Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/28/19831, u PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 28, 1983 Board Present: Tim Dow, Gary Ross, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Ed Stoner, Don Crews, Ingrid Simpson, Randy Larsen Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Ken k'aido, Curt Smith, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Linda Gula Legal Representative: Paul Eckman Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m. Roll was taken. AGENDA REVIEW: 12. #17-83 Hall Rezoning - County Referral - WITHDRAWN 14. #7-83 116 East Drake Road Rezoning - CONTINUED Georg: "Pulled" Item 2 #2-83 McDonald's Restaurant PUD - Preliminary and Final Dow: "Pulled" Items 10 and 11 #179-78C University Fall PUD Phase One - Final and Pineridge Exemption - County Referral. Simpson: "Pulled" Item 3 #3-83 Andersen Group Home Pam Simon: Columbine Cablevision "pulled" Item 6 #6-83 University Court R-H Site Plan Review. Ross: Moved to approved Consent Agenda Items 1,4,5,7,8,9,and 13. 1. Minutes of February 28, 1983 4. #43-79A Replat of Indian Hills West PUD 5. #28-80C Rangeview PUD - Final 7. #9-82D Southridge Greens PUD Phase 2 - Final 8. #12-83 Mothers Inn Group Home Review 3'/28/83 Page 2 • 9. #33-79B Sunray PUD - Preliminary & Final 13. #4-83 Cunningham Corners Rezoning - Recommendation to City Council Crews: Second: Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 2. #2-83 McDonald's Restaurant PUD - Preliminary and Final Request for preliminary and final approval of a drive - through and a 1,024 sf addition to the existing McDonald's Restaurant, located at 2401 S. College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Jim Clarke, c/o McDonald's Corporation, 5700 S. Quebec, Englewood, CO 80111. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: General discussion ensued between the Board and staff concerning extending the median, the number of parking stalls, landscaping, traffic counts, planned improvements to College Avenue, and the potential of shared parking. Jim Clarke: Applicant. McDonald's Corporation. Discussed the layout of the driveway and parking areas and stated that, through intensive discussions with staff and the traffic engineers, that this seemed to be the best solution. Rick Ensdorff: Traffic Engineer. Stated that for a drive -through facility like this there would be in the vicinity of 150 vehicles per 1000 sf. Stated that the percentage of increase in traffic volume would be approximately 10-12%. Larsen: Expressed some concern about the need for three curbcuts. Ross: Questioned the number of ingress/egress points and felt that this was tremendous intensity onto College Avenue. Rupel: Stated that this had been discussed at great length with the State Highway Department and that this seemed to be the most logical arrangement. Stoner: Stated that he felt this was the best alternative, looking at the land use. Moved to approve the McDonald's Restaurant PUD - Preliminary and Final. 3/ 28/ 83 . • Page 3 , Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 4-3. (Georg, Ross, Dow voting no.) 3. #3-83 Andersen Group Home Review Request for final approval of a one -unit group home/care facility, located at 1511 Remington Street, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. Applicant: Doug Andersen, 1511 Remington Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to the condition that it be limited to no more than five elderly individuals plus a full-time housekeeper and part-time assistant. Doug Andersen: Applicant. Clarified that they wanted retired functional people. Stated they wanted to provide for a need that was currently not being fulfilled. Also stated that the neighborhood was in transition and felt that the impact would be minimal. Andersen: Stated that they have no complaint with the fraternities and that they have a working arrangement with them concerning noise. Eckman: Read for the record the Fort 'Collins' Code concerning Group Homes. (Exhibit A) Stoner: Felt that the greatest concern was the impact of the neighborhood on the Group Home not vice versa. Simpson: Questioned if any other sites had been considered. Dow: Felt that if there were problems with the fraternities and they continued to create a nuisance, that there are legal remedies. Andersen: Stated that he does not think that any activities of the fraternities should be stifled, only that which is excessive. Dave Luplow: Secretary/Treasurer of the Sigma Chi House Corporation. Felt that a Group Home care facility was not compatible with the existing facilities, including high school and three fratern- ities. Stated it was difficult to control the traffic and the noise in the neighborhood. 0 EXHIBIT A SC ` ` § 118-82 . FORT COLLINS CODE § 118-82 ` Maximum �. Number of Additional Minimum _ Residents, Lot Area Separation Maximum Requirement Excluding for Each Permissible Between Supervisors, Additional Residents, Any 3,1; Zone Other for Minimum -Resident Excluding Group Home Lot Size (square feet) Supervisors (feet) R-E g-L (Group homes as approved b s PP Y special review) R-M 6 750 15 , 1000 R -H 6 500 20 700. _ B-G 6 Soo 20 700 4 ' ` (2) Special review. (a) Special review proceedings shall begin with the filing of an application for a group home use, submitted to the Planning Office. The Planning and Zoning Board shall conduct a public hearing and approve, disapprove or approve with con- ditions the group home use. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions in Chapter 2 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (b) In order to prevent the concentration of group homes and the potential negative impact that may be caused to a neighborhood by a high concentration of this type of facility, a group home in the R-L or R-E Zone should not generally be located closer than one-third (1/a) mile from any other group home, unless a physical barrier, such as an arterial street or highway, railroad tracks, 1 waterway, commercial district, topographical change or other characteristic, would avoid .-- _-- concentration of group homes. This provision is intended to ensure that the limited capacity of a neighborhood's existing social structure to ac- commodate group homes is not exceeded and, Aga. F- 11856�� s-2.5-a: § 118-82 ZONING § 118-82 further, to protect such homes from over. concentration within one (1) neighborhood thereby inadvertently recreating an institutional } setting. r+l (c) The size, scale and general appearance of a group home shall be consistent with the general physical '` x T character of the neighborhood in which it is ; )ja located. G Conditional zoning. [Added 9-18.79 by Ord. No. 108, 19791 (1) The City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, shall have the power, upon the zoning or rezoning of any property in any of the several zoning districts of the city, to impose reasonable conditions relating to use for the purpose of preserving and promoting the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and the public generally, and to encourage and facilitate the orderly development of the city. Conditional zoning shall not be utilized to authorize uses not authorized under Chapter 118 of the code. (2) Zones upon which conditions have been placed pur- suant to this subsection shall be identified on the Zoning Map' by the nddition of a (c) suffix. (3) Such conditions shall be deemed to run with the land and shall not be affected by changes in the ownership of the property and shall remain in force and effect until such time as they are repealed or otherwise modified by the Council of the City of Fort Collins. (4) Once a condition has been imposed pursuant to this subsection, no building permit shall be issued for any development, remodeling or redevelopment which is inconsistent with the condition imposed. (5) In the event that a condition imposed by this sub- section is not complied with, no certificate of oc- cupancy shall be issued for 1 the subject property. Editor's Note: The Zonln Ma Is Included In the 8 P pocket part at the and of We VOII1R10. 11857 6.25.81 1 ... r1 3/28/83 ! • Page 4 Randy Repola: Phi Kappa Tau Fraternity. Stated that thev have made attempts to work out problems with their neighbors across the alley. Stated, however, that they still have numerous complaints. Felt that putting a Group Home in the area would create an environment for trouble. David Young: Sigma Chi House president. Felt that this was not an appropriate location for this type of home. Felt that they (the fraternities) would be detrimental to the older people. Steve Byers: Phi Kappa Tau Fraternity. Stated that there was a pos- sibility that there might be a fourth fraternity house coming into the area. Vicki Andersen: Applicant. Stated that they had not had major problems with the fraternities and seemed to be able to work out differences. Pat Juarez: Sigma Chi Fraternity. Stated that there could be problems with debris after some of their parties. Stated that they would not like the impact of being called early in the morning to be reminded to clean up the neighborhood. Dow: Stated the applicant had clearly come within the requirements of the ordinance. Ross: Vote: Not e : Stoner: Simpson: Georg: Gilfillan: Moved to approve the Andersen Group Home Review with the condition that it be limited to no more than five elderly individuals plus a full -time housekeeper and part-time assistant. Second. Motion carried 4-3 (Gilfillan, Stoner, Sinnpson voting no.) There was some discussion by the Board concerning possible problems if the use were to change in the future. Commented he felt that this was an inappropriate land use. Commented she did not feel that this was an adequate location for this use. Felt that traffic and congestion in the area would be of major concern. Stated he felt that this is consistent with the location size, scale and appearance elements of the ordinance. Stated this was an improper location for this useage. 3/28/83 Page 5 • 6. #6-83 University Court R-H Site Plan Review Request for R-H site plan review located on University Avenue between Shields and City Park Avenue. consisting of 92-units on 2.54-ac, zoned R-'H„ High Density Residential, proposed use multi -family. Applicant: Wallace R. Noel, c/o John Dengler, 141 So. College, Suite 10, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. John Dengler: Applicant. Stated that they wanted to create a variety and mix in unit types. Stated that they had increased the density but it was a mixture of units. Pam Simons: General Manager at Columbine Cabievision. Stated that their major concern was with the water drainage. Stated that the water causes damage to their cables. Stated that they had done studies for the existing satellite dishes and for the potential of a microwave tower to determine if there would be any problem with these buildings as they are designed. Stated this is a much better plan than was previously submitted. Ross: Questioned what the possibility would be for the construction of a 50' tower to be approved. Asked if there were an ordinance that pertained to commercial towers. Waido: Stated that the Height Ordinance limits structures in the City to 40' in height, however, communication towers and utility poles are not considered structures according to the ordinance and would not need review. Georg: Moved to approve University Court R-H Site Plan Review. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 10. #179-78C University Mall PUD Phase One - Final Request for final PUD approval of Phase 1, including a 6,400 sf restaurant located at University Mall, west of S. College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: University Mall, c/o Eileen Humphreys, 2211 S. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521 Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. 3/28/83 ! • Page 6 Mote: General discussion followed between the Board and staff concerning setbacks, landscaping, building materials, trash disposal, and drainage. Eileen Humphreys: Applicant. Answered questions concerning the setbacks as compared to Bennigan's and landscaping and the type and the concept of the food -service shops. Dow: Stated his reason for "pulling" this item as being problems with the design of the building and its compatibility. Felt we are putting too many buildings too close to College Avenue with setbacks. Georg: Stated it seemed that this proposal was consistent with the preliminary. Moved to approve University Mall PUD Phase One - Final Simpson: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-1 (Dow voting no). 11. #16-83 Pineridge Exemption - County Referral A request for an exemption on 19-ac, zoned FA-1, Farming, located west of Dixon Reservoir, east of Centennial Drive. Applicant: Joe Roesser, 1120 Ogden Street, Denver, CO 80218. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A 30' setback from the ridgeline he provided in the form of a landscape easement. No vegetation is to be removed Within this setback. 2. Property owners would be responsible for the replacement of vegetation. 3. Building materials must be of natural materials. Gilfillan: Expressed concern about solar useage and the possibility of reflectant materials on roofs. Dow: Stated there was no assurance, given the guidelines, a structure could not be built and protrude above the ridneline. Joe Roesser: Applicant. Stated a strict statement indicating buildings do not protrude above a ridgeline would preclude building on the rest of the property. Stated after careful review of the Page 73 Page . • P7 existing situation and existing conditions, the best way to solve the existing situation was to completely eliminate structures on the ridgeline, completely eliminate on the east side of the ridgeline through negotiation of a trade of the rest of this property to the City, and the remaining conditions the staff has recommended give the most limitation that could be tolerated and still accommodate the very exclusive homes that would be built in the area. Stated essentially his buildings would not be visible. Stated he did not want to restrict any potential homebuilder to a roofline that doesn't break the existing rockline because that drastically precludes his ability to shelf a house into the side of an existing slope. Waido: Stated what the City is trying to achieve is a natural foothills setting backdrop to the City. Dow: Stated as a matter of Policy, that there will be no development on the ridgeline. Stated that unless we could put a condition on these properties that that view of the ridgeline be protected, the County will not understand our concern for that. Moved to recommend to the County approval of the Pineridge Exemption subject to the following conditions: 1. No portion of any structure should project above the ridgeline, as visible from Overland Trail. The express intent of this condition is to prohibit structures from breaking -the ridgeline and being visible from Fort Collins. 2. A 30' setback from the ridgeline be provided in the form of a landscape easement. No vegetation is to be removed within this setback. 3.. Property owners would be responsible for the replacement of vegetation. 4. Building materials must be of natural materials. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-2 (Georg, Gilfillan voting no.), RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 14. #7-83 116 East Drake Road Rezoning Request to rezone Lot 5, Re -Subdivision of Tract A, South College Heights Fourth Subdivision, form the R-L, Low Density 3/28/83 Page 8 . Residential District, to the R-H, High Density Residential District, located at 116 East Drake Road, east of South College Avenue. Applicant: Carl L. & Edith M. Todd, c/o Hill and Hill, Attorneys, P.O. Box 421, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Gilfillan: Stated the applicant had requested that this rezoning request be tabled to the April 25, 1983 meeting. Stoner: Moved to table the 116 East Drake Road Rezoning to the April 25, 1983 P & Z meetinc. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 15. #1-83 Skyline Mobile Home Park Rezoning Request to rezone 10-ac from the R-L, Low Density Residential District, to the M-M, Medium Density Mobile Home District, located west of Skyline Mobile Home Park on west Mulberry Street, west of Taft Hill Road. Applicant: Chuck, Spike, & Pat Hoffman, Skyline Mobile Home Park, 2211 W. Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Stoner: Announced that he had a conflict of interest and would not be taking part in the discussion or vote. Waido: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Spike Hoffman: Applicant. Stated this proposal was an expansion of the existing mobile home park and the design was basically the same. Stated they were not opposed to the PUD process but felt that this was a somewhat easier way of doing this. Ralph Switzer: Representing the Price family located at 2115 Mulberry. Stated that they felt that this was an unanticipated change to the neighborhood. Stated that the Price family was opposed to this rezoning and requested that the Board deny this recommendation. Ross: Commented the mobile home park was there when the Price's bought their property. Pat Hoffman: Clarified that Price's property is already on mobile home zoning. Stated that what they are proposing on the 10 acres wes.-, is a lower density than what is directly adjacent to Mr. Price's property. 3/28/83 . • Page 9 Michael Owen Johnson: Representing Thelma Johnson, owner of adjacent property. Stated they would not like to see the zoning change. Felt the expansion of the trailer park was not beneficial to the surrounding community. They questioned the need for the expansion of this type of facility. Georg: Felt it would be good policy for the City perhaps until we have a more clarifying ordinance on the books concerning mobile home parks, to review PUD proposals. Moved to recommend to City Council denial of the Skyline Mobile Home Park Rezoning. Dow: Second. Simpson: Stated she agreed, she would like to see it come back as a PUD. Ross: Stated he was not personally opposed to the mobile home park but that he would like to see it come back as a PUD. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA: lb. #4-83P. Cunningham Corners Master Plan Request for Master Plan approval of a 39-ac PUD located at Horsetooth and Shields, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, proposed use mixed residential and office park. Applicant: Nordic Construction, c/o ZVFK Architects/Plan- ners, 218 11. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Eldon Ward: ZVFK Architects/Planners representing the applicant. Stated he would be available to answer questions. Addressed concerns about Richmond and Windmill Drives, the phasing of the project, traffic concerns and the increased density. Eric Fellers: Area resident. Expressed concerns about the density and increased traffic problems. Expressed concerns about the usage of the LOGS. Rupel: Pointed out that these kinds of concerns would be dealt with in the next project. 83 Page 10 • Page GiIfillan: Stated that he liked this plan better than the one that had been submitted in the oast. Stoner: Moved to approve the Cunningham Corners Master Plan. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 17. #4-83B Cunningham Corners PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of an 8.6-ac PUD zoned R-P, Planned Residential, proposed use, mixed residential/office park. Applicant: Nordic Construction, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report and pointed out that there were some errors in the numbers. He stated the project is not 19.8 ac it is 12.3 ac. Stated that Area E consists of 7.5 ac of residential and 1.1 acres of convenience, Area H is not 11.2 ac it is 3.7 ac. Staff recommended approval of the project. Eldon Ward: ZVFK Architects/Planners representing the applicant. Stated what they had set up in the master plan and what this exemplifies is a fairly traditional transition of lower density to medium density to higher density to non-resi- dential uses. Ross: Moved to approve Cunningham Corners PUD - Preliminary. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 18. #54-80E Valley Forge PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 15.14 ac PUD, located on the northwest corner of Taft Hill Road and Valley Forge Drive, zoned B-P, Planned Business, proposed 24 unit residential/office/day care. Applicant: Jack Cochran, Wheeler Realty, 1331 8th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80633. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending denial. Stated that generally the overall concept of the plan did not meet the intent of the Guidance System and then through elements like landscaping and parking it did not meet the specific intent of the design criteria. 3/28/83 i • Page 11 Note: General discussion ensued between the Board and staff concerning parking, traffic impact, setbacks, fire access, noise, and drop-off and pickup area in the daycare center. Bob Lucas: Applicant. Wheeler Realty Company. Addressed questions concerning land uses, density, noise levels, buffering, and landscaping. Stated that Drake Crossing Shopping Center was approved as a neighborhood shopping center and that he thought that what they were doing was providing an additional service to the neighborhood that presently does not exist. Dennis Rosengarten: La Petite Childcare Academy. Answered questions concerning the academy. Also stated that there was a need for a facility like this in this particular area of the City. Bob Schimmerling: TS & T Consulting Engineers. Stated that they were required by the Planning Department to align the parking lot entrance with the entrance to Drake Crossing. Jim Dubler: 2224 Ayrshire Drive. Stated that he was very much opposed to the project because it removed the buffer between the commercial and residential to the north. Georg: Expressed concern about the 10'-12' setbacks, the mass of the buildings, the scale of the buildings, noise, and parking problems. Moved to deny Valley Forge PUD - Preliminary. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carred 7-0. Ross: Stated that the site could be redesigned to accommodate the childcare facility, however, the use of the entire site is too intense for the area. 19. #105-79C Silverplume PUD Amended Request for an amendment to Silverplume PUD, consisting of 216 units, located south of Swallow Road, east of Dunbar Avenue, zoned P,-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential and R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: D. Jensen Inc., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. 3/28/83 Pa'ge 12 0 • Carr Bieker: Applicant. ZVFK Architects/Planners. Stated that this is a very creative and innovative project. Stated that they were trying to provide affordable housino while at the same time maintaining the quality level. Stoner: Moved to approve the Silverplume PUD Amended including a variance being requested to permit the west entrance on Swallow Roadd less than 200 feet centerline to centerline of Silverplume Drive. The location of this entrance was previously established with Silverplume Square and is approximately 150' centerline to centerline. Ross: Second. Vote: notion carried 7-0. 20. #24-80D Park Central PUD - Preliminary Request for an amended preliminary approval of an 18.46-ac PUD located at Lemay and Prospect for an office/retail/rest- aurant/recreation use, zoned B-P, Planned Business, R-H, High Density Residential, and R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: Osprey, Inc., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff" report recommending approval. Read a letter from Thomas P. McKenna for the record. (Exhibit B). dote: Discussion followed concerning traffic and traffic impact studies. After some discussion the Board decided to go ahead and take action on the item at this meeting. Frank Vaught: Applicant. ZVFK Architects/Planners. Gave a history of the area. Felt that this project could stand on its own merit. Addressed questions on setbacks and phasing. Crews: (loved to approve the Park Central PUD - Preliminary. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. 21. #72-82 Willox Corner PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 3.8-ac PUD for a retail/storage use, zoned H-B, Highway Business, located at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Willox Lane. Applicant: Independent Financial Consultants, P.O. Box 1248, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Exhibit B • • THOMAS P. McKENNA P.O. Box 1356 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 303 226-5704 28 March 1983 Planning and Zoning Board c/o Planning Office City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Sirs: I request that action on Item #20, Park Central PUD, on the agenda for Monday, March 28th be postponed one month until the end of April. Since early January I have been waiting for and trying to obtain the proponent's traffic impacts study on this proposal. On Thursday afternoon March 24th I took the initiative to call the planning department and was informed that the study was finally available. I obtained it on Friday morning. Acting on this item Monday the 28th would allow me only one and a half working days to evaluate, collect data, and respond to this study. That is not a fair or adequate amount of time and I object to it in the strongest possible terms. The paid professionals of the proponents took almost three months to produce this information. Even if I were a paid, full-time professional instead of an amateur having to do this in my spare time I should not be expected to accept such a short response time. The first one month delay was granted to accomodate the proponents, the second one month delay was granted to accomodate the planning department, and I see no reason why one should not be granted to accomodate me for the reasons outlined above. Sincerely, Thomas P. McKenna 3/28/83 Page 13 • Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: Discussion followed between the Board and staff concerning the curbcuts and accessing of the property. Ron Bycroft: Applicant, Independent Financial Consultants. Stated that they did request a right-in/right-out and the reason that the State Highway Department denied that was that the Planning staff recommended denial suggesting that they could use a 24' access going across Mr. Schrader's property. Stated that they need a secondary ingress/egress to the property. Eckman: Suggested that perhaps 'this item should be tabled so that the two property owners could work out adequate access. Steve Schrader: Speaking in behalf of Wayne Schrader and the other partners (adjacent property owners). Stated that they were very much concerned with possible problems with the traffic patterns. Stated that their original intent was to allow traffictoflow across the properties. Stated that they don't feel it would be good to have the access being used as a major ingress/egress off of College Avenue. Al Chotvacs: State Highway Department. Stated that there o-.as no commit- ment to put a median island on College Avenue at this time, although the possibility does always exist. Georg: i%loved to approve 'Willox Corner PUD - Preliminary subject to the condition that prior to any consideration of a any final phase .hat the issue of secondary access be resolved between the two owners in such a fashion that they can be reviewed by the Board. Stoner: Second. Vote: Notion carried 7-0. 22. #5-83 Victorian Court PUG - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a .5137-ac PUD located on Riverside Avenue (near Montgomery Aveanue), zoned B-L, Limited Business, proposed use retail and multi -family mixed use. Applicant: Bruce ldilliams, c/o John Dengler, 141 S. College, Suite 10, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval with the variance to the LDGS Density Chart. 3/28/83 • . Page 14 Stoner: Questioned if the adjoining neighbor had a problem with the access easement. Chianese: Stated at the time of final a written document would be required guaranteeing the cross -easement. John Dengler: Applicant. Stated he would be available to answer questions. Duane Loetz DDS: Stated that his primary concern was with the parking space. Felt that there were too many units and that the property could not handle the parking. Note: Much discussion followed concerning the parking and possible shared parking. Concern was expressed about the shared use with the Real Estate College and the number of students using the parking. Simpson: Commented she felt that we did not have enough information concerning the Real Estate School. Georg: Stated that he did have concerns with the parking but felt that they should afford this project the same consideration that they gave to the Willox Lane PUD. Moved to approve the Victorian Court PUD - Preliminary subject to the condition that at final submission the more correct utilization of buildings be specified and that parking for those utilizations be provided according to City guidelines. Dow: Second. Vote: motion denied 4-2. (Ross, Gilfillan, Simpson, Crews voting no.) (Stoner abstaining because he did not understand the motion.) Stoner: Moved to approve the Victorian Court PUD - Preliminary with the variance to the LDGS Density Chart with the provision that upon the final the applicant come back with a parking plan that would be satisfactory to the Board. Simpson: Second. Vote: Motion defeated 5-2. (Crews, Simpson, Gilfillan, Georg, Ross voting no.) �3/28/83 Page 15 • 23. #44-821, Albertson -Clark Redwood Village PUD Phase III - Final Request for final approval of Phase III of a 21.4-ac PUD consisting of 92 single-family units, located at the southeast corner of Conifer Drive and Redwood Drive, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Lyle Carpenter, c/o Gefroh Associates, 555 South Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Gave a staff report recommending approval.The Highway Department has maintained, for some time, that this area is a potential alignment for the proposed Fort Collins Expressway and their desire is that no development occur in that area for an undetermined amount of time. If there is no commitment made between the State Highway Department and the applicant then by April 1, 1984, the City would assume that the applicant could construct in that area. Don Parsons: Representing the applicant. Would be available to answer questions. Al Chotvacs: State Highway Department. Stated that the corridor for this section has actually been established and it was a?proved up to Lemay Avenue. From that point is where the highway diverges and that is the point from which they will be considering alternative routes that will either go down to State Highway 14 or out to I-25. Stated that on the original submission for the property it did show a 300' easement. When the final was submitted that easement no longer appeared. Stated that some effort has to be made to preserve this corridor. Stated that the problem is that if this is approved, they will not have their final corridor hearing on those portions done until roughly very late in 1984 or early 1985. Stated that it behooves the Board to look very carefully and exhaust every means that they had to preclude and to reserve this portion of this roadway. Curt Smith: Director of Planning and Development. Asked if the Board were to deny this development, would the State be willing to enter in to some kind of agreement with the City that shared in any potential liability from that decision. Asked if he would take this request to the necessary decision -making bodies and find out if such an intergovern- mental agreement could be established to share the liability. Chotvacs: Stated that he could take that request back and present it to the Attorney General and possibly have an answer in two weeks. • 3/28/83 Page 16 Rupel: Questioned if he had he had heard correctly that the alignment had been set to Lemay Avenue coming from the west to the east. Smith: Stated that our liability was potentially there even if the alignment is set. Asked the Board to table this item for a month and see if we can't come back with at least some direction from the Council in terms of whether they are willing to take that particular risk or not. Stated that this is a risk that the Council may decide to take for the City in terms of protecting the, right-of-way for this particular street network. Lyle Carpenter: Applicant. Stated that he was at a point that he has made some decisions that affect the north end of the town and the property and a very expensive piece of ground and he is going to develop.Asked the Board not to delay the approval of this plat with his commitment not to build on it for another year. Ross: Moved to approve Redwood Village PUD Phase III - Final subject to not developing that 300' corridor prior to April 1, 1984. Gilfillan: Second. Dow: Stated that he was not convinced that it was very good planning on the part of the Board or the staff to put a 300' expressway right through the middle of a subdivision. Vote: Motion defeated 5-2 (Dow, Georg, Stoner, Simpson, Crews, voting no). Stoner: Moved to table Redwood Village PUD Phase III - Final until the April 25, 1983 meeting. Simpson: Second. Vote: Motion defeated 4-3. (Ross, Georg, Gilfillan, Simpson voting no.) Meeting adjourned 1:45 p.m.