Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/10/1978PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES July 10, 1978 Board Members Present: Bob Burnham, Ed VanDriel, Gary Spahr, Phyllis Wells, Charles Unfug Staff Members Present: Charles Mabry, Eldon Ward, Paul Deibel, Sue Cilley Legal Representatives: Lucia Liley, Don Deagle Bob Burnham: Called the meeting to order at 6:30. Welcomed Charles Mabry as the new Director of the Planning and Development Department. 1) Approval of the June 12, 1978 minutes. Phyllis Wells: Corrected the spelling of "Rehnberg" on page six. Ed VanDriel: Moved to approve the minutes. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 2. #97-78 CSURF Zoning. Description: Proposal to assign zoning to 430 acres owned by the Colorado State University Research Foundation. Applicant: Staff initiated. Bob Burnham: Asked if legal work on this item was complete. Eldon Ward: Said no. Said item was being withdrawn. The Board concurred. 3. #98-78 Buckeye -North Lemay Rezoning. Description: Request to rezone 62 acres located on Buckingham Street west of North Lemay Avenue from T, Transition to I-P, Industrial Park District. Applicant: Buckeye Land & Livestock Company, P.O. Box 35, Eaton, Colorado, 80615. Charles Unfug: Withdrew due to conflict of interest. Bob Burnham: Asked if item should be handled as a rezoning. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Bob Burnham: Explained procedure for hearing rezonings. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 2 Steve Lower(Representing the applicants): Questioned considering the request a rezoning since applicants were asking for the first developable zone. Thought most existing land uses and area zoning promoted the rationale for industrial zoning saw no reason to increase the residential enclave. Said no residential amenities were available. Pointed out over one third of the area was devoted to settling ponds making development costs considerable. Thought no one would want to live in an industrially surrounded area. Said lime dumps were a health and safety threat. Felt splitting the land into two zones was unfair to the owners. Distributed a letter from Faith Realty assessing the developability of the land. (attached) Paul Deibel: Gave the following comments and recommendation: The basis for the original recommendation for R-M-P for this area was as follows: 1, to provide a location for new higher density development at a centralized location which would be supportive of the downtown and N. College Ave. business districts without requiring conversion of existing neighborhoods; 2, to provide residential land uses adjacent to existing low income residential neighborhoods so as to support the improvement of those neighborhoods through City and HUD funded housing rehabilitation, sewer line installation, street paving and lighting, and so as to reinforce the viability of residential uses in this area; 3. because the "need" and comparative advantages for additional industrially zoned land in the northeast is very questionable. On a city=wide basis, the breakdown of residentially and industrially zoned shows a marked concentration of industrial development opportunities to the northeast (although very little such development has occurred) whereas, opportunities for new residential development are predominantly to the south. Thus given the above objectives, a comparative advantage exists in this vicinity for residential rather than industrial development. The Buckeye Company makes two statements in support of its contention that "this land is only suitable for commercial or industrial development." These statements are: a) "The character of the neighborhood is industrial", and b) "The physical condition of the land makes development of this land infeasible for other than commercial or industrial purposes". The staff disagrees with both of these statements. The "character of the neighborhood" is established by the Y Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • July 10, 1978/page 3 existing residential uses in Buckingham, Alta Vista and Andersonville more than the Progress II Homes or the undeveloped industrially zoned land. One of the purposes of providing additional residential zoning is to preserve a balance of residential uses in this area as it develops. Concerning the "physical condition of the land", the lime deposits and settling ponds referred to cover only about 10 of the 62 acres in question. Moreover, the City Engineering Office does not feel that these conditions pose any problems of site preparation which are extraordinary enough to have any bearing on land use determination. Nevertheless, the staff has re-examined its original recommenda- tion for 62 acres of R-M-P. We have received more detailed flood plain information which places the Western portion of this site within the Poudre River flood fringe. While residential development may occur in the flood fringe with floodproofing, we do not consider it to be optimal as compared to business and industrial uses which may be more easily evacuated if necessary. It is for this reason that we are changing our original recommendation from R-M-P to I-P on the eastern 27 acres of the site (which includes the lime deposit area). We still feel that the R-M-P zone should be applied to the western 35 acres. Staff recommendation I-P for Western 27 acres R-M-P for Eastern 35 acres Bob Burnham: Asked if any correspondance had been received. Paul Deibel: Indicated a neighborhood petition, but it had not been officially submitted. David Lauer(Chairman of Buckeye Residents Council): Submitted a petition opposed to the applicants' zoning request. Suggested the lime deposits be left as open space. Lou Stitzel(Neighbor to Neighbor Representative): Read a letter signed by eight people from the Alta Vista Resident Council (attached). Felt lower income needs should not be ignored. Cited examples of industry located close enough to residential areas that workers could walk to work. Chris Ferguson(Faith Realty): Saw problems with splitting the area in one ownership into two zones. Thought existing roads created natural zoning divisions. Said the purchasers intention was for the whole area to be industrial. Gary Spahr: Asked for flood status clarification on eastern portion. Paul Deibel: Explained. Bob Burnham: Asked about the city utility service. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 4 Paul Deibel: Said they are either available and adjacent or could be extended. Ed VanDriel: Asked for comments from a representative from Everitt Enterprises. Gary Haxton(Representing Everitt Enterprises): Said Everitt Enterprises was not in favor of R-M-P zoning on the eastern portion. Preferred an industrial zone. Phyllis Wells: Asked what the county zoning had been. Paul Deibel: Said generally industrial. Gary Spahr: Asked what the cost would be to make the lime deposits developable. Paul Deibel: Said the cost was there regardless, and should not be a criteria in determining the land use. Ed VanDriel: Asked if proper legal notification had been done. Gary Haxton: Said he had been notified only of the industrial request. Also questioned why part of Everitt Enterprises land was included since it had not been requested. Phyllis Wells: Asked if Everitt Enterprises property was excluded how much R-M-P would be left. Paul Deibel: Guessed about 28 acres. Phyllis Wells: Asked if anyone from the neighborhood cared to comment on extending Everitt Enterprises I-P zoning along East Vine. Lou Stitzel: Said the neighborhood was concerned about the viability of continuing the improvement of their neighborhood. Phyllis Wells: Asked about a park site location. Paul Deibel: Said it was indefinate. Phyllis Wells: Suggested the area zoned residential within the floodplain could be a candidate for park and open space acquisition. Paul Deibel: Said it was possible. Phyllis Wells: Reiterated three points of consideration: 1) need - said there was no argument for the need of developable zoning. 2) effect on the surrounding neighborhood of an industrial zone: thought this the most crucial question and noted the Goals and Objectives called for a bolstering of the area. 3) a need to look creatively at the problem of lower income housing. 4) Facilities: Said the city has already invested heavily in the area. u Planning and Zoning Board Minutes • July 10, 1978/page 5 Moved to recommend I-P for the West 27 acres and R-M-P for the remainder except for the six acres belonging to Everitt Enterprises. Said that land should remain in the same zone as the rest of Everitt Enterprises land. There was no second. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend I-P for all land south of East Vine Drive and R-M-P for land north of Vine. There was no second. Gary Spahr: Felt Everitt Enterprises land would create an industrial barrier between neighborhoods. Moved to recommend staff recommendation. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Ed VanDriel - YES Phyllis Wells - YES, agreed with Gary Spahr except for the Everitt Enterprise land. Felt that they would have a chance to argue their case before City Council based on their existing masterplan. Gary Spahr— YES Bob Burnham - YES Motion carried unanimously. Ed VanDriel: Concurred with Phyllis Wells. Paul Deibel: Said the item would probably go to Council August 1. 4. #99-78 Staff Report on College Avenue Access Road System; Horsetooth Road to Harmony Road. Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments (Graphics attached): 1. Utilize through local streets behind commercial development rather than frontage roads whenever.possible; 2. When or if a frontage road must be used the concept is to bring the intersection with the perpendicular local street 400 - 600 feet back from College Avenue; 3. Signalized four-way intersections with collector streets are designated at the 1/3 mile points. The staff plan is supported by the Highway Department and has been presented at a meeting of private property owners in the area and shown to the City Council and County Commissioners at work sessions. ZVFK Architects and Planners have been retained by a group of property owners in the area to do overall planning for the unincorporated area east of College Avenue. The staff is enthusiastic about this approach as areas of fragmented Planning and Zoning Board Meeting July 10, 1978/page 6 ownership are frequently problematic due to lack of coordination. At this point there are few if any significant conflicts between ZVFK's approach to traffic circulation in the area and the staffs. Noted the plan was definately only conceptual. Carr Beeker(ZVFK): Explained work done by his firm and Bob Lee of Lee Associates. Said Lee recommended signalized intersections every third or every quarter mile. Felt every third mile was optimal. Said traffic load on College could increase from 20,000 to 60,000 trips a day. To provide relief, outlined a collector system running parallel to College and with a road running through the Landings development out to College. Said the scheme did not preclude frontage roads. Said there was some flexibility in the location of the signalized intersections. Noted his firm represented 11 property owners south of Old Muddy Road. Paul Deibel: Noted the discussion was strictly conceptual and that any official action would be taken later. Marc Middel(Property owner): Requested the location of one intersection be moved so that R.O.W. and costs could be borne by more than one property owner. Ed VanDriel: Thought the proposed connector through the Landings would act as a shortcut. Reid Rosenthal(Representing the Landings): Approved of the ZVFK plan. Frank Day (Part owner of the Prime Minister Restaurant): Questioned having the restaurant encircled by roads. Ed Zdenek: Noted the intersection would be signialized. Eldon Ward: Said there was no real immediacy to the plan but was needed as something to respond to development requests. Said the point was to avoid intersections 15 feet away from College (hence, the road configuration around the Prime Minister). Said the State Highway Department objected to having an intersection at the location proposed by Mark Middel. Noted in terms of cost, the developer only carried the local street cost. Charles Unfug: Moved to have the Board receive the report and praised the active participation by landowners. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Added that the south half mile was within the Corridor study and expected that committeesicomments as well. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 7 Gary Spahr: Complimented all concerned and said this was the first time in his six months on the`Board he'd seen some real planning carried out. 5. #96-78 Highland Plaza Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Description: Proposal for 7 commercial lots on 43.6 acres located on College Avenue north of Harmony Road. Proposed zoning is H-B, Highway Business District. Applicant: Troutman Farms, c/o M&I Engineering, 4710 S. College, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave -staff recommendation for approval based on the following comments: 1. Traffic circulation a) analysis should be given to the need for an additional crossing of the C&S railroad tracks to provide -- additional access to the west. At present the staff feels that a collector street should extend west from McClelland Drive via either a T-intersection at the half mile point, or an extension of Troutman Parkway. b) Final plat should contain a note to the effect that lots fronting on S. College Avenue will not have direct curbcut access onto S. College Avenue. Lloyd McLaughlin(M & I Engineering): Said the applicant had no objections to the Railroad crossing, but wished to avoid a situation of bearing the cost of the road if it eventually was only to dead end. Paul Deibel: Agreed. Ed VanDriel: Asked if cost of an under or overpass was prohibitive. Paul Deibel: Thought so and felt space could be a problem. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 6. #100-78 Larkborough Subdivision, Preliminary Plan Description: Proposal for 340 single family lots on 94.6 acres located on Harmony Road west of the C & S Railroad right-of-way. Proposed zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. Applicant: Art Builders, Inc., 582 Mohawk Drive, Boulder, Colorado, 80303. Paul Deibel: Gave staff comments: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 8 1. Traffic circulation a) Manhattan Avenue should not be continued from the north as a "through" collector street from Harmony to Horsetooth as proposed; b) Analysis should be given to the need for an additional crossing of the C & S Railroad tracks to provide additional access to and from the east. At present the staff feels that a collector street should connect this area with McClelland Drive to the east via either a T inter- section at the half -mile point (as provided for in the Park South P.U.D.) or an extension of Troutman Parkway; c) The location of the main north -south street of the sub- division ("Manhattan Drive") should be shifted east at its south end to provide a single premanent south access from Harmony Road located about 300' east of Crest Road. A second temporary street access should be provided at the west end of the site, to be closed when additional access is provided through development to the east; d) We project a main north -south collector street to be located just west of this site, and local street pattern should be revised to provide good access to this collector street, i.e. at least 3 local street connections to be continued west. See attached illustration of projected collector street pattern for this entire Section. 2. Parksite. A neighborhood park of approximately 15-20 acres should be located in the middle of this Section. Thus approximately 6-8 acres at the northwest corner of this proposal should be reserved for a park. (See attached illustratinn showing projected location for park and relation to projected collector streets.) 3. Other a) Drainage. Drainage considerations are crucial in this area. Provisions must be made to accomodate the passage of the 100-year storm from the basin above this sub- division. Detention must be provided for the difference between the 100-year developed storm and the 2-year historical. Discharge from the detention storage should be into a natural drainage way and not into an irrigation ditch. Lot by lot detention is not acceptable. A complete drainage report based on new City storm drainage specifications should be submitted with utility plans. Plans for detention pond should include appropriate seeding, trickle channels, overflow structure, etc.; b) Street design detail. Traffic load on "Manhattan Avenue" should be analyzed in light of projected collector street pattern for larger area to see if proposed 80' R.O.W. is in fact necessary. Hummingbird Court R.O.W. should be increased to 60'. Street radii at 900 Planning and Zoning BdS'sd Minutes July 10, 1978/page 9 intersections of less than 150' should include a design feature such as an eyebrow section with a 50' radius from intersecting centerlines to give the effect of an intersection and reduce the hazard of such a restricted curve. Also, "Humingbird Court" should have a 60' R.O.W.; c) Streetnames. "Pintail", "Falcon", and "Mallard" are streetname duplications and should be changed; d) Railroad fence. The C & S Railroad has asked that the developer install a six foot high chain link fence along the tracks; e) Use of "Laird Norton" property should be considered/ Recommendation: Conditional approval with changes made before going before City Council. Charles Unfug: Asked about the location of Troutman Parkway crossing the Railroad tracks, about the location of the detention pond. Felt that a total redrawing of the plat was required and he was uncomfortable recommending approval. Lloyd McLaughlin(Representing the applicant): Didn't think a one month delay would be time enough to answer the question of the Troutman Railroad crossing. Bob Burnham: Asked about the R.O.W. of Manhattan. McLaughlin and Paul Deibel: Said it would probably be 60 feet. Bob Burnham: Asked about proposed park site and the Park South development. Paul Deibel: Explained. Gary Spahr: Said development was occurring so rapidly he felt uncomfortable without seeing a masterplan. Bob Burnham: Felt uncomfortable with the scale of revisions involved on this plat. Paul Deibel: Said a rezoning request for that area was on the agenda (County Referral) Felt existing conceptual plan would serve as the ground rules for development of the section. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend disapproval. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Paul Deibel: Asked if Charles Unfug anticipated the item going to City Council with the Board's denial recommendation or that changes be made and it return to the Board. J Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 10 Charles Unfug: Said the intent was that he preferred to have something before the Board which it could approve rather than something needing major revisions. Amended his motion to table the item so that it would return to the Board. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 7. #219-77C University Square P.U.D., Revised Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for an office/residential Planned Unit Development on 6.8 acres zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located on S. College Avenue at West Pitkin Street. Applicant: Poudre Valley Construction. Company, 1301 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the following comments and recommendation: The proposal entails intensive use of the site; a 470% increase in floor area from the plan approved in 1974, 44 d.u./acre residential density, and floor area to lot size ratio of 1.5. Perhaps the two most significant aspects of the proposal would be its traffic and visual impacts. 1. Traffic. The plan approved in 1974 required parking for 320 cars. The currently proposed revision requires parking for 607 cars. The staff questions the appropriateness of this intensive a use at this location given the existing problems of traffic movement through this area on S. College Avenue. The developer has indicated that he feels that the impact of the proposed predominantly residential development will have a less severe traffic impact than the hotel and retail uses shown on the 1974 plan. The staff on the other hand feels that the peak demand (rush hour) impact of a residential project of this scale may be considerably more severe than the more constant or evenly distributed impact of commercial development. The staff has not had time to undertake the detailed quantitative traffic impact analysis that this proposal requires, nor has the developer submitted any such analysis for review. 2. Visual. On the positive side, the proposal would retain predominantly residential use of the site as an alternative to commercial development along S. College. Also the towers could add the variety of a vertical element to the skyline of the city if their mass and scale is compatible with surrounding uses. On the negative side, the proposal would entail removal of some of the existing trees on the site, and some views to the west would probably be eliminated. Planning and Zoning lard Minutes • July 10, 1978/page 11 The staff feels that specific questions of urban design concerning the visual relationship between the proposal and surrounding uses should be more specifically addressed by the applicant. 3. Other a)density. Despite its high density, the proposal is less dense than the maximum which would be possible on a site this large in the R-H zone. (The B-P zone permits R-H uses if developed as a P.U.D.) b)emergency access. Although the internal design of the proposal is well thought out to provide the required open space and parking in an orderly way, at this density the plan should be revised to provide adequate fire emergency access: 1) parking structures obstruct access to "Tower D" with aerial equipment; ii) accessways around the towers should have a minimum unobstructed width of 26' and be located no further than 16 to 18' from the towers to permit access by aerial equipment; iii) a sprinkler system will be required inside tower building. c) internal traffic circulation. Although the detailed traffic impact analysis should also examine access into and out of the site, preliminary comments are that the second (far south) curbcut on College Avenue should be eliminated. A traffic signal at Lake Street is already required by the subdivision agreement on this site, and traffic should be focused on Lake Street and the access drive at the area of the site rather than on College Avenue (It was decided in conjunction with review of the original plan in 1974 that a dedication for Mason Street should not be pursued along the west end of the site due to the undesirability of a Mason Street West Prospect Street intersection to the south as well as the difficulty of extending Mason Street through the Colorado State University campus to the north. For these reasons, the "Mason Street Policy" adopted in May 1976 does not call for Mason Street to be extended through this area. Access to the site from Pitkin Street will be restricted by the University to right turns only, i.e. no left turns by westbound traffic, as was the case with the 1974 plan.) d)revised utility plan and easements would be necessary with final plans. Staff Recommendation The staff does not feel it can make a recommendation until the questions of traffic and visual impact are analyzed in greater detail. We would therefore suggest that the proposal be Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 12 tabled. Noted that the difference in recommendations for this item and the previous one was one of specific versus general and ambigious problems. Bob Burnham: Asked if parking figures included the conceptual fourth tower. Paul Deibel: Said no. The fourth tower depended on acqusition of property in the southeast corner not presently included with the site. Gary Spahr: Asked what the fire department's feelings were about the height. Paul Deibel: Said sprinklers would be required. Phyllis Wells: Asked about rescue facilities. Paul Deibel: Said it would be handled through the building code. Phyllis Wells: Asked if the building Code addressed the energy question. Paul Deibel: Thought it did but wasn't sure. Don Deagle: Said Council was in the process of adopting an Energy Conservation Code which would apply to this building. Bob Burnham: Asked about having only two access points. Paul Deibel: Explained. Gary Andreson :Architect): Requested conditional approval with compliance to all applicable codes being addressed at plans stage. Passed out a traffic engineering study and explained it (attached). Phyllis Wells: Questioned the number of trips per day per unit. Andreson: Explained the figures were based on the type of family living in luxury condominums. Regarding visual impact, said if this type or size development occurred in anything but tower form it would be a behemoth. Said an attempt was made to frame the mountain with the shafts. Cited examples in Boulder. Phyllis Wells: Asked if Boulder passed a height restriction. Andreson: Said Boulder was a unique situation. Had no problem of removing one access point. Said things had been arranged to minimize negative impact on existing landscaping. Bob Burnham: Asked if staff would prefer further study. Paul Deibel: Said if the traffic information submitted was verified it would go a long way toward settling the traffic question. Regarding visual impact, requested Board input. Planning and Zoning and Minutes • July 10, 1978/page 13 Phyllis Wells: Thought question of visual impact was subjective and felt community should have opportunity to comment. Felt the development had not been well publicized and that was enough grounds for tabling. Harold Miller(Applicant): Cited one neighbor who had no objection to the plan. Said he would be willing to build four towers at 15 stories as an alternative. Bob Burnham: Thought the plan raised larger questions which shouldn't be saddled on the developer. Felt this was the first project to raise the problem of visual impact. Andreson: Asked if a press conference held within the next 30 days would help. Thought this project could be the start of "landmark" architecture in Fort Collins. Phyllis Wells: Moved to table the item one month and that during that time the traffic impact should be examined and that sufficient publicity should be given to the plan. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Don Deagle: Felt it inappropriate for the Board to table. Said the applicant had the right to proceed to Council. Bob Burnham: Said this advice differed from previous counsel received by the Board. Don Deagle: Cited the ordinance. Bob Burnham: Said there would be no recommendation on the basis of insufficient information. Don Deagle: Felt that would constitute denial. Said with applicant concurrence the Board could "continue" the hearing to the next meeting. Vote: Ed VanDriel - YES Phyllis Wells - NO Gary Spahr - NO Charles Unfug - NO Bob Burnham - NO Motion failed to carry. Phyllis Wells: Moved to deny for lack of information but preferred tabling with applicant concurrence. Andreson: Asked if there were any questions not yet answered or which could not be conditionally addressed. Phyllis Wells: Said Board would like staff response time and citizen input. Ed VanDriel: Wanted the new traffic engineer to look at the figures. Noted aesthetics was also a problem. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 14 Charles Unfug: Asked when the traffic impact information was requested, Paul Deibel: Said four weeks ago. Charles Unfug: Said ordinance required receipt of such information two weeks prior to the meeting. Gary Andreson: Apologized. Felt the results of the study were of such a magnitude they could be presented at the meeting. Harold Miller: Requested tabling. Phyllis Wells: Reiterated her previous tabling motion. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Miller: Requested the item not go public yet. Bob Burnham: Said the minutes were part of the public record. 8. #104-74A Sundance Hills P.U.D., Revised Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 152 multi -family units on 17.9 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located on Redwood Street south of Willox Lane. Applicant: D.C. Miller & Company, c/o Cornell Consulting Company, 214 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments and recommendation for approval: The staff feels that the plan proposed is straightforward, provides generous open space and has a workable traffic circulation system. The following concerns should be addressed: 1) The legal instruments for landscape maintenance must be submitted; 2) Sidewalk will be required on both sides of the internal streets; 3) A complete drainage report as per the engineers specifications. The drainage should be taken to a natural channel and detention must be provided. Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. r� u Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 15 9: #101-78 Redwood Court P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 13 multifamily units on 1.5 acres zoned R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential District, located on Redwood Street 1/4 mile south of Willox Lane. Applicant: Domus, c/o ZVFK Architects, 214 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO., 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave the staff comments and recommendation: The staff generally is enthusiastic about this approach to development. The following comments should be resolved on the final plan: 1) The design of the turn around should be slightly redesigned.to accomodate the turning requirement for large emergency vehicles; 2) The easement for the Greeley Water Main should be indicated on the site plan to verify that no conflicts exist between the easement and the proposed buildings; 3) The design of the private drive should meet the criteria of the engineering staff. Recommendation: Approval subject to the above comments. Ed Zdenek(ZVFK): Had no problem with staff comments. Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 10. #102-78 Parkwood East Subdivision, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 184 family lots and three (3) multi -family tracts on 114.7 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, and R-P, Planned Residential District, located on Drake Road east of the Union Pacific railroad, right-of-way. Applicant: Lake Sherwood Joint Venture, 3000 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Co., 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented staff comments and recommendation: 1) The eventual sizing of the detention pond may impact the future development of Tract "A" and to a certain extent the single family lots in the southeast area of the site. Final plats should not be approved until drainage plans are finalized; Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1475/page 14 2) Local street names should be assigned. Parklaka Drive as indicated does not line up with Parklaka Drive south of Drake Road; 3) Stuart Street will not extend to the Union Pacific Rail- road tracks. Eventually the street will empty into the R-P area and a future parking area for the planned swimming pool; 4) The bike path running through the eastern portion of the sita should intersect Drake Road across from Parklake Drive in the Lake Sherwood Subdivision; 5) Drake Road should receive standard arterial improvements including a seven foot pedestrian/bike path. Recommendation Approval subject to the above comments. Jim Stewart(Stawart and Association): Said the drainage study showed sufficient apace as designated. Questioned the Stuart Street comment 03). Eldon Ward: Said the comment was only explanatory. Gary Spahr: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Phyllis Weller Seconded the motion. Votel Motion carried unanimously. 11. #103-78 Sunset Ridge 5th Filing, P.U.D. (County Referral) Descriptions Proposal for 10 single family lots on 2.5 acres zoned M, Multiple Family District on Flag Drive north of U.S. 287. Applicant: Glendon R. Anderson and Vernon R. Sunset, 430 Link Lane, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments and recommendation: This is a request for ten townhouse units on Flag Drive in the Sunset Ridge project northwest of LaPorte, Colorado. The Board has been supportive of the Sunset Ridge and development in LaPorte in the past as a desirable alternative to scattered sites of urban density throughout the County. The staff sees no particular problem with the proposal at hand: Reedmmpnd0,0A Approval, Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 17 Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 12. #104-78 Cotton Willow Estates Subdivision, 6th Filing, Preliminary. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 174 dwelling units on 87.3 acres zoned R-2, Residential District and C, Commercial District, located south of U.S. 287 and west of the town of LaPorte. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 3000 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO., 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave background and staff recommendation: Throughout the history of the Cotton Willow Estates project the Planning and Zoning Road has strongly opposed this development within the Poudre River Floodplain. Earlier this year the Board unanimously voted to recommend denial of the recently granted R-2 zoning for this particular site. Recommendation: The staff continues to strongly feel that development, especially of this scale and density, should not be allowed in the flood plain. If, however, the plan is approved by the County it should be with the conditions that: 1) All structures should be elevated above the flood fringe; 2) Urban improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting should be required. Earl Stafford(Representing Everitt Enterprises): Said if the elevation was raised six inches then flood insurance was obtainable. Said property was under option only on the condition that it could be easily raised out of the floodway. Explained how the elevations by Stewart's and Assoc, had been done from the ground while the Corps of Engineers' had been done from the air. Gary Spahr: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comment #2. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Asked if the lower lots were wet during the recent high water. Stafford: Said yes and explained that was why that land had not been bought. Phyllis Wells: Concerned since that hadn't even been a flood. Was uncomfortable recommending approval. Said there was Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 18 evidence the area was susceptible to flooding. Gary Spahr: Asked James Stewart if in his professional opinion any part of the property was in the flood plain more than the 6" already cited. Stewart: Said anything above the road was out of the floodplain but it was hard to say exactly how much for every spot. Didn't think the flood plain problem created significant difficulties. Vote: Ed VanDriel - NO Phyllis Wells - NO Gary Spahr•- YES Motion carried, 3-2. Charles Unfug - YES Bob Burnham - YES 13. #105-78 Dahmer - County Road 38 Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Request to rezone 80 acres located on the northeast corner of County Road 38 and Shields Street from FA-1, Farming District, to B, Business, and R, Residential Districts. Applicant: William K. Dahmer, 3709 W. County Road 50, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments and recommendation: The County Land Use Plan indicates this area to be included within the Fort Collins City Limits by the year 2000. It would seem logical then, that because the site is eligible for voluntary annexation, the property should be incorporated before urban density development occurs. The staff feels that regardless of the City boundaries in relation to this site, the following should be conditions for granting urban density development: 1. Ten acres of commercial development should not be allowed at the intersection of Shields'Street and Harmony Road. Intersections of two arterials are hazardous -points of heavy traffic volume and multiple turning movements. City policy in recent years has been to not allow direct access onto arterial streets. To create an intensive commercial use at this intersection would have significant adverse traffic impacts; 2. Harmony Road and South Shields Street should receive standard City Arterial Street improvements (oversizing, bike -pedestrian walks, limited access, etc.); Planning and Zoningtoard Minutes July 10, 1978/page 19 11 3. A collector street pattern serving the section as a whole (see attached graphic) should be pre -planned and utilized; 4. A mix of low density residential should be encouraged through zoning allowing planned unit development; 5. Adequate urban services and improvements should be re- quired. Recommendation The above conditions can best be met through a City development. The staff recommends the rezoning be denied, and that the parcel be annexed before a land use pattern is determined. Bob Burnham: Asked if the Urban Service Steering Committee had provided input. Eldon Ward: Said no conclusions had yet been received. Bob Burnham: Asked if annexation was necessary. Eldon Ward: Explained land use plan alternatives. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend denial of the rezoning and suggested voluntary annexation. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 14. #106-78 Collopy, Pexton, Troutman, et. al., County Road 38 Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Proposal to rezone 94.5 acres located west of the C & S railroad tracks and north of County Road 38 from FA-1, Farming District, to R-2, Residential district. Applicants: Lydia M. Collopy, Margaret M. Petton Mav Troutman, et. al., c/o Gene Fischer, P.O. Box 506, Fort Collins, CO., 80522. Eldon Ward: Said this item had recently passed on its second reading for annexation at City CounciIl and was now a moot point. 15. #107-78 Southborough County Road 32 Rezoning. (County Referral) Description: Request to rezone 114 acres located on the south side of County Road 32 east of the existing Colland Subdivision from FA-1, Farming, to R-1, Residential. Applicant: Southborough . 1520 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave the following discussion and recommendation: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 20 Discussion This is a request to rezone 114 acres south and east of the existing Colland Center Subdivision. In May the Board recommended denial of the adjacent filing plat for the Colland Subdivision. The requested rezoning extends a full half mile beyond the "cluster" indicated on the County Land Use Plan for the Fossil Creek area, and would create density well above that indicated for the cluster. The staff feels this proposal is clearly contrary to the Land Use Plan, would be a detriment to the Corridor Study, and would obviously contribute to the whole set of problems caused by scattered sites of urban density development in the County (lack of adequate emergency services, public transportation, accessible school sites, cultural and recreational facilities, street lighting, sidewalks, etc.) Recommendation Stongly for DENIAL. Harry McCabe(Representing the applicant): Said the land was not producing enough to pay taxes. Said request was for two units per acre. Said much of the gully area would be used as open space. Complained that the Land Use Plan was being used as a zoning ordinance - no due process. Felt it should be used only as a guide. Described the surrounding development and the planned clustering for the site in question. Cited convenient location between the two cities. Bob Burnham: Asked what occurred on the review of the adjacent development - Colland Center. Eldon Ward: Said the County indicated that Loveland had recommended denial. Ed VanDriel: Asked where the nearest school was. McCabe: Had no precise figures. Chuck Mabry: Brought up the question of the Corridor Study and reported on the July 10, 1978 noon meeting. McCabe: Thought the Corridor Study was fine but shouldn't be used as an excuse to delay decisions. Said the study did not require a moratorium especially as viewed by the County Commissioners. Felt time delays brought monetary hardships. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 21 Phyllis Wells: Said that, not based upon any land use plan and not based on the Corridor Study, but because the proposal constituted erosion of the type of lifestyle the community wanted to maintain since it was undesirably located in terms of services, air pollution etc., she would move to recommend strong denial. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion, strongly. Thought if the County Com- missioners agreed with McCabe then both Fort Collins and Loveland were spending alot of time and money for nothing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 16. Other business a) Amendment of R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential Zone to eliminate building coverage requirements. Paul Deibel: Gave the following staff comments: The R-L-P zone contains a provision (Section 118-41.1 A. (2)) which restricts building coverage in a P.U.D. to 15% of net area for multifamily and 20i for single family development. This in addition to another provision restricting density to 6 units/acre. The staff feels that this coverage restriction should be eliminated. The initial rationale for this requirement was probably to ensure adequate open space in this zone. However, several years subsequent to adoption of the R-L-P zone, the P.U.D. ordinance was amended to require specific amounts of open and active recreational space for all P.U.D.'s. Because of this, and because the overall intensity of development in the zone is regulated by the density restriction, there is no need for the additional coverage restriction. In fact, the coverage restriction, may create the potential for a less desirable pattern of development in this zone. For example, see the attached letter which discusses the implications of the coverage restriction on a well designed townhouse project, Collindale P.U.D. Second Filing, which was recently given conditional approval. Although the R-L-P zone has been in existence some time, it is only in the past several months that any P.U.D.'s have been pursued in this zone. Thus we have only recently realized the problems which the coverage requirement entails for the townhouse and cluster single family develop- ment which this zone should foster. The R-L-P zone is also the only zone at the present time with a building coverage restriction. Bob Burnham: Asked staff for its recommendation. Paul Deibel: Said it recommended amending the R-L-P requirement by elimination of the building coverage requirements. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes July 10, 1978/page 22 Ed VanDriel: So moved. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Charles Unfug: Asked about an amendment made in 1977. Paul Deibel: Said he hadn't checked it specifically but thought it involved neither coverage nor density requirements. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 2) Letter drafted from the Board to Council regarding staffing and objectives. Chuck Mabry: Thought the letter was well written and addressed some needs very well. Noted there was inadequate staff to weed the needs but thought Council and the City Manager would be responsive. Mentioned that he planned to have the Board review the department's 1979 budget request. Charles Unfug: Moved to approve the letter. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 3) A meeting for public hearing on street width recommendations was set for July 24, 1978. 4) Eldon Ward suggested that due to the holiday the August meeting be held on the 14th with a luncheon meeting on the 4th to handle county items and to hear revisions of the County Land Use plan. Ed VanDriel: So moved. Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. July 7, 1978 Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Fort Collins City Council Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: #98-78 Buckeye -North Lemay Rezoning Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a licensed real estate broker and have personally examined the property which is the subject matter of the above captioned request to rezone 62 acres located on Buckingham Street west of North Lemay Avenue from T, Transition to I-P, Industrial Park District. It is my opinion that there is practically no market at all for this land if zoned for residential or multi -family unit development. In fact, I don't see how this land could be used for anything else but industrial purposes, and even at that development of the land will prove difficult. The reasons for my opinion are as follows. The physical configuration of the land will require extensive excavation for any type of development. There is a large deposit of lime on the property which presents a serious problem. The lime would have to be either removed, or pillars would have to be set in the lime for foundations, as it is not possible to build on the lime. Also, it is my understanding that such a deposit of lime has an adverse effect on landscaping. The nearness of this land to downtown Fort Collins is not advantageous for residential development as the roads leading from this land to downtown are poor and the river and railyards in between are significant physical barriers. The above problems cannot be resolved by zoning a portion of the land residential and a portion industrial, as the cost of correcting the problems on the approximately 10 acres covered with lime would made the land impossible to sell unless those acres were combined with other industrial land to make the per acre price competitive. 1630 South College Avenue • Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Telephone 484-1 01_ 4 F'? Al '�T1U• Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Fort Collins City Council Page 2 July 7, 1978 In addition, it is my opinion that the character of the entire area where the subject property is located is industrial. The land immediately abutts the Union Manufacturing factory and there is other industrial activity to the North, West and Southeast of the property. The entire area bounded by Buckingham Street, North Lemay Avenue, East Vine Drive, and Linden should be zoned industrial, as these streets provide a natural boundary for an industrial area, and the land is only suited for that purpose. BT:jw Very truly yours, Bill Thomas 1630 South College Avenue • Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Telephone 484-1001 To: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning °oard From: Residents of ?uckingham Area Date: June 30, 1978 Re: #98-78 Fuckeye - North Lemay Rezoning V Petition We, the undersigned residents of the Fuckingham neighborhood request that the entire 62 acres north of us not be zoned Industrial Park. We suggest that that portion now covered by industrial deposites directly north of 2nd and 7rd Streets be declared open space for later possible use as park land. We further suggest that at least the portion of land west of these deposits, or an equally large portion east of them, be zoned medium density residential inorder to provide adequate space for future housing near the downtown area. We do�hot want to be surrounded by industrial parks. Name Address (Name Address nJ QQUC�n812J _.�•�%Ii �%44L�Z /�'�.)�t-`�h��2'/Icy!-��v ��/� ./3�;7 ._... 73 7 ��C-fL.. Zfiri...iN��• �'�'y ,""`'`7 ..� ',•�i(-'tV' ���tk,����'-�� ��.�U �a�.�:�• �fZ'lll�,�° z�v,s/.` SIB, A 2-2' � � �� 1/G s« 1 to rt8 • �.G%�� �} c , 17 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Planning and Zoning Board Membersi Alta -Ville Center 732 Alta Vista Street Fort Collins, CO 80324 July 6, 1978 Thank you for sending us notice of Item No. 3, #98-78, Buckeye -North Lemay Rezoning, and of the meeting on Monday, July 10, 1978, at 6s30 P.M. at City Hall. A group of us have met at the Alta -Ville Center to discuss the above matter. This group letter is to register our complaint that all of the land is requested for Industrial Park zon&hg. Part of the land would be good for housing and it would be good to have a more even mix of housing and Industrial Park. We know that the City Planning Office presented a plan to the Planning and Zoning Board and to the City Council that is a mix of Industrial Park and housing. We like that plan best. Most of us Work, must take care of children or are too elderly to make the meeting at 6s30 P.M. Please accept this letter as our true and honest feelings for our good, the good of our neighborhoods and the good of our community. L J Sincerely yours, 734 Alta Vista Street �� 05 North Count oad #13 738 Alta Vista Street ���� /Z�l r.z 729 Lindenmeier Road 2 lta V sta Street No Text M •� j W •l �. 7 - o N A JaA p �JIMJom Y o a Q \ o oldweH 4 - r IOMc �r•�����■ is Ple-er I r u ob p _I Pcpm uL W. on I $ Leo o ,. Pam. O'. iQ 000d w — U —__ Z L u is uoseiN $ v L r w � a p Ul � �• � O AuacoItf n —. ID iz u0j >J ' t o< o _Age_ XIL O x1=-• 2 3-S I c • Andresen Associates/Architects 2430 South University Boulevard Denver, Colorado 80210 Telephone 303-777-2411 City of Ft. Collins Planning Department Re: University Square Project Gentlemen, Please find enclosed our study pertaining to traffic generation for the above referenced project. You will find an attached summary which we believe shows that our new proposed project produces a net reduction of 40% to 50% in traffic impact to the community over the original approved scheme. This study shows peak a.m. and p.m. vehicle trips as well as maximum peak hours and 24 hours week day total. Each category shows a significate reduction in traffic. It is our feeling that this new project will represent an improvement by virtue of it meeting the requirements of the original medium density residential zoning criteria. Certainly its present zoning would allow the developer much greater developement density. If there are any question regarding our calculations and source please do not hesitate to contact our office, Sincerely, Andresen Associates/Architects iM"WooffirlmarA i Architecture Planning Engineering 0 0 CI &-S -73 �.,oUTN 'PAi�-KING r,��"1�UGTV tZ'� NGRTH ��R kl N G �j't2�Gj��R F r6TA�. UND�r? UT/�2 BARK SURF!-�G'✓ �a�wNc„ �UTf� TcTfi•�- 5UK t'�c.e 3'Al2K�NC� TTA�- FMZ<Qr, CAN FUO r..' 17S 185 �A3 tAm Co Up IGtN�L. GR►TOR.t A - ADO r=o fPU•O . TOTAL, fA42ic►Nca fZMqUiRt-= O 4.4G sPACME, �L- coMflLtX� lS0 U{�IfS�?I,I = �6S 'S��G�S C�IG�T�tV : %�1' 85�240� 303.34 = 231 PACs 42,E:(-PLAZ5-� 4 M 1Zwr.- P TDuep, As or-Fl c-e : 20 X 14,s spaces : 2Qo sgc= �- 20 csf2 Y Tow 45 MAPrMFENj CC.QCb : zo x 8.75 = 17 5 5phc s FVRK-DTEV MOrJT I,Auo • C & - S • 78 5 1a:D slim LM UZA7161J t!:rlHl!ME •A• Ai;2aRTM>=OJT COMOO MINIUMIE; ma's 3'fdW OVrPIGE GPAGt= R>✓T'al L- SpAGF �. l C'�f-iC CcMf�- = 2►,c 5� @ 3cx�s.r:� 70 C4* Z. A'ARTM r CONoos : ZOO UNIlTs - 464,78o 4: �;v ss wzs,& 3- Zo STAY TCWeRe; LOP ►oouNire eACJ4 150 Ito - ► c�M�l.S s�a��s 150 CA� 31 5 CAG R-06VAURA4,17 OFP(C S CcmDO 2 C) Soo S. t:-. @ 45= S.r-, ?,e Ulp.eN1mN�T"" - &34o CAR G O tJ -P6 AOj usTEV fog W.AJ " CONDI.TIO NS (P641 9Zxawe yekle..l e 4y t ps pet , CaLi-ato-v !, CAI TeKI Ati 1. G. Yel id—e -tt,t fs l dan % voovn 2. 'P atlSk6 7m t�87-oV•T• 641 /100a s.T: (60456 ACA) 3 (eaynmusaifiy c�� , mot re$ivtal ceK+ev OPFIC i— 18.0 V.T. Ma j / 1000 s-f. C"O: s AeKq) 4. 3.49 V•-r � cl a� j Jwe.Q. k4j 1tJl�rli �t>>� _ JAt tr OFFtLE }toTsl> - fSLDCo A 4o,76S —0-- Bt,Ddo Cf,29(a 6L�Dro G 5,-448 51248 OL.Dca. — O- &II'S0 gLIDG !v 58Z4 - o- $L,D&;. \ I J;o ?OOM. �8 40 0 330114�4- L�0 l�L-U �ATID N o�Ajc.� 38.I44x 1I s = �S4z; S �T �v �i� "woo v r2��-a�t.R. o. � VT � d -(0 Y Mary jtio X 5 = 75'0 . o 4<0 71. -7 9 V.T. fey d.aa tov -tO kt fO O . :V�KTJN& :R)D t5t)f F6VTrp hepSo � totoj IAI?1 h fW -to-fA' , C-Pac-R5 'ice � _ i 0 1 Atv^[-51z2 • 60h�vluej WIN AMENDED TUD-fROfO5A 1i' foFL OO(V aeSlr(c,;Ql)ARr-- 0•flGF, AFAVZTM61 C too tkm&s lwa.,-q 1060, v loo UK4S DVLI,-DLNcv, T—ZL JOb utii�s 13,0 A /,lr' b $UTLD`!o -1!;. 151600 —o— $uiWI& &try (o,550 16)oob —o- 101550 3(i7SO —�uno i s ja57jA11. 1 o .55 x G5 - Co".9 V.T. eev, clay -&Y oT-r-lc,e 3 1. '7 x 18 = 571. S V.T. p2v 4 v A?Al?-TMn)r> 300 X.3.4 ^ I o S o _ a v,-r tl) O ►' YYI �-�t "-�AN� 22�3.4 V.T. PU� 1 XW 4:fa}i9,4EO FUsu Pi ers 2z�4 e� it l �slda y�O%.Q 13A715 W-PW.r1a -oV aces 4q S Sps�isce-.S ETA lo3Co 2Z NEw V.T. Z41 Cv V T. .ev jWt ASS (s 1W&Z- -co. NeW fik� .O c1J 8kls"f1 N(S;l Fta0 z41 } lo$o 5441 3w I1. (015 V.T./tt' G21Tp-12.1,0 i=09 b ST MuT(FAM11.-(= 6774 V.7.Aday- TMhs 1 S t St�eAN [ yoU4-t9 raw I l� 6 SITS.'c "17t9/TIA►1 MAx)MI)PA &-7 10K E m - 09464 1JA1-- P U P - 4�f'_1G"e M0-f-e L� _rOT a I� s -New •I20fb6w :PtJD - FEETA, I >, A.fA92TM El..=> F6TA 1, s )fY RR s5 /�Uc� t6N �a�to r�s v.7►.�ps �cQay �eak kM ea k IdaU2 � P2a.i�__ l.2 7 4.a x 70 �8 4o8.s 1C01 1.8 2.o Z.0 A 30.144 x Bo.144 54.2S60.Z88 �o.zSS . (o x 15' 0 10 •9 h I So i35 . !o 2f 4.339 &04-. 088 43Co .445 I .'Z x 16.5s I.3 x 31.75 57.15 I?7.15- I 35/ AM 7 73.85 2.0 Y �1 -5 �3. 5 .4 r IA0 0 IZo 2S7.3S 57.39�a MA k+ LW 4.9 _ X ID.SS 5I. 6q5 Z.0 x 31.-7 5 .4 x� J 20 .QJM MAV,-( 1. C 1CviN�4L 1t� �'{2DDUc-�D N�'�2� �21Pz BY o A.M. A TOFA OAK H l0 At- M. �A�fit- 120. q�-T'o .73°a .'S7' 24 WOR wE3EpA`( -j'o1� L zo& . z. NEW PoSD FUD }}As st�NtFtc.�N-tt_�( Liss )M-PAC-T ON THE COMMUI-J I -\( fgoM T Xf=r-tc._ 6�eNLE--An6N -THAN 71tr-, OR1�2lNAl-- 8`( o �. 40 4c. Sol izF, oN d.0. TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES The potential traffic generation of specific land uses is important in the planning and design of access locations. Proposed projects with high traffic generation po- tential requiring major entrances with traffic signal control must be located at the desired spacing discussed in Section 2.5. Traffic generation rates are shown in Figure 9a for various land uses. The data shown was published in TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, February, 1973, "Guidelines for Driveway Design and Location", Table 1, Traffic Gen- eration Rates. The traffic generation rates shown in Figure 9a can be used to estimate the total number of vehicles entering and leaving a given project in a certain period of time. However, all of the traffic generated by a specific site is not necessarily added traffic to the street system. Part of the traffic may already be on the street sy- stem, especially for retail and service facilities. The last column in Figure 9a indicates the estimated percent of site generated traffic that is added to the street system. VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION PER UNIT TRIP GENERATION UNIT Each Each Each 1,000 G.F.A. Beds Employees Doctors Rooms 1,000 G.F.A. D.U. D.U. D.U. 1,000 G.F.A. 1,000 G.F.A. 1,000 G.F.A. Student Student Each 000 G.F.A. 2!zF111G.F.A. 00 G.F.A. DURING STREET PEAK HOURS PEAK DEVELOPMENT HOUR AT 24-HR WEEK DAY 650 1,500 350 60 9.0 4.0 46.0 5.0 18.0 8.7 6.7 3.6 1,000 250 200 1.4 2.1 250 330 56.0 125 ADDED TC STREET SYSTEM 758 758 758 758 100% 1008 100% 100% 1008 100% 100% 100% 758 758 758 100% 1008 508 50% 508 50% A.M. PEAK HOUZ P.M. PEAK HOUR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT Auto Dealers Banks, Drive In Car Wash Grocery Stores Hospitals Industrial Parks Medical Clinics Motels Office Building Res., Single Family Res., Multi, Suburb Res., Multi Central Restaurant,Drive In Restaurant, All Day Restaurant, vening Schools, High Schools, College Stations r.,Re ional MSh02-r., Comm. r. Nei h. IN 30 Not Not A 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.9 0.2 1.6 0:2 0.1 0.1 Not Applicable!; 9 Not A 0.3 6.2 11 0.4 0.7 1.0 OUT TAL IN OUT TOTAL 1 10 1 40 45 501 95 A livable* 170 170 340 livable* 33 33 66 0.4 1.0 4.7 5.0 9.7 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.1 3.0 2.5 3.6 6.1 0.4 0.6 0.41 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.8 0.4 1 1.6 2.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.5 0,6 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 75 60 135 11 1 20 131 12 25 livable* 8 7 15 0.0 0.3 Not A livable**0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 11 22 12 12 24 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.2 2.8 2.1 49 0.8 1.8 7.2 6.6 13.8 IN 55 180 33 5.4 0.5 0.2 2.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 115 23 23 0.1 14 1.5 3.5 7.5 OUT 60 180 33 5.5 0.8 0.6 3.6 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 105 21 21 0.3 0.2 14 1.0 3.5 7.1 TOTAL 115 360 66 10.9 1.3 0.8 6.1 0.9 2.0 1.1 0.8 0.4 220 44 44 0.3 0.3 28 2.5 7.0 14.6 * Assumes little or no activity during A.M. street peak hour. **Assumes little or no activity during P.M. street peak hour. G.F.A. - Gross Floor Area D.U. - Dwelling Unit FIGURE 9a TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES s • CITY OF FORT COLLINS P. O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484.4220 EXT 224 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date: July 10, 1978 To: City Council From: Planning b Zoning Board Subject: Setting Goals for 1979 The challenge and frustration involved in dealing effectively with the phenomenal growth rate of the city and the remarkable volume of planning and zoning items during the past year has prompted many discussions among the board members concerning how we might more intelligently advise council on land use decisions for Fort Collins. As you are certainly aware, lengthy agendas and more frequent meetings have become the rule, rather than the exception. For the sake of citizen participation, these are certainly a necessity. Our sense of frustration becomes acute, however, when regardless of the many long meetings, we haven't the time to advise the council on several topics that are crucial to the future of the city. Three of these areas of concern are: 1) Several problems have emerged over the years of use of the sub- division ordinance and zoning code; and these have not been addressed. 2) Land use decisions have, of necessity, been considered in isolation. There has been very little consideration of the long term implica- tions of the individual decisions when they are considered all together as a whole. 3) When long term problems are foreseen as the result of our recom- mendations for individual items, there is not adequate staff to work on design alternatives to deal with the problem areas. Conse- quently, the problem areas are dealt with in a costly piece -meal fashion. In order to deal with these problems, our goals for the coming year will include: 1) Study and possibly revise sections of the zoning code and sub- division ordinance. 2) Adopt a Land Use Plan based on previously adopted goals and objectives. 3) Identify problem areas in the city and its fringe areas which require in depth study, and request design solutions to prevent costly and irreversible mistakes. We are aware that the accomplishment of these goals will require a significant in- crease in staff time over and above what has been required to deal with current 100% Recycled Bond E 0 City Council - page two July 10, 1978 planning items. The staff has never failed to provide the board with good back- ground and thoughtful recommendations, even during the busiest times, on current planning items. In addition, the amount of long range planning information avail- able, including Imgrid data, has been helpful; but there clearly has not been staff time available to accomplish the goals listed above. As staffing decisions are directly connected with the budgeting process now in progress, we feel we should bring these needs to your attention at this time. As has been demonstrated so often in the past, land use decisions have a direct in- fluence on other budget requirements for facilities, improvements and even social problems. We feel that progress toward our goals in planning could make a sig- nificant contribution toward creating not only an even more desirable living environment, but also a more efficiently run city government. Thank you for your consideration. ROBB AND BRENNER, INC. ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS P:O BOX 251 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 June 27, 1978 Mr. Paul Deibel Planning Department City of Fort Collins P 0 Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Deibel: We have talked with you in the past concerning the requirements of Section 118-41.1 A.(2) regarding the limits of coverage -of buildings in RLP zones. We know that your department recognizes that in many ways this limit of coverage can promote less satisfactory rather than more satisfactory environmental living conditions. The plans for the Collindale Condominiums illustrates. some of the drawbacks to good design that the 15% limit forces. The site plan as drawn (and approved) has what we feel is a very comfortable balance of open spaces located in close relationship to the living spaces in each unit. These open spaces comprise 61% of the site, far in excess of the 30% required by Section 118-83, the Planned Unit Development Ordinance under which the project was designed. However, to meet the 15% building coverage limit imposed by Section 118-41.1 A.(2) we would have to take one of the following courses of action: a) Increase site by 76,630 square feet. This is a 30% increase in site size which markedly effects the economics of the project and increases the already generous usable open space from 61% to 70%. b) Eliminate or reduce the number of enclosed garages. The houses as shown cover 12.5% of the site and the garages cover 6.5% of the site. Replacing garages with uncovered parking would, in our opinion, reduce the visual quality of the project as well as the salability of the condominiums. The garages on this plan help define private yard areas for many units, as well as reducing the visual amount of asphalt and providing enclosures for often unsightly storage. Mr. Paul Deibel • Page 2 City of Fort Collins June 27. 1978 c) Reduce the number of'4ttached single family" units and increase the number of 4-plex-or 6-plex type units. -This is the usual approach to this type of project and generally gives a development more of an "apartment" look rather than a "townhouse" look. We think the visual and living environment advantages of the "town- house" look are obvious, particularly when there is already 61% of usable open space available. One of the goals of the RLP zone is to promote the "cluster house" approach to residential design. On the basis of this project it - seems to us rather obvious that the 15% limit on land coverage of build- ings is going to.make it difficult, if not impossible, to design and market larger, high duality townhouses and cluster houses. We certainly support your efforts to eliminate this restriction in the RLP zone. rS�i'nc'eorDely, to ` �N William 0. Brenner, Jr. Architect, AIA WOB:jt cc: Bernie Cain