HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/06/2020 - PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. (2) Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2020 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification of that Certain Property Known as the Fischer Rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in
accordance with Section 1(f) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2019-064.
The purpose of this item is to amend the City’s Zoning Map to change the zoning designation on two existing
single family residential properties, 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density Residential, to NCB,
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. 1185 Westward abuts the single family property at the southwest corner of
Shields Street and Westward Drive, and 1201 abuts 1185. The rezoning would merge the two properties into a
larger NCB-zoned area along South Shields Street that abuts the properties on two sides.
The rezoning request is subject to the criteria in Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code. The rezoning may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Board, which voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the request with one condition as recommended
in the staff report with agreement from the petitioner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance of First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PURPOSE OF THE REZONING REQUEST
The purpose of the petitioner’s request is to enable the two subject lots to be assembled with two other
abutting properties that are currently zoned NCB and owned by the petitioner. The rezoning and potential
subsequent assembly of these properties would make redevelopment for multifamily housing more viable on
the assembled properties.
OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report details the main considerations in this request. (Attachment 1)
Rezonings are governed by five criteria in Land Use Code Subsection 2.9.4(H)(2) and (3). They can be
paraphrased as 1) ‘consistent with the comprehensive plan’; 2) ‘warranted by changed conditions’; 3)
‘compatible with surrounding uses’; 4) ‘impacts to the natural environment’; and 5) ‘a logical and orderly
development pattern’.
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
Staff finds that the most pertinent criterion in this case is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (City Plan)
and that the Fischer Rezoning is consistent with City Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes the West Central
Area Plan as a related element of City Plan and the two plans work in conjunction to guide land use and
change in the area.
Policies in these documents recognize the tension and balance between maintaining existing character of
stable, established single family neighborhoods, and recognizing the continuum of change and urban evolution
with infill and redevelopment in appropriate locations. After considering the body of policy direction, the
primary consideration staff finds to tip the balance in staff’s recommendation is the concluding sentence on
page 23 of the West Central Area Plan under the heading of Vacant and Under-Utilized Parcels:
“Collaboration with surrounding neighbors is expected to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design
that is sensitive to the surrounding context.”
Accordingly, the most prominent consideration in staff’s review of the proposal was the neighborhood meeting.
The primary topic at that meeting was attendee concerns about parking in the neighborhood generally, and
their appreciation of strong statements by the petitioner about a commitment to provide a parking space for
every bedroom if a multi-family redevelopment project is ever brought forward under the requested NCB
zoning.
The petitioner stated that if the rezoning is approved, he plans to be the developer of a multi-family housing
project, and the main reason for requesting the rezoning is to enable more space for generous parking.
Assembly of the properties would also enable alternative access other than Shields Street, which would be a
goal of the City due to the evolution of Shields as a high-volume arterial.
There was no opposition at the meeting to the rezoning proposal, largely based on the parking commitment of
one space per bedroom. In addition, the petitioner is not guaranteed to be the developer but the parking
commitment is a condition in staff’s recommendation of approval.
Staff’s understanding is that all of the adjoining and facing single family houses have been rental properties for
many years and has heard no opposition from owners or tenants of those properties.
In addition to finding the Fischer Rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, staff also finds that the
rezoning is warranted by changed conditions, compatible with surrounding uses, and is a logical and orderly
development pattern. The Planning and Zoning Board staff report explains these findings on pages 5-11.
PLANNING BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
1201 Westward is part of the 1955 Western Heights subdivision, and 1185 Westward is on an older unplatted
parcel, as are the residential properties that face Shields in the NCB zone. The properties along Shields were
developed as large residential properties generally ranging in size from about ½-acre to over an acre, outside
City Limits in the early 1900’s.
NCB zoning was placed on properties along Shields as part of implementing the 1999 West Central Area Plan
(WCAP). The WCAP was updated in 2015.
The four parcels under unified ownership wrap around the property at the southwest corner of Westward Drive
and Shields Street. The proposal would extend the western boundary of NCB zoning straight northward to
incorporate the two subject properties. The current NCB zone boundary did not originally include these two
parcels so that facing houses on both sides of Westward Drive are in the RL zone.
CONDITION
Land Use Code Section 2.9.4(I) allows conditions to be imposed upon rezonings. Based upon neighborhood
concerns over parking congestion in the area if the properties subject to rezoning are redeveloped, a
recommended condition of the rezoning is that at least one parking space be provided for each bedroom if one
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 3
or both of the lots being rezoned are redeveloped for residential use. Staff considers this condition to be
appropriate for the reasons stated in this AIS and the Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, and the
Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the rezoning with the condition. Because this condition
will be incorporated into the zoning for this property, it will limit future flexibility in regulating the property with
regards to minimum parking requirements. The owner of the properties subject to the Fischer Rezoning
has consented to the condition.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts associated with the requested zoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 20, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board recommended that Council approve the
Fischer Rezoning on a 4-2 vote. The two members who did not support the proposal spoke about
appropriateness of the existing RL zoning on the existing single-family properties proposed to be rezoned. A
related point was that the loss of the two houses would reduce the supply of housing for families. A second
point discussed as being contrary to the proposal was the contradiction in the recommended condition to
require more parking in potential future redevelopment than standard requirements—the area is within the
Transit Oriented Overlay District which allows for reduced parking requirements based on proximity to
convenient transit and CSU.
Members supporting the proposal acknowledged the change that has occurred in the area, appropriateness of
extending the NCB zoning line, and the recommended parking condition being a result of collaboration with
neighbors. (Attachment 2)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 10, 2020. Eight neighbors were in attendance. Discussion of
the proposed rezoning centered on increased parking demand if the two houses were redeveloped as multi-
family housing. One other topic of discussion was existing traffic on Shields Street and difficulties of left turns
in this stretch. (Attachment 3)
A similar conceptual plan was considered in the spring of 2017 including a neighborhood meeting with 26
people in attendance. Notes from that meeting are also attached because they are similar and r elevant to the
current proposal. The neighborhood concerns were essentially the same, i.e., increased parking and traffic
associated with more people residing in the neighborhood. (Attachment 4)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Staff Report (PDF)
2. Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (PDF)
3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes - February 2020 (PDF)
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes - 2017 (PDF)
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 1
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: August 20, 2020
Fischer Rezoning, #REZ200001
Summary of Request
This is a request to rezone two existing single family residential
properties, 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density
Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. The
purpose behind the request is to enable the lots to be assembled
with other abutting property to the south that is zoned NCB and is
under the same ownership. The rezoning and subsequent assembly
of these parcels would make the redevelopment of multifamily
housing on the property to the south more viable.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board will make a
recommendation to City Council. City Council would then consider a
rezoning Ordinance.
Site Location
1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, across Shields
Street from CSU. These are adjoining
properties located between Shields and Del Mar
Streets, on the west side of Shields separated
from Shields by one lot.
Petitioner
Erik Fischer
125 S. Howes St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Owners
Erik Fischer
125 S. Howes St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Bruce A. Hotman
1185 Westward Dr.
Fort Collins, CO, 80521
Staff
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Contents
1. Project Introduction .................................... 2
2. Public Outreach ......................................... 3
3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 4
4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards ................. 5
5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ....... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 11
7. Recommendation ..................................... 11
8. Attachments ............................................. 11
Recommendation
Approval with one condition.
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 2 of 11
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed rezoning would enable an assembly of four parcels under the ownership of the petitioners. The
four parcels wrap around the property at the corner of Westward Drive and Shields Street , which is zoned
NCB. The proposal would extend a portion of the western boundary of NCB zoning straight northward to
incorporate the two subject properties, which are currently zoned RL. The boundary of the NCB zoning did
not originally include these two parcels in order to keep facing houses on both sides of Westward Drive in the
RL zone.
B. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
1201 Westward is part of the 1955 Western Heights subdivision, and 1185 Westward is an older unplatted
parcel, as are the residential properties that face Shields in the NCB zone.
1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Low Density Residential
(RL)
Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Land
Use
Single family houses Single family houses Single family houses Single family houses
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 3 of 11
Back to Top
C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Five criteria govern the review and findings on rezonings. They can be paraphrased as ‘consistent with the
comprehensive plan’; ‘warranted by changed conditions’; ‘compatible with surrounding uses’; ‘impacts to the
natural environment’; and ‘a logical and orderly development pattern’.
These criteria are explained and evaluated in the staff analysis section of this report. Staff finds that the most
pertinent criterion in this case is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Pertinent Comprehensive Plan
documents are City Plan and the West Central Area Plan, which is a related element of City Plan.
Policies in those documents recognize the tension and balance between maintaining existing character of
stable, established neighborhoods, and allowing for change with infill and redevelopment in appropriate
locations. After considering the body of policy direction, the primary consideration staff finds to tip the
balance in staff’s recommendation is the concluding sentence on page 23 of the West Central Area Plan
under the heading Vacant and Under-Utilized Parcels: “Collaboration with surrounding neighbors is expected
to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design that is sensitive to the surrounding context.”
Accordingly, the most prominent consideration in staff review of the proposal was the neighborhood meeting .
The primary focus at that meeting was attendees’ appreciation of strong statements by the petitioner about
their intent. The petitioner stated that if the rezoning is approved, he would be the developer of a multi-family
housing project, and that his main reason for requesting the rezoning was to allow space for one parking stall
per bedroom (which exceeds standard Land Use Code requirements for multi-bedroom units). There was no
opposition at the meeting to the rezoning proposal, largely based on this commitment.
There is no way to assure that the petitioner would be the developer, but the parking commitment is a
condition in staff’s recommendation of approval.
Staff’s understanding is that all of the adjoining and facing single family houses have been rental houses for
some time, and has heard no concerns from owners or tenants of those properties.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 4 of 11
Back to Top
2. Public Outreach
A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Neighborhood meeting notes are attached. The petitioner explained a long personal history in the
neighborhood, and his family’s intent to redevelop the subject parcels, along with another adjoining parcel
abutting on the west in the RL zone, accessed from Del Mar Street. That parcel would remain in RL zoning
and be developed as single family houses.
As previously noted, parking on the streets in the neighborhood was the top issue of discussion, focused on
heavy use of street parking. Other topics included the petitioner’s vision and intent, and traffic and left turn
conflicts on Shields, which were generally noted as existing challenges.
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public contacts have been received.
3. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards
A. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Conceptual Review - CDR190012
A conceptual review meeting was held on December 12, 2019.
2. Petition – REZ200001
The petition was received on February 26, 2020.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 10, 2020, at Plymouth Congregational Church on West
Prospect Road.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Notice: January 28, 2020, Sign # 529
Written Hearing Notice: April 2, 2020, 425 addresses mailed.
Published Hearing Notice: April 2, 2020, Coloradoan Confirmation #0003922474
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 5 of 11
Back to Top
4. Article 2 – Rezoning Standards
A. DIVISION 2.9 – AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
2.9.4 – Map
Amendment
Review
Procedures
This one Code Section enables City Council to approve a change to the zoning map
after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board; and contains
the applicable standards governing rezoning of property , as follows:
“Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the rezoning of land shall be
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City
Council only if the proposed amendment is:
• Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or
• Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi -judicial):
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the
appropriate zone district for the land.
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
Petitioners’ Justification: The petitioners’ justification is attached and addresses these
criteria in detail.
Staff Analysis: Staff analysis follows, for each of these criteria.
Complies
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Consistent
with the City’s
Comprehensive
Plan”?
City Plan
City Plan:
City Plan principles and policies juxtapose issues related to maintaining our unique
character and sense of place; and issues related to promoting infill and redevelopment
as the approach to managing growth.
For example, Principle LIV 2 on page 40, “Promote infill and redevelopment”, is
followed on page 41 with Principle LIV 3, “Maintain and enhance our unique character
and sense of place as the community grows.”
While these two principles may reflect different perspectives, staff finds no tension or
conflict in the policies under these principles. Pertinent excerpts are:
“Policy LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF
UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise
underutilized structures and buildings, including, but not limited to:
…Voluntary consolidation and assemblage of properties to coordinate the
redevelopment of blocks or segments of corridors where individual property
configurations would otherwise limit redevelopment potential.”
Complies
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 6 of 11
Back to Top
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
Policy LIV 2.3 - TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT.
Require higher-density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are
currently, or will be, served by BRT and/or high-frequency transit in the future as
infill and redevelopment occurs. Promote a variety of housing options for all income
levels.”
The assemblage of property that would be enabled would be consistent with these two
policies.
A policy under Principle LIV 3 is related, but reflects more of a perspective of
evolutionary change:
“Policy LIV 3.4 - DESIGN STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES.
Maintain a robust set of citywide design standards as part of the City’s Land Use
Code to ensure a flexible, yet predictable, level of quality for future development
that advances the community’s sustainability goals, e.g., climate action. Continue
to develop and adopt location-specific standards or guidelines where unique
characteristics exist to promote the compatibility of infill redevelopment.”
The Land Use Code contains standards to implement local goals for compatibility.
The next page 42 in City Plan juxtaposes Principle LIV 4 “Enhance neighborhood
livability”, with Principle LIV 5, “Create more opportunities for housing choices.”
Again, these principles could be interpreted differently from different perspectives. For
some, “enhancing neighborhood livability” could mean limiting and slowing growth and
change; while “create more opportunities for housing choices” reflects a whole
approach in City Plan to allowing for growth and change.
With that acknowledgment, staff finds no tension or conflict in the policies under these
two principles. Following are some relevant excerpts:
“Policy LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT
Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and
enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that
share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should
promote compatibility by:
Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to servi ces
and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood;
Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale
and materials); and
Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods —
such as noise and traffic—will be minimized.”
The assemblage of property that would be enabled would allow for redevelopment of
multi-family housing, which would have to comport with Land Use Code requirements
addressing these topics. In a Conceptual Review planning discussion, good
opportunities were apparent for additional connectivity through the 10-acre block;
shaping compatible building programming and design; and landscape buffers.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 7 of 11
Back to Top
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
Policies under Principle LIV 5 reflect a perspective of expanding housing to
accommodate the continuum of growth and change:
“Policy LIV 5.1 - HOUSING OPTIONS
To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types
and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well served by public
transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities.
Policy LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development
to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice.”
Another housing policy, on the following page 43, recognizes student housing. The
petitioners have stated that their specific intention is not to develop student housing
oriented to undergraduates, but rather to design for CSU employees, graduate
students, and the community generally. Nevertheless, zoning to enable multi-family
housing cannot prescribe the tenants, development across the street from CSU could
ultimately result in student housing. Housing for students is generally acknowledged
by the following policy:
Policy LIV 6.3 - STUDENT HOUSING
Plan for and encourage new housing for students on and near campuses and in
areas well-served by public transportation. Coordinate with CSU, Front Range
Community College (FRCC) and other educational institutions.
Finally, regarding City Plan, part of the overall vision is a general shift in the mix of
housing in the city toward more housing choices other than single family houses (page
29).
In weighing these pertinent policies, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent
with overall policy direction in City Plan.
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Consistent
with the City’s
Comprehensive
Plan”?
West Central
Area Plan
(WCAP)
West Central Area Plan (WCAP)
The parcels are in the West Central Area Plan (WCAP) area -- a related element of the
comprehensive plan. The WCAP tailors citywide goals and policies to specific
circumstances in the area.
Driving issues behind the WCAP have long been the challenges of balancing existing
neighborhood character and quality of life with growth and change.
The WCAP describes the area on a continuum of change, with individual
neighborhoods shaped by several forces over time, including:
• Early agricultural land use
• Incremental expansion of the city
• Colorado State University’s growth and changes to its campuses
• Increased residential, commercial, and institutional development
• Continued expansion of City services
City Plan generally emphasizes accommodating growth through infill development
rather than outward sprawl. The West Central area has been directly influenced by
student and population growth, with increasing demand for rental housing and
pressure for more. (pp. 2, 9, 16 in the WCAP).
Complies
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 8 of 11
Back to Top
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
The WCAP anticipates significant new development or redevelopment on key vacant
or under-utilized parcels, potentially resulting in change of use or intensity.
The map below, on p. 25 of the plan, articulates the plan vision for differing degrees of
change in different parts of the West Central area. The subject properties are located
at the edge of the area shown in orange as ‘Neighborhood Enhancements’, abutting
the area shown in maroon along Shields as ‘Significant Redevelopment’, which
corresponds to the NCB zone in that location.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 9 of 11
Back to Top
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 10 of 11
Back to Top
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Consistent
with the City’s
Comprehensive
Plan”?
- Conclusion
and Condition
Conclusion and Condition:
As noted previously, taking all Comprehensive Plan policies together, staff’s
recommendation was ultimately decided by this highlighted language from p. 23 of the
West Central Area Plan:
“Various Vacant or Under-Utilized Parcels
These parcels are scattered throughout the plan area and are generally under
market pressure to redevelop in a manner greater than would otherwise be allowed
by the current parameters of the Low Density Residential (RL) or Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone districts. Such redevelopment will be carefully
evaluated so that new uses protect neighborhood character, are well-designed, and
mitigate traffic and other external impacts. Collaboration with surrounding neighbors
is expected to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design that is sensitive
to the surrounding context.”
The primary concern of neighbors related to the rezoning was the potential for spillover
parking onto neighborhood streets. At the neighborhood meeting, both the petitioner
and neighbors strongly stated their observations that while tenants living near CSU
may not drive much, most still own vehicles.
In order to implement the 2015 West Central Area Plan overall emphasis on
compatibility with existing development, as described on pp 18, 22, 23, 25, and 31,
staff recommends a condition of approval of the proposed rezoning:
Recommended Condition:
Any development plan involving 1185 and/or 1201 Westward Drive for
residential use must provide at least one parking space per bedroom.
Based on this analysis, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Warranted by
Changed
Conditions
Within the
Neighborhood
Surrounding
and Including
the Subject
Property”?
The current zoning dates to the original West Central Area Plan in 1999. The
surroundings of the subject properties have experienced change since then, and since
the 2015 West Central Area Plan update.
The 2015 WCAP foresaw change and redevelopment: “The demand for rental
housing, driven in part by the recent recession and the trend of “millennials” delaying
home ownership, has created pressure for additional apartments, townhome, and
single-family rental houses in this area. In addition, CSU houses only a portion of its
students on-campus, so the remaining students must find housing elsewhere in the
city. This results in the conversion of many single-family dwellings into rental units and
short-term occupancy, with associated challenges related to property maintenance,
renter behavior, differing lifestyles, and over-occupancy of homes within
neighborhoods. Maintaining the affordability and desirability of these neighborhoods
for a range of residents, including students and families, has long been a priority for
the West Central area.
Discussion at the neighborhood meeting indicated that all abutting and facing houses
are rental properties, and that the Western Heights Subdivision is currently made up of
more than half rental properties including all adjoining and facing properties.
CSU has continued to increase its influence in the area with major redevelopment
projects on campus.
Evidence of change has been the establishment or residential permit parking in the
area.
Changes in the neighborhood and at CSU have continuously increased traffic volumes
on Shields St.
Staff finds that changed conditions lend additional justification to the proposed
rezoning.
Yes
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 11 of 11
Back to Top
Staff Analysis:
“… Compatible
with Existing
and Proposed
Uses… and is
the Appropriate
Zone District
for the Land”
The subject property is at the edge between NCB and RL zoning, with NCB zoning
abutting on two sides. If redevelopment occurs under NCB zoning, development
would be done in a compatible manner with attention to compatibility with existing
houses in the RL zone as required by the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that this additional consideration lends additional justification to the
proposed rezoning.
Yes
Staff Analysis:
“…Adverse
Impacts on the
Natural
Environment…”
The subject properties comprise existing development with no natural environment
issues related to zoning.
NA
Staff Analysis:
“…a Logical
and Orderly
Development
Pattern”
The rezoning would be an extension of an existing zoning line. Any development under
the proposed NCB zoning would abut NCB zoning on two sides.
Staff finds that the proximity to Shields Street and CSU, and potential assembly with
property facing Shields, makes NCB zoning consistent with the pattern in the area and
thus staff finds that this additional consideration lends justification.
Yes
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the petition for Fischer Rezoning to amend the Zoning Map at 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL ,
Low Density Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, Staff finds that the petition complies with the
standards in Section 2.9 with one condition.
6. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a motion to recommend that City Council approve the
Fischer Rezoning, #REZ200001, based on the analysis and Findings of Fact in the Staff Report, with the following
condition:
Any development plan involving 1185 and/or 1201 Westward Drive for residential use must provide at least one
parking space per bedroom.
7. Attachments
1. Petitioners’ Justification Narrative
2. City Plan page 29
3. West Central Area Plan pages
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes
5. Staff presentation
Jeff Hansen, Chair
Virtual Hearing
Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Per Hogestad 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Jeff Schneider
William Whitley Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
Channel 881 on Comcast
Regular Hearing
August 20, 2020
Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Stephens, Scheidenhelm, Claypool, Mapes and Manno
Discussion Agenda Item 3 Fischer Rezoning:
Project Description: This is a request to rezone two existing single-family residential properties, 1185 and 1201
Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual introduction to this project.
Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, then provided a verbal/visual presentation representing the owner Erik Fischer .
Mr. Coutts reiterated the location and extent of the proposed rezoning as noted in Planner Mapes’ introduction,
which involves two single family house lots. He mentioned the owner’s long family history in the neighborhood and
growing up in the house at 1201 Westward. The petitioner’s vision is to develop responsibly and sustainably
consistent with core values of the community. The question tonight is why this rezone is being proposed. The
answer is to allow for a multiple properties to be combined for a future residential development project. Four
properties under unified ownership would be combined. Two of those existing properties are underutilized large
lots. The consolidation of the properties allows for access and parking.
He showed a chart of zoning standards for development in the NCB zone which reflect goals for compatibility. He
showed the example of a redevelopment one block away on Springfield Drive which has come up in discussion with
neighbors. It was developed at a time when the City had no requirements for parking, and it provided .62 spaces
per bedroom—58 spaces for 94 bedrooms.
He showed a chart of 11 recent apartment projects in the general area around CSU with their parking ratios, which
vary from .25 spaces to .76 spaces per bedroom.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 2 of 6
He noted that the petitioner Erik Fischer has committed to provide 1 parking space per bedroom based on his
vision that any apartment development would be done right and respect the neighborhood. That commitment of
one space per bedroom is a recommended condition on the proposed rezoning.
He explained Land Use Code requirements for rezonings in code Section 2.9.4(H).
He explained how the proposal relates to policies in the Comprehensive Plan , in City Plan and the West Central
Area Plan.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
None
Staff Response
Planner Mapes explained staff’s analysis of the request based on pertinent policy plans adopted by City Council,
namely City Plan and the West Central Area Plan. He noted a recommended condition of staff’s recommendation
of approval that the rezoning to NCB include a requirement that future redevelopment of the properties for
residential use would include one parking space per bedroom based on the neighborhood meeting and agreement
from the petitioner.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Schneider wanted to know if the residential sign code should also be referenced. Pla nning Manager
Everette responded that in this case the parcels are already within the residential sign district which would not
change.
Vice Chair Haefele commented that fewer parking spaces were required for rent-by-the bedroom than for rent by
unit in the Land Use Code. What is the rationale for this as it seems the opposite would be true? What are the
requirements?
Planner Mapes noted that rent-by-bedroom requirements are part of the Transit Orient Development Overlay (TOD)
standards which apply to the NCB zoning in this area. Those rent-by-bedroom requirements are actually higher
than would be required for equivalent number of bedrooms in rent by unit development. But in any case, none of
the requirements would reach 1 space per bedroom which is being proposed as a commitment and as a condition
of this zoning.
Member Katz noted that in the agenda, the applicant is stated as the City of Fort Collins—is this a clerical
error? Planning Manager Everette responded yes. The agenda was incorrect and the staff report is correct.
Chair Hansen asked: if the parcels were assembled and then redevelopment occurred on the other two properties
along Shields but did not include the subject properties, would they be exempt from that parking
condition? Planner Mapes responded that if development were to occur in the existing NCB zoned parcels and not
include these new houses, then it would not trigger the one-space per bedroom requirement. The condition only
applies to a redevelopment project that incorporates these two lots.
Member Katz asked: if the two properties were to be redeveloped as new single-family houses, would the one
space per bedroom condition apply? Planner Mapes and Planning Manager Everette responded no—that scenario
would not require a development plan—only a building permit—and would not trigger the requirement.
Vice Chair Haefele wanted to know if the houses were currently vacant. Mr. Coutts responded yes.
Member Hogestad asked what makes this a logical and orderly development? Planner Mapes noted that the
question is one that the Board is being asked to evaluate. Staff analysis noted the straight extension of the current
zoning line, and findings of consistency with City Plan and West Central Area Plan, as reasons why staff found that
the request adequately satisfied the rezoning criteria. Member Hogestad feels that the existing single family
residential is logical.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Member Hogestad asked what the changing conditions are. Mr. Coutts responded that one of the biggest changing
conditions is the conversion of single-family homes in the RL district from primary residences into student
rentals. This is paired with redevelopments and infrastructure happening in the area.
Member Hogestad commented that with the students are gone there isn’t pressure for parking on the street. The
parking isn’t because of student rentals, the parking is because of students going to class during the day —they can
park and run across the street. He wonders if this was mentioned in that the conversation with the neighborhood.
Chair Hansen followed up asking if this was a residential parking zone and if it is being enforced. Planner Mapes
responded yes, it is 2-hour parking in the residential permit program.
Member Hogestad feels that in itself is a problem because it allows somebody to park, go to class, leave, and then
somebody else takes that space. What is needed is not some parking restriction as part of this rezone, it’s a
comprehensive parking plan for that neighborhood, something more than 2-hour parking.
Planner Mapes responded that at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors focused on a single issue related to the
rezoning which would enable more residential units —parking on the streets. Attendees spoke strongly about the
street parking filling up during the day while classes are in s ession, and also related to construction at CSU, so it’s
correct that most of the concern was about daytime.
But the concerns about the rezoning stemmed from the Springfield Drive apartment redevelopment project one
block away on Springfield Drive in a similar situation under NCB zoning where a house was replaced with 94
bedrooms and 58 parking spaces.
Neighbors look at that as an example and are familiar with it on a daily basis, and they feel that it contributes
significantly to the pressure generally on parking in the area. Regarding other questions of orderly pattern, loss of
two houses, or other considerations, there was no opposition to the rezoning based on any of those other things.
The only real concern expressed was increasing the parking press ure, and the applicant suggested the one space
per bedroom based his observation that even though students may not drive as much as the rest of us, the do tend
to have cars, and friends and visitors with cars. So it was a big topic at the meeting, and what is brought forward
here is largely in response to neighbors at the meeting.
Member Hogestad noted that the concern was about a daytime problem which indicated that it’s probably students
going to class, so then if there’s other problems with development, is the TOD operating the way it was intended
to?
Planner Mapes responded that the answer to that goes way beyond this particular rezoning request but there is a
debate on virtually every multi-family project about whether the Land Use Code parking requirements for attached
and multi-family development are adequate, both in the TOD and generally throughout the city. The question is a
bigger communitywide discussion and policy debate and he cannot answer the question.
Chair Hansen commented that the intent of the TOD is that since it is adjacent to public transportation, they are
trying to reduce the parking requirements to encourage individuals to use public transportation.
But there’s always the question of whether its accomplishing its intent. It comes up in every project.
Vice Chair Haefele commented that the parking is a problem. The TOD reduced requirement is aspirational trying
to create development that does not require cars, but Fort Collins is not there yet. We do not have the transit or the
mindset. Almost everyone has a car. On one hand, neighbors are anxious to have more parking in development,
but she doesn’t think it will necessarily will address the issues they are seeing, It might prevent MORE spillover
parking, but then again it sort of cancels out the intention of the TOD which had a maximum number, not a
minimum.
Member Schneider asked what that have to do with this rezone—they’re offering more parking than what the TOD
requires. We’re having a conversation about TODs when this is a rezone offering more parking than currently
required. We’re not looking at a project plan.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Member Hogestad brought up parking because the applicant and staff brought it up. The suggestion is that
somehow this would mitigate something and therefore it’s to the advantage to the neighborhood that the rezone
happen, and he doesn’t think that’s necessarily correct.
Some years ago, he did some design work for an owner of a house on Westward. The owner talked about how you
can see the cars driving around looking for parking and it goes up every time there’s a class change. This is what
its about—its not about adding additional parking to this project as a promise.
Chair Hansen asked if member Hogestad would propose just sticking with what we have in the Land Use Code
rather than offering neighbors false promises?
Member Hogestad answered no, he is concerned about the neighborhood meeting itself and how that became sort
of a carrot, and feels that the whole parking conversation was somewhat misguided.
Vice Chair Haefele noted that conversations about parking are often misguided. Its something which people think
about with their lizard brain according to a book by Donald Shoup called The High Cost of Free Parking. And its a
much bigger issue than rezoning. It brings you back to the land use there and who is served by replacing single
family houses in which families could live regardless of whether they are rent or own, vs. apartment houses which
are a totally different set of residents and how does THAT change affect the neighborhood.
If there’s 100% parking that’s going to be self-contained, and lets be honest that this is about is building an
apartment complex, so it’ll be a net zero on street parking vs. a family that might have one driveway spot and two
cars on the street. But I don’t think that’s the issue. Its whether they have a house to live in and how many people
are DISPLACED when you tear down a house.
Chair Hansen agreed with Vice Chair Haefele that offering to provide one parking space per bedroom is not an
attempt to fix their on-street parking issue, it is an offer to ensure that any development does not contribute to it
more and make it worse.
Vice Chair Haefele does not think that changing occupied single-family houses from owner occupied to rentals
constitutes a change in the condition. A change to a business would be a change in condition. But if they’re
occupied by people living in them, that’s the same as any other house on the street.
Chair Hansen responded that he recently I moved from a neighborhood that was a high rental occupancy, and they
were all single family houses, and while the difference in character was more subtle than if it was a change to a
business, it was a different. When you have a house with a family in it vs. a house with three bedrooms and t hree
students it is a different experience. Maybe not as dramatic as a house becoming a business but there is a
difference.
Vice Chair Haefele agrees but is saying that the rest of neighborhood will go from have 6 tenants to some much
higher number who are going to be of the same lifestyle. Not being one to defend student rental households
necessarily, but its not necessarily fair to consider that a change of condition to warrant rezoning of houses.
In all of this we talk about how good that rezone and development would be, but the West Central Area Plan and
City Plan speak of neighborhoods being preserved as well, and neighborhood character being preserved. We are
running out of low single story somewhat more affordable single family homes. Its evidenced by Avery Park and
how that went from being almost unlivable to now mostly owner occupied homes. So that does work, and to say
that the social change is such that the only fix is a large apartment building…I just don’t buy it.
Vice Chair Haefele noted that people often speak about the missing middle and that is part of the missing middle —
the small affordable single family house. Losing those shuts out a part of the population that doesn’t want to live in
multi-family, who might want to live in a house but don’t want a big house on a large lot or new subdivision. So she
doesn’t see that this is an improvement. She notes that the policies on the facing pages in the City Plan documents
can be read as being inherently incompatible.
Chair Hansen is hearing that the neighborhood may be better served by remaining RL. An argument in favor of the
rezoning would be that when the zoning map was drawn, the line was drawn to get properties on Shields into NCB
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 5 of 6
but did not consider whether they can be developed as NCB. If you add these two parcels, then NCB becomes
more viable for development as it is zoned.
An earlier argument was made about the boundary following a logical pattern. He thinks there’s more than one
pattern that can work—current and proposed zoning are BOTH examples of a logical and orderly pattern.
Member Hogestad feels that it is not logical to have an apartment building facing one-story single-family homes
across the street. The map in the West Central Area Plan talks about this part of the neighborhood being within the
area of enhancement, renovations and remodels vs. the area of redevelopment .
Member Katz agreed with Chair Hansen that the proposed plan is also a logical zoning pattern, the board should be
careful not to make too many assumptions about development. We don’t know what the development might be, or
whether there would be an apartment building facing the street. He also mentioned that property owners have
certain rights.
Member Hogestad asked whether a multi-story apartment building across the street from a single story house is
logical? Member Katz replied that one block from a major university, yes he thinks it is logical.
Member Hogestad noted that the land use map in the West Central Area Plan shows this in the designation for
renovations and remodels and such, to continue the tradition of single family homes and still respond to growing
families and such. And that was the thinking that went into that.
Planner Mapes added that for complete discussion, the staff report notes the map and that it’s not a standalone
page in the plan, the plan also has language about underutilized properties. If there were to be new apartment
buildings, collaboration with neighbors would try to achieve compatible development using land use code standards
that would be invoked in any development plan. Specifically in regard to facing houses across the street, staff had
comments on a previous conceptual review plan for these properties and in that review, staff commented that new
buildings would likely have to step down to more the missing middle housing scale as a transition between the
single family and whatever larger building might happen up in the existing NCB portion which is not facing and next
door to houses.
Member Schneider asked about the two properties at the corner and whether they went through a development
review?
Planner Mapes responded that there’s nothing submitted, however the applicant team and Mr. Fischer brought a
previous proposal to conceptual review that included the neighbor to the north or maybe both properties—he didn’t
recall whether it was one or both. But that did not move forward because those other owners, according to Mr.
Fischer, decided to do their OWN redevelopment project at some point, vs. participating jointly wit h Mr. Fischer. So
it appears likely that they could redevelop. They are large older properties.
Member Schneider noted that changing zoning from single family to higher density could pull students out of
houses that could then become owner occupied that families that could move into. And that’s what we ’re seeing—
students moving into these higher density apartments so you’re seeing more homes opening up for s ingle family
use.
Member Hogestad finds the map telling. The NCB properties are from a different time and are much more
disorganized than a neighborhood, he is concerned that the rezoning encroaches on a neighborhood, and this is
exactly what West Central Plan and City Plan talk about NOT doing. He thinks its pretty clear that preserving
neighborhoods is important.
Chair Hansen feels the City and this proposed rezoning is making the neighborhood a more logically and orderly
development pattern.
Member Schneider made a motion that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board make a
recommendation to City Council to approve the Fischer Rezoning REZ20001 based on the analysis,
findings of fact and the staff report with the following condition:
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 6 of 6
• That if any development plan involving 1185 or 1201 Westwood Drive is for residential use,
there must be at least one parking space per bedroom.
This also includes materials and information as presented to us in the work session, this hearing and
board discussion with this item. Member Katz seconded. Member Schneider commented that rezoning makes
sense to him and that if they stay residential uses, there is not a development plan that has to be involved with
rezoning or any changes, they could tear down the houses, rebuild single-family homes with no additional
parking. Member Hogestad, he will not be supporting the motion as the rezone does not protect the neighborhood
character. Member Katz agrees with both Chair Hansen and Member Schneider in that the rezone cleans up the
zoning pattern. Chair Hansen cares about the neighborhood but does not feel the rezone is doing anything to
significantly affect it. It makes it a more logical development pattern Vote: 4:2.
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
Development Review Center
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970-221-6750
fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview
Westward Drive Rezoning Proposal
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
February 10, 2020 Meeting Date
Plymouth Congregational Church
These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript.
Please contact staff at any time with any comments or questions:
Clark Mapes, City Planner, ph 970.221.6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Marcy Yoder, Development Review Liaison, ph 970.221.6076, myoder@fcgov.com
Purpose of the Meeting and City Process
Ms. Yoder introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the
City. The meeting purpose is to share information between the prospective developer and interested community
members, with City staff supporting as is helpful.
Meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they decide whether and how to
formulate an actual application for submittal to the City for review.
Mr. Mapes showed the City’s zoning map and briefly explained what zoning is, what rezoning is, and the nature of the
proposed rezoning -- to rezone two properties from the current zoning of ‘Low Density Residential’, or R-L, to
‘Neighborhood Conservation Buffer’, or N-C-B. R-L zoning essentially permits houses, schools and churches. N-C-B
zoning permits multifamily residential development. The process would start with an application explaining the
proposal; staff would then review and provide a recommendation on the proposal; the Planning and Zoning Board
would then consider the proposal and make a recommendation to City Council in a public hearing, and ultimately City
Council would approve or deny the proposal in a public hearing.
Notes from the neighborhood meeting would eventually be provided to P&Z and Council.
The Proposed Development Project
Klara Rossouw, Ripley Design, Inc., Land Planners & Landscape Architects, ph 970.224.5828, klara@ripleydesigninc.com
Eric Fischer, Owner
Ms. Rossouw explained the context of the site and preliminary thinking about potential development if the rezoning is
approved. The two properties proposed for rezoning would be joined with a property facing Shields to enable multi-
family residential redevelopment with access on Westward Drive, and new building construction along both Shields and
ATTACHMENT 3
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 2
Westward. The properties would also be connected to the larger “pasture” property accessed from Del Mar Street to
the west which is under the same ownership and has long been planned for development of single family houses under
the existing R-L zoning. That property would remain in the R-L zoning district. There would be buffers between
multifamily development and adjacent houses.
Mr. Fischer gave a thorough explanation of his background, growing up in the neighborhood, and his intentions for
development which would need the proposed rezoning. His family has lived and invested in these properties over many
years and so he knows the neighborhood and many neighbors and the issues.
He had previously discussed a bigger proposal with neighbors a couple of years ago. This is a smaller proposal. The
intent is to extend the line of the current N-C-B zone to Westward. Development would be multifamily, with one
parking space per bedroom. The main motivation for combining the properties is to allow for that 1:1 ratio of parking,
which is much more than the City requires. He does not want to add parking demand that would require parking on the
streets.
He is working with neighbors to the north and south for lot line adjustments and emergency access.
Questions, Responses, and Comments
Responses are by the prospective applicant
Question: Will you scrape the two houses?
Response: Yes. Most of that space would be for access and a buffer along the access.
Q: Traffic won’t come from Delmar?
R: Correct, there will be no access from Delmar. In that pasture property, we would create a cul de sac and build single
family houses.
Q: So this is similar to the earlier project, but with less apartments? How many potential units and bedrooms are you
thinking?
R: Yes, this is smaller scale. The neighbors to the north who were part of the earlier concept have decided to do their
own thing. They want to do something smaller. We are thinking about 100-110 bedrooms. Previously it was 157. It is
not certain because design is still not done.
Q: So you’re really looking at a parking space for each bedroom? Look at the project on Springfield. There are 94 units
and 50 parking spaces. That’s not enough.
R: Yes. That’s why we are requesting the rezoning.
Comment: I appreciate that.
C: I work from my home office. The two-hour rule has been effective but people still park in front of my house. I can
often go get license numbers on cars that sit there longer.
R: We expect that people will not use their cars very much, because biking and walking are convenient, but my
experience is that when students live off-campus, they have cars. Also, we are envisioning more “higher-end”
apartments, more for professors than students. There’s no pool, not a party spot. Not renting by the bedroom. We
envision integration in the neighborhood.
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 3
Q: What is the other project that the neighbors on the north are thinking of?
r: They decided they want to keep it in the family. They want to do a smaller project with two smaller units and
additional parking. They are thinking about 10-12 units.
Q: Would they have access from Westward?
R: Yes.
Q: Will there be access from Shields?
R: No turn into the project would be allowed from Shields. There might be potential for a right turn out. But more likely
would be emergency vehicle access only.
Q: It sounds like you would be the developer?
R: Yes. I’ve been approached many times to sell, but this is personal. Our intent is to be developer and keep control
over the project. Investors are lined up. I would own it and manage it, along with my sister. We own other properties
and property management is one of the things we do.
C: I work from my home office. The two-hour rule has been effective but people still park in front of my house.
C: There are lots of parking problems. Parking was challenging during development of stadium and other projects
because of construction staff. Construction workers at CSU meet and park in the neighborhood.
Q: Traffic on Westward is already a problem. The northbound left from Shields onto Westward is already a problem.
How will traffic increase?
R: A traffic study will need to be done with any development plan. A developer could have certain requirements to
address their proportional impact on traffic. In this case, there is probably so much existing background traffic that the
proportion from the new development would likely be a small impact. But that would be documented in a traffic study
based on an actual plan.
Q: How long will this project take?
R: If rezoning happens, it will happen over the summer. Then design can happen. We would work with the City to meet
standards and work with other partners (buffers, access, etc.). That is all probably two years minimum. A neighborhood
meeting would happen again during design phase. But this all depends on market and economics.
Q: Will you maintain the pasture?
R: No.
Q: Have you considered for-sale townhomes or condos?
R: Townhomes would not be easy to incorporate. We have considered whether to build the apartments so that in the
future they could potentially be sold as condos. Don’t know for sure yet.
They would be condo style units. We would build it for families, professors, not students partying.
Q: What would a buffer be like?
A: We will work with the City on buffer. It could be a berm, vegetation, potentially fencing. Don’t know until project is
designed but its something we know we want to do.
.
Q: How does it compare to the Springfield project?
R: Similar in size, but with more parking.
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 4
Q: Will there be another neighborhood meeting before the rezoning?
R: No, but there would be a notification before a Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and you can contact any of us at
any time – email, or call. Both the developer team, and City staff.
Q: Can we give public comment at the P&Z meeting?
R: Yes, and also at City Council.
Q: If this property wasn’t rezoned, how would it be different?
R: Probably less parking for an apartment project along Shields in the N-C-B zone. I want a lot more parking than the City
requires. You can only take out so many units and be cost effective.
C (City): If the rezoning were to be supported based on an intent to have a certain parking ratio, there would need to be
a condition with the rezoning to make sure it would happen. The City tries to stay away from that, but can happen.
Q: If the rezoning or doesn’t go through, what happens?
R: The houses on Westward would remain as rental properties. Even if it’s rezoned, if economics don’t make sense,
nothing will change. If this does all happen, it would be at least a couple of years.
Q: How many houses would go on the cul de sac in the pasture property?
R: Probably 13.
Q: Could you do something like the houses on Bennet?
R: Possibly so. Maybe with the garages in the rear like that, but not sure about that. But that is a good example.
C: Traffic on Shields already should be looked at.
- Left turns on Shields are really tough.
- People coming out on Pitkin turn right and go north to make U-turns at Westward. There is a lot of U-turning like that
in general. It’s getting chaotic.
- We are going to see increased speeds on Westward and Springfield.
- Not sure what could be done. Speed bumps like on Bennet…a little median like the one on Springfield…look at the
game day example of temporary medians on Shields…have lights at every street…?
R: Those are all examples of things that would be looked at in a traffic study based on a plan. Not all caused by the
proportional impact of the proposed development.
Adjourn
7 attendees
2 staff
1215 Shields St. Residential
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
- Buffer/mitigate impacts of vehicles at entrance
- Concern that units will have more than one student per bedroom and
therefore the parking is underestimated
- Traffic concern similar to recent Springfield apartments built
- # of units is too high for a residential area
- Entrance on Westward?
- Traffic a concern along Westward Dr.
- Cannot state enough! The traffic around Shields and Prospect is horrible and
will become even worse with more infill/buffer zone, high density housing
- Added traffic a concern for U-turns at Westward off Shields
- Could we add speed bumps along Westward?
- How does this impact the Pitkin bikeway?
o Opportunity to help mitigate safety issues
- How will construction parking be handled?
o 2 hours maximum Monday-Friday 8-5, enforcement begins May 22
- Crossing @ Pitkin? Will development help get bikes across the street?
o HAWK signal being installed
- # of units high for the area
- What is the APU process?
- Any options for a second access point?
- Screening of adjacent properties?
- Height comparable to Carriage House Apartments?
- Will floor area ratio comply with the Land Use Code?
- Don’t bring access off Del Mar Ave.
- High # of U-turns at Shields/Westward intersection
- Another access (to Prospect or future Lakewood) so all traffic is not on
Westward
- Shields needs to be expanded due to high traffic volumes presently
- Changing current RL zone properties to NCB seems like a very poor idea and
a disturbing precedent. Traffic on Westward is already problematic. Curious
if FAR is within City codes.
ATTACHMENT 4
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE FISCHER REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”)
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for the rezoning of two parcels more
particularly described below from Low Density Residential (“R-L”) Zone District to
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (“N-C-B”) Zone District (“Fischer Rezoning”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board at its August 20, 2020, meeting recommended
that City Council approve the Fischer Rezoning with one condition of approval regarding the
provision of one parking space per bedroom if the Property is redeveloped for residential uses; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the Fischer Rezoning is consistent with City Plan, the
City’s comprehensive plan, is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding the Fischer Rezoning, is compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding
the Fischer Rezoning and is the appropriate zone district, and would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to impose a condition on the Fischer Rezoning to require
that residential development provide at least one parking space per bedroom in order to mitigate
parking congestion in the area and the owner of the property subject to the Fischer Rezoning has
consented to such condition; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
rezoning of the property that is the subject of this Ordinance and has determined that said property
should be rezoned as hereafter provided.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from Low Density Residential (“R-L”)
Zone District, to Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (“N-C-B”) Zone District, for the following
described properties in the City known as the Fischer Rezoning:
Parcel 1:
-2-
Lot 15, The Western Heights Subdivision, recorded at Reception No.701791, Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder.
Parcel 2:
Commencing at a point 29.6 feet South of the Northeast corner of the South Half (S1/2) of
the South Half (S1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4)
of Section 15, Township 7 North of Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; thence
West 330 feet; thence South 90 feet; thence East 330 feet; thence North 90 feet to the point
of beginning, EXCEPT that parcel as described in deed recorded June 9, 1989 at Reception
No. 89025675, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Section 3. That the following condition be imposed upon the Fischer Rezoning:
• Any development plan involving 1185 or 1201 Westward Drive, or both,
for residential use must provide at least one parking space per bedroom.
Section 4. That the property subject to the Fischer Rezoning continue to be included
in the Residential Sign District adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7.1(M) of the Land Use Code.
Section 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D., 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk