HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIND PROPERTY AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL OF A MINOR AMENDMENT, #MA120001 ..... 1/19/2012 P & Z BOARD HEARING - MA120001 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 13
seems like a lot of extra effort to —a burden both the neighbors and the current owner. He's in support
of granting the extension.
Member Schmidt said when we talked about changing LMN—varying density and different housing
types, didn't we create something that was a little new and different just by varying the lot sizes.
Shepard said that's correct; we did create the alley load single family detached —that did not exist before
as a housing type. Shepard said we got a little more specific on the small lot single family detached —
that could be achieved one of two ways, either by having a 4,000 square foot lot or having a lot frontage
of 40 feet or less. That allowed a little more flexibility.
Member Schmidt asked about the LMN density change. Shepard said before there was a required
minimum of 5 units and a maximum of S units per acre. It was widen at both ends of the spectrum. Now
the required minimum has been reduced to 4 units per acre and the allowable maximum has been
increased to 9 units per acre. Schmidt said in response to Member Campana's comment, she said some
things have changed enough that it's possible we could come up with a better plan or a plan that better
meets the needs of the neighborhood.
Member Campana said his point is the OPD would still meet the new code. The code changes apply to
the ODP where they could meet those requirements with the parcels that are still unplatted. And
considering it's been approved since 2007; in fairness to the owner it has been approved.
Member Schmidt said we're sort of jumping the gun as far as discussing this. She still has some
concerns —there haven't been any infrastructure improvements done on this 2nd Filing. None of the
roads have been put in. Shepard said this would better be discussed with the next item.
Member Schmidt recommends the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Lind Property Amended
Overall Development Plan, Referral of a Minor Amendment, #MA120001. Member Campana
seconded the motion.
Member Stockover said every time he analyses this it seems like a very good plan to him. He
understands the anxiety when property next to you is developing but based on what's required and
what's allowable, we could do a lot worse than this. He doesn't see any real upside to starting from
scratch. We've spent a lot of time and effort to make sure this is aligned with the intent of the Code. The
choices that have been made are probably at the higher end of what choices could be made. He'll be
supporting this motion.
Member Schmidt said it's appropriate the ODP is brought up to Code.
Member Kirkpatrick said she agrees. We need to more forward to be able to discuss the concerns that
have been brought up.
Chair Smith agreed. He said reading through the Findings of Fact and Conclusion, he would agree with
staff's analysis.
The motion was approved 5:0.
Project: Lind Property Second Filing Final Plan, One Year Extension, #39-94E
Project Description: This is a request for a one-year extension, to January 12, 2013, of the approved
Lind Property Second Filing, Final Plan. The P.D.P was approved by the Hearing
Officer and the Final Plan was recorded on January 17, 2007. With three years of
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 12
6. Mixed -use dwelling units.
7. Multi -family dwellings (limited to twelve [121 dwelling units per building);
8. Mobile home parks.
(d) A single housing type shall not constitute more than eighty (80) percent or less than
five (5) percent of the total number of dwelling units.
Member Stockover asked if there was a way to make this work without single family attached. Shepard
said yes.
Member Scmidt asked about the total units in the ODP. With the 5 percent —how many are townhomes.
Hoaglund said the original ODP had 678-1001 dwelling units.
Member Campana you could try to do it all in single family but with detached single family, you probably
wouldn't reach the minimum density requirement. Hoaglund agreed the 2nd Filing is trying to meet those
density requirements. Campana said the intent of the LUC is to have a mix of products/housing types
and to achieve a certain density range.
Member Schmidt said hypothetically if the ODP gets approved and we get to the extension discussion
what is your goal. Hoaglund said First American State Bank's goal is not to be a developer. Their goal is
to sell this property to someone who would be the developer. They currently do have parties looking at
this property.
Member Schmidt said if the extension is granted, has every other thing been done (i.e. neighborhood
meetings). Is everything set to go? The new owner could just take what they have on paper and go with
it —is that correct? Shepard said that's correct.
Member Schmidt asked about the history of the extensions. Hoaglund said the original 2"d Filing was
recorded on January 17, 2007. They have gone through the three year vesting and they have been
granted two one year extensions.
Member Schmidt said if the extension is not granted; the property could still be sold to a developer but
they would have to start over. She said they could resubmit as presented or start over. Hoaglund said
correct.
Member Campana said the ODP doesn't expire. The new developer could come in and say they'd use
the ODP—we just need to do a new PDP.
Member Kirkpatrick said this is really going to the next item because in this one we're just deciding if they
should be allowed to be under the conditions of the Code. Would the Board be able to propose an
extension under a condition they go back and redo the neighborhood meetings? Shepard said at the
Board's discretion you could do that. He said, however, these are permitted uses in the LMN zone. He
added on the permitted use list, most of these uses are administrative review which doesn't require
neighborhood meetings but you could require a neighborhood meeting.
Member Campana said he's opinion is such that the original filing was approved in 2003, the 2nd Filing in
2007. If something significant has changed in the development or surrounding area since 2007, he
would think that they would want to consider preventing the PDP from moving forward. He's not seeing
that is the case. If this project came before them today, he's not sure they'd have grounds to deny it. It
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 11
need to have something for a developer to step into the property and then work with the community
appropriately.
Hoaglund said he does hear concern about townhomes and multi -family units. Depending on whether
the new developer hires him to continue; he would certainly address specific neighborhood concerns
about specific design issues. He said they are subject to the Land Use Code which requires four
housing types.
Shepard added that this requirement for mix of housing type will be required of every LMN neighborhood
city wide that has 20 acres. If you hit the 20 acre threshold, you have to have a minimum of three
housing types. If you hit the 30 acre threshold, you have to have four housing types. That's just not
northeast Fort Collins, Maple Hill or Lind Property. Member Stockover asked if there is fifth housing type
form which they could choose.
Shepard said per LUC Section 4.5(D) (2) (c):
Mix of Housing. A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual
development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order
to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met:
(a) A minimum of three (3) housing types shall be required on any project development
plan containing twenty (20) acres or more, including such plans that are part of a phased
overall development; and a minimum of four (4) housing types shall be required on any
such project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more.
(b) To the maximum extent feasible, housing types, block dimensions, garage placement,
lot sizes and lot dimensions shall be significantly and substantially varied to avoid
repetitive rows of housing and monotonous streetscapes. For example, providing distinct
single-family detached dwellings or two-family dwellings on larger lots and on corners and
providing small lot single-family dwellings on smaller lots abutting common open spaces
fronting on streets are methods that accomplish this requirement.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this requirement:
1. Single-family detached dwellings with rear loaded garages.
2. Single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages.
3. Small lot single-family detached dwellings (lots containing less than four
thousand [4,000] square feet or with lot frontages of forty [40] feet or less) if there
is a difference of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet between the average lot
size for small lot single-family detached dwellings and the average lot size for
single-family detached dwellings with front or side loaded garages.
4. Two-family dwellings. (Duplex)
5. Single-family attached dwellings. (Townhome)
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 10
Member Schmidt said that's a pretty large acreage parcel-180 acres all told. The goal for the city is not
all 180 acres with exactly the same housing type. We want to have some diversity out there. If you have
an issue with that concept, that is an issue with city policies. This particular ODP has been approved.
They have three years and if nothing happens they can ask for extensions. At this point they are asking
for their 3rd extension. If the Board grants the extension, this is what has already been approved.
Vartucci asked how many extensions are permitted. And at what point do they have to build according to
what they proposed or it has to go to another bidder? Shepard said we'll be getting into the extension
process in considerable detail in the next item being discussed subject to approval of this item.
Shepard said an approved plan can be amended. They are not asking for that with the Filing 2. They
are only amending the ODP for the entire 180 acres. Shepard said if your issue is that there are
townhomes in the 2nd Filing that is an approved plan. Not to say that it cannot be amended. It would
have to be amended through the amendment procedure. It would have to be amended by the applicant
through a re -submittal. It would be reviewed as all amendments are reviewed. What's being asked for
right now is that the existing approved plan be extended.
Shepard said in terms of the number of extensions, which can be found in LUC Section 2.2.11 (D) (4). A
plan is vested for 3 years. It is eligible for 2 successive 1 year extensions that may be granted by the
Planning Director. After which it can only be extended by the Planning & Zoning Board. That is why
we're here tonight.
Chair Smith said we have allowed the public to begin having a second round of public input —he's okay
with that because he thinks there's a lot of uncertainty here. He wants to make sure that anyone else
that spoke will get the opportunity. He wants to make sure the applicant gets the allotted time to be able
to discuss this as well.
Nick Olson said Shepard's letter said the applicant would like to add a housing type —that is what they're
opposing. They oppose the idea of townhomes in the neighborhood. If this Board isn't able to change
that rule because it's a unique property and it was held over for development because of market
conditions; he asked that this issue be referred to City Council so they can make a ruling on it. He said
that rather that than conforming a decision based on what Code is —that is something as a neighborhood
they would not want to see.
Scott Jackson said that was the whole confusion for him as well. The letter said they were adding town
homes instead of another type of dwelling. That is what the concern was but he'd like to see the property
developed.
End of Public Input
Board Discussion
Chair Smith said he wants to give the applicant plenty of time to rebut and to discuss everything they've
heard at this point.
Dave Korn of First American State Bank said they certainly don't want to play the part of the developer.
They are asking for this extension to have the opportunity to comply with what the current zoning is and
we have a little bit of a unique situation that for the better part of 2011, the owner (having passed away in
March) didn't have the opportunity to begin construction on what was already approved at that time.
They are not asking for any final approval on housing types. They want to simply get the time
appropriate to go through the process to allow people to have their input at the point in time when it's
appropriate. Without that and an amended ODP they don't have a property that is saleable to a
developer without an awful lot of duplication of time and effort. That is what they'd like to avoid. They
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 9
have three housing types at 99 percent and one duplex. The distribution is set at both the high end and
the low end. It is not set geographically.
Shepard said we know that there are growing pains in the new subdivisions. We are basically in, what
planners call green field development. There are never adequate public facilities in place at the time the
first filings get approved. It takes subsequent filings to get all the roads improved. It's a part of the
philosophy that growth pays its own way. Shepard said developers are on the hook for improving all
their adjacent roads and their off -site roads so that they meet the adequate public facilities ordinance.
There will always be new subdivisions on the edge of city that at some point run into a gravel road
because that is the county —the edge of our city. There's always a lag between when all the roads are
done and when all the houses are done.
Shepard said the Code is silent with regard to renters versus owners. The Code is silent on student
versus adults. The Code just has housing types. So whether a townhome has the potential to be renter
occupied or owner occupied is not in the Land Use Code and we cannot address that.
Shepard said the Land Use Code does not have property value criteria. He would encourage folks that
are interested to take a look at some of the new developing areas in southeast Fort Collins where you
see a mix of housing types and then talk to the County Assessor to get data on property value.
Member Campana said the other point he'd like Shepard to stress is that the ODP has been approved for
years. It's because of recent Code revisions, the need to add additional housing types. Campana said
he's heard their comments. In some cases, some want to see the rest of the plan developed. That
happens through an ODP and the Project Development Plan (which a lot more details) and that is when
the neighbors can assess the impact on their neighborhood.
Member Schmidt said since there isn't a slide with the ODP, the people don't really understand what's
being discussed. There are four housing types —not additional numbers. Hoaglund said that's correct,
they are not changing density. Schmidt said the ODP was approved years ago. She thinks it would be a
good idea to make a motion on that and then we could get into discussion on the details related to the
extension.
Chair Smith said it is a little out of order for further public input but in this case, he will make an
exception.
Public Input
Stephen Vartucci said he wants to make sure he understood what he's heard. It's already been
approved to single family homes and townhomes. Shepard said the 1st filing is platted and approved,
under construction, and up and running —it's what you see out there today. The 2"d filing is platted but
not constructed. It contains some townhomes. Member Schmidt said that is why they're asking for an
extension tonight.
Vartucci asked if they were asking for permission to build more types of homes other than single family
home or is that topic not even up for debate. Member Campana said they already have an approved
plan. What they want is an extension on that approved plan. Campana said we cannot grant an
extension without the plan meeting current code. The code changed from the time of the original
approval. The change is they need to have a fourth housing type. Campana said first they are seeking
the approval to have a fourth housing type to the ODP and then once we have that we could vote on
whether or not we'd grant an extension on their already approved plan.
Vartucci said if he and other homeowners are concerned about housing types other than single family
homes, their issue is not really with the developer —it's with the people that put together the Code.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 8
Nick Olson lives at 2344 Bowside --- 30 to 40 feet from the units being proposed will be built. They are
concerned about the density of adding town homes. It's primarily a single family neighborhood. They
don't know they would have purchased their homes had they known townhomes were to have been built
there. Olson believes there will be a lot of density issues. There will be light and noise pollution issues.
He said roads up there are not where they need to be for a high density area. Richard's Lake Road isn't
paved past the ditch. They take the two lane roads (Richard's Lake Road) to 1-25 and (Country Club
Road) into town. When they bought there, they knew the area was going to be developed but they
thought it would be developed in the same manner and character as their neighborhood. He thinks there
will be a lot of rental turnover. They see that now with the smaller lots with alley loads. They want to stay
there and have stability in their neighborhood.
Olson would like to see more information on the impact on their property values and the proposed overall
plan. He'd like to know how it will be integrated. He believes a community meeting would be best before
any action is taken.
End of Public Input
Hoaglund said he's heard the primary objections are to town homes and they were actually approved
with the approval of Filing 2. He said at this point in time, the ODP proposes two additional uses. They
don't' know what will be happening on the undeveloped portions of this property. He said that currently
there are some developers looking at this property, The ODP generally just sets general guidelines and
they are not changing the overall density of the project.
Hoaglund said when the PDP comes forward they will comply with the full planning process which
includes more specific site plans and neighborhood meetings. As far as the 2nd Filing, they are asking for
an extension so they can get the project built. There are only 30 townhomes in the 135 unit total. The
rest are mostly single family homes that are pretty similar in lot sizes to those in the 151 Filing.
Hoaglund said he understand the neighbors' concern on how the original HOA dues were set with the
intent to have more development support the total collected. By approving the extension request, he
said we can start to get this property developed and hopefully alleviate the HOA dues problem.
Member Campana asked Shepard to clarify an Overall Development Plan, a Project Development Plan
and what's historically been approved here. He believes there's quite a bit of confusion. Shepard said
the neighbors would like to see a plat with how these housing types would be distributed. That is the
next step in the planning process. The Overall Development Plan doesn't get to that level of detail.
When we have that level of detail, we will take it to a neighborhood meeting.
Shepard said the distribution of the housing types doesn't have to be in any one particular phase. It can
be in separate future phases. There can also be some housing types in all phases. It is pretty much
market driven. We do set the parameters in the Code that if an Overall Development Plan exceeds 30
acres, there has to be four housing types.
Shepard said there was a lot of policy discussion with the adoption of Plan Fort Collins. The adoption
was city-wide. It affected every L-M-N Zone across the entire city. We did not go to individual
neighborhoods nor did we go to individual developers to explain what the impact would be at the
subdivision level. Shepard said the Board is keenly aware of the citizen participation process for Plan
Fort Collins. It was done mostly through advisory committees and through public notice in the
newspaper.
Shepard said in the distribution of housing types, we did add more metrics. A single housing type shall
not constitute more than 80 percent or less than 5 percent of the total number of dwelling units. You can't
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 7
He reported the following:
Existing Housing Types
Single Family Detached
Two -Family Dwellings
Multi -Family
Proposed Housing Types
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Two -Family Dwellings
Multi -Family Dwellings
Because there were more curving streets they ended up with some lots that were quite a bit deeper.
That bumps up their average square footage per lot. While the intent from the beginning was to get
additional product there; just the way the numbers calculate out, they don't quite get to the 2,000 square
foot separation threshold.
Hoaglund said with the January 2007 market decline, Centex decided to leave the Northern Colorado
market selling their interest to Turnberry Road Partners. Hoaglund said Turnberry Road Partners worked
actively to proceed with development. In early spring 2011 they asked Hoaglund to put the project out to
bid to get some "real numbers". Their intent was to get "this thing built". Unfortunately, the primary
partner unexpectedly died. That caused the partnership to suffer financial distress and it was then it was
acquired by First American State Bank.
Public Input
Stephen Vartucci of 2345 Clipper Way said he lives in area in white on the vicinity map. As he
understands the question before the Board, it is to allow additional housing types. He moved here from
Phoenix to an area with primarily single family homes. They have spent extensive time interviewing
other home owners in the area. They've spent extensive time studying the home values. He
understands that the proposal would allow different types of homes —multi -family, townhomes, duplexes.
He doesn't agree with that. That was not what he was sold when he purchased his property. He does
oppose that action. He doesn't agree that those types of structures invite folks who are invested in their
neighborhood/community. He didn't believe the Board or the affected property owners have been given
enough information so they can understand how this change would impact them. He would like to ask the
Board to hold off on approving this measure until they have that information/give their input.
Scott Jackson said he lives in the gray area on the vicinity map. He used to be the President on the
Board of Directors of the HOA. He said Centex set HOA dues low on the assumption they would
continue building Phases 2 and 3. The HOA has really struggled with the budget due to delay in Phase
2 and 3 build out. His concern is the same as Vartucci's. He said townhomes don't typically have
families. You'll see more couples —retirees or whatever. Typically townhomes want their HOA dues to
handle solely maintenance on their properties —not help with the construction and maintenance of
playgrounds as was originally intended. He's in opposition as he'd rather not see townhomes for the
reason he's just stated.
Jerry Douth, 1925 Serramonte, said he lives in the subdivision adjacent to these properties —the
Serramonte Highlands Homeowners Association. There are 31 lots in their area. Most of them average
3 acres. They are a rural community and the density being proposed is of concern to them. Many
homeowners like to have animals nearby. They are concerned about the traffic volume if the area
becomes denser. He'd like to echo the suggestion that they really haven't had the opportunity to look at
the plan and evaluate the impact to them. He'd like to see that made available to them.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 6
Project: Lind Property Amended Overall Development, Referral of a Minor
Amendment, #MA120001
Project Description: This is a referral of a Minor Amendment to add a fourth housing type, single family
attached, to the list of approved housing types, and update the general notes to
reflect a wider range of residential density for the Lind Property Overall
Development Plan. The proposal is being processed as a Minor Amendment and
is being referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Lind Property O.D.P. is
180 acres in size. The first Filing was approved in November of 2003 and is
partially completed. The second Filing was approved in January of 2007, and
remains approved but vacant. Approximately 90 acres remain unplatted. The
project is located at the northeast corner of Turnberry Road and Richards Lake
Road and consists of 678-1001 dwelling units divided among three housing types:
Single family detached two-family dwellings and multi -family dwellings. The parcel
is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said this is the referral of the Minor Amendment to the existing Overall
Development Plan. The purpose of the referral is to allow the Board to see in totality all that's happening
with this property so it's in conjunction with the next item which is the extension request. Normally Minor
Amendments are handled at the staff level but the Code does allow us to refer it. It is minor in scope.
The primary purpose is to add a fourth housing type —single family attached —to the list of approved
housing types and basically update the general notes to reflect the wider range of densities for the Lind
Property ODP. The plan is dated and does not reflect a lot of the newer things that are happening with
the Land Use Code. We're taking this opportunity to amend the Lind Property ODP.
Shepard said the standard at issue is the mix of housing type. This is new standard that was adopted
last spring in conjunction with Plan Fort Collins. We added more housing types at lower acreage
thresholds to get a greater housing mix in the L-M-N neighborhoods. Lind Property, although it was
approved several years ago comes fairly close to the meeting the standard. They could have made
some adjustments to lot widths or they could have made adjustments to some of the alley loads. They
still need to do the amendment to meet the standard in full force and effect.
Staff recommends approval of Lind Property Amended Overall Development Plan, Referral of a Minor
Amendment.
Applicant's Presentation
Terence Hoaglund, Vignette Studios, said he currently resides at 624 Brewer Drive. He represents the
applicant First American State Bank —the current land owner of the site. Hoaglund said the original
ODP was planned by Jim Sell Design however he's been involved with this project ever since. He
provided historical context information —Phase 1 housing types, lot characteristics, and Centex Homes'
participation.
Planning & Zoning Board
January 19, 2012
Page 2
meaningful. He thinks we should be spending more time to make sure the "rules of law" are being
applied before going off on some tangent.
He said from the many presentations he's seen related to PDOD; there's never been mention of the root
meaning. Rules, laws, and processes are meant to protect those that live here. They would be placed
front and center and they're not.
Member Schmidt said she thinks that is one of the reasons PDOD has been postponed. The delay is to
have an opportunity for citizens to provide feedback and participate in discussions about the various
elements of PDOD. She would encourage him if he has feedback to forward his concerns to staff and
the Planning & Zoning Board. They can take a look at those suggestions as they consider the topic
again at their work session on the 101h of February and again at the hearing on the 16`h of February.
Chair Smith asked if there were any audience or Board members who wanted to pull items from the
Consent Agenda. There was no one.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the December 8, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
2. Land Use Code Amendment Deleting Medical Marijuana Businesses from the list of Permitted
Uses in Various Zones.
5. Planned Development Overlay District —to be continued to the February 16 Hearing.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda which consists of the minutes
from the December 8, 2011 Planning & Board Hearing, the Land Use Code Amendment Deleting
Medical Marijuana Businesses from the list of Permitted Uses in Various Zones, and the Planned
Development Overlay District (to be continued to the February 16 Hearing). Member Campana
seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:0.
Discussion Agenda:
2. Liberty Common 7-12 School Expansion —Site Plan Advisory Review, # SPA 110003
3. Lind Property Second Filing Amended Overall Development Plan # MA120001
4. One Year Extension of Lind Property, Second Filing, # 39-94E
Project: Liberty Common 7-12 School Expansion — Site Plan Advisory Review, #
SPA110003
Project Description: This is a request to expand the existing Liberty Common 7 — 12 charter school at
2745 Minnesota Drive with a two-story addition consisting primarily of new
classrooms. The expansion also includes a new engineering lab and gymnasium.
The expansion would take place over two or more phases. The square footage of
the proposed building expansion is 28,838 square feet. The existing building is
26,333 square feet. With the proposed expansion, the total building size would be
55,171 square feet. Facility expansion includes a new parking lot, a modified
stormwater detention pond and an athletic field. The existing bicycle/pedestrian
path would be re -aligned. The site is 3.9 acres, zoned M-M-N, Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood, and bordered by Minnesota Drive, Custer Drive,
Kansas Drive and Limon Drive.
,.�.
, <yp n��mX h t"3"Fa flrSRrrlf"II'���Sat^ i js^•y.C'�'M+I ��vn s I - r i u I I s
� ��� '�' IEy I � V✓ �i � I I ,M' u -
"�1llbVti.�r�!.
•I
{
I� V _
i is _1
Council Liaison:
Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Ted Shepard
Chair:
Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Stockover called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover
Excused Absences Carpenter and Hatfield
Staff Present: Shepard, Eckman, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review
Chief Planner Ted Shepard reviewed the agenda
Election of Officers
Chair Stockover noted that election of officers (Chair & Vice -Chair) takes place every year with a term
limit of 2 years. He opened the floor for nominations.
Member Schmidt nominated Andy Smith for Chair. Member Campana seconded the
motion. There were no other nominations.
Nomination was approved 5:0
Chair Smith nominated Gino Campana for Vice -Chair. Member Schmidt seconded the
motion. There were no other nominations.
Nomination was approved 5:0.
Chair Smith thanked Butch Stockover for his service as Chair.
Citizen participation:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he was curious about whether this was the proper time to
address items on the Consent Agenda. He'd like to speak to the Planned Development Overlay District
(PDOD). Chair Smith said the normal process would be to pull the item from Consent and have a staff
presentation. Sutherland said he's intent was just to make a few comments as it's noted in the agenda
that the item is to be continued to the February 16 Hearing. He wondered why new regulations were
coming forward when we're not observing "the old ones". He said "rule of law' does not seem to have the
meaning that it might have had in times past. He mentioned the Urban Renewal Authority's $5M loan
being completely outside State Statutes.
Sutherland mentioned the P&Z decisions (the Grove at Fort Collins ODP and PDP) before City Council
this past year. He said there's numerous examples of things "set in concrete" that hadn't been observed.
He used an example of the City Manager inviting new testimony during the appeal hearing. He said with
PDOD, we're rewriting rules and regulations yet the ones we currently have on the books are not that