HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - DECISION -Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 29
Member Campana said he thought staff did a great job on a very difficult project.
The motion passed 5:1 with Members Hatfield dissenting.
Other Business:
None
Lau'rib Kadrich, CDNS Director
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 28
due to the locational attributes of the site. The site Is found to have an urban character
and its location is similarly situated and is comparable with other long-standing multi-
family dwellings throughout the City. The R-L zone at this site has an institutional
history and does not have the same residential character as the surrounding
neighborhood.
C. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(A)(3) in that the request
does not create any more offensive or adverse impacts or have any other objectionable
influences that the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses list the R-L
zone.
D. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(A) (4) in that the requested
use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the R-L zone such as Places
of Worship or Assembly, Public and Private Schools, Community Facilities, and
Wildlife Rescue and Education Centers. Further, compatibility is achieved with the
neighborhoods to the east and south by a site plan, landscape plan and architectural
elevations that demonstrate a high level of design that protects neighborhood quality.
E. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(A)(5) in that the requested
use is not a medical marijuana dispensary or cultivation facility.
F. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(B) in that the request would
not be detrimental to the public good in that throughout the City there are a significant
number of existing multi -family projects similarly located within, adjoining or adjacent
to existing or planned neighborhoods featuring single family detached dwellings.
G. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(B) in that the request is
found to be in compliance with Section 3.5.1. This is because the project provides
effective buffering along the east and south edges by use of building placement,
setbacks, landscaping, architecture and other design attributes. Further, the physical
and operational characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible
when considered within the context of the surrounding area.
H. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(B) in that the request is
specific to the subject site only and is not considered for a text amendment to the Land
Use Code.
The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be in compliance with Section 1.3.4(B) in that the request is not
specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the R-L zone.
The motion passed 4:2 with Members Hatfield and Kirkpatrick dissenting.
Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Project
Development Plan for the Regency Lakeview Project #PDP120013 based on the facts and findings
J and K on page 22 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion.
J. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article
Three of the Land Use Code.
K. As an advisory analysis only, the P.D.P. complies with the land use and development
standards of Sections 4.6(D) and 4.6(E) of the Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood zone.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 27
than say the church would full develop a campus with a school. He was convinced by the traffic data that
we are not seeing anything more offensive as far as traffic generation than we would if another of the by
right plans would be proposed. He always looks at every proposal from a data driven position. He
wasn't very sure on how he was going to weigh in because he was waiting to hear the information
presented tonight. At this point, he will be supporting this proposal.
This is besides the fact that three years ago he was a part of the board when they considered the
rezoning of this property. At that time, he made it very clear that it was appropriate for the LMN to be
able to fulfill the objectives of City Plan that this corner was a mismatch. It's catty corner from an E zone
district and across the street from a neighborhood center anchored by a grocery store. He was
wondering aloud why it was not proposed as MMN versus LMN. With that said, you still need to look at
this proposal and you still have to fit the zone district. Is it more appropriate for this to be rezoned or is it
more acceptable and appropriate to go through the APU process. It does fit all the criteria for an APU.
The PDP (Project Development Plan) meets all the criteria. He will be supporting it.
Member Schmidt said she'd like to say she also had a concern if the APU was the right way to go with
this. Because we're keeping it residential this goes with the character of the neighborhood. With
garages, these are the kinds of tenants who will want to stay and become a part of the neighborhood.
She doesn't think there will be traffic that directly impacts the neighborhood —people driving through their
neighborhood. This is a good place for this project. She thinks it meets the criteria for APU. She will be
supporting it.
Chair Smith said the conversation he had with Shepard illustrates his thought process. By in large the
zone districts in the city expect a high degree of mixed use. When he got into the purpose statement of
the RL, it talks about predominate single family residential areas located throughout the city which were
existing at the time of the adoption of the LUC—this is clearly a hold over to accommodate large swaths
of land that were going through the process. He does believe the church did not avail themselves of the
1 year period after its adoption. He's not giving them any forgiveness —timing does matter. That's absent
from his thought process. To be clear, had the purpose statement and the character more clearly
defined as being something it's not in here, it might have been a different decision. He thinks staff did a
good job in their analysis and its added value to the process.
Member Scmidt asked Daggett if she recommended two motions. Daggett suggested a separate motion
on the APU. Schmidt asked Shepard if there is anything in this PDP that is unusual from any other —
anything that has not normally been completed. Shepard said everything is fairly consistent with other
PDPs that come to the board at this level.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if you voted against the APU could you vote for the PDP. Daggett said it must
have a permitted use to be approved. However, once that's added, if you otherwise believe the PDP
conditions have been met; yes, you can support the PDP
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the request for an Addition of Permitted Use for
Multi -family Dwellings -- the Regency Lakeview based on the facts and findings A through I
starting on page 21 of the staff report.. Member Campana seconded the motion.
A. The request for Addition of Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
submitted in conjunction with a Project Development Plan in compliance with Section
1.3.4(A).
B. The request for Addition of a Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings has been
reviewed and found to be In compliance with Section 1.3.4(A)(1,2). This is because the
proposed use, at the location prescribed by the P.D.P., is appropriate In the R-L zone
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 26
Their direction to the church at that time was we'd like to see a specific project, the neighbors could
weigh-in and we could see how compatible that is. The church has taken that direction and tried to move
forward with something they could actually present. They've elected to use the APU process to do that.
They could have also come in a requested a rezoning. She see them as pretty similar because if we
allow that use, that's what you're going to get on the property.
Member Schmidt said having said all that she did drive around looking at multi -family neighborhoods. A
lot were separated with roads but there were a few, especially Fox Meadows on Timberline and
Horsetooth that was close to adjacent single family residences. They are very close to the 25 foot
separation. She was amazed at how well kept, beautiful and quiet. She wouldn't have minded looking
out to that because they were doing a good job of being good neighbors. One thing that bothered her
was listening to all the air conditioning units. This plan offers a lot more buffering to the neighborhood.
Because of the garages, the apartments are not going to be nearly as close.
Member Schmidt said she can see all the design work they ve put into this project. They have tried to
make it as compatible as possible. She really appreciates that.
Member Carpenter said when she looks at this on the question of detrimental to the public good, she just
cannot see that it is. It's city-wide, it fits City Plan. It is what we want to do with City Plan. She agrees
with Member Schmidt that there has been a lot of really good work done on this. The buffering is there.
They have worked with the neighbors to bring down the density. She does understand the neighbors
being afraid/worried about this change. She really doesn't believe it's going to have the effects that the
neighbors fear. She is feeling more comfortable than she thought she would be coming into it.
Member Campana said he appreciates everyone staying late and all their input the neighborhood and
brought tonight and throughout the entire process. He appreciates the work they've done to having
multiple neighborhood meetings. Frankly he thinks the design is very good. You've' done everything you
can to transition, buffer and mitigate an existing neighborhood. It's an infill site and infill sights are
uncomfortable when you are in an established neighborhood If that neighborhood was designed today
there would be some multi -family component under our current LUC. He thinks it's a perfect place for
multi -family. He will be supporting it.
Member Kirkpatrick said she agrees it's beautifully designed. She thinks staff has done a fabulous job of
extensive/thorough outreach and the completion of their staff report. She likes the project. She thinks
perhaps she's more sensitive to the neighbors so while she likes the project a lot she just doesn't like it at
this particular part of the site. She thinks even if it were on the other side of the church, she'd have an
easier time supporting it. She will not be supporting it.
Member Hatfield said he's kept track of who's in favor and who's opposed. Those numbers are 10 for
and 35 against. If we were having an election, that would be called a landslide. He's also read all of the
correspondence and there have been 460 people against it. The main thing that concerns him is that
since this is not a permitted use under the RL district and if City Council wanted it to be; he thinks it
would be included there because they pass the regulations/law so in effect they have prohibited this by
omission. Based all that he's seen, he will not be supporting it.
Chair Smith said this review has been a tough one. He's spent more time on this proposal going into the
LUC than he has in the past year. Where he spent most of his time was to get to the root of the
character of the zone district. Holding that up against the criteria for APU; what it really boiled down to
that ultimately you get into some of the tangible effects — how a property performs as it is proposed
relative to what would otherwise be allowed by code. As the applicant has stated, you have a chance to
look at the project as proposed against something that is explicitly allowed. Would it be excessive to a
project by right? He could not be convinced that this project would be creating any more adverse effects
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 25
when City Plan was being contemplated, reviewed and adopted; there was a desire to come up with a
new zoning system and zone districts. The first task was to assign a fundamental purpose to a zone
district. RL is not a City Plan zone. Shepard said he doesn't exactly know the answer to that question.
He doesn't recall why the purpose statement is written the way it is.
Chair Smith said a big component of its purpose is that it speaks very specifically (one sentence) to
existing conditions at the time of the adoption of the LUC. Is it safe to say let's leave big blocks of the
city alone to be able to zone accordingly? Shepard said there was at one time (1996) there was some
thought of putting all of the existing neighborhoods into a City Plan zone. It was taken to the Citizen
Advisory Committee and the Planning & Zoning Board at work session. It was decided not to do that.
The conclusion was the logical zone district they would have been put in would have been LMN but at
that time they were advancing their new urbanism. Every new zone district was calibrated to be much
more mixed use than the previous zoning system. It is hard to compare because the previous system
did not have as much importance because of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) system.
Chair Smith said along those lines there is no zone district in the LUC that is really only residential only —
is that true. Shepard said all zones are designed to be mixed use to a degree. Even under the Land .
Use Policies Plan on which the guidance system and the LUC was based speaks to a mix of uses
primarily to support trip production, air quality, reduced vehicle miles traveled, and to offer a socio-
economic mix throughout the entire community.
Chair Smith said to bookend this a bit, even the least dense residential (UE); what kind of non-residential
uses are allowed in the UE. Shepard said institutional and public uses (neighborhood parks, shelters for
victims of domestic violence, single family, duplexes, single family attached, group homes, unmanned
minor public facilities, cemeteries, residential cluster plan, public and private elementary K-12 schools,
places of worship or assembly, golf courses, wild fife rescue and education centers, etc). Smith said a
church can be in the UE and if the church had -a large enough parcel, they could do a campus that has
multiple buildings and uses including a school. Shepard said correct.
Chair Smith asked which zone districts would specifically allow some form of multi -family. Is RL the only
one that does not? Shepard the zone districts that do not list multi -family as a permitted use would be
Rural Lands district (holding zone for future fringe areas), UE, Residential Foothills District (RF) and the
RL.
Shepard said the LMN, MMN, NCL, NCM and NCB allow duplexes, four-plexes, and multi -family —kind of
a gradation. Shepard said the second part of Smith's question is none of those zone districts have the
language where there is a specific list of prohibited uses.
Member Carpenter asked Deputy City Attomey Daggett to weigh in on prohibited use. Daggett said she
actually agrees with Ms. Liley's description of how the language of 1.3.4 applies to that issue. In fact
there is a zone district (Industrial) that specifically lists prohibited uses. The other zone districts have
general language that basically sajd if it's not permitted, it's prohibited. Daggett said however, if that's all
it would take to have an APU be out of the question. Then you wouldn't need the APU process because
nothing would qualify.
Board Discussion
Chair Smith said he's grateful for this process and everyone who's 'stuck it out' and are still here and
willing to listen and participate. It's been a good process —thank you.
Member Schmidt said she was on the board when the church came for the rezone. At that time she
supported the rezoning.. She thought the higher density housing was appropriate in this area because of
the two arterials and the city's commitment to infill. Some members of the board had a concern that if
you just rezone it makes things more unpredictable for the neighborhood. You could get commercial.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 24
Stanford said with regard to left turns someone said they were inherently unsafe. They are not inherently
unsafe. They have been in use for many years. People are quite familiar with them and they are highly
visible. If two people are there at the same time, they work it out. There are no studies that he is aware
of that show an inherent unsafe condition or any unusually high accident rate in them. He said they like
them, they work very well with some flexibility whereas with a median hard left turns can be problematic.
He said when people enter them it may spook other traffic. He said they don't necessarily see that as a
bad thing —it raises the motorist's caution. They'd rather have people cautious than getting irreverent.
Stanford said as far as input from the applicant. The delay study that was conducted is a good and
reasonable study. They typically do throw out highs and lows because they unrealistically skew data.
They are trying to find the common, consistent aspects. Traffic counts are normally done on Tuesdays,
Wednesdays or Thursdays because that's consistent traffic behavior.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if there were any plans to put medians on Lemay. Stanford said no. It would
be difficult to find the room to do that with the current built out characteristics.
Board Questions
Member Schmidt asked if the there will be internal stairwells. Evans said yes. The exception will be the
units along the street like private drive. They will have front and back doors as well as diagonal parking.
Member Schmidt asked if air conditioning units are not placed on the roof where will they be located.
Evans said each unit will have a unit and they will be positioned on the ground level. She they've
indicated on the footprint of the buildings where they will be. They are screened either with hard material
or landscaping.
Member Scmidt said she noticed some lighting by the park area. Will that be removed at the request of
neighbors? Evans said at the request of Mr. Holmes and VanderWilt an east side light has been
removed. Evans said that at the request of Mr. Roschke where an existing city flow sidewalk comes in
has been removed.
Member Carpenter asked if they will have a central trash area. Evans said there are actually four areas
that are screened. Member Schmidt said her understanding is the trash will be picked up during day
time hours. Evans said yes. She said there is a pick-up service from each unit trash receptacle 5 days a
week. They make sure it's then deposited into the dumpster correctly so that they do not overflow.
Evans said recycling is also available.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if they did the community gardens, where will they be planned. Evans said it
depends on the residents who are interested. The Park area will be a passive park and it is possible
they could position an area there.
Member Carpenter asked what the average height of trees is when they are planted in the area to the
east of the property. Ripley said the city requires a deciduous tree is a 2 inch caliper and typically those
are about 10 feet tall. An ornamental is 1 '/2 caliper. Evergreen trees have to be 6 feet. Ripley said they
have not done a specific planting plan where that is detailed. That will come at final. Carpenter, said
what she's thinking about are the lights. Will they be sufficient to mitigate the lights? Ripley said the only
place they really have a situation where headlights might create glare for a neighboring property owner.
They could decide day one that a fence be added. If they do not want a fence, it could be a combination
of evergreen and shrubs —that would do a pretty good job initially.
Chair Smith asked staff about the RL zone and some of its characteristics. He said it seems to him that
one of their descriptions is one of the most vague and brief in the LUC. He wondered why. Shepard said
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 23
criterion in the analysis of a project. That was the motivation for how this community has developed over
the decades. Each decade there has been a consistent pattern of mixed use development per our
policies under at least three different zoning systems/three master plans. They state we have multi-
family developments in close proximity to single family detached neighborhoods. It would be difficult for
staff to say in this case, a pattern that has consistently been manifested on the ground would now be a
detriment to the public good.
Member Hatfield said it sounds like staff is basing this on other areas historically. He was thinking about
people who live within a mile are the public basically affected by it. Shepard said within a mile of this
there are several multi -family dwellings built at different times but in close proximity to single family -
detached neighborhoods.
Stanford said he listened to various points made by the public and he boiled them down to three areas —
one is access difficulty, traffic increase in general, left turns and the reversible left turn lanes. Basically
the increase in traffic in his opinion would be non -discernible. We're looking to add 90 vehicles in the
morning. That's about 1.5 cars per minute. You are just not going to see that as 'background traffic'.
Stanford said the study predicts 14 vehicles added to east bound Drake in the morning and less in the
afternoon. He said the traffic that will head east that may impact Dorado Court and some of the streets
heading to Timberline — again only 14 cars are expected to go that way per hour. Again, it is not
discernible. Stanford said the study predicts 14 vehicles added to southbound Lemay from access points
at the church in the morning and 8 vehicles in the afternoon. It's just not something you'll see on the
background roadway traffic.
Member Schmidt said a neighbor commented that might cause increase traffic driving through the
neighborhood. Does Stanford see that happening? Stanford said he looked at Google maps to see how
Centennial affects the model during testimony. Might those streets pick up a car or two; it's possible but
he can't find high validity to the value they'd bring to cut through. He does not think it would be frequent
or consistent.
Sanford said in regard to the left turns on Lemay (with regards to Strachan). The east/west motorists
could very well try and occupy the space in a reversible left situation. The lanes are slightly opposed and
cross. It might be similar to what the church sees on Sunday —people using an alternative access. He
said the development has tried to move traffic to the north access, which he applauds. The south access
should expect much lower quantities of traffic. Sanford said we do not have any traffic accident history
there for that characteristic. He's assuming motorists are pretty cognizant of it and will continue to be
able to drive adequately and use it appropriately. At this point, they do not have concern with that
characteristic. Will it be a common and frequent activity; he doesn't believe so. If it does become an
accident area, they do have a responsibility to address it at that time.
Member Kirkpatrick asked if the TIS was done after the developer decided to close off that south
access —pushing all traffic onto Drake Road. Stanford said he doesn't know. If it came before, it's
already low; 9 it came after, the volume of traffic is what he'd consider fairly reasonable. Delich said they
did the counts in March. When they did the assignment that the main church access to Lemay is going
to be the most popular way to get to Lemay. There's only one access to Drake. Those are the two that
will have most of the traffic and that is what their assignment reflected. Shepard said the change (to
close off the southernmost access on Lemay) was made February 9.
Stanford said with regard to the church access on Lemay, they don't see it as being a problem. The left
turns don't conflict with each other. People will be crossing the lanes of traffic and using the reversible
area. They will not be sharing the same space. He anticipates traffic from that access point will be
heading north on Lemay or west on Drake.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 22
Staff Response
Shepard had no specific responses but he would like to talk a little bit about LUC Section 1.3.4(A) 3 with
was an issue raised tonight about adverse impacts. The issue was raised particularly with traffic. It was
stated the analysis wasn't done in terms of evaluating other comparable uses in the zone district than the
amount normally resulting from other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added.
Shepard said they have done some of that analysis and Ward Standard will inform the board about the
number crunching that has been done with particular regard to an approved use in the RL. Shepard said
Stanford may have done some trip generation analysis for some typical community facilities and
compare that to RL zone per se.
Traffic Operations staff member Ward Stanford said he looked at trip generation —one of their basic tools
when evaluating the impact of a particular proposed development. This development will generate 1180
trips per day —about 89 coming and going in the morning and 115 coming and going in the afternoon.
They look at trip generation rates for other uses that would be considered applicable under that APU
code. The first group he looked at was schools. He looked at charter schools that go into unique
situations and are smaller in physical size than a typical school. There he found in one instance
Mountain Sage 400 students/225 entering/189 exiting in the morning versus the 89 from this
development. Another example (TR Paul) he had the size of their building (versus the number of
students). It's a 47,000 square foot facility with k-8 grades. Their morning entering rate is 303/exiting
morning is 248 (551) versus 89 for this development. He said there was a smaller 19,000 square foot
building with 200 trips in the morning. Recreational community centers are an allowed use.
Member Schmidt asked how is the trip generation determined for -this apartment complex. The 89 seems
low if you have 179 units. Stanford said trip generation is derived from national studies. People have
gone to -apartment buildings (whether larger or smaller) and they have physically counted the traffic that
comes and goes throughout the day. Mathematical equations are created to match that real data. That
number has the quantity of trips assigned and that is how the'projected trips are derived. Through those
on -street studies, they recognize that only a portion of the traffic leaves during the rush hour. That is
where the mathematics comes in. They use that data to analysis similar type projects. Schmidt asked if
peak was one hour. Stanford said it could be 1 or 2 hours in some communities. An analysis could use
one or the other but they derive down to the same thing.
Stanford said recreational community centers are an allowed RL use. That would be facilities such as
the Senior Center, North Aztlan Community Center and the EPIC Center. Those did not have a high
rush hour count but they had an equivalent or higher 24 hour volume. EPIC is a very large facility-
100,000 square feet and it generates 2280 trips a day. 160 enter and exit in the morning and its trip
generation is greater than this proposed apartment complex (89). Aztlan is 48,000 square feet and
generates about 1,100 trips and their trips are equivalent to this proposed project. Senior Center has
1250 trips a day.
Stanford said the last use was government building. He said City Hall with 40,000 square feet generates
2700 trips per day/235 in the morning rush hour. The old Police Department (by City Hall) generates
1200 trips per day/102 in the morning. 281 N. College is 1700-1800 per day/150 in the morning. 215 N.
Mason has 1500 trips per day.
Stanford said just looking at trip generation for what is allowed; this project (traffic wise) would fit within
what is allowed.
Member Hatfield said there was a question raised by one of the opponents about the public good. They
disagreed with staffs evaluation. He said we have to define who the public is here —the proponents or
the opponents. Shepard said they looked at that very carefully. They consider it to be a very important
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 21
of traffic on Lemay and Drake. The standard says you have to place a median in the middle as a refuge
for pedestrians. He doesn't think city staff, and you can confirm this with them, want to place a median at
that intersection. They can't meet the standard, no one can. He said that's a fact of life.
Delich said Roschke talked a little about bike service. He said the criteria for pedestrian and bicycle are
different. They meet the bicycle level of service for this project.
Delich said they were asked to do a delay analysis because in the various neighborhood meetings,
neighbors often said they had a wait 5 or more minutes to enter Drake Road. It was specific to Drake
Road because no one along Lemay seems to complain until tonight. The analysis they did reflects their
observation. He said there was a party sitting at the stop sign on the north leg of Brookwood who was
reluctant to enter traffic and it delayed people. As a professional traffic engineer, he's trained to observe
these things and offer an opinion. In his observation, there were numerous times when there were
adequate gaps in traffic that a vehicle could have entered. That person chose not to. That happens all
over the city. Quite frankly it doesn't happen every day but it happened on the day they observed and
they reported it. In their judgment, they could have entered the traffic stream.
Delich said level of service is by nature average delay per approached vehicle. They don't take the
highest or lowest delay. The criterion in traffic manuals as well as for the city is average delay for level of
service. He said the city has traffic evaluation criteria and quite frankly all the key (7) intersections meet
the operational criteria of the city in their analysis. Lastly, a statement was made that the traffic study
was done on a holiday. That is categorically false. The traffic counts were done in early March —both
CSU and Poudre School District were in session. The counts were done at an appropriate time. He
said with that, he's available for questions.
Lisa Evans of Regency thanked everyone for their time. She'd like to point out there are 28 rental
communities in Fort Collins that are not student restricted income or senior. Of those 28 communities
only 3 were constructed in the last 13 years. Today's community is built at a much higher level of
quality —the building standards, the building codes, the energy codes. Everything has been increased.
Today they do not make an investment like this to let it run into the ground in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. For a
community that was built 30 years ago, that could be the case. The average age of those 28
communities is 1986. She totally understands what the neighbors see around them. It is not what they
stand for.
Evans said there was a question of property values and that Regency Lakeview would -bring those down.
She can't say she's a scientific researcher but she did go on the Larimer County Assessor's website.
She looked at several different apartment communities and she looked at what happened to the house
sale transactions right around those communities —prior to and after it was constructed. In her sampling,
she could not find evidence of the 20% drop as stated tonight. She could not find evidence of any drop in
value.
Evans said they have quiet hours — it is part of the lease. If you live there, you agree that from 10 p.m. to
8 a.m. there is no disturbance. They have a 24 hour live person response. In the event of an
emergency, someone must respond within an hour. A noise issue is definitely an emergency. Evans
said they specifically placed the clubhouse area to be as far away from the adjoining residences. It is
buffered by residential buildings to keep sound from going to the neighborhood. They have strict noise
policies. They take that very seriously. People move out because of noise and that doesn't help her
make for a good resident experience.
Evans said the number one reason people move out is they do ultimately desire to buy. When she
rented, where she wanted to buy was someplace to where she rented because she had fallen in love
with that immediate area. If you can buy, it would likely be in the immediate neighborhood.
Planning &Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 20
on these circumstances only, if it's appropriate for this APU use to be added. It does not set a
precedent. Ripley will address why this is a uniquely suited site to have an APU approved.
Ripley said the uniqueness of the site really hinges on the fact that it's located at the comer of two
arterial streets. It's just across the street from a neighborhood shopping center. It's kitty corner from a
major employer. It meets our City Plan policies of putting multi -family development around and close to
a neighborhood center, places of employment, etc. She said she wouldn't expect the board to approve
multi -family development in the middle of an RL zone district but this cries for it.
Ripley said all the comments they heard about how terrible the traffic is, what the complications of getting
out, making turns —that's why you want to put multi -family in infill developments like this to get some of
that traffic off our street. Ripley said like Liley said is it's a residential project. There will be landscaping,
there will be trees, there will be larger setbacks, there will be more open space, there will be a pedestrian
systems, architecture. All of those are characteristics of the RL zone. They are also characteristics of
this project.
Ripley said someone mentioned views. First of all, views aren't protected in Fort Collins unless it's a
specific view from a public space. The existing neighborhood has a great view of a whole lot of open
space that the church has to maintain. She wanted to point out the number of existing trees along the
east and south side of the property. Many of those trees are mature. They will continue to buffer to
some extent this project from that existing neighborhood.
Ripley mentioned that this is going to add noise to their neighborhood. She would say if noise is an
adverse impact, this multi -family project being well managed and being located further away from the
single family homes. She said noise will be less of a concern than if single family homes were developed
adjacent. Single family homes could have barking dogs, they could be rented to students who have loud
parties —police have to be called. She said if you have a well managed apartment complex, it's much
less likely. This project promises 24 hour on -call service. If there is a service, there is someone to call to
come and deal with an issue. You are not going to have that with single family houses were it to be
developed that way.
Ripley said someone mentioned glare of headlights. Where we have driveways that point to adjacent
neighborhood yards, we have planted neighborhood trees. They are not going to do much when they're
initially planted but there will also be shrubs and other plants there. They are absolutely willing to place a
fence there. That is one of the reasons Evans wanted to meet with all affected parties. They could pick
what gets planted there. They could decide to have a fence or not have a fence. All of that is
negotiable. They want to have a good interface with the people that abut the property.
Ripley said Matt Delich will address some of the traffic issues that were brought up.
Matt Delich of Delich Associates said they prepared the Traffic Impact Study (TIS). He said first of all the
comparative analysis that Ripley and others referred to was created by him. He said the trip generation
of this site, the church, and the apartment complex versus single family with day care layout. It was done
in accordance with city standards. They used the same trip generation references the city requires they
use. He said the fact of the matter is the single family with day care generates more peak hour trips than
the apartment complex would generate. He said that's a fact.
He wants to talk some of the comments by Mr. Roschke. In the traffic study, they talked about the fact
that under the pedestrian level of service criteria that some criteria could not be met. On site all the
criteria would be met but off site since this is an older area of Fort Collins; streets and sidewalks were
built under previous standards —not the Larimer County Urban Street Standards. The fact of the matter
is you cannot meet them. For example, you cannot meet those criteria because you are crossing 5 lanes
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 19
you. If you cannot positively impact people to attend your church but instead build barriers; she thinks
they need to change their outlook and mission. She opposes this proposal —thinks it's poorly
managed/poorly planned.
End of public input
Applicant response
Lucia Liley, 300 S. Howes Street said she'd like to address some of the legal issues which had been
raised. Linda Ripley and Matt Delich have some comments related to specific planning and traffic
conditions.
Liley said a comment was made about the applicability of the APU ordinance. She said she'd like to
comment because it's very important to understand the specific language of the APU. What it says is
that you can use it provided that such use is not --here's the phrase that's critical. Specifically listed as a
prohibited use in the zone district in which the proposed site is located —not generally stated but
specifically listed as a prohibited use. What that would mean is in that RL zone, it would have to say
multi -family units are specifically not permitted/or prohibited in that zone district. Liley said we have zone
districts that do that —that say in this zone district here are some specifically listed prohibited uses. That
isn't the case in this RL zone and that's why it is an applicable process to be used with this zoning
district. Liley said she recommends Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett address the issue as well.'
Liley said it's also been talked about predictability versus flexibility. She would suggest that those twin
items are both very critical. The flexibility part is embodied in the APU because we have a very inflexible
system. The APU was put in place to provide a modicum of flexibility for decision makers like the board
to consider. The predictability part is there are specific standards that have to be met and everybody
(neighbors and developer) knows going that you have to meet criteria if you are to be allowed to have an
additional permitted use.
Liley said another comment was made about an imaginary alternative development and why are we
talking about that —the church is there. But again if you•look at the standards in the APU that is what it
invites you to do. You take an imaginary plan and you said if there are other permitted uses and they
developed; does this create impacts greater than that other development which could occur as a use by
right now. What we did is take what is not an unbelievable scenario that the entire site could have been
developed as a single family with a day care. If you do, you look at the traffic impacts. She said there
was testimony that the traffic impacts at peak hours are actually less with single family/day care not
obviously less than what exists today.
Liley said another comment was made about the standard that such use conforms to the, basic
characteristics of the zone district. It's can't because the uses are not the uses in the RL zone. She said
think about that for a minute. This consciously does not say conforms to the basic uses of the zone
district because the very purpose of an APU is to add a use that isn't permitted. What's its talking about
is aside from the use, what characteristics of this zone district are going to remain in place if you have
this specific plan. Liley said let's think about this for a minute. A multi family use is a residential use. It's
not a commercial use. These residents will come back to this project to live, to go to sleep at night.
That's not different, that does not change the characteristics of this zone. Liley said there're a lot of other
things that define the characteristics of a zone —setbacks, open space, traffic. She said Ripley will detail
those a little bit more in terms of how this plan very much preserves and meets the characteristics of the
zone district.
Liley said lastly a comment was made about this setting a terrible precedent. She said one of the
reasons you have an APU is that it is site speck. It's development plan specific. It does not set a
precedent. What it does is ask you to look at this specific site, this specific development plan; and based
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 18
the letters and petitions) are against this project. He asked the board to consider not just the good of the
church or a few businesses that will benefit; but to think about the'rest of us'. The adverse impacts have
been talked about tonight —everything from noise to traffic and lower property values. Approval of this
project sets a really bad precedent.
Dorothy Martin lives at 2912 Silverwood Drive. She said she has 6 or 7 things she doesn't think have
been addressed and she's not going to go into depth with them. In terms for the need for housing, this is
high end. She is also concerned about the impact of other multi developments in the area if in fact
approval goes through for the McWhinney proposal at Drake/Timberline—that too feeds traffic. It also
adds a huge number of units. It is a great place for infill. She said she walks her neighborhood. In the
last 3 months, 4 homes have gone on the market adjacent to this property. It is impacting the people
who expected single family residential. She said not one speaker who spoke for this proposal lives in the
adjacent neighborhood. If approved, she believes RL zoning becomes moot. What the board decides
will set a precedent for countless other requests. She would have wished the church had gone ahead
with their plans for senior housing. She thinks that would have been a good development for them.
Richard Holmes lives at 2725 Brookwood Drive. He's adjacent to the southeast comer of the holding
ponds. None of this is really going to affect him because he's in an area where there will be 2.5 acres
behind his house. He said the bottom line is the APU is a change of zoning. He's visited a number of
projects in town and doesn't understand how the Prospect & College dorm units are being built in a flood
plain. Yes, we can fill it with dirt but the water has to go somewhere unless we're putting culverts
underneath it. He just doesn't understand where council goes with zoning and planning —that's the first
issue to be solved. The second is the Regency Lakeview. He's worked with Ms. Evans and her staff
and he has nothing but good to say about that. He's talked to the pastor several times and problems got
solved. He thinks the project has gotten better than having commercial there but he's concerned about
the high density. He's not going to vote one way or the other and he empathizes with the board for
having to do so.
Lance Stebar lives on Stratborough Lane. He's been activated in this issue as of the last 5 days
because that was the first time he was informed about it. He's collected over 55 signatures and that has
been difficult for him because they have two young children. He said it has not been a hard sell. Most
have been vehemently opposed to this proposal. For those that are church members, he said his heart
bleeds for them. He understands this is a solvency issue. His question to them is, is this their legacy.
The process seems to circumvent certain stipulations of what is rezoning law. He said the board will be
responsible for its approval or its rejection. He said based on his experience, people will question the
board's motives if this is approved. He thanked the board for their time and for what they do.
Kurt Kessel lives at 2812 Middlesborough Court. He said his property is one in from the church. He's
listened to 4 hours of commentary. He said what he remembers from a previous meeting at the church
was that the traffic study was conducted on a holiday when school was not in session. He thinks it's
invalid. He thinks the board should hold their decision in abeyance until a proper traffic study gets done
and then let's 'reargue' this later.
Mark Springer who read a letter earlier was questioned on whether he had already spoken.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett recommended the board take a break to allow the applicant and the board
the time to review some of the exhibits that have been submitted.
Kim Olsen lives at 1542 Quail Hallow Drive. She's a former resident of the Lake Sherwood
neighborhood and her children attend Shepardson Elementary. She said this will have an impact on
their school. The only comment she has she'd like to direct to the church. She would ask that they
consider changing their name from a community church because your community is what is surrounding
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 17
cannot find housing. There is a huge need for housing —people don't have a choice, rents go
up/affordability goes down, and it's not a good situation for entry level people. Even if all projected
projects are completed, there will still be a shortage. He said the APU process is the only appropriate
use. They've (the church) tried rezoning and the other uses. If you compare this with every intersection
south of Mulberry, multi family is an essential part and it backs up to residential neighborhoods. This is
nothing out of the ordinary. This is good city planning and we need it.
Barb Daniel lives at 613 Mansfield Drive. She'd like to talk about the big picture too. She's in favor of
this project. She said the vision of the city is for infill. Instead -of sprawl, we want to fill the spaces we
have and we want to make them quality projects. This looks like a quality project to her. She knows
people are scared of change so they don't want it to change. If it's 'decades' old, we need some new
blood injected there some young families. She thinks that would be exciting and she's for it. She
asked the board to please approve the project.
John Barnett, 3200 Greenwood Court, said he's speaking in opposition. He noted how this how this
project would fare if you looked at it under the lens of the Land Development Guidance System. We all
know why it was thrown out. It was thrown out because it did not give the neighbors predictability into
what would happen. He said the real reason was very few projects didn't have the points it took to get
approved. It was really a negotiated process. Barnett said it so happens he lives outside the notice area
of this particular project. He got notice when someone stopped by last night asking him to sign a petition.
Part of the arguments in favor of rezoning ('let's not make a mistake here, we're talking about rezoning
here') is the church did not participate several times in the past. He said he's sorry but timing matters.
Barnett said suffice it to say that this project does not meet the required findings the board is required to
make. He doesn't see how it could possibly be approved.
Janet Hanlon lives at 2806 Middlesborough Court. She said her northeast facing back yard faces the
property. She agrees with the points made by the people who have spoken in opposition. She'd like to
speak from the heart. Her family has lived in their home for 9 years. If they had known apartments could
be built there, they would not have purchased their home. They are looking at having a pretty significant
property value loss and to them that's huge. She very much supports the mission of the church and the
greater good of people finding housing. Ultimately, it is not her responsibility to solve the church's
problems. The Titanic' will still be in her back yard. It changes the daily aspect of what happens in her
life. She thinks that Regency (Lisa Evans) has done a fabulous job of listening to the neighbors but
ultimately it's still the Titanic' and she cannot say she wants that in her back yard. For those who spoke
in favor who don't live in the neighborhood; their property values will not be affected like her family's will.
It's her life, her livelihood, and she's not willing to sacrifice that at the expense of decisions being made
by other people.
Pat McCluskey lives at 2108 Sherell Drive. He's lived in Fort Collins since 1965 and has been a member
of the church since 1968 when it was on Drake and Stover. He's in favor of what's going on because he
thinks infill is a good thing for our city. For the past 30 years the church has been a good neighbor
keeping their 23 acres well groomed and their buildings in good repair. It's not been an easy job. They'd
like to keep things as they have been; however, due to hard economic times, an aging building, and a
much small congregation; they have to consider other alternatives. Their ministries, especially their
outreach department, have given out food, clothing, household items as well as hospital and medical
equipment for the past 30 years. 98-163 needy households per month are served. If they could sell this
property they could continue to be good neighbors, have a good ministry, and continue to fill that hole —
that which is needed by the needy in Fort Collins.
Gary "Pete" Peterson lives at 2200 Rolling Wood Drive. He's here to say the church has the right to
develop their property but he doesn't like the idea of the apartments. He doesn't think they have the right
to go with the Regency Lakeview project. He opposes the zoning. Hundreds of people (as evidenced by
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 16
end of that section (page 17) it states..."therefore, is found to be consistent with past practice and,
therefore, not detrimental to the public good." Those past projects did not use APU to get approval.
They went through the channels (rezoning) that Regency should be pursuing. She said those other
developments were approved under different terms and with" different processes.
Kathy Mills has lived at 2313 Tanglewood Drive for 27 years. She urges the board to vote in favor of this
project as a member of the church and the Parkwood community. She's also a citizen of Fort Collins.
She thinks predictability is good but she doesn't think there's anyone in the room who wouldn't say the
economy is a little shaky and having more quality rentals in town and having a sustainable neighborhood
where you can bike and walk is not a good thing. As a homeowner and member of the Parkwood
community, she still says this is a good project and she would like to support it. She urges the board to
support it —she's thinks it's.a great addition to our community.
Fred Urban lives at 3609 Canadian Parkway. He said he's a 40 year resident of Fort Collins area and he
is the board chairman of the church. He speaks in favor of the proposed Regency Lakeview
development. From the church's perspective the buildings and grounds are large and costly to maintain.
It is their membership who pays all of the costs. The sale of the underutilized.11.2 acres will allow them
to redirect funds presently required to maintain this parcel and to make significant needed repairs to their
30 year old facility. Their congregation is small but they are a very healthy, motivated family dedicated to
serving others. They see themselves as adding and expanding ministry within the existing facilities. He
asked the board to support this proposal.
Andrew Lewis lives at 2707 Brookwood Court. Mr. Lewis distributed copies (Exhibits 6, 7, and 8) to the
board and applicant. He is a representative for a number (7) of his neighborhoods. He read into the
record his "Can't see the Forest for the Trees" (Exhibit 8). In summary, he said we're focusing on all the
little details (height, colors, setback, garbage containers, etc.) and are not focusing on the big picture
He asked the board to consider criteria 2 of the APU — such use must conform to the basic
characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
He defined terms (use, conforms, characteristics, zone districts, characteristics of Low Density
Residential Districts). He asked what distinguishes the RL from other zones. What makes it unique is it
does not allow multi -family dwellings. The stated purpose of the RL zone under LUC Section 4.4 (A) is it
is intended for predominately single family residential. He said that is the question the Board needs to
find —meets criteria 2 (LUC 1.3.4 (A) 2) of the APU. He does not think it was designed as a rezoning tool
and that is exactly what this is and that this is not using the correct standard.
Lewis said the APU would allow some flexibility which the staff contended if used on a limited basis
would not come at the expense of the predictability nor undermine the City Plan or City Structure Plan
Map. He said this is not a limited circumstance. He said the City Structure Plan Map has this noted as a
low density mixed use. With tonight's action we're going to medium mixed use. By allowing this complex
to be there, the board would be going contrary to the policy of the City Structure Plan Map. They would
be going contrary to the policy of the RL zone and contrary to the permitted uses of the RL zone. He
said the Board would be changing its character is such a way as to be unrecognizable. He said that is
not what the APU was designed to do. He asked that the Board not get distracted by "the trees". He
asked they take a look at the whole forest. He said currently the land can be developed for single family
homes and depending on the proposal as apartments qualifying in the LMN zone but that is not what is
being presented. He asks the Board to reject the proposal.
Larry Stroud, 1606 Humble Road, said he's been a resident for over 50 years. He's been involved in
commercial real estate for 33 years. His comments are not directed toward the specific details of the
project. Much like Mr. Lewis he asks the board to look at the big picture. He said Fort Collins has a
pressing multi -family housing need over any other housing type in our entire history. The City of Fort
Collins forecasts 4.4 % vacancy rate in housing units.. As a result of this constrained housing, people
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 15
advertise that fact. He said it is unclear to a citizen to what extent a zone can be changed with the APU
process. Finally, with regard to appropriateness issue, in the '5/19 city response report' one of the issues
brought up on page 4, comment 4 was the possibility of doing an easement for the homeowner on the
southwest comer of Dorado Court and Drake Road to meet the existing site standards —he thinks the
issue is if someone is submitting,an APU, to what extent can they force changes that are compatible with
the zone.
Susan Santistevan lives at 1812 Indian Meadows Lane. She has been a member of the church for 16
years and has served as its business administrator since 2004. She is very much in favor of the board
approving the Regency development. She provided information on how opportunities to request a
different zoning in 1997 (City Plan implementation rezoning) were lost due to the transition to a new
pastor/lack of central leadership figure. (The following was finished by Laurie Debose at the beginning of
her allotted time) If they had understood how drastically it would have limited their options for their
property, without a doubt; they would have gotten involved in the process. They are appealing to the
Board for what would have been totally appropriate and would have been allowed before the 1997
rezoning process. Please approve this project. )
Dan Grider lives at 2707 Brookwood Drive and has for 34 years. He's speaking in opposition. City Plan
clearly indicates the parcel and surrounding area is zoned RL. APU was chosen because the zoning
would not allow such a development. He thinks city staff, using inexplicable logic in his opinion, has
recommended approval. He believes approval of this development does not conform with the stated
purpose in LUC 1.3.4 (A) 1-4. He's reviewed the list of applicants for APUs since the process was
established in 2008. Of those, approximately '/z were approved and most were approved with conditions.
Each request was for a minor variance from'the zoning in which they were located. Compared to these
requests, Regency's proposed development goes far beyond anything previously considered. It's 3-4
times the density of what's allowed in RL. This disparity impacts the neighborhood through traffic, noise,
and a reduction of property values. The character of the surrounding neighborhood will be altered. It is
not compatible with other uses of the RL zone. He said for those reasons, this APU proposal should be
denied. He asks the board to make this decision based on the intended purpose of the LUC and the
policies of APU. He said their decision will set a marked precedence for future development of the
neighborhoods of Fort Collins in the years to come.
Laurie DeBose lives at 2718 Jewelstone Court. She saw the presentation and she thinks it's a very nice
project. They've done a good job as far as everything they ve done with it. They have plans to make it a
very nice place. She understands it's not in current zoning but in the big picture she thinks it's very good
for the city. It will bring in more revenue for taxes, it provides more places for people to live, and there
are times to make exceptions to existing rules when it's good for the majority.
Kathryn Dubiel lives at 2936 Eindborough Drive. She'd like to comment on the use of comparable multi-
family housing developments as an argument by city staff to recommend approval of Regency
Lakeview's request for an APU. She'll also comment on city staffs use of the terms density, nearby and
close proximity without explaining with words or with data the meanings of those terms. Comparable
multi family projects was a topic of discussion at the board's July 13"' work session. Shepard could not
speak to the density of each comparable multi -family project —he answered in a general fashion 10-20.
She thinks it should have been a part of the written summary that was provided to the board as well as
the public record for this discussion. She said at the worksession, one of board members asked how
Regency compared to the comparables in proximity. As she recalls it was not answered. She outlined
some differences in proximity to the comparable projects. She said the staff provided a conclusion and
proving it was left to the board. She doesn't think it's the boards or her job to check the accuracy of the
staff's conclusions. Rather, it's their job to supply the facts that underlie statements like from page 16 —
in all examples cited below there are nearby single family detached dwellings in either the RL or the LMN
zone districts. It would be helpful to know what the staff means by near by and close proximity. At the
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 14
use. Multi housing is not allowed therefore it is a prohibited use. For the reasons listed about, she
respectfully asks that they find this APU is detrimental to the public good and to exercise the board's right
to deny this APU application.
Jackie Peterson has lived on 2200 Rollingwood Drive for 28 years. She's speaking in opposition to this
drastic change in density on the basis that it will most certainly have an adverse effect on their
neighborhoods. This proposal is not in compliance with the APU and on that basis alone it should be
rejected. She thinks the APU process should be stringently applied and this proposal does not comply.
She said the reasons have already been well stated. She gave an example of how the large number of
cars idle and affect air quality. She also thinks it'll affect the elementary schools in the area and the
safety of children crossing busy intersections. She asked the Board if the city has put so much effort
(thoughtfulness and time into creating a LUC); why are we trying to change it tonight?
Paul Patterson lives at 2936 Eindborough Drive. He opposes the APU and the project. His opposition is
due to the density and the ramifications of the proposed density. He thinks a multi family project with
density in the MMN range would violate City Plan and the promised predictability his neighborhood
expects under the RL zone district. He thinks the Current Planning Department is in error when they
recommend approval of the APU. On pages 5 and 6 of the staff report, comment 5—staff contends the
church can construct a campus with a "...disparate look and feel in relationship with the neighborhoods
to the east and south despite common zoning. Staff, therefore, contends that given the existing
conditions, the neighborhoods to the east and south and the subject parcel do not share the same basic
characteristics under present or proposed conditions. Adding multi -family dwellings to a portion of the
25-acre campus would not alter this relationship." Patterson said it's not whether the project conforms to
the characteristics of the area but whether the project conforms to the characteristics of the zone.
Patterson said the church has the right under the permitted uses in RL zone to develop a campus
consistent with its mission. That does not mean that it creates a right to a disparate look or that it
establishes the right of a profit making entity to build a 15+ dwelling units per acre multi -family
development that clearly do not meet the characteristics of the RL zone. He urges the board to reject the
project.
R.J. Hanna lives at 1313 Teakwood for the past 37 years. He's very concerned about the effect of this
project and he would urge the board to deny it. His concerns are the effects on the surrounding
neighborhoods and he also has concerns about the process by which this project is even being
considered. He appreciates the desire of the church to maximize the value of their property but doesn't
believe this is an appropriate way to get around the existing zoning. He thinks we must assume the
zoning designation was determined after much thoughtful deliberation. Multi -family housing was not
deemed appropriate for this location. It seems this request for the APU is a dubious application of the
APU process and an attempt to bypass the logical, thoughtful determination of the existing zone
designation. He said for all the reasons previously mentioned, it fails 'the impact' consideration. He
thinks the TIS does not speak to the impact on the Parkwood and areas south of Drake. He urged the
board to deny the request.
Carlos Padilla lives at 3013 Eindborough Drive. He said one concern not previously discussed is the
APU itself. Section 4 wonderfully documents every zone and permitted use. The APU (Section 1.3.4) is
very sparsely written. One of the issues is the APU seems wide open as a mechanism for changing the
characteristics of an existing zone. Regardless of what happens here tonight, he'd like to ask the Board
to consider that and try to tighten it up or give better examples. With the LUC and City Plan, the city has
exposed the predictability of what's happening in the city. At the same time the city is advertising that the
city is changing its intent about what it wants to do with the existing space in the city by moving to an infill
pattern. If you are going to use the APU as the process (instead of rezoning); he'd ask the city to
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 13
He said the project is surrounded by low density single family neighborhoods and fails to meet the
requirements the board bases their decision in LUC Section 1.3.4 (A) 1-4 so for those reasons alone, the
APU should be rejected.
Roschke said he and his family are also specifically concerned by many elements of the Regency
Lakeview Transportation Impact Study (TIS) by Delich and Associated dated April 12, 2012. He referred
to a letter dated July 9 sent to the Board. In that letter he notes 9 comments related to his concerns for
many elements of the TIS. He highlighted some of those concerns including access to Scotch Pines and
it's affect on traffic at the intersection of Drake and Lemay, delay analysis of several intersections, traffic
delays and the delays being generally accepted by the travelling public. He thinks the study does not
adequately address access, or even identify many of the easily foreseeable consequences of this
proposal. He thinks the study relies on the application of canned formulas for generic situation that don't
even begin to recognize, let alone account for, the characteristics of this specific situation.
Roschke said he accepts the advocacy position of the developer but he expects information prepared by
city staff to be impartial and complete (even if he disagrees with the recommendation). It seems like it's
written to be persuasive by omitting important and conflicting information. He thinks that is inappropriate.
He's said he's provided his email address on more than one occasion and has yet to receive any of the
promised updates. He said nothing received to him meant nothing was happening. Had he received the
updates, he would have taken the appropriate action as needed. In closing he doesn't think this is a bad
development proposal, however, he strongly believes an APU for this project in this residential single
family/low density zone district and decades -old neighborhood is inappropriate. He urges the board to
deny the APU.
Roschke read a short email from a neighbor (Andy) who could not sell his house —a prospective buyer
backed out when they heard of the proposed project. Andy still has not sold his house.
Don Daniel lives at 613 Mansfield Drive. He's a current member of the Christ Center Community Church
Board. He said he recommended they sell the 11 acres because the church did not need the land. He
said the primary reason for the sale is stewardship. The church is over 30 years old and it takes a great
deal of their budget just to maintain the facility. It's time to put significant funds into a restoration of the
property. The site is used not just for the church but for events (like the 9 Health Fair) for the community.
He said they certainly have a right to sell the property. They are, however, attempting to be good
neighbors. They taken that approach from day 1 and make sure the brokers who represented them
understood this. They have worked with the developer to respond to the concems of the neighbors. He
said the proposal being presented is a responsible project that meets city guidelines and purposes. It will
allow the church to be good stewards and keep their church operating in a high functioning capacity.
With the change it will never be the same but change can be good when it's planned — appropriate and
the best it can be. They respectfully ask the board to approve this project.
Diane Kenning, 2613 Dorado Court, said she'd like to speak to LUC Section 1.3.4 (B) Planning and
Zoning Board Authority and Limitation. It states the Planning and Zoning Board may add a proposed use
if the Board specifically finds that such use would not be detrimental to the public good. She thinks this
APU would be detrimental to the public good. Speakers will be addressing the importance of
predictability. While the APU is a useful tool, if it's going to be used for defacto zoning; the City Plan and
the City Structure Plan might as well just be put on a shelf. We want to live in a city where we can rely
on the promises and processes of our government. Kenning said the section also speaks to the
proposed use must be specific to the proposed site. She said the city's analysis of the project is flawed.
By comparing this multi -family project to other multi -family projects rather than to the characteristics of
uses allowed in the zone as the standard requires. She thinks the APU should be denied on that basis.
Finally, the LUC states that if a use is not specifically listed in the zone district in which the proposed site
is located then it is a "Prohibited Use". The RL Zone says anything not expressly allowed is a prohibited
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 12
Martin West lives at 2735 Silver Creek Drive. He's a native of a Fort Collins and a real estate appraiser
for the past 30 years. He'd like to speak to what's going to happen to property values for properties
adjoining the proposed project. His opinion as an appraiser is the properties will devalued by 20%. He
said if you don't have the demand due to the 175 units in the back yard, you have to do something to
create demand. You create demand by lowering the price of your home. He does not think it's the
neighborhood's issue to make the church financially whole. They have been zoned RL and if they
wanted to do low density residential; he doesn't think the neighborhood would have issue. West did a
survey of appraiser records. He found that 83% owned their homes before the APU process was
established. They moved into the neighborhood assuming it would be single family residential. If
changed, it will affect the whole 'flavor' of that neighborhood.
Doug Vander Wilt, 2719 Brookwood Drive thanked the developer and staff for working together to make
a quality project. That doesn't mean he supports it because of the land use codes. He'd like to focus on
condition (A) 3 in Section 1.3.4. There must be no adverse impacts beyond those normally caused by
the currently permitted uses. The developer says there will be no increased impacts and in some
aspects this development will have less impact. They believe that to be a false claim since there will be
at least a threefold density increase in people and motor vehicles over the currently permitted uses within
RL. A similar approach is seen in the staff recommendation. It claims the development meets all the
standards without including much detailed support. Along with a,number of other concerned citizens, he
claims this proposal does not satisfy a direct and predictable reading of the APU condition. He thinks the
neighborhood will lose their mountain views, have more noise, a reduction in water quality due to
vehicles and non -permeable surfaces, a reduction in air quality due to density/refuse, more traffic and
traffic hazards. He thinks it will reduce property values for adjacent properties. He doesn't agree with
the developer and staff on there not being any adverse impacts. He urges the board to maintain a
predictable interpretation of the LUC/reject this APU.
King Clemons lives at 2919 Fauborough Court. His wife has lived here in excess of 25 years. He said
they are one of 165 homes in a non-HOA area. He's one of 4 people who collected signatures in
opposition of the proposal. He said by experience he is a statistician and demographer. He said putting
175 units on 101 acres is similar to 175 existing single family homes in a 120 foot acre circle. He said
that covers 104 acres and will have a 10 fold impact in that area. It will affect traffic, utilities will have to
be upgraded at the distribution points, schools will double in population, noise will soar, and property '
values will decline. He said the neighborhood and two primary access points —Centennial to Lemay and
Brookwood to Drake would be impacted. He said perhaps a more appropriate project might be multi-
family town or patio homes. He opposes the development and asked they look for other venues.
Trey Rogers lives at 2033 Abilene Court with his wife and two children. He's about a month away from
completing his PhD in engineering. He realizes it's tough when things change —there's resistance to
change. From a big perspective (thinking like an engineer); he really likes the idea of the project. It
makes a lot of sense to him to have everything grouped into sections with housing, work, and shopping.
He likes that Fort Collins is structured like that already. He thinks both the seller and the developer have
bent over backward, making concessions as well as selling for less than they anticipated. He can
understand why in this difficult economic times, people are renting; he'll likely continue to rent in the near
future. He supports the project.
Paul Mayhak lives at 278 Sierra Vista Drive. He has lived in and around Fort Collins for 60 years —
building four homes in Fort Collins. He believes Regency has done a great job in trying to satisfy
everyone. He would urge the Board to vote yes on this project.
Dave Roschke lives at 2806 Fauborough Court. He said he had gotten permission from several of his
neighbors to represent them. Shepard said Mr. Roschke has been involved in the process from day 1.
Planning 8 Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 11
Chair Smith said he'd like to be able to moderate the hearing for decorum, civility, and appropriateness.
Along those lines; he would encourage everyone not to cheer, jeer, or applaud. He asked for a show of
hands and set individual feedback to 3 minutes. He said those representing a number of people would
be given longer. He outlined the logistics for sign -in and using two podiums. He noted staff is collecting
questions and at the end of input, they will be answered.
Public Input
John Loomis, 2930 Silverwood Drive, asked the board to deny the APU for the following reasons: he
believes the church has a right to develop their property but he thinks it should be done under existing
zoning. They want to move from the allowed 8 units to 16 units per acre. Criteria 3 states it does not
create adverse impacts that would normally result from the permitted use. He said the developer tried to
convince the board by inventing an alternative in which the whole parcel is single family and saying they
wouldn't create any more adverse impact if they create "an imaginary' alternative. That is not the
alternative that -is before the board. Currently there are 150 neighborhood homes with 125 residents.
The Regency Apartments would have 175 units with about 300 residents. So there would be at least
twice'the amount of traffic. He said there's already too much traffic. The neighborhood has repeatedly
suggested this proposal is not compatible. Based on the reasons listed, he respectfully asks the board to
deny the APU.
Mark Springer, 5950 Nicholas Drive, asked to read a letter from Dave Sitsman from Sitsman, Mitchell
and Company. In summary, the letter is from the owner of the Scotch Pines and he wanted to voice his
support for the project. He's wondering if the RL zoning is reasonable and proper given its location. He
said City Plan supports a multi family use next to employment and .shopping. He understands the
significant opposition but he would encourage the board to focus on the highest and best use of those
land resources. He said given the traffic on two arterials (Lemay and Drake) any increase in traffic would
be minor. He said the proposed multi -family use is closely aligned with the over-riding objectives in City
Plan and results in better long term use of the land. He encouraged the board to approve the project.
John Skones lives at 2819 Middlesborough Ct. He asked the board to reject the APU. He said it would
be a "double jump" from the existing zoning. He thinks applicant's comments are inappropriate regarding
the 'old' Board comments, comparison to MMN, lack.of church involvement in zoning in 1997, if all
individual homes. He said we're talking about existing situation and change. He said the applicant
talked about how little additional traffic would be but there will be an additional 1,400 trips exiting out of
that neighborhood/out of that comer. He thinks a 'double jump" is inappropriate for the APU use. He
moved into the neighborhood in 2002 with the expectation was for a low density use. He thinks it's an
inappropriate use of the APU and he asked the Board to reject the proposal.
Mark Kenning lives at 2613 Dorado Ct. He's been a part of a group that has been working on this —
working with Lisa Evans and talking to the church for quite a while. He wanted to confirm the Board
received a 'circular letter' with 460 signatures last Thursday and another 88 gathered tonight —all from
their neighborhood. They had. His primary objections related to City Plan labels the project's parcel as .
low density mixed use. They think that to develop this particular RL zoned piece of land to medium
density standards are incompatible. They've enjoyed this park like acreage for over 30 years as the
church talked about possible uses ... there had never been mention of a higher density apartment
complex —it's against City Plan and it's not predictable. They think that's cause for rejection.
Kenning second objection is applicability of the APU process for this project. He said its zoned RL and
multi -family dwellings are specifically prohibited. He noted the Board is required to find all four findings in
Section 1.3.4 (A) and authority in (B). He said given the clarity of the language in the LUC, he can't
understand why the staff is recommending approval of the APU. He asked that the Board please reject
the APU. (Full statement is Exhibit 9).
Planning 8 Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 10
becoming a mega church but a unique, highly effective healing place that touches the whole community.
He described their many services including they provide including outreach center services to 2,000 of
the neediest members of our community. They said their mission will be well served by the 13 acres
they will retain after the sale of the surplus land. Proceeds of the sale will enable them to repair and
improve their aging facility and to expand their services to the community. They will free themselves for
the high cost of maintaining the vacant land. They are not in the landscaping business.
Niquette said they were open to all potential buyers and to explore offers from a whole range of
development types (single family homes; apartments and commercial). Single family home developers
were not interested. Their real estate agent selected the buyer/developer Regency Residential Partners
to build quality, multi -family units. They are wonderful to work with and they are investing patience and
dollars in the design and re -design of the project. He said they have done due diligence to understand
and mitigate concerns expressed by their neighbors. He reviewed the outreach process. While only a
few contacted him directly, they certainly made an extra effort since it is their neighborhood too. They
will continue to be there and function alongside their neighbors for many years to come.
Niquette said that their respect for their neighbors has been substantially matched by the respect they
have shown their church in this ongoing discussion. Why their ideas differ and feelings at times strong,
their neighbors have shown them restrained courtesy. They thank them all.
In response to the neighbors' feedback, Regency and the church have downsized the development to
help address their concerns in substantial, tangible ways. Please note that this redesign has resulted in
the church anticipating in proceeds from this sale, $800,000 less. This demonstrates their commitment
to their neighbors. To sum it up, they the sellers (out of respect) for their neighbors have conceded much
in responded to their concerns. The proposal before the Board tonight; he believes is reasonable and
Worthy of their support. It will serve the needs of a growing city for quality housing and it will enable their
historic church to continue and to expand their many services to our community.
Board Questions
Member Carpenter asked about the private street like drive. How does it differ from a city street?
Engineering staff member Marc Virata said it's basically more than a private drive from an aesthetic
standpoint. The standard was adopted to give it a little more interest and functionality. In terms of
construction standards, there are no standards to ensure they are built to a public street standard. It's
more likely a typical drive aisle you may see through a multi -family development. Carpenter asked if it's
narrower. Virata said it would probably be similar in terms of the width of a typical local street.
Chair Smith asked the applicant for a 3D ground level view from the midpoint east property line looking
west and from the south property line looking north. The applicant provided the graphic views. Smith
asked how mature the trees were in those views. The applicant said pretty mature. Member Schmidt
asked for the view should the trees be removed completely.
Member Kirkpatrick asked which elementary school do neighborhood children attend. Shepard said
Shepardson. It may come into some Poudre School District policies as to available capacity; to which he
cannot speak. Kirkpatrick said it appears there's a sidewalk near the detention pond. Shepard said it's a
combination sidewalk and drainage conveyance channel. Shepard said it serves as a pedestrian
connection.
Member Carpenter said she understands they added berms on the east side; that doesn't appear in the
3-D demonstration. Cooper said the software does not allow for those contours. He had to lay a flat
image onto the ground plane. It doesn't pick up berms. Carpenter asked how high the berms will be on
that end. Ripley said the berms are a couple of feet high with planting on top of that.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 9
Ripley said entrances will be visible. Roofs — there is an exceptional amount of articulation in terms of
direction, size of gabled ends, and the relationship to architectural offsets and features. The project
doesn't anticipate any rooftop equipment. There will be architectural interest to provide human scale.
Ripley said it's important to note this is not a rezoning application and none of the above are
requirements; they are simply stating that if you want to look at criteria normally used to assess a multi-
family project those mentioned seem to be the ones to consider. They believe they meet all of them very
well.
Ripley said as Ms. Evans noted there has been a great deal of interaction with surrounding residents and
property owners. There has been a tremendous amount of participation in feedback regarding the
proposed project. They ve heard from a number of people and many indicate concerns regarding
increased traffic. Matt Delich is here to respond in detail to any questions the Board may have. She said
a scoping session with the City Traffic Engineer was held and 7 intersections were analyzed. A traffic
impact study (TIS) was completed, submitted, and reviewed by city staff. She said the TIS showed that
all key intersections operate acceptably now and would continue to operate acceptably with the addition
of the proposed Regency multi -family project in both the am and pm peaks. In projections, it shows the
proposed project represents 1 % of the volume peak and 1.2% in the pm peak. In the long range
analysis, it represents 1 % of the volume peak and 1.1 % in the pm peak.
Ripley said the original neighborhood meeting was held on August 31, 2012. The project at that time
included 10 buildings (9 residential and 1 clubhouse), 238 residential units and 381 required parking
spaces. All the residential buildings were 3 stories. The neighbors had a number of comments. They
heard too much traffic, too many units, loss of 11 acre park, residential buildings too tall, and north -south
orientation of the detached garages created a wall. After that meeting the team went to work to see what
changes could be made to the project to help mitigate neighborhood concerns. She reviewed the
changes made since those initial meetings resulting in a significantly smaller project (25%). The project
added a pocket park instead of just a detention pond. The project reduced the height of buildings and
provided more variety. The project added an earthen berm between the detached garages and the east
property line. Evergreen trees were added to screen headlights. The project increased the separation
between the closest residential building and the property line —it was 35 feet and now its 80 feet. The
project closed off the connection to the church property on the south edge of the project due to neighbors
expressed concern. Now people living in the proposed project would more likely use the central access
point on Lemay — it would be more convenient.
Ripley reviewed a chart the Board received in their packet. It illustrates the commitment that Ms. Evans
with each neighbor willing to meet with her along the adjoining property. They recognize the neighbors
concerns and fears. They believe the team has listened and responded. They thank the neighborhood
for helping them come up with a better project.
Ripley said she asks the Board to consider the fact that the project is a prime example of what City Plan
principles and policies are all about —promoting higher density where residents can walk or bike to
employment, shopping, services, and recreational opportunities. The board has an opportunity tonight to
use the APU process to allow well designed, a medium density multi -family project at that location. It can
be compatible with adjacent single family residences. They ended with a 3-13 sketch of what the project
would look like and a shadow -analysis they prepared to illustrate how they meet the requirement of not
casting a shadow on a 25 foot wall placed on the property line.
Dr. David Niquette, Senior Pastor of Christ Center Community Church said he's been the pastor for over
14 years. They have been at the Lemay/Drake location for 33 years. Originally the congregation
envisioned a mega -church suitable for an audience of 3,000, three Sunday services, and a day care
center. Over the past decade, their mission has clarified and matured. They no longer see themselves
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 8
The project will present an upgrade from the older, existing apartments in the neighborhood providing a
more upscale alternative. The project will be professionally managed.
The architectural design includes 4 building types plus a single story clubhouse and detached garages.
The garages will be placed perpendicular to the existing single family neighborhood bordering the site to
the east. The 3 story buildings will be located to the west assuring privacy for the existing neighborhood
and creating a gradual transition of height. Trash and recycling areas are provided adjacent to the
detached garages. Door to door trash and recycling pickup is provided by management during business
hours to insure the trash and recycled items are deposit in a clean and efficient manner. She described
pedestrian amenities. She said the applicant exceeds LUC requirements for parking with 292 spaces (92
of which are enclosed). In addition, the church will allow the residents to utilize the church parking lot for
overflow parking if it's ever needed. There will be 283 bike parking spaces (220 are enclosed/80%) which
will exceed the new ordinance that was just passed.
The applicant is committed to conserving energy wherever possible/going above and beyond city code
by providing a clubhouse with solar panels. The site has a plug in space for electric vehicles, they will be
using certified Energy Star appliances, ceiling fans to reduce air conditioning use, gas powered hot
water, low flow showers and toilets, motion detector lighting and xeriscape landscaping throughout. The
project will encourage healthy lifestyles and alternative modes of transportation by providing convenient
and pleasant sidewalks and bike connections, and a transit shelter on Drake Road. It will include on -site
community gardens if people in the development would like that.
Ripley said there is no specific criteria for multi -family so they have used MMN land use and
development standards to measure this project. She reviewed land use standards as relates to density
required in that zone district -- the net density for the project is 15.5 dwelling units/acre). The mix of
housing types — only one housing type is required for a project containing 16 acres and this project will
be on 11 acres. Access to a park or a central gathering place — there will be a 2 acre detention
pond/pocket park located on the south which provides recreation for residents as well as being available
for neighborhood use. MMN requires a 10,000 square foot private park. The project proposes a two
acre park.
As relates to development standards, Ripley said meeting block standards is infeasible because of
existing development to the east and south. There is no way to connect to any existing streets on those
two sides of the development. Buildings are oriented to public streets to the degree possible given the
constraints of the site. Existing berms and mature trees prohibit moving buildings closer to Drake Road.
Two of the nine buildings are adjacent to a pedestrian spine that runs parallel to Drake Road behind the
existing berms. Four of the nine buildings are oriented along the street like private drive and the
remaining three are oriented toward an interior pedestrian spine that leads to the project periphery and
public sidewalks. The site plan does create two blocks that look similar to a figure contained in the LUC.
Buildings 1-5 are oriented such that parking is located to the interior generally away from public view but
convenient for residents.
Design standards for multi -family dwellings have to do with orientation and set -backs. She indicated the
distances to adjacent properties along the east and south project border. Ripley said among repeated
buildings, the MMN district requires projects with more the 7 buildings to have to three different building
designs —they need to vary in footprint, shape, architectural elevations, and entry features. The project
provides 5 different building designs, with different footprints, wall articulation, as well as different
building heights. Buildings are designed with different entrances and architectural features. Common
themes include pitched roofs, similar architectural detailing, and the repetition of similar building
materials/colors used throughout the project. There will be variation in color, each building will have a
palette of muted colors and will have three distinct color schemes as required in the district.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 7
likely the city would have allowed MMN zoning as is proposed throughout the city as a higher density
residential district wrapping around a neighborhood center. She pointed out on an aerial map where we
have that exact situation in other locations. She gave reasons why the church no longer needs that large
a campus and they've decided that multi -family development is the most logical land use choice for the
site given the locational aspects she just reviewed. Ripley outlined the need for multi -family in Fort
Collins and said it's encouraged by City Plan policies that encourage multi -family development near
activity centers. It also supports multi -family as a logical transition from single-family.
Ripley said she'd like to speak about the APU process. It was developed for several reasons: it
introduces flexibility, allows appropriate land uses without rezoning, and if you're going to allow a use not
in the zoning district you do it after seeing a development plan and the plan must meet very specific
criteria. She said if this property were to be rezoned to MMN multi -family would be allowed. A variety of
commercial and retail uses would also be allowed.
Ripley said because the APU process cannot be used without a simultaneous submittal of a PDP, the
Board can carefully examine the impacts of the proposed project without having to consider other
potential developments scenarios as would be the case should they request a rezoning to MMN.
In 2009 the church did attempt to rezone the property, they came before the Board to rezone to LMN.
She submits the minutes of that Planning and Zoning Board October 15, 2009 meeting as a part of the
record. The Board at that time was concerned about rezoning because it would have allowed
commercial development as well as higher density residential. Ultimately the request was withdrawn but
not before there was a meeting and quite a lot of discussion which in summary was the Board wanted to
see a plan in which they could evaluate compatibility. Ripley said consistent with the Board's 2009
suggestions and from city staff, the applicant has selected the APU process to seek approval of the
proposed development that is supported by city policies and is allowed in specific cases where
compatibility can be demonstrated. She reviewed LUC Section 1.3.4 (A) 1, 2, 3, and 4 and highlighted
how they were met.
When reviewing criteria 1.3.4 (A) 3 because they heard from the neighbors that traffic impact of the
proposed multi -family project would be greater than that resulting from other permitted uses, they
proposed an alternative development plan if the church didn't exist. She reviewed the impact of traffic is
the area was single family with a day care center. Their findings were:
Traffic Proiections for Single Family and Daycare are:
1499 trips per day
159 am peak hour trips
183 pm peak hour trips
Traffic Projections for the Church combined with the proposed MF project are:
1496 trips per day
108 am peak hour trips
133 pm peak hour trips
She said the point she is trying to make is the proposed multi -family use does not create more traffic than
the amount normally resulting from other permitted uses listed to the zone district to which it's added.
Ripley said multi -family can be compatible adjacent to single family and showed examples of where that
exists in the community. She said Regency is proposing a project that meets the criteria of the APU.
Ripley described the project, including where the project will be, how it will sit east of the church, how
access will be handled, the number of units in 1, 2, and 3 bedroom configurations, the target market.
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 6
property owner is Christ Center Community Church — Pastor David Niquette. She said they have worked
over a year to create a good design that is a fit for the church and the neighborhood and is responsive to
the needs of the market. She said they have held three public meetings because they value the
community's input and genuinely desire to hear and respond to neighborhood concerns. Those
meetings were very well attended.
Evans said a number of very significant changes were made to the project based on the feedback they
heard at those meetings. Regency's philosophy and practice is to do everything they can to create
communities that are great additions to cities existing fabric. Evans said they do this on the front end so
they can demonstrate their commitment to the community and not let it be a condition placed upon them
as a part of the approval process. She said in addition to the meetings, Pastor Niquette reached out to
the whole notice area. She said she reached out to the 21 home owners who lived directly adjacent to
the church property. She did what she could to address their individual concerns.
Evans said during their presentation, the team will report on how the project evolved to address
community and neighbors concerns. Their feedback resulted in changes related to size, scale, density,
and orientation of buildings, architecture and other details that in the end have resulted in a better
project.
Linda Ripley of Ripley Design, Inc. said her presentation will be in two parts beginning with making a
case for multi -family at this location and the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process itself and then get
into the specific of the design. Ripley introduced her associate Brent Cooper.
Ripley reviewed the site location near major arterials Lemay Avenue and Drake Road. She wanted to
talk about why the site is both appropriate and desirable for multi -family development in our community.
Ripley spoke about LDGS (Land Development Guidance System). It was a performance based zoning
system in the'city between 1981 and 1997. She said the LDGS used point charts and they were used to
address land use suitability at a particular location. In residential projects, you had to start by evaluating
a base point chart and a bonus point chart. You had to gain so many base points to be allowed to
propose a certain level of density for your residential project. She rated this project and showed how it
scored.
She said it's all about proximity because you want people in multi -family areas to be in close proximity to
a neighborhood center (Scotch Pines), an employment center (Woodward Governor), and contiguous to
existing development. She said it narrowly misses some other points when she noted on the aerial map.
Community regional shopping center is less than a mile away, Shepardson Elementary is approximately
Y2 mile away, Edora Park is under a mile away, and Collindale Golf Course is just under a mile. Even
without near misses it gleaned 70 points and only 40 points are required to propose density above 10 du
(dwelling units) per acre. She said in her assessment this project gets 74 more points for energy
conservation measures beyond those required, acreage dedicated to recreational use, providing
recreational facilities that are not required (pocket park and swimming pool), a good portion of their
parking is enclosed, and there are safe bike connections. She thought it was a good tool in
demonstrating why the site is an excellent site for a multi -family development.
Another reason she brings LDGS up is in the 1980s when the church site was developed. At that time
what determined what land uses could be proposed was based on a PUD (Planned Unit Development).
In 1997, City Plan came into play and the LDGS was replaced by City Plan. At that point the entire city
was rezoned. The church was zoned RL because the church existed and it was already considered
developed. The church was near residential and was just zoned RL. Unfortunately in 1997 when that
happened, the church was without a pastor and people in the church did not have the knowledge or
leadership required to understand what the changed zone would mean in terms of future land use,
church mission flexibility, land value, or marketability. If the church had objected in 1997, they believe it's
Planning 8 Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 5
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chair Smith asked if any written comments were received since the work session. Recorder Sanchez -
Sprague noted a number of emails have been received since then and all are in the Board's Read Before
Packet.
Senior Planner Ted Shepard said this is a request to add Multi -Family Dwellings, as specifically
described on the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan, as a permitted use in the Low Density
Residential (R-L) zone district and Project Development Plan on the 11 acres located on the east side of
the Christ Center Community Church. The project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among
eight buildings plus a clubhouse. There would be a mix of one, two and three -bedroom units. There
would be 292 parking spaces divided among attached garages, detached garages and surface parking,
and 283 bike spaces. Amenities would include a clubhouse, pool and walkways.
The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be enlarged and improved
as a two -acre pocket park. There would be no new access drives from either Lemay Avenue or Drake
Road. As required, the request for an Addition of Permitted Use is being submitted in conjunction with
the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan. The site is generally located at the southeast corner
of Lemay Avenue and Drake Road and is presently a component of the 25-acre Christ Center
Community Church campus.
Shepard said he'd like to point out some changes to the staff report:
• Page 15, F Bike Parking there are 220 enclosed spaces. That is 80% of the total bedroom count
(not 78% as indicated in the report). The outdoor parking would be 20%.
• Page 16, 9 second paragraph last sentence should read pre City Plan (not per City Plan).
• Page 21, 14C, the last sentence should read or have any other objectionable influences than (not
that) the amount normally...
• Page 22, K. Shepard said we did a review of this project by the MMN standards. He'd like to
emphasize that under Section 4.6(E) (1) a and b, the block requirements have been satisfied as
well.
Shepard reviewed the vicinity map, site plan, and photographs of the area. He noted the variety of
building characteristics (envelope, material, color palette) as per the MMN building standards. He
reviewed slides that showed comparable zoning relationships between either MMN or Multi -family
Planned Unit Developments (PUD) that were done under the prior code that are in close proximity
(abutted, adjacent, adjoining) to either single or planned single family (whether RL or LMN).
Staff recommends approval of Regency Lakeview request for Multi -Family Dwellings as specifically
described on the Project Development Plan, #PDP120013.
As the CIC area was being opened to the standing audience members, Chair Smith said this is a legal
hearing. They will have an opportunity to speak. He will be moderating every component of tonight's
hearing including the citizen participation component for civility, tone and whether it's germane. He
asked of everyone in attendance to help have a very productive and useful hearing. That is the best way
for your voices to be heard and a hallmark of civic engagement.
Applicant Presentation
Lisa Evans, Managing Director of Regency Residential Partners, said she'd like to introduce Regency
Lakeview, a high end 175 unit rental community. She'd also like to introduce the project team who is
available to answer questions at the appropriate time. She's joined by Linda Ripley of Ripley Design —
the land planner and landscape architect. Nick Haws of Northern Engineering is the civil engineer. Dean
Delbeit of EV Studio is the architect. Matt Delich of Delich and Associates is the traffic consultant. The
Planning oning Board
July 1! 201
Page 4
is an appropriate ndle annexation. She doesn't think statutes had this levelo reativity in
mind. She thinks the City should be really transparent on how they do some of these thi gs.
Chair Smith asked Deputy City Attorney Daggett to comment. She said the concept of the entire street
means from curb to curb rather than end to end in the language that wam1'ead. She also wanted to
mention that although she hasn't been activelyinvolved in the discussion about the legal basis for the
annexation petition that was filed, it is her understanding th ere's been fairly extensive discussion of
that. She said City Council will be making formal findincjIS4Q connection with compliance in the action
that Council takes so if, in fact, the Board does noPleel com ortable making a recommendation
specifically on the issue of eligibility, you mi consider making recommendations on other aspects of
the proposal.
Input
None
Member Camp'ana made a motion to recommend to City Council to approve the Kechter
Annexation and Zoning No 1, #ANX110003; No.2, #ANX110004; and No. 3, ANX110005. Member
Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:1 with Schmidt dissenting.
Project: Regency Lakeview Addition of Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings at
Christ Center Community Church and Project Development Plan,
# PDP120013
Project Description: This is a request This is a request to add Multi -Family Dwellings, as specifically
described on the Regency Lakeview Project Development Plan, as a permitted
use in the Low Density Residential (R-L) zone district and Project Development
Plan on the 11 acres located on the east side of the Christ Center Community
Church. The project would consist of 175 dwelling units divided among eight
buildings plus a clubhouse. There would be a mix of one, two and three -bedroom
units. There would be 292 parking spaces divided among attached garages,
detached garages and surface parking, and 283 bike spaces. Amenities would
include a clubhouse, pool and walkways.
The existing stormwater detention pond at the south end of the parcel would be
enlarged and improved as a two -acre pocket park. There would be no new access
drives from either Lemay Avenue or Drake Road. As required, the request for an
Addition of Permitted Use is being submitted in conjunction with the Regency
Lakeview Project Development Plan. The site is generally located at the southeast
corner of Lemay Avenue and Drake Road and is presently a component of the 25-
acre Christ Center Community Church campus.
Recommendation: Approval
Planning & Zoning Board
July 19, 2012
Page 2
Andy Smith asked if there were any audience or Board members who wanted to pull items from the
Consent Agenda. Member Schmidt asked that Item 3, Kechter Annexation and Zoning No 1,
ANX110003; No.2, #ANX110004; and No. 3, ANX110005 be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the June 21, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
2. Forney Annexation and Initial Zoning, #ANX120002
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the consent agenda consisting of the minutes from
the June 21, 2012 hearing, and the Forney Annexation and Initial Zoning. Member Campana
seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Discussion Agenda:
3. Kechter Annexation and Zoning No 1, #ANX110003. No.2, #ANX110004, and No. 3, ANX110005
4. Regency Lakeview Addition of Permitted Use for Multi -Family Dwellings at Christ Center
Community Church and Project Development Plan, # PDP120013
Project: Kechter Annexation and Zoning No 1, #ANX110003; No.2, #ANX110004; and
No. 3, ANX110005
Project Description: the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted, a' the
petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexat%ns, known
collectively as the Kechter Annexation. The Kechter Annexation is located
approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and
Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is if)-tiompliance with the City of
Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek*servoirArea Plan.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Ctlhe'vioe&e
An email from Erin Richmond in opposition was receiv and distributed to the Board in their Read
before Packet.
City Planner Jason Holland said this is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the
Growth Management Area. The project satisfies the requirement that no less than one -sixth of the
perimeter boundary be contiguous to,the existing City boundary. The.L-M-N zoning is consistent with the
City's Structure Plan Map. The City has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three
sequential annexation areas, J�nown collectively as Kechter Annexation. The series of annexation areas
are: / \
Kechter An*ation No. 1: 0.130 acres
Kechter Annexation No. 2: 0.505 acres
To 1 for Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3: 19.279 acres \
Ho nd said no development is proposed and the proposal does not create an enclave. He saidlh
ajority of the area being annexed is at 2313 Kechter Road; one of five sites in the City of Fort Coll
Land Bank program. This is a City -owned property purchased in 2006 as a part of the Land Bank
Program. He said the purpose of the Land Bank Program is a long term affordable housing tool. It
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, and Smith r
Excused Absence Stockover
Staff Present: Kadrich, Daggett, Holland, Shepard, Stanford, Virata, and Sanchez -
Sprague
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda
Citizen participation:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he'd like to report Type I hearing problems to the Board in
the context of their advisory function to City Council. The Type 1 Hearing was for the Aspen Heights
Project Development Plan (PDP) — a student housing development planned for North College. There
were two significant administrative failures. The first, the hearing officer/decision maker was not duly
authorized as required by the Land Use Code. Sutherland said he cannot get a memo from either the
City Attorney's Office or the Planning Department that would place the officer in that position and
responsible for being the decision maker for that hearing. Second, the same recording system used
tonight was used that evening but there was a failure in recording the proceedings. He can understand
failure of equipment but he can't understand why notification of the failure of the equipment and the lack
of a verbatim transcript was not made known to him, the other appellants or the applicants of that project
for well over a month. He said a number of ideas have come forward from the public on how we can
make the appeal process better for everybody. He's bringing to their attention evidence of 'pretty
significant failure' of that process. He said we need improvements on how we do these things —the
failures need to be addressed. He implores the Board to impanel a working group to bring forth ideas to
improve processes so we don't see controversy after controversy.
Member Schmidt asked staff to put this general topic on a work session agenda. Weren't there some
changes in the way recordings were going to be handled? Director Kadrich said she believes she briefed
the Board at the last work session but more work has been completed. Mr. Sutherland is correct, we did
not have a recording of that hearing and we did make some internal changes. She is currently in the
process of working with the City Attorney's office staff on a response regarding the appointment of our
hearing officer. That should be forthcoming to Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Kadrich will make sure the Board
also gets a copy.