HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/04/2003 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE DECEMBER 19, 20 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 32
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 4, 2003FROM:
Ted Shepard
SUBJECT :
Consideration of the Appeal of the December 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to
Approve In-Situ,Inc. 105 East Lincoln Avenue,Request for Modification of Two Standards,#46-02.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter and, after consideration, (1) remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Board, or
(2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 19,2002,the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to approve In-Situ,Inc. 105 East
Lincoln Avenue, Request for Two Modifications. This was a request to modify two standards:
Section 3.4.1(E)(2),Buffer Zone Performance Standardsand Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)(3.And Buildings
— Frequent Views/Access. The proposed structure encroaches into the Poudre River buffer zone
40 more than the allowable 20%. The length of the structure parallel to the Poudre River exceeds the
maximum of 125 feet. The site is approximately four acres in size located at 105 East Lincoln Street
on the south side of the street,between Hydro Construction and Team Petroleum. The site is directly
north of the Poudre River and zoned C-C-R, Community Commercial - Poudre River.
On January 2, 2003, a Notice of Appeal was filed with the City Clerk's Office by Councilmembers
Roy and Hamrick, pursuant to Section 2-48 of the City Code. On January 21, 2003, an Amended
Notice of Appeal was filed. The purpose of the appeal is for the Council to consider whether the
Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provision of the Code
and Charter.
Attachments include:
• Notice of Appeal
• Amended Notice of Appeal
• Staff Response to the Appeal
• Staff Report to P &Z Board
• Ecological Characterization Study
• Verbatim Transcript of the P & Z Meeting
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins,Colorado,on Tuesday,February 4,2003, at 6:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on December 19, 2002 regarding the In-Situ, Inc., 105 East
Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two Standards. You may have received previous
notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department(221-6750).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 28,2003. Agenda materials
provided to the City Council, including City staffs response to the Notice of Appeal, and any
additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday,
January 30, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
January 23, 2003
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
i --
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295
To:Wanda Krajicek 01/21/2003
City Clerk of Fort Collins
"The purpose of this notice of appeal is to appeal the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board,
on December 19,2002, granting the request of In-Situ, Inc.to modify the performance standards
contained in the following sections of the City's Land Use Code:
Section 3.4.1(E), pertaining to"Establishment of Buffer Zones,"the granting of which would
reduce the size of the required buffer between the development and the Poudre River: and
Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)(3), pertaining to "Frequent Views/Access,"the granting of which resulted
in a substantial reduction in the view/access corridor normally required by the LUC."
David Roy
1039 West Mountain
Ft Collins Co. 80521
1-970-493-9201
W-
g Eric Ham ck3766 Br ley Drive
Ft Collins Co. 80525
1-970-229 363
• 6L,�
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
THRU: John Fischbach, City Manager's ,,
Greg Byme, Director C.P.E.S. . j
Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Direct,
DATE: January 22, 2003
RE: In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, Current Planning File#46-02, Appeal to City Council
The purpose of this memo is to respond to an appeal regarding the December 19, 2002
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the above-referenced project.
Section 2-48(b) of the City Code states:
"Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be
stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or
commission committed one or more of the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter;
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as
contained in the Code and Charter;
b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously
established rules of procedure;
C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its
findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or
d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant
evidence offered by the appellant."
The Appeal is based on Section 2-48(b)(1).
Two specific allegations are made. The pertinent Code sections are stated in italics: The
arguments are briefly summarized below in bold followed by a staff response.
1. ALLEGATION:
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter by approving a reduction in the size of the required buffer between the
development and the Poudre River.
PERTINENT CODE SECTIONS:
A. Section 2.48(b)(1) - Appeals
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter.
B. Section 3.4.1 (E) - Establishment of Buffer Zones
For every development subject to this Division, the applicant shall propose, and
the decision maker shall approve, on the project development plan buffer zone(s)
surrounding natural habitats and features. The purpose of the buffer zones is to
protect the ecological character of the natural habitat or natural feature from the
impacts of the ongoing activity associated with the development.
C. Section 3.4.1 (E) (1) -Buffer Zone Performance Standards
(1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall approve buffer
zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the project site. The buffer
zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance shall
be established according to the criteria contained in the table below, but the
decision maker may modify any portion of the general buffer zone distance
provided that the performance standards set forth below are achieved. This may
result in buffer zones of either greater or lesser distances than those specified in
the table below. The decision maker may also modify such buffer zone distance if
the strict application of this subsection will impose an exceptional and undue
hardship upon the property owner or developer
D. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT:
Argument: The Board wrongly interpreted Section 3.4.1(E).
E. Staff Response:
The Land Use Code is clear that an applicant has the choice of complying with either the
prescriptive quantitative buffer distance standard, or complying with the performance
standards. For the Poudre River, the prescriptive buffer distance is a range of 240 to 300
feet. In this case, the applicant has selected the performance standards.
2
There are eight performance standards. The Planning and Zoning Board found that the
applicant complied with these eight standards by providing a buffer area that while
smaller in simple quantitative area, was significantly enhanced in a qualitative manner.
The proposed enhancements include the establishment of a naturalistic buffer zone
between the building and the Poudre River Trail. This area will feature a variety of
native groundcover, shrubs and trees. In addition, a small wetland will be created. A
meandering walkway would link the building to the Poudre River Trail for employee
access. These improvements would be a significant enhancement over the present hard-
packed, weedy and denuded land that is the result of years of neglected outside storage.
The enhanced area would range from 220 feet at the east property line to 150 feet on the
west property line. This is in contrast to a range of 240 feet to 300 feet as prescribed
under the buffer zone strict measurement option.
The Board found, based on the Ecological Characterization Study, the site shots and
aerial photographs, that the site contains no riparian or ecological value. In fact, the site
was long used by Poudre Valley Creamery as an outside storage yard. A 1984 aerial
photograph reveals that about 40 semi-trailers and old milk trucks were stored on the site
in a salvage yard type manner. Over the years, abandoned vehicles and miscellaneous
equipment have been removed. The area is presently vacant and largely denuded with
the exception of two young Cottonwood trees at the south property line which will be
preserved.
The Board found that the enhancement plan includes removal of non-native and weedy
species with replacement by a small wetland and drought-tolerant native groundcovers,
shrubs and trees. Further, such enhancement would provide new plant material that
would exceed normal landscape requirements and promote wildlife activity. This
proposed plan would contribute to the riparian zone of the Poudre River over and above
that which would be accomplished by simple quantitative buffering measures.
The Board concluded that the proposal to trade low value buffer distance for high value
wildlife and ecological enhancement is a proper interpretation of the performance
standards described in Section 3.4.1(E). The high level of naturalistic enhancement
constitutes a significant restoration effort that goes above and beyond normal
development practice.
3 _
2. ALLEGATION:
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter by approving the Modification to Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3 `Buildings-Massing
and Placement. Frequent Views/Access," a development standard in the C-C-R
Community Commercial-River, zone district. This resulted in a substantial reduction in
the view/access corridor normally required by the LUC.
PERTINENT CODE SECTIONS
A. Section 2.48(b)(1) - Appeals
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code
and Charter. -
B. Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3 -Frequent Views and Access
"Buildings. Massing and Placement. Frequent View/Access. No building wall
shall exceed one hundred twenty-five(125)feet on the axis along the river."
The proposed building has a south elevation that is 255 feet along the axis of the Poudre
River thus exceeding the standard by 130 feet.
C. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT
Argument: The Board wrongly interpreted Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3.
D. Staff Response:
The Board found that if the building's axis to the river were limited to 125 feet, its shape
would be a long rectangle that would be perpendicular to river resulting in a further
encroachment into the buffer zone.
The Board also found that the site would continue to allow 115 feet of clear vision
between the river and Lincoln Avenue. For contextual purposes,Lincoln Avenue is 480
feet from the Poudre River at the east property line and 420 feet from the west property
line.
Based on testimony from the Department of Natural Resources, the Board found that
location of the building between Lincoln Avenue and the Poudre River will act as a
buffer element for the benefit of the riparian ecology. The noise, fumes and activity
- associated with an arterial street are considered more onerous to the wildlife corridor than
the relatively benign attributes of a one-story building.
The Board found that there are nine specific development standards in the'C-C-R zone
district designed to promote sensitive development with respect to the naturalistic
4
qualities found along the Poudre River. Taken together, these standards envision an
accommodation between quality development and the ecological character of a riparian
area. Staff finds that the proposed P.D.P. meets all but one of these standards and that
130 feet of additional building along the axis of the river does not impair the view or
access to or from the Poudre River.
Finally, the Board found that the length of the south building wall, with attractive
architectural features, and the 115 feet of clear vision to the river continues to accomplish
the main purpose of the C-C-R zone which is stated as follows:
"The main purpose of the District is to faster a healthy and compatible
relationship between the River, the Downtown and surrounding urban
uses."
CONCLUSION:
In Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the Land Use Code, the Code requires that for each
Modification, there shall be specific findings showing how the plan will promote the
general purpose of the standard for which the Modification is requested equally well or
better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the Modifications
are requested.
40 With regard to Section 3.4.1(E), the Board found that the Modification was justified
because the plan provides for a significant restoration within the buffer area that, while
reducing the simple quantitative aspect of the standard, demonstratively exceeds the
qualitative aspect of the standard beyond the level required in the buffer zone
performance standards.
With regard to Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3, the Board found that the Modification was
justified because the high quality of the building's architecture, combined with the
ecological restoration in the buffer zone, create a healthy and compatible relationship
with the river that exceeds mere compliance with the standard.
The Board added the condition that the P.D.P. be in substantial conformance with the
plans submitted in support of the two Modifications.
Attachments include the verbatim transcript of the hearing and the Planning and Zoning
Board Staff Report.
5
ITEM NO. 5
MEETING DATE 12/19/02
STAFF Ted Shepard
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for
Modification of Two Standards, #46-02
APPLICANT: Craig and Chris McKee
c/o V-F Ripley and Associates
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
OWNER: Craig and Chris McKee
In-Situ, Inc.
P.O. Box
Laramie, WY 82073
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a Request for a Modification of Two Standards: Section 3.4.1(E)(2),
Buffer Zone Performance Standards and Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)(3.) and Buildings
— Frequent Views/Access. The proposed structure encroaches into the Poudre
River buffer zone more than the allowable 20%. The length of the structure
parallel to the Poudre River exceeds the maximum of 125 feet. The site is
approximately four acres in size located at 105 East Lincoln Street on the south
side of the street, between Alliance Construction and Team Petroleum. The site
is directly north of the Poudre River and zoned C-C-R, Community Commercial -
Poudre River.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a "stand-alone" Request for Two Modifications as allowed by Section
2.8.2. The Modifications are accompanied by a preliminary plan and a
preliminary Ecological Characterization Study for background and clarification
purposes only. The applicant has provided a justification for the Modifications.
Staff has analyzed the two requests and justifications and finds that the
Modifications comply with the criteria for granting such requests.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. PO.Box580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, #46-02
December 19, 2002 P&Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-L; Existing Single Family Neighborhood (Buckingham)
S: P-O-L; Poudre River Trail, Poudre River and Udall Natural Area
E: C-C-R; Existing Office and Outside Storage for a Construction Company
W: C-C-R; Existing Office and Outside Storage for an Oil Company
The site was long used by Poudre Valley Creamery as an outside storage yard.
A 1984 aerial photograph reveals that about 40 semi-trailers and old milk trucks
were stored on the site in a salvage yard type manner. Over the years,
abandoned vehicles and miscellaneous equipment have been removed. The
area is presently vacant and largely denuded with the exception of two young
Cottonwood trees.
2. Preliminary Ecological Characterization Study:
A Preliminary Ecological Characterization Study was performed in September of
this year (see attached). The site does not support any natural communities,
habitats, or native vegetation except for two young Cottonwoods along the
southern edge. The remaining vegetation consists of non-native grasses and
annual weedy species. No vegetation, soils, or hydrologic evidence of wetlands
are present. The site does not provide any suitable habitat for Ute Ladies'-
Tresses Orchid or Preble's Jumping Mouse.
3. Preliminary Plan:
The Modification Requests are accompanied by a preliminary plan that indicates
a 41,625 square foot, one-story building, designated for office and custom small
industry. These are permitted uses in the C-C-R zone subject to administrative
review. The building layout respects the build-to line along Lincoln and the
proposed parking is under the maximum allowed. A sidewalk would connect the
south side of the building to the Poudre River Trail.
In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, #46-02
December 19, 2002 P&Z Meeting
Page 3
4. .Modification to Buffer Zone Performance Standards:
A. Citation - "Section 3.4.1(E) Establishment of Buffer Zones."
The applicant is requesting a Modification to the following standard:
Section 3.4.1(E) — Establishment of Buffer Zones
For every development subject to this Division, the applicant shall
propose, and the decision maker shall approve, on the project
development plan buffer zone(s) surrounding natural habitats and
features. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the ecological
character of the natural habitat or natural feature from the impacts of the
ongoing activity associated with the development.
The standard requires a buffer zone of 300 feet from the Poudre River, as
measured from top of bank. The applicant, however, is proposing to reduce the
buffer area in a manner such that the buffer ranges from 220 feet on the east
property line to 150 feet on the west on the west property line. The
encroachment ranges, therefore, from 80 feet on the east to 150 feet on the
west.
The standard allows a 20% reduction in the buffer distance. Using 240 feet as
the buffer distance, the encroachment ranges from 20 feet on the east to 90 feet
on the west.
Buffer East Encroach- % West Encroach- %
Std. P.L. ment P.L. ment
300' 220' 80' 27% 150' 150' 50%
240' 220' 20' 7% 150' 90, 30%
As mitigation for reducing the buffer, the applicant proposes to establish a
naturalistic zone between the building and the top of bank. This area will feature
a variety of native groundcover, shrubs and trees. In addition, a small wetland
will be created. A connecting walkway would link the building to the Poudre
In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, #46-02
December 19, 2002 P&Z Meeting
Page 4
River Trail. These improvements would be a significant enhancement over the
present hard-packed, weedy and denuded land that is the result of years of
neglected outside storage.
B. Applicant's Justification:
The applicant has provided written and graphic justification which are attached.
Briefly, the justification is summarized as follows:
1. The proposal is to mitigate the loss of buffer distance required by the
standard (240—300 feet) by enhancing the remaining buffer area to
level of quality that exceeds the normal landscape requirements such
as full-tree stocking, foundation shrubs, parking lot screening and other
provisions of Section 3.2.1. The P.D.P. would implement the
performance standards called for in Section 3.4.1(E) by restoring the
old outside storage/salvage yard in a manner that is sensitive to wildlife
and the riparian habitat of the Poudre River.
2. The applicant commits to removing non-native and weedy species and
planting new native groundcovers, shrubs and trees that are drought-
tolerant and promote wildlife activity in sufficient quality and quantity
that exceeds normal requirements.
3. The applicant commits to creating a wetland that will contribute to the
wildlife habitat of the Poudre River corridor. No such requirement
exists in the Code. This wetland can be combined with the
requirement to provide on-site extended stormwater detention to create
a larger naturalistic feature that would otherwise not be required.
C. Staff Analysis
1. The P.D.P. proposes to trade low value buffer distance for high value
wildlife and ecological enhancement. In evaluating this design, Staff
finds that the site is in such a state of sterility that merely complying
with the standard buffer distance and normal landscaping requirements
would be a disservice to the riparian ecology of the Poudre River. The
high level of naturalistic enhancement constitutes a significant
restoration effort that goes above and beyond normal development
practice.
In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, #46-02
December 19, 2002 P&Z Meeting
Page 5
2. As an urban infill project, the proposed employment use promotes
compact urban growth without costly extension of utilities and services.
The future employees would be within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of
a variety of retail, office, services, recreational land uses. Bicycle
commuting is promoted with adjacency to the Poudre River Trail. Such
proximity fulfills the vision of the C-C-R zone as a walkable, mixed-use
district as envisioned in City Plan.
5. Modification to Frequent Views/Access:
A. Citation —"Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3. — Frequent Views/Access
This section of the Code is a development standard in Community Commercial —
Poudre River zone district. The applicant is requesting a Modification to the
following standard:
. "Buildings. Massing and Placement. Frequent View/Access. No building wall
shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis along the river."
The proposed building has a south elevation that is 255 feet along the axis of the
Poudre River thus exceeding the standard by 130 feet.
B. Applicant's Justification
The applicant has provided written and graphic justification which are attached.
Briefly, the justification is summarized as follows:
1. Because the operation includes light assembly of components, the
building needs to be on one story for efficient work flow. If the
building's axis to the river were limited to 125 feet, its shape would
be a long rectangle that would be perpendicular to river resulting in
a further encroachment into the buffer zone.
2. The purpose of the standard is to establish an aesthetic relationship
between buildings and the Poudre River. This building is not
turning its back to the river. Rather, as a company that
manufacturers water testing and monitoring devices, the building is
designed to embrace the river. The south elevation features
windows, doors, patios and walkways that are intended to foster a
harmonious relationship between employees and the Poudre River.
In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, #46-02
December 19, 2002 P&Z Meeting
Page 6
3. The site will continue to allow 115 feet of clear vision between the
river and Lincoln Avenue.
4. The relationship to the river is enhanced by the connecting walkway
between the building and Poudre River Trail. This connection will
encourage bicycle commuting, bike and walking trips to downtown,
thus promoting alternative modes of travel.
5. The location of the building between Lincoln Avenue and the
Poudre River will act as a buffer element for the benefit of the
riparian ecology. The noise, fumes and activity associated with an
arterial street are considered more onerous to the wildlife corridor
than the relatively benign attributes of a one-story building.
C. Staff Analysis
1. There are nine specific development standards in the C-C-R
designed to promote sensitive development with respect to the-
naturalistic qualities found along the Poudre River. Taken together,
these standards envision an accommodation between quality
development and the ecological character of a riparian area. Staff
finds that the proposed P.D.P. meets all but one of these standards
and that 130 feet of additional building along the axis of the river
does not impair the view or access to or from the Poudre River.
2. The south elevation of the proposed building is found to be of high
quality with articulated features that contribute to a positive
relationship between the built environment and the Poudre River.
The view from the river to the building will be respectful.
3. The length of the south building wall continues to accomplish the
main purpose of the C-C-R zone which is stated as follows:
"The main purpose of the District is to foster a healthy and
compatible relationship between the River, the Downtown and
surrounding urban uses."
In-Situ, Inc., 105 East Lincoln Avenue, Request for Modification of Two
Standards, #46-02
December 19, 2002 P&Z Meeting
Page 7
6. Findings of Fact and Specific Findings as per Section 2.8.2(H)(3):
The Code requires that for each Modification, there shall be specific findings
showing how the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard for which
the Modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard for which the Modifications are requested.
A. "Section 3.4.1(E) Establishment of Buffer Zones."
1. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good; and
2. The preliminary plan will promote the general purpose of the
standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard for which a modification is requested. This is
because the plan provides for a significant restoration within the
buffer area that, while reducing the quantitative aspect of the
standard, demonstratively exceeds the qualitative aspect of the
standard beyond level required in the buffer zone performance
standards.
B. "Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3. — Frequent Views/Access
1. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the
public good; and
2. The preliminary plan will promote the general purpose of the
standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard for which a modification is requested. This is
because the high quality of the building's architecture, combined
with the ecological restoration in the buffer zone, create a healthy
and compatible relationship with the river that exceeds mere
compliance with the standard.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the two Requests for Modification of Standard for
In-Situ, Inc. to allow an encroachment into the Poudre River buffer area (Section
3.4.1(E)) and for the south elevation of the building to exceed 125 feet along the
axis of the river (Section 4.16(D)(3)(a)3.).
1
+ � Illllli�Cllll�l
/� • � � � j IIII�`�IIIII
��7 1■IIIIIC_y i111111 ':
e�■ illlll� .-_ -- _�_
Nil__ IIIIIIII1 ;=1111 �4. 1 I
--
�to�!
E�■ L'llll■ ICc=®=�®=r=�-_ IIIII��.iii�a
1 t.
P�
VF RIPLEY
ASSOCIATES INC.
Landscape Aichltecture
I-,ban De,,wn
Planning
+VI wc.i 4lountam A.anu:
Suim '_01
Fon Cullin+.CO iCi'_I-'_604
December 4, 2002 PHONE,9701 g
FAY i9]Di]'_t-166'
Modification Requests -
In-Situ Inc. — Proposed New Office/Light Industrial Building on
Lincoln Avenue
Modification Request No. 1:
This request is for a modification to the " Buffer Zone Performance
Standards" requirements as outlined in the Fort Collins Land Use
Code under section 3.4.1 (E). The modification being specifically
requested is from section 3.4.1 (E). (2) Development Activities
Within the Buffer Zone. This regulation reads that:
Wo disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone and no
person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove,
fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including
vegetation within natural habitats or features including
without limitation lakes, ponds, stream corridors and
wetlands..."
And is further defined as:
%f the development causes any disturbance within the buffer
zone, whether by approval of the decision maker or
otherwise, the applicant shall undertake restoration and
mitigation measures within the buffer zone such as
regrading and/or the replanting of native vegetation. The
applicant shall undertake mitigation measures to restore any
damaged or lost natural resource either on-site or off--site at
the discretion of the decision maker. Any such,mitigation or
restoration shall be at least equal in ecological value to the
1
loss suffered by the community because of the disturbance,
and shall be based on such mitigation and restoration plans
and reports as have been requested, reviewed and
approved by the decision maker..."
Modification request No. 2:
This request is for a modification to the "Frequent Views/Access."
requirement as outlined in the Community Commercial - Poudre
River District, City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The modification
being requested is from section 4.16 (D)(3)(a)(3.), Buildings.
Frequent views/access. This regulation reads as follows:
3. Frequent views/access. No building wall shall exceed on
hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis along the
River.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In-Situ Inc. is recognized as a premier manufacturer of
environmental monitoring equipment. Around the world, water
quality is fast becoming a primary environmental concern for
industrialized and developing nations alike. The expertise of
professionals is required to protect and ensure the safety of
groundwater and surface water resources. In-Situ's mission is to-
provide these experts with the tools they need for reliable, accurate
assessment of site conditions, specifically for surface and ground
water monitoring.
The company, owned and operated by brothers Craig and
Christopher McKee, was originally established in Laramie,
Wyoming in 1978. The present facility occupies several historic
buildings in downtown Laramie and employs 65 people.
The McKee brothers want to design a new facility that will not only
enhance their current operation but will provide them with
expansion capability. In addition, the move will bring them closer to
vendors they work with and customers they serve as well as help
them attract top quality employees and ultimately make them more
competitive in the market place.
In-Situ has relationships with numerous vendors along the Front
Range that provide the actual manufactured parts per design
specifications that are used in the monitoring instruments.
Approximately 20% of the company's space is devoted to light
assembly of parts, while the remaining space is essentially office
2
space used for research and development, software, sales,
administration and meetings.
LOCATION AND CONTEXT
The McKee brothers would like to develop their new facility on
approximately four acres of land located on the south side of East
Lincoln Avenue between Team Petroleum and Alliance
Construction. The site borders the Poudre River for approximately
211 feet along its southern boundary.
The site is attractive to In-Situ because it is located along the river
and because of its proximity to Old Town. Since In-Situ is an
environmental company, the owners would like to create a facility
that demonstrates environmentally responsible design and
development. With the exception of two young cottonwood trees
along the southern edge of the property, the site currently does not
support any natural communities, habitats, or native vegetation.
(See Preliminary Ecological Characterization letter from Cedar
Creek Associates attached.)
The McKee brothers see the site as an opportunity to replace the
existing non-native vegetation and weedy species with a native
. Colorado landscape that would include a variety of plant species
and wildlife habitats. They are particularly interested in creating a
wetland habitat on-site in order to demonstrate water quality testing
and monitoring utilizing their equipment. In addition, they have
offered to utilize their equipment to test and monitor the quality of
water in the Poudre River at their site and provide the City with on-
going data regarding water quality.
Being located along the Poudre River bike trail and in close
proximity to Old Town are positive aspects for employees. The
owners are hopeful that many of their employees will bike to work
rather than drive their cars. The bike trail provides convenient
access and close proximity to Old Town and creates opportunities
for employees to do errands, shop and/or eat lunch without having
to drive.
EXPLANATION OF MODIFICATION REQUESTS
Per the City's Land Use Code, the project is required provide a
300-foot buffer from the Poudre River. The buffer distance can be
averaged, but no more than a 20% encroachment can be allowed,
. without a modification, as measured from the top of bank.
3
Preliminary concept sketches for the new facility indicate that
development may encroach into the 300-foot buffer zone by as
much as 30-45%. It is clear that the site cannot accommodate the
facility and proposed expansion without encroaching more than the
20% allowed by Code. Despite this stumbling block, the owners
believe their project and this site are compatible because of the
reasons stated above. Initial conversations with the Division of
Natural Resources and Planning have been positive.
In discussions with City staff, alternative conceptual site plans were
evaluated. The Natural Resource Staff stated a strong preference
for a building orientation that would buffer the Poudre River
Corridor from the disturbances associated with the parking areas
and traffic on Lincoln Avenue. These disturbances associated with
vehicles and automobile emissions were cited as concerns that
prompted staff to encourage a building orientation that buffers the
Corridor from the negative impact of automobiles.
Representatives from both Current and Advanced Planning
departments pointed out that the Zoning District requires
view/access corridors along the river and requires parking to be
located to the interior of a project or in side yards.
The current concept places the building in the northeast corner of
the site with the parking predominantly in the front and west sides
of the building. However the building axis parallel to the river is
wider than the maximum 125 feet allowed by Code without a
Modification.
The requests are for:
(1)A modification to allow disturbance or construction
activity within the 300-feet buffer zone, as defined in
Section 3.4.1 (E)(2).
(2)A modification to allow the building along the axis of the
river from the 125 feet wide allowed by Code to a
maximum of 255 feet wide, leaving a view/access
corridor of approximately 115 feet.
4
JUSTIFICATION
The primary justification for this proposal relating to the Modification
Criteria Section 2.8.2(H)(1) is that the proposed plan will serve the
standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standard. We believe that the proposed project meets this.
criterion in the following ways:
Regarding encroachment into the 300-foot buffer and the view
access requirements:
The Land Use Code provides guidance regarding under what
circumstances buffer zones can or should be modified. The buffer
zone performance standards are described below:
(1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker
shall approve buffer zones for each natural habitat or
feature contained in the project site. The buffer zones may
be multiple and non-contiguous. The general buffer zone
distance shall be established according to the criteria
contained in the table below(in this case 300 feet), but
the decision maker may modify any portion of the
general buffer zone distance provided that the
performance standards set forth below are achieved.
This may result in buffer zones of either greater or lesser
distance than those specified in the table below. The
decision maker may also modify such buffer zone distance
if the strict application of this subsection will impose an
exceptional and undue hardship upon the property owner
or developer. The buffer zone performance standards are
as follows:
(a) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the
ecological character or function and wildlife use of the
natural habitat or feature and minimize or adequately
mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development.
The ecological character of the buffer zone will be greatly
enhanced over what exists today. The non-native and
annual weedy species will be replaced with a variety of
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers that will not only
buffer the river corridor, but create wildlife habitat where
currently none exists. The applicant commits to working
closely with City Staff on this enhancement program.
(b) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the
existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural
features, both within and adjacent to the site.
5
By planting trees and shrubs on the southern half of the
site, the existing wildlife corridor along the River will be
more buffered from automobile impacts and other human
disturbances than it is today.
(c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant
existing trees and other significant existing vegetation on
the site.
Two existing cottonwood trees are within the buffer zone
which will require evaluation from the City Forester
and may not be necessarily removed. ( See Preliminary
Ecological Characterization letter from Cedar Creek
Associates attached).
(d) The project shall be designed to protect from adverse
impact species utilizing special habitat features such as
key raptor habitat features, including nest sites, night
roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife or in the Fort Collins Natural Areas
Policy Plan (NAPP); key production areas, wintering areas
and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl, key use areas
for wading birds and shorebirds; key use areas for migrant
songbirds,- key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and
coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as
identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or NAPP;
prairie dog colonies over fifty(50) acres in size as included
on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map; key
areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified in
the NAPP; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect
diversity as identified in the NAPP, remnant native prairie
habitat; mixed foothill shrub land; foothill ponderosa pine
forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any
wetland greater than one-quarter(114) acre in size.
There are no key habitat areas associated with the site.
The applicant, however, is committed to developing a
wetland area that would increase wildlife habitat potential
and demonstrate responsible, ecologically sensitive
development. A wetland habitat would also provide the
company with an opportunity to demonstrate their water
monitoring equipment.
(e) The project shall be designed so that the character of the
proposed development in terms of use, density, traffic
generation, quality of runoff water, noise, lighting and
similar potential development impacts shall minimize the
degradation of the ecological character or wildlife use of
the affected natural habitats or features.
6
As proposed, the design of the project would not degrade
the existing ecological character, which is very poor. A
primary goal of the project is to upgrade the ecological
character and enhance wildlife use.
(t) The project shall be designed to integrate with and
otherwise preserve existing site topography, including but
not limited to such characteristics as steepness of slopes,
existing drainage features, rock outcroppings, river and
stream terraces, valley walls, ridgelines and scenic
topographic features.
The developable site is flat and featureless.
(g) The project shall be designed to enhance the natural
ecological characteristics of the site. If existing
landscaping within the buffer zone is determined by the
decision maker to be incompatible with the purposes of the
buffer zone, then the applicant shall undertake restoration
and mitigation measures such as regrading,.and/or the
replanting of native vegetation.
Replacing the existing non-native and weedy species with
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers is a project
objective.
(h) The project shall be designed to provide appropriate
human access to natural habitats and features and their
associated buffer zones to provide for passive recreational
uses such as hiking, fishing, photography, nature
observation and environmental education consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Natural Areas Policy Plan
and the General Management Guidelines for City-Owned
Natural Areas and Open Spaces, provided that such
access is compatible with the ecological character and
wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature.
The project will include a trail connection between the
Poudre River trail and the building.
In summary:
Regarding encroachment into the buffer zone:
• The applicant proposes to create a native landscape and
wildlife habitat where currently none exist. Utilizing a
variety of plant material species including trees, shrubs
and groundcovers, the applicant will significantly enhance
this section of the Poudre River Corridor over what exists
today.
7
• Being a water testing and monitoring company, In-Situ
wants to demonstrate responsible environmentally
sensitive design and development. They view this site as
an opportunity to demonstrate that development can be
environmentally sensitive by creating an environment that
improves wildlife habitat and enhances the Poudre River
Corridor.
• By utilizing sensitive site-planning and creative
architecture, the Poudre River Corridor can be buffered
from vehicular impacts of Lincoln Avenue as well as from
the parking lot associated with this project.
• By locating adjacent to the river, In-Situ can monitor
water quality in the river utilizing their equipment and
make this information available to the City.
Regarding the "Frequent view/access." requirement:
• In-Situ's operational structure requires a building footprint
that accommodates 41,625 square feet on the ground
floor for the light assembly operations. The primary
reasons for a ground floor facility is that it allows greater
flexibility of equipment locations, manufacturing and
general operations between departments on one level
and also benefits the assembly and flow of materials.
While it is anticipated that the first phase of the building
will be approximately 25,000 square feet, the site needs
to accommodate the full 41,625 square feet. Designing
a building that was only 125 feet wide parallel to the river
would require the building to encroach into the buffer
even further (see graphic A attached).
• The south side of the building will face the Poudre River
Corridor and connect to the Poudre River Trail, providing
a strong bike /pedestrian connection linking this
employment use with Old Town and the City's larger
recreational/commuter trail system.
• Parking located adjacent to the buffer will be well
screened with screen walls and plant material.
8
• The site plan and the architectural design of the building
work together to create a strong and attractive visual
appearance from both the Poudre River Trail and Lincoln
Avenue.
9
CFEDLM ,3
°rAi GOOC s�° FES9 INC.
16 Wilshire Ave. • Fort Collins,Colorado 80521 • (970)493-4394
September 27, 2002
Linda Ripley
VF Ripley Associates, Inc.
401 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins,CO 80521
RE: Preliminary Ecological Characterization of the Proposed In-Situ Development Site(--4 acres
immediately east of Team Petroleum at 105 Lincoln) ._
I reviewed the habitat characteristics of the subject property on September 24, 2002. The nearly level
site has been disturbed by past ground clearing activity and currently does not support any natural
communities, habitats,or native vegetation except for two relatively young cottonwoods at the southern
property edge. The City Forester may classify the two cottonwood trees as significant if they are non-
cotton bearing. The remaining vegetation supported on site consists entirely of non-native grasses and
annual weedy species. Dominant species noted during the site survey included smooth brome
(Bromopsis inermis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), kochia(Bassia sieversiana), Russian
thistle(Salsola australis), and leafy spurge(Euphorbia esula). The entire site had been mowed
(presumably for weed control)and vegetation height was generally less than 3 inches. No vegetation,
soils, or hydrologic evidence of wetlands is present on the property. Photos 1 and 2 provide
representative views of the property.
• Because of its current degraded condition and lack of vegetation cover there is no significant wildlife use
of the property. In spite of its proximity to the Poudre River Corridor,the site does not provide any
suitable habitat for Ute ladies'-tresses orchid or Preble's meadow jumping mouse. The lack of wetlands
and suitable vegetation cover precludes the potential presence of these two species.
The only natural habitat area within 500 feet of the property is the Cache la Poudre River corridor. The
river corridor is located immediately south of the property and is separated from the property by the
Poudre River Trail. The City's 300-foot buffer setback from the river would apply to development on the
development parcel unless a variance from the Planning and Zoning Board can be obtained.
Linda,this concludes my initial assessment of the possible In-Situ development site. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES,INC.
T. Michael Phelan
Wildlife Ecologist
attachment
•
c
Y < ��
f w�
r 7"
Photo 1. View of Proposed In-Situ Development Parcel. (View is from north property
boundary looking south toward the Cache Is Poudre River.)
Photo 2. Another View of the Proposed in-Situ Development Parcel. (View is from same
point looking southeast.)
- -� - - - - - - - - - -
- � 1
� LINCOLN AVENUE
1
I
1 1
1
awa.m 1
+ay
I \\
\ I
I �
1
a9a1
, 1
F-�
A
,
1 R�
UpRFRpp�� i
rn gar
R� w
0 25 50 100
SCALE:V=50' j a j
�.,
__._�._ . .__-_.__-__ _ ____ _ _ , r
�" r�
i
!. j�
I
i
_ _ __
----- i
� �1 . � __ �
1 , �
�� � 1
_ � j
� i
I
i
i
+ i i
j
1
i _
t l
I�I ® �i r •• •y- I
_ � 4
.. • , Oi i� -. —� � . .. „ems , . �___.�..
�y • ` ....�YM ...._CIA .. w.� ..
L .
� Cr Ta ) fy
.•/ .; '� -�w �� '� i s �- � 7 • �..j' q �k . '' � +fit.
, y A'^ y•� t . .. � sir•- %. I .wa� ,
` •Tl�tr
` O' ��► . � "� sly r _ -- - j � I
r �
WIN
a a _
f t M
I
r �
_ I
_ I
Community Planning and Environmental St-vices 4W4a
Natural Resources Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Board
�I
FROM: Doug Moore, Natural Resources Plannep�
DATE: December 12 2002 U
RE: In-Situ, Inc. Request for Modification to Section 3.4.1(E)
The purpose of this memo is to inform the Planning and Zoning Board that
Natural Resources Staff supports the two Requests for Modification of Standard
for In-Situ, Inc. at 105 East Mountain Avenue.
Since the Conceptual Review meeting of September 9, 2002, the D.N.R. Staff
has worked closely with the applicant and consulting team to design a project
that meets the Performance Standards of Section 3.4.1(E). This includes a site
inspection and consultation with other D.N.R. Staff, including the Director.
Since Conceptual Review, D.N.R. Staff participated in a design charette with the
applicant, consulting team and other City Staff including Current Planning and.
Stormwater Utility. A thorough analysis of all available options as to building
size and orientation, parking lot design, and naturalistic enhancements in the
buffer zone were discussed and considered.
D.N.R. Staff finds that the proposal is the result of a successful collaboration
among the various public and private interests that promotes the general purpose
of the buffer zone performance standards. In-Situ, Inc, is an environmentally -
friendly company that will improve the riparian habitat of this long-neglected area
between the Poudre River and East Lincoln Street. Based on this effort and
resulting Preliminary Plan, D.N.R. Staff supports the Request for Modification of
Section 3.4.1(E) and we look forward to continuing to work with the applicant and
consulting team to refine the planting plan in the area between the building and
the Poudre River Trail at the time of the P.D.P.
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (910)221-6600 • FAX(970)224-6177
LINCOLN AVENUE s e
I A 9em4rk I
I I
I I
I I
I
6B1].l0'� I
I 4y4y I
I
1 _ _ BURRING
41,525 S.F.
I
I 1 \
Im
1
I
1
1
1 4
I m
$ 49451 VI
I I1
TFTWI
1lSF� �
PCu�RFR/IFR \ \ I GRAPHIC A
an „�
a� ura,
� W
0 25 50 100
SCALE: 1"=50'
1
1
2
3
4
5 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
6
Held Friday, December 19, 2002
7 At City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
8 Fort Collins, Colorado
9 In the matter of In-Situ Modification of Standards
10
11 Commission members present:
Jerry Gavaldon, Chair
12 Glen Colton
Sally Craig
13 Dan Bernth
Judy Meyer
14 Mikal Torgerson
Jennifer Carpenter
15
16 Staff present:
Paul Eckman, City Attorney' s Office
17
GAMMIAJ GcoTS
18 TAD SH�PA eo
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
2
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: We' re going to move to the
2 discussion agenda. We' ll take a break after we do the
3 modification of standard of In-Situ Incorporated at 105 East
4 Lincoln Avenue. Is that okay with the board or do we need
5 to take an earlier break? Okay.
6 And it' s Ted. Thank you, Ted. Very good work on
7 the past one.
8 MR. SHEPARD: Okay. On this next item I ' ll read
9 the introduction first and then I ' ll go to some of the
10 slides . But I also want to tell you that in response to the
11 work session, I went out and took more slides from the bike
12 trail. So I know that we had a pretty heavy work session
13 item last time, so I 've got a lot of information for you.
14 This is a request for a modification of two
15 standards. Section 3 . 4 . 1 . E (2) , which is the Buffer Zone
16 Performance Standards, and Section 4 . 16 D(3) A(3) , which
17 refers to buildings, frequent views and access .
18 The proposed structure and parking lot encroaches
19 into the Poudre River buffer zone by more than the allowable
20 20 percent. The length of the structure parallel to the
21 Poudre River exceeds the maximum of 125 feet.
22 The site is approximately 4 acres in size and
23 located at 105 East Lincoln. This is on the south side of
24 Lincoln across from the Buckingham subdivision between
25 what' s known as Alliance Construction and Team Petroleum.
3
1 The site is directly north of the Poudre River
2 trail, which is directly north of the Poudre River. The
3 site is zoned CCR, Community/Commercial/Poudre River.
4 Staff is recommending approval . I ' ll remind the
5 board that this is what we call a standalone modification
6 and that based on direction that we had with the board, that
7 we tend to bring to you at this time what ' s referred to as a
8 preliminary plan, which is a horizontal layout of a plan as
9 opposed a fully civil-engineered document that we would give
10 with the PDP.
11 So I just want to show you some of the aerial
12 photographs that we've got in here because it will help us
13 with our discussion. Now these -- slow, slow.
14 Go back two.
15 Go forward one.
16 This will be the site plan that the applicant
17 will talk about. And the arcA line in this line reflects a
18 300-foot buffer. They' ll go into this in more detail .
19 This reflects the 20 percent reduction, that ' s
20 240 foot, but I ' ll leave most of that to the applicant' s
21 discussion.
22 This is the preliminary plan and, again, I ' ll
23 leave most of that to the applicant.
24 And this is a demonstration of what it would look
25 like if the building were perpendicular instead of parallel.
4
1 This would achieve the 125-foot parallel access .
2 Now these are the aerial photographs. These are
3 from the Downtown Strategic Plan that we also had presented
4 to us last Friday as well.
5 This site is located right there. And this is
6 Lincoln Greens . This is the Poudre River. This would be
7 Alliance Construction. This is Team Petroleum. This is
8 Ranchway Feeds, used to be Miller Brothers Trucking.
9 Lincoln is to the north. That' s the Buckingham
10 neighborhood. The Buckingham park. Mulberry. Lemay over
11 in this area.
12 _. And the preliminary boundary is the study for the
13 Downtown Strategic Plan, more of a land use kind of graphic
14 that was prepared for the Downtown Strategic Plan. This
15 gives us a little closer view.
16 The site is located right here; it ' s this square.
17 You can see its proximity to the Poudre River. This is the
18 Udall open space.
19 This is yet another aerial photograph. You can
20 see the relationship to the residential neighborhood. The
21 Udall open space. The Poudre River. The trail runs along
22 the Poudre River and the proximity to Lincoln Greens.
23 I ' ll skip through this next eight because I think
24 these will be more of the applicant's presentation. And
25 we've got some slides at the end of this that I just want to
5
1 point out to you. Again because of the work session, we
2 didn' t have a whole lot of time.
3 The next two slides are from the Ecological
4 Characterization Study. I think the ones that were in your
5 packet came out a little dark.
6 These were taken in August or September of this
7 year when there were still a lot of trailers out there. The
8 image that ' s shown here just demonstrates that the former
9 use used to be sort of a salvage yard and that the ground
10 area is pretty compacted and rather denuded of vegetation.
11 You' ve got a copy of that Ecological Characterization Study
12 in your packet.
13 Same view.
14 This is a view looking to the south and to the
15 west. Beyond the tree line is the Poudre River. Beyond
16 that is the Udall open space, which is now the storm water
17 detention and filtration ponds for the east side outflow
18 project.
19 The present site is storing an old house.
20 This is a closer view towards the back of the
21 property looking towards the river.
22 This is looking more directly south from that
23 same area.
24 Directly south again.
25 This is looking back to the west slightly north
6
1 along Lincoln. And that' s Ranchway Feeds in the background.
2 That' s the sign for Team Petroleum. Lincoln
3 Street is in the foreground.
4 This is a shot taken out on the railroad
5 embankment looking back toward the northeast.
6 This is a newly-constructed water filter pond for
STOx".7
7 the &tv _:. Water Project.
8 The Poudre River then lies beyond that . The
9 trail and then the site is beyond the tree line.
10 We didn' t have these slides at the work session
11 and one of the members wanted to know what' s it like from
12 the trail so these next series of slides are taken along the
13 trail. I 'm sure you've all been along it so we ' ll just kind
14 of zip through these.
15 And so you can see, I 'm sure it ' s familiar to you
16 now, that it ' s right next to Lincoln Greens right before you
17 get to the Lincoln Bridge, north side of the trail.
18 And with that, I think I ' ll just have Doug get us
19 back to where the applicant wants their images to begin.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Should we just let the
21 applicant go and then go to public input, that way we can
22 save some time and be more efficient?
23 Linda, welcome, good to see you back again.
24 Welcome, Linda. It' s good to see you again.
25 MS. RIPLEY: Thank you, Chairman Gavaldon. And
7
1 members of the board it ' s good to be here again.
2 I 'd like to start by kind of introducing members
3 of our team so far. Right now I 'm here tonight, Linda
4 Ripley, for anybody who doesn' t know me. I 'm a planner and
V- F R�rGEY
5 landscape architect with the -be Associates .
6 I 'm here tonight representing Chris and Craig
7 McKee, owners of In-Situ, Inc. They' re with me here in the
8 audience tonight and later on Chris will speak to you and
9 tell you a little bit more about his company. I 'm just
10 going to cover that very briefly.
11 Also with me tonight are members of our project
12 team that were needed to get this far into this process. We
13 have selected an architect. The architect for this project
14 will be Neenan Company, probably as well as being the
15 builders of the project . So some of the preliminary
16 architecture we 've been working with them.
ptiEi AA
17 And we' ve also worked with Mike -F� of Cedar
18 Creek Associates to do the initial Ecological
19 Characterization Study that was needed to get us this far.
20 Chris and Craig came to see me back in September. ,.
21 They have a business that basically they assemble, produce,
22 sell products and technology that is environmentally
23 oriented. They assemble products and sell products that are
24 used to help environmentalists monitor the environment,
25 particularly water resources. So the very nature of their
8
1 company is very environmentally oriented.
2 Most of the people, cities, whatnot, that use
3 their products are doing it to monitor the health of natural
4 resources.
5 Right now they're located in Laramie, Wyoming.
6 They have got 65 employees and they' re looking to move their
7 business and they have come to Fort Collins to look.
8 They haven't necessarily decided to locate their
9 business in Fort Collins, but when they were evaluating
10 sites in Fort Collins, they hit on this site. And they were
11 very attracted to it ironically because it is very close to
12 a natural environment because it is on the Poudre River.
13 That appeals to them because it would give them
14 an opportunity to actually utilize their water monitoring
15 equipment. Actually as part of this process they have
16 actually offered that monitoring as something they can
17 provide to the city. It is a way to monitor the quality of
18 water in the Poudre River if they ever located there.
19 So, anyway, the fact that it is a natural
20 environment was a big plus for them. They like the idea of
21 being close to a river because it ' s so tied with what they
22 do and what they are about as a company.
23 They also like the idea that it' s very close to
24 Old Town. And as such, being right on the Poudre trail,
25 they could encourage their employees to ride their bikes or
9
1 walk not only to Old Town for lunch but since that trail
2 connects to a wider community trail system, to also commute
3 to work that way.
4 So those were some of the reasons why they like
5 the idea of this particular site. They wanted to move from
6 Laramie to get a little more closer to vendors that they do
7 business with on a regular basis. So we started looking at
8 programming what they needed in terms of their business .
9 What they want to do is build a facility that' s
10 about 25, 000 square feet initially. However, they
11 anticipate that the demand for environmental monitoring is
12 going to grow and they want to grow with that demand. So
13 they want to find a site where they can expand in the
14 future.
15 The expansion that they have in mind is just to
16 get to about a little over 40, 000 square feet eventually.
17 So they want to find a site that will allow them to do that.
18 So we began putting their needs on this site,
19 that large of a building, and the parking that would
20 facilitate that. And we discovered right away that it
21 doesn' t -- it doesn' t fit if we have to provide a 300-foot
22 buffer from the Poudre River.
23 The Land Use Code provides a chart in the code
• 24 for various natural resources that the city wants to
25 protect. Provides a chart that states how large a buffer
10
1 should be provided. In this particular area along the
2 Poudre River, the chart says a 300-foot buffer is kind of
3 the starting point for discussion.
4 I think that ' s a fair way of stating it, because
5 the code allows -- automatically allows that buffer to vary
6 in width and even allows a 20 percent reduction in that
7 buffer. But if you go beyond a 20 percent reduction in the
8 buffer, the requirement is that we come before the board
9 and look at that a little more closely. But it clearly
10 gives the board -- empowers the board to provide or to
11 approve a smaller buffer if the applicant can meet the test
12 of providing a plan that' s equal to or better than a plan
13 that would meet the code. And I think we can demonstrate to
14 you tonight that we can do that.
15 So one modification that we' re requesting is a
16 reduction in that 300-foot buffer.
17 And then the second modification is to a standard
18 that's actually in the zoning district itself, so it' s
19 specific to this area along the Poudre River. In terms of
20 building mass and placement, it says that the building in
21 its access that' s parallel to the river can be no more than
22 125 feet wide.
23 I had never seen this particular standard before
24 because I 'd worked in this particular zoning district, but I
25 didn't understand it. And I had to ask staff people to
11
1 explain what the purpose of it was. And as I talked to
2 different staff people, I actually got different answers.
3 It was a little bit unclear.
4 It has to do with views, but it' s unclear whether
5 we' re trying to protect views of people driving down Lincoln
6 Avenue to the Poudre River corridor or whether we ' re
7 worried about views of people on the trail along the river
8 being able to have more open space. I don' t know.
9 The building apparently is supposed to be
10 narrower so that we have gaps along this area, but there ' s
11 this hard and fast 125 feet . So supposedly even if we had
12 10 acres, our building still couldn' t be wider than 125
13 feet .
14 I thought it was an odd standard, and I would
15 just, as an aside, encourage staff and board to look at that
16 a little more closely. Because as this area starts to
17 redevelop, which I think is something we would all like to
18 see in this community, that might be a restriction that
19 you' re going to bump into more and more.
20 But, anyway, with that I 'd like to q2 to our
21 slides and walk you through what our preliminary plan looks
22 like. I think Ted did a great job of showing you what the
23 site looks like. I hope maybe some of you had a chance to
24 go out and look at.
25' There is vegetation on the south side of the
12
1 Poudre Trail between the trail and the river. It' s not
2 very wide, but that area does have vegetation. It is a nice
3 natural habitat.
4 But everything to the north of the river,
5 including the chain link fence, is really quite
6 unattractive. And there -- I don' t think anybody would
7 disagree with me that there is no natural resource value
8 that exists there at all. What vegetation is there is kind
9 of weedy species . There are a couple of very small trees
10 that actually could be retained if we want to. No problem
11 with that.
12 But our focus is going to be on enhancing that
13 area and actually creating a natural environment, getting it
14 back. The 300-foot buffer that the code talks about is
15 clearly intended to protect a natural resource and to limit
16 disturbance of an existing natural resource.
17 I think in this case we have something quite
18, different. There' s nothing there that deserves protection,
19 but we certainly have a piece of land that desperately needs
20 enhancement and we've got an applicant here that would like
21 to do that, but they need some help from you folks tonight.
22 So let me walk you through what we' re proposing
23 and then we' ll open it up. I ' ll have Chris talk a little
24 bit more about his company, introduce himself, and then
25 we' ll open it up for questions.
13
1 Okay. This first slide I apologize, it' s kind of
2 light, but basically -- do you think you could take the
3 little arrow and show the swath?
4 That line there shows the 300-foot buffer from
5 the edge of the Poudre River that would be the ideal setback
6 if the Poudre River were a wonderful riparian corridor all
7 along its length here.
8 Next slide. This one shows that same 300-foot
9 line and then down a bit from it is a line that represents a
10 20 percent encroachment that would be allowed
11 administratively. But if we could stay in that zone, we
12 wouldn' t even be here tonight.
13 Unfortunately, to get their facility on this
14 site, meet their program requirements not for their initial
15 phase but for their ultimate buildout, we would need to
16 encroach an additional percentage and that is shown in the
17 shaded area.
18 That would still allow a setback along the Poudre
19 River in this area of approximately 200 feet. They actually
20 don' t own this land right here, but there' s such a small
21 piece you really couldn't have a development that occurred
22 between here and the river.
23 So essentially by them developing that far, this
24 much of a buffer would be guaranteed, which averages about
25 200 feet rather than the 300, which would be ideal .
14
1 Next slide. This is a plan that represents a
2 real preliminary conceptual landscape plan. But it
3 indicates about how large the building would be, how the
4 building would be placed on the site in relationship to the
5 parking, which with the exception of the building being
6 wider than that one code section allows, it meets the other
7 requirements .
8 The building is a one-story building adjacent to
9 the river and the parking is placed to the side of the
10 building so that parking isn' t completely along the river
11 nor is it completely along Lincoln Avenue.
12 And then in between the building and the river,
13 that ' s where In-Situ would really like to enhance the area,
14 plant quite a bit of vegetation. All of it they' re
15 committed to it being native vegetation.
16 The building would be well buffered with trees.
17 The parking lot would be screened. They would provide some
18 facilities for their employees. On that side of the
19 building would be a nice south-facing facade there. And, of
20 course, a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Poudre trail.
21 They also have a desire to actually create a
22 wetland on-site if they are able to. They haven' t gone to
23 the expense to evaluate that yet, whether they will be able
24 to do that. But that would be ideal for them because,
25 again, it would give them an opportunity to demonstrate the
15
1 water monitoring equipment that they market and sell. So
2 that ' s the bluish area indicating a wetland development on
3 their site.
4 Next slide. With this I ' ll just talk about that
5 second modification a little bit, the width of the building.
6 This was just kind of a graphic we put together to show you
7 if we did do a building that was only 125 feet wide then,
8 unfortunately, we encroach even further into the buffer. It
9 makes the problem of encroachment worse.
10 So this shouldn' t be considered an alternative
11 plan because the layout, this shape of the building really
12 doesn' t work for them, but it kind of demonstrates what
13 happens if you limit one dimension of a building.
14 Next. Maybe we just go back to the landscape
15 plan.
16 I think with that I am just going to introduce
17 Chris McKee, one of the owners of In-Situ Development, and
18 then we will listen to your questions and, hopefully, we' ll
19 be able to answer them.
20 I 'm sorry, maybe before that I should go through
21 the architectural drawings. Where were those? Okay.
22 That ' s right, we had to skip.
23 Neenan Company has been working with us in
24 helping us determine what size of a footprint we' re going to
25 need. We absolutely needed their help in order to determine
16
1 how small we could get this footprint and still meet their
2 program needs. However, getting this far has been quite
3 costly for these guys and they really couldn't afford that
4 next step of doing a conceptual design, full scale design of
5 their building, but they do have certain characteristics
6 that they want.
7 They want a building that demonstrates -- that ' s
8 not an ordinary, typical building but one that demonstrates
9 that they' re environmentally oriented and that they' re
10 creative.
11 So these slides are some other buildings that
12 Neenan has been involved with that have the kind of
13 characteristics that In-Situ would like to incorporate into
14 their building.
15 We'd like to have you pay attention mostly to the
16 materials and maybe the style, but not necessarily the size
17 and not like these buildings in every respect. I think some
18 of these buildings are quite a bit larger than the one we' re
19 talking about here but human scale elements at entries,
20 mixed materials that are natural stone, wood, have a
21 Colorado feel, fitting into the landscape so that native
22 landscaping is used, boulders, a lot of stone, that kind of
23 thing.
24 Next. I ' ll just go through these quick because
piGv
25 if you want more information, I ' ll have Ray -T-i-iy- with me and
17
1 talk about them more specifically.
2 But, again, creative-looking architecture,
3 fitting into a very natural environment. Mixed pallet of
4 materials.
5 Again, outdoor spaces for people to enjoy on the
6 appropriate sides of the building where they can enjoy
7 sunshine. Architectural integrations. Sun, shade, light
8 control.
9 Again, same kinds of materials. Outdoor spaces.
10 Seating areas adjacent to natural areas . And, again,
11 xeriescape and native plantings.
• 12 This happens to be the building that Neenan is
13 housed in that is along the Poudre River right now. And
14 they have done a fantastic job of doing the kind of thing
15 that In-Situ would like to create on their site.
16 And these then are the side shots which I won' t
17 belabor.
18 So with that I will turn it over to Chris, and
19 I ' ll be available for Chris.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you, Linda.
21 MR. McKEE: Well, thank you very much. My name
22 Is Chris McKee. I 'm president of In-Situ, Incorporated.
23 Craig McKee is also here. He' s vice-president and my
24 brother.
25 Just to give you a little background on our
18
1 company, it' s been in business since 1976. About seven
2 years ago Craig and I took the company over and have been
3 attracting best of the breed and talent around the country
4 in different managerial positions and throughout the
5 company.
6 What we do is we're a high-tech company. We do
7 software and hardware design and we do light assembly. So
/AR epvars
8 what we' ll do is we' ll spec and design these p-&� and
9 then they' ll be manufactured -- pieces manufactured for us
10 along the Front Range, and we get the final components and
11 do a hand assembly and ship them. And our products are sold
12 both nationally and internationally.
13 Our instruments are primarily for measuring water
14 quality and water level in aquifers or rivers, lakes,
15 streams and oceans. They help people monitor and protect
16 the environment and that can be anywhere from government
17 entities to local municipalities, environmental consultants,
18 things like that.
19 So a little background on why we might want to
20 move to Fort Collins here is we are a high-tech company.
21 What we depend on are top-notch people, creative, highly
22 intelligent people to think about new novel ways of putting
23 sensors together to measure under all kinds of rugged
24 environmental conditions .
25 What we would see -in Fort Collins is a city that
19
1 is committed to building a nice looking building, a city
2 that attracts people that we can attract and a city that
3 also has a large amount of high-tech businesses here from
4 which we can get people to help us grow our business .
5 Another reason is, of course, now with this, what
6 we like about the site itself, it ' s downtown. Right now we
7 are downtown. What we like about that is we' re close to
8 coffee shops. Employees, they can easily walk and have
9 lunch. So this site affords that.
10 There ' s a bike path in the back. We can
11 encourage people to ride their bikes or walk to work, part
12 of our environmental initiative. And we have the river that
13 works very well with the type of products we make.
14 We want to have that close to us so that we can
15 always keep that in mind. We design products to help
16 protect the environment or help people monitor its health.
17 Some of the things we want to see in the building
18 to go along with our strategies as a company and what we do
19 is a campus-like look or feel to the building. We want
20 people to feel like this is a creative place where I can
21 work and where highly intelligent people work.
22 And we want to put a lot of trees in it. We want
23 to have a very nice place out in the back there so that it
24 just meshes with the riverbank so people from both the bike
25 path can have a nice view and then also the employees in the
20
1 company have good windows and they can see out the back.
2 And that' s part of -- that' s an asset as well.
3 So I think we could really become in some
4 respects stewards of that section of the river at least.
5 Our equipment does monitor a variety of water quality
6 parameters and it would be an ideal place for us to put a
7 piece of equipment or to monitor its health.
8 So that kind of gives you a bird' s-eye view of
9 what our ideas are, and I 'd be happy to answer any questions
10 you might have.
11 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you. We' ll go ahead
12 and go with public input and then we' ll come back to any
13 questions that we may have. I'm sure they will.
14 Thank you very much for the overview and thank
15 you, Linda.
16 At this time I 'd like to invite members of the
17 audience to come up and speak to the board about the pending
18 application. And if you could state your name and address
19 for the record and please let us know your thoughts .
20 MR. STEINER: My name is Chip Steiner. I live at
ussr
21 626aat Oak Street. As most of you know, I am the
22 director of the Downtown Development Authority.
23 This project is not in the DDA district, although
24 the boundary runs right along Lincoln Avenue to the north of
25 it, and we have talked briefly with Chris McKee about his
23
1 base that he'd be bringing here and needed a site that would
2 accommodate about 40, 000 square feet. That was kind of a
3 parameter well upfront .
4 So given that very simple list of criteria, I
5 went to work and tried to identify sites that met this
6 criteria. And one of those sites was this one. I did my
7 best to pursuade him not to build there because of the
8 difficulty to develop. We looked at many other sites north
9 of Lincoln Avenue, but we keep coming back to this one.
10 I just wanted to express again what' s been said
11 many times, that they have a great sensitivity to their
12 employees but also to where they' re located and a
13 sensitivity, of course, to the environment around them.
14 So, again, I would ask you to seriously consider
15 this and hopefully approve it.
16 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much, Mike.
17 Do we have anyone else who would like to come
18 down and speak to the board?
19 We've got an extra microphone over here if anyone
20 is interested in using that one.
21 MR. HOLTER: My name is George Holter and we ' re
22 here a little later in the agenda for something. And I
23 didn' t plan on speaking for anything, but this is really
. 24 interesting to me because I do have a farm just east of this
25 a little ways and I drive by this site quite often on my way
24
1 to Ranchway Feeds . And it seems to me that it would be an
2 ideal thing to have that there.
3 It looks like they' re doing a lot of good
4 planning, and I think it would be a really good thing to
5 have it on that side of town. And I would sure encourage
6 trying to help them get it there. Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Thank
8 you.
9 MR. GEORGE: Good evening. My name is Dan
10 George. I live at 425 West Mountain Avenue .
11 I 'm sorry, I wasn' t here on the initial
12 presentation. I am curious as far -- do you have a slide as
13 far as where the location is?
14 One of the concerns I do have about this is
15 because of the floodplain, I 'm not sure if it extends or
16 where the location site is going to be within the
17 floodplain or not.
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Dan, you need to speak to the
19 board, not to Stan.
20 MR. GEORGE: I 'm sorry.
21 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Because we' re going to make
22 the decision tonight. So speak to us and we' l1 _get your
23 questions and/or your concerns addressed.
24 MR. GEORGE: Okay. I'm concerned about the
25 floodplain. And also what the bi-products from the
25
1 processing, whatever they do there as far as how it impacts
2 the city utility system.
3 You know, I think it's -- from what I 've seen,
4 it ' s a well-planned -- it looks like a good site or good
5 project, but those are one of the things I am concerned
6 about .
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay.
8 MR. GEORGE: Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
10 Do we have anyone else who would like to come
11 down before the board and speak before the pending
12 application?
13 Okay, we ' re closing public input . We' ll bring it
14 back to the board. And if Linda or Ted could address the
15 individual questions about floodplain and bi-products .
16 And, Doug, if you want to chime in, please do.
17 MS. RIPLEY: There ' s a line just below that
18 300-foot buffer line that kind of zigzags across. That one
19 right there. That ' s the hundred-year floodplain line.
20 So we have talked to the floodplain
21 administrator and stormwater and the City of Fort Collins,
22 and we can develop in this area. We will have to make sure
23 we' re above the base flood elevation for anything that
24 goes -- encroaches into that hundred-year floodplain but in
25 this portion of the Poudre""kiver, we are allowed to develop
26
1 in this area.
2 So that was something we checked early on, and it
3 doesn' t appear that the floodplain will be a particular
4 issue for us .
5 In terms of bi-products, there aren' t any because
6 they don' t actually manufacture parts. They simply
7 purchase parts from other vendors and assemble the equipment
8 in this building.
9 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you. If I can ask Doug
10 or Ted any comments on that? Linda, thank you.
11 STAFF: Actually, the portion in the floodplain
12 is in the flood fringe and none of the building is in the
13 product corridor or the floodway, so it is allowed. We
14 encourage them to move a little bit more, but it' s legal and
15 it will work.
16 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you. Doug. Ted?
17 MR. SHEPARD: I don't have any comments on the
18 floodplain in this area.
19 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Very good. Thank you. Then
20 we' ll bring it back to more questions. Dan.
21 MR. BERNTH: Doug, you seem to be kind of a
22 freak about that 300-foot buffer. What got them to convince
23 you?
24 STAFF: I've been called worse. I am very
25 protective of our buffer standards here in Fort Collins .
27
1 One thing if this modification is approved, keep
2 in mind that they will still need to comply with the
3 performance standards, which are very restrictive. They' ll
4 need to comply with every single one of those. So the
5 development within that area will be held to very high
6 standards for developing in that area.
7 And then also when you talk about the types of
8 material that they' ll be working with, they' ll be held to
9 3 . 4 . 1 (I) , which is the design and aesthetics . And they' ll
10 need to blend with both section I (1) and section 2, which
11 is visual character of a natural feature. So this will all
. 12 need to fit within that context when this comes through the
13 PDP process .
14 So it ' s my feeling that this will be fine within
15 this buffer area.
16 MR. BERNTH: The second question, Doug. One of
17 the buildings they showed was the Neenan Company building on
18 Prospect. Obviously, that was prior to the 300-foot buffer
19 going into effect?
20 STAFF: That was prior to the Land Use Code, yes .
21 MR. BERNTH: How far is that, the Neenan Company?
22 What is the closest -- I know Ray is here. I don' t know
23 what the closest encroachment is to the river or distance it
24 is from the river.
25 STAFF: I haven' t calculated that. I don' t know.
28
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: You need to come up to the
2 microphone, please.
/3/6G
3 MR. 9-1-G: Ray -Tig with the Neenan Company.
4 As you noted, our project was done before the
5 Poudre River corridor zoning even existed. At the same time
6 we had our own issues of sensitivity, so we wanted to really
7 fit into what was going on there and tried to be very
8 sensitive to it.
9 I would speculate that on average our building is
10 probably in the 200-foot area. There are places where it
11 comes much closer.
12 On the, what would be the east side I guess, would
13 be the best way to describe it, along the bike path we are
14 probably 125 to 150 feet from the bike path, which would put
15 us in the 150-foot . range from the bank of the river. So
16 that ' s an approximation.
17 Any other questions?
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: No, none at the moment. If
19 we do, we' ll sure call you up. Thank you.
20 More questions? Sally, please.
21 MS. CRAIG: Ms . Ripley, would you come back up,
22 please? I need some clarification.
23 I was looking at the site plans and I was looking
24 at the landscaping plans, and I 'm trying to get a feel of if
25 I were on the bike path and I were looking at this building,
29
1 how close is it? And I came up with everything from 160 to
2 170 because when I worked off of your scaling, they weren' t
3 the same . They weren' t consistent I guess, is what I 'm
4 trying to say.
5 MS . RIPLEY: We just measured that right before
6 the hearing because as I was reviewing the drawings, I
7 realized we didn't have that dimension on there.
8 It varies. In fact, Louise, could you measure
9 the very closest point that we would suggest that we might
10 be? I suspect we' re in the neighborhood of 150-160 feet
11 right here to the corner of the building that --
12 MS. CRAIG: Okay, is that hundred -- Excuse me,
13 I 'm sorry, I didn' t mean to interrupt you. Is that 150-160
14 feet, is that from the bank of the river or is that from the
15 north edge of the bike path?
16 MS. RIPLEY: No, it' s from the bank of the river.
17 The city gave us a particular contour line that
18 sort of represented a high water line of the river, I guess.
19 MS. CRAIG: So if I were standing on the bike
20 trail, the building would be similar to what Mr. 4-i-g said,
21 about 150 feet?
22 MS. RIPLEY: Similar to where their building comes
23 closest to the river. Yeah, it sounds like that would be
24 similar.
25 MS. CRAIG: Okay, that was very helpful.
30
1 And, also, one of the slides that Mr. Shepard
2 showed us on the site itself showed a little, white
3 building, and I 'm trying to get the feeling of that 150
4 feet. If that building is 150 feet or --
5 MS. RIPLEY: Ted actually measured the dimension
6 we were just talking about. He said it ' s actually 170, so
7 we' re actually a little further back.
8 MS . CRAIG: Well, see, If you look at the site
9 plan, it' s 160 from the riverbank to the building, to the
10 building envelope. If you look at the landscaping plan, it
11 shows it ' s 170 feet from the north edge of the bike trail to
12 the building and that 's where I got confused because we' re
13 talking 30 feet or more.
14 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, I think where we should
15 measure from is this line, the 4940 contour and actually to
16 there. A portion of the building could potentially be
17 there.
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Do you have a scaling on this
19 that could be consistent? Maybe we' re not measuring -- do
20 we have a scaling on these maps? There is a scale?
21 (Inaudible. )
22 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Sorry about that. We had to
23 do some math there.
24 MS. RIPLEY: Do you want us to go through the
25 site shots to get to one that you can ask a more specific
31
•
1 question about?
2 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Linda, I think there was one
3 with a building on it that Ted had. I think that' s what
4 Sally' s looking for.
5 MS . CRAIG: Yeah, he showed the fencing and he
6 showed as if I were standing on the bike trail looking into
7 the site . Here you go. One more. Try again.
8 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Is that it, Sally?
9 MS . CRAIG: No. There it is . See, there' s that
10 little, white building. Is that 150 feet? I 'm just not
11 very good at looking at the --
12 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I think someone may know.
13 Okay, would you come on down if you know, sir, please? Help
14 us on this .
M IC44kL Eh6EX
15 SPEAKER: Where the arrow is pointing there, that
16 is actually in the part that is right on the edge of the
17 corner that' s not part of this property. You remember where
18 it jogs up like this on the corner?
19 MS. CRAIG: Right.
p rt/rn�'c t Hccae
20 SPEAKER: So that' s not on it. The house is on
21 stilts which is to be moved, that's on the property. And I
22 don' t know what that dimension is, but that 's I want to say
23 is in the 150 to 180-foot range.
24 I want to make a point, too. It ' s too bad we
25 can' t pan over a little bit because the upper bank of the
32
1 river is just within a few feet, I would say 6 or 8 feet of
2 the south boundary of the asphalt of the bike trail . It ' s
3 pretty narrow if that helps any.
4 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much.
5 MS . CRAIG: Yeah. I 'm just trying to envision if
6 I 'm going along on the bike trail, how close this building
7 is . And the reason I 'm trying to do that is to get the
8 feeling since it' s going to be more than 125 feet, how much
9 building and how close is it going to be as I go by on the
10 trail? Especially since you' re 45 percent into the buffer,
11 that ' s putting you well down along that area.
12 MS. RIPLEY: 150 to 170 feet, somewhere in there.
13 I don' t know.
14 MS . CRAIG: If we think of biking past the Neenan
15 Company, that' s probably how close this building is going to
16 be.
17 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Excuse me, your name?
18 MR. RICE: Rodney Rice, 301 East Lincoln. I 'm
19 the owner of the property adjacent to this.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, would you go ahead and
21 share some --
22 MR. RICE: On that building that you' re talking
23 about right there, sits right on the floodplain line. So
24 whatever the distance of that floodplain line is on your
25 map is the edge of that building.
33
1 MS. RIPLEY: The building on stilts?
2 MR. RICE: Yes . And it is Hydro Construction,
3 not Alliance Construction, sir. For future, it is Hydro
4 Construction, not Alliance Construction.
5 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, thank you very much for
6 clarifying. Okay, just a second, let's get --
7 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, so do you want to go backto
8 the slide that shows the floodplain line?
9 MS. CRAIG: No, as a matter of fact, my fellow
10 board member, Dan, helped me try to get a better feeling so
11 we' ve got the site map here. That helps me visually, and
12 I 'm sorry to make it a big exercise.
13 MS . RIPLEY: As you continue your visualization,
14 you have to imagine quite a few trees planted between that
15 trail and that building as well . And remember, it ' s not
16 your typical industrial kind of building, you know. A very
17 attractive building that will have windows and facade
18 treatments on all sides . So this isn' t going to be a back
19 of a building that ' s uninteresting. It will be an
20 attractive structure.
21 MS. CRAIG: You were talking about the building.
22 Did the McKees look at the possibility instead of going so
23 far into the buffer, of possibly buying a piece of land to
24 the east or to the west and work with the building more
25 horizontally so they didn' t have to go 45 percent into the
34
1 buffer?
2 MS. RIPLEY: They would have to answer that
3 question. I can assume that they' re trying to do a -- you
4 know, buying four acres of land, they thought they had a big
5 piece of property. The fact they had to provide a 300-foot
6 buffer came somewhat as a shock because knowing
7 approximately how much of a site their building and parking
8 would take up, four acres seemed like a plenty big site.
9 I don't know, would you guys want to add
10 something to that?
11 MS. CRAIG: Thank you.
12 MR. CRAIG McKEE: Craig McKee with In-Situ. We
13 did talk to the neighbors of those properties, Hydro
14 Construction and Team Petroleum, and discovered that both
15 were not particularly interested in selling either property
16 at the time. So that kind of left us with that same
17 property.
18 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Thank you very much. Okay.
19 I think Glen had a question. Okay, Dan, it's yours .
20 MR. BERNTH: Linda, you said you had a concern
21 about the site size compared to the building size -- four
22 acres -- yet the plan is to build a 40, 000 square foot
23 building on that four acres, so 25p land coverage. To me
24 that' s a fairly good land coverage in any kind of
25 development. Is that an incorrect statement? I mean, do
35
1 you see what I'm saying, Linda?
2 MS . RIPLEY: Could we go back to the landscape
3 plan just so we have an image that we can kind of get?
4 Well, there are lots of sites that are developed
5 a whole lot more intensively than this site, not that this
6 site should be. You know, I 'm fully in support of buffers
7 along the river and along our natural areas .
8 In this particular case, though, I think what
9 we' re proposing to do really does represent a plan that' s
10 meeting the criteria or meeting the purpose of the standard
11 better than a plan that might technically meet the standard
12 which would be set back the 240 feet, or whatever the 20
13 percent encroachment would allow, but wouldn' t be providing
14 the enhancements that we' re intending to provide that would
15 do more normal landscaping.
16 I think what this company is proposing to do and
17 add to this site and really develop it into real natural
18 area that has wildlife habitat and native vegetation is
19 above and beyond what we would get with a 300-foot buffer
20 and regular landscaping.
21 MR. BERNTH: Again, I just hate to characterize
22 the site as that you' re doing a lot of, you know, excessive
23 landscaping or excessive buffering for a 300-foot buffer
24 simply because again you have a 25 percent land coverage.
25 To me that' s not an unreasonable amount or not a small
36
1 amount .
2 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, and I 'm not indicating -- I
3 didn't mean to indicate that. If I did, I apologize.
4 MR. BERNTH: I didn' t mean to yell at you either,
5 Linda. -
6 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thanks, Dan.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, thank you, Dan.
8 MR. TORGERSON: Ted, quick question. The
9 modification isn' t really tied to any of these site plans
10 since it ' s a standalone modification. And although I have
11 confidence that Neenan will do a nice design, and I have
12 confidence that they want to do a nice landscape plan, we' re
13 not suggesting any particular conditions of approval by the
14 modifications?
15 MR. SHEPARD: No, we are not. I think that based
(.0 46 A AoRA ri$4
16 on the degree of ca - that we've had thus far, based
17 on the written materials that have been presented to the
18 record, based on the testimony this evening, I 'm confident
19 that conditions aren' t necessary at this point and that
20 we've got the full force and effect of Article 3 to back us
21 up on anything.
22 MR. TORGERSON: But if we' re saying that this
23 additional landscaping is better than the standard, which
24 I 'm inclined to believe, wouldn't it be appropriate to
25 make that additional landscaping a condition of the approval
37
1 of modification?
2 MR. SHEPARD: My feeling is that the landscape
3 plan that' s shown is equivalent to what we used to call a
4 preliminary landscape plan as part of a preliminary PUD.
5 And we didn' t used to really condition preliminary PUDs, but
6 we held the final to be in substantial conformance with the
7 preliminary. And that' s the thinking that we ' re having at
8 staff is that what they' re showing tonight, they will be
9 held to substantial conformance with the preliminary
10 landscape plan.
11 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, even though the code really
12 doesn' t really allow us to do that?
13 MR. SHEPARD: The code allows us to approve a
14 landscape plan that meets or exceeds the standards . We ' re
15 relying on the statements that are being made for the public
16 record, that they will substantially exceed that. The
17 illustration is documentation of that.
18 If you would like to add a condition, that would
19 be your prerogative. I wouldn' t object to that. But we're
20 not thinking we need it.
21 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I don' t want to beat it to
22 death. And, actually, just based on what their company does
23 and the applicants -- consultants -- I 'm sure they will do a
24 good design, but it just seems that might be an appropriate
25 condition.
38
1 MR. ECKMAN: I think that' s certainly appropriate
2 for the board to consider. On the other hand, I agree with
3 Ted that when this comes for approval, it would, as I
4 understand it, be a Type 1 administrative hearing, but it
5 would come with these modifications as part of the package. F
6 And the modifications were based upon these promises, so it
7 will all fit together as a Type 1 review, too.
8 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, I think Doug wanted 'to
9 add something. Doug, please.
10 STAFF: I wanted to say I wouldn' t have a
11 problem as well with the condition if you wanted to add that
12 but I also feel it' s not necessarily because of the strict
13 standards of 3 . 4 . 1 .
14 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I have one question. Go
15 ahead, Glen, you've been waiting. I ' ll wait.
16 MR. COLTON: Doug, I don' t know if you were
17 involved in actually writing the standards for the buffers
18 and all that and the discussions that went on. I guess I
19 know a lot of people are highly reliant on a 300-foot buffer
20 along the Poudre to protect it from encroaching development.
21 And, you know, that's a general statement. That' s why we
22 have it. And I realize existing conditions there aren' t
23 such that there is much of a natural habitat, but I think a
24 lot of people are feeling that, well, it would be eventually
25 enhanced beyond where it is today and so forth. And I feel
39
i
1 like they' re doing that, but I also feel like, you know,
2 it ' s almost a 50 percent encroachment in areas.
3 And if we do this here, are they going to come
4 along at the golf course and say, well, that' s not an
5 existing natural area so I can put buildings up within 150
6 foot to 200 foot of the river when they redevelop the golf
7 course, or if they come along with another project?
8 I mean, how -- what can we say or to assure me
9 that or give me some assurance that we aren' t going to be
10 bringing this buffer in so it ' s 150 foot when all is said
11 and done along the Poudre because that was the precedence we
. 12 set with a company that was going to do a good job of
13 landscaping and that we wouldn' t just automatically all of a
14 sudden say, well, we don' t need that buffer anymore because
15 these are good companies, they' re doing this landscaping,
16 therefore, we have a 150 buffer instead of 300?
17 STAFF: Sure. And believe me, it is not our
18 intention to eliminate the 300-foot buffer in the areas that
19 you've talked about. You know, I think it' s very important
20 to protect those in this area.
21 We do have the Udall natural area to the south of
22 the site which is a large open area. It' s part of the
23 natural area program and the stormwater program but it is a
24 natural area property.
25 And what we worry about, in addition to wildlife
40
1 movement through this area with a 300-foot buffer, is the
2 water quality that would be leaving this site. Obviously
3 this company is very concerned with that as well .
4 But that ' s something that we look at in the
5 development and we ' ll evaluate that through the PDP
6 process to make sure that that stays in place.
7 It seems like a very appropriate use in this
8 area. And even when you look at the overall downtown plan
9 and how those pieces fit in, this could play an important
10 piece as integrating all of that in as one, you know. And
11 so to me to back off on the buffer in this particular
12 section with this project, like I said across the street or
13 across the river from the Udall natural area, would be
14 appropriate. So I hope that' s --
15 MR. COLTON: Did the NRAB have a chance to take a
16 look at this and make any comments?
17 STAFF: They have not. But, obviously, if it' s a
18 concern of this board, I 'd be happy to make a presentation
19 with this project through the approval process and include
20 that as well.
21 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: With due respect, I have a
22 process question about asking other boards to weigh in on a
23 P and Z board' s facts and findings, Doug. I think we must
24 be careful because they have a different scope and charter
25 to work with and they advise City Council . They do not
41
1 advise us on land use or anything. So, please, I don' t want
2 to go down that path.
3 MR. COLTON: Sir, with all due respect, I didn' t
4 ask if they made a recommendation. I just asked if they
5 discussed it with them.
6 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I don' t think we should be
7 discussing it with them. They should be working on
8 policies . Doug, chime in on this . What' s your role?
9 STAFF: That's fine. And what I intended to say,
10 and I thought I had but maybe I missed that, is that if
11 it ' s, you know, at the discretion of the board, if the board
12 would like me to do that, I 'd be happy to.
13 But you' re right, your board does have say over
14 this modification request and over the Land Use Code, so it
15 is your place to make the decision.
16 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I want to keep our decision
17 here. And let the boards and commissions advise City
18 Council on NRAB, air quality, status of women, library, on
19 all of that, let them do all of that, and we' re staying with
20 the land use program.
21 So I did my two cents. Sorry guys, but I want to
22 keep us on process . Thanks for your thoughts .
23 MS . MEYER: Doug, from my point of view,
• 24 personally I know there' s nothing natural left in that area
25 because it' s been pretty battered and destroyed over the
42
1 past few years, but I trust your judgment because you are so
2 protective, just as Dan noted. The 300 feet is pretty
3 sacred to you so I respect your judgment.
4 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Go ahead Sally, please.
5 MS. CRAIG: I think that Glen brought up a good
6 point, Doug. Now let's take this scenario on around to the
7 golf course and we' ll say another company as wonderful and
8 reputable as this company wants to do the exact same thing.
9 And they say, you know, the golf course has no natural
10 habitat value, so we should be able to -- we should be able
11 to go into the buffer 150 feet also.
12 STAFF: There are more floodplain issues down on
13 that property that would keep that from happening. Glen has
14 already left but that's the discussions I 've had with him
15 on that.
16 MS. CRAIG: Okay, so theirs are more in the
17 floodplain than this piece of property is?
18 STAFF: Yes. As it drops down, the floodplain
19 increases .
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Jennifer, go ahead. We' ll go
21 to Jennifer.
22 MS. CARPENTER: I think we need to be real
23 careful where we go here because I think what we need to
24 look at is on a case by case basis and our criteria is it
25 equal to or better than.
1 I think we need to be looking right at this 43
2 particular project and then if one comes on the golf
3 course, we need to look at that and say, again, is it equal
4 to or better than.
5 That doesn' t mean just because this one is, that
6 the next one will be. And I think that ' s an important piece
7 that we need to keep in mind.
8 MR. BERNTH: I would agree with Jennifer. I
9 don' t look at this as setting any precendent. I look at the
10 buffer as somewhat sacred to me also.
11 So, again, I don' t look at the buffer -- I 'm not
. 12 going to vote -- I 'm going to vote positively for this, not
13 because these are good guys or a great company or they would
14 be an addition to downtown, we ' re needing companies or the
15 architecture or anything like that because, obviously,
16 that ' s not part of our decision process . But I do think
17 it' s going to be a quality development.
18 I do not think we're setting precendent for the
19 future. And right now when I go down that trail I look at a
20 6-foot chain link fence with barbed wire on top of it, so it
21 would be difficult to vote against it based upon that.
22 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Dan, I totally agree with you
23 there, because I used to -- I right there, I saw a lot of
24 broken down milk trucks for a long time. And you know what?
25 I played down there as a kid in that area and I think we 'd
44
1 improve this greatly, so I do agree.
2 MR. TORGERSON: I guess this would be a question
3 for Linda. I was just running the numbers . You said this
4 was a 40, 000 square foot building at buildout?
5 MS. RIPLEY: Yes.
6 MR. TORGERSON: The parking that you' re providing
7 on this conceptual site plan is exactly the maximum
8 allowed --
9 MS. RIPLEY: Yes .
10 MR. TORGERSON: -- under the code. I was
11 curious, they were sort of alluding to the fact that they
12 wanted to locate here because people might bike to work and
13 that sort of thing and yet were maximizing the parking.
14 MS. CRAIG: Well, they are hopeful that their
15 employees will walk and bike to work.
16 Again, I want to just say that they' re not going
17 to build this entire buildout in the first phase. They
18 certainly won' t build all the parking in the first phase.
19 They won' t build all the parking, if it' s not needed.
20 But they have been advised if they ever have to
21 vacate this building or sell it or whatever, a new use were
22 to go in, they might need the parking that' s allowed by
23 code. So that's why they thought, well, as businessmen
24 maybe we should put this much.
25 But they won' t build it if they don' t need it.
45
• 1 It ' s their intent to get by with as little as possible.
2 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I 'm sure that' s true. I
3 was just sort of thinking that if you didn' t have that last
4 leg of parking there, it would be pretty easy to meet the
5 buffer standards.
6 MS. RIPLEY: We 'd still be encroaching.
7 MR. TORGERSON: You'd be encroaching some.
8 MS. RIPLEY: We'd still be here tonight is what
9 I 'm saying.
10 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, that may be. Thank you.
11 MS . RIPLEY: But it would be less .
12 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, go ahead and make a
13 motion. Well, go ahead.
14 MS. CRAIG: While you are up there, my question
15 deals with lighting because, you know, a lot of times we see
16 all of this pretty stuff but then when the building goes up,
17 we 've got lighting. When we've got the parking lots, , we've
18 got lighting. And to me this is another issue. If we' re
19 going to encroach the buffer area by 45 percent, what is the
20 lighting? Because lighting does spread and will impact the
21 rest of the buffer area.
22 MS . RIPLEY: I don' t know anything about the
23 lighting. We haven' t talked about it. In your discussions
. 24 architecturally did you even go to lighting yet?
25 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Would you come up and speak
46
1 to the board, please?
2 MS. RIPLEY: Staff member might know also because
3 in other projects Ted could probably give me a feel of what
4 the lighting is.
5 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Sally, with due respect --
6 MR. SHEPARD: We will require a lighting plan at
7 the time of PDP and there are restrictions on foot candles as
8 measured from the property line. And we have restrictions
9 on the type of fixture. They must be down directional. We
10 have light meters we can go out and inspect afterwards .
11 We 've been, I think, doing a very good job in
12 lighting lately because we've been getting better at it, but
13 I ' ll leave it to Ray to talk about the details .
P166
14 MR. TE8: The only thing I was going to say is I
15 think our intent is to meet the requirements of the city
16 with regard to lighting.
17 Our main concern is going to be the safety of the
18 employees when they' re going out there after dark. And,
19 obviously, we want to be sensitive to the buffer area.
20 And I think in that particular area especially
21 we' re going to pay attention to what the city would like to
22 see there because, frankly, I don' t know what you want to
23 see along the bike trail. Do people use the trail at night?
24 Is it prudent to be lit or not?
25 MR. SHEPARD: I think I 'd like to hear from Craig
47
1 Foreman on that at the time we do a PDP. I use the bike
2 trail a lot at night and there are places where I like it to
3 be dark but there are places where it curves and there' s
4 underpasses where I like it to be light .
5 So I would -- that ' s a performance issue that I
6 would like to get more information on.
7 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: And, Ted, that ' s not in your
SuPpe�Ep
8 process to be going into lighting because it' s epgeeed to BL A9aTo�Tnc
n
9 PDP. So I think we need to keep focus to the modification
10 and what it entails, too.
11 MR. COLTON: Jerry, I 'd like to just disagree. I
• 12 guess you seem to like to cut us off so strictly but a lot
13 of these things have to do with whether it makes sense to
14 give us a modification on this buffer to the degree they' re
15 asking for because it ' s a natural wildlife buffer, among
16 other things, and lighting and other things would affect how
17 much we should do. So with all due respect, please let us
18 continue to ask questions that impact whether we should
19 allow a buffer to be impacted by over 50 percent.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: But, Glen, with due respect I
21 will disagree because, one, these are standard law
22 modifications. We don' t have anything else that they
23 brought up. In fact, I believe they brought more than they
24 should in terms of these drawings and what they want to do.
25 We' re not holding them to it. I don' t mean to cut people
48
1 off but I want to see us stay with the process because we go
2 down these long paths .
3 So with due respect, I don' t have any lighting
4 criteria to work with. And we don' t have Craig Foreman
5 here and we ' re in the performance standards . And now if
6 we' re going to do this as a performance standard, then they
7 should have brought a PDP with everything attached and with
8 modifications. But that' s the process on standalone
9 modification. Ted --
10 MR. COLTON: No, the process is do we find it is
11 not detrimental to the public good? And if we set 300-foot
12 buffers to protect wildlife and dangerous species and
13 habitat and so forth and they' re going to have lights at
14 night which would perhaps disturb the wildlife, then that is
15 relevant to the decision on whether we should be doing a
16 buffer or not.
17 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: With due respect, I think
18 Doug would have probably said no to this if there was going
i
19 to be issues with this. We would have saw a denial .
20 So I still feel I'm holding to our process . I
21 apologize for cutting off. I don' t mean to. I just want to
22 keep us on target because I 've seen this board go down a
23 different path.
24 MR. COLTON: Well, if we can' t ask the questions, .
25 then I ' ll just be forced to say no, I guess, because I don' t
• 1 get adequate information. 99
2 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Well, that' s your
3 prerogative. We ' ll follow the process. Doug, do you want
4 to chime in?
5 STAFF: Just one thing to add. You know, I
6 appreciate the comments . We are very concerned about these
7 same issues . In fact, we ' re also concerned about the
8 possible effects that glazing may have on this project. So
9 we ' ll be evaluating all of that through the PDP process to
10 make sure that this complies, because we' re concerned about
11 this encroachment. We feel that we ' ll be fine but we want
• 12 to make sure that this is the best case of encroachment
13 that can happen.
14 And like I said, our standards within 3. 4 . 1 . ,
15 performance standards and the design and aesthetic standards,
16 give us the ability to make sure that happens .
17 So I do, I appreciate all of your comments . I
18 appreciate you looking out for these. I feel that we can
19 adequately protect it, so thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Dan?
21 MR. BERNTH: I think the ironic thing about this
22 is the company that plans to locate here, In-Situ, the
23 reason they' re locating here is because of the process
• 24 that we have right now.
25 I do not think it' s inappropriate for Glen to ask
50
1 those questions. I do think at some point we' re having to
2 rely on staff, hopefully with the discussion that the staff
3 has had, specifically when it comes to Doug, as to the
4 300-foot buffer you certainly understand, you know, our
5 emphasis on making sure it' s done correctly.
6 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Any other questions or any
7 comments before we get to a motion?
8 Glen, do you have any questions you want to ask?
9 Okay, are we getting ready for a motion?
10 Jennifer?
11 MS. CARPENTER: I move approval of the two
12 requests for modification of standard for In-Situ to allow
13 encroachment on the Poudre River buffer area and for the
14 south elevation of the building to exceed 125 feet along the
15 access of the river based on the findings of fact in our
16 staff report.
17 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, second?
18 (Inaudible. )
19 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Good question there, Glen.
20 Paul, could these two modifications be done in one motion?
21 MR. ECKMAN: The only risk there is that you may
22 have some members of the board who may agree with one
23 modification but not with another. If you feel that
24 everybody' s of the same mind on both, then there' s no harm
25 in having one motion.
51
•
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, we ' ll go with one and
2 see what the flavor is on it. And then if we like, we
3 can go different .
4 Do we have a second?
5 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah, I ' ll second Jennifer, but
6 could I add a friendly amendment? That the final product be
7 substantially in conformance with what we 've been talking
8 about tonight.
9 MS . CARPENTER: Absolutely.
10 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Moved and second. Board
11 comments?
12 MR. BERNTH: The only thing I would mention is I
13 do think we need to look at the -- Linda brought up a very
14 good point about the 125 foot . Had they built a different
15 building, they would have done 125 feet wide, I don' t think
16 it would have been as good as that plan.
17 So we do -- I think that ' s something we probably
18 would look at in fall review, right? So that was the only
19 thing I would add.
20 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, Ted, did you get that
21 down?
22 MR. SHEPARD: We've had that conversation. It
23 seems like it' s a standard that would lend itself a little
24 bit more to a performance kind of standard that you have in
25 3 . 1 . 4 (E) , A through H, because not one size fits all .
52
1 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay. Comments? Glen, do
2 you have one?
3 MR. COLTON: Well, first I just want to say it
4 sounds like this is a great company and you would be good to
5 Fort Collins, and I trust that the landscaping will be done
6 very well.
7 It does bother me that it seems like we' re trying
8 to shoehorn too much onto this site given what the buffered
9 standard would imply in that it just -- I know Doug says
10 it' s going to be okay, but it just feels like it ' s
11 encroach -- when you' re encroaching up to 50 percent with a
12 parking lot and then even parking or a little outdoor patio
13 and so forth beyond that, I start feeling, I guess,
14 uncomfortable and saying is it better to make this
15 modification or wait until someone comes along who might
16 have a smaller footprint who could do something on this site
17 and still have a larger buffer?
18 So it just, I don't know, it concerns me that we
19 aren' t having as much buffer as we probably should even with
20 the landscaping that' s being done.
21 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Good comment. Anyone else?
22 Sally, please.
23 MS. CRAIG: I very much agree with what Glen
24 stated. I also was on the Poudre River Floodplain Task
25 Force and went to a lot of the Natural Resource Advisory
53
• 1 board meetings when they were trying to put these buffers
2 together just as observing to kind of get their input, etc.
3 And one of the reasons for the 300-foot buffer was to let
4 the Poudre River naturally flood so we don' t start in to
5 canalization.
6 So that was one of the reasons why I was glad
7 that we did bring up the floodplain on this piece of
8 property and that the stormwater staff said that this piece
9 of property is different from the property as we head on
10 into the golf course as far as the floodplain goes .
11 So I probably will be supporting this tonight but
12 I very much agree with Glen in regards to it really bothers
13 me that we ' re encroaching this far into the buffer. And I
14 wish that they had been able to work something out with
15 their neighbors so that they could get the size of the
16 building they need, but we could also at least have kept
17 them within that 20 percent of this buffer.
18 And I think they also know that we' re all going
19 to be standing on the bike trail as this goes together to
20 make sure it goes together this way, because it will be
21 setting a precedence in my mind for future developments that
22 come along and whether I will agree to encroach the buffer
23 to this extent.
. 24 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Okay, any other comments?
25 Thank you, Sally.
54
1 MR. TORGERSON: This had nothing to do with, my
2 decision to support the modification, but as a downtown
3 business owner and downtown advocate, we welcome you guys
4 with open arms. It' s great to see a major company like this
5 locating downtown and especially with this kind of
6 dedication and quality. So welcome.
7 MR. GAVALDON: Jennifer, please.
8 MS. CARPENTER: I would like to state that I
9 don' t feel like this is setting a precedent for what we
10 will do as far as the river goes and encroaching on into
11 that 300-foot buffer. We' re all very sensitive to that.
12 It' s something that we cherish here in Fort Collins .
13 I think this is a special case because of where
14 it is, what is on the property, the way the floodplain
15 works here. So I don' t feel like it is going to be a
16 precedent at all .
17 I 'm not going to feel when the next one or if the
18 next one comes, any pressure from this that we did this on
19 this particular piece of land. I think this truly is equal
20 to or better than what we would have gotten if we had not
21 encroached into the floodplain.
22 So welcome to Fort Collins and take care of our
23 river.
24 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: I 'd like to add some comments
25 to it, if I can and that is one, I ' ll be supporting it.
55
1 Two, I don't see a precedent being set. There' s
2 buildings a lot closer to the river than we had talked about
3 and that ' s what resulted in this buffer being in. But the
4 companies that are closer have done a very fine job on it.
5 Two (sic) , 9en, I don' t want to say you' re highly
6 overzealous but I ' ll say you' re very passionate about the
7 buffer and I have to go on your judgment. And if you are
8 very comfortable with this, I 'm going to go on your stamp of
9 support.
10 I feel you've taken into account the lighting,
11 encroachments, other mitigation factors that could happen.
12 And you' ve probably thought through this already. Our
13 modification just tells us is it equal or better than and
14 all that stuff, but together that allows us to make these
15 decisions. I feel you already probably worked through that
16 with the staff and through other factors, and so I 'm relying
17 heavily on your judgment that you came forward with this and
18 you' re making it feasible.
19 I like the comment you made about Lincoln Greens .
20 Well, they've got their own issues. And I think those
21 issues on Lincoln Greens have been very well known to this
22 board for years because we heard of things coming up about
23 it in those areas and we already know that a sizeable
24 portion of that is going in trouble -- is going to be
25 problematic.
�r
56
1 And I don' t know what' s going to happen to their
2 neighbors to the east or to the west but I 'm going to let
3 that process run its course, because I think we' re not doing
4 precedence, we' re just taking each case by case. One shoe
5 doesn' t really fit everybody, huh?
6 So, again, gentlemen, welcome to Fort Collins and
7 we' re looking forward to it. And I 'm a frequent user of
8 that trail . We' ll be, equal with Sally and Glen and others,
9 riding on it happily and seeing something good there. So,
10 again, welcome.
11 May we have a vote, please?
12 STAFF: Meyer?
13 MS. MEYER: Yes.
14 STAFF: Colton?
15 MR. COLTON: Yes.
16 STAFF: Carpenter?
17 MS. CARPENTER: Yes.
18 STAFF: Torgerson?
19 MR. TORGERSON: Yes.
20 STAFF: Craig?
21 MS. CRAIG: Yes.
22 STAFF: Bernth?
23 MR. BERNTH: Yes .
24 STAFF: Gavaldon?
25 CHAIRMAN GAVALDON: Yes.
57
1 Okay, motion is approved. Thank you.
2 (Matter concluded. )
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
..f R.
e! i . ' ■
P"�17
�,,.,,w,.t �,F.�.,>
i'�
_ � �,._ __ _.. _u
1 , 4
i � _ ,.
�}
..
1
t
I �
_,
S.
1
I
i
be