HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/12/1978•
• r l
Board Members Present:
Staff Members Present
Planning and Zoning Board
Minutes
June 12, 1978
Bob Burnham, Phyllis Wells, Ed VanDriel, Gary Ross,
Charles Unfug, Robert Evans, Gary Spahr
Les Kaplan, Eldon Ward, Robert Steiner
Legal Representatives: Lucia Liley, Don Deagle
Bob Burnham: Called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m, and explained the
format and requirements of rezoning hearings. Welcomed
Charles Unfug to the Board.
1. Approval of May 8 and May 15, 1978, Minutes.
Ed VanDriel: On May 8, page 7, zoning consideration for the Horsetooth-
Harmony Annexation, corrected his statement to read he was
uncomfortable considering zoning since there was no informa-
tion provided in the staff memo concerning it. On May 15,
page 6, concerning Evergreen Park 4th, corrected his motion
to read no development occur on the southern 20 to 30 lots.
Bob Burnham: Said the minutes stood as corrected.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
2. #83-78 Baetz - West Mulberry Rezoning.
Description: Proposal to rezone 8.755 acres located on
West Mulberry Street east of Ponderosa Drive from R-L, Low
Density Residential District, to R-P, Planned Residential
District.
Applicant: Mabel F. Baetz, 2309 West Mulberry, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80521.
Les Kaplan: Explained zoning configuration for existing and proposed
districts.
Paul Baetz - Representing the applicant - Submitted exhibits to support the request
(attached). Said substantial change had occurred in the
neighborhood demonstrated by nine area rezonings. Noted
proximity of site to CSU, City Park, and its distance from
the downtown core area. Suggested RP zone would be a good
transition between the RM and the RL zones. Said the pro-
perty owners to the east were not interested in being rezoned
for a variety of reasons but that they had no objections to
his rezoning request.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments:
As the petitioner has stated in his "Reason for Request" there
have been nine rezonings in the past eleven years in the general
area of the property in question. Only three of these
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 2
Eldon Ward: potentially impact the petitioner's property, the Thelma
Staff Comments, Johnson property rezoned RMP, the Jones and Maxwell pro -
continued: perties rezoned RIM, and the Skyline Mobile Park rezoned.ML.
The first two are basically undeveloped while the last has
developed into a mobile home park. The nine rezonings,
when developed, would constitute a change of conditions in
the vicinity of the property inquestion.
The northwest quadrant of the City is away from the major
direction of growth of the City, to the south. Most devel-
opments in the quadrant could be considered "fill in" type of
developments. Because of the area being away from the main
direction of City growth, development has occurred at a slower
pace and some large tracts of undeveloped land remain. A major
new development recently completed which will probably speed up
the development of some of the undeveloped areas is Cedarwood
Plaza at the corner of West Elizabeth Street and Taft Hill Road.
There is a question as to the need for the addition of the
requested zone. As previously mentioned, an approximately
20 acre tract of undeveloped RMP zoning is located just south-
east of the petitioner's property. With the leveling off of
Colorado State University enrollment and the development of
higher density housing nearer the campus there does not appear
to be a great student demand for housing in this area. In
addition, higher density housing and zones in closer proximity
to the Central Business District and Foothills Fashion Mall
seem to indicate the requested zoning change is not necessary
from a citywide view.
There are two major problems if the rezoning is granted. First,
the rezoning would leave an approximately equal area (7-10) of
RL zoning between and RP zone and the Skyline Mobile Home Park,
zoned ML, to the east. This situation would undoubtably cause
a rezoning request at a future date.
Second, the rezoning would effectively double the allowable
density of the petitioner's property. It is assumed major
access to the area would come from Ponderosa Drive. The major
neighborhood facility in the vicinity is Cedarwood Plaza. The
Rezoning would cause higher density traffic to travel through a
lower density area to the south to reach Cedarwood Plaza.
Recommended denial based on the following analysis:
The Planning Department believes the petitioner's property
could be included with the properties immediately east and
possibly to the south, to act as transition buffer between
the mobile home park and the potential high density housing
in the RMP zoned area to the east and the single family devel-
opments to the west. However, the RP zone is too intensive a
zone to accomplish the transition in this location. The staff
believes the allowable density of 6 units per acre has not been
demonstrated as unwise or in need of change. The staff recommends
the petitioner's property, the two pieces of property to the east,
• 0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 3
and the properties to the south be researched for a rezoning
to the RLP, Low Density Planned Residential District, to act
as the transition buffer.
Bob Burnham: Noted the letter submitted to the Board opposing the rezoning
(attached).
Eldon Ward: Said a petition had also been submitted against (attached) and
that numerous phone calls had been received by the Planning
Department opposing the Rezoning.
Patricia Hoffman - Secretary/Treasurer, Skyline Mobile Home Park - Noted the mobile
home park was zoned ML, permitting only 6 d.u.'s/acre. Said
the RM zone in the area consisted of one duplex but is
currently a single family dwelling.
- Said property owners immediately adjacent to the area
requested for rezoning were definitely opposed to the request.
- Said there was too much traffic in the area already.
Kate Flynn - Area Resident - Concerned with safety of children in the area.
Burt Bishop - Area Resident - Submitted petition with 120 signatures (petition
referred to by Eldon Ward above). Said an existing shortage
of phone lines in the area would be taxed even more.
Paul Baetz: Reminded the Board that the zoning request permitted them
absolute control over density. Would not object to western
half of property being zoned RLP.
Phyllis Wells: Asked if any traffic figures were available for W. Mulberry
and when it would be improved.
Eldon Ward: Said it would be improved this year but probably not as far
west as this site. Said it was warranted since the traffic
count was 15,000 cars per day.
Phyllis Wells: Noted Ponderosa was one of the few straight shots north -south
in the area.
Charles Hoffman - Skyline Mobile Home Park - Asked if the fence or curb constituted
the western border.
Paul Baetz: Did not know.
C. Hoffman: Said if it was the fence, then the space between the fence and
the curb belonged to the subdivision across the street which
would prevent any development on the Baetz site gaining access
to Ponderosa.
Phyllis Wells: Asked Eldon Ward to explain the Land Use Plan to the audience.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 4
Eldon Ward:
Ed VanDriel:
Phyllis Wells
Gary Ross:
Bob Burnham:
Charles Unfug
Vote:
3. #84-78
Explained the Land Use Plan.
Thought it prudent to wait until the Land Use Plan was com-
pleted and felt the petitioner had not demonstrated
adequately a change of conditions. Recommended denial.
Seconded the motion.
Thought it wise to recommend denial, not on the forthcoming
Land Use Plan but on the petitioner failing to meet require-
ments of a rezoning request.
Agreed with Gary Ross. Said Land Use Plan was only a point
of departure, not a concrete guideline.
Said there was some change in conditions in the neighborhood
noting Cedarwood Plaza, but felt it was too far away to have
real impact.
Motion carried unanimously.
Jones/Barstow - S. Shields Street Rezoning.
Description: Proposal to rezone 7.3 acres located on South
Shields Street north of West Prospect Street from R-L, Low
Density Residential District, to R-H, High Density Residential
District.
Applicant: Marvin A. Barstow and Robin H. Jones, 5237 Fossil
Creek Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
This item was withdrawn by the petitioner.
4. #85-78 Burnham - S. Shields Street Rezoning.
Description: Proposal to rezone .681 acres located on South
Shields Street at Westwood Drive from R-L, Low Density Resi-
dential District, to R-H, High Density Residential District.
Applicant: Taciana Burnham, Campus Realty, 1109 S. Shields,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Bob Burnham: Abstained - Conflict of interest. Pointed out he did not
participate in the Friday lunch discussion of this item.
Charles Unfug: Abstained - Conflict of interest.
Eldon Ward: Explained zoning configuration.
Phyllis [dells: Asked for statement of review procedure in the RH zone.
Eldon Ward: Explained the procedure.
Tina Burnham - Representing the petitioner -
Planning and Zoning led Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 5
Tina Burnham: 1) Said an error was made in 1965 when the area was rezoned.
Said the City had a request for "C" zoning which included the
RH property to the north and the subject property. Thought
it reasonable that the same property should have all been
zoned RH in the 1965 City-wide rezoning. Said the street,
not the property line should be the zoning line.
2) Said the RH zone now contained two dental offices and a
Realtor's office - demonstrating change and valicity for the
RH zone on Shields Street. Said the Goals and Objectives
supported the request and quoted from them.
3) Said all utilities were installed and that there would be
no traffic increase.
4) Said the neighborhood impact would be negligible since it
was already zoned RH.
Regarding staff comments:
- said character was not being changed; that the intent was
to make the site compatible with existing uses.
- said there would be no increase in traffic since the request
called for only a one -lot extension of the RH zone.
- said the request would not set a precedent since each re-
zoning request should be considered on its own merit.
- said the property was not a part of the Western Heighers
Subdivision and the zoning line should be along Westward.
- pointed out the dental and realty offices indicated a need
for the RH zoning and were proof of no negative neighborhood
impact.
- noted that the existing RL zoning permitted rental to three
unrelated people, which often was higher since the law was
not too often enforced. Suggested comparing the rented use
to a professional office use.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments and a recommendation for denial.
The Planning Department staff has continuously argued against
rezonings, particularly from R-L to R-H, of residential lots
fronting on arterial streets. These arguments have often been
made by not denying that a RH use would work at a particular
site, but not for other reasons. This request falls into
such a situation.
The staff believes that change would have a negative impact on
Shields Street. The allowable uses in the R-H zone could intro-
duce more traffic onto an already busy Shields Street. The
extension of the R-H zone to this particular lot could set a
precedent for future rezoning requests. The staff has argued
against, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended against,
and the City Council voted against similar requests to increase
density of lots fronting Shields Street from the Campus West
Shopping Center to Prospect Street.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 6
The staff also believes there is no need for additional R-H
zoning in the area given the vacant land, for example, along
University Avenue, or the developed area along Plum Street.
If there was great pressure for R-H uses in the area it is
likely the above examples would not be in their present uses,
i.e., vacant and developed as single-family residences, or
that new construction or conversions should occur on these
areas first before adding additional R-H area.
The petitioner states as a rationale for the request an error
in the original zoning. The property in question was to be
included in a C, Commercial zone, located along the west side
of Shields Street from the Campus West Shopping Center to
Westward Drive. In 1965 both the Planning and Zoning Board
and the City Council denied that request. Subsequently, when
the R-H zoning district was established the subject property
was not included in the zone with the lots to the north.
The staff believes that there was good justification for the
lot not to have been included in the R-H zoned area immediately
north. Although not part of the Western Heights Subdivision,
the lot could orient to Westward Drive and become an integral
part of that residential street. It may have been the intent
to leave the entrance to Westward Drive in single family uses.
Staff Recommendation: Denial
The petitioner's main rationale for the rezoning request is
an error in the original zoning. However, the petitioner
offers no proof that such an error was made.
A second contention is a substantial change in the neighbor-
hood. The example of two dentist offices south of the property
in question is given. These office use conversions have
occurred in the R-H zone. The northern two lots in the block
between University Avenue and Westward Drive have also converted
to office uses. But, as stated above, considerable area in the
vicinity of the subject property zoned R-H is available for
development or conversions.
Lucia Liley: Regarding the question of error in 1965 rezoning, said an error
in judgement did not justify a rezoning. Justification was
permissable only if inaccurate information was submitted or
clerical error was proven.
Gene Fischer - 1201 Westward Drive - Said there was a mistake in the original
rezoning. Said something must be done to prevent the property
turning into a hippie commune. Thought a professional use
would maintain the property. Suggested a zone such as RP to
allow additional review. Hoped for something beneficial.
Charlotte Redburn - property owner on south side of Westward Drive - Agreed
with Fischer. Said with assurances that the site didn't
end up with a restaurant or high rise, she was not opposed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 7
Les Kaplan: Said the Smith-Chenoweth- Sib lerud Rezoning had conditions
imposed on it. Noted home occupation was a legitimate
compromise.
Jan Gilligan - Area Resident - Concerned over what had been said. Could think
of only one "hippie" house on Shields. Thought home
occupation was limiting since it permitted only one
employee.
Ed VanDriel: Asked for differences between RH and RP zone.
Eldon Ward: Explained a variance would be needed since the RP zone
called for a P.U.D. and P.U.D.'s needed two acres. Added
that a seven -unit apartment could be built with RP zoning.
Robert Evans: Concerned about the landscaping. Said he liked the structure
and if the zoning was granted, conditions should be imposed.
Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval of the RH zone conditional upon
a landscape agreement being drawn up, that uses be non -retail
and that no restaurant be allowed.
Robert Evans: Seconded the motion.
Gary Ross: Noted the house was not similar to those in the Chenoweth
Rezoning on S. College which meant extensive remodeling might
be required.
Phyllis Wells: Said the Chenoweth Rezoning required that any landscape change
required City approval and also pointed out that access was
strictly curtailed.
Ed VanDriel: Said his motion was intended to carry similar constraints
except for remodeling.
Gary Ross: Thought access should be restricted to Shields Street only.
Lucia Liley: Said that any rezoning had to be justified according to the
rules. Said conditional zoning was a nightmare and should
be used sparingly.
Gary Ross: Agreed. Thought it right to maintain the site since it was
a nice lot, but thought the Board was acting on too little
information. However, thought it peculiar to have the
zoning line along a lot line, not the street.
Gary Spahr: Saw no demonstration in change of the neighborhood. Thought
the zoning line configuration was meant to have the property
in question orient toward Westward Avenue, not Shields. Was
reluctant to use conditional zoning.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 8
Ed VanDriel: Thought leaving the site in RL constituted spot zoning.
Said the dental and realty offices constituted real change.
Vote: YES - Robert Evans
YES - Ed VanDriel
NO - Gary Ross. Uncomfortable with scope of RE zone.
Saw it as a very ticklisfi problem with
valid arguments for both sides. Wary of
conditional zoning.
NO - Gary Spahr
NO - Phyllis Wells
The motion failed to carry on a 2 - 3 vote.
Phyllis Wells: Saw the arguments on both sides of the issue. Concerned with
possible increase of traffic especially since much of the
RH zone in the area remained to be developed. Also noted
an increase in demand for a bike -walkway along Shields.
5. #86-78 Vipont - East Olive Rezoning.
Description: Proposal to rezone .3 acres located on Olive
Street at Mathews Street from R-H, High Density Residential
District, to B-G, General Business District.
Applicant: Vipont Chemical Company, 220 E. Olive, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Gary Ross: Abstained.
Eldon Ward: Explained zoning configuration.
Gene Fischer - Representing the petitioner - Gave a brief history of the site and
noted the present use had always been non -conforming. Noted
that operating in two zones was inefficient and lowered the
appraisal value. Said an economic reason also applied
since lenders were unwilling to loan on a property with
non -conforming status. Said if the rezoning were not
granted Vipont would probably move out.
Lucia Liley: Said Vipont could expand up to 25 percent.
Gene Fischer: Said the proposed expansion would be closer to 50 percent.
Phyllis Wells: Asked what the proposed expansion would entail.
Gene Fischer: Said it would probably be less square footage than the
buildings presently on the site.
Gary Spahr: Asked about the parking.
Dr. Ladonia - Director of Research at Vipont - Said about 20-30 spaces were avail-
able.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 9
Phyllis Wells: Thought the proposed use could be carried out with the
present zoning.
Gene Fischer: Reiterated the economic problem.
Bob Burnham: Asked if the proposed use was permitted in the BG zone.
Ed VanDriel: Asked if the reconstruction would all be done in the
existing BG zone.
Gene Fischer: Said it would but that loan money was not available with
the split zoning configuration.
Bob Burnahm: Asked if the appraisal value was valid if the use was not
permitted in the BG zone.
Lucia Liley: Asked the nature of Vipont business.
Dr. Ladonia: Said it was basically drug research.
Lucia Liley: Said the BG zone was geared to downtown retail uses. Said
there was really a question whether Vipont operation was
allowed in the BG zone.
Les Kaplan: Asked if Gene Fischer thought the BG zone allowed drug
research use.
Gene Fischer: Thought Vipont was enough office oriented to conform to BG
zoning.
Bob Bunrham: Asked if counsel was comfortable with office/clinic use in
the BG zone.
Lucia Liley: Said more information was needed.
Robert Evans: Said it appeared questionable whether the existing use was
legally non -conforming.
Gene Fischer: Said Art March said it was.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff comments and a recommendation for denial:
To change the zoning classification of an existing non -conforming
use to make the use conforming is against the philosophy of
planning and its implementation tool zoning. Admittedly,
property owned by an individual and split into two spearate
zoning districts is a poorsituation. however, in this instance,
the problem stems from the petitioner's purchase, within the
past few years, of the property to the west (lots 15 and 16).
The present boundary separating the properties in question was
established in the mid-1960's. The decision was apparently
made at that time to create a legal non -conforming use at this
site. The lot faces major cultural facilities of the City, the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 10
Museum, the Library and a park. The staff believes the
intrusion of BG zoning would not be in the best interests of
the vicinity or the City as a whole.
Staff Recommendation: Denial
Ed VanDriel:
Lucia Liley:
G. Fischer:
Phyllis Wells:
Ed VanDriel:
Lucia Liley:
Charles Unfug:
There was no second.
Robert Evans:
Gary Spahr:
Vote:
Although the petitioner states that a "change of conditions
in the area warrants rezoning" he offers no evidence of the
changed conditions, other than ownership. The Planning
Department believes there has not been a change of conditions
and if granted the rezoning would be detrimental to the area.
Asked if counsel wanted time to research the uses permitted
in the zone.
Said only if the petitioner so requested. Told the Board it
should just consider the present request for BG zoning.
Said he was sure enough the BG zone allowed the proposed use.
Asked for approval.
Asked if the findings were enough to justify the rezoning
request.
Thought if there was no agreement between Fischer and Lucia
Liley on uses permitted in the zone then it was useless to
pursue the rezoning.
Said she could have the information available at the time
of the City Council hearing.
Moved to recommend approval. Said he considered the area in
the process of changing to BG uses.
Saw no rationale for the requested rezoning. Moved to
recommend denial.
Seconded the motion.
YES - Robert Evans
YES - Ed VanDriel
YES - Phyllis Wells.
YES - Gary Spahr
NO - Charles Unfug
NO - Bob Burnham
Thought rezoning criteria had not been
met; that the long term impact would be
construed as spot zoning; that the
type of dwellings preserved in the.
area would not be encouraged with the
proposed rezoning and subsequent devel-
opment.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 11
6. #87-78 Miller - Bristlecone Drive Rezoning.
Description: Proposal to rezone 8 acres located on
Bristlecone Drive east of College Avenue from I-L,
Limited Indsutrial District, to H-B, Highway Business.
Applicant: D. C. Miller & Company, 1635 Blue Spruce Drive,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave a recommendation for approval based on the following
comments.
This request actually constitutes a downzoning to effectively
enlarge an existing H-B, Highway Business Zoning District
which fronts North College Avenue.
A report, "The North Fort Collins - Evergreen Park Existing
Land Uses and Zoning Study" prepared by the Fort Collins
Planning Department in May, 1977, established planning ob-
jectives for the north portion of the City in response to
rezoning requests for approximately 76 acres in the Evergreen
Park area in the Spring of 19-7. The following standards and
objectives for evaluating the study area zoning pattern were
established:
1. Zoning districts should be compatible with and preferably
complimentary to the Fort Collins Expressway;
2. Zoning districts should promote land uses that are com-
patible with one another and preferably functionally
inter -related;
3. Such land use should be supportive to the Downtown and
businesses along North College Avenue;
4. Designated zoning districts should be economically viable
in the short run (5-7 years) in order to effectively deal
with the increasing imbalances in the City's growth pattern;
5. The zoning districts should promote land uses which func-
tionally and easthetically serve to help fill in the
physical and psychological void between the Downtown and
residential areas north of the City;
6. Zoning should be used as a means to stimulate development
north of the Downtown area in a manner which promotes
greater unity and clarity of land uses in north Fort
Collins;
7. Zoning should not be in those district classifications
for which there already is adequate and well -located
acreage within the vicinity and the City as a whole; and
8. The zoning pattern should, to a reasonable extent, dis-
courage industrial or urban density residential density
in county locations.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 12
The rezoning requests of Spring, 1977, were granted. Also,
the process to annex and zone over 240 acres in the north-
east portion of the City was started. The overall plan for
north Fort Collins was established to:
1. Aid the Downtown Redevelopment Program with directly
related and supportive surrounding land uses;
2. Re -enforce the Housing Rehabilitation Program in Ander-
sonville, Alta Vista, and Buckingham through surrounding
land uses;
3. Address the aesthetic and traffic flow problems of North
College Avenue; and
4. Establish a City position of what constitutes a desirable
pattern of growth for northeast Fort Collins.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
The proposed downzoning request is in line with stated City
goals and Objectives for the development of northeast Fort
Collins, The rezoning will contribute to the implementation
of planning goals and objectives.
Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval.
Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
7. #88-78 Shadowbrook P.U.D., Preliminary Plan.
Description: Proposal for 60 multi -family units on 9.34
acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located on
Stuart Street west of Lemay Avenue.
Applicant: Dick Siever, 2120 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave the staff position and recommended approval subject to
the following comments:
1. Intensity. Coverage by building and driveways is intense
on the developable south portion of the site. The over-
all density of the proposal, however, is a little over
, that permitted by the zone. The staff does not feel
that the proposed density is too high for this site con-
sidering its location on a collector street and opposite
a public park. We do, however, feel that building set-
back should be increased along the east boundary of the
site to 15', and to a minimum of 20' adjacent to existing
residential uses.
2. Spring Creek:
a. public trail. The site plan should indicate the public
Spring Creek Recreational Trail. The plan for the trail
•
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 13
calls for an 8' paved width in this section of the
creek. Moreover, while total easement request and
exact location of the path are not firm at this
point, the City does not want to preclude the possi-
bility of using the south side of the creek (which
would necessitate shifting some building on this
site);
2. b. public access. Continuation of the current pattern
of development along Spring Creek will preclude
general public access to the recreational trail.
except at Stover and Lemay. The staff feel$ that a
clearly designated public access should be provided
from Indian Hills Park across Stuart Street through
this site to the trail;
C. engineering. Final utility plans will require data
to corroborate flood plain delineation shown. Bridges
and ponds on creek must be designed to allow free
passage of storm flows (pond should include spillway
section for overflow).
3. Parking. The staff does not feel that this project pro-
vides enough overflow parking. The P.U.D. ordinance
requires 118 off-street spaces for this number of bed-
rooms, and does not permit a "tandem" space in a drive-
way in front of a garage to count toward this require-
ment. Thus we count only 89 spaces. Perhaps more impor-
tantly only 14 of these are "common" spaces not adjacent
to a dwelling unit. Moreover the Y.U.D. ordinance requires
2 offstreet parking spaces per d.u. where a 28' street is
utilized. Thus significant additional common and "private"
parking should be provided.
4. Private Street. Final plans aintenance guarantee should
also include maintenance of private street. Signs at
entrance should identify as a private street. Streets
should be improved with concrete edges and without center-
line inverted crown for drainage.
5. Emergency Access:
a. dwelling unit at the end of Shadowbrook Court on the
north side has inadequate fire access as it is
located farther than 150' from fire access lane in
Shadowbrook Lane. This unit should be deleted or
shifted to meet distance requirement;
b. curbs should be painted and signed.
6. Other:
a. building elevations indicate a desirable exterior
treatment with cedar shake roofs and rustic wood
siding. This should be adhered to on the final plan;
b. the site plan should indicate existing trees proposed
to be preserved or removed;
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
June 12, 1978
Page 14
C. "Shadowbrook Lane" is duplicative of existing
streetname;
d. utility lines should be indicated on the plan;
e. on -site detention should be provided, and its
location indicated on the preliminary plan.
Gary Spahr: Asked what the setback was on the east and west buildings.
Eldon Ward: Said 15-20 feet on the west and, at two spots, six feet on
the east. Said the developer had agreed to increase the
setback on final plans.
Gary Spahr: Asked the distance between the two Stuart street curb cuts.
Eldon Ward: Said it was 200 feet and was done at staff suggestion.
Phyllis Wells:
Asked if
the interior
street had two-way traffic.
Eldon Ward:
Said yes,
with parking
on one side.
Gary Spahr: Asked if there was enough room to have parking and increase
setbacks.
Eldon Ward: Said yes.
Ed VanDriel: Asked what the minimum required setback was.
Eldon Ward: Said there was no prescribed setback but that staff was
looking for 12-15 feet with screening.
Dick Siever - Representing the petitioner - Complimented the staff on its help
and cooperation. Had little objection to staff comments
with the following exceptions: Preferred to have all
parking off the street; preferred to have the Spring Creek
Trail on the north side of the creek; objected to having
an on site detention pond.
Charles Unfug: Asked about screening along Stuart Street.
Dick Siever: Said a berm and landscaping would be installed as indicated
on the site plan.
Gary Spahr: Asked about sight distance when backing from garages.
Eldon Ward: Said eight feet was available between the garage doors and
the street.
Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Gary Ross: Said Siever's comments about the detention pond made sense.
Eldon Ward: Said it was a standard comment but that Siever was probably
right. Said the City Engineer had indicated it was a good
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 12, 1978
Page 15
idea to remove water from the site efficiently and the only
question was of slowing the runoff some. Said the problem
could be answered on the final utility plan.
Gary Ross: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
8. #89-78 Anderson Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat.
Description: Proposal for two single family lots on .5 acres
zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located on
Mulberry Street north and east of Locust Grove Drive.
Applicant: Mark S. Anderson, 829 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to
submission of an improvement survey for the existing property.
Mark Anderson - Applicant - Had no problems with staff comments. Said he already
had the improvement survey.
Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval subject to the staff comment.
Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
9. #90-78 Hess Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat.
Description: Proposal for 3 single family lots on .54 acre
zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located on
Orchard Place at Rocky Road.
Applicant: Archie D. Hess, III, 246 Overland Trail,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Gary Ross: Abstained.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to clarifica-
tion of the dedication of adjacent rights -of -way and sub-
mission of acceptable utility plans.
Bob Burnham: Asked if it wasn't a requirement to show the immediate
environs.
Eldon Ward: Said that was the fault of staff.
Charles Unfug: Asked what was happening in the vicinity. Asked how lot
sizes of the subdivision compared to others in the area.
Eldon Ward: Said they were comparable.
Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 12, 1978
Page 16
Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion
Vote: Motion carried unanimously, with Gary Ross abstainting.
10. #91-78 Newman Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat.
Description: Proposal for two single family lots on .76
acre zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located
on Prospect Street east of Overland Trail.
Applicant: Marc J. Newman, 3621 W. Bingham Hill Road,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to clarifi-
cation of adjacent R.O.W.'s and approval of utility plans.
Phyllis Wells: Asked about access for the north lot.
Eldon Ward: Said it would come from Lake Street.
Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Gary Spahr: Seconded the Motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
11. #92-78 Nor -Colo Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat.
Description: Proposal for a one lot subdivision on 5.5 acres
zoned I-L, Limited Industrial District, and H-B, Highway
Business District, located on Midpoint Drive east of
Timberline Road.
Applicant: Nor -Colo Distributing Company, 2428 4th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado, 80631.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to staff
comments:
1. The disposition of the southwest 100' along the C&S
Railroad should be clarified, the area is indicated both as
right-of-way and as a utility easement;
2. The zoning line should be indicated on the plat, as it
may affect proposed uses.
Gary Ross: Abstained.
Ed VanDriel: Asked if site spanned two zones.
Eldon Ward: Said, yes.
Gary Spahr: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion.
Charles Unfug: Asked why the applicant wanted only one lot on two zones.
Planning and Zoning Bit Minutes
July 12, 1978
Page 17
Dennis Hogerty - Applicant - Said only the IL zone was currently planned for
development and that later a P.U.D. would be submitted
for the HB site.
Charles Unfug: Asked if it all would be one use.
D. Hogerty: Said, yes.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
12. #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.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to the
following comments:
1. 'Traffic Circulation:
a. Street pattern appears to be compatible with street
pattern projected by the City and County planning
staff for adjacent areas;
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.
Bob Burnham: Asked if a signalized intersection was agreeable to the
State Highway Department.
Eldon Ward: Said, yes.
Ed VanDriel: Asked about a frontage road.
Eldon Ward: Said it was preferable to avoid them and cited the
Fashion Mall as an example.
Ed VanDriel: Asked why the intersection had to be signalized.
Eldon Ward: Explained it would help left turns in and out and would
facilitate a smooth flow of traffic.
Charles Unfug: Asked if Troutman were to be divided.
Eldon Ward: Said it was so indicated on the plan.
Bob Burnham: Asked who would maintain the islands.
Lloyd McLaughlin - Representing the applicant - Said they would be privately
maintained.
Planning and Zoning
July 12, 1978
Page 18
Board Minutes
Carr Bicker - Representing property owners on the east side of College
Avenue - Said he was not really opposed but requested time
to complete a traffic engineering study. Said the study
was analyzing potential land uses and traffic circulation.
Said he was looking at:
- major access points
- right turn only
- frontage and collector locations
Said these were important for an overall masterplan of the
area. Said a particular focus was on street light loca-
tions and that the staff recommendation was only one option.
Requested a few more weeks to study the issue. Noted the
cooperation shown between the City, County and property
owners over the location of roads, lights, curb cuts in the
area.
Bob Burnham: Shared Bicker's concern and thought the whole area should
be seen.
Phyllis Wells: Was encouraged by the attempt at communication. Thought a
one month delay would help to find a good solution to the
street pattern.
Charles Unfug: Asked what effect a delay would have on the applicant.
Milo Bunker - Applicant representative - Said a lot was riding on the proposal
and said an answer was essential immediately.
L. McLaughlin: Said the proposed layout was essentially a proposal made by
the City Engineering staff. Said he had met with property
owners.
Gary Ross: Asked when City Council would see the item.
Eldon [,Yard: Said probably the second July meeting.
Gary Ross: Suggested ZVFK (Carr Bieker) could present its' proposals
then.
Ed VanDriel: Thought it unwise to rush the issue without a comprehensive
overview. Moved to table the item 30 days but with the
assurance it was heard by City Council at its second July
meeting.
Gary Ross: Said the land east of College was not even in the City.
Thought tabling was unreasonable.
Bob Burnham: Wanted to see recommendations from both sides.
Marc Middel - Property owner directly across College Avenue from Troutman - Said
within a month the ZVFK study would be completed.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 12, 1978
Page 19
Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion.
Robert Evans: Said it was in the developer's interest to wait for com-
pletion of the study.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
13. #40-78A Boxberger Business Center, Revised Preliminary Plan.
(County Referral)
Description: Proposal for 43 commercial lots on 46.9 acres
zoned C-Commercial, and I -Industrial, located at the north-
east corner of the Colorado 14 -- I-25 Interchange.
Applicant: John Boxberger, 5100 E. County Road 50, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval.
Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval.
Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
14. #93-78 Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, West Acres.
(County Referral)
Description: Proposal to replat two lots on 1.0 acre zoned
FA, Farming, located on LaPorte Avenue east of Overland
Trail.
Applicant: Lulu Taylor, 3804 Goodell Lane, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval.
Robert Evans: Moved to recommend approval.
Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
15. #94-78 Weng - County Road 11 Rezoning.
(County Referral)
Description: Proposal to rezone 59 acres located on County
Road 11 at County Road 54 from 0-Open to FA-1, Farming.
Applicant: Kenneth Weng, 3705 N. County Road 11, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for denial based on the following
comment:
The staff does not feel that zoning should be assigned to ease
real estate transactions. Nor do we wish to establish the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
July 12, 1978
Page 20
possibility for large low density subdivisions in the
area.
Bob Burnham: Asked what the County Land Use Plan indicated for the site.
Eldon Ward: Said it showned no development.
Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend denial.
Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
16. #95-78 Pomeroy - Long Pond Special Use Review.
(County Referral)
Description: Proposal for a use requiring special review
on 160 acres zoned FA-1, Farming, located north and east
of Long Pond.
Applicant: Pomeroy Producing, 1001 Empire Savings Building,
Denver, Colorado, 80202.
Gary Ross: Abstained:
Eldon Ward: Recommended approval subject to County review.
Ed VanDriel: Moved to defer all decisions to the County.
Charles Unfug: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously, Gary Ross abstaining.
Other Business
a. Revision to landscaping, lots 1, 2, L.C. Moore's Subdivision, 1st filing.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to City
input on the parking lot configuration.
Bob Burnham: Questioned how much parking would be gained.
Charles Unfug: Asked if lot would be paved.
Robert Siberud - Applicant - Said it would be paved.
Charles Unfug: Concerned about the effect of asphalt on the Evergreen
trees.
Bob Burnham: Suggested the City Arborist be involved.
Gary Ross: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Robert Evans: Seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
July 12, 1978
Page 21
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
b. Zoning of Horsetooth - Harmony Annexation west of the C&S railroad tracks.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff position and recommended approval for the proposed
61.4 acres of R-L-P, 20.4 acres of R-P, and 16.5 acres of
H-B.
Les Kaplan: Outlined recent changes to the Park South site and recommended
its zoning configuration be approved.
Warren Dilsaver - Developer, Park South - Agreed with Les Kaplan.
Les Kaplan: Noted the Park South developers agreed to improve
Horsetooth Road.
Charles Unfug: Moved to recommend approval of the proposed zoning.
Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
�1 1 r`1 i'./ C'� •il ���t 1 7
f REAL ESTATE APPRAISER • VALUATION: CONSULTA! T
PHONE: 303/422-0211
SUITE 470 SAVINGS BLOO. M COLLINS. COLo E0521
June 12, 1978
Mr. Gene Fischer
Suite 900, Savings Building
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Subject: Vipont Property
22.0 East Olive Street
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Fischer:
This letter will confirm my conservation with you concerning the
above property with respect to the present rezoning request.
I completed a narrative appraisal on the property in July, 1977
and accordingly, am very familiar with the property as well as the
neighborhood. It was my recommendation to Vipont to rezone the
property to conform with the present property use. The substantial
improvements are located on the "I:-lI" zoned portion of the site and
are recognized as a non -conforming use. The "B-G" zoned land is
improved with two old houses which have question�.,ble utility and may
be viewed as an interim use only.
Continued use of the property with. the two zoning classifications.
is complicated. It is difficult to anticipate further development of the
property, because of the uncertainties created by the two zoning classi-
fications. The subject is and has been compatible with the neighborhooc'
for many years. Physically, the main building could be developed com-
pletely with laboratory and office use, with remodeling of the building.
With "B-G" zoning the off-street parking requirement of the "B-G" zone
could easily be satisfied on a portion of the existincl "B-G" land west o_
alley. With the "R-H" zoning it is not possible to provide the required
off-street parking without obtaining a variance. Approximately 81 spacea
are needed in an "F.-II" zone to satisfy the 12,000-1- square foot building,
Ell
which using a ratio of 300 square feet of parking per would o ile Is
highly
equivalent of over 24, 000 square feet of parking. It N/,
unreasonable to impose this type of parking requirementoilthe property.
The logical method of resolving the problem is to obtain B-G zoning.
To: The Planning and Zoning Board, Ft. Collins, Colo.
From: Skyline Mobile Park and Charles & Patricia A. Hoffman
2211 W. Mulberry, Ft. Collins, Colo.
Re: Rezoning request #83-78 Baetz - West Mulberry
We are opposed to the rezoning request and believe it should be denied
for the following reasons.
The requested rezoning is asking for permission to build apartments in an
area that is zoned and developed RL, single family. Bounding on the West is all
RL and developed. To the ;.North it is also developed and is RL. On Mulberry to
the East it is RL. Only the Southeast is still undeveloped, but all adjacent land
is RL.
We believe that if this was rezoned it would be completely out of character
with the now developed neighborhood (spot zoning).
If the perimiter is extended a little further in consideration as the
request has asked, we find that there is also another RL developement, on
Briarwood St. before you reach apartments, which are off Laporte, not Mulberry.
The mobile home park is LOW desinity, and at the decision of past zoning and
Councils, this was the zoning for the whole area. It would be totally unfair
to now change the zoning and surround a low desinity developement with apartments.
If the change were 'ride in this area, it would direct the change in the two
adjasent properties.
There is no need for the rezoning. On Elizabeth St., just off Taft Rill,
there is a parcell of land that has been rezoned to allow apartments. It is in
the proximity of other apartment) but, has not been developed hnd has been
rezoned for several years. Therefore there is no need in this larger area for
any more higher density rezoning.
The City in the past has paid for advise on the area zoning and it was
recommended and zoned RL. We believe the City should follow the recommondation tha'
was paid for and acted upon by past zoning boards and Councils.
To sum up, we believe the rezoning should be denied because it is out of
nature with the present surrounding development. It is contrary to past decisions -
by the City. There is no need.
Thank you, l/
DECEIVED
JUN 12 1978
Planning
Department
•
i
mr...r
PETITION
We residents and owners petition the Planning and Zoning Board
to recommend denial of the application for rezoning by Mabel F. Baetz,
West Mulberry Rezoning #83-78.
It is well documented that Ponderosa is already a high density
road through a low density neighborhood. Any development of the
property at a density higher than that which is now allowed will be
detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood, and to the safety of
its residents and their children.
NAME
ADDRESS
Jil-e a"-) POI 2!w-) f?d-
PHONE
YV10117
. 1 rl
C}
&tl✓;i�n�
y , O✓��lL�'��awf ''rl�/�).� G � 21l /y: �I�i.�iu- , #,�G �f �� � 7/.%-7.. .
!f w'el
CE
n
���� ,6-• �'�� . z zip w. �i,�� ,.Z. 4��`�- /7/ 0
J,
PETITION
We residents and owners petition the Planning and Zoning Board
to recommend denial of the application for rezoning by Mabel F. Baetz,
West ➢:ulberry Rezoning //83-78.
It is well documented that Ponderosa is already a high density
road through a, low density neighborhood. Any development of the
property at a density higher than that which is now allowed will be
detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood, and to the safety of
its residents and their children.
NAI4E ADDRESS PHONE
Y
.1111-10 P14MIR:
' :a79Y1tYYUlE
We residents and owners petition the Planning and Zoning Board
to recommend denial of the application for rezoning by Mabel F. Baetz,
West Mulberry Rezoning #83-78.
It is well documented that Ponderosa is already a high density
road through a lour density neighborhood. Any development of the
property,at a density higher than that which is now allowed will be
detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood, and to the safety of
its residents and their children.
.�..m .TT11,1 vviiMI
NAPE
ADDRESS PFONE
s
PETITION
r
We residents and oVmers petition the Planning and Zoning Board
to recommend denial of the application for rezoning by Dlabel F. Baetz,
West Bilberry Rezoning 1/83-78.
It is well documented that Ponderosa is already a high density
road through a low density neighborhood. Any development of the
property at a density higher than that which is now allowed will be
detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood, and to the safety of
its residents and their children.,
NAME ADDFESS PHONE
g a s ponje.05 a "3-663 iIf-
5 /3-�d'S'— c b E
FETITIOA
We residents and owners petition the Planning and Zoning Board
to recommend denial of the application for rezoning by Mabel F. Baetz,
'lest Mulberry Rezoning #8378.
It is well documented that Ponderosa is already a high density
road through a lox density neighborhood. Any development of the
property at a density higher than that which is now allowed will be
detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood, and to the safety of
its residents and their children.
NAIfd ADDRESS nn PHONE
0
• - �P.� -�33 y1-
`13- 63 5
11 yR(f-
3
?"AT.T7. ADDRESS PHONE
STNIE OF COLORADO
SS.
COUIUY OF LARL ER
Affidavit
Paul D. Baetz, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and
says that he observed all of the above nar,ted persons sign the foregoing
document entitled "Baetz jdest Nnxlberry Rezoning", and write the words
and dates following the signatures, that all of said persons are owners
of property situate in the neighborhood of the subject property, and
that they all signed of their own free will after being advised that
the maximum density allowable in an RP area is 12 units per acre.
June 12, 1978
2- ,
Paul D. Baetz
State of Colorado )
County of Iarimer )
Paul D. Baetz appeared before me on June 12, 1978 and upon
oath stated that the facts set forth in the foregoing affidavit are
true of his own knowledge.
Pty Commission expires
Witness rqy hand and officia 1�a
Notary Public
Pn1ITI0DEER'S
EXHIBIT B
BAE"PZ WEST P•NLBERRY REZOi4TNG
IN `i'iy, I/14TTER OF the petition of MABEL F. BAY -CZ, 2309 West Mulberry Street,
Fort Collins, Colorado, to rezone 8.755 acres (all of her land), located
adjacent to ldest Miulberry Street and Ponderosa Drive, from R-L (Low density
residential) to R-P (Planned residential), the undersiged 0vaners of
property located within 500 feet of said land do hereby express their approv-
al or gave no objection to such rezoning, as indicated after their sigpatures.
NAI-E POSITION
(Approve or No Objection)
7,9
J', '-
PETITIONER'S
State of Colorado ) EXHIBIT C
SS AFFIDAVIT
County of Larimer ) __
Paul D. Baetz, being duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says
that on June 11, 1978 he had telephone conversations with the persons
named hereinafter concerning the "Baetz Hest Mulberry Rezoning" petition,
and that during said conversations, said persons authorized the under-
signed to state at the Planning and Zoning meeting on June 12, 1978,
that each of them, for themselves and in the representative capacity
indicated, have no opposition to the proposed rezoning from RL to RP
classification.
Sigfrid S. Palm and Alice M. 1-lard for herself
Cecilie E. Palm and as Trustee for
Donald 0. Pearson Charles D. I -lard & N.R. Saylor
Janet Douglas, Trust Officer
First National Bank of Fort Collins, Colo.
Trustee for the estate of
Ramola M. Flinn, Deceased.
June 12, 1978
Paul D. IIaetz
State of Colorado )
SS
County of Lari er )
Paul D. Baetz appeared before me on June 12, 1978 and upon
oath stated that the facts stated in the foregoing Affidavit are true of
his orm knowledSe.
I-W Calrimisslon expires I'-- '.
Witness ray hand and
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS. Affidavit
COUNTY OF LARIfER )
Paul D. Baetz, being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and
says that he observed all of the above named persons sign the foregoing
document entitled "Baetz West Mulberry Rezoning", and write the words
and dates following the signatures, that all of said persons are owners
of property situate in the neighborhood of the subject property, and
that they all signed of their own free will after being advised that
the maximum density allowable in an RP area is 12 units per acre.
June 12, 1978
State of Colorado )
County of Larimer )
Paul D. Baetz appeared before me on June 12, 1978 and upon
oath stated that the facts set forth in the foregoing affidavit are
true of his own knowledge.
Any Commission expires J "
Witness my hand and official
�C ���Publi_—c �
•
Emm• 191'
Eff"OF14THWErm
BAETZ WEST MULBERRY REZONING
IN THE MATTER OF the petition of MABEL F. BAETZ, 2309 West Mulberry Street,
Fort Collins, Colorado, to rezone 8.755 acres (all of her land), located
adjacent to West Mulberry Street and Ponderosa Drive, from R-L (Low density
residential) to R-P (Planned residential), the undersigned owners of
property located within 500 feet of said land do hereby express their approv-
al or have no objection to such rezoning, as indicated after their signatures.
NAME POSITION
(Approve or No Objection)
State of Colorado )
SS
County of Larimer )
AFFIDAVIT
Paul D. Baetz, being duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says
that on June 11, 1978 he had telephone conversations with the persons
named hereinafter concerning the "Baetz West Mulberry Rezoning" petition,
and that during said conversations, said persons authorized the under-
signed to state at the Planning and Zoning meeting on June 12, 1978,
that each of them, for themselves and in the representative capacity
indicated, have no opposition to the proposed rezoning from RL to RP
classification.
Sigfrid S. Palm and Alice M. Ward for herself
Cecilie E. Palm and as Trustee for
Charles D. Ward & N.R. Saylor
Donald 0. Pearson
Janet Douglas, Trust Officer
First National Bank of Fort Collins, Colo.
Trustee for the estate of
Ramola M. Flinn, Deceased.
June 12, 1978
Paul D. Baetz
State of Colorado )
SS
County of Larimer )
Paul D. Baetz appeared before me on June 12, 1978 and upon
oath stated that the facts stated in the foregoing Affidavit are true of
his o-wn knowledge.
My Comnission expires / — '
Witness my hand and offici
Notary is
June 12, 1978
Page Two •
0
The neighborhood lend use is currently a mixture of the following:
high-rise senior citizen apartm^nts and parking lot to the south
city library to the east
mortuary and single family houses in the block southeast
two apartments, two houses, mortuary and tire shop in remainder of the
block to the north
central business district to the west.
The character of the neighborhood with rezoning would not
change physically, economically, or socially from the present. The
rezoning would allow an orderly development of the subject.
The supply of "B-G" zone land in the central core is limited
when considering the fact that the central business district fully
utilizes most of the "B-G" zoned land. The available "B-G" land
for redevelopment is limited to the Remington Street location and a
few scattered sites along Canyon Avenue and Mason Street. The
one-half block immediately west of the subject in effect was removed
from the inventory when the city acquired and developed this one-
half block into a parking lot. As Fort Collins continues to grow,
more emphasis may be anticipated for expansion of the central core
of the city.
These were the reasons th t ss:rved as the basis of my recom-
mendation to Vipont for consideration of a zoning change.
Very truly yours,
/Jerr/S. Moore
l� M.A.1., S.R.P.A.
JSM/be