Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL ..... FIRST P & Z BOARD HEARING (CONTINUED) - 31-95E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 35 developer out to dry, she wants the city and the county hung out as well. The developer cannot control them, it is not his fault the Board doesn't have a traffic study. Mr. Stanford asked for the Boards input as to what they would like the County to address. Chairperson Gavaldon replied Inverness Road and any other roads the County has jurisdiction over. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: 701 Wagner Drive — Modification of Standard, #37-02 Project Description: Request for modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code to grant a reduction to the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for a multi family residential project. Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Torgerson excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that this was a request for a modification of standard to the city's off street parking requirements for 701 Wagner Drive. The site is located at the southwest corner of the Wagner Drive and Birch Street intersection. It is the site of the former Sigma -Nu Fraternity House. Based on the unit count and the number of bedrooms per unit there would be a total of 52 parking spaces off-street that would be required. What is being proposed is 37 spaces and that would give them a deficiency of 15 off-street parking spaces. The proposal is to provide two fields of parking, one on the west side of site, and a larger field of parking on the south side of the site that would meet our design standards for landscaping. It would also have two disabled parking spaces closest to the entrances. The building is currently vacant and the applicant is processing will be processing the application as affordable housing. Director Gloss reviewed site shots of the neighborhood for the Board. Director Gloss stated that staff was recommending approval of the modification request. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 34 with the neighbors and the people surrounding this area. By allowing the city of Fort Collins to do this development and them paying for it — they have already paid for it. It is done in one project, it is not done piece meal. For anyone that has been involved with road project that does a quarter mile here and there over a period two or three years, it is not only more time consuming and expensive, it is literally a burden to the people involved. That is one of the main advantages of putting it under the control of the city of Fort Collins. The funds have already been provided and as the developer, they cannot expedite any more other than the fact that they could plead with the city of Fort Collins to do what they think is wise and prudent. With their work with the city over the last six years on this project, we are both in agreement with the plan. It is very disheartening at this time, and one of the main considerations are the people involved, in trying to make this worthwhile for everyone. For us to put in millions of dollars and do everything the city says and try to work with all the people and come back at this late date six years later and hear that the Board does not like it, the timing is not good. It is more involved and there are more people involved. Mr. Kennedy pleaded with the Board to come back October 3rd with some more definite time frames and traffic study. Member Bernth moved to continue the project and stated that he was interested in a continuance because he felt that there were still too many holes to plug. Obviously even if it is the city's desire to do so, he would like to see more definitive time frames on the road improvements. He would like to see a specific timeline for each road improvement and what would be the cost benefit to wait a year to two to do a whole section. Chairperson Gavaldon seconded the motion with a friendly amendment that they also provide an updated traffic study with tables and analysis of adding Inverness Road to the data, County Road 11, 13 intersections and Highway 1. Member Bernth accepted the amendment. The October 3'd meeting is cancelled so the project would go to October 171h Mr. Kennedy welcomed the opportunity to come back and work with the city. Member Meyer stated that she does not have a problem with that, but the developer is at the mercy of groups of people. She was not sure that the developer is in control of them, it would appear that they are in control of him. She doesn't know where the County comes into play in this, but she has heard it thrown around. She wants all the other players to have to do their homework as well. If we are going to hang the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 33 Member Colton commented that the leg he wants to stand on is that County Road 11 is not an approved arterial and if the developer would put up the money and/or the city at the same time that Douglas Road is and it is today before they pull any permits or they hold off on permits until that is actually done, they that would meet the letter of the law. He would not be voting for the project because they are not connecting to an approved arterial. Member Torgerson noted that they are, according to Ms. Wamhoff, connecting to an approved arterial that was the condition of the preliminary. Ms. Wamhoff replied that they were in accordance with how the Code speaks of it. Member Torgerson stated that we are looking at things according to our new Code, but it was worth noting that we are under the LDGS, the previous Code, and they are meeting the letter of the Code. Although we would like them to improve Douglas both ways and Abbotsford and everything else, we can't expect one development project to do that, especially when we don't have a Code to back it up and require them. Member Colton heard that the agreement said that they would do it before a permit could be pulled and that was Douglas going west to Highway 1, which would be an improved arterial. Now he hears that County Road 11 is not going to be an improved arterial until 2004. Ms. Wamhoff clarified that under the Code it states that the road either needs to be improved and in place or considered a "funded" project. County Road 11 improvements are considered a funded project because of the funds that are coming in with every building permit that has been approved. Member Colton felt that if you don't have all the money it is not funded. That is where he stands. The motion was denied 4-2 with Members Bernth, Colton, Craig and Gavaldon voting not to approve the project. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if any Board Member wanted to rescind the motion. Member Colton stated that if County Road 11 is done at the same time Douglas Road is done before any permits are pulled that would be the only condition that he would do it under. Tom Kennedy one of the Developers of Hearthfire stated that he has been involved with this project since 1996. Regarding the direction and the timing — their concern is also Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 32 Ms. Wamhoff replied that they would be done as development occurs, or projects by the County or City would be done. The County is working with CDOT on designs for improving the intersection of Highway 1 and Douglas Road. Member Colton commented that he voted against this project from the very beginning for all the reasons the Board is hearing tonight with the roads, no funding for Abbotsford, Inverness into the city. There was a condition on going west to Highway 1, which he felt was important and that has been changed now. He was somewhat frustrated to hear that we are allowing them to pull permits in the second filing without having - regardless of whether they go east or west, that it goes to an improved road and not one that is going to be improved in 2004. He wants it improved today so there is actually one to be connected to. Despite his protest vote, this was approved and all the things talked about are now hitting. He does not feel good with what he has heard tonight. He was very concerned whether Douglas Road will ever get improved to the west, or Abbotsford. He would not be voting to approve this because we are not doing what we said we would do in the preliminary. Member Torgerson moved for approval Hearthfire P.U.D., 2"d Filing, Final, #31-95E with the condition in the staff report. Member Meyer seconded the motion. Member Craig would not be supporting the motion. It bothers her that the preliminary showed not a connection onto County Road 13. She understands why staff is looking at that, but she thinks that this whole project has been looked at as a little bit unique compared to other projects because we are kind of throwing it - for one it is way out there. She totally agreed with Member Colton back when there were original concerns about this area. Two, the infrastructure is not going to follow the development. There are parts of this that are going to sit. If they possibly stubbed at County Road 13 waiting to see as development comes, what is there, but it is not putting it out onto the road, she might feel more comfortable. Since they have changed that from the preliminary she will not be supporting the project. Chairperson Gavaldon stated that he did vote for the project previously, but does have reservations about it today. One, if he did not have the traffic study and someone to explain it, it would have never gone out the door. He would have voted flat no on it for lack of traffic study and documentation. He felt that the Board did not have the tools to do their job. He felt that the Board should have received a full comprehensive study because the one being used is from 1996. Lots of things have changed. He has no problem with the development, but you have to ask if we are paying our way on this development. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 31 Member Craig asked for clarification. Inverness is not at a collector street standard right now. Mr. Stanford replied that it is not. It is a dirt road until it becomes paved. Member Craig asked if he saw in a 10 to 15 year future if it would become a collector roadway. The road is in the County and unless we see mass urbanization and redevelopment in that area, it will probably be a dirt road for a long time. It would be dangerous to be used as a collector until the road is made to that standard. Member Torgerson said that 13% of the residents are using the road as a collector now and with the second filing at least 20% of the roadway would bring it up to a collector standard. The Northeast Area Coalition is asking for that not to happen. He felt that was inappropriate given it is already being used as a collector. Member Craig stated that there was not a connection to County Road 13 in the preliminary, it has only been changed at final. She understands staff is looking for connectivity, but she also understands the neighborhood concerns. She asked if the road could be stubbed until the streets in that area can raise to the level of adding the traffic. Member Torgerson thought that would not stop the traffic. The development was actually experiencing cars traveling down the equestrian path and connecting to County Road 13 until some extreme measures were put into place. There in a real demand to go down Inverness. Member Craig asked if the city was exacerbating an already dangerous situation by adding a connection. Member Colton asked what improvements were being made to County Road 13 and Inverness. Ms. Wamhoff replied that it would be from the west edge of the gravel roadway to the east. It would be a 30 foot pavement section including the curb and gutter on the east side. There would be room for two travel lanes including a bike lane or two smaller bike lanes. It would be connecting into Douglas Road down to almost a 90 degree around the curve on Inverness. Member Colton asked about Douglas Road west to County Road 1 and since this developer is no longer being asked to do those road improvements, how and when will they be done. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 30 would be in about 6 months to a year of that time frame. It would be close, but it may not be completed prior to what was originally agreed upon in the original agreement. Member Craig was concerned and she understands that the city is trying hard to get all the pieces put together. It leaves a gap of when the improvements are in place versus when the houses are continuing to be built. Member Craig asked the applicant about their time frame. The city thinks they can have Douglas Road and County Road 11 improved by 2004. Ms. Wamhoff replied that was the timeframe being looked at. The city does have all the money for the Douglas Road improvements. Hearthfire has provided that, $350,000. What the city is still collecting funds for is the portion of County Road 11 and the intent was to try and do both contracts at the same time to get a better price on the contract. The improvements to Douglas Road could be made the improvements to County Road 11 may not be completed at the same time if the requirement was to do the improvements ahead of time. Member Craig asked if today, County Road 11 meets the definition that is needed to be the closest arterial. Ms. Wamhoff replied that it falls under the definition of either being a completed improved arterial or under the funded and appropriated portion. It is funded in the fact that the projects are approved and each development is required to submit funds in. The funds are coming in slowly overtime and you can't spend them right away. Member Craig asked the applicant about their timeframe and that the condition works around building permits, technically the second filing should not even start until the improvements are put in place. The city does not feel that the improvements would be in until 2004. Mr. Dugan responded that developer plans on developing an additional 20 lots in the second filing. He did not have the amendment to the development agreement that talks about Douglas Road. He did know that the agreement states that the city would build Douglas Road and the developer make their cash contribution, which has been done. The city is reluctant in doing that because they want to build County Road 11 at the same time to get a better price on the construction of those roads. Member Torgerson asked if it was appropriate for the residents of Hearthfire to be "cutting down" Inverness, which is a collector street on the Master Street Plan. Mr. Stanford replied that was an appropriate travel pattern. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 29 agreement and amend the agreement to allow that to be the requirement that they would need to meet. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the number of accidents and concern with speeds in the area. Mr. Stanford replied that he could not disagree with what was said, because it is a gravel road and it does have bends in the road and has gravel intersections. That was a concern that staff had as far as design to have the additional connection. If you have inadequate access to roadways and people have to wait very long to get on them, one, they will take more risks to get on the road. Second, there will be some level of traffic that will go down County Road 13, whether there is an access to County Road 13 or not. Staff's desire for the access to County Road 13 is to allow a secondary access to County Road 54 primarily so everyone does not have to come out the one access to County Road 54. Staff believes that in providing an additional access it will mitigate some of the frustrations people have in traffic during the day. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about the level of service at Douglas Road and Highway 1 and level of service for County Road 11 and Douglas Road. Mr. Stanford replied that staff has not seen much of a significant change in the area. The levels are pretty close to that of traffic study done in 1996. Hearthfire is the only development that has done some growth. Staff sees the traffic doing what the study expected it to do. The intersections that were studied on County Road 11 and the intersections that were studied on Douglas Road are in the A/B range. There was a recent estimate for Douglas Road and Highway 1 based on accident history and level of service, with the installation of the left turn lanes on the north/south approaches, that the level of service would be C and no signal would be warranted. Member Craig thought there must be a reason for at certain pulled building permits that the improvements be in place. In all the collaboration of funds and improvements, etc., would we still achieve that at that point when that last building permit can be pulled, will the off -site improvements be in place. Ms. Wamhoff replied that the original agreement had indicated that Hearthf ire, 151 Filing, could build completely out prior to — basically no building permit within the second filing could be built until the Douglas Road improvements were done. She was not completely sure of the timing at this point and not knowing their schedule is for the second filing, as far as how long it would take them to get their streets and utilities in before they would be pulling a building permit as far as whether or not it would meet the time frame as to when the city would be looking at building Douglas Road. Her guess Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 28 more. That would be about $67,000 toward improvements of that intersection. She was not aware of any additional agreements with the County. Ms. Wamhoff stated that the original agreement with Hearthfire that was signed in October 1997 did speak of the improvements going to the west because at that point in time that is what they were pursuing as far as design. It had a certain number of building permits they could get until that design had to be completed and approved; and then another certain number of building permits that they could get until that design was constructed. The developer was working on the design and running into issues and problems and started to bump up against the number of building permits. That is when they came back in to talk about things. During the course of time is when other projects and other developments within the northeast area had come in and the city had been working with the developers of Storybook, Richards Lake and another two in the area in participating in interim improvements to County Road 11 to provide the connection that they needed along there for them to be able to develop. Getting all the developers in the area to participate in the interim funds to spread it out so just one person did not have to do the entire thing. Because of that a portion of County Road 11 has been improved to the interim width. Another portion has been slated to be improved as the city receives more funds per building permit from Richards Lake as well as Hearthfire and other developments in the area. Once the city has enough funds to go forward with the improvements, the remaining improvements to County Road 11 and to Douglas Road will be done all in one contract to complete those improvements. It is anticipated that it will be in two years. Because of those improvements, the Code requires that a development make a connection to what is considered an improved arterial street section. An improved arterial does not mean the full width, curb, gutter and sidewalk. It means improved to a width that is considered adequate to handle the traffic as well as a depth that is adequate for maintenance. The interim improvements to County Road 11 and the funding for the additional — meet the requirements of that. The connection from Hearthfire Way to County Road 11 meets the requirements of the Code in providing an improved connection to an improved arterial. The connection could have been done to Highway 1 because it is considered an improved arterial. Based on the traffic study and the traffic split being about equal, it worked. The Code does not require that the connection be in the direction of the most traffic. It just says to provide a connection to an approved arterial street. The city always pushes for, if you have a large amount of traffic going in one direction, that those are the roadways that need to be improved. In this case, with the traffic being split, either direction meets the requirement. The developer asked and chose to go the other direction with the improvements to the east. They were able to plans together and approved and provide all the easements necessary in order to do that work. Thus, the city agreed to change the development Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 27 Road to Highway 1. Now the city is amending that to take it east. If you stand out there and look, half the traffic comes out and goes west. He believes that they need upgrade the road instead of taking it to County Road 11. He also believes the money should be held in escrow until a later date. Public Input Closed Chairperson Gavaldon offered the applicant five minutes of rebuttal. Tom Dugan stated that the applicant has worked with the neighborhood since 1996 on this project and they concur with the neighborhoods request to escrow the funds for County Road 13. With regards to Mr. Jewitts comments, again the developer has worked with city staff for approximately three to four years on the improvements to Douglas Road. It was mutually agreed upon by the staff and developer to improve Douglas Road to the east to County Road 11. Those plans have been approved by city staff and the developer has contributed $350,000 to the city for those improvements as well as contributing to the county $25,000 for the improvements to Douglas Road and Highway 1 intersection. Chairperson Gavaldon asked staff to address questions regarding funding of Douglas Road to Highway 1 improvements and why we are going east instead of west. Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations responded that he could not address the funding. As far as changing from east to west — doing some studies out there of where the traffic was going and where it was coming out was just about evenly split. About 45% were going east and 42% going west and about 13% down County Road 13. Seeing the pattern and the expectation of the improvements on County Road 11, which also met city policies, that it could go to a slated to be improved arterial. Sheri Wamhoff, Engineering Department responded to the funding. She stated that for Hearthfire, 1st Filing, the original development agreement had been amended. What they are participating in is — there was $381,000 given to the city for the Douglas Road improvements from just west of the Hearthfire access to the County Road 11 intersection. That was for the cost of the improvements to a 36 foot in width pavement section with a 10 year life and includes shoulders, grading improvements, and intersection improvements with County Road 11. They are also contributing per building permit for County Road 11 improvements — a total sum of $50,869.19 which is being split out per building permit over the remaining building permits in the Hearthfire, 1st Filing and any building permits which may occur with Hearthfire, 2nd Filing. If this project does not go forward, it would apply to any future project in the area. The developer has also contributed a lump sum of $35,000 to Larimer County for State Highway 1 and Douglas Road intersection and will be contributing an additional $31,000 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 26 are making an unreasonable request. Their only additional stipulation is that the connections onto County Road 13 from Hearthfire also be delayed until the time of the road improvements. At the present time this whole area is still in a state of flux and traffic patterns might drastically change in the future. The County has committed to conducting a special area plan to review and plan future improvements of the roads and traffic in this area. Hopefully it will receive funding soon. Improvements to Douglas Road from County Road 13 to Highway 1 are costly and will be slow in coming to completion. These improvements will require the financial investment of several developers as well and County and CDOT funds. The intersections at Highway 1 and Douglas Road are already very hazardous and are under study by CDOT. Adequate improvements may likely require obtaining entire properties not merely trimming bushes or purchasing strips of right of way. These issues cause problems for the westbound traffic and this already encourages people to use the County Road 13/Inverness/Abbotsford connection as a cut through. This cut through unfortunately leads to the intersection of Abbotsford and Gregory Road, which also needs improvement. Although pruning may help some at that intersection, it is the curvature of the road that limits visibility. However, County Road 11 is being upgraded and will eventually connect all the way to Vine Drive. Douglas Road will be improved to County Road 11. Hearthfire has an access onto Douglas Road as well as a direct connection to County Road 11 through the Richards Lake development. These factors will hopefully encourage traffic to head east and then south into town. In summary, they are not asking that the road improvements for this phase II be abandoned. They are simply asking that the funds be held in escrow until road improvements can be coordinated to provide a safe environment throughout the whole neighborhood. The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition feels that this will be the most efficient use of these funds in the long term. It seems there is precedent for allowing funds to be kept in escrow until needed within this individual development proposal as well as others throughout the City and County. They believe they have made a strong case for the unique situation presented by development on the "edge" of the Urban Growth Area Boundary including the challenges of integrating County and City road structures as well as lifestyles. They ask that the Board consider the escrowing of funds and postponement of connecting roads as part of the final approval of this project. Thank You. (a hard copy of this statement is included as Exhibit 1-A). Norman Jewitt, 1200 East Douglas Road was concerned that Hearthfire signed an agreement with the city of Fort Collins to put $500,000 in escrow to upgrade Douglas Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 25 week, a trash truck took out the bridge rail and almost fell into the ditch at Karns' corner. A key point is that these accidents are not happening in the middle of the night. An elderly lady on her way to bridge took out two telephone poles in the early afternoon. Their power was out the whole afternoon. The cost was $5,000 to replace the poles. Since these are usually one -car accidents very few reports are filed with the Sheriff's office. The reason that these traffic and speed issues are so important is that this road also gets much use from bicyclists, joggers, horseback riders, and kids walking dogs while talking on cell phones. This all happens in the road since there is no sidewalk or path as you might find in an urban area. Recently residents in their area petitioned the County to allow another section of dirt road further north on County Road 13 to remain unpaved. This shows the continuing strong local sentiment for recreational/leisure use of dirt roads. In addition Inverness and Abbotsford have several rises which obscure visibility of those in the roadway. With its present design of narrow straight-aways and tight corners the road cannot serve as anything more than a local road. It is not meant to serve as a short cut for through traffic. Its present condition encourages joggers, horseback riders and bicyclists. Increasing the amount of traffic with connectivity and increasing the speeds with paving while merging an ever increasing recreational use foretell disaster on this stretch of road. At this point in time there are no immediate plans to make improvements to Inverness or Abbotsford and the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition feels that adding traffic directly from Hearthfire and paving County 13 would greatly increase the hazards along this roadway. With the downhill slope of County Road 13 it is already easy to go faster than you realize and pay the price at the corner (the site of many off road adventures besides the telephone pole accident). Paving this section will only encourage more speed. The section of Abbotsford Road that changes from pavement to dirt is usually the site of potholes and washboards and cars skidding along the dirt until they get under control. Although the County has a trigger that dirt roads over 300 trips a day should be chip sealed, they have a waiting list for these projects and cannot commit to a date for improvements. They strongly suggest that the Board consider holding the money for County Road 13 paving in escrow until future improvements can be made to the entire road section. This is what is being done with the Douglas Road improvements — they are being coordinated with County Road 11 upgrades. The developer is also contributing to the intersection of Douglas Road and Highway 1 improvements, which will be made at a later time. Holding money in escrow until the need for the improvement is triggered is a frequent planning tool in many development scenarios. The neighbors don't believe we Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 24 30 years or more. They have filled the chambers more times that she would like to recall and hoped the board will accept her presentation tonight on behalf of their coalition. They have had a series of neighborhood meetings and email discussions on tonight's issue and she is presenting a summarization and proposal developed by the neighborhood. The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition and the developers of the Hearthfire project worked together after much initial tension to forge a project that would blend into the surrounding rural neighborhoods while incorporating urban densities and amenities. Although the project came in under Land Development Guidance System it embodied many of the aspects of City Plan with a town center and alley style streets. The buffering incorporated in the development provided the type of "edge" definition discussed in City Plan. Many of the City amenities were part of phase one and the "edge" with existing County subdivisions is part of the phase II before you tonight. Principle RD3.1 of City Plan states that "no significant changes to the existing character of County subdivisions will be initiated by the City..." Efforts to apply this principle to the Hearthfire project resulted in variances for reduced street lighting and larger lots sizes buffering on County Road 13. The original ODP was approved with no access onto County Road 13. The City did indicate at that time that connectivity might be needed in the future when the surrounding area becomes more urban. Instead, the plan before the Board tonight includes access onto County Road 13 and paving. True, we are five years into the future since these issues were first discussed, but the nature of the surrounding area has not become more urban. The developer still supports the neighbors in the original plan, but it is the City who will be causing significant changes to the character of their county subdivision. As seen on the map information, the roads — County Road 13, Inverness and Abbotsford are all connected and people (other that the 20 or so resident families) who get on at one end will usually travel through to the other. In the past, the neighborhood has always argued that paving the road will increase traffic and speeds and create a hazardous situation. This summer they were able to verify that. Because of the drought and the county's frequent grading, the roads remained relatively free of potholes and washboards. This increased traffic to some extent but increased speeds greatly. Almost every week you could see tire marks going off the roadside. At least once a month they have a roll over or car totally in a ditch. The Karns living at the northeast corner of Inverness and Abbotsford are too tired of pulling people out and won't do it any more. The teens in the car I quickly drove over to assist, were able to climb out the car windows and used their cell phones to call someone to haul them away. About the same time as the Board's worksession last Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 19, 2002 Page 23 Project: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final, #31-95E Project Description: Request for 56 single-family residential lots on 39.31 acres. The gross residential density is 1.42 dwelling units per acre. The property is located north of Richards Lake at the southeast corner of Douglas Road and County Road 11. The property is zoned UE, Urban Estate. Recommendation: Approval with a condition. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation. He stated that the Preliminary PUD was approved in 1996. Director Gloss referred to the All Development Criteria Chart and stated that a variance was granted to the minimum density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre. Staff was recommending approval of the project with the standard engineering condition. There is an active oil well just north of the development and there will be a landscape buffer and a berm that is being created as part of this development to help screen and mitigate the impact of the oil well. Director Gloss showed a slide presentation of the property to the Board. He stated that the three conditions of Preliminary PUD approval have been addressed and satisfied by the applicant. Tom Dugan of Pinecrest Planning and Design gave the applicants presentation on behalf of the owner and developer of the property. He stated that they concur with the staff findings in the staff report and with the recommendation. Public Input Bridgette Schmidt, 932 Inverness Road representing the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition spoke to the Board. She stated that the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition has been in existence since the early 1990's. They have representatives from the various subdivisions in the northeast area of Fort Collins including Dellwood, Terry Shores, County Club, Greenbriar, Eagle Lake Serremonte, Adriel Hills as well as many county citizens not in a specific subdivision. Their members have been active on numerous city and county committees and attend almost every open house or focus group or workshop on any issue affecting their region. They take very seriously their desire that the northeast part of Fort Collins stay unique in its culture and not become a clone. They work hard to reach compromises that are responsive to the needs of new residents while honoring the lifestyle of the many residents who have lived in the area Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torqerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Colton, Craig, Torgerson, Bernth and Gavaldon. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Wamhoff, Moore, Mapes, Stringer, Stanford, Manci, Alfers and Deines. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. 2. Discussion: 3. #30-02 4. #31-02 5. #3-00B 6. #31-95 7. #37-02 Minutes of the April 4, August 15, and September 5 (Continued), 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. Resolution PZ02-07 — Easement Vacation. 1225 Redwood Street Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Timan Property Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing — Final. 701 Wagner Drive — Modification of Standard. Member Torgerson moved for approval of Consent items 1, less the September 5th minutes and item 2. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Project: 1224 Redwood Street Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment. Project Description: Request to rezone 1225 Redwood Street from I, Industrial, to C-C-N, Community Commercial North College. The parcel is 5.5 acres in size and located on the northwest corner of Conifer Street and Redwood Street.