portion of it will be in employment land versus being in the MMN zone. But I thought the dotted line or whatever between MMN and E is the same in each ODP, correct? MR. OLT: That is correct. That has not changed. MS. SCHMIDT: So it's just the fact that this PDP is using some of the employment land, but as far as the ODP is concerned, the amount stays the same in each ODP. 116 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 MR. LINGLE: Right. MS. CARPENTER: As the previous one note that we just approved. MR. LINGLE: All right. And then -- (Board comments off the record.) CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: We're trying to be mindful in taking a break every hour and a half for the -- are you okay? We'll keep going just a little bit longer. MR. LINGLE: Steve, maybe I'm just being dense about this. Could you restate what you said relative to the FAR? It's not relevant as the ODP. MR. OLT: That's correct. It's not a requirement. It's not a standard that applies to the Overall Development Plan. MR. LINGLE: Okay. But one argument that the neighborhood made was that if it's -- if it would be applicable as the PDP -- maybe it's -- not, but if it would be at the PDP and we approve something at the ODP, how does that jibe? MR. SHEPARD: Neither are applicable. There is no floor area ratio standard for a ODP. There is no floor area ratio standard for the MMN. There is no floor area ratio standard in E when it comes to multifamily. And since we're in response, I would like to respond that the reference to the floor area ratio being decreased in the NCL and NCM 117 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 zones, that was repealed. There was no reduction in the FAR in the two Old Town neighborhoods. As you know, that ordinance was repealed. MS. SCHMIDT: So I'd like to ask, then, here we have -- let's say we have an ODP with these zones attached, and the notes say floor air ratio in the zone will be .37. So are you saying that even if it was in there, that would be ignored at the PDP because there was no requirement? Or -- MR. OLT: It can't be applied, and again, as Ted said, you know, the floor area ratio does not apply to either the MMN or E zoning districts at the PDP level. So therefore, it really is irrelevant to either the ODP or the PDP. Why it was put in that ODP in 2003, we frankly don't know. MR. CAMPANA: You know, I've been thinking about that a little bit. A lot of times, we'll condition ODPs, and it's conceivable that when the ODP was approved for some reason, there was horse trading going on so the applicant agreed to having that note being put on the ODP. I mean, is that possible? MR. OLT: I guess possible. I can't speak to whether that's what happened. MR. CAMPANA: Right. But it sounds to me like it's not relevant anyway because the current PDP plan, when 118 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 we get to looking at that, is below that ratio anyways. MS. SCHMIDT: Depending how you figure it, MR. CAMPANA: I think that's part of the confusion, because when we look at net area, gross area, in both the secondary uses and on the FAR, it changes the math. And I heard Linda say that it doesn't matter. Leave it on there, because she's at, I think .29 -- is that .29? .25. But then when I look, you know, at Page 2 of the plan set or site plan, I can't find the .25 on there unless I'm missing it somewhere. I see you're calculated by block, and that could be part of the confusion. But when you look at the numbers that you present with regards to blocks, they're all pretty high, you know, .53, .69, .49. So can we get some clarification on that as to how it's calculated and show that it is below that .37? Because then maybe we can just get beyond that, and it's irrelevant if the project should be developed to that standard or not. (Inaudible.) CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yes, I believe you can. MS. RIPLEY: Okay. I don't know that any of us remember how it got on there. I was involved in the project. In fact, I did it in 2003. I should have some recollection of it. I think if it had been a negotiated thing, I probably would remember it. But we just don't. 119 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 The difference between -- it has to do with how the FAR is calculated. On the note, on the ODP, it says, by parcel. You know, the note is very clear that you look at how much square footage, building square footage, you have to that parcel, and that is where we're under it. That was obviously the intent of that note. What the neighborhood brought up was, they looked up the definition of FAR in the Land Use Code, and there is a definition of FAR in the Land Use Code in the definition section, and it will tell you in there that you calculate it by lot. If we calculated ours by lot and we took out all the wetland and we took all the wildlife corridor, of course we would be above it. But that was not the intent. The note is very clear that it's .37 on a parcel basis, not a lot basis. So I hope that helps. MR. CAMPANA: I think that does help. Because I think if we're going to hold the project to the standard of the note that's on the plan, we should calculate it based on the language of the note on the plans. So I don't know if we need anything more read into the record. If we had a graphic that could show that, that would be nice to have. MR. OLT: We just do need to be mindful that that note is being proposed to be eliminated. MR. CAMPANA: But I also heard the applicant say 120 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 that they're fine with leaving it on there, and I hear the neighborhood saying, it's on the ODP, so you know, why would we pull it off? So why would we debate it if we meet it anyways? MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the way I -- possibly -- I guess the way I would read it, and it's up for debate, is maximum -- the way I read it on the notes in the description, it says, Maximum floor area ratio (building square footage divided by land area square footage) for all parcels, not to exceed .37. At that rate, when you're looking at an ODP when it says for all parcels, that could mean A, B, C, D, E, F, all parcels. You know, so it's very hard to decide what it actually -- what it actually meant. I think that's going to be the sticking point, and that might be something City Council will have to decide. MS. CARPENTER: A point I have to make. Are we still on FAR? I have one. Do we not have records of the meetings from 2003 when that was put on? I mean, I don't understand why we can't go back and find out how it was put on and what was done with it. Because we take -- we have minutes and things. Have we looked to see if we can figure out why that was done? MR. SHEPARD: I think we could probably resurrect those. I think we could find those minutes. But I think 121 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 our thinking for this particular ODP was that it's not our standard. It's not in our Land Use Code. MS. CARPENTER: But it's in our ODP. MR. SHEPARD: But how do we govern it? By what standard? And I'll read this into the record, if I may. Purpose and effect of an ODP. The purpose of the Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. I would say that an FAR issue would be detailed planning in a subsequent submittal. If it's at all applicable. And according to our Land Use Code, it's not an applicable standard. MS. CARPENTER: I understand that. I just keep running up to, the thing of it is, it's in the ODP. MS. SCHMIDT: If we're going to question, we can discuss it. MS. CARPENTER: Yes. Okay. MR. CAMPANA: I've got another question. So let's say the road wasn't realigned on the ODP. You left it where it was. As a -- as a designer, could you achieve the same utilization of the project? Same density? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Are you directing this 122 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 question to Linda? MR. CAMPANA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: If you could come up and respond, please. MR. CAMPANA: In other words, one of the arguments that the neighborhood is making is that it's realigned to get a higher density. If you left it where it was, I think we all agree there's a better location for it than where it was, but I just want to have a better understanding. MS. RIPLEY: Well, the gentleman that spoke about that; it's true that if you took -- if you took it through sort of -- actually, you can't. You can't connect where it exists, because right where it exists, if it went forward at all, it would be in the floodway. So right away, you have to pick another point to connect it to along Centre Avenue. Do you follow me? MR. CAMPANA: Right. So you didn't do -- I know usually as a planner, you guys start with the existing ODP and start kind of bubble planning it to see what kind of density you can get. You're saying you guys never did this on it? You knew you had to realign it -- MS. RIPLEY: Oh, we've done a zillion plans on this property. But the specific question was, could you do Rollie Moore differently. And the first problem is that the -- where the 123 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 FEMA floodplain exists today is different than where it was in 2003. So even though this -- the red alignment in 2003 was possible for a couple of reasons, the floodway wasn't in the same location; the wetlands were somewhat different, although similar; but our tendency to protect wetlands has grown enormously in those intervening years. Back then, I remember drawing that very alignment and saying, Well, isn't this going to be a concern, and staff was saying, Well, we'll deal with that when we get to it. But by the time we've gotten to it and this parcel is ready to develop, wetlands are valued so much more. There's no question that we don't want to plow through it with a road. So we can't continue the alignment where it is without affecting the floodway and without being in the wetland. MR. CAMPANA: I understand that, and I think everyone here does too. I'm questioning whether or not you could still get 210 dwelling units or 614 beds or whatever it's up to if we didn't have wetland issue and Rollie Moore was in the same place as it is in the current ODP, because you design that density. MS. RIPLEY: If I left Rollie Moore where it is? MR. CAMPANA: Right. The neighborhood has made an argument -- 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. RIPLEY: Possibly. MR. CAMPANA: -- you're relocating it to maximize the density. I'm wondering if you didn't relocate it, could you still get the same density? MS. RIPLEY: It's hard to say. It probably could get close. MR. CAMPANA: Okay. And then just -- I think this is going to go to Steve, this last question here. So Steve, if we're going to go from single-family residential to E employment, what would be typical of our zoning to transition from single-family residential to employment? What do we typically see? MR. OLT: Well, obviously, you're looking at a transition, if you're looking at a, you know, concentric circle, it's going to be, you know, single-family residential, multifamily residential, then E employment or nonresidential, something of that nature. I mean, this is not atypical to have that MMN, medium density mixed use zoning district, between the single-family residential and the E employment. MR. CAMPANA: It's not typical? MR. OLT: It's not atypical. MR. CAMPANA: Right. Okay. Thanks. MS. CARPENTER: I heard somebody mention floodplain. And Steve, if you can talk to what is in the 125 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 floodplain on this? Or one of the neighbors was talking about building in the floodplain? MR. OLT: I think Glen Schlueter will address that. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Great. MR. SCHLUETER: Okay. So what is your particular question about the floodplain? MS. CARPENTER: Well, what exactly do we have here? We're on the ODP. I'm sorry. Is this a PDP question? MR. SCHLUETER: Yes, it is a PDP question. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Sorry. I'll do it then. MR. SCHLUETER: Okay. MS. SCHMIDT: I have one question, Glen. Kind of applies to the road. Didn't it -- at the last hearings, did you mention something about FEMA was coming to relook at all this floodplain issue, and it might all change in the future anyhow? Or am I -- has that changed? MR. SCHLUETER: No, it hasn't changed. In fact, we hoped to have the mapping approved by FEMA sometime early next year. And it will remove that floodplain, the floodway completely, except it'll just be over on Spring Creek and not on this side of Windtrail at all. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. So it would be conceivable at that time that Rollie Moore could stay in the alignment that 126 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 is and it would not be in a floodway. MR. SCHLUETER: That's true, but you still have the wetlands to deal with. MS. SCHMIDT: The wetlands and the drainage. MR. SCHLUETER: And the drainage, right. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: And if I remember correctly, there's going to be monitoring to be sure that any groundwater detention doesn't take away from the wetlands, that we will continue to produce enough moisture that it will stay in its present state; is that correct? MR. OLT: That's correct. There will be a three-year monitoring plan, whether you want to talk about that now or at the PDP level -- pardon? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Well, if the floodplain changes. The wetlands will not. MR. OLT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Any more questions of staff? MS. SCHMIDT: Is the one, and maybe Linda would respond to this. How -- people have talked about the store. What is the closest grocery store to this project? Which grocery stores are there and how -- how close would you say they are, driving-wise? I would say that maybe the King Soopers on College? Or Whole Foods? 127 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 MR. OLT: Yeah, there's Whole Foods and King Soopers, obviously. MS. SCHMIDT: Is that the closest? MR. OLT: East, southeast, you know, of the project location -- MS. SCHMIDT: We were talking about students going to campus. But these are apartments that they're living in. They have to go buy food. MR. OLT: Correct. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. MR. OLT: And they would go to Shields. Shields to Drake, to College, or Centre Avenue to Prospect to College. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. I think at this point in time, we would like to take another break. We will reconvene at 9:30 by the clock on the wall. Please keep all these great thoughts in your mind, and we're going to go to Board discussion next. Thank you. (Break from 9:25 p.m. to 9:36 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. We're ready to restart. Okay. Welcome back. At this point in time, we're going to move into Board discussion. Who would like to go first? 128 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 I think David is going to start us off. MR. LINGLE: Well, I'd like to start with another question to Steve, if I can. Linda in her presentation characterized the ODP amendment as basically three basic things. One was relocation of Rollie Moore Drive, the elimination of the Northerland Drive extension, and whatever we decide to do with those note changes on the existing ODP. Would you agree that that's the gist of what we're doing with the ODP? MR. OLT: That's correct, with, I think, one addition. I mean, they've actually added, you know, significant natural area buffers, wetland delineation on the ODP that was not previously shown, which is well in excess of what would be required. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. OLT: But beyond that, we don't see other changes. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Brigitte? MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I'll start with discussion on a couple of things. In my mind, the FAR -- I don't know what the exact discussion was back in those days, but I imagine -- I'm just thinking that possibly that FAR was established to somehow put some sort of handle on the level of intensity that might happen in that area. You know, as CSURF was planning and also making commitments to work with 129 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 the neighborhood and everything. So that would be my guess about it. Now, whether we want -- my option certainly would be to leave it on there and let, in the future, people decide how it should be considered, or if you want to find some other standard, we would think about -- I mean, how else can you really work in an ODP as far as making a commitment to the surrounding areas about a level of intensity? And I think this might have been an effort on that part. You know, as the neighbors said, that they were promised or told by CSURF that this, that, or the other thing. Maybe this was to be an effort to indicate there would only be a certain level of intensity on the problem. So that's one of my feelings I have about the whole FAR discussion. I guess the other thing that we haven't talked about at all, and I have some issues with, and this was why City Council overturned our decision on the last ODP, and that was the whole block issue. And I look at the plan and I see Block 1, 2, and 3, and I understand the Land Use Code only has acreages as a definition. But in a candidate's own -- or applicant's own description, they bring out the Policy 21.2 from City Plan as designing walkable blocks. And I think if you read that definition of what blocks should be and you look at the 130 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 description in the Land Use Code, again, it doesn't seem to mesh for me. I mean, Block 1, and you look at the two buildings that compose Block 1, to say that they're in a walkable block, I don't know. I just -- I'm having some difficulty with this layout, and I think it was just kind of designed to meet the requirements of City Council where you said they have to have blocks, but I don't think, again, we're trying to achieve what the MMN zone is wanting. And if they're saying, Okay, the problem is on this piece of parcel, that we can't achieve that, well, maybe again, it's because the density is too high. There would be ways to achieve it if we did something different, plan-wise. So that's just kind of my thoughts, discussion-wise, on the issue. MR. CAMPANA: I think the difficulty here is to separate PDP with ODP. And as we look at the ODP, we should be looking at the changes that are being proposed for that realignment of Rollie Moore Drive. Is it equal to or better than what is existing irrespective regardless of what the PDP looks like. Removing the connection. With regards to the block structure, it's difficult to make an argument that the buildings are walkable. Because we're not supposed to be looking at the buildings at an ODP point. I mean, I'm a 131 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 firm believer that the ODP is a bubble plan. It, you know, gives us direction on how to design our PDP. When we start trying to design the PDP while we're doing the ODP, we're really conflicting the intent of our Land Use Code, and it makes it really tough on projects. I think the PDP discussions tonight are going to be very different than the ODP discussions, and if we stay focused as a board on the primary issues with regards to the ODP, we'll have our opportunity to discuss PDP issues here in a minute. So that's just my suggestion on that. MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yes, sir. MR. ECKMAN: Hold that thought. Remember that spot where Mr. Campana made that statement. And I have to interrupt the meeting, I think now, or I'd like to, anyway, to go to do something rather unusual, but there was this videotape that was to be played on the wall. It failed because of some technical reasons. I don't know if it was a problem with the disc or problem with the City's equipment or problem where. But it didn't get shown. And the neighborhood group that was presenting that, I think there was some confusion at the time as to whether you actually had that in writing, that Mr. Podmore statement or not, but I have been told by the neighborhood group that it was not given to you, ever. You don't have 132 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. And they would like to read it to you. It's a page and a half long. And only in the interests of fairness, that the applicant must have a chance, then, to respond to that. But I think that in order to avoid an allegation that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing for failing to receive all relevant evidence that was offered to the Board -- it was kind of offered off the wall; we had a technical problem -- I think we should go back and do that one thing and let the applicant respond to this document, which I will also pass out to you, if you're inclined to go that way with it. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Do we have it so we can hear audio? MR. ECKMAN: No. It's -- it's a page and that much more. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: And they would like to read it to us, and hand it out as well -- MR. ECKMAN: Hand it out and read it, and then the applicant certainly has the right to respond just to this letter. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: If you think that's advisable, we'll allow it. MR. ECKMAN: Well, I do, so that we don't have that fair hearing argument on appeal. Which, if it were a legitimate argument, would force a remand back to the Board 133 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 again, and we could spend another night like this later on. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I've got all the time in the world. I don't know about everybody else, but. . . Who's going to be reading this? Of course, you'll need to sign in and state your name and address for the record. MS. PODMORE: Thank you very much. My name is Carol Podmore. And it was my husband who made the video with the understanding that it was going to be shown. He very much wanted to be here, but he is presently doing an irrigation and drainage audit of the country of Tajikistan for the United Nations. So he presented this to Ed with the hopes that the equipment would work, and it didn't, so I'll read it very quickly to you. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Board. My name is Jerry Podmore. I live at 733 Gilgalad Way in Fort Collins. I am a member of the Windtrail on Spring Creek Homeowners Association and a professor emeritus in civil and environmental engineering at Colorado State University. My purpose this evening is to address the problem of the Larimer Number 2 Canal and its potential impact if the proposed Campus Crest development takes place. The placements of the buildings close to the canal on the south side of the site creates the risk of a canal breach from 134 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 increased seepage leading to catastrophic failure. It has been proposed that the canal be moved to the south to avoid this danger. However, the canal relocation does not appear in the ODP, and is only referenced in the PDP. The City Manager has stated that the canal relocation is unrelated to the Campus Crest project. Nick Haas of Northern Engineering has informed me that Campus Crest development and the canal relocation are two separate projects, when we spoke at the Campus Crest open house held at the Hilton Hotel. Linda Ripley stated that the neighborhood meeting held on May 23rd -- that there was no guarantee that the canal location would take place prior to the construction of the Campus Crest project. Therefore, the impact of the Campus Crest construction must include consideration of a possible canal breach. The canal company has stated it takes 12 hours to stop the flow of the canal by closing the canal gate at the Poudre River. The canal length from the Poudre River to Shield Street is approximately 8.2 miles. With a typical cross-section of 100 square feet, the canal volume is 4.32 million cubic feet or 32.3 million gallons. In the case of a canal breach, this water would be released on the site. This volume of water assumes that the canal flow can be shut off instantaneously if a breach 135 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 occurs. In the case of any delay, the canal would keep on flowing and releasing water. Typical canal flow is given at 150 cubic feet per second by Joe Mullin, the manager of the canal company. Consequently, for every hour of delay that the canal gate is closed, 4.8 million gallons would be released of water. And there's literally one other paragraph. Thank you very much for allowing us to incorporate it. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: You're welcome. So would the applicant like to respond to this? MS. LILEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have no problem having the letter in, and I'm glad there was an opportunity for him to get it in. But we do have a couple of comments. It's not a correct statement that the canal relocation does not appear in the ODP. It's very limited, because at ODP level, it's only relevant to showing, on the ODP, the general location of natural features, which would -- which would include the ditch, and we showed both the existing ditch and the potentially realigned ditch. Now, at that point in time, we weren't certain that the ditch would be realigned, and I see the date on his letter reseeds the date that the agreement was actually signed, and that was done this past Friday. The substantive comments on this, I'm going to 136 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 defer to PDP, because that's a groundwater issue, and that relates to mitigation measures and everything else. And so those comments really are more appropriate for PDP than ODP, and we would reserve our right to talk about this at that point. But just to continue for a moment about the ditch. What has happened since this letter was written -- and you should have received a copy of a letter from the ditch company's attorney confirming that as of last Friday, the agreement had been executed and that the realignment would occur concurrently with The Grove project, and it included a full set of plans showing exactly where that realignment was. We had also submitted plans of the realignment, but this, just again, is confirmation that that agreement is done and that the realignment will occur. So I think that's all that we would like to say at this point in time; but again, we'll want to talk about the groundwater issues with PDP. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Okay. Gino was wanting to continue his thoughts. MR. CAMPANA: Just one more comment. I was going to suggest that we -- the comment, the general notes remain the same on the amended ODP as well. Considering we don't know what the background was on the FAR. I think we should 137 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 leave it on there. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. David? MR. LINGLE: I guess I'd like to call up on Brigitte's comment and Gino's as well about the FAR. If -- in the event that that was some sort of a negotiated agreement with the neighborhood, which would seem reasonable to me that it might have been, how would that affect -- or how would that come into play with potential conflict with the minimum density required in MMN? I mean, which -- if there was a conflict, which one would govern? MR. SHEPARD: The Land Use Code would prevail. MR. LINGLE: Regardless if that was legitimately a condition of approval of the ODP? MR. SHEPARD: Well, I would say so, and Paul is probably going to chime in here, but keep in mind that an ODP does not grant a vested right. It's a general high-level look. It's a bubble plan. And once you get to the metrics, the Land Use Code would prevail over a note. MR. ECKMAN: Our Land Use Code has a conflict provision that doesn't really help us with a conflict between the Land Use Code and an approved ODP. But it does say that if there's a conflict between the Land Use Code and any other statute, code, local ordinance, resolution, regulation, if an ODP can be considered as such, or other applicable law, the more specific standard will govern and 138 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 prevail to the extent of the conflict, and if neither standard is more specific, then the more stringent standard would prevail. So it's kind of a difficult decision to make as to which one is the more specific. MR. CAMPANA: Or stringent. I mean, one's a minimum; one's a maximum. MR. ECKMAN: It doesn't answer the question very much, does it? MR. CAMPANA: Well, I guess my intent would be that we don't deliberately set up a conflict, if we know that we are doing that, and it doesn't sound like we necessarily are, from Ted's perspective, that the Land Use Code would prevail. MR. SHEPARD: I would remind you, Dave, that if there is something that isn't met in the Land Use Code, then only the Planning and Zoning Board can grant a modification. A negotiation between an application and a neighborhood can't create a modification. Only the Planning and Zoning Board can grant the modification. MS. CARPENTER: On the other hand, by approving the ODP with this note on it, was the Planning and Zoning Board -- were they granting and approving that? MR. SHEPARD: No. We used to have a standard note on ODPs, prior to the adoption of the Land Use Code. Back 139 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 when a land use wasn't granted unless you had a preliminary PUD approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, that's when ODPs had a little more viability and a little more meaning. And at that time, the standard note was -- and it was a long one -- and it said, these densities shown are estimates. These densities are not meant to grant a vested right. And we had all this verbiage on these notes, on these ODPs, that basically said that, it's an estimate. It's not hard and fast. It's a high-level view. And that once you get to the preliminary PUD stage, that's where you get your land use. Well, when we went to the Land Use Code, your land use was granted by Article 4, permitted uses. And so the ODP took on less meaning. And so we stopped using that note because densities were done by Article 4. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Well, I mean -- this is pretty typical of me. I listen, listen, listen, and then I form an opinion. But before I form that opinion, today, when I was taking a break, I was just thinking, and I wrote down two numbers. 180 and 18. I've been doing this for 15 years, which equals 180 of these type of meetings, and I have 18 more before I get termed out. I have to say in reading this, this ranks right up there in the top 5 percent of emotional-type issues. And whenever we have an emotional-type issue, it is -- it is 140 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 more difficult for us. And as you can see by the hour, we really do care. We take this to heart. And we try and do the best we possibly can. And I think in Fort Collins, we are very blessed in the fact that when I first started, Paul already had 15 years' experience, so he's pushing 30; and the staff, most of them have put up with me for 15 years. So do know that we do listen and we do take everything to heart. The next thing I always do is, I always look at it as a citizen first, because we are a citizen board. And I know we have rules and regulations about site visits and so on and so forth, but the Poudre Trail is one of my favorite trails. Just as a side note. I'm 52 years old, and I've lived in Fort Collins for 52 years. Had friends when they built Hillpond. The street you guys are talking about, you know, I looked at that younger in my life before I could afford that type of house. You do live in a great spot, and the Poudre River Trail is one of Fort Collins' greatest assets, and I spent a lot of time out there repeatedly standing in you guys's yards, basically, looking and saying, How would I feel as a property owner. So I do understand that. I think on the ODP, we're looking at road realignment. And the first thing is, we are going to allow a road there. Predictability; would it be better close to 141 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 you or a little bit farther back? And truly in my mind, I feel that the road alignment as presented is a better choice. I truly feel that the road alignment in its proposed location is a better choice. I drove down the little stub street -- and I don't know what it is exactly; the one they're not connecting to -- and I thought, would it be worth -- would it be advantageous to both sides to have that there, and I feel in my mind that, no, it wouldn't. I do have questions about what you do with the end of that street, if it's never going to connect, but it looked -- you know. It doesn't look all out of place stopping where it does. It looks like the neighbors are using it for additional parking and so on and so forth. The hard part in my mind is separating the ODP from the PDP, and I think we can do that because of 180 meetings, this is what we do. We understand. And as you can see some of these questions that they're asking are very in-depth. We have a board that understands. We have been presented with a lot of information about what the buildings are going to look like. But we have to separate that out from our decision tonight. We can't look at buildings. We're looking at street alignment. Whether we should hook up with that other street and the notes on the plan. 142 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 And with everything -- I just have to say, with I'm presented with tonight, as a neighbor, would it be my number one choice? No. But does -- do property rights mean something? I believe so. And if you follow the Code, as we have today, I think -- I think they are meeting the intent of the Code. So I am going to be in support of this first portion, and I truly am not going to form an opinion on the second portion until I hear from each and every one of you that would like to speak tonight. So there's my two cents on the whole ODP issue. And at that point, we can keep talking, or put a motion on the table, and sometimes that does -- sometimes putting a motion on the table does help us move forward and gives us a little bit of clarity as to what we're thinking and maybe raise additional questions and so on and so forth. David? MR. LINGLE: I move to approve the amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan Number MJA 110001, based on the preceding findings of fact and conclusion, beginning on Page 11 of the staff report, with the exception of the two ODP notes. Should -- I don't know how to word this -- that the two ODP notes concerning secondary uses and FAR remain as on the existing ODP. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Can you just repeat that last little second -- secondary uses, and what was the other one? 143 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 MR. LINGLE: Well, the two ODP notes that we discussed, I believe they're concerning -- the first one concerns secondary uses and the second one concerning the FAR remain as worded in the original -- or the existing ODP. MR. CAMPANA: Did you get my second? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: So we have a motion and a second. MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I'll point out on the -- at least this little sheet that we got on the proposed -- this proposed ODP, on the general notes, it does have the density for MMN outlined. So if we add that, I don't know if we're creating -- do you think the .37 can be achieved, the 12 units can be achieved in the .37? Because otherwise, we are creating a conflict right in the ODP, because that note is in here, and now we're keeping the other note. MR. LINGLE: Well, I guess I'm basing my motion, just to get it on the table, on staff's opinion that the Land Use Code requirement for MMN density would govern, regardless of if there's a conflict. MR. ECKMAN: Do you want to make that a part of your motion? MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess -- I mean, if you feel that way, then you don't need to keep that .37 in there, because the density of 12 is right in here on these little notes. 144 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 MR. LINGLE: Well, except that we would be -- I mean, the ODP applies to all parcels. MS. SCHMIDT: Oh, okay. MR. LINGLE: I guess I don't know if there might be another -- MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. MR. LINGLE: -- parcel that we don't want to -- MS. SCHMIDT: Sure. MR. CAMPANA: And that .37 may prevent them from going to build 18. It's probably somewhere between. . . that's what it sounds like, anyways. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. MR. LINGLE: Is that enough explanation of the two notes? Because I'd refer to the numbers, but there -- some of them are crossed off, and some of them are new, and it's hard to tell what the real numbers are. MR. ECKMAN: Sure. I do think, though, that if you think you're creating, as member Schmidt is worried about, an internal conflict in the document, then you could clear that up by saying in your motion that if there is a conflict internally, that the Land Use Code would trump the note, if you think that's necessary. MR. LINGLE: Well, I guess I'd be willing to do that in regards to any land zoned MMN. I'm a little uncomfortable saying that about any parcel in any zoning, 145 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 because we haven't talked about the ramifications, so -- MR. ECKMAN: Right. Yes. MR. CAMPANA: I mean, I think if we go to the more stringent of the two, that .37 could be more restrictive than MMN max. I think it's only fair to the neighborhood that -- MR. ECKMAN: Trouble is, the ODP is not a law. MR. CAMPANA: Yeah. MR. ECKMAN: And the first question is, which one's the more specific. One could argue, well, ODPs are specific to a certain piece of ground. Then you can say, well, the Land Use Code is more detailed and has a lot more specificity. So I can argue that flat or round. And you get nowhere. It might be better to clarify it with a motion. MR. CAMPANA: If you did a friendly amendment of that sort, I'd support it. MR. LINGLE: Okay. I would amend my motion to add that in the event of a conflict between the ODP notes and the provisions of the Land Use Code, as they pertain to MMN zoned land within the ODP, that the Land Use Code would govern. MR. CAMPANA: I'll second that amendment. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Now I have another question for you amenders. It says on these notes here, the Larimer 146 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 Canal Number 2 is proposed to be realigned as an independent project and not as part of this ODP. And is that how we want to keep it? MR. LINGLE: Say that again? MS. SCHMIDT: The last note is, the Larimer Canal Number 2 is proposed to be realigned as an independent project and not a part of this ODP. And I think that's what Mr. Podmore's letter was concerning. The fact if it is an independent project, not part of the ODP, the ODP could still move ahead if, for whatever reason, Larimer Canal, or whatever, decided not to -- to do that project. Or if they did, I mean, his concern, I think, is that if they start building and then move the ditch because they have to wait to move the ditch -- well, I mean, I guess they're only going to be moving the ditch at the point -- well, no -- his concern, I guess, was if the ditch stays there because they can't move it until there's no water in it, which would be wintertime, that if the buildings were there first, then you could possibly have a seepage issue. You know, because in other words, they're not going to do any mitigation, because they're going to presume the ditch is going to be moved. So in the meantime, if the buildings were there before the ditch is moved, then you could have a breach of the ditch that would cause flooding. MR. CAMPANA: Well, I think if it's a health and 147 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 safety issue, wouldn't that be addressed on the development agreement? MR. SHEPARD: Well, I'll just chime in and say that in terms of timing, the ditches stop running in, say, October, and I don't see this project getting very far in their construction, given the scenarios that could happen between now and then, so that anyone would be occupied in those buildings, or that there would be any impact due to groundwater. I know, just from seeing apartment complexes being built, it takes nine to twelve months to build apartment buildings. And yet you'll have the irrigation season terminating this fall. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Also, it could get pushed off and not build until next spring or summer as well. MS. SCHMIDT: Well, there's also -- I guess we haven't seen the agreement with the ditch company as when they would relocate the ditch. If that's a hard and fast. I mean, the ditch company could also change its mind, because that's what the ODP says, that it's an independent project. So we have -- with this ODP, we have no control over the ditch moving. MR. ECKMAN: I can say, I used to represent some ditch companies, and they don't relocate ditches during the irrigation season, in the summertime, so it's got to be 148 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 sometime, October through first of April, something like that. MS. CARPENTER: So if we were going to require that as a part of this project, would that be under the ODP or the PDP? I mean, if we wanted -- we'd have to take that note off, I guess is what you're saying, Brigitte. MS. SCHMIDT: I mean, we could leave it as a -- as a note, and leave this note on the ODP, and then when you get to the PDP, make some kind of comment there about it. MR. CAMPANA: It really is specific to the PDP, I believe. MS. SCHMIDT: To the buildings, yeah. MR. CAMPANA: In my experience, again, it's dealt with in the development agreement, not the -- certainly not on ODP. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. So the note, you think, is okay as it stands. MS. CARPENTER: But it is being dealt with on the ODP, because there's note on it, regarding it. So is Glen still here? MR. CAMPANA: It's only being dealt with, again, from a broad standpoint. There's no detail as to the realignment of it. On the PDP plans, there's going to be significant detail and engineered drawings supporting that. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Well, I guess maybe what 149 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 I'd like to do is hear from Glen about his -- about the City's response to this. I mean, we just kind of have it, it came in the record and -- I don't know how to evaluate that. So if we could get that, that would be great. MR. SHEPARD: While Glen's getting to the microphone, I think the intention of putting Note 14 was for -- to make the project as transparent as possible. It was done to not hold back anything. Although it's an off-site, it's not related; here's information. It's information. An ODP does not grant a vested right. You can't pull a building permit on the vested right. The note could be on there. The note doesn't have to be on there. It's just a piece of information on an ODP that doesn't have a vested right. MS. SCHMIDT: So, Ted, in the final drawing of the approved ODP, would that proposed realignment ditch be shown on the drawing, or would it just be where it is? MR. SHEPARD: It doesn't have to be shown on any ODP document. MS. SCHMIDT: It doesn't have to be, but what are we choosing to do? I guess -- MR. SHEPARD: It doesn't really matter, because it's not a vested right document. You can't build off of this document. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. CARPENTER: But I would still like to have a response. Have you seen this one yet from Mr. Podmore regarding the ditch and the problems with it? MR. SCHLEUTER: Yes -- well, I haven't seen that one, but I have heard his -- his premise, what he was talking about. And actually, the groundwater is something that's reviewed by the Engineering Department. And they really don't review it either. There's really no department in the City that reviews the groundwater. It's left up to the private sector and their professional engineers. From what I -- I think the ditch would be stable. MS. CARPENTER: Can 4 million gallons of water be groundwater? He's talking about a canal breach. What I'm getting from this is that he's talking about a flood. Or is that groundwater? Can 4 million gallons -- MR. SCHLUETER: Well, it would have to seep through the ditch, through the soil, to cause the catastrophic failure, is what he's saying. It becomes so saturated that it would fail, and then the ditch would dump through there. So you might want to talk to their geotechnical engineer and his version of that -- the main reason I understood that the ditch company wanted something else done is about the trees. The trees themselves cause roots to grow into the sides of the ditch, which gives a path -- a place for the 151 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 water to run, which is probably worse than this sub-drain system that they want to put along the bottom there, which is a real common way of controlling the groundwater and seepage from ditches. He's just saying that removing all -- the cutting into that bank, so they're removing some of the soil, so the water will have less of a path to come through the soil, which could make it come through quicker, because you have a shorter outlet, a closer outlet, and then it could fail. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. So that's if they do move it? MR. SCHLUETER: That's if they don't move it. MS. CARPENTER: If they don't -- MR. SCHLUETER: That's what he's saying, yes. MR. LINGLE: Jennifer, I guess the way I look at that, is that there's ditches that run for miles through the city, and it's the ditch company's obligation to maintain those in a safe manner. And a breach that's described here could occur anywhere within the city limits, and I guess I don't see that there's any need to have any extraordinary review or -- I mean, not review, but any special conditions that would apply to the ODP that wouldn't apply -- you know, if there's a safety concern, there were safety concerns to the neighborhood immediately west and immediately east and across the ditch to the other side all the way through the 152 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 city. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. That helps. Thanks. MR. SCHLUETER: One of the things the ditch company is concerned about is the trees -- besides the trees causing seepage, is cutting them down, and when there are houses there. If they get old and they die, they need to remove those, because then it does become -- the roots start to rot, and it really does give a conduit for the water to seep out. MS. SCHMIDT: That would be the Warren Lake issue. They had that issue down at Warren Lake. MR. LINGLE: I guess I'd like to -- you know, just in support of my motion, I'd like to say that I think that since we've kind of taken care of the ODP note issue, in my mind, that we're really looking at only the two things. One is the relocation of Rollie Moore Drive and the elimination of the Northerland Drive extension; and I see those as both positive things. If we leave it where it is, it's impactful from a wetlands standpoint, it's impactful from a floodplain standpoint, and a lot of different things. So it seems like that that should be easily supportable, you know, until we get to the PDP, when we discuss more details. I think the alternative compliance to the connectivity standard is valid. I found it a little curious 153 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 that in the neighborhood's presentation, they made a huge issue of needing connectivity to the south but made no mention of the connectivity to the north. And then also, it's good that, at this point in time, there's no modification of standard required for the block standard. I know we'll probably discuss that in more detail, Brigitte, as we get to the PDP; and that the land uses remain in compliance with the allowed uses for this parcel. So that's a good reason I'm supporting it. MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the only -- I mean, I agree with most of what you said, David, but it's a very hard decision for me because I feel the old -- I don't like the old ODP. I don't like where the road is on the old ODP, and that was why I voted for it last time. I guess having, you know, gone back and then seeing what City Council said when they overturned us and instituting the block standards, I can't -- I can't buy into the fact in finding number D that it's infeasible for the potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined in the future set forth because of existing development. So for that reason, mostly, I think I am going to vote not in favor of the ODP. But I agree that I think most of what the ODP -- the realignment of the road portion, I really think, is a much better -- I think the road needs to be realigned. I think some of the ideas that the neighbors 154 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 had for possible realignments could also work. So it's hard, because I don't like the ODP as it is right now. But I think this new one, as far as what City Council had wanted with the block standards, I just don't feel comfortable with those. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MR. SMITH: I guess I -- I'm in support of the motion. I admit, I've been convinced by the applicant that they've demonstrated how their Alternative Development Plan in regards to vehicular street connectivity does -- it's as good as, or better than, I guess, of what the purpose is from the Land Use Code for that section. I'm not sure -- or I haven't been convinced that the -- there is a need to be able to keep the note in the ODP regarding the floor area ratios, and I think right now, that seems to be -- I mean, really, irrelevant. And I understand that from our discussion about that land in there, because of some process, but unless it's very clear and demonstrated as to what that was, I don't see any reason why we -- right now, we wouldn't be able to say -- to agree to letting go of that note. But I think overall, that's the only part of this proposed ODP that gives me some heartburn, based on the criteria that we're charged with using. So ultimately, I'll support the motion as presented. 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. CARPENTER: I'll support the motion as well. I do think that the realignment -- and obviously, we want to realign and not go through wetlands and impact those, and I can't see that the connectivity -- I think it's better to not go through the wetlands than to -- and save those than to -- than for us to hit the connectivity standard. So I will support the motion. MR. CAMPANA: Andy, the reason why Dave and I are pushing for that to be left on there -- or I'll speak for myself -- is because MMN has a minimum density, where E doesn't. So that FAR could be restrictive on the E side, or on the MMN, it could conflict, because we're saying, on the one hand, Land Use Code is saying you've got to go minimum of this. That's saying you can't go any more than that, so it could conflict. And the E probably wouldn't, so. . . CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Well, I think that we've sufficiently discussed this, and I would like to move on to the next item. So I'd like a roll call, please. THE CLERK: Carpenter? MS. CARPENTER: Yes. THE CLERK: Smith? MR. SMITH: Yes. THE CLERK: Lingle? MR. LINGLE: Yes. THE CLERK: Campana. 156 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 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. THE CLERK: Schmidt. MS. SCHMIDT: No. THE CLERK: Stockover. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yes. So the ODP has been approved. And now we'll move on to item 4. The PDP. So -- I'm sorry. I was pausing here. I was pausing and just thinking again. First is the staff report. Then the applicant presentation. And we have heard a lot of the PDP. We understand that. If there are points that both staff, the applicant, and the audience need to reaffirm, I do understand that. If it has totally been said once, we understand that -- refer to it again and say, as before, these are my concerns. Because this is all fresh in our mind. We do want to, you know, be somewhat fresh when we're making this decision, because I feel this is probably, in my mind, the more important of the two. So I would like to be able to move through this whole issue tonight. So with that said, if the staff would give us their presentation on what you feel is pertinent and for us to make the decision on the PDP. Because we have a pretty good understanding of the whole project already. MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chairman, I do think it's 157 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 important that we do hear both issues tonight if at all possible, because we don't want separate projects going to City Council on appeal on different timing tracks. It would be nice if they would both go at the same time. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Well, I think we owe it both to the audience and to the applicant to do that tonight. MR. OLT: Quickly, though, before I make my short presentation, because we had talked about this. We had certainly said that there would be, you know, two separate presentations, which there is, obviously. You have now discussed and taken a vote on the ODP. But I think we had also somewhat said, almost advertised, that there would be some sort of a break -- I realize the hour, but some sort of a break between the two. So I'm ready to move forward. I just want to make sure the public is okay with moving directly into the PDP without a break that we had essentially talked about. MR. ECKMAN: No, we had -- we just had our break. MR. OLT: I understand that. We just finished with the ODP too. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: If we keep on schedule, we'll have our next break at about 11:15. MR. OLT: Okay. With that, I will again get into a very -- a very short presentation, because again, the PDP, the staff review, evaluation, and recommendation to the 158 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 Board has all been covered thoroughly in the staff report to you. It has been provided to you and the public. It's been available to everyone. So in essence, I'll do a very truncated version of this so that we can get into the discussion. This is The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan Number 1610B. It's a request for a multifamily residential student housing project, containing a total of 218 dwelling units. 210 units would be in 11 peer residential buildings, and 8 units would be in the clubhouse mixed-use building. I want to -- at this point in time, I want to say that out of the 218 dwelling units, there is a mix of two-, three-, and four-bedroom dwelling units. There are proposed to be 18 four-bedroom dwelling units, and we'll briefly talk about that relative to Section 3.8.16 in a minute. But the site is located at the southwest corner of Centre Avenue and existing Rollie Moore Drive, directly south of The Gardens at for Spring Creek in the Centre for Advanced Technology. Rollie Moore Drive would be aligned on the southerly portion of the subject property and extend east from the existing terminus, approximately 800 feet east of South Shields Street to connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of Larimer Canal Number 2. 159 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 There would be 403 parking spaces on site, 96 parallel parking spaces on the proposed public local street, and 128 parallel parking spaces on the public commercial street, and Rollie Moore Drive being a public collector street. Collector or connector. I think engineering will have to verify that. The property is 27.5 acres in size, located in the MMN medium density mixed use neighborhood and E employment zoning districts. So to get us into discussion, I will go immediately to the staff's findings of facts and conclusions. The PDP has been determined to be in conformance with the amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN medium density mixed use neighborhood district. The proposed land use is permitted in the E employment district as a secondary use, the residential use. The proposed -- proposal complies with the requirements set forth in Section 3.3.3(a)(4) in that all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate, or control water hazards relating to flooding or drainage have been reviewed and approved by the water utilities general manager. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable general development standards with the following 160 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 exceptions. Section 3.6.3(f), the utilization provision, subarterial street connections to and from adjacent neighborhood developments and developable parcels. The section requires that the development plans provide for future street connections to adjacent developable or redevelopable lands at intervals not to exceed 660 feet. The applicant submitted an alternative compliance plan request that does not include street connections to adjacent properties to the north, which would have been the Northerland Drive connection to Gilgalad Way, or to the south due to existing wetlands and the Larimer Canal Number 2 posing obstacles to possible connections. The request is to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board based on the criteria set forth in 3.6.3(h), alternative compliance. Staff finds that the Alternative Development Plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(f) equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles, maintains facilities for bicycle-pedestrian transit to the maximum extent feasible for the following reasons. The Alternative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle-pedestrian connectivity within the amended ODP -- and that actually should say PDP -- the pedestrian and bicyclist will be able to access parks, recreation 161 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 opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within the mile section. The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute traffic without exceeding level of service standards. And lastly, the Alternative Development Plan eliminates negative impacts to high-quality wetlands, avoids constricting important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA floodway, and avoids negative impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal Number 2. The Project Development Plan satisfies Section 3.8.16(e)(2) -- this is the one dealing with the four-bedroom units -- in that the applicable criteria of the Land Use Code has been satisfied that the project provides adequate open space and recreational opportunities with a large clubhouse facility, pool complex, basketball court, volleyball court, parking areas, and public facilities as necessary to support the proposed 18 four-bedroom units and protect the occupants of the development and the adjacent neighborhoods. The Project Development Plan complies with the applicable standards of Article 4, Division 4.6, MMN medium density mixed use neighborhood district of the Land Use Code. However, there is a discussion in the staff report dealing with the block structure. And again, this is the 162 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 one where there conceivably could be considered to be three blocks in this Project Development Plan. The one true classical block is the one that is surrounded -- and I probably should get -- the classical block in here is Block 2, and we'll get to a block diagram eventually. I'm sure the applicant will be presenting that. But Block 2 is the one that is completely surrounded by public streets. The one in the middle containing buildings 8 through 12 has a public -- Rollie Moore Drive being a public collector street to the south, a public commercial street along the east side, and a public local street along the north and west side. So that clearly satisfies the size. It's 4.7 acres in size. It is completely surrounded by public streets. It satisfies the block face requirements and the maximum height of three stories. Blocks -- the potential Blocks 1 and 3 -- we'll get to that diagram in a little bit -- would satisfy the criteria except for the block structure, in that there are gaps along the -- basically along the west end of Block 3, which I believe is the one on the -- potential block on the south side of Rollie Moore Drive. However, there is existing development there that would make that -- the street connection infeasible. 163 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 The other potential Block 1, which is on the north side of Rollie Moore Drive, it contains, really, land that is not proposed to be developed. It's pretty much open space, wetlands, and floodplain/floodway, and that has existing development to the north and to the west. So that block, also, it's infeasible to satisfy the feature for a block that's set forth in Section 4.6(e)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code. And then finally, the Project Development Plan complies with the applicable development standards of Article 4, Division 4.27(e) and employment zoning district to the Land Use Code. Staff is recommending approval of The Grove Project Development Plan based on the preceding findings of fact and conclusions that have just been read. With that, I complete my presentation. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Questions of staff? Not at this point. We're ready for the applicant presentation, please. MS. RIPLEY: Thank you, Chairman Stockover, members of the Board. Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc. Again, here tonight representing Campus Crest. A few additional people will be joining our presentation beyond the ones that joined in the ODP. In 164 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 addition tonight, we have Josie Plaut, with the Institute for the Built Environment; will speak briefly about the changes to the building architecture and the process that they had worked with Campus Crest on. We do have Mike Phalen with Cedar Creek with us tonight. We've got Kevin Miller, our groundwater engineer. Tom Hatten, our geologist. And Mike Coley, our Earth Engineering Consultants. So we've got a full boat of people to ask some very -- that you can ask very technical questions of. But I'm going to give you an overview of the ODP, and then we'll be available for questions. So I want to start with the site. This is Parcel C as it -- in the context of all the existing land uses around it, and then the next slide is where we were. I'm going to walk you through a history of where we've been with this PDP. The first time we brought this project to you was October 21st, last year. And the project -- the plan looked like this. We had buildings that encroached into wetlands, requiring wetland mitigation areas to the north. We had buildings placed in a tight courtyard concept with parking around the perimeter. The total site area was about 23 acres at that time. We requested four modifications; one to the block 165 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 standard, one for orientation to connecting walkways, another one for the parking stall width on Rollie Moore Drive -- we were asking it to be narrower -- and I think those -- oh, and the building setback along Rollie Moore Drive was the fourth modification. That meeting ran very late, kind of like this one. The modification for the block standard was ultimately denied, kind of at the last minute. I believe it was about 1:00 a.m. We requested a continuance to reexamine the block standard issue. We came back to the Board on November 18th with this plan. So there was some changes to it. We came back with enhanced public ways that sort of guided people through the community here on detached sidewalks that were tree-lined and tried to get at what the block standard tries to -- tries to create. It tries to create walkable blocks in the neighborhood so you can walk through a neighborhood and sort of understand the direction that one would go to get through it and out of it in a pleasant way. We thought we did that with this plan. We also addressed some other concerns that the Board had. We provided some additional parking to the east of the project to get parking distributed a little bit better. And we added a trash enclosure on the south side of Rollie Moore Drive. The same modifications were requested, however. We 166 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 were still requesting those modifications, and that evening, the plan was denied. So the team went back to the drawing board. We took a fresh look at the whole project with our client and decided to do our best to come up with a project that did not require any modifications. And we believe we were successful in doing that. The project that we have before you tonight doesn't require any modifications. It meets the Land Use Code as presented. The differences. I'll try to be pretty quick. This plan added about four and a half acres of land to the west, which allowed us to avoid encroachment into the wetland and to reduce the density. So we're no longer having buildings in this area. We're completely out of all the wetlands. The project has a gross density of 7.93 dwelling units per acre. Before, that density was higher at 9.78. Now we have 218 dwelling units; before, we had 224. Now we have 612 bedrooms. Before, we had 624 bedrooms. So the number of units and bedrooms has gone down slightly. They are still presented in a configuration of two-, three-, and four-bedroom units. We've got 499 automobile parking spaces and 294 bicycle parking spaces. That's double from what we presented last time, and as we've mentioned before, only 167 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 about 25 are actually required. All the buildings are oriented to public streets with parkways and street trees. So all the streets you see in this project, they're all public now. None of them are private. All the buildings are oriented to the street per Land Use Code design. All the buildings have foundation plantings, and xeriscape principles are followed throughout the landscape plan. The plan includes a central green and the pool complex, clubhouse, sports courts, where it's located into the site, and they're moved even further from the neighborhood to add as little impact as possible to the neighborhood. The next few slides are of site shots and they're -- I've got my car parked at the end of Rollie Moore Drive, the existing one, off of -- right by The Gardens on Spring Creek. And the photos are kind of starting from the west, heading east, and they just show how much existing plant material there is up against that neighborhood. That's kind of what we wanted you to see. Those were taken last fall. This is at the eastern end. So there's quite a bit of vegetation and buffering that already exists on the site. The project provides buffering along that wetland of -- the Land Use Code asks to provide a hundred-foot 168 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 average buffer along wetlands. We've provided that and approximately 8,000 square feet above that. The plan incorporates some open fencing along the north boundary to keep students and pets out of the natural area. The fence is lowered to three feet periodically to allow wildlife movement across the site. The plan includes solid wood fencing where parking is proposed so that there's no chance of headlights going out into the wildlife area or to the neighborhood. Trash and recycling enclosures are now distributed throughout the whole site. They are no longer proposing a centralized trash compactor. So trash locations are throughout the site, typically as you would see in other projects. The plan provides buffering and enhancement plantings along the Larimer Canal Number 2, which is a designated wildlife corridor on the City's natural area mapping, and with the proposed offsite realignment of the ditch, we're proposing -- we're now proposing 5.8 acres of natural area buffer comprising the wildlife corridor associated with the canal. So now not only do we have the 50 foot plus along the north side of the existing canal; we have the area between the old canal alignment and the new canal alignment, and then there would be a buffer. When Parcel B, in the 169 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 future, were developed, there would be another 50 foot on the north side. So it'll become, in the future, a very nice, wide, wildlife corridor with existing trees and new trees planted in it as well for when the old ones actually die. All street lighting is provided by the City, since we had -- they're all public streets, so the City provides the streetlights with their standard residential fixtures. Parking lots within the development are all lit with cutoff fixtures on 12 foot high standards. So we've made an attempt to keep the lighting that is controlled by the developer at the lowest possible level. The project will connect Rollie Moore Drive to Centre Avenue. Rollie Moore Drive -- next slide -- Rollie Moore Drive contains bike lanes, curb bulges, and crosswalks to maximize the safety of the pedestrians, bicycles, and motorists. It also incorporates rain gardens. We haven't talked about this a lot in previous presentations, but it's always been something that the applicant has presented, not at the request of the City, but at the suggestion of the stormwater department. They really encouraged us to provide some ways to take the stormwater off the street, clean it in the rain garden, before it goes on to its eventual outfall. So we've got several locations along Rollie Moore Drive 170 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 where we are proposing these heavily planted rain gardens, so it's a place where we've gone above and beyond what is required by the Land Use Code. And ironically, because we're doing them, we've had to ask for some engineering variances to be able to accomplish them. Pets are allowed in this development. They're still being proposed. However, the applicant can provide you with some statistics. Its usually a very small percentage of the residents that actually have pets. Partially because that pet pays rent. If you have a pet, you pay a higher rent. So it costs the students something, and the management has authority in how to deal with any problems that come up. They can even go into the apartment if the student is not there, if there's a barking problem, et cetera. In addition, they keep on top of any kind of waste problem by having these little pet stations distributed throughout the site, and they expect their students to clean up after their pets, and apparently they do. And if they don't, the management does. The next topic I want to cover is stormwater. I'm going to hit the highlights of what we as a design team understand to be facts about stormwater and how we're handling drainage. But we can certainly provide more technical information later if you choose to ask us further 171 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 questions. So we're going to start with this slide that shows the existing drainage patterns across the site. Right now, all those flows -- the blue represents all the flows going across the existing site, and they get to that green line, which is the Windtrail outfall swale. So right now, the water does go into that area, and then it eventually goes into a culvert over there at the end of Rollie Moore Drive and heads out through the Horticulture Center outfall. So there's two outfalls that go to Spring Creek, sort of parallel to the north, northeast. So the existing issues that you heard about last time, and I'm sure you'll hear some about again tonight, is that the neighbors that live north of this proposed project do experience stormwater backup from the Windtrail outfall swale. Even though that channel was oversized specifically to accommodate future developed flows, they do experience stormwater backup. Neighbors to the north also experience high ground water. These are facts. Causes may include the design of the Windfall (sic) outfall swale. Insufficient maintenance of the swale is particularly suspect. Overirrigation and sump pump discharge could also be contributing to the problems that these neighbors have. The maintenance of that swale is the homeowners' obligation. 172 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 Now, I want to go to the proposed drainage flows. All stormwater flows to be direct -- they're going to be directed to a new completely separate drainage swale that's going to be installed parallel to the Windtrail outfall swale. So our water will go to the edge of our project, be captured in a swale, where it will then be transferred over to that northeast, where it will then be directed into the Horticulture Center outfall channel. So none of the stormwater from this project is going to go into that drainage area any longer. We're diverting it all around so that we don't contribute to any of the flooding or stormwater backup issues that they have. The stormwater and groundwater flows both will completely avoid that Windtrail outfall swale to not exacerbate those existing problematic issues. The Horticulture Center outfall channel has sufficient capacity. The emergency spill path in a catastrophic circumstance avoids our project, the Windfall (sic) outfall swale and the neighborhood. On-site detention not required on this site. Offsite stormwater detention is sufficient. On-site water quality features exceeds City standards, and that includes our rain gardens that I mentioned previously. Development avoids the hundred-year floodway completely. We do have minimal encroachment into the flood 173 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 fringe, approximately 575 feet of roadway, and the corners of two buildings up in that area do encroach into the hundred-year floodplain. However, it does comply with City regulations. And it is permissible. The project complies with applicable FEMA and City floodplain regulations. In terms of the wetlands, the wetlands depicted in that bright green color, the delineation of the wetlands has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Development will not encroach into them. And then the buffer that we have all along that wetland exceeds City standards and will be further enhanced by quite a lot of native plantings that will include grasses, shrubs, trees, evergreen, and deciduous. In terms of groundwater. Glen mentioned that groundwater is something that the City does not regulate. However, we have taken the groundwater concern quite seriously, because before groundwater caused by our project gets to be a neighborhood problem, it's going to be a problem for this project. So it would be ludicrous for us not to understand what is going to happen with groundwater and dealing with it effectively, because this project is the most at risk. We do know that we have -- first of all, I want to explain that there are groundwater monitoring wells that have been put in place on the site already, so we have been 174 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 monitoring since April what actually happens in terms of seepage from that ditch right now, so we've been gathering additional information from what we had initially. We do know that there is shallow groundwater. The monitoring wells indicate that we do need to lower groundwater levels along roadways, as required by LUCAS. City staff has approved our preliminary under-drain system as designed, and the under-drain system would be finalized in the FDP -- we should be on the next slide, Brent. There. It's kind of hard to see, but Brent, maybe you can help. We've got under-drains that parallel both sides of all the public streets. So they are scattered all throughout the side, both sides of all those streets, and then in addition to that, right as you come away from the ditch, right along the back side of our buildings, we have an under-drain system there as well to intercept that water before it gets to where it could damage building foundations or roadways. The next subject is the impact of that under-drain system on neighbors and the wetland. The under-drain system discharges to the Horticulture Center outfall downstream. There's no increase in groundwater to the neighborhood or wetland. We wouldn't expect that because we're intercepting all of that groundwater and routing it away from that drainage. 175 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 The developer will continue to monitor those wells to see what's happening; and in particular, since now we're taking all the stormwater around and we're diverting the groundwater around, the question was raised, Well, now are we going to dry up the wetlands, and we don't want to do that. So the system is designed so that if we see that the wetlands are drying up -- and let's go to those -- we've got monitoring wells at all those different sites, so some of them are up by the ditch, and then many of them are down in the wetlands so we can monitor what's happening with that water down there. Steve Long with Cedar Creek; he is our wetlands consultant, and he also has some vegetation plots out there that he's checking to see -- to look for changes there as well too. So if he sees changes, I understand that we have a way that we can divert some of the groundwater back to the wetlands to help recharge it. So there will be the ability to do that if we see that the wetlands are starting to decline. At this point in the program, I'm going to have Josie Plaut with the Institute for the Built Environment talk to you a little bit about the coming together of her organization and Campus Crest, some of the things they've done, and then I'm going to come back and just hit the high 176 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 points of how we meet policies and the Land Use Code specifically. MS. PLAUT: Thank you, and my name is Josie Plaut. I'm with the Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State University. Also a Fort Collins resident at 1006 West Mulberry. So IBE is an institute within the university, and we engage graduate students who are cross-building related programs in real-world green building projects. We've worked on over 15 LEED certification -- excuse me, LEED certified projects in Fort Collins and have another 15 or 18 in the works. And then in addition to that, we facilitate integrated design process, so we work on engagement of multiple stakeholders. And we became involved in this project through the suggestion of some of the local residents saying, Hey, we have really great resources here in this community. We don't feel like you're living up to the standards of our community. And here's some people to talk to. And so we were contacted by the developer to engage with their project and help to understand better the values and the culture of our community. So in that, the first thing that we did is we brought the client out and showed them some of the local projects, including Aspen Hall, a LEED certified project at 177 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 Colorado State University. And then we showed them the Rocky Mountain Innosphere, which is another project that we've worked on and are very proud of. And as part of that, they became excited about the concepts of green building and sustainability and also the integrated design process. And so in late January, we held a workshop with about 60 participants that included neighbors, students, faculty, and staff from Colorado State University, City staff, Utilities, and other interested parties, green building practitioners, and industry professionals, and we brought them all together to look at this project in particular and make recommendations and suggestions about how it could be improved. I should also mention that IBE is a very proud member of this community and that we were reluctant to get involved with such a controversial project. And so as part of that, we did have conditions for our involvement. And those conditions included that they would pursue LEED certification for at least one of the buildings on this project; that they would engage a resident life and education program, focused around green living, so energy, and water efficiency, trash reduction, and green purchasing practices; that they would engage in corporate education, that they needed to take some time to educate their staff, both in a corporate office and in the field about 178 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 sustainability; and finally, that they would engage us in doing one project from start to finish to show them perhaps how this might be done in a way that is more aligned with the other communities that they work in. And they've agreed to those conditions, and we've begun working on all of those fronts. They have agreed to do LEED certification on one of the buildings in this development. We have begun a student resident life education program. We have already conducted corporate education for many of their staff, including in-depth education for their construction and development team. And we have started working on a project with them in Corvallis, Oregon, with many similar issues to this project. So specifically related to this project, if you recall the drawings from the previous PDP, the look and the feel of the project was very different. This is a response to the feedback that we got in the design workshop in January. As you'll see, there is more variation in the massing of the buildings. You'll also notice that the roof is now flat. There are two main reasons for this. One is it helps to reduce the height and visual impact. And another is that the client has become very interested in fairly large-scale solar energy as an investment for their company, as a long-term investment for the company, and the 179 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 flat roofs are much more conducive to installing PV arrays than the gabled roofs. Next slide, please. So these slides are a summary. I'm not going to go through them in detail, but it's a summary of the commitments that have been made and things that are under investigation. So this project is still under design. So all of these decisions have not been made yet. I did want to hit on the Fort Collins Green Code. So we were actually part of the development of the Fort Collins Green Code, although I was on the commercial track, not the residential track, but the client has agreed to follow all of the Green Code guidelines should the project be approved, even though those guidelines would not go into effect until January 2012, with the exception of a specific guideline around insulation and all-electric heat buildings. So you may be interested in questions on that later. At any rate, they have voluntarily agreed to meet the new Green Code should the project be approved, and that is a -- that is an effort that would not be required of them, as I understand it. And then in partnership with that, the LEED component, which covers many things. It covers energy efficiency, site and landscaping, water use, indoor water use, low VOC paints and finishes, so healthy materials for the people living within the project. It's a fairly 180 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 extensive and rigorous program that helps to provide accountability related to the green building attributes. So without the slides, I will conclude my introduction, and I'm happy to answer questions later. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. MS. RIPLEY: Okay. I can do a little bit without slides here. The next slide was really just simply a copy of the City's Land Use Code, because this PDP is -- or the new City Plan, not the Land Use Code. The PDP is consistent with City Plan principles and policies that have to do with protecting and enhancing natural areas, wildlife corridors, wetlands, drainages and stormwater management; livability policies having to do with infill development, neighborhood compatibility, providing a variety of housing types, land use transitions, accommodating student population. All those issues are a part of City Plan. This plan addresses all of those kinds of things. Landscape policies having to do with visually appealing streets, street trees, low maintenance, functional landscapes that are sustainable, unique, and attractive. This project hits on all of those. Livability policies having to do with walkable blocks, traffic calming, access to transit, buildings oriented to public streets, and integrated natural features. Again, hit every one of them. 181 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 Transportation policies having to do with encouraging alternative travel modes, such as bicycling and transit, interconnected neighborhood streets, pedestrian-bicycle network, and safe street crossing. Do all of those things. I don't want to go way into the West Central Neighborhood Plan. Again, I covered a lot of those land use policies and goals in the ODP presentation. But just suffice it to say that this plan speaks directly to promoting student housing on CSURF land, on land close to the university, so that students can live at a place where they can walk or bike to the university, and it's -- because it's an environmental goal to reduce vehicle miles traveled, but it's also a goal to say, keeping track of our neighborhood and not have them reach a tipping point where families don't want to live in the neighborhood anymore because it's been overtaken by students that aren't managed well. Most importantly, the PDP that we're showing you tonight complies with the Land Use Code. The Land Use Code is a document that takes all these policy plans and develops standards to ensure that we get these policies and principles accomplished, our goals accomplished. It's through the Land Use Code that we do this. So the PDP complies with the land use and 182 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 performance standards in Division 4. That's the one that covers the zoning districts themselves that have to do with permitted uses, density, block standards, et cetera. So in terms of permitted use. Multifamily dwellings are permitted uses in the MMN and the E. The density, MMN requires minimum density of 12 DU per acre. We have 14.31. E requires a minimum of 7. Ours is 14.3. Just for your reference, Landmark Apartments near this site is 18 DU per acre. Rams Village is 17 DU per acre. So even compared to other student housing projects around the campus, we are significantly below those densities, so it's not a particularly dense student housing project. We're required to provide a mix of housing types. A minimum of two housing types are required. The proposed two types are multifamily and mixed use. The clubhouse is a mixed use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential units above. We're required to have access to a park. 90 percent of the dwellings need to be within a quarter mile of a park or a central feature or gathering place. We meet this in two ways. First of all, the pool, clubhouse, central green qualifies as a privately owned park that's way bigger than the 10,000 square feet it needs to be. It's over an acre. And also, Gardens at Spring Creek is very close, and I believe 90 percent of the residences would be 183 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 within a quarter mile of that facility as well. And in addition, we're more than a quarter mile from Rollie Moore Park, but it is just down the way and certainly a wonderful amenity that these students will be able to take advantage of. Block requirements. This is a graphic that shows how we meet the block standard. Since -- the biggest stumbling block to us needing a modification last time was that we didn't have public streets. So it was hard to convince you that we were meeting the intent of the block standard. So now we do have public streets that required us to create parking lots to the interior. But now that loop street creates our -- a block. And then so we end up with three blocks in the project. So the block to the north -- what the Land Use Code says is the block is defined by either buildings or plazas or functional open space. So -- or a feature like a canal or wetland or something that you can't build a street across or through. So in this first block that's to the north, we have a wetland that creates the northern boundary. We have streets that create southern boundary all the way along it, but we have two tiny little gaps at the end where we don't have an existing natural feature and we don't have a street, but we do have existing development, and it makes us -- it's 184 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 impossible to do a street there because development already exists. So it's -- we did the best we could do. We meet the standard. It's not feasible to have a street on those end cap locations. The middle block is obvious. It's surrounded by streets. And then the other one to the south is a very, very similar. To the north of that block, we have Rollie Moore Drive. So there we have a street. To the south, we have an existing feature, natural feature, that we can't affect, but we have time -- and then to the east, we have a street, Centre Avenue, but there's a little gap to the west side where CARE Housing has developed that property, and we don't have any ability to put a street there, and it wouldn't make any sense even if we could. So that is how we have developed our blocks. All three blocks are less than seven acres in size. The plan exceeds the minimum building frontage standard of 40 percent of each block face or 50 percent of the total block, since virtually all of our building frontage -- all of our buildings front onto buildings. So pretty much all along our streets, we either have a building or plaza or a functional open space. A maximum building height in the Code says we need to be three stories. We are three stories. And Jennifer, I think it was you last time that 185 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 struggled with the block standard thing and whether or not we have done a good job, you were looking at the Land Use Code and you were saying, Well, it doesn't look like the picture. And so I put the picture in tonight because I think we very much do look like the picture now. All our buildings are oriented to streets, just as is depicted in this Land Use Code figure, and the parking is to the interior. The plan meets or surpasses the buffer zone standards in the Land Use Code as well in regard to the wetlands and the canal. The general standard is that development should be directed away from those sensitive resources. We've done that. We've minimized the impact by use of buffer zones. We've done that. We enhance existing conditions if possible. We've certainly done that. And if you do encroach or disturb these areas, then you restore or replace the resource that was lost. Luckily, we are no longer encroaching into the wetland, and we've got a good buffer along the canal, so we don't have to mitigate in that way. We believe we meet all the performance standards in this section of the Code, which include preserving and enhancing the character and function of the open space. We've mitigated all impacts. We've preserved wildlife movement corridors. We've preserved significant trees. We 186 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 protect any species that we've been asked to protect in their habitat. We minimize the degradation of the habitat by the way we keep people out of it. We avoid lighting and noise that would impact the area. We preserve the topographic features. We've replaced inappropriate existing landscape with native where possible. So anywhere that we've disturbed the edges of any of these areas and the buffer zones particularly, when we replant or reseed, it'll all be native, and that's not true of the areas now. Human access is restricted to the wetlands. We've got a fence all along there to keep students and pets out of that area. And the fencing is compatible, because it's open where it can be, and it's solid where we do need to screen parking lots. And we meet all the general development standards in Division 3 of the Land Use Code, with one exception. And that has to do with street pattern connectivity standards for which we need to request alternative compliance. Now, that is exactly the same alternative compliance that you approved for the ODP. So I'd like it entered into the record that we have requested it, and that we've made all the same points we did in our last presentation, but I don't think I have to go through it all since you've heard it fairly recently. 187 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 Since this project began in 2009, we've had six neighborhood meetings, a community workshop, and an open house. The applicant truly listened to the neighborhood and made numerous changes to the plans and to the architecture as a result of their input. The project is much better as a result of their participation in the process. These are just some of the things that we've changed. The site plan was redesigned to avoid modifications, and many of the variances associated with the block standard, narrower parking stalls, narrower bike lanes, increased building setbacks. All those are standard now. The clubhouse and intense activity areas were placed further away from the neighborhood. Additional property was added to the plan which brought the density down and allowed us to avoid encroachment into the wetland. A centralized trash collection system was changed to a decentralized system and moved away from the natural area. A fence is provided along the wetland and natural area to keep pets and people out of it. The fence is lowered, so we can still have wildlife movement between the wildlife corridor and the wetland. A screen fence is used where parking faces the neighborhood. On-site lighting is kept to a minimum. 12-foot standards, cutoff fixtures. The landscape buffering along the wetland has been increased 188 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 twice and more evergreen trees have been added. A detached bike-ped trail was added to increase bike safety. Items that aren't governed by the Land Use Code that the applicant has done in response. An intense level of investigation has gone into studying groundwater and stormwater issues to educate and help alleviate neighborhood concerns about the impact of the project. The applicant's committed to doing a LEED certified building and is investigating many sustainable green building practices. The applicant is considering heat sources other than electricity. We've provided a bike pump and fix-it station to the clubhouse to encourage bike use. The applicant has requested assistance from the CSU Bicycle Advisory Board on how to best educate students in regard to bicycle safety, and the applicant is also working with CSU housing representatives to ensure that their management policies and procedures are comparable and as appropriate as those as CSU themselves. So there's -- again, because of neighborhood suggestions, we've made these introductions. The owners of Campus Crest have been meeting with CSU people and learning about how they do business in terms of controlling students in their housing developments, and that process is going very well and will continue into the future. We've heard consistently that the project is too 189 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 close to the neighborhood and that not adequate transition between existing neighborhood and the project. You've heard a lot of people say, it's just too intense. There's just too many students. It impacts us too much. First of all, I want to point out that now on a gross density calculation, this project is 7.93 DU per acre. So when you throw in those open space areas on the north and the south, that density goes down to 7.93. CARE Housing is 8.7. Windtrail Condos is 11.7. Sundering Townhomes is 7.2. Hillpond Condos is 5.5. We're not that much more dense than the neighborhood. We have chosen to purposely put all these students very close together so that we can leave all this open space to create a very nice buffer and transition to the neighborhood. What we did to help the neighborhood understand that and be able to visualize it and see it, is we developed a model of the site, a digital model of the site, where we put in all of the grading and the buildings and the streets at actual elevations that they would occur, and then picked points around the edge of the site so that we could show neighborhood residents what this project would look like from their back yard property line. So I just want to share with you tonight that we would like to look -- have you look at these as well. So moving from west to east, this first slide is what the 190 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 project would look like from CARE Housing over on the west side, where we are quite close to CARE Housing. But there's a screen fence and landscaping along that fence and a bunch of evergreen trees. Then we move around, all the way to the east side, and I'll just have Brent track through, but what this slide doesn't show is, it doesn't show all that existing vegetation that I had on those site shots. That's not depicted here at all. But that edge of that green, that's the edge of the back yard, so that long green represents that open space that will exist between the back yards and this project. We are showing the plant material that is going to be installed, and we're installing some 690 trees on this project. These are shown at one- to three-year growth rate. So that's brand-new. They are obviously going to grow -- you know, trees grow between one and three foot per year, so in, you know, 10 to 15 years time, that picture is going to look very, very different, and those buildings are going to be much more buffered because of all the trees that sit between the neighborhood and the building. Unfortunately, despite all our efforts, and despite of all the changes, there's still obviously quite a lot of opposition to this project. The people that are here tonight, they live in an absolutely great neighborhood. I 191 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 go over there often myself. I jog along that trail. They've got ponds. They've got, you know, interesting historic architecture. I know why they care about their neighborhood so much. However, the project before you tonight, it meets the Land Use Code. It is a good project. It deserves to be approved. The design team and the City staff has spent a lot of hours working to make it an exemplary project, not one that just meets the Code but exceeds it in many ways. I'm going to conclude with a quote from Clark Mapes, from the Advanced Planning Department. This was in our last round of comments from City staff. This is the comment that we got from Clark Mapes. This development plan meets the basic overall intent of the Land Use Code perhaps better than any other apartment complex submitted under the Code. The simple pattern of residential buildings facing on to streets with tree-lined sidewalks and street addresses reflects the key standards in the Land Use Code for a familiar pedestrian-oriented neighborhood pattern and residential development. The plan offers particularly generous infrastructure with the extent of single-loaded streets long the extensive open land preservation on the site. And the shortened pedestrian crossings of streets created by curb bulges that enclose and define the street parking. The 192 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 project would be a good example to include in the design manual which provides examples and explanations of the intent behind Land Use Code standard pertaining to apartment complex development. With that, I'm going to conclude, and as I said, we've got a big team just waiting to fill in the details, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I think this is a natural break. I think we should take a quick break and reconvene at 20 after. (Break from 11:15 p.m. to 11:25 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Welcome back. At this point, we are going to have -- if the Board has questions of the applicant. MR. ECKMAN: Mr. Chair, there was one other thing that the applicant wanted to call Mr. Haukus (phonetic) to the stand and get an answer from him that is needed by the Land Use Code, and then maybe he can go home. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Nobody gets to go home early. MR. HAUKUS: Good evening. My name's John Haukus. I'm the water engineering and field services manager for Fort Collins Utilities. And I'm just here to clarify something that is in the Land Use Code and to state for the record that the general manager, executive director of Fort 193 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 Collins Utilities, has delegated the authority for review and approval of stormwater and flood hazard mitigation to myself and to the facilities development review staff. You've had Glen Schlueter up here talking about a lot of those issues, and that this development has met those requirements of Chapter 26 of the City Code and, therefore, Section 3.3.3(a)(4) of the Land Use Code. This is to eliminate, mitigate, or control existing stormwater conditions on the site. So I just wanted to read that into the record for this hearing. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Do we have questions on that at this point? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So do we have questions of the applicant? Not at this point? Would staff like to make any response or comments to the applicant's presentation? MR. OLT: No, I don't think that -- no, I don't think that we have any comments at this time. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. So we'll move into public testimony. And again, as before, we have two groups that we've set aside. We did allow 30 minutes on this one. Don't have to use all 30, but we definitely hear what you have to say. We do ask that you do respect that if you are with a group, we've committed that time to the group, so 194 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 we're not going to allow additional minutes after that, if you're with that group, as we did before. So we need to hold it to that 30 minutes. And who would like to go first? SPECTATOR: We'd like to give the opportunity for the other group to go first. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. WALKER: Good evening. I'm Lloyd Walker. Again, a member of the Neighbors and Students United Group. I will be one of several speakers that will address various issues on this. And in my earlier comments, I made a lot of statements about that, really, were PDP oriented so I'm not going to go over those again, except to summarize and add new information. Again, you know, the things that -- the way we've set up the -- you know, the process of setting up a vision of the future of Fort Collins and for the west central neighborhoods was through these planning documents and processes, the West Central Neighborhood Plan and the recently adopted City Plan. You know, this is the way -- this is one of the things that makes this community a great community and why everybody wants to be here. We do a lot of thinking about where we want to go as a community, and it's reflected in these plans. And I'd like to say that the -- as was indicated, several aspects of the West Central Neighborhood Plan and 195 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 the City Plan are being met by this project. We're addressing a definite need in terms of student housing, in terms of more diverse housing, in terms of dealing with a certain -- certain segments of our population. We've got a mosaic in this area, in this block area, this square mile. We've got a lot of different uses already. This is sort of adding to that mosaic. We're -- we're dealing with, you know, what is the major economic engine in this community. CSU. I mean, no -- no other entity in this town generates so much intense use. We've got 27,000 students. We also have 6,000 employees. And so a lot of people are coming to that place on a daily basis. So when we want to become a greener community, it's important to figure out how we deal with this huge enterprise that really is very intense. And, you know, we've focused on the students here and the fact that we need more student housing, which is accurate. You know, surveys have shown that communities of our size, and with our characteristics being a university down, we're very deficient in multifamily housing. And I think, again, it's reflected in the rents and so forth. And by providing this type of student housing, we're also addressing and freeing up single-family housing that's being used as a student housing. And you know, 196 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 there's other segments of the population, including CSU employees. I mean, I have personal experience about the fact that a lot of CSU employees would like to have a green aspect to their life where they can bicycle to work; and in fact, a lot of these communities like Avery Park were initially set up as affordable housing for, you know, CSU employees. And I think we should think about the fact that The Grove is one piece of perhaps reestablishing those houses as affordable housing so that CSU employees can also enjoy a greener lifestyle. Of course, we've talked about the use of alternative transportation. The importance of biking. The importance of the fact that students are intense bicycle users. And this project has gone a long way to helping to address that. I think it's -- you know, it's interesting that, in this sense, The Grove is really raising the bar on our own policies. I mean -- and I'd suggest that maybe as a future thing, you might want to suggest to City Council that they take a look at this. The fact that this project, by our Code, would only require 25 bicycle parking spaces, and is -- is kind of ludicrous, when you think about it, especially when they're offering 30 of them. So I think it shows that, again, The Grove, as a corporate enterprise is, you know, raising the bar -- raising the bar on us, if you 197 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 will. I think we've heard enough about the fact that what they're doing on the wetlands is in excess of City requirements. Again, raising the bar. And I would use that theme throughout this, because what I've seen happen here is that they came -- and I saw this when I was sitting in your place there. An outside corporate entity would come in and say, Well, here's our product. What do you think? And we'd say, you know, it doesn't meet our community standards. Try again or go away. And you know, I give it, the credit, to Campus Crest that they are -- they said, No, we want to be here, and what do we have to do? And I think we've heard that they've gone through a lot of effort. They're changing their corporate culture. They're looking at LEED. And by doing this and by passing this project, we are setting the bar higher for future projects, and I think that's an important aspect to think about here, is that another -- the next project that comes in, assuming that we pass The Grove as they propose it, we're going to say, Do you meet that standard, because that's the bar we've raised to -- for these kinds of projects. So I think that, you know, we need to keep in mind that the process has worked well in terms of giving us a better product. That's why we're such a good community to 198 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 live in. That's why we've got all these high ratings. That's why we're all here and other people want to be here. Now, I want to talk about compatibility. That's a big issue. You know, as stated, in any of these plans, this project is allowed, but it's got to be compatible. Okay. So compatibility is achieved in certain ways. It has to do with a buffer distance of 300 feet. It has to do with managed housing. There's a difference between managed housing and unmanaged housing. And I think what neighborhoods like ours and Avery Park have responded to is what I would call unmanaged housing, where, you know -- when you have a managed housing situation where the management is on-site, it's trained, they're employing similar codes of conduct to the CSU student code, you know, I think it gives more a sense of assurance, if you will. Can I get those slides queued up -- you've got them ready to go here -- okay. Let's talk about this buffer distance and see what we're dealing with here. Here's the distances that we've talked about in The Grove. More or less 300 feet is the number that we kick around. You can see where we're at there. Let's compare this to some other projects in town just to show you this isn't very -- as intense, as we look at it. Rams Village. 135 feet to the nearest home. This 199 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 is in the area. Next slide, please. Pavilions at Silver Sage, Drake and Raintree. 220 feet. Next slide. Landmark. Anywhere from 78 feet to 260 feet. So those are all within the area. I mean, let's face it. This area around CSU has a lot of these projects. All these projects are working well, and you can see that they're closer to residences than The Grove is. Next slide, please. We've got Bighorn Village. 64 feet. Next slide. Rams Point over by Elizabeth and Taft, 160 feet. We've got Rams Crossing at Elizabeth and City Park. 92 feet. Next slide. Woodbox. Again, you can see the numbers there. Next slide, please. Now, getting a little away from this, down at Harmony and Wheaton, we see a big project, and you see the distance there. Next slide. Collindale, again. Southeast of town, Horsetooth and Lemay. Next slide. This is a new project that's going in, and again, you see the distance that was just recently approved for this. Final slide. And again, another one. So my point on all this -- and one more -- I think we're back. Okay. Ridgewood Hills. Again, the separation there. And next slide? Okay. We're back to The Grove. Now, again, my point is that we have these projects in town. You can see that there is -- they're intense projects. They're close to residential housing. 200 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 And I think you can see that these have all worked well and they haven't created any problems. I think there's a lot of fears that have been built up unrealistically. And so I would encourage you to -- the fact that the Campus Crest has gone out of its way. It's exceeded our standards. And they've met all the Land Use Codes. So I encourage you to approve the project. Turn it over to the next speaker. MS. FAIRBANK: I have a long address. My name is Donna Fairbank (phonetic). I have lived for nearly 36 years at 1712 Clearview Court. I served for over a dozen years with the Fort Collins Area Interfaith Council and currently serve on the steering committee for the Avery Park Neighborhood Association. I'm also a member of Neighbors and Students United. It was during the dozen years that I was serving with Interfaith Council that I first started watching the P and Z process, as many CARE Housing projects were scrutinized, and I began to develop thoughts about what it meant to make decisions for the greater good of Fort Collins. And I thought I had that pretty clearly in my mind. But those convictions were tested not too long ago, when Rams Village was proposed to be built on the Bull Farm and the horse pastures along West Elizabeth. This was my 201 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 back yard, and thing were going to change, and I wasn't sure how I felt about that. During the process, there were many fears that were raised. Lots of talk about the intensity of the project, the height and size of the buildings, the impact of the traffic, the lights. Everything you've heard tonight, I heard in those discussions. There was one man in particular who constantly presented his vision of the facts and insisted that West Elizabeth could never handle the increased traffic. The traffic engineers said the opposite. I wasn't a traffic engineer. I didn't know who was right. I was worried. I didn't know what was going to happen. I just wanted a peaceful life, and I wanted my critters to stay around. I liked the deer and red fox that visited my house. Remembering how I felt then, I have a lot of sympathy for the opponents of this project. But I want to tell them what I experienced. Eventually, after making many changes that addressed the neighborhood's concerns, Rams Village was approved and built. West Elizabeth has not proved to be a problem. The deer and the fox still come to my house. And more importantly, a few hundred more students are living within biking distance of CSU, with on-site management. That facility, by the way, is totally booked for next year already with a waiting list. We need more 202 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 such housing. Because I'm not able to respond to the technical aspects of this, and have to leave that for you to judge, I thought about what I could do to add information. And one of the things that I heard at neighborhood meetings was that this company built places that weren't good to live in. And that the students wouldn't be well served. And I thought maybe I could add some information about that. So I called the LDS Institute in Greeley and asked the director if he knew anyone who had lived in the similar housing in The Grove at Greeley. And he said, yes, he knew somebody, and he had him call me, and I asked him if he would come tonight to tell us about his experience at The Grove in Greeley for a couple of minutes. You'll have tell them who you are and sign in. MR. ROGERS: Okay. My name is Andy Rogers, and I actually just -- just met Donna Fairbank about five hours ago. And so I -- I just learned about this -- this planning meeting that was going on. And I -- as she said, I lived in The Grove in Greeley, and I still live in Greeley. But I had a very positive experience there. It was essentially like living in a condo, and I had my own room, my own bathroom. There was a common living area that I shared with some other guys that I didn't know before I moved to Greeley. I moved 203 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 here -- well, I moved to Greeley without knowing anybody. And when I was looking for a place to live, I found The Grove online and started looking at information, and part of the application process required me to fill out a questionnaire concerning my study habits and my living habits. And they used that to find people who had similar habits. So that -- because I am a relatively quiet person and I don't party or make a lot of loud noise, my roommates also were very quiet and didn't make a lot of noise, and I began my graduate school experience at the University of Northern Colorado very positively, because of living at The Grove. I've been informed that there are people who speak badly about this company, but I found that it's a very well-managed company, and that they do take care of their residents. Whenever I had a concern, it was addressed that day. It is sort of like living in dorms, because they do keep very good control of the residents. We're not allowed to have our own mail key. We have to go get the mail key every time we need to check the mail. But it prevents anyone from losing it. And also, the facility was well-maintained. The air filters were changed something like every six weeks, and it got to be kind of annoying, because I'd say, Oh, they're 204 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 changing the air filters again? And they would come in and paint and -- you know, they would make sure that everything was -- was the best that it could be for the residents. And they are not paying me, and -- you know, despite what you may think -- but just some concerns that have been brought up that I've heard. As I said, it's -- well, I think Chase addressed this earlier. He said that it was a -- it would be a good way for someone who's leaving the dorms to transition into living on their own, and I would agree with that wholeheartedly, because there were people, employees, who were assigned to each building. So it was essentially like having an RA. And while they're not associated directly with the university, they do cater to students, and so they try to keep a good handle on everything that's going on. And so for those of you who are worried about all those students living so near your homes, you probably won't hear much from anyone who's living at The Grove, because it's a pretty self-contained community. They don't venture out into the neighborhood very much. At least that was my experience in Greeley. We go to school, we come home, we talk to each other. That's pretty much how it went. And so something I thought was kind of funny. There was usually like 40 empty parking spaces, so there was more parking than they actually needed. And as I said, it's 205 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 very well supervised. The communal areas between the buildings; there's large grassy area for you to play and lay around in. There was the pool. Plenty of amenities for students to keep themselves involved when they're not doing their homework, which they should be. And one thing that I thought was interesting. When I was moving to Greeley, I almost didn't see the complex because of the mature trees that were around it. From the west side, you don't even know that The Grove was there. So if -- I haven't seen the neighborhood, really, that it's going into, but if there are mature trees that are already growing there, you probably won't even see the complex. So long story short, I had a very positive experience living in The Grove, and I wholeheartedly support this company. They gave me a really good experience, and made my transition into the next level of -- next stage of my life, which was graduate school, a very easy one. So I support The Grove and Campus Crest. Thank you. MS. FAIRBANK: Just to close, I'll say that sometimes I miss my horse pasture and Bull Farm. But I prefer being part of the group that is working towards keeping our neighborhoods a place for my children and grandchildren will be able to buy a home and enjoy living in the neighborhoods where we have been for 36 years, and I 206 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 think Campus Crest is a step in the right direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. MR. ECKERT: Okay. I know you're all tired, and I will try and keep this short. Again, I'm Chase Eckert. I'm the director of governmental affairs for ASCSU. Before I kind of get going here, I wanted to say that I was really, really happy that IBE is a part of this. Phenomenal program on campus. I think it represents where we're going as a university and, hopefully, the direction that we're going ultimately as a country with energy conservation and being more efficient. And I mentioned this earlier. I mean, this is why I consider this a precedent-setting moment for student housing because we're starting to take energy conservation, those kinds of things, much more seriously than we ever have before, and I think that's a good thing. Also, I visited The Grove in Greeley. It was great, and I'm not necessarily some kind of expert in student housing, but I'm kind of on the front lines. I'm just somebody who rents a lot. And I know what to look for. And yeah, I would live there. Absolutely. And I think a lot of students would too. And you know, anybody who believes that they wouldn't or that students would rather live in a neighborhood versus a house, whatever -- or 207 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 neighborhood, house, versus this, I mean, these guys wouldn't be building this thing if they didn't think it was going to fill up. And it's going to. There's no doubt about that. So anyway, the last go-around, I remember this meeting back in October, and there seemed to be a few major areas of contention, and I get the overall impression that a lot of those have been addressed at this point. And that's to the company's credit. I think that's to the credit of so many people who've worked hard to make this project what it is. One of the biggest single areas last time was the variances. And we've seemed to have gotten around a lot of that issue. I know there's this idea -- well, I also remember the headlights flashing in driveways and windows and stuff, and we seem to have gotten through that one too. So we're working through -- they've worked through a lot of major problems, and I just don't see as areas where we can say, Oh, no, this is terrible for the neighborhood, because I don't think it is. And the idea that this project is too big and too dense. To put it in the nicest way possible, that's purely an area of personal opinion. I mean, we have City codes to determine what's too big and what's too dense. That's why we have those things. It meets the codes. I mean, that's 208 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 the idea here. And so we can say all we want, that it's too big or whatever, but we can say the same thing about anything. We have codes to determine what meets those regulations. So anyway, this project, as the developer pointed out, is a substantially lower density than many others in Fort Collins. It's clearly set back at a much greater distance than many comparable installations around Fort Collins. I mean, I just don't see how we can kill this thing anymore. This is a good proposal for so many reasons other than just, that we need student housing. It fits the Code. It fits the city. It has a huge setback. I mean, it's a good thing. I think -- I really encourage you to move this forward tonight. We need this so bad, and this is the model that we want Fort Collins to go off of. I mean, this is a good model for us to kick this discussion about student housing off on. I mean, this is a good way to start. So I appreciate your time tonight. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: My name is Paul Anderson, at 2107 Constitution. First off, I do want to make -- that I appreciate the comments of Mr. Bacon and echo him that even though we may disagree, we're still going to be friends. And since this was a night for demos, I thought I would bring my demo. So I'm going to pull out -- pull out 8 209 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 feet here. That's 8 feet. I don't quite reach you over there. But that distance right there is the distance between my house, my property line, and the house next door that's been a student rebuttal for 10 years. Now, across the street, it's another student rental, and that's about a hundred feet. And then just adjacent, next to it, about a hair off, is 20 feet. And three doors down is 120 -- 150 feet. So when I hear residents complaining about a 300-foot distance from students at The Grove, which is a managed student housing -- now, remember, I live in an unmanaged environment -- I do have a slightly different perspective on that. According -- I just happened to get one of the reports from The Group the other day, and according to a recent report in that Group report, outside investors are once again entering the Fort Collins market, sweeping up single-family homes, and turning them into student rental units. The core city housing for single-family units is now under stress. And we need alternative student housing. These developers have bent over backwards, from all the changes I've seen. I've gone to the meetings and heard about these changes and seen them, and they've bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns of nearby residents. I've had to adjust -- of course, it will be an 210 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 adjustment to these residents. I've had to adjust to the students living next to me, across the street, down the street. We actually get along pretty well. But when one decides that the value of this project, you just can't look to the immediate residents. You must consider the bigger picture. Rollie Moore West is 800 homes, and we will be looking at this decision. We need alternative student housing now. Thank you very much. SPECTATOR: Are you taking his tape measure? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Is anyone else wanting to speak for this organized group? We're done? Okay. Thank you very much. SPEAKER: While we prep for these, Deputy City Attorney, Mr. Eckman, I have a question for you, please. That last spiel about how lovely it is to live at The Grove in Greeley? Are we allowing issues of reputation to be now within the purview of the Board? I'm not sure what Land Use Code that applied to. MR. ECKMAN: All right. Are you objecting to that? If so, it would have been better to object, I think during the -- SPEAKER: I'm just inquiring if the process changed, sir. MR. ECKMAN: No. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I would like to address that. 211 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 We heard a lot of that at our previous meeting. It is unfortunate that that comes into play. I think we as a board understand that. We do listen to everything that's said, and we filter through to what is pertinent. So trust us, we do understand. SPEAKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: But they are, by far, not the first to do that, and it's very hard to regulate against that. SPEAKER: All right. Thank you for taking my question. MR. ECKMAN: I would suggest that if there is someone who has an objection to anything that anyone says with regard to the issue of relevancy, please make that objection while the statement is being made, so that it can be addressed without the statement already having been finished and placed in the record. So if there's anyone in the future that needs to it do that, please raise that issue during the presentation. SPEAKER: We will look to the Board for that. In general, it feels a bit disrespectful to interrupt another speaker and apply our judgments. So we just have looked to the Board for that. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. With that said, are we ready to go? 212 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 MR. BARRIER: Mr. Stockover, and Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Kevin Barrier (phonetic). I live at 602 Gilgalad Way. I'm speaking for 15 minutes for people who are not here. Can you hear the mic okay? We have a lot of ground to cover in the next 30 minutes. So -- because in our mind, the PDP lacks compliance with the Land Use Code in so many ways. So I'll dive right in with that. . . The PDP is not compatible with adjacent existing neighborhoods. This is really at the heart of the opposition to the project. Compatibility -- compatibility is an issue of context. The existing built environment determines the character of the neighborhood. The character is how the neighborhood looks and how it functions. The issue is whether the proposed project fits in. The Grove at Fort Collins PDP is not in character with the context of its neighborhood, which includes modest townhome development, single-family homes and CARE Housing and affordable housing development for seniors and families. All of these neighborhoods consist of one- and two-story structures quite different in scale and character from the proposed project. Land Use Code 3.5.1(b) requires new developments in, or adjacent to, existing developed areas to be compatible with the established architectural characters of 213 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 such areas. The principles and policies statements submitted on June 1st, the applicant states, The Grove PDP is not set within a residential neighborhood. This is simply not true. The applicant uses this fable to support the odd notion that contextual design and gradual transitions from existing neighborhoods are not required on this site. If the PDP is not within the neighborhood, why do the applicant and City staff find it necessary to install fences and screening and landscape around much of the project to protect the environment and the neighborhood from the impact of the project? We requested and received views of Ripley's Design 3-d computer model taken at eye level along the boundary with the rest of the neighborhood. The following slides contrast views of the 3-D computer model with the photographs of the neighborhood taken from the same boundary area. 3.5.1(c) requires buildings to be of a similar size and height or, if larger, articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the massing scale of other structures. All the buildings in the PDP are three stories with no height transition near the adjacent neighborhood and little proportional relationship to the existing neighborhood. Eight of the buildings are almost 200 feet long and over 29,000 square feet in area, 8 to 20 214 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 times larger than the neighboring homes. Land Use Code 3.5.1(b) requires new developments in, or adjacent to, existing developed areas to be compatible with established architectural character of such areas. The architectural character of the area has been well established as a fairly even mixture between one- and two-story structures with patios and decks for connection to the outdoors. The buildings in the PDP definitely lack these features. You see 3.5.1(e) requires building materials to be the same or similar to those used in the neighborhood or, if they're dissimilar, to have characteristics to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible despite the differences. The PDP proposes vinyl siding, brick, glass, aluminum storefront, and sheet metal canopy, cornices, and roof fascia. Materials in the existing neighborhood include wood siding, brick, stone, stucco, and shingle roofing. 3.5.1(f) requires color shades that facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the development. Colors in the neighborhood can be revised as styles change because there are many painted surfaces. The broad expanses of vinyl and brick in the PDP will be the same color forever until replaced entirely. LUC 3.5.1(a) requires transitions with land uses 215 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 when significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other. The PDP does not blend with the fine grade and scale of the existing neighborhoods along its shared margin and does nothing to provide gradual transitions in scale towards the employment district. The developer is unwilling or unable to make any substantive change of scale to the PDP. No matter how green the developer builds these identical building, they are all far too large to consider transitional. Far too large. The City has determined that context compatibility and transitions are important enough to create specific requirements in the Code. They are not reflected in the design of the PDP. The applicant claims that the development is somehow not part of its neighborhood. We respectfully disagree with that assertion. The Board should deny the PDP on the basis that if fails to meet several compatibility provisions of the Land Use Code. The PDP does not meet the LUC requirements for increasing the number of unrelated occupants per dwelling unit. The Grove at Fort Collins PDP includes 18 four-bedroom apartments. There had been a consistent opposition to these units. Mark Holmes, the executive director of CARE Housing spoke in opposition to these units at the November 2010 hearing, as have others in email 216 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 communications and neighborhood meetings. The PDP has 612 bedrooms, but it should be understood that with the target population, the number of legal occupants will inevitably exceed this number. Occupancy under the Land Use Code includes the use of the dwelling unit for living and sleeping purposes by guests who stay overnight for 30 or more days in a year. The building units that already exceed the Code hardly help the situation. LUC Section 3.8.16(e)(2) requires the decision-maker to determine whether the applicant has provided not just the basics but additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas, and public facilities needed to serve the additional occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. The staff report states that in the opinion of the staff, adequate public facilities have already been provided to comply with LUC 3.8.16(e)(2). However, this is a subjective standard, and the decision-maker should make their own finding on this issue. In our opinion, the public facilities provided in the PDP are inadequate for the increased occupancy. There's a considerable amount of undeveloped space in the PDP. However, the bulk of it is jurisdictional wetlands, wildlife corridors, and buffers fenced off from tenant impact. There 217 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 are no balconies or patios for residents to enjoy the private outdoor space. The single open lawn area is mostly surrounded by two curved parking lots. The entire amenity area, including the clubhouse, is 1.12 acres, or 48,621 square feet, which is less than 80 square feet per tenant. This is not much space for over 600 tenants to toss a Frisbee or just be outdoors. The applicant points to The Gardens at Spring Creek and the CSU ropes course and Rollie Moore Park and Spring Creek bike way and other existing commercial facilities as amenities offsetting the increased occupancy in the PDP. The developer made no contribution to these facilities, and they should not be counted as facilities offsetting the impact of increased occupancy. The Spring Creek Trail is open for use 24 hours a day. It never closes. It could become a place for numerous students to gather at all hours, beyond the supervision promised by Campus Crest management. The PDP provides 627 parking spaces, including along Rollie Moore Drive, in lots of public streets for over 600 young adults and their guests. No parking is allowed on Centre Drive or in the MRRC complex or overnight at the Spring Creek Gardens. Where is the overflow parking for the many overnight guests who will inevitably be occupants of 218 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 this development? The only legal parking available nearby for excess vehicles is on the streets of the CARE Housing and the Sundering Townhomes. The three unrelated rule was included in the Land Use Code as a provision that could be enforced to protect quality of life in Fort Collins neighborhoods. By almost all accounts, it has been successful in decreasing problems in our central neighborhoods. The Planning and Zoning Board should find that allowing increased occupancy limits will have a heavy impact on residents of the adjacent neighborhoods, and they are not protected by limiting off -- by limited offsetting facilities provided by the PDP contrary to the LUC 3.8.16(e)(2). The PDP builds apartment buildings and streets in a floodplain. It builds apartment buildings and streets in the floodplain. What's the potential impact of building in the floodplain? In an email written on January 24th of 2011, the floodplain administrator for the City wrote, Chapter 10 of the City Code allows any party to develop in the Spring Creek flood fringe and create up to 6 inches of rise in the base flood elevation. The net result of this allowable rise by development is to force flood water onto adjacent and upstream properties. City Code does not require any party developing in the Spring Creek flood fringe to quantify the 219 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 impact on others. This is not consistent with the best interests of the city, its residents, and its first responders. In a low-lying area such as this where scores of homes are already in the floodplain, even a one- or two-inch rise above the existing floodplain could have serious repercussions. Section 1.2.2(e) of the Land Use Code says the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect public health, safety, and welfare by, (e), avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and the reduction of flood damage. The applicant proposes apartment buildings and streets in the floodplain only because the PDP it wants is simply too large for the site. The proposed fill narrows the floodplain in the critical location where it could cause the rise -- could cause a rise threatening low-lying established neighborhoods against the floodway. The Land Use Code, LUC 1.2.2(e), the City Plan, and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan all provide for the protection of life, property, public health, safety, and welfare by discouraging inappropriate development in the 100-year floodplain. The Board should honor the clear intent of these codes and plans and deny this PDP on the basis of City 220 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 goals, principles, policies, and LUC 1.2.2(e), cited above. SPEAKER: We have some slides that were hard to talk to. We'd like to step through them for you. This is a slide showing City Code 10, allowable rise concept. And so just to start with, there's a -- the notion of a floodway, and on the edge is the flood fringe, and if you'll go a step -- one more. And that constitutes the 100-year floodplain. And on the right, you see there's an existing structure not in the floodplain as the slide stands now. So one more time. And then some fill material was added in that flood fringe. A new structure is added to that fill. And naturally, that causes a small rise. What is allowable is between 1 and 6 inches. Go ahead, Ed. And what happens with the small rise is the existing structure on the right gets flood water. And in our neighborhood, we have houses that are in the floodplain, so while 1 to 6 inches is allowed, it just takes 1 inch to send flood waters into our homes. One more time. And so that last note just is a reminder that -- we call it small. It makes the difference between flooded basements, flooded bedrooms, and that sort of thing in our neighborhood. The next slide describes the narrowing of the floodway. Need to go back a couple. No, you're going the 221 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 wrong direction. Okay. So the same volume of water through a narrowed channel means the water must rise, and how is it possible that filling in the floodplain will not increase the flood level for adjacent neighbors? And so just kind of repeating what I've already said. City Code Chapter 10 allows for up to a 6-inch rise, but Land Use Code Section 1.2.E, City Plan ENV-8.2, and the West Central Neighborhoods Plan B6 all seem to contradict that. And so, you know, one solution is to reduce the size of the project so you're not filling in the floodplain and pushing water onto neighbors in a flood event. Thank you. MR. BARRIER: Okay. Proceeding on. The PDP provides no primary use in the employment district. All secondary uses must be a part of a larger employment district development plan emphasizing the primary use. LUC Section 4.27(d)(2) says, all secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district plan that emphasizes the primary uses. No primary uses are proposed for this employment district in the PDP. Multifamily housing and residential clubhouse, both secondary uses in the employment district, are only uses -- are the only uses being developed. An undeveloped tract is left along Centre Avenue for some 222 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 unspecified future employment development. This does not comply with the Land Use Code 4.27(d)(2). Next, the PDP does not include two housing types in the MMN district. A casual observer of The Grove of Fort Collins, will see only one type of housing in buildings of three sizes, large, 29,000 square feet; clubhouse, 24,700 square feet; small, 16,750 square feet. The elevations and perspectives show that these buildings appear virtually identical. The first floor of Building 12 will be used as a club space for all the residents. The apartments on the second and third floor make that building mixed use, which technically qualifies it as a second housing type. Section 4.6(d)(2) of the Land Use Code requires a minimum of two housing types for a development in a medium density mixed use district on any development exceeding 16 acres but less than 30. The clubhouse is located in the employment district, not the MMN district. So the whole MMN side has one housing type. The employment is holding their secondary housing type. The MMN district is 22.9 acres, but it has only one housing type, multifamily housing. Ms. Ripley asserted in the October 21st, 2011 neighborhood meeting that LUC 4.6(d)(2) does not apply because the net acreage is under 16 acres. This is not correct. Although the density is 223 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 calculated on net acres, Section 4.6(d)(2)(a) specifies that the standard applies to the development parcel. The PDP does not comply with LUC 4.6(d)(2). Thank you. SPEAKER: Okay. The next topic is that the PDP is at risk if the ditch is not located. I know we've talked about this, but the point we're trying to make here is that it should be a condition of approval for the PDP that the canal be relocated. I think everybody agrees it's the best choice. Materials provided by the applicant include drawings of plans for relocating Larimer Canal Number 2, the irrigation ditch, and rehabilitating the old alignment. Changed alignment is not shown on the ODP even though it changes the area of developable land within the ODP. This omission is based on the fact that the ditch is not subject to the city development review process. However, the realignment of the ditch is critical to the hydrological stability of the project. If the ditch is not relocated, The Grove at Fort Collins and adjacent neighborhoods may be put at risk. Why don't you go to the next slide. And this is something we didn't see in the ODP discussion. This is a cross-section from the drainage report showing the red line that I point to with an arrow. There it shows the proposed grading plan, and this grading plan increases risk that the 224 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 canal bank could be breached. So there's a pretty significant cut being made right near that canal to install this PDP. The grading plan involves a deep cut into the hillside below the ditch to allow large buildings and to allow Rollie Moore Drive in its new location to be crowded as far south as possible. This extreme cut is demonstrated by the water table cross-section I described here. Go back to that slide, please. Thank you. A high retaining wall and extensive under-drain system will be required to stabilize this slope and collect seepage from the canal and lowered water table. The cuts in the retaining wall are made necessary only by the applicant's desire to force the site to carry more project than is appropriate for the terrain. The stability of this engineered system will depend on the effectiveness and long-term maintenance of the under-drain system. Earlier, Mr. Schlueter referred to the ditch company as being concerned about the trees, and they are, because they pose a maintenance issue for that company, but Mr. Schleuter missed -- lost track of a letter that John Loren (phonetic), the superintendent of Larimer Canal Number 2, sent to the City, dated January 17th, and it said this. Expressed other concerns. The Larimer Number 2 would like to comment to The Grove at Fort Collins PDP Type 2. The 225 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 company is concerned about seepage from the ditch and impact The Grove in the case of an extreme event that causes a breach of the ditch. So this isn't Jerry Podmore's concern alone. The ditch company has the concern. A superintendent for the Larimer Number 2 Irrigating Company, I've experienced situations where drains, as in the under-drains, cease to operate. This can cause property damage and is upsetting to homeowners. Often, they will direct their complaints to the ditch company. In my opinion, there are better solutions to this problem. For example, the ditch would be lined or relocated, and I would like to further discuss this issue with you and the developer. And we know that's happened. The applicant stated at the May 23rd neighborhood meeting that it will perform and pay for the relocation of the ditch, but has yet to demonstrate an iron-clad commitment to do so, although it sounds like on Friday, something was signed. Showing relocation drawings in the PDP is no commitment, because the City lacks jurisdiction over the canal. However, it's not necessary for the Board to review and approve the relocation of the ditch; merely make its relocation a condition of approval for the PDP. The Board should not approve the PDP until the 226 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 applicant produces copies of executed contracts between CSURF, the irrigation company, and the developer to perform this task with the specific timetable and with any Federal and/or State reviews required, completed for agricultural or nonagricultural water uses. The next topic is about the PDP disrupting existing connections between wildlife corridors. This slide shows three wildlife corridors which exist in the area. At the top of the slide to the north is Spring Creek wildlife corridor, and in the middle is the wetland wildlife corridor, and on the bottom is the canal wildlife corridor. In between, we've represented what we know to be some common paths of wildlife crossing between these three corridors. All three corridors are used by many species for travel, for home, for breeding, nesting, migration, and feeding. There are many trails and connections between these wildlife corridors. They currently flow unimpeded through the parcel proposed for development by the PDP and through the residential neighborhoods to the north and the west. The PDP cuts off connectivity between the two bordering wildlife corridors, being the canal and Spring Creek, with a high retaining wall and a long iron fence. The fence may have some low sections for deer to jump over, 227 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 but what about other species? To the maximum extent feasible, Land Use Code 3.4.1.F.2 requires the development to preserve natural connections, and Land Use Code 3.4.1.C requires the development plan to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and integrate them within the developed landscape of the community. The PDP needs the fence between itself and the natural areas to protect the sensitive environments. No other residential development in this area requires a fence like this to protect a natural area from the impact of intense use by the residents. The existing neighborhoods allow free flow of wildlife through common properties, lots, and streets. If a fence is required to protect the natural areas north of The Grove, so along the wetland wildlife corridor, why is one not required to protect the wildlife corridor along the canal? That's a -- there is a section of a high retaining wall behind The Grove buildings on the south side of Rollie Moore. The applicant had suggested it could be a rough wall that a fox could scramble up to escape. A really tall wall like this doesn't seem to be a feasible escape route for many species, and is likely to increase the risk of residents encountering trapped wildlife. Unlike surrounding neighborhoods, The Grove at 228 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 Fort Collins does not allow free flow of wildlife, does not integrate wildlife within its developed landscape, and is incompatible with the natural area. It does not comply with the Land Use Code as I stated earlier. The next problem is the PDP uses noncontextual and potentially hazardous vinyl siding. The applicant has not wavered in its intention to use vinyl siding in the project, even though it is deficient in a neighborhood context, compatibility, and poses a serious risk to life safety. A comparison with fiber cement siding by the Institute for the Built Environment in the applicant's June 1st, 2011 submittal states, quote, It is worth noting that in the unlikely event of a fire, vinyl siding is extremely toxic to occupants, emergency workers, and the ambient environment, end quote. We question the applicant's assertion that building fires are an unlikely event. While fire is not common, it's certainly not unlikely. And it becomes more likely in denser populations and rental housing where smoking is permitted and where less experienced individuals may be living away from home for the first time, away from a supervised environment, and perhaps responsible for the first time to use a kitchen and other electrical appliances safely. The Board should ask the developer whether fire 229 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 events have occurred at its Grove developments and, if so, how many and what were the circumstances. Vinyl siding possess a high risk of contributing to catastrophic fire and a serious health hazard due to its toxic smoke. The Planning and Zoning Board should reject the use of vinyl siding for this multifamily project. The next topic is, the PDP consists of all-electric dwelling units. This PDP as submitted still consists of all-electric dwelling units using air source heat pumps for space heating and electric water heaters. These systems are not noted for reducing energy consumption in Colorado. The developer has stated, in various ways, alternatives, like gas furnaces, are being, quote, considered; but as of June 6th, the City Planning Department did not know how the apartments would be heated. We suggest that the PDP not be approved until a clear and logical plan is submitted for reduction of energy consumption and demand. The developer has taken some laudable measures to improve insulation of the building envelope. Ripley Designs incorporated that flat roofs are proposed so that the electricity demand can be offset by photovoltaic panels. But the available roof area is not large enough for solar panels to make a significant dents in the high demand for electricity proposed by this project. No one is talking about a solar panel farm in the parking lot, either, and all 230 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 of this depends on the City adopting a feed-in tariff, which is far from certain. Review comments show the City staff was concerned about the impact of electric heat but then failed to follow up on the issue. Staff stated that the developer continued to tell them through the review process that electric heat would not be used. The electric utility development fee estimate provided by the City to Campus Crest seems to be based on the assumption that no electric heat will be used. However, if you look at the PDP plans in front of you, there are no gas utilities shown; and a poster display at the May 23rd neighborhood meeting, and included in the packet we gave to you, specifically states that electric heat pumps would be used in preference to gas furnaces. Section 1.2.H of the Land Use Code requires that projects improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by reducing energy consumption and demand. The Board should be aware that it's being asked to approve a PDP with no gas utilities but with an electric utility plan that was reviewed and recommended for approval on the assumption that electricity would not be used for heating. The Board should deny this plan as noncompliant with Section 1.2.2.H of the Land Use Code. The next topic is PDP transportation impact study and traffic safety questions. Traffic analysis is a highly 231 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 specialized field, and the reputation and expertise of the applicant's consultant is well established. However, the residents who have studied the PDP have some questions about the assumptions and scope of the transportation impact study. The traffic study trip distribution assumes that 80 percent of trips from The Grove will be two to and from CSU. This assumes the student with classes on four days a week would only make one trip during the entire week for errands, a job, for any other purpose. And the most recent student market study conducted by CSU found that student are more likely to use a car for errands and getting to jobs in Old Town than for traveling to class. The transportation impact study did not include all the major intersections in the square mile, either, as would be expected based on LUCAS standards. These major intersections must be used for car trips and groceries and other errands, as we discussed earlier. The travel impact study studied level of service for bicycles only at Shields and Rollie Moore Drive which contradicts the trip distribution assumption that the majority of trips will be to and from campus. The most critical and most efficient intersection for bicycle travel is at Centre and Prospect, but the travel -- pardon me, the traffic impact study did not study 232 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. Citizen concern about traffic safety at Centre and Prospect for students walking and riding bikes has been constant throughout the development review process. Up until now, City staff has consistently said that nothing can be done. Citizen pressure and the prospect of hundreds more students and using this intersection daily may finally result in a more proactive response. So we talked about a lot of stuff, and I appreciate the 30 minutes that you gave us. I want to stress that compatibility is the number one thing. We've heard a lot tonight about the changes that have been made, and we acknowledge the changes that have been made; but what hasn't been changed is the 600 and some-odd residents that will live at this PDP, and that was the crux of the compatibility argument, along with the size and scale of the buildings, the transition. It's too big, and I'll repeat that. But we've also presented other arguments in other areas where this development does not align to Land Use Code. And thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Can I get a quick show of hands who else would like to speak to this issue tonight? The one thing I have to stress is that we allowed group presentations, so I see people raising their hands that are in those groups. So we just don't have time to do that tonight. So if you're in a 233 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 group, and you're in a group, I'm not going to allow that. SPECTATOR: What defines a group, sir? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: It's fairly vague, but you know, you're all over there talking. We're holding you to that. It's 12:30. We need to be able to start deliberating. SPECTATOR: Well, I have stuff to give you to read, then. SPEAKER: I'm representing people who weren't here. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: We were very generous in the amount of time we allowed you. We do hear you. We're going to open it up to other people that would like to speak. We're going to give three minutes. MS. ALBERT: I'm Barbara Albert. I live at 603 Gilgalad Way. I'm concerned about noise from the property, especially given a lack of sound buffering. The applicant has shown you photos of vegetation buffering that only exist in the warm months, not during the school year. SPECTATOR: Mr. Chair, is she not part of the group? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I don't believe she was. MS. ALBERT: And plans -- SPECTATOR: I'm sorry. I don't understand your 234 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 definition of group. Am I part of a group? SPECTATOR: The chair ruled. Sit down. SPECTATOR: If she lives on Gilgalad -- Gilgalad -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: We -- we just don't have time to get into this back and forth, back and forth. You guys are a group. You guys are a group. I'm allowing ample time for everybody else to speak. SPECTATOR: Can we give you things that -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: We won't have time to review them tonight. I mean, we'd have appreciated them in advance, but at this late hour, I just don't believe it would be prudent to take information that we have no time to review. So, please, if you would. I'm trying to be as fair as I possibly can. So I would like you to sit down, and I would like to reset the timer, and I would like this person to be able to proceed. Thank you. MS. ALBERT: The application has -- the applicant has shown you pictures of vegetation, but they only exist in the warm months, not during the school year. And plans to plant little stick trees. The fence is at the bottom of the hill, so below the sound, so it provides no sound buffering. City Code requires in Chapter 20, Article 2, Section 20 to 23, that the noise level be 50 to 55 decibels from the edge 235 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 of the development. For reference, 55 decibels is like a radio on low volume at one meter's distance. Can 612 people with cars, radios, and a pool really do that without sound buffering? It isn't just about the distance. The project is in a big hill over a basin. The City has addressed sound buffering with other applicants. For instance, the planning objectives for our good neighbor, the Horticulture Center, in 2000 states this: The noise level of any event, whether people or from music, is a critical one. We also understand that the nearest homes are relatively close to the great lawn, and that the sound travels more readily in this creek basin for geographic and climatologic reasons. Unlike The Grove, the Horticulture Center went to great lengths to address neighborhood concerns about noise and submitted scientific analysis of noise levels. The Gardens accepted the burden of proof to demonstrate noise levels would be tolerable and comply with Code. This issue was not resolved in the planning process. You'll infringe on my property rights if you approve a project that by design will disturb the peace. We've heard how hard it is to live next to noisy neighbors. Did you see how hard it was for me to keep my three little kids quiet for the meeting tonight? Imagine 236 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 pushing 712 college students every Friday night and Saturday night and Sunday night, for the next 15 years, until the evergreens grow up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. I'm thinking. It's under advice of counsel that we open the doors back up to anybody who would like to speak. The concern is that we have to hold a fair hearing. And if it gets challenged and City Council reprimands it back to us, we'll spend another eight hours, so it would be time well spent to spend another 15 minutes and let five more people talk tonight. So we are going to allow anybody who would like to speak this evening to speak. MS. FIX: Hi. I'm Carol Fix (phonetic). I live at 732 Gilgalad Way. We are a neighborhood in one square mile which is bound by four busy roads: Prospect, Shields, Drake, and College Avenue. In our one square mile, there are single-family homes, condominiums, and apartment buildings. We already have a fair share of student housing. Students live in the condominiums to our south, as well as in the Sheeley neighborhood. Students fill the Landmark Apartments on the corner of Prospect and Shields, and married students occupy Aggie Village. The newest addition to our neighborhood is the Capstone project behind the Dairy Queen, will bring 676 new 237 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 beds intended to be student housing. If The Grove is allowed to be built with its 612 beds for students, our single square mile will have almost 1,300 new students, far exceeding our fair share of student housing. All of these things are happening in our one square mile. But let's get one thing straight. We're actually talking about only a very small portion of that one square mile. The future growth that we're talking about here is in much less than half of that square mile, which means that the 1,300 new student beds literally happen within a quarter mile of each other and of us. Such a high concentration of students will create undue burden on our neighborhood. Please vote no on The Grove. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Next, please. MS. OZELLO: Thank you for letting us speak. My name is Nancy Ozello (phonetic). I live at 644 Gilgalad. My topic is other similar developments in the Spring Creek floodplain and that they're not equivalent. When asked if residential development has been allowed recently in the Spring Creek floodplain, elsewhere in the city, staff referred to two projects, Pinnacle Townhomes and the Lots at Park Central. Pinnacle Townhomes is opposite an undeveloped horse pasture, and the Lots at Park Central is opposite Spring Creek Village, located at the top of a slope, well 238 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 out of the floodplain. Maps of Spring Creek FEMA floodplain for all three locations are appended to the resident report. Unlike The Grove at Fort Collins, these two projects are located in a small rise, and the flood elevation does not threaten existing homes that are already in the floodplain. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. MS. TOLCHIEF: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Tolchief (phonetic), and I live at 1084 Sundering Drive. I would like to address statements made tonight that touched upon the impact of student rentals in existing neighborhoods and how the PDP is a good solution. We -- my neighbors and I sympathize with the neighbors of CSU, around other parts of the city. Their efforts to preserve their neighborhoods' character is a concern of each neighborhood in the city. However, a student housing project of this scale and intensity as proposed by the PDP is not a conducive solution. It is not conducive to the West Central Neighborhoods Plan, which was adopted by the City in 1999. It emphasizes that overconcentration of student housing in the infill area south of Prospect would have a destabilizing influence on neighborhood character. In Appendix A, Page A2, the WCM plan says that destabilizing forces affecting some neighborhoods have 239 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 generally not yet impacted the half of the planning area south of Prospect Road, but the possible encroachment of the same destabilizing elements, as well as poorly situated commercial facilities, and in excess of high-intensity infill housing, can become a major factor in the future character of these presently less impacted neighborhoods. Preserving and building upon the positive character of these neighborhoods will be another challenge of the planning process. It is also important to provide means of monitoring the appropriateness of new infill development if the existing neighborhoods are to retain their identifying character. The PDP is precisely the source of undesirable high-intensity infill predicted by the West Central Neighborhood Plan. The developer is unwilling or unable to adjust the project to a more appropriate scale and impact. The Board is the decision-maker charged with monitoring the appropriateness of new infill and should reject the PDP. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. We're ready. SPEAKER: Okay. I'm going to read real fast again. This is a -- PDP from my husband. I would like to remind you, though, that because of what was said before, my husband's comments -- previous comments of the ODP, you 240 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 should now look at in terms of the PDP. This is -- here, he's talking about the design criteria complying with the 1998 version of the American National Standard for building a facility providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people. According to ANSI 117.181998, all of the proposed building in The Grove development would be required to have an accessible entrance with an accessible route to the entrance from the hand- -- doesn't mean handicapped parking spaces. In addition, the accessible route must be the shortest route possible. While the design criteria does not have a maximum length of accessible route, I believe the intent of the criteria appears to have the new construction site configured such that there are short distance between the handicapped parking and the building insti -- entrances. Building 4 has a 310 feet accessible route. Building 5, 400. The remainder of the building says handicapped parking spaces near the entrance. While ANSI 117.181998 does not give a maximum distance to a handicapped parking space, the intent is to provide accessibility to physically disabled persons. I believe that requiring handicapped persons and the elderly to travel 300 feet in all weather conditions, including rain and snow, is not reasonable. And then he talks also again about the corner 241 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 sight distance for vehicles to enter traffic and accelerate to the average speed. Corner sight distance shall be measured as shown in Figure 716. According to LUCAS figure 716, the corner intersection sight distance for a design speed of 40 miles per hour, a collector is 660 feet. As shown on the attached exhibit, the proposed Rollie Moore Drive and public local street intersection fails to meet this requirement. Building Number 6 and the parking lot is located within the required sight distance. Due to the on-street parking, the intersection to Rollie Moore Drive and public local street will have an approximate sight distance, looking east, of 310 feet. Also, the intersection of the public commercial street and Rollie Moore Drive will have an approximate sight distance, looking west, or 310 feet, which is less than the minimum sight distance for a collector street. This standard -- these substandard sight distances can create a public safety issue. And on behalf of myself, I'd like to say real briefly that because of the retaining walls and the concern from the seepage and the failure of those retaining walls, that since it's been decided that the ditch relocation is separate from the PDP, from the -- the resubmitted PDP, then the resubmitted PDP for you tonight must stand as if the ditch will never be relocated or realigned, and therefore to safeguard public safety, protect lives from injury or death, 242 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 structures from damage from potential failure of the retaining walls, and prevent the uninterrupted use of Larimer Canal Number 2, you must deny approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Thanks for talking fast again. MR. BENNETT: Good morning. I'm Devon Bennett (phonetic). I reside at 900 Shire Court. The proposed development site has wildlife corridors on the north and south. Dr. Tom Sibert (phonetic) has stated in front of this group that the entire area of the project serves as a wildlife corridor, with the wildlife traveling from the canal to the wetland areas to Spring Creek. The presence of wildlife is a major component of the character of this neighborhood. On November 19, 2011, Planning and Zoning denied Campus Crest's first PDP. On November 30th, 2011, the applicant emailed Steve Olt, quote, Campus Crest will be arranging for someone to fill a fox hole on the CSURF site this week before the foxes go in for the winter. As you are aware, we need to get the burrows filled now to be certain that the foxes with kits are not disturbed if The Grove project gains approval and can initiate construction in the spring. End quote. Within three minutes, Mr. Olt responded, quote, Outside of the environmental issues, filling the fox holes 243 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 would be considered development, as in preparing the site for development. There is no approved development plan, only pending. Therefore, the City cannot allow this site development preparation. Please cancel the job. End quote. Campus Crest continued in their quest to fill the fox den despite the fact that their Project Development Proposal had been denied and that the Overall Development Plan had been appealed and was eventually denied by City Council on December 21st of 2011 (sic). They asked for an administrative interpretation of Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code on the definition of development. On December 17th of 2011, Ted Shepard provided an interpretation of the Land Use Code that affirmed Steve Olt's position that the filling of fox burrows in abandoned holes is hereby considered to be part of the act of development -- of developing and shall not commence until approval of final plans. The decision of this Board tonight will almost certainly be appealed to City Council. I hereby respectfully request that the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Board, and City staff assure the community of Fort Collins that the fox dens are not filled if the PDP is approved tonight. If approved here, the City Council could overturn the PDP, and harm will have been unnecessarily caused to the wildlife in the area. 244 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 And I have a dialogue between these groups. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Next, please. MR. FISCHER: Gere Fischer. 608 Gilgalad. Thank you. A couple points I just want to make out. Something that hasn't been considered that I know of is, CSU should consider some on-campus housing, or this development on campus. They built an enormous football stadium. They have the room. Places. I haven't heard that option as one. And we talked about the student housing and how important it is. There's not a single member of the Colorado State University executive team here to address the problem or understand part of it. I think that's somewhat telling. A gentleman earlier talked about how he lives near six students and insinuates that he has problems from the Rollie Moore neighborhood. We're about to live near 600. Just pointing that out. This development is not going to change issues of students wanting to live in single-family houses. If the population continues to grow, people will want to live in single-family houses. They may want to live in apartment buildings. But this is by no means going to eliminate 245 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 single-family houses with three or, hopefully, not more than three students per house in a residential neighborhood. Finally, I just want to end on a couple of Code points. I believe that the project being built on the hill slope demands consideration to the applicability of Section 1.2.2(n), ensuring that the development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. Yes, they're allowed to go 40 feet high, but they should be sensitive to the natural areas and features. It's on a hill slope overlooking our neighborhood, and I think there's some sensitivity that needs to be played there. And finally, Section 1.2.2(m), ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. I think it's really clear from those slides earlier tonight that that might be an issue for you to consider. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MR. SUTHERLAND: Eric Sutherland, of 3520 Golden Trail, an address that is nowhere near the proposed development. I just wanted to make that clear, that there are other people in this community. To look at this development proposal is a litmus test as to whether or not Fort Collins is faking itself out when it aspires to word class standards. I'm here tonight 246 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 to talk about 4.27(d) and (e), a subject that's been discussed quite a bit this evening, and for good reason. That particular citation, that particular element of Land Use Code, was mentioned, brought to you, by a citizen on the very first evening, the very first time that this Board heard about this development proposal. And that, of course, is the fact that you need a primary employment purpose if you're going to develop in the primary -- in the employment zone. And of course, this PDP does not in any way comport with that black-and-white language in the Land Use Code. And so, you know, six months or longer transpired from the very first time the citizen mentioned that element, that noncompliance of the Land Use Code, until now. And yet there's never been any response from the applicant or City staff to look at it. And I really say that's telling, because of the fact that this is going to go on eight hours tonight, and somebody has to represent the fact that City staff is not enforcing the Land Use Code. This proposal should never have gotten off the ground. The answer should have been from the get-go, What you want to build on this piece of property does not comport with the Land Use Code. Unless you bring us a plan that shows us a primary employment purpose, as defined by the 247 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 LUC, you can't take your 25 percent and use it for secondary uses. That's the way the Code reads. There's no other interpretation. And I'd like to expand on that just a little bit more, because I think it's very important, by introducing a few means test to that standard. What would it be like if it were the other way around? Truly, indeed, in any employment zone, you could go in and cordon off 25 percent of it and build a secondary use on it, no intent, no plan, no possibilities for the remainder of the zone. Would that work in our land use planning system? No, it wouldn't. There's not a single employment zone in town, very important pieces of property, very important to the future of Fort Collins, that wouldn't be jeopardized by that interpretation of the LUC. Furthermore, the particular set -- the only reference I can remember -- I've been plying this case for six months now -- is when Board Member Schmidt made a notation of it in her comments. It appeared on Page 118 of the transcript of that very first hearing when she talked about the fact that, Well, there's a sliver of land along Centre Avenue that's going to be orphaned out there. What's the intent? What's the purpose? What's going to be developed there? Is it even developable in its current configuration, et cetera. 248 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 I'll say, harping on that to the exclusion of other things, I'd like to talk about, because that's just one area that would have halted needless controversy in this project, if only the City staff were to be applying the Land Use Code the way it is written down on the paper. You can't build an all-electric building there that's green. Campus Crest has a business policy that shafts its tenants at other facilities by not charging them what's on the meter unless they go over $30 a month. That's illegal according to State law, which is also represented in our City Code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MS. CONSULO: I'm Stacy Consulo (phonetic), 620 Gilgalad Way. The 2011 City Plan Appendix B states the following clearly: The City embraces the philosophy that new development should pay its own way, pay its share of the costs of providing needed public facilities and services. Capital projects needed to support new development are funded primarily by developers through payment of fees. You can understand my concern, then, that the City may not be charging Campus Crest the full cost of development on this project for some unknown reason. I will give to you, or I gave to you, a spreadsheet that lists potential building fees that we see are not being fully paid by the developer. We understand from the City Manager's 249 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 office that some of the fees may have been miscalculated by the City, which is understandable, considering the many iterations these plans have taken. I've also attached information about another student housing project, Flats at the Oval, where fees were definitely reduced by the City. If The Grove project is allowed to go forward, we want to be guaranteed that every fee is collected as published in the fee schedule on the City's website. Further, we want to be assured that Campus Crest, Inc., as a purported supporter of students, also fully supports the fees for students to Poudre School District, many of who eventually attend CSU. There should be no request made to cut fees for this housing development, especially if this development is being sold as multifamily residential housing that could potentially be home to people of all ages. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this point? Okay. MS. BURNETTE: I'll just go really quickly while Ed's doing that. My name is Sara Burnette, 714 Gilgalad Way, and I'd just really like to thank the Board for the opportunity to let everybody speak who had comments prepared. Thank you. 250 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 CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: You're welcome. And thank Paul for that one. MR. KERNAN: All right. Good evening. My name is Ed Kernan, again, 632 Gilgalad. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm going to keep it short, and I've got pictures. It's the end of the night, and I really appreciate the time. First of all, this tract, 11.11. We talked a little bit about this. Go ahead and click -- left-click. SPECTATOR: How do I move forward? MR. KERNAN: Just hit the left click. SPECTATOR: Left click. MR. KERNAN: She's a Mac user. So that's -- there we go. This is the census from the year 2000. It's about 1800 people live in our census area. Next one, please. And this is what this looks like, age-wise, the census population. As you can see the 18, 24, age range in the year 2000 was probably the largest population. In 2010, it has grown. SPECTATOR: Sorry. MR. KERNAN: Okay. And so now -- just leave it there -- with the addition of The Grove, this is what this population trend looks like, with 600 additional. And it far outnumbers everything in this small quarter of a mile. One more. And of course, we're talking about 251 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 adding Choice City with that also. And this is, I think, what we're -- the point that was made earlier. This really skews the numbers in our very small area. Hit it again, please. And again, this is back to the point I made earlier, draws it all together. We've got population, huge population. And the difference between this particular development and the other developments that are going on is really the intentional direction of the way this traffic is supposed to move out of this place, out on Elizabeth, the Rams Point, that particular thing. It's directed away from -- from the residents. Here it is more or less direct-driven -- directed into it. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, again, for your time. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. Anyone else wanting to speak this evening? I think we've given everybody ample opportunity. That closes public testimony. At this point, we have time for the applicant to respond to public testimony if they choose to. MS. RIPLEY: Okay. Thank you. There are several of us that are going to respond, based on our individual expertise. I guess the first one I had my name on was one of the neighborhood -- was contesting that we didn't have 252 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 adequate amenities to justify four-bedroom units. Just a couple of things to say about that. The Code does ask you to look carefully to see that there are adequate amenities. And so the question is, is there enough additional for that additional number of students. First of all, it isn't an additional number of students. Those four-bedrooms could simply be two-bedroom apartments, and you'd have exactly the same number of people living in the complex. So that's one thing to think about, because that's what would happen if they weren't allowed to have four-bedroom. They'd simply fall back and have two two-bedroom units. But it's nice to have the variety they like to offer that. However, for a multifamily project, you're only required to have -- to satisfy your park requirements, you're required to have a private open space of at least 10,000 square feet. The open space that encompasses that central green, the clubhouse, the pool, that outdoor area, the sports complex or the sports courts, is 1.12 acres. So that's like over 43,000 square feet. Well above the 10,000 that's the minimum requirement. So I think there's plenty of recreational opportunity on this site for the amount of students that live there. It is -- it is concentrated purposely so that 253 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 all that noise and activity is concentrated well away from the neighborhood. They were talking about -- one woman talked about noise. It's a reason why we've put the clubhouse in the interior of all those buildings, so a lot of that noise will hit the buildings and bounce back to the clubhouse, rather than bleeding out through the neighborhood. So bottom line, there is a noise ordinance. If students aren't respectful of that, which I think they would be because of the management, but if they weren't, the neighborhood has recourse there. But of course, if noise is loud enough to bother the neighborhood, it's certainly going to be bothering the students who live next door who might be the studious type. So they'll call their manager. So that's how those noise issues, we would anticipate, would be handled. Let's see. There's a question about whether there's adequate parking. We've got 499 parking spaces on our parking lots. We've got an additional 128 on the street. That's more than one parking space for every single student that would live here. We anticipate that there actually will be students that will choose to live here because they can get pretty much every place they need on their bike. So we don't even know that every student will drive a car, have one here, and they come and go. 254 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 And the neighborhoods repeatedly say, Well, there will be a lot of overnights. Well, there probably will be some overnights, but also some students that live here will be spending the night somewhere else. So I think the best representative of that was the young man from Greeley who said there was always adequate parking. It's one of the primary things they do in their developments, is make sure there's adequate parking. I wanted to talk about the issue of this crazy thing that we have of being in two zone districts, that we have MMN and E, and we have a dividing line that goes diagonally through it. It doesn't go at straight angles. It's a curve. Very unusual for a zone district line. We were -- they pointed out that we have to have two housing types and that our clubhouse is our second housing type, but it actually falls in the E district rather than in the MMN district. But I would point out that the clubhouse is a complex. There's actually a building on the other side of the pool, and the zoning line goes in between the two. So the clubhouse complex is actually in both zoned districts. We've always presented the project as a whole. However, we do believe that we meet the requirements of both zoned districts. Let's see. The issue that some of the neighborhood believed that because the -- part of the 255 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 project is in the E district, that it had to somehow be partially primary use, simply isn't the case. That's why we have -- one of the reasons why we have the ODP and why the ODP is useful, because that document requires that there is a primary E employment use. This project will take up approximately seven acres of that E zone, and therefore they've used up seven acres of their secondary land use. So I don't -- that's not -- as far as I know, that's not a Code requirement, that you have to have a primary use in each phase. That often happens that you don't -- you can do the secondary land use first, if you choose to. That's perfectly appropriate. In the end, though, you're required to show that you meet it. Let's see. I think I'm going to let somebody else go. I may come up if I find my name on something else that I haven't hit on. But -- who wants to go next? I guess we're going to talk about traffic. MR. DELICH: Matt Delich, Delich and Associates, traffic transportation engineering. I took notes on four items that came up in the 30-minute presentation on traffic. One with regard to the -- the trip distribution of 80 percent toward -- to and from Colorado State University. Understand that traffic studies, the analysis periods that we're doing are the peak hours. And that's not to say that trips aren't made at other hours. And those trips to 256 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 grocery stores, for example, and the like are often made on nonpeak hours. During the peak hours, when students are obviously the most active, going to and from school, they're going to be going to and from Colorado State University. And the true distribution that we use was discussed in the scoping meeting, the required scoping meeting, with City staff. There was a contention that we did not include all the major intersections in the square mile. If you read further in the -- my eyes are drying out. It's pretty late. Excuse me. If you read in more detail in the Chapter 4 of the LUCAS -- excuse me -- the intersections that are analyzed have to be impacted by 10 percent or greater, so when we go in and pick the intersections that we're going to analyze, the -- we look at what the expected traffic will be in those directions. And if they are impacted by less than 10 percent, then they don't have to be analyzed. So that's in the guidelines for traffic studies, and again, it was discussed in the scoping meeting with City staff. And then the bicycle level of service. We did the bicycle level of service in accordance with the guidelines in the transportation studies. We also looked at pedestrian level of service. And we did that in accordance with the guidelines in the traffic study guidelines. And then the Centre/Prospect intersection was the 257 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 last one. We, in fact, did follow-up work on the Centre Avenue and Prospect intersection later in the process. There was a memo prepared, and it was part of the public record, and at the request of City staff, so we did do follow-up work at that intersection. I'm available for questions, if you have any, either now or later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you. MS. PLAUT: Josie Plaut, with the Institute for the Built Environment. I wanted to address a couple of issues that were brought up by the neighbors in concern. First, to clarify, on the vinyl siding. These will be sprinklered buildings, and so the event of a full building burn-down is indeed highly unlikely. Such an event has not occurred in Fort Collins, to my recollection, with sprinklered buildings. I think that that is indeed a very, very low risk. I also wanted to address the question about the all-electric heat. I know that's of concern. For one, I would say that that is permissible within the Code. However, the client is committed to using an alternative source of heat. So the all-electric air source heat pumps are not a consideration at this time for this project. These are evolving as the design is evolving, so I realize that this isn't all reflected in the documents. 258 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 However, they have committed to meeting the Energy Star Version 3 proscriptive requirements for heating and cooling, which include a 90 percent efficient gas furnaces and a SEER 13 air conditioning unit. That's the baseline system. They're still considering three additional systems that would perform at greater efficiencies from those. So I just -- it's perhaps new information. As I said, the design is evolving as we -- well, maybe not as we're speaking right now, but, you know, figuratively evolving. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Can I ask one quick question there? MS. PLAUT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: You'd mentioned they're doing LEED on one building? Is that -- did I hear that correctly? MS. PLAUT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Are they doing this heat commitment on all buildings? MS. PLAUT: That's correct. So all of the buildings in the project will be built to the same design. They do use a prototype model so they have one -- well, you know, two basic building designs, their larger and their small building, and all of the buildings on this project will be made -- built to the same, insulation, paints, finishes, adhesives, and heating and cooling, water 259 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 efficient fixtures. Those will be throughout the entire specifications of the project. However, for financial feasibility reasons, just one building will be actually certified through the LEED process. It is a significant expense to certify each building, and so it is a genuine commitment and a commitment to build all the rest of the buildings to the same specifications and standards. So we believe that this is an acceptable approach to greening the entire project. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you for your clarification on that. MS. PLAUT: And that's -- yeah, that's all. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Brigitte has a question. MS. SCHMIDT: I just have one question. I don't understand all that much about LEED, but I know a lot of times, I've heard things associated with like gold or silver or -- I know there are different levels. MS. PLAUT: Right. MS. SCHMIDT: So is this the most basic level, then, as far as -- because you mentioned -- okay. MS. PLAUT: I can -- yes, so at this time, we have reviewed the project, and we know that it can meet all of the requirements to achieve a basic certification level. We're in the process of doing an energy model which will determine the amount of points that are available for energy 260 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 efficiency, which will have a big factor in what level we achieve. So I believe it's likely that we will be above the basic certification level. However, that is still under development at this time. MS. SCHMIDT: Thanks. MR. HAAS: Nick Haas with Northern Engineering again. At this time, I'd like to address some of the roadway issues that were brought up earlier at ODP and kind of a -- re-referenced with the PDP. Collectively, they related to curb radii, arc lane tangents, sight distance, and I guess we can say we -- I believe the Board packets did have a list of some engineering variances that were granted for Rollie Moore Drive. So I mean, that's an acceptable part of LUCAS. So through that, both the variances and the basic LUCAS requirements, all of the roadway geometry with the PDP meets the standards. It's been reviewed and approved by City staff. If there's specific questions, I can answer them further. But we have, indeed, addressed and looked at all those. I'll point out a few reasons and justifications, perhaps, for Rollie Moore, because it wasn't just on a whim, and because it's necessarily substandard. I mean, Rollie Moore -- one of the intentions of Rollie Moore Drive is to slow traffic. We do have a full-width parking and bike 261 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 lanes, but we have some narrower travel lanes, both for environmental considerations and to help that traffic calming effect. The curb bulges and rain gardens further try to slow the traffic through there. So the lower design speeds along Rollie Moore Drive then result in different curve criteria and sight distance, and again, that's all been evaluated by City staff and deemed acceptable. We actually have some variances approved for wider streets on the outer local residential roads to help meet some concerns of Poudre Fire. That oversized bike path that we're doing is technically not a City standard, so that's a variance. The addition of the rain gardens is not in LUCAS. It's a variance. Again, that's all been provided, but I did want to briefly address the technical roadway design issues that were brought up. The next one that was brought up was basically a handicapped parking access, and I haven't had a chance to fully review or assess what was stated, but we have looked at it ourselves against the Codes that we believe to be pertinent, and amongst the units on this site, there would be five fully accessible units that would be required. They would be spread out throughout the complex and located in the buildings that are most convenient and have handicapped parking space directly next to them. 262 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 Additionally, all of the ground floor units would be the Type B adaptable handicapped units, and it is true that the two buildings that have the least convenient or the longest route to handicapped parking space is Building 4 and 5 along Rollie Moore Drive. We actually asked City staff if it was possible to provide on-street handicapped parking on Rollie Moore Drive. They deliberated, took it to the transportation coordination, and on a city street that they uphold jurisdiction over it, it wasn't something that they felt was warranted. Another issue that was brought up was filling in the floodplain fringe and subsequent effects with the roadway and corners of the buildings that are in that floodplain fringe. And all I can really say to that is that we've met all the requirements set forth in Chapter 10 of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code, all the applicable FEMA guidelines. It allows filling in the fringe, construction of the residential buildings, and I -- it would appear that perhaps some of the concerns were with the Code and regulations themselves. That's what we're forced to adhere to, and we've done that. And City floodplain administrative staff has, again, reviewed it and approved all that documentation. There was, I think, brought up a couple of times 263 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 the cutting into the hillside and the slope there. This section kind of illustrates to a proper scale of what that -- the development is doing along that hillside with respect to the existing and proposed topography. That would be finished grades so that you don't have a 40-foot tall building and then that exacerbated by the slopes. It does result in cuts and fills terracing up the hillside on the orders of, you know, of 10 feet cuts, 10 feet fills, as the buildings flatten out, climbing up the hillside. The cut and grading adjacent to the Larimer Canal was mentioned, and I guess I'll -- I'll reiterate some of the statements of perhaps the neighbors that this project needs to stand on its own, and our engineering design team has done that. The system of toe drains and under-drains in place and the slope stability analysis that was performed and the retaining wall proposed that'll be, you know, further designed during final design, require a building permit, you know, engineering, stamp and licensure to ensure that all of the -- al of those structures and stability and under-drains indeed are safely stable, not just for neighbors, but for these buildings that Campus Crest has proposed building in that location. It would behoove them and all of us that would be stamping work out here that it's going to indeed be stable and function. 264 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 The ongoing maintenance and operation of the under-drains will be covered in the development agreement to again ensure it's not put in the ground and look the other way and is never -- you know, never kept to perform. And so obviously, the ditch relocation, realignment, agreement is in place and effective. The horizontal separation allows for the lining of that canal only further addresses some of those concerns, but the design of The Grove as a standalone project does not depend on the canal relocation. MS. LILEY: I think I'm the last speaker, and I'll try to be very brief, since it is very, very late. I'm having the same trouble Matt did, keeping my eyes focused on the words at this point in time. I wanted to talk just a minute about the ditch realignment project. It's been suggested that there needs to be a condition of approval for that. You do have evidence in the record from the ditch company itself and from CSURF testifying tonight that the agreement has been signed and that the ditch realignment will occur concurrently with The Grove project. I guess the question of whether or not it should be a condition of project approval is whether or not the Land Use Code would require that. I know there has been a lot of back and forth between Mr. Podmore and the City. He went to an April -- I think it was 19th Council meeting and 265 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 talked about groundwater and liability, and thereafter -- and this is all in your materials as well -- a SAR was issued by the City Manager's office coming from Sherry Langenberger in engineering, project development, review and engineering. And the position of the City is that they regulate very little with regard to groundwater. They basically, on private property, require -- basically don't permit basements, and there aren't any basements here. And then there are certain studies and reports that you need to do for impacted public rights-of-way, and that's it. But otherwise, it's up to the individual engineers to design something that's safe and protects the property from groundwater. And if there's liability, that's a private liability issue between the parties. So I'm not quite sure where to go with that. If in your view you think this is something, and this can be tied back to the Land Use Code and that the project would depend on it, then we can talk about that. But I'm just curious. We have been advised for many, many months now that the project is not dependent on the ditch relocation project. It's a great thing to have. Don't get me wrong. That's why we're all doing it. We want to have it. It's going to happen. But the project is not dependent on that 266 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 in terms of meeting the Land Use Code. So I'm assuming you have questions for the City staff, and we can drill down a little bit further, and then if you want to talk after that about whether you think that's an appropriate condition, we can do that. Just one other very quick thing. When Linda was talking about block compliance, she mentioned -- and I just want to make sure there's not confusion, because we always seem to have confusion about block standards. But she mentioned, Well, you know, there's a few gaps, and we can't meet it. I don't want you to get in your mind that that's a modification or something not permitted, because the Code specifically addresses that and says that if existing development prevents it, then that's fine. They recognize that as an infeasibility, and that's all that requires is for you to acknowledge that, and she provided that instance that in those two spaces, the reason it can't be complied with is because there's existing development. So I just want to clarify that so we don't get into an issue about, are you meeting the block standards, or is this a modification. Yes, we are, and it's specifically provided for in this section. And I think I'll stop there for the moment. Thank you. 267 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 CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Thank you very much. Lucia, we would like to ask you a follow-up questions. MR. LINGLE: And maybe it's Linda, but Lucia, both you and Nick mentioned that in regards to the ditch relocation that -- I think the word you used was that The Grove PDP is not dependent on that, being relocated, but I guess I've got a question about the basic design of the PDP. Would it be modified in any way if the ditch was not relocated? Would it be graded differently? Would it be -- would there be any impact at all to what you're showing us tonight if the ditch wasn't relocated? MS. LILEY: I don't believe so, but Linda -- well -- I'm hearing no, it would not affect the PDP. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. It's been two hours since our last break. I think we're going to take a five-minute break at this point, and then we'll proceed. (Break from 1:22 a.m. to 1:32 a.m.) CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Welcome back. Just wanting a quick show of hands, how many people think they're going to abuse their alarm clock in the morning. That's a pretty overwhelming response. Okay. At this point, we have -- we give the staff an opportunity to respond to public testimony. MR. OLT: Okay. I will start with that from a 268 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 planning standpoint, and pretty much going from the top. There were several comments about the compatibility of the project, size, sale, architectural, building materials, transition, size, scale -- you know, what we're looking at is proposed multifamily residential project with three-story buildings. And obviously, in the neighborhood, there are single-family homes, one- and two-story single-family homes, two-story multifamily dwellings. They transition to a three-story. Certainly, it would not be out of character, if you were to look at, you know, anyplace in the city of Fort Collins, you'll see that kind of transition. Especially since this is property zoned MMN, medium density mixed use neighborhood. The residential can go up to three stories. We actually have a large three-story building just up on the hill, across the ditch, looming over the valley. So and then with the -- from a transition standpoint, with the distance -- transition, I mean -- as we've seen previously, we're looking at a 250- to 350-foot separation between, basically, buildings in this project and the closest buildings in the neighborhoods to the north and west. So the transitions are more than adequate, really making the size and scale of the buildings really compatible. Architectural character, building materials. I'd 269 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 like to say that that really, to us, has become a product of the developer working with the Institute for the Built Environment. Because you've seen that there's been a dramatic change in the architectural style, and that occurred, really, not at the suggestion but the insistence of the neighborhoods early on, that, you know, that kind of cooperation occur, and it has, and it certainly has changed the architectural character and, to some degree, the building materials to work in the sustainability green built concepts. So that's really what has driven the nature of the buildings. I just want to reiterate what Linda Ripley had said, the four-bedroom units concept. Someone had suggested that that really, basically, suggests guest occupants there, with that fourth bedroom, and the amenity package is inadequate. We've evaluated this. Certainly, staff concurs with the applicant's position that the amenity package, the open space, the public facilities within the area, the -- actually, the amenity package on-site is adequate to justify the 18 four-bedroom units. If -- if that were denied, what they would do is just reconfigure this. I'm not sure that the dwelling units or bedrooms would go down any. It would just be reconfigured, and what they're suggesting is, you know, that 270 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 those 18 four-bedroom units really represent a lifestyle for some of the residents in the proposed development. So we do concur that the 18 four-bedroom units are justified based on 3.8 -- .16 of the Land Use Code. The only one building type, again, we have applied this interpretation on several projects throughout the city over time in terms of the clubhouse, mixed use building, the nature of the -- you know, the residential units on the second and third floors, and the commercial nonresidential uses as part of that. That is a second building type, and it's consistent with the way the City has interpreted and applied that to several projects. Let's see. Talking about the fox dens. One gentleman that talked about wildlife corridors, which we'll get to momentarily, the fox dens, and he actually provided you with information that both myself and Ted Shepard had -- you know, we had discussed, and an interpretation was actually made about, you know, whether the filling of those fox dens was development. Our position was and still is, yes, it is. That development cannot occur until there's a final development plan approved. If you were to approve the PDP tonight, that is not approval of a final development plan. That kind of activity will not occur until there is a final development plan approved. So that position has not changed. 271 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 There was a comment about -- several comments about new development pays its own way. Why is the City not charging full development fees. To our knowledge, they are, and that was actually expressed in one of the questions from the -- the prepared questions that the neighborhood had provided to us at the May 23rd neighborhood meeting, that to our knowledge, they have paid full development fees, development review fees. There was reference to the Flats at the Oval getting some reduced fees. If I'm not mistaken, that might have been to Poudre School District because the nature of the development -- it's a college student housing development, so to speak, but they had to petition the School District, just as this development would have to do. It's not a City decision. The School District has to be petitioned to reduce their fees. To my knowledge, that has not been done. So you know, those are basically, I think, the planning-oriented questions. There were numerous comments about floodplain regulations, the wildlife corridors, natural habitat preservation, more traffic-related questions. So we have, you know, several staff here, Ward Stanford, Mark Beratta (phonetic), Lindsey X (phonetic), and Matt Wempey (phonetic) are all prepared to answer or respond 272 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 to those concerns of the neighborhood, relative to those issues. So I don't know who wants to go first. STAFF SPEAKER: Are you asking further questions or just read through -- MR. OLT: Yeah, are you asking further questions, or just -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions. We're just -- I think we would like to move into Board discussion. But if you had anything specifically that you wanted to respond to the applicant -- or, I mean, public testimony. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to one very briefly about the -- again, the mix, the materials. And I think one of the folks speaking about the mix of uses in employment. Again, the standard, 2.3.287, any standard relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire Overall Development Plan, not on each individual Project Development Plan review. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHLEUTER: I think in my -- you know, you were talking mainly floodplain and ditch seepage. With the floodplain, it was a pretty interesting concept that they brought up, that there's a conflict between the Land Use Code and the Municipal Code. 273 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 The City Code has been around quite a while. Floodplain administration has been started late '70s, I would think. And this concept of fringe and fill and floodways has always been part of that. It's something that FEMA had initiated. So I would think that if you go -- you know, you definitely know which was the first. And, you know, the minimal amount of spill that's coming into this area, you know, and in considering all the improvements that we've done upstream to lower the floodplain, including -- you know, we had to do that because we increased our rainfall criteria after the '97 flood, so it caused a bigger overtopping of the Burlington Northern, so we've done all those projects. And the meeting before this one was the water board concerning Capstone, and Brian couldn't make it to this meeting, but he was at that one, and was testifying about -- it was between 1 and 3,000 CFS less compared to a total of like 5,000 CFS that we've already mitigated for. Even saying that, you know, what they're showing is true. It would be a minimal rise, I would think, less than an inch, if that. But that's all theoretical, too. You know, in reality, we don't control how much water comes down there. As far as the ditch seepage goes, I really don't 274 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 feel comfortable. I'm not a geotechnical engineer, although I have quite a few years of experience in these situations with other developments. Most of the subdrains that have failed that John Mowen (phonetic) is concerned about were usually, if not always, residential subdivisions where the developer put in a sub-drain system along the ditch and then walks from the site and leaves it up to an HOA that didn't even know the pipe was there. So I think in this situation, we're going to have -- you know, they're going to be motivated. They start getting high groundwater. If it's plugged up, it's going to start coming up in their buildings. So I have a feeling that they're going to be really motivated to do something about it. Another thing that comes to mind was, of all the ditches in town, I would think that Larimer Number 2 is probably the least-used ditch. It is used primarily in the spring to fill Warren Lake and then sometimes in the fall, they get some free water off the river and they can put some more back into Warren Lake. And then sometimes in the fall, they get some free water off the river, and they can put some more back into Warren Lake. I think you might want to hear from the geotechnical engineer who understands slope stability and the design for the site. That might make you feel a little 275 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 more comfortable with their design. So that's all I have to offer. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. CAMPANA: I've got a follow-up question with you, Glen. On that discharge out of there, is that outlet controlled? Or who controls that discharge going back out to Spring Creek by the Garden -- what, the Gardens at Spring Creek? Is there a ditch there? Is that where you're connecting the drainage into? MR. SCHLEUTER: Yes, it is. MR. CAMPANA: Is there an outlet structure there, then? Spillway or something? MR. SCHLEUTER: Well, what there is, is a crossing of the Sherwood Lateral, and underneath that Sherwood Lateral is two culverts that are one and a half foot high by six foot wide, and we have had them analyze that situation to make sure that they're discharging, a hundred-year storm can fit through those culverts. We had to be real conservative and use back water as if Spring Creek was -- which already had flood flows in it. And then if it does plug, or there's a bigger storm than a hundred-year storm, what it does is it overflows to the east, across The Gardens at Spring Creek, which is -- you know, it's just gardens. It's not the buildings. It's the gardens. So we feel fairly comfortable -- we are 276 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 comfortable that it will work and not impact any other developments. MR. CAMPANA: Okay. That's where I was going, for filling that fringe and backing that up for some reason. You've got a design so it goes to the east as opposed to the homes to the -- MR. SCHLEUTER: Well, I don't think it will really back up water. A little bit, maybe, but what it really would do is just cause a little rise right in that area. And I would think it would be somewhere under an inch, like I said. MR. CAMPANA: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. I think we're ready to move into Board discussion, which we sort of have. So let's start -- yes. MS. SCHMIDT: I've got a few questions that can probably be answered fairly quickly. And some of these, I've discussed, like, at work session and stuff. So the local street around there now, that is not going to have parking on it, correct? STAFF SPEAKER: No, the local street will have parallel parking on it. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Will have parallel parking, and then there will be a side, and then the bike path goes -- I was just wondering. In some of these pictures 277 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 that we've been shown by various places, you know, what the buildings are going to look like from the houses, it's never shown that there's -- you're basically around the bottom of the buildings. You're going to be seeing a row of cars first, right? On the other side of that fence? Or whatever? So that's why I didn't know how that -- that road was really going to -- STAFF SPEAKER: Presumably, yes, you would see cars if people needed to park on that street. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. But then there's -- would also be the bike -- the bike lane would actually be closer to the homeowners, right, than the parked cars? Is that correct? STAFF SPEAKER: Yes, the bike lane is detached. It's on the western side and it goes around the -- MS. SCHMIDT: Is that a sidewalk and bike path together? Or. . . STAFF SPEAKER: I guess what you would you call it is probably just an unofficial, like, multi-use. It can be used for bikes. There's nothing that prohibits bicyclists from bicycling on the sidewalk. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And then we talked about the, you know, City sort of having responsibility for the street trees along those roads. And who sets up how those trees get watered? Is that at the time they're installed? Is 278 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 there underground irrigation? Or. . . STAFF SPEAKER: At the time that they're installed first, they have to go through a maintenance and warranty period similar to our roads, so basically, if they fail, I think it's within the first two years before City Forestry would take on maintenance. There would be an expectation that, you know trees that died would be replaced, basically. So they do have to be established before Forestry takes them on. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. So for the first two years, then, it would be the developer's responsibility to replace any trees that died? STAFF SPEAKER: That's correct. There's usually even a performance bond that the Zoning Department collects that would help ensure that in case the trees were to die, that sort of thing, if they weren't taken care of, that we would have those funds available. MS. SCHMIDT: And so what sort of helps guarantee that they will not die? I mean, are they just planted, or is there -- on most of these street trees, is there some kind of watering system that goes with those? STAFF SPEAKER: Yes. It's required of all street trees in the parkway. MS. SCHMIDT: They're sub-irrigated or they're -- STAFF SPEAKER: That's correct. 279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And in the previous plan -- I don't know how this one is really designed, because we didn't see the detail cross-section, but remember, they had that -- the sort of parking that faced out, and the idea was that the water there would run off, down the hill? Is that still the same? So, in other words, like, the road, the local street, probably, has curb and gutter, I'm thinking, but then that detached sidewalk, that would -- the water from that would just be designed to run off down the hill? STAFF SPEAKER: So, yes, there would be curb and gutter on both sides of the local streets, so it will be contained, and then through storm piping -- I could pull out the drawings, I guess, to see where those are situated. And then within the sidewalk, yeah, I guess whatever falls from the sky would sheet-flow off the sidewalk, but you would have, theoretically, parkway on one side and turf and native grasses on the other. MS. SCHMIDT: Then I guess the other -- I just had a couple of questions. Maybe Linda could respond. At one time, somewhere during the length of the evening, you mentioned there were going to be some commercial uses in the clubhouse? And do you have a plan for what these might be? Are we talking just like a coffee shop or something like that? MS. RIPLEY: Actually, they do have coffee, kind 280 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 of a coffee shop, but it's part of their clubhouse. When I said commercial, I just meant that -- they're charged commercial fees for the clubhouse, which is the first floor of the building. So they pay commercial fees for that portion and residential fees for the two levels of residential housing above. MS. SCHMIDT: Oh, okay. But there probably won't be, like, commercial -- like the Oval Flats kind of commercial. MS. RIPLEY: We have discussed that, but there has been no decision on that. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And maybe the person from the Built Environment -- I guess I had a couple of questions. Did you want to respond to the comment about -- that there's not enough roof space or something to do solar? I wasn't sure exactly what they meant about that. MS. PLAUT: Yes. So regarding the solar, electric system. There's a couple of issues at hand. So one is that the current incentive program available through the City of Fort Collins is under consideration for revision. And the current system does not provide an economically viable option for any significant amount of solar. They're fairly limited, amounts of rebates and refunds. So there's a fee and tariff program that's under consideration. That would make a significant solar installation financially viable for 281 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 the client. The client is currently considering a fairly significant system for their Greeley property, and they're looking at a 600 to nearly 1 megawatt -- 600 kilowatt to 1 megawatt system for their Greeley property, and that is primarily through covering roof space. In order to get to the full meg, they would need to provide additional solar off of the roofs, but those are also the gabled roofs. And so while I'm not a complete solar expert in this, I have talked with a solar consultant, and sat through meetings, and basically, there is room for a significant solar installation on the 12 buildings; and with the flat roofs, essentially, all of the buildings can be lined with solar panels, because it's not important which direction the gable faces. The roofs can be mounted on any of the roofs that are shown here. So it's our understanding that the client both would like to support the fee and tariff program, and should that tariff program then pass, they're very interested in participating, and that would be a fairly large-scale solar installation, probably the largest private solar installation that we have in Fort Collins, should that come through. So my understanding is that there is significant opportunity for solar on this project. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. The other question I had, it 282 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 seems kind of unimportant. I presume all the windows are designed, although there's air conditioning, that they can open them, every apartment can? SPEAKER: Yes. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. I think that's all I've got right now. Thank you. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Let's see. Can you tell me, what's the status of the green building code review in the City right now? STAFF SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I don't have the answer for that, and I know everybody is looking at me, but I don't know. I'm, like, who looks the most tired? MR. SHEPARD: My understanding is that City Council had passed it and that the Building Department, Mike Jebel (phonetic), is working with the light and power engineers about getting it implemented. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Does anyone know -- maybe you do, Gino -- about the all-electric heat systems? Is that going to be addressed or allowed, not allowed? MR. CAMPANA: Josie was on that. MS. PLAUT: I can speak to that. So as I understand it, it has been voted on and approved. Most of the green codes will go into effect January 2012. There was a special provision passed, I believe, that may have been instigated by a project we've all been talking about for a 283 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 while now, and it was to increase the required insulation value and envelope performance for all-electric heat buildings. And that, I believe went into effect April 28th. So that would affect this project. So it requires higher insulation values in the walls and the roof and also higher envelope performance -- I'm sorry, higher U values -- or lower U values for window, if I can get all my directional numbers correct. But basically, better performing windows, better performing walls and roofs for all-electric heat buildings. But there still is not an exclusion or exception for electric heat. However, as I mentioned, the client has given every indication that the system is completely off the table, and the new baseline system is a gas-fired furnace with air conditioning, and that we're looking at improved systems beyond that, but that the electric heat option has been taken off the table. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Steve, is there anything in the -- there's been a lot of debate about vinyl siding. And I guess, you know, my personal opinion is it's not a sustainable product at all, but I guess from a Land Use Code standpoint, is there anything that would -- we could point to and say that vinyl siding is not allowed and this is why? 284 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 MR. OLT: I don't believe there is, other than if you could -- if you could construe that, you know, related to a material compatible with anything else in the neighborhood, would be the closest thing I think I could come up with in the Land Use Code. But strictly prohibiting a material like vinyl? That's not cited in the Land Use Code. MR. LINGLE: Okay. And since the drawings of PDP call up vinyl, if they chose to make a material selection enhancement at the final plan, some of their material might be more sustainable, or would that be allowed, or would they be bound to vinyl siding at that point? MR. OLT: They can certainly make that change between a PDP approval and a final plan approval. MR. LINGLE: Anything that staff would consider an upgrade. MR. OLT: That's correct. MR. LINGLE: Okay. MR. ECKMAN: It might require an amendment. MR. LINGLE: Okay. MS. PLAUT: Mr. Lingle, I'm sorry. May I speak to that for a moment? So I did submit a report on vinyl siding compared to fiber cement siding, and I want to share a little bit of our experience with that. We referred to the Athena Institute. It's a 285 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 nonprofit organization specializing in life cycle assessment of building system components. And I have to say that I was very surprised by the results. I not two months ago was very much in the very antivinyl camp and had given the client a significant amount of grief -- MR. LINGLE: Propaganda. MS. PLAUT: That. Sorry. My communication skills are starting to break down a little bit. But bear with me. So instead of me being able to conduct a full life cycle assessment, because that's a very in-depth, detailed study that takes into account everything from raw materials extraction to manufacturing, installation, and eventually decommissioning of the building product, so it's a very comprehensive assessment, and I looked across a variety of metrics, including fossil fuel use, CO2 use, global warming potential, ozone depleting potential. It's a very comprehensive analysis. And what we found was that it's a pretty mixed bag, and that there weren't any clear preferred winners in this sort of game of what do we clad our buildings in, and it was a little bit of an eye-opener for me. So I would just say that we deferred to a well-respected nonprofit third-party entity who has done extensive life cycle analysis, and what we found is that vinyl performed worse in some categories and it performed 286 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 better in other categories than typical alternatives, such as fiber cement, and if you look at the report, it also shows stucco. And so those are the viable options. And stone and brick are on there as well, but they score surprisingly poorly, actually. So it kind of brings up the issue of the complexity of trying to do sustainable design. And so I just wanted to clarify the source of information and also the learning that happened for us in that exploration. So I don't know that it's exhaustive, but it was the best resource that we could find to indicate the sustainability of the product. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Linda, I was wondering about, there were questions about the transitions from this development to its neighbors and things. And I didn't know how -- if you had explored that at all. I see on the site plan that there is -- other than the clubhouse, there were essentially two different footprint types. One looks to be about half the size of the other, and whether or not some of those smaller building up closer to, like, the CARE Housing might be considered by the neighborhood more transitional or not. I mean, granted, they're all three stories, but -- MS. RIPLEY: Yeah. Without dropping down to two stories, we didn't see much value in putting a smaller 287 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 building at the ends. We did look at it, but this turned out to be the most efficient arrangement. And continually, throughout this process, it's been about trying to arrange a site plan that works functionally and is just as efficient as it can be so that we can leave as much buffer along the canal and along the wetland as we possibly can. Now, I think -- I feel like it's compatible because of the long distance of separation that we have between these buildings and the residential buildings to the north. They're larger, granted. They're a lot larger. But they're also from 250 to 350 feet away. We rarely see that kind of distance between multifamily and single-family here in Fort Collins. Even when it's just multifamily to single-family. This is actually multifamily to condos and townhomes and there are some single-family in there, but it's a mixed -- it's a mixed development. So the transition -- I look at the transition really occurs in the -- from a larger framework, from further out in the West Central Neighborhood Plan where you do get larger lots and single-family development. It transitions this way and becomes much denser. Like I said, one project is even more dense than this project on a gross basis. And then we also -- the Code also asks you to be compatible not just with residential but with other 288 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 buildings. So as soon as you cross Centre Avenue, we've got the National Resource Center, which has flat roofs and three-story buildings and modern architecture, and it's perfectly in keeping with this. So it just feels okay. And plus, I don't think it's been emphasized quite enough, but we have a ton of planting on that outside edge of all kinds of ornamental trees, tall trees, evergreen trees, shrub thickets, and it's there for structural diversity, for wildlife, and enhancement in that area, but it's going to do a lot of screening. And yes, a lot of it is deciduous, but as I showed that other slide, that was are' deciduous, but things do hold on to leaves. They serve a purpose in the wintertime. Anyway, I'll stop. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. MS. RIPLEY: Did that answer? MR. LINGLE: Yes. Just one more question. The issue about the second housing type. Steve, does the fact that that clubhouse, the mixed use housing that's part of that, whether it's all in E or straddling the zoning line, does that matter at all to staff? Or is there any reason that that is a concern? MR. OLT: We actually have looked at that as the development as a whole. MR. LINGLE: Okay. MR. OLT: So the direct answer to your question, 289 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 does it matter, no, it does not. We're looking at, you know, The Grove project from east to west as, you know, a unified project. And we have the two housing types within that project. I don't know. Ted, did you want to elaborate on that? MR. SHEPARD: There's a little bit of latitude in 1.4.6 that where -- I'll read it, that where a district boundary divides a lot of record at the time the boundary was established and where the division makes an practical or reasonable use of the lot, the boundary may be adjusted by the director in either direction, not to exceed 50 feet beyond the district line into the remaining portion of the lot. And we rarely rely on this. It's obscure. But it does allow for some flexibility when you have a zoned district boundary line that bisects the site. MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCHMIDT: Along those lines, Ted, I was wondering when we were coming up with the new City Plan, did we fix this? Because we talk about it every time, about the only two housing types, and I thought we had addressed it somewhere. It may not apply to this project, but have we done anything in some of the new City Plan things that we did and the Land Use Code amendments? So we don't have anything that works right now that is going to change this. 290 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 MR. SHEPARD: No, we do not. Not at this time. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Thanks. MR. SMITH: I wanted to get a better understanding of the parking arrangement. I've heard and read it, and I apologize if I'm chopping this up, but that there's 403 parking spaces on-site. 430 are required. But I've also heard that there's 499 on-site. And so I just want to get a breakdown of what is actually on site, what's on the street. And then along those lines, if the parking that's being provided offsite -- so on the street -- if that is a number that actually is used to make your minimum. MS. RIPLEY: There are 499 parking spaces on our site. In addition to that, there are 128 on streets where people would park and no one else would park there other than people that lived in this project, in most cases. That's a total of 627 parking spaces, basically, serving this development. 430 are required. That was correct. MR. SMITH: Okay. So it's not -- it's not 403 on-site. It's 499. MS. RIPLEY: 499. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. OLT: For clarification, Mr. Smith, the 403 parking spaces on-site, per se, are in the parking lots, off-street parking lots. MR. SMITH: Okay. 291 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 MR. OLT: You've got 69 -- 403 and 60 -- 66, it must be. But we have -- the parallel parking spaces on the public local street do count towards the required minimum parking for this development, because that local street is not considered a pass-through street. Therefore, by virtue of the Land Use Code, section of the Code, you can use those spaces, and that brings that number of spaces considered on-site to satisfy the minimum parking requirements to 499. MR. SMITH: Okay. What was that qualifier? Because I know we -- I mean, just going through what we did with -- MR. OLT: It's in the 3.2.2 -- MR. SMITH: So the street -- I mean -- it's probably pretty quick. Streets do not pass through -- MR. OLT: Right. MR. SMITH: -- then that new parking can -- MR. OLT: The parallel parking on the street can be counted towards the minimum parking requirement for the development. That is correct. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. OLT: The 128 spaces on Rollie Moore Drive and that public commercial street do not count. They're extra parking spaces. MR. SMITH: And they don't need to anyway. Okay. MR. OLT: So I don't know if you wanted that 292 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 section cited. MR. SMITH: No, no, I'm okay. I mean, I got it. I mean, that's -- okay. And then I wanted to just go back real quick just for a moment, because, again, I probably don't understand it. Staff uses 1.4.1.6 to give them 50 feet of leeway to be able to move a boundary line between two zone districts in order to allow that second type of housing to fulfill the two types in the MMN. Did I hear that right? That was the section that allows staff to be able to say, Yeah, you've hit your two housing types? MR. SHEPARD: Yes, that's correct. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. SHEPARD: Do you want that Code cite again? MR. SMITH: Please. MR. SHEPARD: Yeah. 1.4.6. MR. SMITH: Okay. Thanks. Let's see. I think I had one more. All right. I mean, one thing I was going to say is I'm not sure if this is -- I can never say that word, editorializing, especially this early in the morning, but it's an interesting dilemma that we have, such a great stress on neighborhood connectivity and walkability, and yet we strive to protect adjacent neighborhoods when we're talking about increasing the occupancy limit. In the staff report on page 18, you know, in 293 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 Section 3.8.16, it says, serve the -- paraphrase -- to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. And I'm not sure if I understand from what. MR. SHEPARD: Well, I can tell you historically, while Steve is looking, that that standard preceded the Land Use Code, and it was inserted into the Land Use Code back when we adopted the Land Use Code. That was written for Rams Village, which Donna Fairbank, a veteran of that project, reminded us of. That was the first project that came into the city that had more than three unrelated in an apartment complex, and that was the origin of that standard. MR. SMITH: Okay. I mean, and I guess I -- why it's germane to this discussion, it's not real strong, but that is, you know, these are criteria that we're charged with finding in order to be able to say that we would allow increasing the occupancy limit beyond the U plus 2. And so, you know, we're charged with -- that somehow these amenities, or they've done other things to be able to protect the adjacent neighborhood. And I guess that's so ambiguous for us to be able to say, how would we -- what are we trying to protect in order to be able to say that they've actually been able to demonstrate that they should be able to bump up to a four-unit apartment. It just seems hard for us to be able 294 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 to even grapple with that. But thanks for answering those questions for me. MS. SCHMIDT: A couple other questions I had. On the comments from CARE Housing, they had talked about a raised crosswalk. I wasn't sure where they wanted that. Is that down closer to their property on CARE? And I was wondering if that is something that's going to happen. Do you know the comment I'm referring to, Nick? SPEAKER: I'm familiar with the letter from CARE Housing. I wasn't clear exactly where they wanted them. However, we did propose raised crosswalks early, prior to that comment, to help achieve some of our own design objectives. And the City staff was not supportive at that time of raised crosswalks along Rollie Moore Drive. We. . . MS. SCHMIDT: So we -- do you know where the problem is with CARE Housing? They said there was an area, I think, where there's adults across the road pretty frequently, or something, and they were concerned with the traffic? Or was it because their clubhouse for their community is on the south side of the road, and our senior residents use the clubhouse on a daily basis? STAFF SPEAKER: I think -- I guess it must be interpreted, then, that they are looking actually for a raised crosswalk within existing Rollie Moore, as opposed to 295 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 within the development plan. And we'll probably chime in on how that works, but I guess it would -- if that's what they're looking for, it probably wouldn't be something that I guess you can necessarily say would be an impact of this development. It's probably more an existing condition, but Ward can probably speak to how the City's potential traffic calming plans might work. MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think they're worried, you know, right now -- it's okay for the seniors to get across the road, but when you have a lot of increased student traffic coming down the road, how is that going to impact. MR. STANFORD: I wasn't part of the conversation, so I'm just speculating. But typically, we won't put a raised crosswalk and those types of devices on anything larger than a residential street. The speeds and the volumes typically are not conducive to having bumps and stuff in the roadways. MS. SCHMIDT: Like I know on -- I think it's actually on Centre, close to the Worthington, they did some different kind of crosswalk designs for seniors to get across there. And I was wondering who was responsible for that, and if that would be an option or if that would be something that CARE Housing would have to get permission to put in if their residents were having trouble crossing the street. 296 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 MR. STANFORD: I'm not sure which one you're speaking of, but it could be a colored pavement, non-raised type of crossing. MS. SCHMIDT: I think they actually have flashing lights or something, where people would press a button. MR. STANFORD: That may be that solar installation there at Meadowlark and whatever that street is. I think I know the one you're talking about, where it's got the flashing lights. That's a possibility, yes MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. So who would initiate that if they were having trouble getting people to cross? MR. STANFORD: They would contact us and work with Steve Gilcrest in our neighborhood traffic management program to look at solutions. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Would they have to pay for it, or would City end up paying for it? MR. STANFORD: Generally, the City will. Yeah, we'll go through a process of evaluating its value and worth and whether we'll eventually do it, and then pay for the installation. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Another question I had was, that local street along the side that has the 60 parking spaces. Although they get credit for it, those are open to anyone to park on, right? So I mean, other students that are looking for parking, if they get here early enough or 297 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 whenever, they could park along that street, just like anyone else, right? STAFF SPEAKER: That's correct. MR. OLT: Yeah, it's a public street, and actually, I need to correct my numbers. 96 parking spaces on that local street, bringing the total parking that qualifies within the development as 499. But, yeah, it's a public street. Those are public parking spaces. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And the last question I had was, I appreciate the efforts that they've gone to redesign the plan. And I think a lot of it looks a lot better to me. I was -- I think because the redesign, and comment on it, looks a lot better, I'm wondering if we need as much fencing. You know, the neighborhoods had said they don't have fencing on their side for the wildlife flow, and I was thinking, Well, I agree. I don't know that we need it on this. Because my hesitation a little bit was when you see it in the picture, I don't always like the perception that we're creating a gated community. And when you look at it from the outside, it creates that perception a little bit, and I just don't know that it's necessary. I think the solid fencing, you know, the parking area is, but maybe of that whole long section on Block 1 where there aren't any buildings, would it be appropriate, like, not to have a 298 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 fence along there? I mean, and what's your feeling with the wildlife corridors? STAFF SPEAKER: The reason -- you're right. It's counter-intuitive to have a fence from a wildlife corridor perspective. That fence on the north side is not for wildlife. It's for wetlands. It's to protect the wetlands to keep people from intruding into the wetlands and the trash blowing into the wetlands. That was be the intent from my predecessor that was here. Does that answer your -- I'm sorry. I'm failing here. MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I mean, do you feel -- I'm guessing -- I'm just asking. Do you feel it's necessary and that it's an enhancement, or is all the shrubbery going to stop the trash from blowing? I guess -- I don't know. My personal feeling is that people really want to get into the wetlands, a three-foot fence isn't going to stop anyone from -- you know -- STAFF SPEAKER: Oh, yeah, the fence along the majority, the metal picket fence -- and I think we have an image in here, but I don't know where. It's a metal picket fence. It's typically six feet tall, and then at certain areas, we reduce the height down to three feet to accommodate the wildlife movement that we've seen. And I've talked with the applicant, and they're certainly open to lowering it in more locations based on what the neighbors 299 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 showed as well. The issue is the fence is really for the wetlands here, and with the potential pressure, I -- I'm not the person -- I'm sorry. The fence is a requirement for separation from a wetland perspective. That is the ultimate goal. It's not for wildlife. And so if we want the protection for the wetlands, then it should be there. If we're not as concerned about that, then, you know, I think that the neighbors would be concerned about taking it away completely. MR. SHEPARD: There was a lot of input on that fence, the result of which ultimately is the design that you see. MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I remember that, and I remember with the previous design, really wanting a fence. I don't know that this design requires that much fencing. STAFF SPEAKER: I'll just add from talking to folks at the Division of Wildlife, we're dealing with -- and from, certainly, you'll find this in the ecological characterizations and talking about the natural areas as well. We're dealing with urban adapted species on this site. And the Division of Wildlife feels fairly strongly that species are going to adapt to this situation, this development, and they're going to move around it to the east, and they're going to move around it to the west, and 300 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 so the accommodations of moving down to three feet are actually going above and beyond from a wildlife perspective. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay, Andy. MS. SCHMIDT: Sure. I'm done. STAFF SPEAKER: And you can -- you know, one of the questions that came up from the neighbors, too -- I really apologize for my slowness -- but is that, why aren't we accommodating any more species than just deer. And this fence redesign is. For every hundred feet, we're moving the bottom pickets underneath the lower brace, and so they're going to be flush every hundred feet for one foot wide, and so a fox would be able to crawl underneath it. And the Division of Wildlife feels that between that accommodation and the four-inch-wide picket fence, is that we're also accommodating fox, and so in that same vein, we're accommodating the other smaller animals, the raccoons and other species as well. So we are looking at multiple species in this design. And then the Division -- one other comment that was brought up. Natural Areas really felt that the widening of the fence would actually be incredibly supportive for the foxes to move, and that was from a wildlife biologist. So we have done quite a bit on this site, too, to accommodate it for urban adapted species. MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you. 301 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 MR. SMITH: All right. I've got another question. Back to 1.4.6, Ted, Steve, and where a -- where a district boundary divides a lot of record at the time the boundary was established. I think we know that to be true. And where the division makes impractical the reasonable use of the lot, the boundary may be adjusted by the director in a direction not to exceed 50 feet. So I've got two questions. Please help me better understand how the division makes it impractical, the reasonable use of this lot. And then second part of that is, is the boundary adjustment temporary or is that permanent? MR. SHEPARD: Well, the way I interpret the standard is that the actual zone district line doesn't move. It doesn't adjust. We're not going to go to City Council and do an ordinance to change a boundary line. It just allows the director to use the 50-foot latitude to allow a development plan to be cohesive. In a case like this, you're so close to a boundary line, but one use is on one side of the line, and it should be on the other side of the line. This standard says that with a good, unified, cohesive site planning, you get a little bit of latitude to do good site planning. MR. SMITH: Okay. So I mean, if you're within 50 feet and you're close and the director deems it that -- I 302 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 mean, and these other two things have happened, then it's just for that application. MR. SHEPARD: That's correct. MR. SMITH: It's not a permanent adjustment. All right. And so then the second point, I just have to understand how the division makes it impractical for there to be reasonable use of this lot. MR. SHEPARD: Well, we wouldn't have known that had we not seen the site plan. And so this standard tries to allow for unforeseen circumstances. So we didn't know it was impractical until we saw that, the clubhouse location being where it is, buffered from the neighborhood by the perimeter buildings, creating the amenity area, is on the east side of the line. It makes a lot of sense for it to be where it is for a lot of reasons, and that's, I guess, a degree of impracticality for a bad site planning reason to arbitrarily move it over to cross the line. So good site planning would say, Well, how about if the line isn't there? What makes sense? What's a good site planning objective? MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: How we doing? Are we getting our arms around this thing? I think we're ready to start moving towards a motion. 303 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 MR. CAMPANA: Let me just share some thoughts on it here while we're. . . there was a lot of work done on this by both sides, and even a third side, other neighborhoods coming in. And the amount of information, the quality of that information, was really good. Pretty decent presentations. You guys put a lot of time into it. The issues I've heard from the neighborhood the most was density and transitions and compatibility. And when I look at the density for MMN, they're not high. You know. 12 is a minimum. They're about 14, the net acreage. I wouldn't say that's terribly high. From a transition perspective, that's exactly what I would do. Transitioning to employment would be going from single-family townhomes, to multifamily, to employment, and it happens all over our city. I can name several projects that have that very same scenario with three-story buildings. I think what makes it less palatable is that we've added the student housing aspect to it. And as a neighborhood, you think of students living in there as opposed to apartments, but it is what it is. So I don't necessarily have an issue with the transition or the compatibility. And I think that the latest changes that the applicant has made and Ripley and the engineers have done are actually very good. I was very hesitant, and I think I even made the comment, that this is 304 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 a great piece of ground that's left in our city, and we could do better on our design. I think you guys stepped up to the occasion and did that. So I'm going to support it tonight. MR. LINGLE: So you want to make a motion? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Well, real quickly. MR. CAMPANA: More discussion? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I am concerned about the ditch. I think we should tie the construction of the realignment to the approval of this. They say they're going to do it. They've got the agreement. I think that it's drawn on the plan. And I would like to see the motion address that that is completed before -- and I would look to Paul. Before I see it, a CO, a permanent CO is issued on that building. MR. CAMPANA: I don't have an issue with that. It doesn't sound like the applicant does. Maybe they do. MS. LILEY: Can you clarify the language of that motion? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Well, we haven't made it yet. I was just wanting to be assured that that ditch is realigned before a permanent certificate of occupancy is issued on this project. MS. LILEY: And I think we're fine with that, because the commitment is to do the ditch. We have a 305 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 binding agreement to do it. The timing -- obviously, we're a little concerned, because we can only do it when we don't impact the ditch. I think tying to the first final CO as opposed to a TCO would work, and again, so long -- and I'm saying that based upon the City's already-made determination that no further development process is required. So if we had that language and then tying it to the first permanent CO or final CO, that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Okay. MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I have a little concern about that, just from the idea that if the evidence we received is correct, what creates the difficulty with the ditch is actually building those buildings, not whether people live in them or not. I mean, it's the cutting into the slope that weakens it that might cause the ditch to breach, which if that should happen, that's going to affect more than the people living in those buildings. So I guess tying it to a certificate of occupancy -- I don't think that's really the main issue. I mean, I feel like that before those -- before there's construction in those buildings, if it happens when there's water in the ditch -- you know what I'm saying? I mean, I don't -- I guess I don't feel like the ditch has to be moved, but those buildings should not be there and have the 306 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 ditch refilled in its present location. That's how I would describe it. Because, you know, again, I'm saying that if the information we received, where the hazard is, is correct, then that's what causes the chance that the slope would weaken, is the fact that those buildings are there and the ditch is full. So if they want to start building on the buildings and the ditch is going to stay empty for months, and before the water starts flowing again, they move the ditch, that's -- that's fine with me. I mean, I just -- to just tie it to occupancy, I'm not sure -- you know, if they started building on those buildings and the ditch was still flrowing, and it wasn't moved yet, that could still create a problem. And then if you have all that water breaching down, that's going to ruin a lot more than just those particular buildings, I think. So I don't know how you feel about that. MR. SMITH: I guess I -- you know, I guess I'm not convinced, necessarily, that -- that, you know, that even -- even to Butch's point that this would have to be tied to the CO. I mean, from what we've heard from the -- you know, the experts, the geotechnical and analysis, I guess, and the engineering, is that this -- you know, the project stands on its own without even the ditch being moved, and so I'm not sure that necessarily there's anything to be gained based on 307 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 what our purview is and our knowledge, or the lack thereof, by requiring the ditch to be completed, necessarily concur only with construction or in advance of, you know, the CO. So I mean, I guess I'm agreeable with it being tied to the CO as, you know, the applicant has said that they would be willing to do, and a couple members of the Board would want. You know, I don't feel too passionate about it. But I'm not sure if -- I think we might be going too far, Brigitte, if we were to say, let's tie that -- the relocation somehow to the construction way in advance of, you know, folks moving into it. I think we might be expecting a little bit too much unnecessarily. MS. CARPENTER: Do we even have anything in the Land Use Code that lets us look at that? Paul? MS. SCHMIDT: Isn't there something about safety? I would think, to me, it's a public safety issue. And I think the concern is, you know, in one letter, the ditch company said, they wouldn't be liable because they were there first. And that's always the ditch company's usual philosophy: Well, it's not our problem. Because we were here first. Well, then -- I don't know. I feel like if we approve it and say the PDP is there and it was okay to build those buildings there, I just -- I don't know. It's worrisome. And I don't know. I guess if the best we can do 308 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 is tie it to a certificate of occupancy, I feel like that's better than -- CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I think we've trying to overanalyze it. I think that they've addressed it. It's important. I'm just trying to tie it to some assurance that it doesn't slip through the cracks and not get built. And tying it to the CO gives them plenty of latitude. They know they have to do it at that point, and it gives them latitude to do it in off-peak season. MR. CAMPANA: Haven't we in the past had engineering tied in with the development agreement, as opposed to putting a condition of our approval? I think we've done that before on other projects. We got a commitment from Mark saying he'd add it to the development agreement or something along those lines. MR. ECKMAN: We do have a provision, 3.3.3(b), that says if a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, necessary design, precaution, shall be taken to minimize any hazard to life or property, and additional measures such as fencing, water depth indicators, and erection of warning signs shall be taken to the extent reasonably feasible. Any lands that are subject to high groundwater, meaning groundwater in an elevation such that basement flooding is reasonably anticipated, shall not be platted for building lots with basements unless adequate 309 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 provisions to prevent groundwater from entering basements has been designed and approved by the City Engineer. I don't know. MR. SHEPARD: The reason I suggested the CO is because that's what we can control. MR. CAMPANA: What's your thoughts, Mark? STAFF SPEAKER: I guess I would say that -- because Gino, I think you're asking, can we put that in the development agreement. I guess we can probably put anything, theoretically, I guess, in the development agreement, but it -- generally, we do that based upon a Code criteria. We don't, you know, negotiate special favors or anything like that. You know, that's not how the development agreement works. It's based upon Code. So I would say if you want to make that finding, then we would then feel compelled to put it in the development agreement, because that's one of the documents that get recorded at the County, so it becomes part of the public record, and -- MR. ECKMAN: We already have in our development agreement quite a provision about groundwater that was actually spawned by reason of a complaint against the City for groundwater problems below an irrigation ditch, over on the northwest side of town, I think it was, some years ago. So I drafted some language in our development 310 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 agreement, and it's been in the agreement ever since, that, in a nutshell, says that if you build below a ditch and the ditch makes your basement wet, don't come crying to the City. It's an indemnification against the City -- to indemnify the City for any harm. But that's really only on the site that is the site of the development. So if you think that groundwater is going to be a problem for neighboring properties, that language wouldn't solve that problem. It would only solve the problem that if the groundwater causes problems on this development property. STAFF SPEAKER: I'll certainly add to that extent, too. The plat for the project specifies that no basements will be allowed on-site. So it addresses Paul's Code citation, but as he just mentioned, it doesn't address offsite potential impacts of groundwater. MR. CAMPANA: I'm all right making it a condition, if everyone else is, that no final COs will be issued until the ditch is realigned. You okay with that? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: That's all I'm asking. MR. CAMPANA: So I'm going to make a motion. So I make a motion for approval of The Grove at Fort Collins PDP, Number 16-1010B, based on the facts and findings listed on the -- finding of facts, included on page 21, 22, and 23 of our staff report, and condition that all final COs will -- 311 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 no final CO will be issued until the ditch is realigned. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: I'll second that motion. Okay. Any further discussion? MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I do need to make a few comments. As I said, I think this redesigned plan is a large improvement over the first one that we saw. And so I feel that in a lot of ways, it is more compatible with the neighborhood because of the way the parking has changed. I still have some issues with the block size thing, and I think I -- I'll support the PDP because I feel like the basic issue we have before was the block in the middle. I think it's sort of ludicrous to call the other two blocks, but maybe that's a necessary thing. There is the portion, the middle, where the clubhouse meets the block standard design. The others can be argued either way, and to me, they don't meet the concept of walkable blocks, defining them the way they are. But on the whole, I think that the developer has made some, you know, large efforts, and I really appreciate all the time the staff has put into this. And I'd just say, too, that -- because the employment district allows four-story buildings, and so I think that this is going to be a buffer if there's going to be employment there. And I would say, I mean, the whole idea, too, is that not all students are totally rowdy and obnoxious. I 312 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 mean, I think, you know, that's the whole model, and if you look at the residence halls, a single residence hall on campus has 600 students in it. The towers have 1200 apiece, and so I think when you're just driving by Outward and Westfall, it's not like a crazy zoo all the time there. So I think, hopefully, you know, things will transition, and I really feel that with the City's street idea and the City having the responsibility for the street trees and everything, as they start to grow and develop things, it will look a lot better and there will be a lot of buffering. So I will support the PDP. MR. LINGLE: Yeah, I'd also like to thank the applicant for making a very strong effort to hear what the neighborhood was saying at the last meetings and working hard to address that. I just look at the changes that have been made from the last proposal, with the block structure, the fact that there's no wetland mitigation that's necessary any longer, no modification of standards needed, better -- much better, in my opinion, architectural design overall. I think it's going to be a much stronger transitional architectural style to the potential E employment offices and further research development that could occur east and south of the site than what was there before. 313 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 I appreciate the efforts towards a sustainable green design, even though, you know, I hope that you could get it up beyond LEED certification to at least silver, I think that would be a meaningful thing. I think more people understand what that means than just LEED certified. Slight reduction in the project scale, and then also the enhanced buffering beyond what the Land Use Code requires. I think all those things add up to a significantly improved project that I think that everyone can be proud of. MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. I just have to say one more thing. And that's -- I do want to say -- it's sort of a concern, and I hope these kind of projects don't pit neighborhood against neighborhood. As much as student housing is needed, I think it's very important that we just don't approve anything that comes along because it is student housing. And I think that we've worked to make this a better project, and I think that benefits the city in the long run. I do hope that people understand, I don't think that this is necessarily going to relieve a lot of pressure on the neighborhoods. And so if every single time a project comes, people are going to come and say, oh, we need this, because it'll takes students out of the neighborhoods. It may and it may not, and I think the important thing is to look at the overall benefit to the city, and as 314 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 everyone has said, you know, the City has city high standards. And so we do need student housing, but we need to make sure that it's always the best that we can make it. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Any further comments? Roll call, please. THE CLERK: Smith. MR. SMITH: Yes. THE CLERK: Lingle. MR. LINGLE: Yes. THE CLERK: Campana. MR. CAMPANA: Yes. THE CLERK: Schmidt. MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. THE CLERK: Carpenter. MS. CARPENTER: Yes. THE CLERK: Stockover. CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: Yes. And with that, The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan Number 16-10B has been approved. Is there any other business this evening? With no other business -- MR. SMITH: Morning? CHAIRMAN STOCKOVER: -- our meeting is adjourned. (Meeting adjourned 2:45 a.m., June 17, 2011.) 315 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 REPORTER CERTIFICATE I, JASON T. MEADORS, Registered Professional Reporter and Certified Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public, appointed to foregoing proceedings, certify that the proceedings were taken by me at 200 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, on June 16 and June 17, 2011. I certify that the proceedings were reduced to typewritten form by computer-aided transcription, consisting of 316 pages herein; that the foregoing is an accurate transcript of the proceedings. I certify that I am not related to, employed by, of counsel to any party or attorney herein, nor interested in the outcome of this issue. Attested to by me this 3rd day of August, 2011. ________________________________ Jason T. Meadors, RPR, CRR Coffman Meadors Reporting & Legal Video My commission expires January 26, 2013 Cheyenne: 307.432.4061 Denver: 303.893.0202 Fort Collins: 970.482.1506 316 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