Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/24/19860 • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING February 24, 1986 The meeting began at 6:32 p.m. Members present were Tim Dow, Dave Edwards, Sanford Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Don Crews, Sharon Brown, Linda Lang and Bernie Strom. City staff included Joe Frank, Bob Wilkinson, Bonnie Tripoli, Jan Shepard, Matt Baker and Bar- bara Hendrickson. Legal staff was represented by Steve Roy. Chairman Dow began the meeting by introducing the new Community Development Director, Alan Canter and the new Planning and Zoning Board member, Bernie Strom, who was replacing Linda Lang as alternate. Both were welcomed to the Board. Joe Frank gave a description of items to be continued:Drake Crossing and Lakewood Estates, PUD. Mr. Frank requested that Resthaven, Inc., be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Discussion Agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda were:Terraces PUD, 800 Lemay Properties, West Mountain Plaza PUD, and Fairbrooke at Charleston. Chairman Dow noted that Resthaven, Inc. is to be placed on Discussion Agenda. He asked if any other items were to be pulled for discussion. Member Edwards stated that he would abstain from voting on item a 5, W. Mountain Plaza PUD, due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman Dow asked for two separate motions. Member Crews moved to approve Items /1, 3, 4, 7. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Dow pointed out that City Council asks that separate motions be made when one member abstains, so the record is clear. Member O'Dell moved to approve Item N5. Member Brown seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0, with Member Edwards abstaining from voting. RESTHAVEN GROUP HOME Bob Wilkinson, Planner, gave a description of the project. Larry Scott, Owner and Operator of Resthaven, described the facility as a board and care facility. The two elderly persons who are currently in the home are not severely disabled. They are capable of taking care of them- selves but Resthaven provides home care on a one on one basis. He said it is his desire to become state certified, since the residents could get sup- plemental Medicaid to pay the costs. He said they have a waiting list due to the excellent condition of the home. The proposed home is limited to 3 elderly ladies because of the size of the home. Chairman Dow asked if the applicant if he planned any physical changes in the exterior of the house. P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 2 Mr. Scott ,replied that there would be no changes in either exterior or interior of the home. Chairman Dow asked if he were in residence or if there was a manager in residence. Mr. Scott replied that he and his wife resided there. He stated that he and his wife occupied one bedroom and the ladies occupied the other bed- rooms. He has no plans for additions to home. Member Edwards asked Mr. Scott if he would have to do minor configurations, for instance, a ramp for the front steps to accommodate the elderly. Mr. Scott stated that the residents are not considered handicapped and are ambulatory with some help from the Scotts. Member Edwards asked if the state licensing would require access ramps be provided. Mr. Scott answered that his wife went to Denver three weeks ago to take the exam, and no mention was made of this. Mr. Wilkinson told the Board that this project is in conformance with the requirement for Group Home Review in a RL zone. The staff is recommending approval with the conditions that it be for 3 clients only and any change in the number of clients boarded, will require review by the City, to insure conformance to the criteria of the Group Home Review. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Wilkinson what the standards for review and on what criteria is the Board to judge this project. Mr. Wilkinson replied the standards are size, character and its compatibil- ity with the neighborhood. In reviewing the number of clients and the parking, there is an indication the residents will not be using the parking but there is not definite commitment that no automobiles will be used. A garage and driveway would provide two additional spaces and as noted, there would be additional parking in the Church parking lot. Besides the Scotts, the only other employee would be a part-time/temporary and would only come three times a week so the staff feels that the parking issued has been addressed. There is a requirement that they meet the state specifications for a group home, which they have done, while going through the permitting process. Mr. Frank remarked that there are three criteria in the ordinance for reviewing group homes. Those are; scale and overall appearance be consis- tent with the neighborhood character, group homes not be over -concentrated in any one neighborhood (the standard being 1/3 mile separation) and the parking issue. Mr. ,Jim O'Neill, 2816 Eagle Drive, told the Board he did submit a letter expressing his views on the group home but would like to summarize it's content. He is concerned about the handicapped accessibility and the P&Z Minutes • • 2/24/86 Page 3 parking. The compatibility of the elderly and the noises of an active neighborhood concerns him. Lavotta Gorenson, 1405 Robertson, stated that her mother, Pearl Manners, has been a resident of Resthaven since August. She stated her mother is ambulatory but does not drive. Her mother has been in five homes, includ- ing the DMA, but needed more care. Ms. Gorenson feels this is the best home because of the loving care and encouragement to keep busy. Her mother is happier and considers this residence her home. She then read a letter from Beatrice Stubbs, a resident at 2821 Eagle Dr. for the last 8 months. Ms. Stubbs stated her happiness at being a resident and her interaction with the small children in the neighborhood. Ms. Stubbs asks the Board to approve the application for the group home. Ms. Janie Griffin, 2621 Kildeer Dr., told the Board she has known the Scotts for the past six years and can vouch for their credibility. She stated they are very capable of taking care of the residents, whom she has found to be happy. She feels the Scott residence is well maintained and feels there is no problem with parking and the children. She feels that there is a need for this type of home. Alice Sheffler, 2820 Eagle Dr., feels the Scotts really care about the elderly and the children in the neighborhood afford these ladies a joy not found in a nursing home environment. She is highly supportive of Rest - haven. John Bradley, 2817 Eagle Dr., is opposed to this project. He feels the home is not safe, as there is no fire sprinklering and no exit from upper floors. Due to the levels, it is necessary for the elderly to go up and down stairs to reach the bathrooms and the driveway slopes. He said the Scotts presently use pieces of wood to shorten the length of the step and is concerned about the capability of escape from the house during a fire. He stated that a daycare is on the other side of his home surrounding him with commercial enterprises which he did not anticipate when he purchased the home. Bob Everson, original owner of 2821 Eagle Dr., stated 2821 Eagle Dr, is a multi -level home and not 2200 sq. ft. but 1750 sq. ft. He wonders how the extra measurements were added. He said he left the home because it was too small for his family. .He voiced concern over escape routes for the resi- dents in event of fire and is very much opposed to this project. Jim Buldock, 2717 Killdeer Dr., expressed his desire for the elderly to be cared for. He asked if the "Inc." in the Resthaven project is approved, then this would allow other businesses to locate in this neighborhood and is the main objection to this project. Chairman Dow explained the use of "Inc." is possibly used for tax or liab- ility purposes. John Icorn, 2829 Eagle Dr., told the Board that his children enjoy the elderly and felt the elderly should be addressing the Board's questions. P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 4 Brice Muller, 2828 Eagle Dr., said he has been a resident of the neighbor- hood for a short period of time but feels the response of the elderly to the children is great. He feels the home is compatible to the residents and is supportive of this project. Marge Heddles, 2652 Abseth Dr., voiced her support of this group home. She stated there is a bathroom on the floor Ms. Stubbs is on as well as, a bathroom on the floor the other ladies are on with exits on the lower level. She cited the living arrangements by college students who have 5 or more persons in one house and feels that is more detrimental to the neigh- borhood than Resthaven. Deby Wangsness and her daughter, Amy, 2700 Killdeer Dr., stated their enjoyment of the residents of the group home. Amy told the Board she talks to the old people every day. Member Kern asked if the project is approved, does the property remain a group home indefinitely, even if the Scotts sell. Mr. Wilkinson replied that this was true but it could be reconverted to a single family as there are no restrictions. Member Kern asked if it would need to be reviewed again to consider it for a group home or does that designation reside indefinitely. Steve Roy, Legal Staff, stated that if the zoning weren't changed so this became a non -conforming use, he felt the designation would run with the property indefinitely. If the zoning were changed so this became a non- conforming use, and the use were abandoned for a year, it would have to be reviewed again. Chairman Dow asked ,Mr. Roy if the applicant is Resthaven, Inc. or the owner, Mr. Scott, and is the right to the use run with the corporate entity, which is the operating company and therefore the right will not run with the land. Mr. Roy feels the right runs with the land and can't be personal in nature to one particular user and whether Mr. Scott is operating this as sole pro- prietorship or as a corporation, if the proposed use meets these criteria, either can take advantage of that right. Member Brown asked what kind of residents can be in a group home and the intensity of parking and would any future owners of 2821 have parking prob- Iems. Mr. Wilkinson said the parking would need addressing if there were an increase in the number of people in the group home. A group home is def- ined as a residence operated as a single dwelling, licensed or approved by a governmental agency for the purpose of providing special care or rehabil- itation due to homelessness, physical condition or illness, mental condi- tion or illness, or social/disciplinary/behavioral problems provided the authorized supervisory personnel are present on the premises. P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 5 Permission to this applicant to use the facility as a group home would per- mit transfer of ownership of a different type of group home as long it meets the three criteria that has been referred to. Member Brown asked if the different uses would require separate state approval on licensing such as working with juveniles or handicapped. Mr. Wilkinson stated that by reason of those separate licensing require- ments, there would be contruls on the use. The fact that the Board has approved the group home would not decide the future use because the home would have to meet the requirements by the state. Member Brown asked if Mr. Scott met all state requirements in order to get state certification, such as fire safety. Mr. Wilkinson said those licensing requirements would have to be met in order to get certification. Chairman Dow asked if the Board could restrict the type of group home to the elderly as applied for in this instance as opposed to having it wide open for any other defined group, under the ordinance. Mr. Roy replied if all parties are in agreement, it would be possible to accept. He questions the enforceability of such an agreement, in the event a subsequent user challenges their having appropriate criteria which would result in approval of a different group home. He would not object to entering into such an agreement, on behalf of the City. Member Brown asked if there were any other group homes in the area. Mr. Wilkinson answered no. Chairman Dow asked the applicant if he would object to the condition of the group home to be for the elderly as opposed to any other group, who would be covered by the ordinance. Mr. Scott indicated that he had no objection to that restriction. Member Kern voiced his lack of certainty. He is cognizant of the value of the Scotts' work but feels uneasy about the general nature of group homes and the future uses. Should the Scotts sell the home in a few years, some- one could have residents with behavioral problems. Mr. Scott responded to the concerns by stating that there are five levels of care, the first being able to feed and care themselves but homeless, the second being able to feed and care but forgetful, the third level being bedridden, the fourth being individual can't care/feed themselves and the last or fifth being in intensive care. He and his wife can only operate on levels one and two and cannot administer any medications. Chairman Dow asked where he might refer to these levels. P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 6 Mr. Scott replied they are state requirements in House Bill 11-14, passed five years ago but never funded. He stated that this Bill will be funded in 1987 and every home in Fort Collins will have to be licensed. There are 13 of these homes operating now as boarding houses, board and care. Rest - haven is the first to go for a group home status. Chairman Dow asked the applicant if he would object to approval stating it is a group home for the elderly with level 1 and 2, as defined in state statutes. Mr. Scott stated he would consent to approval on those conditions. Mr. Roy asked the Board to approve with a limit rather than the agreement. He felt it should not be framed as a condition on the use of the property. Mr. Scott replied he would be happy to amend the application to state he was seeking permission to operate a group home for the elderly only at care levels 1 and 2. Member Kern asked Mr. Roy what force does the amendment carry with subsequent purchasers of this property. Mr. Roy replied it is probably not enforceable against a subsequent user who would like a different group home use. Member Edwards stated the extent of their deliberations is symptomatic of trying to deal with the ordinance. The City ordinance states they can authorize by special review a group home or not a group home and they are trying to further define a group home. He feels they are trying to get by another means, the issue of whether the Board thinks a group home of this kind or any other kind is appropriate on that street. Member O'Dell moved they approve the Resthaven Group Home, for use of elderly people only at levels 1 and 2, as amended by Mr. Scott. Ms. O'Dell feels it fits the criteria for group home. Member Crews seconded the motion. Member Edwards stated his own line of questioning would have been different had they been the state licensing body for the use and he felt they were only enpowered with the planning aspects of this project and there may be the possibility the neighborhood will find comfort in the protection afforded by the state licensing body. Motion for approval passed 6-1 with Member Kern voting due to the future possibility for misuse of the property. Eastside Neighborhood Plan - Proposed Amendment Joe Frank reviewed for the meeting, the Board's recommended for adoption to City Council on Nov. 25, 1985. One of the conditions attached to the recom- mendation was that of the Mulberry Street corridor and a number of alterna- tives of how to deal with the expected increase of traffic volumes. At the P&Z Minutes • • 2/24/86 Page 7 November meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board, Eastside Steering Commit- tee and the City Staff felt there hadn't been sufficient citizen input and evaluation of those alternatives to be able to make a recommendation to the City Council on this item, so it was the one issue in the Plan that did not go forward to the Council. The Board asked Staff to go back and review the alternatives, gain public input and to come back to the Board with a recom- mendation from the staff and ESN. On February 5, 1986, the Steering Com- mittee, City Transportation Dept, and City Staff conducted a Neighborhood Meeting and alternatives presented to a audience made up of approximately 70 people. The recommendation made was that they needed to look at other alternatives than the ones presented. The Staff discussed these issues and felt they could not make an exact recommendation on the Mulberry corridor, but needed to look at the area in terms of long range planning effort. Two polities reflect that decision. The first states the City needs to recog- nize a better understanding of future transportation needs in the next 20 years and the neighborhood needs to get heavily involved in other options, not only for Mulberry but for the entire community. The City needs to con- sider the impacts upon the neighborhood and there are 10 items which were particular concerns of the neighborhood which need to be considered when the Staff does the overall transportation planning effort. The second pol- icy deals with City-wide policy plan and City-wide concerns. Mr. Frank feels a policy should be added in the Plan which states the City needs to get involved with the public and provide some policy such as designating a transportation planning function within the City, creation of a citizen committee to help coordinate and facilitate the public involvement in that transportation effort and explore a number of community education opportu- nities. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Frank if there is time table. Mr. Frank replied the director of the Transportation Dept, is discussing a reorganization effort. He did not think the Transportation Dept, had an exact timetable and is something they want to pursue with the new Director and the City Council. Chairman Dow asked what the Board is to do in the interim with any signifi- cant proposals that may come along. He asked if the Board should have Mr. Frank come back with a preliminary report, suggesting the general movement of policy plan. Mr. Frank answered the Board might suggest to the City Council there be a specific timetable for the plan to get under way. In the mean time, staff will have to continue on as they have approached it in the past and that is to plan for all the alternatives until we can receive a specific recommend- ation. Member Kern asked if it would be unreasonable, since the development of a computer traffic simulator model if they were to begin discussing this again in the fall, after staff has had some time to investigate the uses of this model. Mr. Frank said he did not know the exact plans of the Public Works P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 8 Dept., but he thought they would appreciate having the Board's support to give to the Council and any words of encouragement would also be appreci- ated. Lyndal Hesterburg, 415 East Laurel, a member of ESN Steering Committee wished to report the results of the neighborhood meeting and the opinion of the Steering Committee. He stated the meeting had a good turnout and a strong majority voiced the opinion that the neighborhood doesn't support the couplet and should not be supported at this time, the neighborhood does not support the widening of Mulberry and finally, the neighborhood supports additional studies on alternative and future transportation needs. The Steering Committee does support the amendments, as presented to the Board, and urges the Board's support. He commended the City Staff for the out- standing and very professional job that they have done both with the Steer- ing Committee and the individual residents, as they had gone beyond what normal professionals would do. The staff was excellent guidance, reference and finally excellent teachers. Barbara Liebler, 817 Peterson, member of Core Area Neighborhood Board, read a letter which she had submitted to Mr. Frank, in which members of CAN can- vassed the area for the couplet and found opposition. The letter stated that the CAN Board Directors opposed the Magnolia/Mulberry couplet proposal and recommend no firm recommendation to widened Mulberry until after imple- mentation of other street improvements in the ESN Plan. The letter recom- mended the City develop a concrete plan for alternative transportation within the City. The CAN Board thanks Joe Frank.and the Planning Staff for this addition to the ESN Plan. She stated that Charlie Koons, manager of Mountain Plains, is losing possible tenants with the couplet decision up in the air and Ms. Koons would urge the Board to make a firm decision on the couplet. Ken Bonetti, 722 West Mountain, read letters from three businesses involved in the ESN. The first was from Liston and Barbara Linedecker and support the opposition to the couplet. The next letter was from Wayne Vederleen, owner of the Baker House, 304 East Mulberry, he feels destruction of the Baker House would be a great loss and is opposed to the one way couplet of Mul-berry and Magnolia and supports the Planning Dept.'s decision to set up a citizens' committee to explore alternative traffic solutions. The last letter is from Charlie Koons, Mountain Plains Property, who feels the one way streets will hurt their businesses and asks the Board to consider their concerns when making a decision on this issue. Mr. Bonetti also would like to applaud the Planning Department for the recommendation that the City create a Transportation Planning Function and involve citizens in alterna- tives and urges the Board to eliminate the one way couplet. Jim Woodward, 400 South Grant, stated he was one of the persons who can- vassed the neighborhood and all business owners were strongly opposed to the Mulberry/Magnolia one way and are in fact, opposed to the Howes and Mason because it has resulted in the decrease in their businesses. Mr. Woodward would like to commend the City on its recommendations but is opposed to the one way couplet. P&Z Minutes • 2/24/86 Page 9 Chairman Dow asked Mr. Frank about the neighborhood's concern for the potential of one ways and widening of Mulberry and wished to clarify the recommendation of staff to not recommend any particular program or elimina- tion of a program but to urge a comprehensive study, taking into account the concerns not only voiced tonight but other transportation issues within the City. Mr. Frank stated the policy plan at one time, included the option of uti- lizing Magnolia Street, east of Mathews as a one way couplet but was not recommended as it was not in the best interests of the City, so that part was deleted from the Plan. A strong policy statement was made that Magno- lia east of Mathew should remain as a two way residential street. Mr. Frank did not want to make any decision on alternatives and would like to go back to looking at the issue of Mulberry corridor and its impact on the neighborhood and community. Member Kern stated if the implementation of the ESN Plan would not occur until the year 2005, there would be a minimum of 15 years before it would be implemented. Mr. Frank replied that it is a long term plan and more time is needed for transportation goals of the community. Member O'Dell stated that if the couplet and the widening of Mulberry were eliminated at this time as options, she feels it would be counterproductive to a transportation -planning effort. Member Crews agreed with Member O'Dell and stated the Board should not eli- minate any options at this early date because it would tie the hands of the people doing the study. Member Brown stated that at this date, no one can say what should happen there. She feels this east -west corridor really has a community impact and she wholeheartedly hopes the City establishes a Transportation/Planning division in the City to work on this problem. Member Kern motioned that no decision be made at this particular time on any corridor or any mechanism for the evaluation of traffic in that area but that the Board strongly support the forming of a traffic planning com- mittee involving the traffic engineer and one that would be supportive and incor-porate a good deal of community effort and input. Chairman Dow asked Member Kern if the motion is to approve and recommend to Council the summary of the staff recommendation in the packet. Member Kern replied yes. Member Crews seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved. Member Strom suggested that the Planning Staff and Transportation Staff report back to the Board perhaps 6 months from this date, on the status and keep the Board appraised of what is going on, as it is a very important P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 10 concern in regards to land use planning. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Frank to give the Board an update on the study 4-6 months from now. Mr. Frank stated he planned to have at the April worksession, the Transpor- tation and Planning staff and will keep the Board appraised of the Plan. He concluded by saying the recommendations will accompany the Plan at the March 18th City Council meeting. TWIN CREEKS ESTATES - Master Plan Joe Frank presented the Master Plan and Preliminary Plan together but stated they would need to be voted on separately. He presented the Master Plan, which included manufactured housing, mobile homes and multi -family dwellings, neighborhood park, childcare center and limited warehouse sto- rage, located on the southeast corner of Trilby and Lemay Ave. The Prelimi- nary -Phase I, which calls for 70 acres of the entire 143 acres site and consists of 402 manufactured homes on 70.4 acres. Rick Hattman, Gefroh and Hattman, Inc., stated this is an amendment to the existing master plan known as Stanton Creek. He feels some of the changes are minor and have to do with the overall circulation pattern on the site which better serve the site. They have created a strengthened pedestrian orientation to the circulation system, an additional city park and have excluded the previous townhome uses. He pointed out the area on a map and the activity surrounding the site and described the future collector streets and circulation. The developers have made Granville Street the collector street and have provided three access points from Lemay to help direct the neighborhood traffic out and to the other transportation net- works of the city. He feels the plan provides easy access for all lots to reach any destination within the town. They also have created a pedestrian access system and open space system which will link the whole property together as it develops in the future. He noted along the arterial streets, they have provided a greenbelt open space from the developed tracts both along Lemay and Trilby and open space along the collectors. He described the uses for Tract A and B which are slated for manufactured housing. Tract A has a centrally located clubhouse and Tract B has a cen- trally located daycare and warehouse facility and will be sold for those uses. Tract C is slated for apartment/condo which is approximately 12 unit per acre density and the neighborhood park. Tract D has a slightly lower unit density with manufac-tured housing and contains the wildlife habitat area which will be an enhanced area of the Fossil Creek Floodway as well as the Stanton Creek Drainage Basin. Tract E contains auto, RV, and boat sto- rage along with the development and as the individual tracts develop, tem- porary facilities will be provided for RV and boat storage. Tract F, which is approximately 1 acre in the north eastern section, is requesting Transi- tional zoning. The Preliminary area was designated by Mr. Hattman on the map and the four major points of concern were addressed. The project goals are to'provide housing for low and moderate incomes, while providing a level of quality that is not available in current in manufactured houses. Due to the escalating cost of housing, it makes it hard for first time P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 11 buyers/young adults to find acceptable housing and this project is geared to meet this need. The housing types demonstrate the current design of modular housing which is not "trailers" and this project is looking for sales, the buyer purchasing the lot and home. There will three types of modular homes which will provided, the first being one which will placed on a permanent foundation, the second which will have permanent tiedowns, the third which is the existing modular home. All homes will either be on a permanent foundation or a permanent tiedown which has to meet the City's building codes and each home has to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. He gave a description of materials to used on roof and siding, using HUD stan- dards. 40% of the lot will be taken by the unit itself and he pointed out that the homes are not the long, narrow homes but are a variety of homes. The site determining the location of the home on the lot. All streets meet City standards, so parking will be allowed on both sides of the street. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Hattman about the staff conditions and if he felt there were any problems with those conditions. Mr. Hattman stated they had reviewed the staff conditions and feel they can incorporate the conditions and still have a successful plan. They agree the staff's comments will enhance the project. Member Kern asked about the access to Transfort and if there is to be any provision for Transfort on the site itself. Mr. Gefroh, Gefroh-Hattman, Inc., replied Transfort will be running down Lemay Ave, and they would be happy to work with Transfort to include the project in their stops. Mr. Frank stated the facility near the project, is only the garage and there are no route plans now, but feels the developer might work with Transfort now so they will be included in service if it expands in the future. Member Kern asked about a portion of the site which is steep and voiced concern about drainage. Mike Jones, Parson & Associates, stated there is no drainage problems and will tie in with the Master Drainage Plan that has been established. Mr. Frank gave a staff report in which he stated the staff feels the pro- ject is in conformity of Land Use Policies. He listed the seven condi- tions. With these conditions, the plan is recommended for approval. Member Crews asked if they are being to asked to approve about.528 units on 108 acres and asked if the Board had approved 390 units on 60 acres in Pro- vincetown. It appeared that the plan does not meet the mixed use and the Board is creating many mobile home parks. Needed clarification on mixed use in this project, Mr. Frank stated the project deals with mixed use; provides a mixed income group, encourages a greater variety in land uses to avoid a sterile lands- P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 12 cape and provides a visual variety. The developers are providing a variety with multiple family, daycare, storage, public park and manufactured hous- ing units. Chairman Dow asked about the T-transitional in the NE corner as that area might seek approval in the future for a 7-11 type store or convenience store if the density is developed in this area. It this is the case, then the Board should perhaps make it more accessible. Mr. Frank replied the connection to interior streets would be difficult due to the topography of Mill Creek. The staff struggled with what to do with this site and, because development isn't for some time, no definite plan- ning was done. The staff felt that it would be wise to wait and see how the area develops. Member Brown asked about the underlying zoning. Mr. Frank replied the area is RL-Low Density Residential with PUD con- dition and the transitional use is a holding zone until the plan is amended and comes back through the Board. Member Crews asked about the storage in the NW corner of Parcel B. Mr. Hattman stated that the area is to be a mini storage facility, poten- tial for on -site laundry facility and storage facilities for residents. Phase One would have temporary storage developed on unplatted ground for RV and boats. Member Brown asked about driveways, carports and garages. Mr. Hattman replied each lot will have on -site parking for two cars and choice for garage is optional, requiring a building permit. With 36' streets parking on both sides of the street is allowed. Driveways will be aligned with site, depending on the view preference of residents. Garages will*not necessarily be two car garage, but will probably be a single car garage. Member Strom asked the applicant what percentage of the lots will accommo- date the units with the doors facing the front street as opposed to end on. Mr. Hattman answered the lots are 42' wide and the home could be placed different ways on the lot with both side or front entry, depending on the home the person purchases. The new style of modular homes, allows you some flexibility. Member Strom asked Mr. Hattman if he was going to install any of the units or will.it be lots for sale. Mr. Hattman replied there is, at this time, a commitment from a modular home unit on foundation. With other parts of the site, it is on a lot basis and they would be trying to sell blocks to dealership but developers would not be interested in the selling. P&Z Minutes • 2/24/86 Page 13 Member Strom asked the difference between permanent tie -down and permanent foundation. Mr. Hattman stated the tie down are permanent material similar to the walls and the permanent is similar found on single family home. They wouldn't be any different from any single family home. Member O'Dell asked how large the pocket parks would be. Mr. Frank answered he had no definite size right now, but possibly 1/4 to 1/2 acre in size. The homeowners would do the maintenance. Member Edwards asked about possible 0 lot line requirements to minimize narrow sideyards. Mr. Hattman replied you would need to fire rate the walls and roof in those sections and would raise the cost of the unit. Debbie Tamlin, broker with the group, told the Board that the response in this project has been great. Member Crews was concerned that this project would be similar to Province town Member Edwards motioned to approve the Master Plan on the basis of it meet- ing the criteria. Member O'Dell seconded the motion. Chairman Dow feels they do not have the means to plan for this specific kind of use and are left to the forces of the market in terms in how many units of this nature the marketplace might support in this locale. He felt the plan could not be denied under the current policies. Member Kern also stated his concern over the mixed use provisions in the LOGS not only on the site provided here, but from the overall point of view. Member Brown felt that this project combined with the Provincetown project is too much for the community to handle. Motion to approve Twin Creeks -Master Plan passed 5-2, with Members Brown and Crews voting no. Member O'Dell motioned to approve Twin Creeks- Preliminary with the seven conditions outlined by staff. Member Kern seconded the motion. Chairman Dow asked that a condition with the lots shapes and configuration be added. Member Lang also agreed and added she does not see much change at Final. Mr. Frank suggested using set -backs and other mechanisms as well as lot sizes to provide variety. P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 14 Chairman Dow asked that this be an eighth condition for approval. Motions made for approval with seven conditions amended their motions to include the eighth condition. Motion to approve was passed 6-1, with Member Brown voting no. Member Edwards asked the applicant how the vacant lots will be maintained. Mr. Hattman replied that the developers would be responsible for the maintenance of these lots. SPRING CREEK PROFESSIONAL PARK PUD Bob Wilkinson, City Planner, gave a brief description of the project. Jerry Nix, a broker for Mountain States Properties and representing the applicant, Dr. Dennis Brenkert. He gave a description and history of the medical/dental facilities located near Poudre Valley Hospital. Part of the presentation comes from the Coloradoan and Fortune Magazine, which have noted the change within the medical industry today and he thought these articles important as they show how the profession is going to the public in high density areas. The project consists of 12 buildings and Poudre Valley Hospital has voiced interest in locating in the Professional Park and is reviewing the facility. The majority of the doctors who might be using the offices are anticipated to be practicing doctors. Mr. Nix reviewed the surrounding area of this centrally located project. He stated this area is the highest density in the Fort Collins area. He described the architecture stying with all masonry brick construction and shake shingles and an a high level of integrated landscaping and the buildings will resemble single family residential dwellings. He said Dr. Brenkert has met with other doctors and he believes up to 4 buildings will begin construction, if approved, this spring and within 3 years the project will be built out. He used the projector to demonstrate the surrounding resi- dential and commercial developments in the area. He addressed the lands- cape around each building and the declaration lane on Shields St. Mr. Wilkinson gave the Board a summary of the neighborhood meeting held on January 6, 1986. The main concerns of the neighborhood regarded the improvement of Shields, landscaping, and architectural compatibility. He feels the overall use was better received than prior PUD. Mr. Wilkinson stated the developer addressed the conditions and asks the Board's approval with the following conditions: 1) energy conservation be required, 2) spe- cial consideration be given in architectural design of facades along Shields to assure modulation of exterior walls. 3) improve Shields St, to City standards (five lane arterial) along the entire property frontage, 4) median at the entrance to be 20' from the flowline and information needed as to whether sight distance is adequate at this intersection at the Final PUD stage, 5) northern parking areas need to be modified to create greater landscape setbacks 6) parking area between buildings B and C should attain greater setback from Shields, 7) aisle in front of buildings L and G should be signed no parking, 8) additional modifications in the landscape plan to P&Z Minutes • 2/24/86 Page 15 0 address integration of the project with site and surroundings, utilizing a professional landscape architect or designer. Lloyd Walker, 1027 West Lake and Chairman of Prospect/Shields Neighborhood, told the Board the area is the highest in residents and the neighborhood objectives deal with quality developments. They feel this project will pro- vide a service to the area and support the project. His main concern was that the guidelines which take a project to this point were not followed and cited the fact that the neighborhood meeting was held before Conceptual Review. Mr. Walker asked the staff if the rules have been changed, please let them now. Mr. Nix said the staff comments will be addressed excepting item p3. He stated that the street oversizing funds have been depleted and it is normal practice for a developer to improve the street in front of the project to arterial standards and charged with a cost of a local standard and the City would then repay any oversizing to arterials. He feels the Hill Pond PUD, which is to the east of Shields, should have to contribute to the cost of street improvements, as should any dense project which contributes traffic flow. The staff requires the project to improve Shields to a full five lane or participate in a SID. Mr. Nix would like the SID to be voluntary action with all the projects in this area and would like the Board to recommend to the City Council to impose a mandatory SID in this area and feels this smaller project should not be responsible for the improvements. Chairman Dow asked Mr. Frank if, when the City completed Rolland Moore Park, they also imposed requirements of a five lane arterial and what would he suggest in addressing the development of Shields Street. Mr. Wilkinson replied the Traffic Engineer felt the added traffic on Shields from this project can't be absorbed without an improved five lane arterial. Mr. Frank answered the Parks Dept, does have the money and he thought they were waiting to do the improvements all at once. Chairman Dow suggests the staff works with the applicant in terms of some equitable portion of the expenses. Mr. Frank stated it is the current condition and would try to recapture from Hill Pond and would like to be able to recapture from future develop- ments up on Hill Pond, but would like to look into this. Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, said currently the only area assessed are developments which abut the street and impact it. The staff has looked at this but hasn't had the opportunity to proceed with it. Member Strom asked what was the mechanism for architectural control. Mr. Nix replied that there are some very strict controls. Dr. Brenkert, applicant, told the Board although the design will be basic, P&Z Minutes 2/24/86 Page 16 he would allow some creativity. The developers would be responsible for the maintenance and a fence would enclose the whole area. Member Brown asked where the two story buildings are located. Mr. Nix answered building H might be a two story but doesn't know for sure due to the individual doctors and dentists' uses, such as handicapped access and types of patients. Member Kern motioned to approve with the seven conditions recommended by staff. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Chairman Dow asked Legal Staff how the Board could address the SID issue. Steve Roy replied he couldn't give definition that would let staff effec- tively follow but the Board has to vote whether to impose the condition that staff has recommended because if the SID doesn't work then the devel- oper needs to know if he can develop in the absence of that requirement. Mr. Wilkinson stated this was a strong issue in the neighborhood meeting and an issue that should be addressed before approval. Chairman Dow agreed it is an important condition but a requirement made at the developers expense. He thought if the Board adds language to condition three, requesting they explore other SID possibilities along Shields Street with City staff and property owners. Member Kern and Member Edwards amended their motions to include the condi- tions including the expanded language in condition f3. Motion to approve passed 7-0. Mr. Frank closed business with information about a worksession to follow the next meeting. It would include a discussion about the Economic Devel- opment Task Force. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11 p.m. 0 Core Area neighborhood p.o. box 1282, fort coilins, Colorado 80522 484-2673 February 24, 1986 Dear Planning and Zoning Board: Traffic within the Core Area Neighborhood has long been a concern of our residents. We have considered the problem at College/Mulberry/Magnolia for three years now, and did further work on it in the last month. To be sure that our reading of neighborhood sentiment was up to date, during January some of our members canvassed the area that would be affected by either a Magnolia/Mulberry couplet or by the widening of Mulberry. They went door to door in both business and residential areas of Mulberry, Magnolia, and Mathews streets. They found strong opposition to the possibility of a Mulberry/Magnolia couplet. Based on that information as well as our understanding of the issue in three years of study, the CAN Board of Directors voted unanimously to once again oppose the Mulberry/ Magnolia couplet proposal, and to recommend that no firm decision be made on widening Mulberry until after implementation of other street improvements suggested on page 45 under "City Wide Capital. Improvements" in the East Side Neighborhood Plan. These improvements are aimed at letting non -destination traffic avoid the congestion of the downtown area. We further voted to recommend again that the city develop concrete plan for alternative transportation within the city, including bus, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic as well as park and ride options or a downtown shuttle system. This recommendation is already a part of the East Side Neighborhood Plan. The CAN Board made these recommendations at the neighborhood meeting of February 5. At that meeting, many residents voiced their opposition to both the couplet and to the widening of Mulberry. At the end of the neighborhood meeting, a vote of those present showed an overwhelming majority would like the city to make a firm decision now to NOT build a Magnolia/Mulberry couplet and to NOT widen Mulberry. They firmly endorsed the city wide alternative transportation study instead. It is the policy of the CAN Board to endorse the decisions of the residents, and we do endorse this recommendation. We urge you to make a firm dicision now against the couplet. The Proposed New Policies for Mulberry Street recommended by Joe Frank are excellent additions to the Neighborhood Plan. We understand that they would be added to the East Side Neighborhood Plan on page 45 as an addition to, not a replacement of, section 2.2.1. This would let stand the neighborhood's statement of opposition to the couplet idea. The recommended addition of "City Wide Policy Concerns" is also excellent. We understand that it would also be an addition to the current wording, appearing on page 81 of the Plan. Both these policy additions take into account wider issues of interest to the rest of the city, and they involve citizen input on these important questions. We heartily agree that any solution must serve the city's needs as well as the neighborhood's needs, as we are mutually dependent. We would like to thank the Planning staff and particularly Joe Frank for this suggested addition to the Plan_ Sincerely, Barbara Liebler CAN Board of Directors 0 • LjL3EhR` ,��` � 1111 V 174 / CrhyMiA (4 404 iww C'7 FbAa po � 6#Z fir» KIv^/ t ry N�cESfS 6NA oV i -_ re..) ►Ein�i.v �nl G� FXr w,rc d a at-t " 4 tJeE'f u 1 --� �A/E 1/ t N 0 rwe-7 774 IS S r'2v c tyre. 4ocj a ft or--- 7b 979.4 4i4l3,fiz/ G , f w4 ►A 1 to (1\ ..7 51�►gtc- S1►.a C� 5 ���-�,N ��i Gr- gl'AOAT'M /fG-' X400v,+T1 ►E._... Tgpo f 6= i ,c 1�6 - 3� �� F • h'Ivc�►e sip-. I 0 SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW -PREHISTORIC -ARCH EULUUY-PREHISTORIC _COMMUNITY PLANNING _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _RELIGION _1400.1499 -ARCHEOLOGY. HI STORI C _CONSERVATION _LAW _SCIENCE _1500.1599 _AGRICULTURE _ECONOMICS _LITERATURE _.SCULPTURE _I8001899 XARCHITECTURE -EDUCATION _MILITARY _SOCIAUHUMANITARIAN _17001799 -ART _ENGINEERING _MUSIC _THEATER X 1800.1899 ._.COMMERCE X EXPLORATION, SETTLEMENT _PHILOSOPHY _TRANSPORTATION -1900 _COMMUNICATIONS _..INDUSTRY ._ POLITICS/GOVERNMENT _ OTHER ISPECIFYI _INVENTION SPECIFIC DATES 1896 BUILDER/ARCHITECT Frederick R..Baker STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Baker House is significant in two areas: the builder/owner's importance in the establishment and development of Fort Collins and in its architectural uniqueness in the community. Frederick R. Baker, 1844-1902, was a native of Ohio, who enlisted in the Union Light Guards Seventh Independent Troop, Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, in 1863. This company became famous as the "Black Horse Squadron," Abraham Lincoln's military escort. Baker's assignment was the carrying of dispatches to and from the White House, the War Depart- ment and the Army, a post which led to a personal acquaintance with President Lincoln. For a time during the war, Baker also served with the secret service. He was mustered out of the army in September of 1865 and returned to Ohio. He moved to the Cache la Poudre Valley in 1873, only nine years after the founding of Fort Collins, and soon became one of the leading farmers and stock raisers, intro- ducing thoroughbred shorthorn cattle into Larimer County. Baker's importance to the community can be seen in his election to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, 1890-1893, and in his election to the post of mayor of Fort Collins for four terms, 1895-1902. Baker's influence was decisive in the establishment, after a long struggle, of the first city park and in the location of the city's first library, a Carnegie institution,in that park. The house itself, which Baker built after he retired from farming, is one of the few local examples of the "Queen Anne" variety of Victorian architecture. Fort Collins's architecture is.somewhat lacking in the imagination and flamboyance that characterized much of Victorian building; the surrounding communities such as Boulder and Greeley possess a great deal more tlineteenth century architectural style and variety. Many.of, the Fort Collins residences that did qualify as showpieces have been torn down; the Baker House is one of the relatively few remaining local examples of a fairly aFfluent n'neteenth century lifestyle. As such, it is important in the community's sense of itself and its passage through time. r February 24, 1986 To whom it may concern: We the tenants at 400 Remington feel by making Magnolia and Mulberry one way streets will severly hamper our business. It would be difficult for us as well as our clients to have access to the building thus making it difficult to re -lease office space. Our building houses an attorney, a real estate broker, a CPA and a property management company. All four businesses rely on easy access to the building for clients and associates. If the one way streets are put in business will be damaged roquiring each to find a new location. Three out of the four businesses have already stated that Lhey will not re -lease in the building if the one way streets are put in. Please consider our concerns when making a decision on this issue! Sincerely, The tenants of 400 Remington y 24 February 1986 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Ladies and Gentlemen, Several neighbors, Mrs. Leyendecker, and I applaud the Planning Department's decision not to recommend changes to Mulberry and Magnolia streets at this time. Most of us have the results of fast moving traffic through our quiet neighbor- hood, and believe that even though it would be diverted from the residential blocks on East Magnolia, the entire area will continue to be threatened. Chil- dren still will walk to schools, to Safeway, and to 7-11. Many senior citizens who live in the area also walk to the above stores, do business at the banks, and make purchases at shops along South Mason. They also visit the Post Office located on South Howes, not only to mail letters, but to transact business with the Social Security office located in that building. Most of them are terrified by the fast-moving traffic on Remington and Mathews as it exists at present. Many move slowly and cannot negotiate the intersection at College and Magnolia without becoming trapped on the island in the middle. I personally have taken several of them across College Avenue and have been glared at and yelled at by drivers more concerned with speed than safety. I am in reasonably good physi- cal condition and, on several occasions, I have been harassed by drivers on Remington, College, Mason, and Howes even though I had begun to cross the streets when I had the light or they had not turned on to the artery. I can imagine what conditions will be like for pedestrians if Mathews and Magnolia become one- way streets. The noise and inconvenience will play a part since Magnolia will be closed to us from Mathews west, and we will be forced to use Olive and Peterson streets, and the alleys for egress and ingress to and from our dwellings. In addition, at least two historic dwellings (the Baker House at 304 East Mulberry and the house at 401 Mathews) will be demolished if the block between Mulberry and Mag- nolia, on Mathews, becomes one-way. This will cause not only a loss to our cultural heritage, but since they are listed on the National Register, their demolition may prevent the use of federal money which doubtless the city will need to make the conversion. Furthermore, if the city desires to clear resi- dents out of the core area, one of the best ways to do it is to make it un- pleasant for people to live in the district. Residents, by their mere presence in an area at night, tend to keep down crime and vandalism within its limits. Thus, at a time when Fort Collins is trying to rejuvenate its core area, it is working against itself by initiating a project that will drive dwellers from one of the key areas to its development. As it subjects such persons to noise and exhaust pollution of one-way streets, it will also disrupt the neighborhood due to the increased speed of cars which tend to keep people from crossing a street. We believe that while Fort Collins is growing, it has not reached the point that the older, quieter neighborhoods, such as ours, have to be ruined, and their residents harassed for the sake of commuters from the suburbs. We also have no- ticed that other cities which have experimentedwith one-way streets through older neighborhoods have begun to return them to their former two-way status. Shouldn't Fort Collins take its time and look for more workable alternatives? Sincerely, East Magnolia ins, Colorado 80524 February 23, 1986 City of Fort Collins Community Development Department Planning Division 300 La Porte Avenue P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Traffic proposal on Mulberry and Magnolia Streets Dear Zoning and Planning Board and City Council Members: Several neighbors living on Mulberry and Magnolia met to discusg the recent proposal from the City Transportation Services and we are responding to your meeting of February 5,.1986 at Centennial School. Here are some questions that neighbors asked at this meeting: 1. Where are the 20,000 cars on Mulberry and College. going? Are they going downtown or thru tows? 2. Is there additional parking planned for the downtown area to accomodate this extra traffic? 3. Is there any incentives for employers and employees to ride the Transport System? 4. Will there be consideration for additional parking near the by-pass to encourage downtown commuters to park and ride the Transport System? 5.Will the city pay for removing trees, shrubs, rerouting utilities, chnnging sprinkler systems, replacing aldewnlkn, and any othor expenses incurred to homeowners? Will the city replace the trees still shrubs that me removed to protect residence from pollullon from the ndditinnal traffic? 6. Will all the driveways be unusnble by the traffic proposal on Mulberry and Magnolia? If the driveways are closed then will the city compensate the property owners? 7. What will happen to the alleys that are now over used? Whitt will be the maintenance for the alleys? 8. What Is the city's protection for Iligtorical. and Preservation of older homes In Ibo Idurrel School Ill:nnrhal Illntrhi? 9. What about the additional response time for medics, fire department and police department to manuever such a one-way proposal? Then would this effect Firestation #1 on Mulberry Street? if) Wonid the clIy be Inl'.ranted lu 1"w'11a1, Ing all the nl one Mu lb a. r ry and MagnaI is un the pr uposed rralf I pia u? ll. Whitt arrangements wil. 1. be conaldvred for the walk log elderly popular lon to cross these one-way streets? 12. Does the city really feel that they would be solving the problems by having short distances on the proposed one -ways streets with no ulrn offs and faster -speeds? 13. sow many accidents per month are occuring on the present one-way streets In the downtown area? We personally feel that the expenses Incurred by either options would not benefit the flow of traffic, historical area, property owners, and the business area, ao we feel your boards would consider alternative routes. -1- We feel that the city and the traffic departments should look at the following alternatives: 1. One -ways are normally across town for longer distances to be effective. 2. Consult with other cities thatarc now changing one-ways systems back to two -ways streets. - 3. The city should consider parking lots along the by-poss system with .public transportation to the downtown area. 4. Instead of considering more parks near schools we feel the city should be purchasing right-of-ways for the by-pass. if the City could get money from the state for a by-pass to AOItauser Bush Plant: why can't the elty get supnort money from the state for more Important by -pasts. 5. The city should consider light rail Lrafl'Ic through the city for nil of the new areas being developed both north :md south and for file commuters to and from the Denver arts. 6. The traffic off of T-25 that normally gees east and west on Mulberry to the college and to the stadium could create a dangerous situation if Mulberry Street was a one-way street for such it short disc.lace, no the elty should consider alternate routes. 7. If only a small percentage of traffic on College and Mulberry actually goes to the downtown area the City should promote the monies toward extending Timberline Drive further than Harmony to Mulberry Street for more eff[clanL north -south travel. 8. What about the additional response time for mvdfcc;, fire department and Police department to mnnuever nuCh a nuo-woy Propnr.a l? Then would t1,1 effect Pirestation 41 on Mulberry SLrett? 9. What is the estimated cost of Iht one -ways including the purchase of private property? Is the city expecting any aid for the project? Concerned citizens and property owners: . V 4= - H. L. Somsel---------- 312 and 319 Magnolia Street Violet I. Poor 324 Cast Mulberry Street i l George and Miriam Reach 320 East Mulberry Street Mrs. JaryB C. Goodwin 314 East Mulberry Street 416 Jefferson Street i7Fez b .uyene :md Ramona Parker.._... ---- 32f1 Nast Mulberry Street [irony L. Parker 408 lust Mulberry Street Aw-e 'k ll Carolyn b'. coodwin 311, Fast Mulberry Street / t ' nrcniyial Of Company, Mn:. Jnnc (:.foods flit North College Avenue