Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/17/1984a 9 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES December 17, 1984 Board members present: Chairman Dow, Gilfillan, Brown, Ross, Georg, Simpson, Crews, and Alternate Larsen. All board members were present at the December 14, 1984 work session. Staff members present: Mutch, Albertson -Clark, Chianese, Kleckner, Frank, Waido, Tripoli, and Ault. Ken Frazier was the legal representative. Chairman Dow called the meeting to order at 6:31. He asked that roll be called. All members were present. Chairman Dow welcomed the public to the meeting and asked Mr. Mutch to review the agenda. Mr. Mutch reviewed the agenda with the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Mutch noted the applicant for item #65-84 First Interstate Bank - Preliminary had requested the item be continued until January 24, 1985. Item #62-85 Spruce Homes - Group Home had been withdrawn by the applicant; and staff was recommending that certain items on the Consent Agenda, in particular items #50-84A Somerset PUB - Final, #146-79B Extension of Raintree PUB - Phase 1, and #9-80H Amendment to the Arena PUB, Phase 4 - The Mariott Hotel be taken from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Discussion Agenda. Chairman Dow asked if anyone from the audience wished to have an item taken from the Consent Agenda. Mr. David Barkai requested item 60-84A Springbrook Two Zoning be discussed by the Board. The legal representative then requested both #60-84 and #60-84A, Springbrook Two Annexation and Zoning be pulled. Mr. Donald J. Gallagher asked that #4-800 Scenic Views Rezoning be discussed. Member Gilfillan asked that #49-84C Timberline Plaza, Phase I - Final be reviewed by the Board. Chairman Dow then asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Mr Georg -made a number of corrections to the November minutes. In particular he wished to have the votes corrected on the Courtney Park PUD and the vote on the Smith Annexation, and he corrected inaccuracies in discussion of "Pier" PUD. Motion by Georg, second by Gilfillan, to approve Consent Agenda item 1 with changes, and items 3, and 10 only. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #50-84A SOMERSET PUD - Final Chairman Dow stated the Planning and Zoning Board would consider item two on the agenda. Alternate Larsen noted he had a conflict of interest on this item and would not participate in the discussion. Planning Director Mutch indicated there were a number of problems with the project in that a number of submittal deadlines had not been met by the project architect. Mr. Mutch read a memorandum from Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, delineating the problems associated with the submittal of information for this project. The Planning Director recommended continuing the item for one month. (See attached memo from Tripoli to Mutch dated 12-17-84). Mr. Bob Mooney, representing the applicant, explained the problem with the submission was due to the holidays and the short period of time allowed for the review of this project. Mr. Mooney stated he had not been allowed enough time for signatures as the purchaser was out of state as well as the seller. 12-17-84 P&Z Page 2 Chairman Dow asked if applicants objected to a continuance and Mr. Mooney assured him they did. Member Ross asked Ms. Chianese if there were problems other than the signature. Ms. Chianese indicated the plan was recommended for approval but the information on the development agreement was not complete. Mr. Ross asked the legal staff for advice as to whether or not the information submitted was sufficient. Mr. Frazier stated he had a problem with the development agreement because it had signatures on the agreement which do not appear anywhere else in the documentation for the project. Frazier stated as for the time deadlines, this should be discussed between the Board and the planning staff. Member Georg felt staff worked with late submittals frequently but perhaps a condition l approval should be used in this case. Chairman Dow asked for a motion to continue this item to the end of the agenda so the petitioner could get with Mr. Frazier and Ms. Tripoli in order to see if the problem could be rectified tonight. Mr. Bruce Linscott, purchaser of the property, stated he was here tonight and would be able to give the project any signatures or take them off the plat if desired. He stated he was here to insure the documentation was completed. Chairman Dow suggested placing the item at the end of the agenda and that the staff get with the developer to insure everything was appropriate. Motion by Gilfillan, second by Ross. Motion to move the item to the end of the agenda. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #63-84 ERIN COURT TRIPLEX - RM SITE PLAN Approved with the Consent Agenda. #49-84C TIMBERLINE PLAZA, PHASE 1 - Final Ms. Albertson -Clark came forward and gave the staff presentation to familiarize the Board with the location of the site and the proposed project. She stated the project is approvable according to the Land Development Guidance System and staff recommends approval. Mr. Joe Frye, representing ZVFK, stated he was available for any questions concerning the project. Member Gilfillan stated he had removed the item from the Consent Agenda because of improper elevations submitted with the application. Member Brown stated she wanted to know which type of materials would be used on the project. Mr. Frye stated the project intended to use earth -gray masonry material with reflective glazing. This led to a short discussion among the various members concerning the project and the appropriateness of the elevations. Member Georg stated he would like to see elevations without the landscaping. Motion by Georg, second by Crews; motion to approve Timberline Plaza, Phase d - Final after a finding that it met all elements of the Land Development Guidance System. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. • 12-17-84 P&Z 0 0 Page 3 #64-84 SHERWOOD MEWS PUD - Preliminary and Final Ms. Kleckner gave a short staff presentation to familiarize the Board with the location of the project and the various aspects of the application. Mr. David Hartley, owner and developer, stated he felt the project met the objectives of the community. He explained the PUD process was being used to allow him to subdivide the piece of property since he could have built the project under the existing zoning. Mr. Hartley stated he was willing to answer any questions from the Planning and Zoning Board. Member Brown stated she had removed the item from the Consent Agenda because it is requesting both preliminary and final approval. Ms. Brown asked about the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and why the applicant was using crushed stone on a portion of the driveway. Mr. Hartley stated the reason the crushed stone was being used was to maintain permeability on the site. He stated he intended to use a T-111 plywood siding with a rust color stain to insure compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighbor- hood. Mr. Hartley also stated the color scheme would strike a good balance with the entire neighborhood. Ms. Brown asked if the siding on the back of the structure would be vertical and Mr. Hartley responded it would. He added it would mimic an existing unit across the alleyway. The rear elevation will not be seen very much by any other people than those across the alley. Ms. Brown asked if the chain link fence will be maintained and will there be a privacy fence on the east to insure privacy for the existing structure on the east. Mr. Hartley stated these items would be maintained. Mr. Dwayne Sitzman, next door resident to the project, indicated he had a problem with the height of the building. He requested the Board insure there be solar access for the structures to the north, east, and west of the project. Chairman Dow addressed Mr. Sitzman and stated the Board would request this information and then asked Ms. Kleckner if information concerning solar access had been reviewed. Ms. Kleckner stated the issue had been reviewed and solar access for the existing structures in the area would not be hindered by this project. Dow asked Ms. Kleckner if there had been any complaints from any other neighbors. Ms. Kleckner stated the neighborhood consensus at the meeting held for input was that the two story building as proposed would fit into the neighborhood. Ms. Kleckner added the alleyway gives sufficient access to the project according to City ordinances. Ms. Kleckner emphasized the solar access to the adjoining properties will not be hindered by the proposal. Member Ross questioned the placement of the building on the lots and felt a house with a Sherwood address should be visible from Sherwood Street. Ms. Kleckner responded the existing zoning allows the construction of the project and it is an appropriate density within the neighborhood. Mr. Bruce Brown, 425 N. Whitcomb, stated he wanted to support Mr. Hartley's request. He believed the project would do more for the neighborhood than anything else that has been proposed in the recent past. Ms. Beverly Trulio, 415 N. Sherwood, was concerned about the subdivision of the property. She stated her concern dealt with the already small lots in the neighborhood being subdivided to a further degree. Her concern was that it would set a dangerous precedent for the neighborhood. 12-17-84 P&Z Page 4 Mr. Bruce Taylor, 415 N. Sherwood, stated he understood the property could be built on now and questioned why the petitioner was going through the PUD process. Staff explained the project was going through the process only to allow the subdivision of the land. Mr. Taylor also questioned the amount of frontage on the alleyway and on Sherwood Street. Ms. Kleckner stated the frontage for the lot would be 67 feet. Member Ross asked if the structures were getting their utility access from the front or back of the lot and Mr. Hartley stated all utilities would be coming from Sherwood Street but access for vehicles for the eastern building would be coming from Sherwood and for the western building from the alleyway. Chairman Dow stated the public input portion of the meeting concerning this item was closed and asked for a motion. Motion by Brown, second by Gilfillan; motion to approve Sherwood Mews - Preliminary and Final with the understanding it met all the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Upon a vote the motion carried 5-2; Ross and Georg voting no. Ross in icated he voted no because the project was not visible from Sherwood and was inappropriate. Member Georg voted nay for the same reasons. #146-79B EXTENSION OF RAINTREE PUD - Phase 1 Mr. Frank presented the application to the Planning and Zoning Board. He explained this was a request for a one year extension from August 19, 1984 to August 19, 1985. Mr. Frank explained why the item was coming before the Board. Mr. Dan E. King, applicant, 1512 Ticonderoga, was recognized. He stated the project had been approved in 1979 but it was not possible to build the project because of the recession. Mr. King stated he now has a buyer for the project with a contract contingent on the extension of the PUD. Mr. King asked the Board to extend the PUD until August 1985. Member Gilfillan asked why the delay in the request for extension. Mr. Frank stated there were a number of issues in bringing the PUD up to the existing engineering standards on the project and this had created the delay. He assured the Board the petitioner had filed the application for extension prior to the deadline in August 1984. Member Gilfillan voiced concern indicating he thought he could not support extension after extension on this project. As a compromise he could support an extension for 60-90 days if the petitioner agreed to go back through the new process for Planned Unit Developments. Member Brown indicated she would like to see the review of the items under the old PUD which were left up to staff, come through the Board. Mr. King stated he had to submit all these items and he is prepared to adhere to the new requirements on the project. Member Georg stated he had no problem with what he saw on the project plans. Mr. Georg felt the staff may be trying to usurp the prerogatives of the Planning and Zoning Board and would, therefore, support Ms. Brown's idea that the additional items needed for the project should come before the Board. Member Ross stated the item does have merit and the Board should rely on the plan approved in 1979. He stated he would have no trouble extending the time limit on the plan. 12-17-84 P&Z • 0 Page 5 Mr. Don Parsons, architect working on property to the south and east, was recognized and stated a number of utility items of this plan tie into the Raintree Commercial PUD. Chairman Dow asked what would happen to these improvements if the Raintree PUD were not extended and Mr. Frank replied all existing improvements would stay; however, he was not sure how the items tying into the Raintree Commercial Development would be dealt with. The project should probably be continued. Chairman Dow asked staff if the project was reviewed under the existing guidelines rather than the old guidelines. Mr. Frank responded the project was reviewed under the existing guidelines and it did meet all the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Mr. Frank added he didn't think further review would make the project better. The project was used as an example of good design by the staff. Mr. Frank did state any missing information would be reviewed by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion by Gilfillan, second by Simpson; motion to extend Raintree PUD, Phase 1, until March 17, 1985. Member Ross didn't know how reasonable a three-month extension would be for the project since winter construction could be difficult. Mr. Frank stated, in essence, the developer is requesting an eight -month extension because it would only be valid until August 19, 1985. Before the expiration of the approval the project will have to be substantially underway. Mr. Gilfillan asked to amend the motion to allow an extension of the PUD until August 19, 1985. Ms. Simpson agreed to the August 19, 1985 date also. Chairman Dow asked for clarification as to whether the Board wished to review the project information or retain review by the staff. Mr. Gilfillan stated he had no problem with the staff reviewing the information. Ms. Brown stated she would not vote for another extension of this project. If the project expires it will have to come through the PUD process as it exists today. Chairman Dow reiterated the motion and asked for a vote. Upon a vote the motion carried 5-2; Georg and Dow voting nay. Member Georg voted no because he felt it was a poor precedent and the applicant had acted in bad faith and Dow voted no because it was a poor precedent and he felt a new PUD should be submitted. 9-80H AMENDMENT TO THE ARENA PUD, PHASE 4, - THE MARIOTT HOTEL Alternate Larsen indicated he had a conflict of interest and excused himself from the discussion. Ms. Chianese explained the request for the amendment. She reviewed the material given to the staff and Board for the changes in the facade to the Mariott Hotel. Mr. Chuck Mabry, representing Mitchell and Company, came forward and explained the developer wished to make the roof lines compatible with what the homeowners in The Landings development wanted. He stated he had met with members of The Landings Homeowner's Association and had received approval of the new facade from that Association. 12-17-84 P&Z Page 7 #4-80D SCENIC VIEWS REZONING Approved on the Consent Agenda. #66-84 CLYDESDALE PARK PUD MASTER PLAN - COUNTRY REFERRAL Ms. Albertson -Clark reviewed the proposed Master Plan with the Planning and Zoning Board. She stated the overall density is approximately 3.9 dwelling units per acre but has varying densities ranging from less than two dwelling units per acre to over six dwelling units per acre on the site. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated the project complies with the Urban Growth Area Agree- ment between the City and the County. She stated staff was recommending the County approve the project. Mr. Mohammed Raid, engineer for the project, addressed the Board. Alternate Larsen asked Mr. Raid about the phasing of utilities for the site. Mr. Raid responded he believed the utilties would be placed on the site at an appropri- ate time. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated the project was immediately adjacent to State Highway 14 which would not have to be widened by the developer as the State Department of Transportation considers it at an arterial level at the present time. Motion by Gilfillan, second by Crews; motion to recommend the County approve the Clydesdale Park PUD Master Plan. Upon a vote the motion carried 5-2; Brown and Simpson voting nay. Member Brown felt the project was not appropriate at this time and it is premature for the area. Ms. Simpson agreed with Ms. Brown in her vote. #61-84 OAKPARK PUD - PRELIMINARY AND FINAL Ms. Chianese reviewed the location of the Oakpark PUD with the Board. She stated the staff did not encourage the submission of both preliminary and final plans at the same time but the ordinances did not prevent this from happening. She indicated that late in the afternoon of December 17 it was discovered two signatures were missing from the plat for the site. This could present a problem. Chairman Dow asked if the certification on the plat had been signed. Mr. Ken Frazier responded the certification was signed by the applicant's attorney; however, he stated two signatures were missing from the plat and would be required before the plat was filed. Mr. Ron Cappello, applicant, explained this project had been under considera- tion for approximately one year. He explained the details of the project to the Planning and Zoning Board and stated the project was an attempt to address the neighborhood concerns and the people who would be living in the project. He stated the parking is beneath the project for the most part which would decrease the impact of paved areas on the site. He explained the design had been sensitive to the ideal of saving two large trees on the site. He emphasized the design was made to compliment the downtown sector of the City as it exists today. He stated the site also compliments Library Park to the immediate east of the project. Mr. Cappello stated the project mix is one, two, and three bedroom units. There will be two elevators in the six story building. Mr. Cappello emphasized the six story building is not a monolith but was designed to fit into the neighborhood. 12-17-84 P&Z Page 8 Mr. CappeVo emphasized that the project had had a great deal of thought go into it. He then went through a number of slides on the project. During the presentation Mr. Cappello stated the facade of the project would be stucco with a western tan coloring. He used slides to show how the colc,- scheme for the project would fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Cappello then showed slides of the massing model to explain the compatibility of the project with the neighborhood. Ms. Simpson requested the address of the building to the north of the project which was being saved. Various technical questions were discussed by the Board at this point. Ms. Chianese gave the staff recommendation. She stated staff recommended approval of this project as it appeared to be of the scale that was being recommended in the downtown area. Ms. Chianese reviewed the impact of the project on the views of surrounding areas. She stated in the summer the existing vegetation in the neighborhood would prevent people from seeing the building. During the winter months the project did not appear to have that much of a visual impact on surrounding uses. She stated the project had been sensitive to the view along the streetscape and that, for the most part, that view would be maintained. The solar access was reviewed for the project. During the worst case there will be some shading on the two existing buildings to the north. Ms. Chianese emphasized that because of the shading on December 21 the points requested for solar access were not given for the project. Ms. Chianese emphasized what was important was that there is a conflict of the solar access requirements with the goals and objectives of the City of Fort Collins. She then reviewed the neighborhood scale of the project and stated the staff agreed the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated the impact of the height is minimized because of the manner in which the high buildings were placed on the interior of the site. Ms. Chianese also reviewed some comments made at the neighborhood meeting and stated items brought up at the meeting had been reviewed by the staff. Mr. Gilfillan asked what could be done to control dust during construction. Ms. Chianese stated this would be handled with the development agreement. Mr. Bruce Brown, 425 N. Whitcomb, was recognized. He read a letter from Jim Welch (see attached letter). Mr. Welch's letter dealt with solar access. Mr. Brown then addressed the Board on his own. He stated he lived on North Whitcomb and was in the solar business. He believed the three hours of solar access which would be blocked on one building and four hours of solar access blocked on the next house would be detrimental to those uses. He stated the heating bills on these buildings may go up as much as 3 to 10 percent which is not insignificant percentages for older buildings. 12-17-84 P&Z i 0 Page 9 Ms. Kay Theodoratus, 726 Mathews, was recognized by Chairman Dow. She stated she was on the Core Area Neighborhood Board. They were concerned with the loss of nine low income units from the housing stock of the City. She asked the Board to consider this loss prior to the approval of the project. Mr. Ross quizzed Ms. Theodoratus as to whether or not there shouldn't be better housing in the area. She stated "Yes, but there needs to be affordable hous- ing also." Mr. Ross asked if low income housing was being done away with by this project and Ms. Theodoratus stated nine low income units with rents of less than $225/month were being eliminated by this project. Ms. Simpson asked Ms. Theodoratus if the Core Area Neighborhood organization had a stand on the project. Ms. Theodoratus said it did not. Mr. Mutch stated he hoped the CORE Area Neighborhood organization would bring up its concern about low income housing during the development of the Laurel School Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Mutch emphasized the plan could be used to enunciate the goals of the neighborhood to the City Council. Karen Waddell, 309 Garfield, student of historic preservation, was recognized. She stated she finds problems with the entire project. She stated she does not believe the mid -rise an appropriate use in this area. Ms. Waddell also read a letter from Linda Seals (see attached letter). Ms. Seals' letter questioned the scale of the building. Mr. Bill Kingsbury, representing the Downtown Development Authority, stated the DDA supports the project because it will support the downtown. Mr. Jerry Siegal, 221 Mathews, stated he felt the uses on the property at the present time were an eyesore. He would rather look at this project. His property is immediately adjacent to the project site. Mr. Siegal emphasized he wanted people in the downtown area. Chairman Dow asked the staff to respond to some of the comments made by the public. Ms. Chianese stated there was a question about solar access which was investigated by the staff. It was staff's recommendation the problem with shading was not acute and, although points could not be granted with the Land Development Guidance System because of the solar shading, it would not have a major impact on surrounding uses. Member Gilfillan stated the applicant and staff had not overlooked solar access even though Mr. Brown thinks it might have been overlooked. Mr. Gilfillan stated Mr. Brown did not even stay for the conclusion of the discussion. Chairman Dow questioned the problem of all documentation not being submitted. Mr. Frazier stated all necessary documents must be filed. The final plat has two signatures missing. Mr. Frazier stated he would ask the Board to defer to the planning staff to determine whether or not this was a critical issue. This led to a discussion of the problem concerning the missing signatures. Member Crews stated this was the second time tonight a project was coming in lacking signatures. 12-17-84 P & Z Page 10 Mr. Mutch indicated the two documents in question had been submitted by the applicants after the normal cut-off date. He emphasized Ms. Tripoli had had her hands full in reviewing the documentation for this project and the other projects in questions. He stated the Development Coordinator had found, at approximately 4:00 on Monday afternoon, that the information was missing. Mr. Mutch read sections 99-2 and 99-4 of the Fort Collins' Code of Ordinances concerning the approval of plats. Ms. Brown questioned when the information in question lacking the two signatures was received by the staff. Mr. Cappello stated he had submitted the material at noon on December 17, 1984. The Planning and Zoning Board then went on to other questions. Ms. Simpson asked if there were any plans for the one-way of Remington. Ms. Chianese said there were not. Mr. Crews assumed the project would be built in phases and Mr. Cappello stated it would not be built in phases but all at once. Mr. Georg stated this was a better proposal than the high rise that had been proposed and approved on the site at a previous date. Mr. Georg stated the staff report was critical in that it said at one point it was out of scale with the neighborhood. Mr. Georg stated he thought the project was too high. It is not in the proper scale with the neighborhood. He stated the staff recommendation points that the height of the structure is a compromise. Mr. Larsen stated this is a good concept with a good level of scale. Mr. Larsen continued that any discussion of scale is subjective. He stated he had problems with the project. Ms. Simpson stated she liked the way the developer had tried to maintain the historic buildings and finds the entire project to be a pleasing mix. Motion by Ross, second by Gilfillan; motion to approve Oakpark - Preliminary and approve Oakpark - Final contingent on meeting all requirements within twelve days (by December 28, 1984) and grant variances for items 30 and 31 in the Land Development Guidance System. Mr. Ross stated if the developer fails in getting the plat signed by December 28, only the Final approval would be void. Upon a vote the motion carried 6-1, Mr. Georg voting nay. Chairman Dow recessed the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Chairman Dow reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m. #65-84 FIRST INTERSTATE PUD - Preliminary Continued at the request of the petitioner until January 28, 1985. 12-17-84 P & Z • Page 11 #45-84B RENAISSANCE CENTER PUD - PRELIMINARY Ms. Albertson -Clark gave a short presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board to familiarize the Board with this project. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated this was the third time the Board would review the project. There had been changes on the project. The staff had not required a neighborhood meeting because the elements of contention between the neighborhood and the developer had not changed since previous submission. Mr. Frank Vaught, ZVFK, architect representing the applicant, gave the Plann- ing and Zoning Board a presentation. He stated the developer had tried to take into consideration the thoughts of the neighbors and the Planning and Zoning Board in developing a new plan for the site. He stated the goal of the latest revision was to maintain the bulk and height of the building, and to meet those comments made by the neighbors and the Board. He explained the changes from the original plan. Mr. Vaught showed how the reorientation of two buildings had changed the plan. He then reviewed the elevations of the buildings with the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the total number of units on the third floor had been reduced to twenty-three and that seven- ty-three percent of all units would now be on the ground or second floors of the buildings. Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the staff presentation stating that ten additional parking spaces had been added to the site. She stated staff had reviewed the plans and feels that it does meet the goals of the community. Ms. Albert- son -Clark reviewed surrounding uses with the Board. She stated the project is appropriate in terms of density and design and the staff is recommending approval of the project. Chairman Dow called for the public input section of the hearing. He recog- nized Mr. E. J. F. Early, 1822 Indian Meadows. Mr. Early discussed the prob- lems he had with the project and showed the petitions he had collected con- cerning the site. Mr.Early stated a number of people were at the meeting tonight in opposition to the project and asked the people in opposition in the audience to stand. Approximately 30 people stood up. Mr. Early stated these people were in opposition to the plan and in order to have a brief presentation and not be redundant, the neighborhood organization had asked different people to talk about the specifics of the opposition to the project. Mr. Early asked that Mr. Gary Goss be recognized. Mr. Gary Goss, 223 Mathews, stated he would address the density of the pro- ject. He stated the project is approximately twenty-three dwelling units per acre gross and thirty-five dwelling units per acre net. Mr. Goss stated this will probably be one of the most dense projects in the City of Fort Collins. He then talked about the massing of the buildings. The buildings will overpower other units in the area. Mr. Goss also asked the Planning and Zoning Board recognize the smoke stacks on the tops of the buildings. He then showed, through the use of slides, the affects on the horizon of the mass of the buildings. He also showed an example of what would be acceptable to the neighborhood. 12-17-84 P & Z Page 12 Mr. Don Eddy, 2201 Stanford Road, was recognized by Chairman Dow. He asked for denial of this project stating that on October 19 he'd given a pollution report about this project to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Eddy talked about the problem that wood burning would bring to the area. He stated the impact of wood burning on the neighborhood would be adverse and serious. Mr. C. Gerald Warren, 308 Dartmouth Trail, was recognized by the chair. He discussed the traffic problem which would be created by this project. He stated it was very complicated. During good weather traffic stays about the same. He stated approximately 1000 cars and bicycles per hour could be expected between 8 and 9 a.m. During bad weather this traffic loading in- creases to 1048 cars per hour between 7:45 and 8 a.m. Mr. Warren spoke of the problems with bad weather and pointed to his survey taken on December 14, 1984, during a snowstorm. He stated a significant amount of school traffic is on this road. He asked what would happen when the traffic load increases: Would it not make traffic more dangerous in the area? In summary Mr. Warren stated the neighborhood feels the project has not addressed traffic problems adequately and the project should be denied. Member Ross quizzed Mr. Warren on the number of vehicles per hour. Mr. Warren stated he had counted during fifteen minute intervals and extrapolated the number of vehicles during that fifteen minute period for an hourly total. Billy Garrett, 1804 Indian Meadows, summarized the petitions which had been circulated among the neighbors. Ms. Garrett also criticized the Planning and Zoning Board for the time of the meeting of December 17, 1984, because of the holiday season and many people could not be present because of other committments. Mr. Bob Swerer, 2409 Brookwood Drive, was recognized by the chair. He stated he had lived in the area for a great many years and in 1951 had seen approxi- mately eighteen inches of water in the area that was planned to be developed. The flood plain problem had not been addressed. He stated he did not think people should be allowed to build in the flood plain. Ms. Sue Babcock, 1394 Adriel Drive, addressed the Planning and Zoning Board and asked the Board to deny the proposal again as they had twice previously. Mr. J. Early was recognized to give the summation for the neighborhood. He stated the neighbors had discussed alternate uses. Mr. Early stated he thought that something akin to the Indian Meadows project would be an attribute to the neighborhood. Mr. Early also stated a senior citizens center or a bigger park would be acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Early emphasized the neighborhood does want the land to develop but not at the intensity proposed by this project. He stated he was looking for some type of compromise and emphasized the neighborhood wants the Board to give the project a very strong negative vote. He stated this was the third time in four months the project had come before the Board and, if the project is permitted, it will harm the surrounding neighborhood. Member Gilfillan asked to see the street elevations of the project. After the elevations were shown by the project architect Mr. Gilfillan asked if the project was three or four stories in height. Mr. Vaught stated three stories with a loft on the top floor. 12-17-84 P & Z Page 13 Member Simpson stated one of the issues bothering her was the proximity to the street. Ms. Simpson asked why the project architect had not changed this element of design. Mr. Vaught stated the proximity of the street to the pro- ject had not been changed because the landscaping on the project had been upgraded. This led to a number of other questions by the Planning and Zoning Board to Mr. Vaught. Member Ross asked if the flood plain had been taken into consideration. Mr. Vaught stated they are aware of the flood plain around Spring Creek. There had been improvements to the flood plain and their engineer would discuss this at final approval. Mr. Ross stated it appears the fire station and Indian Meadow units are lower than the proposed units. Mr. Vaught indicated this was correct. Member Ross asked if there were slides concerning the interior portions of the project and Mr. Vaught responded the interior and exterior spaces are approximately the same. He stated the covered parking does not have garage doors. Member Brown questioned the advisability of having only two trash dumpsters and Mr. Vaught noted there were only two but there would be more than one dumpsters in each pad. Ms. Brown questioned distance from the north building to the recreational area and Mr. Vaught responded approximately 350 feet. Ms. Brown asked about the function of the central core and Mr. Vaught added it would be a pedestrian area. Member Gilfillan asked how many smoke stacks were proposed for the project and Mr. Vaught did not know the exact number of smoke stacks but they had tried to combine chimneys. Mr. Vaught also stated they intended to address the emission problem but he could not discuss that at this time. Member Georg stated the motion he had made to deny the project in October had been made because of the issue of bulk. He stated he believed the petitioner had addressed these concerns. Motion by Georg, second by Gilfillan; motion to approve Renaissance Center PUD - Preliminary subject to the following conditions: 1) The westernmost building must be redesigned (stepped down on ends to two stories) to be compatible with the other buildings on the site. Upon a vote the motion carried 5-2; Simpson and Brown voting no. Member Simpson indicated her concerns had not been addressed. The two long buildings represented too much mass. Member Brown felt the site plan was too tight, buildings too massive, and the amenities were not an integral part of the site plan. Member Simpson stated she would not vote for this project unless the number of units was reduced. Member Georg stated he was not asking the developer to reduce the number of units, just to make the units more compatible in their design. #62-84 SPRUCE HOMES - GROUP HOME Item withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. #4-80C SCENIC VIEWS PUD - PRELIMINARY Ms. Kleckner gave a short presentation to familiarize the Planning and Zoning Board with the project. 12-17-84 P & Z Page 14 Mr. Jim Gefroh, architect, was recognized by the chair and stated he was the agent for Blair Kiefer on the Scenic Views PUD. Mr. Gefroh related the history behind this PUD. In 1980 a PUD had been approved for approximately 8.5 dwelling units per acre on 22.8 acres of land. Mr. Gefroh showed the proposed site plan that was approved by the Board at that time. He stated the old plan had a number of constraints placed on it. He said the old plan was unworkable as approved. Mr. Gefroh then turned his attention to the proposed redesign of the project. He stated they had done a traffic study and the project would have a number of improvements off -site that cost about $70,000. He stated the project also has a day care facility on the site, a vast pedestrian system, a pool, as well as other amenities for the residents. The development will have dwelling units clustered in four- and six-plex buildings. He then turned his attention to the active open space for the project. He related the developer had tried to obtain a sense of buffering in this plan from the surrounding uses. The major issue the developer wishes to talk about with the Board tonight was the way in which the point chart had been filled out. Mr. Gefroh stated one of the major issues was the employment center. The developer wants twenty points for an employment center while the staff does not want to give any points for the employment center. Mr. Gefroh stated there were 82 people who worked within 3000 feet of the project at the present time on the CSU Foothills Campus. He stated with the construction of the Equine Center over 100 people will be within the 3000 foot limit. Mr. Blair Kiefer, developer, related the history of the project to the Plan- ning and Zoning Board. Mr. Kiefer requested the Board give close attention to the request he is making for this project. Chairman Dow called upon Ms. Kleckner to make the presentation of the staff recommendation. Ms. Kleckner stated the petitioner had done a good job with the open space on the project. She stated staff does not feel the project density is appro- priate, especiallyin light of the Land Development Guidance System. She stated that, if the Planning and Zoning oar were to approve the project tonight, it would need more landscaping. She added the staff and petitioner do disagree about the point chart. Staff feels this is not an appropriate place or time for this density of development. She stated the employment center has always been applied absolutely and staff could not grant the request for 20 points nor for 10 points as originally requested on this item. Ms. Kleckner stated staff recommend denial of this project based on the information supplied within the recommendation in that the Land Development Guidance System points have not been met for this density project. Chairman Dow asked for a definition of an employment center. Ms. Kleckner explained the zoning requirements and the definition of employment center. She stated the employment center would need at least 100 employees on any one shift and be within 3000 feet of the proposed project. The CSU Foothills Campus does not meet this criteria for this project. Member Ross asked if in a similar sitution the Planning and Zoning Board could approve such a request. Ms. Kleckner stated this was a policy consideration for the Board and was not a question that could be answered by planning staff. 12-17-84 P & Z Page 16 Member Brown questioned the reserve park the developer was receiving points for under the LDGS Point System and Mr. Gefroh stated he was requesting points for a reserve park in the immediate vicinity. Ms. Brown questioned if the daycare center he was claiming five points for on the LOGS were within the site. Mr. Gefroh stated the daycare center was on the site. Member Georg stated the points on the density chart were only guidelines and he Hi uaieais with the points given to this plan but, overall, the plan was acceptable. Motion by Georg, second by Ross; motion to approve Scenic Views PUD - Prelim- inary with the following conditions: 1) All off -site street improvements shall be paid for by the developer. 2) Before final submission the developer must enhance the landscaping and architectural renderings of the project. 3) A variety of building facades and types will be incorporated into the plan. 4) The developer will follow all staff comments. Upon a vote the motion carried 5-2; Crews and Brown voting no. Crews reasoned he would argue with staff over CSU as an employment center. Member Brown felt it was premature development with too much undeveloped area that could change the atmosphere of the site. #131-79F FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE PIER PUD Member Larsen indicated he would be abstaining from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Chianese gave a short presentation concerning the request for the Fifth Amendment to the Pier PUD. Mr. Vaught, ZVFK, was recognized by the chair and thanked the Board for con- sidering the Amendment. He stated a landscape screening between the twelve- plex and the store had been incorporated into the plan since the last meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. There are now 25 feet between buildings where there once had been 15 feet. There is also more buffering along Harmony Road. Hopefully the questions not answered at last month's meeting were now answered. Mr. Vaught stated they had tried to address the noise abatement for the dwelling units. He stated the most restrictive requirements for noise within a unit had come from the State and they required a 120 foot setback from the center line of an arterial. Motion by Crews, second by Gilfillan; motion to approve The Pier PUD Fifth Amendment. Upon a vote the motion failed 3-4; Georg, Brown, Simpson and Dow voting nay. Member Georg felt project was entirely too packed, too close to commercial area to east, and not a good plan. Members Brown and Dow concurred and Member Simpson felt there were too many units. Mr. Georg stated this was not a good plan and it needed to be improved. Although the plan had been approved at one time it needed other work because City standards had been changed. 12-17-84 P & Z . Page 17 Motion by Brown, second ment. Upon a vote the voting no. by Simpson; motion to deny The Pier PUD Fifth Amend - motion carried 4-3 with Ross, Crews, and Gilfillan #35-84A DRAKE CROSSING AUTO CENTER PUD - AMENDMENT Ms. Chianese gave a short presentation concerning the change in the facade proposed for the Auto Center. Chairman Dow asked for an explanation of the change in facade through the use of the slides prepared by the staff. Ms. Chianese explained the need for decreasing the width of the arch on the pro- perty. Mr. Charles Anderson, the petitioner, believed everything was explained to the Planning and Zoning Board in a letter from Mark Runge. The arches, as proposed, hindered the exit and entrance into the bays. He stated the elimina- tion of the windows would cut down on any possible vandalism. Motion by Crews, second by Simpson; motion to approve Drake Crossing Auto Center Amendment. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #50-84A SOMERSET PUD - FINAL Chairman Dow stated the Board would now consider Somerset PUD which had been continued from the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Dow asked Mr. Frazier if everything had been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements. Mr. Frazier stated the Development Agreement submitted by the developer now meets the appropriate standards set by the City of Fort Collins. Motion by Brown, second by Ross; motion to approve Somerset PUD - Final. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. Chairman Dow adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m., December 18, 1984. MEMORWRI in jtah. Planning Oirectur r -.wo /nrr;c Y 11.'ol , ievF'.1Jpment Coordinator/ f 4TY December 1.7, 1984 ;rennet,.. Signed POCUM905 in,? Following = the documentation of the notiftnati.on given to _:r a, and n5soniates regarding the submYtal dat c for :signed icuma -a relating to Somer.e't O.L.D.: Qatcber 0, 1984.memo from 'Curt to all interested parties -clording the submittal deadline for e'1l Real Documents. OCY attached.) 2. A ropy of the ,cover memo accompanying rinvelopmunt agreements when they leave this office is also W ached. This month',: e,_ 311 dated 1'-13 -84 an the date ,.gai.ed for the nee'ments to be returned to me. 3, Fhe n1raemenks for Somerset P.L.D. were not, '.lamed in on Nur5d,ay, December 13, 1094, so at 9:01 e,m. in Friday, December 14, 1984, I called Bob Mooney to find out what the problem was. He informed me that he had not cant out the documents in a timely manner in order to receive them Backin time, but that Cathy had allowed him extra tine to ,..get the documents turned in. Cathy was not in at th_.t time, so I: had to merit a while before I could talk to her. She indicated that no one had discussed delaying the submittal with her. I then called Bob Mooney baek but he was unavailable, sr I left a. message for him to return my call. He returned my call at 1=30 p.m. on Friday (during the work.sess.ion) leaving a message that he would be out until. 4 P.M. 4. At the work.session R,endy Larsen handed me the daVelopment agreement for Rwerset F.J.D. It had been altered and th.e altnrations had not been initialed by the parties entering into the agreement, no I could not accept it. I explained our policy of regul-In, that nigned final documents be submitted an One Thurs&7 prior to the worl,5essi.on and that they 'Lars -en er,d H',noc.` were in"violation" of that policy, and thatwe would not accept them late in the future. I also told him I had to have all documents no later than 1' noon on Monday. 1 left work at 030 on Friday and since: Bob Mooney', note said he would not be in until. 4 p.m., I did not attempt to call him. At 9,27 today (12-17--K ), 1 called Bob Mooney to relay to him t 1 on I hwd f! 9 Jid r .1T Id n e r LA d r e r;of, in u noorl �!O'.Ai d r) j h I d �o 'I "! - " j t h - r CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF PLANNING 6 CEVELOPMENT. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TO : All Interested Parties FROM: Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development U ✓` \ DATE: October 15, 1984 RE : Submittal Deadline for all Final Documents Due to past problems, the staff will no longer be presenting any final planning item (i.e. RM and RH conversions, non -conforming uses, group homes, annexation and zoning, rezonings, Master PUD plans, final PUD plans, final subdivision plats, etc.) to the Planning and Zoning Board until all final documents.have been appropriately signed and submitted by its applicant. Final documents include signed mylars of the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations; Site and Landscape Covenants; annexation and subdivision plats; Development Agreement; Utility Plans; off -site easements documents, etc. All final documents must be signed and delivered to this office no later than the Thursday before the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Projects not meeting this deadline will be removed from the Agenda and placed on the next month's regularly scheduled meeting. I would recommend that in the future all applicants contact the Project Planner for an exact listing of the required final planning documents in order to avoid any misunderstandings. Thank you for your attention on this matter. OFFICE OF PLANNING IV 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 . Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • f303) 221-6750 & DEVELOPMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator DATE: Please sign, seal, date and return all copies of this agreement to me no later than If you need a copy now, please make your own. You will receive a signed copy when the project documents are filed with the County. BT/kb Attachments EVOR?^.1Cll'M TV Sam Mutch, Planning Director FROM: !Ronnie Fri„io!.i, De'dcl.onme.nt. Nordina#or DATE. December i?, 3.9:64 RE: GaKpar-k Final Signed Dccuments Oakp:r!lu'r,nd in a pia! that was incomplete in no muon as the required * gneluras were not ell aff i;.ed to ,.he plot. We require That all documents be compieled before we iout a project be heard by the Scord. it ja, aet_rmined during r. 7onfor,nce with the 9_siatant City Attorney, that because the _,ccument was not mr ele and bacauae we have 0 policy ty rcqui c cominlete documert4, that si:aif putt this its, front the agenda of tc i;ht'r, Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. T am therefore requesting hat the rnering of Supark R.( .0, Final, he ar0pannd until the den" r- ._^tr meeting when 7he wacumnnt; nhouid bc -so`plote. C� 202 Remington Suite 2 Fort Collins. CO 80524 December 17, 1984 Members of the Planning and Zoning Board of Directors The City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Colorado Re: Oak Park P.U.D. I am writing to you not only on behalf of the owners of the historic structure at 202 Remington, the Mc Huqh-Andrews House, but also on behalf, I feel, of all citizens of Fort Collins who care about retaining the historic significance of landmarks in our city. This group of citizens feels that the proposed height and loca- tion of the mid -rise for the Oak Park P.U.D. will adversely affect both the visual integrity of the McHugh -Andrews House and the neighborhood as a whole. The proposed height and loca- tion of the mid -rise will also limit the solar access rights of several structures to the north of the project. We feel that the McHugh -Andrews House is a community resource for historical preservation "which, due to (its) unique loca- tion and singular physical characteristics, represents an established, familiar and significant visual feature of the neighborhood, community, (and) city" (Ordinance 6, Chapter 69 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins). We appeal to you to take the City's own landmark preservation intentions into con- sideration when you consider all of the impacts of the Oak Park P.U.D. As you are aware, the McHugh -Andrews House was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in December 1978 and the Local Register by City Ordinance in August 1983. The building is also located adjacent to an historical district, Old Town. I feel that the Old Town project is a good example of how old and new can be blended together to create a viable combination of usefulness and visual appeal. The Old Town project has care- fully matched building styles and building height to create a Page 7 December 17, 1984 pleasing view. I feel that this can at least be expected from the Oak Park P.U.D., to uphold the standards of the redevelopment of downtown Fort Collins. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Yours sincerely, Dec. 14, 1984 Tim Dow, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Board City of Ft. Collins Ft. Collins, Colo. 80522 Dear Sir, This week your board is considering the PUD application for the Oat, Park Condiminiums located near downtown Ft. Collins. I understand that these apartments will shade several homes blocking their access to solar energy. Apparently the City Planning Department is aware of this access problem but still has recommended going ahead with the project. As a owner of a home in the downtown area and a solar businessman, I support increased housing in the downtown area. However, I do not believe it is necessary to trade off solar access, a valuable community resource, in order to achieve this goal. As a result, I would like to ask of your committee to not approve this PUD application without carefully considering the use and protection of solar energy. I urge you to evaluate other design considersations for this project which will both provide the necessary housing and allow solar access to the adjacent landowners. Sincerely yours, Jim Welch 318 Whedbee St. Ft. Collins, Colo. 00524 1558 Riverside Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 482-9507 December 14, 1984 City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 ATTN: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD David Gilfillan Don Crews Tim Dow Dennis Georg Gary Ross Ingrid Simpson Sharon Brown Randy Larsen RE: SCENIC VIEWS P.U.D. Dear Board Members: log cEFROH .A-1;�7ES IM ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS 555 Howes Street Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 (303) 493-1080 The following additional information is submitted on behalf of the applicant in support of criterion f of the Scenic Views Density Chart. The map enclosed outlines the area of the Foothills Campus adjacent to the Scenic Views property and in which are employed at the present time a minimum of 443 full time people. Of those 443 full time people, 82 work in buildings within 3000 ft. of the property boundary. Much discussion has centered around the Equine Research Center proposed across Overland Trail from this P.U.D. The following facts should be noted: 1. The project has received the approval of CSU and its governing bodies. 2. Final design and construction documents are complete. 3. The selection of a construction manager is under consideration. 4. The anticipated construction start as we understand will be March of 1985. 5. When complete, the Center will employee on a full time basis 150 people. It is the feeling of the applicant that since employment at the Foothills Campus will reach 593 full time people of which 232 will be employed within 3000 ft. of the Scenic Views site, the spirit of criterion f is achieved. City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 1984 Page 2 BREAKDOWN OF EMPLOYEE LOCATIONS Area 8: Area 9 & 10: Area II: Area 14: Area 19 & 20: Engineering Research Center Presently 9 91 Atmospheric Science & Solar Research Village Presently 9 170 Colorado State Forest Service Presently 10 40 Communicable Disease Center Presently (? 87 Animal Research Center Equine Research Center Presently (t 55 Projected 9 150 The information is submitted based on discussions with Colorado State University and Research Staff associated with the Foothills Campus. Your consideration of this information is appreciated. Respectfully .fames A. Gefro Project Planner kam enc. 4 2 ,f .. rn Di MILLI - onLOINGS En of Fr cau:+i wnrz � 22_., \ 71F dam 4 ENG rvEERIN `_ ,"v ' �piMOSf ESE ARCM C.rviER ` \ _ may_ 1. '6 1' REff<RCN��Ijjll�EN1 L: I I 7 I oPs MAN FIELD 170 a J w e 4� r0 91� 9' 10 N PESECN �� � � • � � VILLAANGE Jl .l Op I FOPESLOO SERVICES c= / G OOO� GVAND i4 O 21 55 +15a(E.RC.I � J E%aEnrnEvinU.. °p �\ ; ,— OECN PEt6—�� iF NIMAL SEPVICt:} 1340 1 ' CO MV �ENitR q EPSF. 14Ci 87 \I a R TY b wnlER IAN% J* Ali, 15 ADD STATE �j �U - , �❑ vU o � t -L \ e VC TEAINAflY MEDICINE/ \` PNIMAL� IRESE PCN LflC ' 9 / SCENIC VIEWS P.U.D. `1 EQUINE CENTER 3 FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT _ FOOTHILLS CAMPUS l 18 DENSITY CHART -- - %laxlmuln ( ,crned � Critericn Credit if All wgllincl ilnitrr lln: W Inln Credit I a 'c 1l 2o'; 20 W e 10 —0- 20°6 ea....1.,1�:�„�.:r.r»I�.� .rl..r�r., 20 _ 1— g 5"r0 J;LL,.1,.1 r, [:Inl,i<uT [nrrlr, 5 �csn e, I., r-,!j, —o- 20°o n �1 —O_ i ..v:l �n li.-I rVrS�C�. c1 C.�h. •'. 1. lantlav �,. rri.n�;jl.. ...1 �.� rrxi 1 1 < II I)ryl 11 11 1 /. 3Vo.0 - t •S .rI .��I Ira VI. li 1 � t. � _n— 1 r 1` -n. ul 1 r n ,.. n, : nea ry 20a IIIIII I�1:r,.I T 1I ..I trot,. �:�...: I..... 1 m.r 21 - : e...l i ,n 1 •, n„r ���I. I 1 I. �Co.u111 r 1 l) I i.ir nr rl.. 1'ul ir. ol'n.; lo1.' 4.� �I..r .r.l r. Ar'. I..I. i it Iwr.= ilii.. r: ii l'. -n.i. nilrr .rrv... rrl ♦;'.IY (... .r. r.rl.ir I r,. .w .ar.0 1 1 C. 11 .I 11w 1 I i:i..In rxlr.. ril lax IYI .e n .0 11 1- 11 I n.}<flpal:rl C 1 ' 1 11 1 I ir�. zI rl O5 `c 32 Type A Units m ,I 210 al,.r,.r rr1- ,LofCSp:,,t,1111.0 Cwnl +ru .a..: e..1 v-1'• nl.v lr n:r.... 7.6 n ine sne or aawc,l or eae N or rn nrpp::c nml.4nanl Vll:1 1111 1 n..v ry I w:,:. nn. rl ka ln.''ol WwrM� J`, -- fo. are ngo.ma;yc:u�9 nuc,nr nerve.xovlml...nmi.n.ono-nlcr.wa...o.;;ur.,x..ewnomre orn ssxrouanorslowe.so lmis rn - cresewan 5t inie. . .:In r.lni qr ...na.,rNO. .eol Doer or Uloa -1 11 f,-c Il.rriwf �i,., 5 our. .i a.ciV(l, or Ur a.[.vr.enlr n.11 .. 1- or 1 .rl 1 1.vin:n llr .l y.b...p,r, 04 Lclaa o 9w _. n1tr o c 1 v .n o.uvrJrnr I TOTAL 193.6 CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATION PRESS RELEASE For Immediate Release December 11, 1984 The December meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board has been scheduled one week earlier than usual and will be held on Monday, December 17, at 6:30 in the Council Chambers. Contact: Jan Shepard Community Development Dept. 221-6750 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY V DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATION 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303)221-6750 12-17-84 P&Z Page 6 Motion by Simpson, second by Ross; motion to approve the amendment to the Arena PUD, Phase 4, - The Mariott Hotel as presented. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. At this point Mr. Mutch asked for a recess for technical problems associated with the slide projector. Chairman Dow called a recess at 7:57 p.m. Chairman Dow reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. #60-84 SPRINGBROOK TWO ANNEXATION Chief Planner Waido came forward to explain the annexation proposal and stated staff recommended approval of the annexation. David Barkai, 2707 S. Taft Hill, was concerned the development of the property will harm his property. Mr. Waido responded that at this time the staff does not know of any development that is planned on the property to be annexed and, therefore, cannot comment as to whether or not the adjacent property would be harmed. Mr. Barkai also stated he was concerned that Taft Hill Road would be expanded. Mr. Waido stated the road is designated as a major arterial and this will happen whether the property is annexed or not. Mr. Waido also stated Spring Creek will serve as an open space extension for the community. Mr. Norman Munn, PO Box 1040, Fort Collins, asked if his understanding was correct that the property would be brought into the City with the annexation. Mr. Waido stated that s•:_ rorrect. Ms. Shari Thompson, 1812 Hull Street, asked what affect the annexation would have on the property to the east. Chairman Dow stated the Planning and Zoning Board could not specify the answer to that question at this time. Mr. Waido again reiterated the staff was recommending approval of the annexa- tion as it complied with all State guidelines and those guidelines set up between the County and City for the annexation of property. Motion by Ross, second by Crews; the Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of the annexation for Springbrook Two. Upon a vote the motion carried 7-0. #60-84A SPRINGBROOK TWO ZONING Mr. Waido gave a short explanation of the requested zoning to the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated the request for zoning would place the property in the planned residential district which would require the owner to go through the Planned Unit Development process prior to any development. There was no discussion by the Board concerning this item. Motion by Ross, second by Gilfillan; motion to recommend approval of the Springbrook Two Zoning in that it is in compliance with the goals and objectives and Land Use Policies Plan of the City of Fort Collins. Upon a vote the motion carried 7- . 12-17-84 P & Z • Page 15 Mr. Ross stated grant the points the 3000 feet. there seemed to be a legitimate concern and the Board could Member Brown stated the Board needs to know when to apply Member Georg stated there was no magic with the development of the Land Devel- opment Guidance System. He stated it was important the Board apply t—Fe stan- dards consistently. Mr. Georg questioned whether the required improvements would cost $70,000 and Ms. Kleckner responded she did not know how much they would cost. Member Brown asked if the Board was going to have a request for a waiver on the improvements and Mr. Gefroh stated categorically the developer will not ask for a waiver of the improvements. Mr. Klaus Hoffmann, 601 Louise Lane, was recognized by the chair and wanted to point out where he lived. He stated when he and his family moved to the site in 1968 he had horse pastures and open country surrounding him. The project as proposed by the developer was a good compromise to what might go in on the site. Mr. Hoffmann stated he and his neighbors could live with this project and that he supported the project. Mr. Don Gallagher, 720 S. Overland Trail, an adjacent property owner, was recognized by the chair. Mr. Gallagher stated he lives just north of the project. He stated there are a couple of houses he would never buy in the project and pointed to three homes on the north side of the project. He stated these would be built in a mud hole. He asked if when this area is improved would it adversely affect his property. Chairman Dow stated this was not a final approval. He related to Mr. Gallagher that, if the project were approved tonight, it would then have to go through final review and Mr. Gallagher's concerns would be addressed at that time. Ms. Jan Stewart, owner of the property to the east, was recognized. Ms. Ste- wart asked a number of questions on the need for the dedication of right-of-way in this area. Mr. James R. Vincent, 529 Mercer Drive, was recognized. He stated he had sent a letter to the Planning and Zoning Board. He asked if this property was improved as proposed under the plan before the Board tonight and if Overland Trail were widened to six lanes, would he have to gain access through this project. Mr. Mutch replied Mr. Vincent had a right to access on Overland Trail and the City could not require him to gain access through this proposed project. Member Gilfillan questioned the granting of points for the employment center and contiguity. Member Brown stated the Board must be consistent in the application of these points. Member Gilfillan agreed but thought the Board would have some room for varying these requirements. Mr. Gilfillan said the sameness of design of the buildings would have to be improved upon. Mr. Gefroh stated the developer understood the various comments by the staff and Board and would take the comments under consideration before submission of the final plan.