HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022CV30661 - Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al, v. Council of the City of Fort Collins - 002.5 - Exhibit DATTACHMENT 7
Verbatim Transcript
Administrative Hearing
May 2, 2022
DATE FILED: October 4, 2022 8:10 PM
FILING ID: 88F2085A71B33
CASE NUMBER: 2022CV30661
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held May 2, 2022
Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue/Remote
In the Matter of:
Sanctuary on the Green #PDP210018
Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, May 2, 2022
Hearing Officer: Staff Members Participating:
Marcus A. McAskin Jenny Axmacher, Senior City Planner
Wes LaMarque, City Stormwater Engineer
Spencer Smith, City Traffic Engineer
Dave Betley, Manager, Civil Engineering
Katie Claypool, Community Development
2
MR. MARCUS MCASKIN: My name is Marcus McAskin; I am a land use and municipal 1
attorney, and I have been delegated authority to conduct tonight’s hearing. I’ll go ahead and open the 2
public hearing on this project tonight. We’re here to talk about Sanctuary on the Green. This is Project 3
Development Plan number 210018, or PDP. What you’ll notice up on the screen right now is some 4
contact information for a couple of key folks with City staff. Jenny Axmacher, and I hope I said that 5
right, Jenny, so she’s the Senior City Planner who will be presenting on this project later tonight. We also 6
have Katie Claypool who’s not present in Council Chambers tonight, but she’s in the next room. She’s 7
going to be helping make sure that everybody that’s participating via Zoom or calling in has a chance to 8
participate in this hearing as well. 9
So, this is being conducted as a…what the City refers to as a hybrid meeting, meaning that all of 10
you folks that are here tonight will have a chance to participate in the public hearing, as will the folks that 11
are calling in or participating via Zoom. This is the first meeting that I’ve attended actually in person up 12
here in a couple of years due to the pandemic, so it’s nice not only to be back up in Fort Collins, but it’s 13
nice to see a big turnout, which means that it’s an important project for the community. 14
So, a couple of other real quick preliminary matters. City staff has provided me with a copy of 15
the notice of the hybrid public meeting that was mailed to a one-thousand-foot notification boundary. It’s 16
my understanding that there were 418 letters sent, and Jenny, I hope I got that number correct. Is that 17
right? Okay. And that notice was sent out on April 13th . I have also been provided with a copy of the 18
notice of public hearing that was published in the Coloradoan on April 14th. So, with that, I will note for 19
the record that I do have jurisdiction to conduct tonight’s hearing. 20
And, great…so, Jenny I was going to ask you to make sure that you advance the slide. So let me 21
go through a couple of just basic…one slide on basic information here on how to Zoom. I’m sure a lot of 22
you over the past couple of years have figured this out, but for those of you that are participating 23
remotely, please do sign in with your first name and last name or last initial, and once we’ve gotten 24
through the public comment portion of the hearing for the folks that are present here in Council 25
Chambers, we’re going to open it up and allow everybody that’s Zooming into tonight’s meeting to 26
participate or ask questions of the applicant or staff. You’ll note that, use the raise hand button at the 27
bottom of your screen to let City staff know you would like to speak. Or, if you are listening to the 28
meeting through a telephone, please dial star nine on your phone to raise your hand. And again, City staff 29
will be calling on the folks that are signed in in order to let you know that it’s your turn to speak and you 30
will then be able to unmute yourself. And we do ask that you state your name and address when it is your 31
turn to speak. The reason that we ask for that information is, under the City’s Land Use Code, I am 32
required to issue a written decision in this matter within ten days, and if you are here to participate, City 33
staff will make sure that you get a copy of that written decision. That’s why we ask for that information. 34
So, next slide please. 35
Okay, let me…here I’m going to review the order of proceedings at tonight’s hearing. So, we’re 36
going to start with…when I’m done rambling on, we’re going to start with a project introduction by 37
Jenny, who’s the Senior City Planner on this, for a brief project overview. We will then turn it over to the 38
applicant for a presentation. Jenny will then have an opportunity to give a more robust staff presentation 39
regarding the proposal before us this evening. There will also be an opportunity during that presentation 40
for staff to address questions that may come up during the applicant’s presentation. At that point, we 41
move into the public testimony portion of the hearing, or what I like to refer to as the public comment 42
portion of the hearing. When I get through this slide, I’m going to cover a little bit of information 43
regarding some rules of conduct for public comment, as well as time limits, that will be imposed for those 44
3
of you that will be providing public comment tonight. After the public comment portion of the hearing 1
has closed, there will be an opportunity for both the applicant and City staff to answer any…to the best of 2
their ability…address any issues or answer questions that have arisen during the public comment portion 3
of the hearing. At that point, after we’ve heard from the applicant and staff again, as I noted earlier, I will 4
not be making a decision tonight. I have a lot of information to get through. I have about 38 documents 5
as part of the record of this proceeding, as well as, Jenny, I think we’ve received I want to say 30 or 40 6
written comments from other neighbors that may not have been able to make it to tonight’s hearing. Is 7
that about right? 8
MS. JENNY AXMACHER: We had 35 at noon today and have received probably half a dozen 9
more. 10
MR. MCASKIN: That’s what I figured. So, I have those to get through as well. Again, as I 11
mentioned, if you are here tonight and you’re providing testimony, you will receive a copy of the written 12
decision. And then here’s some information on the appeal process. If there is an appeal, it has to be filed 13
with the City Clerk’s Office. Written appeal must be received within 14 calendar days of the decision. 14
There’s a filing fee, and the City Clerk will schedule the appeal for City Council. Next slide please. 15
And Jenny, let me…there was a slide on hearing authority. Did that already…okay, so let me 16
cover that briefly. The City Council, at the beginning of the pandemic, did adopt City Ordinance 079, 17
series 2020, and in accordance with the requirements of that ordinance, I have made, in consultation with 18
City staff, a determination that it is desirable to conduct a remote hearing to provide reasonably available 19
participation by parties-in-interest and the public because meeting in person would not be prudent. 20
Obviously, a lot of you are here tonight, and I’m glad you are. Like I said, it’s nice to actually be back in 21
front of people for a hearing and not doing everything remotely; however, there is language in that 22
ordinance that says that, you know, that finding can be made for some or all persons, right. And we 23
obviously have members of our community that may be seniors or other folks that fall into an at -risk 24
population, and for that matter, we have decided to conduct the hearing, like I m entioned earlier, in a 25
hybrid format, meaning we’re conducting it in person and via Zoom. 26
So, with that, I think that concludes…well, like I said, let me quickly go through the rules of 27
conduct. I think all of you may have noticed the boards that are out front when you walked in, but this is 28
a legal hearing, and I will, to the extent necessary, moderate for civility and fairness to ensure that 29
everybody that is here tonight has an equal opportunity to speak and be heard. So, here are some general 30
guidelines and rules for tonight’s hearing. Members of the audience must be recognized by me as the 31
Hearing Officer before they can speak, public comment is limited to the public testimony portion of the 32
hearing, speakers must confine their remarks to the merits of the proposal under consideration, speakers 33
must address comments to me, as the Hearing Officer, and maintain a courteous tone and avoid injecting 34
personal tone or comments into the debate, personal attacks on another speaker will not be tolerated, nor 35
questioning the motives of another speaker, speakers shall not engage in expressions of support or 36
opposition such as clapping, whistling, cheering, booing, speaking out, yelling, or other acts that disturb 37
or impede the comments of any recognized speaker. And then, with respect to the time limits that I 38
mentioned earlier, this is something that I typically do any time we’re expecting a larger turnout for a 39
hearing, and that’s to be fair to everybody, including all of you that have made this as part of your 40
Monday night plan…it’s just to make sure we’re being fair to everybody in terms of time. So, I will give 41
everybody that’s here tonight that wishes to provide comments three minutes to address me during the 42
public comment portion of the hearing. As authorized by the Land Use Code, I will reserve the right to 43
exclude testimony or evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. I will also allow 44
4
attendees to cede or pool their three minutes with another individual as long as those ceding or requesting 1
to pool their time with another speaker are present, either virtually or in person, and City staff will be 2
definitely assisting me with that as necessary. I have been informed that there are nine individuals that 3
have ceded their time to Laura, and Laura, I know you’re in the front row there, and I’m sorry I don’t 4
have your last name here in front of me, but…okay, thank you very much. So, what I’ll probably do, is 5
just out of…Laura, I’ll probably, when we get to that portion of the hearing, I’ll probably ask that you go 6
first given that we have a list of folks that have ceded or pooled their time to you. And, no speaker during 7
the public comment portion of the hearing will be given more than three minutes, and that’s in line with a 8
similar rule that’s followed by the Planning and Zoning Board [sic]. So, for example, if there’s somebody 9
that would like to speak on behalf of four other individuals, those four individuals would have three 10
minutes plus the speaker’s time, so that would be a total of 15 minutes. If there’s 20 people that are here 11
that would like to designate their time to one speaker, that’s great and fine, but again, that individual will 12
be limited to 30 minutes. So, with that, again, thank you for letting me drone on. I just like to kind of set 13
the ground rules before we get going on this hearing. And, with that, Jenny, I’m going to turn it over to 14
you for a brief overview of the PDP that’s before us tonight. 15
MS. AXMACHER: Thank you; good evening everyone. My name is Jenny, and I’m a Senior 16
City Planner. The case before us tonight is PDP210018, a project development plan for Sanctuary on the 17
Green located near the northwest corner of North Taft Hill Road and Laporte Avenue. The property 18
location is bounded in black on the map with North Taft Hill to the east, Laporte to the south , and then we 19
have Vine Drive further north. The subject property is 41 and a little over a third acres and zoned LMN, 20
low-density, mixed-use neighborhood district. Adjacent properties are also zoned LMN or 21
unincorporated within the county. This property was annexed in two parts; the first annexation occurred 22
in 1982 and included the land west of the New Mercer Ditch. The area east of the New Mercer Ditch was 23
annexed and zoned LMN in November of 2018. And this site is part of the Northwest Subarea Plan. As 24
you can see on the arial, you have the New Mercer Ditch that runs through the middle of the property, you 25
have the Soldier Creek Trail and Bellwether Open Space to the north, and this whole property is included 26
within the West Vine drainage basin. 27
So, here’s a brief introduction of the project. The applicant is proposing 212 dwelling units 28
through three different housing types. The overall density is proposed to be 5.13 dwelling units per gross 29
acre. And there was a prior PDP submittal on this site. So, this prior PDP, it’s 190003. It was withdrawn 30
from the Planning and Zoning Commission during a meeting last year. It included 87 multi -family 31
dwelling units which are not included in the current PDP submittal, and the red highlighted areas on th e 32
plan show areas that changed from the old PDP to the current PDP. So, the new submittal was 33
determined to be a new application and included substantial changes which included removing those 34
multi-family units. The remaining housing types proposed fall under the Type I review, which is why we 35
are here tonight. 36
As I mentioned earlier, this project is part of the Northwest Subarea Plan, so before we hear from 37
the applicant about their proposal, I wanted to mention a few key high-level concepts from the Plan. The 38
Plan was a joint effort between the City and Larimer County. The purpose was to establish a focused 39
roadmap to form the area’s future. An overall theme was to retain and enhance the area’s existing 40
character, and when staff reviewed the project for compliance with this Plan, there were two fundamental 41
components noted: one, following what’s allowed with the zoning’s density provides predictability, and 42
two, addressing compatibility with existing neighborhoods through design. The framework plan within 43
the Northwest Subarea Plan and the LMN zoning designation establish the type and intensity for 44
5
development within this area. In order to comply with the Subarea Plan, the development needs to meet 1
the LMN zoning requirements and City standards. 2
Lastly, I’d like to point out that two modifications and an alternative compliance item were 3
requested as part of this PDP. The modification for 3.5.2(D)(1), connecting walkways, and 4
4.5(D)(2)(a)(3), housing types. And just a note, a prior version of the staff report also mistakenly 5
referenced a modification to 4.5(E)(4)(c), which is building variation, but that modification is not 6
requested nor required. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance to 3.6.3, street pattern and 7
connectivity standards for public street connections to adjacent developments. And with that, I’ll 8
conclude my introduction. 9
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you, Jenny. Maybe just a couple of very kind of preliminary questions. 10
You noted that the property was annexed in two parts, it sounds like the…it was the area lying to the west 11
of the ditch that was annexed first, and then the area to the east was annexed more recently? 12
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, sir. 13
MR. MCASKIN: I didn’t notice…in reviewing the staff report, I didn’t notice any mention 14
whatsoever of any type of annexation or annexation and development agreement that may contain terms 15
or conditions that would bear in any way on this proposal. Is it fair to say that there were ei ther no 16
annexation agreement, or no annexation agreement that established any sort of vesting for any types of 17
land uses associated with the proposal? 18
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, sir, that’s correct. There’s no annexation agreement. 19
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, alright, great, thank you. And then also, just again, the…in reviewing 20
some of the comments on the Northwest Subarea Plan, is it…that Plan was adopted in 2006, correct? 21
MS. AXMACHER: I believe it’s 2006; there’s a chance it’s 2008. 22
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, 2006 or 8, but there haven’t been any modifications or amendments to 23
that Plan, right? The Plan that’s in place was the Plan that was adopted in 2006 or 8? 24
MS. AXMACHER: 2006, and yes, sir, that’s correct. 25
MR. MCASKIN: Alright, thank you. Great, so with that, I will turn it over to the applicant for a 26
presentation. And I’m sure there’s one kind of designated representative for the applicant team, so please 27
do come up and introduce yourself and we can get going on the applicant presentation. 28
MR. DAVID PRETZLER: Good evening, my name is David Pretzler, and I’m the president of 29
the developer, C&A Companies, Inc., or as referred to throughout this presentation, C&A. C&A has been 30
developing communities throughout Colorado since 1993 with a focus on green and sustainable buil ding, 31
and providing housing at attainable price points for a variety of demographic profiles. In Fort Collins, we 32
developed and built the Saddle Ridge community, consisting of almost 200 condominium and duplex 33
units, and we did so in collaboration with Bill Veio, who is C&A’s partner in the Sanctuary on the Green 34
project. Thank you for the opportunity to present our application to you this evening. 35
6
First, I’d like to introduce the team. The members of the applicant team are listed on this slide. 1
While not all of these members will be speaking as part of our presentation tonight, they will be available 2
for comments and questions. Next slide. 3
This timeline, which is very hard to read, shows the culmination of 15 years of ongoing planning 4
and open dialogue with the neighboring communities. Beginning with Bill Veio’s proposed development 5
on the west side of the property in 2006, through the annexation of the east side of the property in late 6
2018, and culminating in the plan you will reviewing tonight. Our project development plan has been 7
carefully designed to integrate and address community feedback as much as feasibly possible. We feel 8
that the application before you today best accomplishes our goal of providing a residential development 9
with a sense of independent living and a diverse mix of product types, price points, and that also retains a 10
country feel through the use of connected trail systems, open space, and wildlife habitat preservation, 11
thereby also meeting the goals of the neighboring community and meeting the various requirements of the 12
Land Use Code. I will now turn it over to Sam Coutts of Ripley Design, the land planner and landscape 13
architect for this project, who will summarize and provide an overview of how the site is designed for this 14
project. 15
MR. SAM COUTTS: Good evening; my name is Sam Coutts, I’m a landscape architect with 16
Ripley Design, and I’m pleased to present our application to you this evening. C&A is proposing 17
development of Sanctuary on the Green, a residential community on 41.34 acres of vacant land located on 18
the northwest corner of Laporte Avenue and North Taft Hill Road. On February 13th, 2019, the applicant 19
submitted an initial application for the Sanctuary on the Green which was subject to the hearing before 20
the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17th, 2021. Although the initial application met all of the 21
criteria for approval, the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application before a decision had been made 22
in order to revise its application to further incorporate feedback from the neighborhood and Planning and 23
Zoning Commission. Since its inception, the application has undergone numerous revisions and the 24
applicant has held three neighborhood meetings, provided three informational newsletters, and held two 25
small group meetings with interested stakeholders. In order to facilitate the proposed development, we 26
are requesting approval of our project development plan including one alternative compliance plan and 27
two modifications of standards. 28
Here you can see what the site looks like today. Currently, the site is vacant land. The Ci ty of 29
Fort Collins Natural Areas Department owns the land to the north of the property, and unincorporated 30
Larimer County neighborhoods are located to the west. Detached single-family homes are located to the 31
south along Laporte Avenue, and the New Mercer Ditch runs north to south bisecting the site, which you 32
can see in the middle of this slide. In 2018, the design started with 371 dwelling units between two-33
family, single-family, attached, multi-family, and assisted living uses. At this time, a portion of the 34
property was proposed to be rezoned to medium-density, mixed-use. In response to concerns about 35
density from the neighbors, C&A withdrew the rezoning request to remain in the LMN district. In turn, 36
numerous changes were made to the application to address further neighborhood concern. The PDP 37
submitted in 2019 included 251 dwelling units split between single-family detached, two-family, single-38
family attached, and multi-family uses. This application…this PDP application was brought forward to 39
the Planning and Zoning Commission and voluntary withdrawn before a decision was made. 40
Once again, in response to concerns about density from the neighbors, C&A removed the multi-41
family dwellings. The removal of the multi-family dwelling changed the approval process; the 42
application now requires approval by a Type I hearing this evening. The application before you today 43
reflects our solutions to the neighborhood concerns. Some of these solutions include the removal of the 44
7
multi-family, which is the most dense housing type previously proposed, the orientation of buildings to 1
increase the natural habitat buffer zone and minimize or eliminate pinch points there within, decreased the 2
amount of three-story units along the perimeter in order to address concerns about height in proximity to 3
existing structures, added open space by eliminating buildings and reorienting others, and a decrease in 4
overall density. 5
C&A intends to develop the property as a residential community with a neighborhood center and 6
large open spaces. As the plan runs from west to east, the community features single-family detached 7
dwellings, two-family dwellings, and single-family attached dwellings, both in row home and townhome 8
form, for a total of 212 dwellings and an overall density of 5.13 dwelling units per acre. The 9
neighborhood center is located on the southeast corner of the site and will be a mixed-use building that 10
faces the public right-of-way and directly opens onto pedestrian and bike access. It will include both 11
clubhouse to serve the neighborhood residents and separate leasable spaces for commercial tenants. C&A 12
aims to design and build a neighborhood center that will best serve the residents and the neighboring 13
community. 14
Public street connections are made to Taft Hill Road on the east and Laporte Avenue to the 15
southwest. Private alleys serve the homes throughout the development. An emergency access only 16
access…provided to the middle of the site to Impala Drive. As a requirement of an arterial road, the 17
applicant provides that the center turn lane will be constructed on Taft Hill Road at the expense of C&A 18
in order to mitigate any impacts added by the additional cars with the proposed development. The site is 19
designed to accommodate all of its own parking needs through the use of attached garages. Additional 20
on-street parking is provided for guests, and no parking is expected to occur in or around the surrounding 21
neighbors. 22
The site plan represents a hierarchy of different pedestrian and bike connections throughout the 23
site. An eight-foot wide trail, available for public use, winds through the development and connects to the 24
existing Soldier Creek Trail to the north. It continues south and eventually makes a connection to Laporte 25
Avenue. This trail also connects to the east to Taft Hill Road via a pedestrian-friendly bridge that crosses 26
the New Mercer Ditch. Public sidewalks are provided within the rights-of-way, a series of major 27
walkway spines provide access to dwellings located further than 200 feet from a street. A modification 28
request is included with this application for three major walkway spines which extend past the allowed 29
350 feet. Connecting walks are also provided for dwellings less than 200 feet from a street. Finally, there 30
are numerous additional walks and paths that bolster internal connectivity throughout the site. 31
The traffic study submitted with the application found that all turning movements in intersections 32
comply with the national standards and Fort Collins operation criteria and will continue to do so with the 33
addition of this development. The short-range and long-range total peak hour traffic continues to operate 34
acceptably and does not cause any movements to fail to meet the Fort Collins operational criteria. Little 35
to no traffic impact is expected upon the surrounding neighborhoods; however, the surrounding 36
communities will still enjoy access to the site by multiple modes of transportation including bike and 37
pedestrian access. 38
The project development plan provides nearly 24.83 acres of open space. The open space 39
consists of public parks, enhanced natural habitat buffer zones, greenbelts, courtyards, private front yards, 40
detention facilities, and native common open space. The application provides for 694 new deciduous and 41
coniferous trees, and C&A also proposes mulched beds with ornamental grasses, perennials, and 42
coniferous and deciduous shrubs. Due to the agricultural history of the site, which is no longer being 43
8
used, non-native and invasive species have taken over the landscape on the site. Many trees on site are 1
considered invasive or nuisance tree species, such as Russian Olives and Siberian Elms. The application 2
includes a landscape plan with rain gardens, pollinator gardens, and native restoration. This restored 3
ecosystem provides more biodiversity and a better habitat compared to existing conditions. As I 4
mentioned, the application includes 694 proposed trees which are comprised of 55 different species. The 5
application also provides for the protection of wildlife and natural habitats such as wetlands in the New 6
Mercer Ditch with the use of buffer zones. Here you can see the native landscape restoration and 7
buffering surrounding the New Mercer Ditch and how it compares to the existing landscape around the 8
ditch today. 9
Here you can see the landscape buffer provided along the northwestern edge of the property as it 10
compares to what the Code allows. The Code allows for a three-story multi-family building to be just 25 11
feet away from the neighboring single-family home. The application proposes one- and two-story homes 12
ranging from 120 to 220 feet away from that property line. Then you have the addition of the mature 13
landscaping in the rear lots of the existing homes to the west. 14
I will now address how the more technical components of the project meet each of the criteria 15
listed in chapters three and four. As mentioned, we are requesting the approval of the project 16
development plan and the next part of our presentation outlines how the project meets the criteria 17
approval for that PDP. The Fort Collins Land Use Code, which I’ll refer to as the Code throughout the 18
presentation, requires that the application comply with all applicable general development standards set 19
forth in article three of the Code and all district standards set forth in article four of the Code. The 20
application accommodates the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit throughout the 21
development, and to and from surrounding areas safely and conveniently by providing on-site walkways, 22
curb cuts, sidewalk ramps, emergency access, and sufficient parking, which all comply with the Code’s 23
setback requirements. This PDP also includes an extension of the Soldier Creek Trail, an important goal 24
of the City Plan and the Northwest Subarea Plan. 25
The application complies with the landscaping and tree protection standards by providing street 26
trees at adequate spacing, size diversity, and species, mulch planting beds with ornamental grasses, 27
shrubs, and perennials. All existing trees on property were identified and the tree mitigation plan 28
included with the application demonstrates which trees are to be removed and how many are to be 29
mitigated. The application also provides for enhanced habitat pockets with shrub and tree plantings. In 30
total, 89 mitigation trees are provided, along with 421 mitigation shrubs. 31
The application provides that 72% of the lots less than 15,000 square feet in single- and two-32
family residential developments comply with the definition of a solar-oriented lot. Also, the physical 33
elements of the application are located and designed to comply with the Code’s shading requirements; 34
therefore, the application complies with all applicable site design and planning standards as required by 35
section three of the Code. As required by the Code, the application will dedicate on-site and off-site 36
easements that are needed to serve the area being developed prior to the approval of the final development 37
plan. As shown on the PDP, C&A is also constructing public rights-of-way at its sole expense. 38
The application includes a drainage report which notes that the property is not within a FEMA 39
flood zone, but portions of the property are located within the City-designated West Vine Basin flood 40
zones and the West Vine Master Drainage Basin. The drainage report also notes that there are no major 41
drainageways within the property. As further detailed in the cover letter accompanied by our application, 42
the PDP complies with the West Vine Basin Master Plan. C&A has also worked with the City Utilities 43
9
Stormwater Department for more than a year to ensure the application is in compliance with the revised 1
City floodplain map. Accordingly, the PDP complies with all applicable engineering standards. 2
The application is designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitat and 3
its features, including plants and animals that inhabit it. The exhibit on the left shows the amount of 4
natural habitat buffer zone required, totaling 6.91 acres. The exhibit on the right shows the extent of the 5
provided amount of natural habitat buffer zone, totaling over 10.36 acres, which represents a 50% 6
increase over the Code requirements. Overall, no modifications or variances are requested as related to 7
the natural habitat buffer zone, and more than 58% of the site is dedicated to some type of open space, be 8
it natural habitat, parks, or other programmed or unprogrammed open space. There are two small 9
wetlands on the north side of the site shown here. The larger of the two is located off-site, the other is 10
partially on-site. The north wetland requires a 100-foot buffer, to which the application provides a buffer 11
ranging from 157 to 218 feet wide. The Cherry Street wetland, which is partially on -site, requires a 50-12
foot buffer, to which the application provides a 162-foot buffer. As you can see here, there’s almost a 13
300-foot buffer between the existing homes of Bellwether Farm and the proposed single-family attached. 14
The drainage report included with the application describes in detail how the application is 15
designed so the precipitation runoff from the site is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the 16
Stormwater Criteria Manual. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Policy Plan do not propose a 17
park on the property or identify a property as a potential park. Nonetheless, the application does propose 18
a park on the east side of the property to further enhance the community’s access to open spaces. The 19
application proposes to construct a trail that will meander through the property and connect to the existing 20
Soldier Creek Trail. Therefore, the application complies with all use, development, and design standards 21
set forth in the Code. 22
As demonstrated by the architectural plans included with the application, the proposed 23
development is compatible in architectural character to the adjacent neighborhoods and employs 24
complementary design strategies. The application proposes buildings that are compatible in terms of size 25
and height, building materials, and colors. The building design variety summary included in the 26
application demonstrates that the application meets the requirements for variety, specifically eleven 27
different building designs for the single-family attached buildings, ten different designs for the single-28
family detached, and six different building designs for the two-family, for a total of 27 different building 29
designs. 30
The application provides for a neighborhood center with significant architectural interest and 31
attractive street fronts and walkways at a pedestrian scale. The 3,000 square foot neighborhood center 32
matches the scale of the residential buildings and is only one and a half stories in height. The 33
neighborhood center utilizes materials and forms that can be found throughout the existing and 34
neighboring areas. Pedestrian and bike access to the neighborhood center is provided by a network of 35
walkways connecting Taft Hill Road and a public trail system. Vehicular access is provided by the local 36
residential road network that connects Taft Hill Road to the east and Laporte Avenue to the west. The 37
application therefore complies with the applicable building standards. 38
The application sets forth plans to improve connectivity for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians 39
through a number of proposed roads and trails. A local street will bridge over the New Mercer Ditch and 40
connect Laporte Avenue to Taft Hill Road. The new street will feature an oversized right -of-way to allow 41
space for parking on both sides of the street adjacent to single-family attached dwellings. The application 42
also provides for land dedication for the improvements required to improve Taft Hill Road to a two -lane 43
10
arterial. As for the detail in the application, the PDP proposes the following improvements: an eight-foot 1
wide trail that will connect Soldier Creek Trail from Cherry Street to Laporte Avenue, three new bicycle 2
and pedestrian connections to Laporte Avenue where none currently exist, detached sidewalks along 3
Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road, two pedestrian bridges that will cross New Mercer Ditch, and the 4
network of major walkway spines that lead to the front doors of dwellings that face open space. 5
The project has been reviewed by Poudre Fire Authority and meets all of their needs and 6
requirements. Each district which is located in the property has commented on the property…on the 7
project and has found that the existing infrastructure can serve the proposed project. The property lies 8
within the LMN zone district and the application’s proposed uses are permitted in that district. The 9
proposed buildings are also compliant with the maximum height requirements. As previously mentioned, 10
the application proposes a density of 5.13 dwelling units per gross acre which is well within the nine 11
dwelling units per gross acre maximum the LMN district and the eight dwelling per gross acre maximum 12
set within the Northwest Subarea Plan. It should be noted that in light of the fact that more than 70,000 13
new residents are expected to locate in Fort Collins in the next 18 years, the City has been reexamining its 14
land use regulations to ensure that the framework is in place to accommodate this growth. Among other 15
things, the City has twice modified the maximum density of this LMN zoning and is presently discussing 16
another increase as part of the overall Code audit presented to Council in January 2022. For our purposes, 17
however, the total density of 5.13 D.U. per gross acre is well within the limit of the LMN zoning and the 18
eight D.U. per acre envisioned in the Northwest Subarea Plan. 19
The proposed neighborhood center is integrated into the surrounding residential area and is within 20
the 3,375-foot travel requirement for a resident to access the on-site neighborhood center. The 21
neighborhood center also meets the requirements of two uses and an outdoor space by providing a 22
community facility, two commercial uses, and a playground. The community facility portion of the 23
neighborhood center for the residents will include a fitness room, kitchen and gathering space, and C&A 24
envisions that the leasable commercial spaces will include the uses shown on this slide which compliment 25
the residential uses surrounding. The neighborhood center will also feature a large outdoor gathering 26
space consisting of a plaza with a fireplace, a playground, and a public park that connects to the trail 27
network that winds through the development. Two separate entrances to the neighborhood center will 28
face the public right-of-way and connect to the public trail. Accordingly, the application complies with 29
the standards for the LMN zone district. I will now turn it over to Carolynne White, C&A’s land use 30
counsel, who will address how the proposed alternative compliance and two modifications of standards 31
meet the Code’s legal criteria for approval and compliance with the plan documents. 32
MR. MCASKIN: Great, thank you. And, Mr. Coutts, maybe I can ask, before you turn it over to 33
Carolynne, maybe just a couple of quick questions. I’m sorry, I can’t remember if it was you or if it was 34
Mr. Pretzler, you noted there had been three neighborhood meetings I think throughout the process that 35
got you here tonight, as well as some follow-up newsletters or mailings. What…just for my benefit, I 36
mean if you had to summarize, you know the major issues that have been identified at those neighborhood 37
meetings, what would they be and how do you feel like they’ve been addressed? 38
MR. COUTTS: Sure, so major issues we’ve heard are related to density, building height, and 39
traffic impacts. Natural habitat, wildlife, probably the fourth in that group. Density, I think we’ve shown 40
through that first half of the presentation how the density has been decreased through the years with each 41
iterative plan. A lot of that had to do with the removal of the multi -family units. Building height…we 42
have designed the buildings through each process, each PDP round of review, to start reducing the 43
building mass through different architectural techniques, with different materials and scales, as well as 44
11
stepping down the end units of several buildings, which, we do have a graphic later on we can show 1
showing where those changes occurred to building heights. 2
MR. MCASKIN: And the building height in the LMN zone district, per the Code, nothing can 3
exceed 40 feet, is that correct? 4
MR. COUTTS: Three stories. 5
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, so it’s not a height cap, it’s a story… 6
MR. COUTTS: It is a story, yes. The open space and habitat preservation comments we’ve 7
heard…that’s been addressed by increasing that…there’s a 50% increase in the habitat buffer zone over 8
Code requirement, and staying well beyond the required buffers for those features. 9
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great. And, in the…I note that in the staff report, there’s a discussion of 10
the Northwest Subarea Plan that talks about large properties that are zoned LMN should achieve 11
compatibility with existing neighborhoods through site-specific and contextual design. And there’s also 12
some language that talks about protecting stable neighborhoods from incompatible development. As part 13
of the planning process, how have you analyzed, you know, incompatible versus contextual design, and 14
how do you think this project satisfies the requirement that…or at least satisfies I think the vision that 15
may be incorporated within this Subarea Plan in terms of being contextually appropriate. 16
MR. COUTTS: Sure…so I think the important thing to think about with compatibility is that 17
compatibility does not mean the same as. Compatibility is having two different things live harmoniously 18
together. And we really focused on how do we take a large development like this and fit all of these 19
different product types to be compatible. There are one-story bungalow homes to the west of us, existing, 20
and so we have pushed our single-family detached product as far west in the development plan, which are 21
the smaller footprints, the one- to two-story product, so that they are more adjacent to the existing 22
bungalow style homes. We have located the lower height limits of the townhomes, the one- to two-story 23
single-family attached product, also…when they are next to the single-family detached existing, we have 24
large buffers, well over 100 feet, well into the 200 foot range, from those homes. And then as far as the 25
three-story row home type, single-family attached, we’ve really focused on placing those internally to the 26
site and providing a lot of variation in those building designs. Architecturally, each one of those , the 27
detached, the two-family, eleven different single-family attached products, speak a design language that is 28
compatible with those…the craftsman, mid-century modern bungalow design aesthetic that you see 29
through the Northwest Subarea Plan. You’ll see that in different roof pitches, m aterials, the agrarian kind 30
of theme throughout those. 31
MR. MCASKIN: Great, appreciate that additional input. And, with that, I think you were going 32
to turn it over to Carolynne White? 33
MR. COUTTS: Sure. 34
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. 35
MS. CAROLYNNE WHITE: Good evening. As Sam mentioned, my name is Carolynne White, I 36
am land use counsel for the applicant. And my role here this evening is to describe the alternative 37
compliance and the two modification of standards, as well as the compatibility with all of the applicable 38
12
plan documents, which is one of the criteria for PDP approval. I want to start by briefly referencing a 1
document that you have in your packet, which is a letter that was delivered to the City as part of the file 2
last week, which summarizes in writing most of what we’re going to be saying tonight so that you and all 3
of the public have it in written form. So, in some cases I won’t be reiterating everything we put in that 4
30-page letter, I’ll just be referring to it and summarizing briefly and we can go into more detail as 5
needed. 6
MR. MCASKIN: And, Carolynne, just for my benefit, on the staff report, there are 36 7
attachments that are noted, so would that be the applicant’s cover letter, number 33, or…? 8
MS. WHITE: Yes, yes, it’s number 33. 9
MR. MCASKIN: Number 33? 10
MS. WHITE: Yes. And there were two attachments to the cover letter, but those attachments are 11
duplicated elsewhere in the attachments to the staff report…there are copies of newsletters. 12
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. 13
MS. WHITE: So the first thing I’m going to talk about tonight is the alternative compliance that’s 14
incorporated into this PDP. And the standard against which we are requesting alternative compliance is 15
section 3.6.3(D), which generally speaks to connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles to the 16
neighborhood around you as well as internally to the site. And as you can see on the graphic that’s on the 17
screen right here, on the north boundary of the property to the west side, there are three places where 18
existing neighborhood streets touch the property boundary along the north side there. And you may also 19
note that what you see there is not a connecting roadway that goes through the development, but rather 20
green space and a yellow arrow. Based in part on feedback that was received during the various iterations 21
of this project and all of the neighborhood meetings, it became clear that the most desirable outcome for 22
neighbors living in that neighborhood was not to have a connection directly through into their 23
neighborhood. However, it also it true that a fire access or emergency access is required. So, what you 24
see along that northern boundary there where that yellow arrow is along Impala Street, is the emergency 25
access that is provided for that purpose, and it is only accessible for that purpose. It is not a through street 26
for vehicles. Similarly, there’s a similar connectivity issue to the south where you might connect with 27
Laporte basically south of where the Soldier Creek Trail connection runs through this property, and that 28
too does not go all the way through to Laporte, in part in response to feedback received throughout the 29
process. However, what was provided instead here, is a very extensively interconnected network of trails 30
for bicycles and pedestrians as well as vehicles interior to the site, and the key connections, one on the 31
east side of the property to Taft, and one on the south side of the property to Laporte, providing, 32
according to staff, an opportunity to provide the maximum connectivity while still meeting those 33
objectives. I said according to staff, but that quote is ours. Staff analyzed it in the staff report and also 34
concluded that this alternative compliance does adequately meet the goal of providing connectivity 35
pursuant to 3.6.3. On the next slide, I have a couple of bullets that are summarizing the analysis there, 36
and I won’t go through them all in too much detail, other than to note that these are all the ways in which 37
connectivity is provided by the alternative compliance plan, and that the alternative design does minimize 38
impacts on natural areas, it fosters non-vehicular access, and it also does not exceed the level of service 39
standards. One other thing I’ll mention that we did summarize in our alternative compliance request, and 40
that is addressed in the staff report, is the fact that this is also driven in part by some of the existing site 41
13
constraints such as the New Mercer Ditch which is existing, the wetlands to the north, and some of the 1
other constraints which also limit where those connections can be made. 2
MR. MCASKIN: Ms. White, if I could go back real quick, just a quick question on the fire access 3
that’s proposed on Impala…I’m assuming that that is…is that the location that was identified by…is it the 4
City or Poudre Fire Authority has as the preferred location for fire access, or the emergency access? 5
MS. WHITE: Can you give me a minute to check with the team on that one? I’m not sure. 6
MR. MCASKIN: Of course. And then, just a follow-up question was…when I’ve seen these 7
types of emergency access before, they’re typically gated and then PFA would have a code or a key. Is 8
that what’s proposed here? 9
MS. WHITE: I see a lot of head nods on the team, but Sam knows the most about it. Shall I ask 10
him to step to the podium and answer the question? 11
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. 12
MR. COUTTS: Yes, to address your first question, that is the one that was most preferred by PFA 13
as it provides the most direct access. As for access limiting, there are a handful of different methods that 14
PFA will use. We’ll identify in the final plan which one we’ll use, but common are knock -down bollards, 15
or the chain, or you could use the Knox Box key, which you were referring to. 16
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, but that’s something that hasn’t been identified yet, that’s something that 17
you’d be working with PFA on at FDP process? 18
MR. COUTTS: Correct. One of those three. 19
MR. MCASKIN: Yep, thank you. 20
MS. WHITE: If there’s no other questions on the alternative compliance, I’ll move on to the first 21
modification of standards. Alright, so the first modification of standards relates to section 3.5.2(D), and 22
this is the so-called major walkway spine standard, which you may recognize because you’ve probably 23
seen it before, and I certainly have stood at this podium and spoken to the Planning and Zoning 24
Commission about it several times before. This standard really works best when you have a very, sort of, 25
old school, suburban type neighborhood, and in this development, what you may be seeing is that we’re 26
really promoting a more New Urbanist design with a lot of alley-loaded product, where the pedestrians 27
and the front doors have direct access right onto green space and trails instead of stepping out onto either 28
an alley or a street. And as a result of that, in combination with all of the various site constraints, it makes 29
it very difficult to meet that 350-foot maximum length standard for the connection to a major walkway 30
spine. So, as a result, there are 22 individual units within the 212 units total that will have a connection to 31
a major walkway spine that is longer than 350 feet. In, sort of…to more than make up for that, this 32
development also proposes that there are a variety of alternative connections for those same homes. In 33
other words, walking out the front door, there’s more than one route you could choose to access the 34
network. And also, there are several sidewalks which are wider than the minimum required. The 35
required is five feet, we have four and a half feet in some areas but we have six fee and up to eight feet in 36
some areas. And so, as a result of all of this, we argued in our application for the modification of 37
standards that it, among other things, is driven in part by site constraints which are outside of the 38
14
applicants’ own design. It is also something which meets the intent of the standard equally well or better 1
than actual compliance with the standard itself would be. And that is also one that staff supported, among 2
some of the others, indicating that this proposed design provides a very high degree of interconnectivity, 3
and in light of the exceptional constraints, it provides a sufficient amount of interconnectivity within the 4
site. It’s also not detrimental to the public good, and I also mentioned promotes the standard equally well 5
or better. The standard…the purpose of the standard is variety, visual interest, and pedestrian oriented 6
streets, all of which are present throughout this development. Do you want to ask about that one before I 7
go on to the next one? Okay. 8
Alright, and then the last modification, the second modification, has to do with housing types, and 9
this is standard 4.5(D)(2)(a)(3). This is a standard that requires for developments of 30 acres or more, 10
that you have at least four different housing types. The standard itself is not speaking necessarily about 11
architecture, it’s talking about a type of housing. This application provides three types of housing based 12
on the definitions contained in the Fort Collins Code. However, one of those housing types actually, by 13
sort of industry standards and industry analysis, actually contains two subtypes, if you will, so that we 14
have single-family detached, we have two-family, and we have the single-family attached, which includes 15
both row homes and townhomes, which are different according to the industry. So, by that analysis, we 16
actually do have four housing types. But, the main justification for the modification of standards really 17
rests on the wide variety of different architectural styles and materials that are provided. As was 18
mentioned by Sam earlier, we have ten different architectural styles for the single-family attached, there 19
are eleven different architectural styles for the single-family detached, and six different architectural 20
styles for the two-family attached, or…yeah, two-family attached. All of this, according to the staff’s 21
analysis, results in a varied and unique streetscape without repetition, which is fundamentally the purpose 22
of this standard of having multiple housing types. In addition, from our perspective, another justification 23
for this modification is that it allows us to provide a wider deviation of price points and product types in 24
the way that the market views them, not necessarily the way that the Code defines them. And by that, I’m 25
referring to the difference between the townhomes and the row homes in particular. Also, when the 26
original…in the 2018 application, there was, as was mentioned, a multi-family housing product in there. 27
Clearly, we would have had four at that point; the multi-family was removed in response to concerns 28
about density because that was obviously the most dense of the housing types that was then provided, and 29
that of course resulted in the three housing types remaining, so, greater variation was provided in the 30
architectural features. I am not the most knowledgeable person to speak in detail about those architectural 31
features, but we do have our architecture team present virtually and if you want to ask some more 32
questions specific to the architecture, we’re happy to do that. I also have just a couple examples up here 33
to show what some of them look like, and I’ll run through those here in a second. Next slide. 34
Alright, next I would just like to talk about compliance with the applicable City plan documents. 35
And I want to start by just referencing a little bit the relationship between the planning documents to the 36
Code. And I’m mentioning this in part because of the extensive conversations that have been held over 37
the last several years, in particular about the Northwest Subarea Plan and how that should be interpreted 38
in light of the applicable Code regulations. And so, as I know you’re aware, the purpose of the City plan 39
documents is to express policy and to express a vision. And when I say City plan documents, I mean City 40
Plan, Structure Plan, the Northwest Subarea Plan, and the Housing Strategic Plan, and any and all of the 41
other strategy and policy documents that the City has adopted which may be applicable in one way or 42
another to this property. But, ultimately, the regulation, the Land Use Code, expresses the intent of the 43
vision set forth in those documents. And the ultimate regulatory analysis is of the regulation in the Code 44
itself. As noted in the staff report, when dealing with some of those issues of interpretation and analysis, 45
15
ultimately the Code takes precedence. And I mention this in particular because one of the areas that has 1
been the subject of the most discussion is obviously the question of density. And, so, it’s important to 2
note that the way that the analysis runs is that the Northwest Subarea Plan does set forth a vision about 3
what different levels of density might be appropriate within different quadrants of the Northwest Subarea 4
Plan, and it also says that certain areas should be zoned LMN. This property is within one of those areas, 5
it was zoned LMN, it is zoned LMN, and LMN in the Code sets forth the allowed amount of density 6
within this area. Next slide. 7
So, starting by talking just a little bit about City Plan. There are actually numerous policies and 8
goals set forth in the City Plan that this application is in furtherance of. Many of those were highlighted 9
in the staff report, many of them were highlighted in our letter, I’m not going to go through all of them 10
right now, but I wanted to highlight just a couple, because this is a particularly timely subject in the city 11
of Fort Collins, which is the increasing demand for housing, and the decreasing supply of housing to meet 12
that demand, particularly across different product types and price points. And, as you are probably aware, 13
and I know staff is, the City has recently undertaken an audit of its Land Use Code in order to analyze all 14
the ways in which there may be a mismatch between the Code and its desired goals and policies set forth 15
not only in all the plan documents, but also in the Housing Strategic Plan. And a report on that audit was 16
delivered to City Council in January, and there are a variety of things included in there, but overall, I 17
interpret that report as saying the Code doesn’t allow the amount of density we need in order to 18
accommodate the future growth of the city, and there are several places where that might need to be 19
changed. We’re not suggesting that the density ought to be changed in this location, this fits clearly 20
within the LMN zoning, but to require even less density than the minimum density that’s required in the 21
LMN zoning would be contrary to all of those goals and the current trend of Fort Collins’ own self-22
analysis of its Code and its plan documents. 23
Just a couple other key Code policies I’m going to just hit quickly: access to outdoor spaces, 24
encouraging active living, unified and interconnected framework of streets, sidewalks and walkway 25
spines, encourages a variety of housing types, encourages development that reduces impacts on natural 26
ecosystems, remember that double the size buffer area, well-balanced system of parks, trails, natural 27
areas, and recreational facilities, and an attractive and safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and 28
drivers. Next slide please. 29
Just to talk a little bit about the Structure Plan, also part of City Plan. This plan proposes land 30
uses for areas that may develop in the future to help establish predictability for the property and for 31
neighboring areas, it helps guide the City and the County as to whether future proposed developments are 32
appropriate. However, the Structure Plan is not regulatory and is only used for guidance. Next slide. 33
Now let’s zoom in on the Northwest Subarea Plan, which is the most specific of all the applicable 34
plan documents. And shown on the screen here is the area covered by the Northwest Subarea Plan in 35
purple, our site is shown in yellow, and a couple of key, sort of representative quotes are summarized on 36
the side of the slide there. I won’t read it out loud to you, but the framework plan within the Northwest 37
Subarea Plan identifies this area as suitable for low-density, mixed-use neighborhood development, which 38
is defined as a transition between Old Town neighborhoods and lower density subdivisions to the west. 39
As the staff notes in the staff report, this also is not regulatory; however, the Northwest Subarea Plan does 40
set forth some recommended densities for areas which are designated as low-density, mixed-use, up to 41
eight dwelling units per acre. And that excerpt from the Plan is shown here on this slide. The Plan also 42
talks about the desirability for low-intensity residential development, open lands and conserved resources, 43
restoration of Soldier Creek, a balance of the rights of property owners with the community’s desire for 44
16
conservation, access to neighborhood parks and recreation facilities, a connected system of trails, reduced 1
flood risk, and a unique image and identity, all of which can be said to be fulfilled by this proposal. 2
According to staff’s analysis and our own analysis of the relationship between LMN zoning and 3
the Northwest Subarea Plan, the Northwest Subarea Plan doesn’t provide specific design guidelines for 4
areas which are designated for low-density, mixed-use. Rather, you turn to the LMN zoning in the Code 5
to determine the applicable design guidelines and density for LMN designated areas within the Northwest 6
Subarea Plan. Therefore, if it meets the LMN zoning requirements, it meets the Northwest Subarea Plan. 7
And I know that you just asked Sam this question a moment ago, but this is the part in the presentation 8
when we were planning to sort of summarize and reiterate the areas in which the plan, proposal, the PDP, 9
has been further modified to try to address concerns, even though the original plan as proposed, met all of 10
the criteria for the Northwest Subarea Plan, and the LMN zoning, and was well within the allowed 11
density. So, at the risk of being too duplicative, I’ll just quickly say, overall reduced density, increased 12
open space and buffering, removal of certain buildings, relocation and reorientation of other buildings, 13
and perhaps most notably, significantly increasing the buffers between the new development and the 14
existing development, and changing those buildings that are closest to existing development in order to 15
reduce their height in some areas to step them back and to further screen and buffer them, and that really 16
goes to your question earlier about compatibility. And, because it comes up all the time, I need to say it 17
one more time, compatibility does not mean the same as, three stories can be compatible next door to two 18
stories. It especially can, as recognized elsewhere in the Code, when you have additional mitigation 19
measures such as increased buffering, landscaping, changes in massing, changes in architecture, all of 20
which are things that have been incorporated here to a very significant degree in order to address those 21
concerns. 22
Oh, we skipped over the Housing Strategic Plan. Purpose of the Housing Strategic Plan is to 23
overcome the gap between affordable housing and the ability of citizens to afford housing by bridging the 24
gap between incomes and housing prices. There are a variety of goals set forth in the Housing Strategic 25
Plan, among them including providing a greater variety of price points and product types available on the 26
marketplace, which is exactly what this does, providing stable and affordable housing options for those in 27
the area median income. So I just wanted to mention this because it’s particularly on target for the issues 28
that we’re discussing today. Okay, now on to the summary slide. There we go. 29
So we have two summaries, one in table format, one in bullet format. This one in tabl e format 30
attempts to summarize some of the most important areas in which the application exceeds the Code 31
requirement. So, we’ve noted a couple on there: the number of neighborhood meetings, the number of 32
bike parking spaces, the amount of open space and so on. Perhaps most notable at the very bottom is 33
density and dwelling units, both of which are 43% less that what is allowed within this zoning and 34
planning area. Next slide please. 35
And then in bullet format, another way to look at it is that there are 21 specific changes that have 36
been made to the plan since the last iteration in order to address feedback that has been received from the 37
community, and that includes a variety of, you know, smaller things like moving the entry north on Taft 38
Hill and you know, deleted some of the uses that were deemed to be too dense or not well-received, and 39
then of course the significant amount of landscaping trees and shrubs that are going to be planted here 40
which is well above the Code requirement. Speaking of exceeding the Code requirement, we have 58% 41
open space, we have 150% of the required natural habitat buffer zone, and as was mentioned, we have 42
significantly less density than the maximum amount that is allowed. So, with that, I’ll conclude this 43
presentation. I’ll ask for your approval of the PDP for Sanctuary on the Green, including alternative 44
17
compliance and two modifications of standards. We have all of our team here to answer your questions 1
as the evening progresses. We look forward to responding to the neighborhood comments at the 2
conclusion of the public comment, and thank you for the opportunity to present this project to you this 3
evening. 4
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Ms. White, appreciate it and I do appreciate that the full team is here 5
to the extent that there are some questions that come up during the public comment portion of the hearing. 6
so, with that, let’s go ahead and move into the staff presentation. Jenny, I know you have a pretty 7
thorough report that you’d like to get through as well before we get to the public comment portion of the 8
hearing, so take it away. 9
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, sir. Okay. So, coming back to my presentation. First, I’d like to start 10
by acknowledging the public outreach that was conducted for this case, as well as the public comment 11
that was received. The applicant completed a voluntary neighborhood meeting on September 13th, 2021, 12
and a number of concerns were voiced. A high-level overview of these concerns are listed here, including 13
traffic, neighborhood compatibility, environmental resources and flooding, and as mentioned earlier, as of 14
noon today, we’ve received approximately 35 written comments on this case, a majority of which express 15
concerns with and opposition to the proposed project. Many of these comments referenc e compliance 16
with the Northwest Subarea Plan. 17
So, let’s talk about the Northwest Subarea Plan. On this slide, I’ve highlighted some of the 18
sections of the Plan that deal with appearance and design. A key concept is to allow predominantly low-19
density housing consistent with the land use framework plan and to protect stable neighborhoods from 20
incompatible development. The framework plan also strives to create some level of predictability in what 21
type and intensity of development can be expected for one’s own property as well as neighboring 22
properties. It is important to note that the framework plan provides guidance to land uses, activities, and 23
density levels, but is not regulatory. The framework plan would have been taken into consideration when 24
the property was zoned LMN back in 2018. For this specific site, the framework plan identifies LMN 25
zoning, and that future development density may be up to eight units per acre, or up to twelve units for 26
affordable housing. And just to note, affordable housing, per the City definition, is not being proposed 27
for this site. The plan also referenced areas designated as LMN as serving to protect existing family 28
neighborhoods by ensuring that infill development on parcels to be annexed is appropriate in density and 29
design, which goes back to the consideration of the zoning designation at the time of annexation. Overall, 30
staff finds that the PDP meets the objectives outlined in the Subarea Plan based on the proposed density, 31
the open space and landscape provided, the transition in housing types from west to east, the proposed 32
pedestrian connections, and the alternative compliance request to not connect Webb, Irish, and Impala 33
Streets for vehicular traffic. 34
Moving on from the Subarea Plan, the project is proposing to make changes to the grading on the 35
site. A City floodplain map adoption process is underway to remap portions of the project currently 36
shown in the City floodway and floodway fringe. Fill with the proposed project will move and revise 37
flood boundaries via a conditional letter of map review and a letter of map review which will comply with 38
the City requirements, known as a CLOMR and a LOMR. As a function of this process, the development 39
must show no adverse impacts with respect to base flood elevations to any surrounding properties or 40
private property. The development cannot move forward for final approval of plans until these items are 41
completed, which is acknowledged by the applicant in note 21 on the overall site plan page. The plan 42
currently proposes five detention areas to be constructed as part of the project. Those detention areas are 43
being created as an interim solution while a regional improvement project is constructed by the City, 44
18
known as the Forney Regional Detention Pond, and its located east of Taft Hill Road. Once these 1
improvements are in place, the five detention areas will act as on-site channels to this regional detention 2
system, they will not free up land for future development. 3
Moving on to access, circulation and parking. The project proposes an extensive internal 4
circulation network of sidewalks, including connections to Laporte to the south and Soldier Creek Trail to 5
the north. There are two proposed pedestrian bridges over the canal and two pedestrian bike only 6
connections to Green Acres, and one additional bike, ped, and emergency only access connection as well. 7
A center turn lane is proposed on South Taft Hill and a westbound turn lane is proposed on Laporte. City 8
managed projects will complete additional improvements in the area along Laporte. The applicant is 9
proposing 453 off-street parking spaces, all of the housing types proposed will provide garages, and there 10
are six parking spaces included within the neighborhood center. 11
As for natural habitat buffering, the project is providing 10.36 acres of habitat buffering and an 12
additional 13.72 acres of landscaping and open space for a total of 24 acres. Restoration work includes 13
weed mitigation, wetland restoration, and enhancement plantings including the use of berming and dense 14
plantings near more developed areas. 15
Now let’s talk about historical resources. The farmhouse that was previously located on the east 16
portion of the property was burned down in conjunction with a fire training exercise prior to the property 17
being annexed into the city. The pre-submittal survey requirements for the site were completed with a 18
prior PDP, PDP190003. The historic survey results are considered valid for five years, so an updated 19
survey was not required as part of this current application. The prior survey noted two properties that 20
were potentially eligible for local landmark designation. 330 North Taft Hill was listed on the State 21
Register during the same timeframe as the prior case, and the historic influence area was considered for 22
compatibility with this property. Because the state designated property is across an arterial road, Taft 23
Hill, the applicant has to comply with a minimum of two of the design compatibility requirements in table 24
one of section 3.4.7(E), and the proposed buildings along Taft Hill are found to meet at least two of these 25
requirements. It was determined that the building height and width portions of 3.4.7 are not applicable 26
because other design connections are being made and the project is across an arterial and not directly 27
abutting the historical property. 28
Now an overview of the architecture proposed. There are 75 residential buildings being proposed 29
in a mix of single-family detached, two-family, and single-family attached housing types between two 30
and three stories in building height. There are 36 single-family buildings proposed…attached buildings 31
that are proposed where eight are two-story and the remainder are three-story. So on this slide, I’m 32
showing the three-story building elevations. And then on this slide, we’re showing three of the two-story 33
single-family attached building elevations. Elevations were submitted for the single-family detached 34
homes and the two-family homes, though they are not required for review as part of the PDP plan set. 35
The single-family attached elevations achieve architectural compatibility by utilizing masonry on the 36
ground level to define the base of the buildings, including ground level entrances with a shed or hip roof 37
component, providing secondary massing elements, and including large windows to further break down 38
the scale of these buildings. The colors and materials vary and do not deviate from what would normally 39
be found in a residential development. The buildings are under 40 feet tall and the land use transitions 40
with a landscape buffer and fencing on the west side of the project are proposed. The project complies 41
with buffer yard standards in 4.5(E)(4)(b) and staff assessed the setback compliance on the three-story 42
townhome buildings. The setbacks are met through perimeter open space, roadway widths, landscape 43
improvements, and building setbacks. 44
19
This project is requesting an alternative compliance to 3.6.3, which requires future public street 1
connections to adjacent developable parcels unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic 2
features, existing development, or a natural area or natural feature. Webb, Irish, and Impala are not 3
proposed to be provided as public street connections and will be limited to bike/ped connections or 4
emergency access in the case of Impala. So, here where the street connections are being made, the project 5
is proposing a street connecting into Laporte at Barton Drive, street B connecting into South Taft Hill 6
Road, and then there’s a future roadway connection also being proposed to Laporte in the south. The 7
decision maker has the authority to approve a development plan that substitutes meeting the standards of 8
3.6.3. In this case, the alternative compliance is based on the topography, existing development, natural 9
areas, and other constraints. The PDP provides connections where possible and supports bike and 10
pedestrian connections as well as connections to the Soldier Creek Trail. Staff finds the criteria for 11
alternate compliance are met and the PDP accomplishes the purpose of 3.6.3 equally well or better based 12
on the proposed local street intersections and the bicycle and pedestrian connections. 13
Now let’s look at the LMN zone district standards. The project meets the minimum and 14
maximum density requirements for the zone district as well as the Subarea Plan. It is requesting a 15
modification for housing types as two-family, single-family attached, and single-family detached with 16
rear loaded garages are the types being proposed. The plan proposes a neighborhood park meeting the 17
one-acre requirement, and the proposed buildings meet the zone district heights. 18
The project proposes a neighborhood center which must comply with criteria related to access, 19
location, land use, design, and outdoor spaces. The proposed center is on the eastern edge of the project 20
and is shown to be a 3,000 square foot mixed-use building with six parking spaces. There are separate 21
leasable areas for two commercial tenants; it also serves as a clubhouse. It is located next to the park and 22
the adjacent open space and plaza can function as a flex space for farmer’s markets. The proposed 23
building is compatible with the nearby residential buildings and is located within ¾ of a mile of 90% of 24
the dwellings without crossing an arterial roadway. Based on this description, the neighborhood center 25
complies with the required standards. 26
As mentioned, the project is requesting two modifications. The project is requesting a 27
modification for the length of walkways that the buildings highlighted in yellow on this plan set, and 28
along with the modification of walkway width provided for the furthest west yellow buildings. Another 29
modification is requested for housing types to provide three housing types instead of the four required. 30
3.5.2(D)(1) requires all buildings to connect to public sidewalks and allows for three different ways to 31
achieve that connection which are listed here. The modification is requested because some of the 32
proposed connections are longer than 350 feet, and in once instance the walkway is narrower than 35 feet. 33
Staff finds that the criteria 2.8.2(H)(1) and (H)(4) are met, that the plan will promote the general purpose 34
of the standard equally well or better and will not diverge from the standards of the Code except in a 35
nominal and inconsequential way based on the reasons listed here. Staff further finds that exceptional 36
conditions unique to this site are also present that result in a hardship and that that hardship is not caused 37
by the act or omission of the applicant. 38
The second modification requested is for the number of housing types provided. 4.5(D)(2)(a)(3) 39
requires four housing types for projects greater than 30 acres, and the applicant is only proposing three. 40
Staff finds that this plan meets the standard equally well or better due to the variety and architectural 41
elevations submitted and the curved layouts of the streets which help promote visual variety along the 42
streets. The proposal will also continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code and is nominal 43
and inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. 44
20
Overall, staff finds the PDP complies with the applicable sections of the Code with two 1
modifications, alternative compliance for section 3.6.3, and recommends two conditions of approval. The 2
conditions, which are listed here, will make sure that minor issues are address during final plan review. 3
And with that, staff concludes their presentation. 4
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Jenny, I appreciate that. Just a quick question on the alternative 5
compliance that’s proposed for 3.6.3, the street pattern connectivity standards. In your report, you seem 6
to…staff seems to conclude that the alternative compliance plan would satisfy the…I guess the purposes 7
of that section equally well or better. And I do note that staff does seem to have t aken into account 8
whether the alternative design minimizes the impact on the ditch and some of the other natural features on 9
the subject property. Can you go into just a little bit more detail on that for me? 10
MS. AXMACHER: Actually, I might see if staff from our engineering division or traffic division 11
can provide a little bit of additional insight on that. They should be available online. 12
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. I think we can hear you. 13
MR. DAVE BETLEY: Hi, this is Dave Betley from Engineering. I just wanted to get 14
clarification on the question again? 15
MR. MCASKIN: Yeah, Dave, no problem. I was asking for just some clarification on the 16
proposed alternative compliance plan for section 3.6.3. I noted in the staff report that there’s some 17
discussion that the alternative plan, as submitted, will minimize the impact on some of the natural features 18
on the site, including the ditch, and I was wondering if you could just provide a little bit of additional 19
background on that for me. 20
MR. BETLEY: I would have to do some research on that. I think it’s probably involved with 21
some of the stormwater stuff, so I’d have to take a look at that real quick. Can I get back to you in just a 22
few minutes? 23
MR. MCASKIN: Sure, and also, it seems like the alternative plan…and Jenny, maybe this is a 24
question for you…it seems like the alternative plan, as submitted, is really focused on increasing the 25
efficiency and convenience for pedestrian and bike travel and kind of prioritizing that over automobile 26
travel, which seems to probably satisfy, you know, the purpose of 3.6.3 as set forth in subsection A. A 27
follow-up question to that is, in subsection B, the general standard for that section, there’s some language 28
that says that local streets must provide for both intra- and inter-neighborhood connections to knit 29
developments together rather than forming barriers between them. Does staff feel that the alternative 30
plan, as submitted, satisfies the general standards that’s articulated in sub B? 31
MS. AXMACHER: Staff does, and I think I can add that part of the reason that some of those 32
roadway connections were not made was due to feedback from the surrounding neighborhoods that did 33
not want through connections made into their properties. And it also has to do with the existing sto rm 34
channel, which is a factor in crossing that. 35
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. Well, we have a lot of folks that are here that are waiting to 36
provide comment on the project. So, Dave, take your time on finding a response and we can maybe have 37
you address that question at the end of the public comment portion of the hearing. and before we jump 38
into that, let me again, for those of you that may have come in late, or are online or attending via Zoom or 39
21
telephone, we are going to adhere to a three minute per speaker rule, although there are some folks that 1
have elected to give their time to another speaker, and in that case, we will let that individual have more 2
than three minutes, up to a maximum of 30 minutes. And as I mentioned earlier, we do have Laura 3
Larson who’s present tonight, and I have a list here of nine folks that have ceded their time to Ms. Larson, 4
and that’s Paula Harrison-Schmidt, Raygina Kohlmeier, Phil Vogeler, Nancy Frederick, Lief Youngs, 5
MaryBeth Fischer, Amanda Warren-Martin, Maria Gorannson, and Margot Steffenhagen, and I apologize 6
if I got any of those wrong, but I did my best. So, Laura, do you want to…if you maybe want to come up 7
to the podium and introduce yourself. And, because these folks have ceded time to you, you will have a 8
maximum of 30 minutes to address me and, as I mentioned earlier, we will have a rebuttal opportunity for 9
both the applicant and staff to hopefully help address questions or comments that you have on the project. 10
MS. LAURA LARSON: Thank you very much, appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this 11
evening. My name is Laura Larson; I live at 320 North Impala Drive and my property abuts the proposed 12
development site. I’m speaking on behalf of Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network which represents 13
over 200 neighbors who will be affected by this development. Our organization includes the majority of 14
the resident population surrounding this site, encompassing the Green Acres, Bellwether Farms, Taft Hill, 15
Sunset, and Laporte Avenue neighborhoods. The open fields, wetlands, historic farm site along Taft Hill, 16
and the wildlife that inhabit this area define our neighborhoods; they’re a vital part of the character that 17
the Northwest Subarea Plan was designed to preserve. 18
In 2006, with large participation from our neighborhoods, the Northwest Subarea Plan was 19
created, and both Larimer County and the City signed onto it as the governing plan for development in 20
this area. Many of us bought our homes with the understanding that the City has to abide by this plan in 21
considering new development, and that we would be protected from the high-density, three-story row 22
houses that dominate this project. Specifically, the vision for the Northwest Subarea Plan is described as 23
follows…and can you shift the slide for us please? The Northwest Subarea should continue to be 24
predominantly a low-density residential area at the edge of Fort Collins with stable neighborhoods. The 25
area should also retain aspects of its semi-rural heritage, including historic structures, small farms and 26
irrigation ditches, natural areas, foothills vistas, and open fields. As new development or change occurs, 27
it should occur slowly and be of low intensity and fit in with the diversity and country feel of the area. 28
New development should safeguard natural features and protect wildlife habitats. In the planning 29
framework on page 15, one of the primary objectives listed is to ensure that future development is 30
compatible with the density, uses, and character of existing neighborhoods. The Subarea Plan specifically 31
states that the City should protect stable neighborhoods from incompatible development, and that’s the 32
reason why we’re here this evening. We’re asking you to protect our neighborhoods and the wildlife on 33
this property from incompatible development. Next slide please. 34
Last June, before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the developers’ attorneys asserted that 35
the Northwest Subarea Plan does not matter and it’s only the Land Use Code…we heard something 36
similar this evening…that determines what kind of development can be approved. But, Commissioner 37
Hogestad corrected this interpretation and described the Subarea Plan as a key document. The 38
Commissioners clarified that the City’s Subarea Plans and the LUC were designed to be used in concert 39
with one another and that citizen input into the Subarea Plans was a vital part of why they have to be 40
honored in the context of the LUC. Section 1.2.2(A) of the Land Use Code states that the purpose of this 41
Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by A, ensuring that all growth and 42
development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan, the Structure Plan, principles and 43
policies, and associated Subarea Plans. It is written in the Land Use Code that this is part of what needs 44
22
to be considered in all development. The Land Use Code also states, in section 3.5.2, that compatible 1
building massing is required. This development proposal is not compatible with the existing 2
neighborhoods in terms of building mass or height. It doesn’t contribute to the public good as noted as a 3
required feature and pointed out by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners in the last review, and it 4
does not adequately preserve the natural features of this area. Next slide please. 5
Let me tell you about our neighborhood and who we are. We are a multi-racial low- and 6
moderate-income neighborhood with Irish Bilingual Elementary School at the center. Our homes are 7
predominantly single-story detached single-family homes and all the properties that abut this parcel are 8
single-story homes. I want to really emphasize that point, because they were talking about buffers 9
between three- and two-story buildings; there are no two-story buildings abutting this property. I want to 10
be really clear about that, and the misrepresentation of the properties along Sunset…those are all single-11
story, one home per acre properties, and I believe it’s rural estate designation, not urban estate, so that 12
was misrepresented. We have chickens, turkeys, goats, and horses on our properties, some of which are 13
ten acres in size. We know our neighbors, we walk our dogs together and socialize regularly as a 14
community and with City-sponsored block parties. We’re exactly the kind of stable neighborhoods the 15
Subarea Plan was designed to preserve. The fields on this parcel have served as a congregating and 16
walking place for our neighbors and residents in the surrounding area for decades, because they have not 17
been inhabited by people. These past two years especially, the natural spaces and wildlife have 18
significantly contributed to our neighbors’ mental health and physical well-being. Next slide. 19
We all care about the wildlife that lives here. We see and hear them every day. They are a part 20
of our lives. In the winter, small herds of deer come through our yards on a daily basis and shelter from 21
storms in the willows and under the large maple and cottonwood trees where the historic farmhouse 22
stood. We have chorus frogs singing at night, bats that fly through the fields and in our backyards 23
because this is a dark sky area. There is no light pollution in the fields or in our neighborhoods as we 24
don’t have streetlights. The wetlands provide habitat for red-winged blackbirds and dozens of migratory 25
bird species that have been documented by the Audubon Society and the bird conservation…we have 26
members in our neighborhoods. The wetlands provide…oh, I’m sorry. We have large groups of ducks 27
that come through who nest along the ditch and swim with their babies along the channel in late May and 28
June every year. All of these species are going to be negatively impacted and their habitat severely 29
degraded by car headlights and other light and air pollution that this development will cause. Next slide. 30
This project proposes to place two- and three-story row houses along the irrigation ditch and 31
where the developer had determined a wildlife corridor on his plan. These tall and wide structures are 32
unlike anything we have in our neighborhoods in terms of mass and height and will pose an impassible 33
wall to ducks and other birds who reside in this area. Resident building and car lights will regularly shine 34
into the wetlands on City property and into the confluence of County wetlands and t he irrigation ditch 35
habitat. The noise and air pollution combined with the hazard of 45-foot tall buildings proposed along the 36
ditch will destroy this area’s bird habitat. I want to just clarify the 45 feet. This came from the developer 37
when we asked them, how are they going to engineer their way out of the floodplain on this property, 38
because a large chunk of this property is in the floodplain, and they told us there would be an average of a 39
five-foot elevation increase across the property. So for us, for existing properties looking at the existing 40
grade, there is going to now be a 45-foot tall building next to our properties. 41
The Northwest Subarea Plan and the Land Use Code require building mass to be compatible with 42
the surrounding area. This project does not meet this requirement. Over the past four years, our steering 43
committee has met with City staff and the developer numerous times to discuss our concerns, specifically 44
23
about the two-and three-story row houses that predominate in this plan. We’ve repeated our concerns that 1
the location of these structures along Taft Hill will destroy long-established wildlife corridors and habitat 2
for deer, foxes, and other animals. We have submitted in writing four separate letters over this time 3
requesting that the developer adhere to the Northwest Subarea Plan, protect this habitat and our 4
neighborhoods from incompatible development. We’ve asked City staff to please work with the 5
developer to ensure compliance with the guidelines for our area. While we know that City staff have 6
made suggestions to the developer to address some of these issues, the changes we’ve requested have not 7
happened. And I want to clarify here, the habitat that they’re describing as being protected, they plan to 8
actually destroy. So, this is not preserving habitat, this is changing out what is there for a manicured 9
landscape. So, the habitat being preserved is located on stormwater channels in small, non-contiguous 10
areas where the water table is high or where they could not engineer their way out of the floodplain. 11
Those are the areas denoted on this site map. If you look at an overlay of the floodplain and the 12
stormwater channels that already exist there, those are the spaces that they’re calling open space, and they 13
were not determined out of benevolence, they were determined out of non-buildable sites. This was 14
established from the beginning of this project. 15
Once wildlife corridors and hunting grounds for raptors and other animals are destroyed, there’s 16
no replacing them with manicured landscaping that will take many years to be established. Even by 17
Ripley Design standards, the trees that they are planning to plant alongside the neighborhoods as 18
supposed buffer to the two- and three-story buildings will take ten to twelve years before they have any 19
kind of height that would make any kind of a buffer exist for us. For the animals that depend on this area 20
for food and shelter and safe passage to the foothills, this development will mean displacement and total 21
destruction of their habitat. Next slide. 22
The developer has asserted to you in their marketing materials and in other documents that this 23
has been a collaborative process with neighbors. They cited tonight how many meetings they have had 24
with us. I want to assure you that has been anything but collaborative. Let’s examine the meetings with 25
neighbors they referenced. After the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where the 26
Commissioners indicated that this proposal was not going to be approved due to its incompatibility with 27
the existing neighborhood, the developer withdrew their plan, as they have stated earlier. David Pretzler 28
who spoke with you earlier emailed me the following…on a Friday afternoon, on July 16th…hello Laura, 29
would you be available for a quick meeting with me and Stephanie at Ripley Design offices this coming 30
Tuesday? We would like to go over some ideas we have for our site that may address some of the 31
neighbors’ concerns. I happened to be camping with my family that weekend so I didn’t get his email 32
until I returned on Monday. Over the three days from that Friday to Monday, he had sent me three emails 33
and two voicemails on my cell phone…which I didn’t give to him by the way, and neither did the 34
City…all implying that we needed to meet with them urgently and that they had new ideas to share that 35
addressed our concerns. Our steering committee was excited that perhaps they were finally responding to 36
us and subsequently set up a Zoom meeting with them for the following Thursday, which we recorded 37
and so did they, so this is on record. To our dismay, in that meeting, when I asked David, Stephanie, and 38
their investor who was also present, what they were proposing, there was silence. They had nothing to 39
offer. We asked, can we see a drawing of what you referenced in your emails as a new idea? Is it lower 40
density, single-family homes? They responded they didn’t have a drawing, instead they asked me, what 41
is the one thing that we could change that would make you support this plan? I remined them that we had 42
submitted three detailed letters to them with changes we would like to see and that there is no one thing. 43
David then offered to modify the condo building planned behind my house to a two-story row house with 44
fewer units and wanted to know if that would be enough for me to support the plan. I assured him that it 45
24
was not. This is the kind of collaborative approach this developer has taken in their meetings with us and 1
that they have misrepresented to you this evening. When we reminded them of what substantive change 2
would look like, they protested that our requests would make this project unviable because it has to be 3
profitable. Their profit is not our concern, and it should not be the City’s either. Despite all the 4
information we’ve submitted to the City detailing our concerns and potential solutions that could remedy 5
them, City staff has now forwarded to you a plan that has not made any of the substantive changes we 6
requested. It does not include adjacent housing that’s compatible with our neighborhoods, nor does it 7
protect wildlife corridors, bird flight paths between wetlands and irrigations channels, or 100-year-old 8
trees around the old farmhouse site. Instead, they have made only one notable modification to this 9
iteration of the plan: they replaced the previous condo buildings with more three-story row houses in 10
order to qualify for a type I hearing. This change allowed them to avoid going back to the Planning and 11
Zoning Commission where they knew their proposal would fail. This revision is what led to the reduction 12
in overall units by 18%, but it was not in response to neighborhood concerns. The height and mass of the 13
row houses are no more compatible with our neighborhoods than the condo buildings. But, the City 14
doesn’t consider row houses multi-family even when they have five units planned in most of these 15
buildings, the plan still violates both the intent and the substance of the Northwest Subarea Plan . 16
In accordance with the City’s responsibility to protect stable existing neighborhoods from 17
incompatible development, we request that you reject the proposed plan and require the developer to truly 18
collaborate with neighbors to create a plan that incorporates lower-density housing next to our properties 19
and better preservation of current wildlife habitat – current wildlife habitat. We would also like to see the 20
developer step down the buildings facing Taft Hill to single-story, something else the Subarea Plan 21
addresses directly, and move any two-story buildings to the interior of the development not abutting 22
single-story homes. The developer has single-story and detached single-family housing products, but he 23
has not placed these next to our neighborhoods as we have requested multiple times. The City should not 24
be granting an exception to the requirement of four types of housing in a development of this size. We 25
would like to see the developer be required to accommodate our request for single-story detached homes 26
next to our neighborhoods. We would also like to see the majority of the development be one- and two-27
story detached homes, no three-story attached row houses. Next slide. 28
Over the past four years, our steering committee has met with City planners…we’re on number 29
three now…we met with Jenny very recently, had her out to the site and appreciate the City being willing 30
to come and do that site visit with us. We’ve met with the floodplain staff, stormwater staff, and two 31
ecologists. All three departments have told…have described this parcel as very complex because of all 32
the waterways and wetlands and because it’s in the floodplain. In fact, the floodplain department’s staff 33
told us that this is the most complex parcel being considered for development in the entire city. So, while 34
the developer may have met the technical requirements to engineer this housing development out of the 35
floodplain, we are skeptical as to whether the plan will actually work. We have yet to hear how this new 36
plan will impact our Green Acres neighborhood with streets all drain into one culvert and intersect with 37
the New Mercer Ditch adjacent to this parcel. As you may be aware, our neighborhoods were severely 38
impacted in the 1997 flood and City staff have told us very clearly that the developer is not requi red to 39
prevent that level of flooding from happening again. This is of great concern to us. We have not yet 40
heard how this revised plan will ensure that our neighborhoods on County property are not negatively 41
impacted by stormwater coming off the new development, especially with the elevated land required for 42
houses built over the floodplain channels. After multiple requests for a neighborhood meeting to help us 43
understand the new proposal, one was finally scheduled for last September. Because of Covid, the 44
meeting was held via Zoom. This was brought up by the City that this neighborhood meeting happened 45
25
as well. We expect that there would be an opportunity fore neighbors to voice their questions and hear 1
the developers’ responses to them, and accordingly, we submitted our questions in advance. However, 2
instead of an engaged meeting, the developers’ consultant controlled the agenda, avoided addressing any 3
questions pertaining to the Northwest Subarea Plan, and City staff allowed the developer to limit the 4
transparency of the chat function such that questions…our questions were not visible to participants and 5
key questions went unanswered. They ended the meeting without answering our core questions. The 6
developers’ assertion to you that this has been a collaborative process from its inception is false. We are 7
very concerned that this whole project will negatively impact our property values, threaten the safety of 8
our homes, destroy wildlife habitat, and degrade our quality of life. The issues we have raised for the past 9
four years have still not been addressed in any substantive way by this developer. Next slide please. 10
Finally, I want to speak to the developers’ plan to decimate the habitat along North Taft Hill 11
where he has designated the entrance to this development. In 2017, the City’s Natural Resources 12
Department tried to buy the historic farmhouse that occupied that area, including three barns, with 13
hundred-year-old silver maple trees and mature cottonwoods around it because they recognized the 14
cultural and environmental value of its preservation. However, this developer outbid the City and 15
acquired the parcel along Taft Hill with the historic farmhouse and barns. In May of 2018 when the 16
property was still under County jurisdiction and not subject to historical review that the City would have 17
required as soon as it was annexed, the developer had the farmhouse burned to the ground. I want to be 18
clear, the developer chose that, the developer chose to give it as a training exercise to have it burned to the 19
ground. We were as neighbors given very, very little notice on this…I think it was three days that we got 20
the notice in the mail. The historic barns were disassembled, the owls and bats nesting in those buildings 21
were displaced and the historic trees were damaged by the fire, as nothing was done to protect them. 22
Next slide please. 23
The large cottonwood tree along the ditch next to the farmhouse site provides nesting habitat in 24
its hollows for a host of birds, including great horned owls and other raptors. In the City staff review 25
documents, we learned that the developer intends to cut down this giant cottonwood tree that’s well over 26
ten feet in diameter and estimated to be 150 years old or more, dating back to the creation of the New 27
Mercer Ditch based on historical documents. An arborist hired by the developer deemed the tree 28
unhealthy. As you can see from this picture, the tree is exceptionally well-balanced, has very few dead 29
branches, and is in full fertility mode…this is from last June…releasing its cotton to reproduce along the 30
waterways as it was designed to do. This tree has a natural hollow at the base, something that you 31
commonly see in cottonwoods in the natural areas across Fort Collins, and is not an indicator of disease or 32
poor health as noted by horticulturalists in our neighborhood. We have in fact investigated that hollow 33
from the ditch and found by the growth pattern that it’s merely adapted to accommodate high water flows 34
that periodically erode the bank under part of its center as it sits at the elbow of a 90-degree turn in the 35
ditch and has no doubt stabilized that bank for all of its life. However, the developer has portrayed this 36
tree as a hazard to planned houses nearby and wants to cut it down along with all the silver maples that 37
surround the former farmhouse. We have a serious issue with this. Had the cottonwood tree been 38
evaluated by the City for its value as bird habitat in the context of a natural area to be preserved, we are 39
certain that the verdict would have been the opposite. This tree and all the silver maples on the property 40
are part of an historic site and are required to be preserved under the Northwest Subarea Plan guidelines. 41
The irony here is that the Subarea Plan itself has a picture of the former farmhouse and barns given as an 42
example of an historic site on North Taft to be preserved…the site that was burned down by this 43
developer. In addition to nesting habitat for owls and other raptors, the trees in thi s area provide vital 44
shelter for deer, foxes, and other animals who live here. We ask that you please save this giant tree that is 45
26
a heritage landmark for our northwest Fort Collins area and require it to be considered part of what the 1
Subarea Plan identifies as natural features to be protected on the property. Next slide. 2
In closing, we ask that you hold the developer to the requirements of the Northwest Subarea Plan 3
and reject this proposal as submitted. The predominant housing in this plan relies on t wo- and three-story 4
row houses that are not compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of building mass, height, or 5
density. The plan does not protect wildlife habitat and natural features on the property as required. As 6
the former chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded last June, this plan does not reflect 7
the natural area…the rural nature of this area. Thank you for your time and consideration. 8
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Ms. Larson. Appreciate your comments, and I will note that you 9
were under your 30 minutes of time allotted. So, with that, I don’t know if City staff has a sign up sheet 10
for folks that are here…I see Jenny saying… 11
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, I believe Alissa or Katie can help us with that. 12
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great, so like I mentioned before, I’d like to definitely have folks that are 13
here that have taken time to be here tonight in person have the opportunity to address this proposed plan 14
first, so if there are folks…and Alissa, do you want to call folks out in order that they signed up, or…do 15
you want me just to invite folks to come up to the podium? I’m seeing a nodding head. Okay, great. So, 16
if you are here to provide comments on the plan, like I mentioned earlier, please do provide your name 17
and address, and the reason we ask for that is that the City’s Land Use Code does require that if you’re 18
here to provide comment that we do end up getting you a copy of the decision that’s ultimately issued. 19
So, I’ll just open it up for anybody else that’s in attendance that would li ke to provide comment or ask 20
specific questions directed to the applicant or staff. 21
MS. DENISE STEFFENHAGEN: Good evening; my name is Denise Steffenhagen. I live at 22
4021 Brackadale Place, 80524. I don’t live in the area, but I do walk the fields with my daughter when I 23
visit her. It’s a beautiful place and it’s a natural place that should be preserved in my regard. Wildlife 24
needs to be protected these days, and the environment. Having more than 1,000 people in that new area is 25
going to increase the traffic, the ozone, the water usage…which, we’re in a drought right now. There’s 26
just all kinds of reasons for not allowing the development on this property. Also flooding is a major 27
concern. In the area where I live, there’s a FEMA floodplain. I’m trying to put trees there and I have to 28
go through all kinds of paperwork and decision making. Here, to build houses and concrete, it’s going to 29
definitely impact the flooding. So, I just ask you to not allow this development to go on. Thank you. 30
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. I appreciate the input. Is there anybody else tonight? Yep. 31
MS. BARBARA DENNY: Hello, my name is Barbara Denny, I live at 420 North Sunset Street ; 32
it’s on the west side of the development, Sunset is. I bought my home in 2007 and the Subarea Plan was 33
written in 2006. So much of this is viewpoint and interpretation of what guidelines and codes mean. 34
There are minimums and maximums, and a lot of cherry picking going on. Anyway, we got the staff 35
analysis less than a week ago, so there hasn’t been a lot of time to be able to dig into that, but one thing I 36
noticed was that, because so much of this land is unbuildable, it comes down to a net density of 7.13 37
dwelling units per buildable acre, I guess that’s the net. Anyway, that means there’s around 24 acres that 38
are not buildable. When you take away, do the math on that, that means, you know, it’s close to 20 acres 39
that are buildable, and the LMN says that the minimum density should be three dwelling units per acre. 40
The Subarea Plan also mentions a minimum of four dwelling units per net acre. Anyway, a lot of those 41
27
minimums aren’t mentioned in these presentations, but the Commissioners verbalized in the Zoning…I 1
mean the P and Z meeting, that the zoning for this property was probably too high based on the 2
surrounding areas around it. It’s rural residential zoning, much of it, all around the property. The only 3
one that isn’t is the Bellwether density, Bellwether properties, and those…density is 3.1. So you can see 4
that when you look at a 7.13 per buildable acre, how out of whack it is with the whole area. When I 5
bought my property, I though for sure the Subarea Plan was going to guide development so that it would 6
remain semi-rural where I live. There is a reason behind the only 20 acres, approximately…I don’t know 7
why it’s cutting out so much…there is a reason behind why only 20 acres are buildable, and that’s 8
because of all the stormwater issues. It seems like the plan is bending over backwards to try and make 9
this fit into those 20 acres, and that intensifies the density on what they can build. There were five major 10
floods in the ‘90’s. It’s the most complicated property in the city to be developed because of this. The 11
concerns remain despite improvements that the City and County have done, but the plans are not fully 12
adopted and there are risks to the developer’s plans, which he’s made aware of. Anyway, sorry, I guess 13
that’s it. Thanks. 14
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you very much. And, it sounds like City staff is keeping a timer on th e 15
three minutes, so I appreciate that, I was not. And again, please, name and address for the record. Thank 16
you. 17
MS. MARY TIMBY: Good evening; my name is Mary Timby and I’m a homeowner on Irish 18
Drive, 627 Irish Drive, near Sanctuary Field. This is my first time ever speaking up at a meeting, and the 19
fact that I’m overcoming my extreme fear of public speaking to show up tonight is a testament to how 20
passionate I feel about the issues with this development. I’ve lived in Fort Collins for 24 years. I moved 21
to this neighborhood as a renter and purchased my home because I loved it. I host two international 22
students, one from Brazil and one from Spain, who attend nearby Poudre High School. I was drawn to 23
this area because of the Northwest Subarea Plan, because of the diversity of the neighborhood, and the 24
open space, and that’s why I’m speaking up today. I know housing is challenge in our community, and I 25
look forward to welcoming new folks to the neighborhood; however, I’m very concerned about two major 26
aspects of this development plan. My first concern is the developers’ complete disregard of the 27
Northwest Subarea Plan, the second is the developers’ lack of transparency and neighborhood 28
engagement. The developer continues to disregard and violate the Northwest Subarea Plan. I have some 29
examples that I emailed, most of them from the Northwest Subarea Plan. My second concern is the lack 30
of transparency and neighborhood engagement by the developer. The process seems to be taking place 31
behind closed doors and changes constantly. One meeting was held with the developer via Zoom in 32
September. It is facilitated in such a way that the developer controlled the conversation and failed to 33
address why the proposal did not meet the Northwest Subarea Plan. The developer has refused to meet 34
with neighbors and the neighborhood steering committee has shown disregard for neighborhood concerns. 35
Tonight I’ve heard a lot of ‘in response to neighborhood concerns’ and, in my experience…or from my 36
viewpoint as a new homeowner to the area, but after renting for seven years, is that none of these changes 37
we heard here tonight are in response to neighborhood concerns, they’re in response to a lack of 38
compliance. I’m not anti-development, I am pro-responsible development, and I would like the City to 39
hold the developer accountable to the Northwest Subarea Plan and see more transparency in the process. 40
Thanks. 41
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. 42
MR. JOE MCHUGH: Good evening; my name is Joe McHugh, I’ve lived on Irish Drive for 32 43
years. I’m a retired art teacher in Poudre School District after serving the community for 30 years. I want 44
28
to point out something that hasn’t been mentioned, which is aesthetics are subjective. And so when we 1
hear from the developers that this is an aesthetically unimpactful development, I take issue with that as an 2
artist and art teacher and a resident of this community…actually 37 years, counting time on Hollywood 3
Street. So, aesthetics are subjective, and I don’t know how anybody with any sense of visual sense could 4
look at the proposal and find that that’s compatible with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is a rural 5
neighborhood, it’s one-story houses, lots of large yards, big trees, and the development looks like 6
something that was dropped in from…excuse me for saying this, but from the south side of Fort Collins. 7
I did teach at Lincoln Junior High School for 17 years, Wellington Junior High School for four, taught 8
kids that went to Poudre IB, and then was voluntarily transferred to the south side of town for the last 9
eight years of my career. Driving across town after teaching on the south side of town felt like coming 10
back to a sanctuary, pardon the pun…actually it’s a little bit strange to use that word. So, I just feel like, 11
from an aesthetic standpoint, these row houses look exactly like the ones that have been built across from 12
where the stadium used to be by the drive-through [sic] movie theater, and I can’t imagine those buildings 13
being plopped in the field that’s basically a block away from my house, where I walk my dog almost 14
every single day and see the ducks, the wildlife, the hawks, and these animals, the deer through there at 15
night. So, aesthetics are subjective, but I think that after 37 years on t he northwest side of Fort Collins 16
and being an art teacher serving this community, that my sense of aesthetics for this community is a lot 17
more valuable than a developer who is from out of town or may not know our neighborhood at all. Thank 18
you. 19
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. And it was Mr. McHugh, correct? Okay, great. Anybody else to 20
comment? For those of you on the telephone, there’s a fight about who’s going to speak next, but I think 21
it just got sorted out. Okay, go ahead. 22
MS. CATHLEEN DESANTIS: Hi, I’m Cathleen. I live on 230 Pennsylvania Street, which is 23
right up against the field. I had a huge thing written down, but listening to everything, what everybody 24
has been saying, I’m just kind of going to go off of what I’ve written. I feel like there has been a lot of 25
misrepresentation and lack of transparency throughout this whole entire process, especially, you know, 26
considering the barn and the house that could have been historic. In the Northwest Subarea Plan, it was 27
actually listed as a potential historic resource, and they just had not assessed it yet, and it’s unfortunate 28
that they did burn it down, even though it was for a good purpose. I also want to say that, you know, this 29
plan isn’t just a vision. 30
You know, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code section 1.2.2(A) says…it ensures that all 31
growth, development is consistent with this Code, City Plan, and its adopted components, including 32
associated subarea plans. So, I think that’s really important to note. The Northwest Subarea Plan 33
represents a joint planning effect of the City and County involving residents, landowners, businesses in 34
the area and other interested parties, to create a shared vision and plan for the future. The City and 35
County have a history of joint subarea-level planning to achieve a finer level of detail and goals, policies, 36
and land use planning for areas within the growth management area. Each subarea level plan is distinct 37
and is public-driven, so I think that’s why it’s really important to listen to the community. Throughout 38
this whole process, we have been saying that three-story buildings are just not consistent or compatible 39
with everything else around it, and yet they have consistently kept the three-story buildings. You know, 40
it's great that they lowered the units; however, they increased the three-story buildings, so I wanted to 41
note that. And you know, three-story buildings are going to be blocking the open land and views. 42
I also want to state that, as of April 2020, the northern Front Range, including Fort Collins, has 43
been reclassified from a serious to a severe violator of federal ozone standards. This is due to a 44
29
combination of industrial and vehicle emissions. So, considering, you know, like 1,000 more residents 1
coming in is going to increase that and, you know, affect the ozone more. I’m also concerned about the 2
flooding. Water does go from my house to the field, and that bike path is right up against my house, and 3
with such an open field, I don’t understand why they can’t, you know, back up the path even more and 4
allow the water to flow into that, you know, basin that they have. You know, five feet at least change in 5
height is a lot, so I ask you to reject this plan. Thanks. 6
MR. CHRIS SAWYER: How’s it going? My name is Chris Sawyer, and I’m at 216 7
Pennsylvania Street, and I just want to oppose the plan. A hundred years from now, none of us will be 8
here, but the wildlife will be, and it’s just going to become more complicated for them as Fort Collins 9
grows, there will be people here, it will be expensive to live here, more so than it is now. And living right 10
there on the street and having a Master’s in natural resource management, those wildlife corridors that 11
were shown on the map, you know, what are they going to look like in a hundred years? It seems like it’s 12
not going to be good enough, so thanks so much. 216 Pennsylvania. 13
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Mr. Sawyer. 14
MR. LLOYD WALKER: My name is Lloyd Walker, I’m a retired civil engineer from CSU and a 15
lot of my career was devoted to water and associated environmental issues. A lot of my concerns are the 16
complexity of the water flows across this site, which has been well-documented, or expressed, I’d say, so 17
I’m not going to go into that. But, I have a particular point that is missing, and that is the elephant in the 18
room in this project is the New Mercer canal, and it’s just being ignored, or saying, well, it’s just 19
something we have to cope with. In fact, it is a tremendous resource that’s not being developed in terms 20
of the fact that there’s a ditch access through there which people use informally and illegally, because 21
they’re trespassing according to current rules, as a walkway, and nothing is being done about that. Now, I 22
would cite an example of how this could be done in the Red Fox Meadows project. New Mercer canal 23
goes through there, the ditch access road is considered a part of the City of Fort Collins trail system, and 24
so there’s no question about, you know, trespassing. It’s documented that the City made an arrangement 25
with the New Mercer canal people, which by the way, probably the City is largest water shareholder in 26
the New Mercer canal. So, I don’t see why not…whatever happens here, that the New Mercer canal is 27
considered an attribute and something that could enhance the natural feature of this area by providing a 28
walking trail along a waterway that has a lot of wildlife amenities and habitats. And so I would suggest 29
that whatever happens on this site, there ought to be consideration for how the New Mercer canal and its 30
associated access road can be considered part of this project site to enhance the enjoyment of the 31
neighborhood, the residents, and the city. And I would again suggest that if anybody wants to know how 32
this could work, go look at the Red Fox Meadows site. It’s a gem in the middle of the city, it’s a grand, 33
larger, regional water plan as this will be with the West Vine project, and it could be something that is an 34
enhancement rather than just something we have to work around as a problematic feature. So, 35
let’s…whatever happens, let’s take into account how we can more creatively use the New Mercer 36
waterway as has been done in Red Fox Meadows. Thank you. 37
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Appreciate those comments. I see somebody in the 38
back that is coming up. 39
MS. KIRI SAFTLER: Hi, I’m Kiri Saftler. You guys have seen me all the years that you’ve been 40
trying to develop this property. I have lived on my property at 230 North Sunset for 45 years, which is 41
just to the west. I am in the County, this property is now City property. I am guessing, Marcus, that you 42
have not been on this property, and we have quite a neighborhood that we want to preserve. I’m sure 43
30
you’ve heard all of this. One of the things that I like to bring to these meetings is the future generations. 1
What happens beyond what’s happening right now? And there are two things that I bring up at almost 2
every meeting. One is that I, in 1970 something, built a root cellar, dug a root cellar, which became a 3
swimming pool instantly. So every time I have met with the developers, I’ve said, so, are you building 4
root cellars…or I mean basements for all these people, and are you providing sump pumps, and are we 5
going to address the damage that might happen to those homeowners’ new homes because of a high water 6
table. And we do know that somebody on the very east side just dug a well, and it was only eight feet 7
deep, and ours was about eight feet, and I’m on the west side. So, we do know that there’s a high water 8
table on that property. 9
And also speaking about our future generations, I have asked all the years for the City…this is a 10
City thing…about consciousness around solar, and you say that you have solar design; however, solar 11
orientation is different. And, if you’re not orienting a house, you’re not using its natural resource, you’re 12
using, maybe the roof will work so I can put a solar panel on it and pay more money, but we’re not doing 13
solar gain. And this is something that I have talked about all the years and felt really impassioned about 14
for the future generations; it’s an important thing. 15
We’ve talked about air pollution and light pollution, which I feel really strongly about. I live in a 16
very dark neighborhood and love that, that I can go out and see the stars. That will change drastically. 17
And, of course, all this stormwater and floodplain…we were told by a City employee, which I’m glad my 18
brain doesn’t work to remember who the person was…that this is the most complicated property to be 19
developed, and it should not be being developed in an LMN fashion, and that it was probably even zoned 20
incorrectly. These were by two different City employees who told us those in all of our meetings that 21
we’ve had. 22
I am hoping that we are agreeing to the fence that we have talked about once before along 23
anybody who wants it, and I hope you deny this plan. Thank you. 24
MR. MCASKIN: I’m sorry, was it Ms. Saftler? Okay, thank you. 25
MR. JOEY LASALA: Hi, my name is Joey Lasala; my wife and I live on 2216 Laporte Ave on 26
the very east side of the…or I guess south side of the development there. Our property is bordered on 27
three directions by either a planned future access road…or access walkway for pedestrians, and many of 28
the development proposals still say future access road which I have particular concern with as it cuts 29
through a very dense wetland that runs in front of my property on the very south side. Along this area is, 30
again, very high water table, which we noted needing to dig and redo our sewer line this year, which I 31
could only imagine is not going to be made any better with continued development in the surrounding 32
area. We actually have been personally contacted by the developer about the ditch running in front of our 33
property in that it is, well, just quite simply put, not quite deep enough or wide enough to accommodate 34
the water that happens there sometimes, and frequent flooding happens as is. 35
Other concerns, kind of, for us specifically…part of the walkway that is going to be cutting 36
towards the south side of the property is going to run along what is currently the access driveway to my 37
property, and it has been for the past 82 years. The maintenance of the ditch surrounding this is 38
something that has de facto fallen onto myself and the surrounding neighbors to keep it clear of debris and 39
sediment. This is having to be done every single year. It’s not anything that I think the developer has 40
mentioned or has any sort of maintenance plan for. Thank you very much; those are my primary 41
concerns. 42
31
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Mr. Lasala. 1
MS. MARY BECK: Hi, I’m Mary Beck; I live at 503 North Hollywood Street, and we own a 2
property there for the last 40 years…more than 40 years. We…I’m concerned about the traffic and the 3
safety to the students at Poudre High School. My own two sons went through all that system, and the 4
traffic build up…adding more residents to that area can endanger our young people. I know already that 5
there’s been multiple accidents on either Taft Hill or Laporte Avenue. I know a young man who was 6
crippled by a negligent driver on Laporte Avenue. The kids walk up and down that street three or four 7
abreast, and it is a dangerous situation already. Adding a sidewalk should be mandatory, and by the City 8
as well…not only from Taft Hill all the way through Sunset, because there is a second high school at the 9
alternative high school location. But, between the traffic, parents dropping off their kids in the morning, 10
and me having to negotiate through that traffic every morning to get to work…before I retired…and the 11
kids walking back and forth like at lunchtime and breaks, I have a serious concern about the safety of our 12
teenage kids in Fort Collins. And no one’s addressed that yet, and I think it’s really, really important. 13
Thank you. 14
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you, Ms. Beck. At this point, before we continue with public comment, 15
it is about 7:52 PM. Let’s take about a five-minute break, and we’ll resume just before 8:00. Okay, thank 16
you. 17
(**Secretary’s Note: There was a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 18
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, the time is 8:00. For the record, this is Marcus McAskin, the Hearing 19
Officer. We took a short five or seven minute break. We are currently in the public testimony, or public 20
comment portion of tonight’s hearing. The last member of the public to provide comment was Mary 21
Beck who had some comments on pedestrian or student safety. And with that, I’m going to open up the 22
microphone again to folks that would like to provide comment. Thank you. 23
MS. VAL VOGELER: Hi, my name is Val Vogeler and my husband and I live at a home at 520 24
North Taft Hill Road, so it’s on the east side of Taft Hill just north of the property that’s proposed to be 25
developed. And so, being in this proximity, close proximity, to this area for years now, I have firsthand 26
knowledge of the current housing density and the architecture of the surrounding community, the wildlife 27
that’s in all of our yards, and also the traffic flow along Taft Hill Road, which already is causing traffic 28
back-ups during the arrival and dismissal of the three schools in the neighborhood, and a big increase in 29
truck traffic. And although the developer claims that the newest proposal has been collaborative with the 30
neighbors and they’ve accommodated our concerns, it really is not true. The three-story multi-plexes are 31
planned to be prominent all across the front eastern property edge of North Taft Hill Road, and the side 32
northern property along Soldier’s Creek. And it seems to me, it’s hard to believe that the City would 33
allow these beautiful fields and trails with peaceful foothill views to allow them to be degraded by 34
towering multi-plexes that block the scenery of this very unique site, along with the wildlife corridor and 35
the wetlands. In order to preserve these views and to step back from Taft Hill Road, the neighbors have 36
repeatedly asked for single-family, single-story homes, detached homes, on all four borders of the 37
property, possibly graduating up to a few two-story homes in the center of the planned development. This 38
request has been consistently ignored when we’ve asked for reduction or relocation of these high-density 39
homes to the center of the planned development. There’s been no give on this aspect repeatedly voiced 40
by the neighbors. So, all four borders. Take time to consider the incompatible visual and density aspects, 41
and please tell Solitaire Homes that this prime northwest subarea acreage has a dist inct character that 42
32
needs to be preserved on the edge of town. It is not southeast Fort Collins where roads are equipped to 1
handle the increased traffic and the multi-plexes do abound. 2
I also was asked to mention that the area on Laporte where the buses exit the bus depot there onto 3
Laporte, is also where…and I guess an access road is possibly planned…so that’s going to certainly be a 4
problem with the buses coming out. The Northwest Subarea Plan is very clear in its intent to preserve the 5
special attributes of this section with single-family dwellings and farms. And the Northwest Subarea Plan 6
was, and is, a collaborative effort between the City and County. Thank you. 7
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. 8
MR. NOAH MUNSON: Hi, my name is Noah Munson. I’m at 1500 Castlerock Drive, and I 9
grew up in an actual rural community on a corn farm. And I, just for the record, I want to say that this is 10
not a high-density area, and that anybody who thinks that just doesn’t actually understand the effect of 11
urban sprawl towards farmers and towards, like, rural communities. So, this is unfortunately something I 12
can’t get behind, but also I heard a lot of talk about how this is a mixed, sort of community, of different 13
socio-economic groups, but also I hear things of people referring to row homes and multi-purpose 14
housing as southern, or the south side of Fort Collins, which in my opinion, is very elitist. So, coming 15
from the son of a farmer, just, I don’t know…this is kind of why I approve and want this to be developed, 16
so… 17
MS. CHERYL DISTASO: Good evening; my name is Cheryl Distaso, I live on 135 South Sunset 18
Street, and I’ve been there since 1990, so I’m a relative newcomer to the neighborhood. I want to talk a 19
bit about traffic. By the City’s own admission, the Laporte Avenue corridor between Fishback and 20
Sunset is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, and it needs to be addressed. This has been documented 21
in the Laporte plan, but the funding or timeline has note been secured except for the bridges. The 22
Laporte/Taft Hill intersection is narrow and not safe at many times of day, particularly around the Poudre 23
High School bell times. It’s not unusual for cars on Taft Hill to back up north to West Vine Drive. It 24
only stands to reason that 500 plus more cars will negatively impact an already problematic traffic flow in 25
and around our neighborhood. The applicant has claimed that there is no negative impact to traffic, and 26
this simply cannot be the case. 27
And then as far as compatibility, I just want to say that this project is not compatible in mass, or 28
density, or design with our neighborhood, regardless of what the applicant might call agrarian-themed 29
two-story row houses. Massing and compatibility is addressed in the Land Use Code, 3.5, as well as the 30
Subarea Plan. We’ve heard from the developer that three-story row houses need to dominate the project 31
in order to make this development profitable on this complicated property. This property is not 32
appropriate for this development. I’m opposed to this plan. Thank you. 33
MR. BILL CONNELLY: Hello, my name is Bill Connelly. I’ve lived on Sunset Street for 40 34
plus years. I have two acres, irrigation rights, and moved there because of the way it was, and hope to 35
remain. I’m against the plan happening there. It’s going to destroy everything about that area. I was a 36
homebuilder…I’m retired now…for 50 years, and just detested that type of concept of what they want to 37
build in this area. It’s nothing like what is there, and doesn’t belong there. It belongs in new land, corn 38
fields out east, down south, other places. This land just incredible. 39
That’s why all my neighbors…I’m also going to speak for Sunset Water District. It’s Sunset, 40
Hollywood, Laporte, and Vine. We have 178 homes. They are all on…most of them on acres, or two 41
33
acres, and some maybe a half-acre that got broken down over the years. But, anyway, we have our own 1
water, we own our water, we keep the rates low, we control the irrigation that comes down…well, not 2
Sunset, but our North Lateral Ditch Company of Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, and we…that does not 3
fit here. It just does not. When I was building, I designed homes and built homes that blended with the 4
environment that…and these do not blend with the environment at all. They’re just like something that 5
fell out of the sky; they’re horrible. So, anyway, that’s my opinion on this. 6
I am worried about the extra traffic. We’ve had issues with Sunset Water District with all the 7
increased traffic on Sunset Street. They keep widening the roads, the City or County, when they update it 8
every few years, because the send all the buses from Poudre and Irish down the street and we get leaks in 9
the water system. Our water system of Sunset Water District was created in 1947 when that was a dirt 10
road going through there, and it was a rural area with all the houses…my home, original part of my home 11
was built in 1919, and my neighbor’s was built when we got back…well, it was built before he got back 12
from World War II, in 1945, and he had two acres. A lot of people had acreages, or they had big gardens 13
and animals. We have mountain lions going through our property, you know, hawks, eagles, great horned 14
owls, and, you know, all sorts of animals going through our property. We have big trees everywhere. We 15
just kept it as natural as we could possibly do, and that’s it. 16
MR. MCASKIN: Yep, thank you, Bill. And, City staff will help me with the spelling of 17
everybody’s name, but last name was…? Thank you, appreciate it. 18
MS. CATHY ROBERTS: Hi, my name is Cathy Roberts, I live at 113 North Sunset and I am on 19
the south side of Laporte Street. During one of the first public hearings, a question was presented 20
concerning the traffic study reporting no impact. At that time, another study was determined to be 21
performed to address the before and after school flow of traffic. My first question is that, was that seco nd 22
study performed, when was it performed and where, and then my next question was, were the Covid 23
restrictions requiring the high school students to go virtual factored in, which would of course decrease 24
the number of the flow. So, thank you, and I’d appreciate clarification, and based on the reality of what I 25
experience with the traffic, I oppose this plan. Thank you. 26
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. 27
MS. CHERYL LYNN: My name is Cheryl Lynn, I live at 413 Webb; I’ve lived there for 17 28
years. I have a sump pump in my home, which kind of gives you an idea of what the water level is at 29
times. I don’t understand how this project, this development, has gotten this far, because in no way is the 30
architecture compatible with what is existing in the area. Homes built on fill dirt, even one-story homes, 31
are not going to blend in. And so, I’m concerned about also how many people, how many campers, how 32
many trucks, how many cars, so you have more air pollution. There’s…nobody has addressed the night 33
sky, the fact that there is going to be…it’s going to look like…I don’t know, an all-night circus at that 34
area, because you have…if it goes through…three-story homes built on fill dirt that have no regulations 35
as far as the night light goes. And, also there’s a movement now, the right to nature movement, which is 36
supporting the personhood for ecosystems, meaning people are organizing to give personhood to 37
ecosystems so they can be represented in courts. And there have already been cases brought for lakes, 38
and rivers, and acres of land. And I think that the feeling toward nature is changing, and so it is not going 39
to continue to be as exploited and abused as it is in a development like this. Thank you. 40
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Ms. Lynn for your comments. Do we have…yep, we do have a 41
couple more folks, great. And again, for those of you that are on Zoom or on the telephone, we are trying 42
34
to get through everybody here in Council Chambers before we switch over to the electronic comments. 1
Thank you. Go ahead sir. 2
MR. STUART SOLBERG: Hi, I’m Stuart Solberg, 525 Sunrise Lane, that’s just west of the grade 3
school. Been there since the ‘70’s. I hear a lot of concerns about the animals and the wildlife, and they 4
are absolutely a primo thing about the neighborhood, and so I’m totally on…in sync with that. Even 5
go…I don’t know…could it be made an open space? I have to agree with Lloyd, Red Fox Meadows has 6
something beautiful. If I made the rule, this is too many people. I would say a horse per house, you 7
know. So, that’s not, you know, somebody is looking for a profit margin here, that’s understood. So I 8
just want to bring the question of human flourishing to this. If we’re going to bring these large numbers 9
of people in, you know, they’re going to end up under an HOA or something, that’s nothing like the 10
surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood is…I would call it historic by eclecticism. The way I 11
draw the neighborhood box is maybe Overland to Taft, Vine to Laporte, maybe it should be Vine to 12
Mulberry. But, you know, we’ve got single-lane roads all around that and so we want to introduce the 13
new people…undesirable. And, again, the neighborhood is historic in terms of eclecticism. It wasn’t 14
managed to be…there’s not anything past, you know, the Sunset/Vine area…there’s no two lots the same 15
size there. It’s utterly different than…we’re trying to bring this very homogenous thing in, and we’re 16
going to bring those people in, and…I want to meet my neighbors kind of one at a time, but we’re going 17
to bring them in and control them. You know, heaven forbid somebody’s a working stiff in this new 18
neighborhood and he has to bring home the shop truck at night. Are they going to let him do that? If it 19
was going to be that, it’s much better for it to be not some kind of imploding floodplain than for us to 20
bring humans in and they can’t flourish. So, and I would talk at length about, you know, what…if it’s got 21
to be people, I want human flourishing, which is what I see in the very eclectic neighborhood that I grew 22
up in. I miss…we had pea fowl, we had shaggy Scottish cows, they’re gone now from that…when they 23
had to dig out for the flood, the Scottish cows lasted a few more years, but now that’s gone. People keep 24
the goats and the horses. Sometimes there’s incidents with the…even the irrigation, because there’s 25
various ditches there coming in off of Vine. As long as it doesn’t displace someone from their house, 26
that’s more charm to me, but that’s not compatible with this homogenous, you know, we’re going to get 27
all these people to come in and hook them up to the internet and they’ll just hide in their homes at night. 28
Well, it’s vastly different than what’s going on now. 29
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Mr. Solberg, and we have…go ahead, ma’am, thank you. 30
MS. SUSAN DESANTIS: Hi, my name is Susan Desantis, and I own the house on 230 31
Pennsylvania Street, which is the southeast area of the field. Our house backs right up to the field on the 32
side there and there’s a little catch basin located there. There’s also power lines that run across the top, so 33
naturally the builder cannot build anything right there. And I have an issue with the number of houses 34
that they’re declaring per acre. They’re taking the total acreage and dividing up the houses, when clearly 35
more than half of the acreage is not going to be developed, so there’s going to be more houses per acre 36
than what they are suggesting, the 5.13, or…I don’t know the exact number…but it’s much higher than 37
that when you take out the non-usable land space. The other issue that I have is just with that whole area 38
being a flood area with the catch basins, and the canal, and all the wildlife in there. With the floods and 39
everything, you’re going to put a bunch of concrete and, you know, the streets and asphalt in there, and 40
then when it rains and floods, you know, where is the water going to go? Is it going to go into the 41
surrounding neighborhoods instead of into the ditches and everything that it was designed for? And I 42
haven’t heard much about the way the developer wants to increase the level to bring in fill dirt and build it 43
up another five feet. With the water table being at eight feet, it just seems like it’s kind of going to be a 44
35
swamp if they try and build on it, and I haven’t heard a lot of that being discussed. It is a rural area. The 1
homes there are all single-story, that’s what attracted me to the area when I was looking to buy four years 2
ago. I love how everything is…they’re smaller homes and bigger land, and to put in that number of 3
houses is really incompatible with the area. If you walk that area and if you know that area, you can 4
clearly see that by putting in the three-story row homes, and even the two-story ones, that it’s really going 5
to stick out. Fort Collins should try to preserve its land in the northern area of Fort Collins. There’s 6
plenty of open land in the south and east of Fort Collins that’s being developed, and they’re using every 7
square foot of land that they can to build houses on, and it’s just increasing the population and the traffic. 8
It’s going to increase the traffic in that area on Laporte and Taft. The high school is there with all the kids 9
going on the street, and the traffic with people going to and from school in the mornings and in the 10
afternoons. It’s…and then plus the lighting that was brought up. The street lights that will probably go 11
in, the dark area at night is going to be diminished, the pollution is going to increase, and it’s not a good 12
fit for that area. Thank you. 13
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Ms. Desantis. Do we have any other folks that are in attendance 14
tonight in Council Chambers that would like to provide comments or ask questions at this time? Okay, so 15
seeing nobody walking up toward the podium, Katie, I know you’re in the back room managing the folks 16
that are signed up via Zoom or on the telephone, and so, again, I believe that you have those members of 17
the public that are signed up in order to provide public comment, so we’ll go ahead and start that portion 18
of the public comment portion of the hearing at this time. And, so Katie, let me turn it over to you at this 19
point. 20
MS. KATIE CLAYPOOL: Sure. And, again, if folks need to make a public comment online, you 21
can use the raise hand feature in Zoom, or you can hit star nine if you’re calling in on a telephone. The 22
first person that we have up is Joe Rowan, so I’m going to allow you to talk Joe, and you should be able 23
to unmute yourself. 24
MR. JOE ROWAN: Good evening, thank you. My name is Joe Rowan and I have owned or 25
rented property in this area since I first moved to Fort Collins in 1987, so in effect, I’ve been living on 26
somebody else’s open space for the last 35 years. And I think you’ve not heard from all the neighbors, 27
you’ve only heard from those that wish to appropriate somebody else’s property for their own private use, 28
their own private enjoyment. And, truly, this property does lie within the city, it has vested rights, and I 29
think the developer, if they are to be criticized in any way, it would be that they’re not developing this 30
property at a high enough density to really utilize the full use of that property. I don’t think we can 31
preserve yesterday, nor should we attempt to defend the exclusionary policies that are being proposed by 32
my neighbors. You know, much as been said to suggest that this is a diverse and inclusive neighborhood, 33
but you know, that really is an illusion because you’re only hearing from current property owners. And I 34
will speak on behalf of those who don’t have a vested financial interest. This development proposal is not 35
dense enough. The 2019 app was a great plan, and I would encourage the applicant to move closer in that 36
direction, because if we’re to at all function going forward, we really do need to adhere to our 37
development plan that says that, if you’re living within the city, we need higher density, we need greater 38
heights, so three stories is probably not even sufficient for this area. And I think that we do need to 39
increase the amount of density that is allowed not only in this proposal, but within the LM N zoning 40
district, because we certainly cannot afford to preserve yesterday and still function as a society going 41
forward. So, thank you very much, and I look forward to your decision. 42
MR. MCASKIN: Great, Joe, thank you for that. Katie, let’s take the next individual that signed 43
up via Zoom. 44
36
MS. CLAYPOOL: Our next person is Hilary Freeman. 1
MS. HILARY FREEMAN: Hello, my name is Hilary Freeman. I live at 2208 Trevor Street; it’s 2
kind of on the other side of Vine, but when I got my dog about five or six years ago, I started walking 3
more in the southerly regions. I’m very conflicted with the understanding that Fort Collins is pricing a lot 4
of the local residents out of the area, and the solution to that is more housing. But, that’s also hard for me 5
having grown up on a farm in western Colorado, so I like to see the open space. To try to be very 6
relevant here though, personally, I try to commute via bike as much as possible to do my part to minimize 7
air pollution. I bike south on Taft Hill, and if I don’t time it right, it’s a little terrifying to bike down Taft 8
Hill and then get into the left-hand turn lane on Laporte. So, I am anxious about how the traffic is going 9
to impact my bike commute, so I would just like to say that I’m concerned about the traffic. 10
I’m also concerned about the air pollution. And somebody else made a comment about designing 11
homes to take advantage of solar gain, and things like that would be great to see because we could reduce 12
the energy consumption; that would help with air pollution as well. So, those are some of my big 13
concerns. 14
One thing that I haven’t heard addressed, and I don’t know how exactly relevant it is, but since I 15
started walking my dog, I walked down Impala Road, Street, several times, and that road is in pretty 16
terrible shape due to a ton of potholes, and I’ve seen people will occasionally over the years dump a load 17
of gravel, but the thought of a fire truck in an emergency trying to take that road seems odd to me. So, I 18
just would hope that the people who are in charge of the decision for the emergency access are taking that 19
into account and not expecting someone else to pick up the tab on fixing that street or, you know, if it’s an 20
emergency access route, it seems that access should be expedient and fast and not hindered by a gigantic 21
pothole, so that is something that I haven’t heard addressed and wanted to bring to the table. Just, again, 22
echoing the comments on traffic, pollution, wildlife, but I do understand that needs to be balanced with 23
human habitation and growth. So, hopefully things can be balanced in a safe and hopefully somewhat 24
environmentally responsible manner. Thank you for your time. 25
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you for your comments. Katie, who do we have next? 26
MS. CLAYPOOL: Next up is Julie Stephens. Julie, you should be able to unmute yourself now. 27
Go ahead and speak when you’re ready, Julie. I am not hearing her on the line. I’m going to go ahead 28
and remove your permission to talk and then re-allow it here Julie, just a minute. Go ahead and try again 29
Julie. 30
MR. MCASKIN: Katie, maybe we can take the next person in line and circle back in a few 31
minutes and check in with Julie. 32
MS. CLAYPOOL: Absolutely. So, next up would be Nicole Swan. Nicole, you’re ready to 33
unmute. 34
MS. NICOLE SWAN: Hello, good evening. As she said, my name is Nicole Swan. My address 35
is 311 Willow Street, apartment 213, 80524. I’m here tonight because it’s important to me that Fort 36
Collins is a livable, affordable, and accessible city. And as such, I want to register my support of the 37
Sanctuary on the Green development proposal. In Fort Collins, we need housing, and importantly we 38
need development like this that provides multiple types of housing, thereby providing housing at different 39
price points to serve the different demographics of our city’s citizenry. In my review of the proposal, City 40
37
Planning and the developer have done their due diligence. The proposal meets all requirements for land 1
use, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, open and green space, and zoning, and I believe it should be 2
approved. Thank you. 3
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. So, Katie, let’s maybe take the next one…we’ll give Julie a few 4
more minutes, but let’s take number five. 5
MS. CLAYPOOL: Sure, so, next is Miranda Spindel. And Miranda, you should be able to 6
unmute yourself now. 7
MS. MIRANDA SPINDEL: Hi, my name is Miranda Spindel and I live at 330 North Taft Hill. 8
My three-acre farm is on the state’s historic register and borders most of the east side of this proposed 9
development. Thanks for listening; I have quite a few concerns. First, this proposal has been extremely 10
difficult for neighbors to track, provide input on, and understand. The difficulty stems from both the City 11
and the developer. The City’s development review website is extremely difficult to navigate, documents 12
are not uploaded in a timely manner, and some are so large that they can’t be viewed online. The final 13
round of documents, staff report, and information about this hearing were not publicly available until late 14
last week. How are neighbors supposed to actively participate in the hearing if this informat ion is not 15
available? 16
The developer is claiming that this has been an extremely collaborative and responsive effort with 17
neighbors. This is false. The developer has shown utter disregard for this area since the project’s 18
inception when the historic buildings were burned to the ground. It should be clear to all that the 19
Planning and Zoning Commission was poised to reject the proposal and this hearing is an attempt to 20
bypass going back before the Commission with a plan that has barely changed. The Commissioners 21
specifically advised the developer to negotiate with the neighbors to find a more compatible plan. It 22
should be on record that the developer has not done this, and in fact, rejected our group’s request for 23
another neighborhood meeting before this hearing. 24
Second, the proposal neither conforms to the Northwest Subarea Plan or the Land Use Code, and 25
therefore it should not be approved. The Subarea Plan’s vision speaks specifically to preserving historic 26
structures, small farms, and open fields. Three-story buildings are one hundred percent incompatible with 27
our neighborhood. Nothing on the east border of this plan fits the character of my historic acreage or 28
attempts to, quote, step down the visual impact. The current staff report is the first time my property has 29
actually ever been referenced and specifically states that the building height and width of the proposed 30
new construction does not meet the Land Use Code 3.4.7 requirements. Several sections of the Land Use 31
Code do make specific reference to developments being in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. The 32
City and neighbors have made multiple suggestions to correct disregard for the Plan, and they’ve largely 33
been ignored submittal after submittal. Why is the City not holding the developer to its own guidance? 34
Third, I’m quite concerned about traffic impacts. Only 41 parking spaces are on-street, and only 35
six spaces are dedicated to the neighborhood center. Will that really accommodate? The proposed turn 36
lane entrance across North Taft Hill is going to directly impact me with noise, wildlife impact, headlight 37
glare, and difficulty getting out of my own driveway will be life-altering. 38
Finally, I would just like to close by sharing that I cherish the rural and quiet nature of my 39
neighborhood, the beautiful foothills views, and the varied wildlife that frequent my property. The vision 40
in the Northwest Subarea Plan is a large part of why I bought this property 15 years ago. This is why I 41
38
registered my home on the state register, and I truly can’t envision the change that this development will 1
bring. I respectfully ask you to reject the current proposal. Thank you. 2
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Miranda. So, Kate, let’s maybe go back real quick and check in 3
with Julie Stephens to see if she’s available. 4
MS. CLAYPOOL: Julie, you should be able to unmute yourself now. 5
MS. JULIE STEPHENS: Can you hear me now? Hello. 6
MR. MCASKIN: Yes, we can hear you. 7
MS. STEPHENS: Oh good, I’m so glad I tried another way. My name is Julie Stephens and I 8
live at 339 North Overland. We’ve lived here for over 40 years, as many people have, and you’ll notice 9
many people don’t move because we love it here so much. However, no one has mentioned that there 10
was a time when the City wanted to turn Overland Trail into a four-lane highway, and there was a study 11
done regarding the impact of the pollution and how it would affect the foothills in particular. And, at that 12
time, the plan was scrapped and that was part of the reason why, was because of how all of the poll ution 13
tends to hover in the foothills, in our backyard basically. So, to bring more traffic even closer to the 14
foothills would greatly increase what’s already been determined to be a hazard. So, that’s what I wanted 15
to say, and say that I do hope you reject the current plan as it is. Thank you. 16
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Ms. Stephens. Katie, who do we have next? 17
MS. CLAYPOOL: We just had four additional hands raised, so next up is going to be Matthew. 18
You should be able to unmute yourself now. 19
MR. MATTHEW BEHUNIN: My name is Matthew Behunin; I live at 1613 Waterford Lane here 20
in Fort Collins. I want to talk about four areas on this project. So, Fort Collins is i n a housing crisis. We 21
recently had some friends move out of state because the cost of rent was too much for them to bear. My 22
five-year-old’s friend, Conrad, they had to move, they couldn’t afford rent here. So, I’m speaking in 23
favor of this development. 24
Density…so, the four areas I want to address: density, environment, traffic, and then diversity. 25
So, density is actually pretty low, it’s…this zoning is low, mixed-use development, but there’s no 26
commercial, there’s no industrial uses, no group homes, no multi-family buildings above two, which are 27
very common. I live in a low-density residential neighborhood next to a complex of condos and 28
townhomes and low, mixed-use zones kind of sandwiched in between two of those zonings. I don’t…I go 29
on walks every day with my dog, I don’t hardly notice a difference between the two. 30
Environment…so, some might be tempted to think that any development equals destruction of the 31
environment, but this is actually far from the truth. The truth is that infill developm ent and higher density 32
construction is actually better for the environment. It reduces sprawl, less habitat is destroyed per person, 33
water use is lower per person, materials used for construction per person is all lower with higher density. 34
The environmental improvements, weed mitigation, plantings, wetland restoration, pollinator gardens, 35
dense plantings, those are all appreciated to be improved in this project. They are significant 36
environmental improvements to the status quo. 37
39
Traffic…higher density is actually better for traffic. If we’re not going to build here, we’re going 1
to build in Loveland, Wellington, Severance, et cetera, resulting in more commuting traffic in the end. 2
This property is well within biking distance of employment centers, would be an excellent place to bike to 3
work from, speaking as someone who bikes to work every day. 4
And then finally, diversity. The new City Plan says that Fort Collins and local partners are 5
committed to finding solutions and new ideas that promote housing options that meet the needs of all 6
residents. The folks that are most impacted by this project are not here at the meeting. They tend to be 7
racial minorities, those in the lowest income. There was a housing study done by Larimer County said 8
that we are 10,000 units short for low- to middle-income people in our region. If we’re not going to be 9
Boulder, then we need to approve and expedite projects like these. Thank you. 10
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Matthew. Katie, who do we have…you said we have about three 11
hands that are raised right now. 12
MS. CLAYPOOL: That is correct. Next up is Andrea Cooperstein. You should be able to 13
unmute yourself now Andrea. I believe the button is in the bottom left-hand corner of your screen. Okay, 14
we can come back to Andrea. Let’s go ahead and move on to Vida. 15
MS. VIDA HOLLANDER: Hello, can you hear me? 16
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes. 17
MS. HOLLANDER: Thank you. Thank you for listening to all of this. I have a couple concerns. 18
I’m at 2212 Laporte Avenue, and we’re on the south side of the proposed development. The first thing is 19
I’m concerned about the privacy around the pathway that’s proposed to go between our property line and 20
our neighbor’s driveway. Currently that space is just as wide as a car can drive through for their 21
driveway, and I’m just curious about, are the planning on putting a fence up between…on either side of 22
that pathway? And what space they’re actually proposing to use up for that pathway. I’m also concerned 23
about flood mitigation in the wetland area to the west of our property and our neighbor’s property. We 24
have a stream that runs through our property and drains into the New Mercer Ditch. It routinely floods as 25
it is, even when we do maintain and clear the stream bed. And my question is, what happens if this 26
development causes flooding in our houses? And I also just wanted to really thank everybody from the 27
surrounding neighborhoods for all of their work in preparing for tonight’s meeting. And thank you for 28
hearing us. 29
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Vida. And, Katie, I don’t know if you want to try Andrea again or 30
go on to the next individual? 31
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes, Andrea should have the ability to unmute and speak when they’re ready. 32
I’ll give you a few more seconds to try that again. Again, I think it’s the bottom left-hand corner of your 33
screen. There should be a microphone with a line through it that you should be able to click on to 34
unmute. Okay, I’ll go ahead and allow the next person to talk. They are Rorey King. Rorey, you should 35
be able to unmute and speak when you are ready. 36
MS. ROREY KING: Great, thanks, can you hear me? 37
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes. 38
40
MS. KING: My name is Rorey King and I live on 510 Hannah Street and formerly at 1948 1
Laporte, which is how I became involved with this effort. I’m in opposition to t his development. I’ve 2
been in Fort Collins for ten years, mostly on the north side of town, and when I moved to 1948 Laporte 3
last year, the Sanctuary field quickly became one of my favorite places in town, and one that I would visit 4
at least once a day, sometimes twice with my dog, Carl. This is partially because of the limited pedestrian 5
walkways and heavy traffic along Laporte and Taft intersection, already noted by someone else, and 6
partially because its just lovely. I go to this place now to greet and appreciate the sun, the wind, the 7
grasses, the mountains, and one of my very favorites, the old cottonwood tree on the creek, which has 8
been a site of my writing, art making, and apple eating…there’s an apple tree nearby. And 9
sometimes…and for sharing with my favorite people. It’s a space I share with walkers, Poudre High 10
School students enjoying lunch breaks and free periods, deer, birds, fox, mice, and many others. As it 11
stands, this development does not support the public good or protect public health, safety, or welfare 12
required in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, which requires alignment with any subarea plans. 13
Environmental health and public health are interdependent. This development which calls for several 14
variances that violate setback requirements for wildlife corridors and wetlands would disrupt the habitat, 15
nesting grounds, and movement corridors for dozens of species of plants and animals. Maintaining the 16
green space is also vital to mitigating the rising climate and air quality issues on the front range which 17
have been flagged by the EPA earlier this year as being some of the worst in the nation with regards to 18
ozone. This development may increase biodiversity, the literal number of species that vary, via 19
intentional planting efforts; however, the development itself, both in its phases of construction and 20
completion, will have a far greater negative impact on existing species and climate by interrupting 21
feeding, nesting, movement, and migration patterns through the environmental shocks of construction, the 22
increased light and traffic in the area, and covering the majority of the 41.5 acres with concrete. I’m 23
interested in efforts to revitalize native plant species and intentionally increasing biodiversity in this space 24
within the context of the project that does not also nullify any positive possible environmental impacts of 25
doing so. 26
I’m also speaking as someone who is not against development, and believe that housing is a 27
human right. I’m committed to people, particularly those who are most vulnerable having access to fair 28
and affordable housing. I have a vested interest as a renter, and as somebody who is living on a service 29
industry salary, that this area not be further gentrified. While the developer has stated the units are at 30
attainable price points for a variety of different demographics, there is no assurance or accountability here 31
that units will actually be affordable, particularly for residents with middle or low incomes, which is the 32
majority of the existing neighborhood. This does not ensure that this development would be meeting the 33
stated demand in Fort Collins for more available housing at a variety of different price points, and I’m 34
concerned that this development would cater only to managerial and owning class residents from in town 35
or moving into town on the front range that would push rental and property values up. 36
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Rorey for that. So, Katie…Katie, it looks like maybe we have 37
Andrea? 38
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes, we do. I’ll go ahead and try to unmute that other account again. I don’t 39
know if they’re in the same room as a computer or something which might be causing that feedback issue. 40
So, just as a heads up, try not to sit next to a computer if you’re calling in on another line. You should be 41
able to unmute yourself now Andrea. 42
MS. ANDREA COOPERSTEIN: Great, thank you very much. I’m so sorry for my technological 43
inabilities here. I am a resident at 505 North Taft Hill Road, and I’ve also been a realtor in town here 44
41
since 2004. A lot of the way that the developers have come upon some of this…and I, unfortunately, can 1
recognize both sides. The developers want to purchase a property and have an investment and make an 2
income. However, what they have selected as open space to make a subdivision, is really not, not 3
adequate. I think what they’re trying to do is squeeze a size nine foot into a size seven and a half shoe. 4
The exits onto Laporte and Taft Hill are not adequate to sustain all of the homes and cars that would be 5
coming in and out of there. And, as Miranda said earlier, the one exit is going to be pointed directly at 6
her living room, and its going to be just catastrophic for her. The arterial roads are already at max 7
overload with everything coming from County Road 19, 257, and the gravel roads…or the gravel pits. 8
The emerging [sic] exit that they have on Impala is not well-maintained and Impala exits onto Vine Drive, 9
which is also over-utilized. 10
Now, the multiple types of housing that they are suggesting for this subdivision is great, but it’s 11
not good for this size of a development, and it’s not congruent with the Northwest area idea. The vision 12
of the Northwest Area Plan was not to become an urban subdivision. The demand for more housing 13
should focus on going east, not soaking up every inch of open space that we have available and then 14
trying to cram it in, and ultimately, as a realtor as I ask, and I specialize in farm and ranch, is, where is the 15
water coming from? Where is the infrastructure going to come from to support this? Now, just because 16
LMN allows a number of units does not mean it should be applied to this particular area. I think that’s 17
something that the neighbors have tried to emphasize with the developer, but the developer refuses to 18
meet with the people who live here, and he’s not really working from the idealistic idea of what this 19
neighborhood should be. He’s from Denver, so…and that’s certainly not a problem…develop as you 20
would in Denver down in Denver. 21
The…somebody else earlier had made a mention regarding affordable housing and how we 22
should consider this. Now, I don’t know if everyone is aware, but the way the market is going and with 23
20% appreciation, a three-bedroom, two-bath house in Fort Collins is now anywhere between $575 and 24
$625,000. So, if people think that this developer is coming in to provide affordable housing, I think you 25
might need medication. The three-story buildings are not something that fits the area, and it blocks the 26
views, and is not contiguous with the existing areas. And I believe that this developer, if he really wanted 27
to recap his investment…farmettes that would sell for anywhere from $2 million down. Thank you very 28
much for your time. 29
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. Katie, do we have one individual with their hand up…or what does 30
our current count look like? 31
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes, we have one additional hand…two additional hands raised. The first one 32
is Andy Nelson. 33
MR. MCASKIN: Great, thank you. 34
MR. ANDY NELSON: Hi, my name is Andy Nelson and I live at 501 Sunrise Lane, we’re over 35
to the north of the property. I just want to first say, yeah, it’s been great to eat apples and walk my dog in 36
the field, I really do enjoy it. And I guess I just appreciate not being hassled, since it is, you know, 37
somebody’s property. Thanks for not hassling me and letting me do that. Thanks to the neighbors with 38
the appeal network, and just to everybody speaking tonight, because in today’s busy life, it’s hard to stay 39
connected with this, and I just appreciate everybody’s input. All the neighbors, everybody who’s put 40
their input in here has been very…just appreciate that so much because it just really highlights so many 41
crossroads between environmental and human things that are just real and next to me. 42
42
I just want to see more transparency in the process. I want to see more community support. I 1
want to make this a thing that we can look back on here in 50 to 100 years and whatever happens, we can 2
say we did the right thing that was visionary that met a lot of things, and that was good for the people that 3
are living in Fort Collins after us, and the wildlife and the environment. Yeah, I just want to go from 4
neighbor input, you know, to neighbor supported with this project, and just urge the developers and 5
everybody to continue to do that. And thanks for the time. 6
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. So, Katie, who else do we have signed up right now? 7
MS. CLAYPOOL: It looks like we have Leif Youngs and a Damien Archambault. So, I’ll go 8
ahead and unmute Leif first. Whenever you are ready. 9
MR. LEIF YOUNGS: I gave my time over to the first speaker. 10
MR. MCASKIN: That is correct; we thank you for noting that for the record. I do see that you 11
had ceded your time to Laura Larson. 12
MS. CLAYPOOL: I’ll go ahead then and promote Damien. Whenever you’re ready. 13
MR. DAMIEN ARCHAMBAULT: Hi, Damien Archambault, 2314 Laporte Avenue. Yeah, I’m 14
currently in opposition of the project. I think, you know, once we commit to it and it goes through, 15
what’s done is done. I guess the question is…I kind of want to echo the…you know, when we talk about 16
affordable housing, you know, how affordable is it? What real impact would it actually have? And it 17
begs the question of, what is the pricing? The other would be, how is it going to impact property taxes, 18
utilities, water usage? Those are all things that are valid arguments that we really haven’t dial ed into. 19
And the last thing I’d like to bring up is, have there been alternate ideas as far as augmenting the property 20
to make it more of a park type area? For example, the lower…where the leg goes out to the west, you 21
know, there’s seven units that are looking to be built right there. I always thought that…you know, 22
there’s different ideas, you know, that could be like a concert area, more of a recreational area. And that 23
would be ways that the area could be preserved and still developed to provide revenue down the road. 24
And that’s all I have. Thank you. 25
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you Damien. Katie, do we have anybody else that’s signed up at this 26
point? 27
MS. CLAYPOOL: At this time, there are no additional hands raised online. 28
MR. MCASKIN: Okay. For those of you that are participating online or via telephone, let’s give 29
you just a couple of seconds to…if you change your mind. We had a couple of folks here that said that 30
they had overcome their fear of public speaking in Council Chambers tonight, and I have to tell you it’s 31
probably easier to do it virtually than it is in person. But, if there’s…Katie, do we have anybody else at 32
this point? With their hand raised? 33
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes, that was the magic cue right there. So, now, Zoe Dunn is able to speak. 34
Whenever you’re ready Zoe. 35
MR. BRANDON DUNN: Hi, I’m not actually Zoe, I’m her fiancé, Brandon. She’s sitting right 36
next to me. One of the concerns I do have for the developer regarding adding in more native species and 37
43
increasing biodiversity, is, will that property have a committee or company in charge of maintaining the 1
property when it comes to mowing the lawn, cutting the trees, taking care of bushes, or will that, in some 2
ways, fall into disrepair as it is in an LMN district near the rural county and could be overlooked as 3
something that is an additional cost to homeowners and developers, and then would greatly affect 4
neighbors from an eyesore perspective and a potential weed and other invasive species issue related to the 5
neighbors. We live at 510 North Taft, and that’s all from me. 6
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. I believe you said Brandon and not Zoe, so thank you for 7
that. And Katie, do we have anybody else signed up? 8
MS. CLAYPOOL: I am not seeing any hands raised. 9
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, so as I get ready to close the public testimony, or the public comment 10
portion of the hearing, as I mentioned before, the next phase of the hearing tonight will be to go into the 11
applicant response and staff response. That’s the portion of the hearing where the applicant team and 12
staff can help answer any specific questions that may have been raised, or provide some input on some of 13
the issues that have been raised by various members of the public that participated in the comment . 14
I’m not going to go…and before we get into that section, or that portion of the hearing, I’m just 15
going to highlight a couple of issues, or questions, that I heard. These are in no particular order, other 16
than probably the order that they were raised by members of the public that spoke tonight, both here in 17
Council Chambers, and with us via Zoom or on the phone. And these do not have to be addressed in any 18
specific order by the applicant or staff. But, a lot of folks seem to be concerned with flooding and the 19
water table, so I think some comments from the applicant team and staff on how that has been reviewed 20
and addressed would be helpful. I think we’ve had a lot of questions on density, and I think that the staff 21
report does a good job of highlighting what the minimum required density is in the LMN zone district, as 22
well as the maximum density, but some clarification on density would be helpful. Again, drainage, I 23
think I’d put in the same category as flooding, but that would be helpful if that’s addressed. There is a…I 24
believe it was Mr. Walker that raised an issue with the New Mercer Ditch or canal , and whether there 25
have been any engagement by the City or the applicant to try to preserve some pedestrian path or walking 26
trail along the canal. Solar orientation was raised as an issue…how these units are being…to the extent 27
that…I know the Land Use Code has specific sections that require solar orientation, but a reminder on 28
whether those are triggered by this project, and how those are being satisfied, if applicable, would be 29
helpful. Pedestrian student safety was raised as an issue, as was the transportation network generally, the 30
regional transportation network and whether there are any off-site improvements that have been 31
recommended by the traffic engineering division for this project. Again, a lot of these…a lot of 32
comments focused on traffic, density, I think we have some comments focused on air quality. There was 33
one specific comment on a privacy concern with a pathway toward the south side of the development and 34
whether there would be a fence put up on either side of the pathway. There was a general question about 35
where’s the infrastructure coming from for the…you know, the water and sewer, who’s serving the 36
project. And I think, to the extent that the applicants’ team or staff can address that, that might be helpful 37
for those that are still here tonight or are participating virtually. And, in terms of affordability, I think 38
Jenny, you had said earlier that this project is not proposing any affordable units, which would, under the 39
Land Use Code, allow for a slightly higher density in the LMN zoning district, but maybe hearing from 40
the applicants’ team about whether, you know, including affordable units was considered, and if so, if the 41
units are not included, why that was rejected. And then I think the final question that was raised by 42
Brandon, or maybe I’ll just call him the fiancé…his question was focused on, in terms of the…some of 43
these landscaping improvements and the buffer yard and the natural habitat that would be ultimately 44
44
installed as part of this development, who is going to take care of it? I mean, is there a…I’m assuming 1
there’s not a metropolitan district or a title 32 financing district that’s being proposed with this 2
development, so is it an HOA, you know, what entity is going to be formed to take care of these 3
improvements long-term if this plan ultimately moves forward? And I think that’s my list. You guys 4
probably have some others that I may have missed. But, with that, why don’t we take another about a 5
five minute break just so that I can allow Jenny, both staff and the applicant, a little bit of time to get 6
organized in terms of continuing on with the applicant response and staff response. So, I have the time at 7
about nine PM. Let’s go ahead and try to reconvene at about 9:10 PM. Thank you. 8
(**Secretary’s Note: There was a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 9
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, so the time is now 9:10 PM. For the record, this is Marcus McAskin, the 10
Hearing Officer. We will go ahead and restart the hearing on the Sanctuary on the Green project, this is 11
PDP210018. We concluded the public comment portion of the hearing, or public testimony, at 12
approximately 8:56 PM this evening, and we are moving on to the applicant response and staff response 13
portion of the hearing. So, I’ll give the applicant team just a minute to get back into Council Chambers, 14
but Jenny, maybe this is an opportunity if there are any questions or issues that came up that staff would 15
like the opportunity to provide any additional input on, or clarifications, that would be great. So, I’ll turn 16
the microphone over to you at this point. 17
MS. AXMACHER: Thank you, sir. So, I can talk about density here for a minute. And then, we 18
do have a whole team ready to answer questions on traffic, natural habitats, flooding, drainage, and all 19
that good stuff, but I want to give the applicant a chance to answer that first. As far as air quality goes, 20
we really don’t have anything that’s a specific regulation within the Code; however, it is a priority of City 21
Council, so it’s more of a macro-scale issue, and air quality impacts aren’t quantified at the level of an 22
individual development. So, answer that. 23
MR. MCASKIN: Great, and so you were going to talk a little bit about density, correct? 24
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, sorry, my packet pages were upside down. So, the section of the Code 25
that applies is the LMN zone district standards. The minimum density…so this section requires a 26
minimum of four dwelling units per net acre of residential land. The net acreage for the PDP is 29.73 27
acres, and they have 212 dwellings that are proposed, resulting in a net density of 7.13 dwellings per net 28
acre, meeting the minimum density requirement. There’s also that maximum density requirement. So, in 29
LMN, the project’s maximum residential density be not more than nine dwelling units per gross acre of 30
residential land. So, the minimum calculation is on net, the maximum is on gross, and the gross acreage 31
for the PDP is that 41.34 acres. And again, 212 dwelling units are proposed resulting in the maximum 32
density of 5.13 dwellings per gross acre, which is within that requirement. I believe the maximum 33
density requirement within the Northwest Subarea Plan is eight dwelling units per acre, so it’s one lower, 34
but the plan still complies. So, that’s my density clarification. 35
MR. MCASKIN: Okay. And I know that the City’s Land Use Code, in section 4.5, where it’s 36
speaking about density and it’s setting the minimum and maximum, the minimum density uses a net…a 37
net acreage calculation, correct? And the maximum uses a gross… 38
MS. AXMACHER: Correct. 39
MR. MCASKIN: …acreage calculation. Does the Subarea Plan talk about net or gross? 40
45
MS. AXMACHER: I believe it is gross, but let me take a look and confirm it. I’m still not seeing 1
it called out, so let me…why don’t you come back, and I will have an answer after the applicant speaks. 2
MR. MCASKIN: Great, so I’ll turn it back over to the applicant team, and I’m sure you’re 3
probably taking notes with all the folks that provided public comment on the questions and issues, and I, 4
again, I don’t have any specific order that I’d like these addressed in, but I’ll turn it back over to the 5
applicant at this point. 6
MS. WHITE: Thank you very much. Once again for the record, Carolynne White, land use 7
counsel for the applicant. And thank you for the opportunity to provide some responses and clarification 8
of some of the issues that have been raised during the course of this hearing. We have generally grouped 9
all of the comments that were made and questions that you asked at the conclusion into four broad 10
categories: flooding and drainage, compatibility and architecture, wildlife, and traffic and pedestrian 11
safety. So we’ll try to sort of generally address them in that framework in that sequence, and I think there 12
might be one or two random questions that don’t clearly fall into any of those categories, and we’ll 13
certainly make sure we address those at the end, or the beginning, because one of them I want to address 14
right now, which is the last one you asked, and I think was one of the later questions asked, and that was 15
the question of, who would maintain the new biodiverse landscape plan that’s being proposed? The 16
answer is a homeowner’s association. And, you’re right, there’s no metro district being proposed here, 17
rather it’s a homeowner’s association that will have that ongoing responsibility. And, although I know 18
there were also some other comments from folks who were opposed to having a homeowner’s association 19
here, that is one of the most reliable methods to ensure that those common open spaces are taken care of 20
into the future. 21
Okay, so before I go into the four groupings, flooding and drainage and so on, I have just a couple 22
preliminary comments, and then I’ll have a couple concluding comments at the end, and we will ask each 23
of our respective experts to come up and provide further explanation on each of these four topics. As a 24
preliminary matter, I want to be really clear about one thing for the record. This is private property; it is 25
not public open space, there are no public trails, there are no easements, it’s not a park, it’s not a 26
designated nature preserve, it’s not any of those things. It’s a former agricultural site that is in private 27
ownership that is slated for development to the LMN zoning. And, I think there may have been some 28
folks who have been a little confused about that, but there are not any public trails located on this property 29
today, right now, and to my knowledge, the property owner has not granted any users or the public any 30
easements or other rights or permission to use this property as it appears to have been used in recent 31
years. 32
Alright, let’s move on to the four categories. So, let’s start first with flooding and drainage. And 33
there were a couple different questions asked about this, and in a moment, I’ll turn it over to the folks who 34
really know the technical answers to them, but I want to mention a couple things about the process, and 35
that is that…there was one comment made that, well, even though it might meet all of the technical 36
criteria in analyzing floodplains and analyzing drainage and so on, I’m still not sure it’s really going to 37
work, I’m skeptical. Two comments about that, one, we don’t really have another way to measure and 38
analyze that issue other than ensuring that it meets the technical criteria and designing it to meet the 39
technical criteria, and the way that that process works is, the applicant designs it, the City reviews the 40
designs, makes comments, sends them back, that goes on until they finally approve the designs. And in 41
this case, where flooding is concerned, the City uses a process similar to FEMA, and that involves, as was 42
mentioned earlier, the CLOMR and the LOMR, meaning that, after it is designed and the design is 43
approved, it’s then constructed, and then there is a period and a process whereby the City determines 44
46
whether it has been constructed as designed before the final letter of map revision, the LOMR, is issued. 1
So, that’s sort of the process answer to that question. But, in terms of the actual flooding and drainage 2
issues, I’d like to first turn to our online expert, Craig…can our folks just unmute at will, or do they need 3
to be individually promoted? 4
MR. MCASKIN: I’m assuming it’s the latter, so I’m going to ask Katie to maybe jump in and see 5
if…Katie, can you assist with having one of the applicant team be able to provide comments via Zoom? 6
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes, I just unmuted a couple of different folks, Alex and Craig…you should 7
be promoted to panelist. 8
MR. CRAIG JACOBSON: Hi, I think I’m a panelist. Can everybody hear me okay? 9
MS. CLAYPOOL: Yes. 10
MR. MCASKIN: Yes. 11
MR. JACOBSON: Carolynne, would you like to repeat where you’d like me to start with the 12
answer…or start with the question as well and I can do my best to help explain? 13
MS. WHITE: Sure, we’re…the main thing I think to address is some concerns that, given that 14
there are existing flooding issues in certain areas in the vicinity of the property, given that there’s a 15
complex situation as it relates to drainage on this property, how are we going to ensure that development 16
of this property doesn’t increase the risk of flooding? 17
MR. JACOBSON: That sounds good. So, I think you did a pretty good job of introducing this. I 18
also think the staff comments at the beginning did a good job as well. So, my name is Craig Jacobson; 19
I’m with ICON Engineering, we are a stormwater engineering company that has been brought on board to 20
work with this team to evaluate the West Vine floodplains. We also work with the City of Fort Col lins as 21
well in the West Vine Basin area, so we do have a lot of strong familiarity with what is going on. 22
Our role, I think, with this team, is a little bit twofold. It’s number one, to circumvent the 23
floodplain development permit process which is where Carolynne is indicating on this project. So, as it 24
was explained, there are two different types of floodplains within the city of Fort Collins, you have a 25
City-regulated floodplain as well as FEMA-regulated floodplains. This is a City-regulated floodplain, but 26
the City regulates the floodplains consistently with how, say FEMA, would regulate floodplains as well, 27
and that’s through a floodplain development review process. And, in the City’s case, it involves what 28
they call and CLOMR and a LOMR process, CLOMR being a conditional letter of map revision, LOMR 29
being a letter of map revision. The CLOMR comes before the project, the LORM comes after the project. 30
The CLOMR gives the opportunity for the City to review the technical data for completeness and 31
technical soundness in order to be compliant with the floodplain development regulation. For this 32
particular site, we were able to get in and review the floodplain information as proposed by the site plan. 33
We have been working with the City of Fort Collins to complete an independent review of our work in 34
order to review the engineering soundness behind that with the goals being that the floodplain engineering 35
studies, which is done through technical modeling, demonstrates that there will not be any offsite impacts 36
from any of the changes within the floodplain conditions. From there, I mean we could get into all sorts 37
of the technical nuances with how the stormwater interacts in this basin between the different flow paths 38
47
in the canal systems and Taft Hill Road, and how that…how those are key contributories to the floodplain 1
in this area and the challenges. 2
But, the other aspect to this, too, is the compliance with past and ongoing City master plan efforts 3
that relates to the establishment of drainageways in this area as well. So, the drainageways that are 4
proposed by the development are a key aspect of flood mitigation. Sanctuary, in its own right, cannot 5
really complete all the flood mitigation by its own, because this is all part of master planning processes 6
that go both upstream and downstream. I think this was mentioned in the staff comments initially as well 7
about the needs for connections into other regional systems to really establish a new drainageway for 8
Soldier Creek, but it goes all the way to the Poudre River. That ultimately aids in ultimate flood 9
mitigation in this. But, our other role in this project is to help ensure that the drainageways are being 10
completed in a manner that is consistent with ongoing flood mitigation efforts by the City of Fort Collins 11
as well. That will ultimately lead to flood reduction within the West Vine Basin as a whole. 12
MS. WHITE: Thank you, Craig. Please stay around in case there are follow-up questions. Yes? 13
MR. MCASKIN: Well, I think that it was…in the staff report, it seemed clear that engineering 14
staff had reviewed the, you know, the drainage plan, for the PDP, as was satisfied that the technical 15
criteria were satisfied. Jenny, is that a fair characterization of the summary that is set forth in the staff 16
report? 17
MS. AXMACHER: I believe it is, but we do have Wes LaMarqe available who is the reviewer 18
for the drainage and can speak to it specifically if you would like. 19
MR. MCASKIN: Yeah, that would be great. Why don’t we see if we can get him ? 20
MR. WES LAMARQUE: Yeah, thanks, I’m here. Yeah, I’m Wes LaMarque, I’m a stormwater 21
development review engineer with the City of Fort Collins. Yeah, if you could just repeat that question 22
one more time…I missed part of it. 23
MR. MCASKIN: Wes, the question is…is City Engineering staff satisfied that all of the 24
applicable technical criteria with respect to this development…proposed development…from a drainage 25
plans perspective have been satisfied? And I can’t seem to…when I reviewed the staff report, there was a 26
discussion about ICON relying on…well, they were designing for an interim condition and then 27
ultimately designing drainage that would comply with master plan improvements that are not yet 28
complete. So, maybe just walking me through that process and then providing me a conclusion as to 29
whether or not this proposed development satisfies the applicable Land Use Code requirements. 30
MR. LAMARQUE: Sure, yeah, so right now at this stage in the development review process, this 31
project has given City staff a high enough level of confidence that the project will meet all stormwater 32
and floodplain requirements at the time of approvals, which will be…or which includes, final plan review, 33
which is when some of the technical and more detailed review happens. But, we have enough high-level 34
confidence right now that we felt comfortable they could go to a public hearing, that approvals will 35
happen once…the review takes place. So, right now, we can’t say that all City requirements have been 36
met; they’re in the process of being met. Like I said, we have a high level of confidence that they will be 37
met. So, you know, there’s still more review and more design to take place, and that happens at final plan 38
review, which is the next stage in the development review process. 39
48
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you for that. So, Carolynne, go ahead. Do we have other 1
comments at this point on the flooding and drainage? 2
MS. WHITE: I do, I do. We have one other expert in this area with us, that’s Danny Weber with 3
Northern Engineering. He’s going to speak a little bit to the overall subject of flooding and drai nage, and 4
also the question that emerged about the New Mercer Ditch trail and why we didn’t turn that into a public 5
trail 6
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, perfect. Thank you. 7
MR. DANNY WEBER: Yeah, my name is Danny Weber, I’m a project manager for Northern 8
Engineering. We’re a civil engineer. And I can speak to the onsite drainage…we hired…the applicant 9
had hired ICON for floodplain specific, that’s just a specialized industry, but for the onsite drainage, 10
we’re required to detain the stormwater runoff and release at a two-year historic rate, that’s a requirement 11
of the West Vine Basin. So, in laymen’s terms, its essentially, we have to release at a rate that’s 12
equivalent or less than a two-year storm event. So, in terms of what’s happening downstream, those 13
detention facilities will knock down the peak flow so that downstream is not impacted any worse than it 14
was prior to the development. 15
Specific to the New Mercer Ditch and the trail along the ditch, we met with the ditch company 16
several times, talked to them specifically about the trail, the idea of the trail. And this particular ditch has 17
only access along one side, and they don’t have a large easement. It’s sort of a tight access for them, and 18
so they were very concerned with having a trail along the ditch. In fact, it was so much that they just said, 19
flat out, that we can’t do that. It’s a liability for us…if there’s any sort of emergency where they have to 20
access the ditch and there’s pedestrians on the trail, that could be…that could just be a liability for them 21
so they have said that that is not an option. 22
MR. MCASKIN: Is that a recorded easement that the ditch company has, or is that just a…kind 23
of a historic, you know, use right that they have for their ditch rider to get… 24
MR. WEBER: I don’t know off hand, but they’ve claimed I think, 25 feet from the top of ditch, 25
as I recall. 26
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, and in terms of…I mean, if that easement doesn’t exist, I mean, as the 27
property owner, you could theoretically designate a walking trail along the ditch…is that something that 28
was looked at from the applicant team when you were designing kind of an overall parks and trail…or 29
recreation amenity plan? 30
MS. WHITE: I can tell you that there was a time when it was investigated, and there was some 31
indication that it might be a possibility, but we have since received confirmation otherwise as was just 32
provided by Danny. 33
MR. MCASKIN: Okay…from the ditch company? 34
MS. WHITE: Indeed. They certainly did investigate it and it was part of early discussions. And 35
here to provide more color on that is the principal representative, David Pretzler. 36
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. 37
49
MR. PRETZLER: So, one of the things that we’re trying to do in the natural habitat buffer zone is 1
to enhance the biodiversity and enhance the environment for the wildlife. And if we had a trail where, 2
you know, where people are using that for biking and hiking, and that sort of thing, through that area, the 3
thought was, too, that that might not be conducive to wildlife enjoying using the area as well. And the 4
gentleman who spoke about the idea of the trail, I kind of wanted to point out that there’s other things that 5
we are doing within the natural habitat buffer zone to enhance the wildlife experience. We are putting in 6
appropriate plantings, adding to the biodiversity. We have…we do have walking trails along the 7
stormwater conveyance, not down in it, but we have them along those corridors where people can hike 8
and walk. But again, even those corridors are expected to be where the wildlife will want to go through 9
the site. So, we don’t want to promote too much of that. 10
The other thing we’ve done is, we’re laying down some of the trees that we’re cutting to create 11
habitat for the wildlife in the natural habitat buffer zone. And, as has been stated before, we’re providing 12
50% more habitat buffer zone than is required by Code. Thank you. 13
MS. WHITE: Any questions on that one? 14
MR. MCASKIN: Not at this time. 15
MS. WHITE: Okay, then I’ll move on to compatibility. You guys are kind of sneaking into 16
wildlife, which is item number three, but…let’s go back to compatibility, which is our item number two. 17
And, could I get slide 71 up there, Lindsay? 18
There are a couple things about compatibility in the Code. In section 3.5.1, for example, we’re 19
talking about things like size and massing and similar proportions. We’re also talking about architecture. 20
There was also a lot of dialogue about compatibility as it relates to density. So, I’m going to talk about 21
density just for a moment, even though I know that staff already clarified it quite a bit, and a little bit 22
about that size and massing, and show a couple slides along those lines, and then I’d like to ask the 23
architects to talk about all the ways in which this architecture, that was in fact custom designed for this 24
property in order to be compatible with the adjacent architectural styles, does so. 25
So, just briefly, as we said before in our main presentation, compatibility doesn’t mean the same 26
as. It doesn’t have to be exactly the same as what’s across the property line for it to be compatible, and 27
the Code expressly recognizes this. The Code talks about buildings shall either be similar in size and 28
height, or if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of 29
the other structures, if any. Now, here’s…we’re talking about on the same block face abutting or adjacent 30
to the subject property, opposing block face, or catty-corner block face at the nearest intersection. We are 31
talking about comparing compatibility with two properties that are adjacent at the property line, 32
particularly along the north and west, but we’re also talking about comparing those in a situation where, 33
as was mentioned, we have provided extensive buffering and extensive landscaping to separate the two 34
things, as well as the architectural diversity that’s being proposed exactly as envisioned in 3.5.1(C), 35
articulated and subdivided. So, we’ll talk more about that in just a moment. I’d like to go to…can we go 36
to the next couple slides, one at a time. 37
So, if I may, in each of these slides, what we’re doing is showing what is existing in the 38
neighborhood, and what we are proposing across the property line, across the…in this case, you know, 39
wetlands and a buffer and a trail, from the property. So, in this case, you’ve got…could you go back one? 40
There we go. We’ve got the two-story homes with walk-out basements, so depending on your 41
50
perspective, where you happen to be standing and the grade, those might read as three-story homes, at 1
least they do to me, in Bellwether Farms to the north. And then, this is…on the bottom of this slide, you 2
see some examples of the property’s…of the development of the buildings that would be to the south of 3
them, at the closest distance, 335 feet, and many of the distances are significantly farther than that. I’ll 4
leave the discussion of these buildings’ architectural features to the architects, other than to mention that 5
they are stepped down on the end, so they’re not all the same mass, meaning they don’t all have the same 6
height. It’s not a big square block. That’s exactly what this articulation and subdivision it talking about, 7
as well as accomplishing that in a different way through architectural features. Can I have the next one 8
Lindsay? 9
There we go. Here’s another example of what reads to me as a three-story home; it’s two-story 10
with a walk-out basement on the north side, and with some of the examples of the buildings that will be 11
adjacent to it on the proposed PDP. Next slide. 12
MR. MCASKIN: Was that last slide, was that also Bellweather? 13
MS. WHITE: I believe so, yeah? Right? Yeah. 14
MR. MCASKIN: And that’s to the…? 15
MS. WHITE: North. 16
MR. MCASKIN: To the north, okay, 17
MS. WHITE: Towards the eastern side of the…eastern boundary of the property. We can get 18
another graphic up there to show exactly where this is if you want. 19
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, and then on the other sides…I suppose on the east, west, and south…and 20
I think a lot of the…it sounded like a lot of the public comment was focused on the fact that the existing 21
architecture of those other perimeter…of the subject property…predominantly single-story, like a ranch? 22
MS. WHITE: I’ve got some slides showing that coming up. 23
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, perfect. 24
MS. WHITE: Let’s see…are we in the staff presentation or ours? We’re still in ours, okay. 25
Yeah…there we go. Let’s just go ahead and go through these and then we could go back to that one. So, 26
this is…this is actually comparing the neighborhood center with the church to the south, just as an 27
example, although I didn’t hear a lot of comment about this particular building being incompatible. Next 28
one? 29
These are some examples of the single-family homes in comparison to the existing single-family 30
homes, so the hotographs on the top are existing single-family homes. These are to the west, right? 31
Directly to the west, and then on the bottom you see what is proposed, although, as was also mentioned 32
by staff, the single-family home architecture is not actually part of the PDP administrative hearing review. 33
I think we have one or two more on this. Can we go one more? Yeah, there we go. 34
51
And so this existing project is located…I need the aerial map to be able to point it out, but maybe 1
we want to go back to the aerial map so you can see the places where all those pictures we just showed 2
you are from. Do you want to do that? 3
MR. MCASKIN: Yeah, I think…that would be helpful. 4
MS. WHITE: So, I think that would be…well, maybe just nine, which is just eh current site plan. 5
Yeah, so the single-family ones are on the western portion of the property, so the western-most portion of 6
the property, if you will, and then the Bellwether are on the northernmost there, and as you can see along 7
the northern boundary, there’s four buildings on our proposed PDP that are, sort of, square on to the 8
northern property line, and then it curves away toward the south, further increasing the distance between 9
the existing and proposed. Do you have that one that shows all the ones that were stepped down? Could 10
we have that one? That one that’s being shown right now for the wetland buffer is actually the picture 11
that we just looked at, Bellwether to the north there and the proposed development to the south, and with 12
the dimensions, and that’s where the 335 comes from. Yes, that one. 13
So, on this slide, what we are showing is the orange, or the yellow, is one-story. The kind of 14
salmon-pink color is two-stories, and the blue is three-story. So, starting at the northeast corner of the 15
property, the top right most corner, you can see most of those buildings have been modified to reduce the 16
two end units from three stories to two stories. This was, contrary to some of the testimony, done directly 17
in response to feedback that was heard about the proximity of three stories to existing neighborhoods. 18
That is the reason, and that’s what was done here. And I learned recently that the only reason there’s one 19
in the middle there that doesn’t have that, is because you can’t have two in a row that are the same. 20
Then, progressing around the curve there, along that northern property line, you see two buildings 21
where that change has not been made; that’s because they are much further away and protected by much 22
more buffer and open space than the ones that are directly up by the property line, although we are still 23
talking, as I said, 335 feet, for the closest one, which would be that one that’s catty-corner at the property 24
line. And then progressing due east of there, you see there’s a building that has two end units that are 25
one-story and two center units that are that salmon color that are two-story. That’s where we’re first 26
adjacent to the western property line, and that’s another example where it was reduced down to one-story 27
on either end in order to provide that additional variation in massing and that additional compatibility 28
with the adjacent homes immediately to the west. I won’t go through each and every one of them, but 29
those are the primary ones. On the bottom far left, you don’t see any colors in because those are the 30
single-family homes, and some will be one-story, some will be two-stories, the exact location of each has 31
not yet been determined, so we’d be guessing if we told you which ones are going to be where. Okay, so 32
with that, if I may, I’d like to ask the architects to speak a little bit about the architectural styles, since 33
there were some comments about that and since that is one of the criteria. 34
MR. MCASKIN: That would be appropriate if the architects are here. 35
MS. WHITE: We have one online and one in person. We’ll ask the in-person one to go first if 36
that’s okay? 37
MR. MCASKIN: Yeah, that’s fine. Thank you. 38
MR. SETH HART: My name is Seth Hart, I’m a partner with DTJ Design out of Boulder, and I 39
am representing the three-story townhomes; we did the design for those. I think…keep going to the taller 40
52
ones please. I think what’s really interesting is, as we look through the architecture throughout this set, 1
and we even just, you know, saw those compared to some of the homes that are adjacent to the north and 2
western borders, and even looking at the detached, single-family two-story homes as compared to these 3
larger, three-story townhomes, or row homes, you see a lot of compatibility within the context of the site. 4
And I think that’s actually really great because there are two different architecture firms representing the 5
product here, and so there’s already, you know, something that was brought up earlier is this idea of this 6
being this eclectic neighborhood, and I think that, you know, the applicant has done a really good job of 7
bringing multiple design firms in here to provide that different, kind of layer, of eclectic design. 8
And really, as part of our tool kit of being able to design toward this compatibility, is really 9
representative of how we stylize these buildings, how we create our exterior elevations. And really, what 10
we were going for here is this context of this traditional form, traditional styling, in this agrarian kind of 11
modern farmhouse style, as well as the craftsman that’s very indicative of the community and the region. 12
And then, having a couple variations, some plays on that, where we take it a little bit more modern, 13
especially with the townhome aesthetic lending itself to that naturally. And so, we have these two 14
variations of this farmhouse, one being slightly more modern, and then we have two variations of the 15
craftsman, one leaning toward that more mid-century modern. But, as you can see, the roof forms are 16
very, very familiar, very traditional in form, very compatible with the rest of the community so it doesn't 17
feel like it stands out and has this real different embodiment of mass and form, and then utilizing lots of 18
glazing to kind of break that up, as well as, even with our traditional forms, going with traditional 19
building materials, like brick, siding, you know, board and bat siding, and then with some of our, a little 20
bit more modern-leaning ones, pushing the colors a little bit more unique, getting some more cut stone. 21
But, really paying attention to the materiality and trying to let that compliment the design styles. 22
And then, as well, as we look at these…you know, utilizing the two stories at the ends of these…I 23
think it’s 22 out of 26 of the townhomes have the two story at least on one end, if not bookended, so it 24
really breaks down the mass. We’re utilizing side entries on this, so we’re actually really creating four-25
sided architecture within these townhomes. You know, trying to pay attention to every angle of this 26
building, activating sides which can often be kind of an afterthought. And then as you look at these, 27
we’re providing, just similar to one of the images we showed earlier with the walk-out side of the home 28
on the northern side, they have porches that stick off with covered balconies on that second-story level 29
that break down that three-story mass, which is something that we’re really utilizing with these to break 30
down the mass, by tacking on these porch elements that provide really high-quality outdoor living, break 31
up the scale of the building, create an attractive appeal. And then also utilizing upper space on the third 32
floor for roof decks, so once again, really brining a high-quality of life to these as well, knowing that, you 33
know, these denser type products don’t often lend themselves to that same quality of living as a single-34
family home, but it’s something that we’re really focusing on with these, to bring that single-family 35
lifestyle to this higher-density product. 36
And then, one other kind of fun part about these is, especially with townhomes with the scale 37
being a little bit higher, and a little bit different than a traditional single-family home, we like to really try 38
to find continuity throughout these, so you can see we have a wood accent material that is actually applied 39
to each of the different elevation styles, so as you go down the street, they have a unique feel and look to 40
each of them, there is still some continuity of different materiality and some color palette choices that tie 41
it all together and really make it feel like a community versus just, you know, one unique building after 42
another. And that’s…I think pretty well represents the three-story architecture and how our goal of 43
compatibility throughout both the surrounding context as well as the rest of the community. 44
53
MR. MCASKIN: I appreciate that, and in reviewing, I think, 3.5.1 of the Code that has the 1
general standard that deals with project compatibility, I believe the language says that, you know, a new 2
development, you know, has to be compatible with the established architectural character of the 3
neighborhood. So, in approaching a neighborhood that I think we heard a couple people say that it’s 4
eclectic because it’s developed over…you know, you might have some stuff that was developed in the 5
‘60’s, and some in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, you know, how do you deal with that…what’s your approach on 6
the front end to a project like that? Because the Code language goes on to say that, if you don’t have a 7
consistency in the architectural fabric of the surrounding community, then you have to set an enhanced 8
standard, right? Or you have to come in and establish something that is going to be a higher bar, that 9
hopefully would help drive future redevelopment of areas. I mean, so how do you approach that, number 10
one, and number two, do you think you’ve met that standard in the Code? 11
MR. HART: Yeah, I mean, as I kind of said earlier…in a couple ways. I think it’s diversity of 12
product type, we get a real interesting diversity of that portfolio from single-family to one- and two-story 13
towns, to two- and three-story, to full three-story, as well as the multiple different architectural styles and 14
character that go within that. When you look at the…you know, I was not responsible, so I don’t want to 15
speak too much to the single-family and the two-story towns, but it’s still very unique and different from 16
what the part that we’ve designed in the three-stories. And so, you inherently get that little bit of, you 17
know, just eclecticism and unique design that plays off of one another. And then, as we get into the 18
three-story towns or rows, as they’ve been called, you know, providing those four different elevation 19
styles provides a lot of variety. And then, when you talk about built over the years, that’s where that 20
traditional and a little bit more modern-leaning starts to come into play, because really the mid-century 21
modern is a play on a traditional craftsman from the ‘20’s, and how you strip out the details and change 22
how, you know, really just the details, materiality, the color, can go a long way to take that from 23
something very traditional to something really modern. And so that’s what we tried to do is pay attention 24
to the same kind of kit of parts, utilizing different column details, different, as I mentioned, you know, 25
going from a traditional brick to more of a cut stone, but also letting those be in the same color family so 26
it doesn’t feel so disjointed, but you know, more homogenous still. But, it’ll definitely give it that more, 27
kind of built over time, not this cookie cutter production neighborhood that everyone wants to, kind of, 28
stay away from. 29
MR. MCASKIN: Right, was there any…was there any part of the design process…I mean, I 30
know you said you were brought in to kind of help with the design of the three-story units. Was there 31
ever a point in this project where the development team said, you know, given the context of this 32
property, let’s try to focus on…even up along that northern portion of the property…and I do realize that 33
there’s a curvilinear treatment, right, as you move from the east to the west there, but was there ever 34
any…was the design team ever like, you know, given the context here, let’s limit it to two-story? Or was 35
three-story always in the mix? Or was there…I guess I’m asking, was there ever a time when you said, 36
you know, maybe two-story fits better? 37
MR. HART: You know, I think from my standpoint, I wasn’t really as involved with the site 38
planning, so as far as building locations, I can’t speak to that. But, I think that it’s very much the intent 39
on how we attack the three-story design to have the bookending two-story units so that it does feel like 40
it’s still of this more suburban context. And then the layering of details and how we could treat the 41
exterior of all of those so that…ideally, it doesn’t feel out of context no matter where it is on the site. 42
54
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. I appreciate you being here tonight and providing comment. 1
Was there another architect that wanted…okay, online, that wanted to provide some comments? So, 2
Katie, is that something you can help with? To maybe… 3
MS. CLAYPOOL: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question? 4
MR. MCASKIN: Oh, I believe there’s another member of the architect team that wanted to 5
provide some comments related to this topic of project compatibility. 6
MS. CLAYPOOL: Am I looking for Don? 7
MR. MCASKIN: …Anna, I think you’re looking for an Anna. 8
MS. CLAYPOOL: I’m not seeing an Anna listed in the attendees. I’m not sure if they’re listed 9
under a different name, or a nickname maybe, but I do not see an Anna listed. 10
MS. WHITE: I’ll tell you what, since the major focus has not been on the buildings that were 11
designed by Anna’s firm, if I may, let’s move on and we’ll come back to her if we need to, if we have 12
time. 13
MR. MCASKIN: So, what are we moving on to now? 14
MS. WHITE: Wildlife. 15
MR. MCASKIN: Wildlife, okay. 16
MS. WHITE: So there were a number of comments about wildlife, and protection of wildlife, and 17
protection of habitat, and migration corridors, and flyways, and a variety of different aspects and 18
components of that. And, just like with the other things that we talked about, like the floodplain and 19
compatibility of structures, Fort Collins Code has a process for how to address wildlife buffers and habitat 20
buffers and corridors, and that involves, among other things, starting off with an ecological 21
characterization study, which was performed and is in the packet, and that was performed by Cedar Creek 22
Associates. And we do have Jesse from Cedar Creek Associates who is going to speak to that in just a 23
moment, but one overall comment I’d like to make about that is that, there were a few folks who 24
suggested that the wildlife corridors we proposed as part of this site plan were sort of random, or not 25
enough, or, you know, didn’t meet the Code, or insufficient. And I want to say, as an overall statement, 26
that the places where they were located on this plan were designed in response to the results of that 27
ecological characterization study, which identified the places with the best opportunity for habitat 28
preservation and wildlife. And so, Jesse can speak obviously much more knowledgably to that, but they 29
were not random, and they weren’t just where it happened to be convenient or where there were 30
floodplain issues, they were designed to actually maximize the opportunity to protect wildlife habitat. 31
And again, to be crystal clear for the record, there are no variances requested. The wildlife buffer, the 32
natural habitat buffer zone that is proposed here, is significantly larger, I think it’s 50% larger, than what 33
is required under the Code, and no exceptions, variances, or deviations, or modifications are being 34
requested. So, with that, let me ask Jesse to elaborate just a little bit on the wildlife situation. 35
MR. JESSE DILLON: Hello, I’m Jesse Dillon; I’m an ecologist and principal with Cedar Creek 36
Associates, based here in Fort Collins. As I’m reiterating pretty much what everybody has said, in 37
55
accordance with Land Use Code 3.4, I implemented an ecological characterization study, my firm did, 1
and that identified several important wildlife habitats on the property, including New Mercer Ditch and 2
several wetlands scattered throughout the property to the north and along Cherry Street, and as well along 3
Laporte. Those are all habitats that got buffers, in accordance with 3.4, and those buffers are adhered to 4
on the map. And so, since we’ve done the initial ecological characterization study, we’ve also been 5
providing supplemental ecological support to staff, as they’ve requested information about whether or not 6
these wildlife features meet the definition of concentration areas, which they do not. They don’t have the 7
characteristics of concentration areas. And I’ve also provided other studies, like a winter raptor nesting 8
study…you look for raptor nests in the wintertime when the trees don’t have leaves on them, and other 9
wildlife and vegetation studies. 10
Finally, I’ve also provided ecological consulting for the enhancement of these natural habitat 11
buffer zones. The guidelines for these natural habitat buffer zones call for either preservation or 12
enhancement, and you know, the features themselves, particularly the wetland on the north of the property 13
in Bellwether open space area, we’re going to preserve the wetland, but that buffer that kind of extends on 14
to and along the ditches, where we can, looking at enhancing the habitat as others have talked about with 15
biodiversity, native species, structural diversity where wildlife habitat gets a little bit more plant and 16
structural diversity…so, that’s kind of been the summary of my work on the project. 17
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you Jesse for that. And, I guess just a quick question again for 18
City staff…it seemed like all of the staff findings in the report, when it came to the ecological 19
characterization study that was provided, was that it is complying…staff’s conclusion was that those 20
applicable Code criteria are being met. I don’t know if you want to provide any additional background on 21
that, or if you have anybody from City staff that would like to elaborate, Jenny, but, I guess that’s a 22
question. 23
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, staff did find that the ecological study is in compliance and we do have 24
staff available…Kelly Smith can speak to any specific questions about that process. Do you want me to 25
pull her up now, or would you…looks like, here she is. 26
MR. MCASKIN: No, I’d like to get through a couple of the other major items first and then see 27
if we have some questions. So, good to know that she’s available. 28
MS. WHITE: We’re almost finished. The last big topic is traffic. 29
MR. MCASKIN: Okay. 30
MS. WHITE: And, unfortunately our traffic engineer was not able to stay on the line for the 31
duration and he has departed, so I’m going to play a traffic engineer on TV here and try to answer some 32
of the questions as best I can based on the traffic study itself and the information that he did provide to us 33
before he had to depart. 34
So, I think overall concern about traffic generally was just that it would exceed the capacity of the 35
existing roadways, and of course that was one of the main points that we made at the very beginning of 36
our presentation. And just to reiterate, like with all these other things, there is a process in the Fort 37
Collins Land Use Code that requires that an applicant conduct a traffic impact study, a TIS, to analyze the 38
traffic that would be generated, not only by the project itself, but also in the context of projected 39
background traffic. And in scoping that study in deciding what intersections to study and when to do the 40
56
traffic counts and all that, they consult with staff and get the scope approved before they conduct the 1
traffic study. So, I’ll defer to staff on their comments about the traffic study, but it’s my understanding 2
that it has been accepted by staff and the overall conclusion of that traffic study is that, following this 3
development’s construction, all of the intersections that were studied will continue to operate within 4
acceptable levels according to the Fort Collins standards. So, that’s sort of overall blanket question. 5
There was also questions specifically what improvements were recommended be constructed, and 6
we did mention that in the presentation, but very briefly, and that is, along Taft Hill Road, there is a 7
recommendation for additional turn lanes to be constructed, center turn lanes, and the applicant will be 8
constructing those and the applicant will also be paying for those. So, that’s the only improvement that I 9
am aware of that is recommended…oh, and then, well, this relates actually to one of your other questions 10
which had to do with the pedestrian safety. And so, maybe, can I get that…do we have a slide of that 11
graphic? Probably not. 12
So, on the southern most border of the property, and there’s a gap between the property and 13
Laporte. Remember the location where we talked about…remember the public who asked whether or not 14
that existing right-of-way that is between two properties that connects the property to Laporte was going 15
to be widened and fenced…that access on the southern part of the property…and he’s pointing to it right 16
now. Can you see on the screen? 17
MR. MCASKIN: I can. 18
MS. WHITE: So, I’ll answer that question and then I’ll talk about the asphalt trail. So, the 19
answer to that question is it will not be widened. There is sufficient existing right-of-way, and the trail 20
will be constructed within that existing right-of-way. There is no plan to put a fence, however, but it’s not 21
going to be widened. And that also relates to the question about pedestrian safety. The applicant will be 22
constructing the asphalt trail along those pink dotted lines, and then also you can see running east -west 23
along the northern side of Laporte there where her cursor is moving right now, that will also be an 24
additional continuation of that trail, and that will connect to a crosswalk that crosses north-south across 25
Laporte to the south. And that is going to be the designated sort of area for pedestrians to connect along 26
to the south, and it is anticipated that many of the students will use that crosswalk area. And also, it 27
should be noted that this development is also consulting with and coordinating with and part of the Safe 28
Routes to School program, and that’s in part how that route was derived. So, I think that answers two of 29
those questions about the trail and its widening, and also the pedestrian safety. 30
And then the last traffic-specific question I have on my list was about when the traffic counts 31
were conducted. And that relates both to school being in session and also Covid. And I have here the 32
response of our traffic engineer who was online when that comment was made, and if it’s alright I’ll just 33
go ahead and read it so that I don’t accidentally misstate anything. 34
MR. MCASKIN: That would be fine, thank you. 35
MS. WHITE: The counts were obtained in 10 of 2019 at the Taft Hill/Laporte intersection (most 36
recent City count) and in 10/21 at all other locations. City staff accepted these count times. In the 37
vicinity of schools, it is customary to obtain data when school is in session; those times reflect the highest 38
traffic on the streets and intersections. In October, the construction industry is generally in full operation 39
due to the mild weather conditions in northern Colorado, and therefore these counts also include 40
maximum traffic from that standpoint. The City count data, 10/2019, is pre-Covid. The other 41
57
intersection data, in 10/21, is post-Covid when traffic conditions on the area streets were returning to 1
normal. In addition to this, the traffic counts are increased due to expected traffic growth in the TIS, 2
meaning that future anticipated increases were already incorporated and factored in prior to reaching the 3
conclusion that the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels. 4
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, and, Jenny, question on traffic…or for the City’s traffic engineer if he or 5
she is available. I mean, I did note that information in the staff report, that the intersections will continue 6
to meet a certain level of service, and I don’t know if that’s a C or a D, or maybe there’s a better grade, on 7
what that existing level of service is for those intersections. I don’t have that information here in front of 8
me. But in terms of the only off-site traffic improvements that are being required of this specific project 9
would be the turn lanes that are being mentioned on Taft Hill Road, there’s no other off-site 10
improvements that are being required, is that correct? 11
MS. AXMACHER: I believe that’s correct, but we do have Spencer Smith from Traffic who is 12
available to speak to that. 13
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, so Spencer you did hang in the whole time and not depart early, so thank 14
you for that. But, is there any… Spencer, hopefully you’ve heard the summary of the traffic impact 15
report, or study, that was submitted by the applicant and the City’s acceptance of that. Is there anything 16
that you think would be important for me to understand with respect to the traffic requirements associated 17
with this project? 18
MR. SPENCER SMITH: Yeah, I can elaborate and add a little bit. I think Carolynne did a good 19
job of summarizing the questions. There were a couple things I noted that I wanted to just mention in 20
relation to the TIS. I did hear it mentioned a couple times during the public input that the traffic study 21
stated there was no impact, which…you know, of course there’s always impact with any development as 22
far as traffic. What the traffic study concluded was that, as you just mentioned, those level of service 23
standards are being met, based on the City’s street standards and those letter grades that are given. So, 24
what the traffic study was saying was that the project does meet those. And those level of service 25
standards are based on different amount of delay that a driver would typically see. So, that is correct…as 26
they analyzed all the intersections in the area, and you know, accesses to the site, Laporte and Taft Hill, 27
that those all meet existing level of service, and in the future, with the projected traffic. And then, I did 28
have the traffic counts…Carolynne covered that one, so I didn’t have anything to add there. 29
As far as improvements, I think we got everything mentioned. There is a left-turn lane into the 30
site accesses at Taft, and one on Laporte. I would also mention that, on Taft Hill, along this project 31
frontage, they will be widening the roadway to the west side to the ultimate arterial section for Taft , so 32
that’s going to include detached sidewalk, parkway, curb and gutter, and then full bike lane with bike lane 33
buffer. We can’t require them to build that, necessarily, all the way down to the intersection, just because 34
they don’t have the frontage there or the means to dedicate that right-of-way, but their project is building 35
those frontage improvements for the ultimate roadway along that frontage that will eventually, you know, 36
all connect in when Taft is fully improved. 37
And then there was mention that interim pedestrian connection that’s being put in basically from 38
the west side of Impala on the north side of Laporte, and that heads east over to their trail connection into 39
the site. That is truly an off-site improvement that’s not along their frontage necessarily, but they are 40
going to do some improvements within the right-of-way that does exist to help, you know, provide a safer 41
pedestrian route there. And that’s in lieu of the City capital project that’s currently in the planning stages 42
58
for Laporte. There’s a couple components of that. There’s bike and pedestrian improvements, essentially 1
for that north side of Laporte from Taft down to, I believe all the way to Sunset, and then there’s a couple 2
bridge improvements that are done. Those are funded currently, and those are going to happen. The bike 3
and ped improvements right now are not fully funded, and I know…I think Dave Betl ey with Engineering 4
is on and he can touch on some more details, but I think they’re early into some preliminary designs, so 5
they’re working toward it, and once that funding is there, those improvements will go in. I was told that a 6
pedestrian signal at that Laporte crossing near Impala is going to be evaluated with our bike/ped plan, and 7
then hopefully the City can look at a way to maybe incorporate that into that overall capital project with 8
potentially some participation from the developer. There’s been some preliminary discussions about that 9
through the process so far, but there’s nothing concrete on exactly what that’s going to be and what the 10
contribution would be from this project, but they’re definitely willing to work with us on helping get 11
some improvements there as well. I think that’s most of what I had. Again, like I said, Dave can add on 12
the capital project. 13
And maybe a couple other miscellaneous things with the traffic. I know there was a lot of safety 14
concerns. The City did…I believe it was mostly a capital project, but constructed sidewalk along the 15
south side a while back, and I don’t know exactly when that project happened, but I know there is 16
ongoing coordination between Poudre School District and the Traffic Operations department on 17
especially the pedestrians and their use of those facilities, and ways to try and make things better there. 18
So, you know there is ongoing dialogue and input, and coordination with the City on that. I think I 19
covered most of the questions. I would also mention that, I don’t have numbers and I don’t know if the 20
development team has anything on this, but I think the potential impact to traffic of the new high school 21
in Wellington will have some sort of an impact on that peak school rush hour traffic. I don’t know what 22
the numbers are anticipated to be, you know, what kind of a potential decrease that would be. I don’t 23
know if the developers had any contact with the School District on that specifically, but that’s another 24
thing that is going to happen here in the next several months or year, I think that school is going to come 25
online and hopefully have an impact on that, especially that school peak rush. I’ll let others chime back 26
in…or if there’s more questions. 27
MR. MCASKIN: Spencer, I appreciate that additional overview and comments. You mentioned 28
that Dave may have a little bit of input on capital projects? I mean, I suppose if Dave has gone this long 29
on hanging out on Zoom and wants to provide anything, that, you know, he thinks I should hear, by all 30
means, I want to give him that opportunity. 31
MS. CLAYPOOL: He does have his hand raised. 32
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great, thank you. 33
MR. DAVE BETLEY: Marcus, this is Dave Betley from…I’m the manager of the Engineering 34
Development Review group. I talked to our capital projects manager, and so the…there’s going to be two 35
phases to the Laporte project. So, the first is to extend the bridges, and that will take…that’s fully funded 36
and that will start…that will get under construction in March of 2023. And then the corridor project is 37
slated to get started in fall of 2023, but is not fully funded yet. So, Dana did say that if anybody was 38
interested in updates, provide your email address and they would be happy to put anybody on the contact 39
list with capital projects. And I guess the last thing I had that everybody…most everybody else has 40
covered everything else that I had…was, in response to section 3.6.3 that you had asked earlier, we’ve 41
gone through multiple iterations and multiple reviews on this project trying to meet the connectivity with 42
the neighborhoods and the adjacent roadways and stuff of that nature, and our LCUASS standards, and 43
59
so, you know, I think we’ve gone through like six or seven reviews now of trying to meet that. And so, 1
with the client is…or the applicant has done a pretty good job of…a really good job of meeting bike and 2
pedestrian facilities, trying to extend the access to local neighborhoods so that kids can get back and forth 3
to the schools easier, and stuff of that nature. So, I think through all of our review process, we feel that 4
the section 3.6.3 has been met as far as what the applicant has come up with on this submittal. 5
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you Dave, and that’s with respect to the alternative compliance? 6
MR. BETLEY: Yeah. 7
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great, thank you for that. So, let me…I suppose for the applicant team, 8
just a couple of quick things that were still on my list, and this may be, you know, better directed at City 9
staff as well, but there was a question on solar orientation that I don’t know if you…if you have any input 10
on that or can help answer that question that was raised during the public comment portion of the hearing. 11
And then also, just a little bit of background on affordability…was the opportunity to try to incorporate 12
any work force housing, or affordable units into this project with that, and if it was looked at and then 13
ultimately decided that…wasn’t going to be something that moved forward. Just a little bit of 14
background on that would be helpful. 15
MS. WHITE: So I still have a little conclusion here, but one of them…it included affordable, so 16
let me do this, let me maybe just try to begin to answer that, and then I’d like to ask Mr. Pretzler to come 17
up and speak to both of those things in more detail if that’s alright? 18
So, first, I want to be clear that the applicant never said, we are proposing affordable housing 19
here. What we said was, this housing development, this PDP, helps achieve the housing goals by 20
providing alternative price points and alternative product types compared to sort of the default in Fort 21
Collins, which is the single-family home. 22
MR. MCASKIN: Right, and I don’t think I was under… 23
MS. WHITE: We’re talking about attainable, not affordable. 24
MR. MCASKIN: Right, but I also know that the City’s LMN zoning regulations would…and 25
even the…I think the Subarea Plan also allows for a slightly higher density if the project has an affordable 26
housing component. So, I was just curious as to whether that was looked at . 27
MS. WHITE: I will ask David to speak to that, but I wanted to say something about the math 28
really quick. So, right now, today, the LMN zoning combined with the Northwest Subarea Plan, what is 29
allowed is a range of a minimum of four net and a maximum of eight gross…that’s the range of density 30
that could be developed on this project. And, I think the net versus gross has been explained so I won’t 31
repeat it unless you’d like me to, and it is a little weird that the minimum is net and the maximum is 32
gross, but that’s what we have to deal with in the Code. So, the minimum is four, net, and the maximum 33
is eight, gross. We have 5.13 gross, 7.13 net. So, however you look at it, we’re toward the low end of the 34
range right now as it relates to density. 35
Thinking again about affordable housing, you know…and, you heard all the comments…the 36
general trend of the feedback that has been received from the neighborhood since day one is, less density, 37
less density, less density. And so, all along, the developer has sought to make the project less dense. 38
60
Whether the range we were looking at is four to eight or four to twelve, it’s hard for me to imagine that 1
that feedback would have been any different. And so, I think that no matter what the range is, no matter 2
what the upper limit of the range is, the general feedback from the neighborhood would have been 3
pushing this project toward the lower end of the range, which is where we are. And in fact, there was one 4
comment, size nine foot in a size seven shoe…this is a size six foot in a size seven shoe if you really just 5
look at the density ranges. So, just on that, in order to achieve affordability, what you would really have 6
to do is significantly increase the density, not only beyond what’s being proposed, but you know, all the 7
way to the higher end of the range to get even close to something that would qualify under the City 8
definition of affordable. So, just broad brush, that’s the response to that, but I would really like David to 9
address, in more detail. David…Sam…Sam is going to talk about solar and then David is going to 10
address affordable. 11
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great. 12
MR. COUTTS: Thank you. So, solar orientation…the definition in article five refers to solar-13
oriented lots being the east/west front property line. So, whatever the lot is fronting to, that orientation of 14
that lot line needs to be oriented east to west, or 30 degrees off of east to west is the maximum. And that 15
is to design buildings for passive solar orientation. So, there’s…the solar orientation we commonly think 16
of where we want your roof ridge aligned east to west in order to get panels onto your roof, but then 17
there’s the passive solar orientation which actually was…what I believe the commenter was discussing on 18
their comments, and that’s to ensure that your front or rear windows of the house are oriented to benefit 19
with that passive solar gain. So, there is a requirement for that. We do meet the requirement that has 20
been thought about in the plan. 21
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. And, Jenny, just to confirm, is that 3.2.3… 22
MS. AXMACHER: Yes, sir, that’s correct. 23
MR. MCASKIN: …of the Land Use Code? 24
MS. AXMACHER: And the general standard is, to accommodate active and/or passive solar 25
installations to the extent reasonably feasible. But, they do meet that 65% requirement. 26
MR. MCASKIN: And again, so they meet the 65% requirement in the Code? 27
MS. AXMACHER: Correct. 28
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. 29
MR. PRETZLER: So I wanted to address the collaborative issue that’s been brought up a few 30
times…the idea that it hasn’t been a collaborative process that Laura and others have brought up. And 31
it’s also, kind of, in the context of the density question. And one of the things that’s been made very clear 32
to us from the very beginning is that the only thing that would be acceptable to the neighbors would really 33
be density in the neighborhood of about 100 homes, and they wanted single-family, they want one-story, 34
single-family homes, you know, which they have in their neighborhoods, and anything more dense than 35
that, they’re really not supportive of. And, the other alternative would be an open space field. And so, 36
it’s really difficult to collaborate with a group that doesn’t collaborate back, I guess. You know, trying to 37
find common ground, and ways to collaborate, really requires both parties to do some collaboration. 38
61
So, I just kind of wanted to, once again, go over some of the things that we have done to try to 1
address the concerns that the neighbors have had. We’ve reduced our density from 371 units down to 212 2
from the beginning of the project to where we are now. We’ve moved the entry road north on Taft Hill 3
Road to accommodate the neighbor who lives on the east side of Taft Hill Road, we’ve added additional 4
fencing for people who are concerned about, you know, being next to buildings and development, and 5
we’ve added trees…we have 694 trees, we have 421 shrubs that we’ve planted to try to help buffer, we’ve 6
reduced the elevations of our three-story product from three stories to two stories for 21 of the 28 7
buildings that…you know, where we have that type of building. And we’ve done the same with the two-8
story townhomes; we’ve reduced the end units of those to one story to try to help with, you know, this 9
feeling that the buildings are too tall. We have done a lot with trying to accommodate the neighbors in 10
terms of connectivity, and trails, and open space, and habitat, and as a result, we have a site that’s 58% 11
open space, we have a site that’s 150% of the required natural habitat buffer zone, we have an incredible 12
biodiversity that we’re going to be introducing to the site. So, I think al l of those things are things that we 13
have tried to do to accommodate the neighbors’ concerns, and really address them. And, one thing we 14
could not do, is reduce the density down to the level that they would be happy with. 15
And, with regard to affordable housing and what would be required to make a project like that 16
feasible, it would require the kind of density that you’re talking about. And, once again, the neighbors 17
would not want any density anywhere close to that, and one of the things that we did to help with the 18
density was to eliminate the condo buildings, and so we were able to reduce the project…87 units of 19
condos…by doing that. We did add some townhomes to…in place of those, but the density of those is far 20
less. So, while…you know, I stated at the beginning that our company is very focused on attainability, 21
and green building, and providing housing for, you know, people who can’t afford housing in more 22
traditional developments. And so, we’ve done everything that we possibly can do to keep the price points 23
low and to meet that missing middle, as we call it, and also to provide a development that meets the needs 24
of the neighbors as much as we possibly can. 25
MR. MCASKIN: Thank you, Mr. Pretzler, for those comments. I don’t know…Carolynne and 26
applicant team, do you have any additional rebuttal at this point, or any additional topics that you’d like to 27
cover? 28
MS. WHITE: Just one concluding statement, and it really kind of follows on what Mr. Pretzler 29
said, if I may…just a minute? I wanted to tie what was just described back to the comments that were 30
made about the role of the Northwest Subarea Plan. I want to be clear that I never said that it didn’t 31
matter, or that it didn’t apply, clearly it does. What I actually said was that we meet it in every respect, 32
and we have two or three pages about that in our letter, and we had a couple of slides here, and I read 33
some of the goals from the Northwest Subarea Plan. And there were some comments about section 1.2.2 34
of the Code, which says, the purpose of the Code is to improve and protect the public, health, safety and 35
welfare by ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan 36
and its adopted components, including but not limited to structure plan, principles and policies, and 37
assorted subarea plans. So, the way I read that language is it says, the Code itself ensures that the plans 38
are followed by incorporating the vision of the plans into the Code. That was my only point was saying 39
that, again, if you look at that hierarchy of land use, you have the plan that expresses the vision, and then 40
presumably you draft the Code in order to achieve that vision, and in this case, that is expressed in its 41
regulatory form in LMN zoning. So, we absolutely agree that the Northwest Subarea Plan applies, and 42
we also assert that this application meets it in every respect. And so… 43
62
MR. MCASKIN: So, let me ask you, because I need to go back and look at that language…I’m 1
struggling with that a little bit, but I’ve heard…I think you said earlier, and I think I may have even seen a 2
statement in the staff report to this…with the conclusion being that the Northwest Subarea Plan is looked 3
at…it’s a visioning document. It’s a subarea plan, but it’s not regulatory. But then when you were 4
discussing zoning, or the density rather, recently, and you were talking about the minimum being the four 5
net and the maximum being eight gross, the eight number comes from the Subarea Plan, and not from the 6
Code; the density regulation in the Code is nine units per gross acre. So, if you’re referring to eight, is the 7
Subarea Plan regulatory or not? 8
MS. WHITE: I was sort of using shorthand, because every time I say what the max is, I don’t 9
want to go in and explain the difference between the Code and the Plan. I think we’ve accepted for 10
purposes of argument that the upper limit of the density that could be built here is probably eight. But, I 11
think that is as a result of…City’s historic interpretation. I actually technically think I could make a very 12
defensible legal argument that the maximum is really nine, for all the reasons we just talked about. But, it 13
doesn’t matter because we’re not proposing anywhere near that amount, so in terms of the upper limit, 14
we’ve been using eight as a shortcut, if you will. 15
MR. MCASKIN: Right, and you were at the…really you’re at the 5.13 gross? 16
MS. WHITE: Exactly. 17
MR. MCASKIN: You’re at seven something net… 18
MS. WHITE: Exactly. 19
MR. MCASKIN: …which is exceeding the minimum. But, it’s just interesting because in…and 20
maybe I’ll ask Jenny if you have any input on that. I mean, does staff view the Northwest Subarea Plan 21
as a regulatory document, or is it a document that’s a visioning document that helps inform the Code, or a 22
land use decision made under the Land Use Code? 23
MS. AXMACHER: So, staff does view the Northwest Subarea Plan as a visioning document and 24
the Land Use Code is the regulatory document. So, from a staff perspective, the nine maximum density 25
would be what we would enforce. City Council has reviewed appeals on similar development review 26
cases where the conflict was between the regulatory Land Use Code and the visioning document, and the 27
direction from City Council that staff has been given is that we uphold the Land Use Code, or the 28
regulatory document. 29
MR. MCASKIN: And, in terms of…you may not have this answer, but in terms of a…just kind 30
of a historical question…I mean, we know that the Northwest Subarea Plan was adopted in 2006, or so. 31
What was the last time…I mean, when was the…was the eight…I guess my question is, was the eight 32
consistent with the LMN zone district at the time that the Subarea Plan was adopted, and then that was 33
later amended? And, again, you may not know…I’m not expecting you to answer that… 34
MS. AXMACHER: I do not know the answer, but I do know that the LMN standards have been 35
updated. So, that is possible. 36
MR. MCASKIN: Okay. So, I’m sorry, but you probably have some more of your… 37
63
MS. WHITE: That’s really it. It meets and exceeds all the applicable standards. As Mr. Pretzler 1
just said, has this application accommodated every request or every concern of all of the neighbors 2
throughout this four-year process? No. could it do that and still meet the Code? No. But that’s not the 3
question; the question is, does it meet the Code? And, it absolutely meets the Code in every respect, and 4
it exceeds it in many respects, and that was really the concluding point that I wanted to make. 5
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. And, Jenny, I do want to give…since the 6
order of proceedings does allow for a staff response as well…I don’t know if you have any specific items 7
that you’d like to focus on, or anything that either you agree with or disagree with in terms of what the 8
applicant provided during rebuttal, but I do want to give you that…this opportunity. 9
MS. AXMACHER: I think all the items on my list have been taken care of with the exception of, 10
I just wanted to mention that the project will be served by City water and sewer, and there is adequate 11
capacity in the system to accommodate the development. I believe everything else has been addressed by 12
the applicant or through earlier discussion. We do have members from Engineering, Traffic, and 13
Environmental Planning here to answer questions, but other than that, I think staff’s response is complete. 14
MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you for that. Just one question that I would like your input on, or 15
any other member of staff. When I was taking a look at the purpose of the LMN zone district in the Code, 16
it talks about the LMN district being intended to be a setting for a predominance of low-density housing 17
combined with complimentary and supporting land uses that serve a neighborhood, and are developed and 18
operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a neighborhood. And then there’s language 19
later in the purpose section that defines a neighborhood as typically something between 80 and 160 acres. 20
But, there’s also a statement in that section A, the purpose section of the LMN zone district, that talks 21
about typically low-density neighborhoods will be clustered around and integral with a medium-density 22
mixed-use neighborhood, with a neighborhood commercial center at its core. So, I’m just curious from 23
a…I suppose more of a neighborhood or regional context, is this proposed development abutting or close 24
to a medium-density mixed-use neighborhood with a neighborhood commercial center? I know that this 25
specific project is proposing a neighborhood commercial center, albeit somewhat smaller scale, because I 26
think the total square footage is only in the 3,000 square foot range. So, I’m just wondering, is that 27
purpose statement being satisfied in terms of this neighborhood being…if you look at it in more of a 28
regional context, is this close to another neighborhood that has a, you know, larger neighborhood 29
commercial center that would be considered walkable, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the Code? 30
MS. AXMACHER: So, to answer that question, there isn’t a direct measurement that corresponds 31
in distance from the LMN to MMN; however, I think that zoning was applied to this property as it was 32
annexed in relation to existing conditions, and that that purpose statement might be more applicable to 33
new green field development where there aren’t constraints of this type. 34
MR. MCASKIN: Okay. So, the time is now 10:34 PM. In terms of the order of proceedings, we 35
have completed the applicant rebuttal, the response, as well as the staff response. I have an awful lot of 36
material to get through. I think there’s 38 or so attachments to the staff report. As Jenny mentioned, in 37
addition to all of you that participated tonight and provided comment, we have about 35, maybe more at 38
this point, of written public comments that I’m going to need to spend some time looking through thos e as 39
well. But, I would like to thank the applicant team, I’d like to thank City staff and for everybody on staff 40
that was available on the virtual hearing, I appreciate it. And really like to thank the members of the 41
public that came out tonight and participated via Zoom or on the telephone. Like I said, it’s been a couple 42
of years I think since I’ve been up here and able to do this in person, and I kind of missed it, you know. 43
64
So, it’s nice that we’re getting back to having these in person, but also having the opportunity for people 1
to participate if they want to in other methods. So, again, I will be taking all of this under advisement. I 2
am required, under the Land Use Code, to issue a written decision within ten days, and with that, I will 3
close the public hearing on this matter at 10:36 PM. Thank you. 4