Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/07/1980w Ir • 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES January 7, 1980 Board Present: Robert Evans, Carolyn Haase, Gary Spahr, Ed Van Driel, Phyllis Wells Staff Present: Charles Mabry, Curt Smith, John Dewhirst, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Susan Epstein Legal Representative: Don Deagle Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. Explained the function of the Planning and Zoning Board and the format to be followed for the meeting. Explained the Consent Agenda and asked if there were any requests to remove any items from it. None were heard. 1, through 6. Consent Agenda Wells: Asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes of December 10 and 11. Van Driel: Stated correction. Spahr: Moved approval of the consent agenda. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 7. #219-79 Cook Court Preliminary Subdivision A preliminary proposal for a six lot subdivision on 1.68 acres zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located at Cook Drive and Homer Drive, south of Mulberry St. Applicant: Kahn Stephenson and Shands, c/o Joe Roesser, Jr., 155 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524. Chianese: Presented staff report, recommending approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) The sidewalk be continued around the cul-de-sac in order to provide the 80' radius needed by emergency service vehicles; 2) The developer be responsible for widening the entrance bridge over the New Mercer Canal to acceptable City standards; 3) That a variance to the subdivision street width standards be approved; 4) That the sewer line adjacent to the south property line be relocated off the curb. Evans: Stated the 20' easement coming into the property did not meet street standards. Chianese: Replied that the easement had been approved awhile back and that the houses had been built, so they had to work with it. P & Z Board Minutes . 7 January 1980 Page 2 Spahr: Asked what exists along the south boundary line. Chianese: Replied they were single-family houses, facing the next street south. Van Driel: Asked what width was being recommended for the bridge. Chianese: Stated she was not sure, but that the Engineering Department had been looking at it and would ensure that it met structural requirements. Van Driel: Stated there should be an agreement between the City and the developer so that they would know what was expected of them. Spahr: Asked for staff's reasoning in recommending a variance to the subdivision street width standards. Chianese: Stated the subdivision standard is for 36' for a local street, but that Staff felt 28' is acceptable, given that the street will only serve six lots. David Shands: Applicant and one of the owners of the property. Stated the lot sizes were from 7400 sq. ft. to 13,000 sq. ft. and the surrounding lots average from 6500 sq. ft. to 7000 sq. ft. Summarized the history of the property, noting that the previous structures had presented a health hazard. Stated they wished to provide a nice, fairly secluded subdivision of six lots. Said they planned to build houses of about 1500 sq. ft. which conform to the nature of the neighborhood at a price range of $55,000 to $60,000. Explained that the easement runs from 33' at the beginning to 38' at the end, and that the utilities would not be placed under the pavement, but beside it, necessitating the 20' street. Expressed willingness to answer any questions. Van Driel: Asked if the applicants had any problems with any of staff's conditions. Shands: Replied in the negative. Van Driel: Asked if it were no problem to move the sewer along the south line. Shands: Answered it was not. Wells: Asked if there were any who wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Evans: Asked why the pavement was only 20' if the easement was 38'. Chianese: Replied the pavement had been put in awhile back, but did not know why it was only 20'. Joe Roesser: Engineer for the applicants. Stated the street was limited to 20' so that the utilities would not have to be put in under the pavement. Said that with the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the width would be 28'. Evans: Asked, since this is a blind cul-de-sac, if it would be signed, as well as no parking along the entrance. Chianese: Stated staff had looked at several alternatives for this property, and that this seemed to be the best, given the conditions. Said it would P & Z Board Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 3 be signed. Haase: Moved recommendation of approval, subject to staff conditions, of the proposal, and approval of the variance. Van Driel: Second. Haase: Amended the motion to include the requirement of no parking and dead end signs. Van Driel: Accepted the amendment. Voter Motion carried, 5 - 0. 8. #225-79 Fort Collins National Bank, Master Plan A master plan proposal on 10.6 acres consisting of a 12 lane drive -up banking facility, office space, restaurant, and accessory parking, zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located south of Horsetooth Road, east of JFK Blvd. Applicant: Fort Collins National Bank, c/o Cox Parker Assoc., 318 E. Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524. #224-79 Fort Collins National Bank, Preliminary P.U.D., Phase I. Preliminary proposal for a 12 lane drive -up banking facility, 3,000 sq. ft. bank building and accessory parking on 2.2 acres zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located south of Horsetooth Road, east of JFK Parkway. Applicant: Fort Collins National Bank, c/o Cox Parker Assoc., 318 E. Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524. Dewhirst: Discussed the changes made in the proposal in response to staff recommenda- tions. Noted two major changes: the master plan which was not previously available to developers; and further traffic studies reviewed by the City Traffic Engineering and Public Works Departments which would permit left turns off Horsetooth Road into the proposed curb cut. Pointed out that the road configuration is conceptual, and that the applicant had agreed to improve the south side of Horsetooth and JFK Parkway with Phase I. Noted that the master plan as submitted is too detailed, and the applicant had been requested to resubmit it to reflect the master plan ordinance. Further discussed the staff report, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1) A final master plan be submitted reflecting all conditions; the written information also be revised to reflect the conditions; 2) That the issues raised in this report be properly addressed; 3) That all subsequent phases of this master plan will stand on their own merit; all subsequent phases will require a site plan review process and be reviewed on their own merit as well as be in conformance to the master plan; 4) That the applicant submit a letter agreeing to these conditions prior to the City Council review. Discussed the staff report on Phase I, recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1) The issues set forth in this report be addressed; 2) That the applicant submit a letter agreeing to the conditions prior to the City Council review of the preliminary P.U.D. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 4 Evans: Asked if the 15' from the canopy to the street is to the right-of-way, or to the street itself. Dewhirst: Replied it is to the actual street. Evans: Asked how close it would be to the sidewalk. Dewhirst: Replied about 12'. Wells: Asked, on Phase I, for a description of the available parking. Dewhirst: Replied there were eight customer parking spaces by the bank, and eighteen spaces for employees and customer over -flow in a temporary lot to the south of the bank. Wells: Stated it appeared that the traffic flow through the drive -through area is all to the south. Dewhirst: Described the traffic flow. Wells: Asked how a motorist on JFK Parkway could get into the drive -through area. Dewhirst: Pointed out where the curb cut would be and how a motorist would proceed. Wells: Asked if staff had evaluated the parking. Dewhirst: Replied the over-all ratio is 1:230 sq. ft. which should be adequate for the first phase. Pointed out where over -flow parking would go, noting that the bank does not anticipate the need for it, but if such need developed, the bank could easily provide additional spaces. Wells: Asked if any specific recommendations had been made to improve the pedestrian access to the surrounding areas. Dewhirst: Replied they had not as there needs to be a reciprocal design solution involving both sides of Horsetooth. Stated that presently, pedestrians could cross to the north either at the intersection of Horsetooth and JFK or at the next signalized intersection to the east. Wells: Asked if it were presently possible for a pedestrian to come from the residential area to the east into the proposed development. Dewhirst: Replied it is. Van Driel: Asked about the orientation of the tellers. Wells: Pointed out that they would be in the main building, facing north. Van Driel: Pointed out that at the previous hearing on this proposal, the Board strongly encouraged access from JFK, but that now that access was being discouraged. Dewhirst: Stated that this orientation was not as desirable, but that it was acceptable to staff due to new information and that Bob Lee had stated it would prevent over -loading the intersection at Horsetooth and JFK. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 5 Evans: Asked if the JFK median would be completed with Phase I. Dewhirst: Replied that no median, curb, gutter, or sidewalks would be installed with Phase I, but would be with later phases. Indicated where the median cut would be. Wells: Asked if the drive -through lanes would be installed in phases. Dewhirst: Replied they would be, probably starting with three lanes on the east side, allowing for additional landscaping on the west if the full twelve are not needed. Wells: Stated that would be a good thing to do, in the event that auto use declines. Dennis Swain: With Cox Parker, representing applicant. Thanked City staff for their cooperation. Expressed agreement with the majority of staff comments. Stated additional temporary parking could be provided if the Board required it. Stated that the northwest corner of the site was the only suitable one for the bank, and that the major entrance to the whole development would be the one off JFK. Agreed that pedestrian activity should be encouraged and that it was being oriented toward the Horsetooth- JFK intersection, as pedestrian activity at the median cut farther east on Horsetooth would interfere with left -turn traffic. Stated it would also be oriented toward the bus stop on JFK. Stated a pedestrian plaza was desirable, but would be better if placed near the buildings. With respect to Phase I, discussed the moving of the canopy. Van Driel: Asked where the commercial windows would be. Swain: Indicated they would be in the main building, and showed the route to be followed by commercial customer traffic. Wells: Asked where sidewalks would be located. Swain: Pointed out where sidewalks would be. Haase: Asked Swain to comment on the siting of the tellers' station and the traffic problem there, assuming it is completed to the full development of twelve stations, and asked if they would be automated. Swain: Replied they would not be automated. Haase: Said, then, that there would not be any mix or any potential of any auto- mation; there will be tellers when it is completed at all twelve stations. Swain: Stated there is potential for an automated teller machine in the building itself. Haase: Stated that, looking at the traffic, assuming that it is a busy time and somebody is leaving station 1, there are several sharp turns that are necessary; said that a person coming out of one could easily block traffic from some of the other stations. The sight and the vision of the driver on the left, checking right, is awkward; stated it seems there could be P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 6 very dangerous factors during peak hours. Asked if there were any possibility in the design of staggering those. Swain: Introduced Ed Cleary, from Lee, Scott and Cleary, their traffic engineer. Cleary: Stated there were no serious problems. Noted that a drive -up transaction takes at least three minutes and with twelve windows, the maximum number of cars pulling out would be four cars per minute. Stated they would be moving slowly, the turning radius is adequate. Van Driel: Asked if any provision had been made to heat the pavement north of the building as it would be well -shaded and likely very icy as has been the case in many places in the last few weeks. Swain: Replied no such provision had been made and that the drive -through area would have to be well -maintained. Stated they would look into heating. Wells: Asked if an east -west orientation with a southern exposure was not preferable for passive solar potential. Swain: Replied they had been able to orient the bank buildings east -west and that now that they had more flexibility for the clustered buildings in the northeast they could look at better solar orientation for them. Spahr: Noted that staff often uses the condition, "that issues in this report be properly addressed," and asked how it is determined that the issues are "properly addressed". Smith: Stated that they are considered "properly addressed" if they are met to the satisfaction of staff, unless the Board had any specific issues to be settled. Wells: Stated the Board could enumerate the issues they felt were most important. Asked for speakers from the audience. Ed Zdenek: Representing the Mitchell Co. to the north of this site. Expressed concern about unresolved items which would affect the property to the north: the location of JFK Parkway and Horsetooth Roads. Explained how those issues would affect the Mitchell Co. property. Dewhirst: Stated staff had met with Mr. Zdenek and had discussed many issues and alternatives. City staff had said they could live with a right-of-way of less than 100' for Horsetooth on the north side; that the 13' shift to the north was to preserve a row of trees. Smith: Stated that would not change the right-of-way, only the position of the street within the right-of-way. Dewhirst: Described the improvements to be made to JFK. Wells: Asked who would pay for the changes. Dewhirst: Stated that had not been decided. P & Z Minutes _ 7 January 1980 Page 7 Smith: Stated these configurations are not final and that many alternatives are being considered by the engineering staff. Wells: Stated it should be done before the final. Smith: Agreed. Zdenek: Stated they would like to be consulted and directly involved in the planning. Van Driel: Asked how far south Stanford had been improved --if it would come into Landings Drive. Zdenek: Stated it was planned to go to Landings, that it is presently about two thirds of the way. Smith: Stated there would be a full signalized intersection at Stanford and Landings Drive. Van Driel: Stated there would be confusion over the street names. Smith: Stated staff would look at that. Spahr: Stated he has a problem with Major Issue #5 as it seems to change the basic concept of the whole master plan. Stated the proposal should either be approved without #5, or denied. Stated Major Issue #7 was redundant with #6 and unfair to the applicant. Said he had no problems with the other issues. Haase: Stated she was in agreement with Spahr that the Board would either have to except #5 or in fact reject the master plan. Evans: Stated he still had difficulties with Issue #4 which was making the best of a bad situation, and that this proposal was not the best solution. Swain: Suggested Mr. Cleary, who had worked with Lee and Ensdorff, explain how the proposed curb cut is supposed to work. Evans: Stated he understood the thinking behind the proposal, but stated the problem is with backed up traffic between two signalized intersections. Swain: Said the answer seemed to be in the distance between the intersections and the timing. Evans: Pointed out that the intersections would be used during peak traffic hours. Cleary: Stated that a full intersection at this point would be almost impossible to time. Said that the signals would cause gaps in the traffic, allowing traffic to make the left turns. Wells: Stated this did seem to be the best of a bad situation. Stated she felt more could be done to make the area attractive to pedestrians, including the inclusion of a plaza east of the bank. Expressed concern about ice on the drive -through area. r p & Z Minutes • 7 January 1980 Page 8 Van Driel: Expressed his preference for having all the traffic come off JFK. Swain: Said that having three main access points, plus a secondary access off Landings, that traffic would be spread out. Wells: Asked if there were not a proven need for twelve lanes in the future if fewer would be built. Swain: Replied that eight lanes would be built first, starting from the east side. Stated that their intent is to landscape heavily on the west side to buffer the site from traffic on JFK. Haase: Asked if anyone would care to comment on the potential development directly north across Horsetooth Road. Said there was an article released recently in the paper about some potential development and asked if there were any comment that could be made at this time because it does impact, potentially, the traffic. Swain: Stated they had been working with the developers and with the City and once agreement has been reached, they will be able to work that into their plan. Said staff was presently asking for a minor realignment of JFK which would work easily into the master plan; a major realignment would not. Haase: Asked if he could comment on this unknown factor of the intensity of development to the north and the impact of traffic with the type of development --that was what she was specifically referring to. Zdenek: Stated they were proposing a 300 room hotel -convention center, a restaurant, a bank facility, some major commercial, and an office structure --fairly intense development in excess of 300,000 sq. ft. Van Driel: Stated that such development emphasized Evans' comments on traffic on Horsetooth. Swain: Stated that their proposal would serve as a good buffer between the commer- cial development to the north and the residential to the south. Smith: Pointed out that Zdenek's proposals had not yet been reviewed or approved, so they were not necessarily what would be on that site. Haase: Asked Swain to comment,if the Board were to recommend that orientation be to JFK Parkway, and accepting all other conditions and the recommendation for approval to City Council --does this seriously and finally impact his proposal. Swain: Replied that that orientation would be impossible and discussed alternatives which had been considered. Noted that there were problems in that the property had two owners and buildings could not cross the property lines. Haase: Made a motion to recommend approval of the Fort Collins National Bank Master Plan with the conditions stipulated by staff with the exception that the Board accept the siting as it is, north -south, for the drive-in bank facility. Spahr: Second. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 9 Vote: Evans: no, based on the curb cut on Horsetooth, and expressed the preference for having the plaza located by the bank rather than near the office cluster; Haase: yes, stating that the Board must accept the orientation of the bank as it has been described in the master plan --that if it were to be changed, it would be a serious impairment to the entire master plan; said she has concerns for the traffic circulation, concerns in the master plan for the sufficiency of parking, pedestrian access does need to be improved as stipulated by staff; said it is good to see there is an abundance and an additional infusion of landscaping which should serve as a satisfactory buffer area; Wells: yes, emphasizing that pedestrian access and a focal point are important and that with all the work done by the petitioner and staff this is a satisfactory compromise; Spahr: yes, but expressing preference for traffic orientation to JFK although there did not appear to be any practical way to do so; Van Driel: yes, reluctantly, due to the traffic problem, and recommended that Zdenek and surrounding property owners be consulted on solutions for the alignments of JFK and Horsetooth. Motion carried, 4 - 1. Wells: Stated the preliminary P.U.D. would now be considered. Spahr: Expressed concurrence with all staff conditions. Moved recommendation of approval of the Fort Collins National Bank Preliminary P.U.D., Phase I, subject to staff comments. Haase: Second. Wells: Asked if Spahr would accept an amendment that the street alignment be resolved before final approval. Spahr: Replied he would. Haase: Accepted the amendment. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. Evans, reluctantly. 10. #223-79 Valencia P.U.D. A preliminary proposal for a 68 unit P.U.D. on 6.8 acres zoned R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential District, located north of Vine Drive and west of Shields St. Applicant: Villa, Ltd., ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) That Pomona Street be constructed with a 60' R.O.W. and 40' pavement width; 2) That the developers construct their share of Shields Street to arterial standards as it abuts the subject property; 3) That the "meandering" of the sidewalk along Vine Drive be eliminated, and a 5' detached walk, separated by a 5' - 6' parkway from the back of the curb, be provided; P & Z Minutes ! • 7 January 1980 Page 10 4) That a 6' bike lane along Shields Street and Vine Drive be provided; 5) That additional landscaping be provided along the east and west property lines as they abut the parking areas; 6) That additional sidewalks be provided per staff sketch plan; 7) That minor adjustments be made to the plan to eliminate the circu- lation and sight distance problems in the northwest parking area; 8) That provision be made for bicycle parking and storage. Haase: Stated that staff recommendation #2 should include Vine Street. Spahr: Asked why the change in policy regarding meandering sidewalks. Frank: Replied it was due to a maintenance problem in mowing, resulting in additional costs. Wells: Asked how often they mowed. Frank: Often enough to have proven a problem. Wells: Asked if he meant the area between the sidewalk and the street, noting they do not mow those areas in the older part of town. Frank: Stated they mow wherever the residents will not do so. Smith: Said also, that originally it was thought that meandering paths would be attractive to bicyclists and that has not proven to be the case. Van Driel: Expressed the possibility that another north -south street would be needed along the east side of the property to service any development on the parcel to the east. Frank: Replied that eventually Pomona Street would go on through to Shields and that it would serve that area without having another curb cut on Vine close to the intersection with Shields. Spahr: Asked for the length of the parking lot along the east side of the property from the street on up to the end. Eldon Ward: Replied it was less than 300'. Van Driel: Expressed the opinion that a curb cut was needed on Vine al.ong the east property line. Frank: Responded that Vine will be developed to arterial standards and that access should be restricted. Spahr: Expressed the opinion that the exit from the north parking lot onto Hannah Street might be dangerous. Ward: Stated there was full visibility down both streets from the exit. Said that engineers felt there should be at least a 900 angle for the exit, and that since the exit is more than 900 there should be no problem. Wells: Asked if the applicant had any problems with staff recommendations. P & Z Min ��� 7 January Page 11 Ward: Stated they objected to the requirement of a 40' width and a 60' right- of-way for a local street simply so that it would line up with the one opposite. Noted that the requirements for subdivision streets had been reduced a year ago to 36' with a 54' right-of-way and that the P.U.D. Ordinance requires a 50' right-of-way with a 28' street which is what they had shown. Noted that had been told by staff to follow the ordinance. Stated they liked the meandering sidewalks, and that the City does not maintain the right-of-way adjacent to a P.U.D., the homeowners' association does. Said that they could conform to both these requests if absolutely necesary, and that they had no other problems with staff recommendations. Also asked that their share of improving Shields Street be pro -rated as they have only a small frontage on Shields, but it contains a bridge. Smith: Stated staff would accept an agreement for participation in the improve- ment of Shields, noting that that would not be for some time. Ward: Said that this property is presently an approved plat of Granada Heights Subdivision, and that one of the conditions of approval was that no further curb cuts be taken onto Vine, but that Hannah Drive should be the first one. Evans: Asked if the open space north of the ditch was considered active. Ward: Stated it is counted as active open space. Evans: Asked how access would be gained. Ward: Replied that a pedestrian bridge would be necessary; however, the existing agreement between the Granada Heights Subdivision and the ditch does not include a bridge and experience with the ditch company indicates they cannot promise they can provide one. Stated that without that open space they still meet the P.U.D. requirements for open space. Also noted they have no problem with additional landscaping as they will be moving mature trees from another part of Granada Heights. Haase: Asked about the safety of the ditch, whether there would be any problem in terms of depth or heavy flow. Ward: Replied that the sides of the ditch had a fairly gentle slope and that they could install a continuous row of shrubbery as had been proposed elsewhere, with the approval of the ditch company. Spahr: Expressed the opinion that there is a huge amount of pavement in this proposal. Haase: Stated that it appears to be 33%, which is relatively high. Ward: Stated their original plan had only about 25%, but that they had problems with the local street and large turn-arounds. Noted some parking spaces could be eliminated and that reducing the street width would increase the open space. Van Driel: Asked if the figures in the packet referred to the 40' street width or the 28' width. P & Z Minutes • • 7 January 1980 Page 12 Ward: Replied that the packet figures probably reflected the 28' street. Spahr: Asked staff to comment on the street R.O.W. issue. Smith: Stated that as standards change, there will be problems where streets are platted at one width and proposals come in with new ones. Emphasized that the ordinance requirements are minimum standards, not absolute. Stated that the 28' street width with a 40' R.O.W. was not designed for a street which would be carrying a great deal of traffic as this particular street might. Said they might be able to drop it down to 36' with a R.O.W. of 52'. Wells: Asked if there were anyone who wished to comment on the proposal. Rick Allen: Resident, directly south of the proposal. Expressed concern about heavy traffic at the intersection of Vine and Shields and asked what the City's plans are. Smith: Stated there are no immediate plans for the improvement of that intersection but that once those streets are improved, the City would most likely provide a fully signalized intersection. Wells: Stated that would probably not happen until the corner property is annexed to the City. Van Driel: Moved recommendation of approval subject to staff conditions except #1, and that it be negotiated, and an additional condition that provisions be made for safety along the ditch. Haase: Second. Evans: Stated the area north of the ditch be included and maintained and that the developer should pursue the possibility of a bridge across the ditch. Ward: Stated they could use the bridge on Shields if absolutely necessary. Evans: Stated that when the tracks are abandoned, and the City negotiates for a bike -path, the bridge could provide access from the north to Irish School and from the Valencia P.U.D. to the bikepaths, removing that traffic from the arterials. Van Driel: Stated he would accept that as an amendment to the motion. Haase: Second. Wells: Expressed concern about the width of Pomona Street if the corner property were developed commercially. Smith: Stated the street would have to have a consistent width. Noted that the Board would have to approve whatever development would go in there. Wells: Noted there could be problems with access if the parcels of that property were developed separately. Smith: Stated they would hope the property owners could be encouraged to all come in together with a unified plan; otherwise temporary access would have to be provided. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 13 Van Driel: Stated his motion leaves the street width to a determination by the developer and City staff. Vote: Evans: yes, with encouragement to the developers to eliminate whatever parking they can; Haase: yes; Wells: yes; Spahr: yes; Van Driel: yes, concurring with Evans' comment. Motion carried, 5 - 0. 11. #203-79 Wagonwheel Rezoning (continued from December 11, 1979) A proposal to rezone approximately 20 acres, currently zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, to R-P, Planned Residential District, located west of Shields and approximately 1400 feet south of Swallow Road. Applicant: David Oyler, c/o Melody Homes, 11031 Sheridan Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020. Frank: Described the site. Wells: Explained the procedure for hearing a rezoning petition. Dave Oyler: Representing Melody Homes, the applicant. Described the approved Wagonwheel Subdivision plans. Said they wished to build quad -type units on the property they wished rezoned. Stated the higher -density units would be appropriate on the arterial street and that it also would be easier to preserve existing trees. Noted also, it would improve the housing mix as these would be the lowest -priced units in the subdivision. Stated the open space would be owned by a homeowners' association. Wells: Asked what the density of the single-family subdivisions is. Oyler: Stated he did not know, but that with the quad units the over-all density would be 4.9. Stated the single-family area is about 3.5, the patio homes are slightly over 4.0 units per acre, with 6000 sq. ft. lots. Frank: Gave staff recommendation for approval of the petition as it is in general compliance with the Goals and Objectives and in accord with the City's Adopted Land Use Policies Plan. Spahr: Asked for a review of the surrounding zoning. Frank: Described the zoning. Wells: Asked if anyone wished to speak on the proposal. Stated that the numbers are staggering, and that the intersection can't handle what exists there now. Spahr: Asked how this zoning complies with the City's comprehensive plans any better than RLP. Frank: Stated that the multiple -family units would break up the large expanse of single-family dwellings and that the location near the intersection 'F p & Z Minutes . 7 January 1980 Page 14 of a collector and an arterial is a good one, near the proposed conven- ience center at Cunningham Corners. Said there is good access to a park, schools, and College Avenue, via Horsetooth. Wells: Stated that none of that development is there and that this property has a useable zone now. Said that considerable density shifting could have been done, but that the area is not now ready for the additional density. Spahr: Asked if the Werner Annexation were coming in as RP. Frank: Replied it is. Spahr: Stated it seemed as if a sea of RLP was being replaced by a sea of RP. Evans: Expressed agreement with Spahr and Wells. Oyler: Justified their approach, stating that the over-all density would be the same as if developed entirely under RLP. Stated that their desire in using this approach was to minimize the problems in getting FHA financing and was to benefit their customers. Van Driel: Asked if the whole area was developed as a subdivision. Oyler: Replied it was, except for the requested rezoning. Van Driel: Stated then that there was no possibility for density -shifting then. Oyler: Stated that with the RP they would end up with a density that would have been permissible under the RLP guidelines. Agreed that many of the area facilities had not yet been constructed, but stated that their development would not spring up over night and that they would help in improvements. Van Driel: Asked staff if there were any timetable for the improvement of Horsetooth and Shields. Frank: Replied that Shields was now being improved as developments were done. Van Driel: Noted that Shields had been torn up last fall. Oyler: Responded that the City had torn up the street last fall. Stated that they would be improving the streets adjacent to Wagonwheel First Filing during the next year. Van Driel: Stated it should not be done on a piece -meal basis. Oyler: Agreed that should be done and that it would require participation by the City. Evans: Stated that with 2600 units unbuilt in the immediate vicinity, he saw no need to increase that. Despite the expressed difficulties with the FHA, felt the rezoning is not justified. Spahr: Stated he did not feel the criteria for rezoning had been met. Did not see that the proposal meets the needs of the community any better than the existing zoning. Considering the old criteria for rezoning, said there had been no substantial changes and adequate transportation is not there. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 15 Also stated that allowing the Wagonwheel Subdivision to develop and then make a P.U.D. out of what is left over does not meet the intent of the ordinance. Moved to recommend denial of the request. Evans: Second. Vote: Van Driel: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: yes, for the reasons previously mentioned and for Spahr's reasons; Haase: yes; Evans: yes. Smith: Stated that FHA is considering designating the City as a local designated community which would eliminate the red tape associated with the approval of subdivisions. If that is done, FHA would automatically certify any project approved by the City for their financing. Noted that this is a problem that continually comes up. Stated they should be notifying the City of their action soon; depending upon whether they consider the City's standards adequate. 12. #191-79 Greenfield Village P.U.D., Phase I, Final The Planning and Zoning Board requested review of the final P.U.D. site plan. Dewhirst: Described the changes made in the plan reflecting all the conditions made at the time of approval of the preliminary. Recommended approval. Van Driel: Asked where the street at the northwest corner goes. Dewhirst: Said it will tie into the collector. Wells: Asked if the applicant had any comments. Zdenek: Replied he did not. Evans: Stated the figures in the letter by the applicant seemed to be incorrect and he would be willing to discuss them at some other time. Zdenek: Stated they had consulted the person who taught this subject at CSU and would like to discuss it further with Evans. Evans: Moved recommendation of approval. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. 13. #227-79 Northridge Rezoning and Northridge P.U.D. (County Referral) A proposal to rezone 550 acres located five miles northeast of Fort Collins, from O-Open, to FO-Forestry, and a proposal for a 138 single- family lot P.U.D. Applicant: Melvin Smookler, 3200 Blake, Denver, CO 80002. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending denial of the rezoning and the P.U.D. Wells: Asked the applicant to comment. & Z Minutes . 7 January 1980 Page 16 Ward: Stated he did not represent the applicant, but had worked on the project and might be able to answer any questions. Stated that the 0-Open zone would allow about 50 10-acre lots and that they thought it would be preferable to create 50 lots on half the property, preserving the other half as active agricultural land. County staff said that 0-Open would not allow P.U.D.'s and recommended pursuance of a rezoning to FO. The client agreed to that approach, placing the development near existing development. Van Driel: Asked where the adjacent subdivisions are. Ward: Pointed out Lockman Park to the east and other possible ones. Evans: Asked the size of the adjacent subdivision's lots. Ward: Replied they are 100,000 sq. ft. lots with septic systems. Van Driel: Asked what the status is of a development of that density outside the Urban Growth Area. Wells: Asked if Ward could explain how the proposal is in compliance with the Corridor Study and the City Land Use Plan. Ward: Stated they had done similar projects south of Berthoud. Contended they were trying to cluster lots to preserve agricultural land and that it would fit more easily into the City when it expanded that far. Wells: Asked if there were anyone who wished to speak on the proposal. Evans: Stated he had problems with the open area being so widely separated from the lots and felt the proposal was premature. Moved recommendation of denial of the rezoning and the PUD. Van Driel: Second. Vote: Evans: yes; Haase: yes; Wells: yes, with the reasons in the staff report that it is not in compliance with the City's Land Use Plan; Spahr: yes, expressing agreement with the cluster concept, but stating that this area not yet ready for development; Van Driel: yes. Motion carried, 5 - 0. 14. #228-79 Terry Cove P.U.D. (County Referral) A proposal for a 38 unit residential P.U.D. on 12 acres, located northeast of Terry Lake, zoned R-Residential. Applicant: Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval with four conditions: 1) The curbcut on Douglas Road should be eliminated and access to the site be taken off Shore Drive; 2) Excess paved parking areas in front of lots 17 - 20 and 35-38 should be eliminated; 3) Adequate sewer service to all units, by the Cherry Hills Sanitation District, must be assured; 4) Improvement of Douglas Road to collector street standards by the applicant. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 17 Spahr: Asked why staff was opposed to the curbcut on Douglas Road. Chianese: Replied that with the size of the P.U.D., the curbcut is not necessary, especially as Douglas Road is already carrying a large amount of traffic. Wells: Asked that if then there would be 38 units with only one access. Chianese: Replied there would be a second access for emergency vehicles only. Wells: Asked where the permanent second access would be. Chianese: Replied there would be only one access except for emergency vehicles. Wells: Asked if Shore Drive had only one lane in each direction. Chianese: Replied it has, with a median. Spahr: Asked if Cove Drive were a duplication of a street name in the Landings. Smith: Replied it may be. Van Driel: Also questioned the use of View Road. Wells: Asked if the applicant wished to speak. Les Kaplan: Applicant. Stated he would answer any questions. Van Driel: Asked how he felt about eliminating the access from Douglas Road. Kaplan: Replied that both they and the County want two points of access. Smith: Asked about the possibility of re -orienting the units. Kaplan: Stated the proposed orientation was to take advantage of the view of Terry Lake and the mountains. Said another reason for the second point of access is to give the P.U.D. a separate identity from the Terry Point project, using Terry Shore Drive for the secondary point of access. Spahr: Asked if the property were flat. Kaplan: Replied it is, and is commonly known as the "bog". Said the tennis court was located in a soft area where units could not be built, and that the area to the west of it is labelled, according to state law, as a natural hazard area and is undevelopable. Van Driel: Stated that staff conditions #1 and #4 seemed to be in opposition as it would be unfair to ask the developer to share in the improvement of Douglas Road if he was denied access to it. Wells: Stated that is done often and is the only way to get it improved. Kaplan: Stated that Terry Shores and Terry Point are single-family developments and the proposal is townhomes; if the proposal were for single-family, then the access road could be shared and a secondary access avoided. ` P^& Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 18 Evans: Asked about a letter in the packet with reference to sewer taps. Kaplan: Replied that providing sewer to the property would be relatively easy. Noted that while the District says it does not have the capacity, it does have the treatment capacity. Stated the line capacity could be provided in several ways, including changing the grade on Shore Drive by a few inches as the line runs beneath it. Noted the engineering needed to provide the line capacity is supposed to be done by the developer, not the District which is why the District does not suggest how it could be done. Said also that this a master plan and that the engineering would not be done until later with the phased plan. Van Driel: Stated his information shows preliminary P.U.D. approval, not master plan approval. Kaplan: Replied they were asking for P.U.D. master plan approval which, in the County, does not require sewer engineering information. Van Driel: Moved recommendation of approval subject to conditions 2, 3, and 4. Haase: Second. Evans: Asked if it should be conditioned upon being built to City standards. Smith: Nodded affirmatively. Van Driel and Haase: Accepted the amendment. Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0. Wells: Asked for other business. Smith: Stated there would be only one development on February's agenda and some minor ordinance changes. Said they had scheduled two hearings for the development item, Imperial Estates: the first would be to hear citizens' concerns about the annexation, the second would be for staff to respond to those concerns. General discussion on a work session with Council and possibly representatives from the Coloradoan. Wells: Stated the Board should send a letter to Council to let them know what the Board is doing. Smith: Agreed to draft a letter. Wells: Suggested if there were time at the February meeting, there could be an update on items the Board had heard previously and also a presentation on a timetable for the Land Use Plan projects. Haase: Asked if the proposed charter amendment relating to the P & Z Board was still on Council's agenda, and if so, why it was not in the paper. Smith: Replied it is still on. Deagle: Explained changes Council had made in the amendment. P & Z Minutes 7 January 1980 Page 19 Haase: Expressed concern that the amendment is an important one and should not have been left out by the newspaper. Complimented John Dewhirst on an excellent job on the development manual. Van Driel: Suggested moving the starting time of the February meeting to 7:30 due to the short agenda. Smith: Expressed agreement. Wells: Asked if Board members should attend the Imperial Estates hearings. Smith: Replied it might be helpful. Stated the first meeting would be January 15 at 7:00 at Rocky Mountain High and the second would be sometime the following week. Evans: Asked for a letter or call reminding Board members of the hearing. Wells: Adjourned meeting at 9:35 p.m.