Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/06/1978• 0 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November 6, 1978 Board Present: Phyllis Wells, Bob Burnham, Ed VanDriel, Gary Ross, Gary Spahr, Charles Unfug Staff Present: Charles Mabry, Paul Deibel, John Dewhirst, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Robert Steiner Legal Representative:. Lucia Liley Phyllis Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Explained the use of the "Consent Agenda" noting the criteria needed to be listed on it: 1) No community input 2) Staff recommendations for approval 3) Board concurrence with staff recommendations Said #175-78 had been withdrawn from the consent agenda and placed on the standard agenda. Said #175-78 had been with- drawn. Bob Burnham: Moved to recommend approval of items #1, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Ed VanDriel: Suggested the Board not consider those items not fully complying with subdivision, P.U.D. or zoning regulations. Paul Deibel: Suggested much of the discrepancies were matters of opinion and that the applicants should be given the chance to present their own sides. Bob Burnham: Said consideration for hearing could be given on an item - by -item basis. 2. #160-78 Fourth Foothills Annexation Description: Proposal to annex 3.89 acres located west of Overland Trail Road and beyond the Westgate Subdivision. Requested zoning is R-M, Medium Density Residential. Applicant: Alvin and Enid Miller, 4017 Spruce Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. John Dewhirst: Presented the following analysis and recommendation: Page'2 P & Z Board Minutes Nov. 6, 1978 This request was included in a previous but larger request in 1972. Application 92-72, Fourth Foothills Annexation, requesting annexation of 30+ acres and zoning to R-M District. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended for denial on October 2, 1972. The Third Foothills Annexation was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on February 7, 1972. This request was 3.66 acres in size and requested RM zoning. Part of that request extended 40' above the 5, 140 elevation line to which the City had previously agreed to supply water. However, this 40' would be for parking and beautifica- tion only. Ninety percent (90%) of the subject request lies above this elevation. The subject parcel is vacant and zoned FA-1 (Farming) in the County. Comments 1. The Police, Fire and Public Works Departments are all concerned about their ability to provide acceptable levels of service -within the financial constraints of their operating budgets to newly annexed property. This concern is of a general nature related to all annexations and this one in particular. The significance of this concern increases every year. 2. Fire and Water Departments are also concerned about the water pressure in this area. It is extremely low, especially in the summer months. A bolster station is planned at Stewart Street to improve the water service for the area east of Overland Trail in the future. The City cannot serve water to this area at the preset time. The Fire Department is also concerned about supplying adequate service to this area since response time is 4-5 minutes and their ability to fight fires because of the low water pressures. 3. Parks Department. Opposed to any future development west of Overland Trail. Worried about potential impact on natural area in the foothills and the increasing pressure for development in the foothills. 4. Planning concerns. a. Area is above the "blue line" set forth in the Adopted Foothills Policy to which the City of Fort Collins can adequately serve water;' b. Concerned about any future development west of Overland Trail. This will increase developmental pressures on the foothill area which is an area of many aspects - geological hazards, natural beauty, preservation of scenic misas to and from the City and recreational potential. Supplying of infra- structure services to a difficult area for development Page 3 P & Z Boar inutes Nov. 6, 1978 will be costly for the City; c. The approval of this request will encourage similar requests for development in the foothill area from this developer and other developers; d. If approved, the appropriate zoning district would be the RE (Estate Residential District) since the least density is allowed. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the City Council to deny this request for annexation and the subsequent zoning request based on the following reasons: 1. The conditions have not changed from the time of the previously denial of this area for annexation; 2. There are inadequate City services to properly serve this area at the present time; 3. There is inadequate water pressure to properly service this area especially in the summer months. This inadequate water pressure would constitute a viola- tion of the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, since a fire could not be properly fought; 4. This request does not conform to the intent of the adopted Foothills Policy adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1973; 5. If approved, this request would encourage similar development requests in the foothill areas; 6. This request if approved would establish a precedent allowing additional developments west of Overland Trail and increase development pressure in the foothill area. Ramsey Myatt(attorney representing the applicant): Said the increase in elevation was insignificant. Said water and Sewer Department indicated adequate pressure available. Said the aesthetic impact would be minimal. Suggested the "Foothills Policy" be reviewed. Rex Miller(Representing the applicant): Said the land was unsuitable for farming. Bob Burnham: Asked counsel what service obligations the City had with annexation. Lucia Liley: Said, generally, service had to be supplied but could be stipulated to begin at a later date. Phyllis Wells: Said the question of re-evaluating the Foothills Policy should be resolved. If it was considered still to be valid then the annexation should be denied. Said if a re-evaluation were needed then it should be done and annexation could occur later. Charles Unfug: Saw no need to reconsider the Yoothills Policy for this Page 4 `J P & Z Board Minutes Nov. 6, 1978 particular annexation. Thought the rise in elevation was negligable. But felt the petitioner had not provided enough evidence for a favorable decision. Thought the annexation premature. Ed VanDriel: Thought the Foothills Policy also expressed concern about increased air pollution. John Dewhirst: Said that it did. Bob Burnham: Moved to recommend denial because of the unresolved water problems. Suggested the Foothills Policy be studied for possible re-evaluation. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 1 #161-78 Harmony Road - Lavaux Annexation Description: Proposal to annex .86 acres located approximately one half mile east of College Avenue on Harmony Road and boardered on the north and east by the Landings. Requested zoning is R-H, High Density Residential. Applicant: Dr. Joe Lavaux, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 South Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Paul Deibel: Presented staff comments and recommendations: I. Land Use Data The .8643 acre site is located north of Harmony Road, south and west of the Landings planned development and approximately 1/2 mile east of S. College Avenue, all outside the municipal limits. The subject property is presently zoned FA-1 by Larimer County and is improved with a single family frame residence. The surrounding zoning and land use are as follows: North: R-L-P; Under agricultural use (proposed garden apartment area in the Landings planned development) South: FA-i (Farming District -County); Trinity Church East: R-L-P; Under agricultural use (proposed garden apartment area in the Landings planned development) West: M (Multiple Family District -County); Existing duplex and quadplex residential units) II. Discussion 1.Relationship to adopted official plan. Harmony Road is a major arterial as identified on the Citys thoroughfare plan. 2.Utility Service. City water service is not available at this time. Water could become available in a year Page 5 P & Z Board Minutes Nov. 6, 1978 or more. Timing is dependent upon the development schedule of the Landings planned unit. If this schedule is not acceptable to the petitioner, the City might permit a temporary hook -on to the existing 12' district water main which is available to the site subject to the condition that when city water is available, that the petitioner will hook -on. This condition would be the subject of a subdivision agreement between the City and the developer, City water service is presently located approximately 1/4 mile north of the subject property. The timing of City service to the subject property would be dependent upon the development schedule of the Landings planned unit. The City might permit the petitioner to hook onto the existing 8" District sewer line which is available approximately 400' west of the subject property subject to the condition that when City sewer service becomes available, that the petitioner will hook on. This condition would be the subject of a subdivision agreement between the City and the developer. 3. Capital Improvement Implications. Minimal. 4. Police and Fire Protection. The subject annexation would in itself pose little negative impact upon the provision of Police and Fire protection. However, in the context of similar requests in the area, the problem is more accute. III. Comments and Conditions 1. The petitioners request is for annexation and zoning to R-H, High Density Residential, with the condition that only non -retail uses be allowed and that access be limited to one curbcut. The petitioners intent is to utilize the property for the construction of two professional office buildings. Even though the petitioner is willing to restrict the uses to which the property may be put, the staff has serious reservations on recommending approval of the request: a. Compatibility with surrounding uses. From a land use perspective, the uses as proposed would not be the most compatible use with the surrounding residen- tial uses, existing and proposed. The staff suggests that the property redevelop in a medium or high density residential use, as would be permitted in the R-L-P zone, which would be more compatible with the surrounding uses. Locating higher density housing along arterials provides inhabitants immediate access to arterial transportation routes for journeys to work and shopping. The opportunity exists for integrating the subject property with the Landings garden apartment area as it develops. b. Encouragement of strip commercial. The City has long recognized the benfit of discouraging strip commercial along the Citys arterials and Page 6 P & Z Board Minutes Nov. 6, 1978 highways. Rather it has been a stated policy to encourage commercial development to those locations at the intersections of an arterial and collector streets and to compact commercial centers. The approval of this request would likely stimulate proposals along the undeveloped southern portion of Harmony Road and thus erode the integrity of the Citys policy. c. Access to Harmony Road. The Board and Council should seriously consdier the impact of the office zoning request in terms of access to Harmony Road. Being designated as a State Highway, Harmony Road is a controlled access thoroughfare, with curb cuts restricted to intersections with other roads. Unrestricted access would reduce its carrying capactiy and increase the points of traffic con- flict. The staff recommends that access to this site be integrated with the circulation system for the garden apartments area in the Landings develop- ment. Les Kaplan(Representing the Applicant): Said the property was awkward since it was less than an acre and was unwanted by "The Landings." Said the owner was willing to limit the site to one curb cut, to offices uses, and to site plan review. Said the staff concern that the RH zoning could be the start of strip development was preposterous. Said if the City had wanted it as a part of the Landings it should have annexed it with the Landings. Gary Ross: Asked about conditional zoning. Lucia Liley: Said it was possible but difficult. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend annexation. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Ed VanDriel: N0, concurred with staff comments advising against the RH zone. Gary Ross: YES Bob Burnham: YES Gary Spahr: YES Charles Unfug:YES Phyllis Wel1S:NO, Felt other zones could work and be compatible with the vicinity. Motion carried, 4-2. Page 7 • P & Z Board Minutes Nov. 6, 1978 4. #162-78 Ken -Mark Annexation. Description: Proposal to annex 60.46 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Horsetooth and Taft Hill Road. Requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Jim Scavo, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 South Howes, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Recommended denial based on the following discussion: I. Land Use Data The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Horsetooth and Taft Hill Roads, all outside the municipal limits. The 60.465 acre site is presently zoned R (Residential - minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. with public water and sewer; 100,000.sq. ft. without both public water and sewer) by Larimer County and is under agricultural use (cropland). The surrounding zoning and land use areaas follows: North: R (County); Existing large lot single family residences South: ML (County - multiple family district); University Mobile Manor (existing mobile home park East: RLP; Vacant (proposed single family development Trend Subdivision) West: FA (County - Farming District); Under agricultural use (cropland) II. Discussion 1. Relationship to adopted official plan. Taft Hill and Horsetooth Roads are major arterials as designated on the City thoroughfare plan. 2. Utility Service. The City at the present time has limited ability to service the subject property with water because of serious pressure limitations. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District has installed a pressure and storage reservoir system which could serve this area. The City is capable of servicing the subject property with sewer from the Drake Trunk that presently services the mobile home park on the south. 3. Police and Fire Protection. Both the Police and Fire Departments are greatly concerned about proper protec- tion for these newly developing areas. Their concern is that as the City annexes and approves areas with increasing distances from existing facilities; residential development in the midst of rural land, and; major decentralization of retail activity, it lengthens the time required to reach an emergency and reduces their effective service area. III. Comments 1. The "Foothills" is an area whose major physical Page 8 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) characteristics are steep slopes, relatively thin soils and limited water availability. The "Foothills" is also an area which has in the past and will continue in the future to face tremendous pressures to develop. In an attempt to resolve these problems, the City Council authorized a study of the area which resulted in the "Foothills Policy" statement (attached hereto). The subject property lies within the study area of that report, and was found to pose no serious constraint to urban development. Rather, the report suggests that the. subject property be developed as a low density planned unit serviced by City sewer. The petition for zoning would appear to be in conformance with this policy. 2. The staff feels that the annexation of the property may be premature at this time. Approximately 40% of the unincorporated territory in the southwest quarter of the City is either vacant and/or undeveloped. Some of this land will at one point of time be drawn into more definite urban uses as infilling takes place. But infilling seems slow and in any case may not reduce the public costs in- volved in annexing the property prematurely. And secondly, this property is the first annexation south of Drake Road, north of Horsetooth Road and west of Taft Hill Road, creating a settlement pattern which could possibly over- burden the existing urban services. The benefit of annexing this property appears not to outweigh its cost. Gary Ross: Asked if the property could be developed in the County. Paul Deibel: Said they would need City sewer. Les Kaplan: Said all utilities were available. Said the City had never previously denied annexation on the basis of existing undeveloped land within the City. Said the petitioner was willing to exclude district service and would submit to development controls. Said the City had indicated this property would be annexed. Said the City had to decide whether it wanted the land developed in the County or City. Bob Burnham: Noted that even if development took place in the County it would be done to City standards. Ed VanDriel: Asked if the question of district service was appropriate until completion of the Urban Service Area Study. Suggested tabling until completion of the study. Charles Unfug: Felt it was appropriate to annex. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend annexation. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Page 9 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) Phyllis Wells: Felt lots of frustration with annexation policy but thought it unwise to use the staff criteria for denial. Vote: NO - Ed VanDriel YES - Gary Ross YES - Bob Burnham YES - Gary Spahr YES - Charles Unfug YES - Phyllis Wells Motion carried 5 - 1. ZONING Bob Burnham: Noted the R-L-P zones at two other sites had not produced P.U.D.'s. Les Kaplan: Said this site wouldn't be single family subdivision but townhouses and condominiums. Gary Spahr: Moved to recommend R-L-P. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 11. #163-78 Georgetown P.U.D., Final Plans. Description: Proposal for a 24 unit P.U.D. on 5.3 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential located on West Drake Road west of Dunbar Avenue. Applicant: Miller Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the staff comments for approval. In general the layout and building type proposed are well suited to the constraints of the site considering the density shift which is proposed. Specific comments are: 1) Landscape Plan. The landscape plan should provide for: a) a higher level of landscape treatment in the Spring Creek Flood Easement; b) location of the Spring Creek Channel with detail of im- provements to make its appearance more natural than its present condition; c) additional shade trees along Drake R.O.W.; d) extension of recreational trail to Constitution Avenue. 2) Site Plan. The site plan has been revised in response to staff comments on the preliminary plan concerning design of private drive and provision of additional overflow parking. Additional Page 10 November 6, 1978 Planning and "Zoning Board Minutes (ja) comments concerning the final plan are: a) location of utility easements should be indicated; b) maintenance of drive to be provided for in P.U.D. Maintenance Guarantee. 3) Subdivision Plat. The subdivision plat should indicate: a) utility easements along the boundaries; b) language providing for public access to flood easement; c) emergency access easement. 4) Utility Plans should specify: a) driveway type entrances to private drive; b) how on -site storm run off detention with a regulated outlet into Spring Creek will be provided; c) 6" perimeter water main. Carr Beiker - Representing the applicants - Had no problems with staff comments except that he thought the treatment of Spring Creek was adequate. Paul Deibel: Said the ditch was an integral part of this P.U.D. Bruce Miller - Applicant - Said it was the City Engineer's decision to straighten the creek. Ed Van Driel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments except for 1)b). Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 12. #164-78 Eagle 1 P.U.D., Preliminary Plans. Description: Proposal for a 2 acre three lot commercial P.U.D. zoned H-B, Highway Business, at the northeast corner of South College Avenue and Del Clare Road. Applicant: Curt Henningson and Jeff Burrows, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 South Howes, Fort Collins, CO, 80521. John Dewhirst: Gave staff comments for approval. It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to Council to approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The median between the frontage road and College Avenue be landscaped according to City specifications; 2. The area west of the parking lot adjacent to the frontage road be landscaped in an area not less than 5' in width; 3. The landscaped area adjacent to Remington Avenue on the eastern edge of the site be heavily landscaped; 4. A fence be provided along the north edge of this site and a curb be provided to protect that fence along the north side Page 11 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (is) of the driveway. 5. The drive-in window be eliminated, or the drive-thru lane be redesigned to increase the holding capacity; 6. No windows be placed in that portion of the buildings on the property lines; 7. That an irrigation system be included in all landscaped areas or as specified by the City Arborist; 8. That all signs conform to the City Sign Ordinance. Les Kaplan: Representing the Applicant - Preferred landscaping only on site, not on the frontage road median strip. Said drive-thru facilities were required for Wendy's but addi- tional stack -up would be provided. Said the window requirement was ludicrous. John Dewhirst: Said the window requirement was a part of the building code. Beverly.Michaski - 212 Del Clare Road - Submitted a petition opposing the Wendy's Hamburger use. Was not opposed to the other proposed uses. -Said the increased traffic would be dangerous to children. -Said it was dangerous to turn from College Avenue onto Del Clare. -Said there were nine other eating establishments in the area. -Said there would be much noise late into the night. -Concerned with street parking. -Said the neighborhood supported Wendy's but not at this location. John Boulette - 205 Annabel - Asked if a traffic flow study had been conducted, Suggested a horseshoe driveway configuration for Wendy's onto and off of Del Clare. John Dewhirst: Said no traffic impact study had been done, but there would be a definite increase. Said overall parking requirements were met. Phyllis Wells: Asked the legality of the use in the zone. Asked what findings would be necessary to not allow it. Lucia Liley: Said if it was found to be incompatible or to have a negative impact then the request could be denied. Beverly Michaski - Noted that neither McDonalds nor Jack -in -the -Box had residential areas behind them. Dick Dorman - Applicant - Said his facility would have a separate kitchen for drive -up business which would be extremely efficient and would alleviate auto stack -up. Jeff Burroughs - developer - Said the site could have been sold to three other Page 12 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) fast food franchises. Said the site had been zoned H-B for a very long time and residents should have been aware of what the site could be used for. Bob Burnham: Said if lot lines were ignored, the design of the site could be laid out so as to have the two commercial buildings acting as a buffer between the residential area and Wendy's. Gary Ross: Said any use on the site would aggravate traffic problems and Wendy's probably wouldn't do it worse than any other use. Liked Bob Burnham's idea to re -orient Wendy's onto the front of the site. Les Kaplan: Said that all the uses would prefer frontage road exposure. Phyllis Wells: Said that impact on the neighborhood made this proposal different from others and that an additional concern was the amount of pollution generated. Ed VanDriel: Said based on all the concerns expressed by the Board, he moved to recommend denial of the submitted plans but said the Board would entertain a revised design if it were to be submitted. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Charles Unfug: Said since the land was zoned H-B, the specified use was permissible and thought the staff comments were based on mitigating the negative impacts associated with the proposed use. Thought a new design would be worthwhile. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 13. #165-78 Village Park P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a 48 unit P.U.D. on 5.96 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential, located on the northeast corner of West Stuart Street and Heatheridge Road. Applicant: J.M. Properties, c/o ZVFR Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Joe Frank: Gave staff comments for a recommendation of approval. Comments and Conditions: 1. The developer should revise the plat to show all easements and ground contours as specified in the subdivision regulations; 2. The Public Service Company of Colorado has requested the dedication of six foot minimum width easements for possible use for natural gas lines for this development. Easement des- criptions are available in the Planning Office. The plat should reflect same; Page 13 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) 3. In order to foster pedestrian circulation between the duplex and fourplex areas, the staff would suggest that the developer provide additional walkways between the two development types; 4. The Fire Department has indicated that the turning radius of the west cul-de-sac would not be sufficient for maneu- vering and/or operation of their equipment. This situation would further be magnified by the parking of cars on the cul-de-sac. The Fire Department will require an alterna- tive means of access; 5. The developer has suggested a "pin wheel" design scheme for the west cul-de-sac, with driveways serving as access to enclosed garage and parking stalls. This design, however, can cause serious traffic conflicts where more than one car is attempting to enter and/or leave the driveway area at any one time. The developer should re-evaluate the plan in terms of minimizing these conflicts; 6. As required by the City Engineer, all parking stalls must be a minimum of 19 feet long. The plans as submitted show some stalls with 16' and 17' depths. The plan should be revised to reflect the City's requirements. Eldon Ward - Representing the applicants - Said he had no problem with staff comments except for the turning radius question. Said the one proposed on the plan was routinely acceptable in straight subdivision development. Paul Deibel: Said the landscape island created a turning problem. Charles Unfug: Asked if the applicant was willing to remove the island. Carr Beiker: Said no, but that they would be willing to work with staff to make the turning movements acceptable to the City. Phyllis Wells: Asked if there was any concern over neighborhood opposition. Frank Johnson - Developer - Said strict architectural controls would be imposed. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Bob Burnham: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. With Gary Ross abstaining. Page 14 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) 14. #166-78 RCD Plaza South Subdivision, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a three lot commercial subdivision on four acres zoned H-B, Highway Business, located on South College Avenue between the Prime Minister and Dick's Datsun. Applicant: South College Land and Cattle Company, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Joe Frank: Gave staff conditions for an approval recommendation. Comments and Conditions: 1. The proposed street layout would be in conformance with the general City policy for access to S. College Avenue; 2. The developer should provide for a temporary turnaround at the west end of the frontage road; 3. As the situation now stands, approval of this subdivision would create two land locked parcels (lots 1 and 2). The de- veloper should seek out and attain temporary access to these lots prior to the issuance of any building permits upon these sites; 4. Drainage engineering will be critical upon this site. The entire area to the north (S. of Horsetooth Road) drains into the pond, which exists upon lots 1, 2, and 3. The developer has indicated that this pond will be filled in and the drainage diverted to the south; 5. All streets should be named on the plat, and labeled as existing or proposed; 6. The Light and Power Company will require a 15' utility easement along College Avenue. The developer should revise the plat to reflect same. Bob Burnham: Asked how the plan would be phased in with the development to the north. Eldon Ward - Representing the applicant - Said there were no problems. Explained the access design for the Prime Minister. Bob Burnham: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 15. #167-78 Cunningham Corners P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a mixed Commercial and Residential P.U.D. on 39.2 acres zoned H-B (C) Highway Business, and R-P, Planned Residential located at the northeast corner of West Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. Applicant: c/o Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Page 15 • November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) #167-78/Cunningham Corners P.U.D., Prel. Plan (con't) Paul Deibel: Gave staff comments for a recommendation of denial. 1. General Layout. a. Residential. While the staff supports the planning objective to provide a mix of housing types on the site with a progression of density transfered from north to south, we feel there are problems with the layout of the higher density apartment area as shown on the plan. Specifically, we feel that the scale and layout of the buildings as shown in this area are poorly adapted to the density of this area. The site plan would allow low variety in facade and exterior treat- ment, building type and building orientation. Low variety at high intensity creates an aesthetic problem which is reflected in the rectilinear aspect of the layout for this area. This is not at all to say that the density proposed for this area is unworkable (14 d.u./ac). It is to say that the design of this density should be improved. (Elevations of the multifamily area have not been submitted as required.) b. Open Space. While the staff recognizes the difference between the demand for open space amenities between the lower density and higher density units on the site, we nevertheless feel that additional active recreational open space should be provided in the apartment condominium area. While the apart- ment area contains 46.6% of the dwelling units, it contains only about 10% of the active recreational area. c. Commercial uses. While the staff again supports the planning objective to integrate commercial and residential uses on the site as well as to provide a pedestrian orienta- tion, we do not feel that the plan is as successful as it could be in achieving these objectives. For example, we feel that if uses such as a restaurant, offices and shops are to be allowed on the site, they could be incorporated into the design of the buildings and plaza for the principle recrea- tional uses so as to strengthen the function of the plaza area as a focal point. Moreover, if the zoning agreement would, allow it (see discussion below) the neighborhood convenience shops could also be incorporated into this area so as to further strengthen its identity, as well as to improve the neighborhood orientation of the convenience shops. Finally, some residential units might even be included in this area so as to really integrate uses on the site and so as to achieve a unique outdoor pedestrian mall area with a variety of uses. Consolidation of uses would also eliminate the problem of commercial uses surrounding the existing houses on Shields. 2. Level of Detail. The plan provides insufficent detail with respect to: a. apartment buildings (sq. ft./bldg., units in each building, bedrooms in each building for parking distribution, Page 16 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) building elevations or perspectives); b. townhouse and patio house units (plan view of units on lots, setbacks, off-street and overflow parking spaces, fencing along open space; q. commercial out buildings (elevations or perspectives, especially with respect to neighborhood convenience shops orientation); d. streetnames. 3. Permitted uses in H-B zone. The 12 acres of H-B zoning on the corner was approved by the City Council in January, 1978, with conditions that restrict the uses permitted on the site to "regional recreational uses and accessory.uses thereto". The agreement refers to the definition of access- ory uses which is provided in Section 118-81 of the zoning ordinance. This definition describes such uses as a "Subordinate" use which is "clearly incidental to, customary in connection with, and ordinarily located with the princi- pal use. a. Drive-in Restaurant. The staff feels that the fast food restaurant with drive -up window indicated on the site plan is both inappropriate at this location and prohibited by the conditional zoning. The intent of the conditional zoning was to provide for regional recreational uses without allowing the automobile oriented and other intensive uses permitted in the H-B zone. While the legal agreement mentions "restaurants" as a per- mitted accessory use on this site, the whole purpose of a drive -up window use is to provide quick service to through vehicular traffic on its way somewhere else. This is diamet- rically opposed to the intent of an "accessory use" designed to provide a service in support of some other principal use. Moreover, the rezoning petition submitted by the owner in 1977 specifically lists uses permitted in the H-B zone which would not be anticipated on this site. One -of these uses is "Drive-in/Drive through facilities as a principal use." Finally, the proposed location of the drive-in restaurant is incompatible with adjacent single-family uses, and if allowed would create the potential for conversion of the site of those houses to other automobile oriented uses. b. Other uses. The other proposed uses on the site are also questionable given the definition of accessory uses indicated above. The staff feels, however, that incorporation of the proposed uses into a single complex would strengthen the argument that they are accessory to, or at least supportive of, the principal uses. The staff would also suggest that incorporation of the neighborhood commercial uses and resi- dential uses as discussed above into this complex would be permissible since the uses are already permitted on the site in the R-P zone, and since they would not conflict with the • 0 Page 17 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Q a) basic intent of the conditions permitted in the-H-B zone. 4. Other (More Technical) Comments A. Traffic Circulation. a. Access to H-B uses from Shields Street should be better defined. Primary access to the site from the northwest os off Shields. Definition is poor due to neighborhood convenience curbcuts opposite curved intersection, bowling lane loading docks, drive-in restaurant stack -up lanes; b. R.O.W. for street connection to the east should be dedicated at this time on final plat; c. H-B development should participate in cost of sig- nalizing intersection at Shields and Horsetooth; d. Plan should provide for on -street or overflow parking in townhouse area; e. Accelleration/decelleration lanes and bus stops will be reviewed on final utility plans; f. Internal pedestrian circulation should be tied into sidewalks/bikeways along arterials. B. Open space. Technical comments in addition to general layout comments above are: a. North -South corridor of open space connections should be carried through to patio -home street at least, or better yet to "jogging trail" along north boundary; b. R.O.W. for street connection to the east should not be counted as permanent open space. Active open space figures should be revised to exclude this as well as several other small areas which would not technically qualify. C. Landscape Treatment. Final landscape plan should indicate: a. additional tree plantings in some areas along the arterials in the multifamily area, and in some open space areas, and in H-B parking lot (existing trees to be preserved in the latter if feasible); b. all shrub beds should indicate groundcover; c. automatic irrigation is recommended for all planting areas; d. all existing trees to be pruned by a commercial arborist. D. Public Safety. a. all buildings should provide security measures and lighting; b. fire lanes should be designed so as to preclude being blocked by parked cars. E. Utilities. a. preliminary utility plans will require additional Page 18 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) data for final utility plan review; b. a detailed drainage report should be submitted with final plans. Alternatives to discharge of runoff into the New Mercer Canal should be pursued; c. participation in cost of 24" water mains in Shields and Horsetooth will be necessary. Chuck Mayhugh - representing the applicant - Said the concept was for a large recreational complex. Said the design utilized solar appli- cations. Said the conveneince store oriented inward with no curb cut onto Shields Street. Phyllis Wells: Asked about the miniature golf course. Chuck Mayhugh: Said it was put at the corner to provide a view of the interior of the site from the streets. Said he would be willing to concede the drive-thru restaurant facility. Said recreational buildings were not more than 20 feet tall. Dick Ellerby - Owner/Developer - Said that he did not wish to give up the restaurant, only the drive-thru aspect of it. Dr. Gorman - Resident, caddy -corner from Cunningham Corners - Said anything proposed for the site would be an improvement but was concerned with what would be done about the traffic problem at the corner. Paul Deibel: Said the streets would be improved to arterial standards with signalization at the corner. Gary Ross: Asked if staff concerns had been addressed by the revised plans being shown. Paul Deibel: Said he hadn't seen the plans until today and was hesitant to make any comments. Noted the applicants did not want tabling action. Gary Ross: Suggested reviewing the item on the 20th of November. Chuck Mayhugh: Said the applicants would agree to that. Gary Ross: Moved to continue the item to the November 20 meeting. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Asked if any Board members wanted to give special guidance. Wonder why there were no outdoor tennis courts. Charles Unfug: Troubled with the restaurant as an accessory use. Felt it should be justified. Page 19 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) Lucia Liley: Said she was comfortable with the proposed uses. Phyllis Wells: Questioned the drive-thru and travel agency uses. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 16. #168-78 Chism Homes P.U.D., Master and Preliminary Plans. Description: Proposal for a 930 unit P.U.D. on 1-5 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential located on the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and South Shields Street. Applicant: Robert Sutter, Architects/Planners, Drake Office Center, 333 W. Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO, 80526. John Dewhirst: Gave staff comments for conditional approval. Recommend approval of this master plan and approval of the preliminary of Areas L-1, L-2, L-3, and L-4, subject to the following conditions: 1. That location of the commercial allotment be moved to the corner of Shields and the collector street; 2. That the street paving widths conform to the standards set forth in the P.U.D. Ordinance; 3. That sidewalks be provided on both sides of all through streets; 4. That paved pathways be provided through the green belts and these be linked with sidewalks and/or streets with addi- tional paved pathways; 5. That the pathways be wide enough to properly handle both pedestrian and bicyclists or a separate pathway for each be provided; 6. That drainage plans be provided; 7. That the developer participate in a traffic light installa- tion at the intersection of Shields and Horsetooth; 8. That streets and fire hydrants be installed before the start of construction; 9. That the developer participate in the water mains in both_ Horsetooth and Shields Streets; 10. Additional easements will be necessary for public utilities throughout the site; 11. That an area at least 50' wide be opened to the park at the intersection of the collector and the ring road; 12. That the green belts in Areas L-3 and L-4 be enlarged and opened to the streets and cul-de-sacs. These green belts be incorporated into Area L-2; 13. That areas H-1 and M-3 be combined; 14. That the green belt along the southern edge of the site be eliminated. Ed VanDriel: Asked if the open area met the requirements. John Dewhirst: Said exact numbers had not been given but that any additional space needed would have to come out of the remaining phases of development. Page 20 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) Ed VanDriel: Thought each phase had to meet the open space requirements. Bob Sutter - Representing the applicants - Said the actual greenspace per- centages would be worked out prior to the item going to City Council and that he anticipated no problem. Said street widths were in accordance with the proposed revised widths not yet approved by the City. Said they would be changed to meet existing requirements. Explained why side- walks had been omitted from some areas. Said he did not want to allocate the corner to residential uses. Thought because of the noise and traffic impact the site was more suited for commercial use. Ed VanDriel: Had a problem with the commercial at the corner. Preferred what the staff was recommending. Rick Brown - Representing the applicants - Said the site could be manipulated. Phyllis Wells: Said the commercial should be included with the joining of the H-1 and M-3 areas which would allow it to be relocated from its present location. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval of both the masterplan and the preliminary plan subject to staff comments except for comment No. 1 and that No. 13 be modified to combine the commercial area with the H-1 and M-3 areas. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 17. #169-78 Century Mall P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal to expand the existing Century Mall on the existing subdivision lot via a P.U.D. by 35,400 sq. ft. Zoning is H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Shopping Center Enterprises, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO, 80521. Joe Frank: Gave staff comments for conditional approval. Noted that the plan was much better than what existing at the site presently. 1. In order to provide safe and convenient pedestrian move- ment within the site, the staff would recommend that the developer re-evaluate the plan in terms of providing side- walks along both sides of the Columbia Road entrance and along the north edge of the south entrance; 2. The final plat of University Shopping Center (approved by Council on 5-14-59) shows an additional 15' utility easement which has not been identified on the site plan. The developer should locate and identify this easement on the plan; Page 21 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) 3. In order to assure proper automobile stacking space in front of the building "G" the staff would recommend that the first two parking spaces at the southwest corner of that building be eliminated and instead be utilized as additional landscape area; 4. The developer has provided 185 employee and 504 customer parking spaces, for a total of 689 parking spaces, (1 space per 228 G.L.A.). The H-B zoning district requires a minimum of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 G.L.A. (1 space per 181 G.L.A.) or 865 spaces. The plan as submitted is 176 spaces short of that required in the H-B zone. The petitioner is requesting a variance from this requirement under the P.U.D. regulations. The existing Montgomery Wards store is also deficient in parking by approximately 123 spaces. The developer should re-evaluate the plan in terms of reducing the parking deficit for the Century Mall Shopping Center; 5. The subject property is physically attached to the Montgomery Wards Department Store and is part of the same subdivided lot. The petitioner states that Montgomery Wards is not under the same ownership as Century Mall, and therefore is not part of this P.U.D. submission. Furthermore, the petitioner states that the owners of Montgomery Wards will at a later date pre- pare its own site and landscaping plan. The staff believes that the intent of the P.U.D. regulations, among other things, is to encourage creativity in design over the entire site, and that to improve only a portion of that area seriously erodes the purpose of a P.U.D. Therefore, the staff would recommend that the developer work with the owners of the Montgomery Wards property to include that area in the overll redevelopment plans of Century Mall. While a consolidation of the entire area under one site and landscape plan would be most desirable, the redevel- opment of the Century Mall portion as submitted would substan- tially improve the visual appearance of the mall and would be an economic asset to the entire region; 6. A portion of the site corresponding to the parking area west and south of the existing McDonalds Restaurant is already covered under the "Extension to McDonalds P.U.D." (approved 9/20/78) and should be deleted from this submission; 7. Additional Landscaping. The petitioner should revise the plat to show additional landscaping along the entire frontage of the property as it abuts College Avenue and along the property line between the proposed two-story building and the existing retail shops on the adjacent property. Joe Roo - Developer - Said the intent was to redevelop and revitalize. Was willing to adapt the landscaping as per staff comments. Les Kaplan: Thought the plan was cause for celebration. Thought three pedestrian access points onto College Avenue was ludicrous. Suggested only one. Said the parking was adequate and that the ratio called for by the staff was too large. Noted the Fashion Page 22 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) Mall ratio was not so high. Said that Montgomery Wards intended to do their own landscaping. Said attempts had been made to have the store join with the proposed P.U.D., but that no answer had been received. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments, one (modified to one access, not three), two, three, five, six, seven and to encourage additional landscaping on College Avenue. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Thought the motion should not eliminate the additional pedestrian access points. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Phyllis Wells, expressing strong concern that three points of pedestrian access be provied. 18. #170-78 Golden Meadows Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Description: Proposal for 279 single family lots on 84.6 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, located south of Collindale Golf Course and East of Lemay Avenue. Applicant: Medema Homes, Inc., c/o University Realty, Ill E. Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO, 80525. John Dewhirst: Gave staff comments for a conditional approval. Conditions: 1. All through lots be eliminated; 2. Lots 259-260-261 have 150' in depth; 3. The location of Moon Shadow Lane and Bent Branch Court be moved; 4. The proposed island in Tilting Tee Drive be eliminated or a homeowners association be formed to provide maintenance for the island; 5. All streets be renamed and checked for duplications; 6. All street widths conform to the appropriate City standards; 7. The "eyebrow" either be eliminated or redesigned; 8. That the number of cul-de-sacs be reduced; 9. Two paved roads will be required to the site prior to construction; 10. That all internal streets and fire hydrants be installed prior to construction; 11. That an assurance agreement be filed with the City to guaran- tee the installation of the south one-half of Golden Meadow Drive prior to the final plat; Page 23 November 6, 1978 Planning and ZOning Board Minutes (ja) 12. Water mains in cul-de-sacs be looped and/or V service from through streets; 13. Developer participation in water main in Melay Drive will be required; 14. Additional drainage reports will be required; 15. That detailed treatment of Lemay Avenue be submitted and approved prior to a final plat being approved; 16. Additional easements may be required throughout the site for public utilities; 17. That no commercial allotment for a neighborhood commercial area will be permitted since this development is not a P.U.D. Bill Teller - Applicant - Had no problems with the staff comments except that he thought the streets producing the through lots acted as a buffer to the higher density development to the south. Thought cul-de-sac design was preferred by residents, hence the large number of them. Charles Unfug: Agreed with the applicant's argument for cul-de-sacs. Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments except for that pertaining to the cul-de-sacs. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Noted the City was getting a lot of single-family development in the R-L-P zones. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 24. Svitak - Missle Silo Road Out -of -City Water Request. Applicant: Said the application for water was being made because the site had been rezoned to allow five -acre lot development. Paul Deibel: Said the staff position had not changed since this item had last been reviewed. Saw no justification for development in this area. Phyllis Wells: Asked if supplying the water would not act as an impetus for further development in the area. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend denial. Bob Burnham: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Page 24 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (is) 23. #181-78 South Taft Hill Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone 148.8 acres from FA-1 (Farming) to R (PUD) Residential Planned Development located on the west side of S. Taft Hill on the north side of Harmony. Applicant: Rolin Clark, et. al., 216 West 8th, Loveland, Colorado, 80536. John Dewhirst: Gave staff recommendation for denial. . Recommendation based upon the following reasons: 1. The request conflicts with the County Land Use Plan in that urban densities are proposed for an area depicted as rural; 2. The request is outside of any area envisioned as urbanized by the County Land Use Plan; 3. The request, if approved, could encourage similar requests in the future which could effectively begin to stymie any alternative types of development in the area; 4. The request, if approved, would help to accelerate urban sprawl and encourage "leap -frog" development southwest from the City of Fort Collins; 5. The request, if approved, would place small lots adjacent to 5 acre residential parcels which would be incompatible land uses and lifestyles. Charles Unfug: So moved for denial. Ed VauDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion Carried Unanimously. 19. #171-78 Hillside Green P.U.D. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for a 206 unit single family P.U.D. on 140.8 acres zoned FA-1 (Farming) located west of Taft Hill Road between Horsetooth and Harmony Roads. Applicant: Rollin Clark, et. al., 216 West 8th Street, Loveland, Colorado, 80537. John Dewhirst: Gave staff recommendation for denial. Recommendation based on the following comments: 1. Poor circulation system: Series of overlength cul-de-sacs only partly justified by the terrain. The roads do not follow the terrain and will cause cut and scaring; 2. This area has sufficient areas with slopes over 30%. All slope area over 7% needs extremely careful design and treatment. The general impression of this site plan is a lack of proper treatment of the sloped area. The subdivision is platted as if this were flat land. The provision of open space is in the wrong areas especially the entry park. The gravel pit in the northwest corner of the site, (enter Valley Park). The Hillside Page 25 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) concept in the southeast corner of the site should be continued through the site; 3. This site plan is an example of why the requested zoning R-P.U.D. should be denied. The density is high given the surrounding area, abutting land uses and the terrain of this site; 4. If this is approved, it will set a precedent for density and treatment of development in the foothill area and will increase development pressure in the foothill area. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend denial. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 3. #175-78 Fischer - Colorado 14 111 Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone from FA-1 (Farming) 8.6 acres to C (Commercial) and 26.03 acres to M (Multifamily) located at the southwest corner of Highway 14 and County.Road No. 5. Applicant: Harold S. Fisher, 1240 East Mulberry, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. John Dewhirst: Gave staff comments for a recommendation of approval. This request is located within the Boxelder area (east of Fort Collins, bounded by Prospect Street on the south, County Road 5 on the east, County Road 52 on the north, and I-25 on the west. The proposal conforms to the intent of the Boxelder Amendment to the County Land Use Plan; therefore, approval is recommended. Charles Unfug: Thought there was too much commercial for the location. Phyllis Wells: Noted that the County usually never coped with tiie problem of improving County roads. Ed VanDriel: Thought approval would be bad. John Dewhirst: Suggested calling the request premature. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend denial because it was premature, because of potential traffic problems, because other sites were available. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Page 26 November 6, 1978 Planning and ZOuing Board Minutes (ja) 20. #172-78 Weicker Business Park. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 20 commercial lots on 26.9 acres zoned C (Commercial) located on the north side of Colorado 14 just west of I-25. Applicant: The Weicker Investment Company, 2900 Brighton Blvd., Denver, Colorado, 80202. John Dewhirst: Gave staff recommendation for approval. Approval, subject to the following comments: The subdivision plat is in general conformance with the rezoning request from 0 (Open) to C (Commercial) which is consistent with the County Land Use Plan. The plat should, however, provide street access to Lots 11 and 12 and dedicate street access to the west. Bob Burnham: So moved for approval. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 21. #174-78 Investments, Inc., P.S.- Lemay Avenue Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone from 0 (Open) to I (Industrial) a 2.1 acre tract located on the east side of Lemay Avenue adjacent to Buckingham Street extended. Applicant: Investments, Inc., 10403 West Coffan, Denver, Colorado, 80215. John Dewhirst: Gave staff comments for a recommendation of denial and consideration for annexation based on the following reasons: 1. The request would allow the placement of industrial land uses adjacent to a residential neighborhood without any buffering requirements at the possible detriment to the residential environment; 2. There is no justification for additional industrial zoned land as evidenced by the vacant land zoned for industrial in the area; 3. The County Land Use Plan is unclear as to the disposition of this area. Since this area is in close approximation to the City of Fort Collins, annexation to the City and development to City standards may be appropriate. Gary Ross: Recognized that the existing use was non -conforming and moved to recommend denial. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion Vote: YES - Ed VanDriel YES - Gary Ross Page 27 November 6, 1978 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes (ja) 21. #174-78 Investments, Inc., P.S. - Lemay Avenue Rezoning. (County Referral) Vote: (con't) YES - Bob Burnham YES - Gary Spahr NO - Charles Unfug YES - Phyllis Wells Motion carried 5 - 1. 22. #177-78 W. Trilby Road Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone 5 acres from FA (Farming) to R-2 (Residential) located on the north side of Trilby Road approximately 1000' west of College Avenue. Applicant: Carol J. Gertsch, 1122 3rd, Loveland, Colorado, 80537. John Dewhirst: Recommended continuing the item until the Corridor study was completed. This request is located within the area of the Corridor Study. This and all other applications should be held in abeyance until such time that land use policies of the Corridor Study are approved. Until policies are established, it will be premature to render a decision on land uses within the Corridor without any guidance. It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to the County Planning and Zoning Commission to continue this request until land use policies for the Corridor Study are established. Gary Ross: Thought it unfair to keep putting all development off because of all the studies. Moved to recommend approval. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Thought it wasn't necessarily bad to hold some in abeyance. Vote: NO - Ed VanDriel YES - Gary Ross YES - Bob Burnham YES - Gary Spahr YES - Charles Unfug NO - Phyllis Wells Motion carried 4 - 2. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 A.M. We the undersigned, resider , of the immediate neighborhooe o Del Clair Road and College Avenue, wish to pro<dst the building of Wendy's hamuarger establishment on the proposed site. Such an establishment at this location would create hazardous conditions for our children as well as devaluation of our property. NAME ADDRESS DATE �/ of ... �� rsut. ��%- i/ •sw-��-4'"e/ �C �' �c-'�.c� Cd-Clr-(ter/ /l <f n 1 �G ZZ (� el L y- 7X J Al - Z Y ac n y-7� G, Wendy's Protesters continued-- . _ NAME ADDRESS DATE y� , 9 / — - %, 78 7&u x4J i 5 - 1 3t1 Z-eGwcf K // _157, r� . We the undersigned, residents of the immediate neighborhood of Del.Clair Road and College.Avenue, wish to p `lest the building of Wendy's he irger establishment on - the proposed site. Such arr establishment at this location Vauld create hazardous conditions for our children as well as devaluation of our property. NAME aiNIRF.SS MTV 9 h - -1 q 79 't If" all- o? , i We the undersigned, residents of the immediate neighborhood of Del Clair Road and College Avenue, wish protest the building of Wend establishment on the proposed site, ch an establishment at this loc ion would create hazardous conditions for our children as well as devaluation of our property. �' .�/ ..: . �. ��,. sIFX