Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMODIFICATION OF STANDARD - OLDE TOWN NORTH - 28-99 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL15 1 modification as of yet because each one of them has been 2 so different from the other one. 3 MR. GAVALDON: That's true. 4 MR. JONES: But if the question is, does that 5 seem like a long time compared to the others, that seems 6 about at least average, I would say. Some of them have 7 some very complicated things to work out before it's ready 8 to come to the Board. Others are fairly simple. 9 MR. GAVALDON: So this is a reasonable amount of 10 time. I just wanted to clarify that because the statement 11 was made "two months taking this long." It just seems 12 like this is a little shorter. It's more reasonable for 13 modifications to keep within our process code. 14 MR. JONES: Compared to the other four or five 15 modifications that have come before the Board as 16 stand-alone modifications, it seems about average to me. 17 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. 18 MS. CRAIG: Ted, I wonder if I could ask you, as 19 far as the CCN district goes, when you and the advanced 20 planners sat down and put together this district, was your 21 vision to have it mostly single-family houses? 22 MR. SHEPARD: Actually, this zone district was 23 not a creation of the Land Use Code City planned 24 process. It was part of the North College Avenue Plan 25 which preceded City Plan by about three or four years as I PURPOSE OF THE CCN, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL — NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT The Community Commercial — North College District is for fringes of retail/commercial core areas and corridors. This District is intended for moderate intensity uses that are supportive of the commercial core or corridor, and that help to create a transition and a link between the commercial areas and surrounding residential areas. This designation is only for areas identified for its application in the North College Corridor Plan. Division 4.15, Communiry Commercial - North College District Division 4.15(B) 6. '" Cemeteries. 7." ' Transit facilities, without repair or storage. Cominercial/Retail Uses: Bed and breakfast establishments. tandard and fast food restaurants. - ..3 Grocery stores. 4. Personal and business service shops. 5. Offices, financial services and clinics. 6. Clubs and lodges. J 7. " : Bars and taverns.': 8. Funeral homes. 9. Artisan and photography studios -and galleries. • 10. Open-air farmers markets._ 11. Entertainment facilities and theaters. 12. Convenience retail stores without fuel sales. 13. Limited indoor recreation establishments. 14. Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics. 15. Retail establishments. 16. Lodging establishments. 17.. Child care centers. wl 48. Dog day-care facilities. 19. - Print shops. = Article 4, Page 105 . SuPP•6 t xr t:•. f. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. COLTON: Okay. Can we have roll call, please. THE CLERK: Meyer. MS. MEYER: Yes. THE CLERK: Gavaldon. MR. GAVALDON: Yes. THE CLERK: Torgerson. MR. TORGERSON: Yes. THE CLERK: Colton. MR. COLTON: Yes. Okay. That concludes that item. And we don't have anything else on the discussion agenda. So do we have other business? MR. BLANCHARD: I don't. I would just ask people to consider what they would like to do with the retreat so that we can finalize the agenda next Friday. MR. COLTON: Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank You. Because of this interpretation, the applicant decided to pursue a modification to ensure that if a separate application was made for a single family development in the same CCN zoning district , they would be guaranteed a right to pursue their project. 2. MODIFICATION REQUEST (1) Division 2.8 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS This is a request for a modification of Land Use Code Section 4.15(D)(1): Single family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area (emphasis added). Specifically, a modification is being requested to the requirement limiting single family housing to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area (see Attachment 2). The geographically distinct district area referred to in the Code represents each individual area zoned CCN. Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code, Modification of Standards, outlines the review criteria to be used by the Planning and Zoning Board. It indicates that the Planning and Zoning Board shall grant a modification of standards only if it finds that: The granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that: The plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or, The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an and existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible, or, By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extra -ordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of 0 1 households for at least 20 years. 2 I checked with affordable housing folks today. 3 And just as a point of interest, if you're not up to speed 4 on it, the median income in the City of Fort Collins for a 5 family of four today is $53,300. 80 percent of that which 6 is -- if you earn less than 80 percent of that, you're 7 eligible for low-income housing. 80 percent of that 8 median income equates to 42,640 which means that for a 9 rental unit to still be affordable, you can spend up to 10 $1,066 a month. And for sale you could -- these simple 11 units, which is 38 percent of that 80 percent of the 12 median income, that you could spend up to $1,350 per month 13 on your P and I and your insurance and taxes and still be 14 considered affordable housing. 15 MR. COLTON: Okay. Would any Board members like 16 to ask questions of Mr. Blanchard? Would the applicant 17 like to give a presentation? 18 MR. HENDEE: Good evening, Board members. My 19 name is Bruce Hendee. I'm with BHA Design. We're 20 representing the applicant. I'm sorry I was not here last 21 time. I had a neighborhood meeting. Unfortunately, 22 that's the way it is in this business, you're always 23 attending one thing or another. 24 I think at this point, since you discussed it 25 last time, I can go into more detail. You have heard a 35 1 sunset dates, one for each phase? 2 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 3 MR. BERNTH: I kind of see where Mikal's going 4 with that. And I'm kind of along the same line. Really 5 the only thing we're doing is trying to -- which is not 6 all together unfair -- trying to protect the applicant to 7 a certain extent from unacceptable risk, which they could 8 spend a year and a half doing this and then be the second 9 one in. 10 And, again, I look at it as purely a question of 11 99 percent chance they're going to be the first ones in, 12 anyway. They just want to eliminate that last one 13 percent. And I think by granting that modification, 14 especially on a time frame, I feel fairly comfortable 15 with. 16 And, again, looking at it from phase one, phase 17 two, phase three, what the applicant would feel 18 comfortable with and what we could possibly compromise 19 with I think gets us there. And quite honestly, I think 20 it gets us there only because it is affordable housing. 21 I'm not sure I would be so acceptable if it were not 22 affordable housing. That's what kind of gets me over the 23 mark. 24 MS. CARPENTER: I see where Mikal is going, and I 25 see where you're going, too, Dan. And I'm not saying that 32 1 Because the -- 2 MR. GAVALDON: Or meeting or discussing. 3 MR. JONES: I don't believe there's really been 4 any design as of yet. We're just talking about the issue 5 of 40 percent. 6 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. And I'm focusing it to 7 that. Maybe I'm using too many words. I'm focusing to 8 that 40 percent to give a bonafide justification. If this 9 is going to work, it will be within a time frame that's 10 realistic and that we can support it. 11 I have to agree to Sally, I don't want to say no 12 to it, but so many things are coming up in this that are 13 raising a lot of questions. So I'm asking for help. 14 MR. ECKMAN: As I'm listening tothis, too, I 15 said that you could specifically allow for extensions of 16 the condition. And then as I hear things playing out, 17 that other phases might be slow and they might come in 18 much later, it causes me to have some concern that you 19 might find yourself in a difficult position in denying an 20 extension later because -- as Ted has said, the train's 21 out of the station, you know, and you'd have a lot of 22 pressure on you to grant extensions in the future. 23 So maybe it would be better for you to think, 24 even in terms of a continuance or just an extension -- or 25 just a modification sunset that's long enough that you 25 1 MS. CRAIG: Is that how you understand it, Paul, 2 legally? 3 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. It's 40 percent of the 4 geographically distinct area, which is the portion of that 5 CCN zone that's freestanding. If there are islands of CCN 6 around it, that particular island of it, then it's 40 7 percent of that entire area that's counted. 8 But I was thinking of an idea. And I ran it by 9 Ted to see if it was something that's resonanted with him 10 at all. And that would be to consider this -- the 11 granting of this modification for a limited period of time 12 so that you kind of have an outside sunset on it. And 13 that keeps their feet to the fire to some extent to move 14 forward. 15 Because if you just grant an endless 16 modification, a blanket one, then there's no motivation 17 for them to move rapidly on their plan because they don't 18 have to worry about the competitor, if there is one coming 19 in. 20 And if you had a modification that was limited in 21 it's duration, that would keep the process moving along 22 and keep the City from being at risk for too long a period 23 of time of letting that happen. 24 I don't know if that's appealing to the Board or 25 not. Ted thinks it might take six to nine months to get cti�t CommL I Planning and Environmental, -vices Advance Planning Department 3` of Fort Collins October 4, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner Xl",/- RE: Old Town North - Affordable Housing Project The purpose of this memorandum is to verify that the proposed Old Town North development proposal is an affordable housing project. This project has received a commitment of financial assistance from the Colorado Division of Housing. The Division of Housing's subsidy will carry a condition that units be affordable to families with incomes less than 80% of the Area Median Income (A2VJ1) in accordance with the definition and standards for affordable housing contained in the Fort Collins City Code. If have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 805"-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aplanning@ci.fort-collins.co.us s Mr. Bob Blanchard Olde Town North Modification Page 4 based on a single family concept and requires single family housing in order to be viable. Financing available from the state is contingent upon the property being built as designed. Under the current code, vesting does not occur until the final mylars are complete. If the 40% limitation on single family applies to the entire C-C-N Zone, the possibility exists that Olde Town North would proceed with full documentation with their project as a single family project only to find at the end of their project that another project had previously been approved that would preempt the rights for single family development. The risk involved is for the developer to pay full design and engineering costs for a specific site for an uncertain outcome. Please note that this is only likely to occur if "geographically distinct district area " means" the entire C-C-N Zone District and there are two concurrent projects being reviewed by the City. In the scenario outlined, both projects would be proceeding through review and both would have single family projects that would, taken together, exceed the 40% maximum within the C-C-N District. This level of risk is unacceptable to any financial partners for the project and especially the state. For this reason, if the current limitation is not waived, the project would be infeasible. Simply stated, the project cannot be funded without the waiver, or in the alternative, an interpretation that the Olde Town North Project constitutes its own "geographically distinct area" within the C-C-N Zone District. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and would be happy to present our case before the Planning and Zoning Board. Sincerely, A inc. by endee, ASLA President cc: Monica Sweere design design Mr. Bob Blanchard Olde Town North Modification Page 3 priority should be affordable housing. The proposed project (Olde Town North) would provide exactly the type of neighborhood desired as part of this policy. The proposed project would also meet the stated goals of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan as well as -meeting the other requirements of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. In order for the project to be granted a modification a proposed project must meet the guidelines required for the Planning and Zoning Board to justify a modification request Specifically the P & Z must find: Municipal Code (a) the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent of the Land Use Code and (b) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution ( such as, by wav of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Olde Town North meets both of these guidelines. For the first criteria, the granting of a modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Conversely, it would be to the benefit of the public good by providing a much needed housing type that would meet a need stated by the City as being a top priority. Secondlv. Olde Town North would meet a need of the City that is best exemplified through the policy adopted on February 2nd stating the need for affordable housing. Additionally the project would not be feasible if a strict application of the standard is enforced. The reason the project would not be feasible is based on financing and risk. As the code is currently written it is not clear whether the 40% limitation on single family residential applies to the entire C-C-N Zone district The Land Use Code does not specifically define the term " geographically distinct area." The C-C-N Zone is larger than this project, and incorporates additional property to the north of the site. The proposed project is design Mr. Bob Blanchard. Olde Town North Modification Page 2 fees. The unit must be occupied by and affordable to such low income household(s) for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. As proposed the project would include 300 single family homes plus a second housing type which would include 30 Carriage homes to be located on the single family lots. Homes would be priced to meet the guidelines established by the City for affordable housing. In fact, the project has received financial support from the state of Colorado pending the successful adoption of this modification. The property is located in the C-C-N District. This district is a direct outgrowth of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. One of the goals of the plan is Increase residential development with housing types consistent with the overall vision of the plan. The vision of the plan for residential development is stated in policy LU- 3. A diversity of housing types should be encouraged to locate in appropriate areas throughout the corridor. Also in the plan under the title Neighborhood Mixed Use District, the plan calls for ...... higher density residential development with opportuniries for neighborhood retail and services incorporated into development projects such as small lot single family....... The proposed project meets this stated goal. The Fort Collins Land Use Code permits single family residential units 6,OOOSF or under as a permitted use subject to administrative review. The proposed project meets this requirement. The code also requires that single family housing shall have a minimum density of 5 DU/AC. The proposed project meets this density standard. justification As identified in the Fort Collins policy " Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" which was adopted on February 2id of this year, Fort Collins Highest PL _1 9110199 Gcat goo4 design pEr- �R9TRI SEP 0 8 1999 ,D September 7. 1999 Mr. Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director City of Fort Collins 281 N_ College Ave. Fort Collins. CO. 80521 RE: Olde Town North- Standard Modification Request Dear Bob, This letter represents an official request for a modification to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code under Division 2.8 of the code. The code modification or interpretation requested is for Article 4.15, paragraph D, sub -paragraph (1). which states: Single-family, two family, and multi family housing shall have a minimum density of five(5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. This request is for a modification waiving the maximum allowable percentage of forty (40) percent for single family homes or, in the alternative, an interpretation that the "Olde Town North" property constitutes a "geographically distinct area" within the C-C-N zone district. The modification requested would waive this requirement. Background The site is located west of the proposed extension of Redwood, north of the Lake Canal, and east of College Avenue. The site is approximate) 40 acres and is being designed to provide single family housing that would meet the stated definition of affordable housing as defined by the City code. Affordable Housing Unit for Sale shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for purchase on terms that would be affordable to households earning eighry(80) percent or less of the median income of city residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty-eight (38) percent of their gross income for housing, including principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. utilities, and homeowner's association INTERPRETATION The Land Use Code is clear that the 40% limitation on residential development applies to the each distinct geographical area zoned CCN (there are two areas in the North College Avenue area zoned CCN). Therefore, if one developer receives Final Plan approval for a residential development that covers 40% of the geographically distinct zoned area, the remainder of the area will be limited to the other permitted uses listed in the Code. The timing of the approval for.this calculation is the date the Director makes a final determination and approves the Final Plan. The principle to be applied is "first in time, first in right." DocBNnterpretations\l -98 Commul Planning and Environmental 5 7ices Current Planning City of Fort Collins s TO: Interested Parties FROM: Bob Blanchardi�� Current Planning Director DATE: November 30, 1998 SUBJECT: Administrative Interpretation #1-98 NOTE: Changes to the Land Use Code made subsequent to this administrative interpretation may change the validity of this interpretation. BACKGROUND: Division 4.15 of the Land Use Code, the Community Commercial — North College zoning district (CCN), provides for all types of residential uses as permitted uses. However, the Land Use Standards [Section 4.15(D)(1)] limits the amount of the zoning district that can be developed as residential: Single-family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single-family housina shall be limited to a maximum of fortv (40) percent of the aeoaraohically distinct district area (emphasis added). Two questions have been posed for interpretation: How is the 40% determined? If the first developer comes in with all single family detached and it represents the entire 40% of the district, and then the second developer comes in with all single family detached, how is the determination made as to whether the second developer gets to have any single family detached? Using the scenario outlined above, when is the first developer considered to have rights to the full 40%? Does this occur at vested rights at the time of approval of the Final Plan, approval by P&Z, administrative approval (if applicable) of the Project Development Plan, at the time the project is submitted for Conceptual Review, ODP (if applicable) or when the PDP application is submitted? 281 -North College .-\venue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Lupins, CO S0_: __-0580 • (97 0) __1-6750 • F.- X ;9 0) t 1 n-_(1_0 VICINITY MAP 09/30/99 #28-99 Olde Town North Modification Type II (LUC) 1"= 600' VICINITY MAP 10/05/99 #28-99 Olde Town North Modification Type 11 (LUC) I lff=1000' C. Granting the requested modification would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, namely "affordable housing." D. The plan as submitted meets the modification criteria in the following ways: The project, should it proceed, has been identified by the City as an affordable housing project which addresses an important community need identified by the City. The proposed project has received funding from the State Division of Housing with the condition that the project meet the City's definition of affordable which will address an important community need identified by the City, namely, affordable housing. The granting of the modification will provide an opportunity to benefit the public good by providing an incentive for an affordable housing project to proceed. 6. RECOMMENDATION: A. Staff recommends approval of the modification request to Section 4.15(D)(1) of the LUC for the Olde Town North project, File No. 28-99. link between the commercial areas and surrounding residential areas. This designation is only for areas identified for its application in the North College Corridor Plan. The location of this property is clearly on the fringe of the North College Avenue commercial corridor. In fact, its western boundary directly abuts the CN — Commercial, North College Zoning District. Through the development review process and the application of the criteria contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, transitional areas and linkages will be provided between the commercial corridor, the proposed development and the existing residential to the east. The granting of the modification would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need that is specifically and expressly defined and described in City Plan. On February 2, 1998, City Council adopted the Fort Collins "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies." This document identified affordable housing as Fort Collins' highest priority. In addition, City Plan principles and policies support this modification: Principle HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. This project, if approved, will provide two types of affordable housing — single family detached and carriage houses. Principle HSG-2: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing housing stock. This project, if approved, will expand the availability of affordable housing in Fort Collins. Policy HSG-2 2: The City will support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives and reducing local -government barriers to the construction of additional units. While this policy refers to the development of policy and process incentives, the granting of this modification could be considered an incentive to affordable housing since this project will not likely occur unless the predictability offered by the modification is provided. 5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: A. The request for a modification to Land Use Code Section 4.15(D)(1) of the LUC is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Granting the requested modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code. the such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. 3. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting that the requirement contained in the CCN — Community Commercial, North College District that requests single family development to 40% of the geographically distinct district area be modified for the proposed project. While the size of this project is only approximately 31% of this particular CCN area (this CCN district is approximately 129 acres in size, the project is approximately 40 acres in size), a modification to this requirement protects the proposed project from being adversely affected should another single family project be submitted and ultimately approved prior to their approval. The applicants submittal relies on the following criteria: The granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that: The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an and existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The proposed project meets the City's definition for affordable housing. Review by the Advanced Planning Department verifies this (see Attachment 3). In addition, the proposed project has received funding from the State Division of Housing with the condition that the project meet the City's definition of affordable. 4. EVALUATION OF MODIFICATION REQUEST The granting of the modification request would not be detrimental to the public good. The CCN zoning district allows single family as a permitted use subject to administrative review. The Fort Collins "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" (adopted 212/98), identified affordable housing as Fort Collins' highest priority. By providing this need to the community, this modification request would enhance the public good. The granting of the modification request would not impair the intent or purposes of the LUC. The purpose of the Section 4.15 of the LUC, the CCN zoning district states: The Community Commercial — North College District is for fringes of retail/commercial core areas and corridors. This District is intended for moderate intensity uses that are supportive of the commercial core or corridor, and that help to create a transition and a The applicant intends to submit a project development plan for 300 single family homes and 30 carriage homes. These homes will all meet the City's definition of affordable housing. COMMENTS 1. BACKGROUND The 40 acre property is located west of the proposed extension of Redwood, north of the Lake Canal and east of North College Avenue. The property is zoned CCN — Community Commercial, North College District. The surrounding zoning and land uses from the proposed project development plan are as follows: N: CCN: Vacant, Conifer Street W: CN: Commercial development, North College Avenue S: CCN: Industrial development, East Vine Drive E: LMN: Redwood Street, Redwood Village This property was annexed into the City as the 3`d East Vine Drive Annexation in November, 1967. Early discussions regarding this project raised issues regarding the 40% limitation for single family development. Concerns were expressed about the effect of competing applications: i.e. If two applications were being processed at the same time, would it become a "race" to.see who got approval first. The impact of this is that whoever did not receive approval would have expended significant amounts of time and money in a project that ultimately could not be approved. In November, 1998, the applicant requested a formal interpretation of Section 4.15 (D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Two questions were asked: How is the 40% determined? If the first developer comes in with all single family detached and it represents the entire 40% of the district, and then the second developer comes in with all single family detached, how is the determination made as to whether the second developer gets to have any single family detached? Using the scenario outlined above, when is the first developer considered to have rights to the full 40%? Does this occur at vested rights at the time of approval of the Final Plan, approval by P&Z, administrative approval (if applicable) of the Project Development Plan, at the time the project is submitted for Conceptual Review, ODP (if applicable) or when the PDP application is submitted? The interpretation was that if one developer receives Final Plan approval for a plan that covers 40% of the zoned area, the remainder of the area will be limited to other permitted uses. The timing of the approval for purposes of this calculation is the date the Director approved the Final Plan (see attached interpretation, Attachment 1). ITEM ti0. _3 MEETING DATE 10/21/99 ,Alm STAFF Bob Blanchard City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Modification of a Standard for Olde Town North, #28-99 /l APPLICANT: Bruce Hendee BHA Design -0 4803 Innovation Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Monica Sweere Palladian Construction Company PO Box 270053 Fort Collins, CO 80527 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to build a qualified affordable housing project on approximately 40 acres located west of the proposed extension of Redwood, north of the Lake Canal and east of North College Avenue. The property is zoned CCN — Community Commercial, North College District. The proposed project would include 300 single family homes. 30 of the single family lots would also include carriage homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the modification request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a modification of Land Use Code Section 4.15(D)(1): Single family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. Specifically, a modification is being requested to the requirement limiting single family housing to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. The geographically distinct district area referred to in the Code represents each individual area zoned CCN. COAINILNITYPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O.Bos560 Fort Collins, COS0522-0580 (970)221-e PLANNING DEPARTMiENT Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District Division 4.15(B) Cominercial/Retail Uses: 1. Convenience retail stores'with fuel sales, provided -they are at least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet' (3/a mile) from the nearest convenience shopping center and/or convenience "I <<ir!n tail store , i? 2. '"Unlimited indooryrecr'eational uses and facilities. Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not`(1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Isection of (2) determined'to'be-permitted by the Director pursuant to Section l 3A'6f this Land Use Code shall be prohibited. (D) Land Use Standards.. _(1) Single-family, two-family and multi4amily housing shall have a mini mum density of five t(5)`dwelling units per net acre calculated h; r ,.,:; _. .on d gross residential'acreage'basis for any development project. Single-family housng shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. (2) Maximum building height shall be five (5) stories: (E) Development Standards. All development in the C-C-N Community Commercial District shall also comply with the standards contained in the Standards and Guidelines for` the North College Avenue Corridor as adopted by the city, to the extent that such- standards and guidelines apply to the property to be developed. (Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §§48-50, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 99, 1999 §24, 6/15/99) Article 4, Page 107 r Supp. 6 Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District Division 4.15(B) (d) Industrial Uses: L. ,; ,Light industrial uses. " 2 , , ,Research laboratories. Workshops and custom small industry uses. (e) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1.. ,-.. Satellite. dish antennas greater than thirty-nine'(39) diameter. inches in 2. ' ''. Wireless telecommunication equipment. 3..:.: � Wireless telecommunication facilities. (3) The following uses are permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to --review by the Planning and Zoning Board:_ (a) Residentiai.Uses:: 1. Group homes, other than allowed in.subparagraph (2)(a)6 above. (b) Institutional/CividPublic Uses: 1. Hospitals..+ 2. Public and private schools . for elementary, intermediate and high school education. 3. Long-term care facilities. • '''.: :`fir f �' 5 ',. - ~ Article 4, Page 166 Supp. 6 . ` k , J . Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District , - Division 4.15(B) (d) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses:. L ' , ' Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and , Recreation Policy Plan ... 1�+. 1+ - t • (2) The following u es are permitted in the C C N District, subject to 'ellt administrative review K .. :ii. ..: jf i:i-•, _.� 'E 3si 'l t:.� t LILL [.23 �4$,xMl 'ZfA�'F �i -.� / # }r . (a) Ik6sidefifial Uses- 1 nSeigle family v detached: dwellings on lots ro_ containing less than six thousand (6,000) square fee M ' i a _. .• - f is x StL if''r.r .+ f... f< - . 2 _ Two-family dwellings. 3 Smg tilek family attached dwelling. _ 4 Mill family dwellings 4 5 Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally 'disabled or elderly persons. - 6.. Boarding and rooming houses. _ 7. Mixed -use dwelling units. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Places of worship or.assembly. 2. Public and private schools, including colleges, universities, vocational and technical training. 3..:: F , Community facilities. t 4. x Public facilities. .. 5 Parks, recreation and other open lands, except � AK , neig�• hborhood parks as defined by the Parks and �ra� ,2-Y t �h`�.CY xa �'�•»' - .. ,1 1 ..i>. ! ems. ..! t ..i. .... .tH - �'7,�`C -�+SY .. rl f z z Recreation Policy Plan..4 Y - �IfFS-air • ri _ � _ �js#i�'i 'f .y r-. ��.y,'t�+��i � ��.. .. �, d .w s /2 .'h-}+.h ,.�. t'•��(3d��igyil ��7�ic,'. Yt w Y li K Article 4 Page 104 T _ 1i '• Division 4.15, Community Commercial -North College District 'Division 4. /S 1 DIVISION 4.15 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL:''= NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT (C C N) x k ^, .• . .. "' ♦. ,t�` 'rz"k'`-.Y!.''r�w" "'��� �,'�v.rrTJt S (A)' ;' Purpos& The Community Commercial North College District is for _ g "'fnnes of retaiUcommercial core areas'.and comdors T1us Distnct�Is � _ r,rr' intended for pmoderate intensity uses:.,. athat ti ' er`supportive� of, the g. a. "commercial core or condor, and that help to create Ya"transition and a link; _* "' ... t ri'%+i' .'!, x..r. -s i i >: �..._} •J'.Y _.+.}yk �%'a�'-•RJ§a.:. ct�t:�?..s tw between the commercial areas' surroundmbQ residential azeas�y Tst'�f: . , designation is only for areas identified for its application in theiNorth�"' s} r w a , , tom' ; ;College Corridor Plan. - Kr Y 1 1 r t,,r� �` + r :d .. r h 'S � t� ;t:. >•r i... tf 1'StE r{ t '+r ,2' i A �- r Uses. (1) . The following uses are pemutted in the C C N District, subject to Building Permit review, provided that such uses are -located on °'''lots that are part of an approved site specific development plan: 4 t' (a) Residential Uses S _ k 1 Accessory buildings.*A. -1 2. `'Accessory uses. - > (b), Any : use authorized pursuant ;to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March - 27,' 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code . (other thana final subdivision plat, or. minor subdivision . plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential . development or any multi -family dwelling containing more than four [4] ` dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to - all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (c) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was permitted fora specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which ry physically existed upon such. parcel on March 27, 1997, .- f : rYF ti r, F provided; however, that such existing use shall constitute_ - F tt ti4r a permitted use only on such parcel of property. i . � i'�x �' Ft F3�.�"y tyl��y� � 1� +.w�5sra .8 ti 1 1 .. >.. `' .•r t•:� � f . r s a � a ''' Y 4 � 1 } •�tt � x :. . T 3'ro bi "� " '�, t .fir. t. t se �'y;�i t{P `...Y �ar�t�ktt' �"•, t.- r \� t, -+S -.1 rt'' E r�� 4, Page 103 no m ~ r>R'C J rs't .r \ r i'•S:' w} y F-"' .� •+ h Tv j"�"`'• Vk."` ' ip"d r' 't,t'ks=*'r i 1t 'r•"+' tl.a�_ rtX�'',aL}'�y�+M>^3''��'�git`{.-taa ,s�: ,,�y �r'rt�"3 �1µrsr,ibde.$ ➢ S' r �r•� eti. {., �.>-�`.:'�ta't v�K.. i�"t" n�::.( ` .. '4. .,�-.>`�r."'- _-t,, A�.�3••...r'`_<N G'., T'frJ ::+"2. ear... ., n7 L'i�3.._ wY,'&'�+�."�.-.*�rY �+..�.,.'.•r4..a—..k.S'„:d..: u PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE CODE A. Ensure that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub -area plans. B. Encourage innovations in land development and renewal. C. Foster the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure and other public facilities and services. D. Facilitate and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. E. Avoid the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. F. Encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. G. Increase public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. H. Reduce energy consumption and demand. I. Minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development. J. Improve the design, quality and character of new development. K. Foster a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. L. Encourage the development of vacant properties within established areas M. Ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. N. Ensure that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. 3. Concerns were stated that approval of the modification would not meet the intent of the Land Use Code. The staff report included an analysis of how the modification request would not impair the intent and purpose of the CCN zoning district. I have also attached to this memorandum a copy of the purpose section of the Land Use Code (Section 1.2.2). In addition, a copy of the CCN zoning district is attached so that you can see the uses that have been determined to meet the intent of the district. It is still staffs opinion that the approval of this modification request in no way impairs the intent and purpose of any section of the Land Use Code. Comm, 4y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins TO: Planning and Zoning Board - FROM: Bob Blanchard �� Current Planning Director DATE: October 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Olde Town North Modification, File #28-99 As project planner for this project, I apologize for not being able to attend last week's public meeting. However, I have reviewed the tape and identified three outstanding issues. Hopefully, this memorandum and discussion at the work session will resolve any outstanding issues. Clark Mapes, who was project manager for the North College Corridor Plan and I will be at the work session to answer any questions. ISSUES FROM PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING: 1. Granting this modification would exempt this project totally resulting in the ability of any other property to develop with single family residential that equates to 40% of the area of the CCN zoning district. Granting this modification could result in more that 40% of the geographically defined area developed with single family residential only if another project gets final approval first and the Olde Towne North project continues to proceed. If the Olde Towne North project gets approval first, which as proposed would result in up to 31% of the district area developing with single family, any subsequent project would be limited to whatever would result in a total of 40% (in this scenario — 9%) 2. Comments were made expressing a desire to see what the project would look like if the modification was not granted. This is an unnecessary and inappropriate request in the context of this modification request. The modification application deals only with a process issue not with a design issue. In this case, the criteria being modified addresses a restriction on the percentage of the geographically distinct district area that can be developed with single family residences. Since there are no developments that have used any of this allocation at this time, the modification request is to ensure that an affordable housing project can proceed even if the allocation is used up prior to the project's approval. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 18 1 STATE OF COLORADO ) 2 ) 3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary 5 Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the 6 preceding videotape was transcribed, Request for 7 Modification Old Town North; that said precedings was 8 taken down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter reduced 9 under my supervision to the foregoing 18 pages; that said 10 transcript is an accurate and complete record of the 11 proceedings so taken. 12 I further certify that I am not related to, employed 13 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys 14 herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the 15 case. 16 Attested to by me this 7th day of December, 1999. 17 18 19 20 21 t;: �- Y' -" 22 rA.. 23 24 25 Anne Hansen Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 My commission expires: 02/13/03 1 intent and purposes of the Land Use Code, is that there's 2 still some possibility that the density -- the overall 3 residential density of this zoning could conceivably 4 exceed what's allowed in the code. 5 But I'm satisfied with the condition of approval 6 that the -- that we're dealing with that. And so I'll be 7 supporting this motion. 8 MR. COLTON: Okay. Did we get all the conditions 9 in there, Paul? Did we reference all of those as you 10 suggested? 11 MR. ECKMAN: We were working on the 50 12 percent. Was there another change to the condition? 13 MR. COLTON: No. I mean, referencing the other 14 staff findings. is MR. ECKMAN: We'll have to change the wording a 16 little bit. We understand what the Board wants to do, and 17 we'll just make sure that the motion -- or that the 18 condition is changed to say that. 19 MS. MEYER: I agree with Mikal. I'll support the 20 50 percent for this one because you said your intent was a 21 hundred percent. I'm not sure that 50 percent affordable 22 housing is a threshold that a lot of developers can live 23 with. 25, maybe 30, but 50 is pretty high. 24 As long as you said a hundred, I can live with 25 the amendment. 15 1 justification for the modification, then I think we should 2 see a higher percent there, especially since that's the 3 applicant's intent. Although, I wouldn't want to make it 4 a hundred percent because, frankly, I would like to see a 5 mixed -use closer to what the North College plan 6 indicates. 7 So, I guess, I'd like to offer an amendment of 8 making it a 50 percent threshold as opposed to the 10 9 percent in the condition. So just change this 10 to 50 10 percent. 11 MR. GAVALDON: I think that falls within our 12 criteria, and I would accept that as a friendly amendment. 13 MR. COLTON: Okay. The seconder accept that 14 also? Do you second it? 15 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I'll second that. 16 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. Any other 17 comments? 18 MR. TORGERSON: I guess, the only reason I was 19 willing to second that is it seems to be the intent of the 20 applicant to do a hundred percent affordability -- or 21 affordable housing. And it seems likely that given that's 22 their goal that they'll meet the 50 percent and this 23 wouldn't be a burden. 24 And the other thing I'd say is that the only 25 reservation I have, in terms of this not impairing the 14 1 mix -use of housing and/or uses in this area as a 2 transition residential. And I think this would end up 3 being all residential, albeit, meeting the affordable 4 housing definition. 5 So from that standpoint, I'm not sure this is not 6 detrimental to the land code, the public good, or impair 7 the intent, purposes of the Land Use Code. 8 And second of all, if we are going to justify it 9 on affordable housing, then I think we should make it more 10 than 10 percent because I just think it ought to be a it higher -- if that's what we're using for the rational for 12 the modification, I think we should reach a higher 13 threshold than 10 percent. So those are the two reasons I 14 won't be supporting it. 15 I guess, seeing how I would.support some 16 mixed -use as I mentioned in this area, but if we're going 17 to use this as the justification, I guess I would -- and 18 the applicant's intent is to be almost entirely, I would 19 like to see that at least 50 percent affordable 20 housing. If you'd like to accept a friendly amendment on 21 that. Jerry? 22 MR. GAVALDON: My apologies. I was reading 23 the -- 24 MR. COLTON: I guess, if we were going to be 25 using the fact that it is affordable housing as a 13 1 the affect is put into it and how it plays out. So I'm 2 going to go with this one because a lot of the effort was 3 put into it. And a lot of effort on staff and discussion 4 and the Board inputs and ideas really came through on this 5 one. So good luck on it. So do you want to try a motion 6 there? 7 Okay. All right. I move for approval of the 8 modification of standard for Old Town North, 28-99, given 9 the fact that the facts of finding -- facts of finding for 10 A, B, and C and D and with the new condition that was 11 shared by staff. Paul, do I need to read that? 12 MR. ECKMAN: No. We take that to mean the 13 condition that Bob read to you earlier. 14 MR. GAVALDON: Right. So knowing the condition 15 that Bob read to us earlier, I move for. 16 MR. TORGERSON: I'll second. 17 MR. COLTON: Okay. Comments? 18 Okay. I guess I have a couple of comments. One 19 is, having been on the Board when we went through the 20 North College plan, I think that there is envisioned 21 different uses for this land than single-family 22 housing. And I know that -- what this is all about. 23 But I think the intent of the Land Use Code, 24 which I believe, would have the North College plan is an 25 adopted element, showed some different -- showed more of a 12 1 the -- be detrimental to the public good or impair the 2 intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. And then the 3 second part of it is -- there's a couple categories of 4 product that are specifically being promoted by the City 5 and one of them is affordable housing. And the affordable 6 housing definition is incorporated by reference. 7 And so I'm satisfying, A, that it meets the 8 affordable housing criteria, and, B, that it's not 9 detrimental to the public good or impairing the intent and 10 purposes of the Land Use Code. 11 So unless anyone would like to make further 12 comment, I'd be willing to make a motion. 13 MR. COLTON: Jerry, do you have a question? 14 MR. GAVALDON: The comment I want to make is, I 15 do see where making affordable housing and intent is very 16 admirable. Just the way the process went about working 17 this and what we went through in the work session to where 18 we are now, I feel that the condition and the data that 19 Bob shared really covers all the bases on it. And it puts 20 a lot of responsibility to the applicant to make sure they 21 follow the criteria, they meet all the expectations and 22 conditions, and they have a time line. 23 If we didn't have this one, I would be very 24 nervous about supporting it. But I can go ahead and 25 support it now. And it would be interesting to see how 001 1 it would -- would allow it to come forward with only 10 2 percent. That's justification for it. I guess I feel 3 uncomfortable with that being the number. 4 MS. MEYER: (Inaudible.) 5 MR. COLTON: Okay. Well, let's make our comments 6 to the -- I guess I have a concern on that one. And even 7 though that's what the code says for granting a 8 modification, I don't know why we couldn't change our 9 condition to whatever we want and say it needs to be 75 10 percent or 80 percent. 11 MR. ECKMAN: You could do that. You're not 12 compelled by reason of the code definition of affordable 13 housing to do anything with regard to the modification. 14 You have the liberty to do as you wish. 15 And I wanted to add one other thing -- if anyone 16 is inclined to make a motion on this -- that staff has 17 included some findings of fact in the report that the 18 motion -maker ought to incorporate into the motion. 19 Wouldn't have to read all those findings of fact. But 20 just to state, those are made part of the motion. 21 MR. TORGERSON: I guess to respond to that, the 22 Land Use Code is pretty specific about what we need to 23 find in order to grant a modification under the route that 24 these folks are asking for it. And the first is that it 25 not be detrimental to the -- no. That it not impair 10 1 cost of the remainder of the property. So that would have 2 an effect on the financial liability of it. 3 When the developer pays for the cost of the 4 street, of course, they pay the local street portion of 5 that. And then street oversizing would pay for the 6 balance. So I don't think it's actually the street. I 7 think it's the right-of-way dedication that would affect 8 that. And I think that's really the impact. 9 So at this point we're not thinking is dramatic 10 enough that it will change the plan in a very significant 11 way. But until we get into engineering and working with 12 the City Engineering Department, it's a little bit 13 difficult to predict the exact impact. 14 MR. GAVALDON: So it's still your intent to go 15 with the modification? 16 MR. HENDEE: Yes. 17 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you. 18 MR. COLTON: Any other questions? 19 Okay. Comments or a motion or . . . 20 You know, I guess I just want to make a 21 comment. And I wasn't there on Friday, but the Board 22 discussed this. 23 To give concerns about just the 10 percent -- I 24 mean, if we're justifying this on because it's an 25 affordable housing project, I guess I have a concern that 0 1 not for the eastern portion, which is that area that -- if 2 you recall, was brand-new information the night it came 3 before the Planning and Zoning Board. 4 The proposed alignment right now -- first of all, this 5 is Redwood Village here (indicating.) This multifamily 6 portion of that PUD has expired. So even though our maps 7 still show it as an approved project, it no longer 8 exists. 9 The alignment on this map goes right along the 10 northern edge of this property and continues over here 11 (indicating). And -- I believe this is Alta Vista. And 12 then it drops down to the alignment of Vine right over in 13 here. So it comes north of Alta Vista, and it will come 14 right along the top of Misours' (phonetic) property. 15 MR. HENDEE: The second part of your question is, 16 how would that affect affordability. And I think the 17 possibilities for effect would be, number one, the 18 additional amount of right-of-way. If the right-of-way -- 19 which would be required for an arterial. If there's 20 additional right-of-way required, the City would purchase 21 that right-of-way normally. 22 However, if there is a developmental proposal 23 there, they may ask that the project dedicate right-of-way 24 at the time the project development plan is submitted. 25 And that loss of land would, in essence, increase the net n. 1 But we don't have enough answers at this point to 2 really say that clearly. But I will tell you, you asked 3 what the intent was, and the intent clearly is to do it 4 entirely affordable. 5 MR. COLTON: Okay. Any other questions right now 6 or should we get the audience's participation? Okay. 7 We'll probably get back to you in a minute, Bruce. 8 MR. HENDEE: Okay. 9 MR. COLTON: Okay. Would anyone in the audience 10 like to come forward and give us your inputs on this 11 project? If so, raise your hand or come forward. All 12 interested bystanders. Okay. Not seeing any, then we'll 13 close the public input and bring it back to the Board for 14 questions. 15 MR. GAVALDON: Could the applicant please come 16 back up, please, to the podium? With Vine Drive -- and I 17 can't see this as new information -- just explain where 18 it's going to be and what the impact is. 19 MR. HENDEE: Okay. Again, we're still figuring 20 that out. The reason we're coming with the modification 21 before getting to design specifically is that we're trying 22 to get this resolved. Bob, are you going to point that 23 out? 24 MR. BLANCHARD: As you recall, the master street 25 plan has been amended for the western portion only. It's 7 1 lot of discussion about it. I think what we might do is 2 make ourselves available for any questions you might have. 3 MR. COLTON: Yeah, I had a question. Given that 4 the definition of affordable housing project is 10 5 percent -- because I'm wondering, what is the intent of 6 this project? That just seems like a low threshold to me 7 for trying to get a modification like this. 8 MR. HENDEE: Well, as you know the 10 percent is 9 the legally defined definition. But the intent at this 10 point is make this project an affordable project; in other 11 words, to make all of the housing affordable. That is the 12 intent of my client at this point. The planning that we 13 have done on the project assumes that it's all affordable 14 housing. 15 I would say, however, with the realignment of 16 Vine Drive, that has introduced a little bit of complexity 17 into it that may make it a little bit difficult to make it 18 a hundred percent affordable simply because there may be 19 additional cost associated with improvement of Vine Drive, 20 if it gets realigned on the north edge of the property. 21 And as I understand it, even though the truck 22 route got located, Vine Drive still is a part on the 23 transportation master plan. Vine is still to be 24 realigned. And because of the amount of frontage along 25 that property, that may impact the total amount. 5 1 The second page of the -- what I have provided 2 you tonight are the definitions from the Land Use Code. 3 The first one is what makes up an affordable housing 4 project. The second two are explanatory phrases that are 5 referred to in the definition of an affordable housing 6 project. 7 To summarize, an affordable housing project has 8 to meet four conditions. The first of which is that at 9 least 75 percent of the gross acreage to be developed 10 under the plan is to be residential dwellings. The second 11 is, at least 10 percent of the residential dwellings must 12 meet the definition of affordable housing units. And 13 that's where the reference to affordable housing units for 14 rent and affordable housing units for sale comes into 15 play. 16 The third criteria is that the construction of 17 the dwelling units is to occur as part of the initial 18 phase of the project and that prior to the construction of 19 the market -rate units, if there are any, or on a 20 proportional basis with the market -rate units that the 21 affordable units must be built according to that 22 schedule. 23 And then fourth, is that the units will be 24 required by a binding legal instrument acceptable to the 25 City to be occupied by an affordable to low-income 4 1 right? 2 MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. And I wasn't planning on 3 making a presentation based on the discussion from the 4 last meeting and the discussion at the work session. It 5 appeared that the issues that surrounded this request 6 could be satisfied with a condition of approval which I 7 have provided to you tonight. 8 The applicant is in the audience and also has a 9 copy of that. I would also note that -- and Paul, do I 10 need to read this into the record? 11 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 12 MR. BLANCHARD: This is -- the recommended 13 language for the condition of approval, is that the 14 applicant would be required to submit an application 15 within one year of the approval of this modification in 16 accordance with Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code. This 17 modification shall only be valid for a period of five 18 years following such submittal, during which time the 19 applicant must obtain final approval for all project 20 development plans for the entire property. 21 One extension of this modification may be granted 22 by the director not to exceed one year in length. And 23 this modification shall only be valid if the project 24 qualifies as an affordable housing project as defined by 25 the Land Use Code. 3 1 MR. COLTON: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this 2 time I want to ask if there's anyone in the audience or on 3 the Board who would like to pull any of the items off of 4 the consent agenda? Those are items number 1, 2, 3, and 4 5 and have the Board discuss that. So if -- again, if you'd 6 like to hear presentation or give inputs on items number 7 1, 2, 3, or 4, please raise your hand. Okay. Anyone on 8 the Board? 9 Okay. Not seeing anyone, we'll close that and 10 look for a motion on the consent agenda, please. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval 12 of item 1, August 19th only, item 2, 3, 4. 13 MR. TORGERSON: I'll second. 14 MR. COLTON: Okay. Any comments? Could we have 15 roll call, please. 16 THE CLERK: Torgerson. 17 MR. TORGERSON: Yes. 18 THE CLERK: Meyer. 19 MS. MEYER: Yes. 20 THE CLERK: Gavaldon. 21 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. 22 THE CLERK: Colton. 23 MR. COLTON: Yes. 24 Okay. That brings us to our one discussion item, 25 and that's number 5. And, Bob, I guess this is yours, E 1 MR. COLTON: Good evening. Welcome to the 2 November 4th meeting of the Fort Collins Planning and 3 Zoning Board. Could we have roll call, please. 4 THE CLERK: Burns. Torgerson. 5 MR. TORGERSON: Here. 6 THE CLERK: Meyer. 7 MS. MEYER: Here. 8 THE CLERK: Gavaldon. 9 MR. GAVALDON: Here. 10 THE CLERK: Carpenter. Craig. Colton. 11 MR. COLTON: Here. Bob, could we have the agenda 12 review, please. 13 MR. BLANCHARD: Evening, Chairman Colton. We 14 have six items advertised for the agenda this evening. 15 Four of those are on consent. The only change I need to 16 make to the consent agenda is you'll only be taking action 17 on the August 19th minutes. You will receive all of the 18 rest of them in your next packet. They're just in the 19 process of being edited. 20 We had two items advertised for discussion. 21 First, of those is advertised as agenda item number 5, 22 which is the continued discussion of the Old Town north 23 modification of standards. And then agenda item number 6 24 which is the final application for the Timberline Church 25 PUD that has been continued until the next meeting. PLANNING & ZONING MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1999 OLD TOWN NORTH MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS Commission Members Present: Mikal Torgerson Judy Meyer Sally Craig Glen Colton Jennifer Carpenter Jerry Gavaldon Staff Present: Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office Bob Blanchard, Planning Department Steve Olt, Planning Department Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 or (800) 482-1506 Fax: 482-1230 e-mail: meadors@frii.com 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF COLORADO ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF LARIMER ) I, Anne Hansen, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the preceding videotape, Request for Modification Old Town North, were taken down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 41 pages; that said transcript is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so taken. I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case. Attested to by me this 7th day of December, 1999. Anne Hansen Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 West Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 My commission expires: 02/13/03 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. CRAIG: Yes. THE CLERK: Colton. MR. COLTON: Yes. Okay. The item will be continued for two weeks. 39 1 achieved. 2 And I'm a little leery knowing how critical 3 timing and deadlines are in terms of options on property 4 delay and everything. I guess it's just two weeks. I 5 hope you're able to proceed with the project. 6 MR. BERNTH: I'm simple -- I'm okay with the two 7 weeks, too. I don't think that should preclude the 8 project. 9 And the only specific direction I would ask, is 10 that the applicant and maybe Bob have an opportunity to 11 visit. And if we do go the route of the time frames, what 12 is acceptable from the phase one, phrase two, and phase 13 three time frames. Because that's kind of where I'm going 14 with that. 15 MR. COLTON: Okay. Are we ready for a vote on 16 that or any other questions? Okay. 17 THE CLERK: Gavaldon. 18 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. 19 THE CLERK: Carpenter. 20 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 21 THE CLERK: Torgerson. 22 MR. TORGERSON: No. 23 THE CLERK: Bernth. 24 MR. BERNTH: No. 25 THE CLERK: Craig. 38 1 MR. COLTON: You know, I'll support the 2 continuance. But I also want to let you know that I -- 3 right now I would not support giving the modification just 4 because I think this area needs a mix of housing types. 5 And if someone came along with a plan beforehand 6 that would have a mix, I think that would be preferable to 7 having a big 40-acre block of single-family homes. So I 8 don't know -- the justifications I've been given do not 9 make me feel like it's better than the purpose, you know, 10 of what the Land Use Code has. 11 So -- I might hear something in the next two 12 weeks that I might think it would, but I'm willing to 13 listen. 14 MR. JONES: Ted just brought up a good point that 15 perhaps advance planning should be involved in this 16 discussion and specifically the folks who helped generate 17 the vision for this particular zone. 18 MR. COLTON: Any other comments? 19 MR. TORGERSON: Yeah. I won't be supporting the 20 motion primarily because in my mind the only question is 21 whether or not it meets the purpose of the zone district 22 is if the property to the north were to be developed prior 23 to her vesting her rights with this property. And I'm 24 confident that based on where she is in the process and if 25 we were to give her sunset dates that that could be 37 1 throw it all out until we are comfortable. 2 So to come up with specific directions, I think 3 that's already been explained. And from the way Ted's 4 nodding, he's comfortable with what we've already stated. 5 So I think just a straight motion to continue at this 6 point is appropriate. 7 MS. CARPENTER: Jerry, unless you have something 8 specific that you wanted to add, I'm open to a friendly 9 amendment. I agree with Sally. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Well, if they got it all, we did a 11 lot of talking. So if they got it all, I'm okay with it. 12 I want to add one thing. I do see where Mike -- 13 Mikal and Dan are going with this. And modifications are 14 a new animal we're in. And we've gotten about five 15 different twists on the modifications. 16 And I don't want us to deny this. I want to move 17 forward so I have support in spirit. So I think 18 continuing it would help us understand our modification 19 process better and help us to really know where the 20 boundaries are and what the people -- what the applicants 21 are looking for. 22 So I'm going to support the continuing just on 23 that frame just to get us with more modification learning 24 under our belts. But I would say I'm with you on the 25 scope of your thoughts because they are good thoughts. try 1 I wouldn't go there in two weeks. But there have been so 2 many variables raised and so many questions raised tonight 3 that I just don't feel comfortable doing it tonight. I'd 4 like to see us explore it and have staff look at it 5 closer. Get Bob back here, since it was his project, and 6 see what we're doing before we jump into that -- into that 7 briar patch, to say. And so I'm ready to make a motion if 8 that's appropriate at this time. 9 I move that we continue this -- this item -- 10 let's see -- item number 3 to November 4th -- November 11 4th, Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 12 MS. CRAIG: I'll second that. 13 MR. COLTON: Okay. Discussion? 14 MR. GAVALDON: We probably should in the motion 15 look back at what specific things we want staff to explore 16 and come back with so that way we can give them some good 17 detail. And I would support a friendly amendment. I 18 mean, I think a friendly amendment would be appropriate 19 for this. 20 So if some -- Jennifer or. Sally can go off with 21 what you think -- and maybe Sally if you want -- 22 MS. CRAIG: I think a lot of stuff has been 23 thrown out. I think staff is probably pretty comfortable 24 with what we're struggling with. And I think at this 25 point in time we just need to sit around the table and 34 1 that what she's proposing is going to conform to the 2 requirements of the zone district. What's at issue 3 tonight is the exemption from the 40 percent. 4 MR. COLTON: Okay. I'm still not sure if that -- 5 I don't know. 6 MR. SHEPARD: You have -- you're struggling with 7 a comfort level. How comfortable are you in what we 8 perceive to be a -- this is a risk request. The applicant 9 is asking the Planning and Zoning Board to remove some of 10 the natural risk that's inherent out there in the private 11 sector. And it's a competitive environment and a lot at 12 stake in terms of financing. 13 And we haven't seen a request like this before. 14 And I get the sense that's why you're struggling. And 15 it's an uncomfortable position for this Board to be in. 16 However, the request has been made. And if 17 you're comfortable with that kind of action, then you'll 18 consider the request. If you're not comfortable, I would 19 recommend a continuance of two weeks because the assigned 20 planner is not here tonight. In two weeks maybe we can 21 come up with something. We'll have another work session 22 and get all of these questions answered or take a vote 23 straightforward. 24 MR. BERNTH: I had a question for Paul. Could we 25 grant a -- this modification and offer three separate 33 1 wouldn't have to worry about extensions. 2 MR. COLTON: I just want to throw my two cents 3 in. I'm a little confused just because -- or concerned, I 4 guess, just because without knowing the specifics of the 5 project, having 300 single-family homes all together is 6 not what my understanding of the vision of anywhere in the 7 City is. And if this was a high -end home, we certainly 8 would not allow 300 single-family homes in an area. 9 I thought we wanted a mix of uses. I don't know. 10 Correct me if I'm wrong. In general, we want a mix of 11 uses within an area parcel this large. This is a pretty 12 good sized parcel. 13 MR. SHEPARD: I think you're getting ahead a 14 little bit. That's not the issue before you. And they 15 could -- absent your action tonight, they could come in 16 and apply for exactly what they're proposing to apply for 17 and still probably meet the intent of the district. 18 I would hate for you to consider a potential 19 density in layout in your consideration of this item 20 tonight. 21 MR. COLTON: So you don't think in this district 22 that we have any requirements for mixtures of housing 23 types like we do in LMN or MNN -- or MMN or anything like 24 that? 25 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, we do. But I have a feeling 31 1 and I didn't quite follow you on that. 2 MR. GAVALDON: I'm mainly looking at this 3 one. If they did not have the modification, what would 4 their plan look like if we were asking them to follow the 5 intent of the land use and following the City plan concept 6 for the zone? I would like to see that because it may be 7 something you're going to have to face. 8 MR. JONES: They could -- they could build 9 single-family on it without a modification. 10 MR. GAVALDON: They still could then. 11 MR. JONES: It's just a matter of -- vesting is 12 the issue. And it would look identical to what they're 13 proposing. 14 MR. GAVALDON: But if we gave them the process to 15 go with this modification -- on the other hand, I'm 16 looking at is, is this 12 months something real they can 17 get their three phases done in it, or are they going to be 18 coming back to us again? 19 See there's a lot of questions coming up. And 20 you can look at so many variables on this. And I'm almost 21 didn't want to sit here and design this thing. I would 22 almost want to send it back and bring it back in four 23 weeks. Give them ample time, irregardless of what other 24 properties. 25 MR. JONES: For a redesign are you suggesting? 30 1 the applicant is asking for a lot on this. And then I 2 look back at the provisions of the Land Use Code and the 3 City plan. Didn't the City plan want some mixed -uses in 4 here? 5 So I'm looking at this. I'm going, we're going 6 to put all 300 homes in this first part. So that means 7 the north is going to be limited to whatever they do, but 8 they're going to have to patch some stuff up there without 9 spreading it evenly throughout this whole zone district. 10 That's an interesting paradox I see. 11 Two, the phasing in and trying to get approval 12 for everything, the time window, is starting to hit me 13 right in the face saying this is not realistic. I'm 14 beginning to really support continuing with some specific 15 efforts and action to be brought back. 16 One, I would be particularly interested in, if we 17 did not give the modification and we held them to the 18 process of mixed -uses in this zone, I would like to see 19 what the conceptual would be if they did not get the 300 20 home approval. How would they mix it within the scope of 21 their element contrary to when we see the north come in 22 we'll expect to see the same thing come in, too. 23 MR. JONES: Since this is an action item, I want 24 to make sure that I'm clear on what -- what the discussion 25 should be between now and next time, if it is continued, 29 1 length of the duration of this modification, if the 2 Board's going to have a sunset on the modification. 3 MR. BERNTH: Wouldn't the applicant plan on going 4 forward to get a final approval on all three phases prior 5 to building the first phase or is that not necessarily 6 true? 7 MS. SWEERE: It's not likely that we would seek 8 to do that because then, of course, we would need to 9 complete the additional engineering work for each phase, 10 and that's quite costly. 11 MS. CRAIG: Could we -- could the applicant -- 12 like we'll just say -- we say 12 months. Could the 13 applicant come back to the Board or staff and ask for an 14 extension? 15 MR. ECKMAN: You could -- you could -- yes. 16 MS. CRAIG: Thank you. 17 MR. ECKMAN: And you could even make it explicit 18 in your motion and your condition that that could be 19 allowed for. Sometimes we allow for additional extensions 20 of not to exceed one or two or three or whatever and even 21 have durations on the extensions. 22 But, yes, you could make it clear that they could 23 come back and ask for an extension. 24 MR. GAVALDON: I'm very confused and concerned 25 now. At first it seemed simple, these two work out. But 28 1 consider. Because that gets you through final engineering 2 and plans to record it and building permits can be issued. 3 MR. BERNTH: And Ted, you talked about it, but 4 what do you think is a reasonable time? I mean, again, we 5 don't want to give an unlimited time frame for this. 6 MR. SHEPARD: If it's going to be one phase of a 7 project, I'm comfortable in the 6- to 9- to 12-month time 8 frame. It's sometimes difficult to predict marketability 9 and market acceptance for an entire project. But I'm 10 comfortable with a 6- to 12-month window for a first phase 11 to go from PDP to final compliance. 12 MR. ECKMAN: Let me ask one question. Is it 13 contemplated that only the first phase is to be exempt 14 from this requirement, the 40 percent requirement? 15 MS. SWEERE: My concern, again, is that the 16 entire project being 300 single-family units will be 17 broken up into three phases. And we, of course, would 18 want this variance request to apply to all of the phases 19 of the subdivision so we would not be faced again with a 20 position where the property owner to the north may have 21 developed single-family and then we would not be able to 22 continue with phase two or phase three of the 23 single-family units we would hoped to build and complete. 24 MR. ECKMAN: Then it strikes me there would have 25 to be final approvals on all three phases within the 27 1 potentially detached living unit. 2 MR. BERNTH: Okay. My second question is, 3 Paul -- the idea that Paul had from a time standpoint, 4 what is reasonable from your standpoint? Obviously, 5 that's a compromised situation. And I know it's difficult 6 to set up times when you're doing something like this. 7 But what do you think is reasonable? 8 MS. SWEERE: Well, I'm really at a disadvantage 9 without my consultant here tonight and fully understanding 10 the process. Can I ask a question of staff -- 11 MR. BERNTH: Certainly. 12 MS. SWEERE: -- and maybe better inform myself? 13 If we proceed with an ODP, would we then vest in some sort 14 of right at ODP? 15 My concern is that if we proceed, we would likely 16 achieve on ODP and the PDP for the first phase within the 17 time frame that has been suggested. However, the PDPs for 18 the second and third phase may not have been completed 19 within such a short time frame. 20 MR. SHEPARD: The answer is that an ODP does not 21 vest. Only taking a PDP through final compliance grants 22 vesting. 23 My interpretation would be, that if a first phase 24 PDP went all the way through final compliance, that would 25 satisfy the proposed condition that Paul is asking you to 1 the project through final planned approval, probably on 2 the long end of that side depending on various 3 circumstances that might come up. I don't know. 4 MS. CRAIG: I like the sound of that. I think 5 that that keeps us so that we know what's going to happen 6 in the future. 7 MR. ECKMAN: That's not an unusual concept. The 8 Zoning Board of Appeals grants variances. And even in the 9 code itself it provides that those variances are only good 10 for six months. So we have a history, at least, of 11 granting these things for a limited period of time. And 12 you have to act upon them diligently in order to preserve 13 them. 14 MR. BERNTH: I had a question for the 15 applicant. Two questions, actually. First question is, 16 what is the carriage house? I'm a commercial realtor. 17 I'm sorry. Carriage house. I live in a house. That's 18 all I know about them. 19 MS. SWEERE: A carriage house would be, say, a 20 mother-in-law suite. And a vision, here again of the 21 subdivision, is to create Old Town. And with small 22 single-family detached bungalows and the potential to 23 create a mother-in-law suite above a garage for multiple 24 uses, which is, in fact, our second housing type within 25 this subdivision. And so it's a -- either an attached or 24 1 MS. CRAIG: This project is exempt from that. 2 MR. JONES: But the second property wouldn't be 3 exempt and so -- 4 MS. CRAIG: Yes. But this project is totally 5 exempt. So the property to the north is -- how much 6 percent of the district? 7 MR. JONES: That, I'm not sure. 8 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So it could come in and ask 9 for 40 percent of single-family housing because the 10 project to the south is exempt. it MR. JONES: I don't -- I don't think that -- I'm 12 not sure, but I don't think that would be the way it would 13 be added up. I think because this property is exempt, 14 only applies to them. 15 The second property would have to look at the 16 whole geographical CCN piece, which is -- I forget the 17 acreage, and I can't seem to find it. But this piece is 18 31 percent of that. The second property would be 19 another -- probably like a 30 -- 30 percent, roughly. 20 They would have to have it docked against them that the 21 other property is already developed. 22 In fact, if that happened first, they would only 23 be eligible for 7 percent of the total -- or not 7, excuse 24 me. The remaining 9 of the 40 for their single-family 25 portion of their development. 23 1 nobody to the north can develop single-family, I think is 2 my understanding. And therefore, we wouldn't go against 3 the purpose of the Land Use Code. I assume that's what 4 Bob's thinking was as well. 5 MS. CRAIG: Yeah. That's not the way I 6 understand it. My understanding is that the modification 7 that we give them tonight exempts them from the rule 8 completely. 9 MR. JONES: But it doesn't exempt the entire 10 geographical zoning district, just their piece of it property. 12 MS. CRAIG: Your right. So their 31 percent 13 could come through final, just as Mikal said, and we end 14 up with those houses. And they make it in their building, 15 and life is good. Then the piece of property to the north 16 comes walking down to the -- 17 MR. JONES: And they'd be limited to 9 percent. 18 MS. CRAIG: -- building department, and they say, 19 "We want, you know -- we are 40 percent. And we want to 20 put in single-family housing." 21 MR. JONES: They'd be limited to 9 percent of the 22 geographical CCN area because this project has already 23 eaten up 31 percent. 24 MS. CRAIG: No. 25 MR. JONES: -- and the second project -- 22 1 financing just for the design of it? Or what is that 2 financing? 3 MS. SWEERE: The -- it's technically for land 4 acquisition. And that money is targeted, you know, for 5 the single-family affordable units. And it is targeted 6 for land acquisition. 7 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. And you're confident that 8 financially with that you can proceed with the project? 9 MS. SWEERE: Absolutely. 10 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. 11 MS. SWEERE: In fact, everything is in place to 12 proceed pending this decision. 13 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. I guess my 14 thought there is that this meets the purpose of the Land 15 Use Code except, as Sally pointed out, if the property to 16 the north is developed and we get more density there. 17 It's not meeting the purpose of the Land Use Code. 18 So for me it boils down to how confident am I she 19 will be the person to the north of her, I guess. And they 20 have an option on the property. They've already started 21 design and engineering on the property. And if they have 22 financing in place, it seems unlikely -- extremely 23 unlikely that they wouldn't proceed and beat anybody to 24 the north of them. 25 And if they do get vested rights at final, then 21 1 MS. CRAIG: I see what you're saying. Okay. 2 MR. GAVALDON: So it becomes 71 percent. 3 MR. JONES: Right. If the other applicant filled 4 40 percent of the geographic area and this applicant had 5 their approval, then it would be an additional 31 percent, 6 right. 71 percent would be the maximum buildout of 7 single-family housing. Worst case scenario, if you 8 approved this tonight, and somebody else came in and built 9 40 percent. 10 MR. GAVALDON: If we deny it, then they go 11 through -- they don't get this exception, they just have 12 to follow the process. 13 MR. JONES: That's correct. 14 MR. GAVALDON: If we give it to them and they get 15 this, then we have to deal with the other one later on 16 when it comes down the path. 17 MR. JONES: And it would only be an issue if 18 another developer got final approval prior to them getting 19 final approval. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you for the 21 clarity. Thanks Ted. I appreciate it. 22 MR. TORGERSON: I had another question for the 23 applicant. You had mentioned that there was financing 24 that was contingent on this decision tonight. Is that 25 financing for the construction of this project or 20 1 would have a chance to get there. And that's not a legal 2 solution, it's a practical solution. 3 MR. GAVALDON: So in other words, the risk is 4 still there all the way to final for them. So tonight -- 5 or the next couple of weeks is merely something else that 6 is not a consideration so to stay within the scope of the 7 process. 8 MR. ECKMAN: What they've asked for is to exempt 9 from this rule. So that -- so that's what this 10 modification boils down to, that this rule won't apply to 11 this project. And, if so, even though another plan might 12 come in and move to final first and get their 40 percent, 13 this plan could also come in and get its 40 percent. And, 14 yes, and then -- well, 40 percent of the geographically 15 distinct area. 16 MS. CRAIG: If they become exempt, they could put 17 in whatever they want. That's what the modification -- 18 MR. JONES: But their property is only 31 percent 19 of the geographic area that we're talking about. The 20 maximum they could contribute is 31 percent of the total 21 of the 100 percent. Right. So that there's still 9 22 percent. Even if they built every square inch of their 23 property, the pink on the site plan, that's only 31 24 percent of the geographically distinct CCN zoning district 25 in this location. 19 1 discussed that. And there was a concern that if -- if 2 this 40 percent, whatever it is, becomes vested too early 3 in the process, let's say at the PDP stage, then there's 4 no real assurance that that PDP will move on to a final 5 plan and ultimately get developed. And we didn't think it 6 would be in the City's best interest to tie up that 40 7 percent with a PDP that hadn't moved any further along in 8 the process. 9 And so the final plan was selected as the place 10 where a person gets to tie up the 40 percent and have a 11 assurance that they can move forward on it and no one else 12 can, was that final plan. Even though even the final plan 13 sometimes don't get built. But at least they've moved 14 through the process. And then it's a question of 15 financing and developer's interest. 16 So that's why that was selected as the -- as the 17 place marker for the 40 percent. 2 don't know of any way 18 to resolve that dilemma through a condition. The 19 practical resolution of it might be for those developers 20 who want to tie up the 40 percent, to just have their -- 21 in the cases where ODPs are needed as well, you can have a 22 joint filing of an ODP and PDP and get them both approved 23 at once. And then move directly to the final plan. And, 24 of course, that means spending some money. But it means 25 getting through the process probably before a competitor W` 1 Plan. 2 So they were looking at a higher density. Kind 3 of like we do now, we have commercial and then we have MMN 4 and then -- you know, then we transition into LMN. And my 5 fear is that we're going to lose that vision if we exempt 6 this one. And that still means that 400 more 7 single-family houses can go into this area. 8 But on the other hand, I am not saying that I 9 don't want this affordable housing project to not go. 10 And that's -- that again, brings me back to why I 11 was looking at a continuance, not a denial, until we can 12 all put our heads together and maybe come up with a 13 condition or something that does not lose the intent, but 14 still lets them be the first ones with the 40 percent. 15 MR. GAVALDON: Paul? This suggestion that Sally 16 offers is a good idea. Is this something that we could 17 continue and let them come in, first form on deck? 18 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 19 MR. GAVALDON: Would that be fair? 20 MR. ECKMAN: You certainly may continue if they 21 asked that you continue it, to quit the meeting. But 22 that's not a problem for you to continue this item for 23 further exploration. 24 I do remember that when Bob -- I believe it 25 was -- gave that interpretation some time back, we 17 1 it . . . 2 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah. That indicates a level of 3 specificness that probably indicates they put a lot of 4 thought into it. 5 MS. CRAIG: I would say so from looking at the 6 diagrams, what they did want, what they didn't want in 7 that area, that took a lot of thought. This wasn't quite 8 like the CL where they had to kind of go with what was in 9 the area. This was a vision that whoever worked on that 10 committee had. 11 And from looking at this, my impression -- the 12 vision was not just that whole area ending up being 13 single-family housing. And that brings back my concern. 14 If we exempt this project from any formula, and 15 technically by this exemption they could come in with a 16 hundred percent. I mean, they could come in with 600, in 17 theory. And the property to the north would have to meet 18 the 40 percent. And so then they could come in with the 19 400, I think is about the round figure. 20 So we could even end up with a thousand houses -- 21 single-family houses, not just residential. They very 22 much wanted some residential, but they were looking at 23 more in your two-story, three-story condo, higher density, 24 the fact that even in the single-family, they talk about 25 five units per acre at that time. That was before City O 1 recall; although, it was a lengthy process. 2 I wasn't on that committee. And I was only on 3 the periphery of it. It's hard for me to go back into the 4 minds of the committee members as to what the pure vision 5 was. I know that a lot of work went into it. 6 I do know that, generically speaking, there has 7 been some loss of translation or some -- some loss of 8 intent or context when we adopted the new Land Use Code 9 and wrote purpose statements. And it will come up on our 10 discussion on the enclosed mini -storage in the CL. Again, 11 that was an old zone that got transposed in. 12 Some things got dropped out. The only thing I 13 can tell you is that when we wrote these purpose 14 statements, we didn't intend for them to be interpreted 15 literally. They were guidelines. They're not pure 16 code. I believe that the interpretation and the 17 administration of the Land Use Code is that the purpose 18 statements are explanatory text and that you do have some 19 latitude. 20 And when we wrote the purpose statements, they 21 were for the intention of clarifying the new zone 22 districts because we were going through the City Plan 23 exercise. 24 MS. CRAIG: But looking at the North College 25 Corridor Plan and the fact that they put 40 percent in 14 1 City on all levels. 2 MS. CRAIG: I don't think the housing -- the 3 affordable housing is not the issue here. It's the intent 4 and purpose of the Land Use Code. And that's what I'm 5 struggling with. Thank you. 6 MS. SWEERE: Uh-huh. 7 MR. GAVALDON: Troy, just for clarification -- 8 and I'm more numbers driven, so. It seems like this came 9 into -- the modification request came on September 7th, by 10 your letter? And that's when the clock starts ticking for 11 the modification? 12 MR. JONES: Now you're talking about the 13 application for modification request? 14 MR. GAVALDON: Yes, sir. 15 MR. JONES: Can you help me out where you're 16 seeing that information? 17 MR. GAVALDON: It's on the staff report. 18 MR. JONES: Okay. And bear with me since Bob was 19 the planner on this. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Sure. 21 MR.JONES: What is the question more precisely? 22 MR. GAVALDON: So it comes on September 7, and 23 here we are. It's about a month and a half. Is that 24 typical for a modification to go through the pipeline? 25 MR. JONES: I don't know that we have a typical 13 1 MS. CRAIG: So have you submitted an application 2 to the City for this? You've got an official application 3 that's been submitted to the City for this project? 4 MS. SWEERE: Yes. We've gone through conceptual 5 review. And that was quite some time ago. And we are 6 proceeding with the rest of the engineering work on the 7 project. When you say "official application," maybe you 8 can help me. 9 MR. JONES: I think I might be able to clarify 10 that. The official application has been for the 11 modification request, but the project development plan has 12 not been officially applied for. 13 MS. CRAIG: Submitted. 14 MR. JONES: Submitted. 15 MS. CRAIG: So they've come in for a conceptual 16 review, but they have not submitted -- 17 MR. JONES: Conceptual review and also the 18 modification request but not the project development plan. 19 MS. CRAIG: Okay. You talk about having -- 20 starting some engineering and stuff when your funding 21 hasn't been verified. Are you comfortable with that? 22 MS. SWEERE: I'm in a risky business. And I 23 believe in the affordable housing that I'm trying to 24 create. And I believed that it was a priority in our City 25 to create such housing and hoped to get support from the 12 1 MR. GAVALDON: Thank you very much. 2 MR. COLTON: Any other questions? Mikal? 3 MR. TORGERSON: I have a question for the 4 applicant. What stage are you at in terms of design or 5 process on this project? 6 MS. SWEERE: We are proceeding with work on the 7 project, engineering studies, traffic studies. We just 8 contracted for an environmental assessment. We are 9 proceeding fully with the project pending this decision. 10 MR. TORGERSON: So based on -- you must have 11 extrapolated that into some schedule. What would you 12 anticipate getting approvals? 13 MS. SWEERE: I don't feel competent to predict 14 approvals. However, it was our hope and expectation to 15 get -- now here, again, having all of the engineering done 16 and all of the review by the City, completed within 14 17 months. And we, of course, have waited nearly -- well, 18 quite some time, frankly. Almost two months from when we 19 initially raised this issue to this point. So it's been 20 two months just getting to you tonight. 21 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. 22 MS. SWEERE: Thank you. 23 MS. CRAIG: While you're up, could I ask a 24 question, also? 25 MS. SWEERE: Certainly. 11 1 consider the items as far as the Land Use Code addresses 2 the issue, not necessarily those other issues. 3 And specifically the issue in the Land Use Code 4 is that in granting a modification, it seems that several 5 of the items that -- the item is tested against, are 6 satisfied. The one that's in question, is that the 7 granting of the modification request would not impair the 8 intent or purposes of the Land Use Code. 9 And it's Sally's claim is that the purpose of the 10 Land Use Code is not being satisfied with this request. 11 And that purpose would be the purpose for the CCN zone 12 district which would be in the Land Use Code. Let's 13 see. Let me find it. 14 Basically Article 4, page 103. That purpose for 15 the community commercial states, "The community commercial 16 North College District is for fringes of retail, 17 commercial core areas, and corridors. This district is 18 intended for the moderate intensity uses that are 19 supportive of the commercial core or corridor and that 20 help to create a transition and link between the 21 commercial areas and surrounding residential areas. This 22 designation is only for areas identified for its 23 application in the North College Corridor Plan." 24 And that is the purpose of question this evening, 25 that Sally feels is not being satisfied. 10 1 off the options that I was recommending, either 2 continuance or voting it in anyway, if there's enough 3 Board members comfortable, third option may be to come up 4 with a condition of approval that everybody feels 5 comfortable with this evening and perhaps approve it 6 according to that condition. And I don't know what that 7 condition would be. It might be up to the discussion to 8 determine that. 9 MR. COLTON: Does anyone from planning staff 10 know -- have there been any discussions on the other 11 portions of CCN with any plans or anything like that? 12 MR. JONES: Bob indicated that he's heard nothing 13 as well and I haven't and Ted indicates that he hasn't. 14 MR. COLTON: Okay. Jerry? 15 MR. GAVALDON: I've got a process question. And 16 one of the criteria is, I'm hearing a lot of information 17 about deadlines, reluctant to share contract information, 18 and want to push ahead with it with minimal risk. All 19 these are -- is great information to have. But is this 20 part of a process to evaluate? Are we supposed to 21 evaluate what does the plan call for? What's the criteria 22 to evaluate? Does any of the stuff that was shared part 23 of this process? 24 MR. JONES: The official answer -- and correct me 25 if I'm wrong, Paul or Ted -- is that you're charged to N 1 contract, and those contractual obligations need to be met 2 in a certain time frame. 3 MS. CARPENTER: What is that deadline? 4 MS. SWEERE: I must say I am reluctant to mention 5 that in a public forum. 6 MS. CARPENTER: Well, then, let me put it a 7 different way. If we -- if we continue this to the next P 8 and Z meeting -- 9 MS. SWEERE: Which would be? 10 MR. ECKMAN: Two weeks from tonight. 11 MS. CARPENTER: November 4th. 12 MS. SWEERE: That would be minimally acceptable 13 for us to proceed given that time. 14 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you. 15 MR. COLTON: Any other questions for the 16 applicant right now? Okay. Thanks. 17 I want to open it up for public input now. If 18 there's anyone else from the public who would like to come 19 and give us your input, please stand up or raise your hand 20 or come on down. I don't see anyone jumping up and 21 down. 22 MR. JONES: I've got another discussion that I 23 didn't think of when I was -- 24 MR. COLTON: We closed public input. 25 MR. JONES: Oh, I'm sorry. When I was rattling 0 1 language in this particular zoning district is that only 2 40 percent of the district can be -- can be residential. 3 And so the question was, well does that mean the entire 4 CCN district? Does that mean parts of the CCN district? 5 Because this particular district is broken up into a 6 number of parts. And so this also hoped to clarify that 7 particular question by exempting this project in its 8 entirety from that question. 9 If you choose to continue this issue, my 10 request -- and I don't know the logistics of how this 11 operates -- but my request is that it could be done in a 12 quick fashion. I don't know if your agenda allows a 13 revisiting of this at the next P and Z or how that would 14 happen. But the state funding is contingent upon this 15 decision tonight. And we were, of course, hopeful for a 16 positive decision so that we could proceed with the 17 affordable housing project. 18 MR. COLTON: Thank you. If anyone has any 19 questions. Yeah. You have a question? 20 MS. CARPENTER: Wait, wait. Don't sit down 21 yet. I have a question. What is your deadline for the 22 state funding? 23 MS. SWEERE: The deadline, frankly, is a matter 24 of land contract, not a deadline with the state funding. 25 And so the issue at hand is that the land is under Ul 1 over 300 units on this site, single-family detached. We 2 have been granted a conditional loan from the State of 3 Colorado, conditional upon this decision. And so much of 4 the impetus for getting this issue resolved was meeting 5 the conditions of that grantable loan from the State of 6 Colorado. 7 The issue at hand, I believe, is understood here 8 in that what the current policy does is pit one landowner 9 against the other. The way City plan doesn't vest the 10 developer's right until final approval. The question was 11 raised, what if we were trying to create these 12 single-family units and another developer were trying to 13 create these other single-family units. 14 Of course, we're both spending hundreds of 15 thousands of dollars in that process and may not be aware 16 of each other activities. And if one developer submitted 17 a day before the other, that developer would vest rights. 18 So this was a large risk for the State of Colorado. 19 The initial response from staff was that they did 20 not believe that there would be a likelihood that 21 single-family or residential developers would want to 22 develop in this area. And they did not believe it was a 23 high risk that there would be a lot of single-family or 24 multifamily residential developed in the area. 25 The additional question was raised as to -- the C 1 would need a lot of help from Paul, is that we could look 2 at vested rights. There could be several options that we 3 have to say that this particular project gets first dibs 4 to the 40 percent. But if this project fails and doesn't 5 happen, then the whole area still stays at that 40 percent 6 single-family housing. 7 And I agree there is a problem with the whole way 8 this is written. And we need to look at it as a policy 9 issue. But for tonight, we're stuck with what we've got. 10 And that's why I'd like to request of the Board and 11 possibly go ahead and make a motion at this time to 12 continue this. 13 MR. COLTON: I think we need to hear from the 14 applicant first, and then see if there's any public input 15 after that. I think we can go ahead for -- I guess, since 16 we opened it up as an item, we should probably go ahead 17 and hear what the applicant has to say. 18 Would the applicant please like to come forward? 19 MS. SWEERE: Thank you. I'm biting at the 20 chomp. My name is Monica Sweere. I'm with Palladian 21 Construction Company. And just to add to -- I believe 22 it's Troy's comments on this issue. I'd like to emphasize 23 that there is a time factor involved here that's critical. 24 We have applied to the State of Colorado for 25 funding because our goal is to create affordable housing, 5 1 single-family would be a secondary -type use. 2 And your question is, why does staff feel that 3 that is satisfied. And I think my best bet would be to 4 defer and say I think I agree with you, Sally, and I think 5 we would need Bob Blanchard here to defend that particular 6 item. 7 So you may consider either -- if you feel 8 comfortable, I would recommend either one of two actions. 9 Either if the other Boards feel -- other Board members 10 feel comfortable about it to approve it anyway if that's 11 not an issue to them, or to continue the item to the next 12 planning and zoning session until that question can be 13 asked to Bob Blanchard. 14 MS. CRAIG: What I would like to put before the 15 other Board members is that I have no problem with the 16 project itself. What I have a problem with is that this 17 whole area could end up with single-family housing and 18 that was not the intent of this area. 19 What I'd like to see us do as a Board is to 20 continue this. And in the interim, possibly Paul and Bob 21 Blanchard and the applicant can sit down and figure out a 22 way that we can give them first rights, so to speak, 23 without us losing the 40 percent housing. 24 So somehow -- and, you know, I don't want to go 25 into it tonight because I don't know the legalities, and I 4 1 The zoning district is approximately -- this -- 2 basically the piece of this CCN zoning district -- let me 3 refer to in my notes here. This -- well, this piece is 4 approximately 31 percent of this piece of the CCN zoning 5 district. So if they built single-family housing on this 6 whole site, then that would use up the majority of that 7 allotted 40 percent, which is allowed in this zoning 8 district. 9 Now what the applicant would like to do is a 10 modification so that they can be ensured that if the 11 property to the north were to gain approval prior to this 12 property's final approval, they would still be able to 13 develop their property after spending all of the money and 14 all of the engineering costs and that sort of thing. 15 The dilemma that Sally brought up is that this 16 could bring a situation into this piece of the CCN zone 17 where the property to the north would develop with 18 single-family units. And because of this modification 19 request, this site could also develop, and upwards of 80 20 percent of this portion of the CCN zone would.then have 21 single-family units. 22 And if I understand you correctly, Sally, the 23 concern is that the intent and the purpose of CCN zone, 24 according to what the -- defined in the Land Use Code, 25 would not support 80 percent single-family houses, but 3 1 setting the stage here. 2 MR. JONES: Okay. All right. The proposal is 3 for this property which is -- bear with me for a minute 4 here. Okay. We've got 300 single-family homes that are 5 intended to be affordable housing units. They will be 6 single-family detached units. And they're -- they're 7 intended to be on this site in the CCN zone. Just to 8 orient everybody, this is College Avenue (indicating). 9 We've got Vine Drive. 10 The lake canal runs right here along the southern it boundary of the property. It is currently vacant 12 land. The -- the issue at hand is they are seeking a 13 modification to the standard which specifies in the CCN 14 zone that only 40 percent of -- of this piece of the CCN 15 zone, or this geographic zoning district can be 16 single-family residential units. 17 The -- and the reason the applicant would like 18 the modification to this standard is because they intend 19 to put an application in for this project; although, the 20 rule is that whoever -- whichever applicant, if there's a 21 race side by side two properties trying to develop 22 single-family homes at the same time, it would, in 23 essence, be a race to see who gets final approval first to 24 see who could get this allotted 40 percent within this 25 zoning district. E 1 MR. COLTON: All right. That brings up 2 discussion items. And per normal practice, we should go 3 ahead with the Old Town North, the item that has been 4 pulled, item number 3. And, Sally, would you like to have 5 a presentation, or would you like to discuss . . . 6 MS. CRAIG: I don't think I need a presentation. 7 If it gets to where the other Board members are a little 8 confused at what I'm saying, then we might start back at 9 square one to explain the modification. 10 I pulled it because I went ahead and looked up in 11 the Land Use Code this particular area which is called 12 CCN. And it referred to the North College Corridor Plan. 13 So I looked that one also. And after doing that, I didn't 14 feel that the modification met the intent and purpose of 15 the Land Use Code. And so I was going to check with staff 16 to find out why they felt like it met the intent and 17 purpose of the Land Use Code. So Trov. 18 MR. JONES: And just on the record, Bob Blanchard 19 is the planner on this project. And he is out of town 20 today, and he asked me to cover for him. 21 Just a little bit of background, just to make 22 sure I understand and everyone else understands what the 23 issue is. 24 MR. COLTON: And Troy, I wasn't there. Maybe you 25 can go ahead and give a little bit of a presentation, PLANNING & ZONING MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1999 OLD TOWN NORTH MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS Commission Members Present: Glen Colton Mikal Torgerson Sally Craig Dan Bernth Jennifer Carpenter Jerry Gavaldon Staff Present: Paul Eckman, City Attorney's Office Troy Jones, Planning Department Ted Shepard, Planning Department Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 140 W. Oak Street, Suite 266 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970) 482-1506 or (800) 482-1506 Fax: 482-1230 e-mail: meadors@frii.com Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District Division 4.15(B) (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Convenience retail stores with fuel sales, provided they are at least three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (3/a mile) from the nearest . convenience shoppmg center and/or convenience ''refail store =-- ` 2 Unlimited indooi recreational uses and facilities.. (C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited. (D) Land Use Standards. (1) Single-family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) `dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single-family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. (2) Maximum building height shall be five (5) stories. (E) Development Standards. All development in the C-C-N Community Commercial District shall also comply with the standards contained in the Standards and Guidelines for the North College Avenue Corridor as adopted by the city, to the extent that such standards and guidelines apply to the property to be developed. (Ord. No. 90, 1998, 5/19/98; Ord. No. 228, 1998 §§48-50, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 99, 1999 §24, 6115199) . Article 4, Page 107 Supp. 6 Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District Division 4.15(B) Supp. 6 (d) Industrial Uses::. 1.. :; Light industrial uses. 2 Research laboratories. - 3 Workshops and custom small industryuses. �. • (e) Accessory/NTiscellaneous Uses: Satellite dish antennas greater than thirty-nine (39) inches in diameter. 2. Wireless telecommunication equipment. 3_ Wireless telecommunication facilities. (3) The following uses am. permitted in the C-C-N District, subject to --review by .the Planning and Zoning Board: . (a) Residential. Uses: 1. Group homes, other than allowed in subparagraph 1 (2)(a)6 above. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Hospitals. 2. Public and private schools . for elementary, intermediate and high school education. 3. Long-term care facilities. Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District Division 4.15(B) 6. Cemeteries. 7. Transit facilities, without repair or storage. "(c)" ' Commercial/Retail Uses: L Bed and breakfast establishments. 2.. Standard and fast food restaurants. 3 : Grocery stores. 4. Personal and business service shops. 5. Offices, financial services and clinics. 6. Clubs and lodges. .... - 7. Bars and taverns. 8. Funeral homes. 9. Artisan and photography studios -and galleries. 10. Open-air farmers markets. 11. Entertainment facilities and theaters. 12. Convenience retail stores without fuel sales. 13. Limited indoor recreation establishments. 14. Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics. 15. Retail establishments. 16. Lodging establishments. 17.. Child care centers. 18. Dog day-care facilities. 19. Print shops. Article 4, Page 105 . Sapp. 6 ._ ••_ i�AMy..iY. Division 4.15, Community Commercial - North College District _ Division 4.15(B) (d) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Neighborhood parks as defined by Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. ; (2) i The following uses are permitted in the C C-N District, subject to admuustrarive review• (a) Residential Uses 1 `. S' gle-family detached dwellings on . lots containing less than six thousand (6,000) square feet 2..' _ . -.._'Two-family dwellings. 3_ Single family attached dwelling. 4. Multi family dwellings. , 5. Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. - -- 6. Boarding and rooming houses. 7. Mixed -use dwelling units. (b) . Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: v. 1. Places of worship or -assembly. ate 2. Public and private schools, including colleges, universities, vocational and technical training. C.= 3... Community facilities. 4. Public facilities. 5 Parks, recreation and other open lands, except xa neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and F - :Policy Plan. IRecreation r � . - .... .. Article 4, Page 104 .. ., ... -.ems.._.-. Division 4.15, CommunityCommercial - North Calle a District - g Division 4.15 DIVISION 4.15 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL- NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT (A) Purpose The Community Commercial North College District Is for ,-fringes of retail/commercial core areas and cornd'ors ; , s Distnctis W�)W intended for moderate intensity uses that 'are supportive ` o£ the commercial core or corridor, and that help to crates trans itio•Tnnan a Ink ti between the commercial areas and surrounding Resdential areas This U r•S r_.oX+'aN`eL'.v r^•Y"ia--"'2iT'•-a'.'..ks t- designation is only for areas identified for rts . application m the North x x r g Colle a Condor Plan. ,,//}�rrayy � ".� 'b �"tS, � X ��"�..: �.a• x � f Permitted Uses' m z (1) The following uses are permitted in the C C N Distnct, subject to Building Permit review, provided thatsuch uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site specific development plan: (a) Residential Uses 1. Accessory buildings .2.. Accessory uses. (b) Any . use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Land Use Code . (other thana final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi -family dwelling containing more than four (4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (c) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was permitted fora specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; q provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute +; a permitted use only on such parcel of property. ry t ,ir rYy; •'Y' alit ��+.�ai.�'.'"., t< .. .,i '::�' I,�:'j° , a Anc�fe 4. Page 103ti . Supp 4�`;i ti1rsK) " sKtx - Z� a'C"'P�p•�>53k� S'.-�nar ��'!4'.s'lS r ^ ' ', � . -, ' � • " ,�. '�-�xr f7�y����7 • µ r _ << z �Y-•:G as�tZ t �ryu. ra E.•t t o-x M � r �� , � , -..� 1 -Xrt i'Y �'q. 7 h-c�;Z{''sia..5` . ,�" r "`rv.�"F� W.i�~ Tt to.. SC' 1 �� -•Y' • r�iC:^� ` 3..• �y'„y�1�'`�`�.�. - -7c����?hy,..� .. :• [1 fir•: 7v''irt?�i:,.s�• .. t. �' Nl+`Y ihtc'W.`�`�:�Y1s a. ,.. . PURPOSE OF THE CCN, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL — NORTH COLLEGE DISTRICT The Community Commercial — North College District is for fringes of retail/commercial core areas and corridors. This District is intended for moderate intensity uses that are supportive of the commercial core or corridor, and that help to create a transition and a link between the commercial areas and surrounding residential areas. This designation is only for areas identified for its application in the North College Corridor Plan. PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE CODE A. Ensure that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including, but not limited to the Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub -area plans. B. Encourage innovations in land development and renewal. C. Foster the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city's transportation infrastructure and other public facilities and services. D. Facilitate and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open space, recreation, and public parks. E. Avoid the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage. F. Encourage patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation. G. Increase public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation. H. Reduce energy consumption and demand. I. Minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development. J. Improve the design, quality and character of new development. K. Foster a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all. L. Encourage the development of vacant properties within established areas M. Ensure that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods. N. Ensure that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features. 3. Concerns were stated that approval of the modification would not meet the intent of the Land Use Code. The staff report included an analysis of how the modification request would not impair the intent and purpose of the CCN zoning district. I have also attached to this memorandum a copy of the purpose section of the Land Use Code (Section 1.2.2). In addition, a copy of the CCN zoning district is attached so that you can see the uses that have been determined to meet the intent of the district. It is still staffs opinion that the approval of this modification request in no way impairs the intent and purpose of any section of the Land Use Code. Comn ty Planning and Environments Current Planning of Fort Collins TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Bob Blanchard �3co Current Planning Director DATE: October 29, 1999 SUBJECT: Olde Town North Modification, File #28-99 rvices As project planner for this project, I apologize for not being able to attend last week's public meeting. However, I have reviewed the tape and identified three outstanding issues. Hopefully, this memorandum and discussion at the work session will resolve any outstanding issues. Clark Mapes, who was project manager for the North College Corridor Plan and I will be at the work session to answer any questions. ISSUES FROM PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING: 1. Granting this modification would exempt this project totally resulting in the ability of any other property to develop with single family residential that equates to 40% of the area of the CCN zoning district. Granting this modification could result in more that 40% of the geographically defined area developed with single family residential only if another project gets final approval first and the Olde Towne North project continues to proceed. If the Olde Towne North project gets approval first, which as proposed would result in up to 31% of the district area developing with single family, any subsequent project would be limited to whatever would result in a total of 40% (in this, scenario — 9%) 2. Comments were made expressing a desire to see what the project would look like if the modification was not granted. This is an unnecessary and inappropriate request in the context of this modification request. The modification application deals only with a process issue not with a design issue. In this case, the criteria being modified addresses a restriction on the percentage of the geographically distinct district area that can be developed with single family residences. Since there are no developments that have used any of this allocation at this time, the modification request is to ensure that an affordable housing project can, proceed even if the allocation is used up prior to the project's approval. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 CONDITION OF APPROVAL OLD TOWN NORTH MODIFICATION REQUEST The applicant shall submit an application within one year of the approval of this modification in accordance with Section 2.8.1 of the Land Use Code. This modification shall only be valid for a period of five (5) years following such submittal during which time the applicant must obtain final approval of all Project Development Plans for the entire property. One extension of this modification may be granted by the Director not to exceed one year in length. This modification shall only be valid if the project qualifies as an affordable housing project as defined in the Land Use Code, except that the percentage of dwelling units required to be "affordable housing units" is changed from ten (10) percent to fifty (50) percent. r fd& 5 W-1%1"4 Comm y Planning and Environmenta -vices . Advance Planning Department City of Fort Collins October 4, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director FM: Ken Waido, Chief Planner r' LV- RE: Old Town North - Affordable Housing Project Qt_ The purpose of this memorandum is to verify that the proposed Old Town North development proposal is an affordable housing project. This project has received a commitment of financial assistance from the Colorado Division of Housing. The Division of Housing's subsidy will carry a condition that units be affordable to families with incomes less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) in accordance with the definition and standards for affordable housing contained in the Fort Collins City Code. If have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 • E-mail: aplanning@ci.fort-collins.co.us design .. Mr. Bob Blanchard Olde Town North Modification Page 4 based on a single family concept and requires single family housing in order to be viable. Financing available from the state is contingent upon the property z. being built as designed.. Under the current code, vesting does not occur until the final mylars are . .complete. If the 40% limitation on single family applies -to the entire C-C-N Zone, the possibility exists that Olde Town North would proceed with full documentation with their project as a single family project only to find at the end of their project that another project had previously been approved. that would preempt the rights for single family development. The risk involved is for the developer to pay full design and engineering costs for a specific site for an uncertain outcome. Please note that this is only likely to occur if "geographically distinct district area " means" the entire C-C-N Zone District and there are two concurrent projects being reviewed by the City. In the scenario outlined, both projects would be proceeding through review and both would have single family projects that would, taken together, exceed the 40% maximum within the C-C-N District. This level of risk is unacceptable to any financial partners for the project and especially the state. For this reason, if the current limitation is not waived, the project would be infeasible. Simply stated, the project cannot be funded without the waiver, or in the alternative, an interpretation that the Olde Town North Project constitutes its own "geographically distinct area" within the C-C-N Zone District. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and would be happy to present our case before the Planning and Zoning Board. Sincerely, bh sign inc. by Bruce A. Hendee, ASLA President cc: Monica Sweere Mr. Bob Blanchard Olde Town North Modification Page 3 priority should be affordable housing. The proposed project (Olde Town North) would provide exactly the type of neighborhood desired as part of this policy. The proposed project would also meet the stated goals of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan as well as meeting the other requirements of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. In order for the project to be granted a modification a proposed project must meet the guidelines required for the Planning and Zoning Board to justify a modification request. Specifically the P & Z must find: Municipal Code (a) the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent of the Land Use Code and (b) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution ( such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Olde Town North meets both of these guidelines. For the first criteria, the granting of a modification would not be detrimental to the public good. Conversely, it would be to the benefit of the public good by providing a much needed housing type that would meet a need stated by the City as being a top priority. Secondly, Olde Town North would meet a need of the City that is best exemplified through the policy adopted on February 2nd stating the need for affordable housing. Additionally the project would not be feasible if a strict application of the standard is enforced. The reason the project would not be feasible is based on financing and risk. As the code is currently written it is not clear whether the 40% limitation on single family residential applies to the entire C-C-N Zone district. The Land Use Code does not specifically define the term " geographically distinct area." The C-C-N Zone is larger than this project, and incorporates additional property to the north of the site. The proposed project is design Mr..Bob Blanchard_ O1de Town North Modification Page 2 fees. The unit must be occupied by and affordable to such low income household(s) for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. . As proposed the project would include 300 single family homes plus a second housing type which would include 30 Carriage homes to be located on the single family lots. Homes would be priced to meet the guidelines established by the City for affordable housing. In fact, the project has received financial support from the state of Colorado pending the successful adoption of this modification. The property is located in the C-C-N District. This district is a direct outgrowth of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. One of the goals of the plan is : Increase residential development with housing types consistent with the overall vision of the plan. The vision of the plan for residential development is stated in policy LU- 3. A diversity of housing types should be encouraged to locate in appropriate areas throughout the corridor. Also in the plan under the title Neighborhood Mixed Use District, the plan calls for ...... higher density residential development with opportunities for neighborhood retail and services incorporated into development projects such as small lot single family....... The proposed project meets this stated goal. The Fort Collins Land Use Code permits single family residential units 6,000SF or under as a permitted use subject to administrative review. The proposed project meets this requirement. The code also requires that single family housing shall have a minimum density of 5 DU/AC. The proposed project meets this density standard. Justification As identified in the Fort Collins policy " Priority Affordable Housing Needs and. Strategies" which was adopted on February 2"d of this year, Fort Collins Highest September 7, 1999 Mr. Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director .City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. . Fort Collins, CO. 80521 P�1.L.D goo�j- design 1pT9M� T� � SEP 0 8 1999 r RE: Olde Town North- Standard Modification Request Dear Bob, This letter represents an official request for a modification to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code under Division 2.8 of the code. The code modification or interpretation requested is for Article 4.15, paragraph D, sub -paragraph (1), which states: Single-family, two family, and multi family housing shall have a minimum density of five(5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. This request is for a modification waiving the maximum allowable percentage of forty (40) percent for single family homes or, in the alternative, an interpretation that the "Olde Town North" property constitutes a "geographically distinct area" within the C-C-N zone district. The modification requested would waive this requirement. Background The site is located west of the proposed extension of Redwood, north of the Lake Canal, and east of College Avenue. The site is approximately 40 acres and is being designed to provide single family housing that would meet the stated definition of affordable housing as defined by the City code. Affordable Housing Unit for Sale shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for purchase on terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty(80) percent or less of the median income of city residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty-eight. (38) percent of their gross income for housing, including principal, interest, taxes, and insurance, utilities, and homeowner's association .s INTERPRETATION The Land Use Code is clear that the 40% limitation on residential development applies to the each distinct geographical area zoned CCN (there are two areas in the North College Avenue area zoned CCN). Therefore, if one developer receives Final Plan approval for a residential development that covers 40% of the geographically distinct zoned area, the remainder of the area will be limited to the other permitted uses listed in the Code. The timing of the approval for this calculation is the date the Director makes a final determination and approves the Final Plan. The principle to be applied is "first in time, first in right." DocfiNnterp retationsU -98 Comm .y Planning and Environmenta- rvices Current Planning 101 of Fort Collins TO: Interested Parties FROM: Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director DATE: November 30, 1998 SUBJECT:. Administrative Interpretation #1-98 NOTE: Changes to the Land Use Code made subsequent to this administrative interpretation may change the validity of this interpretation. BACKGROUND: Division 4.15 of the Land Use Code, the Community Commercial — North College zoning district (CCN), provides for all types of residential uses as permitted uses. However, the Land Use Standards [Section 4.15(D)(1)] limits the amount of the zoning district that can be developed as residential: Single-family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single-family housing shall be limited to a maximum of fortv (40) percent of the eographically distinct district area (emphasis added) Two questions have been posed for. interpretation: How is the 40% determined? If the first developer comes in with all single family detached and it represents the entire 40% of the district, and then the second developer comes in with all single family detached, how is the determination made as to whether the second developer gets to have any single family detached? Using the scenario outlined above, when is the first developer considered to have rights to the full 40%? Does this occur at vested rights at the time of approval of the Final Plan, approval by P&Z, administrative approval (if applicable) of the Project Development Plan, at the time the project is submitted for Conceptual Review, OOP (if applicable) or when the PDP application is submitted? 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 8052"-0580 • (9; 0)'' 1-6 50 • FAX (970) 41ti-2030 VICINITY MAP 09/30/99 #28-99 Olde Town North Modification Type II (LUC) 1"= 600' 0 C. Granting the requested modification would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, namely "affordable housing." D. The plan as submitted meets the modification criteria in the following ways: The project, should it.proceed, has been identified by the City as an affordable housing project which addresses an important community need identified by the City. The proposed project has received funding from the State Division of Housing with the condition that the project meet the City's definition of affordable which will address an important community need identified by the City, namely, affordable housing. The granting of the modification will provide an opportunity to benefit the public good by providing an incentive for an affordable housing project to proceed. 6. RECOMMENDATION: A. Staff recommends approval of the modification request to Section 4.15(D)(1) of the LUC for the Olde Town North project, File No. 28-99. link between the commercial areas and surrounding residential areas. This designation is only for areas identified for its application in the North College Corridor Plan. The location of this property is clearly on the fringe of the North College Avenue commercial corridor. In fact, its western boundary directly abuts the CN — Commercial, North College Zoning District. Through the development review process and the application of the criteria contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, transitional areas and linkages will be provided between the commercial corridor, the proposed development and the existing residential to the east. The granting of the modification would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need that is specifically and expressly defined and described in City Plan. On February 2, 1998, City Council adopted the Fort Collins "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies." This document identified affordable housing as Fort Collins' highest priority. In addition, City Plan principles and policies support this modification: Principle HSG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the urban area for all income levels. This project, if approved, will provide two types of affordable housing — single family detached and carriage houses. Principle HSG-2: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of existing housing stock This project, if approved, will expand the availability of affordable housing in Fort Collins. Policy HSG-2.2: The City will support and encourage the private development of affordable housing by offering incentives and reducing local government barriers to the construction of additional units. While this policy refers to the development of policy and process incentives, the granting of this modification could be considered an incentive to affordable housing since this project will not likely occur unless the predictability offered by the modification is provided. 5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: A. The request for a modification to Land Use Code Section 4.15(D)(1) of the LUC is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. Granting the requested modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code. the such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. 3. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting that the requirement contained in the CCN - Community Commercial, North College District that requests single family development to 40% of the geographically distinct district area be modified for the proposed project. While the size of this project is only approximately 31 % of this particular CCN area (this CCN district is approximately 129 acres in size, the project is approximately 40 acres in size), a modification to this requirement protects the proposed project from being adversely affected should another single family project be submitted and ultimately approved prior to their approval. The applicants submittal relies on the following criteria: The granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that: The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an and existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The proposed project meets the City's definition for affordable housing. Review by the Advanced Planning Department verifies this (see Attachment 3). In addition, the proposed project has received funding from the State Division of Housing with the condition that the project meet the City's definition of affordable. 4. EVALUATION OF MODIFICATION REQUEST The granting of the modification request would not be detrimental to the public good. The CCN zoning district allows single family as a permitted use subject to administrative review. The Fort Collins "Priority Affordable Housing Needs and Strategies" (adopted 2/2/98), identified affordable housing as Fort Collins' highest priority. By providing this need to the community, this modification request would enhance the public good. The granting of the modification request would not impair the intent or purposes of. the LUC. The purpose of the Section 4.15 of the LUC, the CCN zoning district states: The Community Commercial — North College District is for fringes of retail/commercial core areas and corridors. This District is intended for moderate intensity uses that are supportive of the commercial core or corridor, and that help to create a transition and a Because of this interpretation, the applicant decided to pursue a modification to ensure that if a separate application was made for a single family development in the same CCN zoning district , they would be guaranteed a right to pursue their project. 2. MODIFICATION REQUEST (1) Division 2.8 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS This is a request for a modification of Land Use Code Section 4.15(D)(1): Single family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area (emphasis added). Specifically, a modification is being requested to the requirement limiting single family housing to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area (see Attachment 2). The geographically distinct district area referred to in the Code represents each individual area zoned CCN. Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code, Modification of Standards, outlines the review criteria to be used by the Planning and Zoning Board. It indicates that the Planning and Zoning Board shall grant a modification of standards only if it finds that: The granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that: The plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or, The granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an and existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible, or, By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extra -ordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of The applicant intends to submit a project development plan for 300 single family homes and 30 carriage homes. These homes will all meet the City's definition of affordable housing. COMMENTS 1. BACKGROUND The 40 acre property is located west of the proposed extension of Redwood, north of the Lake Canal and east of North College Avenue. The property is zoned CCN — Community Commercial, North College District. The surrounding zoning and land uses from the proposed project development plan are as follows: N: CCN: Vacant, Conifer Street W: CN: Commercial development, North College Avenue S: *CCN: Industrial development, East Vine Drive E: LMN: Redwood Street, Redwood Village This property was annexed into the City as the 3`d East Vine Drive Annexation in November, 1967. Early discussions regarding this project raised issues regarding the 40% limitation for single family development. Concerns were expressed about the effect of competing applications: i.e. If two applications were being processed at the same time, would it become a "race" to.see who got approval first. The impact of this is that whoever did not receive approval would have expended significant amounts of time and money in a project that ultimately could not be approved. In November, 1998, the applicant requested a formal interpretation of Section 4.15 (D)(1) of the Land Use Code. Two questions were asked: How is the 40% determined? If the first developer comes in with all single family detached and it represents the entire 40% of the district, and then the second developer comes in with all single family detached, how is the determination made as to whether the second developer gets to have any single family detached? Using the scenario outlined above, when is the first developer considered to have rights to the full 40%? Does this occur at vested rights at the time of approval of the Final Plan, approval by P&Z, administrative approval (if applicable) of the Project Development Plan, at the time the project is submitted for Conceptual Review, ODP (if applicable) or when the PDP application is submitted? The interpretation was that if one developer receives Final Plan approval for a plan that covers 40% of the zoned area, the remainder of the area will be limited to other permitted uses. The timing of the approval for purposes of this calculation is the date the Director approved the Final Plan (see attached interpretation, Attachment 1). ITEM NO. 3 MEETING DATE 10/21/99 STAFF Bob Blanchard Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Modification of a Standard for Olde Town North, #28-99 APPLICANT: Bruce Hendee BHA Design 4803 Innovation Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Monica Sweere Palladian Construction Company PO Box 270053 Fort Collins, CO 80527 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to build a qualified affordable housing project on approximately 40 acres located west of the proposed extension of Redwood, north of the Lake Canal and east of North College Avenue. The property is zoned CCN — Community Commercial, North College District. The proposed project would include 300 single family homes. 30 of the single family lots would also include carriage homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the modification request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a modification of Land Use Code Section 4.15(D)(1): Single family, two-family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. Specifically, a modification is being requested to the requirement limiting single family housing to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. The geographically distinct district area referred to in the Code represents each individual area zoned CCN. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT The appellant contends that the Municipal and Land Use Codes were not properly interpreted and applied for two reasons: 1. The requirement that the project contain a minimum of 50% affordable housing is not consistent with the intent of the Land Use Code's definition of affordable housing which only requires 10%; and, 2. The 50% requirement renders the project practically infeasible which is contrary to the purpose of the modification request and the Code. B. Applicable Code Section(s) Section 5.1.2, Definitions, of the Land Use Code defines an affordable housing project as follows: Affordable housing project shall mean a development project in which: (1) at least seventy-five (75) percent of the gross acreage to be developed under the plan is to be developed as residential dwelling units or mobile home park spaces; (2) at least ten (10) percent of said dwelling units or spaces (the "affordable housing units") are to be available for rent or purchase on the terms described in the definitions of affordable housing unit for rent or affordable housing unit for sale (as applicable); (3) the construction of the dwelling units or spaces is to occur as part of the initial phase of the project and (i) prior to the construction of the market rate units or (ii) on a proportional basis, according to the same ratio as the number of affordable units bears to the number of the market rate units; and (4) the units will be required by binding legal instrument acceptable to the city and duly recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, to be occupied by and affordable to low-income households for at least twenty (20) years. C. Staff Response During the discussion of the original motion to approve the modification with a condition that it meet the definition of an affordable housing project (10% affordable units), the Planning and Zoning Board discussed raising the threshold. Because of the perceived mixed use intent of the CCN — Community Commercial North College zone district, which could be compromised if two single-family projects were developed, and the applicant's indication that the intent was to build a project that is entirely affordable, the Board voted to amend the original motion, increasing the threshold of affordable units to a minimum of 50%. a. The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; b. The board, commission or other decision maker substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure; C. The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading; or d. The board, commission or other decision maker improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant. Section 2.8.2 (H) of the Land Use Code specifies the review criteria used to review the modification request: (H) ....the Planning and Zoning Board shall grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Land Use Code; and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city" Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic congestion or urban blight) and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The appeal is based on Section 2-48 1) of the City Code: 2-48 1): Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code A. Allegation Comm ity Planning and Environmenta trvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Bob Blanchard Current Planning irector THROUGH: Greg Byrne CPES Direct r John Fischbac,44,V6 Jcj City Manager DATE: December 23, 1999 SUBJECT: Appeal Of The Conditional Approval Of A Request For A Modification Of Standard - Olde Town North Subdivision The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal filed on November 18, 1999 by Ms Monica Sweere of Palladian Construction Company regarding the November 4, 1999 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve with a condition a request for a modification of standard for a proposed project known as the Olde Town North Subdivision. The memorandum does not provide a recommendation or attempt to justify either the Board's decision or the appeal. Rather, it sets the parameters by which an appeal can be filed, identifies the sections of the Code the appeal is based on, describes specific allegations, cites pertinent sections of the Land Use Code and briefly summarizes the Board's action. Section 2-48 of the City Code states: Except for appeals by members of the City Council, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board, commission or other decision maker committed one (1) or more of the following errors: 1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter. 2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 City Cl City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, January 11, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on November 4,1999 regarding the Olde Town North Subdivision (#28-99), filed by Monica Sweere. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Planning Department (221-6750). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by January 4. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday, January 6, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. &L Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: December 17, 1999 cc: City Attorney Planning Department Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295 City At ney of Fort Collins MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 1999 TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorne4 RE: Old Town North Notice of Appeal On November 18, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was filed, with your office by Palladian Construction Company regarding the decision of November 4, 1999, ofthe Planning and Zoning Board pertaining to the modification of the standard for Old Town North. Pursuant to Section 2-50 of the Code of the City, this office is required, within five working days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, to review the same for any obvious defects in form or substance. I have reviewed this Notice of Appeal against the requirements of Section 2-49 of the Code pertaining to the filing of a Notice of Appeal and I believe it does not contain any obvious defects in form or substance, and may be schedule before the Council for hearing. Although the Notice of Appeal does not specifically identify the action of the Board as being the "Modification of Standard for Olde Town North, Number 28-99" I believe by referencing the "Zoning Modification Request pertaining to Olde Town North Subdivision", that it is obvious which "action" the appellant is appealing. WPE:med 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 9 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 9 (970) 221-6520 • FAX (970) 221-6327 • Page 2 November 18, 1999 Modification Request and the Municipal Code. The Municipal and Land Use Codes were not, therefore, properly interpreted and applied. Our request is that the approval language be modified to accurately reflect City Planning Staffs recommendation that "This modification shall only be valid if the project qualifies as an affordable housing project as defined in the Land Use Code." Sincerely, Monica Sweere President Palladian Construction Company, Appellant .(410 ♦CONSTRUCTION November 18, 1999 Fort Collins City Council C/O City Clerk Post Office Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Olde Town North Notice of Appeal Dear Mayor Martinez and City Council Members, COMP D E C E I V E I On November 4, 1999, The Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approved a Zoning Modification Request pertaining to Olde Town North Subdivision. This letter is intended to serve as written notice of appeal in order to ask City Council to modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. As the developer of this project and as the party who made the Zoning Modification Request, please consider changing the P&Z decision on the following grounds: In granting the modification, the P&Z Board must find: Municipal Code (a) the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public good nor impair the intent of the Land Use Code and (b) the granting of a modificationftom the strict application of any standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concen:, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The Planning and Zoning Board approved our Modification Request but added an additional requirement that "the percentage of dwelling units required to be `affordable housing units' is changed from ten (10) percent to fifty (50) percent." Such a requirement is in excess of the Land Use Code (Article 5 page 5) requirement that at least ten (10) percent of said dwelling units or spaces are to be available for rent or purchase on the terms described in the definitions of affordable housing unit for rent or affordable housing unit for sale. Such a requirement of fifty (50) percent is not consistent with the intent of a requirement of ten (10) percent as stipulated in the Land Use Code. Additionally, the fifty percent requirement renders the project practically infeasible, which is contrary to the purpose of our Post Office Box 270053 ♦ Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0053 ♦ (970) 229-9033 liv AGENDA ITEIPI SUMMARY 116 NUMBER: FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 11, 2000 STAFF: Bob Blanchard SUBJECT: Consideration of the Appeal of the November 4, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Condition the Approval of a Modification of Standard to Section 4.15(D)(1) of the Land Use Code for a Project Known as the Olde Town North Subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: ©�G''"` Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the City Code and Charter and, after consideration, (1) remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Board or (2) uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 4, 1999 the Planning and Zoning Board approved a Modification of Standard to Section 4.15(D)(1) of the Land Use Code (the CCN — Community Commercial - North College District) with the condition that the minimum number of affordable housing units be fifty percent (50%) of the total number of housing units to be constructed. Section 4.15(D)(1) states: Single-family, two- family and multi -family housing shall have a minimum density of five (5) dwelling units per net acre calculated on a gross residential acreage basis for any development project. Single-family housing shall be limited to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. (emphasis added) Specifically, a modification was requested to the requirement limiting single family housing to a maximum of forty (40) percent of the geographically distinct district area. The request was to ensure that this affordable housing project could proceed even if a separate project that consumed the entire 40 % received vested development rights. The geographically distinct district area referred to in the Code represents each individual area zoned CCN. On November 18, 1999, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office alleging that the Planning and Zoning Board "did not properly interpret nor properly apply relevant law (Land Use Code)." Attachments to this item include: Notice of Appeal; Staff response to the appeal; Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board; Condition of Approval; Additional handouts to the Planning and Zoning Board; and, Minutes of the October 21, 1999 and November 4, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board meetings.