Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/19/2005 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE FEATHER RIDGE MO ITEM NUMBER: 36 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: April 19, Zoos FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Cameron Gloss SUBJECT Consideration of an appeal of the Feather Ridge Modification of Standard. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 1, 2005, the City Council overturned a recent Planning and Zoning Board denial of the proposed Feather Ridge Project Development Plan (PDP) application for a small scale reception center located on 15 acres of land north of Hewlett-Packard and east of the Woodland Park Estates Subdivision. In addition to approving the PDP application, Council's action included the remand of one aspect of the application, a request for a modification to the separation requirements between the events center and adjacent residences, back to the Planning and Zoning Board for reconsideration. The Planning and Zoning Board subsequently reviewed and denied the modification request. City Council is being asked to hear an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of the requested modification. Development actions to date associated with the proposed Feather Ridge PDP/Modification application, include: • The PDP application was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration on December 2, 2004. The application included a request to modify the required separation from the existing farmhouse and adjacent residences. At this hearing, the Planning and Zoning Board denied the project and modification request by a 3 — 3 vote. • The action of the Planning and Zoning Board was appealed to City Council by a representative of the project applicant. • City Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Board's action at its February 1, 2005 hearing based on the findings that the Board conducted a fair hearing, but failed to interpret and apply Section 3.8.27 (F) of the Land Use Code because vehicle access to the reception center would be provided directly from a public street. In addition, City Council remanded to the Planning and Zoning Board the applicant's request to modify the separation requirements. • The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the remanded modification request at a public hearing on February 17, 2005. At the hearing, the April 19, 2005 -2- Item No. 36 Planning and Zoning Board denied the modification by a vote of 3-2 (Member Lingle-conflict of interest, Member Torgerson- absent). An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of the modification request was filed in the City Clerks Office on March 3, 2005 by a representative of the applicant, James Martell. The Appeal is based on Section 2-48(b)(1) and Section 2-48(b)(2) of the City Code which states the Planning and Zoning Board improperly denied the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan by: 1. Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission substantially ignored its previous established rules of procedure; and b. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which were not relevant to the issue or grossly misleading. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Appeal Hearing. 2. Notice of Appeal. 3. Staff response to the Notice of Appeal. 4. Agenda materials provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. 5. Handouts reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board at the proceedings. 6. Verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board proceedings. 7. City Council Resolution 2005-017, Making Findings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal of the December 2, 2004, Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board Regarding the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan#20-04A. Attachment I : City Clerk ' s Notice of Appeal Hearing City Clerk 6a City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday,April 19, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on February 17, 2005, regarding the Application for Approval of a variance to the performance standards for Feather Ridge filed by James Martell, attorney on behalf of the appellants, Ryan Baker, Julie Baker and Wendi Meyer. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750). Any written materials that any party-in-interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 13 [Section 2-54 (b)of the City Code]. Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by April 12. Agenda materials provided to the City Council,including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal,and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers and any party-in-interest,will be available to the public on Thursday, April 14, after 12:00 noon in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515(TDD 970-224-6001)for assistance. iN� Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: March 28, 2005 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295 Attachment 2 : Notice of Appeal a 11t;F li1D` NOTICE OF APPEAL yeti., f (Feather Ridge) City Council Fort Collins, Colorado Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Notice is hereby given of the appeal of the decision by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Application for Approval of a variance to the performance standards for Feather Ridge. ACTION APPEALED The action being appealed is a final decision by the Planning and Zoning Board by a 3 to 2 vote not to approve a variance to the performance standards for a small scale reception center to permit use of an existing farmhouse that is less than 300 feet from the nearest dwelling on any abutting property. DATE OF ACTION APPEALED The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board that is being appealed was made February 17, 2005. APPELLANTS The Appellants are Ryan Baker, Julie Baker and Wendi Meyer. The Appellants are parties in interest as the Applicants, whose address is 2738 Amber Waves Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80528; telephone number: (970) 223-4433. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The grounds for appeal are: The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its previous established rules of procedure and considered evidence that was not relevant to the issue and grossly misleading. Various land use issues have been before the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council pertaining to the approval of a small scale reception center to be known as Feather Ridge. First, the Land Use Code was amended to add performance criteria for a small scale reception center in the Urban Estate Zoning District. Second, the annexation and zoning of the Feather Ridge property was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council. Third, the planned development proposal for Feather Ridge was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board and appealed to the City Council. In CO-.. cA Q ,.' h,4.•.► l each hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council, both bodies were careful to restrict the hearing to evidence relevant on the specific issue before the Board. At the Planning and Zoning Board's hearing held February 17, 2005, the only issue was whether to grant a variance from the performance standards to permit the use of the existing farmhouse as part of the Feather Ridge small scale reception center. The Planning and Zoning Board nonetheless permitted the opposition to present evidence on other issues previously decided by the City Council including, but not limited to, access to the property from Ziegler Road. The evidence was emotional, inflammatory, and grossly misleading and may have had an adverse influence on the newly appointed member of the Planning and Zoning Board, Mr. Stockover, who had not participated in previous hearings concerning the Feather Ridge proposal. At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, Mr. Stockover, indicated that he had only one small concern and that was the possibility of noise from the farmhouse. Mr. Stockover asked that the applicants agree to air conditioning the farmhouse and to keep the windows and doors closed during all functions. The applicants agreed to the additional restrictions requested by Mr. Stockover. Notwithstanding the satisfaction of Mr. Stockover's request, Mr. Stockover nonetheless voted against the proposal, which indicates that he may have been influenced by the emotional, inflammatory appeals and other issues raised by those speaking in opposition to the Feather Ridge Project. In addition to agreeing to air conditioning the farmhouse and keeping the windows and doors closed at all times, the applicants have begun construction of a fence along the west boundary of the property to further buffer and minimize any adverse impact that use of the farmhouse may have on neighboring property owners. The applicants are also willing to reduce the maximum number of people permitted to attend functions in the farmhouse from 70 to 45. PERSON DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE NOTICES James A. Martell is hereby designated as appellant's agent and representative to receive all Notices on behalf of all Appellants required to be mailed by the City to the Appellants under the provisions of Section 2-50. His address and telephone number are 300 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521; telephone (970) 221-4455. Dated this 3rd day of March, 2005. 4ttorn es A. Martell, Atty. Reg. #8390 ey for Ryan Baker, Julie Baker and Wendi Meyer 300 S. Howes Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 221-4455 2 Attachment 3 : Staff Response TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director THRU: Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director DATE: March 19, 2005 RE: Feather Ridge Modification of Standard, Current Planning File #20-04A, Appeal to City Council The purpose of this memo is to respond to an appeal regarding the February 17, 2005 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny a modification to Section 3.8.27(C) of the Land Use Code associated with the approved Feather Ridge PDP. Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter; b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant." The Appeal is based on Section 2-48(b)(2). The appellant has one allegation. The pertinent Code sections are stated in Italics. The argument is briefly summarized below followed by a staff response. ALLEGATION: The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by ignoring its previously established rules of procedure and considering evidence that was not relevant to the issue and rg ossly misleading. PERTINANT CODE SECTIONS: A. Section 2.48(b)(2) The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure; b. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; B. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT (a) Various land use issues have been before the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council pertaining to the approval of a small scale reception center to be known as Feather Ridge. First, the Land Use Code was amended to add performance criteria for a small scale reception center in the Urban Estate Zoning District. Second, the annexation and zoning of the Feather Ridge property was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. Third, the planned development proposal for Feather Ridge was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board and appealed to the City Council. In each hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council, both bodies were careful to restrict the hearing to evidence relevant to the specific issue before the Board. At the Planning and Zoning Board's hearing held on February 17, 2005, the only issue was whether to grant a variance from the performance standards to permit the use of the existing farmhouse as part of the Feather Ridge small scale reception center. The Planning and Zoning Board nonetheless permitted the opposition to present evidence on other issues previously decided by the City Council including, but not limited to, access to the property from Ziegler Road. The evidence was emotional', inflammatory, and grossly misleading and may have had an adverse influence on the newly appointed member of the Planning and Zoning Board, Mr. Stockover, who had not participated in previous hearings concerning the Feather Ridge proposal. At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, Mr. Stockover indicated that he only had one small concern and that was the possibility of noise coming from the farmhouse. Mr. Stockover asked that the 2 applicants agree to air conditioning the farmhouse and to keep the windows and doors closed during all functions. The applicants agreed to the additional restrictions requested by Mr. Stockover. Notwithstanding the satisfaction of Mr. Stockover's request, Mr. Stockover nonetheless voted against the proposal, which indicates that he may have been influenced by the emotional, inflammatory appeals and other issues raised by those speaking in opposition to the Feather Ridge Project. (b) In addition to agreeing to air conditioning the farmhouse and keeping the windows and doors closed at all times, the applicants have begun construction of a fence along the west boundary of the property to further buffer and minimize any adverse impact that use of the farmhouse may have on neighboring property owners. The applicants are also willing to reduce the maximum number of people permitted to attend functions in the farmhouse from 70 to 45. C. Staff Response: The appellant includes allegations supporting the claim that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was "false or grossly misleading". Staff has completed a brief response to the allegations; however, it is ultimately up to the appellant to prove how each of these allegations is relevant to the Planning and Zoning Board decision. (a) Testimony was provided by the applicant during the Planning and Zoning Board hearing that directly contradicts statements made in the Notice of Appeal regarding the air conditioning of the historic farmhouse. At the hearing, Member Stockover explicitly asked the applicant if the historic farmhouse was to be air conditioned. The applicant did not agree to installing air conditioning (see Ms. Baker's response on pg. 55, lines 8-14 of the transcript) as so stated in the Notice of Appeal. Therefore, it is staff s position that the record reflects that member Stockover was not satisfied with the applicant's response on his expressed concern regarding air conditioning and therefore proceeded to vote against the application. (b) No evidence was provided by the applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board suggesting that a privacy fence was to be built along the west property boundary nor that the farmhouse is restricted to 45 occupants. The fence was constructed by the applicant after the Planning and Zoning Board hearing was conducted. Testimony made by the applicant's consultant noted the lack of a fence in this location (pp 12-13, lines 25, 1-2 of the transcript). Further, information submitted into the record by the applicant included a commitment to a maximum occupancy of 70 people (see page 9, line 15 of the transcript). 3 While the added fence and lower building occupancy might have made the modification request more acceptable in the eyes of the Planning and Zoning Board, this information is irrelevant to the appeal since the information was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board at the time of the hearing. CONCLUSION: There is one central allegation made by the appellant in the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Feather Ridge Project Modification of Standard to Section 3.8.27(C) of the Land Use Code made at the January 17, 2005 hearing. The appeal has to do with whether the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by ignoring its previously established rules of procedure and considering evidence relevant to its findings that are substantially false or grossly misleading. The appellant included examples of evidence such as the testimony of the applicant regarding building air conditioning. While one could argue that some of the public testimony addressed general concerns about the Feather Ridge Facility, most of the comments stayed focused on the distance of nearby residents from the proposed small scale events center and the perceived impacts such center would have on neighborhood residents. Based on this information, it is the staff s perspective that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Attachments include the verbatim transcript of the hearing and the Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report. 4 Attachment 4 : Agenda Materials provided to the Planning and Zoning Board ITEM NO. _ 6 MEETING DATE 2/17/05 AM STAFF rameron !Toss City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Feather Ridge Project Development Plan Modification of Standard - #20-04B [Type II Planning and Zoning Board Review] OWNER: Julie Baker Wendy Meyer 3115 Yellowstone Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 APPLICANT VF Ripley Associates 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Feather Ridge Project Development Plan is a request for a small scale reception center located on 15 acres of land north of Hewlett-Packard and east of the Woodland Park Estates Subdivision. The Project, including a request for a modification of standards, was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for consideration on December 2, 2004. The Planning and Zoning Board denied the Project by a 3 — 3 vote. An appeal to the Planning and Zoning Board's decision was filed by a representative of the applicant for the Project and considered by City Council at its February 1, 2005 public hearing. At this hearing, the City Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Board's denial of the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan and remanded one aspect of the appeal, a request for modification of the standard pertaining to the separation from residential areas contained in Section 3.8.27(C) of the Land Use Code, to the Planning and Zoning Board for reconsideration. City Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Board's action based on the findings that the Board conducted a fair hearing, but failed to interpret and apply Section 3.8.27 (F) of the Land Use Code because vehicle access to the reception center would be provided directly from an arterial street. The remand is limited to reconsideration of the request for a modification of standard to the separation requirements. If the modification of standard is approved by the Board, the approval will constitute approval of the Project Development Plan and, if such modification is denied by the Board, such denial will constitute denial of the Project Development Plan. If the request for a modification of the COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. P.O.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Feather Ridge, Project Development Plan #20-04A Planning and Zoning Board Modification Review February 17, 2004 Page 2 standard contained in Section 3.8.27(D) is withdrawn by the applicant, then the Plan would be considered approved. The proposed reception center will be located in two buildings: an existing 3,200 sq.ft. house and a proposed 7,500 sq.ft. reception hall. An existing bam and garage will be incorporated into the site plan. The facility will be developed in two phases, the first of which will be the conversion of the existing farmhouse into a reception center facility with associated parking and landscaping. The second phase will include the larger 7,500 sq.ft. facility and associated parking. The private drive and a fence along the northern edge of the drive will be installed as part of phase I. The site will access directly from Ziegler Road, via a private drive located between Woodland Park Estates Subdivision and Hewlett Packard. This will serve as the only access to the site. Parking for the two facilities will occur on two surface parking lots. Twenty five spaces will serve the existing farmhouse while 104 spaces will serve the new facility. Receptions may occur either within the buildings or outside in designated areas, and will include activities such as wedding ceremonies, bridal and baby showers, wedding rehearsal dinners, anniversary parties birthday parties, luncheons and corporate events. The reception center would operate from 8:OOam to 10:OOpm Sunday through Thursday, and 8:OOam to 11:00pm Friday and Saturday. The property is zoned UE — Urban Estate District. The modification request applies solely to the separation of the reception center use, located within the historic farm house, from existing dwellings. Section 3.8.27(C) of the Land Use Code requires a minimum separation of 300 feet from adjacent dwellings to buildings used in conjunction with the reception center. The existing farm house building which will host events is 220 feet from the closest dwelling. The modification request does not pertain to the larger facility that includes 7,500 sq.ft. of reception area and a maximum of 450 guests because it is located greater than 300 feet from adjacent dwellings. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The request for a modification of standard to Section 3.8.27(C) has been reviewed in accordance with the applicable criteria of the Land Use Code (LUC) and is found to be in substantial compliance. Feather Ridge, Project Development Plan #20-04A Planning and Zoning Board Modification Review February 17, 2004 Page 3 FINDINGS and ANALYSIS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: UE — Single Family Residential S: HC — Hewlett Packard Campus E: FA1(County)— Single Family Residential/Gravel Mine W: RL — Single Family Residential The property was annexed in July 2004 as part of the Feather Ridge Annexation. 2. Modification to Section 3.5.7(C) Building Location and Separation From Residential Areas. One of the performance standards applicable to small scale events centers within the Urban Estate zone district is the requirement that all buildings be located a minimum of 300 feet from the nearest dwelling unit on adjacent properties, and 250 feet from the property line adjacent to undeveloped property. The proposed larger reception center building is located approximately 400 feet from the nearest dwelling units to the west within the fully developed Woodland Park Estates subdivision (300 feet to the western property boundary), and is 350 feet from the closest residential building north of the site. The existing farmhouse building is 220 feet from the nearest residential dwelling to the west in Woodland Park Estates. This is 80 feet less than required by this Section. Two other dwellings also are located within 300 feet (257 feet and 262 feet, respectively) from the smaller reception center. Since the farmhouse building is existing, the applicant has submitted a modification request to permit the building to be used as part of the reception center. The applicant is requesting t hat t he b asis for t he modification i s t he p resence o f exceptional P hvsical conditions and practical difficulties uniaue to the oroaertv. The justification is based on the existing location of the house, and that demolishing and rebuilding the structure elsewhere would not be practical since the house is eligible for designation as a local historic landmark. This 1890's brick house, which is an integral part of the Cook-Tyler farmstead, will be preserved along with the bam and chicken coop. There will be no exterior alterations other than maintenance. Feather Ridge, Project Development Plan #20-04A Planning and Zoning Board Modification Review February 17, 2004 Page 4 To help mitigate noise and visual impacts, the applicant has also provided additional landscaping along the western portion of the property, thereby increasing the buffering between the event center and adjacent residences. Outdoor activities and reception space has been carefully sited along the eastern portion o f t he existing house, to f urther separate n oise generating activities from the adjacent residences. This outdoor reception area for the farmhouse is just over 300 feet from the nearest adjacent residential properties within Woodland Park Estates. Receptions would not be held immediately outside the house, but rather a small distance away from the house. Section 3.5.7 (D) requires that all outdoor spaces used for social gatherings must be located within 100 feet of the reception center and the proposed design is found to be compliant with this standard. In addition, all such activities will take place in excess of 300 feet from existing dwellings as required. It is important to note that the reduced setback is for a building that will contain 2,000 sq.ft. of reception area and a maximum occupancy of 70 guests. The building size and operating characteristics are analogous to the Avery House at the comer of Mountain and Meldrum Streets, where most activities take place outdoors and off to the side of the building opposite nearby residences. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan Modification of Standard #20-04A, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The request for a modification to the Land Use Code is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. 2. The granting of the modification to Section3.8.27(C) would not be detrimental to the public good. 3. The strict application of the standard within Section 3.8.27(C) would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the property, since the existing farmhouse to be used as part of the reception center is eligible for local landmark designation and existing and proposed buffering will reduce the impacts generated by the decreased setback from 300 feet to 220 feet. 4. The hardship included within the justification statement is not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. Feather Ridge, Project Development Plan #20-04A Planning and Zoning Board Modification Review February 17, 2004 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Approval The following items are included as attachments to this report: A. vicinity map B. Feather Ridge Project Development Plan 1. site plan 2. landscape plan 3. lighting plan 4. building elevations 5. utility plans C. Feather Ridge Operation Plan D. Justification Statement from the Applicant E. Memorandum from Karen McWilliams, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Planner F. Light Standards Detail Sheets G. Small Scale Reception Center Chronology of Events H. April 22, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Notes I. July 28, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Notes J. Letter from Adjacent Property Owners K. December 2, 2004 P & Z Transcript L. February 1, 2005 Partial Verbatim Transcript of City Council Hearing G iCyyyy�_ S IIpY111111��' �1- ►.n�•.•�..• .E�.. �►III ■ ..,,.� .�=ice yi unE ••. iii loW I11n911W. uunlmliinill -ii • �� .w����► 'ice NOW Vanessa Iniinii iilYY' ��. ♦ �AR�RA�A=�'� - ���IIIII 1 J rO Iunn.:; fiii■iii�i�ll. ' ' I • • son 111 o I /r ��� n (1 I r Ii ,i a Fc I 3 322 0IWO tj} If}T 4 13330:30� ,,sr/ / 1 -! � ,,� _ • I l' O e eo a o i 0 TM All Aff An i 01 -. NO WA 1 ' is ��' ► /`<� © �l� lo JIB C•� r •���� i— o J 11r i I ' 0� I Ivurr,00 \ / 1 /iii/%.:'O�i;;;•-ice" e , il! r 1 io III i f ii ! i i Hill II a F RI E3CaE R � .o...�...,.. a14 1 �.O O O O O O O O O O O Orr ., OO 00WA 2 90 0 00 0 0 O � IM r�Wi 'WA �dl' _'a"fdr All CAI & x grf 7 �4� —A ZWO' il 4;1 �Ir ik' � �{� r5r Oh'4M h 'qPa vs yam vim won 01 i I'M IVA i i IZMOuppow OD%..Mwd owwwo artwa�ao� saxnl®MDMW Oau100nn oily l�! M�Ja 12d •- Vfl a = '�411 Zl�H1�dHd 4t' !fill J 1 1 t 1 J 0 a . allala , : ao„ pp t i . . . . . . . . .. g i f l 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 t ; th1;^^ o 0 0 43o 43 a o a rL=CBtlftp�wa aawoioa .IfTGO.YOI ;' i N MIAN NDIM�wLIfDn i ! i } ! a EJ a 12d H RVHVVON WO.L t � IM !f uitl!! tii I JI rJIJ,/,M IDI Jarll)JJ1J,Jll lr1 JJ IIsa rll All" rll li D),l ,+,a+,)a„Js,s,sraJaJrJ/s N lr„ ,r ,/s))IJaJ)J,a,a,us+ )JJJ a as iiii i ))uJulllJa,l,)u uau"r.n. l./ uu..... ..a,JalJa alas u)rrJ,u so'-I lnssr,u an/ sYwlau usa.unann aJu,As'"' s " 0 nso$' )"a$ I u nn .Ju alu aei ,ann/rlJJu ,tn ul nsa n's"::!iss n,sss 1 al iiii i' .ssu a u uaJ posts : I. n,s i f „n ::::: : :: aa,a u a l,11 l DD ++++ a l,a! l ➢l ,N, O allt , ii tali J• l .,,a ,MIs ,a IJJu 1 „ sus 8:1 11 loos `JJIan' ) „ 'I , ii ,,,: , Sal a Is ++r) .as.. . „ 181 I a , u nu :iiii sns ::)ll a a,a., l ai aa.l :i ra/ rraa J t, lJal l )J llll l pal l I's , I) )r,+ a aaa I'll, : :: al++ as sale la.a. a iJ as.l i a saa aua a n sn+ Jnl I JJu . n uaJ ,las n n 1! a,I rl . D al Ja ,I.a l . a,l I Il'l s iJ Dlarr ll/ , a) NJI loops l al !))! loops ) ' I'll l /I iaa, I call l )l ill) t all a 'J al• loll! ! 1, ali! t tJll a ,l „ll t calla a Islas a al ol)l /car a 11 sou J sal nl u n , al l)IJ l)lU J /a JUl and 'nu J n lan nsu n 'Jn suu as sus ++ uss isI's f aaa as a1 a+a+ Ia a sa 113a caul , u uu sol ::::i : :: ': oa . ++ nlru, JJi aJu 'n. f _:is, :a nua nI uu uas : . . . . . . . . « ♦ . « « . . . :s1. a!III t)L so., ,Dla))l ,))aJJ/1+,,,,s+rJ a.w••u a.aJ.w••• uu-a+(as)mw oawo-ao h j H+Jf3tlfiV2IO�I i�I ill iil ! s if 6 f „ll's f �E ,I,,,, j i i i i i i f i i i i f i l;I'l;' f' ssl is 1 lolls Is s,10 l l I, l l..D l ; I lu a , !!11 , , I ltt. n n ; ; ;11Is 11 111!!, I Ill!!11 Miss l , l lala„ I l Is .,/a,.l , I ,111l11 I , i lull l l 21 a lls , a 1111 1 ! ! I I ! I I11 1 , ll1 ! ! 111 ! I 1N „a a Ill 9)])]),l]]iiialD ! ! ,L 11Da/ ,! ! ) 1l1 ))] !. I J I., 11!' „ 1 l its )l al { 11, ,) l Is , ft,)1l,/J11lI.! 1 , Ll l) l!) )1l1 !Il t l l Ill „M llllJil! It ,1! , 1 l,l ' 11! ! 1 1 ill lJs) 111 •• D)l ll 1, )!) ; ; ll; V ,' so !!I ;; „! 1 ass , its :i: 1201 ) ; I,. a,. '; , l , ,, ) I tIa )„ Is ; Is llll,,,.,,,i i)r „ l l lls,l 11 a A.111 Is Is alga,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/la„llaJ/ ,), ,,,.,,,,,,.,.,,,,,,. ,,,, as ,.,,.,,,,1.,..,/),,,,.,,1/,. I,,, 11/,II,IMa.,,,,,,, .M,,, ) I, all, ,to all, ,.,..,,allls,t,/ ,sal, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, / „ s/a, WWIII l ti■ I i■ 1�� [�� ^� � I Irmo �t fff � ' I Irmo �S ii' i b " �30 f v 'i . ili l�.P Ii li.'o �o�f:• ° �" ICI �r■ :gift Ask one I III �,71; � �I� i ■■ •. 4 I. �UypydJ�• 'aJ00 61i11 ��yy tL trf'. /�, "-i'116�mmo*"-`-"W'�3res ntlroiue�s s9Au,bils`z1- a jowl E 5 ` i !• ' �� t� � s I I n! � sa! e i oil E 1 .i a OW !a $ O o m o M a a a ti i i� p gka.sa ! En M W�� pp [F je �gygt � 0?X- W W uw lino o N W is-j oSSII ��p� •IL1� "V WW2 Z W � _ . oI o . e � o 14 th a i [I w , Ea ri :s ► ti ii� f Ird , d t CE Raw 1 . 4 t 6 i e l , N r .t It No iq R� `IN "Y . I_ _ + q•. 1, y i .v�i� if • yY '�` � r Y IN g.: k- i eefe g ° h v t x .� �':M tom• r � I� • � ` I` , � 1 //� � / /'/ �I Ali ' \ 9 , +- ` y� 11A, •X �, / it / - �i ' ri t FEAT i t Q N EDP iN_yNYWilk, PRUJMkRy ORAMACE / n PLAN '. t )F 9Y+� �a spa .a � N. III ----�_ 1 — — — � ;c•� ' Iq ---1 _ �:! Il � . CI `E E ! a/ �R ' I y � �` �• 41, ' i K . ., -!.c�, a '�. � ,• E f' wr wMw dcxYlm N'•nx � . F"TIM ROM PDP ♦ sr..r.w' ...1yN„ w PRFLWNMY U71USY PLAN ++ a. .�`: . . . ;.,+.Af• .. ls., a . ±t .,�...._. -7 » .�.. ..w.a'F.Y� wi:.wii6irt" ., / \ e v t k K t t R t 1wit ++� t , {( ♦ i4 � nr 4 �t ' tvk � r�Ij• ` � n\ ..t/ •,/pr k � ;Fr � 3 •� • } �. . j " ^`\\ ~* 4 :• yip. s r• r _ \ a h ` i Jr. � J. .,� or w/apy ycaaau n wt[ -� R•"'� FEATHER FIDEDP P i a.Ya r.w ., O T mlwc PRELWMMY UILITY PLAN ,;M GCy.I•:UI t, ki 1 .. ., v r�. ' �i' ..... Lr?Y •r � n...'i VS':':. • �'•��`. � :.i':. r +'.'M... '•'x.•�1.••'+.�y«: ,� •�; it I hEE eY e ` 1 ° I e3 -=Ear= - =_----- lei IE �; , •I � € \\\\ a �;I ;� •I � � e \ Y I I }- --- -- ' e ' L ' f �r — IH I { I ` ryrye------- I41 ° I . I Y Y a Am �•, •� "• °°A �NOltli Star 7 cn FEATFEp F;�OE PDP i a..��--arc '1� dealvl,Ye. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN ...rrKw raw��aw...,uwi Is Ai1m ,14-- x 1 I i all \. '� \'`I . 1f1i - - ' J f„r a�• jyr -fit �• f „ f , � y ��t* 1 ✓ //dX rit•F r •' 1. i � { ppY ib y�•- i J, r Y V I I •r �, /� � 1 �J�'t '��\_may"�'/� "I All It / r p L t ow le/a/o. w. anon w wx ► e North ELMNA i HDOE POP Star x>.r z 4 t w PRELNNARY UTILITY PLAN � o�wa enro 04 � 'w a r Y i a _ _fl • � s y 1� -- Y --a Y i £ 41 I I _ I Ar Y _ _ ' } "r r ---�_1- ✓;I Y Y WL a f ,rya 1�1 • � ` � Y -___� ! -- -�-'� { O °NO, T oil IS 9 5 I e MY i November 19, 2004 Business Description Feather Ridge Small Reception Center Feather Ridge is a small-scale reception center consisting of two facilities. The first facility is an historic farmhouse with a maximum capacity of 120 people. The second is a new 7,500 square foot ballroom facility with a maximum capacity of 450 people. In addition to the indoor facilities, adjacent landscape areas and terraces will also be used for outdoor events. Typical events that would be held at Feather Ridge include: wedding ceremonies and receptions, bridal and baby showers, wedding rehearsal dinners, anniversary parties, birthday parties, luncheons, non-profit dinners/luncheons, corporate events, service organization events, and religious meetings or gatherings. Feather Ridge will not host sporting events or concerts. During the week, Monday through Friday, the facilities would be used for conference type events. The typical conference would begin around 8-gam and end around 3-4pm. Some conferences may only be half-day events. Small conferences would be held in the farmhouse while larger conferences would be held in the larger reception facility. A small conference would on average consist of approximately 30 people with an average of 20 cars and a large conference would average 100 people with approximately 75 cars. Once attendees arrive at a conference, they would stay on the property and lunch would be catered. During slow months there may be as few as 5 cars traveling to and from the facility. Friday evenings and Saturdays would be the busiest days with wedding ceremonies, receptions and parties scheduled. June through August and December would be the busiest months of the year. Each facility would have only one event at a time, with the exception being that the larger facility may have two small conferences at one time in different meeting rooms. it would be rare for both facilities to be booked every day. On average one or the other facility would be booked three days of the week. Bridal shows would occur approximately twice a year and bring in a higher than average number of visitors. During a show the facility would operate as an open house with visitors coming and going throughout the day. Feather Ridge operational policies follow: Music Policy • Some events will have a hired D.J. or a live band. — - • The sound level of music indoors will be kept at a reasonable level that will allow guests to dance and to talk in an enjoyable atmosphere. • Outside, only instruments such as a harp or string quartets will be allowed until 8 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. • In addition, there may be low music playing on the deck for ambiance, or during an outdoor ceremony. Catering • At least 30 days prior to an event, the caterer must provide Feather Ridge with a copy of the License to Operate a Food Service Establishment, State Tax License, and a certificate of insurance. • A"non-licensed" caterer can be hired, or a person can cater the event herself/himself, but additional wait staff will be an additional charge. We do not charge additional fees when choosing a caterer not on our list. • All caterers are welcome, but we do reserve the right to prohibit a caterer from working in our facilities who has failed to comply with our standards and policies at previous events. However, it is advised that clients choose vendors from the "Recommended Vendors" list. • All caterers are required to attend the client's walk-through meeting. If the caterer does not attend, an additional $500 deposit will be assessed to the client to help ensure compliance with our guidelines and client's requirements. • Caterers may bring food prepared or ready to finish at the site, but may not prepare raw product in the kitchen area. Alcohol. • Alcohol may be served for up to four hours during a half-day rented time slot. • Alcohol must be served by an insured bartender and hired through the caterer. • The bar will not be open until after the wedding ceremony, if one is taking place. • All alcohol delivery and pick up must be removed from our building during contracted times. • Alcohol service shall cease at least one hour prior to the conclusion of the event. Smoking: • Smoking is not permitted anywhere inside Feather Ridge or anywhere outside of building perimeter; due to the natural landscape and historic buildings, we would like to insure and preserve the property's current beauty. • Designated areas for smoking are located outside of the facility on porches. Policy for Candles: • All candles should be encircled in glass. "Drip-less,"floating, and votive candles are recommended. • A "Unity Candle" may be used outside of glass during the wedding ceremony only. Hours/Days of Operation: • 8:00 a.m.- 10 p.m. Sunday-Thursday • 8:00 a.m.- midnight on Friday and Saturday with no events ending later than 11:00 P.M. All events will end one hour prior to closing time. 6aCommunity Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins December 1,2004 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Barkeen, City Planner c., FM: Karen McWilliams,Historic Preservation Planner RE: Featheridge PDP,4104 Ziegler Road Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the Featheridge PDP, to be located on the historic Cook- Tyler Fami site. Historic Preservation is in support of the project as submitted,believing that it meets the Standards in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. The PDP proAdes for preserving the architectural value of the site's primary historic resources, including the 1890s brick house, the bam and a chicken coop, through their retention and adaptive reuse. While it is unrealistic to expect that the farm site, once redeveloped,will retain a historic agrarian feel, the Featheridge redevelopment will preserve the historical value of the existing buildings through site planning and historic interpretation. Additionally, the new construction proposed for this site has been refined over the past two years to be more sensitive to the historic buildings. The events center has been reduced in scale and massing from the original, and more significantly,has been redesigned as a split-level building,utilizing the existing change in grade to further reduce its visual impact on the historic farmhouse and barn. The outcome of this development will be the retention and interpretation of an element of Fort Collins' history,within the context of urban development. 281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376 FAX(970)224-6111 • TDD(970)2246002 • E-mail:aplanning@fcgov.com riatx �i LiGHTIltiG SUB1yII1TAL PACKA�,_ JOB 0012 Prop wal by Tom Rarabm&Li D#dV Servos,97040-2271 Rofar to L dreela Ll,12 and L3 for addiHo W k6 ma lm and bwAaoe. LUMIMRE SCHEDULE Symbol Label (mil Cal W Number Dascr"m Lmnp Lumsa LLF Al 2 j06 CIA KAD AREA LIGHT WITH HK*4 ONE 71).WATt CLEAR PERFORMANCE 80 HIGH PRESSURE 8m 0.81 • OPTICS, CLEAR FLAT ;ODIUI0�1.M HORIZONTAL GLASS. P08T M A2 4 7706 CIA KAD C PERFORMANCE R ORMANCE S R3 MGM PRESSURE� am 0.81 OPTIC;, CLEAR FLAT ;ODIUM HORIZONTAL MASS. POSITION. • 81 12 NORAL.PARK NORAL OUTDOOR PARK ONE 7OW CLEAR HPS CROWN, MODEL CROWN 11 LUMINAIRE LAMP. 8300 0.81 11-70841 WITH TYPE II REFLECTOR AND CLEAR ACRYLIC LENS S, 1 NORAL PARK NORAL OUTDOOR PARK ONE 7OW CLEAR HPS CROWN, MODEL CROWN 11 LUMINAIRE LAMP. 8300 0.81 12-GWA-70841 WITH TYPE 11 REFLECTOR AND CLEAR ACRYLIC LENS . NORAL PARK NORAL OUTDOOR PARK B3 2 CROWN, MODEL CROWN 11 LUMINAIRE 3080 ftn,200 W, PON 3080 0.61 114NC(300 WATT WITH TOP MAX) SYMMETRICAL. REFLECTOR AND CLEAR ACRYLIC LENS • L.ITHONIA KBRB ONE 70-WATT CLEAR E- C 23 70M R5 8 IN ROUND BOLLARD 17 METAL MAUDE, 5000 0•72 VERTICAL BASE-DOWN POSITION. �. GARDOO 9504 1W WHITE LED RATED - D 8 1W-Lyy�p CLEAR PLASTIC LENS 25 LUMENS 28 0.96 • E 9 LITHONIA F802AZ W OPEN DOWNUGHT TWO 2S.WATT DOUBLE(2I2WrT) SPECULAR REFLECTOR. TWIN TUBE COMPACT 1800 0.86 FLUORESCENT, HORIZONTAL POSITION. F 2 LITHONIA TWAC SPECIFICATION ONE 70-WATT CLEAR ED- . 706 BUILDING MOLWTED -17 HIGH PRESSURE am 0.95 LUMINAIRE, 70W HPS, SODIUM HORIZONTAL WICLFAR LAMP. POSTIOFL. A3 13 KAD 708 R4 DIE CAST SHOE13OX ONE 704VATT CLEAR ET GM 0.81 -23.6 HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM,HORIZONTAL POSITION. 2 NORAL PARK NORAL OUTDOOR PARK ONE 50W CLEAR MPS CROWN, MODEL CROWN 11 LUMINAIRE LAMP. 4000 0.81 11-80841 WITH TYPE II REFLECTOR AND CLEAR ACRYLIC LENS RUUDr PACE- RECTANGULAR 80 WATT HPS, B17, _ C1 15 E35M SECURITY/PERIMETER CLEAR 4000 D.81 COMIN I� L✓7MON/A A/VA71 VO' None" KWI-708434204PO DOLOR Nor Trp. FEATURES St SPECIFICATONS BiO DUAL AND' A MOD APPLICATK.M A l A CO 01TENMUSE-IdaeltorowIncarlma,stm Ightinporporidnpawns. CONSTRUCTION-Ruoged, ASS-tick,skdnae rac0rwsr housing, AoM L1&d Codkuou*mom welded for weather-OW seal and kibpdty. Naturally arodbed, agruded, ahnNwm door frame wdlh mtemd r comers le.$Wj"W %(onol.lW demebr MW os eW semmsd addr Ions)bete fimb quick mbN fastnw. sW I&wpmd seal KSF bakwesn housing and door frame ka-------- -with anktegraN designed,cMvdadsErg -pAsttlmtmmphdodoorfmm. HIGHPRESSURES001 KNISH-Sandard%M Is dark brew IDDB)polysstm powder.Other 7011N, low. 11 powder architectural calms available. IF to 29' Moto OPTICALSYSTEM-Relbotmseeamadked mdnpwneedtorsupadm uniformly and consul,wwldch allovwwlm fbWbMvto ukd olkadons without comprombing to overall NNhdng )ob. Reflectors attech wthlooi-Inah stumm and sre rocneiik and haamhangsWA ,Thar cutelf N, I Maas mralshk:Type II(Raadwayl,Type III Oa mmst- dc),Type N Forward Throw,Sharp Cabolfl. Lans k.12g-thick,impact-rasktam,impend,gbs with thermally. — appNsd,din smeanad power door sh)si. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM-High mamma,high pow famor baNest INE kink comerwomd and 100%hawylaated.Remowble powardeor and poNNve baking dbawanect plug. Porakil kwkw aNyod- SP#dnmdons f-- — ented, mogul-bass socket with copper sky, nickel-plated suave EPA 1lRs1.ldmq -Mari L shell and comer contact.I.R.Noted 1600YV eeSll,elctr pubs rated. Naebass arm) As aarrahrr.m errrrwrrdtrr.rrd INSTALIATTON-Extudad,d-skmkumarmforpekuwalmommkgle Lowk2204 '"t"'0s"'"s"�~ sid(ped h florae arrow OptbNal exnmdhrps avelebk wy(lift faro H1.0 N1raNw oriw g�meYbr USTING-UL Noted for wet Iscadons.Listed and Iabaed to am*with 0"* T-/N(18A) Canadian StandaMs lea Optimal. Weightu be(lift NiINWA IS, e Am t(1e.2) MIN 7 ORDERB140 NdFOMOATWN Example: KSF1111B B31700W OF DDB rrirrrrbaditwcsu aanmwrwumartbmsuhwv rrwdt ad wmakmen wmnap. err.Ordoramemab rrpmmsosaha raamw. -KBF1-708-70s A 3 am COLOR TOD L�... J Y°wo• Momrurrga oathM KM 1NNN Lair W" (su Pohl M aura hal ars) oftei finessed h Her nd Were INS skas tow 11f 2e1.W. V,We 19) (PmwA t Mil fell s1Nr N1Ms seem Poll Or rani w Dwbk tar OK SA dNN ah Iles"Calms N1M 2oN 277 No flow"I we M wmP Tel DDN Dark bras kmaa Nd7 WON Nand Pole M war) lFl Low koadd as sbderd gyMl Whits D pp ONOTIt W WD/� w LAP Low krap OK Black pain ar wM M PER MEMA am ft400k rapowle mly NZ IFS Type N medway YVNNNe Wad Pas ar well M k0 pbowooRMA Clude takes dkM 0 TES Typs IN uperaMc Wall a1 Is et* ' syebm maC M M N aaea" home BIND Nib Type N toward WBM Wax 6eaetet(�emd s Bur" 9 duo on bmNM ebrskom 0 n sbery maid( Wage Wag Mackin W am) CN Eatmwd ea. an resistance NMi BMdmaa N 'I "I g bra" Dig Listed ad lsbskd to am*wdm INK armaa Nrer ordering 04k M Tamil PM UAWDDA 2 � all Brfglm M 1 CrrrR worry ra WsM ty In cards till M31Atalm'--k PE(121;2W se" M sled bkm 2 asea�r rwtl rr tsesm m2a 7sa sm, OMONAL IINIIUINN NBMtadmdadr PE(N17V1 2nwt (pk2flNDllaCar4l (Wdppd separably) MISMU*WookPEOM S UwaPMaPfaMrwwwhr4swtma M HENNAbdeblsatPE(Z M bkrtr sin damd r s W awns tAtNP Do" am (pain) si0"0• I M21NN Oq)tas era-(wal N Shor`M cup for PER Ogden a May 1w ranked m sn seaway. am Met sum adept r NSRNi lkase db d"gMNR e Adediewtan 1 011 sw1 'Cdd =01"Aw t+TNW Trade mwetlrM bw tiRlYel Yanda Is a rarem N,w� �tweaha dietaw Asraaaedar TreN--- ph O Y r ehmr br drtbq tram- - - - -- NW60 of adwr Tarr au er TraMa1- RtsmsOt ThaMtle' ThrMe•r ra.rse 2.2R' ift 77N-Till TN►�ilee T2s-Ye TIFNN UM 2.7/8' SIN TMM TWO mige Imes TNN-N a TNN•1N Tse-M Tseafs TN Nf TNWse Tn4 OUTDOOR ShNt din KSF1,8 AL-: IA AnwAv*vlA L/OHTJNwr 1CM-sosat FWALANDSPOKEHODAPFlJGTM. M AS FEATURES � s�ecwc�►naus HITENIEOUSE-Moofformfowlaq Mn 'Ilk porPWft$M CMTNMDN-Rutpd,�llA'1MIak*AMaalaOlRn�arAaa.Yp ; ':1i:;:; Condawsmyee.M waxed brwotlw4Mlosal.adl - - -1 Lwbg ftWmW sawbA mom" alwAbm door to - with altered eamers dimeowlihmoson am Now" KSF wkh IMMI gMner-ok*ft mlao.mww.WatArproef ad beteMa aaad deer hallo b samatMplab.d wNh ea koParY dsdpaad,�id.Niooaat'aegrlhasnhr kd.doorhaae. HIGH PRESSURESWI FRNSH-Ibobrd fm M b dark boas IODNI you r p�br•Otlnr IF to a 1 noun powder arahlosatoral oabn ewlebb OPTICAL1YV M-R 8 on a ossoll od.aatawMMd.aharM4.ab► unHorMONOWoWANk a wmooAM1YMgtbaicdbubaN.aa wNhwA cmaproMbbp to word 19MV4 Ok Re�lloolm�a Nub auobRdbaWutlMMaw M I�MiR k(RDWW"LLTTylo fA mm* rick Typo W(Fonnrd Yinw. rp W om Low b.1ffi'Mkk b Fr�On6 .�edp.awMhlMnaly — •PP •a ark sweened power door ELECTRICAL s 1349 -Nlab ra.ar•.ee,blah power hwtr bales BaF beb rwMidod101%hoMryb.e.d RaMova6l.powardoor �beft dbaMMct pbF Pwasw 6akaat.rinai BpedAaNlerM - .aw aoppN alMrand ODWALUL11"I9rW �. o nl.doW*W sowt [Am L l.a OMWALlAT10N—EdrAb ,P.laaknona=PolsorWON b LM Layft n wearyl saaM wipaaMad shipped In Stan arbn .l Moo�ap Dpiae-- N bb ft. U TiN8-ULasbdf rvind -1ae LbpdaMbMbdbooMpy"M �WM µt.t) yo Ca ft%n 8had.rd. pdona. Napaa 7-1M Ina) aarcaaan was a Wddm:at be Itafial Ats: taa) WMn 7 at ORDER MNIFOn" ION Example: IIMIMU1> S MRFM 2an�aia���a *abwtwMwrrMw Ma MMap. No.oadra sumodMM MpwasoedQ naabar.' Ka�l-7p R4sC120 COLMIDD sadn VZ y.—� opda 131 an /M ! Well ,lstum 11110 K ww OWN sm"M inRla n bobwoaad Was >f a* fix W.aW,ale iN) bards►MW Koh t w " awn pds Rr Mnd If Drib ban W W 4 W. rmdaal aN a I" aTN411M an spat RMMd mob If'MMP To) me Doak brawn hbmde as am DnM mob or NMI lM Isp boWW as eaaaord NWN Who DI McMn » Ynm WMob m r wd W w Lan bwwar mra noaPMsis oW lIl Doak NIra TV"N marts Ylane Wood mob r eAtll al alawb arbor q Ill Maswttm 7M Maim' ypa M npmmbb wo bsV ew�.t>i��dylM.� DM NO"dwdoma hM6 all type IV taawad Maros WAS hraobe W MMf miaow� amaw,Ohara a" won Woo bnaiaa W woCN ambemnd aarraiM nabrMM NIa todabm n Mena" 4raabat CIA MM b M sanpbr wo ONC oee RM DTt{ Tusb grant Imm t/ANM "it erlalbt aMk Ndtbnd t CamabMrylMowwlaoWeAy tal sal PM�MAadM�eMPE Club. IN MM�Sam ON a"wo MaLucoMaal � PMtEtaAMeedeMPENpV► a aMtPta tlyMu, rasa bbbpsd upow Ill pp NIMI►adat brie pr p'J7Y) 0• w 1 DAV IV�N Diana a w� a�aaa ay for M open a May w Mary M M aaa WON = aarA Mee Ms ads our N Nun the a"WM p aamarmiw sm arm anso, KM Tide summits br rNNq Wsld Ow a wadi ambr ""A"'dd*j am. Nor, "WRAW at eraar !TA' -"16% 1Mi 7TNI,1M WS 2•7A' Miss "His =40 M-MI TMI- M Tape 1' TWIN TW M TW M Taiila Tat= TrM OUTo" SIIaWtdhKBFi$ ALv .mow,• � f OPA RK CROWN wftL Wtw • _ _ •• • newPmdLCk • • • • rrdntenonos MwKNrIm Wyojad • =• _ • • Combined • seven - DWO Ham Gabriel 1F7314I E 450nwn 61 4- 83 + 3+ 1 P7 MODEL,11 t" Wind Ana: 1.83a%ft i 32112N WMpb1 22.08 bL 880�nxn MODlL:G1/A MOOrG1JXF Wino Ana:2.48 it Wiwi Ana:2.48 4%R. WWO1 33.05Ib& WWOd 3348 bL 981/2 N ~�MM 8Er 1/4 N mmm l� MODOU Gam` MODIL.� N ;I,dagF Wind Ana 2.37 0%ft, WYW Ana:2.87 e}R. MkOl 34.08 ba na:2.37 p ft WOW 134A6 bL O 34.03 bL 71 12 In 1818mm 88 8/4 N 82 88 314 In1760 mmr / 1�7W mm MODE: 1260A MODS: 12dagiF 4WZWM -GI/A Wind Ana:4.74 n4 ft Wind Aaa 4.74 e}ft 4.96 sq.ft W60*.66.09 ba WMp11k 66M bL .09 bL RM Wlslphl wHhafi bolas,, Add 8 ba per baled. POST MONN Al, AZ AS, C, F Royal Series NOTE:Tenon Sme 3776 mm ISO r1 , 1� 1 • • fh � tvll11 t tl`-.f I I'I IJLG • • PARK CROWN MATERIALS AVAILABLE COLOURS \ Housing - Precision de cast aluminum A413.2 allay Standard Cobh based on 99.8%pure recycled aluminum with less than Textured Black BIX .2%copper content Textured White WHf To "Be L•ns-Acrylic TlM Lens AT AcMlc Clear Lem AC 4— Nord Bronze BRZ �!�lrMV rAc Acrylic Opal lens AO Painted Green PAT tbrdwo -304,316 stainless steel Sarni- andad Colon Suafalc•bdtrl•nt-Exclusive'Pdyned'system Silver SL ReBeu Bon-Anodized aluminum Graphtte GRA DURABILUY Nord Green GRN Custom color match avoloble, color chip required • A4132 aluminum cloy Is used for shenglh resistance to conosion and reduced welght Most charted RAL cobra are avalable • UV resistant polyester powder coating resists SO-up charge will apply to sep standard, RAL colon discoloration from UV rays better than conventional and custom colors epoxy powder coaling ELECFRICAL • Seven stage surface treatment with chromate UL wet location or tested to meet UL 1898 equivalent ensures excellent adherence between metal and for wet location by Entela(www.entelo.com) the Polyester coating ACCESSORY AND OPTION CODES • Vandal resistant. UV stabilized acrylic lenses for added durability and pralectlon from ultravlolet rays. Ladder Bar LB \ EASY TO MANWN Photo Cog PH • One piece lens for good fit and easy mmamal for MON GH outlet owarwp In post base G 4 • Single captive screw and hinged Rd for easy re- Singlebanner arm BA lamong Twin brinier am BA2 • Single captive screw for access to ballast comparhnent when servicing • Stainless steel hardware and screws ensures trouble free makrtenonoe ORDER EXAMPLE / / /I R Modal Mount Larry— vblfape 0100101 Lens Flnhh AoosssmV Mmubftnd and orubuad in Nam Amsfta by: ■ %RBICALN ARCNI'Rt:T'NRAL pSjCNK M Lam. \ Condo:479 Ow"&*n^Fort 61e Cntab M SM USA:Bulle 3K 2M Bmlwood Ar6 m Biltol0.My,14222 VIS 41 RW 991-9707 Fuse(oa61991-9708 6rrroC hlo®boblcanoo 140 IA z"w,ON/A "AV MP 77JW r OWN WAII&W KW41-70N4U400WX) out FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS VOLTAGE Also Cd CR TO 9E pE7&IdeEp MOM UN—use for realcwaya,AM or pedestrian amm. COMSI1111MUOM— Smded, slumim e, B.tsB'well Ullok- akOikiaOteNadfOI1M name.Top cover N a woklonmt of.tss"reap mtnntan and O.TW'lop poke.When kwwrs an used,top N scarred te larninp with Urea concealed Alm screws 4Y ewraS heigk gram" gowd-ceN � ow N Included K B RI FMIIM—Standard Amish N dark bro me M0131 polleow powder dec- UceM�P and oven-cured.Other cobs ava9able as op• rwu Nigh Pressures Sod Ols1M SVIVW—HydkotomMr4 fluled, afnodred, sbrnkaran upper ow reflector combined with spon aMndiri , anodised,flared am is Incandosc standard Cylindrical lower reAeetors or east-ebmimmn tearoom also avaloble. Lon b clear,samoss109%*goaerylle,f/k'wall,flush fitting.Sakotd,flded,,�enclosure,when Woven ere end. } HUTOM SVOM—High pressure sodium and metal hdNle an high powermctor ballmots,100%copperwound oW behnWftdfor reliable operation. ENatrical components are tray-mourrood with quo k-doconnLK plug and are accessible through bolbm of boBw . Porcelain,Iffift odesded,modknn-bole pulse-rated socket with copper dog,nickel-pNmd shall and center contact MSTALLATA7M—Few W x 1 I'somber bolts with double mots and veadr- ow,(shipped aepsrempL 441T bolt ckols template Included UPON—lIL noted forwet tecedmn.Useed and labeled to compwwith Canadian Standards lose 0pdan►. w Walaht 7o. -Mfi s("A-lu 14 ORDERING INFORMATION Example: IMIIISS31111=11FOW armo..a»badba. nwnareMmnraWawtwieywrPwde wd v/db R an era appruO�MM anw Qda wawwl�r urrrrwrloe nwAhw. TOM wt xxx COLOR I I 1Aht1aN fieflwtor YOICpn OPUMM MOB m ww Ins Ipdad yowl Came to mow bet"in son AwMYetmal Sohn brader Ld 7W xw ws W Type V d owsmam SM IF NNW Use Itae.W.3W o*. Ipsdard Galore INS low FPS m BF Doable loss dM eft Pot pR yy Isnauhodl 7M 701N Mill CYA Speoudar Alwks evdNble whh Tel aSL Slsok l follow MillCTI gook Akak 3a' Lill lamp,nkb M led a starl 1 ttWVr CTI /led Atrak TamLAP Lea Cando Cohn OW Media Fears teas ea bdenf. a" Pat bleak No arwd heigbot w DMA"Word ahaOPnn Lamm RtI Dread imillt St M enadstana LM Cat-dmnb m Ilan Dvwd belgha Sr o OC Ckwe gran leaven PO Fiat= odn on wayFitd gma -four fatooP saint OOS TenalBrigh red Ao essoades SCL Sodbod lanes OSO sp ftm1 in bled rNkanaoded. Order es .ea.w.aaebe Mw6w. ITT Dods Incandescent mewl N slu Own 1 Asathn Or Sal-eblsld aa for r ro 0 Enhanced conesion radio.. An Oak 6 d tomes CIA Lifted sad NbdW to eawww whh Deadline Stsadards NO M V7,Skin oum r ilea mowed lamp von, wwW hands aarrwaa x InowWasoai «dew.in UW mrdv. a Amok b a nafraad unrarak of ALCOA. t 2/7V not wAeebb in WL a CPamrrel wWMq baum H2a,sea.xce,e77v1. e Not avalebne rrah LV o111 7 AddrwW w MawN ombn avaOdit aw AnhPeamrd Cobh MaarPua I no,7et.a. onmew SL. Im> SILL flDDrf PERIMETER CUTOFF Lm �•aa• —FAAWW O&�, 1/Ar" row O�eMM�a) NOW a�apw wrwrw�wa�srr . y�00w' I ore �iM�t arir�ir�a.ar�wy ' Iro�cr4e.# -.ord aEt#L IIbtIBE 0 12<r27N(attar!a0-rew i" N Hbh Power Fader B" r was DMAW OW MH DDaab M T 7 ( M sad) i UT*I W Lam Fk vm ;.. NMDowddM 7WMH DBMD7$)(b) 1 14Dyana�aretawa as-" MWM deM Mlwbadi Nam pmmaNma IN" : srn Maw n: -row Wa) PayaubanM Lena ❑ OF Any aBWHPB comm"me1 a YwVpr-7elYHPp apaMwawwew-arwansa as ❑ +L I�� _WNW$ DF8Ba6� 4 81pNr.-rwrHywJ ® Amw) IMd Oow�Ida�OW fiMM a SW lam fib)f/aw" . iM; WeaDsmftb ION WS lamBrO{r)p) IbrxOP we.rmWarutirarn.maw RBA ee�YtwrR�Ilplf+�lYAdYiMrrrr0�Y6� Q"„ ISNFL Owwwf araYwrrrm aMtrwr. AW*m db-aset baWt Muff BOOM lattwraaaa hoar boNdm s tWef WN aft ANN bap watbpe bbd eappft vWA a wM 001W(a NO)MOWA oN bTf6 or oomwt mameamtt bap.HD VAWm b doh a mwepNp.UL Lbbd N to US sod Qw& #10 Monn. 0 aomwh 00lN f waaI em deal;tnadhp 401 Nap aad pat, ' ' rtwloaed wet boathm sad sea m ehraMNd IPa6 Moobfad forwdo 1W aaoawtlap How do &m"WWm4h*Vp Na)pI ,-- r wN IM M WA IM NL h dWm comae Ur-14 Wr smW drk closdm spAapaos w w ler oewaa, LMnp waw "1brawNa wkbg or ashy from tho beck hidtwled where Mptdmd.Ab baWtaaawnbW NaopeBa 00 m M)e badt d tfle hOtmNO am wortrlal Dower ltador and uea the fdbwllq proaYlaa a waMlu0lm moll"IM L BfNaons *W types: FomhleMa DdMftfe fW*taMeraa sa Eti sad bonds the bwe to a awe dwmv m P�afred epany Oar wBh asdhnr)booaheib raWwar dro.wMah loom the aaaaby to the (mNbnom sarW10 Wmpembw-P(, nD Powder t me.p wAft ewI - "m" hoMsbp A eeoorb alfooaa no provldad Molded dW acryae bnbns sW epeosbr mmmNr lal mour(1IIav oa"w FL abnabw TM mwbB b oorared by oa am dbrd%W downward to wash lm wd bebw 36-100w HPS mkmed mob' end1Dhsskimd1 ,'n EWswWmW dWbatbw awidea on control sod""no 66-70W WP0 anlwrwr gaohp bdt DOW Im lanaaaioal aarwMlwr /Or—haM lNnaYM01 60-70W hmi OB01 UbaMON A = maobr,Wb=*68406,1 n WA mm ram►migoo FAX(EB2) I RUU' I i Cafto maw. PACE i l rally ships in am buWdm day. i Wlard Panty Tor Clrculw Fbdum This ll -I "Puts aonNete of s heavy ytape aluminum frame with two 0.1"vride panels, which ars easily assembled with lbe stemless steel fa hems provided.M Is dsUpned to support our Circular Uphls.The eMm panel Is sWkkwd wMh our ezdwhro DelleOuard *06 Aahslnp an E-oost spory pdmsrwMh bronze aaryNa powder topooal.Order I*n separately. I PANEL.FOR TYPE"CI"LUMINAIRE i i i i I I TY9 -5 LINE ORDERING P' mom M INK"NG WATTAGE VOLTMW LEO OOLON PNNiIr f ; r 950 S-SBAMIB 1=1 watt 120 LEA Amber BLP Black 951 MWM for 12 LEB Bko awrd a* 952 Wall of LEG Grm BHP Broom m 953 CeBkq LEO ftm WP Whlb . LER. Red 00 mall or Pi LEW Wkke same B Ban BC Sbeow Pak pdrl � 9-5-_l I N F DIMENSIONS (D wRH aAOAP1rER ON i 061 %2&00 dale:AdrpYr h ueo Then auadbp oar.�oJugYon 6ac PradoarnoudeaAatly�ar�&o Nnoaonao«atliout.dipYr. 2881 GA Al Steet S Leandro,GA Lea 916n � BOp►12 -= B1A/AAT-M iB Comde For 51N867.90BA wwwalleNylltlnp.00ln LIGHTr G . Cq#ylr8eaeed IAL"WXYA//A "WA FM7JyVO' EP0WHlD0%WUQM(C0mMWWnWAftCWTWn FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS T* E RRR NdfllNm Rearrd Fr.w-In road NOwC to New C..k eu.a*.Apprw,d for Phu d adbg Ww Ibdwdbe dr kadlly PWWWL rd whine twee, ftogA dwwded aed her. Relmdrd deal m I ba wM bH raar kink aft RS or,wd W t►r IF raNN eaddt beak .a wdA PrTaat des. hated ar tbewo 0m ak wkbe.Rmawble dew ar awy.cap. amid wb,proW"Reed for a%ff**wfm. i S ndaaba haa0Ma aWn wP b S1'o.R and l bdt-b T-b,r alp usamr.l Norio CONSWINK macho Paaakaw YM Pmammad,a,w to awe. Napa ad Nq wood -eed•Wked high pawn hawU11R Wk. npewWa bdaat b New .aabad.' WJ*"k.1SM ewagh VFV,dealnda kdea wdlb.d N We pebodm k .beaed wMn aderbp .d.otradt baew xamwed for tlxoogb-br ai�ak w Y amObt wdlk badetlow and wpprewA ORMLATM T-ba or wad)dat ba dvioa. hpaideble bin heweem Mow for oft-eeaer Lr.Ry b T•ber wYbp a woad JDWA Rakbc R NSSI Bin boom good to a boo at Sb:lr mwhwra W90 abdren. to"*win pul gee Wader In rawad to tone-la by ewoha kel win mdm V009 14-M WA Vwdedy Wime"ydw dews for Ash aa.tlae a1 wba to adbe few. _ Wing a1a NA1'. Aedaaidoman Relbows aropiwppte albpe OP to 1-Wr Akok. tom i LIRMNt UL Ned tt US.d CaNOpp aaty o wderde. BMW boom but µ ORDERING INFORMATION &aaPlc Ue VEM N awwaubolprinle p�waaareaa.wwwwwt �aypw�ad .wwy` k on qm eppraiaa 1Mw.Q�da aaaaalr r to 9 26 D7r o x _ X F � Lw wom 1dY01P dwle bl.werk ebakewia MR Lame N-Lart dowalle no Whim anon tSk bdut IM Ibnd dknia beReet beat apaaRy RINk Cba eP. sn iaark 4a d c1e% ' ku aw a VN.W".S M. man Omer Opp adz Hb aT"W4 a1BT UK RNSWT Wort • I * 40 IaaP kRsb.n RHa lAwk MU Ado- Marc XL diaeI bwd Rli. 11RiRw WNW berg IlS71 6auRaiay bkwry Prlt HIN1 wkk.W R.awk tat.wdtrk praeM.d p� Clear Wdm 1SM a S71tr peP Sbeb.kw-Now ela U R Oft Nooires � �1w�w wrP.d.ep. A�wtw M�t � baq err roalyl Mrt epedy wares FILM WWa we Ca NMMiandwe kwd Lem t Not maanmamnded br wrwlA ooapengr 6 de- FUM Bbtk Ra Cb cam b!nP We erPran,lem (�+{ Leas 7 MVCL Who anvar BNakonbmd6�rdthdaaar,bledapadne RNs4 Bk.k Rand a M kxralb" t70rif.eP.oreklk RLLrA WYke TA lemperal meaeawttmdnrarb dAMa am 4 HFwwmbamywndwedewwkart�monbR.modm. �A ,� e FA*he S" ka�TRW b mlbmaoNdmo�nuedrr. McMm ekaaY/armadmumwa8eeea tfA L%T/5/ONG4 Le/La�f NG" ?r*L : FtD :A- -r R W FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS Fbr�1. AawA+ 4t lAs E Wn on For ass IN"010C apPMoedoa wwk6 do IA raaeM•i,. 11e�t eeNwN AknWm roboew. a �a a.w. f.Ngl dAn dked M406tae available In drr paader..aaat perler and drr AM Ydlke dealer rdaator has Wind PdPOW Powder am Pdat W RALLATON PAU04 M OWN Wake for erkrled Win ralraYaa i� opm a1dMt kmaiq suable randy to mos" Hort (t � rnodde soao WRAP VP r 14X Nak UL load to UM sea Cal"ad"ardor& Dow boWoe but I I 1�pa ataeoerk 7�d Fq(7-7 cwft Opwip¢71r kane 9-DeNk ¢IJ! a� il/2'R�.1 AN daaerbrareedge ORDERING INFORMATION Exam AN Clwosatlrboklhoeoddap rw'* eawfMeOr me"coa ft msadwb it on dWrabeesaYrnpnUaYlaOkaMbaa �waa TRW � 17 Fm (kirk) WNW, Taw NMdu top rtkk"low trkr A Ow OWm A: Over MModer art "Meet$P@wA w Mtsedwee to" Ong fh Lao TV" waft" ROM Ua Oaprt Ifawerat vm Wff 'IO WbkebapMfWkq LN MOP" Hmes@W Z2MN OTT K I I OMwaYMI(la0 ad Tfaft iMaMtk i�COM ,COPN- I IA LJ7WVJV/A LJ,0,&WNG _c`TNr4 t'• 7o s - xK - L P FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS Ce+�'e'n' SCrfr`se A+tet� BnBiOED ON Far s aranose,smkwak owrW=OW oewr pads"den erns. nitofP F CmanMlcraN Is ons.0 ce Wri d,arrosbrr detestabwdraaa Froraawr A Is ores plea W- nt kjsalbn� �poolI�rponeN, kwl� Pa ited. Captiveoaatrw heldwerdkgwe iNbsstdfortxmoNonreek• tsrwa and kncbrdsa Nutted hex-head and tamperproaffasteners N HIGH PRESSU SO[ Dark Brame IDDBI earroebn resistant polyester powder. DFl76Al.gvvw 31AW, fi0lik, . 1 edle4oneedra0eclorkdillusedsloaftNe.Rahacaoris dew tN stab paMosebssses, proeidng B esld dbftL m and madesu% tetanal ICht arlgd.trance Fipd aver Issedad and pnbeed is b*M the en- aleuNde arrroerkwnb. GLECTWAL SVWW Bakst Is meow nonce�pavrer bcbr.supper wwW.HPS bdum are f00%facerytabedandUllkted Can parwusarobeetsbdud m t consuitfiho alp for medmua heat dedpadw liar 50 herb a;; qrr osedccooppppea Height IT QBAcm) oorm lararufcoleercontoaLUL�edSM,gCOyextd Width: ii-lfl O:9Zcm1 Depth: 8.15118' (22.7crn) pai eaness Medium-haw hs p braided with 16anre Weight 10 on. N SMS) INETALLAIM Mount is any vertical surface or to a s round squaw outlet box. Beck access tlaaugh ye'mud Not Tap wiring access thfouf W tkaaded TO=6b ykRMoughvMrlrgreguiresnwdecondult"a FholoaNeere L1Bi11dB Eeb UL gated for seat location. IPa6 tubed lined and labeled to comply wbh j Gnden and Madcan llterndattk(sae ORDERING INFORMATION Choose the new...gulp eeoseoebre uw err ante yvr"we rw verb It as de awopdob Example: TWAC I B 1211 On.antler owueseuo u wprese oo1Np aaadere Irbnppae ooprseNyl. TWAC L P I eo lob- opdm TWAC In &WwW bomw u nos Arobbawerr spim 1sMMssa pe6r nr aF a ngia fees tU9.D7,we DNA NOW dhsaeraa Fla? aw OF Dube Cuss OK ZM14 WaL Week 70 277 XIIF 1110 Powse bsabor belts[ no mod= bmlwe ile6 lqy EC Erna[" atoulp BWN Whlw TO NU farlogeacy abate 12 volt M landktons CWW lamp bw Wed v Lr mete awsway skew et 12 wh oaa Quartz syit m- Ca Enhaead eerrosee•mNetwlas Nam CET Woo-WA probative 000fte t VMS*. =A UdW wed bbeed to amply wbh 2 mervNWIF Cesadee Wtendards a Wftdedf WpbdhW( eX"w17Aq aIWM Uslad sad ebeedto sotiplywkh In Ceeade 13%WJ ,,empe se INW. FE Phowoal e NO ualobl►wkb rewsep baser. a L"net,roladed. w W bP omw se loom"cold"UNA s owru uoo amnia not w waved beaset LFI Lssp leobrded a ewWard eat FM "Obo l irk fUw eaWo reuse• WE1 PM CIA Photeoel irk W2W oWI� 7 avk ftM ar ateebp ores. Itil1 F02 Fbobod kk t211 m I ow"brew far meow in Ceases. WEt M WA Photeal MOM a NetovoNbpealrtaq ECrNq/ TWAWa Wbgeard OWAIM SMd&TYYACS BN Feather Ridge Project Development Plan and Small Scale Reception Center Land Use Code Amendment— Chronology of Events Bellow is summary of events for the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan and subsequent land use code amendment. Mid-to-Late 2002 - first contact with Aaron and Deborah Wade, and Julie Baker and Wendi Meyer regarding the Thomas property (Feather Ridge). February 7, 2003— Conceptual Review for Aaron and Deborah Wade for an events center on the Thomas property. Early 2003 — Staff was contacted by Julie Baker and Wend! Meyer (Feather Ridge) and Stacy Richter(Richter Mansion)to discuss a variety of topics related to small scale events centers in the City and Growth Management Area. Early-to-mid 2003 — Discussions with CPES management and City Attorneys office regarding the various options for processing the requests. Options include: Not annexing into the City and submitting for a Conditional Use Permit in Larimer County; or In compliance with the requirements of the I.G.A. with Larimer County, annexation is triggered. Based on contiguity with Hewlett-Packard/Agilent, zoning could be either Harmony Corridor or Commercial with a Structure Plan Amendment; or Annexation and Zoning to Urban Estate, in compliance with Structure Plan, but with consideration of adding a land use, with performance standards, into the U.E. zone via the Addition of a Permitted Use under Section 1.3.4; or Annexation and Zoning to Urban Estate, H-C, or C and adding "small scale reception centers" via a "use variance" or "conditional use" procedure. (No such procedure exists in the City.) Annexation and Zoning to Urban Estate, no Structure Plan Amendment needed, but with consideration of adding a land use, with performance standards, into the U-E as a formal application as a Text Amendment. Annexation and Zoning to Urban Estate, no Structure Plan Amendment needed, but with consideration of adding a land use, with performance standards, into the U-E zone via the biannual Land Use Code Update process. Mid-2003 —the course of action is determined to be annexation into the City, zoning the parcel in conformance with the Structure Plan, Urban Estate, and proceed with adding a land use, with performance standards, into the U-E, and other appropriate commercial zones. This project is delegated to the Land Use Code team for consideration by P & Z and City Council in the Fall of 2003. Mid-2003 —extensive meetings and discussions with the Land Use Code team and the two potential applicants. Members of the team include staff from Advance Planning (including Historic Preservation), Current Planning, Transportation Planning, City Attorneys Office, Natural Resources, Engineering and Zoning. Mid-to-Late 2003 —formulation of a definition, Urban Estate performance standards, other appropriate zone districts, and drafting of code language. October 24, 2003 — First worksession with P & Z Board regarding Fall 2003 Land Use Code changes. Small scale reception centers is Item 596. November 14, 2003 —Second worksession with P & Z Board regarding Fall 2003 Land Use Code changes. November 20, 2003 — P & Z public hearing regarding recommendation to City Council of Fall 2003 Land Use Code changes. Board recommends that small scale reception centers not be allowed in the Urban Estate until more work is done on the performance standards. December 2, 2003 — City Council First Reading of Fall 2003 Land Use Code Changes. At the request of two potential applicants, City Council continues Item 596 (small scale reception centers) to 2004. December 2003 — February 2004 — Based on input from P & Z, Land Use Code team continues to work on refining the Urban Estate performance standards. February 13, 2004 — P & Z Worksession on Land Use Code Item 596, as a separate carryover from Fall of 2003. Board recommended two changes to the Urban Estate performance standards relating to separation from residential areas that are vacant. In addition, stricter parking and lighting standards are addressed. February 19, 2004 — P & Z public hearing to make a recommendation to City Council on Land Use Code Item 596. Board approves 5— 1 with aforementioned changes and takes additional action to reduce the maximum building size from 10,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. March 23, 2004 — City Council study session on L.U.C. Item 596 with the changes recommended by the P & Z Board. April 6, 2004 — City Council adopts on First Reading Ordinance No.056, 2004 on L.U.C. Item 596. April 20, 2004 — City Council adopts on Second Reading Ordinance No.056, 2004 on L.U.C. Item 596. April 22, 2004 — First neighborhood information meeting for Feather Ridge Annexation, Zoning and P.D.P. May 25, 2004 — Neighborhood information meeting for Richter Mansion Bed and Breakfast/Small Scale Reception Center, 315 West Harmony Road. June 8, 2004 — Submittal of Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning July 20, 2004— Initiating Resolution for Feather Ridge A & Z passed City Council 6 - 0. Under Other Business, Resolution to rescind Ordinance No. 056, 2004 failed 4 — 2. July 28, 2004 — Second neighborhood information meeting on Feather Ridge P.D.P. July 29, 2004 — Feather Ridge Project Development Plan is submitted to the City for review. August 13, 2004 — P & Z Worksession on Feather Ridge Annexation and Zoning. August 19, 2004 — P & Z public hearing making a recommendation to City Council regarding Feather Ridge A & Z. Board votes 5—0 on both the annexation and zoning into U-E. September 7, 2004 — City Council First Reading on Feather Ridge A & Z. Council votes 7 — 0 on the annexation and 5 —2 on the zoning to U-E. September 21, 2004 —City Council Second Reading on A & Z. Council votes 7 — 0 on the annexation and 5—2 on the zoning to U-E. October 8, 2004— Staff meets with adjacent neighbors at several residences in Woodland Park Estates. October 14, 2004 —A third neighborhood meeting is held at the farmhouse on the Feather Ridge site to discuss mitigation options along the private drive and adjacent to the proposed facility. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: Feather Ridge Small Scale Reception Center, Annexation, Zoning and P.D.P. DATE: April 22, 2004 APPLICANT: Mrs. Julie Baker Mrs. Wendy Meyer CONSULTANTS: Linda Ripley, V-F Ripley and Associates CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the project would consist of using the residence and grounds of the property at 4104 Ziegler Road (formerly the residence of Dr. Lee and Sandy Thomas) as a small scale reception center. The proposal includes using the existing house as an office and construction of a new facility for receptions and corporate retreats. The new facility would contain 9,000 square feet and be located east of the existing house. The 9,000 square foot building would be constructed on the east-facing slope so the total square footage would be divided between an at-grade level and a walk-out level. The barn and shed would be preserved. The garage would be demolished. The parking area would be located southeast of the proposed building in the southeast portion of the property. The property is located east of Ziegler Road and north of the Hewlett-Packard and Agilent campus and southeast of the Woodland Park Estates subdivision. The property contains approximately 16 acres and is presently located in unincorporated Larimer County. Any such request for development as a small scale reception center would trigger annexation into the City. A small scale reception center is defined as: Small scale reception center shall mean a place of assembly that may include a building or structure containing a hall, auditorium or ballroom used for celebrations or other special occasions such as weddings, graduations or anniversaries). The building or structure may also include meeting rooms and facilities for serving food. Outdoor spaces such as lawns, plazas, gazebos, and/or terraces used for social gatherings or ceremonies are a common component of the center. A small scale reception center shall not include sporting events or concerts. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. What is the height of the building? A. About twenty to twenty-four feet. 2. Is that the upper level only? A. Yes, that height applies to the front elevation. 3. Is there any alternate access option? A. There is no alternative at this time. 4. Will there be room for trees along the access road? How wide does the road need to be? A. There is room for trees to be planted. The road needs to be about twenty-four feet wide for two lanes. 5. 1 am concerned with what happens at these parties. Congestion on the access road could cause a problem and drivers may misuse the street by speeding. 6. How do you plan to develop this road when you only have 50% ownership? What if the other owner says no to one of your propositions? A. We can't answer that right now. 7. Is there any way to build another access road? A. We are bogged down by the lack of access around the property. Residences are blocking accesses to the north. H-P is to the south. 8. If there were a fire—either in the building or on the land —would the fire department be able to easily access your facility? A. We are working with the fire department to address all fire safety concerns. The road is wide enough for emergency vehicles to get through, and emergency access will be easier when improvements are made. 9. Is there the possibility of a traffic light at the and of the access drive? A. No. The location and installation of traffic signals are governed by the City, not the developer. A traffic engineer will be hired to determine the impact this facility has on neighboring roads and intersections. A signal will be installed at the 2 Hewlett Packard exit if the proposed Lifestyle Center is built on the west side of Ziegler Road. 10. 1 am concerned that there are no regulations on sound amplification for weddings, only 50 watts are allowed at other times, but there is no such restriction on weddings. How will this affect me? A. 50 watts is pretty low, it is about as loud as a home stereo speaker. Nothing will be amplified except the ceremony and it will only be the minister and from speakers on the building. 11. Who will be the primary consumer at your site? A. Hopefully, weddings will be our primary source of business. Tech companies might also support business, but that takes more time to develop. Eventually we hope to establish a balance between business and weddings. 12. Until what hour of the night will traffic be an issue at your site? A. The facility will close at 11 P.M to give us time to clean up. We are required to cease operations at midnight. The thing with weddings is that there is a filtering of guests, so not everyone will be rushing out at the same time. 13. Will your business primarily take place on weekends? A. Yes. 14. Will there be limitations on who can use your facility? A. We cannot censor who can or cannot use the reception building. 15. Will there be limitations on what kind of activities can be conducted on this site? A. Yes, we can certainly recommend that security be present for certain groups if concern is merited. In addition, the performance standards specifically prohibit concerts and sporting events. 16. Will this be a smoking or non-smoking facility? I am concerned about the possibility of a grass fire in the area. A. There is always a risk associated with this sort of thing, but we will have plenty of signage informing patrons of our policies. We will certainly discourage smoking and the land will not be over-dry. 17. Are there any alternatives to the plan you are proposing now? Is there a plan B? 3 A. We have gone through many versions before arriving at this plan. 18. There will be approximately 180 parking spots? How many will be filled on average? A. On average there will be 70 to 100 cars in our lot. 19. This property is in the County, so how does it trigger annexation? A. The City has extraterritorial management in the growth management area. Because of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County, parcels that are contiguous and eligible to be annexed, and seek to develop, must annex. If the project is pursued, then only this property would be annexed. 20. Let's say that the property is sold a few years down the road, will the covenants and standards still apply to the new owners? A. Yes. If they want to change the use they will have to go through the City's process to amend the covenants and standards. 21. What is the timeframe for this project? A. The annexation will take about four months to complete and no final action will be taken until the annexation is complete. The performance standards run with the land. 22. Is the traffic impact report available to the public? A. Yes. All documents submitted to the Planning Department are public. 23. Will there be a fence line along the irrigation ditch? What plants do you plan to place along the ditch? A. Yes, precautions will be taken to avoid any accidents involving the irrigation ditch. We plan to plant Cottonwoods because they thrive in that wet climate, along with some shrubs. 24. 1 think that evergreens would be a better planting option because it provides buffering year round. A. We will consider evergreens, but only where soil conditions allow. 25. 1 am concerned that outdoor rock bands will be permitted on your property. A. No, they will only be allowed to play indoors. 4 26. What type of lighting fixtures do you plan to place along the entrance driveway? A. We're not sure yet, but we're looking for something "antiquey."A lighting engineer will help with the process and will submit a photometric plan. 27. Does the city have a standard on lighting fixtures? A. The maximums in the lighting standards are defined as 70 watts and 100 volts. Sharp cut-off fixtures can be used, but the developers also have the option of not installing any fixtures. 28. Will the City be requiring driveway lights? A. No, the city does not require private road lighting unless needed for emergency services. 29. 1 would like to point out that scheduling can eliminate and/or reduce congestion on the access road. Avoiding the peak times of H-P will ease congestion. 30. Where will the water for your site come from? A. Water comes from North Weld Water District currently, but we plan to get water from the City from their water main in Ziegler Road. 31. Is there a guarantee on where the water will be taken? A. Not at this time. 32. 1 am opposed to water coming from the neighborhood street. 33. Will there be barriers to prevent guests from wandering onto my property? A. We can work with neighbors to determine the appropriate borders &work out the specifics. 34. 1 would like to see a 7' chain link fence with supporting vegetation go up around the property to keep people from coming into my yard. 35. That would destroy the natural effect of the land, and is an undesirable option for US. 36. 1 would like to suggest that owner go with no more than a 1.5" diameter water line when they tap the water main for the facility. 37. Do you intend to preserve the existing vegetation in the area? 5 A. Yes, we would like to preserve the existing trees, plants and shrubs and will hopefully begin to start to plant new vegetation. However, we will be pruning and removing dead or dying vegetation. 38. 1 live to the west of the property, and my concern is that dust kicked up by cars during construction will adversely affect me. What do you plan to do about this issue? A. We can oil the dirt roads. The road will eventually get paved. 39. We would like to point out that reputable builders have already been selected. 40. Is there any way to keep the speed on the road down to about 10 or 15 miles- per-hour? A. Certainly. Installing a speed bump is also a possibility. 41. Where is the proposed lifestyle center going to be? A. The west side of Ziegler. 42. 1 would like to suggest that you only allow right turns in and out at the intersection of the private drive and Ziegler Road in order to ease traffic congestion. There are cities that don't allow left turns without a traffic signal, and it works. 43. 1 would like to bring up several points. First of all, property values will decrease with the construction of this reception center. Traffic from the facility &the lifestyle center will cripple the neighborhood & will make getting around harder because cars will be coming and going at all hours of the night. There are always issues when alcohol is involved and I'm not sure that the neighbors should deal with it. Garbage is also a concern & whenever alcohol is involved something can go wrong. In general, I am opposed to the project. 44. We will have liability for events that occur at this site, and, to me, that is the scariest thing. 45. Liquor laws eliminate most of the concern about alcohol. 46. We would like to point out that we do not have a liquor license, but we will allow alcohol to be served on the premises, and we will take steps to avoid incidents to protect our reputation. 47. Is another access site impractical or impossible? 6 A. It is probably impractical to get access from Hewlett Packard and almost certainly impossible to get it from Mesa Verde. Mariah Lane has problems with crossing the irrigation ditch, grade and high groundwater. 48. 1 couldn't think of a more detrimental use for this property. 49. Is there any way to move the facility behind the bam so that I would not have to see what was going on there? A. Yes, but the building was placed where it is shown for structural and geographical reasons. We would like to maintain our view of the pond and not have to look out at the HP parking lot. 50. Does the Land Use Code address the protection of views? A. No, it does not address privately protected views, but the standards do allow for dialogue between ooncemed parties. SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Feather Ridge Small Scale Reception Center, Annexation, Zoning and P.D.P. DATE: July 28, 2004 APPLICANT: Mrs. Julie Baker Mrs.(Ms.?)Wendi Meyer CONSULTANTS: Linda Ripley, V-F Ripley and Associates Julie Graff, V-F Ripley and Associates Matt Delich, Traffic Engineering Consultant Mike Oberlander, Northstar Engineering Tom Rorabaugh, Lighting Design Services FACILITATOR: Megare Kastner, City of Fort Collins, Neighborhood Resources Department CITY PLANNER: Ted Shepard, City of Fort Collins, Current Planning Department This is the second neighborhood information meeting. The first was held on April 22, 2004. Since that time, City Council, on July 20, 2004, adopted the Initiating Resolution to formally accept and begin the annexation process. Regarding the annexation, the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the annexation and zoning at its regular August 19, 2004 meeting. City Council First Reading is scheduled for September 7, 2004 and Second Reading is scheduled for September 21, 2004. The meeting began with a description of the proposed project. As proposed, the project would consist of using the residence and grounds of the property at 4104 Ziegler Road (formerly the residence of Dr. Lee and Sandy Thomas) as a small scale reception center. The proposal includes using the existing house as an office and construction of a new facility for receptions, anniversaries and corporate retreats. Since the first meeting, the size of the proposed new facility has been reduced from 9,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet, The location is consistent as shown at the first meeting and would be east of the existing historic house. The new 7,500 square foot building would be constructed on the norheast-facing slope so the total square footage would be divided between an at-grade level and a walk- out level. The barn and shed would be preserved. The garage would be demolished. The parking area would be located southeast of the proposed building in the southeast portion of the property. Also since the first meeting, the access drive has been shifted to the south and will be paved. It will be 20 feet wide and include two four-foot wide gravel shoulders. This will comply with the access requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority. The nearest residence will be 385 feet away from the new reception center. The property is located east of Ziegler Road and north of the Hewlett-Packard and Agilent campus and southeast of the Woodland Park Estates subdivision. The property contains approximately 16 acres and is presently located in unincorporated Ladmer County. Any such request for development as a small scale reception center would trigger annexation into the City. The Structure Plan Map specifies that the zoning is to be Urban Estate. Unless otherwise specified, all responses are from the applicants or the consulting team. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS 1. 1 am concerned about the operational aspects of the proposed reception center. I am also very concemed that the performance standards that govem this type of facility are vague. For example, there is no specified maximum number of persons. A. There will be a management staff. The performance standards specify that the maximum size of any new facility is 7,500 square feet. 2. What about the hours of operation? A. The performance standards limit the hours of operation. For Sunday through Thursday, the hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. For Friday and Saturday, the hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to midnight. 3. Could you be more speck? What exactly does 10:00 p.m. or midnight really mean? Is this when the event ends and that there will be clean up activities continuing later into the night? Or does it mean that this is when the clean up crew must be done. A. These times refer to the when the event ends. For Friday and Saturday events, we expect the event to end around 11:00 p.m. After that, there will be clean up which typically could last about one hour. 4. 1 am interested to know more about how you plan to operate the business. 2 A. We expect our business to be divided between corporatetbusiness conferences and weddings. For conferences, the number of attendees would range from approximately 30 persons at the low end and between 75 to 100 persons at the high end. For weddings, given the size of the facility, we anticipate that the average size would be approximately 150 persons. We expect Fridays and Saturdays to be the busiest days and June, July and August to be the busiest months. For 150 wedding guests, we expect about 80 cars. 5. How did you derive these estimates? A. These estimates are based on a comparable facility in Lafayette, Colorado called Lionsgate Center. They have a similar sized facility. 6. Could you tell us more about Lionsgate? A. Yes, the owner of Lionsgate is here this evening. Her name is Marie Jenkinson. The following information is provided by Mrs. Jenkinson: Lionsgate Center began in 1993 with one building on 10 acres. This initial building is called The Gatehouse and is a total of 12,000 square feet. (This total includes the basement, main floor and second floor.) This is where we have most of our weddings. The main ballroom is approximately 4,000 square feet. Most of our weddings average around 150 persons. In 1996, we expanded to add one additional smaller building of 5,500 square feet. This building is called the Dove House. The main floor is approximately 1,800 square feet. Receptions in this facility usually average around 75 persons. We run receptions simultaneously in both buildings. The Gatehouse can seat up to maximum of 370 persons for a sit down dinner. For a stand-up, cocktail arrangement, we can hold up to 650 persons. For the Dove House, we can seat up to 120 persons. For parking, we have 144 paved spaces and about 60 overflow spaces on roadbase. For a typical wedding, we usually see about three persons per car, and this is on the low end. 7. What kind of neighborhood is Lionsgate in? A. Response from Ms. Jenkinson: 3 We front on Highway 287 which forms our east property line. At first, we were out by ourselves but now houses and condos have been built around us. At the closest point, we are 30 feet away, building-to-building, from our nearest neighbor to the north. 8. Could you describe the access to Lionsgate? A. Response from Ms. Jenkinson: We have two access points. One is a right-in/right-out only off Highway 287 and one is a full movement access off a local residential street along our south boundary. 9. 1 would like to clarify that Lionsgate is bordered on the east by a road and on the south by a road. Could you clarify exactly what borders all four sides of your property? A. Response from Mrs. Jenkinson: As mentioned, we are bordered on the east by Highway 287. This is a four lane state highway. On our north property line, are condos that were built after we were up and running. The nearest condo is setback 15 feet from our property line which puts this condo 30 feet from the Gatehouse. On our south is a two-lane local residential street with houses and a stormwater retention pond on the other side of the street. I estimate that the nearest house is about 120 feet away from our south property line. On our west is a large residential development of single family detached homes. Immediately next to our property line are vacant lots and then a loop road with houses on the other side of the loop road. 10. Does the City of Fort Collins have any data or studies on the economic impact of commercial development on the value of existing single family detached homes in an established residential neighborhood? A. Response from City Planner: No, the City does not have any studies or data in this area. There are any number of variables that go into the value of any particular property making such studies very complex. We do, however, have examples of retail and commercial projects that are next to residential areas. One of the most recent is the Seneca Center at the comer of West Harmony Road and Seneca Street. This is a neighborhood convenience shopping center that abuts single family detached homes on the west and is separated by a local street from townhomes to the south. In addition, there are townhomes across Harmony Road to the north. 11. We are concerned that the proposed project will hurt our property values. 4 12. Referring to the photo-simulation where the proposed new building has been superimposed upon the property, as viewed from the west, how long would you expect the plant material to grow achieve total screening? A. There are three evergreen trees that have been planted in that location. These trees are eight to ten feet in height at this time and achieve approximately 30% screening. I would guess that to achieve 100% screening, at a growth rate of one foot per year, it could be ten years. A fence would accomplish 100% screening immediately but that is not our preference. 13. Ten years! My goodness, that sounds like a long time to me. 14. Would you consider a fence? A. A fence is possible. 15. You mentioned that you were concerned about some misstatements that have been going around that have been attributed to the applicants. Could you elaborate? A. There are two that I would like to clear up. First, I was quoted as telling the Planning and Zoning Board that the property was surrounded by commercial. This quote was taken out of context. I was explaining to the Board about the surrounding property and started with H-P and Agilent. As I was about to talk about the hedge along Woodland Park Estate's south property line, I was cut off by a Board member who was concerned that the discussion was getting too project-specific and was that this was inappropriate for a city-wide legislative discussion. So, I did not get a chance to complete the point. Second, there have been materials submitted to the City Council that compares our project to the scale of the Marriott or the University Park Holiday Inn. The performance standards allow for no more than 15,000 square feet of total aggregate floor area on the site for both any new or existing structures. This total aggregate of 15,000 square feet was then compared to the conference and ballroom facilities at the two hotels where up to 800 persons can be accommodated in a non sit-down arrangement. This is an unfair comparison as our ballroom will only be approximately 4,500 square feet which could accommodate 450 persons in a non sit-down arrangement. The balance of our square footage is divided up among a variety of rooms that are dedicated for bride and groom "get-ready" rooms, offices, conference rooms, offices, kitchen, restrooms, etc. These other rooms do not lend themselves to the large gathering of guests. Only the ballroom will be used for the larger gatherings. 16. How does this compare to Lions Gate? 5 A. Response from Ms. Jenkinson: The "Gatehouse" is our larger building. The square footage is 12,000. This includes a basement and offices. The ballroom is about 4,000 square feet. This accommodates 370 persons for a sit-down dinner and 650 for a non-sk down affair. I would like to add that a ballroom for a wedding must provide space for the head table, the wedding cake and gift tables, disk jockey table and a dance floor. For us, a typical wedding ranges between 100 and 200 persons with 150 persons being our average. 17. 1 am concerned about alcohol being served. This could lead to rowdy behavior. A. Usually, the catering company holds the liquor license and is in charge of alcohol serving. 18. 1 am concerned about outdoor parties. In the summer, there could be receptions held outside. There could be receptions held in tents out on the lawn. This could add significantly to the number of persons using the facility and there would be more noise affecting our neighborhood. A. The performance standards require that all outdoor areas used for social gatherings or ceremonies associated with the reception center must be located within 100 feet of the primary building and a minimum of 300 feet from the nearest dwelling on any abutting property. (As mentioned earlier, the nearest dwelling to any outdoor area where a tent could be set up is (385 feet). Also, with regard to outdoor music, outdoor music is not allowed to be amplified and must end no later than 8:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 p.m., on Friday and Saturday. 19. Is it correct that the performance standards do not address the maximum number of people? A. That is correct. 20. My bedroom window is 30 feet from the access drive. I'm concerned about noise, light, honking of homs and the nuisance created by cars and young Intoxicated drivers racing up and down the road. A. We have prepared a map that shows the distance between the homes and the access drive. For lots 37 through 47 (addresses 3121 through 3233 Yellowstone Circle), the distance from the back of the homes to the north 6 edge of the new paved access road (as shifted south within the dedicated right-of-way) ranges from 50.86 feet to 67.35 feet. In the cul-de-sac, for Lots 16 and 17 (addressed as 4032 and 4033 Mesa Verde Street), the distance is 63.57 feet for Lot 16 and 50.83 feet for Lot 17. Regarding noise, the applicant has committed to paving the access road which is quieter than gravel. Since road noise is a function of car speed, It is possible that there is more road noise associated with the traffic on Ziegler Road than would be on the access drive. The applicant further commits to planting a row of crab trees along the access road. Response from Tom Rorabaugh, Lighting Consultant: Regarding lighting, at this time, there are five street lights proposed along the access drive. These lights are required by the performance standards to not exceed 14 feet in height and are restricted to 70-watt high pressure sodium lamps to match the specification for City street lights on local residential streets. In addition, these lights will feature sharp cut-off fixtures so the light is cast in a down directional manner. This is also referred to as a 90 degree cut-off. This keeps illumination on the roadway with no illumination spilling onto the abutting properties. 21. Will you live at the Ricketts house at the end of the access drive? A. Yes. 22. 1 doubt the planting of a row of crab trees will be effective in blocking the noise of cars along the access drive. Besides, the trees won't do any good to block the sound as heard from our second floor windows. 23. 1 am concemed about noise on the road as well. You will have lots of young people who have been drinking alcohol. As they depart, you will have no control over their behavior. They will be in a celebratory mood. This will lead to noise and rowdyism and disturb our peace and quiet. 24. We feel violated. This project will change our world. We like the privacy and peace and quiet of our neighborhood. This privacy and peace and quiet will be impacted. This is very emotional for us. 25. We felt secure that the neighboring 15 acres would remain undeveloped. We were told that it was a type of natural area and would not develop. A. We are sorry you were told that. 7 26. Is there any alternative access? A. Access from the south, through the H-P/Agilent campus is not obtainable. Access from the east is so expensive as to be infeasible and may not be allowed by the ditch company. Access from the north would have to be obtained from the property owners. From our perspective, the property already has legal access via "Lee Trail" and this access is dedicated as right-of-way. 27. My lot has 240 feet of shared property line with Feather Ridge. From my property, I will see everyone coming and going. 1 will have lots of exposure from the project. The photo-simulation is not taken from the perspective of my yard. A. Our measurements indicate that no house (property?) is closer than 385 feet to the new,reception center building. 28. 1 was told that the original siting of the new building would be behind the bam, facing the pond, further east and south and, therefore, further away from our yard. Also, why did you remove the garage? It would have helped block the view. A. The location of the new building has always been in the vicinity of where we are showing it now. We want to capture the view of the pond and not be right up against the H-P/Agilent campus. Further, the historic preservation staff at the City is requiring us to preserve some land area around the existing farm house to preserve the integrity of its historic character. The location also allows the parking lot to be hidden from the neighborhood. The location also allows us to take advantage of the grade so we can have the ballroom on the walk-out level. We have planted some Austrian Pine for screening and could plant more (if needed). The garage was demolished because it was dilapidated. 29. Are you prepared to make changes to the project based on our input? A. Yes, we have already committed to shifting and paving the access drive. 30. We live on the east side of the project. Will you be planting any trees between us and the parking lot? A. Yes, we can plant some trees to soften the view. 31. What is the capacity of the parking lot? A. We are planning on 187 spaces in the parking and 20 spaces up by the main house for a total of 207. 8 32. What about overflow parking? Will there be any and how many spaces? A. Yes, there will space available for overflow parking but we are not sure how many spaces (at this time). This parking area is expected to be used on rare occasions. 33. For the access drive, what about using three-foot high decorative lights like you would see at a country dub? A. Our lighting consultants believes that with the location of the 14-high (maximum)fixtures, the relatively low wattage, and the 90 degree cut-off fixtures, that there will be no illumination spilling off the access drive onto your properties. We will have to prepare a Lighting Plan where this information can be documented. In addition, keep in mind that if the driveway were a public street, the City of Fort Collins would install the standard local street residential streetlight which is not down-directional. For an example of this type of public street lighting, drive down Timberline Road at night and look east over at Rigden Farm and see how much Illumination and glare is cast outwards from the public streetlight. 34. What about the hours of operation for the caterer? What kind of trucks do they use? How late do they stay at night for dean up? A. Response from Ms Jenkinson of Lionsgate: The caterers usually arrive two hours before the event. I would estimate that in 99% of the cases, they use vans, not trucks. For the larger parties, they sometimes use two vans. Trucks are used on very rare occasions. At the end of the event, the caterer leaves after clean up and usually hauls off the garbage as well. 35. 1 am concerned about the hours of operation for daytime conferences and how the departing traffic will impact our ability to safely use Ziegler Road. This traffic will get out between 3:00 and 4:00 and that is the same time that we are picking up our kids from school. Will the access drive be limited to a right-in and right-out only turn movements? A. Response from Matt Delich, Traffic Consultant: No, according to the traffic study, the access drive can operate safely with full turning movements. The traffic study included the trips generated by the proposed Lifestyle Center. (Mr. Delich pointed out that he did the traffic study for the Lifestyle Center as well.) 9 The intersection of the access drive and Zielger Road would be controlled by a stop sign. For cars exiting the reception center, Level of Service (measure of delay) will be rated "C" on a scale of"A— F." This means that, on average, over a one hour period, each vehicle will be delayed approximately 25 seconds (during the peak time). According to the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department, this is considered an acceptable Level of Service. In conjunction with the Lifestyle Center, a new traffic signal will be installed on Ziegler Road at the location of the H-P/Agilent north driveway. When this signal is installed, gaps will be created in the traffic flow on Ziegler making it easier to exit both the Feather Ridge access drive and the local streets in Woodland Park Estates and English Ranch. At this time, there are no plans to install a new traffic signal on Ziegler Road at any of the local residential street intersections leading into Woodland Park Estates and English Ranch. 36. 1 would like to comment that an engineering feasibility study to obtain a cost estimate for a road and bridge over the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch would cost only about$5,000. This seems like a reasonable expense to undertake. A. We would be concerned that the ultimate cost of this access could be approximately$150,000. And, the ditch company could possible not allow us to build over their ditch so it could be a speculative situation. 37. You have indicated in the past that you want to be "neighborhood friendly." At the July 20, 2004 City Council meeting, your attorney threatened the City with a lawsuit. How is threatening the City with a law suit considered "neighborhood friendly?" A. When the potential applicants for a wedding reception center (including those who preceded the present applicants for this property) approached the City on where these facilities could locate, the City had no answer because the land use had not been defined. This type of facility needs to be on acreage in a pastoral setting. Therefore, the City had to craft legislation to define the land use, assign the appropriate zone districts, and identify performance standards that are designed to protect the surrounding properties. All of this was legislated and approved by City Council. 38. The hedge on the south side of Woodland Park Estates is not very big. It is not a sound barrier. If you plant a row of crab trees, then the hedge could be shaded and die out. The access road is higher than our lots. We do not want the lights as they would effectively be higher than 14 feet as seen from our yards. 10 39. Regarding the traffic study, if 30 seconds is considered an acceptable delay, then I am concerned about a long queue of cars lined up to exit the site onto Ziegler Road. A. Response from Traffic Consultant: The actual delay per vehicle is between 15 and 20 seconds (based on time of day, peak, night, one hour average). 40. I'm still concerned that it would take about one hour to clear out 80 cars. 41. What about installing speed bumps to control speeding on the access drive? A. Our concern would be that cars slow down at the speed bump and then speed up once past. This may be noisier than If cars maintained a steady speed. 42. By purchasing the Rickett's house on the comer, do you now possess full ownership of the access road? A. Yes. 43. What keeps you from selling this house later? A. Nothing prevents us from selling this house but it is our desire to live here and be in close proximity to the reception center. A. Additional response from Ms. Jenkinson: I live in the basement of the Dove House. There are advantages in living on the premises. It allows for better supervision. It is convenient. Upon rare occasions, such as an electrical outage, I can be there to turn on the emergency generator to restore power. 44. 1 would like to comment that these applicants have bent over backwards to try to improve this property and accommodate the needs of the neighbors. Let's keep in mind that the land use is legal. Let's try to solve the problems instead of trying to eliminate the project. They are trying to improve the neighborhood. 45. Will you consider our lives and our children's lives and reconsider your project? A. I have recently spoke with Sandy Thomas, former resident, who was not happy when Woodland Park Estates was built. It blocked her view of the mountains among other issues. 46. So what you are essentially saying is "tough?" A. We think this is a great use for the property. Keep in mind that the property could be subdivided into single family homes. 47. 1 abut a portion of the project. I appreciate all the improvements they have done so far. I think the paving of the access drive will help. I have had realtors over to look at my property and they all have said that the project will not impact our property value. 48. When will the access drive be paved? A. Response from the Civil Engineering Consultant: It will definitely be paved prior to certificate of occupancy. Now, exactly when it will be paved depends on the general contractor, the time of year and the construction sequence. Some contractors install the first layer of asphalt to keep the dust down during construction and then add the final lift after construction. Others, however, choose to pave at the end and use water trucks to keep the dust down during construction. It also depends on the time of year as when the asphalt is available. A. We will check with our general contractor, Sinnett as to how they want to sequence the paving. 49. 1 am concerned about the number of parking and the amount of overflow parking. Could you go over the numbers again? A. We are proposing 187 spaces in the main lot. We plan on providing 20 up by the house. We are not sure at this time about the extent of overflow parking. A. Response from Ms. Jenkinson: Lionsgate has 144 parking spaces. 50. 1 am concerned about the vagueness of the overflow parking. A. We will have a better handle on this as we proceed. 51. Could we get a number on what you would expect to be a maximum number of persons using the facility at any one time? A. Our estimate is that there could be a maximum of 470 persons in a non sit-down arrangement. We expect that this would be a rare occasion. 12 52. What about the maximum capacity as specified by the Fire Marshal? A. Response from Ms. Jenkinson: At Lionsgate, the Fire Marshal has indicated that our maximum capacity is 680 persons. This is excessively high for us. In 4,000 events, our highest number of persons has been 550. It is my experience that the capacity, as determined by the Fire Marshal, is very high and not realistic for an event. 53. How many lanes of travel on the access drive? A. There will be two lanes of travel, one in each direction. 54. What about adding a separate left turn exit lane for outbound traffic? That way, the queue won't get stacked back waiting for a car to turn left onto Ziegler Road? A. Response from Traffic Consultant: Operationally, it is not needed. If it were added, there would have to be a taper and stacking capacity to allow a new separate lane to form for left turns. This would require road widening which would have to extend back to the east a sufficient distance in order to be practical. Also, we would have to verify with the City Engineering Department about how wide a driveway they will allow along Ziegler Road. 55. Your project is not approved and yet you are advertising for up to 370 persons for a full sit-down dinner arrangement. How can you advertise prior to approval? Are you writing contracts? A. We are advertising because in this business, customers book one, sometimes two, years in advance. We are very careful to inform folks that we are not approved yet. No, we are not writing any contracts. 56. Can you explain again the capacity for a non sit-down cocktail party arrangement? A. We estimate this capacity to be 450 persons. We would not want any more than this. 57. Comment added to the flipchart after the meeting: There seems to be some inconsistency on the capacity. At 7:30, you said 270, at 8:15 you said 370, now you are saying 470 persons.) Quote from Julie: 'The capacity is huge.' 13 , The following comments were added, by sticky-notes, to the flip chart after the conclusion of the meeting. Therefore, there are no responses. 1. Money is just money. 2. The peace of a child's Iffe is also just that. 3. Let us keep our peace. 4. 400 people—do you know them all? Alcohol and responsibilities? 5. Let me raise my 8-month baby girl, 3-year old boy and 5-year old little girl in peace. 6. Consider letting our families remain the same. Take your center elsewhere please. 7. Security lights will impact homeowners adversely. 8. Julie, how can you monitor other peoples' function. Alcoholic... 9. Are these people Mom's? Do they have children? Julie. 10. School nights) Children and alcohol don't mix. 11. Not having dangers from the back (Feather Ridge property) were a huge reason we moved there. 12. The traffic study purportedly addresses the impact of 207 vehicles leaving the facility - most of which would be forced turn right by heavy traffic on Ziegler. How will this affect traffic already challenged in trying to turn left off Grand Teton onto Ziegler? 14 Attachment 5 : Handouts reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board at the proceedings ti 'J�6 - #. 1 a _Vol?I f�. f T , 1 •,. WA is 1 1 � 21 CGI �(eo� Cam' �c J / s � I � ' ��"a,7 ��S ji , a IA It � � � � •. tip 7 ♦ N6 Paw 0. lot 16 J Z lop 'k14 '�.`� �y �l�r Jfi.i . �• � AW 164 4 • , ., r1 ♦ .r � y R f I I�wjy/—f/, • ie �wr Ir, w v... N r• �R'r • � e Attachment 6 ,0 Verbatim Transcript 1 Feather Ridge Project Development Plan Number 2004-A Hearing held Thursday, February 17, 2005 6 :24 p.m. - 8 : 02 p.m. at City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Board members present : Jennifer Carpenter Sally Craig David Lingle Judy Meyer, Chair Bridgette Schmidt William Stockover Planning Staff : Cameron Gloss City Attorney' s Office: Paul Eckman 2 1 MS. MEYER: Now we go -- have to move on to the 2 discussion agenda. 3 MR. LINGLE: Madame Chairman, I have a conflict 4 of interest on Item Number 6 . So I 'm going to recuse 5 myself. 6 MS. MEYER: Okay. Cameron, could you please 7 explain what we ' re going to discuss tonight? 8 MR. GLOSS : To go over what I discussed briefly 9 in the agenda review, this is a request solely for a 10 modification to the standards of Section 3 . 8 . 27 (c) of the 11 Land Use Code, which relates to the separation between 12 existing dwellings and a small-scale event center in the 13 urban estate zone. That section was one that was recently 14 added to the Land Use Code when we adopted performance 15 standards for small-scale reception centers . 16 I just want to remind the Board that that is the 17 only aspect of the project that we ' re looking at. The 18 action by the City Council is considered an approval of the 19 project development plan, and that other aspects of the 20 application -- and there was a lot of discussion at the 21 hearing in December, the Planning and Zoning Board, about 22 the direct connection requirement to an arterial street. 23 The City Council made it a specific finding on that, that 24 indeed, there was compliance with that Code section. There 25 was direct connection to Ziegler Road. 3 1 So with that, if I could just very briefly go 2 through our assessment of the application relative to the 3 modification criteria. 4 The standard calls for this 300-foot separation. 5 We have a situation where three houses in the adjacent 6 Woodland Park Estates Subdivision are closer than that . One 7 house is 220 feet. That ' s the closest. The next is 257 8 feet . And then the last, the furthest, is 262 feet. 9 So the question for us is : Is the buffering 10 that ' s being provided -- I think it ' s really the intent of 11 this section of the Code, this 300 feet -- is that buffering 12 adequate to mitigate the potential impacts of the use? And 13 from the staff ' s perspective, it does . 14 And the principal reasons are that the main 15 activity on the site is going to be outdoor weddings that 16 relate to the historic farmhouse that will be taking place 17 outside. That area is more than 300 feet from the adjacent 18 existing dwellings . It ' s about 330 feet. 19 There ' s kind of a layering effect of landscaping, 20 both recently installed landscaping and very mature trees 21 that are out there, and existing structures, including the 22 farmhouse, that are sandwiched in between existing 23 residences and that outdoor space. And from staff ' s 24 perspective, that ' s where most of the activity is taking 25 place. 4 1 So the modification for the farmhouse doesn' t 2 seem really that significant. The farmhouse itself, 3 activities are taking place in the house. The sound impacts 4 are much less, obviously, than they are being outdoors . 5 There ' s a real functional problem with what you do with the 6 farmhouse. 7 And we have a historic structure, and I 've handed 8 to you a historic survey this evening, that was paid for 9 through a State grant, and it found it was one of the most 10 significant farmhouses in the Fort Collins area, significant 11 for its architectural style as well as the quality of 12 construction and its reflection on the agricultural history 13 of the community. 14 So it doesn' t seem practical, from the staff ' s 15 perspective, that you would have another use in that 16 building when you have a viable use here with a small-scale 17 events center and the impacts are largely mitigated, because 18 the activity is going to be indoors . 19 We understand that the Board expressed some 20 serious reservations about the reception center being in the 21 smaller farmhouse because of the septic system. And we 've 22 invited Doug Ryan, with Larimer County' s Health Department, 23 here this evening to help address that issue, if you have 24 questions, as well as Roger Buffington, you heard from at 25 the last Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He ' s from our 5 1 water and sewer utility. 2 So looking very strictly at the criteria, the 3 staff is recommending approval, finding that it would not be 4 detrimental to the public good to use the farmhouse and have 5 this lesser distance for the small-scale reception center, 6 and that compliance with this section would result in 7 unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or 8 exceptional undue hardship on the owner of the property, and 9 that this hardship was not caused by act or omission by the 10 applicant . 11 And with that, that concludes our staff report. 12 MR. ECKMAN: I 'd like to add a little bit to 13 that, because I think that in the findings in the staff 14 report, we might be -- if you were to find in favor of this, 15 I ' d like to have you embellish upon that to make sure we 16 comply with the provisions of the Land Use Code pertaining 17 to that particular criteria; and either Cameron or the 18 applicant may want to explain how, because I -- I wouldn' t 19 know that . I only know what the Code says we must do. 20 And part of what is missing there is, we find in 21 that Number 3 , in your staff report, the language about the 22 hardship, the exceptional, undue hardship, and why or how it 23 happens that there is a hardship, because that is required 24 of the Board to make a finding of how come there ' s a 25 hardship, and that is to some extent explained in Number 3 6 1 in your staff report . 2 The thing that is missing, in my mind, is that 3 the Code requires you to find some unusual condition about 4 this property. I ' ll just read it. It says, "By reason of 5 exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and 6 exceptional situations unique to such property, including 7 but not limited to physical conditions such as narrowness, 8 shallowness, or topography. Those unusual conditions create 9 this hardship that is mentioned. 10 So I think that either Cameron or the applicant 11 might want to explain to the Board what ' s unusual about this 12 property from that physical standpoint . Or such other -- or 13 other exceptional situations unique to the property. What 14 makes this property unique, such that the application of the 15 Code standard that is sought to be modified generates a 16 hardship? 17 MS. MEYER: Does the applicant have something? 18 MS . RIPLEY: Good evening, Chairman Meyer, 19 members of the Board. My name is Linda Ripley with V.F. 20 Ripley Associates . I 'm here tonight representing the 21 applicants, Julie Baker and Wendy Meyer. They' re also with 22 me tonight, as is Jim Martell, their attorney. 23 I 'd like to just start by giving a little bit of 24 background. Do we have anybody that could run slides for 25 me? Otherwise, I suppose I could sit there. A little short 7 1 of staff tonight. I apologize. 2 The historic house that ' s on this site, could we 3 slip down to about the maybe seventh slide? There ' s a 4 picture of -- that just shows four different slides . Yeah, 5 it ' s probably about Slide Number 7 , I think. Further. That 6 one. That gives you a picture of all the sides of the 7 house. 8 The historic house and barn are really integral 9 to the character of the site and to the proposed function of 10 the Feather Ridge reception facility. The house is 11 historically significant, and you have a statement about 12 significance in your packet, and I just want to read, not 13 even a whole paragraph, just a couple of sentences from 14 that, because I think it ' s important. 15 The Cook Tyler Farm, as it ' s known, is 16 significant under the National Register of Criterion A for 17 its association with the development of agriculture in the 18 Fort Collins area. Architecturally, the house is among the 19 region' s older and larger farmhouses . Its brick 20 construction is relatively rare. Most area farmhouses were 21 of wood frame construction, and its vernacular design is 22 distinctive among Fort Collins ' remaining farmhouses . 23 So I think it ' s clear that it is a significant 24 structure. It obviously is a beautiful, historic house. 25 The applicant purchased this property, to a large extent, 8 1 because the house and the barn and various outbuildings were 2 on it. All of these buildings contribute to the pastoral 3 quality of the landscape. It ' s what makes the site so 4 special . 5 The design team worked very hard and took great 6 care to design the rest of the facility to respect and to 7 enhance the historic value of this house, which was always 8 intended to be part of the facility. To now exclude the 9 house from being part of that reception center facility, in 10 our opinion, would be inconsistent with historic resource 11 values of this community. 12 We believe that this is an excellent opportunity 13 to reuse an historic structure in a way that allows members 14 of our community to see it occasionally and enjoy its -- its 15 historical significance. And it ' s also a way to ensure that 16 this particular structure will be well-maintained and 17 preserved for future generations . 18 I ' d like to go now to the aerial photo slide 19 that -- a little bit before this . This puts the house in 20 context with the neighbors ' houses that we are less than 300 21 feet from. To the -- and all three are to the west . And as 22 Cameron explained, the closest is 220 feet away. 23 We believe that 220 feet is enough distance to 24 ensure that any activity occurring inside of the house -- 25 and I want to emphasize what Cameron already addressed, is 9 1 that we ' re really talking about activity inside of the 2 house, because activities outside of the house are well 3 away. They' re actually -- the edge of the outside activity 4 is 335 feet from these residences . So it ' s really about 5 what happens inside the house. 6 First of all, there are approximately 2 , 000 7 square feet on the first floor of the house that would 8 actually be appropriate for the uses intended, such as 9 meetings, seminars, small parties . The upstairs bedroom 10 would also be used as a bridal dressing room, but the main 11 activities would be on the first floor. There ' s a kitchen 12 facility, kind of a combination dining room/living room, a 13 small bedroom area that ' s off of that . But it ' s not that 14 huge. 15 There would be a maximum of 70 people that could 16 be accommodated, and most -- most events would probably have 17 50 or less people in the house itself. Your previous staff 18 reports, you may recall seeing numbers like 120 . That would 19 be for a small wedding that would occur outside. You 20 couldn' t put 120 people in this house. 21 So the best way, I think, to think of this is, 22 it ' s very similar to the Avery House that we have downtown 23 here in Fort Collins, with the exception being that the 24 Avery House, the edge of their activity area is only 8 to 10 25 feet from the nearest residence. 8 to 10 feet, compared to 10 1 220 . 2 So it ' s just a good point of reference. If that 3 seems to work, people don' t seem to be unduly 4 inconvenienced. I don' t think the residents in this 5 neighborhood will be, either. 6 I 'd like to go now -- Georgiana, if you could 7 help me go back to those little site plans . Yeah. When we 8 first envisioned this project, the idea was that weddings 9 would be held behind the house, and that ' s what that circle 10 indicates . That was the original vision. 11 What this slide also shows is kind of the canopy 12 taken from an aerial photograph that we had that shows the 13 existing tree canopy that ' s on the west side of the house. 14 And then kind of puts you -- shows the houses to the west so 15 you can kind of see visually where they are in respect to 16 the house. 17 And you also notice that there ' s no garage in 18 this slide, because Julie ' s first preference was to get rid 19 of the garage, because it ' s not historically significant, 20 it ' s not that attractive, and she felt like she wanted to 21 demolish that . Also note in this slide where the circle 22 drive for the future facility comes off . 23 Okay. Now, the next one. Because -- Julie' s 24 been working really hard with the neighbors to the west, 25 because she wants to be a good neighbor, she lives in the 11 1 neighborhood, she wants to operate this facility and have it 2 work, even for the adjacent neighbors . So her and her 3 husband, last summer, went ahead and planted additional 4 trees that are west of the existing canopy trees so that, 5 whether or not she got this project approved -- she owns the 6 property. Whether or not she had the project approved, she 7 wanted to go ahead, spend the money, get the trees there, so 8 that a buffer could be growing. 9 And she -- she just didn' t feel like she wanted 10 to wait until everything was done, because perhaps she could 11 get another year or two growth in those before a new 12 facility was there. I think that speaks to how much she 13 cares about this and how much she cares about the neighbors . 14 The other thing about this slide is that, because 15 the neighbors to the west said, "We don' t want to see a 16 wedding ceremony or any kind of activity in back of that 17 house because we can see this that from our back yards . We 18 don' t want that. We ' re concerned about people leaving the 19 party, wandering over to our yard, " and Julie listened to 20 that. She respected that, and she said, "Okay, we could 21 move this activity zone to the east of the house. " 22 So if you can see the surface of the east of the 23 garage, is where she moved her activity zone. In order to 24 do that, we rearranged the circle drive, and Julie also 25 agreed to keep the garage so that it buffers the exterior 12 1 activity. When we initially did that, we did move the 2 surface drive closer to the neighborhood. The neighborhood 3 objected to that as well . 4 Next slide, please. We went back to the drawing 5 board and determined that we could take -- we could provide 6 access to the farmhouse off of the circle drive. So now on 7 the west side of the house, adjacent to the neighborhood, 8 there' s really no activity. No service activity. You know. 9 Somebody might stand in front of the house for a wedding 10 picture, like they do at the Avery House, but very minimal . 11 Ceremonies . Any outdoor dining. All would take place east 12 of the garage, and you can see how that activity is screened 13 from the neighbors ' houses . 14 So to sum up, the things that my applicant did to 15 mitigate the neighbors ' concerns were moving the activity 16 zone. They kept the garage. They moved the service drive 17 to get it further away. They agreed also to relocate a 18 chicken coop, which you can see a little bit further to the 19 north there, putting it in a location that it would provide 20 more screening, at the request of the neighbors . 21 In addition, the applicants have agreed to, on 22 approval, plant some additional juniper trees and provide a 23 screen fence that would shield any headlights from our 24 service area that might shine over to the neighbors . 25 The neighbors specifically ask that the 13 1 applicants not build a privacy fence along their shared 2 property line. So there ' s -- that ' s usually the solution 3 when you have two neighbors that don' t like what ' s going on 4 on either side, but the neighbors enjoy viewing this 5 property. That ' s completely understandable. It ' s a 6 beautiful piece of property. We think it ' s going to become 7 more beautiful over time. It already has . That ' s the 8 mitigation story. 9 The last topic that I want to address has to do 10 with septic . That was brought up as a concern at our last 11 meeting. And I just want to state a few things about that; 12 and then if you have additional questions, I 'd really 13 encourage you to ask Doug Ryan to talk about it a little bit 14 tonight, since he ' s so graciously agreed to be here. 15 While we understand that the Board would be 16 reluctant to approve a use on a septic system, because we 've 17 all become aware, especially because of our Laporte issues 18 recently, that septic systems can become old and outdated, 19 and sometimes there ' ll not maintained, and they can -- they 20 fail and can be a real health and environmental hazard. So 21 you 're absolutely correct in being cautious about this . 22 However, I believe what we can offer you is really a 23 fail-safe situation here. 24 First of all, only the farmhouse would be on 25 septic. The septic use would -- would probably be less than 14 1 a single-family home, because there ' s no food preparation 2 planned to occur, and there ' s no laundry facilities planned. 3 So it ' s simply the -- when the events are there, people 4 using the rest room. 5 This would be a brand-new system. We ' re not 6 talking about using the existing septic system there. We' re 7 talking about building a brand-new system that is sized 8 appropriately and permitted through the Larimer County 9 Health Department . 10 When the larger facility is built -- and Julie 11 hopes to be able to do that in one to two years -- both 12 facility, the house and the large facility, would be on a 13 public sewer system. Her hesitation or her inability to do 14 that right now is because -- because of where the site is, a 15 lift station and a force main is required to pump the sewage 16 all the way back to Ziegler Road. So it ' s a huge expense. 17 Their most recent cost estimate led them to believe it would 18 be over a hundred thousand dollars . So they really want to 19 be able to operate their first phase, get some business 20 generated, before they have to make that huge investment. 21 So they want to be able to operate the farmhouse 22 on septic for only one to three years before they have to 23 invest in a public sewer system. So I -- like I said, I 24 encourage you to talk to Doug Ryan more about that if you 25 still have concerns, but it is -- it ' s a new system, and 15 1 it ' s a temporary situation. 2 I think that ' s all I have to cover, but I 'm 3 certainly available for questions . 4 MS . MEYER: Thank you. Are there any people in 5 the audience who wish to speak to this issue, the 300-foot 6 versus . . . 7 Okay. We ' ll limit you to three minutes each, and 8 if somebody in front of you says what you wanted to say, 9 would you please, if you could -- I know somebody might 10 steal your thunder, but we don' t need to be told the same 11 thing 17 times . We do listen. So if you want to come down, 12 we have two microphones . So if you want to line up so we 13 can do this . 14 And you have to tell us your name and sign in. 15 SPEAKER: Should there be a sign-up sheet here? 16 MS. MEYER: Yeah. 17 THE CLERK: Did someone take it? There was one 18 there. 19 SPEAKER: It ' s a collectable. 20 MS. MEYER: And please remember, you have to 21 speak into the microphone for us to hear you. Thank you. 22 SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Jim Hurley. 23 I live at 3138 Grand Teton Place. I 'm here tonight as a 24 homeowner, a member of the Woodland Park Homeowners 25 Association Board. 16 1 Candidly, I 'm disappointed that I have to be here 2 tonight . This Board has already spoken by voting three 3 times to deny approval of the Feather Ridge, and we 're here 4 to ask you to do that one more time. The City already has 5 given the developer early enough chances : Amending urban 6 estate zone definition to allow the development; giving 7 dispensation on the requirement for a second point of access 8 to the site; telling the developers they won ' t be bound by 9 the limits of the length of the private access road; and on 10 February 1st, the City Council overruled this Board' s 11 determination that the quarter mile access road didn' t meet 12 the City' s requirement of direct access from an arterial 13 street. 14 What we ' re facing now is a request from one -- 15 yet one more variation on the septic system and one more 16 assault on the neighboring homes in an attempt to negate the 17 minimum 300 foot barrier between the development and the 18 homes . 19 If you override this minimum 300 foot distance, 20 this is what will happen. First, by allowing the use of the 21 farmhouse that ' s only 220 feet from the nearest dwelling, it 22 will allow multiple events to run at the same time, 23 magnifying the noise, congestion, and disruption to what has 24 been a tranquil neighborhood. 25 True, as the developers have conveniently pointed 17 1 out, we are adjacent to an industrial property, but H-P is a 2 perfect neighbor at nights and on the weekends . It ' s 3 totally silent, just in time for the parties to kick in at 4 Feather Ridge. 5 And what will this increased noise and light 6 pollution, congestion, traffic, and alcohol consumption in 7 our back yards yield? Decreased property values . Our 8 neighborhood, Mr. Roselle, and the folks on Mariah Lane will 9 tell you that this is a great project because it won' t bring 10 traffic right behind their back yards . They' ll get to look 11 at the beautiful facility from a distance. Then they' ll 12 look at -- but they won ' t hear the engines racing, the car 13 radios blaring outside of their windows, while their 14 children are trying to sleep. 15 Should we mention economic impact? This is a key 16 point. City Attorney Steve Roy admitted that the City, 17 quote, never used economic impact considerations as a factor 18 in making development decisions . He called them, quote, not 19 relevant. But they are relevant, particularly if we allow 20 Feather Ridge to be built uncomfortably close to our homes . 21 A professional appraisal on the 14 homes that 22 abut the access road to the project show that the homeowners 23 can expect to see a 10 to 15 percent loss in the value of 24 their homes, more than $500, 000 among them. This is, in our 25 view, an exceptional hardship on the neighbors and one that 18 1 the City seems to be ignoring. 2 Lastly, the City' s own Joe Frank reported that 3 this development is a bad fit with the neighborhood, even 4 with the 300 foot minimum. On December 22nd of 2003 , he 5 wrote, in his words, "My research confirms my original 6 belief that reception centers are a commercial use, not 7 appropriate for any zoning district. " 8 The City must enforce the 300 feet distance from 9 Feather Ridge to the homeowners, which was established as a 10 minimum. Less than that is unacceptable. woodland Park 11 neighborhood can' t move, so Feather Ridge should, to a 12 better suited location. Thank you. 13 SPEAKER: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Susan 14 Pollack. 2 live at 4014 Mesa Verde, which is one of the 15 properties that is adjacent to Feather Ridge; however, not 16 one of the ones that is encroached on by the 300 foot 17 variance request . 18 This issues creates somewhat of an ethical 19 dilemma. A year and a half ago, the developer worked very 20 closely with the Planning Board to create this ordinance, 21 and as part of that ordinance, agreed to and helped create 22 the standards that include that 300 foot setback. Now that 23 same developer is asking a variance to that setback, which 24 reduces that distance by almost a third. A variance that, 25 if approved, will encroach on the rights of the property 19 1 owners . 2 The canopy that you saw in the overhead is 3 somewhat misleading. Those trees that include that canopy 4 are over 50 feet tall, and virtually all of the foliage is 5 well above the roof line. So the buffer that they 6 anticipate from that canopy does not exist. In addition, 7 the trees that they put in are somewhere between 4 and 6 8 feet tall and, in the developer' s own words, will take over 9 ten years to reach maturity to the point where it ask can 10 buffer the property. 11 Progress is generally a positive thing. However, 12 progress has to include a certain amount of responsibility 13 to the community. Every business coming in has to have, 14 exhibit, a certain amount of corporate stewardship. The 15 developer is not exhibiting that corporate stewardship with 16 requesting a variance to a standard that it not only helped 17 create but agreed to. 18 The performance standards include that any 19 development done should be done in such a way as to mitigate 20 or reduce the impact to the neighborhoods . If this variance 21 request is approved, not only is the 300-foot setback being 22 affected, but that minimal impact standard is being affected 23 as well . 24 As a Board, I see your ethical dilemma as not 25 only whether to vote yes or no for the 300-foot setback but 20 1 also whether you are for or against minimal impacts to the 2 neighborhoods . With this in mind, I hope that ethics 3 prevail and you vote no to the variance request. Thank you. 4 SPEAKER: My name is Thomas Welch, and live at 5 4033 Mesa Verde Street . Feather Ridge is already being 6 allowed to build a reception center business in the UE 7 residential zone. Tonight you 're being asked to grant a 8 variance to let them create a second additional reception 9 building. 10 To grant this variance, you would need to 11 conclude that sufficient reasons exist to release standards 12 which have been set to protect the adjacent neighborhood 13 from detrimental impact and to do this by ensuring 14 separation and buffering. This variance should not be 15 granted, because it will significantly impact and greatly 16 harm the abutting neighborhood. 17 When seeking your approval for the small-scale 18 reception center ordinance, let ' s review some public 19 statements made to you and the City Council . In their own 20 words, Julie Baker and Linda Ripley will tell you why this 21 variance should not be granted. Let me share a video. 22 (Video played. ) 23 MS . MEYER: You have -- 24 SPEAKER: Thank you, and I ask you not to approve 25 this variance. 21 1 MS . MEYER: Thanks . 2 SPEAKER: My name is Kim Welch. And I live at 3 4033 Mesa Verde Street. Here we are, many months into this 4 process where our neighborhood is still trying to be heard. 5 The developers have told you, as you've seen in the video, 6 with respect to the traffic problems, they' re completely -- 7 they're telling us -- telling you that they' re completely 8 surrounded by commercial except on one side and the traffic 9 will not pass by any homes . 10 The map that they show there does not indicate 11 any homes . It ' s an older map. This is information shown to 12 you on the night that the ordinance was passed. As you saw, 13 Linda Ripley also stated on the video that they've solved 14 the problem and can accept every standard. The ordinance 15 passed without involving the community and without any input 16 from the neighborhood. 17 The developer ' s been granted every benefit by the 18 City and ignoring the impact on preexisting homeowners . 19 This process has been a travesty to the respect for our 20 privacy, safety, and our investments . 21 The City has granted variance after variance. 22 First, the release of the restrictions that limit the length 23 of the road. Second, the release of requirements for 24 multiple points of access . And third, allowing 13 homes, 25 which apparently do not exist, to be sandwiched between two 22 1 streets . And today, they asked for a variance of the 300 2 foot minimum separation from the reception center to the 3 neighboring homes . 4 The developer states that she doesn ' t want to be 5 in a commercial zone. She wants the serenity and peace. 6 And I have to tell you last summer or last fall, I was 7 outside in my front yard, and I live in that cul-de-sac just 8 a little over 300 feet from the home. And I heard the most 9 beautiful male voice singing alone, no music whatsoever. He 10 sounded like he was in the cul-de-sac, singing to me. So 11 the -- the sound does carry extremely well in that area, and 12 any buffer zone with plants and stuff is a delusion as far 13 as buffering from sound, pollution, light, and so on and so 14 forth. 15 I would ask you, today, to consider individual 16 homeowners who have chosen this quiet area to raise their 17 families in a residential area, not a commercial area. We 18 deserve our peace, our quiet, safety, and also hard work and 19 investment in our homes to be preserved and realized. 20 Over 80 homeowners from the Woodland Park Estates 21 has signed a petition against Feather Ridge. We ask the 22 City cease providing exemptions for the sake of business 23 development. We ask you to enforce the codes and standards 24 that are meant to serve the public . And we ask you to say 25 no to this variance. 23 1 I have to say on a more personal note, too, that 2 I spent the last 23 years here in Fort Collins trying to 3 contribute to the community as best I can. I was one of the 4 few people that helped start the hospitality kitchen at St . 5 Joe ' s, which has now evolved into the mission, on a 6 volunteer basis . I have, over the years, held many a 7 mother ' s hands when their child was told they had diabetes, 8 and I hope that you will give back that same caring and 9 responsibility to look after the residents in neighborhoods, 10 and also for responsible growth. Thank you. 11 MS . MEYER: Thank you. 12 SPEAKER: Good evening. 4021 Mesa Verde Street. 13 My name is Koichi Matsumara. I am against the Feather Ridge 14 development, and I 'm here to urge you to uphold the 15 performance standard and deny the exception request. 16 How can a disruptive reception center be allowed 17 in an RL residential area? City Council lost sight of the 18 true issue. The issue has been distorted and lost in 19 details of technicality debates, direct access, private 20 drive, private street . 21 No matter what you call it, and what lawful 22 definition it carries, the fact of the matter is the access 23 road drives right by 14 residential homes and brings 24 life-threatening problems . Technicality of the letter of 25 the law is very important. From that standpoint, Feather 24 1 Ridge does not meet the requirements and is clearly in 2 violation of the law, hence now requesting for an exception. 3 But more importantly, I ask that you go back to 4 the principles, the intent of the ordinance, and maintain a 5 holistic view of the issue. The real issue is, a disruptive 6 business like a reception center should not be allowed in an 7 RL zone. 8 our situation is very unique, with a quarter-mile 9 long access road passing right behind 14 homes in an RL 10 zone, and everything is happening at the border of the zone. 11 This is no different than setting up a reception center in 12 an RL zone. 13 Alcohol concerns with party business is true and 14 real . It ' s not about developers ' misconduct or absence of 15 rules . The problems are caused by rule breakers, which are 16 the customers . They will be driving through the 17 neighborhood under the influence of alcohol . It takes only 18 one accident to ruin a person' s life, and it cannot be 19 undone. One of your board members called us a NIMBY. Is 20 protecting one ' s family and guarding their peace of mind, 21 health, and safety a selfish act? 22 Please examine the details . Do the technical 23 analysis . But please don' t lose sight of the true question 24 before you and what you are about to judge. Are you okay 25 with destroying the peace and life of 18 families, trading 25 1 off more than 60 innocent people ' s safety, just so that 2 three developers can pursue their personal wealth? Your 3 ethics should lead you to the right answer. Please uphold 4 the law and reject the plan. Thank you for your time. 5 MS. MEYER: Just a second. You all need to 6 understand that whether or not we grant this modification, 7 they have gotten the go-ahead with this . 8 SPEAKER: I understand. 9 MS . MEYER: So what we do here is not going to 10 stop this project. 11 SPEAKER: Yes . 12 MS. MEYER: Okay. You all understand that . Just 13 so we 're all clear on that. Okay. 14 SPEAKER: Are you done? 15 MS . MEYER: Yes . I 'm sorry. 16 SPEAKER: Okay. I 'm Jen McKee. I live right 17 smack in the middle of this . I 'm one of those homes that ' s 18 not there. I 'm about the seventh one out of the 14 that is 19 there. 20 Linda Ripley spoke of Julie caring so much about 21 we neighbors that we made -- that she made some untrue 22 statements and cropped us right out of the picture she 23 showed you, when you changed the ordinances, because you 24 just didn ' t know. 25 This neighbor has been -- has never been 26 1 considered. This neighbor has three young children and has 2 never been thought of . Many of you stated that you had no 3 idea that this was taking place when the ordinance passed. 4 And that ' s why it has not passed through P and Z, because it 5 was not what you planned on. 6 Cameron, you stated this was -- this will not 7 pass through the heart of our neighborhood. will you show 8 those slides, please? A neighbor is helping me out with the 9 slides . 10 SPECTATOR: It doesn' t appear to be working at 11 this time, Jen. 12 SPEAKER: Okay. Well, I 've got pictures that I 13 can show you, since they're not working. This is the heart 14 of the neighborhood. 15 (Discussion off the record. ) 16 MR. ECKMAN: We ' ll need to keep those for the 17 record. we ' ll mark them when they come back to us -- 18 SPEAKER: And this right here is my back yard. 19 This is how close those cars are going to be passing, right 20 past my babies . Right past my babies, and right past -- and 21 some of those pictures -- we 've got a friend here who lives 22 in the neighborhood, too, and her children will pass -- will 23 be in my back yard. I will certainly say that 200 cars 24 passing my babies that close is in the heart of it. 25 Should you pass this 300-foot modification again, 27 1 another modification, this absolutely is in the heart of it, 2 and it absolutely will cause an inconvenience in my life, 3 and all 14 of us . Should you pass this, would you want your 4 children, your grandchildren, over in my children' s back 5 yard and my children' s play area? There ' s no way. There ' s 6 no way you would want that . 7 We depend on you to protect us and to really 8 listen to what we have to say, every word we have to say. 9 Please protect us and say no. 10 SPEAKER: My name is Susan Baylor, and I live 11 at -- my family and I live at 4020 Mesa Verde Street. 12 I appreciate you all being here. I know this 13 must be a hard job. I appreciate the chance to address you, 14 and I appreciate the chance that we had last time, and I 15 thank you for denying the request for the modification in 16 December. I feel a little bit like Princess Leah in Star 17 Wars, when she says, "Help us, Obiwan Kenobi . You ' re our 18 last hope, " but we have to speak, and I appreciate your 19 hearing us . 20 I know you ' re under pressure from the City and 21 the developer to approve this modification. Some other 22 citizens have also expressed approval of this project, but I 23 can tell you that their homes are not -- are not less than 24 300 feet from this property. Their homes are much further 25 away. They won' t be nearly as impacted as we are. 28 1 I ask that you go back and remember the reasons 2 for the 300-foot distance requirement. That was a minimum 3 distance designed to give us homeowners at least a small 4 amount of consideration in this development . 5 The only thing unusual about this property is 6 that it ' s a historical house that a developer wants to use 7 at our expense. City staff has said that screening is 8 adequate. We strongly disagree with that . Julie may care 9 about our concerns, but we haven ' t seen evidence that she ' s 10 respected our request . 11 Have you ever sat in your car in traffic and 12 heard the resonance, the strong resonance, from a bass from 13 a car somewhere around you? Imagine us homeowners hearing 14 that from bands during the day and at night, every single 15 weekend. Do you think trees are going to mute that sound? 16 Would trees stop the sound of that bass and traffic? Will 17 those trees stop us from seeing the countless cars that will 18 drop off patrons at the farmhouse? 19 The 300-foot distance is all we have now to 20 protect ourselves from this commercial enterprise. Julie 21 and Linda tell all of us how elegant and gracious this 22 business will be. But what ' s gracious about noise pollution 23 and light pollution and gas pollution, from service vehicles 24 bringing their loads into bridal fairs and business retreats 25 at the farmhouse? What ' s elegant about serving alcohol to 29 1 people that should not be served? What ' s elegant about 2 intruding on private residences with the sounds of a band or 3 any kind of PA system? 4 Julie and Linda have used Lion ' s Gate in 5 Lafayette to show what Feather Ridge will be like. Look at 6 what the Lafayette police say about calls -- about calls 7 protesting noise and intrusive activity on the property. To 8 quote from the Lafayette police, "The common thread in most 9 of the complaints was noise. Amplified music and speaking. 10 Numbers at these parties ran from 25 to 200 . " Does that 11 sound elegant and gracious and serene to you? 12 We 've always planned for some kind of development 13 on the Thomas property. We ' d welcome an enterprise like a 14 school or church or a neighborhood. If you approve their 15 request, we will be impacted by that decision forever. 16 Please deny this request again and support us private 17 citizens in our request. Thank you. 18 SPEAKER: My name is Bruce Harris . I live at 19 3120 Mesa Verde Street. And that you -- you 've obviously 20 been hearing a lot of discussion and rhetoric tonight, and 21 none of which seems to be germane to the modification that ' s 22 in front of you tonight. 23 But for a number of years, a primary issue for 24 the City of Fort Collins, the planning, the department, and 25 this Board has been the historic preservation of buildings . 30 1 And we have strived as a City to preserve them for our 2 children, for future generations . We 've restore them to 3 their previous beauty. We have also improved their 4 functionality so people of all ages can gain access to these 5 buildings and enjoy both the history and current use of 6 these buildings . 7 We now have an opportunity to do this again. The 8 modification as it ' s coming out is not on the new building 9 that is being planned. It is on the existing building. It 10 is not something that the developers wanted to do by placing 11 the building there. The building was simply there. It 12 seems to me that the buildings that are in contention within 13 the 300 feet were certainly built after this, so they' re the 14 ones that are in violation of the 300 foot . It just happens 15 to be that the Feather Ridge project wants to use this 16 building and to keep up with the historic preservation. 17 We have -- we have an opportunity for the 18 preservation of this building. We should not only be 19 granting the Feather Ridge project, this modification; we 20 should be requesting and encouraging their use of this 21 building. 22 This is such an easy position to make, it seems 23 to me. The owners have agreed to buffer their neighbors 24 from any potential commotion in a variety of ways . The 25 building will have its history preserved and will have 31 1 gained a very gentle use. This whole process has been drug 2 out, I think, far too long, and I urge you to approve this 3 modification. 4 SPEAKER: Hello. I 'm Janet Zuniga. I live at 5 4026 Mesa Verde Street . 6 First, I want to thank you for your previous 7 support for us . You know, we come here; we feel like we 're 8 fighting, you know, Godzilla or whatever, one little person, 9 you know, fighting the City, and I just appreciate your 10 support . 11 I have to say that I 'm appalled that the City has 12 allowed this project to go this far, considering all the 13 legal obstacles that have been ignored and the immense 14 impact that it will have on everyone who lives in our 15 neighborhood. I suppose I 'm the closest neighbor to Feather 16 Ridge. 17 This project does not meet the minimum setback 18 requirements . The farmhouse is 80 feet too close to my 19 home. If approved, they supposedly would not be using the 20 space in front of or behind the farmhouse; yet they just 21 constructed a very large front patio. This picture is the 22 view from that patio to my home, not a great distance. 23 Like most people, we live in the back of our 24 home. My children' s bedrooms and our family room are 25 located in the back. We home-school, so we ' re always there. 32 1 The noise, lights, and intrusion of privacy will be 2 overbearing, to say the least. With the possibility of two 3 simultaneous events, the impact will be enormous . 4 These are my children. Right now, we can hear 5 the coyotes howl and the owls hoot as we lay in our beds at 6 night. I would like to be able to sleep at night and not be 7 counting the minutes until the events are over. There will 8 be hundreds of people across the fence every single weekend 9 from now on, watching me do my gardening, watching my kids 10 at play. I want these people to be pushed back as far as 11 possible, which I 'm sure you can understand. 12 Imagine this events center 80 feet too close to 13 your house. I appeal to you as moms and dads, as family 14 people who love to barbecue and work in the garden, and who 15 love the privacy of your own back yards . We ' re talking 16 about changes that will last forever. 17 We love the old farmhouse and think it ' s a great 18 asset to the City, but only as a historic property that 19 gives access to the general public. It would be perfect as 20 an extension of the library, as an art school, a day school, 21 or a church, something quiet, beautiful, accessible to all . 22 You must consider the compatibility of its use with the 23 existing neighborhood. 24 Fort Collins is known for its quality of life. 25 Don ' t miss this opportunity to say yes to quality of life. 33 1 Please uphold the standards that you yourself set. This 2 portion of the events center is too close. Please vote no. 3 And just as an aside, I 'm concerned about the 4 septic system possibly damaging the trees . Thank you. 5 SPEAKER: My name is Justin Zuniga. I love the 6 quiet behind my house. I go to bed at 8 : 00 o ' clock. Please 7 vote no. 8 SPEAKER: Good evening. My name is Bob Pollack, 9 and I live at 4014 Mesa Verde Street . I 'm here representing 10 my property and also as a member of the Woodland Park 11 Homeowners Association Board of Directors . 12 Per your request, Madame Chairperson, I will not 13 review what ' s already been talked about tonight. We ' ll try 14 to make this as short as possible. But I think there are a 15 few points that need to be brought out . 16 Number one is, we 've heard over and over again, 17 in correspondence that ' s been sent to you, to City Council, 18 and I quote, "Staff is confident that these standards are 19 thorough and rigorous . " Second quote, "Staff has worked 20 closely with two private parties on expanding and refining 21 the performance standards that would be necessary in order 22 to ensure neighborhood compatibility. " 23 That 300-foot setback was part of those standards 24 that was reviewed by the Planning Department, by Mr. Gloss ' s 25 staff. It was reviewed here before Planning and Zoning, and 34 1 it was reviewed by City Council . And it was not changed 2 when the ordinance was approved. And now we ' re asking that 3 that setback be reduced by almost -- well, it ' s over 30 4 percent . 5 What I 'd also like to do is point out that maybe 6 we 've all been blinded, that there are other options for 7 this property. As much as Julie would like to use it for a 8 reception center, there are other uses in the Land Use Code 9 in the urban estate that this house can be preserved as a 10 historical property and used as perhaps a bed and breakfast . 11 Maybe a child care center or a daycare center. Those are 12 not as an intense use as a reception center. 13 We 've also asked -- we've been asked to be open 14 and receptive to having this in our neighborhood. I would 15 also ask the developer to look at these alternative uses for 16 this property. The house can be preserved. The house can 17 be preserved. The farm can be preserved. I agree with 18 Bruce. I think we need to preserve our historical 19 properties in this town and in the city. But it shouldn' t 20 be at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood. 21 The comparison of Avery House, well, that ' s not 22 even in an urban estate zone. That ' s in a separate part of 23 the city. Has nothing to do with our situation. And to use 24 that comparison, I think, is -- is a little bit ridiculous . 25 Again, I will ask you to please not approve this 35 1 modification of standards, based on what you've heard from 2 my fellow residents and the things that I 've just said to 3 you. Thank you very much. 4 MS . MEYER: Anybody else? Okay. Then I 'm going 5 to bring it back to the Board. Linda, do you want 6 something? Oh, you want rebuttal . And you have rebuttal, 7 yeah. Short. 8 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you, Madame Chairman. I ' ll be 9 brief . First of all, I wanted to address, myself and 10 Cameron, at the previous meeting, way back when. I stand by 11 that statement. I think that performance standards are good 12 ones . When I said we could live with those, I said we could 13 live with those, because I knew we would have to request a 14 modification to use a historic house. 15 I was also confident that given the amount of 16 buffering that we had, that we would probably get it . I 17 could be totally wrong, and I certainly don' t want to 18 predict your vote tonight . But the reason I said that the 19 performance standards were good ones is that when there is a 20 structure that ' s closer than 300 feet, I think it should be 21 looked at very closely. 22 And that ' s what you' re required to do if a 23 modification is needed. Then you have to look at that 24 situation a little closer than you might ordinarily look at 25 it. But a modification request is a part of the system. It 36 1 was always intended to be. That ' s why the performance 2 standards are modifiable. 3 Anyway, so I didn' t intend to lie or mislead 4 anyone at all . Like I said, I think the performance 5 standards are good ones, and that brings me to the point 6 that Paul had hoped that I would address, and I didn' t in my 7 initial presentation, of where ' s the hardship. 8 I believe the hardship is that that house exists; 9 I can' t move it . It -- it just simply is -- is a situation 10 that we cannot change. We can' t make it 300 feet away from 11 the neighboring house without moving their houses or 12 moving -- either -- both are impossible. 13 The other situation that I believe is somewhat of 14 a hardship and that ' s been talked a little bit about from 15 the neighborhood are the alternative uses . There aren' t 16 very many. It can' t be used as a residence because then the 17 other facility is too close. That would require a 18 modification. A bed and breakfast essentially is a 19 residence, because someone has to live there. That would 20 require a modification. Church, school, would require 21 significant remodeling and change to that historic 22 structural, which may be technically legal . I don' t think 23 it ' s desirable. And I also would say that I 'm not sure that 24 the impact to the neighborhood would necessarily be any less 25 with those uses . 37 1 Julie does own the house. It ' s a perfect 2 opportunity to use it for meetings, seminars, small parties . 3 Remember, it ' s inside the house. It ' s way too small to have 4 a band in there. Band and dancing would occur in the 5 ballroom facility much further away, not ever in this tiny 6 house. 7 I think I 'm about done. I just want to end with 8 one last slide. Georgiana, could I ask you to go back. So 9 it would probably be back down eighth or ninth slide. I 10 want to show this slide that shows the area between the -- 11 there. The houses to the left, the trees that Julie and her 12 husband planted last summer, the existing trees that are 13 there, and then the historic house is on the other side of 14 that. And that -- that ' s where I ' ll stop. Thank you very 15 much. 16 MS. MEYER: Thank you. Now we can bring it back 17 to the Board? Just a minute. 18 MS . BAKER: Good evening. My name is Julie 19 Baker. I 'm the infamous person who keeps being referred to 20 in the video you saw. That video that continues being 21 referenced is frustrating for me, I guess, because I am new 22 at the end. If I had known in the beginning that I was on 23 the stand, that I would have to say an oath for everything I 24 said, I would have done so, and I apologize. I know that 25 I 've never lied, and I 've never tried to mislead anyone 38 1 along the way. I stand by what I said in that video. In 2 fact, I was further going to continue on. I had no ill 3 intent in that. And I apologize to anyone who thinks that I 4 confused that, that way. 5 We have been with outright full intent to meet 6 with the neighbors . We 've had three official neighborhood 7 meetings . From what I understand, that ' s fairly unusual . 8 Each one lasted a fairly long time. We felt like we heard 9 everyone. We communicated. And we even went home and met 10 and revamped our plans every time. Every time, we made new 11 changes . And on top of those meetings, we also had numerous 12 meetings with the neighbors to our west. 13 And I know, hopefully, you 've read your notes . I 14 don' t want to have to reiterate everything, but we have 15 attempted to do as much mitigation as we could ahead of 16 time, and it wasn' t to bribe anybody. I know that hasn ' t 17 come up in that form. It -- to get us started on things, to 18 get us started on the buffering, because it takes so long 19 for it to grow. 20 So we did meet with each one of them on an 21 individual basis and as a group. And we never seemed to 22 come together with a conclusion as to what each of them 23 wanted, as a group. It was everybody had different things 24 they wanted, and so we did the best we could to come 25 together with a consensus . 39 1 Our idea was a fence. But they don' t want that 2 because they do love their view. I remember one of them 3 saying, "oh, we love the Rockefeller house. ,, Well, we do, 4 too, and we are trying to come up with a happy median so 5 that we can both enjoy it . 6 We have done everything in our power, honestly, 7 to try to make this a good thing, and if we could build the 8 fence, I think it would mitigate a lot of problems, but I 9 don' t -- I know that wouldn' t make them happy. And so we 've 10 done the best we could with alternatives in terms of live 11 plants and the chicken coop, and they referred to the -- the 12 canopy of trees . 13 Georgiana, are you available to -- sorry. Do we 14 know which slide that is? In the summertime, which -- I 15 have to say a significant amount of events happened in the 16 summertime, and because of that, that ' s a pretty big deal, 17 because of it being a seasonal business, we do depend on 18 the -- the tree line there. Although those trees are tall, 19 there ' s an enormous amount of undergrowth that does create a 20 wall . You can see through it. I 'm not saying you can' t . 21 But there is a lot of dense shrubbery through there. 22 And so a majority of the weddings are taking 23 place in the summertime; and in the wintertime, they' re not 24 going to want to be outside when there isn' t a lot of 25 shrubbery. You have to imagine -- it ' s hard to visualize, I 40 1 know it is, but it is very seasonal, and that garage, that 2 garage that was built in probably 1970, 19 -- late 170s, is 3 an eyesore, but we ' re going to keep it, and we ' re going to 4 try to work with it, because that was their request, to help 5 with the buffering. 6 And I can see their point . That farmhouse, if we 7 do have events inside of it, it isn' t going to be loud, 8 because the windows and doors are closed and the landscape 9 center issues came when their door got propped open. She 10 has mitigated that by having a quick-release system that 11 closes all the time, and she has a door person at each event 12 to keep it closed, because it ' s when the door is open, is 13 when they have issues . 14 So thank you for allowing me a minute to speak, 15 and I hope that you will approve our project for the 16 modification. Thank you. 17 MS. MEYER: Thank you. Now back to the Board. 18 MS . CRAIG: Cameron, could you tell me, can that 19 house be physically moved? I know they did it at Rigden 20 Farm, and I just don' t know what the circumstances are on 21 this particular house. 22 MR. GLOSS : We haven' t done a survey, and you' ll 23 just have to -- I have to just give you basic professional 24 experience, that brick structures like this, of this age, 25 can be moved. 41 1 MS . CRAIG: Was that a can or cannot? 2 MR. GLOSS: It can -- 3 MS . CRAIG: Okay. 4 MR. GLOSS : It can be moved, yes . 5 MS. CRAIG: So it could physically be moved. 6 MR. GLOSS : Typically, that ' s correct . 7 MS . CRAIG: Okay. 8 MR. GLOSS: But I -- but we don' t have a survey, 9 structural survey, on this house, so we don ' t know 10 absolutely, but I 've seen structures like this of a similar 11 vintage that have been moved. 12 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Because I think that ' s a very 13 important part of Number 3 when we talk about exceptional 14 hardship, et cetera. This can be physically moved. 15 MS . CARPENTER: I would tell you, Sally, though, 16 that if it is moved, it losses some of its historical 17 significance. It also loses the ability to have the kinds 18 of grants that you get through the landmark designation. So 19 it does have effects . Maybe not physical effects, but it 20 does have effects to move it. 21 I have another question, too . My main concern 22 here is that septic tank, and I readily admit that I know 23 very little about septic tanks . So if someone could 24 enlighten me on what happens when you have 123 people going 25 through at one time and a septic tank? Is it going to be 42 1 adequate public facilities? 2 MR. RYAN: Thank you. My name is Doug Ryan, and 3 I work with the Larimer County Department of Health and 4 Environment. 5 We started looking at this issue back in August 6 of last summer, when we consulted with staff, with the 7 applicant, about various options for sewer. And I can tell 8 you that the Health Department ' s first option is always for 9 public central sewer in these kinds of uses and kinds of 10 events . 11 The developer and their engineer presented -- did 12 some feasibility studies and presented several options to 13 us . The option that we told them, that is the Health 14 Department, that we would find acceptable and protective of 15 public health and safety would be potentially to have a 16 septic system for the first phase, for the use of the 17 farmhouse, and then to connect both facilities to public 18 central sewer when phase 2 was constructed. 19 Now to directly answer your question, a septic 20 system really is a pretty good way to treat sewage to a very 21 high level of treatment and return it back into the 22 groundwater if you have moderate flows -- in other words, 23 not real high flow rates -- and sewage that has 24 characteristics that ' s similar to what we call domestic 25 sanitary waste; in other words, not processed or industrial 43 1 waste from different kinds of facilities . 2 And that ' s one of the reasons that we had some 3 concerns about the kitchen, because kitchens typically have 4 very, you know, hot, soapy waste that -- that sort of is a 5 large flow, can sometimes damage septic systems . And we 've 6 had some of those experiences, for instance, with some 7 restaurants up in -- up in the canyons above Fort Collins 8 and Larimer -- and Loveland. 9 But where we ' re at now, with a facility that ' s 10 designed to serve up to a maximum of 120 people outside 11 without a catering kitchen where the caterers would come and 12 bring hot food and take the dishes and everything with them, 13 the flow rates would be -- really, pretty similar to a 14 single-family dwelling, which is the kind of flow that these 15 systems are really designed for. 16 And so we believe that a septic system in this 17 kind of incidence, or the kind of population that ' s planned, 18 and excluding the caterer' s kitchen, would be safe and would 19 protect public health and safety. 20 MS . CRAIG: Since this has been opened up, Doug, 21 when you talk about this system is similar to a normal 22 family, whether the people are outside -- I can understand 23 the kitchen part, you know. You 've explained that quite 24 well, but we 've got to remember, these people are going to 25 be drinking alcohol, so they are going to be using that 44 1 facility unless Port-A-Potties are going to be put on. 2 So to me, this does not compare to a normal 3 family environment; and having stated that, what size septic 4 system are you putting in? And also, because of the 5 topography of this area, how does the groundwater, the 6 wetlands, all of that, how does that figure into a facility 7 big enough for a hundred people within a -- well, even say 8 within 12 hours . You have three events that go. Go to the 9 bathroom, probably, two to three times within that. 10 MR. RYAN: Well, assuming a hundred people in one 11 event, the sewage flow would be about 600 gallons per day on 12 that day, that weekend day. And that ' s roughly equivalent 13 to, you know, a large house, some of the large houses that 14 we see built in Larimer County out in some of the rural 15 area. And that ' s why I say the flow that would be 16 generated, we figure, without the caterer' s kitchen, about 17 five gallons per person per day, would be the amount of flow 18 that would be generated. 19 In terms of -- your question about the ground 20 water, where it moves and how it moves, in this case, with 21 the real strong slope out on that side, the ground water 22 moves sort of to the -- I guess it would be to the north and 23 east, towards the Fossil -- downhill, towards the Fossil 24 Creek reservoir inlet ditch. We administer technical 25 standards that have setback requirements from -- from that 45 1 ditch that are meant to protect water quality in the ditch. 2 I would say that this process certainly hasn' t 3 moved to final design phase. If the City approves this 4 center, and the -- your utility department concurs with the 5 recommendation that it was not feasible at this first phase 6 to implement public sewer, then the applicant could submit a 7 design prepared by a registered professional engineer -- and 8 they have presented us with a preliminary design, but it was 9 on both facilities . We would evaluate that based on the 10 regulations we administer and then issue a permit and then 11 do inspections on the system as it ' s installed. 12 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So your feeling, having gone 13 on-site, that with the pond and everything to the north, 14 that none of that will be affected by a septic system that 15 needs to be big enough to accommodate this kind of facility. 16 MR. RYAN: That ' s right. Based on the soil 17 percolation rate, that is, the ability of the soil to accept 18 effluent from the septic tank and into the leaching field, 19 and the projected flow rates, a sewer system, a septic 20 system that was a reasonable size, that could meet all the 21 technical standards in terms of setbacks from the pond, from 22 the reservoir inlet ditch, from the property lines, is 23 technically feasible. 24 And like I say, what really -- what really 25 clinched it for us, because our strong policy preference is 46 1 for public central sewer in these city -- city uses . What 2 really clinched it for us was the agreement that at the time 3 that the large facility was built, that then the whole 4 facility would be converted over to the public sewer system. 5 And that ' s not to say that we don' t think that it 6 can be safely done, but we had concerns, for instance, that 7 a facility that has to operate long-term without a caterer' s 8 kitchen, you know, that there could be pressure on, you 9 know, sort of changing the operation and then maybe 10 potentially overloading the system over time and things like 11 that . And I think that the compromise that ' s been worked 12 out in terms of the sewer, and that ' s all I 'm talking about, 13 is a reasonable one that can -- that can protect public 14 health and safety. 15 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Thank you, Doug. 16 MS. MEYER: Wait, wait . As fascinating as this 17 is, back to what we ' re supposed to be discussing. Okay? 18 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. 19 MS. MEYER: The modification. 20 MS . CARPENTER: Well, to me, this is -- the 21 septic system is a major issue to the modification, whether 22 or not it is -- there ' s adequate public facilities and 23 whether it is, indeed, a detriment to the public . I think 24 that ' s a major part of this modification, Madame Chairman -- 25 Woman. 47 1 MS . MEYER: Okay. If that ' s the case, then if 2 you approve this, you' re going to have to put something in 3 there, aren' t you? I mean, if we ' re going to spend time 4 discussing it and basing it on that, right? 5 MR. ECKMAN: One of the things you do have to 6 look at is whether or not this is detrimental to the public 7 good, so I think that the question about the septic is 8 certainly instructive on that -- on that point, for sure. 9 And of course, you also have to look at the question of what 10 is unique about this property and how does that uniqueness, 11 when coupled with our Code, create a hardship. 12 You had some information you got from one of the 13 neighbors about financial hardships . And the law is kind of 14 weird in that regard. Maybe that ' s why I enjoy it . But 15 you -- you can talk about issues that might give rise to 16 financial hardships, and that ' s perfectly admissible and 17 relevant . For example, you might have heard evidence 18 regarding the impact that this would have on the 19 neighborhood. And that ' s relevant . 20 It ' s just when you boil it down to dollars that 21 it doesn' t -- it doesn' t sound right . And so we don' t -- we 22 don' t want to talk about financial impact, "Oh, it ' s going 23 to cost me so much money on the depreciation of my house. " 24 Same thing with regard to moving this house. You asked the 25 question of whether it could be moved. If that ' s a hardship 48 1 to move it, because it takes it out of the its historical 2 context or it ' s brick and it ' s likely to fall down, that ' s 3 pkay. But if it ' s going to cost $20, 000 to move it, and 4 therefore, "I don' t want to move it. That would be a 5 financial hardship, " so that ' s not relevant. What it would 6 cost to move it is not relevant. 7 MS . SCHMIDT: I guess my concern is just, Doug, 8 who ' s going to monitor this, if, as you said, the use 9 changes and caterers start having kitchens, you have more 10 extensive cleaning, because this is a public facility, not 11 just someone ' s house, where if it ' s like my house, there ' s 12 quite a bit of dust there, you know, so they are going to be 13 using a lot more cleaning agents and that kind of thing, 14 impacting a sewer more than a regular home might be. Is 15 there a monitoring that goes on with septics at certain 16 points in time or just if it fails? 17 MR. RYAN: Well, two things . Really, there -- 18 just like in a private home, there is not a normal, routine 19 monitoring program. So, in other words, the County Health 20 Department doesn' t routinely come out and inspect systems . 21 One issue, though, that -- and in the -- in the 22 unincorporated county, we worked this out, is that 23 typically, the -- you know, the building permits are issued 24 for certain types of uses, and if there ' s a change that 25 requires a building permit -- say, an interior remodel -- 49 1 that then that permit can be flagged and that the Health 2 Department then would be asked to, you know, sign off and 3 see if that was a reasonable change. 4 The other issue is, as you know, the County 5 Health Department regulates food service establishments in 6 the county, and we 've met with the applicant in this case 7 and talked a lot about the requirements for kitchens and, 8 you know, what has to go in a kitchen. And in this case, 9 you know, if you use a caterer, what kind of caterer, 10 because you ' re somewhat limited. You have to have a caterer 11 that ' s basically self-contained, that can come on the site, 12 and set up, and then take the dirty dishes away, and do all 13 of that, at their commissary, where they have the full range 14 of equipment . 15 MS. SCHMIDT: One other quick question. Can 16 septic tanks go under roads, you know, where they have the 17 circular drive? I 'm just thinking if the septic is going to 18 be put in now but they want to have the road for the 19 catering trucks and everything to come in. Because I always 20 thought that that was a difficulty, that you weren' t 21 supposed to be driving on top of the -- 22 MR. RYAN: You' re right. A septic system -- the 23 leach field component of the septic system cannot be driven 24 on or go under a road or go under an impervious surface. It 25 has to have grass planted on the top. Now, the sewer lines 50 1 that run to that, of course, can -- they can be . . . 2 MS . SCHMIDT: Oh, so they might put the septic 3 out further, with longer lines -- 4 MR. RYAN: A septic system really has two main 5 components, a septic tank -- that ' s where the first level of 6 treatment occurs -- and then the leaching field, which is 7 that gravel bed with the perforated pipe in it, where the 8 sewage leaches through the soil . That ' s what has to be 9 grass-covered over -- over a pervious surface. 10 MS . SCHMIDT: Thank you. Just one other 11 question. There is -- there is no possibility that they 12 could build the other facility and stay on some kind of a 13 septic situation? Because you said once that you looked at 14 a preliminary plan, but that was for both facilities . So 15 was there at one point in time a discussion that both of 16 them -- both buildings would be on a septic system? 17 MR. RYAN: Now, that was discussed, and -- and 18 our office and -- and your city utility office expressed, 19 you know, our reluctance, and in the back-and-forth, the 20 applicant came back then with the option that they presented 21 to us that I just talked about, the dual option. 22 We 're certainly -- you know, we ' re not in favor 23 of -- of using an on-site sewer system for that large 24 facility. We think it -- it limits way too much the use and 25 the capacity of that facility and -- and it really, to build 51 1 value in a facility like that, it needs to be on public 2 central sewage. 3 MS . SCHMIDT: And what is the approval process 4 that someone goes through to -- like if they want to have a 5 variance for that or something? Is that through the Health 6 Department, or . . . 7 MR. RYAN: Well, it ' s partly through the Health 8 Department because the Health Department is statutorily 9 charged with issuing permits for on-site sewer systems . But 10 I think the City' s land use approval process can -- can 11 place conditions on those approvals, and one of the 12 conditions can be that it meet adequate public facility 13 requirements . The City -- that big facility needs to have 14 public sewer. 15 And that really, then -- that forestalls the 16 issue of the County issuing a permit, because the County is 17 not going to issue a permit inside the City for a septic 18 system without the concurrence of your -- of your City 19 utility staff . We always work with your staff and make sure 20 that, by policy and by regulation, that they concur that 21 it ' s not feasible and that it ' s acceptable to have a septic 22 system. 23 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Could we go on with 24 another question? 25 MS . MEYER: Yeah. 52 1 MS. SCHMIDT: Now I wish I could read my 2 handwriting. Let me sort of discuss the scenario the way, 3 if I 'm understanding it correctly, what we ' re asking for 4 here. We ' re asking to be able to use the farmhouse as a 5 small-scale events center until -- sort of, as a money 6 raiser until in several years you feel like you have enough 7 money to build the other facility. 8 So part of the letter that we have is that even 9 if we would deny this modification, then the chance might be 10 you just might wait and build the facility later? Or is 11 there -- the other option, as people said, some other uses 12 for the farmhouse, like a bed and breakfast or something 13 that you could still use it for other purposes that would 14 still be income-producing but not necessarily small-scale 15 events center. Because I don' t believe, like, a bed and 16 breakfast has a 350, 300-foot setback, right? Or some of 17 those other uses mentioned. 18 MR. GLOSS : Well, it ' s arguably a residential 19 use. And the purpose of the ordinance is to provide 20 separation between a dwelling. 21 MS . SCHMIDT: But I guess what I 'm saying is -- 22 MR. GLOSS: Because it ' s a dwelling, it doesn' t 23 specify, it ' s a single-family residence, a multifamily 24 residence, a bed and breakfast . If someone resides -- would 25 be -- 53 1 MS . SCHMIDT: well, I 'm presuming at the point in 2 time that the larger facility is built, and you' re having a 3 lot of events happening there, you would not necessarily 4 need to keep using the farmhouse except maybe as an 5 auxiliary. That ' s not true. 6 MR. GLOSS: Actually, I think -- I want to take 7 that back, because a bed and breakfast, even though it ' s a 8 residential use, it ' s still considered commercial under our 9 Land Use Code. So I take back what I said. You could do a 10 bed and breakfast . It would be a Type 2 use, so the 11 Planning and Zoning Board would have to give their blessing, 12 and given that the applicant has not comported with that, 13 they would have to -- I suspect, unless this evening, if 14 they wanted to provide some assurances about the design of 15 the bed and breakfast and its occupancy and that sort of 16 thing, it would be -- they would have to come back for that 17 at a later time. 18 MS. RIPLEY: Can I just add a bit to that? I 19 know. In the interests of time. But just -- the bed and 20 breakfast, I just wanted to point out, there is not enough 21 bathrooms . There ' s -- extensive remodel would be required. 22 It ' s not a reasonable alternative use. 23 But I wanted to clarify for Board member Schmidt 24 that the intent is to use the house long-term for things 25 like teas, luncheons, a fund-raiser luncheon, a seminar, a 54 1 meeting, things that you wouldn' t want to be in a larger 2 facility and really enjoy the ambience of a historic house, 3 that ' s a historic house in your community that you learn 4 something about while you ' re there. That ' s the purpose here 5 tonight. That ' s why we think it ' s a great idea, a great 6 opportunity. It ' s not a temporary situation. This is 7 something that Julie really wants to do long-term for the 8 house. 9 MS. SCHMIDT: I 'm sorry, guys . This will be my 10 last question, probably. What did we approve on Mulberry 11 Street, that family that turned their house into like a 12 group meeting facility? Yeah. And remember, they wanted to 13 have it as a facility that people could come and meet at? 14 No -- well -- no, it was right on -- yeah, so they made 15 it -- but I mean, what sort of designation was -- was that? 16 Do you know? Is that -- is that something that, again, 17 could be used by this facility so you could use it for small 18 indoor meetings and retreats, but it ' s not the same 19 intensity as a small-scale -- but -- okay. My point being, 20 I guess -- I guess there are other options that maybe we 21 need to look at, and that ' s why I don ' t consider this to be 22 an absolute hardship situation. Okay. So, sorry I said 23 that . Thank you. 24 MS . CARPENTER: Okay. 25 MR. STOCKOVER: I just have one quick question. 55 1 Is the house going to be air-conditioned? 2 MS. BAKER: That ' s an interesting question. We 3 have deliberated about that . Any kind of change or 4 alteration to the original character of the farmhouse is 5 what we ' re trying to avoid, the changes . Because of fire 6 codes, we' re already going to be implementing a sprinkler 7 system if this use was approved tonight . 8 Hopefully -- to answer your question, though, we 9 are hoping in the future to do air conditioning. Right now, 10 it ' s a very cool house in the summertime. The brick 11 maintains the coolness and there ' s a lot of shading going on 12 with all of the trees and the canopies that we have. So 13 that -- that would possibly happen. I think it ' s just, 14 let ' s see where we ' re at. I 'm sorry. It was a long answer. 15 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, the reason I bring that up 16 is, you say most of your events will be in the summer. 17 Noise is one of the major issues . When I go to these types 18 of events, the first thing you do is shed the sport coat . 19 The second thing you do is prop open every door you can. 20 So I see that as an issue. If we were to approve 21 this, I would say we should also put the condition that it 22 is adequately air-conditioned, so you don ' t have people 23 trying to prop open, because you said indoors is where 24 you' ll have the -- any type of sound system or whatever. So 25 I just saw that has a small concern. 56 1 MS. BAKER: That ' s a great concern, and we 've 2 talked a lot about it as we 've been trying to restore the 3 house through the summertime. We 've been in there, in the 4 intensest, most intense of the hottest days, and it ' s been 5 great inside. So at this point, we put in ceiling fans as 6 forethought for that, but in the back of our heads, we 've 7 known that that could potentially occur. 8 And one more thing I just want to allude to is 9 the bed and breakfast thing, just to highlight what she said 10 real quick, is when you think of a bed and breakfast, you 11 think of baths in every room. And that ' s what makes them so 12 special . A lot -- a lot of them here in town have their own 13 baths . And we don' t want to alter that internal character. 14 And that was -- there ' s only -- there ' s just not enough 15 bedrooms to do that with it, too. So we 've talked a lot 16 about that, though. Thank you. 17 MR. STOCKOVER: Thank you. 18 MS . MEYER: Any other question? Does anybody 19 want to make a motion? 20 MS . CARPENTER: I 'm going to make this motion, 21 and then I 'm going to comment on why I made the motion. 22 I move approval of the modification of standards, 23 and if I do this wrong, Paul, are you listening? Approval 24 of the modification of standards for the Feather Ridge 25 Project Development Plan Number 2004-A, based on the 57 1 exceptional physical conditions and practical difficulties 2 unique to the property; and those, to me, are, it is a 3 historic property, and it is already there where it is . 4 Moving it would be problematic and certainly probably not in 5 the best public interests . 6 Do I need to say anything else? Do I need to add 7 another -- 8 MR. ECKMAN: So you've described the exceptional 9 or uniqueness about the property. How does that generate a 10 hardship when you apply the Code to that unique situation? 11 What is the hardship? 12 MS . CARPENTER: Okay. Cameron, this -- 13 MR. GLOSS: I think you made mention of there 14 being an adverse impact to its historic nature due to the 15 change in location. That you mentioned something about the 16 context of the house, and if it was moved, that would have 17 an impact on its historic significance. 18 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. It goes . 19 MR. GLOSS: You didn' t use those exact words . 20 It ' s a paraphrasing. 21 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. The reason I believe that 22 it is unique is because it is historic, and when you move a 23 historic property, it does lose some of its integrity. It 24 loses a lot of its ability to get grants and tax help. And 25 it is one of the things that we try not to do with historic 58 1 properties . It does have a significant impact on its 2 integrity, its historic integrity. Is that enough? 3 MR. ECKMAN: Then you also want to think about 4 Finding Number 2 and Number 4 in the staff report, because 5 you are required to make a finding that it would not be -- 6 the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to 7 the public good and the finding that the hardship is not 8 caused by the act or omission of the applicant . 9 MS . CARPENTER: Okay. So I need -- I do not 10 believe that it would be detrimental to the public good, 11 according to the findings of fact and conclusions of the 12 staff report on Page 4 . The reason I don' t believe that it 13 would be with a septic system, I 've been assured that that 14 is not going to be a problem, and it won' t affect the houses 15 next to it that are in this neighborhood. And -- now am I 16 okay? Okay. That ' s my motion. 17 MS . MEYER: Is there a second? 18 MS. SCHMIDT: I ' ll second to get it on the table. 19 MS . CARPENTER: Okay. 20 MS. MEYER: Comments? 21 MS . CRAIG: I won' t be supporting this . I 've 22 looked this over. I think that we 've brought up enough 23 examples that I don' t think that it fits the strict 24 application of the standard within Section 3 . 8 . 27 (c) , which 25 would result in unusual and exceptional practical 59 1 difficulties . 2 I know that we 've moved -- Ridgen Farm. They 3 moved a very significant house, and now it ' s a beautiful 4 little kind of a clubhouse and it ' s doing just fine and 5 dandy. So it can be moved. You've told me that it can be 6 physically moved. I think that we 've brought out tonight 7 that it can have a different use. 8 So I think in two very strong areas, we 've shown 9 that it isn' t necessarily an unusual or exceptional 10 practical difficulty. So I don' t agree with that one. 11 And the granting of the modification to Section 12 3 . 8 .27 (c) would not be detrimental to the public good. I do 13 not agree with that, because I feel like it would be 14 detrimental to the public good because of the fact that 15 there are three houses, because of the fact that when we put 16 together these standards, the 300-foot minimum was just 17 that. Minimum. So that should have kind of been the line. 18 If you want to go further than that, depending on 19 the impacts, et cetera, then I can understand that. But the 20 300-foot minimum, the word there is "minimum" and -- so I do 21 not see that this would not be detrimental . I see that it 22 would be detrimental in regards to noise and the other 23 activities that will be going on around this house for 24 people getting in and out, and I do tend to agree with -- 25 which, in this kind of a situation, the windows and doors 60 1 are the first thing to open up. It ' s one thing for a couple 2 of people to be working in a nice cool little brick house. 3 It ' s another when you have a group in there, and activities 4 going on and drinking and so forth. 5 So as I said, I will not be supporting it for 6 those reasons . 7 MS . MEYER: Jennifer. 8 MS . CARPENTER: With this motion, I want to say 9 that I do understand the problems with the neighborhood. We 10 are charged to look at one particular piece of this . Now, 11 we don ' t have a choice of looking at whether it ' s direct 12 access or not . We don ' t have a choice of looking at even 13 whether it ' s the right use. We 're talking about the right 14 use. That the not a part of the modification. 15 So given the limitations that we have, and where 16 we ' re at in this process, for me, it just -- this is what 17 makes the most sense. It ' s not going to change whether it 18 happens or not . Whether we do this modification or we don' t 19 do this modification. 20 So I would rather see with it the historic home 21 left intact in its -- in the place that it historically has 22 been. I don' t think moving it 80 feet one direction or the 23 other is going to change the impact to the homes . 24 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess I 'd like to make some 25 summary comments . I agree pretty much with everything Sally 61 1 said, so I won ' t repeat that. I agree, too, just the 2 closeness to the other houses, if you can ' t open the window 3 and the doors are supposed to stay closed, what ' s going to 4 happen is, people are going to walk in, walk out, walk in, 5 walk out, to get air constantly. 6 And I think when you're as close as you can see 7 from those pictures and noise in those areas does carry, I 8 think that it is going to be definitely a detriment to the 9 public good, and that ' s one of the reasons that I feel the 10 300 should at least be a minimum; and I think, you know, 11 that ' s some of the problems in dealing with the older homes, 12 if they' re not able to put in air conditioning, because it 13 ruins the historic value. Then again, you' re looking at -- 14 you know, she said that was a concern that they might not be 15 able to modify it for the air conditioning. 16 MS. CARPENTER: No, you definitely can 17 air-condition historic homes if it ' s done correctly. 18 It ' s -- that ' s not -- I mean, that ' s something that could be 19 done. 20 MS . SCHMIDT: Well, I think that ' s something that 21 definitely should be considered. Because I think Butch' s 22 concern was really valid there. I mean, we were in that 23 house, and 70 people is going to be a lot to be in that 24 house. 25 MS. CARPENTER: I might be open to a friendly 62 1 amendment that they have to air-condition it in order to 2 make it work, but . . . 3 (Pause in proceedings . ) 4 MR. STOCKOVER: This one ' s been a very difficult 5 one for me, because everybody is so passionate on both 6 sides . And I 'm not sure I 'm totally in support of it, and 7 still totally undecided, actually; but the only way I would 8 be tipped to support it would be with that amendment, that 9 if approved, it would be air-conditioned. Because I truly 10 think that is an issue. 11 MS. CARPENTER: Absolutely. I accept that . 12 MS . MEYER: Do you accept the amendment? 13 MR. ECKMAN: What is the amendment? 14 MS . MEYER: Add air conditioning. 15 MR. STOCKOVER: We ' re saying that because as it 16 is, we are giving them a variance to be closer. That one of 17 our concerns is noise. 18 MR. ECKMAN: I 'm just wondering if adding air 19 conditioning solves the problem. Would an amendment be 20 better that this required all windows and doors to be closed 21 during functions? 22 MR. STOCKOVER: Then you put the burden of 23 monitoring it on who? 24 MR. ECKMAN: That ' s true. 25 MR. STOCKOVER: I think it ' s better to just cure 63 1 the problem than to -- 2 MR. ECKMAN: May be both, because if you just 3 require the building to be air-conditioned, that doesn' t 4 mean they' ll turn the thermostat on. 5 MR. STOCKOVER: Very good point. Right . Well, 6 then I would add to the amendment that it would be required 7 that the windows on -- not having been in the house, I 8 wouldn' t know if that is effective enough, whether the north 9 and south -- 10 MR. ECKMAN: Well, the reason I suggest that is 11 because even on a cool day, when you wouldn' t need air 12 conditioning, you 'd still want those windows closed, would 13 you not? 14 MR. STOCKOVER: I would like to add to the 15 amendment that during events that the windows be closed. I 16 truly think it ' s a noise issue. And that ' s a very good 17 point. In the middle of winter, you prop the windows open, 18 and then you've accomplished nothing, as far as noise 19 abatement. 20 MS . SCHMIDT: I think the whole discussion shows 21 that we 're trying to put a square facility into a round 22 hole, and this never should have been approved to start 23 with. Excuse me. 24 (Applause. ) 25 MS. MEYER: Please. Not again, okay, or you ' ll 64 1 get to leave. 2 Unfortunately, we' re the end of the train this 3 time instead of the front of the train, and this 4 modification, this facility, is going to go ahead whether or 5 not, and based on this hardship, whether or not they can 6 move the building, I agree with Jennifer. You start moving 7 these buildings; that creates other issues that nobody wants 8 to go to. 9 The property, they allowed the 220 feet, and one 10 thing that I 'm really concerned about is, she was going to 11 put up a fence. That would be my solution. That would 12 solve all the problems . And -- but, no, now the neighbors 13 don ' t want it . 14 Now, you can ' t walk both sides of the street . 15 You don' t want the fence, but you don' t want the noise. 16 You 've got to go on one side or the other. So she ' s put up 17 buffers . She ' s done the best she could without the fence. 18 So I think she ' s gone as -- you know, she ' s done the best 19 she could, and it may -- we've done the best we can to try 20 and protect you from the perceived things that are going to 21 happen here. I 'm not sure that they' ll all happen. But 22 change is always difficult . 23 And just for edification, when you live next to 24 an empty field, always be concerned, unless you own it. 25 Because somebody may come in and want to develop it. We see 65 1 it here all the time. And that ' s what happens . It sits 2 empty for 25 years, and somebody buys it. So when you buy a 3 house and there ' s an empty field, you need to know what can 4 go in that empty field. 5 So -- but our -- our only concern here is this 6 modification, and I agree that the hardship is the house. 7 SPECTATOR: What about traffic for 120 people? 8 MS. MEYER: We aren' t voting on any of that. 9 We ' re voting on the modification here. We were not given 10 any of that. We were brought back, and one thing we can 11 vote on is this modification. That ' s it. 12 SPECTATOR: You expressed that you agreed with 13 concerns for noise. Wouldn' t traffic for 120 people -- 14 MS. MEYER: Excuse me, but you' re out of order. 15 MS. CARPENTER: Could I -- could I call for a 16 vote, please. 17 MS. MEYER: Yes . 18 THE CLERK: Carpenter. 19 MS. CARPENTER: Yes . 20 THE CLERK: Stockover. 21 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 22 THE CLERK: Schmidt. 23 MS. SCHMIDT: No. 24 THE CLERK: Craig. 25 MS. CRAIG: No. 66 1 THE CLERK: Meyer. 2 MS. MEYER: Yes . 3 MS . SCHMIDT: Judy, I have one thing I ' d like to 4 ask Cameron, since you brought it up about living next to 5 the empty field and always being worried. At the point in 6 time that we -- that this came up for consideration as 7 changing the zoning in the urban estate zoning, and we saw 8 all those videos and everything, was there a neighborhood 9 meeting at that time for these particular neighbors, if the 10 site was in question, to be able to voice their opinion to 11 whether a reception center should go in the UE zone? 12 MR. GLOSS: There was not . 13 MS . MEYER: Okay. we' re adjourned. 14 (Meeting adjourned at 08 : 02 p.m. ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE 2 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) 3 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Registered Professional 4 Reporter and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby 5 certify that the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter 6 of Feather Ridge Project Development, Plan Number 2004-A, 7 were taken on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at City Council 8 Chambers, 200 West Laporte, Fort Collins, Colorado; that 9 said proceedings were taken down by me in stenotype notes 10 and thereafter reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 11 66 pages; that said transcript is an accurate and complete 12 record of the proceedings so taken. 13 I further certify that I am not related to, 14 employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or 15 attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of 16 the case. 17 Attested to by me this 14th day of March, 2005 . 18 19 20 Jason T. Meadors 21 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 171 North College Avenue 22 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 23 My commission expires January 26, 2009 . 24 25 Attachment 7 ,0 City Council Resolution 2005 - O 17 RESOLUTION 2005-017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2004, DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGARDING THE FEATHER RIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #20-04A WHEREAS, on December 2, 2004, the City's Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board") denied the Feather Ridge Project Development Plan #20-04A (the "Plan"); and WHEREAS, on December 16, 2004, a Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with the City Clerk by Ryan Baker,Julie Baker and Wendi Meyer(the "Appellants"); and WHEREAS,on December 30,2004,an Amended Notice of Appeal of the Board's decision was filed with the City Clerk by the Appellants; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2005, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeal,reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties-in-interest and, after discussion, overturned,in part,the decision of the Board and remanded the matter of a modification of standard to the Board for rehearing; and WHEREAS,City Code Section 2-56(e)provides that no later than the date of its next regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, the Council hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellants' Amended Notice of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. 2. That the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing either by exceeding its authority or jurisdiction or by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading and that any false or misleading evidence presented to the Board was not so substantial as to have affected the Board's decision. 3. That, except with respect to the matter which is remanded to the Board pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 below, the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in denying the project. In particular, the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the provisions contained in Section 3.8.27(F) of the Land Use Code pertaining to access to an arterial street because,with respect to that criterion,vehicular access to the reception center under the Plan would, in fact, be obtained directly from an arterial street. 4. The Plan complies with all performance standards contained in Section 3.8.27 of the Land Use Code except the standard pertaining to separation from residential areas which is contained in Section 3.8.27(C). 5. That,with respect to the requested modification of the standard contained in Section 3.8.27(C) pertaining to separation from residential areas, and, with respect to that matter only, the Council hereby remands the matter to the Board for the purpose of reconsidering that request for a modification. 6. That, if the above-referenced modification of standard is approved by the Board, such approval will constitute the approval of the Plan and, if such modification of standard is denied by the Board, such denial will constitute a denial of the Plan for failure of the Plan to comply with Section 3.8.27(C). 7. That, if the request for a modification of the standard contained in Section 3.8.27(C)is withdrawn by the applicant,whether before or after the Planning and Zoning Board has made its decision thereon, then the Plan is hereby approved and the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board is overturned. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the Cit f Fort Collins held this 15th day of February, A.D. 2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk