HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/21/1988PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
November 21, 1988
The Planning and Zoning Board meeting of November 21, 1988 was called to
order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chambers of New City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present at the meeting were Sandy Kern, Laurie O'Dell, Dave
Edwards, Frank Groznik, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker, and Jan Shepard. Staff
members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Linda Riplcy,
Sherry Albertson -Clark, Ted Shepard, Mike Herzig, Rick Ensdorff, Kayla Bal-
lard, and Paul Eckman.
Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent Agenda which included: (1) Minutes of the
October 24, 1988 and November 10, 1988 meeting; (2) #78-88 Horse-
tooth/Timberline Property PUD - Master Plan; (3) #99-88VE Resolution PZ 88-7
- Vacation of Right -of -Way for a Sewer;, (4) #97-71VE Resolution PZ 88-9 -
Vacalion of a Utility Easement in Brown Farm Is( Filing; (5) #79-88 11oudre
River Business Park PUD - Master Plan; (6) #79-88A Poudre River Business
park PUD, Phase I -Preliminary; (7) #146-79K Raintree Commercial PUD -
. Tract H - Final; (8) #61-88B West Fossil Creek Zoning; (9) #61-88C West Fossil
Creek PUD -Master Plan; (10) #95-88 Anton Annexation and Zoning; (11)
#35-87 East Prospect Estates Extension Request - County Referral. He then
reviewed the Discussion Agenda which included: (12) #86-88 South College
Access Plan; (13) #58-87, A Noel Annexation and Zoning; (14) #8-82D Fox
Meadows Business Park PUD -Master Plan; (15) #8-82E Fox Meadows Business
Park PUD, Phase I - Preliminary; (16) #146-79K Raintree Commercial PUD -
Tract H - Final; (17) #73-88 Prospect Plaza PUD - Final; and (18) #50-85C
Fort Collins Retail Center PUD - Pavilion PUD Pad A - Preliminary and Final.
The following items were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion: West
Fossil Creek Zoning and Master Plan and Anton Annexation.
Member Shepard stated that in the October minutes, Dave Edwards was
referred to as a Member of the Board of Larico. She corrected that statement
to read he was a former Member of the Board. She also said the recommcnd-
ation to the County Commissioners on County Referral item #10, 6ast Prospect
Ifslatcs L'xtension Request, was for denial.
Mcmbcr Kern said that the minutes stated that on page 7, it states, "Member
Kcrn recommended him". He said he "commended."
Member Klataske abstained from voting on Item #2.
Member Edwards moved to approve Items #1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 15. Member
Kern second the motion. Vote carried 7-0.
. Member Walker moved to approve Item #2. Member Groznik seconded the
motion. Vote carried 6-0. Member Klataske abstained.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 2
#61-88B West Fossil Creek Zoning
#61-88C West Fossil Creek PUD - Master Plan
Linda Ripley, the project planner, gave a combined description of the project.
Mike Clinger, a resident, stated he had concerns regarding the map and was
unclear as to what was being proposed.
Ms. Ripley stated the property had been annexed on November 15, 1988, and
put in the T-Transition zone to help give flexibility to future development.
She said the applicant had asked for 44.6 acres of b-p, planned business and 4
acres h-b, highway business and that due to the location of the property, it
would develop into a mix of retail commercial and business service uses. She
indicated that the site meets the City's guidelines and criteria for those uses.
She stated that there were natural resource conditions, including Fossil Creek,
which require that both zonings being conditioned on the property being
developed as a [IUD.
The master plan established general land use, addressed circulation and access
and designated environmentally sensitive areas. She stated that the land uses
were primarily a mix of retail business services, supplemented with residential,
office and industrial. They were supported by City policies.
She stated that the access concerns were addressed by the proposed re -alignment
of Fossil Creek Parkway. She said the owner washed to work with the City on
Fossil Creek, the Fossil Creek bike trail and the environmentally sensitive
areas. She said that when preliminary plans were submitted, more study will
be done on the specific areas of concern.
Ric Hattman, represented the applicants. The master plan concerned three
different properties and partnerships. He stated the purpose of the master plan
was to outline circulation, land uses and the natural resources. He said the
Corps of Army Engineers and City Natural Resources Dept. have located areas
of importance. The City had developed the South College Access Plan. lie said
that they looked at the relocation of Fossil Creek Parkway for a number of
reasons. The first was that by moving it further south, there would be a
flatter transaction on both sides for safer winter traffic, as well as proper
arterial streets. He said they felt the land uses were appropriate and were in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. They were appropriate for property
located adjacent to the railroad line and arterial.
Ile stated that the potential uses for Parcels B, C, H, and 1, adjacent to College
Ave. ranged from roadside commercial to retail. Parcels D, E, and F were
seen as being developed in a similar fashion to Cameron Park. Tract F was
designated as potential residential land and office uses due to its natural
environmental settings. Parcel G was designated as potential commercial uses
and research development with light manufacturing and industrial uses. He
agreed with staff that uses, circulation and resources were important. They
met the policies of the master plan.
•
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 3
Ms. Ripley stated that staff recommended approval of the zoning with a PUD
condition. The master plan should be conditioned that zoning be approved by
City Council.
Mr. Clinger asked what uses were allowed in the h-p zoning and what PUD
meant.
Chairperson O'Dell gave a description for the PUD process.
Ms. Ripley gave the description of the uses allowed in the h-b zone. She stated
that although the uses were broad, the applicant must go through the PUD
process.
Mr. Clinger asked what type of industrial and manufacturing were planned for
area G.
Ms. Ripley replied that at the master plan stage, there were no definite
planned uses, just potential uses.
Chairperson O'Dell told him that any plans for this property would need to
come before the Board and he would be notified.
Mr. Clinger asked why the different zonings.
• Ms. Ripley replied that the owner asked for two separate zonings thal corie-
spond most directly to what was planned for the property.
Mr. Clinger asked if a gas station could be built.
Ms. Ripley stated that was a possibility, but reiterated that the plans would
come before the Board, under the PUD process.
Mr. Clinger asked about the proposed PACE Warehouse which was shown on
the map accompanying the notification letter.
Ms. Ripley stated that PACE could be proposed, but was not being heard by
the Board.
Mr. VanVelson,
stated
President of the
Fossil Creek Meadows Homeowners
Association,
the residents
tonight was to
were not
discuss PACE.
against development and thought
He
the meeting
and the City's
plan shows the
stated the residents like Fossil
preservation
Creek Park
that the residents
go together
of riparian wetlands.
to
He stated
CSU professor,
made an inventory
clean up Fossil Creek, Dr. Alex Kringdon,
of the wildlife in the
concerns about
included
the impact of
area.
a warehouse. He felt that the traffic,
There were
school
of Fossil
buses, would be
hazardous, especially on snowy days
which
on the hill
Creek
Parkway.
Ile believed
lose wildlife
accelerated runoff
promoted accelerated
erosion and
they would
would be a
values. He hoped
mistake
detention ponds would
be built and
believed it
•
to grant a variance for the number
of ponds to
be built.
P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988
Page 4
Chairwoman O'Dell stated the residents would be notified of specific develop-
ment.
Mr. VanVelson asked if letters of concern could be sent or should they wait
and to whom should they be sent.
Ms. Ripley stated yes, but for a specific development. She asked that the letters
be sent to her.
Mr. Ritzman, property owner, said he received the notification letter on the
Saturday, while other residents received it on the 19th. He stated that they
needed longer notice so residents can discuss the proposals. He wondered about
the mail delay.
Dcbora Moyer, resident, stated she had concerns with what was zoned and
planned for Parcel A.
Mr. Hartman stated Parcel A was annexed and zoned in 1985 with b-p and its
associated uses. A preliminary plan was approved but expired. No definite
uses were planned.
Ms. Moyer asked about the parkway on the map and the right in/right out
access.
Mr. Hartman said an older map was used. It showed the existing parkway
which would be moved. He hoped that the road behind Fred Schmid's would
connect the development to alleviate any traffic problems.
Ms. Moyer said there was no green belt area on the map.
Ms. Ripley stated the applicant had been alerted to the aforementioned con-
cerns. She stated that the height standards were 40'.
Ms. Moyer asked about signage, even though their subdivisions was not in the
City.
Mr. Hattman pointed out that the property to be developed was within City
limits and would need to meet signage criteria. He also said that Storm
Drainage Dcpt. had planned to build drop structures to help alleviate drainage
problems and these would be included in the first phase. He stated they did
have a neighborhood meeting at which members of Fossil Creck Homeowners'
Association were present.
Member Kern asked if the Corps of Army Engineers needed to be notified.
Ms. Ripley stated that the Corps of Army Engineers was concerned with wet-
lands of I acre or larger, however, a stipulation exists that if a wetland feed a
larger wetland, the Corps needed to review it. Some of this project's wetlands
may fall under that criteria, therefore staff and developers were in touch with
them.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
. Page 5
Member Kern told the residents in the audience to also keep in touch with the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Member Edwards told the audience that the master plan stage was not specific
but the process in the City did work with the neighborhood concerns.
Member moved to approve the West Fossil Creek Zoning with a PUD condition.
Member Shepard seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
Member Walker moved to approve the West Fossil Creek Master Plan with the
condition that the zoning be approved by Council. Member Klataske seconded
the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
ANION ANNEXATION AND ZONING
Ken Waido,
Chief Planner, stated this was a request to annex
and zone approx-
imately 2
acres, located south
of Drake Rd. and west of
Taft Hill Road,
specifically
lots 4, 5, 6, and 7
of the Heineman Subdivision.
He stated the
reason for
the annexation was
that the owners, who lived on
one of the lots,
had septic
problems and came
to the city seeking help. He
said the way to
resolve utilities
could be done
by requesting an out -of -city service request or
request the
property be annexed.
• He said Staff met with the owners, explained the processes and since the end
result would be annexation in either case, they decided to proceed with
annexation of all four lots. The four lots were presently able to be annexed
and in conformance with all the City policies, the UGA agreement, and state
statutes for voluntary annexation. He stated that Staff was recommending
approval.
He said that the zoning of the property was recommended by Staff was R-P.
He said the R-P zoning would allow the construction of detached single family
house on each of the vacant lot. The properties were also located along south
Taft Hill Road which was a major arterial street. It would be expanded in the
future. Staff did not believe that the potential zoning would allow the
development of detached single family homes, the long term use of these
properties might not be for single family development. He said the R-P zone
would allow the proposal of a different type of land use and would require
the PUD process but the applicant had no development plans at this point and
any plans in the future must be submitted by the PUD process.
Mr. Arnstedt, an adjacent property owner, stated he owned lot 10 in Heineman
Subdivision and 10 acres west of the property. He believed the notification
letter was sent out too late and there was not enough time to gather informa-
tion for this hearing. He stated the map was incorrect, as the lots concerned
with the annexation were lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, one of those owned by Shamrock
Manor, and not the lots depicted on the map. He stated the Spring Creek was
not shown going through his lot and it does. He then requested that the
meeting be postponed to better prepare for the meeting.
P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988
Page 6
He stated that when he purchased the property, it was with the understanding
the it would be for single family use only, and if this proposal went through,
then Shamrock Manor, who owns the two lots north of his, would be able to
do more than they were currently allowed to do. He said that when he came
before the Board some years ago protesting that re -use of property (Shamrock
Manor), it was to be a owner occupied item, an extended family with up to
five elderly residents.
The owners now do not live at the property. They proposed putting in 8
residents, all of which was in violation of what was passed. He did not
believe the Anton family had an interest in this area, but he continues his
interest. A portion of his property was designated for a right of way as a
personal, private family dwelling right of egress, with 40+ cars traveling daily
on this road. He stated that a postponement of this hearing for 30 days was
required before he could produce documentation and abstracts to show to the
Board.
Mr. Waido, stated there was an error on the map which was sent out with the
letter. He pointed out on the slide, the correct area to be annexed. He also
stated the plat was correct, although the map was not.
Member Shepard asked what the county zoning was for that property.
Mr. Waido believed it to be FA-1, Farming.
Mr. Abrahams, property owner, stated it was written that the property would
be for single family homes. He stated the map was incorrect in the location
of Spring Creek in Lot 10. He said some neighbors have expressed their
opposition to this annexation and also commented on the lateness of the
notification letter.
Ms. Garrett asked for a continuance of 30 days, so he too could collect more
information.
Mrs. Anton, the applicant, told the Board that the septic system failed before
they bought the house and felt they had no other choice but to be annexed.
Member Edwards asked the Legal Staff what "abstracts" were and if the Board
should be concerned with covenants, and the potential commercial development.
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Board should not be
concerned with protective covenants, as City zoning issues were not dependent
upon private agreements.
Mcmber Walker asked if Mrs. Anton's only recourse was to be annexed.
Mr. Waido told the Board that the County Health regulations state that if the
septic system failed, and the system was within a certain distance from the
public sewer system, the septic system cannot be replaced and the owners must
link up to the sewer service. The owner could have requested Out -of -City
r�
L
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 7
service, whereby the applicant would have had to apply to the Water Board, P
& Z Board and finally, the Council for approval and be annexed when eligible.
The alternative process was annexation. Either way, the property would be
annexed.
Mr. Eckman stated that in reading the Code, the ordinance required a 7 day
notice to adjacent owners of the hearing and the postmark indicated that there
was only a 6 day notice. He suggested that the hearing on the project be
tabled until December.
Member Kern suggested a time frame, as the mail goes to Denver before being
delivered in Fort Collins.
Member Shepard asked if this delay would result in a hardship for the Antons.
Mr. Waido stated that as long as they were in the process of annexation, the
City would provide utility service to correct health problems.
Member Shepard moved to table the Anton Annexation until December. Mem-
ber Klataske seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
#86-88 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE ACCESS CONTROL PLAN
• Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, stated the plan was prepared to develop
the access potential on South College Avenue between Swallow and Trilby
Roads. This was a combined effort of the City, County, and State. It took 5
months to develop the Plan. The Plan provided the City, County and State with
the ability to plan for the movement of traffic on College. It ensured reason-
able access to existing properties, new development and redevelopment.
The process involved all the property owners in the area. Their concerns were
incorporated as much as possible. The concerns and needs were balanced with
proper traffic engineering principles as well as with the requirements of the
State Access Code. The Board was to review both the Plan and Study. The
Plan was the guiding document that staff would use for compliance. The
Study provided detailed background information.
An important element to note was that curb cuts to existing developments will
not be closed as a result of this Plan. Rather, existing access would remain in
place. He pointed out that if a redevelopment proposal was found to increase
traffic more than 20%, then that development would be required to come into
compliance with the Plan. Staff would continue to work with developers so as
not to restrict development but at the same time adhere to the Plan. The
Board was asked recommend approval to the City Council and authorize the
City Manager to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State
Highway Department to make this Plan the guiding document in dealing with
future access questions. This was the first Access Control Plan of its kind in
the State.
0 Mr. Ensdorff gave a brief summary of the Plan.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 8
Mr. Ensdorff stated that the Plan provided good direction for the design of the
future median extension in South College Avenue. For example, in the area of
Wendy's/Palmer House Florist/Pay n Pak, the Plan provided for a temporary
left turn curb cut into the property. While the approved PUD plans for these
properties did not show a left turn cut in the median, the Plan recommended
one until Mitchell Drive was installed. Mitchell Drive was planned to connect
along the eastern boundaries of these properties. Mitchell Drive would outlet
at Horsetooth Road at the major entrance to the Foothills Square Center.
Portions of the street have been dedicated. As the street was constructed, the
left turn cut into Wendy's would be eliminated from the median in Collcgc
Avenue. These properties would then take their primary access off Mitchell
Drive.
Mr. Ensdorff noted that the State Access Code Administrator, who had worked
on the Plan formulation, was present and would answer any specific Code
questions.
Member Edwards asked if there was a current need for this Plan, with the
potential for relocating the state highway off College Avenue.
Mr. Ensdorff stated there was a current need to plan for safe traffic systems.
The State had no time frame as to when or if the State Highway designation
will be shifted to another road in the area. Even if the state highway was
relocated, the same volume problems would be experienced on College.
Member Edwards asked how adoption of the Plan might affect redcsignation of
the state highway. Mr. Ensdorff stated that adoption would have no effect.
The current plans were for Timberline Road to accommodate major traffic
volumes.
Member Groznik asked about the status of the median in College Avenue.
Mr. Ensdorff stated the City budgeted this improvement for next year. The
median would change current access. Staff would continue to work with owners
to create alternatives, such as U-turns, and left turn on green arrows.
Member Shepard asked if a State Access Permit for access points would con-
tinue to be required.
Mr. Ensdorff stated yes. However, the Plan would provide direction for
decisions on future access permits.
Member Shepard asked if the developer would know beforehand if he would
get approval for the permit.
Mr. Ensdorff stated yes, if the access complied with the Plan and design
criteria. The Plan continued to rely on the design criteria established by the
State and City to provide safe roadways. In most cases, the design criteria
will work. Minor variances may be possible for unique situations.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 9
Member Shepard asked if there were any proposed access plans for Collcgc
Avenue north of Swallow and south of Trilby.
Mr. Ensdorff stated there was a plan under preparation for Harmony Road.
He stated that development north of Swallow was limited. There were no cur-
rent needs to develop a long range plan for this area. There were no plans
under development for College Avenue south of Trilby.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that if an access point was not on this Plan and was
proposed by a developer, it could still be looked at against the State Access
Code. The Plan would need to be amended to include new access points and
will require the approval of the City Council and State Highway Department.
Mr. Ensdorff believed that the Plan does a good job of anticipating future
access points, but changes may occur through the amendment process.
Wayne Schrader, the owner of Phillips 66 located on the northeast corner of
Harmony Road and College Avenue, stated he had previously asked for a left -
turn in curb cut on College Avenue similar to those found at College and
Plum. He asked several years ago for a curb cut and was assured that the cut
would be provided as part of any future planning. During subsequent meetings
to discuss this Plan, he believed he was assured a cut would be drawn into the
Plan when it was proposed to the State. At another meeting on the site of the
station, he stated he met with the Director of Traffic Engineering to discuss
the position of the cut. He also stated he would pay for the cut or share the
cost with neighboring properties. He stated that last Monday, he was given a
copy of the final Access Plan and told he was not going to get a left turn cut.
That information disturbed him. Over the years, he had continued to upgrade
the property. He spent $200,000 in the last 2 years. He believed the existing
station to be one of the busiest in town.
He noted that on page 26 of the report, it referred to the area between
Pavilion Lane and Harmony Road, as "vacant' or "under utilized". He pointed
out that the site included a 4 bay car wash, quick tube, convenience store and
gas station.
He believed the larger stores and developments have a better advantage, as
they were in the developing stage and can negotiate curb cuts, etc. He
believed the 'little guy", who was already developed needed protection by the
City to remain a viable entity. He thought that the intersection at Harmony
and College was high on the list for accidents. He did not believe his station's
existing curb cut on College Avenue had many accidents. He believed that it
was unsafe to expect his customers who were southbound on College Avenue to
make a U-turn at the College/Harmony intersection and be forced to cross
several lanes of traffic to get to his station. He stated his concern on the
effect on the numbers of customers to his business might lose because of the
change in access.
Pete Salli, operator of Wendy's, stated he attended this evening's meeting with
representatives of Palmer House Florist and Pay n Pak. He stated he had not
. received a letter of notification regarding the meeting but felt better about the
P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988
Page 10
Plan after hearing the Staff presentation. He questioned the median and
whether his customers who wanted to go southbound on College Avenue would
be able to cross three lanes of traffic on College Avenue and then make a
U-turn at Horsetooth road. He also questioned how Mitchell Drive would work
and the time frame in which it would be constructed.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that in the future the southbound drivers would need to
make a U-Turn or use alternate routes rather than College to get to their
destinations. There would be left turn on green arrow, with signs posted.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that access along College Avenue would change as a result
of the median. People would have to make other accommodations. For
example, Horsctooth Road and Mitchell Drive, instead of College Avenue. The
needs of individual properties have to be balanced against the long term desire
for College Avenue and the needs of the entire community.
Mr. Salli believed that his customers were not going to be happy about going
2-3 miles out of their way. He asked whether the existing driveway along
College Avenue, directly in front of Wendy's and Palmer House Florist would
be extended to the proposed signal across from Foothills Chrysler.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that frontage roads have not worked well along College
Avenue. He believed the driveway in front of Wendy's and Palmer House
Florist was to help the recirculation of traffic between the businesses in the
area. He said a continuance of the driveway either to the north or south will
be determined as development takes place in the area.
Mr. Salli asked if they would be able to see the final design plans of the
median curbcuts prior to Council's decision to approve this Plan.
Mr. Ensdorff stated no, but that the final designs would be available for
public review prior to implementation of the median project.
Mr. Salli asked if the Plan could be changed at this point.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that they would continue to work with the property owners
to take into account their input. Notification of the finalization of the median
plans would be provided.
Mr. Borland, property owner, stated that during the last 9 years, the busines-
sowners have spent $4 - 5 million on developing their properties. lie stated
that the Plan was admirable but to wait for Mitchell Drive to happen as
development occurs would place a severe handicap on some of the smaller
members of the community who have made these investments. He believed that
the major chains were better able to influence the City on access than the
small, existing businesses. He asked that the Board not forget about those who
have spent money over the last 10 years. He asked Mr. Ensdorff to identify
the potential signal near Boardwalk.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 11
Mr. Ensdorff stated the signal would be located across from Foothills Chrysler.
He stated that the City was concerned with existing developed areas and will
work with them to continue to provide reasonable access. He pointed out that
the existing Wendy's access was approved for right turn in and out only.
There had been a sign to control this but it had disappeared. He stated he
would like to see Mitchell Drive relieve College Ave. He stated that the City
did not have the means to install Mitchell Drive at this time. He stated he
would in the interim continue to work with the property owners to address
both access design as well as safety.
Mr. Borland suggested the installation of a temporary southbound light some-
where available to their group of properties (Wendy's, eteJ to be installed when
the median was built.
Ron Carey, Manager of Poudre REA, stated his company currently had two
access points which would have full left in and out, right in/right out access
as well as a circle drive with a north and south egress. He stated the Access
Plan proposed that a future street would be provided which would tie into the
REA's property. He stated that this street would be on the property south of
Poudre Valley REA. He stated they have no real problems with the recircula-
tion street system concept, but the problem they do have was that they don't
own the property to the south and have no control as to when that develop-
ment would occur or when the street would be put in. His company was most
interested in the interim time between now and when the recirculation street is
. developed. He stated REA was a utility and had large trucks, sometimes as
long as 20', entering and existing the site. It was important, he believed, as
far as safety was concerned, that they have a controlled manner of getting out
onto College. They have concerns regarding the north bound turn exiting their
property, as the Plan does not show any provision for this to occur.
REA was also concerned
about the value of their property.
If
and when REA
finds it necessary to move out they would like to assure
the
next owner that
they would continue to
have the same access, recognizing
that
when the recir-
culation road was built,
they may lose that north access.
He
would like this
put into an agreement.
He said
he took a ride this evening up and
down
College and found there
were a
number of businesses and facilities with
full
in and out access onto
College,
such as Choice Center Shopping area,
Dairy
Queen, Vickers, K-Mart,
which all
have uncontrolled access in and out,
north
and south and this was
the type
of interchange REA would like to see
maintained
at their property.
Member Edwards asked Mr. Ensdorff to comment on the Schrader property
situation.
Mr. Ensdorff stated they tried very hard to work with each of the property
owners in the area, and Mr. Schrader property was one of the most difficult
locations to resolve. He said he had indicated to Mr. Schrader that the Staff
and State would try everything possible to keep a left turn in only access
point from College Avenue to the service station. The Staff and State looked at
this intersection very closely. But in the final analysis, there was no safe way
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 12
to design a Icft-turn cut in the median. The Staff could find no safe way to
design a left turn that doesn't give southbound travelers a false impression that
the car that wants to stop and make a left turn into the property was not
going all the way south to make that turn at the traffic signal. When this
happened, rear end collisions occurred.
There were other complications in providing the Icft-turn cut. For example,
room needs to be provided at the signal for stacking of vehicles making
eastbound left turns from College Avenue. Ultimately there would need to be
a double left turn at Harmony and this complicates any solution that can
safely accommodate a left turn to the Schrader property. Customers who were
southbound on College Avenue would be able to make a U-turn at Harmony
Road to get to the station. In the long term, there may be the potential for a
public street or other internal recirculation system in the area that would
provide other access to the station. There was no short term solution. He
stated there was no safe way to design a left -turn access into the site and as
such it was not included in the Access Plan.
Chairperson O'Dell asked if it were possible to install a left turn access point
somewhere between Harmony Road and the proposed signal at Kensington that
might serve as access to Mr. Schrader's property.
Mr. Ensdorff
stated no, there was no way
to design it, due to
the short
distance from
College Ave. and the need to accommodate left turns
at the
Ilarmony/College
intersection. He stated they
needed all the distance,
including
some north of
Schrader's property, for a left
turn bay on College at
Harmony.
The staff had
looked at this but could find no way to provide this access.
Chairperson O'Dell asked about the length of the turn bay.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that the single bay would be approximately 600' in length.
There were questions about the exact standards which would apply at this
location. Staff would continue to work with the State to come to a consensus
on which standard to use.
Member Groznik asked why the Plan did not indicate a recirculation route in
the area of Mr. Schrader's property and what problems, if any, might it pose.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that
the Plan
anticipated that some
form of a public
and/or private recirculation
would
develop in the area
in the long term.
However, there had not
been any
planning for this area.
In the case of
Mitchell Drive, there was
dedicated
ROW and planning had
been accomplished
which depicts what was to
occur.
In the area of Mr. Schrader's property, a recirculation system could be
accomplished through a public street dedication, public access casement or if a
major development occurs, there may be circulation flow through a private
driveway system. The Access Control Plan provided for this concept, but did
not offer specific design solutions. Rather, the direction for this access will
depend upon the ultimate development of these properties. As development
occurred, staff would look for ways to achieve this concept.
0
P & 2 Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 13
•
Member Kern sympathized with Mr. Schrader as the planning appeared to be
for those who were yet to come. He stated the difficulty was that the need to
control access was not in the future, but right now. Mr. Kern believed that
answers to the questions of access and recirculation were best known in
advance, so that they were not surprised.
Ms. Shepard asked what access would Mr. Schrader have to Harmony Road in
the Harmony Road Access Plan.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that this property was not included in that Plan as the
Plan only included those areas of Harmony Road between 1-25 and Boardwalk
Drive. Schrader's access onto Harmony would be reviewed and planned with
adjoining property owners to give alternate access. He stated that the
intersection of College and Harmony would become the busiest one in the City.
Alternative access was needed if the roads were to serve the growing needs of
the community. He believed that the problems that were likely to be faced in
the interim were difficult. Staff and property owners must work towards long
term solutions. He stated they would continue to work with Schrader to
provide the safest access to the site.
Member Edwards asked if all alternatives had been analyzed and if time was a
factor.
Mr. Ensdorff replied he could not put a timeframe on the Plan but it was
• impacted by future population growth. The use and effect of the Plan extends
far beyond the median project.
Chairperson O'Dell asked if the REA property would maintain their existing
access at this time.
Mr.
Ensdorff answered yes, as
long
as they continue to use the property as
they
were now. The difficulty
would come when they decide to sell the prop-
crty
or if it was redeveloped.
The
State Code would not guarantee that the
existing
access would continue
if a
more intense use would occur on the site.
This
was inconsistent with the
State
Access Code. The City and State would
work
with property owners to
find
a way to mitigate the impact of a more
intense
use, but cannot guarantee
full
access would continue.
Member Kern wondered about the need for a median north of Harmony. He
believed that until the westside of College was developed, there was not much
in the way of cross traffic conflicts. He asked if the traffic northbound was
so great as to preclude southbound traffic from crossing into Schrader's. He
questioned whether or not the median could wait until the westside was devel-
oped.
Mr. Ensdorff replied no, the need existed for the medians to control access at
key curb cut locations. He believed it was unsafe to have a interrupted series
of medians on such a busy street. He stated the median needed to be consis-
tent so motorists would know about it. The City had put off the median
project for 1 1/2 years but believed the time was here to build it.
E
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 14
Member Kern asked to what extent was the median a consistency, safety or
traffic control issue.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that consistency would assure safe travel and would
improve traffic flow on College for the future. He said the median was
needed.
Member Groznik asked if there was a potential to stop the median at Kensing-
ton as the southernmost boundary.
Mr. Ensdorff believed it should be extended to the intersection of Mason Street
and College Avenue.
Member Walker stated
that a
U-turn
at Harmony for southbound vehicles
would mean that the
motorist
would
have to cut across traffic to get into
Schrader's station. He
asked
if there
would be restriction on those turning
right off of Harmony
(going
north
on College), while other vehicles were
making U-turns at College.
Mr. Ensdorff thought there could be some problems but reminded the Board of
the traffic law which states that one can make a right turn on red only when
the lanes were clear. Additional regulatory signage could be placed at this
intersection if a problem occurred. He believed the U-turn to be safe. It was,
however, an alternative that was needed until some form of a long term recir-
culation system was in place.
Member Walker asked if an option would be no right on red.
Mr. Ensdorff stated a right turn does serve a useful function to relieve an
intersection. He further stated that in a large percent of the time, this would
be a safe movement and keeps traffic flowing. The motorists responsibility as
to right on red may need to be highlighted at this intersection if problems
occurred.
Member Groznik asked about the suggestion of a temporary signal mid block
near the Palmer House Florist.
Mr. Ensdorff said he was not in favor of temporary signals. They have a
way of becoming permanent. He stated that considerable analysis went into
finding out where signals would fit in the progression patterns of traffic on
College. He said the spacing of signals north of Horsetooth reduced the
capacity of College Avenue. Each new signal reduced the carrying capacity.
One element of the Plan was to locate these signals so that people could plan
development around them. The Access Control Study showed that a signal at
this location would reduce the capacity of College Avenue. He believed tempo-
rary signals could cause safety problems.
Member Edwards asked if REA and Schrader had development agreements,
could he have found ways to provide the access they requested.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
• Page 15
Mr. Ensdorff stated that there was no safe design solution for Mr. Schrader's
situation. Property owners in the area of REA south to Fossil Creek Parkway
have met with Staff in two separate meetings to voice their needs and identify
design solutions. A potential signal at the south property line of REA was
analyzed but was rejected due to the fact it significantly reduced the carrying
capacity level on College. He stated that the Study justified a signal at
Fairway Lane and believed that this solution came closest to meeting the both
the needs of REA as well as other property owners in the area to the extent
possible. This signal, coupled with the planned recirculation system, met the
needs of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that the State Access Code did not allow the City nor the
State to grant any guarantees of access to REA. He stated that REA will
continue to have the same curb cuts as long as the current use continued.
Member Klataske asked if there was room for a frontage type road from Ken-
sington to Harmony, so motorists could turn off onto Kensington and continue
south on that road.
Mr. Ensdorff answered that Staff would like that option to ultimately happen
in some configuration. He stated that if it could be worked out among the
property owners, he would not be opposed.
Member Groznik moved to approve the South College Access Plan with the
. hopes that the staff would continue to work with property owners during the
interim and reminded the property owners to work on their own to provide
alternative access solutions. Member Kern seconded. The motion carried 7-0.
NOEL ANNEXATION
Member Edwards removed himself due to a conflict.
Ken Waido gave the staff report. He stated that this was a request to annex
and zone approximately 287.5 acres, located west of Overland Trail and north
of Prospect Road extended. The requested zoning was in two parts, the first
being R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential of a hundred acres located on
the eastern portion of the property, the remainder of the property, 187.5 acres,
is requesting a zoning R-F, Foothills Residential District.
Jim Gefroh, representing the
owner, stated that there were
287 acres
total.
The request was for 100 acres
running north and south along Overland Trail to
be a RLP zone. He said there
was a vertical elevation change
within this
RLP
zone of approximately 60'. He stated that the ground slopes
gradually
from
Overland Trail up to the westerly
portion of that property, roughly 60'.
The
second portion of the property
was divided into 3 sections, one
being a 55
acre
chunk that goes midway north
and south across the property.
The applicant requested a RF zone on this portion. It also had an elevation
change of roughly 35'. He pointed out the 3 areas for the requested zoning.
The proposals were based on the elevations of the property and perception of
•
P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988
Page 16
foothills. He stated that the land was vacant except for 2 water tanks and a
house and outbuildings.
He pointed out that the Equine Center was to the north; corrals and research
buildings were located on the westerly portion, to the cast of the property,
there were low to medium density single family and multi family homes from
3-8 units per acres, and to the south was a concentrated multi -family which
goes as high as 16 unites per acre, as well a single family structures, and CSII
Stadium. He stated there was rather intense surrounding land uses given the
so-called rural nature of the lands on the west side of Overland Trail. He
said the entire property was presently within the Foothills Residential Zone, an
inflexible zone which was not a part of the L.D.G.S. It allowed 2.29 acres per
unit to 1 unit per acre under a cluster approach. The zone used a site plan
process rather than a PUD review. He believed this zone lacked insight and
sensitivity to the elevation changes and surrounding land uses. He stated that
the zone identifies Overland Trail as the dividing line for what was perceived
as the "foothills". He did not believe that was a true interpretation of what
the foothills were meant to be.
He did not think that anyone looked at Overland Trail as being the beginning
of the foothills. He said that when you looked at the terrain, directly west of
Overland Trail, it was not foothills, but similar to the property on the east
side of Overland. Looking to the west, we find property which was more in
keeping with what we, the population of Fort Collins, perceive as the foothills,
which was more specifically, the Dakota Hogback and further back, the true
Rockies. He said given the foothills line of being, what they believe, as closer
to a 5,200 mark and that the surrounding land uses were urban in use and
therefore, the applicants were justified in requesting that the lower (elevation)
property be zoned R-L-P.
The applicants agreed with staff that the upper portion be zoned RF. He
stated that overriding the annexation request, was the annexation agreement,
which would set the basic format as to how the development would occur on
the property. In summary, he stated if the conditions in the agreement were;
to achieve approval of the requested densities and zoning; not have any
commercial or non-residential development on the property; and only single
family residential units and some patio homes located, near the existing and
adjacent multi -family development to the south would occur.
He stated they would limit entire number of units on the entire 287 acres to a
maximum of 587 residential units, subject to site plan review and Board
approval. He further stated no development would occur at the 5,200 contour
line and maximum height of any structure would be 30'.
The last item in the agreement stated that the number of units would be those
submitted and approved. It was their contention to have the greatest density
along Overland,Trail and less density as one approached the 5,200 level. He
stated that the uppermost portion of the property would not contain any
housing at all, and will remain a permanent part of the open space. He said
the 132 units would be on the RLP portion as it's overall development density,
I- I
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
. Page 17
which would allow up to 532 units in that zone. The 55 acres would contain
the remaining 55 units, which would be developed in cluster basis, as required
in the RF zone.
He said that virtually all the land use policies from 1979, pertained to the
type of development they proposed. He stated the development was closer to
the downtown and services than were most development in the south. He said
the property was in close proximity to central business district, CSU and being
equal distance north and south to major employment areas within Fort Collins.
It was an ideal location for single family development. He noted the location
of recreational areas and shopping areas and their relation to the proposed
development.
The City land use policies suggest that the cost of services was directly related
to the number of units on a development. Three or more units per acre for
effective installation of public services were arranged. He believed that the
foothills policy ignored this fact, with the average dwelling units per acre at 2,
below the City's average. They also believed that the City should be concerned
with costs of services, operations and paybacks.
Density was important to ensure these paybacks. He said the proposed density
increases the payback to the City by $2.2 million, without any increase to the
City's services expense, as the same utilities were required whether a one unit
• per acre or a two unit. He noted these figures did not include telephone, gas
or cable t.v, installation paybacks. He stated that rural density development
was usually at one or less units per acre and shall not be allowed in the UGA.
He stated the RF zone allowed for a basic density of 2.29 acres per unit and I
unit per acre in a cluster development. He believed these densities were in
clear violation of the land use chapter regarding cost efficient provisional
services. He further noted from the land use policies plan, Policy 14, that
urban development standards will apply to all development within the UGA,
including all improvements. He pointed out that in Policy 15, the provision of
these elements could only be cost efficient for the developer and the City
providing proper densities are achieved. In Policy 19, he stated the City shall
establish a project impact assessment system as a growth management tool
which would cover environmental impacts, social impacts, economic impacts and
impacts on services and facilities. He said the LDGS was deemed inappropri-
ate tool for the foothills area, yet was the system whereby all other land in
the City were evaluated.
He believed the City had turned its back on the most innovative tool for
evaluating project proposals and have chosen an inflexible zone system that
doesn't take into account the surrounding land uses or elevation changes or
topography. Citing subsequent policies, he pointed out the references to
providing open space/recreational areas and the applicant's wish to preserve to
the city, at no cost to the city, an area of open space. He stated that urban
development cannot bear the expenses of improvements to Overland Trail and
the street should not divide urban and rural developments. He said that CSU
does not participate in any city fees, street improvements or paybacks of any
• kind. He believed that without adequate development, Overland Trail would
P & Z Meeting - November 21, 1988
Page 18
continue to suffer from neglect without proper development densities, improve-
ment would lic with the taxpayers. He urged the Board to consider the impact
of what the foothills zone does and allowing the influx of common sense to
prevail in reviewing the changes in elevation and surrounding land uses when
dealing with this area. He believed he was justified in requesting the RF zone
in the lower portions of the property and were willing to enter into a very
favorable annexation agreement for the city and look for the Board's support.
Mr. Waido gave a slide presentation, pointing out the changes in elevation and
surrounding topography and land uses. He stated the annexation was in the
Urban Growth Area, contiguous, and was being pursued as a voluntary annexa-
tion. He said the two zones requested were RF and RLP. The property was
one of several properties looked at as foothills property over the past 10 years.
In 1978, for instance, the city had no ability what so ever to provide water
service west of Overland Trail, which caused various policy changes affecting
this area. He stated there were 5 large tracts of property looked at by the
City and the County which were clustered together as foothills property and
were eventually added into the UGA. He said each of these properties was
essentially separate, each was unique not only in terms of location but also in
surrounding uses.
He said the application of a single policy to these properties may be difficult
in the long run and in staff's analysis of this particular annexation, staff
recognized that there were unique attributes to each of these five different
parcels and they need to be review on a case by case basis and incorporating
all the policies in the Land Use Policy Plan as well as those in the UGA
agreement and other policy plans the City had adopted. He said that Staff
analysis recognized land uses adjacent to the property which were not rural
uses but urban uses, and a zoning district different than the RF Zone for this
portion of land, was appropriate. He stated staff was recommending approval
of the request as submitted, however, believed there were several concerns
which staff would like to have addressed before ultimate development occurred
in the form of an annexation agreement. This agreement would be imple-
mented in the same fashion as the annexation agreement, as was done by Stcr-
ling Company, and would outline what the conditions on the annexation would
be and would be written as a part of the zoning ordinance for these properties
that would apply along with the other code provisions. He further stated that
the property was in the UGA, eligible for annexation and that the zoning and
zoning conditions would help achieve the foothills objectives.
Rex Miller, an adjoining property owner, stated he owned land directly south
of the project site. He found staff's position difficult to understand, since Mr.
Waido was the "father' of the RF Zone. He stated he attended quite a few
meetings beginning in 1986 with Mr. Waido, meetings which presented the
rationale for moving the UGA off of Overland Trail to incorporate this
ground to control this property. To his knowledge, the characteristics
surrounding this property have not changed, same multi -family, same CSU uses
were all existing, so nothing had changed.
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 19
In 1980, this property was zoned to accommodate one unit per 35 acres, in
1982, this was changed to accommodate 1 unit per 2.29 acres and then in 1985,
there was a subdivision proposed on a county level for this property, at which
time, the owner was to dedicate one hundred and 20 odd acres of green space.
He said the City denied this proposal which had a density of 130 units below
the 5,200' parallel. This proposal offered the City 120 acres of green space
and was then approved and again went back to the County and was approved.
Since moving the UGA, the master plan was no longer appropriate, as it now
needs to be reviewed by the City. He wondered why this project with 130
units was barely acceptable 2 years ago, was acceptable now with no changes
in the area, making this property acceptable to 587 units. He stated the RF
Zone designates I unit per acre and the proposed project had approximately
12,430 feet per house and believes that the notion that the top 130 acres
somehow satisfies the overall requirement for open space for 587 houses was
pretty absurd. He said the 130 acres should not be considered in a density
shift on this property, in fact, above the 5,200' one was above the City's latest
water tank and they cannot provide services above that elevation, so the
property was totally undevelopable. He believed that staff should stick to the
RF zone. The property was a County project with 130 units, denied and now
the applicant proposed 500 units. He asked what had changed since 1986. He
does not think the City should compromise this project in order to receive
additional open space.
Mr. Waido stated that Mr. Miller was concerned about when the foothills
• policies begin to apply and at what point would something else be allowed. He
said these concerns were what the Board and ultimately the City Council must
determine. Staff did not feel this particular property needed Overland Trail as
its boundary to break where the RF zone should start and where something
else might be appropriate. Staff was led to this conclusion based on the
surrounding land uses. He stated there have not been any major changes in
this vicinity which he was aware of that did not exist in 1986.
Member Kern stated that staff presented to the Board a question as to whether
this was appropriate for RLP or RF, and was the line was Overland Trail or
not.
Mr. Miller believed the facts presented to the neighborhood when the City
began the process for the RF zone, were the hardcore facts. He said this was
the first application to his knowledge to come in on any of the five properties.
Mr. Waido stated they have had an annexation which was in area #5, Overland
Acres Annexation, so this was the second.
Mr. Miller said that in regards to where the line was drawn, it did not give
any consideration to them as to what the appropriate line for the RF zone, in
that the multi -family homes that exists on the west side of Overland Trail
stops. He asked Mr. Waido to show the boundary.
Mr. Waido used the aerial slide to delineate the boundary lines and zoning
area.
•
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 20
Mr. Miller said there were different interpretations as to the use west of
Overland Trail and doesn't feel they were trying to deny the applicant the
right to develop. He did believe that what was proposed was not in line with
what they have established in the last 15 years and does not believe the City
should deviate from the policies established which they developed. He believed
the line should be drawn along side the existing higher density uses, not where
it is just to accommodate a project which was tripling the amount of homes
which could be accommodated on that piece of ground. He asked the Board to
look at the land from the 5,200' parallel down, buy the green space and stick
with the RF Zone.
Alvin Miller, property owner, read a letter which he also addressed to City
Council, Department Heads and the Planning and Zoning Board. The letter
included his concerns with the irrigation and rainfall for the property and
unless strict and enforce regulations to monitor the groundcovcr use, much of
the place would be destroyed and denuded of all vegetation. He suggested an
environmental impact study be done to determine how much livestock, if any,
the area can carry. He believed the City, in its effort to acquire more land,
did not follow through with its duties.
He stated the City has acquired 200 acres west of their property, which had
been torn up by the Water Department for the past four years. Written prom-
iscs have been made that the ground would be re -seeded, but he claims 90% of
the revegetation has been nothing but weeds. He said that they called the City
Manager last year to complain about the weeds, and result was that the City
would monitor and maintain the area. This year, after 5 weeks of contacts,
they finally got the City to clean their side of the fence. He read to the
Board his complaints of the access road and its unrestricted use by dirtbikc
riders, jogger and dogs, with and without owners and was an area out of
control. He ended the letter with a request that this zoning be denied.
Member Kern believed the applicants' points were appropriate for urban den-
sity but by having a foothills policy, it was quite clear that this area of the
City has been set aside for non -urban density, so the points were appropriate
for lands subject to the LDGS. He said if this property was to be considered
in the RF zone, then the points applicable to urban density were no longer
valid. fie said it had been determined that Overland Trail was [lie break
between urban development to the cast and lower density residential to the
west and this has been upheld. He cited the Stuart Rezoning, which the Board
rejected unanimously. He stated that when Overland Trail was proposed as an
arterial, a study done of this area found that there are weaker winds near the
foothills and the winds develop as you go farther away from them. The study
also noted that due to this inversion situation, the air below 5,200' may be
worse than that of the rest of the City. The Stuart Rezoning was designed so
that the relocation of Overland Trail would be the dividing line, and the
portion to the west of the relocated Overland Trail would be designated RF
and the Board maintain this as the dividing line. He objected to the fact that
this was called a cluster development. In all the books he was given, a cluster
development was to provide open space in an immediate area for either passive
or active recreation. He stated he could recognize the open space near the
• 0
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 21
ishogback as open space in the visual sense, but can't recognize it in a p sive/active sense. The whole point was whether or not this seen as an RLP
proposal. He said when looking at the zoning itself, only after annexation of
the property into the RF zone, could a cluster plan be developed. If the
applicant wished to consider a cluster development straight out and really have
a cluster development, this land would have to be all zoned RF and he pre-
sumed the applicant did not wish this to happen.
He did not like an aesthetic arbitrator telling him look around at existing
large acreage development blight caused by so-called ranchette sites. He
quoted,"... just imagine the visual mess of ranchettes littering the foothills." He
stated they were setting a bad precedent and believed they should re -affirm
and, if need be, put in the condition to the resolution, that Overland Trail be
the boundary which would have urban densities to the cast and RF zone with
much less density to the west. He believed the present proposal with 5.6 units
per acre is too intense for a region which had been designated as RF and
would have the health and safety concerns they don't wish to see in that
portion of the City.
Member Walker stated that in the packet they received Resolution 86-141,
revisions to the UGA. In reading this policy, he said the map showed the area
and clearly stated what could happen in this area. From a policy standpoint,
he did not know why it was before the Board, as this was a policy passed by
City Council.
. He believed from the Board's point of view, they must look at a policy which
has been established. He stated any justification for consideration was in the
area of growth management which says development design should address com-
patibility with existing and planned uses on existing and adjacent public and
private land. Since there was a certain amount of contiguity to the develop-
ment to the south of the proposal, he could see some consideration, based on
that aspect of the plan, but certainly not 100 acres and 5 plus units per acre.
He said that by putting in this type of acreage, it was creating a larger area
of high density development which would not just attempt to create compatibil-
ity, but would give new definition to that area. He stated nothing in the
Policy can justify this project in any means.
Member Shepard asked if the Overland Acres P.U.D. had 240 acres.
Mr. Waido answered ycs.
Member Shepard asked if Overland Hills Annexation and Zoning was on a dif-
ferent piece of property.
Mr. Waido stated there was Overland Hills Annexation which was the Stuart
property.
Member Shepard stated that was the property zoned RF, west of what might be
a future Overland Trail and RLP cast of that. She asked if the potential
Overland Trail was used as a boundary line, what was the distance from the
5,200' elevation.
•
P & Z Meeting — November 21, 1988
Page 22
Mr. Waido did not know the exact numbers, but staled from the potential site
of the relocation of Overland Trail, the property went to the west, up to the
peak at 5,200'. It then dropped. He stated the pieces of property to the cast
of the ridge would actually be below 5,200' and there was a portion which
went above it. He said that there was a portion west of the first hump which
would also be below 5,200'. The western boundary of the Stuart property
would have been, if you took the sectionline of Overland Trail and extended
that due south, to the western boundary of the RF zone.
Member Kern moved to deny the Item. Member Groznik seconded the motion.
Motion to deny Noel Annexation carried 6-0.
Chairperson O'Dell told the audience that the remaining items would be carried
over to the next meeting, November 23, 1988.
Meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m