HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/08/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
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 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
ADJOURNED MEETING
Thursday, November 8, 2012
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s July 19, 2012 Decision to Approve
Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-family Dwellings at Christ Center
Community Church and Project Development Plan. (staff: Ted Shepard; 10 minute staff
presentation; 2 hour discussion)
In April 2012, Regency Residential Partners submitted a request for an Addition of a Permitted
Use for Multi-Family Dwellings in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project
Development Plan for an 11-acre parcel located on the east side of the Christ Center Community
Church. The parcel is located at the southeast corner of Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. As
proposed, the project consists of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a
clubhouse.
On July 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding an
application for an Addition of a Permitted Use and for approval of the Regency Lakeview PDP.
After receiving testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, and after deliberation, the Board
voted 4 – 2 to approve the request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-Family Dwellings,
and then voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan.
November 8, 2012
On August 2, 2012, Andrew Lewis et. al., filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and
Zoning Board (1) failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code
and (2) failed to conduct a fair hearing.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
a. Motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 13, 2012.
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, Secretary
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 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING
Thursday, November 8, 2012
(after the Adjourned Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Resolution No. 047 Authorizing an Agreement to Negotiate between the URA and Walton Foothills
IV, LLC. (staff: Josh Birks, Bruce Hendee, Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board is asked to consider an Agreement to Negotiate between
the URA and Walton Foothills IV, LLC (Owner) regarding the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. The
Agreement would establish that the Owner would be obligated to make payments to the URA to cover
expenses and fees related to negotiating a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement and the
associated analysis and preparatory work. Additionally, the Owner may ask the URA to acquire
certain real or other property interests necessary to complete the redevelopment plan; the URA
retains complete discretion as to whether it will adhere to such a request. If the URA moves forward
to acquire certain property interests, the Owner agrees to pay acquisition advances to cover expenses
and fees related to this action. Another key point of the Agreement is that the Owner’s payments
would be considered eligible costs that would be expected to be reimbursable to the Owner provided
a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement is executed.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
DATE: November 8, 2012
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s July 19, 2012 Decision to Approve Regency Lakeview
Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-family Dwellings at Christ Center Community Church and Project Development
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2012, Regency Residential Partners submitted a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi-Family
Dwellings in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project Development Plan for an 11-acre parcel
located on the east side of the Christ Center Community Church. The parcel is located at the southeast corner of
Drake Road and Lemay Avenue. As proposed, the project consists of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings
plus a clubhouse.
On July 19, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding an application for an Addition
of a Permitted Use and for approval of the Regency Lakeview PDP. After receiving testimony from the applicant, the
public and staff, and after deliberation, the Board voted 4 – 2 to approve the request for an Addition of a Permitted Use
for Multi-Family Dwellings, and then voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan.
On August 2, 2012, Andrew Lewis et. al., filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board (1) failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code and (2) failed to conduct a fair hearing.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The project consists of two components because a request for an Addition of a Permitted Use must be accompanied
by either an Overall Development Plan or a Project Development Plan.
As mentioned, the project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings plus a clubhouse on 11
acres. There would be a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units for a total of 275 bedrooms. There would be 292
parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached garages and surface parking, and 283 bike spaces.
Amenities would include a clubhouse, pool and walkways. There are no four bedroom units. Leases would be by the
unit, not the bedroom. The dwelling units are intended to be leased at the market rate and do not include any public
subsidy for affordable housing purposes. The applicant has indicated that there is no specific targeting of any one
particular demographic group.
The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged and improved as a two-acre,
private pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either Lemay Avenue or Drake Road. The parcel
is presently used as an athletic field as part of the 25-acre Christ Center Community Church campus.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
The Board took two actions:
• Voted 4 – 2 to allow Multi-Family Dwellings in the R-L zone on the subject parcel only and as specifically
depicted on the Regency Lakeview PDP.
• Voted 5 – 1 to approve the Regency Lakeview PDP.
THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code?
November 8, 2012 -2- ITEM 3
2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Land Use Code or Charter?
3. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board substantially ignored its
previously established rules of procedure?
4. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence
relevant to its findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
A. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section
1.3.4(A)(1).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(1) reads as follows:
“Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.”
The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings, as indicated by the Regency Lakeview PDP, are not appropriate
within the R-L zone district because the R-L zone is for low density housing, not multi-family housing.
The Planning and Zoning Board not only considered the underlying zoning but also evaluated the context of the
individual parcel and its relationship to the surrounding area. Given the site’s location within this existing urban
context, the addition of Multi-Family Dwellings, at this particular location, was considered appropriate.
As noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 – 23), Boardmember Schmidt commented:
“I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time,
I supported, actually, the rezoning. I thought the higher density housing was appropriate in this area
because of the two arterials, the City’s commitment to the infill. “
Also as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 35 – 39), Boardmember Smith commented:
“So, with that said, I still looked at this one as being, you’ve still got to fit the zone district. Is this…
is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it going to be acceptable and appropriate to go
through the Addition of a Permitted Use process? And, so, looking at it line by line, it does seem that
it does fit all the criteria that’s laid out to be accepted for an addition of a permitted use.”
B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section
1.3.4(A)(2).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(2) reads as follows:
“Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in
the zone district to which it is added.”
The appellants state that adding Multi-Family Dwellings to the R-L zone does not conform to the basic characteristics
of the zone and other permitted uses.
The Planning and Zoning Board discussed this standard. As noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 40 – 42 and page
62, lines 1 – 2) Boardmember Schmidt commented:
“I just wanted to say quickly, too, I think I had a concern, too, whether the addition of a permitted use
was the right way to go with this, and I think, again, because we’re keeping it residential, which goes
with the character of the neighborhood. You’ve got a project that has garages, so I think when
people, you know, have cars, these are going to be the kinds of tenants who are going to want to stay
and become a part of the neighborhood.”
November 8, 2012 -3- ITEM 3
Also as noted in the transcript (page 62, lines 10 – 14), Boardmember Smith commented:
“…by and large, the zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed-use, every one of them
essentially. And so, when I got into the purpose statement of the RL, which, again, it is one sentence.
And it talks about predominant single-family residential areas, located throughout the city which were
existing at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code. This is clearly a hold-over in order to be able
to accommodate some large swaths of land that were going through the process.”
C. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section
1.3.4(A)(3).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(3) reads as follows:
“Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other
objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse
environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services,
adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of
development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone
district to which it is added.”
The appellants state that the addition of Multi-Family Dwellings as indicated by the Regency Lakeview PDP would
create more adverse impacts than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses in the R-L zone.
The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript (page 61, lines 7 –
23), Boardmember Smith commented:
“And so, holding that up against what the criteria for Additions of a Permitted Use are, I went through
each one. I’ve looked at each one of them. Clearly, it’s not a medical marijuana dispensary, or
cultivation facility, not specifically listed as a permitted use. Went through each one of them, and I
think what it boiled down to me for was that, ultimately, you get into some of these tangible effects,
how a property performs as it’s proposed, to whether it’s going to, you know…relative to what would
be otherwise approved, if it were to be specifically allowed and permitted by the Code. Does it create
more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences, and
there’s a litany of these, and I think everybody in the room has gone through and seen what these all
are. And, then I think about…as I think the applicant had said that, you know, the way that this is set
up is that you actually invite that analysis of being able to look at the project as proposed, relative to
something that were to be just explicitly allowed by the Code, and whether or not it would be
excessive as it performs in the neighborhood beyond what is… a project that would just, by right,
approved. I could not come up…I could not be convinced that this project would be creating any more
adverse effects than, say, if the church were to go and fully develop out a campus, for instance, that
had a lot of different uses, including a school.”
In summary, the Board found that the request for Multi-Family Dwellings, as proposed on the subject parcel and the
accompanying PDP, complies with the applicable criteria related to adverse impacts. The Board found that the project
would not create any more offensive or adverse impacts or any other objectionable influences than the amount
normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the R-L zone.
D. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section
1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows:
“The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use
would not be detrimental to the public good.”
The appellants assert that by using the Addition of a Permitted Use process is improper because it is in effect a
rezoning.
November 8, 2012 -4- ITEM 3
The Planning and Zoning Board evaluated this criterion. For example, as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 7 –
9), Boardmember Carpenter commented:
“I guess when I look at this, I…on the question of whether this is detrimental to the public good, I just
cannot see that it is. It’s city-wide, it fits City Plan, it is what we wanted to do with City Plan, so I really
can’t see that it is detrimental to the public good.”
Also as noted in the transcript (page 59, lines 20 – 28), Boardmember Schmidt commented:
“I was on the Board when the church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time,
I supported actually, the rezoning. The members of the Board, I’ll speak for some of them that aren’t
here anymore, I think had a concern that if you just rezone, it makes things more unpredictable for
the neighborhood, and you could get commercial, you could get different things. And, so, our
direction to the church at the time was, we’d like to see a specific project and then the neighbors
could weigh in and see how compatible that is. So, I think the church has taken that direction and
tried to move forward with something to actually present and use the Addition of a Permitted Use
process to do that.”
E. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code Specifically Section
1.3.4(A)(4) and 1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(4) reads as follows:
“Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.”
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as follows:
“The Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board specifically finds that such use
would be in compliance with the requirements and criteria contained in Section 3.5.1.”
Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code addresses issues related to project compatibility with the surrounding area. It is
considered in conjunction with the definition of compatibility which is as follows:
“Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them
to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility
include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or
vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect
compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the
same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the
character of existing development.”
The appellants assert that Multi-Family Dwellings are not compatible with the existing single family detached homes
by virtue of the fact that the two uses are incongruent. Further, the assertion is made that Section 3.5.1 only
addresses physical and operational characteristics of buildings and cannot be used in a compatibility analysis.
The Board evaluated these two criteria. As noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 2 – 5), Boardmember Schmidt
stated:
“So I can see that in all the design work that they’ve put into this project, they’ve tried to make it as
compatible as possible to the neighborhood, and have the least impact on the surrounding neighbors,
and I really appreciate that.”
Also as noted in the transcript (page 60, lines 20 – 22), Boardmember Campana commented:
“And, frankly, I think that the design is very good. I think you’ve done…as I put on my designer hat,
I think you’ve done about everything you can to transition, buffer, mitigate an existing neighborhood.”
In summary, the Board evaluated the proposed use not in isolation but in conjunction with the various characteristics
as found in the aforementioned definition. Considerable testimony was provided to the Board regarding how the
November 8, 2012 -5- ITEM 3
project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the project is designed with a specific
objective to buffer the existing neighborhood to the east with landscaping, building setbacks, one-story garages,
architectural detail and varying building heights. To the south, buffering is achieved by virtue of open space gained
by the stormwater detention pond, approximately two acres in size, which would be upgraded to a pocket park. Finally,
the traffic impact on surrounding streets was evaluated and determined to comply with the adopted level of service
standards.
F. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Considering Evidence Relevant To Its Findings Which
Was Substantially False Or Grossly Misleading – Section 3.6.4.
Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows:
“All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary
to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of
Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel:
motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part II of the Multi-
modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section.”
This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants assert that the pedestrian level of service
cannot be achieved because there are no medians in either arterial street which would act as pedestrian refuge
islands. Further, the assertion continues that, as stated by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant, since the
existing sidewalks along both arterials would not be deconstructed and then reconstructed to feature detached
sidewalks separated by parkways, the pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved. It is asserted that new medians
and sidewalks can indeed be installed as there appears to be sufficient land area in which to retrofit these
improvements.
In addition, the allegation is that traffic information provided to the board did not properly assess the potential traffic
patterns across the existing church parking lot in order to gain access to Lemay Avenue. Evidence was presented
to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant that the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines
shopping center) would be used more frequently than the southern access (which aligns with Strachan Drive) and yet
there is no basis for this assumption. Traffic using the using the southern access will impact the neighbors to the
south.
Finally, the allegation is that the traffic delay analysis of traffic leaving the church or neighborhood onto Lemay Avenue
was not properly considered.
With regard to the pedestrian level of service, the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant addressed the Board. This
testimony is on page 48, lines 1 - 11 of the transcript.
In addition, on page 54, lines 35 – 38 of the transcript, there was this exchange:
“Boardmember Kirkpatrick: Just to confirm, where there are no plans to put medians on Lemay are
there?”
“Mr. Stanford (City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer): None that I am aware of. I think it would be
difficult just to find the room to do it with the current build-out characteristic.”
With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following testimony was
provided to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant (transcript page 48, lines 1 – 5):
“In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that
some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an
older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous
standards, not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet
them.”
The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter.
November 8, 2012 -6- ITEM 3
With regard to traffic patterns across the existing church parking lot, the fundamental design objective is to minimize
traffic from the apartments from traveling along the length of the southern property line which is separated from the
back yards of the existing houses by a six foot high solid privacy fence. Residents along this shared property line
indicated at the neighborhood meetings a preference for this traffic to be directed away from their back yards. In
response, the site plan was revised such that Regency Lakeview traffic heading west to Lemay Avenue would be
directed as far to the north as possible in order to prioritize the north access (which aligns with Scotch Pines shopping
center).
Consequently westbound drivers will traverse the parking lot at the north edge of the parking lot away from the houses.
While it may be possible for these drivers to decide to exit at the southern driveway (which aligns with Strachan Drive
on the west side of Lemay Avenue), instead of the north driveway (which aligns with the shopping center drive), for
the most part, this traverse is north of the existing houses. Diverting this traffic pattern thus accomplishes the essence
of the design intent which is to minimize the impact along the southern property line.
Regarding the church south access, and traffic delay, the City’s traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 53,
lines 12 – 20:
“The development has done efforts to try and move the traffic to the north access, which we applaud.
And, the south access is expected much lower quantities of traffic. We also don’t have an existing
accident history there for that characteristic. So, I’m assuming that the motorists are pretty cognitive
of it, and will continue to be able to drive adequately to use it appropriately. At this point, we don’t
have a concern with that characteristic. Will it possibly cause a little delay to somebody exiting when
they’re trying to consider what the other person may be doing? Yes, they certainly can. Is it going
to be a common, frequent activity? We don’t believe so. If it does become something of an accident
quantity, it’s also an aspect that we have a responsibility to address, and at that time, that we will do
so.”
Regarding the church north access, the City’s traffic engineer, Ward Stanford, states on page 54, lines 5 – 12:
“Let’s see, in …the north access to the church on Lemay, or…which will be their access also
(Regency Lakeview), we don’t see it as being an exit or entrance problem, basically, just to the
geometric layout, the left turns don’t conflict with each other. And, we do expect…it was at my
direction, the basically, the distribution of traffic. And, we expect that most of the traffic that’s going
towards Lemay from the side (site), or using Lemay from the side (site), will either be going north,
towards the higher business area, or to the west, to the also higher business area. And, so, with that,
the right turn out there is the higher movement anyway than the left turn.” (Parentheticals added for
clarity.)
G. The Board Failed To Conduct a Fair Hearing By Exceeding Its Authority and Ignoring Its Previously
Established Rules of Procedure
This assertion relates to the motion to approve the PDP. The appellants contend that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing primarily because they failed to consider that the level of service for pedestrians falls
below the required minimum.
This is the same assertion as in the previous section and is repeated but under a different ground for appeal. As
stated in the preceding section:
With regard to the existing attached sidewalks on Drake Road and Lemay Avenue, the following testimony was
provided to the Board by the applicant’s traffic engineering consultant (transcript page 48, lines 1 – 5):
“In the traffic study, we talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that
some criteria could not be met. On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an
older area of Fort Collins, standard streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous
standards, not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet
them.”
The Board had no follow-up discussion regarding this matter.
November 8, 2012 -7- ITEM 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit
2. Notice of Appeal
3. Staff Report Provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, with attachments
4. Materials submitted by Citizens Prior to the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
5. Materials submitted by Applicant at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
6. Materials submitted by Citizens at the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
7. Verbatim Transcript of Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
8. Site Visit Summary, September 24, 2012
9. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
and
Notice of Site Visit
NOTICE OF SITE INSPECTION
An appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision of July 19, 2012, regarding the Approval of
the Regency Lakeview Addition of Permitted Use and Project Development Plan will be heard by
the Fort Collins City Council on October 2, 2012.
Pursuant to Section 2-55 of the City Code, members of the City Council will be inspecting the site
of the proposed project on September 24, 2012 at 4:00 p.m.. Notice is hereby given that this site
inspection constitutes a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public, including the
appellants and all parties-in-interest. The site is located at Christ Community Church, Drake and
Lemay, Fort Collins, Colorado.
A
ny Councilmember who inspects the site, whether at the date and time above, or independently shall,
at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or conversations they
had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their determination of the appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City Clerk’s
Office at (970) 221-6515.
_________________________________
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
Notice Mailed: September 17, 2012
cc: City Attorney
Planning
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
The purpose of the site inspection is for the City Council to view the site and to ask
related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining site conditions. There
will be no opportunity during the site inspection for the applicant, appellants, or
members of the public to speak, ask questions, respond to questions, or otherwise
provide input or information, either orally or in writing. Other than a brief staff
overview and staff responses to questions, all discussion and follow up questions or
comments will be deferred to the hearing on the subject appeals to be held on October
2, 2012.
NOTE: See other side for Public Hearing Notice
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
- Notice of Appeal - Andrew
Lewis, et. al, filed August 2,
2012
ATTACHMENT 3
Staff Report
(with attachments)
Provided to the Planning and
Zoning Board
Hearing held July 19, 2012
1
15
Regency Lakeview APU & PDP,
# PDP120013
16
2
17
18
3
19
20
4
21
22
5
23
24
Parkwood Garden
6
25
Arbors at Sweetgrass
26
Courtney Park Apartments
7
27
Columbia Apartments
28
Governor’s Park
8
29
Village Gardens
30
Side Hill Condominiums
9
31
Pinecone Apartments
32
Fox Meadows
10
33
Argyle at Willow Springs
34
Eagle Tree Condominiums
11
35
Woodlands Apartment
36
Seasons at Horsetooth Crossing
12
37
Cunningham Corner
ATTACHMENT 4
Materials submitted by
Citizens prior to the
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing
ATTACHMENT 5
Materials submitted by
Applicant at the Planning and
Zoning Board Hearing
(Exhibits 1 and 11)
July 19, 2012
ATTACHMENT 6
Materials submitted by
Citizens at the Planning and
Zoning Board Hearing
(Exhibits 2-10 and Exhibit 12)
July 19, 2012
ATTACHMENT 7
Verbatim Transcript of the
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing
July 19, 2012
1
HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Thursday, July 19, 2012
City Council Chambers
200 West Laporte Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
Regency Lakeview Addition of Permitted Use for Multi-Family Dwellings at Christ Center Community
Church and Project Development Plan, #PDP120013
Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., July 19, 2012
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andy Smith, Chair Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney
Jennifer Carpenter Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant
Kristin Kirkpatrick Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Brigitte Schmidt Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director
John Hatfield Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations
Gino Campana
2
1 CHAIRMAN ANDY SMITH: We’ll move on to the next item, which is the Regency Lakeview
2 addition of a permitted use for multi-family dwellings at the Christ Center Community Church and
3 Project Development Plan, PDP 120013. Angelina, any written comments received since the
4 worksession?
5 MS. ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Yes…excuse me…I’m not going to provide the detail,
6 but a number of emails have been received since the worksession. So, the cutoff was Friday, July 13 at
7 ten to this afternoon at three…everything is in your read before packet.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Can we get a staff presentation please?
9 MR. TED SHEPARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is a request to add multi-family dwellings as
10 specifically described on the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan, as a permitted use in the Low
11 Density Residential, the RL, zone district. And, it also includes a Project Development Plan. The subject
12 site is eleven acres, and it’s located on the east side of the Christ Center Community Church. The project
13 would consist of a hundred and seventy-five dwelling units divided among eight buildings, plus a
14 clubhouse. There would be a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. There would be two hundred and
15 ninety-two parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached garages, and surface parking. There
16 would be two hundred and eighty-three bicycle spaces, and amenities would include a clubhouse, pool,
17 and walkways. The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged
18 and improved as a two-acre pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either Lemay
19 Avenue or Drake Road. As required, the request for an addition of permitted use is being submitted in
20 conjunction with the PDP, the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan. The site is located at
21 Lemay and Drake, and is presently, at this time, a component of a twenty-five acre church campus, the
22 Christ Center Community Church.
23 I wanted to point out, in your staff report, just a couple of little corrections. If you’ll bear with
24 me, on page fifteen…and one of these came up at the worksession…on page fifteen, under F, Bicycle
25 Parking, there are two hundred and twenty enclosed spaces. This is eighty percent of the total bedroom
26 count, not seventy-eight percent as I indicated in the staff report. And then the remaining would be
27 twenty percent, not twenty-two percent. On page sixteen, the second paragraph under number nine, the
28 sentence should read “pre-City Plan,” not per City Plan,” in the parentheses. And then, on page twenty-
29 one, under fourteen C, the last sentence should read, “or have any other objectionable influences than the
30 amount normally resulting,” not “that the amount.” So, that should be a than, not a that. And, there was
31 one more…just as an enhancement to finding of fact K, and this is on page twenty-two, that…as you
32 know, in the staff report, we did a review of this project by the MMN standards, and I just wanted to
33 emphasize that under 4.6(E)(1)(a) and (b), that the block requirements have been satisfied as well. Just
34 wanted to add that detail. That always seems to come up a lot on the MMN projects.
35 We’ve got a site plan here for you and I’ll go through our slides rather quickly because you’ve
36 seen them at the worksession, before turning it over to the applicant. And, north is up, and the east
37 property line there is where all of the abutting houses are in the subdivision. There’s two or three abutting
38 houses on the south property line separated by the pocket park. The church is in grey on the west. This is
39 the same image with the landscape plan, and we’ve got the major walkway spine in the middle, heavy
40 landscaping along the east property line, additional plant material along Drake, and along the street-like
41 private drive, detached sidewalks and street trees. This is a view of the site looking east along Drake, and
3
1 these are the existing berms. This is a view looking to the southeast along the east property line with the
2 existing homes that you see there. Looking due east, primarily the same shot. This’ll give you a little feel
3 for the abutting single-family detached homes. Looking a little bit more to the southeast, across the
4 detention pond, beyond which is another stormwater detention pond owned by the City of Fort Collins.
5 And then, finally, looking south, again across the detention pond in the foreground, and in the
6 background, on the left side, is the City pond, and then the abutting houses on the south side of the pond
7 there. The next several slides…well these are the architectural elevations, and you’ll get more
8 information on this as well. This is representative of one of the buildings. And then some more…I think
9 you’re going to get some more embellished site shots and architectural elevations from the applicant. I’ll
10 just go through this rather quickly then. This would be building C, this is the two-story. The point here is
11 that we have a variety of buildings as per the MMN standards…next slide. And then, the change in
12 building envelope, change in materials, change in color palette which satisfies the MMN. And this would
13 be the three-story building, and this would be the side of that building. And this would be the combo
14 building where you have the tapering to the two-story on the ends, three-story in the middle, and this is
15 what the side of that looks like. And the garage elevations. And, I don’t know if we want to go through
16 all these. I showed these at the worksession and so, we don’t have to. You have hard copy. We can
17 come back to these if you’d like, but we made the point at the worksession that there are some
18 comparable type projects throughout the community.
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Ted, I would prefer that you do go through them, if you don’t mind.
20 MR. SHEPARD: Okay, well, as we mentioned at the worksession, there are comparable zonings,
21 relationships, between either MMN or multi-family planned unit developments that were done under the
22 prior code, that are in close proximity, abutting, adjacent, adjoining to either single-family or planned
23 single-family, whether RL or LMN, future or existing. And, so, we’re working basically from north to
24 south. We’ve got the Parkwood Gardens on Kirkwood Drive, and the zoning map is…shows you the
25 relationship to the multi-family zone to the single-family zone, and then a site shot. So, these series of
26 slides…
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Ted, one thing on that too…I mean, if you have a pointer or something,
28 could you show on the zoning map where the subject property that you’re talking about is in relation,
29 especially to the RL zone.
30 MR. SHEPARD: Okay.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks.
32 MR. SHEPARD: So, on this one…this one’s at the corner of Kirkwood and so, this one would be
33 right here. This used to be called Parkwood East, this is over by Epic, so Epic is right up here. And, this
34 would be the Arbors at Sweetgrass, and this is Edora Park. Next. Courtney Park Apartments is at the
35 corner of Harmony and Lemay, and this would be the location, this would be Golden Meadows, this is the
36 Harmony Safeway. Columbia Apartments, next to Woodward Governor. This would be Lemay, this is
37 Woodward Governor, and this is where the apartments are. Governor’s Park is also next to Woodward
38 Governor, on the other side. So, this would be Governor’s Park here, this is Woodward Governor, this is
39 Lemay, this is Drake. Village Gardens is just a little further south on Lemay, it’s near the Sunflower
40 Market, just south of Sunflower, and this would be the location of Village Gardens. Sidehill
4
1 Condominiums is a newer project, it’s at the corner of Drake and Timberline. Here would be the King
2 Soopers, and these apartments and condos are right in here, part of Sidehill. Pinecone Apartments is
3 down by Fort Collins High School. They’re located right here along Vermont Drive. This would be Fort
4 Collins High School down here, in the MMN zone, this would be the RL. Fox Meadows is over on
5 Horsetooth Road, just south of Timberline…it’s south of Horsetooth and it’s east of Timberline, and it is
6 located right here. It’s actually in the E zone, this is the single-family homes in the Sunstone
7 neighborhood. The high school would be up here, and this is the McDonald’s right here. The Argyle at
8 Willow Springs is south on Timberline. This is south of Harmony. And the…the Argyle at Willow
9 Springs is on the west side of Timberline, and it’s located right in here north of Battle Creek. These are
10 the railroad tracks, and this would be the single-family neighborhood. This is where the Cinemark
11 Theater is, so it would be right here. Eagle Tree Condominiums is further south on Lemay, it’s right here
12 at the southwest corner of Lemay and Trilby, and this is the Provincetowne neighborhood right here.
13 Woodlands Apartments is on West Harmony at Shields. This is the library and Front Range Community
14 College, this would be Woodlands Apartment next to the neighborhood right here. And, a little further
15 north now on Shields, The Seasons would be right here, and this is a little shopping center, this would be
16 a big church, and this would be the Four Seasons neighborhood right here. And, the last one, is
17 Cunningham Corner, this is at the northeast corner of Shields and Horsetooth, and it’s in the MMN zone
18 there, and it’s right here. And then this is the Woodwest neighborhood here. And, I think that concludes
19 our slides.
20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. At this time, we’d like to hear from
21 the applicant please. Does any member of the Board have a question for Ted right now? Okay, just
22 wanted to make sure. Please…and I think there’s …I see a lot of seats that are available so if you all
23 would like to have a seat, it could be a long night. I think that we could probably make some room to get
24 you a seat. If you want to hold on one sec, let’s let people shuffle around. Alright, if you don’t want to
25 do that, I think we’re going to open the curtain and you can sit up in the mezzanine area. So, that way
26 you don’t have to get too crowded. It can get warm in here. So, let’s just wait for half a second if you
27 don’t mind…rearrange the furniture. Real quick too, I guess this might be a good opportunity, I’ll just
28 say that there’ll be an opportunity for citizens to be able to address the Board on this issue, and this is a
29 legal hearing, and I just wanted to remind everybody of that. You’ll have an opportunity to speak. I will
30 be moderating the citizen participation component, and every component, of tonight’s hearing for
31 decorum and civility in tone, and whether it’s germane, and so I would just like to ask, please, of
32 everybody that’s here, that they would help us have a very productive and useful hearing tonight. That’s
33 the best way that your voices can be heard is if it is civil and we have decorum, that’s a hallmark of Fort
34 Collins civic engagement and I guess I would expect no less from everybody, so, with that, I’ll let the
35 applicant go ahead and begin their presentation, and then here a little bit later, we’ll get to the citizen
36 participation. Go ahead.
37 MS. LISA EVANS: Thank you, good evening. My name is Lisa Evans and I’m the Managing
38 Director of Regency Residential Partners. I’m very pleased to be here for you tonight and introduce
39 Regency Lakeview, a high-end, hundred and seventy-five unit rental community, as well as the project
40 team, who is available to answer your questions at the appropriate time during the presentation. I’m
41 joined this evening by our land planner and landscape architect, Linda Ripley, of Ripley Design. Our
42 civil engineer is Nick Haas, of Northern Engineering. Our architect is Dean Delvitt of EV Studio. Traffic
43 consultant is Matt Delich, of Delich and Associates. And, the property owner is Christ Center
5
1 Community Church, Pastor David Niquette. We have worked for over a year on this project, to create a
2 good design that is a fit for the church, the neighborhood, and responsive to the needs of the market. The
3 median age in Fort Collins is twenty-nine. For young professionals, their rental requirements are not met
4 by a dated housing stock…rental housing stock. We have held three public meetings, and we really
5 enjoyed doing that because we value the community’s input and genuinely desire to hear and respond to
6 neighborhood concerns. As you see tonight, the public meetings were very well attended. And, a number
7 of very significant changes were made to the project based on the feedback that we heard at those
8 meetings. Unlike some developers who might want to take the minimum standard, Regency’s philosophy
9 and practice is to do everything we can to create communities that are great additions to cities’ existing
10 fabric. And, we do this on the front end, so that we can demonstrate our commitment to the community,
11 and not let it be a condition placed upon us as part of the approval process.
12 In addition to the formal neighborhood meetings, Pastor Niquette reached out with a personal
13 letter to the whole notice area, and I reached out to the twenty-one homeowners who live next to the
14 church property. Five of those owners were willing to meet with me personally, and several more
15 communicated with me by telephone and email. And, I did what I could to address their individual
16 concerns. During the presentation this evening, our team is going to share with you how the project
17 evolved to address community and neighbor concerns. We made very significant changes to the project,
18 especially in size and scale, as well as density, orientation of buildings, architecture, and other details,
19 that, in the end have resulted in a better project. Now, Linda Ripley is going to guide you through the
20 history of the process and an explanation of the project. Thank you.
21 MS. LINDA RIPLEY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I’m going to do my
22 presentation in two parts, beginning with, kind of making a case for the suitability of multi-family at this
23 location, and the APU process itself, and then get into the specifics of the design of our project. So…and
24 I also wanted to introduce Brent Cooper, who’s my associate who’s going to be running the slides so
25 that…we think the presentation can go faster that way. The site is, as Ted explained, eleven acres of land.
26 It’s located to the east side of the Christ Center Community Church, and it’s very near the intersection of
27 two arterial streets, Lemay Avenue and Drake Road.
28 I want to start by talking about why the site is both appropriate and desirable for multi-family
29 development in our community. Some of you may be too new to the Board to remember it, but others
30 probably remember it well, the Land Development Guidance System, that was a performance-based
31 zoning system used in our city between 1981 to 1997. Fort Collins was actually awarded a hundred
32 thousand dollar grant back then, from the Ford Foundation and Harvard University, because of their work
33 with that innovative system, in terms of developing the LDGS, as it was called back then. I bring this up
34 for a couple of reasons. First, I wanted to show you…the LDGS used what were called point charts, and
35 they were used to assess land use suitability at a particular location. And, I think most people that used
36 that system would agree, it did that very well. It may have had other flaws, but it did that well. So, in
37 residential projects, you had to start by evaluating a base point chart and a bonus point chart. You had to
38 gain so many points…base points, to be allowed to propose a certain level of density for your residential
39 project. So, just for fun, I got out my old point charts, which I still had, and I ran a point chart for this
40 project, and I’d like to share how it scores. The project scores seventy base points for being…Brent, now,
41 could you go to the aerial? He’s going to point out the proximity. It’s all about proximity, because you
42 want people living in multi-family areas to be in close proximity to these different things. So, the project
6
1 gets points for being close to a neighborhood center, in this case it’s Scotch Pines. It gets point for being
2 close to an employment center, Woodward Governor, and it gets points for being just generally
3 contiguous to existing development. It just narrowly misses some other points that I just want to show
4 you on the aerial. It…community regional shopping center is just less than a mile away, Shepardson
5 Elementary School is approximately a half mile away. Edora Park is just under a mile. Collindale Golf
6 Course is just under a mile. But, even without those near misses, seventy points are achieved and only
7 forty points are required to propose density above ten D.U. per acre.
8 In addition, you can gain bonus points. So, sometimes projects would try to go after these points
9 if they didn’t make enough on the other chart. And, this project, even though they didn’t have to meet a
10 point chart, gets seventy-four more points. They get points for energy conservation measures beyond
11 those required by the City, including a solar clubhouse, they get points for having acres dedicated to
12 recreational use, they get points for providing recreational facilities that aren’t required, like a pocket park
13 and a swimming pool. They get points for enclosing a good portion of their parking, and they get points
14 for making safe bike connections. So, I just wanted to use that…I thought it was a good tool to talk about
15 why the site is really an excellent site for multi-family development.
16 The second reason that I bring up the LDGS is because, back in 1980…or in the 80’s, when the
17 church site was developed…I think it was developed in the very early 80’s, ’80 or ’81, the Land
18 Development Guidance System was the system in place at that time, and that’s what determined what
19 land uses could be proposed based on doing a PUD. If you did a PUD, you could propose many different
20 land uses on that site, certainly multi-family or even commercial, and then the Guidance System
21 evaluated it on forty different criteria and that’s what determined whether that particular land use was
22 approved or not. So, prior to…then, what happened, is in 1997 as you all know, City Plan came into play,
23 and the LDGS was replaced by City Plan. So, in one year timeframe, when City Plan was adopted, the
24 entire city was rezoned. The church was zoned RL. The church was zoned RL not because some staff
25 determined that multi-family or other uses would be inappropriate, it was simply zoned RL because the
26 church existed, it was considered already developed. RL was the zone district that was put on all existing
27 single-family housing that existed at the time, in 1997, and the church was next to RL so it just was zoned
28 RL. Unfortunately, in 1997, when that happened, the church was without a pastor, and it didn’t…the
29 people in the church didn’t have the knowledge or leadership required to understand what the changed
30 zone would mean in terms of future land use, church mission flexibility, land value, marketability. The
31 change in zone went unnoticed and uncontested. They simply didn’t realize it happened. If the church
32 had objected to being placed in the RL zone back in 1997, we believe it’s likely that the City would have
33 allowed MMN zone district as is promoted throughout the city as a higher density residential district
34 wrapping around a neighborhood center. This land use arrangement is a core City land use policy and is
35 evident when you look at the City Structure Plan. Brent, could you just point out all the arterial
36 intersections where we have that exact situation? Red…neighborhood center surrounded by MMN
37 zoning. Okay, next slide.
38 While the church originally proposed to utilize the twenty-five acre church site for program
39 facilities, and they had plans for enlarging their church by making it almost, at least double, and maybe
40 even larger than that eventually…this is a site plan of their original master plan, so they intended to have
41 a much larger church building and much more parking that literally used up the whole site. That
42 church…the mission has changed, they no longer have a desire to become this large. They don’t want a
7
1 larger building, they’re struggling to maintain their existing building that is now thirty years old. They’re
2 a smaller church with a smaller mission. The open space that they have on their twenty-five acres is
3 expensive to maintain and time consuming. It makes no sense to continue to fertilize, water, and mow
4 eleven acres of land that you don’t need. The church has all the open space it will ever need on the west
5 side of their church.
6 Multi-family development is the most logical land use choice for the site given the locational
7 aspects that we just talked about, the need for multi-family in Fort Collins, due to the recession and more
8 people looking for rental units. And, it’s supported by City Plan policies that encourage multi-family
9 development near activity centers. And, it also is…supports multi-family in terms of logical transition.
10 Multi-family is a logical transition from single-family, and I think Ted’s locational slides show that…that
11 occurs all over our city.
12 Now, I want to get into our relatively unused addition of a permitted use process. This process
13 was developed for several reasons, it introduces flexibility into our system to allow appropriate land uses
14 without rezoning, and it ensures that if you’re going to allow a use not in the zone district that you do it
15 after seeing a development plan, and the development plan must meet very specific criteria. So, the APU
16 process was adopted in 1998 in order to add that flexibility to the Land Use Code. The process allows
17 you to permit a land use that’s not on the list of permitted uses in that zone district if a development plan
18 is submitted at the same time that meets certain criteria. But, it is not a rezone. For example, if this
19 property were to be rezoned to MMN, multi-family would be allowed, although a variety of commercial
20 and retail uses would be allowed as well. Because the APU process cannot be used without a
21 simultaneous submittal of a PDP, the Board can only…can carefully examine the impacts of the proposed
22 project without having to consider other potential development scenarios, as would be the case if we were
23 to rezone the property. In fact, in 2009, the church did attempt to rezone the property. They came before
24 the Planning and Zoning Board with a request to rezone to LMN at that time, and we have submitted the
25 minutes of the P and Z hearing as part of the record. The Board at that time was concerned about
26 rezoning because it would have allowed commercial development as well as higher density residential.
27 Ultimately, the request was withdrawn, but not before there was a meeting and quite a lot of discussion.
28 Some Board members didn’t support the rezone because they didn’t have enough information to ensure
29 compatibility with the neighborhood. Board members specifically suggested that the applicant should
30 come back with a more specific development plan. Some Board members said they would be
31 comfortable with multi-family development, but not the commercial uses allowed in the zone. Support
32 for multi-family was voiced by several members of the Board, as long as it was designed to be
33 compatible. Ultimately, the rezone request was withdrawn, but final comments of the Board members
34 included these: I’m not against multi-family, but have concerns about other uses. The applicant should
35 come back with stricter parameters, probably RL density is not what belongs here. We want to see a plan
36 and a commitment to what will actually be developed.
37 So, consistent with these suggestions from the Board back in 2009, and from City staff, the
38 applicant has selected the APU process to seek approval of the proposed development that’s supported by
39 City policies and it allowed in specific cases where compatibility can be demonstrated. Now, I’m going
40 to walk through the specific criteria that you’ll have to use tonight to determine whether we’ve met the
41 criteria for the APU. The first criteria is that such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is
42 added. We’ve already discussed the locational aspects that make the site ideal for multi-family. A
8
1 statement of City Plan principles and policies that support the development of multi-family near activity
2 centers and near the intersection of arterial streets is too long to read into our presentation, but it’s
3 included in your packet. Criteria number two, such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone
4 district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it will be added. The RL district is what
5 was used for single-family development that existed when City Plan was adopted. It’s not applied to
6 undeveloped property today. Uses allowed include single-family, parks, churches, group homes, schools,
7 day care centers. All of these uses, individually, or in combination, could potentially have more impact
8 than the multi-family use we’re proposing. The required setback from a property line in the RL district is
9 fifteen feet, so single-family backyards could back up to the existing single-family yards that border the
10 site with a house just fifteen feet away. The single-family houses could be rented. There’s no guarantee
11 that they would be owner occupied. The noise and disruption association with a poorly managed single-
12 family rental property could be far greater and much closer than the upscale, well-managed apartment
13 complex the applicant’s proposing tonight. The nearest residential building to an adjacent backyard in the
14 project I’ll share with you in a minute, is eighty feet away. The maximum building height in the district
15 is three stories, and the proposed project has several building heights, none exceed three stories.
16 The third criteria reads: such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
17 smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influences, or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or
18 attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or
19 services, adverse effects on public health, safety, morals, or esthetic, or other adverse impacts of the
20 development. And, pay attention to the last part of the sentence: than would…than the amount normally
21 resulting from other permitted uses listed in the district to which it is added. We don’t think noise,
22 vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare…I don’t think we have any of those to talk about. However,
23 since we’ve heard from the neighbors that traffic is a concern, we looked at that impact very closely to
24 determine if the traffic impact of the proposed multi-family project would be greater than that resulting
25 from other permitted uses. We proposed an alternative development plan for the property that could be
26 done if the church didn’t exist. So, if the church didn’t exist, and we developed it as a single-family
27 development with a day care center…we actually did that design process, and the plan respects all the
28 existing access points, it meets the minimum lot size requirements and the setbacks required in the RL
29 zone. Then, we ran traffic projections for this alternative project. The trips per day are actually very
30 similar for this layout as well as compared to the church combined with the multi-family; however, the
31 peak hour trips are pretty dramatically different. If the site were to develop with single-family and a day
32 care center, the AM peak trips would be a hundred and fifty-nine. With the proposal that we’re sharing
33 with you tonight, the church plus the multi-family, we’d have a hundred and eight cars in that same hour.
34 PM peak, one eighty-three for the single-family, day care scenario, and one thirty-three, fifty less peak
35 hour trips with our proposal. The point that I’m trying to make is that the multi-family use proposed does
36 not create more traffic than the amount normally resulting from other permitted uses listing in the zone
37 district to which it’s added. So, we believe we meet criteria three.
38 Criteria four says such use is compatible with the others listed…with the other listed permitted
39 uses in the zone district to which it is added. We think the best way to illustrate the multi-family can be
40 compatible adjacent to single-family is by showing examples of where it exists in this community. This
41 first one happens to be the Argyle, Ted had this as well, but…with the aerial photograph you can kind of
42 see that the set-up is that garages for the multi-family project are parallel and kind of create a wall
43 between the single-family neighborhood and the multi-family project, so multi-family buildings are
9
1 farther away, the height scales up. And then the photos in the bottom of the slide show that with
2 landscaping, those two uses can be quite compatible with each other, and particularly as landscape starts
3 maturing. The next slide is of Fox Meadows, same thing, those photos are taken in the interface,
4 which…a similar distance as the project you’ll see tonight of twenty to thirty feet between the two
5 projects. And then the last one is Sidehill, again, similar spacing, well kept; however, brand new project
6 so the landscaping isn’t mature yet.
7 In summary, the City zoned the twenty-three acres to RL without input from the church in 1997.
8 The church did not object at the time. The church program for its master plan development has changed,
9 and they need to sell a portion of the site. The church attempted to rezone the property in 2009, but was
10 asked to come back with a more definitive plan. The APU process was suggested by the City staff.
11 Regency is proposing a project the meets the criteria of the APU.
12 Now, I’d like to describe the project for you. So, this slide shows where it sits in the context of
13 the community. There are three access point, one from Drake Road and two from Lemay Avenue. The
14 eleven acres proposed is located east of the church, and our project is set right in there. Access to the
15 proposed development will be primarily from Drake Road via a street-like private drive that already
16 exists. There are a hundred and seventy-five dwelling units proposed in one, two, and three bedroom
17 configurations. The target market includes singles, couples, teachers, public servants, single parents,
18 retirees, young professionals, and others who cannot or choose not to own a home. The project will
19 represent an upgrade from the existing older apartment rentals in the neighborhood, providing a more
20 upscale alternative. The project will be professionally managed. The architectural design includes four
21 building types plus a single-story clubhouse and detached garages. The single-story garages are placed
22 perpendicular to the existing single-family neighborhood bordering the site to the east. Two and three
23 story buildings are located on the east, closer to the neighborhood, while the three story buildings are
24 located to the west, assuring privacy for the existing neighborhood and creating a gradual transition of
25 height. Trash and recycling areas are provided adjacent to the detached garages. Door-to-door trash
26 recycling pickup is provided by the management to ensure that the trash and recycled items are deposited
27 in a clean and efficient manner. Trash pickup will be scheduled during business hours to make sure
28 there’s no disturbance for the neighborhood. All the residential buildings are oriented to provide garage
29 access and convenient parking on one side and views to open space on the other side. Pedestrian
30 amenities include detached sidewalks, street trees, accent plantings are placed all along the private drive
31 that loops through the site providing convenient and pleasant access for both pedestrians and vehicles.
32 The applicant exceeds the Land Use Code requirements for parking, the project provides two
33 hundred and ninety-two parking spaces, ninety-two of those are enclosed and two hundred are surface
34 spaces in small parking courts throughout the site. The Land Use Code requires two hundred and eighty-
35 eight. In addition, the church will allow the residents of the…will allow the residents to utilize the church
36 parking lot for overflow parking if it’s ever needed. The applicant is also providing two hundred and
37 eighty-three bicycle parking spaces, two hundred and twenty of those are enclosed, which represents
38 eighty percent, which exceeds the new Ordinance that was just passed the other evening at City Council.
39 This quantity of bike parking exceeds that requirement and greatly exceeds the requirement that was in
40 place before the new Ordinance, which would have only required sixteen spaces. The applicant is
41 committed to conserving energy use wherever possible, going above and beyond the City Code, by
42 providing a clubhouse with solar panels. The site has a plug-in space for electric vehicles. They will be
10
1 utilizing certified energy star appliances, ceiling fans to reduce air conditioning use, gas powered hot
2 water for unit heating, low flow showers and toilets, motion detector lighting, and xeriscape landscaping
3 throughout. The project will encourage healthy lifestyles and alternative modes of transportation by
4 providing convenient and pleasant sidewalks and bike connections, by providing secured bike parking, by
5 providing a bike fix-it station that’s also enclosed, by providing a transit shelter on Drake Road, by
6 having a recreation center with a pool as part of the development, and including on-site community
7 gardens if people living in the development would like those. That’s the description of the project
8 overview, but because the RL zone doesn’t have a specific criteria for multi-family, we have used the
9 MMN district…the land use standards and development standards in that to measure this project by. So,
10 I’d like to run through those, I’ll try to do it quickly.
11 First of all, the land use standards include density, mix of housing types, access to a park, and
12 secondary uses. In terms of density, the project would meet the minimum seven D.U. per acre required in
13 that zone district. The net density for the proposed project is 15.5 D.U. per acre. The mix of housing
14 types, only one housing type is required for projects containing less than sixteen acres, and as you note,
15 this one is eleven acres. Access to a park or a central gathering place…the proposed project includes a
16 two acre pocket park with sport fields and seat walls for project residents, as well as for neighborhood
17 use. The MMN district only requires a ten thousand square foot private park, this is two acres. The
18 pocket park will have an accessible pathway leading to the pocket park and have low wall seating. The
19 accessible path around the park connects into other pathways through the project. The pocket park also
20 functions for stormwater detention. A wetland area designed along the east side of the park will facilitate
21 the flow of stormwater out and into a pipe system to move water past the City stormwater facility. The
22 project allows for interaction with neighbors by providing a professionally managed neighborhood pocket
23 park. The park will be connected via sidewalk to public sidewalks. The pocket park will also permit the
24 continuation of an informal access from the City-owned stormwater detention pond to the south of the
25 development parcel. Secondary uses…the proposed multi-family project is a primary use, or would be in
26 an MMN zone.
27 Now I want to move to the development standards. The first one is block requirements. Meeting
28 the block standard is infeasible in this particular case because of existing development to the east and to
29 the south. We have no way to connect to any existing streets on those two sides of the development. The
30 proposed project is bordered by Drake Road on the north, by a street-like private drive on the west, and
31 existing single-family on the east, and the City-owned storm detention facility to the south. Buildings are
32 oriented to public streets to the degree possible given the constraints of the site. Existing berms and
33 mature trees prohibit moving buildings closer to Drake Road. Two of the nine buildings are adjacent to a
34 pedestrian spine that runs parallel to Drake Road behind the existing berms, providing convenient access
35 to a park-like green space, and to the public sidewalk along Drake Road. Four of the nine buildings are
36 oriented along the street-like private drive, and the remaining three are oriented toward an interior
37 pedestrian spine that leads to the project periphery and public sidewalks. While this project is not divided
38 up with blocks created by public street, the site plan does create two blocks that look similar to this figure
39 that’s contained in the Land Use Code. Buildings one to five are oriented such that parking is located to
40 the interior, generally away from public view but convenient for residents. I put this slide in here to show
41 that even in the example of the blocks, not all the blocks are completely surrounded by streets. If you
42 look at this one there, two sides of that block are bordered by open space. So, in the case of our project,
43 we either have buildings on a street, or the buildings are on a shared open space. The project complies
11
1 with the building standards, which just has to do if you’re seeking height above three stories, which we
2 are not.
3 Now, I’m going to go on to the design standards for multi-family dwellings. The first one has to
4 do with orientation and setbacks. Setbacks from the property line of abutting property containing single
5 and two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five feet. I’m just going to have Brent walk through what the
6 distances are all along the east side and the south side where we border a property line. Brent?
7 MR. BRENT COOPER: Okay, the…this building to the property line is eighty feet. The garages
8 are thirty feet. The property line to the parking lot is twenty-five feet. This building to the property line
9 is a hundred and sixty-nine feet. Right here is one fifty-one. And then down here is two thirteen.
10 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you.
11 BOARDMEMBER BRIGITTE SCHMIDT: Could you just say which way does the two thirteen
12 go? To the south? Excuse me…on that last one.
13 MS. RIPLEY: The two thirteen is measured from the face of the building to the property line
14 across the detention pond pocket park. But, that is not the City property; that is part of this project, part
15 of the eleven acres. Okay, the next criteria is variation among repeated buildings. The MMN district
16 requires projects with more than seven buildings to have three different building designs. Building
17 designs need to vary significantly in footprint size, shape, architectural elevation, entry features. Regency
18 Lakeview provides five different building designs. Buildings A, B, C, D, and E have differing footprints
19 with differences in wall articulation as well as differing building heights, including one story, two story,
20 and two story rising to three story combinations. Buildings are designed with differing building entrances
21 and architectural features. Common themes that make the project visually cohesive include pitched roofs,
22 similar architectural detailing, and the repetition of similar building materials and colors used throughout
23 the project. Variation of color is the next thing that’s looked at. Each building will feature a palette of
24 muted colors and there will be three distinct color schemes as required in the district. The next is
25 entrances. Entrances are visible from the street-like private drive that runs in a north-south direction
26 along the west side of the project…also a requirement that the entrances need to be visible. Roofs…while
27 all the roofs are pitched and the roofing materials the same, there’s an exceptional amount of slope
28 articulation in terms of direction, size of gable ends, and the relationship to architectural offsets and
29 features. The project doesn’t anticipate any rooftop equipment. Façades and walls…building façades are
30 articulated with recessed balconies, primary and secondary gable ends, differing window treatments, and
31 material changes to create architectural interest and provide human scale. It’s important to note, though,
32 that this is not a rezoning application and none of these are requirements. We’re simply stating that, if
33 you want to look at criteria normally used to assess a multi-family project, these seem to be the ones to
34 look at, and we believe we meet all of them very well.
35 As Lisa mentioned in her introduction, there has been a great deal of interaction with the
36 surrounding neighborhood residents and property owners. There has been both tremendous outreach and
37 a tremendous amount of participation and feedback regarding the proposed project. We’ve heard from
38 residents from all over the surrounding area, including Parkwood residents, church members, and people
39 with adjoining property boundaries. Many of the comments and letters received indicate concerns
40 regarding increased traffic. Matt Delich is our traffic consultant, and he’s here tonight and he’s going to
12
1 be able to respond in detail to any questions you have. But, just briefly, I want to let you know that the
2 scoping session with the City Traffic Engineer was held and seven intersections were analyzed. A traffic
3 impact study was completed and submitted, and reviewed by City staff. The TIS showed that all key
4 intersections operate acceptably now. The traffic impact study also shows that all key intersections would
5 continue to operate acceptable with the addition of the proposed Regency multi-family project. And this
6 is true for the AM and PM peaks in both the short and long-term analysis. We also prepared a bar chart to
7 just illustrate how much traffic this proposed project adds to what is already on Lincoln…or Lemay and
8 Drake now, and what is going to be there in the long-term future. We actually did three of these, but this
9 particular one looks specifically at Drake Avenue east of Lemay Avenue, where the highest volumes
10 occur. It shows that the proposed multi-family project represents one percent of the volume in the AM
11 peak, and 1.2 percent in the PM peak. In the long range analysis, it represents one percent of the volume
12 in the AM peak, and 1.1 percent in the PM. So, you’ll hear that there’s tremendous traffic on those
13 streets, and I’m sure there is, but the point here is that this project does not add much. It’s barely
14 measureable.
15 The first meeting that the city neighbors and developers held was August 31st, 2011. The original
16 project included ten buildings, nine residential and one clubhouse. It included two hundred and thirty-
17 eight residential units and three hundred and eighty-one required parking spaces. All the residential
18 buildings were three stories in height, every one of them. Three buildings fronted Drake Road and the
19 smallest setback between a residential building and the property line was thirty-five feet. The southern
20 portion of the site was an open green space. The neighbors had a number of comments. We heard too
21 much traffic, too many units, loss of the eleven acre park, residential buildings too tall, north south
22 orientation of the detached garages created a wall. After this meeting, the project team, led by Lisa, our
23 developer, went to work to see what changes could be made to the project to help mitigate neighborhood
24 concerns. I’m now going to walk you through the changes that were made since that…since those initial
25 meetings.
26 Regency and the church renegotiated the purchase contract to allow a significantly smaller
27 project. The renegotiation involved a thirty-six percent reduction in the purchase price, thirty-six percent
28 reduction in the purchase price, and took a couple months to accomplish. The project reduced the
29 residential unit count and required parking by more than twenty-five percent. Two hundred and thirty-
30 eight units went down to a hundred and seventy-five. The project added a pocket park instead of just a
31 detention pond, with the low seating walls and pathways that would be open to not just the Regency
32 residents, but also to the neighborhood, understanding that they had been used to using the eleven acres as
33 a park for walking their dogs, playing sports, passive activities of all kinds. They will still be able to do
34 that. The project reduced the number of buildings by omitting the building that was located in the corner
35 of the site, so the buildings went down from nine to eight. The project reduced the height. Instead of
36 having them all three stories, some became two, others became two stories rising up to three. So, it
37 reduced the scale, and it also provided more variety. The project added an earthen berm between the
38 detached garages and the east property line. Evergreen trees were added to the ends of those driveways to
39 screen headlights. The project increased the separation between the closest residential building and the
40 property line; it was thirty-five feet, now the closest building is eighty feet away, and some are as far as
41 two hundred and thirteen feet away.
13
1 Another change that was made was along the southern property boundary. There was a concern
2 from the neighborhood that people leaving the multi-family project would utilize the driveway along the
3 southern portion of the church property to access Lemay. So, we closed off that connection to the church
4 parking lot at the south. So, now, people living in this project would sort of…we can look at another slide
5 later, but people leaving this project would be much more likely to use the central access point on Lemay
6 rather than using the southern one, it would just be more convenient.
7 The applicant has put a great deal of effort into listening to the concerns of all the neighbors, but
8 especially those that live adjacent to the project. The chart…this chart, which you can’t read, and I don’t
9 expect you to, but I have it as a handout, and I’d like to submit it into the record. You’ll get that.
10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have that one.
11 MS. RIPLEY: Do you have it? Okay, good. You know, the chart just illustrates the commitment
12 that Lisa has made to each neighbor along that adjoining property that was willing to meet with her. We
13 heard neighbors say that they relied on the RL zoning when purchasing their homes. Of the twenty-one
14 adjacent property owners, nine purchased their properties before 1997 when the RL zone was established,
15 four of the properties are rental units. Prior to that time, multi-family and other more intense uses could
16 have been proposed for this site as a PUD, under the Guidance System. We recognize the neighbors’
17 concerns and fears. It’s not uncommon when new projects are proposed. We believe the developer, the
18 church, and the design team have listened and responded to those concerned, making changes to the
19 project that have been good for both. They’re good for the neighborhood and they’re also good…they’re
20 good for the project. And, we thank the neighborhood for coming up with those…helping us come up
21 with some of those ideas and solutions.
22 We ask that the Board consider the fact that the project is a prime example of what our City Plan
23 principles and policies are all about, promoting higher density where residents can walk or bike to
24 employment, shopping, services, and recreational opportunities. The Board has an opportunity tonight to
25 utilize the APU process to allow well-designed, medium-density multi-family project at this location.
26 The project development plan illustrates that it can be compatible with adjacent single-family residences,
27 perhaps even more so than a single-family housing project might be. Thank you for listening. We’d like
28 to close by having Brent run through a Sketch-Up model that he’s prepared so you can see three-
29 dimensionally what the project looks like. And, be aware that we can zoom in and out, take you at eye-
30 level, bird’s eye, whatever. So, if you want to check something out later in the program, we can do that.
31 And, as soon as he goes through the project, just showing it to you, then he’ll also show you a shadow
32 analysis that we prepared illustrating how we meet the requirement of not casting a shadow of a twenty-
33 five foot wall placed on the property line…not exceeding that shadow. So…
34 MR. COOPER: Okay, thank you. This project…or, this model, is mostly a schematic model to
35 give a good feel for kind of what the project is like. I did want to point out that I was limited. I had to put
36 flat images onto the front of these buildings, so, in reality, there’s actually a lot more articulation within
37 these buildings that you can see if you look at the plan view of the project. And, sorry if this kind of
38 loads a little slow. But, I’ll just take you around to some of the different corners of the project. Drake is
39 to the north here, the church is over on the west side here. This is up towards the clubhouse. And, then
40 I’ll kind of go down to a little bit more of eye level from the neighborhood. And, a little more eye level
41 from by the clubhouse area, going down the drive here. And, I’ll also shoot over to the major walkway
14
1 spine that goes along the central part of the project. And, lastly, just take a look up the street-like private
2 drive that runs along the west side of the project, and has some of those entrances off of the private drive.
3 MS. RIPLEY: Want to do the shadow?
4 MR. COOPER: I’ll do the shadow study now…shadow analysis.
5 MS. RIPLEY: So, while he’s pulling that up, the standard says that you can’t cast a shadow on
6 neighboring properties greater that a shadow that would be cast by a twenty-five foot wall placed on the
7 property line between the hours of nine AM to three PM on December 21st. I’ve become quite the
8 shadow expert recently. So Brent will walk you through each hour of that day, on December 21st.
9 MR. COOPER: Yep, and here’s the twenty-five foot wall on the property lines. And, you can see
10 the shadow that that casts. This is nine o’clock, December 21st, ten o’clock, eleven o’clock, twelve
11 o’clock, one o’clock, two o’clock, three o’clock.
12 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, so that’s the worst hour, three o’clock, and we don’t even make it to the
13 property line, much less past, into the shadow that the wall would have cast. So, we meet that criteria
14 clearly. With that, we’ll conclude our presentation. Thank you for listening and, as Lisa said, our entire
15 team will be available for questions.
16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Brent, can we…real quick, I mean, what we’re going to do is, if we can
17 real quick is…staff is going to…we’re going to ask staff to respond to the presentation and, I’m going to
18 give you a chance here in just one second, but we want to be able to keep this up for a moment because I
19 know a couple of the Boardmembers have some requests to…you know, some things to see. One is,
20 could you…Brent, could you show us real quick just maybe what the view would be from…oh, am I
21 okay?
22 MS. RIPLEY: I apologize, but I made a terrible mistake…we actually have another speaker.
23 Pastor Niquette with the church is here to speak with the project.
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, then what I’ll do is I’ll hold…just hold that.
25 MS. RIPLEY: I apologize.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We’ll ask some questions here in a minute because it’s going to stimulate
27 some discussion. Please continue your presentation.
28 DR. DAVID NIQUETTE: I am scripted and I will be brief. Good evening. I’m Dr. David
29 Niquette, Senior Pastor of Christ Center Community Church, which is the owner of the subject property.
30 I live in Fort Collins and have been pastoring this church for nearly fourteen years. Here is why we are
31 selling the 11.2 surplus acres of our land. Christ Center, formerly First Christian Church, was founded in
32 1892. We have been at the Lemay and Drake location for thirty-three years. The Church’s original
33 master plan for the property, proposed by different leadership in the early 1980’s, envisioned a mega
34 church, with a three thousand seat auditorium an eighty-foot tall campanile, up to three Sunday services, a
35 day care center, and a gymnasium served by parking that would have covered the entire rest of the site.
36 However, over the past decade, our mission has clarified and has matured. We no longer see ourselves
37 becoming a mega church, the size of Timberline, but a unique, highly effective healing place that touches
15
1 the whole community meaningfully. Already, we provide such services as our outreach center, which
2 ministers to two thousand of the neediest in our community, Fiesta Fort Collins, 9Health Fair, Butterfly
3 Kisses, Larimer Chorale weekly practices, an election polling place, and many, many other services. We
4 also graciously permit, with few exceptions, the use of our property for local sports teams, group picnics,
5 and for neighbors who walk their dogs, flip Frisbees, and fly kites. We will partner with Regency
6 Lakeview to consider other needed services. Our mission will be well-served by the thirteen acres we
7 will retain after the sale of the surplus land. Proceeds from the sale will enable us to repair and improve
8 our aging facility and to expand our services to the community. We will free ourselves from the high cost
9 of maintaining this vacant land. We are not in the landscaping business.
10 As we placed the property on the market, we were open to all potential buyers. We were open to
11 explore offers from a whole range of development types: single-family homes, apartments, and
12 commercial. Single-family home developers were not interested. Our real estate agent selected the best
13 buyer-developer, Regency Residential Partners, to build quality multi-family units. We are…they are
14 wonderful to work with and are investing patience and dollars in the design, and the redesign, of their
15 development. To gain community input, we the sellers, have followed the City’s requirements. We have
16 done due diligence to understand and mitigate concerns expressed by our neighbors. Let me review the
17 process very briefly. Public forums were held three times. The attendance ranged from a hundred and
18 twenty to a hundred and fifty people. In addition, I personally sent out six hundred letters encouraging
19 attendance and to explain our position as sellers. I included by cell number and my email address for
20 direct contact with me. While only a few contacted me directly, we certainly made an extra effort since
21 this is our neighborhood too, and we will continue to be here and function alongside our neighbors for
22 many years to come. And, let me express this, our respect for our neighbors has been substantially
23 matched by the respect that they have shown our church in this ongoing discussion. While our ideas
24 differ and feelings are at times strong, our neighbors have shown us restrained courtesy. We thank them
25 all.
26 In response to the neighbors’ input, Regency and the church have redesigned, literally downsized,
27 the development, to help address their concerns in substantial, tangible ways. One major example, the
28 number of units was downsized from two hundred and thirty-eight units in the original proposal, to just
29 one hundred seventy-five units in the plan before you. This helps mitigate density and traffic concerns
30 significantly. Please note that this redesign has resulted in the church anticipating in proceeds from the
31 sale, eight hundred thousand dollars less. This demonstrates our commitment to our neighbors. In
32 addition, as you have seen, Regency has had many other positive changes to improve this development.
33 To sum it up, we the sellers, out of respect for our neighbors, have conceded much in responding to their
34 concerns. This proposal before you tonight, I believe, is reasonable and worthy of your support. It will
35 serve the needs of a growing city for quality housing, and it will enable our historic church to continue
36 and to expand our many services to our community. Thank you.
37 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, Doctor. Anybody else from the applicant? Is the applicant
38 presentation…is it over? You guys done? Okay. Let’s see here, now, we normally will move into a
39 staff response to the applicant presentation. Does staff have any comments right now regarding what we
40 just heard from the applicant’s team?
16
1 MR. SHEPARD: No, we have no specific response. We’ll wait for questions when the Board
2 gets around to deliberation and asking questions.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. A couple of maybe some quick questions from the
4 Board of the applicant if we’d like to. And, I think just while we have the visual up there, maybe we can
5 ask a few. And then, right after that I’d like to be able to probably take just a few minute break before we
6 get into the public testimony. Does the Board agree? Okay. Jennifer, go ahead.
7 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: Just a real quick question about the private street-
8 like drive. Can somebody help me with how it differs from a City street? Is it the same width? Is it just
9 a…
10 MR. MARC VIRATA: Good evening, Marc Virata, Engineering Department. The street-like
11 private drive is basically more than a private drive from an esthetic standpoint, so, in other words, a
12 typical drive aisle that you may see through a multi-family development. This standard was specifically
13 adopted to give it a little more visual interest, functionality seem like a street, physically, so you will see
14 something different than, again, a typical parking lot drive aisle: sidewalks, trees, parking. In terms of
15 construction standards, Jennifer, if that was your question, there are no, necessarily, construction
16 standards to ensure that they’re built to a public street standard.
17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Is it narrower or the same width as a street would be along
18 there…a public street?
19 MR. VIRATA: We don’t go into that detail typically, there’s no standard specs. So, it can be
20 narrower, it can be wider, it’s what we think serves and functions well for the development. So, you
21 know, typically most drive aisles are in the, you know, twenty, twenty-four foot, and then you add
22 parking to it. So, it’ll probably be similar in terms of the width of a typical local street.
23 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Brent, could you show me real quick the view from say the midpoint of
25 the property line on the east side, looking west from what…you know, ground level? And then, if you
26 don’t mind doing the same thing from the south property line looking north. And maybe back out just a
27 little bit, maybe not necessarily the property line, but… Okay, I mean, obviously I’m just trying to get a
28 little bit of a perspective from the homes. How…while you’re doing that…how mature are those trees?
29 MR. COOPER: They’re fairly mature.
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do you have any way of…I mean I know I’ve got a couple
31 Boardmembers here that have the same questions and concerns. Do you have any way of cutting them
32 back to like…you know…a two or three year growth or something that’s…
33 MR. COOPER: Not an easy way to do it right now.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
35 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Can you take them out totally? Is that possible?
17
1 MR. COOPER: Sure.
2 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: You can put the trees back in. Do you want to…if you can, just
3 go from the south side too then, and then, I know we have a lot of questions and I think that, unless the
4 Board disagrees, I’m probably going to keep it to that, or maybe like one or two last questions and then
5 we’ll go ahead and take our break but if you can kind of…let’s see from that south side.
6 MR. COOPER: Okay.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay…I think, Kristin, go ahead.
8 BOARDMEMBER KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: Do you know which elementary school those
9 kids would be going to? Shepardson or Riffenburgh?
10 MR. SHEPARD: The short answer would be Shepardson because it’s within the square mile
11 section and you’re not crossing an arterial street to get to Riffenburgh. But then it comes into some
12 Poudre School District policies as to available capacity which I cannot speak to.
13 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Is…it looks like there’s a sidewalk that connects through
14 the City of Fort Collins detention pond area. Is that correct?
15 MR. SHEPARD: It is a combination sidewalk and drainage conveyance channel that is concrete
16 and wider than a typical local street sidewalk, so it acts as both. It feeds the City stormwater detention
17 pond and it acts as a very convenient sidewalk.
18 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: So it would serve as a Safe Routes to School connection for
19 those kids getting to Shepardson?
20 MR. SHEPARD: It serves as a pedestrian connection now, yes.
21 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, Ted.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, Jennifer, last question from the Board and then we’ll…
23 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, it’s back to, from the east side. I saw in here that you
24 added berms out along that east side and I’m…is that shown when you look at it from the east side or, did
25 you incorporate those?
26 MR. COOPER: No, there’s no contour incorporated. I had to lay in a flat image onto the ground
27 plane so it doesn’t pick up berms.
28 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, so how high are the berms on that end?
29 MS. RIPLEY: I can clarify that, I’m not sure Brent knows. And, I don’t want to oversell that.
30 What we did is we bermed up against the parking garages a couple of feet because we were twenty-five
31 feet away from the property line and we have to carry water…a swale as well, so we don’t have a lot…we
32 wanted to do a bigger berm, but at least we’re able to reduce the height of the garages a little bit, and then
33 planting on top of that.
18
1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, thank you.
2 CHARIMAN SMITH: Alright, well with that I think we’re going to take a little bit of a break.
3 And, let’s see here, I would say that…let’s attempt to be back here at…how long does the Board need?
4 Ten minutes? Alright, let’s make it about like eight minutes, so we’ll be back here at eight o’clock.
5 (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Welcome back to the July 19th, 2012 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning
7 Board hearing. Just got back from our break and we’re going to jump into the public testimony at this
8 point. And, let’s see here, this is going to be a little bit of a…managed chaos. But, we’ll make it work
9 for everybody really well. Again, like I mentioned earlier, I’d like to be able to moderate this hearing for
10 decorum, civility, and appropriateness. And, along those lines…I would encourage everybody not to
11 cheer, jeer, applaud, snicker, snort, or anything of the sort, please. And, I think that, you know, that the
12 citizens of Fort Collins expect nothing less than that. So, what we’ll do, is let me get a show of hands,
13 quickly please, of folks that are going to be speaking to us on this issue. I’m going to do some quick
14 math. Okay, so what we’ll do…thank you, you can put your hands down now. What we’ll do is…I’m
15 going to…we’ll utilize both of the podiums, okay? Please, when I say go…not yet…when I say go,
16 please come on up and get into, form two lines please. When…I’d like for the second speaker to please
17 be signing in, name and address for the record, and we’ll alternate going back and forth, and that when
18 that person is ready to go up to speak, they’ll be ready to go, they will have already signed in. And, when
19 you do step up to the microphone, at that point, you will tell us please, your name and address for the
20 record, but you’ll have already signed it in and pass it back to the person behind you. So, that’ll be kind
21 of orderly, it’ll keep us going here fairly quick. I understand that there may be…and, I ‘m going to be
22 able to provide three minutes to each speaker. However, I understand that there are one or more
23 representatives here that may be speaking for a neighborhood group, that would be a representative. And,
24 so, let me see who those folks might be. I know I’ve got at least one. I’ve got two, I’ve got three. Okay,
25 now, I need to make sure that when you come up here, if you are actually…you really can’t be a self-
26 appointed representative of a group of folks. You’ve got to be able to have been given that authority by a
27 group of folks. And, so, when you come up, I’m going to have you just convince me quickly of who the
28 group is that you represent. And, if I’m not convinced that you truly are representing a group of folks,
29 then I might just limit you to the three minutes that the individual time gets. But, I want to be able to be
30 efficient, so I hope that we do get some person that would come up and so…anybody that truly does
31 represent a group, I’ll give them fifteen minutes to be able to speak, okay? And, so, let’s see here. With
32 that I’m trying to think if I forgot anything. Alright, let’s go ahead and start lining up, if you don’t mind,
33 and I won’t start until everybody’s lined up and we’re all ready to go. And, while you’re lining up, I just
34 want to ask if…you know, please speak to the topic, and if…you know, I would encourage you to not
35 repeat points over and over again, you can just simply say, you know, I agree with my neighbor Joe. But,
36 if you feel like you need to say it exactly, what you just heard, you’re free to do that as well, but I would
37 just encourage you, for brevity, to be able to…good point, good point. A lot of times a citizen will ask a
38 question of staff, or us, or the applicant. We won’t be answering those questions. Staff is collecting those
39 questions, and at the end of this portion of the hearing, we will get those answers for you from the staff, or
40 the applicants. Okay? I think with that, if everybody’s all lined up, let’s go ahead and begin. Again,
41 please, sign in, pass it back to the person behind you so they can sign in. State your name and address for
42 the record please, when you address us, and we’ll do three minutes. Angelina, are you ready? Okay. Sir.
19
1
2 MR. JOHN LOOMIS: Oh, thank you, I’m John Loomis, 2930 Silverwood Drive, about two
3 blocks away. I respectfully ask the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the APU for the reasons I’ll give
4 here. While we recognize the church’s right to develop the property, it’s their right to do it within the
5 existing zoning. The church is in an RL zone, that’s an appropriate use… I mean, that’s where it’s listed.
6 And, the church not only wants to jump it to multi-family, they want to jump it two levels from low-
7 density, eight units per acre, all the way up to sixteen units per acre. Now, we saw that criteria number
8 three requires that it does not create any more adverse impacts, such as traffic, safety, or esthetics, that
9 would normally result from the permitted use. And, unfortunately, the staff didn’t get into this, and
10 neither did the developer, in terms of addressing what that increment was. And, in fact, the developer
11 tried to convince you by inventing an alternative in which the whole parcel is single-family homes,
12 removing the church, putting homes all the way to Lemay, and said, well look, we don’t create any more
13 adverse impact than if we created this imaginary alternative. That is not the alternative, the with versus
14 without that’s before the Board. So, we compare what is before the Board. A hundred and fifty homes
15 has about a hundred and twenty-five residents. The Regency apartments has about a hundred and
16 seventy-five with about three hundred residents. So, there’ll be at least twice the amount of traffic.
17 Crossing Drake at Brookwood is already a bit of a hazard. I bike to work, as the City encourages, and
18 that’s a little bit of a problem. You add this additional traffic, particularly right at that congested area.
19 And, the staff does estimate there will be one thousand, one hundred and eighty-four daily trips out of the
20 Regency…oh, that’s the one minute warning. Out of the Regency development. So, I mean, basically,
21 you know, we feel that this is, you know, too big of a jump. And, I was disappointed that the Planning
22 staff attended these meetings, these three meetings, and very little of that was reflected. I mean,
23 compatibility with the existing neighborhood is one of the criteria as well, and the neighborhood
24 repeatedly suggested this wasn’t compatible. We never did get to see a view from people’s backyards
25 into this project. We were shown various views of this project, but not from anybody’s backyard that’s
26 there now, into the project. So, based on these reasons, I respectfully ask that you would deny this APU.
27 Thank you very much.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. If…so everybody knows, the orange light will
29 give you one minute left, and, if the red light comes on while you’re speaking, I would ask that you please
30 finish the sentence that you’re in the middle of. Go ahead, sir. Hold on, we have allegations of crimes
31 and misdemeanors. Inspector Shepard. Sir, go ahead.
32 MR. MARK SPRINGER: Okay, I’ve been asked by the church to read a letter addressed to the
33 City Planning Department.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Sir, could you state your name and address for the record please.
35 MR. SPRINGER: I’m sorry, Mark Springer, 5950 Nicholas Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado. This
36 letter is to Mr. Shepard from Dave Sitzman of Sitzman, Mitchell, and Company. Mr. Shepard, I’ve been
37 advised that there’s a meeting tonight regarding the proposed apartment project located on the church’s
38 property, southeast of Drake and Lemay. I have other commitments and won’t be able to attend;
39 however, as the owner of the Scotch Pines Village shopping center, I would like to voice my support for
40 the project. Given the location of the subject property and proximity to the intersection of major arterials,
41 such as Drake and Lemay, and given the surrounding uses of the northwest and southwest corners of that
20
1 intersection, one should really ask the question whether the RL zoning that was placed on the property
2 back in 1997 was reasonable and proper. I thought one of the goals of the City Plan was to promote
3 multi-family uses next to employment and shopping. Certainly development of single-family residential
4 on this well-located, valuable piece of property, is not the highest and best use of the land. Multi-family
5 uses seem so obvious here, in fact, some mixed-use commercial would also not seem inappropriate. I
6 understand the significant opposition that the neighbors is expected at this meeting. While I understand
7 and respect the neighbors’ concerns, I would encourage the City P and Z to focus on what is the highest
8 and best use of these land resources. The use now being proposed by the land owners is a compatible use.
9 Granted, one might argue that increased density will increase traffic problems. However, given that
10 Drake and Lemay are arterials expected to handle significant volume, I suspect that any real traffic
11 congestion resulting from this use will be minor, and, more specifically, any incremental increase in
12 traffic over and above that which would result if the property were developed with those uses specifically
13 permitted under the RL zone is even more negligible. In summary, the proposed multi-family use of the
14 property is closely aligned with the over-riding objectives set forth in the City Plan and results in better
15 long-term use of the land. In fact, this proposed use is more closely aligned with the City Plan than that
16 which is permitted under the RL zoning. Having multi-family uses in close proximity to shopping and
17 employment is a sound development practice. With hindsight, the current RL zoning seems
18 inappropriate. However, the provisions of that Code, that are contained in that document, in order to
19 address situations such as this, is provided. And, given the surrounding uses and location of the
20 development of the proximity of two major arterials. He goes on and on, and says, you know, this is just,
21 his opinion, a much better project. Resulting development will be an enhancement to the neighborhood
22 and not a detriment. I encourage the City P and Z to approve the project.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir?
24 MR. JOHN SKONES: My name is John Skones, I live at 2819 Middlesborough Court, just a
25 block away from the church property. I ask the Planning and Zoning reject this APU as being
26 inappropriate double jump from the existing zoning, which I’m sure was put in with considerable
27 forethought. Some of the applicant’s comments seem to be irrelevant, such as the old planning zone,
28 comparing it to MMN, which it’s not, the lack of church involvement in the zoning back in ’97 is
29 irrelevant, and comparing to, if it was all individual homes, again, is irrelevant. We’re talking about the
30 existing situation and the change. They argue against themselves. They say there’s three…they’re using
31 three exits, and then they say they discourage one of those three exits. They talk about how little
32 additional traffic there’ll be, but , they’ll be fourteen hundred additional trips exiting out of that
33 neighborhood, out of that corner. So, it’s not just people crossing Lemay and Drake, it’s people trying to
34 get out of that subdivision. They talk about how they’re going to mitigate, you know, headlights, with
35 tree growth. Well, what are they going to put in trees that are two feet tall, and fifteen or twenty years
36 from now, that’s going to mitigate headlights? They talk about how there’s Scotch Pines in the
37 neighborhood. Well, I’m sorry, Scotch Pines is not that nice of an apartment complex. That’s what
38 Regency is going to be in ten, fifteen, or twenty years. And, that’s just the nature of apartment
39 complexes. Again, it’s low density. You’re proposing a double jump to include a hundred and seventy-
40 five units, which I think is inappropriate for the APU use. I think they also brought up, you know, how
41 many people have lived there since before ’97. I moved into that neighborhood in 2002, based on it being
42 low density, you know, no apartments in that section, and now that’s looking to change, and I
43 don’t…think that’s inappropriate. I think that the traffic within that subdivision, on Centennial and
21
1 Brookwood, is going to increase significantly. Getting off, out of the subdivision, is going to become
2 more and more dangerous and difficult. I’m concerned that the City does not know school capacity and
3 what affect this complex will have on school enrollment. You know, whether they’re going to be pushing
4 people because Shepardson School, and I don’t know if it is or not, to cross a major street, which would
5 seem to be a problem. So, again, I just summarize, I think that this is an inappropriate use of the APU,
6 and ask that the Planning and Zoning reject it. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir?
8 MR. MARK KENNING: My name is Mark Kenning, I live at 2613 Dorado Court. I have been
9 part of a group that has been working on this, kind of one of the leaders working with Lisa, talking with
10 the church for quite a while. I have signatures of four of my neighbors asking me to speak for them, and I
11 have about seven minutes of remarks, and I ask that you might allow me seven minutes?
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
13 MR. KENNING: Thank you. First of all, I did not realize until we started this that you all are
14 volunteers. And, on behalf of the four neighborhood groups, thank you for your willingness to serve
15 without pay. This would kill my brain if I had to do this, so my hat is off to you. Thank you. So, I’d like
16 to present one housekeeping item and then two, I think kind of overview items that maybe others will
17 buttress after me. The last Thursday, we presented Angelina over there, a bunch of signatures on a
18 circular letter. Did you guys get this? Okay, there was four hundred and sixty some signatures. Just
19 tonight, we gathered another eighty-eight signatures, different signatures. All these have been gathered in
20 our neighborhoods, we didn’t go stand at Wal-Mart and just try to get anybody to sign. They were from
21 our neighborhood. That I know of, there were only four or five people that wouldn’t sign it. I
22 encountered two. And, it wasn’t because they didn’t…that they did support it, one was a poor old man
23 who didn’t have his hearing aid and only lives there three months a year, and another woman, her
24 husband and died that morning. So, everybody that we asked to sign, was in agreement with what that
25 letter said. As far as the two big objections, first of all, we go back to that City Plan, which ironically,
26 Jason Holland mentioned in his Kechter plan. You know, it was designed to guide growth and
27 development in the City for the next twenty-five years and beyond, so it says on page two, and the parcel
28 Regency wants to develop with medium density apartments is currently labeled on page seventy-one as
29 low density. And, of course, the City map properly shows the zoning as RL. Now, there have been
30 several opportunities, as we’ve heard, for the zoning to be revised, but it hasn’t been. It is what it is. On
31 page twenty-two of the Plan, Policy EH 4.2 speaks to infill development. I notice Lisa quoted it in her
32 submittal letter. But, among the things it talks about is a flexible and predictable approach to infill
33 development and redevelopment. We neighbors, when we’ve gotten together to talk about this, think that
34 the work predictable, and the phrase, develop this particular RL zoned piece to medium-density standards,
35 are incompatible. In fact, it’s not predictable, and over the last thirty years, whenever we have talked with
36 the church about what might be going on there, they’re talked about, first, retired missionary housing
37 perhaps, that was way early on. Then they talked about all the parking lots, with perhaps a couple of
38 soccer fields in the middle, which diagram we saw earlier. And, most recently, possibly, church
39 buildings, like that youth advisory center. But never has there been any talk about selling it and sticking
40 on any kind of apartments, or single-level housing for that matter. So, this is unpredictable. And, as
41 Jason said, it’s all about predictability.
22
1 So, the second big objection, though, we have, is in the applicability of the APU process for this
2 project. Now, Andy Lewis is going to follow me at some point, and he’s a lawyer, and he even footnotes
3 his emails, so good luck to you on that. But, he’s going to quote Black’s Legal Dictionary, so I’m going
4 to try to hopefully summarize it for you. But, currently, as you know, the parcel in question is zoned RL
5 for single-family dwellings and few other uses. By their exclusion from the definition, multi-family
6 dwellings are specifically prohibited in RL, and in Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code lays out
7 requirements for approving an APU, and in that twenty page, twenty-two page document that the City
8 staff gave you recommending this APU, they didn’t include the complete language. And, in preparing
9 our presentations, a number of us kept going back and forth, where do we find this? And, so I printed off,
10 for our use, a one-page summary of 1.3.4, the APU process, along with the RL definition. If you guys
11 would like this, just to refer to, you’re welcome to it. Somehow, I bet it’s seared in your brain, but you’re
12 welcome to them, I’ll bring them up afterwards.
13 If you are to approve an APU, then you, the P and Z are required to find that it conforms to all of
14 those sections in that APU, under Section A, and that it meets the conditions of Section B. Section C and
15 D seem to speak to changes brought by a Planning Director, not the Planning Zone Board, so I don’t think
16 those appear to be relevant. But, Section A talks specifically that any approved development must not
17 create more adverse impacts than any other normally allowed use in the RL. The City recommendation
18 addressed a few of these concerns in your twenty-two page handout, but cleverly skirted the issue on a
19 couple of others, if you read closely. And, so we hope you noticed that. Andy is going to flesh those out
20 for you, but we believe that this medium density project does indeed create more adverse impacts than
21 would other RL approved uses, and such findings should be, honestly, pretty obvious to any reasonable
22 person that stands back and looks. But, Section B is the one that’s important, because it states that one
23 cannot use an APU to force a prohibited use into existing zoning. And, when you look at the official
24 definition of RL in the Land Use Code, you’ll see that multi-family housing is a prohibited use. So, we
25 say, how can you…how can the City recommend you do something that is specifically prohibited in the
26 Land Use Code? Given the clarity of the language, we don’t get why they would do that for you, and so
27 we ask that you would deny this particular APU. We understand it’s going to be developed, hey, we’re
28 all for helping them figure out an appropriate density development. Thank you. And, can we make this
29 also a part of the record?
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. One thing I’d like to do, make sure that if you give us a
31 handout, be advised that we probably won’t have time to review it, unless it’s something that we really
32 think we need to take a break and do…okay, okay, perfect. I also want to make sure that the applicant has
33 an opportunity to see what we’re getting. Sir, go ahead.
34 MR. MARTIN WEST: Okay, my name is Martin West, I live at 2735 Silver Creek Drive. I’m a
35 native of Fort Collins, graduate of Fort Collins High School – go Lambkins. I’m a real estate appraiser
36 and I own a real estate office in Windsor. I’ve been in that capacity for over thirty years. I’d just like to
37 speak to what’s going to happen to the values of the properties, specifically adjoining these apartments.
38 An, I think if you all think back…I assume you all own homes. When you bought a home, I don’t think
39 you ever walked into the real estate office and put, backing up to a hundred and seventy-five unit
40 apartment at the top of your wish list. As a matter of fact, in thirty years of real estate, I’ve never had
41 anybody come into my office and say, you know, my top priority is a hundred and seventy-five unit
42 apartment complex. Now, my opinion as an appraiser, and being in this business this long, I think these
23
1 properties are going to devalue around twenty percent. And, the reason I say that is that if you don’t have
2 the demand, which is caused by the hundred and seventy-five units in the backyard, you’ve got to do
3 something to make…to create demand. And, the only way a seller can create demand, at that point is to
4 lower the price of their house. Okay? So, one contention that the developers had is that it won’t affect
5 the values of the properties. I’m here to tell you, professionally, it is. I do not feel it is the
6 neighborhood’s issue to make the church financially fiscal…or whole. I don’t think that’s the job of any
7 government. So, you know, they have been zoned RL, if they want to do low-density residential, I don’t
8 think anybody in the neighborhood has an issue with low-density residential. Okay? They’re trying to
9 make us all feel good by saying they started out with two hundred and thirty-eight units, and we should be
10 glad that they’re down to a hundred and seventy-five. Well, that’s if it was zoned for multi-family.
11 I did a little survey here, just a little while back. The APU system was adopted July 1, 2008, if
12 I’m correct. I went onto the Weld…or the Larimer County public records, and I did a little study here.
13 And, between Parkwood, Eastborough, Lakewood, Eldorado Springs…those four subdivisions, which are
14 directly impacted by this, eighty-three percent of the people in those neighborhoods bought their homes
15 before the APU was established. Everybody moved into that neighborhood assuming that that was
16 single-family residential. If you take it out of single-family residential, it changes the whole flavor of that
17 neighborhood. I’ve got ten seconds, I’ll stop there.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please.
19 MR. DOUG VANDERWILT: Doug Vanderwilt, 2719 Brookwood Drive, and first I want to
20 thank the developer and the City staff for working together, to make, in my opinion, it’s a quality project.
21 That doesn’t mean I support it, because of, again, the Land Use Codes. And, I want to focus more on
22 condition A.3 in the APU, the one that specifies that there must be no adverse impacts beyond those
23 normally caused by the currently permitted uses. Regarding this requirement, the developer’s application
24 states that there will be no increased impacts, and that, in some aspects, this new development will have
25 less impact. We believe this to be a false claim since there will be at least a three-fold density increase in
26 people and motor vehicles over the currently permitted uses within RL zoning. A similar approach is
27 seen in the staff recommendation, which appears to claim that the development meets all the standards
28 which RL must meet, without including much detailed support. By this reason, I suppose a factory could
29 be approved on this site if it met the same standards that RL is expected to meet, or maybe they meant
30 MMN, I’m not sure. Along with many other concerned citizens, I claim that this proposal does not satisfy
31 a direct and predictable reading of the APU condition. Adverse impacts far beyond those created by an
32 RL development include the following seven: aesthetic views of mountains will be obscured more due to
33 three-story buildings and longer roof lines, more offensive noise and disturbance will result from higher
34 density of people, pets, and vehicles, nighttime light beam motion from vehicles in parking lots is much
35 greater than present for single-family residences, runoff quality…water quality will be lower due to
36 higher density of vehicles and non-permeable surfaces, air quality will be reduced due to higher density of
37 vehicles and refuse, more traffic and traffic hazards will result from the high concentration of vehicles
38 utilizing two non-signaled accesses to major arterials, and, last but not least, by prudent professional
39 estimates, such as we just heard, it will reduce values for adjacent properties. We could discuss and
40 debate the magnitude of these impacts at length, yet the developer has claimed that there will be no
41 adverse impacts, and staff seems to have no objections to this. I speak for many who see this condition
24
1 has not been met, and I urge this Board to maintain a predictable interpretation of the Land Use Code
2 rejecting this APU. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir?
4 MR. KING CLEMONS: I’m King Clemons, I live at 2919 Fauborough Court, southeast of Drake
5 and Lemay, and in the affected area. My wife has lived here for in excess of twenty-five years. I am one
6 of a hundred and sixty-five homes in a non-homeowner association area, and one of four people who
7 collected all of the signatures for that particular area. I am, by education and experience, an actuary and
8 demographer. My experience thus allows me certain extensions of the project. Putting a hundred and
9 seventy unit project on a ten-acre land equivalent, is equal to a hundred and seventy-five existing single-
10 family homes in a hundred and twenty foot-acre circle, that covers a hundred and four acres. So, you’re
11 going to have a tenfold impact by putting this project on this location to our single-family area, what can
12 we expect, and that is that the area will be affected very negatively. Traffic can be expected to increase
13 fifty percent. Why? Because apartment dwellers have one car, single-family dwellers normally have two.
14 Congestion will triple and the area…done, is totally incompatible with single-family area. Utilities will
15 have to be upgraded at the distribution points just to cover this same area. Schools will double in
16 population. Noise and population, effectively, will soar, and property values will decline. I have attached
17 a diagram showing you how this affects, which I hope you’ll take into, put it in the record. We’d like you
18 to noted that all homes in the area, proximity to this development, are single-family. Give you one
19 example, of the hundred and sixty-five homes in the non-homeowner area, we have two access points to
20 get out of the area: one, Centennial to Lemay, the other one, Brookwood to Drake. At this point in time,
21 it’s almost impossible to make a left turn, you have to make a right as it is. Perhaps a more appropriate
22 project for this area would be multi-family in the…townhomes or patio homes. We oppose the
23 development and hope the P and Z Council, as well as City Council, and other regulatory folks, look for
24 other venues for this area. Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Sir, please.
26 MR. TREY ROGERS: Hello, my name is Trey Rogers and I live at 2033 Abilene Court, just east
27 of the proposed development, and my wife and two kids, we’ve been in the same location for about four
28 years. I love Fort Collins, I’ve been here since I was eight years old, and I’m hopefully about a month
29 away from finishing up my PhD in engineering, so I think I’d probably fall into the category of a young
30 professional, hopefully. And, I realize that it’s tough when things change and there’s resistance to that,
31 but just from a big perspective, thinking more like an engineer, I really like the idea of this project, it
32 makes a lot more sense to me to have everything grouped into sections, to have the different types of
33 housing and different centers of work and shopping nearby. I really like that Fort Collins is structured
34 that way already, I think that’s a great thing to continue on doing. It’s my perspective that both the seller
35 as well as the developer have bent over backwards, it seems like both of them have made a lot of
36 concessions, as well as taken a lot less on the property owners’ part than what they were originally
37 anticipating. With the hard economy, I can see how the single-family housing would be difficult. I’m
38 probably more likely to look into rental apartments, and continuing to have a rental property in the near
39 future, so it seems like it would be a shame to drive to work every day, past an empty lot, when the same
40 traffic is going to have to get there one way or the other. So, from a city perspective, and actually having
25
1 to get to where you need to work every day, I’d rather not commute longer if I don’t have to. So, this
2 project makes a lot of sense to me. I appreciate your guys’ effort and I do support it. Thanks.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please.
4 MR. PAUL MAYHAK: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Paul Mayhak, I live at 278
5 Sierra Vista. I have lived in and around Fort Collins for over sixty years. I’ve built and lived in four
6 homes in Fort Collins. I believe that Regency has done a great job in trying to satisfy everybody, and you
7 can’t satisfy everybody, and I would urge you and ask you to vote yes on this project. Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please.
9 MR. DAVE ROSCHKE: Hi, I’m Dave Roschke and my presentation is a little bit longer, and we
10 live in the…I live at 2806 Fauborough Court in the…it’s not covered by an HOA so I went to some of my
11 neighbors…three of my neighbors…to get extra time, so I’d like a little additional time.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Are your neighbors here?
13 MR. ROSCHKE: No, they couldn’t come. One of them was here but she had to leave because she
14 has midterms.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, let’s see here. What was your address?
16 MR. ROSCHKE: 2806 Fauborough Court, I’m adjacent to the property to the south.
17 MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Roschke is an abutter and has been a participant in the process from day
18 one, and due to his proximity to the project, I recommend that you give him just a little extra time.
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: How much time would you need, sir?
20 MR. ROSCHKE: I’m thinking about twelve minutes, that’s why I talked to three people.
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Can you do it in ten?
22 MR. ROSCHKE: I can try.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You know what, I’ll give you twelve. If you can get to ten, I know
24 everybody in the room would be grateful.
25 MR. ROSCHKE: Okay, I’ll try. As you’ve heard, the property is zoned as low-density
26 residential. It’s surrounded on the north, east, and south by local neighborhoods that consist of low-
27 density single-family homes. To the west is a neighborhood church. The proposed development would
28 be a medium-density multi-family apartment complex consisting of large buildings. Medium-density
29 multi-family developments are prohibited in both low-density residential zone and the low-density mixed-
30 use, LMN, zone. And, despite what the City Planning staff’s input claims, this proposed complex would
31 be both inappropriate and entirely out of character with what is permitted in the RL zone that it is a part
32 of, and what has surrounded it for decades.
26
1 The first two criteria that you’re aware of, of the City Land Use Code, 1.3.4, is that the proposed
2 APU is appropriate and conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone and other permitted uses in the
3 zone district to which it is added. I think it fails those tests, and so, for those reasons alone, I think that
4 APU should be rejected. But we, my family and I, are also specifically concerned by many elements of
5 the Regency Lakeview Transportation Impact Study that was dated April 12th, by Delich Associates. I
6 hope I pronounced that right. We address several points in detail in a letter that we sent to the Planning
7 staff and to our City Council representative earlier, so I think that letter is already part of the record, but if
8 for some reason it’s not, I would like to request that it be made part of the record. So, in the interest of
9 time, though, I won’t go through all of that, but I do want to touch on some of my thoughts and concerns.
10 The study seems to miss or ignore the fact that there’s a second entrance to Scotch Pines about halfway
11 between the one that…identified on their map and Strachen Drive. The south entrance connects directly
12 to Edinburgh Street on the shopping center and provides another regular stream of traffic to and from
13 Lemay. So, the actual situation seems to be different from what was analyzed. The study states that the
14 east-west legs of the Lemay-Strachen church access intersection are slightly offset, but not to the extent
15 that there are left-turn conflicts. By my observation, this is wrong. Two left turners are definitely offset
16 enough that their paths will cross and there’s a conflict. The study includes a delay analysis of the
17 intersections on Drake, which are two Brookwood intersections and Dorado Court. One of the
18 observations that they make is that for a five minute period, the lead vehicle for the left-turn delayed five
19 other vehicles due to a reluctance to execute a two-step left turn, which caused the observed delay to be
20 much longer than normal. But then they throw out that data and average everything else and conclude
21 that the situation is typical and they make a statement that this sort of thing is generally accepted by the
22 public, so according to the study, if we throw out the long delays and average everything else together,
23 things are fine. That’s like saying that we can identify flood prone areas by ignoring all the big storms
24 and average everything else out. It conveniently avoids reality and downplays the fact that this exact
25 situation is a significant part of a problem that already exists. In fact, many of the people that were at the
26 meetings expressed that kind of frustration, very long delays and not being able to turn left at all. But, we
27 have no other alternative once things are in place than to put up with them. And, the statement that the
28 problem was the driver’s reluctance to execute a two-step left turn, I have to disagree with. The problem
29 is not the driver’s reluctance, the real problem is the already high levels of traffic that force two-step left
30 turns in the first place. Every driver has to make his or her own decision about what’s safe to do, that’s
31 the reality. Two-step left turns are inherently less safe than direct left turns because there is potentially
32 conflicting use of the bi-directional center lane and other drivers reacting because they can’t tell if the
33 turner is actually coming into their lane or into the center lane. I just saw somebody the other day swerve
34 completely into the adjacent lane, even though the left turner actually went into the center lane.
35 Fortunately, there wasn’t anybody else there. But, I think it’s unfortunate that no delayed analysis was
36 done for the intersections on Drake and Lemay. That’s where I think the real problems are.
37 Due to time constraints, I won’t get into all the details here, and there’s detailed comments on that
38 in my letter. But, in a nutshell, right now, there’s very little traffic coming in or out of the church parking
39 lot onto Lemay during peak traffic hours. The bi-directional center lane is used almost exclusively by
40 northbound traffic for left turns into Strachen and the two Scotch Pines entrances on the west side of
41 Lemay, or by two-step left turners heading out of those intersections. Any residential development is
42 going to increase southbound traffic in the bi-directional center lane by left turners in and out of the
43 church parking lot. Pedestrians and bicycles also use the center lane as a staging area for crossing Lemay.
27
1 All modes of traffic can be expected to increase proportionally to the number of people living on the
2 property. Any increase in the use of the center lane by southbound traffic is going to cause conflicts with
3 northbound traffic that don’t exist at all right now, making this area much more hazardous than it already
4 is. The bottom line is, left turns out of the west exits from the church parking lot will be very difficult
5 during heavy traffic, just as they are now from Centennial, Dorado, and Brookwood, and would be from
6 the north church exit as well. The obvious alternative for heading south would be to turn right from the
7 north exit, then right onto Brookwood and through the neighborhoods to the south and east to Centennial
8 or Horsetooth. I do that myself. Any project that redirects additional traffic off of main arterial streets
9 through neighborhood surface streets has a negative impact on those neighborhoods proportional to the
10 number of trips.
11 With respect to bicycles and pedestrians, the study does not address the pedestrian bicycle path
12 that emerges from the neighborhoods directly to the south of the church parking lot, which is another
13 factor impacting traffic in that area. The study lists five local destinations for pedestrians that states that
14 the City recognizes only one for bicycles. In my opinion, all five pedestrian destinations are obviously
15 bicycle destinations, and should be addressed for an APU request. The study states that acceptable
16 pedestrian levels of service cannot be achieved but for the directness, continuity, and street crossing
17 factors. To sum things up, the study admits that pedestrian service cannot and will not be acceptable,
18 make untenable assumptions about bicycle traffic, ignores one of the Scotch Pines access points, and then
19 states that everything will be acceptable. The study does not adequately assess, address, or even identify
20 many of the easily foreseeable consequences of this proposal. Instead, it seems to use…to rely on the
21 application of canned formulas for generic arterial flow that don’t even begin to recognize, let alone to
22 account for the characteristics of that specific area. The main issue, though, is that the traffic study does
23 not address the key criteria required for approving the APU. These key criteria, from Section 1.3.4 are
24 that the proposal does not create any more traffic hazards, traffic generation, or attraction than the amount
25 normally resulting from the other permitted uses. What the study does do is find that an MMN project
26 would have acceptable impacts in an area already zoned for MMN. What the study needed to do for the
27 APU was assess and compare traffic projections for the MMN project to traffic projections from currently
28 permitted RL uses. Since it doesn’t, it can’t be used to justify the APU. Now there was an interesting
29 earlier that I hadn’t seen before that proposed the entire area be covered with single-family dwellings.
30 But, I would say that the only that that could be comparable to what we’re doing here is if we tear down
31 the church and make a park out of the rest of the thing that never can be developed. So, it’s not really a
32 fair comparison. So, I think the City Planning staff’s recommendation in this and several other areas is
33 inappropriate for the same reasons.
34 And, I have some other issues with the Planning staff’s recommendation. One thing that struck
35 me in particular, in Section 5B, in which the history of the property zoning is discussed. Arguments for
36 why the zone could have been LMN are presented, but they left out the fact that a request to rezone to
37 LMN in 2009 was dropped because it would have been rejected. I would accept that sort of advocacy in a
38 recommendation prepared by the developer, but I expect information prepared by City staff to be
39 impartial and complete, even if I disagree with the recommendation. This seems to be to be written to be
40 persuasive by omitting important and conflicting information, and I think that’s inappropriate. And, I
41 appreciate Ted’s speaking up for me, but I’m kind of disappointed in other ways as well. At more than
42 one meeting, Ted promised to keep everyone who supplied an email address up to date with all the
43 important information and happenings associated with the proposal. I submitted my email address at
28
1 every meeting and have never received even one informational email from the City. Based on Mr.
2 Shepard’s promise, in my mind, no news received meant nothing was happening. Then, recently, I found
3 out about this meeting where a decision would be made and that I’d missed all sorts of important things
4 that I would have taken action on if I had known about them. I’m pretty irritated about that. I called Mr.
5 Shepard recently because I had questions about our fence if the proposal was approved, and he said I
6 should call Lisa Evans, who’s here tonight. Lisa was very helpful and spent a lot of time answering my
7 questions, and even sent a request to the City Planning staff to make some specific project information
8 available to me. They responded right away to her request, but they didn’t provide the information that I
9 needed, so I asked for some more. I never got a reply and it was completely ignored. This doesn’t seem
10 right. Mrs. Evans ended up sending me some of the information that she had, and also did some research
11 and answered some additional questions for me, and I really appreciate that. In closing, I want to say that
12 I don’t think this is a bad development proposal for a medium-density mixed-use site; however, I strongly
13 believe that an APU for this MMN project in this residential single-family, low-density zone district and
14 decades old neighborhood is inappropriate, so I urge the Board to disapprove the request for these and
15 many other reasons mentioned by my neighbors.
16 And then, I have to read an email from one of my neighbors real quick because he was out of
17 town. Dave, to confirm our conversations on May 12th, 2012, an escrow check for…#2255 in the amount
18 of two thousand dollars, was submitted by a Washington state couple to purchase 2812 Fauborough
19 Court, Fort Collins. The couple backed out of the signed contract two days later upon learning of the
20 church development project to the northeast of our two properties. The Group was the real estate agency
21 and signed documents are on file. So, Andy still hasn’t sold his house, and that’s been two months since
22 then and he’s had to make several trips back since then, so that is a real example, I think, of impacts of
23 this proposed development. Thank you. Sorry, a little over.
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, no problem. When the next speaker steps up there, if, maybe,
25 lower the microphone a little bit. I think that’ll catch more of your voice, it’s important we get your
26 words on tape. Sir, please go ahead.
27 MR. DON DANIEL: My name is Don Daniel, I live at 613 Mansfield Drive. I’m a current
28 member of the Christ Center Church Board. A few years ago, I was treasurer for the church, and I
29 brought up the idea of selling the east eleven acres. My reasoning was twofold. First, the church didn’t
30 need the land. We have enough space…open space, to the west to meet any future needs. When the
31 church had originally contracted to buy the property, they intended to buy the land immediately south of
32 the current property. Developer did not want the corner property, so the church did a swap with the
33 developer, and in the swap, the church ended up with these east eleven acres. My second reason, and the
34 primary reason for the sale, was one of stewardship. The church building is over thirty years old now. It
35 takes a great deal of our budget each year just to maintain the facilities. There’s now a real need to put
36 significant funds into the restoration of the property. We no longer have the eight hundred plus
37 membership, and, more importantly, we do not have the funds in our yearly budget to undertake the
38 repairs and upgrades the property needs. Our facilities are used all year long for the events benefitting the
39 church, but also the entire community of Fort Collins. The 9 Health Fair is one example. We want to be
40 good neighbors and make sure the facility is not run down and safe to all users. Our east property is kind
41 of like the homeowner who buys not one lot, but two, when he decides to build and move into a
42 subdivision. They build their home and settle in, and over time, they decide that they really don’t need to
29
1 use the second lot, and they sell the property so that someone else can enjoy the neighborhood. In the
2 process of selling the lot, they make sure that the new buyer understands that when the new buyers build
3 their home, it must fit into the neighborhood. And, this is exactly what the church is attempting to do.
4 We certainly have the right to sell the property and are motivated to do so. We are, however, attempting
5 to be good neighbors.
6 The Board of Christ Center has taken this good neighbor approach from day one. We discussed
7 our commitment to work with the neighborhoods and make sure the brokers we selected to represent us
8 understood this. In the approval process, we’ve continued to stay true to our commitment and have
9 worked with the developer to significantly change the project to respond to the concerns of our neighbors.
10 What is being considered tonight is a plan that is a responsible project that meets the City guidelines and
11 purposes. It is responsible in that it has been adjusted significantly to address neighborhood concerns,
12 and, lastly, it will allow the church to be a good steward of what we have and our desire to keep our
13 facility in a highly functioning capacity. Without a doubt, we are all challenged by this change. When an
14 old open area changes, there’s some sense of loss. It’ll never be the same, but change can be good when
15 it’s planned and those around it see that it’s appropriate and it is the best that it can be. We think that this
16 project, as being presented, is just that and we respectfully ask the Planning and Zoning committee to
17 approve this project.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, mam, please.
19 MS. DIANE KENNING: My name is Diane Kenning, I live at 2613 Dorado Court, on the eastern
20 border of the proposed development. I will be addressing issues related to the Land Use Code 1.3.4,
21 Addition of Permitted Uses, Part B, Planning and Zoning Board Authority and Limitation. First, in part,
22 as you know, the section reads, the Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use if the Board
23 specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good. I believe that approval of this
24 APU would be detrimental to the public good. Previous speakers, and speakers that are still in line, will
25 be addressing the importance of predictability. While the APU is a useful tool, if it is going to be used for
26 de facto rezoning, the City Plan and City Structure Map may as well just be put on a shelf. I want to live
27 in a city where we can rely on the promises and processes of our government. Two, continuing, the
28 Board may add a proposed use if it would not be detrimental to the public good and would be in
29 compliance with requirements and criteria…on and on. As previous speakers have pointed out, and
30 others in line will get to, the City’s analysis of the project is flawed by comparing this multi-family
31 project to other multi-family projects, rather than to the characteristics of uses allowed in the zone as the
32 standard requires. The APU should be denied on this basis. Section B goes on to limit uses being
33 considered for an APU to those not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the zone district in which the
34 proposed site is located. According to Land Use Code 4.4, the description of the RL zone, anything not
35 expressly allowed as a permitted use is a prohibited use. Multi-family housing is not expressly allowed as
36 a permitted use; therefore it is a prohibited use. Others may be able to spin this simple statement in to
37 something else, but any common sense reading of it clearly conveys the meaning.
38 Because this APU request has not been shown to be in compliance with the appropriate
39 requirements and criteria, and it is a prohibited use in the zone district, I respectfully ask you to, one, find
40 that this application of the APU process is detrimental to the public good for all the reasons argued by all
30
1 the neighbors, and, two, to exercise your right and responsibility to deny this APU application. Thank
2 you.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please, go ahead.
4 MS. JACKIE PETERSON: Thank you for this opportunity to express our opinions regarding this
5 proposal to develop the church property as multiple family dwelling. My name is Jackie Peterson and I
6 have lived on Rollingwood Drive for almost twenty-eight years. I am speaking in opposition to this
7 drastic change in density from the presently zoned low-density residential to multi-family on the basis
8 that it will most certainly have an adverse effect on our neighborhoods. This proposal is not in
9 compliance…I know we’ve heard this over and over, but it bears repeating that it’s not in compliance
10 with the Addition of Permitted Uses, and therefore, on that basis alone, it should be rejected.
11 In…interpreting the Addition of Permitted Uses, it is to be more stringent, from what I read, rather than
12 less stringent, according to the Land Use Code, then this proposal becomes entirely non-compliant.
13 Adverse effects have already been well stated, but I would like to point out that as cars sit in idle at
14 railroad tracks, there are signs that tell us to turn our engines off, and sometimes we wait two, maybe
15 three minutes. I would encourage you to come down Drake, either going east or west during traffic time,
16 and try to get through that stoplight at either Timberline and Drake, or Lemay and Drake, in less than,
17 say, even eight minutes. The light changes many times and the cars sit there and idle and idle. We’re
18 talking about two lanes of heavy traffic, both directions sometimes. I go into my neighborhood on
19 Rollingwood Drive from Drake, onto Brookwood, and many times, almost all the time when its high
20 traffic, morning and afternoon work shifts, the cars are backed up from Lemay all the way to Brookwood
21 and past, which means if I’m coming from the west, or even the east, I have to sit there and wait until the
22 traffic clears so I can get through. There will also be an adverse effect on our schools, which we haven’t
23 really dealt with because the information isn’t there, for one thing. But, there will be an effect on the
24 elementary schools that are in the area. And, of course, more children, more traffic, more chance for
25 safety issues and other hazards. I recognize that the church has quite a list of contributions to the
26 community, and I admire that list. My question is, are they willing to undue all the good things that they
27 have done, and continue to pursue this unacceptable and unwanted use of the Land Use Code. My
28 question to you is, if the City has put so much effort and carefulness, and thoughtfulness, and time into
29 creating a plan use code, why are we trying to change it tonight. Thank you.
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, mam. Sir, please go ahead.
31 MR. PAUL PATTERSON: I’m Paul Patterson at 2936 Eindborough. I am opposed to the
32 approval of this project and the additional permitted…addition of a permitted use request. I am not
33 opposed to multi-family dwellings; my opposition to this project is due to the density and the
34 ramifications of the proposed density. The establishment of a multi-family housing development with a
35 density in the MMN range would violate the City Plan and the promise of predictability that my
36 neighborhood would consist of low-density housing, schools, churches, and other permitted uses under
37 the RL zone. I believe the current Planning Department is in error when the recommended the approval
38 of the APU. There are several aspects of the document which I believe to be incorrect. I will limit my
39 discussion to one. In comment five on pages five and six, the Current Planning Department contends that
40 the church can construct a campus with, quote, a disparate look and feel in relationship with the
41 neighborhoods to the east and south despite the common zoning. The staff therefore contends that, given
31
1 the existing conditions, neighborhoods to the east and south and the subject parcel do not share the
2 existing conditions, the neighborhoods to the east and south…do not share the same characteristics under
3 the…excuse me, I’m sorry…and the subject parcel do not share the same basic characteristics under the
4 present or proposed conditions. Adding multi-family dwellings to a portion of a twenty-five acre church
5 campus would not alter this relationship, unquote. But, as the heading of comment five states, the
6 condition given for an APU is not whether the project conforms to the characteristics of the area, but
7 whether the project conforms to the characteristics of the zone. The church has the right, under the
8 permitted uses listed in the RL zone, to develop a campus consistent with its mission. That does not mean
9 that this right to create a disparate look establishes the right of a profit-making entity to build a fifteen
10 plus dwelling per unit acre multi-family development that clearly does not meet the characteristics of the
11 RL zone. Since section five…or, excuse me, comment five, is the basis of the Current Planning
12 Department’s approval of this project, I urge the Board to reject the project. Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, appreciate it. Sir, please.
14 MR. R.J. HANNA: My name is R.J. Hanna, I live at 1313 Teakwood Drive in Parkwood, I’ve
15 been there for about thirty-seven years. I’m very concerned about the effect of this project and I would
16 urge the Board to deny this project approval. I have concern about the effects in the surrounding
17 neighborhoods, and I also have severe concern about the process by which this project is even being
18 considered for this location. I appreciate the desire of the church to maximize the value of their property,
19 but I don’t believe this is an appropriate way to get around the existing zoning. I think we must assume
20 that this zoning designation was determined after much thoughtful deliberation, and multi-family housing
21 was not deemed appropriate for this location. It seems that this request for the APU, multi-family
22 housing, is a dubious application of this whole APU process, and an attempt to bypass the logical,
23 thoughtful determination of the existing zone designation. We’ve talked about the criteria for approval,
24 and we’ve talked about traffic hazards, traffic generation, safety, aesthetics, I think all of those fail the test
25 of not having an impact. The church does exist so I think the traffic study that assumes the traffic…or the
26 church does not exist is inappropriate, and the traffic differences should be assumed only if the eleven
27 acres were developed into single-family units. The other thing, at the two meetings I attended, we were
28 promised that the traffic in the adjacent neighborhoods, specifically Parkwood and the area south of
29 Drake, would be considered and would be addressed, and I didn’t hear anything tonight about those
30 concerns, and I think that those would have a major impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. I would
31 urge you to deny this request. Thank you for listening.
32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
33 MR. CARLOS PADILLA: My name is Carlos Padilla, I live at 3013 Eindborough Drive. One
34 concern I want to bring up that hasn’t already been spoken to many times, is about the APU itself. So, in
35 the Fort Collins Land Use Code, this is Section Four, this is part of Section Four. Section Four is
36 wonderfully documented with many examples, specific details about every zone type, and what can be
37 there, what can’t be there. The APU itself, in section 1.3.4, is very sparsely written. So, I think one of the
38 issues you’re seeing here from us is, the APU looks wide open as a mechanism for changing the
39 characteristics of an existing zone. And, so regardless of what happens here tonight, I would at least like
40 you to consider that and try to tighten things up or give better examples as a Zoning Board and as a City.
41 The City has…with the Land Use Code and the City Plan, the City has exposed the predictability of
32
1 what’s happening in the city. At the same time, the City is also advertising that the City is changing its
2 intent about what it’s trying to do with existing space in the city, by moving to an infill pattern. So, if the
3 City’s mechanism for performing infill is going to be to use the APU as a process instead of rezoning,
4 then I would at least ask the City to advertise that fact and say that this is going to be the mechanism for
5 future infill developments. It is unclear to a citizen to what extent a zone can be changed with the APU
6 process, so one of the main points of the APU is to state that such use is appropriate in the zone district to
7 which it is added. That is extremely vague, and if you look at the definition of your zone, you can see it’s
8 not appropriate, as so many people have pointed out tonight.
9 The last point I’d like to make about the appropriateness issue is, in the 5/19 City response report,
10 one of the issues brought up in comment number four on page four, was the possibility of having to do an
11 easement for the homeowner on the southwest corner of Dorado Court and Drake Road to meet the
12 existing site standards. The section goes on to make a point that the standard may change, or there may
13 be a way to give a dispensation for it. I don’t think that’s the issue, I think the issue is, if someone is
14 submitting an APU, to what extent can they force changes that are compatible with the zone. So, here
15 they’re asking for the possibility of a homeowner giving up their property for the zone for which that
16 home is appropriate for a use for which the zone is not appropriate. Thanks.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, go ahead please.
18 MS. SUSAN SANTISTEVAN: Hello, my name is Susan Santistevan, I live at 1812 Indian
19 Meadows Lane, number B7. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I have been a member of Christ
20 Center Community Church for sixteen years and have served as its Business Administrator since 2004. I
21 am very much in favor of you approving the Regency development. From the presentation from the
22 developer at the beginning of the meeting, you have learned that the zoning before 1997 would have
23 allowed a multi-family development, and that when our property was rezoned in 1997, the multi-level
24 development would no longer be permitted. You learned that our property was lumped together with the
25 surrounding neighborhoods into the RL zone when the City rezoned everything in 1997. You have been
26 told that the rezoning process allowed property owners an opportunity to ask for a different zoning if they
27 did not like what the City planned to do and that our church did not take advantage of that opportunity.
28 That is all true, but it does not tell the whole story. In the 1980’s and early 1990’s, our church was on a
29 different, very aggressive growth path. There were big plans for this property, plans that we were told
30 would have been approved under the City rules and zoning. However, those plans did not come to
31 fruition. Our Senior Pastor at that time then retired in 1994. For the following four years, the church was
32 without a pastor in role of a chief executive officer. We had visiting speakers and pastors filling in while
33 membership focused on finding a new pastor, that happened in October 1998. That’s when Pastor
34 Niquette came as our new Senior Pastor and stewarded the renewed vision for our church mission. So,
35 the citywide rezoning that included our property took place at the same time that we were undergoing our
36 transition to new leadership and vision focus. From the spring of 1994 to fall of 1998, there was no
37 central leadership figure that looked after the welfare of the church property, and the church was in a
38 survival mode and held together by a volunteer board at that time. It is possible that the church received
39 some notification about the rezoning process but no one here recalls it, even after I contacted the Business
40 Administrator during…who was there from 1996 to 1998. So thank you for this opportunity.
33
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, if you had more thoughts that you wanted to convey, you
2 might have a friend that you can hand it off to in line. Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
3 MR. DAN GRIDER: Thank you, I’m Dan Grider. I live in Lake Sherwood, I live at 2707
4 Brookwood Drive, just to the east of this property. I’ve lived there for thirty-four years. I think I’m one
5 of the oldest members of Lake Sherwood, it feels like it sometimes. Members of the Board, I am
6 speaking in opposition to the proposed development of the eleven acre parcel located east of Christ Center
7 Community Church at Regency Residential…by Regency Residential Partners. City Plan clearly
8 indicates that the parcel and the surrounding area is zoned RL, low-density residential. Addition of
9 Permitted Use in the Land Use Code was chosen because the RL zoning of the property would not allow
10 such a development. City Planning staff, using inexplicable logic, in my opinion, has recommended that
11 this proposed development be approved, even though it falls under medium-density mixed-use criteria.
12 Approval of this development does not conform with the stated purpose of additional permitted use in the
13 Land Use Code, as stated in that infamous 1.3.4(A) one through four. I don’t know about you folks, but I
14 have nightmares about 1.3.4 now. I have reviewed the list of applicants for such a variance since the
15 Addition of Permitted Use process was established in 2008. Of those, approximately half were approved
16 and most were approved with conditions. As of February, this year, each request was for a minor
17 variance from the zoning in which they were located. Compared to these requests for APU, Regency’s
18 proposed development goes far beyond anything previously considered. This proposed development is
19 three to four times the density of what is allowed under RL zoning for this property. This disparity
20 impacts the neighborhood in a number of ways. Increased traffic is a major concern, noise is another. A
21 reduction in property values of existing homes seems certain. The character of the surrounding
22 neighborhood will no doubt be altered. This one hundred and seventy-five unit apartment complex of
23 three hundred residents, on a property of eleven acres, is not compatible with the other uses of existing
24 RL zoning. Furthermore, RL zoning does not allow multi-family dwellings. For these reasons, this
25 Addition of Permitted Use proposal should be denied. And, in the last five seconds, I ask the Planning
26 and Zoning Board to make this decision based on the intended purpose of the Land Use Code, and the
27 policies of Addition of Permitted Use. Your decision will set a marked precedent for future development
28 of the neighborhoods of Fort Collins in the years to come.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, thank you sir.
30 MR. GRIDER: Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me one request.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I can’t.
32 MR. GRIDER: You can?
33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I cannot. I’m sorry, is it for more time?
34 MR. GRIDER: No, I just would like to have those who are opposed to this development to stand.
35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I would…you’ve already said it, and so, I mean, they probably will, but I
36 need to get to the next speaker, and I try to keep it without the…I understand. Mam, please.
37 MS. LAURIE DEBOSE: My name is Laurie DeBose, and I live at 2718 Jewelstone Court.
34
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’m sorry, what was your name mam, I’m sorry.
2 MS. DEBOSE: Laurie DeBose.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you.
4 MS. DEBOSE: And, first of all, I’m going to finish what was left for Susan when she was here,
5 the rest of hers says it’s possible that the church received some notification about the rezoning process,
6 but no one here recalls it. If we had known about it and understood how drastically that rezoning would
7 limit our options for our property, without a doubt we would have gotten involved in the process.
8 Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way. We are now appealing to you to permit what we believe is
9 totally appropriate here, which would have been allowed before your 1997 rezoning process, so I ask you
10 to please approve this project. Thank you.
11 So, now for myself, I saw the presentation tonight and I think it’s a really nice project, I think
12 they’ve done a really good job as far as everything they’ve done with it, and they have nice plans to make
13 it a really nice place. And, I understand that it’s not in current zoning, but, in the big picture, I think that
14 it’s really good for the city. It will bring in more revenue for taxes, it provides more places for people to
15 live because we have a very low vacancy rate right now, and I think that there’s times to make exceptions
16 to existing rules when it’s good for the majority of the people. So, I think it would be a plus to the city
17 and so I ask you to consider it.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead.
19 MS. KATHRYN DUBIEL: My name is Kathryn Dubiel, I live at 2936 Eindborough Drive. I’m
20 in the affected neighborhoods of this development proposal. I’d like to comment on the use of
21 comparable multi-family housing developments as an argument by City staff to recommend approval of
22 Regency Lakeview’s request for an APU. I will also comment on City staff’s use of the terms density,
23 nearby, and close proximity, without explaining, in words or with data, the meaning of those terms.
24 Comparable multi-family housing was part of the Current Planning summary document for the Board,
25 and it was also a topic of discussion at the Board’s worksession on July 13th. Ted Shepard was asked
26 specifically about the density of dwelling units in these comparable developments. He replied in general
27 terms, quote, not less than ten and not more than thirty…or not more than twenty. I don’t have the
28 specifics, but it is in the realm of thirteen to seventeen, unquote. Regency’s density is a fact known to the
29 Board, sixteen dwelling units per acre. Wouldn’t the Board want to know exactly the comparable density
30 of these comparable developments? I think it should have been part of the written summary that was
31 provided by the Planning and Zoning…to the Planning and Zoning Board, and also part of the public
32 record for this discussion. Similarly, the summary document and the worksession discussion raised the
33 subject of multi-family housing being nearby, or in close proximity, to single-family detached dwellings.
34 One Board member asked, quote, are the homes in the same proximity as with Regency, unquote. As I
35 recall, this was not answered. Instead, further discussion brought out the following, in some cases like
36 Caribou Apartments, the development is buffered by open space, wetlands. Some have open spaces
37 adjoining them, many are located with a street separating the development from the single-family
38 detached housing. Once again, the staff provided the conclusion, and proving it was left to the Board. I
39 don’t think that that’s the Board’s job, or my job, to check the accuracy of the Current Planning staff
40 conclusions. Rather, it’s their job to supply the facts that underlay statements like, from page sixteen of
35
1 the staff summary, quote, in all of the examples cited below, there are nearby existing single-family
2 detached dwellings in either the RL or LMN zone districts. It would be helpful to know what the staff
3 means by nearby. Later in the document, the staff uses the term in close proximity. The staff concludes,
4 quote, continuing the established pattern of mixed-use is found to be consistent with past practice, and,
5 therefore, not detrimental to the public good, unquote. So, let’s consider past practice. The supposed
6 comparable developments did not use the APU as a vehicle to get approval. They went through the
7 channels that Regency should be pursuing, rezoning. Many, if not most of these supposed comparable
8 developments were completed before the APU language was added. And, now, a developer is using the
9 Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 as a basis for requesting a use in a zone district that is prohibited by that
10 same Code. Therefore, on this basis, invoking consistency with past practice does not apply because
11 these other developments were approved on different terms and with different processes. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please, go ahead. Please, no clapping. Go ahead mam.
13 MS. KATHY MILLS: Hi, my name is Kathy Mills and I live at 2313 Tanglewood Drive in
14 Parkwood, and I’ve lived at that particular address for twenty-seven years. I’m here in three capacities,
15 and all of which I would urge you to vote in favor of this. First, I’m a member of Christ Center
16 Community Church, and as such, I think the project is a quality project and my desire as a church member
17 is to continue to serve God through serving my community and my neighbors, many of whom I see here
18 and know by name. Secondly, I’m a citizen of Fort Collins and, as a citizen of Fort Collins, I think
19 predictability is good, but I think there isn’t anyone in this room that couldn’t say that the economy is a
20 little shaky, and having more quality rentals in town, and having a sustainable neighborhood where I can
21 bike and walk and get to work and get around without a car and gas, is a good thing to invest in. Thirdly,
22 I am a member of the Parkwood community. As a member of Parkwood community and a homeowner, I
23 still say that this is a good project and I would like to support it, and I would urge you to consider to
24 support it. I think it’s a great addition to my community. Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
26 MR. FRED URBAN: My name is Fred Urban, 3609 Canadian Parkway. I am forty year resident
27 of the Fort Collins area and I’m Board Chairman at Christ Center Community Church. I speak in favor of
28 the proposed Regency development. From the church’s perspective, the buildings and grounds are large
29 and costly to maintain, and it is our membership that pays all of these costs. The sale of the underutilized
30 11.2 acres will allow us to redirect funds presently required to maintain this parcel and to make significant
31 needed repairs to our over thirty year-old facility. Our congregation is small, but we are a very healthy,
32 motivated family dedicated to serve others. We see ourselves as having an expanding ministry within the
33 existing facilities. I ask that you support and favor this proposal. Thank you.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir.
35 MR. ANDREW LEWIS: I do have some records for the secretary, if I may, and I do have some
36 records for the Board as well, which is basically an outline.
37 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, please, you can hand that off to Ted. And, sir, do you also have
38 copies…extra, that the applicant could be able to review as well.
39 MR. LEWIS: I do.
36
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
2 MR. LEWIS: And I am a representative, I did talk to Mr. Shepard about getting signatures so that
3 I would have more time to speak, I think I need about fifteen minutes. I do have those signatures if the
4 Board wants that as part of the record, I don’t know if you do or not.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let’s see here, it would be helpful, I think, if you did. What was your
6 name, sir?
7 MR. LEWIS: Andrew Lewis.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Lewis, how many folks did you get to sign that you say you’re
9 representing?
10 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Shepard, how many people did I get to sign that?
11 MR. SHEPARD: Seven.
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One more time?
13 MR. SHEPARD: Seven.
14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Seven? Okay. I thought you said seventy.
15 MR. LEWIS: Not seventy, no sir.
16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
17 MR. LEWIS: I’m an attorney but I don’t want to talk that long.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright. Again, we may or may not be able to review the material in front
19 of us in a timely fashion.
20 MR. LEWIS: That’s fine, I just want it to be part of the record.
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, and as long as the applicant has it as well, I don’t see any problem
22 with it. How much time would you need, sir?
23 MR. LEWIS: I needed approximately fifteen minutes. I don’t have an extra copy of my
24 argument, verbal argument, that I gave to the record, so I do not have that, but they’re going to listen to
25 that, so…
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, go ahead.
27 MR. LEWIS: A lot of what’s been said here is, we’re looking at…
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I need to make sure…sorry.
29 MR. LEWIS: A lot of what’s been said here has to do with the old phrase, we can’t see the forest
30 for the trees. We’re focusing on all these little details, and we’re not seeing the big picture. We’re
37
1 focusing on things like how tall buildings are, whether, when they’re three stories they’re multi-leveled,
2 and three colors. Whether there’s…what the setback is, where the garbage is. All these little details, and
3 we’re not seeing the big picture. And, I want you to step back and see the big picture instead of looking
4 at the trees, kind of like when you, Mr. Smith, asked the developer to remove the trees from that picture,
5 and we saw, the big, big picture. And, to look at the big picture, I want to you look at, specifically,
6 criteria number two of the APU, that such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district
7 and other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. And, I want you to think about what
8 that means. What is that criteria telling you to look at? The first word in there is use, and we already
9 know what the use is. The use is an apartment complex that’s medium-density, sixteen units per acre.
10 It’s double the RL zone, and it’s not even qualified in…or it’s not double the RL zone, but the LMN zone,
11 and not even allowed in an RL zone, which this is. So, that’s the use, it’s an apartment complex.
12 The next form, what is conform? What does conform mean? And, the Land Use Code doesn’t
13 specifically define it, so it says to go out and look at Webster’s and Black’s Law, and Webster’s says
14 conform means to make the same or similar, and Black’s Law talks about it being permitted by the
15 particular zoning classification of the area. So, the use is apartment complexes, is it the same or similar
16 to what? The next term I want you to look at is characteristics. Characteristics is not specifically defined
17 in the Land Use Code…characteristics under Webster’s is very simple, it’s the distinguishing traits,
18 features, qualities, a quality peculiar to, and helps identify something, something distinct, something
19 unique. So, we’re supposed to characterize the use, or look at the use, and whether it conforms as the
20 same or similar to the characteristics of what? And, here’s the key distinction you need to understand: the
21 zone district. And, what is the zone district? It’s specifically defined in the Land Use Code, and it says
22 the zone district shall mean a zone district of the city as established in section 1.3.1. And, if you look at
23 1.3.1, it just enumerates every zone district we have, the RL, the LMN, the HMN, the MMN, Industrial,
24 all of those. So, the zone district is RL zoning. And, we need to figure out what the characteristic of the
25 RL zone is in order to determine if this is an appropriate use of the APU for just criteria number two,
26 right? Does that use conform to the characteristics of the zone? What quality…what distinguishes the
27 RL zone from all of these other zones? Is it the height of these buildings being three stories tall? No.
28 That is allowed in the LMN zones, and MMN zones, and others, so that’s not the defining characteristic.
29 Is it the setback distances? No, those are very similar. Is it the fact that a church can be built there? No.
30 Each of those zones allow for places of worship. That’s not what distinguishes and makes it unique in
31 character to the other zones. The thing that makes it unique in character to the other zones is the fact that
32 it does not allow multi-family dwellings. It does not allow multi-family dwellings. That is the unique
33 and distinct trait and characteristic of an RL zone. All of the other zones we’re talking about tonight
34 allow multi-family dwellings. If you look under the permitted uses of Section 4.4, it says single-family
35 detached dwellings, shelters for victims of domestic violence, places of worship, schools, group homes,
36 and all other uses are prohibited. The defining characteristic of the RL zone, therefore, is it doesn’t allow
37 these multi-family homes. That’s why we can go out and look at that zone, and we can tell what it is by
38 looking at it, because it’s distinct, it has a unique characteristic.
39 In fact, the stated purpose of the RL zone, under Section 4.4(A) is it is intended for predominantly
40 single-family residential areas. And, you were shown a photograph of other apartment complexes, and
41 basically you couldn’t really see them because it’s summertime and the trees were blocking the view.
42 And, some of you talked about at the meeting last week, maybe you’d go out and look at them. Well, if
43 you walked out into the middle of those apartment complexes and you looked around, and you saw rows
38
1 of cars lined up there, and these three-story tall buildings with people’s windows looking down on you,
2 and I showed up and I asked you, what’s the characteristic of this zone that you’re looking at? Would
3 you tell me it’s characteristic of a mixed medium-density use? Probably. Maybe high density. But you
4 certainly wouldn’t tell me that this looks like an RL zone, because this is prohibited in an RL zone. When
5 you look at the staff report, they don’t even talk about that. They talk about the characteristic of this area
6 as being isolated, and there’s the characteristic between the church and the neighborhood is isolated.
7 That’s not the characteristic of an RL zone, they’re looking at trees. You’re supposed to look at the
8 bigger picture. And, when they put this apartment complex on an RL zone, and you walk around this
9 apartment complex after its built, and you look at it, are you going to believe this is the characteristic of
10 an RL zone? Of course you’re not. That is the question that you have to find to find criteria number two
11 is met for the APU. It was not designed as a rezoning tool, and that’s exactly what this would be, because
12 you would walk out into this apartment complex and look around and think, wow, they must have
13 rezoned it to a medium-density mixed zone.
14 You also have to find that it conforms to the characteristic of other permitted uses, and we have
15 single-family homes, we know it’s not that. Shelters for domestic violence, no, place of worship, no,
16 school, no, a group home, no. Group home is defined under the use as something that takes care of
17 somebody either for physical ailments or psychological ailments, and it’s run by the government. So, we
18 don’t have that either. This is, in essence, rezoning, and I find it interesting that the argument we get from
19 both the staff report, the developer, and a lot of these people, is that, going back to 1980, if they wanted
20 to, they could have built something there. And then, in 1997, they could have built something there, had
21 it rezoned. Fact of the matter is, we’ve moved and we are now in the year 2012, and the last time the
22 church came for rezoning, it was an RL zone…not a medium…or, for a low-density use, not a medium-
23 density use like this. And, at that point in time, they withdrew the request because they were going to be
24 denied. We’re not here on a rezoning, we’re here for use of the APU.
25 Let me give you an example of something that might be appropriate. Let’s say somebody wanted
26 to build a shelter in an RL zone that was for children of sexual abuse or physical abuse. And, we looked
27 at the RL criteria and go, huh, can you put that there? Well, it’s not a domestic violence shelter because
28 it’s a shelter for children of…for child abuse, right? So, it doesn’t really fit that criteria, and it’s not a
29 group home if it’s run by private people instead of the government, if it’s privately funded and privately
30 run. But, if they came to you for an APU, would you look at that and say, is it characteristic of other
31 permitted uses in the zone? It’s almost identical to a domestic violence shelter. And, you would go and
32 see that, and it wouldn’t have changed the character of that zone at all. That’s what the APU is meant to
33 be. And I wrote you a letter, and I hope you guys read it, and Mr. Hatfield, I’m sorry for repeating
34 something in a letter. But, I wrote you a letter about when the APU was adopted and what they talked
35 about. And the goal that the staff report said was, the goal of the Land Use Code was predictability, but
36 with that predictability came unflexibility. In the APU, it allows some flexibility, and it would not come
37 at the expense of predictability under the City Plan or City Structure Plan Map, if it was used in limited
38 circumstances. This is not a limited circumstance. The City Structure Plan Map says that you are to use
39 it for zoning decisions. And, the City Structure Plan Map adopted one year ago, looks at this area for the
40 perspective future as a low mixed-use, low density. And, tonight, we’re jumping above that and we’re
41 going to medium mixed-use.
39
1 By allowing this apartment complex to be there, you would be going contrary to the policy of the
2 City Structure Plan Map, you would be going contrary to the policy of the RL zone, which is for single-
3 family homes, contrary to the prohibited uses of the RL zone, and changing is character in such a way as
4 to be unrecognizable. And, that is not what the APU was designed to do. This same interpretation can
5 apply to the other sections of the APU. Section one, such use is appropriate in the zone district to which
6 it is added. Well, we know what the zone district is, it’s RL. Appropriate means right for the purpose,
7 suitable, fit, proper. Can you tell me it is right for the purpose of an RL zone, which specifically is to
8 protect single-family homes and not allow multi-family homes, to place a medium-density apartment
9 complex on it? You can’t. Don’t just focus on the trees, on compatibility being met based on articulated
10 and subdivided buildings with three varying colors, on setbacks, on trees, on parking spaces, on bike
11 racks. Take a look at the whole forest. The purpose behind the policies of the Addition of a Permitted
12 Use, the guidance of the City Structure Plan Map, the policies behind the RL zone itself and the stated
13 purpose, those would all be left behind and swallowed by the exception if you allow this Addition of
14 Permitted Uses.
15 I, like many of my neighbors, understand it would be appropriate at some point in time to develop
16 this land. Currently, it could be developed for single-family homes, group homes of low-density, and,
17 possibly depending on the proposal, apartments qualifying in the LMN categories may be viewed as
18 acceptable. I’ve heard many express the desire of low-density housing for retirees be developed on this
19 site. But this is not what you’ve been presented with and I ask that you reject this proposal because it
20 does not fit the big picture of the design of the APU and it’s being interpreted incorrectly.
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
22 MR. LARRY STROUD: Good evening, I’m Larry Stroud, 1606 Humble Road, and before I get
23 started I just have a question of process. Will the presenting team have a chance to address some of the
24 issues brought up?
25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Absolutely.
26 MR. STROUD: Then I will just proceed with my comments. I’ve been a resident of the
27 community for over fifty years and I’ve been involved in commercial real estate for thirty-three of those
28 fifty years. And, my comments are not directed toward the specific details of the project. And, much like
29 Mr. Lewis, I would ask you to really look at the big picture. It is…right now, Fort Collins has one of the
30 most pressing multi-family housing needs of any housing type in our entire history. The City of Fort
31 Collins forecast, last year, a 4.4 percent vacancy rate in housing units. As of June 30th, is 2.6 percent.
32 The result of this constrained housing is that people can’t find housing. We’re taking in a new worker at
33 our home that can’t find suitable housing in Fort Collins. It’s going to take a long time…equilibrium is
34 considered five percent, we’re at 2.6 percent, and by the end of July, we’re going to potentially be less.
35 There is a huge need for housing. The consequences of this tight constraint is that people don’t have a
36 choice, rents go up, affordability goes down, and it’s not a good situation for entry level people. On June
37 30th, there were twenty-six hundred and eighty-six units under construction or in the planning process in
38 the city of Fort Collins for design completion of the project within thirty months. Not all of those will go,
39 but even if all of them went, it is not enough to satisfy the demand that is needed. In addition to
40 exacerbating our local shortage, the High Park Fire has created an additional need for more housing over
41 the next couple of years. This is a project, I won’t go into it any further, other than to say that it is
40
1 appropriate. The APU process is the only appropriate use…they’ve tried rezoning, they’ve tried the other
2 uses, and if you compare this with virtually every intersection south of Mulberry, multi-family is an
3 essential part and it backs up to residential neighborhoods. This is nothing out of the ordinary. This is
4 good city planning, we need it.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead.
6 MS. BARB DANIEL: My thing says seven seconds left because I think it was from…
7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Got to talk fast then.
8 MS. BARB DANIEL: My name is Barb Daniel and I live at 613 Mansfield Drive, and I want to
9 talk about the big picture too because I don’t know a whole lot about all those other things, but I’ve
10 learned a lot tonight. But, anyway, I am for this project because I have two sons and they’re both in their
11 twenties and they’re going to need to find places to live in our community. And, I’m blessed because
12 they both have jobs here, but I’m telling you, I’m tired of them living in my basement, you know.
13 So…and, this is the vision of the City is for infilling, you know…and, instead of the sprawl. Oh, that’s
14 the bad word, we don’t want sprawl, we want to fill the spaces we have and we want to make them
15 quality projects. And, this looks like a quality project to me, you know. And, it’s not going…people are
16 not going to be right on top of each other, and that flat projection that they made when they took those
17 trees out was just bad. There are going to be trees there and they are not going to be three feet tall, and
18 the ground isn’t going to be totally flat, you know. But, I know that people are scared, yeah, people are
19 scared of change. They’re just frightened, so they don’t want it to change. That neighborhood back there,
20 they’re saying, yeah, it’s decades old. We need some new blood injected in there, some young families in
21 there. I think it’s exciting, I’m for it. Please approve it.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
23 MR. JOHN BARNETT: Good evening, I’m John Barnett, I live at 3200 Greenwood Court, and
24 I’m here speaking in opposition, which is a rare thing for me, I’m usually on the other side of the fence.
25 One of the things that was brought up earlier was the…how this project would fair when you look at it
26 through the lens of the Land Development Guidance System. And, there’s several of us in this room who
27 have fond memories of that system, but we all know why it was thrown out. It was thrown out because it
28 did not give the neighbors predictability into what would happen. The real reason was I saw very few
29 projects in the time that I worked with that process that didn’t have the points it took to get approved. It
30 really was a negotiated process, very much so. It was…in any event, it was thrown out to give
31 predictability. Now, that happened in 1997, there’ve been several opportunities to do rezoning since then.
32 It so happens that I live outside the notice area for this particular project and I got my notice last night at
33 about 6:30 when I fine young gentleman stopped by and asked me to sign a petition, and I said, whoa,
34 that’s not what I would have ever expected. And, I looked into it a little more, found out about it and
35 talked to some of the City staff and was told, you know, it’s really too late, we can’t get you a lot of
36 information, we’re too busy right now so you’re on your own. So, I worked with that, and what I
37 basically was told was, you’re late in the game, tough. Alright, I’m an adult, I’ll play. What…part of the
38 argument that’s been used as to why this area should be rezoned…and let’s not make a mistake, we’re
39 rezoning, we’re talking about rezoning here. Part of the argument for that is the church didn’t participate
40 at several times in the past, and I’m sorry, time matters, timing matters. The fact that you exercise your
41
1 zoning, or don’t, matters. Speaking more to the particular criteria at hand, I just wanted to point out that
2 you were shown…and the argument that was made by the project team in favor of this, will not generate
3 more than the underlying permitted traffic, is false because they removed the church and said that single-
4 family over the whole site would generate more traffic. In fact, if this project is approved and the church
5 does move on and that does happen, there is no way, with this precedent set, that you could possibly deny
6 that in the future. Suffice it to say, the statements have all been made that this does not meet the required
7 findings that you are required to make. I don’t see how you can possibly approve it. It does meet one of
8 the criteria, the criteria that it meets is that it is not a marijuana facility. Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, please go ahead.
10 MS. JANET HANLON: I’m Janet Hanlon, I live at 2806 Middlesborough Court, and my
11 northeast facing backyard directly faces the property. And, I have such admiration for all these people
12 who have taken the time to present their statements with innumerable numbers of hours of research. I
13 don’t have anything big and important to add to what they’ve already said. I agree with the people who
14 are in opposition to this. I’m going to speak just a little bit from the heart, I have just a few minutes. My
15 husband and I, we started our family in our home, we’ve lived there for nine years. We bought the house
16 with the knowledge that the church was there, that there would be limited uses for what would be
17 approved there. If we had known apartments could have ever gone in there, we would not have bought
18 that home because we are starting our family. It’s probably not our home for our forever home, we need
19 to grow, we need to expand, and what we’re looking at here is potentially having a pretty significant
20 property value loss. I know I’m just one family, I’m just one person speaking here, but, to us, that’s huge.
21 That’s our life, that’s our livelihood. I very much support the mission of what the church stands for, I
22 support the mission of the greater good for people finding housing and even throwing in the emotional
23 component of the High Park Fire, and all those things, yes. I go to a church that supports the
24 Homelessness Prevention Initiative…very much in support of those things, but ultimately, me, in my
25 home, it is not my responsibility to solve the church’s problems by saying, sure, put the Titanic in my
26 backyard. You can change how tall the Titanic is, and change the color of the Titanic, the number of
27 rooms in the Titanic, it’s still the Titanic, it’s still in my backyard, it changes the daily aspect of what
28 happens in my life. I met with Lisa Evans, had a wonderful conversation with her. She was willing to
29 listen to everything that I had to say, but, in the end, she asked me, would you be willing to come in front
30 of the Planning and Zoning Board and to state that the developer has worked hard to listen to the public.
31 Absolutely, I feel that Lisa did a really nice job of listening to what we were saying, but, ultimately, it’s
32 still the Titanic. Ultimately, no, I cannot say that I want that in my backyard. I don’t…everything that
33 everyone’s already spoken to about the zoning I totally agree with, I think it’s wrong. All the people
34 who’ve come out in support of this project do not have a piece of property that directly abuts the property,
35 if I am correct. Their property values will not be affected by this like mine will. I don’t like being selfish
36 like that, I’m a school teacher, I’m one of those people that’s all about the greater good for people, but it’s
37 my life, it’s my livelihood, and I’m not willing to sacrifice that at the expense of decisions being made by
38 other people. Thank you.
39 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead, when you’re ready.
40 MR. PAT MCCLUSKEY: I’m Pat McCluskey, I’ve lived in Fort Collins since ’65, in fact, I can
41 remember when Drake and South College happened to be the city limits and Stover was a dirt road. So,
42
1 we have been here. I have been a member of the Christ Center Community Church since 1968 when we
2 were on Drake and…down on Drake and Stover. This was the First Christian Church. I’m in favor of
3 what’s going on because I think infill is a good thing for our city. Sprawl is not a very good thing. We’re
4 going fifteen, twenty miles across this town just to do things, and we’d like to see a little closer situations
5 for all of us. But, for the past thirty years, we have been good neighbors, keeping our twenty-three acres
6 well groomed, green, and in good repair, and it’s not been an easy job. Believe me, we would like to keep
7 things as they have been; however, due to hard economic times, an aging building, and a much smaller
8 congregation, we’ve had to consider other sources of revenue to keep doing the necessary repair and
9 maintenance on our building and to our ministries, especially the needy in Fort Collins. You may not be
10 aware, but our outreach department is…I can’t say enough about it. For the past thirty plus years, they
11 have given out free food, clothing, household items, as well as any hospital and medical equipment that
12 we have, you’re welcome to. In fact, in 2008, ninety-eight needy households, that’s our average per
13 month, were served, which means we fed and clothed and gave away household items to over five
14 thousand people. However, by the year 2010, it has jumped up to a hundred and sixty-three needy
15 families, which again, equates to over six thousand who were touched by the Christ Center Community
16 Church. We buy all our food from the Food Bank, but the Food Bank recently had had some problems to
17 where a lot of our outreach ministries throughout this city have had to buy on the retail level, which is
18 putting a real burden. So, we would like to implore upon you, the Planning and Zoning, to consider that
19 if we can sell this property, we can continue being good neighbors, have a good ministry, and continue to
20 fill that hole that is much needed by the needy here in Fort Collins. Thank you very much.
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
22 MR. GARY PETERSON: Hello, I’m Gary “Pete” Peterson and I live at 2200 Rollingwood Drive,
23 and I’m here to say, first, I believe that the church has the right to develop their property, but, I don’t like
24 the idea of these apartments and I don’t think they have the right to go with this Regency project. So, I
25 oppose the rezoning. And, there are hundreds of people, you’ve received the petitions, you’ve gotten the
26 letters, hundreds of people. And, so I would just ask you to consider not just the good of the church, or a
27 few businesses that will benefit from this, but to think about the rest of us. And you know that there are
28 going to be some adverse impacts, they’ve been talked about tonight. Everything from noise to traffic
29 and lower property values. So, I think that if approval of this sets a really bad precedent for the future.
30 And, so I thank you for this opportunity to speak and I’m getting just as tired of this as you are, I’m sure.
31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, go ahead when you’re ready please.
32 MS. DOROTHY MARTIN: I’m Dorothy Martin, I live at 2912 Silverwood Drive. I have six or
33 seven things that I don’t think have been addressed, and I’m not going to go into depth on them. In terms
34 of the need for housing, this is high end. I have sympathy for the woman whose children are in the
35 basement, but if they’re in the basement, I’m not sure they can afford high end. I also am concerned
36 about the impact of other multiple developments in the area. If in fact approval goes through for
37 the…proposal at the corner of Drake and Timberline, that too feeds traffic. It also adds a huge number of
38 units. It’s a great place for infill, has a railroad track on one side, city streets on the other two, police
39 department on the other end, great place for infill. It’s been a field. I, too, have lived here thirty-five
40 years and I’ve watched those things. I walk my neighborhood, I walk the surrounding communities. In
41 the last three months, four homes have gone on the market adjacent to this property. It is impacting the
43
1 people who expected single-family residences. As I’ve listened tonight, not one speaker who spoke for
2 this proposal lives in the adjacent neighborhood. If approved, I believe that RL zoning becomes moot.
3 What you decide will set a precedent for countless other requests. I would wish, and I was here when
4 Christ Center Community Church was established, that they would have gone ahead with the senior
5 housing development in this area. Seniors, too, need access to transportation, to shopping, to all the
6 things that families need. I think that’s a good alternative for them, and I think if it were developed and
7 promoted the way this one has been, it would be very successful. And, they might have some new
8 members as a result. Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
10 MR. RICHARD HOLMES: Councilmembers, my name is Richard Holmes, I own the property at
11 2725 Brookwood Drive. I’m adjacent to the southeast corner of the holding ponds, so, in a way, none of
12 this is going to really affect me because I’m in an area that I’ve got two and a half acres behind my house
13 that is holding ponds, unless we have a flood, and it has flooded. I’m a landlord, I own multi-plex
14 properties, I own single-family house properties. I’m also a farmer, I’m also a rancher, and I’m also self-
15 employed. And, the bottom line is, the APU is a change in zoning, period. And, I think that’s been pretty
16 well discussed here. And, from my…one of my aspects in my many hats, I look at this project and it’s
17 two shares of agriculture water a month, it’s two acre-feet of water to support this little community. I
18 wish I had that much water to grow food for the cattle that I cut up for beef and sell, it would be nice. I
19 look at the zoning issues by the Councilmembers, I look at the Wood Street houses. I went to a building
20 and planning, was invited there to go do a study for them, and then I went and looked at the houses built
21 on Wood Street, and I just shook my head and wondered how did they fit the building and zoning plans. I
22 look at the Prospect and College dorm units being built in a floodplain. Yeah, we fill it with dirt, but
23 water’s got to go somewhere unless we’re putting culverts underneath it. I just don’t know where the
24 Council goes with their zoning and planning. That’s the first issue to be solved. The second is the
25 Regency. I’ve worked with Ms. Evans and her staff and had nothing but goodness to say about them.
26 I’ve worked and talked to the pastor several times in good rapport, and answers got solved…and
27 problems got solved. I think the project’s better than having commercial there, but I’m concerned about
28 the high density also. So, I’m not really going to vote one way or the other, and I empathize with you
29 having to do it and make the decision. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
31 MR. LANCE STEBAR: My name is Lance Stebar, I’m a resident of the affected area and I live
32 on Stratborough Lane, and I have been activated in this issue as of the last five days because that was the
33 first time that I was informed about it, and this does include mailings. That said, I’ve become…I’ve been
34 soliciting…I’ve been actually just really curious about what the vibe is in the neighborhood, and the
35 only…I’ve collected over fifty-five signatures, and, by the way, we have two children, two little girls that
36 all of a sudden…it’s become a pretty immense part of time. And, out of those fifty plus signatures,
37 there’s only two that have been not even committed to denying, or not wanting to reject this, but not on
38 board to rejecting this. Every signature that I’ve collected has been to vehemently reject this proposal.
39 That said, given what Mr. Barnett said earlier, the only condition that it meets is that of not being a
40 marijuana dispensary. And, for those that do go to the church, for those church members, my heart bleeds
41 for you. I understand that this is a solvency issue; I understand the church is contracting. But, my
44
1 question to you is, is this your legacy that you would like to leave for the church? Is this really your
2 legacy or is this, like, you’re going to find some residents of this community to become constituents of
3 your church? Is that…I mean I’m assuming you’ve prayed about this and it’s a little bit dumbfounding,
4 and this is not a hard sell on the street. People are motivated and this is porous, the terminology is
5 porous. And, it appears to circumvent certain stipulations of what is rezoning law. And, you’re the ones
6 that are going to be responsible for this approval or for this rejection. And, I can say, based on my
7 experience, there is going to be people that are really going to question your motives if this is approved.
8 Thank you very much for your time, thank you for what you do, I appreciate it.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
10 MR. KURT KESSEL: I’m Kurt Kessel, 2812 Middlesborough Court. My property is not
11 adjacent to the church, but it’s one in from the church. I’ve listed to four hours of commentary and, what
12 my remembrance from my previous meeting at the church was, was that the traffic study was conducted
13 on a holiday when school was not in session. I think it’s invalid. So, I think you should hold your
14 decision in abeyance until a proper traffic study gets done, and then let’s reargue this. Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Sir, please go ahead.
16 MR. MARK SPRINGER: My name is Mark Springer, 5950 Nicholas Drive. I, along with my
17 family, are fifth generation natives of Larimer County.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Sir, have you spoke already?
19 MR. SPRINGER: I’ve read a letter from the church.
20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’m sorry, I have to disallow your testimony. I’m sorry.
21 MR. SPRINGER: I apologize.
22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anybody else want to speak to the Board? Anybody else? I’ll give you a
23 couple seconds to think about it. Alright.
24 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CARRIE DAGGETT: Mr. Chair, I recommend that you take a
25 break for a few minutes to allow the applicant a chance to review some of the exhibits that have been
26 submitted, as well as the Board, if the Board would like to take a look at those, and for whatever other
27 reasons you might want a break.
28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Carrie, you were reading my mind. We were going to do a healthy break,
29 but in just one second. I just want to make sure that I officially close out the public testimony. Does
30 anybody else want to speak? Because this is the last opportunity for you as a citizen to address the Board
31 on this matter, whether you’re for or against it. Going once, going twice. Alright, we got a taker. First
32 time that’s happened in a long time. Mam, go ahead.
33 MS. KIM OLSEN: My name is Kim Olsen and I live at 1542 Quail Hollow Drive and I’m a
34 former resident of the Lake Sherwood neighborhood, and my children attend Shepardson Elementary and
35 I can tell you that this will have an impact on their school. The only comment that I would like to say
36 would be directed to the church specifically. I would ask that you would consider changing the name of
45
1 your church from a community church because your community is what is surrounding you, and if you
2 cannot impact the people…positively impact the people to have them attend your church, and instead
3 build up barriers against them, then I think you need to change your outlook and your mission in that
4 aspect. I understand that you feel like you have a mission to reach people, and I think that that would be
5 better served by you doing, as what Mr. Lewis recommended, having shelters, or having…you know,
6 underprivileged senior citizen centers. I oppose this, I think that it is poorly managed, poorly planned, so,
7 thank you for your time.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anybody else? Going once, going twice. Citizen participation is now
9 closed. What we’ll do is, we’re going to be taking a little bit of a break and then we’ll continue with this
10 item. It is now ten minutes after ten. Let me just ask the…real quick, the couple folks that are going to
11 be doing some review. How much time does the applicant need to be able to review some of the material
12 that they’ve had?
13 MS. RIPLEY: We’d like fifteen minutes, and that would allow us enough time to be really
14 thorough and concise.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, Board, how do you feel about that time? Okay, so I’m going to
16 recommend that we reconvene at ten thirty, which is about seventeen minutes from now. Ten thirty.
17 (**Secretary’s note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Welcome back to the July 19th, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
19 We’re currently discussing the Regency Lakeview multi-family addition of a permitted use and PDP.
20 And, at this point, we just concluded the public testimony section of this item, and at this point, we
21 wanted to turn it to the applicant to be able to respond to the testimony that we heard. And, so, is the
22 applicant ready to go ahead and respond? Alright.
23 MS. LUCIA LILEY: Yes, Mr. Chair, we are.
24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: How much time would you like?
25 MS. LILEY: Well, I have just a few brief comments. Linda, how long do we think on the other
26 ones? Okay, and then Matt? Five, maybe twenty max.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
28 MS. LILEY: We’ll try fifteen, we’ll be very quick.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Agreed.
30 MS. LILEY: Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes Street. I wanted to just very briefly address some of
31 the legal issues which had been raised, and then Linda and Matt have some comments related to specific
32 planning and traffic conditions. A comment was made about the applicability of the APU ordinance, and
33 I wanted to talk about that because it’s very important to understand the specific language of the APU.
34 And, what it says is that you can use it, provided that such use is not…and here’s the phrase that’s critical,
35 specifically listed as a prohibited use in the zone district in which the proposed site is located. Not
36 generally stated, but specifically listed as a prohibited use. What that would mean is, in that RL zone, it
46
1 would have to say, multi-family units are specifically not permitted, or prohibited, in that zone district.
2 Now, we have zone districts that do that, that say, in this zone district, here are some specifically listed
3 prohibited uses. That isn’t the case in this RL zone, and that’s why it is an applicable process to be used
4 with this zoning district. Another comment, and I guess I would ask you to obviously have the Deputy
5 City Attorney, Carrie Daggett, address this issue as well. It’s also been talked a little bit about
6 predictability versus flexibility. And, I would suggest to you that those twin items, which are both very
7 critical…the flexibility part of it is embodied in the APU, because we have a very inflexible system and
8 the APU was put in place to provide a modicum of flexibility for decision makers like yourselves to
9 consider. The predictability part of it though, is that there are specific standards that have to be met, and
10 everybody knows going in, neighbors and developer, that you have to meet criteria if you are to be
11 allowed to have an additional permitted use.
12 Another comment was made about an imaginary alternative development, and, you know, why
13 are we talking about that, and the church is there. But, again, if you look at the standards in the APU,
14 that’s what it invites you to do. You take an imaginary plan and you set, if there are other permitted uses
15 and they developed, does this create impacts great than that other development, which could occur as a
16 use-by-right right now. And so what we did is take what is not an unbelievable scenario that the entire
17 site could have been developed as a single-family with a daycare, and if you do, you look at the traffic
18 impacts. And I think there was testimony that in fact the traffic impacts at peak hours are actually less.
19 Linda is going to…less than with a single-family and a daycare. Not, obviously, less than what exists
20 today. Another comment was made about the standard that such use conforms to the basic characteristics
21 of the zone district, and, it can’t because the uses are not the uses in the RL zone. Well, think about that
22 for a minute. This consciously does not say conforms to the basic uses of the zone district, because the
23 very purpose of an APU is to add a use that isn’t permitted. That would make no sense whatsoever.
24 What it’s talking about is aside from the use, what characteristics of this zone district are going to remain
25 in place if you have this specific plan. Now, let’s think about this a minute. A multi-family use is a
26 residential use, it’s not a commercial use. It’s residential like single-family is residential. These residents
27 will come back to this project to live, to go to sleep at night. That’s not different, that doesn’t change the
28 characteristics of this zone. In addition, there are lots of other things that define the characteristics of a
29 zone: setbacks, open space, traffic. Linda is going to detail those a little bit more in terms of how this
30 plan very much preserves and meets the characteristics of the zone district. And, lastly, an item…or a
31 comment was made about this sets a terrible precedent. Well, one of the reasons that you have an APU, is
32 that it’s site specific, it’s development plan specific. It does not set a precedent. What it does is it asks
33 you to look at this specific site, this specific development plan, and based on these circumstances only, to
34 say whether, under these circumstances, it’s appropriate for this APU use to be added. So, it does not set
35 a precedent. And, again, Linda will briefly address why this is sort of a uniquely suited site to have an
36 APU approved. Linda?
37 MS. RIPLEY: Okay. First of all, the uniqueness of this site. It really hinges on the fact that it’s
38 located at the corner of two arterial streets, it’s just across that intersection from a neighborhood shopping
39 center, it’s kitty corner from a major employer in Fort Collins, it meets our City Plan policies of putting
40 multi-family development around and close to a neighborhood center, places of employment, shopping, et
41 cetera. That is the unique circumstance of this situation, we wouldn’t expect you to approve multi-family
42 developments in the middle of an RL zone district somewhere else, but this just cries for it. All of the
43 comments we heard tonight about how terrible the traffic is, what the complications are of getting out,
47
1 making turns, that’s why you want to put multi-family in infill developments like this – to get some of
2 that traffic off our streets. It is, it’s why City Plan…
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Excuse me, I’d like to remind the audience that I would like to moderate
4 this hearing with decorum, civility. Please no longer do any types of jeering or cheering or anything.
5 Thank you, we’ll have a better hearing that way.
6 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you. The characteristics, as Lucia said, it’s a residential project. There’ll
7 be landscaping, there’ll be trees, there’ll be larger setbacks, there’ll be more open space, there’ll be
8 pedestrian systems, architecture. All those things are characteristics of the RL zone; they’re also
9 characteristics of this project. Someone mentioned views. First of all, views aren’t protected here in Fort
10 Collins, unless it’s a specific view from a public space. But, the existing neighborhood does, they have a
11 great view of a whole lot of green open space that the church has to maintain. I wanted to…these are
12 Ted’s slides, but I wanted to point out the number of trees that are all along the east side and going down
13 to the south, that many of those trees are going to…are mature, are big, they are going to buffer, to some
14 extent, this project from that existing neighborhood.
15 Noise, someone mentioned that there’s…that this is going to add noise to their neighborhood. I
16 would say that, if noise is an adverse impact, a multi-family…this multi-family project, being well
17 managed and being located further away from the single-family homes is going to be…noise is going to
18 be less of a concern than if single-family homes were developed adjacent, because the single-family
19 homes could have barking dogs, they could be rented to students who have loud parties and the police
20 have to be called. I live downtown in a neighborhood where this happens all the time. And, if you have a
21 well-managed apartment complex, it’s much less likely. This project promises twenty-four hour on-call
22 service. So, if there’s a complaint, there’s someone to call that will come and deal with an issue. You’re
23 not going to have that with single-family houses if it were developed that way.
24 My last thing is, someone mentioned glare of headlights. And, where we have driveways that
25 point to adjacent neighborhood yards, we have planted evergreen trees there, and they’re not going to do
26 much when they’re initially planted, I agree. But, we…there will also be shrubs and other plants there.
27 But, we’re absolutely willing to place a fence there. We don’t want any headlights glaring into anybody’s
28 backyards. That was one of the reasons why Lisa wanted to meet with each one of those individuals,
29 because they could pick what gets planted there, they could decide to have a fence or not have a fence,
30 and, all of that is negotiable. We want to have a good interface with the people that abut this property.
31 So, I’m going to let Matt Delich now address some of the traffic issues that were brought up.
32 MR. MATT DELICH: Good evening, Matt Delich, Delich Associates. We prepared the traffic
33 impact study, and let me talk a little bit about some of the things that I heard. First of all, the comparative
34 analysis that was, that Linda referred to, and others referred to…I was the one that prepared the trip
35 generation comparison of this site with the church and the apartment complex as opposed to, or versus the
36 single-family layout with the daycare. And, it was done in accordance with City standards. We used the
37 same trip generation references that we…that the City requires us to use. And, the fact of the matter is,
38 the single-family layout with the daycare generates more peak hour trips than this facility, the apartment
39 complex, would generate. And, that’s a fact.
48
1 I want to talk a little bit about some of the comments by Mr. Roschke. In the traffic study, we
2 talked about the fact that under the pedestrian level of service criteria, that some criteria could not be met.
3 On site, all of the criteria would be met, but off site, since this is an older area of Fort Collins, standard
4 streets and sidewalks and so on were built under previous standards, not the Larimer County Urban Area
5 Street Standards. The fact of the matter is you can’t meet them. For example, for street crossing, you
6 can’t meet that criteria because you’re crossing essentially on Lemay and Drake, five lanes of traffic, and
7 the standard says you have to put a median in the middle as a refuge for pedestrians. Well, the fact of the
8 matter is, and you can ask City staff, I don’t think the City wants to put a median in Drake and Lemay, at
9 that intersection. So, we can’t meet the standard. No one can, and that’s just the fact of life. The other is,
10 you talked a little bit about bicycle level of service. The criteria for pedestrians and bicycle are different,
11 and we meet the bicycle level of service for this project.
12 We were asked to do a delay analysis because in the various neighborhood meetings, neighbors
13 often said that they had to wait five or more minutes to enter Drake Road. And, it was specific to Drake
14 Road, no one along Lemay seemed to complain until I heard that tonight. Anyway, we did the analysis
15 on Drake Road, and the analysis we did reflects our observation. There was a party who was sitting at the
16 stop sign controlled intersection on the north leg of Brookwood who just flat refused…refused maybe is a
17 little strong word, but was reluctant to enter the traffic stream, and it delayed people quite a bit. As a
18 professional traffic engineer, I’m trained to observe these things and offer opinion. And, in our
19 observation, there were numerous times when there were adequate gaps in the traffic that a vehicle could
20 have entered, and the person chose not to. That happens, it happens all over the city. There’s nothing we
21 can do about it. Quite frankly, it doesn’t happen every day, it happened on the day we observed. You
22 know, if we’d have picked another day, it may not have happened. But, it happened that day and we
23 reported it. Quite honestly, we reported it. But, we also drew our conclusion that they could’ve entered
24 the traffic stream in our judgment. Level of service is, by nature, average delay per approach vehicle.
25 We don’t take the highest delay; we don’t take the lowest delay. The criteria in all the traffic manuals,
26 and as we are required to do by the City of Fort Collins, it’s average delay for level of service.
27 The City has traffic evaluation criteria, and, quite frankly, all of the key intersections that we
28 analyzed, and there were seven of them, meet the operational criteria of the City in our analysis. And,
29 that’s, again, that’s a fact, that’s the way it is. And then, lastly, and I’d be available for questions or
30 additional information if you have any. A statement was made that the traffic study was done on a
31 holiday. That’s categorically false; we did the traffic counts in early March. Both CSU and Poudre
32 School District was in full session. So, the counts were done at an appropriate time. So, with that, again,
33 available for questions or further information later. Thank you.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
35 MS. EVANS: Hello again, and I also want to say thank you for your time this evening. I really
36 do appreciate it. I would like to touch on a couple of things that I can address specifically. One of the
37 things I would like to point out, there are twenty-eight rental communities in Fort Collins, in the city
38 proper, that are not student, restricted income, senior. Of those twenty-eight communities, only three
39 were constructed in the last thirteen years. Today’s community is built at a much higher level of quality.
40 The building standards, the building codes, the energy codes, everything has been increased. Today, we
41 do not make an investment like this to let it run into the ground in five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. But, a
49
1 community that was built thirty years ago, that could be the case. The average age of those twenty-eight
2 communities, is 1986. So, this is, you know, I totally understand why the neighbors feel that…that’s
3 what they see around them as the majority, which is not what we stand for.
4 There was a question of property values, and that Regency Lakeview would bring those down. I
5 can’t say that I am a scientific researcher, but I did go on the Larimer County tax assessor web site. I
6 looked at several different apartment communities and I looked at what happened to the house, in sale
7 transactions, right around those communities, prior to the community being constructed and then after it
8 was constructed. And, in my sampling, I could not find evidence of what was stated here tonight, a
9 twenty percent drop in value. I couldn’t find evidence of any drop in value.
10 Noise, we have quiet hours. That’s part of the lease. If you live there, you agree that from ten
11 PM to eight AM, there is no disturbance. We have a twenty-four hour live person response. In the event
12 of an emergency, someone must respond within an hour, and a noise issue is definitely an emergency.
13 We specifically positioned the clubhouse area to be as far away from the adjoining residence. So, that
14 wouldn’t actually be an area, if there would be noise, extra nose, that’s probably where it would be, but
15 that area is then buffered by residential buildings to protect sound from going to the neighborhood. But,
16 that aside, we have strict noise policies, everyone signs to that, and we take that very seriously. People
17 move out because of noise, and that doesn’t help me create a good resident experience. The number one
18 reason, I think, that I’ll leave you with. The number one reason most people do move out of a rental
19 situation, is they do ultimately desire to buy. Now, I’ve rented for years myself. I’ve been in this
20 business for…I color my hair a lot, almost twenty-eight years. And, you know, when I rented, where did
21 I want to buy, it was someplace close to where I rented, because I had fallen in love with that immediate
22 area. You don’t want to rent at Regency Lakeview and then decide, oh, I’m going to buy in Westminster.
23 That’s not the process, if you rent here, and you’re riding your bike downtown, and you enjoy the
24 convenience to downtown, you want to then, ultimately, if you can, buy in this immediate neighborhood.
25 I think that was really all I wanted to say, so thank you very much.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, anybody else from the applicant team? Okay, thank you.
27 Let’s turn it to the staff response to the public testimony and also the applicant response. I know that
28 we’ll probably have, as the Board wishes, ask questions of staff, kind of direct it that way. But, why
29 don’t you guys lead off and hit on some of the issues that you heard from the applicant and the public
30 testimony, please.
31 MR. SHEPARD: Thank you Mr. Chair, we don’t have a lot of specific responses. But, we would
32 like to, I think, talk just a little bit about Section 1.3.4(A)(3), which was an issue that was raised tonight
33 about the adverse impacts. And, the issue was raised, particularly with traffic, and that the analysis
34 wasn’t done in terms of evaluating other comparable uses in the zone district that would, than the amount
35 normally resulting from other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. That’s how
36 the standard reads. And, we have done some of that analysis. And one of the things that Ward is
37 preparing to inform you of, is some of the number crunching that we’ve done with particular regard to
38 some of…for example, a community facility is an approved use in the RL, and Ward may have done
39 some trip generation analysis for some typical community facilities, and then compare that to, perhaps,
40 the RL zone, per se. So, Ward, does that give you enough time to…
50
1 MR. WARD STANFORD: Yes, good evening Board. Ward Stanford, City of Fort Collins
2 Traffic Operations. Looking at the aspect, we…I went to look at trip generation, one of our basic figures
3 that we use to look at what a development may generate, or what a proposal may generate. This
4 development is proposed to generate eleven hundred and eighty trips a day, about eighty-nine of those in
5 the morning, coming and going, and about a hundred and fifteen of those in the afternoon, coming and
6 going. We looked at some of the trip generation rates for other uses that would be considered applicable
7 under that APU code. The first group I’ll start with was schools. I didn’t go to big elementarys and such
8 like that, because…pretty well assuming they will meet it because they are physically larger facilities.
9 But, went to things such as charter schools which go into unique locations, are smaller in physical size,
10 square footage. So, with that, we had one recently come through the process called Mountain Sage
11 Charter. Unfortunately, they did not continue, but their daily, or their hourly entering rate as compared to
12 this project, would have been two hundred and twenty-five entering in the morning, versus eighty-nine of
13 this development, versus a hundred and eighty-five exiting, also in the morning. I don’t have a twenty-
14 four hour volume count for that type of facility, but, basically, the rush hour trip generation is
15 significantly higher than this apartment proposal. T.R. Paul Charter Academy over off of McMurray and
16 Harmony, another example. They were…in fact let me go back. That previous one was a, was based on
17 about four hundred and fifty students they thought they would serve. The T.R. Paul, I didn’t have
18 students, but I have square footage of their building, it a forty-seven thousand square foot facility, K
19 through eight grades. Again, I don’t have twenty-four hour volumes under this category, but their
20 morning entering rate is about three hundred and three trips, their exiting morning is about two hundred
21 and forty-eight…so for a total of about five hundred trips in the morning, again, versus about ninety for
22 this apartment expectation. T.R. Paul had two different buildings and I don’t know exactly how their
23 breakdown was, but I went ahead and did analysis of the two buildings instead of as a compilation. And,
24 so, as the smaller building…nineteen thousand square feet, again, they were about two hundred trips in
25 the morning. And then as the larger building, second building, they had about three hundred and thirty
26 trips.
27 Looking at a different use, recreational community centers, which apparently, as the Code says, is
28 an allowed use.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Ward, excuse me, one moment, Brigitte has a question.
30 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: I just want to ask, how is the trip generated determined for this
31 apartment complex? To me, the eighty-nine in the morning just seems awfully low, if you have a hundred
32 and seventy-nine units.
33 MR. STANFORD: Well, the trip generation is derived from national studies, and these are studies
34 where real people have gone to the various uses, like say apartment buildings, whether larger, smaller,
35 greater numbers, smaller numbers, runs the gamut, and they have physically stood out there and counted
36 the traffic that comes and goes throughout the day and contrasted that to the amount of units. All of that
37 is brought and then derived…mathematical equations are created to match that real data. And from that,
38 we use those…that information to either use…for apartments it could be either number of people,
39 sometimes related to number of bedrooms, or number of units on the facility. Each of those breakdowns
40 have a quantity of trips per hour assigned, and that’s how we derive these figures here. Now, granted,
41 they do eleven hundred and eighty-four is expected in twenty-four hours, but through those on-street
51
1 studies, they recognize that only a proportion of that traffic actually leaves during the rush hour. And, so
2 that is where the mathematics comes in, to try and derive to what they saw and recorded on the street,
3 create math that makes…that agrees with that, and we use that data to analyze the other, similar type
4 projects.
5 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay, and peak hour is just a one hour period of time?
6 MR. STANFORD: It can be one hour in some communities, or two hours in some communities,
7 and in some analysis…uses one or the other, but they derive down to the same thing.
8 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you.
9 MR. STANFORD: And, with that, such as the recreational facilities, these are such like the
10 Atzlan Center, or the Epic Center, and the Senior Center…pulled one for each of them. These didn’t have
11 as high in general, an hourly rush hour count, but they had a much higher, or they had an equivalent or
12 higher twenty-four hour volume. And, so, again, a different contrast to the type of use that’s available, or
13 allowed, and how their uses would be, such as Epic, which is a very large facility at a hundred thousand
14 square feet. Two hundred and twenty-eight….twenty-two hundred and eighty trips a day. Again, about a
15 hundred and sixty entering and exit in the morning, which is still quite comparable to this apartment
16 complex. Atzlan, a good bit smaller at forty-eight thousand square feet, generates about a hundred and
17 twenty thousand trips a day, which is somewhat equivalent to this. Senior Center, about twelve hundred
18 and fifty trips a day. And, the last was government building uses that we looked at. Again, those are kind
19 of stand-alone, not complexes. City Hall, estimated at forty thousand square feet, twenty-seven hundred
20 trips a day, two hundred and thirty-five in the morning rush hour. The old police department, nearby City
21 Hall, twelve hundred trips a day, a hundred and two in the morning. And, 281 North College, the
22 engineering building, about seventeen, eighteen hundred in the morning, a hundred and fifty in the AM.
23 215 North Mason, about fifteen hundred trips. So, just looking at trip generation of what is viewed as
24 acceptable uses, at least according to the interpretations, contrasted to this project, looks like its…traffic
25 wise, can fit…fit within what is allowed.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anybody else have questions for Ward?
27 MR. STANFORD: I can, at this point, I picked that up from Ted’s part of the APU study, but if
28 you want me to address some of the comments, just state about traffic in general now or…
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, please do. John, did you have a question for Ward?
30 BOARDMEMBER JOHN HATFIELD: Yeah, I have a question. There was a question raised by
31 one of the opponents to this about the public good. They disagreed with staff’s evaluation that the public
32 good is not being served here. And, I’m wondering, I guess, we’ve got to define who’s the public here.
33 Are the proponents or the opponents? And, so, I just want to know, I guess what do you have to say
34 about that?
35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Ted, do you want to take that?
36 MR. SHEPARD: We looked at that very carefully and consider it to be a very important criteria
37 in the analysis. And, that was the motivation for taking a look at how this community has developed over
52
1 the decades. And, beginning with our initial growth spurt in the mid-60’s, and you know, I consider
2 decade by decade between like ’65 to ’75, ’75 to ’85, because that’s how our square mile sections
3 developed from Mulberry on down to Fossil Creek. And, each decade, there has been a consistent pattern
4 of mixed-use development in our community, per our polices, under at least three different zoning
5 systems, and three master plans, that we have multi-family dwellings in close proximity to single-family
6 detached neighborhoods. We’ve never not had that. And it would be, I think, difficult for staff to say
7 that, in this case, a pattern that has been consistently manifested on the ground, would not be considered a
8 detriment to the public good.
9 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: So, basically, you’re basing this on other areas historically,
10 and…I don’t know, I was kind of just thinking of the people that lived within maybe a mile of the
11 proposed thing here as being the public that is basically affected by it.
12 MR. SHEPARD: Within a mile radius of this intersection, there are several multi-family
13 dwellings, built at different eras, built at different times, but in close proximity to single-family detached
14 neighborhoods.
15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks. John, do you want me to follow up on that one? Ward, anybody
16 have questions for Ward on traffic? Okay, Ward, go ahead. I think you were going to…we interrupted
17 you, so I apologize. But, I think this late, we might do a little more interrupting, because I think when we
18 get tired, that thought comes in our mind for a second and before it flies out to nighty-night land, we’ll
19 probably ask it, so if you’ll bear with us please.
20 MR. STANFORD: Feel free to, because I can talk traffic. I listened to the various discussions
21 from the public, and kind of boiled them down to three areas, one of them access difficulty, traffic
22 increase in general, and the left turns and the reversible left turn lanes. I’m going to start with the traffic
23 increase and…in the aspect of expediency, I’ll blaze through pretty good. Basically, the increase in
24 traffic out here, in my opinion, will be almost not discernible in the area of traffic. It’s looking to add
25 ninety vehicles in the morning to Drake and Lemay as a combination. If you look at that over that hour,
26 that’s about one and a half cars a minute, both streets. If you want to boil that all the way down to the last
27 fifteen minutes if I’m late for work, that’s about six cars an hour, for both streets. You’re just not going
28 to see that in the background traffic. The study predicts fourteen vehicles added to eastbound Drake in
29 the AM and less in the PM, and this was somewhat along the line of the traffic that will head east, that
30 may impact Dorado Court and Brookwood, and some of those other streets, between it and Timberline.
31 Again, only fourteen cars, roughly, are expected to go that way in an hour. Again, just not discernible.
32 And, in the evening for southbound Lemay, between the access points to the church, and south, let’s just
33 say, basically take into consideration Centennial, the study also predicts roughly fourteen vehicles added
34 to that southbound movement in the AM and roughly eight in the PM. Again, it’s just not something
35 you’ll see on the background roadway traffic.
36 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Ward, if I could interrupt? You know, one of the neighbors
37 commented that he felt that that might cause some increased traffic driving through the neighborhoods.
38 Now, do you see that happening? And, then, if you’re changing the number of cars driving through the
39 local neighborhood streets, that might be a little different.
53
1 MR. STANFORD: You know, I was looking at that on Google maps while we were talking, just
2 trying to get a layout of the area, how Centennial plays in there and Brookwood. I used to live at those
3 apartments in Brookwood for a little while while we were building a house. And, looking at the entering
4 or exiting to go to work, to come home from work, might those streets pick up a car or two? Yeah, sure,
5 it’s possible. I’ll never say it’s not possible, but I can’t find high validity to what value they would bring
6 to cut through. Whether coming from Prospect, or coming off of Horsetooth, or coming westbound say
7 on Drake to Park Lane, I think it was…Centennial and around and up and back north, and so on and so
8 forth. Might it happen? I’m sure it might, but frequent and regular, or consistent, no, I can’t see it.
9 The left turns on Lemay, and this was in regards to Strachen. The east-west modus will, could
10 very well try and occupy the same space at some times in that reversible left out there. The lanes are
11 slightly opposed to each other and across, probably much like they may experience with the church on
12 Sundays, people using that. The development has done efforts to try and move the traffic to the north
13 access, which we applaud. And, the south access is expected much lower quantities of traffic. We also
14 don’t have an existing accident history there for that characteristic. So, I’m assuming that the motorists
15 are pretty cognitive of it, and will continue to be able to drive adequately to use it appropriately. At this
16 point, we don’t have a concern with that characteristic. Will it possibly cause a little delay to somebody
17 exiting when they’re trying to consider what the other person may be doing? Yes, they certainly can. Is it
18 going to be a common, frequent activity? We don’t believe so. If it does become something of an
19 accident quantity, it’s also an aspect that we have a responsibility to address, and at that time, that we will
20 do so.
21 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Ward, can I ask a quick question on that? Was the TIS
22 done after the developer decided to try to close of that south access and push everything out onto Drake?
23 MR. STANFORD: Did you say was the study done after that? You know, I don’t know. I don’t
24 know when they actually closed off, or made that curvature on the south access point. So, I couldn’t
25 answer that. If it came before, then it’s already low, and supposedly lower. If it came after, the volume
26 of traffic is, what I would consider, fairly reasonable for that.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Kristin, do you want to get Matt to answer that real quick…
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yeah, if you don’t mind that.
29 MR. DELICH: Matt Delich again. As I stated, we did the counts in March, and the actual TIS
30 was done after we do the counts of course. And, I don’t know when it was…
31 (**Inaudible discussion occurred at this point.)
32 MR. DELICH: Ted’s going to get a date here, but let me tell you this, that when we did the
33 assignment, it’s obvious if you look at the site plan, that the main church access to Lemay is going to be
34 the most popular way to get to Lemay, and there’s only one access to Drake. And, those are the ones that
35 are going to have most of the traffic. And, that’s what our assignment reflected. And, Ted’s going to
36 give you a date here, okay?
37 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Perfect, thank you.
54
1 MR. SHEPARD: The second at-large neighborhood meeting, actually the third neighborhood
2 meeting, February 9th.
3 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, Ward.
5 MR. STANFORD: Let’s see, in…the north access to the church on Lemay, or…which will be
6 their access also, we don’t see it as being an exit or entrance problem, basically, just to the geometric
7 layout, the left turns don’t conflict with each other. Certainly they’ll be crossing the lanes of traffic and
8 using the reversible area, but, again, they’re a typical access point, and they’re not sharing the same space.
9 And, we do expect…it was at my direction, the…basically, the distribution of traffic. And, we expect that
10 most of the traffic that’s going towards Lemay from the side, or using Lemay from the side, will either be
11 going north towards the higher business area, or to the west to the, also the higher business area. And, so,
12 with that, the right turn out there is the higher movement anyway than the left turn.
13 Lastly, the reversible lefts. Somewhat unsaid that they’re inherently unsafe, but that’s…they are
14 not inherently unsafe. They’ve been in use for many, many years. People are quite familiar with them,
15 they are highly visible; if two cars are in there at the same time, they work it out. There’s no studies I’m
16 aware of that show an inherent unsafe condition, or any high unusual accident rate in them. So, we like
17 them, they work very well. They do the job and they allow for a lot of flexibility, whereas medianed hard
18 left turns really can be problematic. I guess one aspect...I think it was stated that the…you know, when
19 people enter them, it can spook the adjacent traffic; and, we don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing, from
20 the standpoint it raises the motorists’ caution. Just like, kind of an example, all these new flashing yellow
21 arrows we’re using; a lot of people have said, well, I get confused, I don’t know what they do, I don’t
22 know what I’m supposed to do with them, so they get cautious. Well, that’s not a bad thing on a
23 roadway. We’d much rather have people getting cautious than people getting irreverent. I think I’ve
24 about covered that.
25 As far as the input from the applicant, just to gently touch on the delay study that was conducted.
26 I think it’s a good study and a reasonable study. Yes, typically we do throw out the highs and lows
27 because they unrealistically skew data. We’re trying to find what is the common, consistent aspects that
28 go on out there. With that…when we do a traffic count, we don’t do it on a Monday, or a Saturday, or a
29 Sunday, or a Friday. We do it only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays because that’s consistent
30 traffic behavior. Mondays, people are coming back from trips and they’re going to work late or early.
31 Friday is the same thing, leaving early. And, so they’re not typical, consistent days, so we try not to use
32 those things that’ll bias good data, and I see the delay study much the very same way. And, that’s what I
33 have.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Kristin, go ahead.
35 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Just to confirm, where there are no plans to put medians on
36 Lemay are there?
37 MR. STANFORD: None that I’m aware of. I think it would be difficult just to find the room to
38 do it with the current build-out characteristic.
55
1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, anybody else have questions of staff right now? Okay, I mean
2 really specifically, any questions…Ward, traffic? Alright, general questions of staff or the applicant? Go
3 ahead, Brigitte.
4 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: I have a few little tree questions, not the forest ones. I’m just
5 wondering, are these going to have internal stairwells, or…because I presume there’s apartments on every
6 level, so they’ll be going in one door of the apartment building and their stairs will be inside if they have a
7 third floor apartment?
8 MS. EVANS: Yes, that’s correct. You would enter into the building. Now, the exception is,
9 actually the units that we showed along the street-like private drive. Because there we really wanted to
10 interact and engage with that sidewalk and the pedestrian, so those units actually have a true front door
11 and then, if you will, sort of a back door. So, they will be able to come in from that street front. So, we
12 actually positioned some diagonal parking as well, so that you could, you know, pull in and bring your
13 groceries in or, you know.
14 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: And the other question I had was…you mentioned there
15 wouldn’t be, you know, any air conditioning or heating units on the roofs and stuff, so, if they…will each
16 apartment have an individual air conditioning unit, or…?
17 MS. EVANS: Yes, and so we position those on the ground level and there are certain areas that
18 you can’t pipe. I don’t even know if you could maybe see in your packet, but we’ve identified on the
19 footprint of the buildings where those would be. And those are screened either with some, you know,
20 hard material or landscaping, so they are not visible to the residents or to somebody, you know, walking
21 through the community.
22 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: And, I noticed on the one diagram we have there was some
23 lighting down by the park area, and that’s going to be removed at the request of the residents?
24 MS. EVANS: Yes, when I met with Mr. Vanderwilt and Mr. Holmes, there was a light that was
25 on that east side by their two properties, so we’ve removed that. And, then also when I met…or, I
26 shouldn’t say, I didn’t meet with, but I had a very, you know, good conversation with Mr. Roschke, and
27 so then there was a light more where the existing sort of city flow sidewalk comes in, and that has been
28 removed.
29 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay. Alright, that’s all the questions I have, thank you.
30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Jennifer?
31 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: It may be on here and I just am not finding it, but where…are
32 you having a central trash area? How are you handling that?
33 MS. EVANS: Not a single central, there are actually four trash areas that are screened.
34 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Oh, okay, I see them now, okay, great, thank you.
35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anybody else have a question for the applicant?
56
1 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: And my understanding was that trash was going to be picked up
2 then during daytime hours.
3 MS. EVANS: Yes, yes, the trash collection. And then what we’ve been doing in our
4 communities…there’s a pick-up service so that outside the door of everyone’s home, there’s actually a
5 receptacle. So then the service comes and collects those five days a week, and then makes sure that that is
6 then deposited into the dumpster locations correctly so that things aren’t overflowing, there’s not a mess.
7 You know, and it’s just, again, I think as more and more people are renting for choice, they really desire a
8 higher level of service, and that’s what we need to provide.
9 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: So, will there be recycling along with the trash?
10 MS. EVANS: Yes, yes.
11 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: If you did the community gardens, where is that planned on
12 the site?
13 MS. EVANS: Well, the thought was…we have tried it at certain communities, and it really
14 depends on who happens to be, you know, naturally living there at the time. But, the park area will really
15 be a passive park, so, is it possible that we could, you know, position an area, you know, and have that be
16 a community garden, or maybe like an herb garden, something. Probably start a little easier, something
17 that, you know…but it really depends if we have those enthusiasts.
18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Alright, oh, wait, wait,
19 sorry.
20 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I had one more, and this…I’m not sure who would answer
21 this, but what is the average height of the trees that you’re planting, when they’re planted along that area
22 to the east of the property.
23 MS. EVANS: I guess I may have Linda respond to trees, I can only speak calipers.
24 MS. RIPLEY: Well, the City requires that a deciduous tree, canopy tree, is a two inch caliper.
25 And, typically, those are about ten feet tall. They’re not very wide when they’re first planted. And then
26 an ornamental tree is an inch and a half caliper I believe, and evergreen trees have to be six feet.
27 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, well I guess…
28 MS. RIPLEY: And we haven’t done a specific planting plan where all of that is detailed yet, that
29 will come at final. So, we haven’t actually had the discussion with Lisa as to whether she would upsize
30 any of them or not, but that’s what would be required.
31 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Okay, but along…I guess what I’m thinking about is the
32 lights. When they’re planted, are they going to be sufficient to kind of mitigate the lights when people
33 drive in, or?
34 MS. RIPLEY: Oh, well, the only place where we really have a situation where headlights might
35 create glare for a neighboring property owner, we can do whatever there, and you can decide, or those
57
1 neighbors can decide. We’ll put up a fence so, day one, those lights are shielded. That would solve the
2 problem immediately. If somebody doesn’t want a fence, we can…it can be a combination of evergreen
3 trees and shrubs and that’ll do a pretty good job, even initially.
4 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Initially? Okay, thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions of the applicant? Alright, we may call you back. I’ve
6 got a few questions for staff. I wanted to talk about the RL zone district and get to the root of some of the
7 characteristics of it, and so…it seems to me that it’s one of the…its description is one of the most vague
8 and brief in the Land Use Code. Could you tell us why that is?
9 MR. SHEPARD: When the City Plan was being contemplated and reviewed and adopted, there
10 was a desire to come up with a new zoning system, and new zone districts. And, one of the first tasks was
11 to assign a fundamental purpose to a zone district. And, as you know, we have a lot of new City Plan
12 zones, and so a lot of time was devoted to craft a purpose statement for all the new City Plan zones, such
13 as LMN, MMN, et cetera. RL is not a City Plan zone. Interestingly enough, NCL, NCM, and NCB are
14 not City Plan zones either, they were adopted in 1991. Specific to your question, I don’t exactly know, I
15 don’t recall why the purpose statement for the RL zone is written specifically the way it is, because it was
16 written some time ago and I don’t specifically recall.
17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: It seems kind of…I thought it was kind of striking that a big component
18 of its purpose is that, and I’m not sure if this is mentioned in any other zone district, is that it speaks very
19 specifically, in just one sentence, to existing conditions at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code.
20 And, so, I mean is it safe to say that this was kind of a, you know, hey, we have existing conditions, let’s
21 leave, you know, big blocks of the city alone to be able to zone them accordingly?
22 MR. SHEPARD: There was, at one time, I think in 1996, fall, winter, before spring of 1997, there
23 was some thought of putting all of the existing neighborhoods into a City Plan zone, and the idea was
24 taken to the City Plan Advisory Committee, it was taken to the Planning and Zoning Board at
25 worksessions, and it was kicked around by staff, and it was decided not to do that. But, it was a thought
26 process, it was evaluated, and the conclusion was that the logical zone district that they would have been
27 put in would have been LMN, but at that time, we were advancing in our New Urbanism, and every zone
28 district, every new zone district, was specifically calibrated to be much more mixed use than the previous
29 zoning system. Well, the previous zoning system is hard to compare it to because underlying zoning
30 didn’t have as much of import because of the PUD system. Not sure I’m getting to the thrust of your
31 question, but the decision was made prior to formal adoption of City Plan and the Land Use Code, that the
32 existing neighborhoods would not be placed into a City Plan zone such as LMN or MMN, and that they
33 would remain, primarily because the new zones had a greater diversity of permitted uses.
34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Along those lines, I mean, there’s no zone district in the Land
35 Use Code that is residential, purely residential only. Is that true?
36 MR. SHEPARD: All zones are designed to be mixed use to a degree, some more than others.
37 But, even under the Land Use Policies Plan, on which the Guidance System was based, and City Plan on
38 which the Land Use Code is based, speaks to a mix of uses, primarily to support trip reduction, air
39 quality, reduce vehicle miles travelled, and to offer a socio-economic mix throughout the entire
58
1 community so that certain housing types and certain residents of certain incomes aren’t found to be in
2 pockets, or certain sections of the city. That there’s opportunities for all kinds of housing throughout the
3 entire city; that’s been a fundamental tenant since the Land Use Policies Plan of 1979, and it’s been
4 carried through.
5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And, I mean, to kind of bookend this a little bit, even the most…the least
6 dense residential district, which I believe to be Urban Estates, the UE district, what kind of non-
7 residential uses are allowed in the UE?
8 MR. SHEPARD: In the Urban Estate, under Institutional and Civic Public Uses, you can do
9 neighborhood parks, you can do shelters for victims of domestic violence, you can do single-family, you
10 can do duplexes, you can do single-family attached, group homes, you can do minor public facilities,
11 which are unmanned utility type infrastructure, cemeteries, residential cluster plans, that’s Urban Estate
12 that’s clustered, public and private schools for elementary, intermediate, and high school education,
13 places of worship or assembly, golf courses, wildlife rescue and education centers, childcare centers, bed
14 and breakfast, but no more than six beds, plant nurseries and greenhouses, animal boarding, adult
15 day/respite care centers, small scale reception centers, but, as you know, those have specific design
16 standards, resource extraction, processes and sales, composting facilities, accessory buildings containing
17 more than twenty-five hundred square feet of floor area, and you can do wireless telecommunications
18 equipment as long as it’s co-located on a building or an existing structure.
19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: So, a church could be in the UE, and if a church had a big enough piece of
20 dirt, they could do a campus that would have multiple buildings, multiple uses that are complimentary,
21 including a school, even in the UE?
22 MR. SHEPARD: That’s correct.
23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. The last question I’m going to ask, I think, for now, which
24 zone districts specifically allow some form of multi-family? Is RL the only one that does not? And then,
25 I mean, along those lines, you know, is it ever specifically called out as being a prohibited use by any
26 zone district?
27 MR. SHEPARD: Two questions there. The zone districts that specifically do not list multi-family
28 as a permitted use would be the Rural Lands District; that’s a very interesting zone because there’s no
29 land in it yet, it’s a holding zone for future fringe areas, Urban Estate, and there’s another obscure zone
30 that we don’t have a lot of activity in, called Residential Foothills District, known as the RF. Let me
31 doublecheck that, yes, that’s correct, multi-family is not specifically listed. And, the Urban Estate, as we
32 mentioned, and the RL. After that, we get into the LMN, we get into MMN, and then we get into the
33 three zone districts that were adopted prior to, the NCL, NCM, and NCB, and they allow duplexes and
34 four-plexes and multi-family, kind of a gradation. And, the second part of your question is, none of those
35 zone districts have that language where there is a specific list of prohibited uses.
36 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, thank you.
37 MR. SHEPARD: And that information is on the Land Use matrix, which I cannot read.
38 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You can’t read that?
59
1 MR. SHEPARD: So, I did it the long way.
2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, I appreciate that, I wouldn’t have been able to read that either. Any
3 other questions of staff at this point? Gino stepped out and I know he’s got a bunch, so when he comes
4 back we’re going to have a bunch of questions. Go ahead Jennifer.
5 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’d like Carrie, if possible, to weigh in on the prohibited use
6 question, give us some guidance.
7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DAGGETT: Yeah, I actually agree with Ms. Liley’s description of
8 how the language of 1.3.4 applies to that issue. In fact, there is a zone district that specifically lists
9 prohibited uses. The other zone districts…which is the Industrial zone. The other zone districts have
10 general language that basically says, if it’s not permitted, it’s prohibited. However, if that’s all it would
11 take in order to have the addition of a permitted use be out of the question, then you wouldn’t need the
12 Addition of Permitted Use process because nothing would qualify.
13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, any other questions. When Gino gets back, if he has some
14 questions, we may get into some more questions, but I think let’s move into some deliberation if that’s
15 alright. I don’t know if anybody has any comments to start it off with. I do want to, just real quick, say
16 that I’m grateful for this process and that everybody that’s stuck it out to be almost tomorrow morning, is
17 still here, and willing to listen and participate. It’s been a good process, thank you, and we’ll hopefully be
18 wrapped up here shortly. Gino, do you have any questions of staff or the applicant? Alright, well, we’re
19 moving into some deliberation now, so anybody that wants to lead off, let’s go ahead.
20 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: I guess I’ll make a few comments. I was on the Board when the
21 church came for the rezone several years ago, and I think at that time, I supported, actually, the rezoning.
22 I thought the higher density housing was appropriate in this area because of the two arterials, the City’s
23 commitment to the infill. The members of the Board, I’ll speak for some of them that aren’t here
24 anymore, I think had a concern that if you just rezone, it makes things more unpredictable for the
25 neighborhood, and you could get commercial, you could get different things. And, so, our direction to the
26 church at the time was, we’d like to see a specific project and then the neighbors could weigh in and see
27 how compatible that is. So, I think the church has taken that direction and tried to move forward with
28 something to actually present and use the Addition of a Permitted Use process to do that. I mean, it could
29 also have come in and say, here’s the project, we’d like to rezone MMN, and who knows how that
30 would’ve gone too. I see them as pretty similar, because if we’re allowing that use, that’s what you’re
31 going to get on the piece of property. Having said all that, I did drive around looking…in the heat,
32 looking at multi-family neighborhoods, and I think a lot of them were separated with roads, but there
33 were a few, especially the Fox Meadows one on Timberline and…I think it’s Timberline and Horsetooth,
34 and I parked in their parking lot, and walked around the backs…I couldn’t go in people’s backyards to see
35 how close the houses were to the backyards. And, those apartments are very close, I mean those
36 apartments are right at the twenty-five feet separation. I was just amazed though at how well-kept and
37 beautiful and quiet, and there were flowers on all the balconies. So, even if…a lot of the people had
38 fences and had very mature trees, but I would have minded looking out onto that, because they were
39 really doing a good job of being good neighbors. They had a path there for people could walk their dogs.
40 The one thing that certainly bothered me was listening to all the air conditioners run, because there were a
41 lot of them, and that was pretty noisy. But, this plan offers a lot more buffering, I think, to the
60
1 neighborhood. You have the garages there, the apartments aren’t going to be near as close, and you do
2 have the same benefit of having the trees…the mature trees that the neighbors already have. So I can see
3 that in all the design work that they’ve put into this project, they’ve tried to make it as compatible as
4 possible to the neighborhood, and have the least impact on the surrounding neighbors, and I really
5 appreciate that.
6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? Jennifer?
7 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I guess when I look at this, I…on the question of whether this
8 is detrimental to the public good, I just cannot see that it is. It’s city-wide, it fits City Plan, it is what we
9 wanted to do with City Plan, so I really can’t see that it is detrimental to the public good. I agree with
10 Brigitte that there has been a lot of really good work done on this, and we some that there hasn’t been,
11 and this is…I like seeing this, that the buffering that is there, that they have worked with the neighbors to
12 bring down the density and the number of people in this area. At the same time, I do understand the
13 neighbors being afraid of this change, and being worried about it. I don’t think, and we’ve seen it happen
14 in a lot of different places in the city, and I really don’t believe it’s going to have the effects that the
15 neighbors are fearing. So, I guess I’m feeling more comfortable with it than I really thought I would
16 coming into it.
17 BOARDMEMBER GINO CAMPANA: We don’t usually systematically go down the line here,
18 but considering the time, I’ll say my piece. I do appreciate everyone’s staying late, and all the input the
19 neighborhood has brought tonight and throughout the entire process, and I appreciate the work that you
20 have done and having multiple neighborhood meetings. And, frankly, I think that the design is very good.
21 I think you’ve done…as I put on my designer hat, I think you’ve done about everything you can to
22 transition, buffer, mitigate an existing neighborhood. And, it’s an infill site and infill sites are
23 uncomfortable when you’re in an established neighborhood, but if the project…if that overall corner was
24 developed today, including your own residence, there would be some multi-family component under our
25 current Land Use Code. And, I don’t think…I think it’s a perfect place for multi-family. So, I will be
26 supporting it tonight.
27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anyone else? Kristin, go ahead.
28 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: I agree that it’s beautifully designed and I like the project a
29 lot. I think staff has done a fabulous job of doing very extensive and thorough outreach and completion
30 of your staff report. I think that I like the project. I think that I, perhaps, am more sensitive to the
31 neighbors, and I like the project a lot, I just don’t like it at this particular part of this site. I think even if it
32 were on the other side of the church, I would have an easier time supporting it. So, I have really struggled
33 with coming into this project, but I think I won’t be supporting it.
34 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: Well, I kept a few statistics here while people were giving their
35 pros and cons, and we had ten people for it and thirty-five against tonight, so if we were having an
36 election, that would be called a landslide. I’ve also read all the protest, and I looked at all the signatures,
37 which numbered around four hundred and sixty I believe, which are against it. The main thing that
38 concerns me is that, since this is not a permitted use under the RL district, and if the City Council wanted
39 it to be, I’m sure it would be included there, because they pass the regulations and the laws, and they’re
61
1 the ones that made it, so they, in effect, have prohibited this by omission, by not putting it in the RL
2 district. So, based upon all that I’ve seen here, I’ll have to not support it also.
3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: This was a tough one, it was a challenge. I think I’ve spent more time on
4 this proposal, going into our Land Use Code, than I have in a solid year or so I think. And, to me, it
5 was…where I really spent most of time, was I think in the same area that a lot of folks in this room have
6 spent their time, and that was to get at the root of what the character of the zone district was, the RL in
7 this case. And so, holding that up against what the criteria for Additions of a Permitted Use are, I went
8 through each one. I’ve looked at each one of them. Clearly, it’s not a medical marijuana dispensary, or
9 cultivation facility, not specifically listed as a prohibited use. Went through each one of them, and I think
10 that what it boiled down to me for was that, ultimately, you get into some of these tangible effects, how a
11 property performs as it’s proposed, to whether it’s going to, you know…relative to what would be
12 otherwise approved, if it were to be specifically allowed and permitted by the Code. Does it create more
13 offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influences, and there’s a
14 litany of these, and I think everybody in the room has gone through and seen what these all are. And,
15 then I think about…as I think the applicant had said that, you know, the way that this is set up is that you
16 actually invite that analysis of being able to look at the project as proposed, relative to something that
17 were to be just explicitly allowed by the Code, and whether or not it would be excessive as it performs in
18 the neighborhood beyond what is…a project that would be just, by right, approved. I could not come
19 up…I could not be convinced that this project would be creating any more adverse effects than, say, if the
20 church were to go and fully develop out a campus, for instance, that had a lot of different uses, including
21 a school. And, the traffic, I was waiting to see how the traffic analysis was going to go tonight, and I was
22 convinced by the data that, you know, we’re not seeing anything more offensive as far as traffic
23 generation, than we would if a couple of the other by right plans would be proposed.
24 So, you know, I think that I’ve always looked at every proposal from a very data-driven, process-
25 oriented position, and I think tonight…well, for the past couple weeks I’ve done the same thing. You
26 know, I wasn’t real sure about how I was going to weigh in on this because I was waiting to hear some of
27 the last minute data that we were going to get, and so, I do believe, at this point, that I’m going to support
28 this proposal for approval as the applicant has laid out. This is aside from the fact that, you know, three
29 years ago, I was part of this Board when we considered the rezoning of this property. At that time, I made
30 it very clear that I thought it was very appropriate for the LMN, I was in support of it then, because I did
31 believe that to be able to fulfill the objectives of City Plan, that this corner was a mismatch and that it was
32 just out of place being caddy corner from an E zone district, and also being across the street from a
33 neighborhood center that’s anchored by a grocery store. To me, it was completely a misfit. And so, even
34 at that time, I believe that I…I was wondering aloud why it was not being proposed to be MMN as
35 opposed to LMN. So, with that said, I still looked at this one as being, you’ve still got to fit the zone
36 district. Is this…is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it going to be acceptable and
37 appropriate to go through the Addition of a Permitted Use process? And, so, looking at it line by line, it
38 does seem that it does fit all of the criteria that’s laid out to be accepted for an addition of a permitted use.
39 The PDP meets all the criteria that’s laid out as well. So, I will be supporting it. Go ahead Brigitte.
40 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: I just wanted to say quickly, too, I think I had a concern, too,
41 whether the addition of a permitted use was the right way to go with this, and I think, again, because
42 we’re keeping it residential, which goes with the character of the neighborhood. You’ve got a project that
62
1 has garages, so I think when people, you know, have cars, these are going to be the kinds of tenants who
2 are going to want to stay and become a part of the neighborhood. And, a big factor, too, is that you
3 don’t…I don’t think you’re going to have traffic that directly impacts another neighborhood where people
4 are driving through…you know, where you have street connections and they’re definitely going to be
5 going through those neighborhoods. So, I think again, this is a good place for this project and I think it
6 meets the criteria for addition of a permitted use, so I will be supporting it. Are you going to make a
7 motion? You can make it, I’ll second.
8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing, real quick, I just wanted to say, is that the, you know, I think
9 that the conversation that I had with Ted here tonight illustrated my thought process on this, was that, by-
10 in-large, the zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed-use, every one of them, essentially.
11 And so, when I got into the purpose statement of the RL, which, again, it is one sentence. And it talks
12 about predominant single-family residential areas, located throughout the city which were existing at the
13 time of adoption of this Land Use Code. This is clearly a hold-over in order to be able to accommodate
14 some large swaths of land that were going through the process. And, yeah, there was a process that lasted
15 for a year after City Plan, to be able to rezone, and I do believe that, you know, the church did not avail
16 themselves of that, and I’m not giving them any forgiveness for that. If it didn’t happen, it didn’t happen,
17 timing does matter. And so that’s completely absent from my thought process tonight, but had this, I
18 mean, to be clear, had the purpose statement and the character been more clearly defined as being
19 something that it’s not in here…one sentence. If it would have gone into some more detail and been more
20 clear about how the performance of properties would be, then it might be a different decision. But, I think
21 staff did a good job of making a very good analysis and added value to it.
22 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: A couple questions, do you want two motions or just one?
23 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DAGGETT: I think it’d be best if you did a motion on the addition
24 of the permitted use, and then after that voted on the PDP.
25 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay, and I have a question, Ted, on the PDP, because I think
26 Linda mentioned something about the landscape plan wasn’t fully done or something. Is there anything in
27 this PDP that is unusual from any other…anything that we would ordinarily see that isn’t completed on
28 this, or is everything set?
29 MR. SHEPARD: No, everything is fairly consistent with prior PDPs that come to you at this
30 level.
31 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay.
32 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Can I ask a…school question? If you vote against the
33 APU, but you want to support the PDP, can you do both?
34 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DAGGETT: I think what will happen, is when you get to the vote
35 on the PDP, if the reason you would have voted against the PDP…well, let me just say, because it has to
36 be a permitted use in order for you to approve the PDP, the permitted use has to be added. However, once
37 that’s added, if you otherwise believe that the PDP conditions have been met, then, yes, you can support
38 the PDP.
63
1 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Thank you Carrie.
2 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay, so I’ll make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board
3 approve the request for Addition of a Permitted Use for multi-family dwellings, the Regency Lakeview
4 Addition, based on the fact and findings starting on page twenty-one of the staff report. Except for, I
5 guess, should I leave out the J and K which refer to the PDP, so it would just be the facts and findings A
6 through I.
7 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DAGGETT: That’s correct.
8 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Okay, I’ll second it.
9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and second, any discussion? Roll call please?
10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
11 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Yes.
12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
13 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: No.
14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
15 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: No.
16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
17 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
19 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. On to the second item
22 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Okay, I’ll make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board
23 approve the Project Development Plan for the Regency Lakeview project number PDP120013, based on
24 the facts and findings in the staff report on page twenty-two, J and K.
25 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Second that.
26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a first and a second. Any further discussion?
27 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: I forgot to mention that staff did a great job as well on
28 this…very difficult project. I though you put great effort into it.
29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Roll call please?
64
1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick?
2 BOARDMEMBER KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Hatfield?
4 BOARDMEMBER HATFIELD: No.
5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter?
6 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes.
7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana?
8 BOARDMEMBER CAMPANA: Yes.
9 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt?
10 BOARDMEMBER SCHMIDT: Yes.
11 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith?
12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, Regency Lakeview Addition of a Permitted Use for multi-
13 family dwellings to Christ Center Community Church and the Project Development Plan, approved.
ATTACHMENT 8
Site Visit Summary
September 24, 2012
1
CORRECTED
Regency Lakeview City Council Site Inspection
To: Members of City Council
From: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
RE: Regency Lakeview City Council Site Inspection
Date: October 29, 2012
Members of City Council were invited to inspect the site of the proposed multi-family
development referred to as Regency Lakeview – Addition of a Permitted Use and
Project Development Plan in conjunction with the appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Board decision on September 24, 2012.
City Councilmembers Present:
Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson
Councilmember Ben Manvel
Councilmember Wade Troxell
City Staff Present:
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Laurie Kadrich, C.D.N.S. Director
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Glen Schlueter, Stormwater Utility Engineer
The site inspection began at 4:00 p.m. along the west edge of the subject site. Staff
pointed out that there will be 175 dwelling units divided among eight buildings, plus a
clubhouse, on 11 acres resulting in a density of 16 units per acre. There would be 292
parking spaces. The buildings would vary in height from two to three stories. All
garages would be one story. The applicant placed seven stakes on the site
representing various corners of five of the apartment buildings and two of the garages.
After a general overall orientation, Councilmembers proceeded to walk the site
beginning at the northeast stake and terminating at the southwest stake.
The following represents a summary of the discussion:
Where is the nearest bus stop? Transfort plans on adding a bus stop on eastbound
Drake Road generally located at the northeast corner of the site. Regency Lakeview is
required to construct a concrete pad for the future shelter and provide a connecting
walkway to this future bus stop and plans indicate these improvements.
2
At the time of the original development of the church, how were these 11 acres
designated? Staff did not know the answer to this question at the time of the site visit.
Will the existing berms along Drake remain? Yes.
Will there be landscaping and or fencing along the east property line to shield headlight
glare? Yes, the developer has committed to providing a new solid fence for any
abutting property owner who desires one. In addition, there would be landscaping along
the east property line as well.
Are the garages fully enclosed or carports? Garages are fully enclosed.
Will the garages feature a pitched roof? Yes.
Did the Planning and Zoning Board grant any Modifications of Standard? No
Modifications were requested or granted.
How many Additions of Permitted Use have we granted over the years? Staff did not
know the answer to this question at the time of the site visit.
What are the permitted uses in the R-L zone? Staff did not know the answer to this
question at the time of the site visit.
How did the Planning and Zoning Board vote on the Addition of Permitted Use and the
Project Development Plan? The Board voted 4 – 2 to approve the Addition of the
Permitted Use and 5- 1 to approve the P.D.P.
How wide is the stormwater detention pond / athletic field? It is 127 feet wide.
In terms of new traffic generated by the project, what is the estimated percentage
increase over the baseline? Staff did not know the answer to this question at the time of
the site visit.
Are any new traffic signals warranted by this project? No.
What was the staff recommendation? Staff recommended approval of both the Addition
of the Permitted Use and Project Development Plan.
Do the building setbacks along Drake comply with the standard? The setbacks along
Drake exceed the required minimum of 30 feet.
In the R-L zone, what would be the minimum rear yard setback for a single family
detached home? A house would be required to have a minimum rear yard setback of
15 feet from the rear property line.
3
How would drivers gain access to Lemay Avenue? Drivers would be directed to the
northerly drive and traverse the church parking lot in an east-west direction to gain
access to the two existing curb cuts on Lemay Avenue.
Generally, what are the primary issues for those opposed to the project? Staff
responded that, broadly speaking, and at the risk of over-simplification, the primary
issue centered on the use of the land for multi-family development under R-L zoning.
Staff noted that, for residents living in Parkwood north of Drake Road, there was
particular concern about the addition of traffic on Drake Road as there are no signalized
intersections from which to turn left to go eastbound. Staff further noted that, for those
living to the east and south, there were a variety of issues associated with density,
building height and mass, traffic, and preserving neighborhood character. Staff
suggested that the Notice of Appeal, verbatim transcript and letters contained in the
packet provide a fuller picture of the nature of the opposition to the project.
The inspection concluded at approximately 5:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 9
Staff Powerpoint presentation
to Council
November 8, 2012
1
1
Appeal of Regency Lakeview
#PDP120013
Planning & Zoning Board Hearing – July 19, 2012
1. Addition of a Permitted Use to add
Multi-Family Dwellings to the R-L Zone
- Approved by the P & Z Board: 4-2
2. Project Development Plan
- Approved by the P & Z Board: 5-1
2
Project Facts
175 Dwelling Units
11 Acres
= 16 dwelling units/acre
Mix of 1, 2, & 3 bedroom units
2
3
Project Facts
292 vehicle parking spaces
40 in-building garage spaces
52 detached garage spaces
200 surface spaces
283 bike parking spaces
220 enclosed
63 outdoor rack
Clubhouse & Pool
4
Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply
Relevant Provisions of the Land Use
Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(1).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(1) reads as
follows:
“Such use is appropriate in the zone district to
which it is added.”
3
5
Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply
Relevant Provisions of the Land Use
Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(2).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(2) reads as
follows:
“Such use conforms to the basic characteristics
of the zone district and the other permitted uses
in the zone district to which it is added.”
6
Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply
Relevant Provisions of the Land Use
Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(3).
4
7
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(3) reads as
follows:
“Such use does not create any more offensive
noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or
other objectionable influences or any more
traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction,
adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts
on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or
services, adverse effect on public health, safety,
morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of
development, than the amount normally
resulting from the other permitted uses listed in
the zone district to which it is added.”
8
Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply
Relevant Provisions of the Land Use
Code Specifically Section 1.3.4(B).
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as
follows:
“The Planning and Zoning Board may add a
proposed use if the Board specifically finds that
such use would not be detrimental to the public
good.”
5
9
Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply
Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code
Specifically Section 1.3.4(A)(4) and 1.3.4(B).
10
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(A)(4) reads as
follows:
“Such use is compatible with the other listed
permitted uses in the zone district to which it is
added.”
Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(B) reads as
follows:
“The Planning and Zoning Board may add a
proposed use if the Board specifically finds that
such use would be in compliance with the
requirements and criteria contained in Section
3.5.1.”
6
11
The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing
by Considering Evidence Relevant to Its
Finding Which Was Substantially False or
Grossly Misleading – Section 3.6.4.
12
Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows:
“All development plans shall adequately provide
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
necessary to maintain the adopted transportation
Level of Service standards contained in Part II of
the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal
Transportation Level of Service Manual for the
following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle
and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards
contained in Part II of the Multi-modal
Transportation Manual will not be applied for the
purposes of this Section.”
7
13
The Board Failed to Conduct a Fair Hearing
by Exceeding Its Authority and Ignoring Its
Previously Established Rules of Procedure
14
Land Use Code Section 3.6.4 reads as follows:
“All development plans shall adequately provide
vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
necessary to maintain the adopted transportation
Level of Service standards contained in Part II of
the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal
Transportation Level of Service Manual for the
following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle
and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards
contained in Part II of the Multi-modal
Transportation Manual will not be applied for the
purposes of this Section.”
u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y
Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West
Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz
Wade Troxell
Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, Secretary
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 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for
assistance.
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEETING
Thursday, November 8, 2012
(after the Adjourned Council Meeting)
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Resolution No. 047 Authorizing an Agreement to Negotiate between the URA and Walton Foothills
IV, LLC. (staff: Josh Birks, Bruce Hendee, Megan Bolin; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board is asked to consider an Agreement to Negotiate between
the URA and Walton Foothills IV, LLC (Owner) regarding the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. The
Agreement would establish that the Owner would be obligated to make payments to the URA to cover
expenses and fees related to negotiating a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement and the
associated analysis and preparatory work. Additionally, the Owner may ask the URA to acquire
certain real or other property interests necessary to complete the redevelopment plan; the URA
retains complete discretion as to whether it will adhere to such a request. If the URA moves forward
to acquire certain property interests, the Owner agrees to pay acquisition advances to cover expenses
and fees related to this action. Another key point of the Agreement is that the Owner’s payments
would be considered eligible costs that would be expected to be reimbursable to the Owner provided
a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement is executed.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
DATE: November 8, 2012
STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks,
Megan Bolin
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
AUTHORITY 3
SUBJECT
Resolution No. 047 Authorizing an Agreement to Negotiate between the URA and Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board is asked to consider an Agreement to Negotiate between the URA and
Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC (Owner) regarding the redevelopment of Foothills Mall. The Agreement would
establish that the Owner would be obligated to make payments to the URA to cover expenses and fees related to
negotiating a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement and the associated analysis and preparatory work.
Additionally, the Owner may ask the URA to acquire certain real or other property interests necessary to complete the
redevelopment plan; the URA retains complete discretion as to whether it will adhere to such a request. If the URA
moves forward to acquire certain property interests, the Owner agrees to pay acquisition advances to cover expenses
and fees related to this action. Another key point of the Agreement is that the Owner’s payments would be considered
eligible costs that would be expected to be reimbursable to the Owner provided a Redevelopment and Reimbursement
Agreement is executed.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) was adopted by the Urban Renewal Authority Board in September 2011.
The purpose of the Plan is to provide the URA the opportunity to use tax increment financing (TIF) to remediate
blighted conditions through development and redevelopment. In July 2012, Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC, (Owner)
purchased the Mall and adjacent property previously owned by General Growth Partners, with the intent to complete
a significant redevelopment.
Shortly after the mall’s purchase, the URA sent notice to immediately adjacent property owners and tenants informing
that the purchase took place and redevelopment was imminent. The URA invited redevelopment proposals, but only
received one from the Owner. On October 2, the Executive Director of the URA sent formal notice to the Owner to
confirm they had been selected for the purpose of commencing negotiations with the URA (Attachment 1). The URA
has since begun preliminary negotiations with the Owner but, before the process progresses further, a formal
Agreement to Negotiate (Agreement) is presented for the Board’s consideration (details below).
After the selection notice was sent to the Owner, both parties have been meeting regularly to discuss the
redevelopment proposal. Through these discussions, it has become clear that the complexity of this project will require
substantially more resources and expertise to negotiate a Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement (RRA) than
other projects the URA has participated in. Prior to commencing additional negotiations and services required to
facilitate the redevelopment, the URA Board is asked to consider an Agreement to Negotiate (Agreement). This
Agreement would achieve the following results:
• Agreeing to exclusive negotiations – the parties agree to 180 days after execution of the Agreement to negotiate
exclusively and in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable Redevelopment and Reimbursement Agreement
(RRA).
• Reimbursement of Authority Costs– the Owner agrees to pay any costs already incurred by the Authority, as well
as to pay out-of-pocket, third party costs for administrative, management, and legal costs and fees associated with
analyzing, negotiating and preparing the RRA.
• Acquisition of property interests – the parties agree that redevelopment is not viable without the acquisition of
certain real and other property interests. The Owner agrees to make reasonable attempts to acquire such interests
through negotiations but, if such negotiations fail, the Owner may request that the URA acquire the interests; the
URA maintains complete discretion as to whether or not it would proceed with such acquisition.
November 8, 2012 -2- ITEM 3
• Acquisition advances – if it becomes necessary for the URA to acquire certain real property interest to facilitate
the project, those costs and expenses related to such acquisition and litigation will be paid by the Owner in a
number of ways, including the advance of funds to the URA.
• All acquisition advances are considered eligible costs that are expected to be reimbursable to the Owner under
an RRA, if one is finalized.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The URA has and will continue to incur costs associated with the negotiation of a RRA with the Owner. Should this
Resolution be adopted, the Owner will be required to pay the URA for its costs, relieving a significant financial burden.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Resolution has no direct environmental impacts.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. October 2, 2012 selection letter
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 047
OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE
BETWEEN THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
AND WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS IV, LLC
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, the City Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted
Resolution 2011-081, Making Findings and Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the Midtown
Area and Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District for Prospect South; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Midtown Area Urban Renewal Plan (the “Plan”) is to provide
the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) the opportunity to use tax increment
financing to remediate blighted conditions in the Midtown Area through redevelopment and
development; and
WHEREAS, in July 2012, Walton Foothills Holdings IV, LLC (the “Owner’) acquired the
Foothills Mall and surrounding property that had been previously owned and operated by General
Growth Properties (the “Mall”), with the intent of substantially redeveloping the Mall; and
WHEREAS, the Mall is a very significant element of the Plan, and the redevelopment of the
Mall is expected to substantially advance the objectives of the Authority in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, after the Owner acquired the Mall, the Authority
notified owners and tenants of, and businesses located on, the properties in the vicinity of the Mall
that the Authority intended to move forward to consider a project for the redevelopment of the Mall
area pursuant to the Plan, and inviting interested persons to submit proposals for such
redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the Authority received one proposal, from the Owner, and after review of the
proposal provided notice to the Owner that the Authority had selected the proposal for negotiation
of a possible redevelopment agreement; and
WHEREAS, since that time, the Authority has been in contact with the Owner to begin the
process of planning for the redevelopment process and negotiating the manner in which the
Authority and the Owner may work together toward the redevelopment of the Mall area in
accordance with the Plan; and
WHEREAS, in anticipation of administrative, management, and legal costs that may be
incurred by the Authority in connection with the analysis, planning, negotiating, and preparing, of
a redevelopment agreement, Authority staff has requested that the Owner agree to pay certain costs
and expenses of the Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested that the Authority agree to an exclusive negotiating
period of 180 days, during which the Owner and the Authority will negotiate exclusively and in
good faith with one another in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable redevelopment agreement
regarding the redevelopment of the Mall area; and
WHEREAS, Authority staff has negotiated, subject to the approval of the Board of
Commissioners of the Authority (the “Board”), a proposed agreement between the Authority and
the Owner that sets forth terms and conditions as set forth above and as more specifically described
therein (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that entering into the Agreement will reasonable and
in the best interests of the Authority, and will advance the public purposes and objectives as
described in the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF
THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY that the Agreement is hereby approved,
and the Executive Director is authorized to execute the Agreement, subject to such modifications
in form or substance as the Executive Director may, in consultation with the Authority Attorney,
deem desirable and necessary to protect the Authority’s interests.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins
Urban Renewal Authority this 8th day of November A.D. 2012.
___________________________________
Chairperson
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Secretary
AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE
THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated as of November ___, 2012, is made by and
between the FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, a body corporate and politic of
the State of Colorado (the “Authority”) and WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS IV, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company (the “Owner”). The Authority and the Owner are sometimes
collectively called the “Parties”, and individually, a “Party”.
In consideration of the following mutual covenants and other good and valuable
consideration, the sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Property; Plan. The Owner owns the real property described in Exhibit A, attached
to and made a part hereof (the “Property”). The Authority is carrying out the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan (the “Plan”), which includes the Property. The Owner has submitted a proposal to
the Authority to redevelop the Property by constructing thereon approximately 686,000 square
feet of commercial and multifamily residential development, together with related amenities and
uses (the “Proposal”), and the Authority has selected the Owner for exclusive negotiations based
on the Proposal. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed to begin negotiation of a Redevelopment
and Reimbursement Agreement (the “RRA”) for the redevelopment of the Property in
accordance with the Plan and the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. This Agreement is necessary to
assist the Authority in carrying out the Plan while the RRA is being negotiated. The Proposal
shall not be deemed finally accepted until the Parties have entered into a mutually agreeable RRA.
2. Exclusive Negotiations. The Parties agree that for a period of one hundred and
eighty (180) days from the date of this Agreement (the “Negotiation Period”), they will negotiate
exclusively and in good faith with one another in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable RRA to
redevelop the Property. The Negotiation Period may be extended only by a written amendment of
this Agreement authorized and executed by the Parties.
3. Payment of Authority Reimbursable Costs, Advance of Funds, Deposit. The Owner
agrees to reimburse the Authority for its out-of-pocket, third party costs required for the
redevelopment of the Property, such as administrative, management, technical and financial expert,
and legal costs and fees associated with analyzing the proposed redevelopment project and related
costs and revenues, coordinating Authority, City and Owner plans, schedules and activities, and
negotiating and preparing the RRA (“Authority Reimbursable Costs”). The Authority shall provide
to the Owner copies of formal proposals or cost estimates for such Authority Reimbursable Costs,
and shall not incur any obligation to pay an Authority Reimbursable Cost in excess of Twenty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($25,000) without express written Owner approval in advance. The Owner
agrees to remit to the Authority payment for such amounts as soon reasonably possible, but in no
event later than thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice for same. Upon execution of this
Agreement, the Owner shall deliver to the Authority an advance of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars
($25,000) (“Owner Deposit”), which the Authority may use to pay Authority Reimbursable Costs in
the event of a failure by the Owner to remit payment for invoices received within thirty (30) days.
Upon execution of this Agreement, the Owner agrees to reimburse the Authority for any Authority
EXHIBIT A
2
Reimbursable Costs the Authority may have incurred as of the effective date of this Agreement
within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice for same. In the event the Parties do not reach
agreement on the RRA, and funds remain in the Owner Deposit, after paying any outstanding
Authority Reimbursable Costs, the Authority shall refund any remaining amounts to Owner. If the
Parties reach agreement on an RRA, the RRA shall govern disposal of any remaining Owner
Deposit funds. The Owner shall be responsible for bearing all of its costs and expenses, direct or
indirect, in connection with its Proposal, this Agreement and the RRA.
4. Acquisition of Property Interests. The Parties agree that the redevelopment of the
Property may not be viable under the Plan without acquisition of certain real and other property
interests (the “Required Properties”). In the event that the Owner determines that the
redevelopment of the Property cannot be executed without acquisition of one or more Required
Properties, the Owner may request that the Authority acquire such Properties. Any request by the
Owner that the Authority acquire Required Properties shall be accompanied by evidence that the
Owner has complied with the requirements in the Plan related to the acquisition of property by the
Authority. In some cases, acquisition of a Required Property may require acquisition of an interest
owned by the Owner. The Parties acknowledge that the decision to take any action to acquire any
Required Properties is solely within the discretion of the Authority as provided in Section 8 hereof.
5. Acquisition Advances. The Parties anticipate that it may be necessary and in the
public interest and in furtherance of a public use for the Authority to acquire the Required
Properties in order to carry out the Plan and complete redevelopment of the Property. In connection
with the acquisition of the Required Properties, the Authority has incurred and will incur in the
future, certain out-of-pocket, third party costs and expenses related to such acquisition and any
litigation required for such acquisition, including, without limitation, appraisals, title work, surveys,
mapping, technical and expert analysis, consultation and report preparation, negotiations, expert
witness fees and costs, attorney fees and costs, court costs and fees, condemnation costs and
awards, relocation assistance costs and payments, settlement costs, and any other out-of-pocket,
third party costs and expenses incurred by the Authority or required by applicable law or Authority
policy in connection with the acquisition of the property interests or the litigation or related issues
(the “Acquisition Costs”). The Owner has agreed to assist the Authority by providing financing for
Acquisition Costs in the form of advances of funds (the “Acquisition Advances”).
5.1. Except as otherwise set forth in this Section 5, as a condition of payment by
the Owner, the Authority shall provide to the Owner copies of formal proposals or cost estimates
for Acquisition Costs, and shall not incur any obligation to pay any Acquisition Cost in excess of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) without express written Owner approval in advance. The
Owner agrees to remit to the Authority payment for such Acquisition Costs as soon as reasonably
possible, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice for same.
5.2 In addition to the reimbursements and payments otherwise provided in this
Section 5, prior to, and as a condition of initiating a court action to acquire one or more of the
Required Properties at the request of Owner, the Owner further agrees to provide additional
Acquisition Advances to the Authority (or otherwise unconditionally make available to the
Authority on demand – such as by means of a letter of credit acceptable to the Authority) the
3
amount of the Authority’s final good-faith offer or offers to acquire such property interests, and
further, Owner agrees to advance any additional amount the court shall order as a condition of
obtaining immediate possession of or “quick title” to any Required Properties, or any amount
required to be deposited or paid by the court in connection with any pending court action to acquire
any of the Required Properties.
5.3 In addition to the reimbursements and payments otherwise provided in this
Section 5, additional Acquisition Advances will be made by the Owner as follows: within ten (10)
days of receipt of a requisition signed by a duly authorized representative of the Authority, the
Owner shall deliver to the Authority the amount specified in the requisition. The requisition form
will specify the costs and fees to which such funds delivered by the Owner will be applied, which
may include, but shall not be limited to, any and all out-of-pocket, third party costs and fees
associated with defending the validity of any act or omission by the Authority in connection with
its efforts to acquire the Required Properties. Each requisition shall also include for such costs
and fees a copy of the supporting third-party invoices received by the Authority. All Acquisition
Advances requisitioned by the Authority from the Owner as specified herein that are not received
by the Authority within thirty (30) days of the date of such requisition shall bear interest at the rate
of twelve percent (12%) per annum until paid by the Owner.
5.4 If the Owner requests that the Authority acquire any Required Properties, the
Owner agrees it will pay the Authority as set forth in this Agreement the costs and fees associated
with any reasonable settlement for the acquisition of the Required Properties, whether prior to or
during any litigation to acquire the Required Properties. However, the Authority agrees that it shall
not agree to any final, binding settlement or other agreement to acquire any Required Properties for
which the Owner is responsible hereunder without the Owner’s consent regarding the acquisition
price. The payment described in this Section 5.4 must be made prior to any closing to purchase any
Required Properties. If the Owner does not remit payment as requested, then the Authority will
have no obligation to complete the negotiated transaction to acquire such property or to proceed to
acquire such property through its eminent domain authority or otherwise, or, once commenced, to
continue its use of eminent domain, to obtain any of the Required Properties.
5.5 If the Owner either (a) withdraws the Proposal to redevelop the Property, or
(b) alters the Proposal such that one or more of the Required Properties is no longer reasonably
necessary, then the Authority shall have no obligation to proceed further with actions to acquire
such Required Properties, and any costs of terminating or otherwise disposing of any pending
actions related to such acquisition, including, but not limited to any award of damages or other costs
associated with pending litigation, shall be deemed to be Acquisition Costs for which the Owner is
responsible to the Authority hereunder.
Notwithstanding any language herein to the contrary or the expiration or termination of this
Agreement for any reason, the obligations of the Owner under this Section 5 shall continue and
shall not be deemed satisfied until the Authority has notified the Owner that either (a) the Authority
has abandoned attempts to acquire some or all of the Required Properties, or (b) obtained title to the
property interests by deed, settlement agreement or order of the court having jurisdiction in any
eminent domain proceeding, and that full and final payment has been made by the Owner of any
4
and all Acquisition Costs for which Owner is responsible hereunder.
6. Reimbursement. It is the Parties’ intent that, in the event the Parties enter into a
mutually agreeable RRA, such RRA will include the Owner Deposit, and all Acquisition Advances
provided by the Owner as more specifically described in Section 5, above, as costs eligible for
reimbursement to the Owner from tax increment funds collected by the Authority attributable to the
improvements to be constructed on the Property, subject to the terms of the RRA and the provisions
of Section 31-25-107(9) of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law.
7. Owner's Covenants. The Owner warrants and covenants as follows:
a. The Owner has the financial and legal ability, power, and authority to enter
into this Agreement and to provide the Owner Deposit, the Acquisition Advances, and any
other payments described herein in the manner and at the times required herein.
b. The Owner knows of no litigation pending or threatened which in any
manner affects the Property.
c. The Owner has disclosed (or during the course of the negotiations shall
disclose) in writing to the Authority its principals, officers, stock holders, partners, joint
venturers, members, guarantors and other interested persons involved in the proposed
redevelopment of the Property.
8. Authority’s Discretion to File Eminent Domain Action and Take Other Actions.
Owner acknowledges and agrees that the decision to file any litigation to acquire any property
interests, or to transfer or otherwise dispose of any property interests, is solely within the discretion
of the Authority, and that no promises, contracts or agreements have been made by the Authority,
the City of Fort Collins, nor any of their respective officials, officers, employees or agents that the
Authority would file such litigation.
9. Indemnification. The Owner shall indemnify and hold harmless the Authority, the
City of Fort Collins, and any of their respective officials, officers, employees or agents (collectively
the “Indemnified Parties”) for and against any loss, damage or claims of any loss or damage
(including reasonable legal fees and costs) resulting from any action, representation, commitment,
or activity of the Owner in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the Property or attempts
by the Owner or any agent or representative of the Owner to acquire any property rights or interests
in breach of this Agreement or applicable laws, rules, regulations or ordinances (collectively,
“Applicable Laws”). The Owner shall further indemnify and hold the Indemnified Parties harmless
for and against any loss, damage or claims of any loss or damage (including reasonable legal fees
and costs) arising from any act or omission by such Indemnified Parties in connection with its
efforts to acquire the Required Properties pursuant hereto or assist the Owner in connection with
the proposed redevelopment of the Property except to the extent the same is in breach of this
Agreement, Applicable Laws or said parties’ authority.
10. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned, in whole or in part, by either
5
Party without the prior written consent of the other. The Authority recognizes that the Owner may
form a separate, special purpose entity to develop, own and operate the Property and the
improvements to be constructed thereon and that one or more assignments may be required in
connection with such activities. Approval of any such assignment shall not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned, or delayed by the Authority.
11. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. Neither the Authority nor the City shall be
liable for any real estate commissions or brokerage fees that may arise as a consequence of any
transaction involving this Agreement or the Property or any part thereof. The Parties represent that
neither has engaged a broker, agent or finder in connection with this Agreement or in connection
with any sale and transfer of the Property or any part thereof.
12. The Authority or the City not a Partner. Notwithstanding any language in this
Agreement or any other agreement, representation or warranty to the contrary, neither the Authority
nor the City shall be deemed to be a partner or joint venturer of the Owner, and neither the
Authority nor the City shall be responsible for any debt of the Owner or of any operator or manager
of the Owner.
13. No Third Party Beneficiaries. It is the mutual intent of the Parties that this
Agreement shall inure to the benefit of only the Parties hereto. Accordingly, nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed as creating any right or entitlement that inures to the benefit of any
third party, except as expressly set forth herein.
14. Defaults; Remedies. Upon a default by the other Party following a five (5) business
day notice and cure period, the remedies of the respective Parties under this Agreement shall be as
follows:
a. If the Owner fails to substantially observe or perform any covenant,
obligation or agreement required under this Agreement, the Authority shall have the sole
and exclusive remedies of seeking damages and/or terminating this Agreement.
b. If the Authority fails to substantially observe or perform any covenant,
obligation or agreement required under this Agreement, the sole and exclusive remedy of
the Owner shall be to seek damages and/or terminate this Agreement.
c. In the event this Agreement is terminated by either party, Owner’s obligation
to reimburse the City for Authority Reimbursable Costs and Acquisition Costs incurred
prior to said termination, and the City’s obligation to return Owner any unspent advances
for the same shall survive the termination hereof.
15. Nonliability of City or Authority Officials and/or Employees or Agents. No official,
officer, employee or agent of the Authority or the City shall be personally liable to the Owner under
this Agreement or in the event of any default or breach by the City or Authority under this
Agreement.
6
16. Conflicts of Interest. None of the following shall have any personal interest, direct
or indirect, in this Agreement: a member of the governing body of the Authority or of the City, an
employee of the Authority or of the City who exercises responsibility concerning the Urban
Renewal Project or an individual or firm retained by the City or the Authority who has performed
consulting or legal services in connection with the Plan. Nor shall any of the above persons or
entities make any decisions relating to this Agreement that affects his or her personal interest or the
interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly
interested.
17. Notices. A notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any
Party to the other shall be in writing and sufficiently given if delivered in person or if it is delivered
by overnight courier service with guaranteed next-day delivery or by certified mail, return receipt
required, postage prepaid, and
a. in the case of the Owner, is addressed to or delivered to the Owner as
follows:
Walton Foothills Holdings IV, L.L.C.
Attention: Donald G. Provost
5750 DTC Pkwy, Suite 210
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
with a copy to:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Attention: Carolynne C. White, Esq.
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202-4432
b. in the case of the Authority, is addressed to or delivered to the Authority as
follows:
Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority
Attention: Darin Atteberry, Executive Director
300 LaPorte Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
with a copy to:
Steve Roy, Esq., City Attorney
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
7
or at such other address with respect to any such Party as that Party may, from time to time,
designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section.
18. Governmental Immunity Act. No term or condition of this Agreement shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the notices, requirements,
immunities, rights, benefits, protections, limitations of liability, and other provisions of the
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq. and under any other
applicable law.
19. Benefit, Binding Effect, Covenant. The Parties recognize that there are legal
constraints imposed upon the Authority and the City by the constitutions, statutes, and rules and
regulations of the State of Colorado and of the United States, and imposed upon them by their
respective governing statutes, charters, ordinances, rules and regulations, and that, subject to such
constraints, the Parties intend to carry out the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, in no event shall the
Authority or the City be obligated hereunder to exercise any power or take any action that is be
prohibited by applicable law. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be
interpreted in such a manner so as to be effective and valid under applicable law.
20. Applicable Law/Venue. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the
interpretation ad enforcement of the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Owner have caused the Agreement to be
duly executed as of the day first above written.
FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL
AUTHORITY
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________
Chair
___________________________________
Secretary/Executive Director
8
WALTON FOOTHILLS HOLDINGS IV, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability Company
By: Foothills Alberta Management, LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company
Its: Authorized Agent
By: ____________________________
Donald G. Provost
Its: Manager