HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLANDS PUD - ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE - 27-95 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL71
1 STATE OF COLORADO )
2 ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF LARIMER ),
4 I, Jason T. Meadors, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
5 and Notary Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that
6 the foregoing hearing, taken in the matter of the Woodlands
7 Condominiums PUD, was held on Monday, June 26, 1995, at 300
8 West Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado; that said
9 proceedings were transcribed by me from videotape record to
10 the foregoing 70 pages; that said transcript is, to the best
11 of my ability to transcribe same, an accurate and complete
12 record of the proceedings so taken.
13 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
14 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein
15 nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case.
16 Attested to by me this 8th day of August, 1995.
17 /
18
19
Ja T. adors
20 5 West Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
21 (303) 482-1506
22 My commission expires January 6, 1997.
23
24
25
0
70
1 MS. COTTIER: Yes.
2 THE CLERK: Mickelsen.
3 MS. MICKELSEN: No.
4 THE CLERK: Bell.
5 MS. BELL: Yes.
6 THE CLERK: Carnes.
7 MR. CARNES: Yes.
8 THE CLERK: Clements.
9 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes.
10 Motion passes, five -seven. With that, it's my
11 understanding that the decision is postponed until staff can
12 disseminate the required 28-day notice and conform to the
13 review process for preliminary plans; is that correct?
14 MR. BLANCHARD: We will process -- this will not
15 need to be processed as a formal PUD amendment. It will be
16 submitted to the entire Planning and Zoning Board process,
17 which is a nine -week process from the date that we receive
18 application.
19 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. With that, we will be
20 taking a ten-minute break, and we'll promptly return to take
21 our last item on the agenda.
22 (Agenda item concluded.)
23
24
25
G
W
1
MR.
SHEPHERD: That's the idea. I will concede
2
that 1600 feet
--
3
MS.
BELL: So they can use the kitchen.
4
MR.
SHEPHERD: Right, they can use the kitchen.
5
1600 feet is smaller than what we would like on a normal
6
basis, but we think that 1600 feet is adequate and will
7
accomplish the
task.
8
MS.
BELL: So it's a little bit more passively
9
recreational than an active rec center.
10
MR.
SHEPHERD: Correct.
11
MS.
CLEMENTS: Thank you. I'm looking for a
12
motion at this
time regarding the major or minor change.
13
Yes, Lloyd?
14
MR.
WALKER: Yeah, I move that we consider this
15
a.major change
based on the fact that the change in the
16
bedroom mix represents a significant change in character.
17
MS.
COTTIER: I second.
18
MS.
CLEMENTS: We have a motion and a second.
19
Further discussion before we have roll call?
20
Okay. Roll call.
21
THE
CLERK: Strom.
22
MR.
STROM: No.
23
THE
CLERK: Walker.
24
MR.
WALKER: Yes.
25
THE
CLERK: Cottier.
68
1 I'd like a little bit more explanation about this rec
2 center. What's it supposed to be? What are they going
3 to -- is it going to be basketball in -- tell me more about
4 this rec center.
5 MS. CLEMENTS: Steve, do you have that
6 information?
7 MR. OLT- I'd defer that to the -- to the
8 developer,.
9 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. We'd like to hear from the
10 applicant about what kind of activities would be taking
11 place inside the rec center.
12 MS. BELL: And exactly how big is the use -- the
13 recreational part of it, because I know one of the women
14 said something about 1600 square feet.
15 MR. SHEPHERD: 1600 feet is correct. Basically,
16 the rec center consists of a manager's office, a leasing
17 office, a kitchen --
18 MS. BELL: So that's part of this whole --
19 'MR. SHEPHERD: Correct, a kitchen, a retreat
20 area, along with a small game assembly -type room area for
21 the residents to congregate.
22 MS. BELL: So would that be -- I'm familiar with
23 rec centers in mobile home parks where they have like, you
24 know, like a communal area where you can have parties and --
25 so is that kind of the idea?
67
1 let's wrap up our questions, and we really need to decide
2 whether these are minor or major changes, and that needs to
3 be our first decision tonight. Jan?
4 MS. COTTIER: Another question that I have to
5 ask, because of the way.that it's been presented, what --
6 what about the landscaping plan that goes along with this
7 project? We did not see that. And were there changes made
8 to the landscaping plan? How does it compare to the 1980
9 approved landscaping plan?
10 The applicant implied that they were taking out
11 landscaping in the parking area because of the nature of the,
12 project being an affordable housing project. So I'm -- I
13 want to know if they are also using that rationale to delete
14 landscaping that was originally approved.
-15 MR. OLT: I certainly didn't see that in my
16 evaluation of the two plans. I think maybe -- I didn't hear
17 the applicant, I'm sorry, say that landscaping had been
18 deleted from the parking area. If that statement was made,
19 that went right from one ear to the other. I did not see a
20 significant change. I felt like the proposed landscape plan
21 with, really, a -- is relatively similar to the approved
22 plan. They did not make significant changes there.
23 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes. Gwen?
24 MS. BELL: I want to kind of take you back on
25 what Lloyd was saying about character, and in lieu of that,
66
1 volleyball, I'm sure, just because if those were taken out,
2 then maybe we'd get into the major change thing.
3 And yet there seems to be a need to add this
4 manager's office, assembly room, kitchen/retreat, and so
5 forth. So on the one hand, we're making some changes to
6 address the, what I would call, the change in character of
7 the mix of tenants, and yet, you know, I guess I -- I'd
8 suggest, you know, with the mix of tenants, maybe instead of
9 a pool and a volleyball court, maybe we need a child care
10 center than a pool. A pool may be looked upon by tenants
11 that rent this now as a nuisance or a hazard, whereas a
12 child care center might be more appropriate.
13 I'm just raising this question as food for
14 thought, you know. I mean, we're trying to -- it seems like
15 we're trying to -- we're trying to fit a different project
16 within the same box, and I'm not comfortable with how this
17 box is fitting. If we're going to turn this into something
18 that has a different character, then it ought to ripple
19 through the whole system, is 'my thought at this point.
20 (Applause.)
21 MS. CLEMENTS; Excuse me. Excuse me. That's
22 not real appropriate at a meeting. I understand your
.23 passion, and Lloyd puts it so eloquently, I almost want to
24 clap myself. So, thank you. I appreciate your cooperation.
25 We need to move forward on this project, so
65
1 have to grant a variance in order -- any type of a variance
2 in order to make that decision?
3 MR. OLT: That is correct. We have interpreted
4 that for years and approved projects for years with that
5 variance to the City Code in the PUD setting as part of the
6 approval. There are a number of things. Setbacks can be
7 done. Lot line setbacks can be done without a specific
8 variance being requested. It's just part of the proposal.
9 And that's how we evaluated this.
10 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes. Lloyd.
11 MR. WALKER: Yeah, I want to go back to this
12 issue of character. One of the thoughts I have on this,
13 relative to character, has to do with the change in the mix
14 of bedrooms in the units and so forth. It seems to me that,
15 you know, by doing that, I think there's been testimony that
16 suggests that this is going to appeal to a different_
17 clientele as a result, which would suggest.a change_ in
18 character.
19 But this relates to other things, though, that
20 sort of fit in with that. I see -- what I see.on both
21 plans -- and we still have a pool and a volleyball court.
22 Now, back in 1980, I think that was a very popular thing to
23 have in an apartment complex that was addressing a
24 certain -- or a condo complex with a certain -- addressing a
25 certain segment.of the market., We still.have the pool and
64
1 reviewed that file, as well as I did, so I know that file
2 was present at that time. I have seen that file within just
3 about a year. 'We both evaluated that numerous times.
4 That note was put in the -- was put in the file,
5 and I then followed up on our evaluation, our research, and
6 wrote a letter to Mr. Shepherd of Kaufman & Broad, making
7 them aware of the status of the project. So we had, at that
8 time, just recently as 1993, evaluated these files for the
9 final PUD. And there were no conditions that had not been
10 met, and we determined at that, time that the project was a
11 valid plan.
12 MS. COTTIER: I'm not at all disputing the
13 validity of the plan, but I personally would really like to
14 see how it was approved and what conditions existed, if any,
15 because there could be differences in the nature of the
16 projects -- the two projects we're considering in meeting
17 those conditions. Because, I mean, there might have been a
18 condition that there will be a homeowners association, for
19 instance, when it was proposed as a condo project. Because
20 we, always a Board, we have placed that condition on some
21 approvals.
22 MS. CLEMENTS: Yes. Gwen.
23 MS. BELL: Just a point of clarification about
24 this six -- exception of the six percent and whatnot. So
25 you're saying that that is a normal occurrence? You didn't
63
1 MR. SHEPHERD: Yes.
2 MS. BELL: So therefore, it was fairly easy to
3 carve out a third bedroom --
4 MR. SHEPHERD: Correct.
5 MS. BELL: A pretty small bedroom, probably,
6 but --
7 MR. SHEPHERD: But they are -- they're fine for
8 today's standards.
9 MS. BELL: Okay. Thank you.
10 MS. CLEMENTS: Other questions?
11 MS. BELL: I have one, but I've forgotten now.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Jan.
13 MS. COTTIER: A related question to the missing
14 file. Did you -- were you able to get a copy of the August
15 meeting at which the final was approved? And I understand
i
16 that was a City Council hearing, so clearly, the clerk would
17 have those minutes. I'm real concerned about what„
18 conditions, if any, might have been attached to that final
19 approval.
20 MR. OLT: No, I have not located the minutes
21 from that meeting, but if .I may, at this time, elaborate on
22 the -- your question that Bob answered just moments ago
23 about the file.
24 In August of 1993, as he indicated, the Chief
25 Planner for Current Planning Department at that time
I.%
1 calculating this the same way as on the old plan. The open
2 space is being measured to the building envelope and to the
3 outline of the driveways and parking area..
4 MS. BELL: I'm having a little difficulty
5 wrestling with this three -bedroom idea. The gentleman from
6 the applicant who talked said that these were really large.
7 In fact, he emphasized the word large apartments. And yet
8 the size of it is the same. So I -- I just need someone to
9 tell me a little bit more about how we're getting three
10 bedrooms into these.
11 MS. CLEMENTS: Would you like the applicant to
12 address that? Yes, please come forward and address that
13question. Limit your comments on that question only,
14 please.
15 MR. SHEPHERD: In referring to apartments that
16 were large, I was referring to the original approved plan in
17 1980, with one and two bedrooms. Those apartments were
18 quite large by today's standards of apartment buildings.
19 And the reason that our units are smaller is because the
20 efficiencies in today's standards, which makes our total
21 square footage actually smaller, even though we have one-,
22 two-, and three -bedroom mix, it makes it smaller than the
23 one- and two -bedroom mix. And that's why I was referring to
24 larger, referring to the existing plan.
25 MS. BELL: So the originals were large.
61
1 what it says, where a building can be constructed to. The
2 fact that we're showing a building type here that varies; it
3 still could be expanded out to that building envelope. So
4 therefore, the active and residual open space is calculated
5 only to that dashed line,.and so the -- again, driveways and
6 parking areas.
7 As we go to the new plan, which was submitted in
8 May of this year, they have defined the building envelope
9 essentially as the footprints of the buildings. The
10 driveways and parking areas, with the exception of a couple
11 of -- I think two or three additional parking spaces here,
12 additional parking spaces here, and a couple of parking
13 spaces here, the plan is identical.
14 So the measurements were taken, in this case, as
15 we define, regardless of the shape of that building.
16 envelope, the measurements for.open space, active and
17 residual open space, are taken to the building -envelope
18 line. They are defined on this plan.
19 Now, granted, they aren't rectangles or squares
20 as they were on the old plan. But what this does is limit
21 the building to the building envelope as shown on this
22 plan. on the old plan, the building would be limited to the
23 footprints that were shown for the building envelope which,
24 in that case, happened to be square. We feel there is an
25 apples -to -apples comparison, because we -are essentially
60
1 substantial amount, a significant amount, of infrastructure
2 based on the entire PUD approval, not just potential
3 development on this site.
4 MS. BELL: Also, I'd like a little more
5 clarification. Mr. Hererra was talking about comparing
6 apples to apples. I'd like some more information about this
7 perimeter versus envelope measurement of things. And tell
8 me which was done when.
9 MR. OLT: This is the original plan that was
10 approved in August of 1980. And as you can see, there are
11 buildings shown. That's the darker line in each case.
12 Seven different buildings. And there are dashed lines
13 around those buildings. Those dash lines constitute
14 building envelopes on this plan, within a building -- a
15 building footprint within that building envelope.
16 How we calculate open space; there is both
17 active open space and residual open space. Active open
18 space, by definition, is an area 10,000 square feet or more,
19 with_a dimension, linear dimension, of not less than 50 feet
20 in width. Anything outside of that definition would then,
21 in fact, be residual open space. However, that open space
22 is calculated excluding driveways and parking areas and
23 building envelopes. So, in fact, the open space on this
24 plan only goes to these dashed lines.
25 Realize that a building envelope defines just
59
1 property. I doubt that anyone seriously suggested that some
2 member of the neighborhood may have it. In fact, we don't
3 know what happened to it.
4 The only reference that we have to -- to
5 potential -- well, we don't have any reference to potential
6 conditions, but the reference we do have is an apparently
7 misplaced handwritten note from the former Chief Planner and
8 the City Planner at the time that considered about two to
9 three years ago whether or not this project was still -- was
10 actually vested based on substantial completion of the
11 infrastructure, and in fact, at that time, they found that
12 it was.
13 MS. BELL: So I mean, is the entire file missing,
14 is the --
15
MR. BLANCHARD: The file for
final approval is
16
missing.
And so that's what Mr. Hererra
referred to, in
17
that there's
no written indication of any
possible
18
conditions
of final approval.
19
MS. BELL: So we're making an
assumption that
20
everything's
okay based upon the note.
That it was still
21
active and
. . .
22 MR. BLANCHARD: Steve can elaborate, but we know
23 for a fact that based on an inspection that was done again
24 this afternoon in preparation for tonight's hearing, that in
25 fact, it is a vested project, because there has been.a
58
1 not the modified plan would meet those?
2 MR. OLT: Yes, in fact, we did. I do have
3 copies of that that was done at the time we reviewed the
4 administrative change. An evaluation of the all -development
5 criteria was based on the applicable criteria, based on the
6 changes only proposed, to the -- and that chart was, in
7 fact, done and is available to you.
8 MR. CARNES: Okay. So when a change like this
9 is proposed, what's subject to review against the
10 all -development -- against the all -development criteria are
11 the changes and not all aspects of the plan; is that
12 correct?
13 MR. OLT: That is the way we evaluate it, that's
14 correct.
15
MR.
CARNES: Thanks.
16
MS.
CLEMENTS: Excuse me. Yes, Gwen.
17
MS.
BELL: I'd just like to see that. But I
18
have some other questions as well.
19
The
appellant asked a number of times about .this
20
missing file.
And so I'd just like to have some
21
clarification about
the missing file.
22
MR.
BLANCHARD: The only clarification is that
23
it's missing.
It's been missing ever since I started with
24
the City, because
we've received inquiries on a number of
25
occasions about
this particular -- particular piece of
57
1 can't tell. Is there going to be an access close to Shields
2 or has that one been removed with the new plan?
3 MR. OLT: This is the new plan, Ms. Cottier.
4 There is -- in this location, just to the east of Shields
5 Street, a point of access into the development. And there
6 is a second point of access right here, in the exact same
7 location as on the first plan in August of 1980.
4
8 MS. COTTIER: Yes, my Xerox copy seems to have
9 blocked off the one closest to Shields, so I just wanted a
10 clarification on that. Thank you.
11 MS. CLEMENTS: Other clarifications? Gary?
12 MR. CARNES: Some concerns were expressed by the
13 appellant regarding the staff making their approval
14 contingent on .certain conditions. I.just wanted to clarify
15 the process. What I mean here, minor changes may be,
16 approved administratively. Such changes may be authorized
17 without additional public hearings and shall be,reviewed
18 against the all -development criteria. So this is wholly
19 within the process to review and make approval subject. to
20 conditions. This is normal process?
21 MR. OLT: Yes, it is, typically, if conditions
22 are warranted. We will frequently apply conditions to the
23 approval of an administrative changes. That's correct.
24 MR. CARNES: Okay. In this particular case, did
25 you review all -development criteria to determine whether or
56
1 see how we could possibly approve it without requiring a
2 traffic study.
3 MR.,VOSBURG: My understanding is that if they
4 had not come in for an administrative change, then we
5 wouldn't be able to compel them to do a traffic study. But
6 I will defer to Bob or Paul to give a clearer reading on the
7 specific requirements of the LDGS. However, they have come
8 in for an administrative change. We have required a traffic
9 study. It just hasn't been completed yet. So I recognize
10 your concern. It is a good concern.
11 MS. COTTIER: I guess I'm also trying to make
12 the point that if we do come up with this situation again
13- where there is that kind of a time, lapse, that we do
14 definitely have a traffic study required, just as we would
15 require updated utility plans.
16 MR. VOSBURG: I'll follow up with Bob and Paul
17 to see what it takes to have that -- to see if there's
18 something we need to do to have that ability.
19 MS. COTTIER: ,I have one other question on
20 traffic, and then I'll yield to someone else. My review of
21 the two plans, which were labeled approved August 1980 and
22 administratively approved May 195, seems to show a
23 difference in that the earlier one, the 1980 one, has two
24 points of access and the 1995 has only one point of access.
25 Which is it? It could be that my copy is so bad that I
55
1 that six percent interior landscaping, we have done that
2 historically. There's actually some justification in the
3 land use policies plan, too, that indicates that we can look
4 at that landscaping based on encouraging innovative land
5 development, improving the design quality, whatever. And as
6 we looked at this, we felt that the nature of the changes
7 proposed did constitute an increase in the quality of the
8 character of the new development, and felt that the
9 decreased interior landscaping is justified.
10 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. I don't want to discuss
11 this to death, but I needed to clarify that. Yes, Jan.
12 MS. COTTIER: Tom. Back to.traffic studies.
13 This -- I can't think of any other time where we have had an
14 approved PUD tried -- attempt to become active 15 years
15 later. And obviously, the traffic situation has changed
16 drastically in those intervening 15 years.
17 So it seems to me that if we did not require a
18 traffic study with every such PUD, that -- where there is
19 that length of time lapse, that we would be missing out on
20 the ability to get necessary intersection improvements.
21 Because if this traffic -- I mean, I completely agree, the
22 traffic is probably the same, whether it's 120 condos or 116
23 apartments. That's not the issue. But the traffic
24 situation has changed dramatically from the time this
25 project was approved for those number of units. So I don't
54
1 looking at. So I just -- I don't even know if it's a
2 question. Maybe it's a thought that's kind of out there
3 now.
.4 MR. OLT: The -- indicate how we evaluated
5 that. Again, one of the -- as stated in the appeal, further
6 support of the appeal stated that a review of the interior
7 lot landscaping appears in the revised parking lot doesn't
8 provide the minimum six percent landscaping required by City
9 Code. And as we stated, the review of that interior
10 landscaping indicates that there is approximately five
11 percent interior landscaping done by best measurements of
12 the plan.,
13 Historically, however, we are saying that the
14 Land Development Guidance System allows us to evaluate the
15 interior parking in the lot, and this is going to
16 Criteria A2.4, vehicular circulation and parking in the
17 all -development criteria. And it states that avoid large
18 expanses of concrete or asphalt paving without landscaping,
19 large parking lots should be broken into smaller sections
20 divided by landscape islands. Each section should contain a
21 maximum of 200 cars and general parking base should extend
22 no more than 15 spaces without a tree, landscape island, or
23 peninsula.
24
That's
a subjective
statement that gives you
25
some latitude in
that -- in a
PUD setting. The latitude in
53
1 to look to see if there's a change in character, and if
2 there is a change in character, it becomes a major change.
3 Probably so as to protect against negative impacts on the
4 neighboring properties, because if there's a change in
5 character, then there would be at least a change in the
6 impact. Those kinds of issues, you should look at.
7 As to whether the make-up of the tenant -- of
8 the occupants, tenants, or owner -occupants, as the case may
9 be, I think it would be speculative at best for you to come
10 to any conclusions that a person who has a fee interest --
11 or if it's a condominium, an airspace ownership interest;.or
12 if it's an apartment, leasehold interest -- I think it would
13 be speculative to try to decide that those persons are
14 different in any way. And I couldn't imagine that you could
15 at least elicit enough evidence to make an intelligent
16 decision based on the type of ownership, whether it be fee
17 or leasehold, as to the occupants.
18 MR. WALKER: Okay. Thank you. Well, that's
19 a . . .
20 MS. CLEMENTS: I have a real quick question, and
21 that is, to piggypack on what Lloyd has said, I know that.
22 affordability wasn't part of the staff's interpretation of
23 whether this was a major or minor change. However, the
24 affordability component then gets into the six percent land
25 issue. It kind of changes the context of some of what we're
I
52
1 We have the issue of more bedrooms. And of course, we have
2 this issue of low-income affordability, but I think we said
3 we'd set that aside.
4 I mean, Paul, is there -- "character" is one of
5 those words that you attorneys love not to have to deal
6 with, but I guess you have to. I mean, do we have a
7 definition of character? I mean, like I say, we seem to
8 have put it in terms of bricks and mortar, but, you know,
9 what do we talk about, character here?
10 MR. ECKMAN: I feared that question would come
11 up, and you're right. That word is -- has fairly broad
12 connotations, and I was trying to think of some synonyms or
13 words that might help you with that.
14 I think, first, characteristics go along with
15 character, of course. Attributes of the project. I don't
16 think it's limited to only changes in land use. If it had
17 been intended that only when there was a change in land use
18 is there a change in character, then the Code, the Land
19 Development Guidance System, would have said so. It would
20 have said that change in land use of the development but it
21 doesn't say that. It says character.
22 So I think the intention was broader in scope
23 than just change in land use. Perhaps you could think of it
24 in terms of fundamental features, or you might think in
25 terms of why is this provision in the Code. Why do you need
51
1 issue of the change in the traffic -- I mean, I heard some
2 statements that I try to clarify.
3 Maybe I can just point out something here. We
4 heard it's going to increase the traffic, and yet what I
5 think I heard was it's going to increase the traffic from
6 the level it is now. of course it will, because we're
7 adding either 116 or 120 units.
8 I think the issue for us on the traffic is the
9 difference between what was originally proposed and approved
10 versus what is before us now. And so, you know, it's a
11 little bit abstract in that sense. of course, the traffic
12 is going to improve -- increase if for no other reason than,
13 you know, it's -- we're going to have either 116 or 120
14 units, depending on which plan possibly gets built.
15 Which raises another question, and that is, you.
16 know, on the one hand, we're talking about increasing the
17 problems of traffic circulation, and now we're having a
18 traffic. impact study, as Bernie pointed out, which wouldn't
19 be required otherwise, so does that constitute a major. or
20 minor change. I'm still debating that.
21 Another question comes about in this issue of
22 character. And what I've heard are three things that deal
23 with character, which is the first item we're looking at,
24 change in character of the development. We have the issue
25 of condos to apartments. That's ownership. I heard that.
Ali
1 there isn't very good transit service to the site. Other
2 than that, there's no data that differentiates trip
3 generation by socioeconomic status.
4 MS. CLEMENTS: Other questions? Lloyd.
5 MR. WALKER: Different question. Regarding -- I
6 want to clarify this whole issue of affordability,
7 low-income; maybe our attorney can get on this, as well as
8 Steve, now. We've heard this thing bandied around, and for
9 me to make a decision on this, I have to be clear on the
10 fact. In considering this, is either the -- the fact that
11 these are -- I mean, does affordability or low-income units
12 come into any of the decision -making on this?
13 MR. OLT: Affordability or the low-income aspect
14 of the potential clientele was not considered in our
15 evaluation of the administrative changes and the approval of
16 that change on May 12th, no.
17 MR. WALKER: Okay. So as far as we're
18 concerned, then, it should just -- I mean, whatever special
19 consideration that is given is outside of this discussion;
20 is that correct?
21 MR. OLT: From our standpoint, that would be
22 correct, yes.
23 MR. WALKER: Okay. So -- well, just an
24 observation, then, I guess. Then six percent landscaping
25 should be required. Also, it seems to me, you know, the
49
1 you'll see different actual trip generation based on the
2 actual combination or the population of each unit. If there
3 are -- if, as a result of the three -bedroom units having --
4 well, if all those bedrooms were occupied by driving -age
5 people, then you'd probably see more trips. If some of
6 those bedrooms are occupied by children who are below
7 driving age, then that would probably result in some lower
8 trip generation for the overall complex. But the -- the
9 study methods used don't cut with that fine a blade. So --
10 MR. STROM: So, in effect, using the
11 state-of-the-art methodology, it's impossible from a traffic
12 standpoint to differentiate between the proposal and the
13 existing approved projects?
14 MR. VOSBURG: That's correct.
15 MR. STROM: Thank you.
16 MS. CLEMENTS: Do you have any data on.--
17 typically -- we're talking about -- well, the applicant is
18 potentially talking about utilizing some of these units on
19 affordable housing concept;. not low-income, but affordable.
20 Is there any statistics, to your knowledge, about persons in
21 affordable housing utilizing alternative modes of.
22 transportation at any higher frequency, such as the bus
23 system or --
24 MR. VOSBURG: Well, if they had good bus service,
25 then, yeah, they might use the bus a little bit more. But
48
1 an existing approved
PUD, and
if they don't have to come
2 through the review process
at
all, there's nothing to
3 trigger a new impact
analysis.
So my understanding is that,
4 no, if they're going
to build
the existing project, that
5 they already have'a
right to do
that, and they've gotten
6 that approval.
7 MR. STROM: So in effect, should this be
8 approved,. there is an additional traffic fail-safe method.
9 Or step.
10 1 MR. VOSBURG: I hadn't thought of it that way.
11 But -- the -- we are getting another traffic impact analysis
12 and we do have the opportunity to require a review of that
13 in order to approve the administrative change.
14 MR. STROM: And make sure I understood you
15 correctly. As far as you're concerned, a hundred and --
16 what are the numbers -- 116 units of one-, two-, and
17 three -bedrooms, according to the methodologies that you
i8 used, would be very little or no change from 120 dwelling
19 units at one- and two -bedrooms?
20 MR. VOSBURG: That's correct. The traffic
21 impacts analysis methods employed average trip generation
22 rates. It's really an educated best guess. The average
23 rates are based on just multifamily units, and they don't
24 address the number of bedrooms per unit.
25 And so when looking at individual projects,
47
1 it is hard to get out.
2 But under our existing regulatory authority, our
3 standards are set up basically according to the national
4 model that looks at the intersection as a whole and. measures
5 it against a yardstick called level of service, and your
6 existing standard is D, and that's what the analysis of the
7 traffic study is specifically going to investigate.
8 And if the -- given current conditions, if the
9 project doesn't meet those standards, then the
10 administrative approval of the project is -- is void, and
11 they will have to either redesign the project to lessen .the
12 impact or include traffic mitigation measures at those
13 intersections to relieve the congestion, either through turn
14 lanes or some kind of mitigation which they'd have to „
15 develop and define and rerun analysis to see if that can
16 deal with it.
17 So that's what the status is. We're waiting to
18 see the impact study, and basically, it'll be a thumbs up or
19 thumbs down, according to standard, defined methodology.
20. Any other questions?
21 MR. STROM: What would be the situation if -- if
22 they had just come forward and said they wanted to build the
23 existing approved plan? Do they still have to do the
24 traffic study for that to meet the standard?
25 MR. VOSBURG: .I don't think so, no. They, have.
46
1 that would have been generated by the development if it were
2 built the way it is currently approved. And really, there
3 will be no change between the project as they're proposing
4 and what they already have approval on. Their proposal is
5 extremely consistent with their original traffic study that
6 led to their original approval.
7 The second issue, though, that everyone is
8 concerned about is how would a project like this interact
9 with traffic on the street today, given the current
10 conditions. We do need to see a traffic study on that. And
11 the amount of congestion at the two key intersections is
12 what the focus of that traffic study will be, and the
13 developer is committed to provide that study, and the
14 staff's administrative approval of the changes is
15 conditioned on that study specifically showing that both of
116 those intersections operate at a level of service D or
17 better, which is what the City's adopted level of service
18 standard is, and level of service means how much delay there
19 is at that intersection.
20 The difficult thing about our level of service
21 standards is they are based on the average of delay
22 experienced by everyone at the intersection, so it's all of
23 the different approaches kind of taken together, and the
24 difficulty about an unsignalized intersection like this is
25 that the left turns do have a lot of delay. And they are --
45
1 Also, for the record, in 1988, I -- this was the
2 first project I ever went to a neighborhood meeting on. It
3 was the first project I ever became familiar.with the Land
4 Development Guidance System. It's the first project I ever
5 started working with City staff. And here I am, my last
6 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, it's back on the agenda.
7 It's come full circle. I -- it's like the twilight zone,
8 and I do not live in that neighborhood any longer, and I
9 want that for the record so that there is not a conflict of
10 issue, and that I can vote on this project. But I know full
11 well a lot of the history behind this project and thought;
12 I'd just share that information for the record. 4 _
13 There is a lot of concerns brought up this
14 evening, and what I think I will do -- mostly around process
15 and neighbors want wanting a chance to provide more
16 comments. So what I'll do is open it up for Board
17 discussion and comments at this time. Well, clarification.
18 Tom, could you come forward, first, and address
19 the traffic concerns, the traffic study, how .that's
20 implemented, how this development will impact the road
21 system?
22 MR. VOSBURG: Yeah. I think there are two
23 important points to make in regard to the traffic situation
24 with this project. The first is thinking about how the
25 changes proposed by the. developer compare with the traffic
ki
44
1 properly. Thank you.
2 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you for your comments.
3 Anyone else?
4 Okay. I'll bring it back to the Board for
5 discussion. I'll open up the discussion with a couple of
6 items. Two points of clarification.
7 One, in Mr. Hererra's presentation, he stated
8 that the City staff has made presentations on behalf of the
9 applicant, and although a lot of times that's a perception,
10 we're working very hard to make sure that is not the case,
11 that they're here to provide information for the Board, that
12 they go to neighborhood meetings to facilitate the meetings,
13 and they do not work on behalf of the developer. So we're
14 working very hard to change that perception, and I know that
15 staff is working real hard at that.
16 Second of all, if the perception is that the
17 letter went out that is trying to ramrod a project, that's
18 also not our intent. This staff, because of my travels
19 throughout the United States, is one of the -- one of the
20 top staffs in regards to trying to share accurate
21 information, trying to do their best to make sure that
22 neighbors are notified; and because this project has an
23 approved PUD on -site, it does have a vested right. However,
24 we -- we -- it is not -- not our intention to make you feel
25 as if we don't want to hear your comments.
43
1 riding their bikes, trying to get to the other neighborhoods
2 to play with their friends. It's going to be a big issue
3 for them to be able to do that by themselves, without adult
4 supervision, until they're ten years old. That is a big
5 issue, and I think it should be addressed.
6 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Yes, sir.
7 MR. POLING: My name is Stan Poling. I live at
8 4461 Hollyhock Street. And I'm a new resident in the area,
9 and I, you know -- I don't know a lot of people. I don't
10 know a lot of the concerns that they have.
11 When they first brought up the point that they
12 were going to build the apartment complex, it didn't bother
13 me. Apartment, condos, it doesn't make a lot of
14 difference. What bothered me was the method that was used
15 to try to ramrod this project down the throats of the
16 residents.
17 I think when you send a letter saying, "There's
18 nothing you can do about it," that raises my ire right
19 away.. And I'd like to, you know, make it clear to the .Board
20 that I'm not opposed to the type of development that goes in
21 there as long as it follows the guidelines that are set by
22 the City and goes through the correct process to be -- to be
23 approved and not to have it done in some kind, of way to
24 leave suspicion in the mind of everybody that lives in the
25 neighborhood.. I think it should be aboveboard and done
42
1 it seems like most of us inquired into the vacant lots, what
2 was going to be on it, in considering the quality of life
3 that we're going to be living and as a deciding factor in
4 the investment that we were making in the area, in the
5 quality of life and also in how our investment would carry
6 forward, too.
7 And I think we're seeing a major change to that,
8 and I would like to see this come back into full process
9 and -- and eliminate the administrative change that I think
10 was -- may be overlooking some of the details that have been
11 brought out tonight. Thank you.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
13 SPEAKER: Yes. (Inaudible) To me, the
14 paramount issue is safety --
15 MS. CLEMENTS: Could you pull the mike down?
16 SPEAKER: The paramount issue is safety. I have
17 three small children who go in and out of there, and with
18 the addition of 200-plus automobiles in that area, I really
19 am concerned whether someone is going to be hurt. That's
20 small area, to add that many cars.
21 I also do make the left-hand turn onto Harmony,
22 and it takes me a good six to ten minutes to get out onto
23 that road now. With the addition of that many cars, I'm
24 very much concerned.
25 Also, with kids walking to school, with kids
41
1 I guess my statement is, bring on the condos. We'll leave
2 the developer alone. We've leave you alone. Okay? I don't
3 have any problems with the condos. Thank you.
4 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Yes, please.
5 MR. BALL: My name is Mark Ball. I.live at 4443
6 Hollyhock Street. And I'd like to reiterate a few things
7 that were mentioned.
g First, I'd urge you to please listen to what was
9 said here about process and what constitutes a major
10 change. And I believe that there is a major change involved
11 here in the development.
12 Again, the -- I think that the -- just even the
13 change from condominiums to apartments really does make a
14 bit of change, and when you do have people leaving the
15 neighborhood like that, I'm not sure what the formal
16 definition of a change in character is. But it's.sure
17 obvious that something is happening in that neighborhood.
1g And safety's something that'll change. Safety's
19 something that -- you know, traffic, increased traffic in
20 the area. Something that's going to change, safety, and the
21 quality.of life. As you mentioned, many of us moved to Fort
22 Collins for the quality of life, and the standards, the
23 zoning standards, have been set to -- to help ensure the
24 quality of our life here that we've invested in here.
25 And again, as we came to the neighborhood, we --
40
1 As a matter of fact, a realtor came to our door
2 just yesterday and said, "I couldn't help but notice that
3 there are a lot of families who are getting ready to move
4 out of this neighborhood." Well, that even bothers me more,
5 because right now, there are five for -sale signs within 500
6 feet of this project. How many more are there going to be?
7 I know my wife and I are looking right now. We never
8 thought about looking. We just remodeled our house. Why
9 would we think about looking?
10 Mr. Hererra referred to several items being,
11 quote, by the developer, to see as evident, just at the last
12 meeting, because at the last meeting, the developer said
13 right there, in front of the neighbors, no students will be
14 allowed. Well, tonight, we learn that students will be
15 allowed. So which is it going to be? No students or
16 students?
17 Also, as far as the traffic thing is concerned --
18 and I know you're probably going to hear lot about this, but
19 you know, Renee, you used to live in the neighborhood. The
20 traffic is nearly impossible to make a left-hand turn.
21 Fortunately, I have to make a right-hand turn, so I get out
22 fairly quick, within a minute or two. But I -- I pity
23 people who have to make a left-hand turn to get out of
24 there.
25 And finally, I guess --
191PJ
1 Hollyhock Street. I, too, have this concern that when we
2 bought into the
neighborhood, as I'm sure
Renee did, when
3 she bought into
the neighborhood, that we
were told that it
4 was going to be condominium units and not apartments.
5 And to my mind, even though the developer has
6 said that there.really is no significant difference in this,
7 I believe that there is. Because in condominiums
8 developments, I don't know of too many people who like maybe
9 own more than four or five condominiums that they rent out.
10 So as a result, we would be taking a look more at ownership,
11 which would not change the characteristics of the
12 neighborhood, as opposed to rent, which would change the
13 characteristic of the neighborhood.
14 Also,/II happen to know of five families right.
15 now, and we are -- we are a fairly close neighborhood. When
16 Renee came to me several years ago and asked me to walk
17 flyers for her, I didn't have any problem with that, because
18 we -- we do. We hold block parties. We know our neighbors
19 and so on and so forth.
20 And right now, I'm very perplexed, because five
21 of our neighbors is moving because of this project. And so
22 that -- that doesn't set real well with me. I mean, I'm.not
23 opposed to meeting new people and having new people come
24 into the neighborhood, but it perplexes me that five
25 families right now are moving out of the neighborhood.
38
1 change -- that they question how come we're questioning that
2 they're going to change one of the buildings to a rec
3 building? When asked about the square footage of this rec
4 building, it is only going to be 1600 square feet, and that
5 is also to house the offices for this complex.
6 To me, is seems like if you're going to have
7 bedrooms with children in each -- or even half of the
8 bedrooms, that's not a very large rec center, and it doesn't
9 seem like it would really -- I think it's just something
10 that they're throwing at us to kind of make us happy. I
11 don't think it really is something to offset something for
12 the residents to do.
13 That's all I have to say.
14 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Ms. Smith. If --
15 please stand at both podiums so we can facilitate the
16 meetings. We try to only have an hour per project, and so.
17 we need to facilitate as much as possible. So if anyone
18 other than this gentleman is going to speak, I need you to
19 be at this next podium, ready to go, please.
20 MR. SMITH: Well, first of all, Madame Chair,
21 I'm sorry, but as you know, my wife and I probably share
22 pieces of paper, since 'you used to be a former neighbor of
23 ours. And indeed, we do, we share the same piece of paper.
24 I had to wait for her to come across.
25 My name is Wiley Smith, and I reside at 4430
37
1 that that approval is based, and is contingent upon, the
.2 findings of the Board.
3 In conclusion, I would just like to ask that you
4 listen to everyone here this evening, listen to the concerns
5 of the neighborhood regarding the safety of their children
6 and the traffic and the impact that this project might have
7 on the community. Thank you.
8 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Yes.
9 MS. SMITH: My name is Linda Smith, and I live at
10 4430 Hollyhock Street. And I would just lead to reiterate
11 some of the things that were said today.
12 Tonight was the first time that I was aware that
13 the applicant had volunteered to pay for a traffic study. I
14 had not been aware of it until he said so here tonight..
15 Also, we bought into the neighborhood ten years
16 ago and noticed the empty fields down at the end.of our
17. street. We asked what was proposed to go in there. We were
18 told that it would be one= and two -bedroom condominiums and
19 not -- that'it would not distract from the environment of
20 the neighborhood. Okay? We expected that. We could live
21 with that.
22 This proposal that. they are -- that the
23, applicant is proposing is a drastic change.. You are adding
24 74 more occupants, if you will, than what was originally
25 proposed. The,applicant has also said that they would
M
1 they wanted to review the file so they could see what was
2 approved in 1980. The file had been misplaced. In fact,
3 when I went to review the file at the City Planner's, staff
4 even suggested that one of the residents may have taken it.
5 To my knowledge, the file has not resurfaced, and that makes
6 it difficult for us to determine what, if any, conditions
7 were imposed in that original proposal.
8 This past April, I received a telephone call in
9 my office from an individual --
10 MS. CLEMENTS: You have a minute to wrap up your
11 comments.
12 MR. SUNNESS: -- from an individual whom I
13 choose not to name. This, individual told me -- and he's in
14 this room this evening -- he informed me if I continued -to .
15 assist the neighborhood in challenging this project, he
16 would sue me. And I asked him, "Well, on what grounds?" He
17 said, "Well, I don't know, but I have enough money and
18 enough lawyers to find a way to sue you and to ruin you
19 financially." These are the type of people we're dealing
20 with here.
21 Finally, in April, an article appeared in the
22 Coloradoan that stated that the developer had already
23 received $810,000 from the Colorado Division of Housing.
24 This turned up to be -- turned out to be untrue; in fact,
25 they have not been approved. The Division of Housing says
35
1 probably
none
of the
other residents
here will approach
2 tonight,
and
I plan
to do it. It's
-- it's not a popular
3 subject. Many neighbors have come to me and have expressed
4 their concern regarding inappropriate behavior, dishonesty,
5 from our public officials and from the developer here, and
6 I'm going to address those.
7 January of 195. The first time that the
8 residents in these neighborhoods had heard about this
9 proposal. A letter went out to everyone that resided within
10 500 feet of the proposal. And I'm going to quote the
11 language. The letter stated that the project had already
12 been approved and that a meeting would be held merely to
13 address the current status of the, quote, approved -project.
14 The neighbors were misled by this and they were led to
15 believe that no challenge could be raised.
16
In
fact, the same woman that called the City
17
Planner to raise
the traffic issue was told by the City
18
Planner, and I
quote, "You have
no basis upon which to
19
challenge this
proposal.." only
after receiving letters from
20
neighbors and
attorneys did the
City Planning Department
21 acknowledge that they had a duty to -- and recognized that
22 these changes should be considered major changes and deny
23 the original application. And that's why -we're here
24 tonight.
25 . When.neighbors inquired at the Planner's office,
34
1 determine the cause of the increase and what can be done
2 about it.
3 Anyone that has tried to make a left-hand turn
4 from Harmony onto Wakerobin or tried to make a left-hand
5 turn off Starflower onto Harmony knows that at this point
6 it's nearly not navigable. With the addition of 200 cars,
7 not to mention all the visitors to this complex, it will
8 just be impossible. With the number of children that live
9 in this area, as well as the number of schools, obviously,
10 safety,to the children is of paramount concern here.
it One of the -- one of the neighbors sent a letter
12 to the planning office and voiced her concern regarding
13 traffic. In this response, the City Planner stated the City
14 was in the process of evaluating the impact this project
15 might have on traffic. In addition, at a meeting this past
16 February, the developers' representative, Kaufman & Broad,
17 stated to the residents that they would take it upon
18 themselves to have an independent study performed and, in
19 fact, it was corroborated tonight by Mr. Shepherd. To my
20 knowledge, no such study has yet to be performed. As far as
21 I know, the only evaluation that took place was on a
22 different project at the intersection of Harmony and
23 Shields. It didn't, at that time, take into consideration
24 these extra cars that will be in the area.
25 Now I'm going to talk about a subject that
33
1 after this gentleman is done, someone else can pick up,
2 please.
3 MR. SUNNESS: Good evening. My name is Eric
4 Sunness, and I live at 4406,Rosecrown Court in Fort
5 Collins. I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed
6 development at Harmony Road and Shields Street.
7 This proposal was originally approved in 1980 as
8 condominiums. There may be a play on words. We've heard
9 from Madame Chair regarding the city's policy on affordable
10 housing. We've heard the semantics regarding apartments,
11 comparing that to condominiums. My feelings are that it,., w
12 represents a major change to the character of the
13 development and that it should be reviewed by the Board. I .
14 think that it would be unfair to impose these changes.
15 Everyone should be aware of the growing traffic
16 concerns. one of the earlier speakers, in a prior matter,
17 mentioned that the Denver Post has run two articles on Fort
18 Collins traffic. The article stated, the first article .
19 stated, that Fort Collins is exploring ways to curb.the
20 traffic that is surpassing the area's population. If its
21 vehicle traffic continues to soar at the current rate, city
22 planners should expect the total numbers of ,miles driven on
2.3 Fort Collins streets to grow 3.6 percent annually while,
24 residential growth is projected at 2.8 percent. The article
25 went on to say that several studies are underway to
1 the low-income nature of the housing. He committed that if
2 I would drop Kaufman Broad as a developer or at least have
3 them change it to market -rate apartments, that he would drop
4 his opposition to the project. And he would lobby with the
5 rest of the people to do likewise. And he was also smart
6 enough to say, "But I'll never say that in public."
7 And Mr. Hererra talked about this
8 ingenuousness. And that to me is the height of this
9 ingenuousness. Because I don't think there are probably
10 many of us sitting in this room today that haven't lived in
11 apartments like that at some time. The quote at the time
12 was, it'll bring an unattractive element into our
13 neighborhood. But I think, again, most of us have probably
14 been classified as unattractive elements at one time in our
15 lives.
16 And I think that what we're trying to offer here
17 to Mr. Shepherd's work, is the type of housing that is
18 consistent with the nature of the original proposal, is --
19 has been reviewed extensively by the staff and fits within
20 the criteria of the LDGS, and as a benefit to that, will
21 supply a'need within the housing market of Fort Collins. I
22 would urge you to approve it, and thank you for your time.
23 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Will anyone else be
24 addressing us? Okay. We've got two podiums. We'll need
25 one person at each podium to facilitate the meeting, so
31
1 considerations, but maybe not agreeing with them at the
2 time, we let the project sit until such time as the existing
3 use vested in the property would then become realistically
4 feasible once again. And we feel that time has come.
5 In evaluating the submittal that Kaufman & Broad
6 has made on the property, and just being a landowner and,
7 perhaps not a sophisticated developer, looked at it and
8 said, you know, we're going from 120 units to 116. We're
9 adding a rec facility. We're taking it from one- and
10 two -bedroom units, that would probably be most likely rented
11 predominantly to students to one-, two-, and three -bedroom
12 units that, by the restrictions of the use of the --
13 restrictions of the financing, would have to be rented
14 predominantly to families.
15 The changes within the plan are very minor.
16 They have been passed by the staff. And so I tried to
17 figure out what was the nature of the opposition that was
18 confronting Mr. Shepherd. So I attempted to contact some of
19 the opinion leaders that are -- that are dealing with the
20 neighborhood group. I talked to Mr. Hererra. I talked to
21 some others.
22 In talking to one of the other opinion leaders,
23 a person who at least represented. themselves as a resident,
24 and also a person that was a strong opinion leader in the
25 group, he stated, to me that. their predominant concern was
30
1 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. Thank you.
2 We have first the appellant, the applicant.
3 It's my understanding the appellant is representing the
4 neighborhood. However, if there are additional concerns
5 other than those shared by the appellant on behalf of the
6 neighborhood, if you'd like to share those with the Board,
7 you can certainly come forward, sign in, state your name for
8 the record, and let us know what your concerns are.
9 MR. CARLSON: Good evening. My name is Scott
10 Carlson. My address is P.O. Box 247, Eastlake, Colorado.
11 And I am representing -- a property owner, consisted of a
12 partnership made up of my father and my brothers and
13 myself. And I just wanted to give you a very brief history
14 of the property.
15 We acquired it in 1987. In 1988, we went
16 through almost a year and a half long process to try and
17 rezone all of the property there to commercial. And it was
18 a very lengthy process, and it was one that -- when it was
19 all said and done, we walked away from,'unsuccessful.
20 And in doing so, it seems that a good portion of
21 the neighborhood said, "We don't want commercial there. We
22 want what we were promised a long time ago, which was the
23 multihousing." They felt that was a lot less impactive to
24 their neighborhood than the commercial would have been.
25 And in perhaps understanding those
29
1 housing?
2 MR. SHEPHERD: We applied for tax credits in the
3 second.round of Colorado Housing Finance Agency's tax credit
4 program. We were not successful. We have, fortunately,
5 because of Kaufman & Broad and because of their national
6 reputation and their financial strength, we have a second
7 alternative to financing this program which we're pursuing
8 right now which would include tax credits as part of it. A
9 noncompetitive tax credit.
10 And the second part of the question was
11 affordable? We define affordable as -- these units are all,
12 100 percent of them, at 60 percent or less of the area
13 median gross income, which is about 45,000 for the city of
14 Fort Collins, which 20 percent of those units being at 50
15 percent or, less of the area's median income.
16 MS. CLEMENTS: However, it's my understanding,
17 Mr. Eckman, that that's not part of our consideration; is
18 that correct?
19 MR. ECKMAN: That's correct.
20 MS. CLEMENTS:. Thank you.
21 MR. SHEPHERD: Outside of.the one point of the
22 six percent landscape issue, because this is affordable
23 housing, low-income housing, there can be exceptions
24 provided for that six percent landscape area. So that would
25 be the only relevancy in this.
28
1 for the minor changes.
2 We also stayed below,�as Steve mentioned, the
3 height limit. We're at 40 feet, which is below the approved
4 PUD level of 41.5 to 44.5.
5 I believe I'll conclude with that, and leave it
6 up to the Board for questions.
7 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Do we have any
8 questions now? Gary?
9 MR. CARNES: You alluded to affordable housing,
10 affordability of housing, tax credits. What do you feel --
11 why do you feel that's relevant?
12 MR. SHEPHERD: Why do I feel that's relevant?
13 Because of the tremendous.need for affordable housing in the
14 city of Fort Collins. First --off, there's a need for
15 multihousing. As you go deeper into that, there's even a
16 larger need for affordable multihousing.
17 I think to turn away these changes and allow us
18 to move forward with this project as we have planned to
19 could -- you know, I don't know where this could lead. This
20 could lead maybe to not approving the changes at all, which
21 then would take away 116 units of affordable housing for
22 Fort Collins. That's why I -- that's where I feel it's
23 relevant.
24 MR. CARNES: And do you have tax credits,
25 secured tax credits, and how do you 'define affordable
27
1 more units away, which -- which is unfortunate, but what we
2 need to do, in order to make the density of this, the total
3 master plan, these affordable -- these multihousing units in
4 order to be built to maintain the integrity of that master
5 plan.
6 As Steve mentioned, there's been some questions
7 as to -- and Steve mentioned, and as it.was raised, we did
8 increase the number of bedrooms by 74 bedrooms. But if you
9 will look at the original plan, those bedrooms were one- and
10 two -bedrooms. They were done in 1980. Apartments were
11 built much differently then. These units are very, very
12 large units. They are extremely large units.
13 Our one-, two-, and three -bedroom units have.
14 smaller square footage. They're much more efficient in
15 terms of providing and meeting the needs of the tenants that
16 will be there; and also to keep the affordability component
c
17 within these units, we've done that also. We did. not -- we
18 actually increased the total square footage. We actually
19 decreased the total gross leasable space.
20 No matter what definition you use for the
21 commercial/residential, we have less square footage.
22 Therefore,. we did not increase it by two percent. We
23 increased the total square footage of the buildings;.
24 therefore, we did not increase the open space. These are
25 just -- these are facts,that go towards the five criteria.
M
1 project, financed through tax credits, we have basically,
2 through that method, because of the requirements behind the
3 tax credits, there will not be a lot of students in our
4 housing. In order for them to rent from our project, they
5 have to be married and filing jointly and a full-time
6 student.
7 We performed an independent market study to find
8 out the need for three -bedrooms in Fort Collins, and there's
9 a tremendous need for three -bedrooms in Fort Collins.
10 There's a waiting list at the Fort Collins Housing Authority
11 of over -- I think it's actually close to 2500 people now
12 looking for housing, and those are just the people that are
13 on the list, not those who are discouraged by the number on
14 the list and walk away. So there's a tremendous need for
15 this type of housing in Fort Collins.
16 I'm trying to check my notes here to make sure I
17 address the things I'd like to.
18 The master plan PUD suggests that -- actually
19 that this area over here be developed as a townhome. That
20 was subsequently down -zoned to single-family homes. So, in
21 a sense, you've already -- and we've had a brief discussion
22 by the chairperson regarding the density of units and
23 whatnot, and in a sense, we've already decreased the density
24 of this master plan. And now we're going to come in, and in
25 order to meet the minor changes, we're going to take four
25
f
1 successful development, construction, and operations of the
2 project.
3 Kaufman & Broad is a publicly operated company.
4 We're traded on the New York Stock Exchange. We are on.
5 intent -- we are under intense scrutiny. We cannot simply
6 build a project, take the fees, and leave town. That's not
7 a possibility for us. We will stay behind the project for
8 the 50-year requirement that was placed upon us by the tax
9 credits. We will be there.
10 We have hired or subcontracted the nation's
11 largest property management company, Insignia Management
12 Group. They manage over 200,00 units across the nation,
13 55,000 of which are affordable housing, and I believe they
14 have a project here in Fort Collins that they manage -- I,'m
15 not familiar with the area -- as well as 5,000 units in the
16 Denver area. So we've gone to great lengths to.make sure
17 that we meet a standard that's not only satisfactory to the
18 City but to Kaufman & Broad and all those who are involved.
19 And in that, we include running and successfully running
20 that.project over the long term.
21 We wish -- we wanted to change the site plan
22 from the one- and two -bedrooms to the one-, two -,.and
23 three -bedrooms. And once again, I find a bit of irony in
24 this, too. By going from the one- and two -bedrooms to the
25 one -; 'two-, and.three-bedrooms, and by developing the
24
1 mentioned in his staff report, and I wish that Tom had --
2 Tom Vosburg had remained, but he had --
3 MS. CLEMENTS: We'll check to see if he's here.
4 MR. SHEPHERD: Okay. He has already indicated,
5 and I'm not -- I understand the point that was brought up,
6 but he has indicated, though, that the traffic would not be
7 impacted to a degree that there has to be a change to that
8 corner. We have volunteered to satisfy the concerns of the
9 neighborhood to have an independent traffic study performed
10 at our expense. And that's the genesis of the traffic
11 study.
12 - In regards to the six percent landscape issue, I
13 believe that Steve Olt addresses that in his planning staff
14 report. Because of the affordability component of these
15 units, all 116 units are affordable units for low-income-
16 households, that there are some exceptions when.you're
17 regarding low-income housing.
18 I wanted to just briefly also touch upon
19 Kaufman& Broad's commitment to the project. Kaufman &
20 Broad, for your information, is the third largest
21 single-family home builder in the nation, the largest
22 single-family home builder, developer, in the West. We have
23 garnered the multihousing market in the last 18 months with
24 the experience of several people behind us. We have a
25 tremendous commitment to this project, a commitment to the
23
1 The
reason for that is,
and I
-- I find it
2 ironic that the
neighborhood would
argue
on this point at
3 all, but to provide a rec center for a community of 120
4 units is essential to efficiently and successfully manage a
5 property. We feel that that's a vital part to the success
6 of our projects that we've done in the past.
7 After realizing that this change, then, would
8 put us into, I guess, a major criteria, we had to weigh the
9 decision, then, of going through a lengthy public hearing
10 process or revisiting the plan and changing it so that we
11 could be within the minor changes. At that time, we decided
12 to decrease the number of units, keep the buildings the
13 same, the seven buildings, decrease the number of units by
14 four, to provide that rec center that we considered to be. so
15 vital to that community of 116 units. And that was the --
16 that's the process of the application. That was mentioned
17 previously.
18 I heard a lot of arguments here from the
19 appellant. I think the main thing, though, is that our.
20 project does meet the five criteria to make it a minor
21 change. I think -- we don't want to get away from that.
22 That's the bottom line here, that the project.does meet the
23 ,criteria for a minor change, and therefore, that should be
24 approved.
25 In regard to the traffic study, as Steve Olt has
22
1 its face, a major change that needs to be evaluated before
2 an approval and, again, is something that the process, as
3 dictated in this document, the Land Development Guidance
4 System, is something that is your province and not the City
5 staff's. Thank you.
6 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Mr. Hererra. We'll
7 hear from the applicant now, and then we'll move to see if
8 citizens want to say anything or if Mr. Hererra has
9 represented your concerns. So if the applicant would like
10 to come down and address the Board.
11 MR. SHEPHERD: My name is Kip Shepherd. I
12 represent Kaufman & Broad Multihousing Group. We are the
13 applicant for the administrative change.
14 Am I with the 30-minute rule here? Is that
15 what -- I won't take 30 minutes. I was just wondering,
16 though.
17 Real quick, I'd like to explain the application
18 process from Kaufman & Broad. We applied in February for
19 administrative change. At that time, we applied not
20 understanding or not knowing, which was our own fault, these
21 five criteria, and in that, we did what we thought would be
22 an improvement to the project, by basically keeping the
23 seven buildings existing as they were and then adding an
24 additional building down here as a residential building and.
25 changing this building up here to a rec center.
21
1 neighborhood as a fait accompli, there is nothing you can
2 do -- this is a quote -- there is nothing you can do; these
3 are vested property rights.
4 Well, that doesn't stick -- that does stick in
.5 the throat. That does bother the neighbors who are faced
6 with -- with a proposal which said there's nothing you can
7 do. We have the right to put this proposal in, this project
8 in, and in fact, we have the right to change it at will.
9 That type of change, we think, really is not there for the
10 City, the staff to do. It's yours. So the proposal simply
11 is that you review these changes. You determine whether, in
12 fact, these four criteria are met.
13 The fifth one, since this last application,
14 there isn't a greater than one percent change in the number
15 of residential dwelling units. That -- we don't argue of
16 that. We do argue that the other four apply, and -in
17 particular, that there has been a change in the character of
18 the development, and that change, in and of itself, is
19 sufficient for your review and for your asking that this.go
20 through the public process and that they withstand the
21 scrutiny of.the neighborhood and answer any other questions
22 that have been presented.
23 Finally, it seems to me that an.increase in the
24 problems of traffic circulation and public utilities, by.
25, adding an additional 74 bedrooms, is something.that is, on
1 Well, I know that seems like a minor point, but
2 if it's approved as a site plan, it ought to conform to the
3 requirements of Code, conform to the requirements before an
4 approval, and without condition.
5 Another matter which isn't in the criteria but
6 it seems to us that it is important, that any application
7 conform to the requirements of Code. And if, in order to
8 meet the parking requirements, you violate another section
9 of the Code, then that doesn't work.
10 And in this particular case, the Code itself
11 requires that there be a six percent interior landscaping to
12 the parking lot. Measurements, again, were done, based on
13 what we were provided, and it didn't meet that standard, as
14 near as we can tell. And it may very will be that the
15 drawing was inaccurate or the measurements didn't quite meet
16 everything, but it appeared to exceed the six percent
17 interior landscaping. That, we think, is another matter
18 that should be reviewed prior to any sort of approval.
19 Finally -- well, not so finally. This is an
20 issue, and one of the reasons why I'm here. Certainly, I am
21 not here to advocate against a housing project. I spent too
22 long advocating for housing projects in Fort Collins. I'm
23 acting for process in this particular case. I'm advocating
24 for disclosure and for candor and for honesty in an
25 application. And when the application is presented to the
19
1 plan, and the numbers are presented to you on Page 3 in the
2 little table at the bottom; as well as in the active open
3 space.
4 It appears as though there was a change in
5 active open space of 4.57 percent. Now, I'm sure there will
6 be a response and rebuttal to that and perhaps even a good
7 explanation. But we've not had access to that information,
8 and all we can do is present to you what our review of the
9 documents would indicate.
10 I might also add, with regard to the building
11 envelope issue, that zoning approved with a condition that
12 the revised site plan be submitted showing the building
13 envelope dimensions. That suggests that they didn't have
14 the building envelope dimensions at the time that it was•
15 approved, and so how can you know whether, -in fact, it's
16 been an excess in the -- in encroachment to the open space.
17 I set out as a note on Page 4 that it appeared
18 also that there was an encroachment in the.setback from
19
Building D
along
Shields Street. That.was
just an
20
observation
that
I.had, looking at the
site .plan. That
21,
seems to be
borne
out in the approval
itself. It says that
22 dimensions and setbacks to property lines, that there's
23 conditions of setbacks�to the property line.. In other
24 words, it appears that the buildings encroach beyond the
25 setback,_ and they.,need to adjust that.. .
18
1 violated the standard about impact on traffic, which is
2 Standard Number 2 on Page 94.
3 Administratively, it seems to me, if you're
4 going to approve something, you ought to --.and you don't
5 yet know if it's major or minor, you better find out
6 beforehand, because it's not your choice if it's major.
7 It's somebody else's choice. It's yours.
8 Now, the choice was made, the decision was made,
9 without knowing that information, setting conditions. I
10 don't believe there's authority to do that. Perhaps you've
11 granted that, and I. wasn't aware of the meeting. It's not
12 in the Code. But you did not give authority to give, that I
13 know of, to have conditional approval of an administrative
14 change, particularly when one of those criteria that's been
15 made conditional is one of the very criteria which you've
16 reserved to yourselves or which the Council has reserved to
17 you as part of your decision -making. So that, we consider
18 to be a problem.
19 Now, as to the building areas, the numbers don't
20 work for us. We calculated the numbers based upon
21 measurements that were done on the site plan. Admittedly,
22 that isn't very scientific, but the information we got on
23 the site plans didn't work. It didn't seem to add up. So
24 we did it again and we looked at it, and it looked to us as
25 though the changes were significant in'terms of the site
17
1 If we're going to talk about open space, we ought to do it
2 based on the building envelope and not trace the perimeter
3 of the new building and say all of a sudden we've got more
4 open space than we thought we were going to have..
5 That's, again, another issue that I think you
6 need to decide in terms of a standard of calculation of.what
7 is active and what is residual open space. Those terms are
8 all well-defined, particularly as they're applied in an
9 administrative change. We have to use one or the other and,
10 it seems to me, be consistent throughout.
11 The other changes that have been proposed in
12 this are changes to the type of building, changes in the
13 number of off -site -- excuse me, in parking spaces, on -site.
14 There was a condition in the approval, as I .
15 understand it, proposed by the City when they approved it.
16 This goes to areas that are matters of traffic.
17 Transportation approves this with the statement that left
18 turns will likely be very congested but intersections -- or
19 will. likely be -- and this is handwritten -- will likely be
20 consistent with LOS standards. Approved with the condition
21 that the applicant's traffic study shows acceptable
22 operation of.access points.
23 What that says is, they approved it with a
24 condition. They didn't know its impact. Administratively,
25 they approved this without knowing whether or_not it
16
1 footprint got smaller. The building mass got smaller. They
2 added 74 bedrooms. They changed the number of bedrooms from
3 61 bedrooms to 14 one -bedrooms; from 62 bedrooms to 66
4 two -bedrooms; and added, where there were no three -bedrooms,
5
36 three -bedroom
units, for a total of additional 74
6
bedrooms,
and the
buildings got
smaller. The mass of the
7
buildings
got smaller.
How do we explain that?
8
Well,
if I may, I'll
try to. In the.diagram you
9
see here,
this is
-- correct me,
this is the original? Is
10
this the
original
application?
Okay. Could we go to the
11
original?
12 Okay. The original application, you'll notice,
13 had building envelopes diagrammed around. That was the
14 basis of calculation for the size of the building. In the
15 new proposal, what has happened -- we'll go to that one --
16 the buildings, in fact, fill out the envelope, but what the
17 calculations of open space are to calculate based around the
18 perimeter of the building instead of a building envelope
19 anymore.
20 So as a result of that, even though the
21 buildings are larger than what was originally proposed,
22 because we're not using building envelopes anymore -- we're
23 using the actual perimeter of the building in order to
24 calculate the open space -- that seems to me somewhat
25 ingenuous, because the,proposals are all apples to apples.
15
1 at all.
2 There were modifications to the building types,
3 and as Mr. Olt said, that is to add a recreational facility,
4 as well as an office. We take some issue with the City's
5 interpretation of that, although that's not in the appeal.
6 since it was raised by Mr. Olt, we consider it fair to bring
7 it to you, and that is, the decision that the recreational
8 facility was added does not constitute gross leasable
9 commercial floor space, because, according to the City's
10 interpretation of that, that is -- there is no such thing in
11 a residential project. 1, ,
12 I would ask you to look to the plain language on
13 Page 95 of the criteria, which says an increase of greater
14 than two percent of the approved gross leasable floor areas
15 of commercial buildings in either residential or commercial
16 planned unit developments. By its very language, it says
17 that -gross commercial leasable space can exist in a
18 residential PUD. So you decide. It seems to me the
19 language is clear, that such a thing exists and, in this
20 case, has been proposed. And that constitutes, I think, a
21 change in the -- in the project as originally put forth to
22 you.
23 What•other significant change has occurred in
24 this particular project? The addition of 74 bedrooms. The
25 presentation by City staff on behalf of the applicant is -the
14
1 the form which says, we want to change, that have to be
2 reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. So everything is
3 submitted, evidently, submitted as an administrative change,
4 and then there's a decision -making process that occurs
5 before it comes to you.
6 Well, with regard to process, there are a couple
7 of things that we think are significant. Do all of you have
8 the letter that I submitted as the -- as the appeal?
9 Let me first clarify. There is a mistake,
10 Page 2, Paragraph 9. In the letter, I state that the
11 minimum number of off -site required parking spaces necessary
12 to conform to Code without variance is 215. That is not
13 - correct. It's 208.5. They, in fact,. in the new
14 application, have 211. That is not an element of this
15 appeal. They do meet the parking requirements, and it was
16 error on my part to identify a different number than 215.
17 So forgive me for that.
18 Let me say that this application, first of all,
19 was submitted in 1980 and approved in 1980 as condominium
20 projects. The record, as we understand it, has been
21 misplaced from 1980, so we don't know if there were
22 conditions that were imposed in 1980, and if any were
23 imposed, if those conditions were satisfied. We would think
24 some inquiry needs to be made into that matter and identify
25 whether or not conditions have been met, if any were imposed
13
1 those answers will come out.
2 Some calculations have been done on the scant
3 information that was provided to the neighborhood, and those
4 calculations reveal that there are still some problems and
5 that we believe the neighbors, based on looking at this
6 information, believe that this does, in fact, constitute a
7 major change, and therefore, should be reviewed by you, as a
8 matter of process, rather than approved administratively by
9 your staff.
10 First of all, a question which is not yet clear,
11 and I don't think has yet been addressed by the City
12 Attorney, is whether all five of the criteria constitute a
13 major change or any one of the five of the criteria will
14 constitute a major change. Our reading of it is that any
15 one of the five in the -- in the Land Development Guidance
16 System, as identified by Mr. Eckman on Page 94 and 95, would
17 constitute a major change. That is to say, if there's a
18 change in the character of the development, we believe that
19 to be a major change. That's something that you should,
20 review, the Planning and Zoning Board, and.not a decision
21 made by the staff administratively.
22 I should note that also that the form that is
23 used, the application form that is used by the.City in this
24 process, has no place to check for any review other than
25 administrative change. In other words, there is no box on
12
1 Board: My name's David Hererra. I represent -- I'm an
2 attorney here in Fort Collins and I represent a number of
3 homeowners in the area affected by this particular
4 application. They've asked me to take a look at this
5 project and evaluate the presentation that was made to the
6 City's staff and to comment to them about whether or not, in
7 fact, this project constitutes a minor change or major
8 change to the vested development rights approved in the
9 project in 1980.
10 A little bit of history to this is that the
11 application actually was amended -- an application was
12 submitted to amend it in February of 1995, administratively,
13 proposed February lst, 1995. As it turned out, that
14 application was never presented to you. The staff
15 determined that that application for an administrative
16 change constituted a major change and the application was
17 denied.
18 This, what you have in front of you today, is
19 the second submittal in 1995 for an administrative 'change.
20 Still, we have problems with it. ' We have problems with it
21 because we•think that, as a matter of procedure, there are
22 some defects. As a matter of presentation, there are some
23 questions that have been unanswered to the neighborhood, and
24 inasmuch as this project is cloaked somewhat in secrecy, the
25 neighbors have presented some issues to you in hopes that
11
1 before.
2 So you've got the.five to look at. But had it
3 otherwise been, then you look at the change of character.in
4 the development. You answer the question whether there has
5 been an increase by greater than one percent in the number
6 of residential units. And you answer the question whether
7 the change in development would normally cause the project
8 to be disqualified under the applicable criteria.
9 But those are not the criteria you use. You use
10 the five -- one of them's the same, the change in
11 character. And then the other four -- no.. Criteria Number
12 5 is the same as Criteria Number 2, you see. So they -- you
13 just have the five to look at.
14 MR. CARNES: Okay. So those are the criteria
15 you're referring to, not --
16 MR. ECKMAN: Yes.
17 MR. CARNES: Not any others. Okay..
18 MR. ECKMAN: Right.
19 MS. CLEMENTS: Any other questions before we
20 move on?
21 Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the
22 Board? Applicant, not appellant.
23 .(Inaudible.)
24 MS. CLEMENTS: After -- absolutely.
25 MR. HERERRA: Madame Chair,.members of the
0
10
1 choices before you tonight. You can decide the matter
2 tonight as to whether the change should or should not be
3 approved, either by -- as you see the list before you there,
4 you can uphold the staff's decision of approval, if you
5 think that the change complies with all of the
6 all -development criteria. You can overturn the staff s
7 decision if you believe it failed any of those criteria.
8 You can modify the decision if you believe a modification is
9 necessary in order to make it comply properly with those
10 criteria. Or if you feel that you don't have enough
11 information tonight to decide it, you could postpone it to
12 the next month and ask for more information.
13 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you. Does the Board have
14 any questions of Paul or Steve at this time? Gary?
15 MR. CARNES: Paul, you indicated there are
16 different criteria in effect prior to March 13th of 1981.
17 What are those?
18
MR. ECKMAN:
Okay.
19
MR. CARNES:
How do they differ?
20
MR. ECKMAN:
If the project was approved after
21
March 13,
1981 -- and
if you have your Land Development
22
Guidance
System, it's
on Page 94 -- there are only three
23
criteria
to guide you
in your decision -making. The one
24
question
is, is there
a change in character of the
25
development -- this is
irrelevant, because it was approved
9
1 he has asked that the Board review the administrative
2 approval, which I think means that the intention is that you
3 not only decide is it a major.or minor change, but having
4 decided that, you go into one or the other of two choices
5
following that.
6
So if you go through this decision
outline,,
7
you'll see that the first question that I
think is .presented
8
is whether it is a major or minor change.
And that issue
9
should be based upon those five criteria
that Mr. Olt has
10
presented in his staff report, or if you'd
like, they are
11
also found at the bottom of Page 94, top
of Page 95, of the
12
LDGS. And you should take a separate vote
on that question.
13
Having decided one way or the
other, that leads
14
you, then, into another choice. If it's
a major change „ if
15
you have determined it's a major change,
I think you have no
16
option but to postpone any decision on whether
the change
17
ought or ought not to have been approved
or to be approved.
18
You have to wait until the staff has had
an opportunity :to
19 disseminate the necessary notice and go through the
20 nine -week review process that's required for preliminary
21 approval, because major changes, according to the. LDGS,.must
22 follow the public hearing process required for preliminary
23 approval of plans.
24 If, however, you found it was a minor change, it
25 is a minor change, you'll see that there are basically four
8
u
1 itself, the land use for 120 multifamily dwelling units, is
2 considered to be a valid plan.
3 I have verified that as recently as this
4 afternoon with Dave,Stringer of our Engineering Department,
5 based on substantial.completion, significant activity,
6 within that development within the two-year period after its
7 original approval, yes.
8 MS. CLEMENTS: Thank you, Steve. Now, Paul, if
9 you could clarify what this Board is addressing this
10 evening.
11 MR. ECKMAN: Thank you. Section 2-353 of the
12 Code authorizes the P&Z Board to hear and decide appeals
13 from any decision made by administrative official which
14 pertains to any planning item which was previously reviewed
15 or approved by this Board. And this is a planning item;
16 this PUD was previously approved by the Board.
17 And it was approved by the Board prior, as I
18 understand it, to March 13, 1981, which makes a difference,
19 because you have different criteria to decide whether or not
20 this is a major or minor change, depending on whether it was
21 approved prior to or after March 13, 1981.
22 So before you, you'll have on your desk a
23 decision outline that I've prepared to help guide you
24 through this appeal and what the issues are before you on
29 this appeal. I think that inIxeading Mr. Hererra's letter,
19
1 in 1980 and 1981 that allowed buildings in the original PUD
2 to be built up to 41-1/2 or 44-1/2 feet. in height. In this
3 case, the new PUD would actually limit the height to 40
4 feet. We're looking at, in essence, the same scale and•mass
5 of the buildings. We're looking at the same materials and
6 mixture of wood and masonry throughout.
7 The layout of the parking and driveways has not
8 changed at all, with the exception of an inclusion.of 196 to
9 211 parking spaces. We're looking at the addition of about
10 15 parking spaces to accommodate the additional bedrooms
11 that would be generated by the new dwelling unit mix.
12 An increase in the problems of traffic
13 circulation and public utilities; there will be.no change in;
14 the public utility needs for this development.
15 Transportation Department has evaluated the proposal today
16 against the old traffic study in the old proposal of 1980.
17 They are represented here, if you have questions about the
18 problems or increased problems of traffic circulation. The
19 City. does not believe that would be the case.
20 Reduction by greater than three percent of the
21 approved open space. On the old plan, with administrative
22 changes that were approved in 1980 that increased the
23 overall building envelope areas for the seven buildings to
24 56,700 square feet, we now see, with the new building
25 envelopes on the plan that was submitted in May of this
4
1 one -bedroom, 60
two -bedroom on the original
plan, to a
mix
2 of one-, two-,
and three -bedroom units; 14
one -bedroom,
66
3 two -bedroom, and 36 three -bedroom.
4 As stated in the Land Development Guidance
5 System, minor changes to a PUD may be approved
6 administratively by the director of_planning, and a change
7 to the PUD submitted prior to March of 1981 -- which, in
8 this case, did occur -- a minor change is considered -- or
9 change to a PUD is considered minor if it does not include
10 any of the following: a change in character of the
11 development; an increase in the problems of traffic
12 circulation or public utilities; a reduction by greater than
13 three' percent of the open space on the project; an increase
14 of greater than two percent in the approved gross leasable
15 floor area of commercial buildings in either residential or
16 commercial planned unit developments; or an increase by
17 greater than one percent in the approved number -of
18 residential dwelling units.
19 In this case, there has been no change in the
20 layout and bulk or the mass of the project. We're looking
21 at seven buildings, essentially, in the same location as
22 previously approved in 1980. We are still looking at
23 three-story buildings that will not exceed 40 feet in
24 height. .
25 There were actually administrative changes back
3
1 construct that project.
2 The Planning Department received an
3 administrative.change for changes to this development on the
4 4th of May of this year, 1995. Actually, I'd like to back
5 up. This is the original plan that was approved, 120
6 multifamily dwelling units. As you can see, at the top of
7 the proposed development is Wakerobin Drive. To the west of
8 the proposed site is South Shields Street. To the south is
9 West Harmony Road.
10 Again, on the 4th of May, an administrative
11 change was received by the Planning Department,.and on the
12 12th of May of this year, staff approved that administrative
13 change request that was submitted by a company by the name
14 of Kaufman & Broad Multifamily Housing Group. Their request
15 was to change the name of the project from Woodlands
16 Condominiums to Woodlands Apartments PUD.
17 The new PUD would also eliminate four dwelling
18 units in one building, therefore decreasing the overall..
19 number of dwelling units from 120 to 116, and then providing
20 the inclusion of a manager's office, rental office, mail
21
room and kitchen area
retreat/party/game room as part of.the
22
one building. This is
the building at the
northwest portion
23 of the site.
24
In
addition, the unit mix changed
from the
25
original one-
and two -bedroom dwelling units,
60 of each, 60
1 MS. CLEMENTS: We're going to go ahead on to the
2 next item on our agenda, which is Item Number 17, appeal of
3 the approval of administrative change to the Woodlands
4 Condominiums PUD, Second Filing. Mr. Steve Olt will be
5 making the presentation. And perhaps Mr. Eckman, after Mr.
6 Olt finishes his presentation, if you could share with us
7 what our realm of responsibility here is in reviewing this.
8 Thank you.
9 MR. OLT: This next discussion item is an appeal
10 of the approval of an administrative. change to the Woodlands
11 Condominiums PUD, Second Filing. The property is located at
12 the northeast corner of South Shields Street and West
13 Harmony Road and is currently zoned RLP, low density planned
14 residential. This property was annexed into the city in
15 October of 1978. In August of 1980, a plan for 120
16 multifamily dwelling units on 9.8 acres was approved by the
17 Planning and Zoning Board.
18 Since that time, no,further development
19 proposals for any other land uses other than multifamily
20 residential has been received by the City. This development
21 has approved under significant activity within the
22 prescribed two-year time period, from the date of the final
23 approval in 1980. Therefore, the PUD plan.approved at that
It 24 time for the 120 dwelling units on the nine acres is still
25 considered to be a valid plan�wi.th a vested right to
MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Held Monday, June 26, 1995
At Fort Collins City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Concerning Woodlands Condominiums PUD, Second Filing
Appeal of an Adminstrative Change
Members present:
Renee Clements, Chairperson
Jan Cottier
Bernie Strom
Lloyd Walker
Jennifer Mickelsen
Gwen Bell
Gary Carnes
IN
Court reporting services provided by:
Meadors & Whitlock, Inc.
315 W. Oak Street, Suite 500
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) or (800) 482-1506
'Fax: (970) 224-1199
'lob"
Cal 1993, �6 U.7�5 �ti,'iy w.ctfcn`
aF k
9 umuid' ee W � y�l Alt .
�Gzaa� �Ap �u4 Cw��C�t�
`il� �ilL° P/l,c �Q-QJ�1,l—f
"OA - f N6 &UehO-Ad' )
AC�L
Q�,sc
?'Yp � �.e�vj n�e�.So,
Wits 64L dz-yu dzo-,c -� S
wds O-Aovw-d p; (,jLO-,Q a,c)
am�
l_ ____ (� -6,c-�, ww
—hv C--/
dht- � cud is
Please contact me in order to discuss this matter further. I look
forward to hearing from you accordingly.
With kindest regards I remain
Very truly yours,
ERIC A. SUNNESS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
Eric A. Sunn s, sq.
EAS:es
ERIC A. SUNNESS
ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
140 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins. Colorado80524
Mr. Bob Blanchard
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Telephone(303,490-1990
Facsimile (303) 484-7507
Re: Woodlands Condominiums PUD 2nd Filing
Dear Mr. Blanchard:
March 28, 1995
I am working with David Herrera, Esq., and the property owners in
trie neighborhood ad j acent to the above referenced project. i
received a letter from Stephen Olt, City Planner, on or about
February 1, 1995, informing the property owners of a neighborhood
informational meeting to discuss a development proposal in the
neighborhood. The letter,also stated that this project received
final approval from City' Council on August 5, 1980, and has a
vested development right.
At the informational meeting Mr. Olt stated that this proposed
development had already been approved and that there was no basis
upon which to challenge this "vested development right". Concerned
property owners have informed me that Mr. Olt also indicated during
telephone conversations that the property owners had no basis upon
which to challenge the proposal. These conversations have raised
some concern with the property owners who do not feel that the City
Planner has been impartial with regard to these issues.
In any event, my research indicates that the project was originally
approved as "Woodlands Condominiums PUD", and the developers are
now proposing an apartment project. The developers have also
proposed to change the site plan to include an additional building,
as well as three new building types.
The developers have also proposed an additional eighty (80)
bedrooms, as well as an additional nineteen (19) parking spaces.
The developer's proposal would also reduce the open space by
greater than 3%, and would increase the approved gross leasable
floor space by greater than 2%. Finally, the developer's proposal
would invariably create changes in traffic as well as public
utilities.
I believe
that the above referenced proposed
changes to
the
development
should be considered "major changes"
pursuant to
the
Code of the
City of Fort Collins, Sec. 29-526 (F) (6)
(d) . Therefore,
I respectfully request that the proposed development changes
be
referred to
the City of Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Board
for
review.
I understand that it is the intention of the planning department to grant these changes without further
review. According to my attorney, these changes are major changes because:
1) They involve a change in the character of the development
2) The will cause an increase in traffic problems
3) They will cause the approved open space area to decrease by greater than 3%
4) They will cause the approved gross leasable floor space to increase by greater than 2%
My understanding is that all four of these issues are defined as major changes by the Code of the City of
Fort Collins Par 29-526(F)(6)(d) and I request that they be referred to the City of Fort Collins Planning
and Zoning Board as required by the City Code. I understand that it would be an error to administratively
approve the proposed changes.
I look forward to hearing from you with regard to my concerns.
Sincerely,
James . Whalen
James J. Whalen
4431 Rosecrown Ct
Ft Collins, CO 80526
(303) 226 2614
fax (303) 635 6614
March 26, 1995
Mr. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Vested Rights - 60-79B Woodlands Condominiums PUD 2nd Filing
Dear Mr. Blanchard:
I am a property owner in the housing development next to the project referenced above. On February 13,
1995, Stephen Olt from the City of Fort Collins Planning Office and representatives from Kaufman and
Broad held an informational meeting for homeowners living near the proposed development. At that
time, they stated that the project had received final approval from City Council on August 5, 1980 and had
a vested development right. Mr. Olt stressed the fact that the meeting was for informational purposes only
and that the developers could build as requested due to this vested development right. He said several
times that there was nothing that the homeowners could do about it.
Upon consultation with a local attorney specializing in real estate development and zoning, it appears that
Mr. Olt may have spoken in error. While I don't personally know the sections of the code governing all of
these issues, it appears that there are a number of reasons why this matter should not be dealt with
administratively, but instead should be brought in front of the Planning and Zoning Board. Specifically:
1) The project was originally approved for condominiums, but is now proposed as apartments. This issue
is of particular interest to me, as I am one of the original homeowners in the area. In February 1980,
when I was discussing purchasing my home from the original developer, Wood Brothers Homes, the
developer's representative, Mel Bown, stated several times that once the single family homes in the plan
were completed, Wood Brothers was going to complete the condominium portion of the project. I
purchased my home with that condition in mind.
2) Kaufman and Broad are proposing to add another building to the site, in what was originally set aside
as an open space area.
3) Kaufman and Broad are proposing to change one of the buildings originally planned as a residential
building into a recreational facility.
4) The unit mix of bedrooms is proposed to change in such a way as to add a total of 80 bedrooms to the
plan.
5) Because of this increase in bedrooms, either the building footprint must grow, or the height of the
buildings must change. There were height restrictions imposed by building type in the original site plan.
6) The number of required parking spaces called for in the original plan is 196 spaces. Given the increase
in bedrooms, the minimum number of required parking spaces necessary to conform to code is now 215.
7) Three new building types are proposed.
Mr. Bob Blanchard
March 13, 1995
Page 3
[31 A reduction by greater than three (3%) percent of the approved open space (estimate
based on additional building and increased parking spaces).
[4) An increase of greater than two (2%) percent in the approved gross leasable floor
areas of commercial buildings in either residential or commercial planned unit
developments.
The Woodlands Condominiums PUD was originally approved on or about August 5,
1980. Therefore the criteria for the definition of "Major Change" is found at the Code of
the City of Fort Collins §29-526(F)(6)(d). You will note that the four reasons cited for
our argument that the changes proposed are major changes to the planned unit
development are the same as defined in the code.. Therefore, we believe it would be error
to administratively approve the proposed changes.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you refer the matter to the City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board as required by the Code of the City of Fort Collins §29-
526(F)(6)(b).
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or comments.
Sinc ely yours,
David M. Herrera
Mr. Bob Blanchard
March 13, 1995
Page 2
4. The representatives of Kaufman & Broad, propose to change the site plan to include
another building, adding another residential Building A in the 1.3 Acre Active Open
Space in the southeast end of the site.
5. The representatives of Kaufman & Broad, change the unit mix as follows:
FROM:
TO:
Change in Number of
Bedrooms
60 1 BEDROOM
16 1 BEDROOM
- 44
60 2 BEDROOMS
68 2 BEDROOM
+ 16
36 3 BEDROOMS
+108
Total Bedrooms 180
260 BEDROOMS
+80 Bedrooms
6. In order to increase the number of bedrooms as proposed, either the building footprint
must change or the height of the bu]dings must change. The original site plan imposed
height restrictions by building type.
7. Three new building types are proposed.
8. The number of required off site parking spaces provided for in the original plan is 196
spaces.
9. The minimum number of offsite required parking spaces necessary to conform to code,
without variance is 215. ( Fort Collins Code §29-494 calculated as follows:
Bedrooms
Calculations
1
16 x 1.50 = 24 spaces
2
68 x 1.75 = 119 spaces
3
36 x 2.00 = 72 spaces
TOTAL = 215 spaces
We understand that it is the intention of the planning department to grant, without further
review, the "minor changes" proposed by Kaufman & Broad. We believe the changes
proposed by Kaufman & Broad are "major changes" in that they involve the following -
[I ] A change in the character of the development.
[2] An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities.
DavJ 1" 1. He"era i
Attorney And Counselor At Law
Suite 890, .Savings Building
125 S. Howes
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
March 13. 1995
Mr. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522 - 0580
RE: Vested Rights - 60-79B Woodlands Condominiums PUD 2nd Filing
Dear Mr. Blanchard:
(303) 482-6692
Fax (303) 482-6964
I represent property owners in the neighborhood adjacent to the above referenced project.
It would appear that the owner of the subject property has substantially undertaken and
completed the development of engineering improvements through the installation of water,
sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, fire hydrants, and storm drainage and therefore
may have vested rights.
Upon inquiry, however, it has been revealed that the final approval file has been misplaced.
We do not know, therefore, whether the final approval was conditional and, if so, whether
the conditions have been satisfied. In order to answer that question, I looked to the
mapping department to determine if all matters have been identified and satisfied. Alas,
the documents do not appear to be complete.
I was able to discern the following, however:
1. The project was originally approved as "Woodlands Condominiums PUD". Somehow,
the name has been changed to "Woodlands PUD 2nd Filing", at least that was represented
to the neighborhood.
2. The project, originally approved as condominiums, is now proposed as apartments.
3. The representatives of Kaufman & Broad, propose to change the site plan to include
another building, changing Building A, Type 1, to a recreational facility.
PETITION
WE THE PEOPLE of the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed
development at the corner of Shields Street and Harmony Road,
respectfully request that this proposed development be reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Board for the following reasons:
1. Proposed changes in the character of the development from
condominiums to apartments;
2. Proposed changes to the site plan including the addition
of one building;
3. Proposed changes to the unit mix including an increase in
the number of bedrooms;
4. Proposed increase in the number of parking spaces;
5. Reduction of Open Space by greater than 3%;
6. Increase of greater than 2% of approved gross leasable
floor space.
We believe that these issues constitute major changes to
the previously approved plan, and should therefore be reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Board.
Name I Address Telephone number
O
COmmti`
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
December 1, 1994
Mr. Kipling S. Sheppard
Kaufman & Broad
10877 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA. 90024
and Environmental ..ervices
Re: The Woodlands planned unit development (P.U.D.) - Filing II
Dear Mr. Sheppard:
The Woodlands P.U.D. - Filing II, located at the northeast corner
of West Harmony Road and South Shields Street, was approved by the
City of Fort Collins on August 5, 1980 for 120 multi -family
residential dwelling units on 9.8 acres. This development has
undertaken "significant activity" within two years of the date of
approval; therefore, the approved P.U.D. plan is valid and the
residential dwelling units can be constructed as approved. Any
development on this property is subject to all of the requirements
of the approved P.U.D.
The underlying zoning on this property is RLP - Low Density Planned
Residential; however, the P.U.D. overlays the zoning and allows the
land uses approved through public hearings.
Please contact a representative of the City of Fort Collins
Planning Department if you require additional information or have
any questions.
aere y,
E?
i
S eph n Olt
City Planner
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
Page Two
and F have a building coverage of an additional 756 S.F. plus 3 additional parking spaces
yielding a revised Active Open Space of 1.07 acres. The triangular piece in which Building E
is sited measures approximately 27,200 S.F. less the 6,116 S.F. envelope and yields 0.48 acres,
although only 0.42 is counted. The triangular piece bounded by the property line at Shields and
Harmony and the envelope of Building D, while actually measuring 0.24 acre is only counted
as 0.19 acre. The 0.3 acres located at the corner of Wakerobin and Shields was reduced by the
0.01 acre taken up by the addition of 3 parking spaces added in the revised plan.
Open Space (Residual): Total Area less Coverage of Buildings, Street R.O.W. , Parking and
Drives and Active Open Space per Kaufman & Broad proposed plans.
I trust this adequately explains the method used by Kaufman & Broad to calculate Land Use
Breakdown. Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
n B AD HOME CORPORATION
Manuel G. Gonzalez,
Director of Architecture
K1-v F M A N B R O .,, b
May 24, 1995
Stephen Olt, ASLA
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
281 N. College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: The Woodlands Site Plan Calculations
Dear Mr. Olt:
The following is a synopsis of the method used to calculate the "Land Use Breakdown" on the
Site Plan submitted by Kaufman & Broad dated May 3, 1995.
Area (Gross and Net): Numbers are per original PUD Site Plan prepared by ZVFK.
Dwelling Units: Per Kaufman & Broad proposed plans.
Density: Dwelling Units divided by Area.
Building Areas: Habitable Space contained in each building per Kaufman & Broad proposed
plans.
Coverage (Buildings): Total of the Building Envelopes as dimensioned on Kaufman & Broad
proposed plans.
Coverage (Street R.O.W.): Numbers, are per original PUD Site Plan prepared by ZVFK.
Coverage (Parking and Drives): Coverage per original PUD Site Plan prepared by ZVFK plus
the additional coverage of the parking spaces required to meet the parking requirements of the
Kaufman & Broad proposed plans.
Open Space (Active): Major landscaped areas bounded by property line, parking or building
envelope. Example: Building G proposed envelope of 9747 S.F. is a 1413 S.F. or 0.032 acre
reduction from the original PUD Building Envelope of 11,160 S.F. The Active Open Space in
this area is therefore increased from the original 1.3 acres by the 0.032 acre for a revised total
of 1.33 acres. In a similar manner, the combined 0.9 and 0.2 acre areas at Buildings A, B, C
KAUFMAN AND BROAD HOME CORPORATION
100 BAYVIEW CIRCLE. SUITE 2060. NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660-2985 TEL. 714.509,7505 FAX. 714.854.5108
I
City of I;ort Collins
I'roiccl N:nnc
Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. Lund Use III for'nlalloll:
I'rojecl I,ocalinn (SU'ee( Address): NE quadrant of S. Shields Ave.
an armony
Project Description:
116 unit multi —family
Ioday's Dale: 5/4/95
I N II O R NI A l l ON' List all mencre haciul a 1cpVcquilallic
intclev N the pro Ic+ly:
p„nc1 Namc(sl:_Kaufman and Broad Multi —Housing Group, Inc.
PLANNING U tIPAI ' ' ILtINT
APPLICATIOORM
(floss Acicagc/Square Footage: 8.22 acres
Exisling Zoning: P.U.D.
Proposed Use: P.U.D.
Total Number of Dwelling Units: 116
Total Colmncrcial Floor Area: N/A
Applicant's/Ctmsul(anl's Name: same
Sheet Address:
�Irccl Addles: 10990 Wilshire Blvd. City, Slate, Zip:
t'ily, Sl:dc. Zill: _Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 231-4000 Telephone:
TVIIE OF Imquir,S'I'
I'Icacr todicalc Ill' lypc of apn plicaliosnhnlillcd by clieckillg the box illeccdinh appropna a requcsl(s). Combined rcqucsls require Ille combined individual fees.
hlakc checks payable to the Oly of Full Collins. Stalled rcqucsls (')also Iequite additional paymcnl Ili Larinler Comely Clerk nod Recorder in the amount noted.
Addilionad handouts arc available explaining information requirenlenls for eacl, of the following review processes.
Aonexalion wllll llllllal Z.olliog
Fcc: S 1.040. + $10.00 per sheet of annexation la( + $5.00 • per sheet of
amlexal,rnl pclihm, Itcgoeslcd 7..onc:
Rcioldo I Rcqucslcd Z.onc: �---�
FCC: • J
.$J0.00 1 S5.00 per slice( of rczoniog Ipc(�Itlnn
Planned Unit Development - Overall Development Plan
Fcc: S I.400.00
Planned [)Ili( Dcvclopulcol - Picliotioary flan
Fcc: S1;472.00
Planned Unit Dcvcht nncnt - Final I'I:nl (including final subdivisiml)
Fcc: $2,808.00 1 V0.00 per shcel of subdivisionIlia[
Khoor Subdivision ,
I`cc: $996.01)
Picliulinaryy Subdivision
Fcc: S1.1(2.00
Filial Subdivision fell
1-cc: $2,176.00 1 $10.00 per shce(of plat
XX
1'U1)Administrative Change
I cc: $168.011
".1 111.11 01111 lVINIOII 1'IaIS So IIIIIIIlctl eollcllllclilly Willi a
I'Icliminaly ur I ina I'UI) flan, 1tI'MC Site flan, Non-Cn ofolmiog Ilse ltcvicw,
oI 11,:11` Cilc !'Taro sb:`II Plc ch �r,�r.! .pile-1;::11 tLc I'Iclin+ina:c nr final .'Qlbdivision
PINT r,•,
Extension of Final Approval
Fee: $496.00
Mullipple-Family Use Requests in the R-M and R-11 Zoning District
Fcc:
S976.00
Non-Residenlial Use Requests in the R-H Zoning District
Fee: $976.00
Non -conforming Use Requests
Fcc: 51,216.00
Group IIonic Review
Fcc: $920.00
IUIP Site flan Review
Fee: S 1,640.00 + S 10.00 per slicel of subdivision plat
Olher Special Site Plan Review (RC, RF, etc.) .
Fee: $2,544.00 + $I0.00 per shcel of subdivision pill
vaealion of ROW or Lascn(cnl
Fee: $5.00 • per slice[ of filing document
Street Nanlc Change
Fee: $5.00 . per sheet of filing document
Ccili icolinrl r►tt rc°tJc'rti'r,' .Eiclr rrtrr.cl Lie Signed awe
1
City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
May 26, 1995
Page 4
2. Our calculations indicate a greater than 3% change in open space.
3. Building D appears to encroach approximately 5 feet into the setback along Shields
Street.
4. A review of the interior parking lot landscaping appears that the revised parking lot
does not provide the minimum 6% interior landscaping required by the City of Fort
Collins' Parking Lot Development Guide.
5. In addition, the neighbors believe the developer has misled the community in
representing that public hearings would be held to discuss the proposed administrative
change to the PUD. In fact, the representations were made at a public meeting involving
funding for Colorado Division of Housing fund on or about April 17, 1995.
6. Finally, it is the belief of the neighbors that the project's change in occupancy is [1] a
change in the character of the development, and may well have an adverse impact through
[2] an increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities.
Accordingly, the appellants request a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board at
the earliest possible time.
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerel yours,
David M. Herrera
City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
May 26, 1995
Page 3
The Woodlands Condominiums PUD was originally approved on or about August 5,
1980. Therefore the criteria for the definition of "Major Change" is found at the Code of
the City of Fort Collins §29-526(F)(6)(d). You will note that the four reasons cited for
our argument that the changes proposed are major changes to the planned unit
development are the same as defined in the code.. Therefore, we believe it was error and
abuse of discretion to administratively approve the proposed changes.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning
Board review the administrative approval pursuant to the Code of the City of Fort Collins
§2-353(4).
In further support of this appeal, the appellants assert the following facts:
1. The submitted amended site plan appears to have incorrect numbers for the building
areas according to building type.
The new numbers are calculated using building envelope measurements (as was done in
the original PUD approval) from the plans as follows:
Building areas:
Type 1 (70' x 150') x 4 = 28,000 sq. ft.
Type 2 (100' x 1501 x 3 = 45,000 sq. ft.
Total sq. ft. of buildings = 73,000 sq. ft
1 Acre = 43, 560 sq. ft.
73,000 _ 43,560 sq. ft = 1.67
COVERAGE
Acres
New
Percentage
Change from
Site Plan
Buildings
1.67
17.09%
4.49%
Street ROW
2.90
29.59%
.00%
Parking and Drives
1.44
14.69%
-.01
Opens Space
Active
Residual
2.86
.93
29.13%
9.49%
4.57%
-.01%
City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
May 26, 1995
Page 2
FROM:
TO:
Change in Number of
Bedrooms
60 1 BEDROOM
14 1 BEDROOM
- 46
60 2 BEDROOMS
66 2 BEDROOM
+ 12
0 3 BEDROOMS
36 3 BEDROOMS
+108
Total Bedrooms 180 1254
BEDROOMS
1 +74 Bedrooms
6. In order to increase the number of bedrooms as proposed, either the building footprint
must change or the height of the buildings must change. The original site plan imposed
height restrictions by building type.
7. Two new building types are proposed.
8. The number of required off site parking spaces provided for in the original plan is 196
spaces.
9. The minimum number of offsite required parking spaces necessary to conform to code,
without variance is 215. ( Fort Collins Code §29-494) calculated as follows:
Bedrooms
Calculations
1
14 x 1.50 = 21 spaces
2
66 x 1.75 = 115.5 spaces
3
36 x 2.00 = 72 spaces
TOTAL = 208.5 spaces.
10. On May 12, 1995, the planning department to granted, without further review, the
"minor changes" proposed by Kaufman & Broad. We believe the changes proposed by
Kaufrnan & Broad are "major changes" in that they involve the following:
[ 1 ] A change in the character of the development.
[2] An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities.
[3] A reduction by greater than three (3%) percent of the approved open space (estimate
based on additional building and increased parking spaces).
[4] An increase of greater than two (2%) percent in the approved gross leasable floor
areas of commercial buildings in either residential or commercial planned unit
developments.
Suite 890, Savings Building
its S. HOWC,5
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
May 26, 1995
gg
MAY 2 610- 95
DaviJ 1'p� �. Herrera
Attorney And Counselor At Lew 112 yc LU .
30) 482-6692
Fa: (303) 482-6964
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Mr. Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522 - 0580
RE: Appeal of Administrative Approval of Change to
60-79B Woodlands Condominiums PUD 2nd Filing
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
I represent property owners in the neighborhood adjacent to the above referenced project.
I have been informed that Mr. Blanchard approved an administrative change to the
approved Woodlands PUD on or about May 12, 1995. As noted in previous
correspondence to Mr. Blanchard, it would appear that the owner of the subject property
has substantially undertaken and completed the development of engineering improvements
through the installation of water, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, fire hydrants,
and storm drainage and therefore apparently has vested rights.
In the course of fact finding on this matter, it has been revealed that the final approval file
has been misplaced. We do not know, therefore, whether the final approval was
conditional and, if so, whether the conditions have been satisfied. We believe it is
imperative to answer the question of whether conditions were imposed and not make the
assumption that all conditions have been satisfied and that rights have vested.
I understand the -following facts are not in dispute:
1. The project, originally approved as "Woodlands Condominiums PUD", is now known
as "Woodlands PUD 2nd Filing".
2. The project, originally approved as condominiums, is now proposed as apartments.
3. The representatives of Kaufman & Broad, propose to change the site plan to include
modifying a building, changing Building A, Type 1, to add a recreational facility.
4.. The representatives of Kaufinan & Broad, also propose to change the unit mix as
follows:
I %t-164G'7 t at w�l ^r'li K rJ� rtT` • , r?
U le".
Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ALL CRITERIA
I APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
s the cntenon 11 thqNoo
apolicable7 I be s
CRITERION
I = a.olYesIf no, please explain
4
�
C �
A1.
COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA
1.1
Solar Orientation
I I I I ( I
1.2
Comorehensive Plan
I I V1 I
1.3
Wiidlife Habitat
I I✓1-------------
1.4
Mineral Dep.—sit
I ! I✓1
1..
Ec0100ic20y Sensitive Areas
! reserved I ! I
Lands of Aericultural Imoorance
I reserved I ! I
1.7
Enerav Conservation
I 1 I ✓1 - I !
1.8
Air Quality1.
I ! ✓I I !
Water Ou211*y
ro o t41 n
0
CetNanc =n ��; _
ant eS,__c
I
6PAr"PI ,sL,'1 :L` _al Ally
12 Preside.
NE!�-BOR-00^ COMP,4T]I I
2 V=hic�lar. ~ec==;ran. Bike Transoorat
_ 2 =_uii'inc P12c=rnent and Orientation
2 Nawr ai-e2r:res
_ 4 Vehicular Circulation ant Parking
�,� `mCr.`Gn Wit/ Ag�eSJ -
edestrlan Ciru;ation
_
B,:iidine Hei^^ and Views
2.9
Shading
2.10
Solar Access
2411
Historic Resources
2.12
Setbacks
2.13
2.14
Landscaoe
Signs
2.1
Site Lichtina
2.1 o
Ncise and Vibration
2.17
Glare or Heat
2.18
HaZ-ardous Materials
A 3.
ENGINEE RING CRITERIA
3.1
Utiiity Capacity
3.2
Desion Standarts
3.3
3.4
Water H2ZaM.s
Geologic Hazarts
G7l(zev-7 Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
�O The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised lllalch 1994
-61-US�
11F
4.
LL 1121111
. ..... -- - -------- �0
Jjj
ZWK
------------
FINAL SITE PLAN
4n+•... r....rr.. Lrl. r._. -"7
WOODL0 ANDS P ljjFFD)
CONDOMINIUMS
I
I
1.07
v
ACTIVE ')FUTURE COMMERCIAL TRACT!
:z
33
ACTIVE OPEN
1.33 AC
.10 AC 0.42 AC jii i i ni i i w i I H.
ct)
,-.HAf3WNY ROAD
SrrE PLAN
w Im
K.
•�� � ��•�� . •._
WOODLAND
KAIII MA N ABROAD
FORT COLLMI
FAMILY "
APARTMENTS
DAD MAY 31W
kl\lmm
q'-2
No Text
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for Woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995,P & Z Meeting
Page 8
landscaping required by the City of Fort Collins Parking Lot
Development Guide.
Staff's review of the interior landscaping in the parking
areas indicates that there is approximately 50 landscaping in
the islands immediately adjacent to the parking and driveways
(based on best measurements from the Site Plan). Historically,
in a P.U.D. setting, the interior landscaping requirements
have been able to be varied if the project is considered to
provide incentives such as low income housing, energy
conservation, or other important goals of the City. The
purpose of the L.D.G.S. is to improve the public health,
safety, and welfare by encouraging innovations in land
development, and improve the design, quality, and character of
new development.
5. In addition, the neighbors believe the developer has misled
the community in representing that public hearings would be
held to discuss the proposed administrative change to the
P.U.D. In fact, the representations were made at a public
meeting involving funding for Colorado Division of Housing
fund on or about April 17, 1995.
6. Finally, it is the belief of the neighbors that the project's
change in occupancy is [11 a change in the character of the
development, and may well have an adverse impact through (21
an increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public
utilities.
The appellant's perceived "change in occupancy" should have no
bearing on the character of the project. By virtue of changing
the name of the project from condominiums to apartments does
not necessarily change the nature of the residents in a multi-
family residential project.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed changes to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. are
considered to be "minor" and may, according to Section 29-
526.F.(6)(a) L.D.G.S. of the City Code, be approved
administratively by the Director of Planning. On May 12, 1995,
staff approved the administrative change request submitted by
Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc. Staff did not error and
abuse its discretion in administratively approving the proposed
changes.
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for Woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 7
[21 An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and
public utilities.
[31 A reduction by greater than three (3%) percent of the
approved open space.
[41 An increase of greater than two (216) percent in the
approved gross leasable floor areas of commercial
buildings in either residential or commercial planned
unit developments.
[51 An increase by greater than one (10i) percent in the
approved number of residential dwelling units.
Therefore, the changes are considered to be "minor" and may,
according to Section 29-526 L.D.G.S. of the City Code, be
approved administratively by the Director of Planning. Staff
did not error and abuse its discretion in administratively
approving the proposed changes.
In further support of this appeal, the appellants assert the
following facts:
1. The submitted amended site plan appears to have incorrect:
numbers for the building areas according to building type.
Staff is unable to determine how the appellants arrived at the
numbers for the building areas according to building type.
2. Our calculations indicate a greater than 3% change in open
space.
As noted above, staff does not agree that there is a greater
that 30i_change in open space, either increase or reduction.
3. Building D appears to encroach approximately 5 feet into the
setback along Shields Street.
The original P.U.D. plan does not specify any setbacks along
Shields Street, other than a measured distance. Staff agrees
that Building D on the new P.U.D. plan measures approximately
5' closer to the street; however, the closest corner of the
building measures 40' from the street curbline, 'which is
considered to be an adequate setback in addition to the
proposed berming and landscaping.
4. A review of the interior .lot landscaping appears that the
revised parking lot does not provide the minimum 6% interior
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for Woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 6
additional parking spaces for the new unit mix in the
complex. The total of the area for the building envelopes
and additional parking on the new P.U.D. plan is 55,372
square feet. This is 1,412 square feet less than the area
for the building envelopes and parking on the original
P.U.D. plan.
City Code defines "Active Open Space" as a parcel of not
less than 10,000 square feet and not less than 50 linear
feet in the smallest dimensions. "Residual Open Space" is
interpreted to be the remainder of the area outside of
the parking areas, other hard -surface areas, and building
envelopes. The open space area on the new P.U.D. plan
increases by 1% of active open space and by 0.8% of total
open space (active and residual) over the original P.U.D.
plan.
[41 An increase of -greater than two (2%) percent in the approved
leasable floor areas of commercial buildings in either
residential of commercial planned unit developments.
Staff Response:
The proposed Woodlands Apartments P.U.D. is entirely a
residential project. The City does not interpret rental
apartments to be commercial in nature. Multi -family housing,
in all forms, is residential. The proposed manager's office,
rental office, mail room, kitchen retreat, a
party/game/assembly room, and an attached laundry room
constitute approximately 1/3 to 1/4 of one building and will
be provided for the use of the residents of the complex only.
These are considered to be auxiliary uses for the apartment
complex and not "leasable floor area of commercial buildings".
Additionally, the overall floor area in the complex will
decrease from 110,200 square feet to 106,044 square feet,
constituting a 3.8% decrease in floor area (by whatever
definition).
We believe it was error and abuse of discretion to administratively
approve the proposed changes.
Staff Response:
The proposed changes to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. do
not include any of the following:
[11 A change in the character of the development.
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
Staff considers the "character" of a development to be
primarily defined by the land use and some design factors. In
this case, the land use remains "multi -family" as approved in
1980. Therefore, the proposed changes are considered to be in
significant conformance with the original, vested P.U.D. plan
and staff does not consider this plan to be a change in
character of the development.
[2) An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public
utilities.
Staff Response:
The City Transportation Department has evaluated the proposed
changes to the development and assessed the traffic
circulation based on the assumptions made in the original
traffic study, along with the level of operation of the
streets and intersections in the affected area at present. The
streets and intersections will function at a level of service
that is acceptable except for isolated rush hour times during
the day. An updated traffic study will be submitted by Kaufman
and Broad for review by the City.
There are City utilities in the areas surrounding the subject
property. The changes approved administratively will not
increase nor decrease the "problems" on the public utilities.
The project as now proposed will essentially be the same
project that was approved in 1980. Updated utility plans will
be submitted by Kaufman and Broad for review by the City to
ensure compliance with current standards.
[31 A reduction by greater than three (3%) percent of the approved
open space (estimate based on additional building and
increased parking spaces).
Staff Response.
The area of site coverage for the 7 building envelopes on the
original P.U.D. plan that was approved in 1980 is 56,784
square feet (including two administrative changes approved on
December 11, 1980 and February 18, 1981 and as shown on the
recorded final Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. Site Plan). The
total open space is 4.23 acres (3.3 active, 0.93 residual).
,The area of site coverage for the 7 building envelopes on
the administratively approved P.U.`D. plan (May 12, 1995)
is 53,707 square feet. In addition, 1,665 square feet of
new pavement is being provided to account for the needed
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for Woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
Final file (#60-79B). Based on the research that was done on
the development approval on the property, and at a time when
the Final file could be located, a letter dated December 1,
1994 was written to Kaufman and Broad indicating the status of
the project. This letter, in part, states that:
"This development has undertaken "significant activity"
within two years of the date of approval; therefore, the
approved P.U.D. plan is valid and the residential
dwelling units can be constructed as approved."
The changes proposed by Kaufman & Broad are "major changes" in that
they involve the following:
(1] A change in the character of the development.
Staff Response:
The P.U.D. plan approved by City Council in 1980 contained 60
1-bedroom and 60 2-bedroom dwelling units, for a total of 120
dwelling units on 9.8 acres (presumably including a future
commercial tract as shown at the east end on the Site Plan)
The original P.U.D. plan allows for 7 buildings containing 120
dwelling units (60 1-bedroom, 60 2-bedroom) that total 110,200
square feet on three floors.
The plan approved administratively in May, 1995 allows
for 7 buildings containing 116 dwelling units (14 1-
bedroom, 66 2-bedroom, 36 3-bedroom) that total 106,044
square feet on three floors. One building will contain a
management/rental office and small recreation facilities
for use by the residents of the apartment complex.
The original P.U.D. plan was approved for building heights of
401. The buildings were to be predominantly of wood siding
with masonry (stone) trim along the lower 1/4 of the
exteriors. An administrative change approved on October 21,
1980 allows for 4 of the 7 buildings to be increased from 40'
to 41.5' and 44.5' in height (as shown on the recorded final
Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. Site Plan).
The plan approved administratively in May, 1995 specifies
the maximum building height to be 40' from average finish
grade. These buildings are to be predominantly of wood
siding with a significant amount of masonry (brick) trim
on all elevations.
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for Woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
as provided in Section 2-47 of City Code. A change to a P.U.D.
submitted prior to March 13, 1981, is considered to be "minor"
if it does not include the following:
[1] A change in the character of the development.
[2] An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and
public utilities.
[3] A reduction by greater than three (3%) percent of the
approved open space.
[4] An increase of greater than two (2%) percent in the
approved gross leasable floor areas of commercial
buildings in either residential or commercial planned
unit developments.
(5] An increase by greater than one (109k) percent in
approved number of residential dwelling units.
the
ry .F •.
2. The Appeal:
An Appeal of the Administrative Approval of Change to the Woodlands
Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing (City File #60-79B)'-was received
by the Planning Department on May 26, 1995, stating that on May 1�--
1995, the Planning Department granted, without further review, the
"minor changes" proposed by Kaufman & Broad. The appeal alleges
that (excerpts from the appeal in bold type):
In the course of fact finding on this matter, it has been revealed
that the final approval file has been misplaced. We do not know,
therefore, whether the final approval was conditional and, if so,
whether the conditions have been satisfied.
Staff Response:
The City's Senior Planner and head of Planning's Development
Review in 1993 placed a hand written note dated May 19, 1993
in the Woodlands P.U.D., Phase II - Preliminary file (#60-79A)
that states:
"This project is still considered a "valid" plan due to
the public improvements that were installed before the 2-
year approval period was up."
Because approval of a preliminary plan does not enable a
project to begin improvements on -site, staff assumes that this
note was to be placed in the Woodlands P.U.D., Phase II -
Appeal of an Approval of an Administrative Change for Woodlands
PUD, 2nd Filing, #27-95
June 26, 1995 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
The subject property was part of a 26.2 acre, 48 lot single family
residential and neighborhood convenience center P.U.D. request that
was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board on December 19, 1988.
A request for an 8.8 acre neighborhood convenience center P.U.D. on
the subject property was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board on
May 16, 1989.
No further development proposals (for land uses other than the 120
multi -family dwelling units) on the subject property have been
requested. The development as approved undertook "significant
activity" within the prescribed 2-year time period from the date of
final approval; therefore, the P.U.D. plan approved in 1980 for the
120 dwelling units on 9.8 acres is considered to be valid with a
vested right to construct the project.
"Significant activity" was not defined in the City Code in
1980. Subsequently the term was changed to "substantial
completion" and in 1988 was defined in the Code to mean once
all engineering improvements. (water, sewer, streets, curb,
gutter, street lights fire hydrants and storm drainage) are.
installed and completed in accordance with City rules and
regulation. This definition is still found in Section 29
526.H.(3) of the City Code.
On May 12, 1995, the staff approved an administrative change
request for the subject property, submitted by the Kaufman and
Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc., to allow a name change from the
woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. to the woodlands Apartments P.U.D.
Also, the new P.U.D. plan eliminates 4 dwelling units in one
building (decreasing the overall number from 120 to 116) to enable
the inclusion of a manager's office, rental office, mail room,
kitchen retreat, a party/game/assembly room, and an attached
laundry room. In addition, the unit mix changes from 60 1-bedroom
and 60 2-bedroom units to 14 1-bedroom, 66 2-bedroom, 'and 36 3-
bedroom units. The number of parking spaces will increase from 196
to 211 to provide adequate parking for the change in unit mix.
Section 29-526.F. (6) (a) of the Land Development Guidance
System (L.D.G.S.) allows "minor" changes to the P.U.D. which
may be approved administratively by the Director of Planning,
whereupon a permit may be issued, after being reviewed against
the "All Development Criteria" as contained in subsection (D)
of this section. The Director of Planning may refer the
decision to the Planning and Zoning Board and, if so referred,
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute
a final decision, subject only to appeal to the City Council
ITEM NO. 17
MEETING DATE 6/26/95
STAFF Steve Olt
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Appeal of the Approval of an Administrative Change
to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing
- #27-95
APPELLANT: David M. Herrera, Attorney and Counselor at Law
(representing property owners in the adjacent
neighborhood)
125 South Howes, Suite 890
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
OWNER: Scott L. Carlson
12460 1st Street
Eastlake, CO. 80614
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is an appeal of an administrative change request for the
Woodlands Condominiums Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), Second
Filing that was approved by the Planning Department on May 12,
1995. The property is located at the northeast corner of South
Shields Street and West Harmony Road and is zoned RLP - Low Density
Planned Residential.
COMMENTS:
1. Background/History:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; existing single family residential (Woodlands P.U.D.)
S: RLP; existing community college (Front Range)
E: RLP; existing single family residential (Woodlands P.U.D.)
W: rlp; vacant (Pineview Overall Development Plan)
The property was annexed into the City as part of the Shields -
Harmony Annexation in October, 1978.
The subject property was part of an 80.6 acre, 410 dwelling unit
P.U.D. request that was approved by City Council on February 6,
1979.
A request for a 9.8 acre, 120 dwelling unit multi -family
residential P.U.D. on the subject property was approved by City
Council on August 5, 1980.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 12, 1995
Lucia A. Liley
Attorney at Law
110 East Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524-2880
Dear Ms. Liley:
This letter is in reference to your Notice of Appeal received July 10. 1995,
appealing the Planning and Zoning Board decision on the Woodland Condominiums
PUD, Second Filing. The City Attorney has reviewed the appeal document and
his findings are set out in the attached memorandum dated July 11, 1995. You
will want to pay particular attention to the recommendations suggested in his
memorandum.
Section 2-51 of the City Code provides that an amended Notice of Appeal may
be filed by the appellant(s) at any time prior to the time for mailing by the
City Clerk of the notice of the appeal to parties -in -interest. The City
Council hearing on the appeal has been scheduled for Tuesday. August 22,
1995. at 6:30 p.m., and the Notice of Hearing must therefore be mailed no
later than August 8, 1995. An amended Notice of Appeal must be submitted NO
LATER THAN 12:00 NOON on Monday, August 7, 1995 to allow sufficient time for
legal review and inclusion in the Notice of Hearing to be mailed on August
8. 1995.
Sincerely,
Wanda Krajicek
City Clerk
100 La1'urhv A\'CnIIC • P.O. Rut 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX (970) 221-6295
�ESE. �
MEMORANDUM L1
CITY CLERK
DATE: July 11, 1995
TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
RE: Notice of Appeal'- Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D. - Planing and Zoning Item
427-95
I have received a copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group,
Inc. ("Appellant"). I understand that this Notice of Appeal was filed with your office on July 10,
1995, within the prescribed time for the filing of appeals as set forth in Sec. 2-49 of the Code.
Pursuant to Sec. 50, I am required to review the Notice of Appeal for any obvious defects in form .:
or substance. The Notice of Appeal, in my opinion, contains all of the necessary information as
required by Sec. 2-49(1) through (4) of the Code.
However, Sec. 2-49 also requires that notices of appeal be signed by "all appellants," and this Notice
of Appeal is signed by Lucia Liley, as attorney at law representing the Appellant. I would therefore
recommend that an amended Notice of Appeal be filed which is also signed by an officer of the
Appellant corporation authorized to act in this capacity on behalf of the corporation.
WPE:med
300 LaPorte Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6520
Fort Collins City Council Members
July 10, 1995
Page 4
Because there are no provisions of the Charter, Code or LDGS
which differentiate between owner -occupied dwellings and
leased dwellings and no provisions of the Charter, Code or
LDGS which allow discrimination on the basis of ownership,
family size, family make-up or socio-economic factors, a
decision based on the change in the bedroom mix of .the
development was clearly not based on City regulations but was
a decision that exceeded the Board's jurisdiction. It is
obvious from the videotape of the hearing that "criteria"
outside` -of .the ----scope ---of . the Board's jurisdiction were
considered and relied upon .in making this decision, as there
was no competent evidence in the record to support the
conclusion that the character of the development would be
changed.
We request,.therefore, on behalf of Kaufman and Broad Multi -
Housing Group, Inc.,, that the City Council overturn the Planning
and Zoning Board's June 26, 1995 decision that the administrative
change request constituted a major change in that the change of the
bedroom mix represented a significant change in character.
/jpk
Enclosure
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
By:
KAUFMAN AND BROAD MULTI -HOUSING GROUP, INC.
By: --
ael A. Cos , esident
Fort Collins City Council Members
July 10, 1995
Page 3
The Board did not base its decision that the character would
change on any other factors.
EVALUATING THE CHANGE. The stated intent of the Neighborhood
Compatibility Criteria of the All Development Criteria is to,
"ensure that development proposals are sensitive to and
maintain the character of existing neighborhoods" (see Page
11, LDGS). Therefore, the Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria
provide a basis for evaluating changes in development
proposals .that .could affect•character. Sensitivity to, and
maintenance of, neighborhood character translates into
compatibility.
Of the 18 different Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria,
however, none are relevant to the number of bedrooms in a
dwelling unit, the type or size of family that occupies a
dwelling unit, whether the dwelling unit is leased or owned by
the occupants, the potential population of a development or
the socio-economic standards of the occupants.
None of the design features which may be said to affect the
character of a development were changed. The proposal
includes the same number of buildings, in the same location,
with the same architecture and exterior design. There is the
same number of floors in each building, but the height of the
buildings will be lower than what has already been approved.
The Board did not base its decision on any of these criteria.
Finally, in applying the relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter, Staff concluded that, "the 'character' of a
development is primarily defined by the land use and some
design factors. In this case, the land use remains 'multi-
family' as approved..." (see Page 5 of the Staff Report for
6/26/95 Meeting Date).
(2) The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it
exceeded its jurisdiction as contained in the Code and
Charter [sec. 2-48(2)a.].
A change in the bedroom mix of this development would result
in 74 more bedrooms. Although density is calculated with the
number of dwelling units, not the number of bedrooms, it is
possible that the population of the project may increase. The
change to more two and three -bedroom units may result in more
and larger families choosing to reside there, a situation
which can and does routinely occur with single-family
residential land uses. The bedroom mix also allows the
project to offer rental housing at affordable or low-income
rates.
Fort Collins City Council Members
July 10, 1995
Page 2
(1) The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Code and Charter [sec. 2-48(1), City
Code].
A possible "change in the character of the development" must
be evaluated against the present character of the development
and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
PRESENT CHARACTER. The term "character" is not defined in the
City.Charter, Code or•LDGS;.however, the LDGS provides some
assistance. Two overall purposes of the LDGS are: (10) To
improve the design, quality and character of new development;
and (13) To ensure that development proposals are sensitive to
the character of existing neighborhoods (see page 7, LDGS).
To accomplish these objectives, specific criteria were
developed for the evaluation of all proposals. The "All
Development Criteria" must be satisfied by all land uses, and
the criterion for Activity H, Residential Uses, must ,be
satisfied for all residential uses, including single-family,
attached dwellings (condominiums) and multiple -family
dwellings (apartments).
The Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing, is a valid
P.U.D. with a vested right to construct the project, having
been reviewed against the LDGS criteria and approved through
the City P.U.D. process and having been substantially
completed (see discussion on Page 2 of the Staff Report for
6/26/95 Meeting Date). The character of the Woodlands
Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing, is multi -family
residential. The plan calls for 120 multi -family dwelling
units, to be constructed as one and two -bedroom condominiums
in seven different buildings. All design features which may
relate to character were also approved through the P.U.D.
process.
PROPOSED CHANGE. The proposed change in the Woodlands
Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing, which the Board found to
change the character of the development was the change from a
mix of one and two -bedroom condominiums to a mix of one, two
and three -bedroom apartments, resulting in 74 more bedrooms.
This means:
a. The units may be leased instead of owner -occupied;
b. The development may attract more families;
C. The development may attract larger families;
d. The population of the development may increase; and
e. The units can be offered at affordable rates.
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR,
RAMSEY D. MYATT
ROBERT W. BRANDES. JR.
RICHARD S. GAST
LUCIA A. LILEY
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LINDA S. MILLER
WILLIAM C. BEYERS
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
110 EAST OAK STREET
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 00524-2880
(970)462-4322
TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038
July 10, 1995
Honorable Members
Fort Collins City Council
300 Laporte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Notice of Appeal
Woodlands Condominiums
Appeal of Planning and
�t �,,,v ILI 5 5� tY..
4RTi- YE./MARQ•1�
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0469
P.U.D., Second Filing - #27-95
Zoning Board Decision
To the Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group,
Inc. ("Kaufman"), 10990 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024
(Telephone: (310) 231-4000). Kaufman is the developer of the
project which is the subject of this appeal and was the applicant
on the administrative change request that brought this project
within the City's review process.
Kaufman submitted an application for a PUD Administrative
Change to the City of Fort Collins Planning Department on May 4,
1995. Finding that the requested changes were not "major" and that
they met the "All Development Criteria" of the Land Development
Guidance System ("LDGS"), the Director of Planning administratively
approved the request on May 12, 1995, with a condition related to
traffic. David M. Herrera filed an appeal of the administrative
approval on May 26, 1995, and such appeal was considered by the
Planning and Zoning Board (the "Board") on June 26, 1995. The
Board decided on June 26, 1995 that the proposed change is, "a
major change based on the fact that the change of the bedroom mix
represents a significant change in character." The maker of the
motion stated just prior to his motion that the change in the mix
of bedrooms affected the character in that it would appeal to a
"different clientele."
Kaufman appeals the June 26, 1995 action of the Planning and
Zoning Board wherein the Board decided that the proposed
administrative change of the bedroom mix was a major change in that
it would change the character of the development. As grounds for
this appeal, Kaufman alleges that the Board committed the following
errors:
00
City Clerk
of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, August 22, 1995, at 6:30 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 June 26, 1995 regarding the Administrative Change to the
Woodlands Condominiums PUD, Second Filing (#27-95) filed by Kaufman and Broad Multi -
Housing Group, Inc. 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.
Written comments are also welcome. If you have any questions, require further information, or wish
to submit written materials, please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the
Planning Department (221-6750). Agenda materials provided to the City Council will be available
to the public on Thursday, August 17, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajice
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
August 8,1995
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6515 • FAX #(303) 221-6295
Also, as stated on page 8 of the aforementioned Staff Report, in staff's response to the appellant
David M. Herrera:
The appellant's perceived "change in occupancy" should have no bearing on the character of
the project. By virtue of changing the name of the project from condominiums to apartments
does not necessarily change the nature of the residents in a multi -family residential project.
(2) The Board failed to conduct a fair bearing in that it exceeded its jurisdiction as
contained in the Code and Charter [Section 2-48(2)a., City Code].
A change in the bedroom mix of this development would result in 74 more bedrooms. Although
density is calculated with the number of dwelling units, not the number of bedrooms, it is
possible that the population of the project may increase. The change to more two and three -
bedroom units may result in more and larger families choosing to reside there, a situation
which can and does routinely occur with single family residential land uses. The bedroom mix
also allows the project to offer rental housing at affordable or low-income rates.
Because there are no provisions of the charter, Code or LDGS which differentiate between
owner -occupied dwellings and leased dwellings and no provisions of the Charter, code or
LDGS which allow discrimination on the basis of ownership, family size, family make-up or
socio-economic factors; a decision based on the change in bedroom mix of the development was
clearly not based on City regulations but was a decision that exceeded the Board's jurisdiction.
It is obvious from the videotape of the hearing that "criteria" outside of the scope of the
Board's jurisdiction were considered and relied upon in making this decision, as there was no
competent evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the character of the
development would be changed.
Staff Response:
The Residential Uses Density chart in the IMS does not distinguish between types (condominiums,
apartments, etc.) of "multi -family" housing. Also, residential density is calculated on the number of
dwelling units per acre, not the number of bedrooms. In reviewing the Woodlands Condominiums
PUD, Second Filing administrative change request, staff did not consider the change in new bedroom
mix, and the additional bedrooms, in a context other than the parking requirements for each multi-
family dwelling unit, based on the number of bedrooms, as set forth in Section 29494 of the City
Code and All Development Criterion A-2.4 Vehicular Circulation and Parking of the LDGS.
Parldng requirements changed from 195 spaces on the original plan to 208.5 spaces on the new plan,
for a net increase of 13.5 (7%) spaces, based on the bedroom mix in the proposed 116 dwelling units.
PROPOSED CHANGE. The proposed change in the Woodlands Condominiums PUD, Second
Filing, which the Board found to change the character of the development was the change from
a mix of one and two -bedroom condominiums to a mix of one, two and three -bedroom
apartments, resulting in 74 more bedrooms. This means:
a. The units may be leased instead of owner -occupied;
b. The development may attract more families;
C. The development may attract larger families;
d. The population of the development may increase; and
e. The units can be offered at affordable rates.
The Board did not base its decision that the character would change on any other factors.
EVALUATING THE CHANGE. The stated intent of the Neighborhood Compatibility
Criteria of the All Development Criteria is to, "ensure that development proposals are
sensitive to and maintain the character of existing neighborhoods" (see page 11, LDGS).
Therefore, the Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria provide a basis for evaluating changes
in development proposals that could affect character. Sensitivity to, and maintenance of,
neighborhood character translates into compatibility.
Of the 18 different Neighborhood Compatibility Criteria, however, none are relevant to the .-
number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit, the type or size of family that occupies a dwelling unit,
whether the dwelling unit is leased or owned by the occupants, the potential population of a
development or the socio-economic standards of the occupants.
None of the design features which may be said to affect the character of a development were_
changed. The Board did not base its decision on any of these criteria.
Finally, in applying the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, Staff concluded that, "the
`character' of a development is primarily defined by the land use and some design factors. In
this case, the land use remains `multi -family' as approved...".
Staff Response:
As stated on page-5 of the Staff Report dated June 26, 1995, to the Planning and Zoning Board, in
stafrs response to the appellant David M. Herrera:
Staff considers the "character" of a development to be primarily defined by the land use and
some design factors. In this case, the land use remains "multi -family" as approved in 1980.
Therefore, the proposed changes are considered to be in significant conformance with the
original, vested PUD plan and staff does not consider this plan to be a change in character of
the development.
C. The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which
was substantially false or grossly misleading; or
d. The board or commission improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence
offered by the appellant."
The Appeal: Appellant Kaufman and Broad Multi -Housing Group, Inc. ("Kaufman")
(Note: Bold teat represents excerpts from the appeal document)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
Kaufman submitted an application for a PUD Administrative Change to the City of Fort
Collins Planning Department on May 4, 1995. Finding that the requested changes were not
"major" and that they met the "AD Development Criteria" of the Land Development Guidance
system (LDGS)", the Director of Planning administratively approved the request on May 12,
1995, with a condition related to traffic. David M. Herrera filed an appeal of the
administrative approval on May 26, 1995, and such appeal was considered by the Planning
and Zoning Board (the "Board") on June 26, 1995. The Board decided on June 26, 1995 that
the proposed change is, "a major change based on the fact that the change of the bedroom mix
represents a significant change in the character." The maker of the motion stated just prior
to his motion that the change in the mix of bedrooms affected the character in that it would
appeal to a "different clientele."
Kaufman appeals the June 26, 1995 action of the Planning and Zoning Board wherein the
Board decided that the proposed administrative change of the bedroom mix was a major
change in that it would change the character of the development. As grounds for this appeal,
Kaufman alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board committed the following errors:
(1) The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter [Section 2-48(1) City Code];
A possible "change in the character of the development" must be evaluated against the present
character of the development and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter.
PRESENT CHARACTER The term "character is not defined in the City Charter, Code or
LDGS; however, the LDGS provides some assistance. Two overall purposes of the LDGS are:
(10) To improve the design, quality and character of the new development; and (13) To ensure
that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods (see page
7, LDGS).
The character of the Woodlands Condominiums PUD, Second Filing, is multi -family
residential. The plan calls for 120 multi -family dwelling units, to be constructed as one and
two -bedroom condominiums in seven different buildings. All design features which may relate
to character were also approved through the PUD process.
DATE: August 22, 1995
2 I ITEM NUMBER: 2
* the Verbatim Minutes of the June 26, 1995, Planning and Zoning Board public
hearing
The procedures for deciding the appeals are described in Chapter 2, Article H, Division 3 of the City
Code.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: Z
DATE: August 22, 1995
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
Steve Olt
SUBJECT:
Consideration of the Appeal of the June 26. 1995, Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to
Overturn City Staffs Decision to Approve an Administrative Change for the Woodlands
Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter, and after consideration. either: (1) remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or
(2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 26, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Board overturned City staff's decision to approve an
administrative change to the Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing, citing that the
project (as proposed) be considered a major change, based on the fact that the change in the bedroom
mix represented a significant change in character of the development. As set forth in the Land
Development Guidance System, major changes to a P.U.D. shall be approved, if at all, only by the
Planning and Zoning Board. The property is zoned RLP - Low Density Planned Residential.
On July l0, 1995, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Kaufman and Broad
Multi -Housing Group, Inc., it is alleged that:
The Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter [Section 2-48(l), City Code].
2. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it exceeded its jurisdiction as
contained in the Code and Charter [Section 2-48(2)a., City Code].
The attached documents include:
* the appeal
* the Planning Department response to the appeal
* the Staff Report for the Appeal of the Approval of an Administrative Change to the
Woodlands Condominiums P.U.D., Second Filing that was received by the Planning
and Zoning Board for the June 26, 1995, public hearing
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Stephen Olt, City Planner
THRU: Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S.
Bob Blanchard, Current Planning Director
DATE: August 16, 1995
RE: Appeal of the June 26, 1995 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to
overturn City staffs decision to approve an Administrative Change for the
Woodlands Condominiums PUD, Second Filing
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to an appeal regarding the June 26, 1995 decision of
the Planning and Zoning Board to overturn the City staff s approval of an administrative change
request for the Woodlands Condominiums PUD, Second Filing.
Section 248 of the City Code states:
"Except for appeals by members of the City Council, for which no grounds need be stated, the
permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed
one or more of the following errors:
(1) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter,
(2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that:
a. The board or commission exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained
in the Code and Charter;
b. The board or commission substantially ignored its previously established rules
of procedure;
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750
FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002
Name Address Telephone Number
7
1 representing Kaufman & Broad, the applicant for the
2 administrative change, is present tonight.
3 An appeal of the administrative approval of the
4 change to the Woodlands Condominium Second Filing was
5 received by the Planning Department on the 26th of May
6 stating that on May 12th, the Planning Department granted,
7 without further review, the minor changes proposed by
8 Kaufman & Broad.
9 And at this time, I'd like to let the applicant
10 present the concerns expressed by the appeal. I would
11 answer any questions the Board may have.
12 MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. I have a question, and
13 then I want to let Paul clarify. Because of our discussion
14 at work session, what we're talking about here -- because
15 it's my understanding we're very limited in discussing
16 this. But I just want to clarify that there is an.approved
17 plan that could be pulled and a building permit issued to
18 date.
19 MR..OLT: That is correct. We have evaluated
20 this a number of times in the last.three.years. So if the
21 Engineering Department and the Planning Department consider
22 the approved plan of August of 1980 to be valid and carry
23 with it a vested right, granted, we would have.-- we would
24 require submittal of updated utility plans to see if they
25 are in conformance with today's standards; but the plan
6
1 year, a total of 53,000 -- just over 53,000 square feet,
2 plus the additional parking hard surface that has been added
3 to accommodate the 15 new parking spaces. We're looking at
4 55,300 square feet.
5 In essence, we're looking at about 1400 square
6 feet less building envelope, less parking driveway area,
7 which means, then, there is no reduction in the amount of
8 open space. Therefore, the reduction by greater than three
9 percent of the approved open space has not been violated.
10 An increase in greater than two percent of the
11 approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings
12 in either residential or commercial planned unit
13 developments. Residential development, multifamily,
14 residential development, is not considered to be -- is not
15 interpreted by the City, to be commercial, leasable floor
16 area. Therefore, and including the addition of the
17 recreation space within the one building, that's an
18
auxiliary
use for this
project, for this
development only.
19
It is not
(inaudible).
Therefore, there
is no increase in
20
the -- in
the leasable
floor area of the
project.
21 The fifth item, an increase by greater than one
22 percent in the approved number of residential dwelling
23 units, is not applicable. In essence, therefore, less
24 dwelling units than the previously approved plan.
25 I would like to state that Kip Shepherd,
PLO ADIVittNISTRATIVE CHANGE
Description of the change and reason(s) for the request:
Action:
Date:
By:
n Zon; n9
Action: GSM cal w/u,-k
Date:_ '3
By: C
Engineering
Aclion
Dale: 5/ I►
By:
Otheror w-i,m`p
w
d�7 c
/ CERTI
Exhibit A
I certify the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application I am
acting with the knowledge, consent, and authority of the owners of the Property including all owners having a le
in the real r p � Y �� b legal or equitable interest
property, as defined in Section f-2 of the City Code; and including common areas legally connected to or associated with the
property which is the subject of this application) without whose consent and authority the requested action could not lawfully be accom-
plished. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the purpose of inspection and, if neces-
sary, for posting a public notice on the property.
Name: -Kaufman and Rrnna
Address: 10990 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 231-4000 lO. ��, D
By: 51
Kiplg S. Sheppar
Project Manager
1!<Z'Lw >r e er-
$tT6 MTNtr
—�l
Our initial request is to modify the existing P.U.D. name from Woodlands
Condominiums P.U.D. to Woodlands Apartments P.U.D.
In addition, we are requesting to eliminate 4 units in Building A to add a recreation
center containing the manager's office, rental office, mail room, kitchen retreat, a
party/game/assembly room and an attached laundry room. Such a facility is required to
successfully operate a community of 116 units.
The original P.U.D. contemplated a unit mix of 60 one bedrooms and 60 two
bedrooms. After researching the Fort Collins multi -housing market, which included
commissioning an independent market study, we are requesting to modify the original unit
mix to 14 one bedrooms, 66 two bedrooms and 36 three bedrooms.
The proposed modification to the unit mix will increase the projects number of
bedrooms. The increase in the number of bedrooms will increase the number of required
parking spaces. The original unit mix required 196 parking spaces. Our proposed
modification would change that requirement to 208.5 parking spaces. We are requesting
to modify the number of parking spaces to 211.