Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/11/1978PLANNING OBJECTIVES The Milner Mountain Ranch, consisting of approximately 760 acres and within easy access to the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, has been purchased for the purpose of planning and developing a quality, residential subdivi- sion. The property carries the 0-Open zoning district in the county, which was prescribed in 1963 prior to the beginning of rapid population and land area increases in Fort Collins and Loveland. The property has 2.3 miles of frontage along Buckhorn Road which serves as a foothills connection between these municipalities. The partnership owning this property has prepared a con- ceptual master plan indicating the planning objectives for the entire tract. Nearly half the property will be desig- nated as common open space, thereby both preserving the views into and the natural features of the mountain areas, in addition to providing attractive amenities to the even- tual residents. An interior street system has been designed, providing controlled points of ingress and egress and a vehicular connection to Horsetooth Lake Estates. The master plan is for a low density residential P.U.D., having an average lot size of 2 to 4 acres. Development of the site will be phased, as the Spring Canyon water line is extended south through the property. No well water is intended for domestic use but is available for irrigation purposes. Protective covenants have been prepared which will assure the interior compatibility of the development phases. The overall planning approach to this large tract holds many advantages to county planning efforts and should provide an excellent example of how public and private concerns can work together to promote the public interest. 9 0 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes September 11, 1978 Board Present: Bob Burnham, Phyllis Wells, Gary Ross, Ed VanDriel, Gary Spahr, Robert Evans, Charles Unfug Staff Present: Charles Mabry, Paul Deibel, Robert Steiner Legal Staff: Don Deagle Bob Burnham called the meeting to order at 6:30. 1. Minutes approval, August 4 and 14, 1978. Ed VanDriel: Moved to approve as printed. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Bob Burnham: Explained format for consideration of rezoning requests. 2. #124-78 Sorenson - East Drake Rezoning. Description: Proposal to rezone .2 acres located on Drake Road at Harvard Street from R-L, Low Density Residential District, to R-H, High Density Residential District. Applicant: Curtis and Florence Sorenson, 819 Strachan Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525. Paul Deibel: Said the applicant had made a verbal request for withdrawal and recommended such action. Ed VanDriel: So moved. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. J. McKeever(2700 Harvard): Said the reference in the petition to her property claiming it to be zoned commercially was erroneous. Bob Burnham: Thanked her for the information. 3. #136-78 Larkborough Rezoning. Description: Proposal to rezone 13.8 acres north of Harmony Road and immediately west of the C&S Railroad tracks from Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 2/September 11,1978 T-Transition to R-P, Planned Residential District. Applicant: City initiated. Paul Deibel: Gave the following explanation for the rezoning petition: This rezoning is being initiated by the staff to bring the zoning into line with the approved preliminary plan. The original Planning and Zoning Board recommendation was for R-L-P zoning for the entire site. When the initial zoning was considered by City Council, the area originally designated as a park site was left zoned T-Transition because of the uncertainty of the eventual location of the park and the balance of the site was zoned R-L-P. The park site location was resolved together with the location of the multi -family area as a part of the preliminary subdivision approval. This zoning corresponds with the approved preliminary plan. Gary Spahr: Moved to recommend approval. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Lloyd McLaughlin(representing Larkborough developers): Had no problem with the rezoning. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Other Business Item: Review of Urban Renewal Plan Charles Mabry: Explained the intent was to be a preliminary policy plan and that final proposals including development schematic would be submitted later. Don Colson(Chairman of the Urban Renewal Authority): Reiterated comments by Charles Mabry. Bob Burnham: Asked if federal funding was absolutely excluded. Colson: Said not necessarily. Bob Burnham: Asked how the plan would affect individual property owners. Colson: Said if an individual upgraded a property by himself he might have to face conforming to a later, overall proposal. Said the Authority was still debating whether to pursue an overall comprehensive upgrading or an individual upgrading. Phyllis Wells: Said it was a concern of the Goals and Objectives for downtown low-income housing close to services. Felt a strong commitment to relocate these people in the vicinity and wondered if the Plan's wording, "encourage when feasible" was a strong enough statement. Colson: Said there was a question of authority. Said the statement was meant to make developers aware of the problem but did not know the financial feaseability involved. 9 P & Z Board Minutes page 3/September 11, 1978 Phyllis Wells: Thought there was more emphasis for relocating business than people. Jim Woods(Director, Housing Rehabilitation): Said the area was predominantly business oriented, hence the emphasis. Ed VanDriel: Commented he thought the project was long overdue. Moved to recommend to Council that the plan met the guidelines out- lined by Charles Mabry and recommended approval. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Charles Unfug: Questioned the broadness of the policy and the lack of decisiveness regarding individual vs. overall plan. Wondered what would happen if there were individual efforts to upgrade within an overall effort. Colson: Said the Authority recognized that potential problem and would have to address it. Phyllis Wells: Said the Board appreciated the tedious painful process of coming up with something workable, advised the Authority to take heart because it was a valuable process. Vote: Motion darried unanimously. P p Z .Board Minutes ' page 4/September 11, 1978 4. #125-78 West Horsetooth Annexation. Description: Proposal to annex 155 acres located on Horsetooth Road at South Shields Street. Requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. Applicant: John Michie, 807 W. Horsetooth Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. 5. #126-78 Shields — Harmony Annexation. Description: Proposal to annex 80 acres located on Harmony Road east of South Shields Street. Requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. Applicant: Wm. K. Dahmer, 3709 W.County Road 50, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the following staff comments: These requests for annexation and RLP zoning are consistent with present City goals, objectives and practices. 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 not just this one in particular. The significance of this concern increases every year and will become critical if the proposed constitutional amendment limiting government expenditures passes in the next general election. The City is currently studying techniques that can be used to evaluate the fiscal impact of annexations and development so that this concern can be factually addressed. Recommended approval. Phyllis Wells: Asked about services. Paul Deibel: Said approval of annexation entailed a commitment to serve. Phyllis Wells: Asked if any water district input had been received. Paul Deibel: Said nothing negative. Gary Ross: Asked if the property owner between the two annexations had been talked to about joining the annexation. Paul Deibel: Said no but that he was aware of the proceedings. Phyllis Wells: Noted the Board had discussed annexation policies before. Questioned whether the city would just continue its policy of defensive annexation down to Harmony Road. Paul Deibel: Felt it was more a question for the Board to answer and especially where service could be provided by districts. P & Z Board Minutes page 5/September 11, 1978 Charles Mabry: Said discussions were in progress with the water districts to determine where each should logically serve but were not far enough along to draw lines on a map. Phyllis Wells: Said it could not be forgotten that the City was taking a given stance which required some kind of justification and advised that if annexation continued unabated the city could eventually face serious financial problems. Bob Burnham: Asked what the time frame was until development of a cost analysis. Charles Mabry: Said mid-1979 an impact model would be complbted. Ed VanDriel: Asked whether negotiations were needed with the electric companies as with the water and sewer districts. Charles Mabry: Said there were some jurisdictional problems and that it could increase. Den Deagle: Said negotiations usually occur in advance and that the relationship is good. Phyllis Wells: Said it was important to advise both Council and staff that the present annexation policy was Justifiable only to prevent sprawl. Said it was absolutely logical and advisable to allow utility districts to serve inside the city limits as a meand to filling out their capacity. Said excluding them from servicing within the city only acted as an impetus to drive them farther and farther out which only served to promote sprawl. Ray Griffin(Richmond Dr.): Asked what effect annexation would have on taxes, streets, livestock, etc. Paul Deibel: Said the immediate effect would be negligable but that sub- sequent development could have an impact. Charles Mabry: Noted Mr. Griffin did not live within the areas being considered for annexation. Gary Ross: Advised Mr. Griffin that once his property was two-thirds sur- rounded he could be forcibly annexed in three years. Mr. Griffin: Questioned whether city services could be provided. Nbted the daily contradiction in newspaper articles and other sources that continually pointed out the lack of resources to provide such services. Charles Mabry: Said the specific utilities had indicated they could serve. Phyllis Wells: Said Mr. Griffin had raised some important questions. Noted some citys limited the amount of development. Said continual annexation added to costs and thought it was a problem the city had to come to grips with. P & Z Board Minutes page 6/September 11, 1978 Gary Ross: Moved to recommend approval of both annexations because they corresponded to the Goals and Objectives. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Zoning: Gary Ross: Asked if the R-L-P zone permitted density shifting and a com- mercial allotment. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Gary Ross: Asked how much commercial. Paul Deibel: Said about 30,000 ±. Bob Burnham: Noted R-L-P zoning also allowed straight subdivision develop- ment e.g. Trend Homes. Paul Deibel: Said the City had approved Trend Homes only with a land use variety. Bob Burnham: Said there was no quarantee though. Robert Evans: Moved to recommend R-L-P zoning for both annexations. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. P & Z Board Minutes • • page 7/September 11, 1978 6, #127-78 Bonner Annexation. Description: Proposal to annex 4.1 acres located on West Mulberry Street east of Overland Trail. Requested zoning is R-L-M, Low Density Multiple -Family District. Applicant: Jerold A. Bonner, 1713 Fremont, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. Paul Deibel: Gave the following argument for a recommendation of approval for both annexation and R-L-M zoning: There are arguments both for and against this annexation. The arguments against are that it may be premature for this irregularly shaped parcel to be annexed in its present form and for the city to commit to the development of and provision of services to this parcel in isolation on a piecemeal basis. The argument in favor of annexation is that despite the irregular shape of this individual parcel, it is not too difficult to anticipate a workable street pattern for the site and its immediate vicinity. Moreover, annexation and initiation of development on this site might provide the impetus for orderly development of this vicinity in accordance with the City's adopted goal to encourage residential development in the northern part of the city (see Goals and Objectives, page 12). With respect to zoning of the site, while again we are reluctant to make a recommendation on a piecemeal basis, we are nevertheless supportive of R-L-M zoning because it would provide for some diversity to the largely single family land use pattern in this general area with duplex and fourplex development, but without the potential for any higher density development which could conflict with the character of the neighborhood. (The R-L-M zone does not allow greater than fourplex development.) Gary Ross: Asked for a discussion of a street pattern. Paul Deibel: Explained where connections and second points of access could be provided. Gary Ross: Thought it might be some time until a second access could be provided. Paul Deibel: Agreed. Said until a second access was provided the street into the site could be no longer than 660 feet. Phyllis Wells: Asked if the applicant had discussed with his neighbors annexing a more uniform piece of land. Jerry Bonner(Owner): Said not yet. Phyllis Wells: Asked why annexation was being asked for. Bonner: Said he just wanted to upgrade the property and encourage northern growth. P & Z Board Minutes page 8/September 11, 1978 Rick Remper(area resident): Thought further discussions should be had with the neighborhood before annexation. Paul Deibel: Pointed out the possibility of an improvement district involving assessments but thought it could be benifical. Phyllis Wells: Said much discussion revolved around fill in development in the area. Noted it required much coordination with the county and residents. Was uncomfortable without seeing an overall plan for the area. Suggested the City provide annexation incentives - such as sharing the cost of street improvement. Ed VanDriel: Agreed. Objected to the flagpole nature of the annexation to obtain the required contiguity. Thought it did not meet the spirit of the law and that it also precluded the possibility of an improvement district. Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend denial of the annexation but recognize the desirability of incorporation. Suggested getting a land use pattern developed to conform with the Goals and Objectives and also suggested Council consider supplying incentives for develop- ment. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Charles Unfug: Asked if the applicant had any immediate development plans. Bonner: Said no. Charles Unfug: Said he was uneasy recommending denial. Thought it paradoxial to be encouraging growth to the north but denying annexation. Bob Burnham: Uncomfortable with the approach for achieving contiguity. Ed VanDriel: Uncomfortalbe with the irregular shape. Charles Unfug: Pointed out the whole corner could be annexed in three years. Phyllis Wells: Thought this was a piecemenal approach. Area Resident: Said it was a question of being forced in. Chared Unfug: Asked if he would join in an annexation procedure. Resident: Thought no one else would like it - thought nobody wanted the area developed. Gary Ross: Uneasy with the suggestion for incentives. Saw it as opening a Pandora's Box. Vote: Robert Evans - YES Phyllis Wells - YES Ed VanDriel - YES Gary Spahr - YES Gary Ross - YES Charles Unfug - NO Bob Burnham - YES, but also uneasy with the suggestion for incentives. Motion passed 6-1. P & Z Board Minutes • page 9/September 11, 1978 C� J 7. #128-78 The Boardwalk at the Landings P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a business development on 8.5 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, located north of Harmony Road and west of Lemay Avenue. Applicant: The Landings, Ltd., c/o ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the following discussion to the Board: Background This is a proposal for the neighborhood shopping center for the Landings P.U.D. which is being proposed under the provision of the P.U.D. ordinance which allows a commercial use allotment in residential zones. Site Data 5th Filing Area - - - - - - - - - - -- 8.5 ac Dwellings - - - - -- - -- 0 Density - - - - - - - - - -- - - Floor area "Commercial"- - - - - - - 43,200 sq. ft. "Recreational"- - - - - - 18,500 sq. ft. Total 61,700 sq. ft. Coverage buildings - - - - - - - - 16% streets, drives, parking - 43% landscaped/pedestrian - - 41% Active rec. area - - - - - - -- Parking standard - - - - - - - - 30% provided - - - - - - - - Comments In general, we are supportive of well designed neighborhood commercial uses at this location. The proposal does, however, raise several issues: 1. Commercial allotment. The P.U.D. ordinance allows 40 sq. ft. of commercial use per dwelling unit. Thus the 43,200 sq. ft. proposed must be based on 1080 dwelling units. At present final site plans have been approved for 189 units, and preliminary plans for an additional 190 units. A projection of units anticipated in the rest of the P.U.D. indicates an additional 764 for areas that are already annexed, and a grand total of 1067 units. THe problem that this proposal entails is that it is difficult to predict how many units will eventually be approved for areas which have not undergone any site plan review. While we do feel the general pattern of uses proposed on the master plan and the specific design of the Boardwalk are good, we are concerned about establishing a precedent of approving P & Z Board Minutes page 10/September 11,1978 commercial floor area based on units which are not yet approved; 2. If the proposed Community Health Club is operated as a business then it should be considered a commercial use. This, however, poses additional problems with respect to the zoning ordinance since the 18,500 sq. ft. floor area would be added to the 43,200 sq. ft. floor area referred to above boosting proposed commercial use well above the allowed allotment, and outdoor recreational uses are not included among the uses permitted by virtue of the commercial allotment in residential P.U.D.'s: 3. Parking. Allocation of parking for retail vs. community health club uses should be clarified. 4. Access. Streets providing two points of access to the site must be provided prior to construction of this phase. 5. Other. Assuming the above problems can be resolved, final site plan should respond to the following comments: a) building heights should not exceed limits set by the Fire Department and fire lanes should be specified; b) a 20' easement along sewer line should be indicated; c) exceptional security measures should be provided because of limited police patrol in this area; d) utility plans should (1) specify how this site will tie in with previous filings, (2) corroborate feasibility of use of Harmony Reservoir for runoff detention, (3) provide adequately for inlet to reservoir under the collector street; e) collector street may require design in excess of minimum standards, also street islands impeding traffic flow should be elminated. Staff Recommendation The substantive question to be resolved by the Board is whether or not the plan for the Boardwalk as proposed is a desirable element in the pattern of development for this area. The staff feels that it is. If the Board agrees, then the technical inconsistencies of the proposal with be zoning ordinance must be addressed in order to allow the development to proceed. This can happen in one of three ways: 1) rezoning 2) variance 3) amendment of P.U.D. ordinance to allow variance of P.U.D. requirement on an "equal to or better than" basis upon recommendation by the P & Z Board and approval by the City Council. The staff feels that the third of these approaches is the most direct and appropriate. This provision would also be in keeping with the intent of the P.U.D. ordinance to allow design innovation P & Z Board Minutes • page 11/September 11, 1978 u and variation if it can be justified on its merit under discretionary review. Specifically this would entail temporary withdr'awl of the proposal by the applicants and consideration of the proposed ordinance change at the October Planning and Zoning Board meeting if possible. Bob Burnham: Asked if counsel was comfortable with the third alternative to solving the commercial allotment. Don Deagle: Said it was alright. Said the whole proceedure would continue concurrently with the plan. But informed the Board that if this happened it would not be able to review the actual wording of the ordinance change. Jack Vahreuwald(attorney representing Reid Rosenthal): Said he preferred the third alternative. Pointed out the commercial area was off any main arterals. Requested approval subject to the ordinance change. Frank Vaught(ZVFK): Agreed with staff analysis. Said a community facility area was being provided without HOA ownership. Phyllis Wells: Said through the ordinance change, it was necessary to state findings which show why the variance should be granted. Paul Deibel: Said the site provided a focal point and took advantages of the sites attributes. Bob Burnham: Asked "why is this better?" Vaught: Said the City had originally pointed to a place on Harmony Road as the commercial area, but after analysis, it was concluded the present interior site was especially conducive to pedestrian orientation for the whole Landings development while still allowing auto access. Said the Health Club was not commercial in nature and that it was an amenity unaffordable by an HOA. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend an amendment to the P.U.D. ordinance allowing the Board to grant variances on an "equal to or better" basis. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend, after the amendment to the P.U.D. ordinance, approval of the Boardwalk on the basis of its consistancy with the Goals and Objectives, of the general land use plan, because of its orientation to the neighborhood and because it takes advantage of the physical character of the land. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 8. #129-78 Georgetown P.U.D., preliminary plan. Description: Proposal for 24 multifamily units on 5.3 acres P & Z Board Minutes page 12/September 11, 1978 zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, located on West Drake Road east of Taft Hill Road. Applicant: Miller Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval subject to the following comments: 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. Private Drive a) design to meet City engineering specifications; b) maintenance of drive to be provided for in P.U.D. Maintenance Guarantee; c) centerline radius of curve in s.w, corner should be 150' and sight distance around building should be increased; d) provision of access to the west should be clarified. 2. Parking. a) additional overflow parking should be provided since this proposal is not adjacent to a public street which would normally serve this function; b) perpendicular parking must have 24' of backup apace, and parallel parking spaces should be 23' long. 3. Spring Creek. Final Landscpae Plan should indicate proposed treatment for Spring Creek floodway, including areas designed for active recreational use and the proposed location for the Spring Creek Recreational Trail through the site. 4. Data Preliminary plan should be revised to show elevation contours and preliminary plan should be revised to show elevation contours and preliminary utility layout. 5. Detention. On -site runoff detention will be necessary. Gary Ross: Asked if the recent floodplain study had been taken into consideration. Paul Deibel: Said yes, when the area was originally platted with the single family subdivision to the south. Dorothy Boneman(Constitution Avenue): Asked if the road through the proposed development was directly opposite Constitution Avenue. Paul Deibel: Said it was offset. Boneman: Thought this bad since the traffic was heavy on Drake and the intersection with Constitution was dangerous. Mike Shautland(1724 Hastings): Said people were concerned with multi -family development in a single-family neighborhood. Thought drainage P & 2 Board Minutes • page 13/September 11, 1978 • in area was bad. Objected to having parking in his "back yard." Gary Ross: Asked width of floodplain. Paul Deibel: Said 100 ft. on both sides. Shautland: Said map didn't show development to the south and said he was led to believe the area would be a park site. Bob Burnham: Asked how long the site had been zoned R-L-P. Paul Deibel: Said since it was annexed. Gary Rundle: Submitted petition opposing the development. Gary Ross: Asked if he had some alternative suggestions. Rundle: Greenbelt. Phyllis Wells: Asked what particularly was disturbing. Said the developers were allowed to do what they proposed in the R-L-P zone. Rundle: Said he objected to: 1) Multi -family within a single family area; 2) Safety of neighborhood - i.e. single family neighborhoods are safer; 3) loss of property value; 4) effect on aquatic life in Spring Creek. Phyllis Wells: Said the site lent itself to a P.U.D. Pointed out the substantial open space between the proposal and the single-family development to the south. Noted the Goals and Objectives called for a mixed land use. Also said that not everyone could afford single-family homes. Gary Ross: Said downzoning was possible but it would be up to the petitioners to show proof of change, etc. Suggested buyers had some responsibility to investigate what the possible development potentials were in the neighborhood. Phyllis I Wells: Asked if any discussions had been held with the architects. Gary Ross: Suggested such conversations occur. Shautland: Asked where the school children would go. Gary Ross: Said it was out of the Board's hands but it was a relevant question. Phyllis Wells: Said if development occurred according to school seating availability none of the area development would have happened. Paul Deibel: Said school impact assessments indicated the impact was less for multi -family than single-family. Said the road would have more of a driveway impact on Drake. Said the offset was P & Z Board Minutes page 14/September 11, 1978 was provided to allow for efficient turning movements. Vaught: Said the architectural design acknowledged the quality of the surrounding neighborhoods. Said the entent was for condominiums with garages tucked beneath. Said he was not designing shlock. Pointed out the land was lower than the surrounding area. Dorothy Boneman: Said the buildings were three stories tall. Area Resident: Asked if the Spring Creek Trail would be provided for. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments, that the final return to the Board, that landscape treatment of Spring Creek be noted on the final plan. Bruce Miller(developer): Saw some problems with delaying the project. Paul Deibel: Said it would take an extra two -three weeks. Don Deagle: Said he was not sure the Board had the power to require the final to return. Gary Ross: Thought there had been an ordinance change. Paul Deibel: Though the delay was not substantial. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Phyllis Wells: Explained to the audience that the Board would review the final. Gary Ross: Said it would not rehash what had already transpired. Paul Deibel: Said objections could also be .expressed at the Council's preliminary hearing. 9. #130-78 Evergreen Square P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a business development on 2.2 acres zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on N. College Avenue, north of Willox Lane. Applicant: 1700 Properties, c/o ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Said the item had been withdrawn. 10. 9131-78 1405 S. College P.U.D., Preliminary and Final Plan. Description: Proposal for a business P.U.D. on .5 acres zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located on College Avenue at Lake Street. P & Z Board Minutes page 15/September 11, 197 • Paul Deibel: Applicant: Sorenson, c/o Robert Sutter, Architect, 333 W. Drake, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. Gave the following analysis and comments with a recommendation for approval: This is a P.U.D. proposal to convert the two adjacent residences at 1405 and 111 W. Lake to provide 4,750 sq. ft. of professional office space. Some parking (10 spaces) would be provided between these two structures, but the majority (14 spaces) would be located in a separate parking lot down the street at 121 W. Lake Street, in front of an existing residence which would remain in residential use as part of the P.U.D. This parking lot would be separated from the office uses at a distance of about 60 feet by one residence at 117 W. Lake which is not a part of this P.U.D. proposal, and by the alley which runs down the middle of the block. Site Data Lot area - - - - - - - Floor area office (g.l.a.) - - - residential - - - - - Total Parking standard- - - - - - - provided- - - - - - - Staff comments 1405 & 111 121 Total 13,680 sq. ft. - - 9,775 sq.--ft. - - 23,455 sq. ft 4,750 sq. ft. - - .0 _ 0 1.134 so. ft 24 -- -- 2 10 - - -- 14 - - 4,750 sq. ft -- 1134s ft 5, 4 sq. ft The main concerns of the staff with respect to this proposal are its intensity, with a proposed professional office floor area providing for a workforce of 15 people more or less and requiring a parking lot which despite screening is somewhat intrusive to the adjacent residential uses west of Lake Street, and also its piecemeal._ nature with two noncontiguous parcels in one P.U.D. Despite these drawbacks, however, we feel the proposal is still generally consistent with the intent to provide for the transition from residential uses to commercial uses in this block while preserving as much as possible the structures, landscaping and low intensity of use which characterize the block in contrast to the rest of South College Avenue. Concerning the noncontiguous aspect of this P.U.D., the staff feels that this is a valid approach in this case where the two parcels are functionally related. This should not, however, be considered as a general endorsement of or precedent for noncontiguous P.U.D.'s. Thus the staff recommendation is for approval subject to the following conditions: 1) non-residential uses be limited to "professional office uses" as defined by the zoning ordinance with non-residential floor area not to exceed 4,400 sq. ft. and vehicular trips generated not to exceed 40 daily trips. 26 24 P & Z Board Minutes page 161S&ptember 11, 1978 2) the site plan be revised to provide: a) 24' backup space for all parking stalls; b) additional landscape and fence screening of the 121 W. Lake parking lot from the adjacent residential uses (sufficient to block any headlight glare); 3) utility plans to provide on site runoff detention and sidewalk design detail. Added that a five foot R.O.W. should be provided in the alley and additional R.O.W. on Lake Street with possible improvements. Don Deagle: Said the ordinance was silent regarding non-contiguous P.U.D.s, but suggested with a logical connection it would be alright and might even be benifical in some ways. Phyllis Wells: Noted that while the block was zoned B-P, it had to function partly as a transition area. Gary Ross: Questioned the impact of traffic onto Lake Street and College Avenue. Bob Burnham: Asked if the R.O.W. on Lake could handle eventual widening. Paul Deibel: Said it might but included the final comment in the event that it couldn't. Les Kaplan(Representing the applicant): Said the Zoning Board of Appeals had approved the size variance conditional upon non -retail use only. Said no other property on the black had been required to provide the additional five feet of R.O.W. on the alley. Said parking ratio was 1 to 190 sq. feet. Thought it made more sense to limit traffic by use, not an arbitrary number of trips per day. Gary Ross: Thought widening the alley was imprattical and nonsensical. Thought the 40 trip a day quota was unenforcible. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval subject to the site being used for professional offices only and to staff comments two and three only. Paul Deibel: Asked if he meant to exclude the final two staff comments. Charles Unfug: Said the alley R.O.W. should be dedicated but not improved. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Asked if Charles Unfug meant to exclude the square foot restriction. Charles Unfug: Said yes. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 11. #132-78 Streeter - West Vine Drive Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone 5.6 acres located on Vine Drive west of Taft Hill Road from FA, Farming District, to R2, Residential District. P & Z Board Minutes • page 17/September 11, 1978 • Applicant: Robert G. Streeter, 832 Gregory Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval. Phyllis Wells: Saw the same problems with this rezoning as with the Bonner Annexation. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Robert Evans - YES Ed VanDriel - YES Gary Ross - YES Phyllis Wells - NO Gary Spahr - NO Charles Unfug - YES Bob Burnham - YES Motion carried, 5-2. 12. #133-78 Childers - North Shields Street Rezoning and Special Use Review. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone 10 acres located on Shields Street south of U.S. 287 from FA, Farming District, to I, Industrial District. Applicant: Albert Childers, 1905 N. Shields, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Recommended denial based on the following analysis: This proposal asks for a rezoning from FA -Farming to I -Industrial to facilitate the establishment of a recreation vehicle storage area. The petitioner cites examples of a dog kennel, antique shop, riding stables, welding shop, greenhouse, rental storage, wrecking and salvage business, and a worm business in the neighborhood to support his contention that an industrial zone is compatible. The staff can find no justifiable reason to recommend in favor of this request. Enormous amounts of vacant industrial land exists within the city and in the county which could accomodate the proposed use. Furthermore, to grant an industrial zone could encourage similar requests in the future which could effectively begin to stymie any alternative types of development in the area. Finally, the staff believes it undesirable to set the pattern for industrial development in strip fashion along the Poudre River. Charles Unfug: Noted some nice residential development was occurring to the south. Moved to recommend denial. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 13. #134-78 Fewell Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. P & Z BOARD MINUTES page 18/September 11, 1978 Description: Proposal for 37 single family lots on 96.3 acres zoned FA-1, Farming District, located on County Road 38 south of Timnath. Applicant: James L. & Gloria D. Fewell, Route 2, Box 125-K, Brighton, Colorado, 80601. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval. Though thought it might be premature. Suggested checking about conflict with the Poudre floodplain and redesigning the intersection of Thrush Avenue and Quail Street. Bob Burnham: Didn't know what Timnath thought, but suggested development contiguous to the town might be more appropriate. Gary Ross: Thought it somewhat unusual to be reviewing an item that was on the other side of a city away from Fort Collins. John Husier(representing the applicant): Said the land was not useful agriculturally. Said the Timnath Town Board thought the density too low. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend approval. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Thought the area between Timnath and the site could "fill-in" easily. Husier: Said it was acceptable to alter the street pattern. Vote: Robert Evans - YES Gary Spahr - YES Ed VanDriel - NO Charles Unfug - YES Gary Ross - YES Bob Burnham - NO Phyllis Wells - YES Motion carried,5-2. 14. #135-78 Terry Lake Estates, Peel.iminary Plat. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 10 single family lots on 8.25 acres zoned R, Residential District, located on Terry Lake Road north of Country Club Road. Applicant: Hunter Realty, 333 W. Drake, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval subject to County comments on public improvements. Charled Unfug: So moved. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. . 15. #137-78 Wolaver - Buckhorn Road Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone 760 acres, located west of Horsetooth Reservoir on County Road 38E (Buckhorn Road) from O-Open to FA1-Farming District. P & Z Board Minutes page 19/September, 11, 1978 Applicant: Warren Wolaver, Managing Partner, 1500 Brookside Drive, Loveland; Colorado, 80537. Charles Unfug: Had conflict of interest but said he would make a general planning policy statement after staff comments. Paul Deibel: Said a major difference between this item and the previous one was the zoning already existed on the first while in this instance it did not. Recommended denial based on the following discussion: The O-Open zone would theoretically allow a maximum of 76 units on this site, at a density of .1 unit/acre. A P.U.D. in the FA1 zoning would allow the potential for 380 units on this site at a density of .5 unit/acres. A rezoning of this magnitude would entail a significant departure from the County's Comprehensive plan by breeding the potential for a new "low density residential" cluster larger than any of the existing clusters now shown on the plan. The site is located on land which is classified by the Larimer County Land Use Plan as being undesireable ("less suitable") for development due to both geologic and wildfire hazards. Also the infrasturcture of roads and utilities required for the development under a rezoning to FA1 units on this site would have considerably more extensive impact on the site than that of development under the existing zoning. Finally the rezoning would reinforce the pattern of low density sprawl development which has begun to characterize the area at the south end of Horsetooth Reservoir and which if continued will place additional demands for public investment in services and facilities (e.g. Horsetooth Road) for this area. Les Kaplan(Representing the petitioner): Reiterated arguments presented in the submitted Planning Objectives (attached). Said the developer was interested in departing from the "junk" already built in the vicinity. Said the project would be a true foothills development complete with views of the mountains and civilized amenities. Said the site was unsuitable for farming or ranching. Charles Unfug; General Planning Policy Statement: Said developement in South Fort Collins was on some of the best farming land in the nation. Thought it wise to have development on less productive land. Ed VanDriel: Agreed in principle but thought the cost of services for the area proposed would be absolutely prohibitive. Moved to recommend denial. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Said that once an area is rezoned it makes farming the surrounding area less desirable. Said ones a trend was set it was almost impossible to reverse. Vote: Robert Evans - YES Ed VanDriel - YES P & Z Board Minutes page 20/September 11, 1978 Vote continued: Gary Ross - ABSTAINED Phyllis Wells - YES Gary Spahr - NO Charles Unfug - ABSTAINED Bob Burnham - YES Motion. passed 4,1 with 2 abstaining. Phyllis Wells: Said the amount of money required to improve Buckhorn Road would be phenomenal. 16. #138-78 McCormick - County Road 48 (E. Vine Drive) Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone two acres from the T-Tourist to the B-Business District, located on the southwest corner of County Road 48, across from Black Hollow Junction. Applicant: Stephen McCormick, 5920 W. County Road 50, Bellvue, Colorado, 80512. Paul Deibel: Made the following comments: While the T-Tourist zone permits professional offices the intended new use of the site, a solar engineering firm, requires the Business District to allow for some testing, research, and design uses. The County Planning Office has no objections to the request and expects the site to be substantially improved with the change of ownership. Our recommendation is for approval but with a caution that this not set a precedent in the area for additional rezoning to a more permissive district. Phyllis Wells: Asked if it was conditional zoning. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 17. #139-78 Maxwell - County Road 30 Zoning Variance Request. (County Referral) Description: Request for variance to number of principal buildings per lot requirement. Applicant: Richard Maxwell, 2336 E. County Road 30, Loveland, Colorado, 80537. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval. Ed VanDriel: So moved. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. P & Z BOARD MINUTES page 21/September 11, 1978 18. #140-78 Flynn - County Road 11 Zone Variance Request. (County Referral) Description: Request for variance to required lot sizes in the O-Open District. Applicant: Edward Flynn, N. County Road 11, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval and said the mechanism circumvented the standard rezoning procedure. Suggested this was benificial, at least in this instance, since it did not set a precedent and allowed the commissioners an item -by -item review procedure. Phyllis Wells: Moved to defer to County discretion. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 19. #141-78 Schrader Zone Variance Request. (County Referral) Description: Request for variance to setback requirements of the major street and highway plan. Applicant: Wayne Schrader, 320 N. College, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Recommended approval. Gary Ross: So moved. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Other Business: Election of new officers; Phyllis Wells was unanimously elected as the new chairperson. Gary Ross was unanimously Elected as the new vice -chairperson. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. • i P¢:TITION We the undersigned request that the Georgetown Planned Unit Development, planned by Miller Homes for the triangular shaped area between Cedar Village Subdivision to the south and Lexington Green Subdivision to the north, not be approved or built for the following reasons: 1) the design of multifamily units is not in keeping with the single family dwellings presently standing in this area, 2) the construction of such multifamily units may lower the value of the existing single family housing in this area, 3) multifamily housing promotes a more transient type of dweller and reduces the safety of the neighborhood for our children. Ci*i�. ✓ L C y'�'�� � � ail ���r1 (�/-�'� �� 1-14 11-J 11 LI i f } K �t 17 YT-) �17✓l , )� 01 11`C�> J �,� �a� /7 / ,�. �fv �_( 171 i ;b19 v c2 �02 � 1�lell-l- Ci C b4x�- DK, llv57 ssjZ 72WP&4-j• a5-3 A2,- 161 g M 1�3/ (;�FeAl/ C. ow ()CoL . �� UCLn (/tea -ems a to a s /°i4�� uec ,ail., i __ September 9, 1978- FKM: Property cumers and residents, Lake Street and College Avenue RE: Proposed variance request for a business P.U.D. on .5 acres of land zoned B-P, located on College Avenue and Lake Street The following paragraphs summarize our opinions and recommendations concerning this matter. We respectfully request your careful consideration of the items cited. We oppose granting a variance specifically .for use of the piece of land at 121 Lake Street, presently a small home and yard, as a parking lot for the building now awned by John Clark at 1405 College Avenue as this violates the integrity of the residential pact of this neighborhood. ,We do not appose use of the latter property for its proposed renovation as law offices since this is in acoordance with current guideelines for use of this neighborhood. Our specific concerns are as follows: 1. The guidelines written by the Planning Director for this block in May 1977 state that "The area including lot 1417 and north of it generally consists of houses which should be preserved, provided that appropriate commercial uses can be located within then. The suitability of such uses should be a function of vehicular traffic generation to a large degree and of the compatibility between various uses to a lesser degree. Commercial uses on these six lots should be limited to non -retail and only low trip generating uses not to ex- ceed twenty (20) daily trips including those of employees." Need for a large parkking lot does not appear to be in accordance with these guidelines. 2. The city has previously denied use of this same piece of land for this same purpose (parking lot) when it was proposed by Henry Brack to be used in connection with a business located on the corner opposite (north) of the John Clark property. 3. We believe that to meet B-P requirements and to preserve valued residential atmosphere, pieces of land to be considered as part of a P.U.D. need to be contiguous. The parking lot parcel is separated by at least one, and possibly two, other parcels from that which is proposed for the. law offices. Part of the reason for the adoption of P.U.D.'s in the first place is to promote development in an organized manner and to protect housing fran encroachment of non-residential establistmients. We agree with the applicants that a larger P.U.D. development could possibly be considered for same time in the future and that conceivably a parking lot would be included in such a plan. However, it is premature to direct the content of this plan, and, at this time it is not compatible with P.U.D. requirements or appropriate for this small residentlaf neighborhood to have a large Parking lot situated in its center. Therefore, we urge that this variance be denied. Respectfully, //9 w /- `i91itze �T 1' 3:3 1500 Brookside Drive Loveland, CO 80537 August 22, 1978 Mr. Larry Timm Planning Director Larimer County Planning Department County Courthouse Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Mr. Timm: On behalf of Milner Mountain Properties, a limited partnership, I am pleased to submit this application to change the zoning district classification for Milner Mountain Ranch from O-Open to FA-1. As you know, considerable changes in the Fort Collins - Loveland area as well as in the vicinity of the subject property have taken place since the property was originally zoned in 1963. These changes are discussed in the attached petition for rezoning. In that a great deal of information is contained in this rezoning report which should be helpful to the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, I urge the Planning Office to give copies of this report to each. If you have any questions concerning this application, please contact Mr. Les Kaplan, 482-3322, who is providing planning consultant services to the partnership. Thank you for the assistance your office has given thus far in the preparation of this application. Very truly yours, Warren Wolaver Managing Partner Milner Mountain Properties PETITION FOR REZONING Petitioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warren Wolaver Interest in Property. . . . . . . . . . . Managing Partner Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 1500 Brookside Drive Loveland, Colorado Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667-2916 Name of Owner of Record . . . . . . . . . Milner Mountain Properties, Limited Partnership Existing County Zoning. . . . . . . . . . O-Open Proposed County Zoning. . . . . . . . . . FA-1 Land Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 acres ± Adjacent County Zoning. . . North . . . . O-Open South . . . . O-Open East. . . . . O-Open West.. . . . O-Open Legal Description of Property - That portion of the West half of Section 1, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., lying South and East of County Road 38E. That portion of the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., lying East of County Road 38E. That portion of the EAst half of Section 11, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., lying East of County Road 38E and the West half of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M. The remainder of this petition describes both the changed conditions which justify this rezoning and also the basis for the requested FA-1 zoning district. Changed Condition The subject property was designed for O-Open zoning in 1963. Substantial changed conditions have altered the appropri- ateness and reasonableness for this zoning classification. Once used for ranch land, this property is presently more suitable to successfully fulfill low density residential land use purposes in the county. This changed public purpose becomes increasingly clear as the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland continue to grow in size and to urbanize in character. The changing public purpose of property in the Buckhorn Canyon is evidenced by the extensive subdivision and development activity which has already occurred since 1963. The establish- ment of the Spring Canyon water District and the Spring Canyon Sanitary Sewer District after 1963 now serve to facilitate the transition of appropriate portions of the Canyon from impractical farming and ranching uses to residential areas which can function- ally relate to the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Among those changed conditions since 1963 which demonstrate the suitability of a change of zoning from the O-Open zoning district are the following: I. Growth Patterns of Loveland and Fort Collins. Since 1963 the urbanized land areas and populations of Fort Collins and Loveland have grown dramatically, thereby changing the locational and land use inter -relationships between the subject properties and these cities. The Larimer County Land Use Plan affirms the desirability of positioning residential clusters within this general area of Larimer County, rather than uniformly continuing farming and ranching activities. Statisti- cally, the population and land area changes for these cities are these: Population Land Area (approx. sq. mi.) Fort Collins 1960 1978 25,000 70,000+ 6 20.5 Loveland 1960 1978 9,734 32,250 .03 9 -2- II. Development in Surrounding Areas. Among the larger subdivisions which have occurred within the Fort Collins vicinity since 1963 are the following: Year No. of Lots A. Horsetooth Lake Estates 7/64 311 B. Spring Canyon Heights 2/65 77 C. Cushman's 7/67 108 D. South Moffett Park 9/68 67 E. Continental West 2/70 41 F. Continental North First 9/71 47 G. Continental North Second 6/75 54 H. Thompsons Lakeside 6/75 46 I. Glades West P.U.D. 4/76 45 J. Inlet Knolls P.U.D. 2/77 57 This list does not include subdivision existing in the area prior to 1963, nor does it include subdivisions in the west Loveland vicinity. Additionally, this subdivision list omits the extensive development in 35 acre tracts that has occurred since 1963 in the area of the subject property. For the most part this change from large agricultural tracts to smaller tracts has occurred in the Soderberg Ranch and the Swansen Ranch, west of the subject property. III. Capital Improvements and Public Services. Since 1963 the characteristics of the subject property have changed significantly with respect to the availability of major facilities and services necessary to efficiently and effec- tively support low density residential development in the county. A. Access. The subject property has 2.3 miles of frontage along Buckhorn Road, which is a paved, county road -3- connecting the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. The midpoint of the property is 12 minutes from Fort Collins and 18 minutes from Loveland along this road by automobile. Buckhorn Road experienced major improving and upgrading in 1967. B. Water and Sewer Services. Neither the Spring Canyon Water District nor the Spring Canyon Sanitary Sewer District existed in 1963. Both districts are con- tiguous to the subject property at its north end. C. Police and Fire Service. Due to the extensive amount of subdivision and development activity in the sur- rounding areas since 1963, police and fire protection patterns have already been well -established. IV. Reduced Feasibility as Ranch Land. Due in part to the development which has occurred in the area and the overall decline in ranching activities county -wide, this property has lost its practical use as ranch land. In 1977 the total income from grazing for this 760 acre tract was $700.00. The topography and soil conditions make the property, impractical for other agricultural uses. V. Changes in the 0-Open Zoning District. In November 1973, Larimer County changed the permitted uses and regulations for the 0-Open district. The zone was changed so as to allow the Board of County Commissioners a more restric- tive rein over development within this zone. Whereas the old O-Open zone allowed for virtually any type of development, whether single-family subdivisions, mobile homes, or multi- family, the new zone becomes very restrictive in light of its -4- 10 acre per unit lot area requirement. In essence, the new O-Open zone restricts development within this zone to extremely low density residential and farming related uses. Prior to November, 1973, therefore, all FA-1 uses were allowed in the O-Open zoning district. Consequently, had the stipulations of this zone not been changed, the subject rezoning request would not be necessary. VI. Adoption of the County Land Use Plan. In March of 1978, the County Planning Commission adopted the county's first land use plan. While the Plan is not detailed with respect to this area, it does establish the suitability of "clustered" residential development in the vicinity of this property. For this vicinity, the Plan emphasizes that new development should be located immediately adjacent to existing residential development and should be compatible with the rural character of the area. Both these points are satisfied through the location of the property and the proposed zoning and develop- ment approach. Other Circumstances Justifying the Rezoning The Larimer County Land Use Plan is generally supportive of the proposed FA-1 zoning district for this property. Addition- ally, the applicant intends to master plan the entire 760 acre tract with a planned unit development (P.U.D.), thereby, assuring controlled and responsible phased development for this site. I. Consistency with the Land Use Plan. The Plan shows this tract of land west of and contiguous to -5- a designated High Density Residential cluster and just north- east of a designated Low -Density cluster. The proposed FA-1 zoning district would allow a low -density, planned residential project abutting this High Density cluster and approximately one mile northeast of the designated Low Density cluster. . Such zoning would provide a logical transition from this high density area, allowing .25 acres/unit density, and the low density area, allowing 2.29 acres/unit density. For this region of the county, clusters have been designated with latitude for flexibility. This is the case largely because the areas between clusters are not as critical for Plan imple- mentation as, for example, non -cluster areas in the Loveland - Fort Collins corridor area. This is substantiated by the actual language of the Plan: Masonville is an area of scattered low density residential development which has an existing community center. Any additional commercial development and community facilities should be located near the existing community center. New residential development should be located immediately adjacent to existing residential development and should be compatible with the rural character of the area. (p. 121). Concerning the agricultural productivity in the Masonville area, the Plan states, The Masonville area is not among the County's more productive agricultural areas; new develop- ment in the area would, therefore, have little impact on agricultural productivity. (p. 120). And, with respect to the relationship between this area and surrounding urban areas, the Plan states, Masonville is considered a cluster, with a unique identity, separate from any potential general urban service areas of a municipality. (p. 120). Q� In summary, the Land Use Plan provides for the utilization of the subject property consistent with the requested FA-1 zoning district. Additionally, the owners of this property intend a development approach which will further assure consistency with the Plan and compatibility with the surrounding areas. II. overall Planning and Development Approach. The property owners have already prepared a general master plan for the entire 760 acre tract, indicating the overall, unified approach to site planning this property. Major elements of this master plan are the following: A. Approximately 350 acres of common open space. This will preserve the natural amenities of the site while making them equally available to all homeowners in the P.U.D. B. Limited access points along Buckhorn Road. Three intersections are spaced about three-quarters of a mile apart so as to diffuse traffic into and inter- ruptions with Buckhorn Road. C. A continuous north south paved, local street. This street runs north -south through the length of the project, thereby, limiting the loading onto Buckhorn Road and providing the spine for the interior street system. D. A vehicular connection with Horsetooth Lake Estates. This existing and contiguous subdivision to the northeast will have an interior street connection with this P.U.D. E. Preservation of the Redstone Creek area for common open space. -7- F. Extensive restrictive covenants to assure the existing owners, the county, prospective lot pur- chasers, and neighboring residents that development within this P.U.D. will adhere to the pre -determined standards. The master planning of this entire property serves both the development approach intended by owners as well as the public interest of the county. First, the overall planning approach for this 760 acre tract prevents the barrage of rezoning requests which would occur were the property to be divided into 35 acre tracts or larger. Secondly, it assures the county an overall planned approach to a large parcel of land, therefore, allowing coordinated access points, a compre- hensive interior street system, forethought in open space planning and so on. Finally, it allows the county to exercise farsightedness in addressing through land use planning the future demands for large -lot residential opportunities in Buckhorn Canyon, as the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland continue to grow in'population and land area. Summary Substantial changes of conditions affecting this tract warrant a change from the existing O-Open zoning district, designated in 1963. These changes include the growth patterns of Loveland and Fort Collins; the mushrooming of development in the vicinity of this property; the establishment of necessary utility and public services; the reduced practicality of using the property agriculturally; recent changes in the O-Open district; and the emergence of the county Land Use Plan. Additionally, the requested FA-1 zoning district has the advantages of being consistent with the general objectives of r� u F. Extensive restrictive covenants to assure the existing owners, the county, prospective lot pur- chasers, and neighboring residents that development within this P.U.D. will adhere to the pre -determined standards. The master planning of this entire property serves both the development approach intended by owners as well as the public interest of the county. First, the overall planning approach for this 760 acre tract prevents the barrage of rezoning requests which would occur were the property to be divided into 35 acre tracts or larger. Secondly, it assures the county an overall planned approach to a large parcel of land, therefore, allowing coordinated access points, a compre- hensive interior street system, forethought in open space planning and so on. Finally, it allows the county to exercise farsightedness in addressing through land use planning the future demands for large -lot residential opportunities in Buckhorn Canyon, as the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland continue to grow in population and land area. Summary Substantial changes of conditions affecting this tract warrant a change from the existing O-Open zoning district, designated in 1963. These changes include the growth patterns of Loveland and Fort Collins; the mushrooming of development in the vicinity of this property; the establishment of necessary utility and public services; the reduced practicality of using the property agriculturally; recent changes in the O-Open district; and the emergence of the county Land Use Plan. Additionally, the requested FA-1 zoning district has the advantages of being consistent with the general objectives of �E the Plan with respect to this vicinity. This proposed zone would abutt a designated High Density cluster and would be close -by a designated Low Density cluster. Moreover, the planning and development approach intended by the owners affords many advantages to both future residents of this project, as well as, neighboring property owners. Further- more this large tract planning approaches provides the county an opportunity to address many of its land.use and site planning objectives. f! y • VI L n m s ran 1 unuw I F qrl Rl ti a n too I ' e q> 21. LfW L _ a / �� i• V�•yll m m � H W� ! ,y NP10fY \ y7 � 7 I •yam ' ; \ � � -,. a � , September 9, 1978 TO: Members, PLANNING AND ZCNING BOARD CAE' FORT COLLINS FRCM: Property owners and residents, Lake Street and College Avenue RE: Proposed variance request for a business P.U.D. on .5 acres of land zoned B-P, located on College Avenue and Lake Street The following paragraphs summarize our opinions and reco miendatims concerning this matter. We respectfully request your careful consideration of the items cited. We oppose granting a variance specifically for use of the piece of land at 121 Lake Street, presently a small home and yard, as a parking lot for the building now owned by John Clark at 1405 College Avenue as this violates the integrity of the residential part of this neighborhood. ,We do not oppose use of the latter property for its proposed renovation as law offices since this is in accordance with current guidelines for use of this neighborhood. our specific concerns are as follows: 1. The guidelines written by the Planning Director for this block in May 1977 state that "The area including lot 1417 and north of it generally consists of houses which should be preserved, provided that appropriate co merci.al uses can be located within them. The suitability of such uses should be a function of vehicular traffic generation to a large degree and of the compatibility between various uses to a lesser degree. Commercial uses on these six lots should be limited to non -retail and only low trip generating uses not to ex- ceed twenty (20) daily trips including those of employees." Need for a large parkking lot does not appear to be in accordance with these guidelines. 2. The city has previously denied use of this same piece of land for this same purpose (parking lot) when it was proposed by Henry Brack to be used in connection with a business located on the corner opposite (north) of the John Clark property. 3. We believe that to meet B-P requirements and to preserve valued residential atmosphere, pieces of land to be considered as part of a P.U.D. need to be contiguous. The parking lot parcel is separated by at least one, and possibly two, other parcels from that which is proposed for the law offices. • -2 • Part of the reason for the adoption of P.U.D.'s in the first place is to promote develognent in an organized manner and to protect housing from encroachrmmt of non-residential establishments. We agree with the applicants that a larger P.U.D. developnent could possibly be considered for some time in the future and that conceivably a parking lot would be included in such a plan. Hmjever, it is premature to direct the content of this plan, and, at this time it is not conpatible with P.U.D. requirements or appropriate for this small residents neighborhood to have a large parking lot situated in its center. Therefore, we urge that this variance be denied. Cl�sf�Jpry� Respectfully, war y September 5, 1978 CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS We, the undersigned are all owners of single family residences, located within 500 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Thunderbird Estates, First Subdivision; otherwise known as the Southwest corner of Harvard Street and East Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENCE, that we are opposed to rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Thunderbird Estates, First Subdivision from R-L, low density residential to R-H, high density residential for the following reasons: 1. we purchased our homes in a first class residential area and want the area to remain single family, quality residential housing; 2. rezoning will cause a general deterioration of the quality of our neighborhood; 3. rezoning this property will generate other requests to change the zoning along East Drake Road; 4. previous requests to rezone this property have been denied by your predecessors; 5. high density residential zoning is not compatible with the zoning for Lot 2, Block 1, Thunderbird Estates, First Subdivision - 2605 Harvard Street, or Lot 1, Block 2, Thunderbird Estates, First Subdivison - 2600 Harvard Street. 6. we have no assurance of what may be built on Lot 1, Block 1, Thunderbird Estates, First Subdivision if it is in fact, zoned for high density residential at this time. We do know that with present zoning only a single family residential can be built. Date Name Address Ft. Collins. CO 80525 Ft. Collins CO 80525 Colli Ft. Collins CO 80525 0 �J CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Page Two Date Name Address rc. uoi nns, w uvazs Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Ft. Collins CO 80525 %- C• ��' F�� i l%'! %! - „ e Ft. Collins CO 80525 hh', 'f'Ft. Collins. CO 80525 CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Page Three Date T/J Name Addressi. Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 NOTARY PUBLIC: the foregoing inst ument was acknowledged before me this 8th day of Septenber , Name Date AlY ComMWW =0m JmuffY Z 1082 SEAL 19 78 .