HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/08/1978Ir
I9 '
r;
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
8 May 1978
#82-78 Horsetooth - Harmony Annexation.
Description: Proposal to annex 260 acres located north of Harmony Road
and west of South College Avenue.
Applicant: May Troutman, et. al., c/o Gene Fischer, Savings Building,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Les Kaplan: Gave the staff position and recommended approval based on the
following assessment of the annexation request.
This is a voluntarily -initiated annexation petition for 260 acres
on the west side of South College Avenue between Horsetooth Road
and Harmony Road.
The petitioner owns approximately 53 percent of the annexable area.
According to State law pertaining to annexation, the applicant of a
voluntary annexation needs to own a minimum of 50 percent of the
petitioned area. The entire area includes the 46 acre Park South
P.U.D., from which the petitioned area derives the necessary one -
sixth contiguity for annexation.
The location of the proposed annexation is within an area which is
being contested between the City and the South Fort Collins
Sanitation District for the right to provide sanitary sewer service.
The City has been supportive of the on -going Urban Service Area
Program as the vehicle for reconciling utility service and land use
conflicts for this and other fringe area locations. However, in
late April and contrary to the recommendation of the Steering
Committee for this Program, the District annexed the 94 acre
site south of the Park South P.U.D.
As a consequence of this District action, this 94 acre site, as well
as neighboring properties, is assured the sewer service which is a
pre -requisite for urban -type development. As a matter of policy the
City has consistently attempted to or has been receptive to acquiring
land use, development control, and taxing authority over properties
which are imminent for development in the County. In the case of the
subject area, annexation to the District is clearly a prelude to
development. Admittedly, inclusion of these properties into the
incorporated limits of the City poses problems in terms of the pro-
vision of urban services and the stated objectives for fill-in
development. However, in the balance the consequences of not gaining
local control over these properties would be more adverse to the City
than would be the consequences of annexation.
Bob Burnham: Asked if all legal requirements had been met.
Art March: Said, yes.
Gene Fischer - Representing the applicant - Said much of the area had been the
subject of lengthy dispute, notably Park South. Said the annexa-
tion was being sought to allow for development continuity and
planning of the entire area. Said he had no concern what entity
supplied utility services.
Page 2 - 8 May 1978
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
Dick Fuqua - Landowner included within the annexation - Said he did not know the
pros and cons of being in the City. But felt if his property was
annexed it was paramount that Mason Street go through to Harmony
Road.
Les Kaplan: Said one reason for the annexation was to allow for the continuation
of Mason Street.
Dick Fuqua: Asked who would pay for the street.
Art March: Said there were a variety of ways to pay for the street but that
it would be decided at a later date.
Alden Hill - Representing the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District - Submitted a
letter outlining the District's concerns (attached). Said it
would be desirable for the District to serve the area. Wanted
to avoid duplication of services. Hoped a step could be made at
this time for a good example of intergovernmental cooperation, and
to break the City's strangle hold in its policy of requiring accep-
tance of both water and sewer service but not one or the other.
Duane Davis - Manager, Loveland -Fort Collins Water and Sanitation Districts -
Expressed the sanitation's view as being essentially the same as
the Water District's.
Phyllis Wells: Asked if the Urban Service Steering Committee had made any
recommendations.
George Holter - Property owner in area of annexation - Said he was not against
annexation but requested his property be zoned H-B.
Phyllis Wells: Asked what his land was zoned by the County.
George Bolter: Said it was zoned T-Tourist.
Art March: Said all the land east of the tracks could be zoned H-B. Said
land west of the tracks could be zoned T-Transition, left unzoned,
or put into the requested R-L and R-L-P zones.
Phyllis Wells: Asked to clarify for the record whether or not this voluntary
annexation was obtained via any zoning guarantees.
Art March: Said it was not and that the final zoning was a legislative
decision based on recommendations from the Planning and Zoning
Boards, comments and petitions and requests from property owners
and those seeking annexation.
Phyllis Wells: Asked what controls the City had on present County development
proposals which would be included in the annexation.
Art March: Regarding Park South, said the City would probably honor the
approved plans but work out the addition of some City subdivision
standards, including the improvement of Horsetooth Road and side-
walks. Said he did not know about a compromise about curbs and
Page 3 - 8 May 1978
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
gutters. Noted the City was flexible.
Phyllis Wells:
Asked about utility service, noting both the City and the Districts
were ready and willing to serve.
Les Kaplan:
Said justification for annexation wasn't a concern of the
preparedness of utility service by either the City or the
District.
Phyllis Wells:
Said who served the area was a point of discussion.
Art March:
Agreed. Said it was a major issue for the USSC (Urban Service
Steering Committee). Said arguments could be made for both sides.
Added that utility service would be provided regardless of the
annexation or who served.
Phyllis Wells:
Asked if the USSC had made a recommendation.
Duane Davis:
Said these was no decision and it was left in limbo pending a
negotiated settlement.
Phyllis Wells:
Likened the whole issue to an international border dispute where
neither side speaks the other language. Said a committee existed
to promote City -County cooperation along the urban fringe, but that
the City was still returning to its old policy of defensive annexa-
tion to maintain some semblance of order. Wondered when all sides
would begin to communicate so that decisions could be made for the
benefit of all.
Moved to recommend annexation.
Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Robert Evans - Yes
Ed VanDriel - Yes
Gary Ross - Yes
Phyllis Wells - Yes
Gary Spahr - Yes
Bob Burnham - Yes, adding that the City should investigate
allowing another entity other than itself
to provide utility service.
Zoning Consideration
Ed VanDriel: Said he was uncomfortable considering zoning at this time.
Gary Ross: Thought the area east of the railroad made sense being zoned H-B
and that the Board could consider the applicant's input on zoning
west of the tracks. Asked if the neighborhood was aware a rezoning
was afoot.
Art March: Said it was not a requirement.
Page 4 - 8 May 1978
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
Phyllis Wells: Asked what zone should be assigned the Park South area.
Art March:
Suggested T-Transition until it
could be studied.
Gene Fischer:
Said the R-P zone requested was
meant to act as a buffer between
the R-L-P area
and Harmony Road,
the railroad tracks,and the
lumber yard.
Les Kaplan:
Questioned the
necessity of the
R-P zone. Said methods of buffering
were available
in the R-L-P zone
regulations.
Gene Fischer: Said there were too many areas needing buffering to be handled
through the R-L-P allotments.
Phyllis Wells: Thought it was premature to allow R-P density in this area.
Thought zoning the eastern half all H-B was hypocritical since
it amounted to more strip commercial -- something the City
traditionally opposed in its recommendations to the County.
Bob Burnham: Admitted reluctantly that the whole thing amounted to defensive
annexation to gain some continuity in planning.
Les Kaplan: Agreed it was premature but said the City was just trying to get
control on some partially developed land.
Gary Ross: Moved to recommend H-B for the land east of the tracks, R-L-P
and R-P as indicated on the plat and T for the lumber yard and
the northwest sector.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Robert Evans: Moved to zone the area east of the tracks H-B and leave the rest
unzoned for 90 days.
Art March: Suggested no zoning decisions be made for 90 days.
Gene Fischer: Asked if the R-P request was causing difficulty.
Robert Evans: Said yes. That he also was concerned about the northwest sector.
Gene Fischer: Suggested putting the R-P area in a holding pattern or zone it
R-L-P.
Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Thought it best to delay zoning action for
90 days to allow time for adequate study and review.
Art March: Said the zoning could be "caught up" with the annexation procedure
once a decision was made. Did not foresee the Council having
delay problems with it.
Page 5 - 8 May 1978
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting
Vote: Robert Evans - Yes
Ed VanDriel - Yes
Gary Ross - Yes, but thought there was enough information to
make complete zoning recommendations.
Phyllis Wells - Yes
Gary Spahr - No, thought enough information had been supplied
to make zoning recommendations.
Bob Burnham - No, would have supported Gary Ross's original
motion.
Motion carried 3 - 2.
Phyllis Wells: Suggested staff and City Council find a method of control to
avoid the constant border fending.
Les Kaplan: Said the Urban Service Program was working for that cooperation
but no agreements had been reached on setting policy issues.
Phyllis Wells: Said in the meantime there was a predictable rush to get develop-
ment done prior to the completion of the Urban Service Area Study.
Art March: Said the City staff had been and was working toward a solution
but that in the meantime the City had to work within the existing
framework.
Phyllis Wells: Said it would be nice to stop "spinning our wheels".
Les Kaplan: Said some advances were being made and was evidenced by the District
representation attending the meeting.
ALDEN T. HILL
ALDEN V. HILL
STEPHEN J. LAUER
CHARLES S. UNFUG
HILL AND HILL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW'
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SOS22
May 8, 1978
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
Municipal Building
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
P. O. Box 421
160 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE.
TELEPHONE 4B2-3663
Re: Proposed No. 82-78 Horsetooth-Harmony Annex-
ation
Dear Members of the Planning and_Zoning Board:
This letter is written on behalf of the Fort
Collins -Loveland Water District.
It appears that all of the property in the pro-
posed annexation is in the Fort Collins -Loveland Water
District. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District is able
and desires to provide service for any of such property.
The District records indicate there is a tap in place for
the Davis-Rogers-Colling property. In the petition for
inclusion submitted to the District more than a year ago for
the Collopy and Troutman property, it was agreed that the
water supply for the property would be from the District.
The District has the impression that the City of
Fort Collins plans to provide water service for the properties
requesting annexation, nothwithstanding that the same are in
the District. The District believes that it is legally
entitled to provide water service and that the matter of
water service should be resolved before any decision is made
upon annexation. For the City to provide water service is,
in our o inion, contrary to the intentions of the legislature
o e State in
Colora o as set forth in o Ora o evi" sea'
Statutes, 1973, 31-35-402(1)(b), which granted certain
powers to a municipality relating to water facilities or
sewerage facilities, but then provided ". . . . but no water
service or sewerage service or combination of them shall be
^Pii4iii`cli n(i- i"'n anti-'ni=h ar mitntc`Tn�lit.v-1TI11ESS"tl7 e-"aUAY'OVal'O
such other municipalityis' ovtairied�as
s tome rendered;".,, A municipality
i
Planning and Zoning Board
May 8, 1978
Page Two
includes any quasi -municipal corporation formed principally
to acquire, operate and maintain water facilities or sewerage
facilities or both. C.R.S. 1973, 31-35-401(4).
Resp�ectfully submitted,
�
Alden V. Hill
AVH:jf
cc: Fort Collins -Loveland Water District
A
f
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
May 8, 1978
Board Members Present: Bob Burnham, Phyllis Wells, Ed VanDriel, Robert Evans,
Gary Ross, Gary Spahr
Staff Present: Les Kaplan, Eldon Ward, Paul Deibel, Ken Waido, Sue
Gilley, Robert Steiner
Legal Representatives: Lucia Liley, Art March, Jr.
Meeting was called to order, 6:30 p.m. by Bob Burnham.
1. Approval of the April 10, 1978 minutes.
Phyllis Wells: On page nine, concerning her comment following her nay vote,
corrected it to read "thought it was overall bad planning to
present the plan contingent on rezoning".
Ed VanDriel: Moved to approve the minutes as corrected.
Gary Ross: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
2. #29-78 West Mountain Avenue Rezoning.
Description: Proposal to rezone 88 acres located west of
Shields Street on Mountain Avenue from R—M, Medium Density
Residential District, to R—L, Low Density Residential District.
Applicant: Neighborhood Residents, c/o Phyllis Wells, 1426 W.
Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Phyllis Wells: Abstained from discussion and voting. Said she had purposely
avoided attempting to sway any other members of the Board.
Pointed out that over the four year term of a Board member it
was difficult to avoid completely any conflicts of interests.
Ed VanDriel: Abstained from discussion and vote. Agreed with Phyllis
Wells' comments.
Bob Burnham: Explained the rezoning format.
D. Frick(Petitioner Representive): Said he represented 70% of the homeowners
in the area. Said the rezoning was requested based on preserving
the character and historical significance of the neighborhood.
Said the item was being reheard because of an error in notification
mailings. Restated arguments presented at the March Planning and
Zoning hearing.
Said all parties within and adjacent to the rezoning had been
sent a letter. Said a public meeting was held and that noone
h
Planning and zoning Board Minutes
May $, 1978/page 2
opposed to the rezoning attended. Said the rezoning conformed
to the City Goals and Objectives. Said the intent of the
petition was not to stop Kelger Park. Said it was unfortunate
the petition had been clouded by legal technicalities which
had no bearing on the rezoning.
Bob Burnham: Asked for a show of hands supporting the petition - approximately
30.
Ken Waido: Presented a summation of last months staff comments and
recommended approval.
Joe Stern(Representing those opposed): Submitted a brief to the Board and
asked that it be made a part of the record. Said for the
record that he thought there had been a lack of Board
impartiality. Said he never received notice of the public
meeting held by the applicants.
-Said part of the area being requested for rezoning had been
in the "B" zone from 1929 to 1965 and pointed out the zone was
the approximate equivalent to the present RM zone.
-Said 21 property owners were not notified prior to the first
hearing and another 27 were missed prior to the second hearing.
-Thought the petitioners should have been required to submit
an additional $50 to cover costs of the second hearing.
-Said mailings were made six days prior to the hearing, not
seven days as required by ordinance.
-Submitted a petition with 50 signatures opposing the rezoning.
-Said zoning laws were in derogation of common law property
rights and so should be strictly construed.
-Said traffic conjestion increase at LaPorte and Shields
was significatly less than at other locations in the southern part
of the City.
-Said retention of the RM zone adhered to a number of the City`s
Goals and Objectives.
-Said owners had bought with the knowledge of RM zoning and that
if they had preferred RL zoning they would have bought in that
zone.
-Said Board should consider the growing"Brown Cloud" looming
over the City and proposed discussion with the Board about
it at its convenience.
Charles Bloom(Representing the Property Owners of the Frey Subdivision on a
petition opposing the rezoning. Said the impact of the re-
quested rezoning would be an economic butchering of these
people.
Kelsey Smith(Representing Kelger Park Developers): Submitted a zoning map
configuration from the Plan For Progress depicting the
Kelger Park area as multi -family. Said the site was not
attractive for single family development. Said the Kelger
Park Subdivision was basically medium, not high density.
Requested the Board honor its decision regarding Kelger Park
or, as a compromise, downzone the site only to RIM.
Kenneth A. Gross(Resident 145 N. Roosevelt): Said he favored the RL zoning.
Noted that all the units west of the ditch(Frey Subdivision)
A .� Planning and Zon g Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 3
were on septic systems.
Alice Milton(Representing the petitioners): Said the opponents of the
rezoning had once complained the petition had been given
too much publicity. Said the additional $50 could have been
raised. Asked the Board to decide if any bias had been
shown by Phyllis Wells or Ed VanDriel.
Said the applicants liked the neighborhood as it was and
wished to keep it that way.
J.D. Loucks(area resident): Said the applicants were in error about claiming
to represent 706 of the residents in the area. Placed the
figure at around 52%.
Vincent Wilkens(Property owner in area): Thought the Frey Subdivision was
on a city sewer line. Thought RL zoning would be like taking
money from a bank account. Was unreceptive to hackling
measures.
Gary Ross: Asked if he was aware that existing uses would :net be affected
by the rezoning.
Wilkens: Said that after two years he would not be allowed to build.
Lucia Liley: Said the two-year limit was correct.
Ed Anderson(1129 W. Mountain Avenue): Asked why the change was necessary.
Said a 30 unit mobile home park existed in the area as well
as a 20 unit apartment.
Lucia Liley: Said those were legal non -conforming uses.
Anderson: Said he was aware of instances when that did not always hold
true.
Mike Wells(1426 W. Mountain Avenue): Said both Anderson and Wilkens were
askdng that the area not change and pointed out that that
was what the petitioners for -rezoning also wanted.
Also, said the 70% figure representing property owners in
favor of the rezoning was correct. Said he thought it might
be acceptable to exclude the Frey Subdivision from the rezoning.
Kemper Riffe(116 Lyons): Said there were 257 property owners in the area and
that the 137 signatures collected by the petitioners did not
represent 70%.
Bob Burnham: Asked if counsel was comfortable with the mailing notification
procedure.
Lucia Liley: Said yes. Said clerical mistakes were bound to happen. Said
notices had been delivered to the Post Office on the Friday
prior to the mailing deadline.
Gary Ross: Said he was unaware the Frey Subdivision was served by a
sewer line.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
May $, 1978/page
4
Ken Waido:
Said along LaPorte Avenue it was.
Gary Ross:
Said he thought the character of the Frey Subdivision was
distinct from the rest of the area included in the rezoning
petition. Suggested a higher permissable density was needed
to make development profitable.
Bob Burnham:
Chose to exclude both the Frey Subdivision and Kelger Park
from the rezoning.
Robert Evans:
Agreed with Bob Burnham but thought Kelger Park should be
rezoned RLM.
Les Kaplan:
Said to rezone Kelger Park would require the normal criteria
for rezoning be met.
Gary Ross:
Said he supported the downzoning but thought that in fairness
to those who bought with the intention of converting their
property to rental uses a time lag should be recommended as to
the effective date of any rezoning. Suggested a year.
Karen Warren(1500 W. Mountain Avenue): Said the rezoning request had been
in the works since December, 1977, and felt that was a
long enough time for any conversions to have been started.
Bob Busch(area
resident): Thought Gary Ross's suggestion was commendable.
Felt many people in the area didn't understand what was
happening.
Gary Ross:
Moved to recommend approval of the downzoning with the exclusion
of the Frey Subdivision, and effective six months after final
City Council approval.
Gary Spahr:
Seconded the motion.
Bob Burnham:
Asked if Gary Ross wished to exclude.Kelger Park as well.
Kelsey Smith: Said six months was not a long enough time. Asked to be
excluded.
Gary Ross: Said he meant not to exclude Kelger Park. Felt there was
a good enough case to prove vested rights and the developers
should be able to go ahead with their plans regardless.
Vote: Robert Evans - YES
Gary Ross - YES
Gary Spahr - YES
Bob Burnham - YES, Reluctantly, felt Kelger Park should be
excluded.
Motion carried unanimously.
3, #82-78 Horsetooth-Harmony Annexation
Description: Proposal to annex 260 acres located north of
Harmony Road and west of South College Avenue.
Applicant: Mary Troutman, et, al., c/o Gene Fischer, Savings
Building, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521..
04 •
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 5
Les Kaplan: Gave the staff position and recommended approval based on
the following assessment of the annexation requesrr
This is a voluntarily -initiated annexation petition for 260
acres on the west side of South College Avenue between Horsetooth
Road and Harmony Road.
The petitioner owns approximately 53 percent of the annexable
area. According to State law pertaining to annexation, the
applicant of a voluntary annexation needs to own a minimum of
50 percent of the petitioned area. The entire area includes the
46 acre Park South P.U.D., from which the petitioned area
derives the necessary one -sixth contiguity for annexation.
The location of the proposed annexation is within an area which
is being contested between the City and•the South Fort Collins
Sanitation District for the right to provide sanitary sewer
service. The City has been supportive of the on -going Urban
Service Area Program as the vehicle for reconciling utility
service and land use conflicts for this and other fringe area
locations. However, in late April and contrary to the recommenda-
tion of the Steering Committee for this Program, the District
annexed the 94 acre site south of the Park South P.U.D.
As a consequence of this District action, this 94 acre site,
as well as neighboring properties, is assured the sewer
service which is a pre -requisite for urban -type development.
As a matter of policy City had consistently attempted to or had
been receptive to acquiring land use, development control, and
taxing authority over properties which are imminent for development
in the County. In the case of the sujbect area, annexation to
the District is clearly a prelude to development. Admittedly,
inclusion of these properties into the incorporated limits of
the City poses problems in terms of the provision of urban
services and the stated objectives for fill-in development.
However, in the balance the consequences of not gaining local
control over these properties would be more adverse to the
City than would be the consequences of annexation.
Bob Burnham: Asked if all legal requirements had been met.
Art March: Said yes.
Gene Fischer(Representing the applicant): Said much of the area had been the
subject of lengthy dispute, notably Park South. Said the
annexation was being sought to allow for development continuity
and planning of the entire area. Said he had no concern what
entity supplied utility services.
Dick Fuqua(Landowner included within the annexation): Said he did not know the
pros and cons of being in the City. But felt if his property
was annexed it was paramount that Mason Street go through to
Harmony Road.
Les Kaplan: Said one reason for the annexation was to allow for the continuation
of Mason Street.
Dick Fuqua: Asked who would pay for the street.
-q
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 6
Art March: Said there were a variety of ways to pay for the street but that
it would be decided at a later date.
Alden Hill(Representing the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District): Submitted a
letter outlining the District's concerns (attached). Said it
would be desirable for the District to serve the area. Wanted
to avoid duplication of services. Hoped a step could be made
at this time for a good example of intergovernmental cooperation
and to break the City's strangle hold in its policy of requiring
acceptance of both water and sewer service but not one or the
other.
Duane Davis(Manager, Loveland -Fort Collins Water and Sanitation Districts):
Expressed the sanitation's view as being essentially the same
as the Water District's.
Phyllis Wells: Asked if the Urban Service Steering Committee had made any
recommendations.
George Holter(Property owner in area of annexation): Said he was not against
annexation but requested his property be zoned H-B.
Phyllis Wells: Asked what his land was zoned by the County.
George Holter: Said it was zoned T-Tourist.
Art March: Said all the land east of the tracks could be zoned H-B.
Said land west of the tracks could be zoned T-Transition,
left unzoned, or put into the requested R-L and R-L-P zones.
Phyllis Wells: Asked to clarify for the record whether or not this voluntary
annexation was obtained via any zoning guarantees.
Art March:
Said it was not and that the final zoning was a legislative
decision based on recommendations from the Planning and Zoning
Board, comments and petitions and requests from property
owners and those seeking annexation.
Phyllis Wells:
Asked what controls the City had on present County development
proposals which would be included in the annexation.
Art March:
Regarding Park South, said the City would probably honor the
approved plans but work out the addition of some City sub-
division standards, including the improvement of Horsetooth
Road and sidewalks. Said he did not know about a compromise
about curbs and gutters. Noted the City was flexible.
Phyllis Wells:
Asked about utility service, noting both the City and the
Districts were ready and willing to serve.
Les Kaplan:
Said justification for annexation wasn't a concern of the
preparedness of utility service by either the City or the
District.
Phyllis Wells:
Asked if the Urban Service Steering Committee had made a
recommendation.
r •
Planning and Zon* Board Minutes
May 8, 197$/page 7
Duane Davis: Said this was no decision and it was left in limbo pending
a negotiated settlement.
Phyllis Wells: Likened the whole issue to an international border dispute where
neither side speaks the other language. Said a committee existed
to promote City -County cooperation along the urban fringe, but
that the City was still returning to its old policy of defensive
annexation to maintain some semblance of order. Wondered when
all sides would begin to communicate so that decisions could
be made for the benefit of all.
Moved to recommend annexation.
Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Rovert Evans - YES
Ed VanDriel - YES
Gary Ross - YES
Phyllis Wells - YES
Gary Spahr - YES
Bob Burnham - YES, adding that the City should investigate
allowing another entity other than itself
to provide utility service.
Zoning Consideration
Ed VanDriel: Said he was uncomfortable considering zoning at this time.
Gary Ross: Thought the area east of the railroad made sense being zoned
H-B and that the Board could consider the applicant's input
on zoning west of the tracks. Asked if the neighborhood was
aware a rezoning was afoot.
Art March: Said it was not a requirement.
Phyllis Wells: Asked what zone should be assigned the Park South area.
Art March: Suggested T-Transition until it could be studied.
Gene Fischer: Said the R-P zone requested was meant to act as a buffer between
the R-L-P area and Harmony Road, the railroad tracks, and
the lumber yard.
Les Kaplan: Questioned the necessity of the R-P zone. Said methods of
buffering were available in the R-L-P zone regulations.
Gene Fischer: Said there were too many areas needing buffering to be handled
through the R-L-P allotments.
Phyllis Wells: Thought it was premature to allow R-P dnesity in this area.
Thought zoning the eastern half all H-B was hypocritical
since it amounted to more strip commercial -- something the
City traditionally opposed in its recommendations to the
County.
Bob Burnham: Admitted reluctantly that the whole thing amounted to defensive
annexation to gain some continuity in planning.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 8
Les Kaplan: Agreed it was premature but said the City was just trying
to get control on some partially developed land.
Gary Ross: Moved to recommend H-B for the land east of the tracks, R-L-P
and R-P as indicated on the plat and T for the lumber yard
and the northwest sector.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Robert Evans: Moved to zone the area east of the tracks H-B and leave the
rest unzoned for 90 days.
Art March: Suggested no zoning decisions be made for 90 days.
Gene Fischer: Asked if the R-P request was casuing difficulty.
Robert Evans: Said yes. That he also was concerned about the northwest sector.
Gene Fischer: Suggested putting the R-P area in a holding pattern or zone it
R-L-P.
Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Thought it best to delay zoning action for
90 days to allow time for adequate study and review.
Art March: Said the zoning could be "caught up" with the annexation
procedure once a decision was made. Did not foresee the
Council having delay problems with it.
Vote: Robert Evans - YES
Ed VanDriel - YES
Gary Ross - YES, but thought there was enough information
to make complete zoning recommendations.
Phyllis Wells - YES
Gary Spahr - NO, thought enough information had been supplied
to make zoning recommendations.
Bob Burnham - NO, would have supported Gary Ross's original motion.
Motion carried 3 - 2.
Phyllis Wells: Suggested staff and City Council find a method of control to
avoid the constant border feuding.
Les Kaplan: Said the Urban Service Program was working .for that cooperation
but no agreements had been reached on setting policy issues.
Phyllis Wells: Said in the meantime there was a predictable rush to get
development done prior to the completion of the Urban Service
Area Study.
Art March: Said the City staff had been and was working toward a solution
but that in the meantime the City had to work within the
existing framework.
Phyllis Wells: Said it would be nice to stop "spinning our wheels".
r
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes •
May 8, 1978/page 9
Les Kaplan: Said some advances were being made and was evidenced by the
District representation attending the meeting.
4, #56-78 3rd Amendment of Eastgate P.U.D., Preliminary and Final Plan.
Description: Proposal for 44 residential units and 12 commercial
uses on 6.2 acres zoned R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential
District, and B-P, Planned Business District, located on
Riverside Drive between Montgomery and Pitkin Streets.
Applicants: George W. Betz and Dan Bailey, P.O. Box 7,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to the following
comment:
The concerns of the staff on last month's plan have been successfully
met. However, as a part of the design solution, two small dead
end parking lots off Riverside Avenue have been provided.
The staff sees the potential for problems arising, should the
lots fill to capacity. An auto entering the full lot would then
be forced to back out onto the arterial. The staff recommends
that short 16' wide drives connecting the parking lots to the
adjacent parking areas be added to the plan.
Gary Ross: Thought hooking the parking areas almost amounted to putting
in a through street similar to the earlier plans submitted.
Eldon Ward: Agreed, but said some solution was needed for the turn -around
problem.
George Betz(Representing the applicant): Said much money had been spent,
perfection was impossible and looped drives were unacceptable.
Bob Burnham: Concurred. Thought it better to sacrifice two parking spaces
for turn -around slots.
Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval subject to two parking spaces
being designated as turn -around slots.
Gary Ross: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
5. #59-78 2000 Park Center P.U.D., Preliminary and Final Plans.
Description: Proposal for a commercial P.U.D. on .97 acres
zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on College
Avenue north of the Sherwood Ditch.
Applicant: Franz Realty, 2000 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80521.
Ed VanDriel: Abstained from discussion and vote.
Paul Deibal: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to the following
comments:
h
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 10
1. Frontage Road. The plan allows for extension of the
frontage road and sidewalk north from the Taco John's
Restaurant. Frontage Road location will necessitate removal
of two parking spaces at the west end of the site;
2. Internal Circulation. The layout of driveways and parking
is much improved. The proposal still entails 900 parking
off the driveway easement running through the middle of the site,
as does the bank's plan. While this is not optimal, the staff
feels that it is acceptable. The main driveway is not intended
or designed to be used as a street for through traffic, such
as Spring Park Drive but for access to and from this site;
3. Parking. As submitted with 60 spaces, the plan is 4.7%
under the standard parking requirement. Elimination of
another two spaces in connection with the frontage road would
increase parking deficiency to 8%;
The staff would suggest that building floor area of the new
building be limited to 4,750 sq. ft., (rather than the 5,170
sq. ft. proposed). This would provide for a 20' landscaped
setback along the frontage road, (rather than the zero setback
proposed), and with elimination of two spaces shown on the
plan due to the frontage road, would entail a parking de-
ficiency of 5%. We feel this deficiency can be justified for
a project of this scale, with adjacent on -street parking
available on Remington Street;
4. Pedestrian Access. The plan provides a good internal system
of walks, and provides for installation of a sidewalk along
the west side of Remington Street;
5. Landscaping and Peripheral Treatment. Although landscaped
area is minimal, planting areas are well integrated with walks
and buildings. F Rial plan should improve appearance of
existing bank facade facing Remington through landscaping and
architectural treatment;
6. Other Comments.
a) provisions should be made for disposition of existing
underground gas storage tanks;
b) additional fire hydrant should be provided at Remington
Street entrance.
Bill Franz(Applicant): Complimented the planning staff and his architect
for helping him improve his plans. Pointed out there would
be parking available on Remington Street. Objected to surrending
more setback footage along the frontage road which would reduce
the size of the proposed building.
Gary Ross: Agreed. Thought the staff comment was unreasonable since an
8 foot setback had already been surrendered.
Bob Burnham: Also agreed and approved of the S-configuration for the
r 0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 11
access drive which provided for two additional parking
stalls.
Robert Evans: Moved to recommend approval subject to the access road being
designed in an S-shape, deletion of two parking slots at the
west end of the site if they were picked up elsewhere, that
the total parking provided stayed within five percent of the
requirement, and to other staff comments excepting any further
reduction in the building size to accommodate additional
setback along the frontage road.
Gary Ross: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
6. #70-78 The Wharf: Landings Fifth Filing, P.U.D., Preliminary Plan.
Description: Proposal for 38 multi -family units on 3.2 acres
zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located on Horsetooth
Road west of Landings Drive.
Applicant: The Landings, Ltd., Osprey Homes, Inc., c/o ZVFK
Architects, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Paul Deibel: Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to the
following comments:
1. Intensity. This project is generally well designed given its
relatively extensive coverage and minimal active open space.
Despite this intensity, units and open space are distributed so
that most units have direct access to an open area. Intensity
appears to become a problem, however, at the west end of the
site where building separations are minimal, and the pedestrian
walk intrudes upon building envelopes at the north and south
ends of the project's most westerly building. This conflict between
the pedestrian walk and building envelopes should be reduced
(by shifting buildings, added landscape treatment, or eliminating
one or two units). Also, where intensity is high, interaction
among buildings is important, thus the final site plan should
show specific buildings as does this preliminary (rather than
just building envelopes).
2. Traffic Circulation. The ordinance requires that the
internal street, (which may be private as is proposed here),
be 28' wide with parking on one side. The proposal provides this,
although the street narrows to 20' on curves where parallel
parking would not take place. We consider this to be consistent
with the intent of the ordinance and a desirable approach for a
private street because parallel parking spaces are clearly
defined. Some alternations should be made on 900 parking spaces,
however, so as to provide 24' of backup space. Driveway
entrance radii should also be increased to allow for backup
into 20' driving lane. Curbs should be signed for no parking
where appropriate.
3. Private Street. Final plan maintenance guarantee should
also include maintenance of private street. Signs at entrance
I
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/Page 12
should identify street as private. Street should be improved
without centerline inverted crown for drainage.
4. Other Comments.
a) final utility plans should specify on -site detention,
extension of 20" water line along Horsetooth Road, looped
interior water lines, additional fire hydrant(s);
b) final landscape plan should include security lighting;
c) final site plan should specify unit floor areas so as not
to exceed 1/3 of lot area as per P.U.D. ordinance requirement
for R-P zone;
d) it may be necessary to shift building at east end of site
to avoid utility easement along Landings Drive R.O.W.
Reid Rosenthal(Representing the applicants): Had no problem with City
comments.
Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
7. #71-78 Lot 18 South Mesa Subdivision P.U.D., Preliminary and Final
Plans.
Description: Proposal for a commercial P.U.D. on .46 acres
zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on Horsetooth
Road east of South Mason Street.
Applicant: Brian Wiftfield, 1815 Estrella, Loveland, Colorado
80537.
a
Eldon Ward: Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to the following
comments:
1. Horsetooth Road should be dedicated 50' from the centerline.
The standard arterial improvements including a 7' bikeway, will
be required;
2. The curb radius at the Mason Street intersection should be
a minimum of 20';
3. The detention plan indicated is insufficient. The applicant
should submit a drainage report with the correct discharge.
There is an existing drainageway along Horsetooth Road which
will have to be carried by pipe;
4. The parking configuration, as submitted, poses some problems.
The 35' driveway should be reduced in size to avoid conflicts
with parking spaces. There are also problems with egress and
conflicts with garage doors for some parking spaces in front of
the buildings. The building should be moved at least 10 feet
east and 5 feet south to make the parking area in front of the
building viable;
5. The landscape plan should be revised to
M • •
Planning and Z6ning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 13
a. provide a mix of shade trees rather than all Silver Maples,
b, indicate all landscaping called for (i.e. the plan specifies
6 shade trees, but shows only 4),
c, keep vertical elements at least 75' from the center of the
intersection,
d. indicate peripheral treatment along the north and east
boundaries of the site,
e. correct the spelling of the planting species called for;
6. The width of the walk along Mason should be clarified;
7. Utility service lines should be shown on the site plan.
Also the applicant will be required to participate in the ex-
tension of the 20" water main in Horsetooth Road;
8. Light and Power will require a six foot easement at the
rear of the building;
9. The City extension of Mason Street along the C&S Railroad
R.O.W. will create a duplication with the Mason Street indicated
on this plan. The City should initiate a street name change
for the one Mason Street, and coordinate the name with that
of the street in Creger Plaza.
Harold Slatter(Representing the Applicant): Had no problem with the staff
comments.
Gary Ross: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion.
Phyllis Wells: Thought approval should be granted at the preliminary stage
only.
Eldon Ward: Explained that staff comments would not affect the site plan.
Phyllis Wells: Asked about traffic circulation.
Eldon Ward: Said the only conflict would be eliminated once the building
was shifted.
Phyllis Wells: Said if these problems existed only at the final review level,
approval would not be recommended. Said she could vote for
approval only for the preliminary stage.
Vote: Robert Evans - YES
Ed VanDriel - YES
Gary Rose - YES
Phyllis Wells: NO, for reasons stated above
Gary Spahr - YES
Bob Burnham - YES
The motion carried 5-1.
S. #75-78 Overland West Subdivision, Preliminary Plan.
0
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 14
Description: Proposal for 61 single family lots on 20.14
acres zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located
on Overland Trail at West Elizabeth Street.
Applicant: David M. Kilpatrick, 315 W. Oak Street, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward:
Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to the
following comments:
1. A detailed and complete drainage report must be submitted.
Discharge will not be allowed to enter the canal. Runoff
will have to be siphoned under the canal to the Timber Lane
drainage way;
2. The intersection of Station Drive and the unnamed cul-de-
sac should be redesigned to be perpendicular rather than 600
as proposed;
3. Standard collector and arterial street improvements will
be required on Elizabeth and Overland Trail. The plans for
the improvements should include a bikepath on Overland Trail
with accompanying low maintenance landscaping;
4. Lots 25 and 26 should have a common driveway. No other
lots will be allowed direct access onto West Elizabeth Street;
5. It would be preferable to include the Giddings property
with this plat. At the least, the right-of-way should be
dedicated and improved with this subdivision;
6. Lots 27, 1, and 41, may be difficult to build upon. The
applicant may wish to enlarge these lots;
7. "Station Drive" is a streetname duplication and cannot be
allowed.
Mike Kilpatrick(Applicant):
Said he would adhere to staff comments.
Ed VanDriel:
Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Robert Evans:
Seconded the motion.
Vote:
Motion carried unanimously.
9, #76-78
Brownstone Square Subdivision, Preliminary Plan.
Description: Proposal for four (4) multifamily lots on 1.97
acres zoned R-M, Medium Density Residential District, located
on Overland Trail South of West Prospect Street.
Applicant: Thomas E. Dillon, 2801 Brookwood Drive, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Eldon Ward:
Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to the
following continents;
It A
The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 15
1. Overland Trail should receive the standard arterial
improvements, except the bike path. (Bikes will be
accomodated on the east side of the street.) A four foot
standard walk should be provided and separated from the
street;
2. If on -site detention is to be provided within the
Bureau of Reclamation easement, the applicant should
obtain written approval of that agency;
3. Individual water service to each lot may be accomplished
by bringing in four 1" service lines in a single trench.
Bob Burnham: Asked about storm water detention problems.
Thomas Dillon(Applicant): Said he would comply with the staff comment
regarding detention and with other staff comments.
Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments.
Robert Evans: Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion harried unanimously.
10. #99-77A Amendment of Spring Creek Plaza P.U.D.
Description: Proposed amendment of a commercial P.U.D. on
2.37 acres zoned B-P, Planned Business District, located on
the southwest corner of S. Shields and Stuart Street.
Applicant: Gene Fischer, c/o Robert Sutter, 333 W. Drake,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521.
Les Kaplan: Said the plan was an amendment to show a Tavern as an
illustrated use. Saw no real problems but said it was a
subjective decision.
Bob Burnham: Asked what the impact would be on parking.
Les Kaplan: Said it could generate more but that parking was not
determined by use.
Gene Fischer(Applicant): Said the proposed use was actually a restaurant
with a Tavern license.
John Reid(Attorney Representing applicants for the Tavern): Explained a
Tavern license was being sought because it did not require
50% of the revenue to be generated from food sales.
Gene Fischer: Said expression from the neighborhood supported the
tavern plan. Said he was only complying with City Council
directive to bring the plan back through review channels.
Saw the procedure as nothing more than a technicality,
but had no objections because the delay it caused was not
important.
14
M
The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 16
Ed VanDriel: Asked if most renters in the Foothills Apartments were college
students.
Fischer: Said it was mixed with some married graduate students and older
couples. Said it was mostly low income.
Phyllis Wells: Said the market area as explained during the initial application
for Spring Creek Plaza was described as a square mile.
Fischer: Said most outside the area business would probably come from
the west via Stuart Street, not Shields.
Robert Evans: Asked staff if a traffic light was intended for Stuart and
Shields.
Paul Deibel: Said it would be preferable to avoid.
Ed VanDriel: Thought if most of the residents in the vicinity were low
income they would not support the Tavern business which
meant business would be more auto oriented and would require
more parking.
Fischer: Explained that the heaviest use would be in the evening
when only a few other stores in the Plaza would be open -
hence parking would be adequate.
Gary Ross: Sited a successful tavern in Loveland with substantial
parking problems.
Fischer: Thought it would be a nice problem to have from a financial
standpoint. Said it was unreasonable to have a huge black-
top parking lot for only periodic use.
Mr. Kurtz(Tavern owner): SAid 84 stalls were available at the Plaza while
his tavern would have seating for only 48.
Phyllis Wells: Asked if there would be take-out service.
Kurtz:
Said it was not permitted in the zone.
Gary Ross:
Asked if the planned use was a restaurant with liquor license
instead of a tavern whether the applicants would be before
the Board.
Fischer:
Said no, that a restaurant and bar would be permitted without
the additional review procedure.
Lucia Liley:
Said the question was whether the use was compatible at the Bite.
Phyllis Wells:
Said the fact remained that the developers had assured the
Plaza would be neighborhood oriented. Felt the proposed use
did not comply with those assurances. Said she had voted
against the rezoning which permitted the Plaza development
because she thought the site inappropriate for the proposed
.t
The Planning and Zoning'Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 17
uses and because of the impact on traffic.
Fischer:
Said a restaurant was included as a use in the original
proposal.
John Reid:
Pointed out that almost all Tavern businesses were located
on or around College Avenue and this proposal was a start
at spreading it out.
Phyllis Tells:
Said with the traffic conjestion likely at the location a
nightmare was being invited.
Reid:
Said the traffic generated by the proposed Tavern would go
to College Avenue if the Tavern were denied.
Bob Burnham:
Though the traffic generated by the Tavern would be minimal
compared to that of other uses in the Plaza (Laundry,
convenience food center) which would generate frequent and
brief "in -and -out" stops.
Gary Ross:
Moved to recommend approval.
Gary Spahr:
Seconded the motion.
Phyllis Wells:
Thought the Plaza was not turning out into a neighborhood
center and Would generate too much traffic.
Robert Evans:
Agreed with Phyllis Well and resented the backdoor approach
to getting a Tavern in the Plaza taken by the developer.
Fischer:
Resented the implication in Robert Evan's remark, stating it
was the lessee not the developer who opted for the Tavern.
Vote:
Robert Evans - NO
Ed VanDriel - NO
Gary Ross - YES
Phyllis Wells - NO
Gary Spahr - YES
Bob Burnham - YES
The motion failed to carry.
Lucia Liley: Suggested sending the item to Council with the 3-3 vote.
11. #77-78 Martin - East Highway 14 Special Use Review
(County Referral)
Description: Proposal for a use requiring special review
on 5.2 acres zoned C, Commercial, located on Colorado
Highway 14 west of Summit View Road.
Applicant: Clarence Martin, 330 8th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado,
80631.
Eldon Ward: Gave staff position and recommended approval.
Ed VanDriel: Moved to Recommend approval,
A
0
The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 18
Gary Ross: Seconded the Motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
12. #78-78 The 19th Green P.U.D. Revised Masterplan.
(County Referral)
Description: Proposal for 495 dwelling units on 161 acres
zoned R, Residential, located east of County Road 11 and
south of County Road 52.
Applicant: Richard Baker, 2013 Evergreen, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80521.
Paul Deibel: Said staff position was the same as last year - the plan
was premature. However, noted that wince the masterplan
had already been approved, suggested approval conditional upon
the following comments:
1. Adjacent county roads be paved;
2. Low maintenance paved internal streets with curb and
gutter;
3. Sidewalks;
4. Streetlights;
5. Storm runoff control with detention where necessary.
Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend to the County that the Board would
1) Make no comment on the density of the proposal,
2) that it recommended staff comments be followed, and,
3) rearrange the internal road pattern to facilitate smooth
traffic flow.
Ed VanDriel: Amended the motion to include a recommendation to keep cul-
de-sacs a maximum of 660 feet. Seconded the motion.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
Other Business
1) Zoning of the Hiatt Annexation
Les Kaplan: Explained the owner of the land wished to continue and
expand the Greenhouse business. Said this was only
permissable in the C zone. Said there were four alter-
natives:
1) Keep the earlier recommended RLP zone, Staking the green-
house non -conforming and permitting only a 25% expansion,
2) Recommend C zoning which would permit a multitude
of other uses, -
3) Recommend conditional C zoning,
4) Not annex the land.
The Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
May 8, 1978/page 19
Suggested the fourth alternative since it would permit the
owner to carry out his expansion and could be annexed some-
time in the future.
Thomas(Owner): Requested at least a three year delay in annexation.
Ed VanDriel: Asked if expansion was in progress.
Thomas: Said it was but three years were needed for completion.
Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend delaying annexation to permit owner to
complete his expansion.
Gary Ross: Seconded the motion.
Robert Evans: Suggested amending the motion to include a recommendation
to Council that a study be conducted to allow greenhouses
in the BP zone.
Phyllis Wells: Accepted the amendment.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
GEORGE A. HOLTER
2224 Moffett Dr.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521
Kiv :1, 1'1711
Arthur E. Marsh, Jr.
United Bank Building
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. March,
In referenrto our ronvorsatiort it) yotm nffiry oo Kly 7, 1178,
it was pointed out to me that the properly thit. I and barn tiet.x own
on South College Avenue would be part of the annexation of 260 acres
proposed by May Troutman, and that this annexation proceedings is
according to the Colorado Law, and that our property would be
forcibly annexed. It was further pointed out that if we joined in
the annexation petition at this time, we could expect our property
to get Highway Business zoning at the time of the annexation, where-
by if we didn't join in the petition, out' property would be put into
a transitional zone at time of annexation. Therefore, with these
points in mind and after my conversation with Mr. Betz in Arizona on
the telephone, we decided it would be to oup best interest to join in
the petition for annexation at this time. I also believe that should
..there be any agreement or guarantee between the city and the Troutman
property owners as to zoning, utility t-nefi.ts, or arrangements made
to prevent upper or lower city staff personnel from making future
development difficult, anythino that would be to our benefit, this
same arrangement should be applied to our property.
Mr. Betz thought that Gene Fischer could sign the petition for
him as his attorney in fact. You may want to contact Gene regarding
this. Mr. Betz can be contacted at 1-602-985-1055.
Please find enclosed a copy of the legal description as we now
hold title in George A. Holter and Ezra R. Betz.
Sincerely yours,.
George A. Holter
RECEIVED
fYIAY 8 1978
Pl.,
Dep rtrnent,
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the
6th P:M.,.thence N 89351 W on 1/4 section line 960.5
ft. to the East right of way line of he Colorado and
Southern Railway Company, thence N 01.40' E along said
right of way 687.5 ft., thence S 89 35' @ 9.0.5 ft. to
East line of said Section 35, thence South 687.5 ft, to
the point of beginning, except parcels to the County of-
Larimer described in Book 839 at pages 13 and 14 of the
tarimer County records, together with 11/20 of a share
of the capital stock of the Pleasant Valley and Lake
Canal Company and an undivided 1/2 interest in and to a
:certain well, windmill, storage tank or system as now
constructed on Lot 12, Observatory Heights, in the W 1/2
of 14W 1/4 of Section 36, Township 7 North, Range 69 West
of the 6th P.M., together with 1/2 interest in a pipeline
leading from said well to the premises above described,
together with right of ingress and egress for repairing
the same, excepting therefrom and reserving unto the
.grantors, their heirs, legal representatives; survivors
and assigns, for a period of 40 years from this date,
1/3 of all oil, gas, minerals, and mineral rights in,
under, and upon or being a part of said lands.
Mg
��CYiYi�YZ�yC cy ��G'�JZC�YZ 1�.D�zCVG
41
4rD WV, &U2,4ur"c,
✓z EaZ-�cti c t�-G�L, /�� �Cc ' .GpZ.�- p�LQ.
No Text
�O�laxAo-lz
RECEIVED
MAY 5 1978
Plc_
Dept :
Thomas Brubaker
1246 West Mountain
Fort Collins, Colo.
Mr. Ebb Burnam, Chairman
Fort Collins Planning and
Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, Colo.
Dear Sir:
I Strongly support the down -zoning in the area
West of Shields Street, North of Oak Street, East of
the Cemetery and South of LaPorte Avenue. After receiving
a positive recommendation from the Board at the meeting
on March 6, 1978, a legal consideration was used to
force a rehearing.
As a citizen in favor of the down -zoning, I am
concerned that a small vocal minority is receiving
undue response in their attempt to block this request.
At the hearing on May 8, 1978 I would. appreciate the
Board's careful reconsideration of the request supported
by a petition signed by a majority of the property
owners in the area.
Sincerely yours, n
Thomas Brubaker
RECEIVED
MAY 5 1978
r ianning
Depertment�
f�G\.C.I v L_v •
MAY 8 1978
• V.
Haim inn
Department
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Mr. Mark L. Korb
Attorney at Law
1223 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
May 5, 1978
Re: West Mountain Rezoning, File #29-78
Gentlemen:
As residents of the area included in the proposed
petition for rezoning:
I attended the original hearing before the planning and
zoning in March 16, 1978 and feel that most arguments
necessary to be considered were advanced at that time.
My wife and I would be fully in favor of the "down -
zoning" for the area of primary concern involved in the
petition. We would recognize and feel it's within the
disgression of the planning and zoning board to exempt
from that downzoning the most westerly portion of the
property which is most currently included in the petition
because that area is really not of the same basic nature
and composition as the main area involved in the petition.
Any action which the planning and zoning board
would like to take to permit the duplex development
of the recently platted subdivision which is also
within the original petition area would also be unobjec-
tionable to us. Since the area where the duplex develop-
ment is planned is on the boarders of the area for which
rezoning is proposed, the mere fact that such a variance
would create an irregular boarder doesn't strike me as
being "spot zoning" for the balance of the area involved
in the petition.
Sincerely yours,
lAloa
Mark L. Korb
MLK:bc
--1 L,J
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RETENTION OF
R-M ZONING IN THE AREA LOCATED WEST OF
SHIELDS STREET ON MOUNTAIN AVENUE
FACTS
(1) On May 31, 1929 (Ordinance No. 10). the City of Fort Collins
established certain residence districts which included: an "A" residence
district, approximately comparable in uses to the present R-L district; and
a "B" residence district, approximately comparable in uses to the present
R-M zone. Approximately 80% of the area bordered by the ditch near Bryan
Avenue, Laporte Avenue, Shields Street and Mountain Avenue was included in
the "B" district; this represents well over half of the entire 88-acre area
(88 acres in the newspapers; 74 acres in the petition) sought to be down -
zoned (see Exhibit "A" annexed hereto).
(2) On October 14, 1965 (Ordinance No. 46), the present R-M zone was
established in the subject area (except apparently for an approximately
10-acre area in the northwest section).
(3) Some time after 1965, this approximately 10-acre area was
involuntarily included in the City limits and also included in the R-M zone.
The owners of this property are seeking to retain its R-M zone.
(4) On or about October 10, 1977, Kelger Park received approval from
the Planning and Zoning Board (herafter "P and Z Board") and thereafter by
the City Council for seven 2-family duplexes to be built near Shields Street
in the subject area. Because certain site and utility improvements have not
been made, Kelger Park has neither applied for nor been granted a building
permit. Presumably, this project may be built under an R-M zone, not under
an R-L zone (unless a variance is procured).
(5) Shortly after the P and Z Board approval of Kelger Park, certain
people residing in the area, including Phyllis Wells and Ed VanDriel, who
are both members of the P and Z Board, initiated a petition campaign to
down -grade the zone to R-L.
WC
(6) The Planning Department of the City has issued a sheet of
instructions for changing the zoning ordinance (copy is annexed as Exhibit
"B"). This sheet requires, among other things that the application must be
received by the 15th of the month prior to the P and Z Board' consideration
(i.e., by February 15, 1978).
(7) The petition for rezoning (see Exhibit "C") was acknowledged by
Phyllis Wells on February 23, 1978 and contained a three -page memorandum
(annexed hereto as Exhibit "D"). The petition requests down -zoning for
five subdivisions and portions of two other subdivisions, all of which are
enumerated and identified. There is no mention of some 16 lots just west
of the Hensel Addition (although these lots are apparently included in the
annexed small scale map of the area to be down -zoned). Presumably,
Petitioners paid Ulu $50.00 feu Lo defray costs requested in Exhibit "C".
(8) Notices of the March 6, 1978 meeting of the P and Z Board were
mailed to some 200 property owners in the affected area. Notices were not
sent to some 300 property owners located either in the abutting area or
within the 500' adjacent area, or to some 16 property owners located just eerfemd
west of the Hensel Addition.
(9) At least two reports appeared in newspapers of wide, general
circulation in the Fort Collins area, the Triangle Review (see Exhibit "E"
annexed hereto) and the Fort Collins Coloradoan (see Exhibit "F" annexed
hereto) containing statements by Petitioners and by members of the staff of
the City Planning Department.
(10) At its meeting on March 6, 1978, the P and Z Board voted (Wells
and VanDriel abstaining) to recommend that the area be rezoned from R-M to
R-L, with a recommendation for Council to consider the special rights of
Kelger Park.
(11) As a consequence of the oversight in the mailing of the notice to
the required persons (see paragraph "8" above), a new list of some 477
names was prepared by the Planning Department and consisted of 18 pages.
Ilt-
Pages 1-6 thereof (despite the notation on the top of each page: "mailed
on 4-28-77") were postmarked on May 1, 1978 (see Exhibit "G-1") and
received generally on May 2, 1978. Pages 7-18 (despite the notation on the
-2-
S�wr 'd( Jirn�erty pu'uc�, m, Sylvnr, and J)Ickurle)r heal r-(
{ n� c: tr- acid 1)1r,tjita,r, ,err arrrrf7`,d
top of each page: "mailed on 5-1-78") were postmarked on May 2, 1978
(see Exhibit "G-2") and were received generally on May 3, 1978. Another
letter was prepared by Les Kaplan, dated May 2, 1978. This letter was
mailed and postmarked (see Exhibit "G-3") also on May 2, 1978 and received
generally also on May 3, 1978.
(12) As of May 5, 1978, the application acknowledged by Phyllis Wells
on February 23, 1978 was not amended nor was any additional fee requested
or paid.
(13) A committee was formed to retain the present R-M zoning.
Petitions secured by this committee will be presented in the near future.
For the purpose of this memorandum, the committee will be called Respondent.
-3-
ARGUMENT I
SINCE ZONING LAWS ARE IN DEROGATION OF COMMON LAW
PROPERTY RIGHTS, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING
ZONING ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
(A) Due Process for a Valid Administrative Hearing Requires
That There Be Adequate and Timely Notice to All
Interested Persons.
Concerning amendments to the 'Zoning District Map, the Fort Collins
Code, Sec. 118-22(B)(1) requires that the P and Z Board shaft send a
written notice at least seven days prior to the hearing date. It is
argoohI v that to "rc nd" a seven-day ool ice by nail sovon days prior to the
hearing is inadequate, at least as compared to a requirement to "give" a
similar notice which might require a personal delivery or some additional
time for a mailed notice. In any event, it is incumbent upon the P and Z
Board to prove that the letters were actually sent on or before May 1, 1978
for this to be considered a timely notice according to the statute.
The ordinary course of business would require that the person who did
the mailing provide an affidavit that the mailing was actually made.
(B) A Member of a Zoning Board Should Not Say or Do Anything
That Would Furnish an Inference That He or She Was Biased
If He or She Is Interested in the Property Which Is the
Subiect of an ADDlication.
It may be presumed that the organizers of the petition for down -zoning
(Wells and VanDriel) made various statements to potential signers and to
the newspapers which were based on information received in their capacity
as P and Z Board members and also received from the City Planning Department
even though they abstained from voting
"A member of a zoning board should not, in any manner affecting
the granting or denying of applications for exceptions or variances,
say or do anything which would furnish a basis for raising an
inference that he was biased in favor of one side or the other, and
should not participate in the hearing or determination of the
application if he is interested in the property which is the subject
of the application. So, it is imperative, in order that the zoning
board be free from suspicion of prejudice or partiality, that
-4 -
interested parties refrain from approaching any member of the board
privately; and the only legitimate way for a iyone to influence or
persuade the board in making its decision is to make his opinions
known at the hearing." Corpus Juris Secundum, Zoning, Sec. 304.
The impropriety of the petition -organizing by Wells and Driel was not
cured by their abstention in the vote.
Statements by members of the City Planning Department should more
properly be made in the hearings of the P and Z Board and in official reports,
and not in the newspapers on the eve of the Board meeting. The newspaper
interviews were designed to sway public opinion and the votes in advance of
the hearings. The newspaper interviews of members of the Planning
Department made them appear to be more like advocates than was necessary for
the proper performance of their duties.
(C) Other Statutor I:vr u i renn•nts Mina Ito Ful I
(1) Fort Collins code, sec. 118-22(A)(3) requires that the applicant
for proposed zoning amendments "be charged a fee to cover the cost of
advertising and processing." Presumably a fee is required to be charged in
order to discourage ill-founded applications and to reimburse the City for
expenses involved in processing the application, including mailing,
postage, etc. A fee of $50.00 charged to Petitioners may possibly be
adequate to cover the costs of mailing notices for a single -parcel applica-
tion. It does not appear to be adequate for an 88-acre area involving one
mailing to some 200 persons and then two other mailings to some 477 persons
and the costs of processing the application.
(2) Some_-W parcels of property of the Hensel Addition were not
included in the enumerated properties sought to be down -zoned in the
petition acknowledged on February 23, 1978 (see Exhibit "C"). Although the
small-scale map annexed to the petition does include theme parcels, an
ambiguity exists in a situation where vagueness should not be permitted.
It is required, in law, that the specific control over the general.
A memorandum stating that the 16 parcels were omitted was delivered to
Les Kaplan on or about March 27, 1978, and on information and belief was
transmitted to Petitioners shortly thereafter. The failure to amend the
petition to the present time requires that these parcels be excluded from
any down -zoning.
-5-
ARGUMENT II
ZONING REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY A LEGISLATIVE BODY ARE
ENTITLED TO STRONG PRESUMPTIONS OF VALIDITY WHICH CANNOT
BE OVERCOME WITHOUT PROOF OF MISTAKE OR SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES IN CONDITIONS IN SURROUNDING AREAS
(A) Presumition of Validit-
Although restrictions on the use of property are permitted under the
police powers of government which include the right to zone_property as
part of a comprehensive plan, such zoning regulations cannot be extended
beyond what is necessary to provide for Like protection of morals, health,
safety or general welfare.
If zoning regulations are adopted by a legislative body, they are
presumed to be valid and constitutional and it is the burden of one
challenging such a regulation to demonstrate its invalidity beyond a
reasonable doubt. The adoption of the "B" zone equivalent to R-M in 1929
for the bulk of the subject area and the adoption of the R-M zone in 1965
are entitled to strong presumptions of validity.
Those advocating a change in the zoning ordinance must overcome this
presumption of validity and have the burden of proving that the original
ordinance is invalid. See 82 Am. Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning, section 27.
In Roosevelt v. City of Englewood, 176 Colo. 576, 492 p.2d 65, 68 (1971),
the Colorado Supreme Court explained that "[property owners] have the right
to rely on existing zoning regulations when there has been no material
change in the character of the neighborhood which may require rezoning in
the public interest." If there is, in fact, no evidence to support and
justify a zoning amendment, a decision to down -zone will be considered
arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion by the Colorado Courts.
See Clark v. City of Boulder, 146 Colo. 526, 362 P.2d 160 (1961); Bear Valley
Drive -In Theatre Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners, 173 Colo. 57,
476 P.2d 48 (1970).
ME
The purpose of the rule that a zoning ordinance is presumed valid and
cannot be amended without a material change in the character of the
neighborhood is Lo mainLain "sLability in zoning and Lhc resulLing
conservation of property values." Norpo v. Town of Cherry Hills Village,
180 Colo. 217, 504 P.2d 344, 349 (1972). See also Clark v. City of Boulder,
146 Colo. 526, 362 P.2d 160 (1961).
Stability is one of the single most important qualities of government
and has been incorporated as amost necessary requisite of any zoning
activity. In Holly Development, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners,
140 Colo. 95, 342 P.2d 1032 (1959), the Colorado Supreme Court quoted from
decisions by the Oregon and Illinois Supreme Courts to emphasize the need
for stability in zoning:
"Amendments to zoning ordinrnvcs :;bould be made with caution and
only when changing conditions clearly require nmendment. . . if
a gcnoral zoning ordin:uu•o is pa-:svd and persons buy property in
a certain district, they have a right to rely upon the rule of
law that the classification made in the general ordinance will
not be changed unless the change is required for the public good
. . . .The power to amend is not arbitrary, it cannot be
exercised merely because certain individuals want it done or
think it ought to be done. The change must be necessary for the
public good. . .by amending the Arapahoe County Zoning REsolution,
as it did, [the Board of County Commissioners] failed to take
into consideration the need for reasonable stability in zoning
regulations. . . .It abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily,
and exceeded its jurisdiction."
See also McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, Zoning, section 25.68 ("Since
the purpose of zoning is stabilization of existing conditions subject to an
orderly development and improvement of a zoned area and since property may
be purchased in reliance on an existing zoning ordinance, any amendatory,
subsequent, or repealing zoning ordinance must clearly be related to the
accomplishment of a proper purpose. . . .Amendments should be made with
utmost caution and only when required by changing conditions; otherwise,
the very purpose of zoning will be destroyed.").
(B) There Must Be Proof of Mistake or Change of Conditions.
(1)
Neither the P and Z Board nor the Council saw fit to change the "B"
zoning adopted in 1929 (other than to change its name in 1965 without
changing the permitted uses) nor the R-M zoning adopted in 1965 to date,
despite the alleged recommendation to that effect in the 1967 Plan for
-7-
Progress (see Exhibit "D", p. 1, lines 8-10 of the 2nd paragraph). (The
1967 Plan for Progress recommended the change of zone in this area by means
of a map :annexed to the report and also included a 3-4 times larger area as
well as surrounding the subject area.) It does not appear that Petitioners
rely much on proof of mistake in the original enactment of the legislation.
(2)
The change of circumsLances must involve a substantial change in
surrounding neighborhood to justify the down -zoning. See Huneke v. Claspy,
155 Colo. 593, 396 P.2d 453 (1964).
Mere growth and development of an area in accordance with the zoning
is not a "change." There must be a qualitative change in the character of
the neighborhood. In Clark v. City of Boulder, 146 Colo. 526, 362 P.2d 160,
163 (1961), the Colorado Supreme Court explained:
"The development and growth of a comprehensively zoned area in
accordance with the uses permitted under Lhe plan does not
permit emasculation of such plan under the guise of changed
conditions."
See also McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, Zoning, section 25.69 ("An
amendment should not be based upon insignificant or unimportant new
development.") The Planning Department in its Staff Comments of March 28,
1978 (see page 4 of Exhibit "H" annexed hereto) requires the Petitioner to
defend the down -zoning request based on five major points. In order to
facilitate the rebuttal of any statements based on a substantial change in
the surrounding area, the argument of Respondent will be directed to these
five points.
(a) Substantial change of conditions in the vicinity? The Staff
concludes that, since only 15% of the units in the area are multifamily
units, there has not been a substantial change. There is no specific
analysis of the neighborhood beyond the subject area.
The "only" 152 figure for multifamily uses is cited by Petitioner as a
justification for the down -zoning (see Exhibit "D"). Assuming this figure
to be correct and based on "an external sight survey, conducted during 1976"
(page 25 of the 1977 land Use Report), what were the comparable figures in
the "B" zone area between 1929 and 1965 prior to its inclusion in the R-M
zone? No one can be sure --say 5%? An increase of about 10% over up to a
go
38-year period does not appear to threaten the desirable residential
character of the subject area.
A visual examiaaLiva of Like Lwo day care ccuLera, the preschuol, and
the multifamily uses (which may include some not easily identifiable
basement residential uses) also do not appear to threaten the desirable
residential character of the subject area. The home occupations would
remain as permitted uses under R-L zoning.
Incidentally, the 15% figure apparently fails to include the some 22
residences which have either usable residential basement areas or have more
than one meter or mail box; nor does it include the several acres devoted
to the mobile home area (which exists despite it not being permitted in
either the R-M, R-L or B zone), the day care enters, the preschool and the
y reonhou!cc .
'there is also a grocery store in it different zone on the northwest
corner of Shields and Mountain (which some may consider to be a plus in a
residential area since a car is not required to get there). This may be
called a "mixed or conflicting" land use, but it will not be affected by
the proposed down -zoning since the petition does not request down -zoning for
this location.
The statement in the Staff Comments that the conversions to aid the
student housing problems did not occur at a rate to justify the initial
rezoning suggests that there was a mistake in the 1965 zoning. Was there a
similar mistake in the 1929 "B" zoning of half the area? Who can be certain
that the severe housin{: shortable of the 1976/1.977 school year could not
occur again? Assuming that no new dormitory construction is planned at CSU,
how will the additional students and faculty be accommodated if the CSU
enrollment rises from its present 17,812 to 20,000, as is predicted?
Wouldn't many students prefer to find housing within walking, or at least
biking, distance of CSU if this is possible?
(b) H_ave time_and ex1�erienc, demonstrated that the existing zone
is unwise or in need _u_f chan c? 111 Rxisting Land Use Report is stated to
include the two major problems which undermine the stability of residential
neighborhoods, i.c., mixed or conflicting land uses and land use change from
-9-
low to high density. The subject area, with its "only 15% multifamily
uses" are all essentially no more than two-family residential uses (except
for the mobile homes which are not included) and do not constitute a
conflicting land use. See above for discussion of the grocery store on
Shields and Mountain and the appearance of the residential character of the
day care centers and preschool.
The land use change from low to high density does not specifically
relate to the subject area which is medium density, not high. The petition
(see Exhibit "D")indicates that the subject area is bordered on three sides
by R-L zoning. This may be technically correct but approximately two of
the three sides are the City Park and the Cemetery. It would not appear
that those who use those facilities would be disturbed by the retention of
the R-M zone.
(c) Are there adequate facilities to accommodate the uses in
the subject area? (i) if the population is expucted to increase greatly
over the next twenty years, isn't it better to have at least a significant
part of that increase take place in or near the core area of the City where
urban services and facilities already exist or at least can be extended with
far less difficulty that would be the case for an annexed subdivision near
Willox Lane?
(ii) The existing urban services of day care centers,
preschool, supermarket, proximity to CSU and Poudre High School, a bus line
on Shields and Laporte, the park and baseball fields, swimming pool, utility
lines, etc., can certainly accommodate a limited, gradual growth as has
taken place over the past 39 years and is likely to occur over the next 20
years. Traffic and parking problems willnot be significantly increased if
the City's requirements for off-street parking are observed. Certainly the
outlying areas, which have been the major cause of the great increase in the
City's population and area have been the cause of more traffic and parking
problems since they rely so much more on the use of the automobile, without
a bus line and few provisions for bike lanes and pedestrian traffic.
-10-
•
•
(iii) The petition (see Exhibit "D") states that traffic
volume on Shields Street and LaPorte Avenue bordering the neighborhood has
increased by 39% and 30%, respectively, during the past four years. 'Phis
averaged out to 9.75% and 7.5%.
The City Traffic Department indicates that the following traffic
increases have occurred in nearby areas:
Intersection
Prospect and Shields
(1 block N. of Shields)
Taft Hill and Prospect
(1 block N. of Prospect)
Shields and just S. of 287
Taft Hill and just S. of 287
Increase from
1973 to 1977,
110.4%
71.6
38.8
34.0
Percentage
annual increase
27.5%
17.9
9.7
8.5
Prom 1974 to 1977 Like area of Fort Co:ILins increased in acreage by
18.3% or 4.6% per year. The population increased in the same period by
4.48% per year (see page 6 of the 1977 Land Use Report). It may be presumed
that the annual increase in population in the subject area was far less than
4.5% per year and there has obviously been no increase in area for the
police and fire departments to control or other urban services to be supplied.
(iv) The petition (see Exhibit "D") states that the majority
of the land added since 1960 is zoned to allow all uses permitted in the
R-M zone, and that the area of the City has tripled in size. The annexations
of these areas have created traffic problems, the strain on urban services
and the urban sprawl. The annexations have been approved largely by the
Planning Department and the P and Z Board (and by the City Council of course).
It is these annexations (plus County approval of County subdivisions) which
have been the major cause of the increase in traffic at Shields and Laporte
and at Mountain Avenue. To claim that the increased traffic at those
intersections will be reduced significantly, if at all, by the requested
down -zoning is illogical. How many cars from the Country Club area pass the
Shields Street and Mountain Avenue intersection on their way to CSU and are
included in the 39% and 30% figures?
-1]-
E
(d) What is the need for the —requested R-L zone? The Staff
Comment states that: (a) the pressures for conversion of houses of
historical or architectural significance exist in the subject area because
the price of single-family houses is beyond the range for individuals to
purchase; and (b) the Central Business District (CBD) will probably never
regain its prominence as a retail shopping area and therefore the proximity
of the subject R-M area can be replaced by other R-M areas elsewhere.
(i) The Staff Comment earlier indicated that the conversions
have not occurred at a significant rate and will probably not be needed in
the future. Will prices of single-family homes in the area decline or
decline less rapidly than other areas if R-L is adopted? The answer is far
from clear since so many variables are involved.
Several eunve r.:iun:: of house:; W hi:<Lorical and an'hiL.ecLural
significance have occurred in Fort Collins and have been performed with taste
and feeling.
(ii) The City Council authorized the expenditure of a great
deal of money in rebuilding the downtown area. The merchants in the CBD,
who have suffered financially during the rebuilding and are expected to pay
the assessments for the improvements, will be greatly disappointed if the
CBD will probably never regain its prominence as a retail shopping area.
The large employment centers of the nearby City Hall, the County Courthouse,
CSU are not to be found elsewhere and will remain regardless of what happens
to the CBD.
(e) What might be the iniLact-of the down .zoning? The Staff
Comment indicates the approval of this down -zoning may induce other groups
to seek similar actions in their neighborhoods.
(f) It may well be that the members of Planning Department and
the P and Z Board are motivated by the highest idealism in promoting the
down -zoning of large areas of the City to accomplish their planning goals.
But the law requires more than such idealism. See the comments above for
the need for stability in zoning determinations. In arecent case, Globe
Enterprises_ Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of the Count of Larimer,
-12-
No. C-77-313, Judge Ball found that the County Commissioners' decision to
down -zone a parcel of property to the northeast of Fort Collins was
arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Judge Ball stated:
"A re -zoning must be supported by evidence of a change in
circumstances, a change in the character of the neighborhood.
. . . There is no change in the character of the neighborhood.
It is argued, and it is in the record, that there has been
increased development. There has also been increased traffic.
But the Court cannot accept increased development of the same
type of use or increased traffic with nothing else as a basis
for re -zoning. If it did, every property in Fort Collins,
Loveland, and Latimer County would have to be re -zoned because
traffic is certainly increasing everywhere, in front of every-
one's house, and development has increased. This Court does not
consider that these are the types of matters which justify
re -zoning.
"There are many cases in which traffic and development are
mentioned, but in every one of the cases that the Court has read,
there were other factors showing a change in the character of the
neighborhood. There is no change in the character of this
neighborhood shown in the record at all, and that is the reason
Lhc Court finds Om L Clohe is vntit led to rcl ief."
-13-
ARGUMENT III
IiVIDI?NCI? I<ISCELVED BY ADMINISTRATM AC MASS
SHOULD BE COMPETENT AND RELEVANT
The petition (Exhibit "D") contains various statements which are
largely inaccurate, or of doubtful validity or relevancy.
(1) "Since the major portion of this neighborhood was changed from
low -density (Zone A) to the current I:-M zoning; in 19OV' (sec lines 6 and
7 of page 1 of the petition). Approximately 50% of the area sought to be
down -zoned iS made up of the former '%" zone (Seo Fxhibil. "A").
( 2 ) "Our re>ae:n-i'li alsu iudicaLCS ilia[ there has [)Coll a strung trend
of reconverting multi -family homes back to single family units." (See
lines 14 and 15 of the 2nd paragraph on page 1.) If this were to take place
naturally in an R-M zone, why should Petitioners be concerned?
(3) The third paragraph on page 1 largely refers to the 1977 Land
Use Report, page 58, which relates to the high density area surrounding the
CBD and CSU. It Joe:: nut >;pocilic:rlly rvior Lo Lhc R-M zone in L[)e subject
area.
(4) The statements in the petition concerning the "only 15%
multifamily uses and increased automobile traffic are discussed above.
Speaker Strahle has stated that the only way to significantly reduce the
traffic and pollution problem is to reduce our reliance on the automobile.
-14-
0
ARGUMENT IV
RETENTION OF THE R-M "LONE. WOULD CONFORM TO SOME
OF THE IMPORTANT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY
The 1977 Land Use Report states in lines 4-9 on page 25:
"If the costs of providing urban services continue to increase,
as they have in the recent past, the City Government may wish
to consider altering the zoning and subdivision ordinances to
allow for increased densities in certain parts of the City.
The increased densities would allow for the more economical
provision of urban services."
On page 58 of the 1977 Land Use Report, the following appears:
"Single-family housing, as noted in a section above,
correlates with lower population densities and increased
costs of providing urban services. Low -density developments
also create a dependency upon Lhe automobile and increased
journeys to work, shopping, and recreation."
And further on page 63 appears:
"Single-family subdivisions are a primary cause for declining
population densities, the increased cost of urban services, and
increased distances to work, shopping, and recreation. However,
the energy crises of the late 1970's, with the increase in cost
OF gasoline and the limits of naLural. gas, along with the
increased cost of single-family housing, may signal a decline in
Lhe demand for single-family housing on large lots. If more
multi. -family type dwelling units, including condominiums and
Lownhouses, nre builL, Lhe result may be a slower rise of
residential Land as :I porren Cagc of the developcd land-tntnl."
The "Goals and Ubjcctivo S" clemenL of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted
by the Council on August 2, 1977 states on page 9 concerning "housing":
zone.
3. Encourage aLtracLive multi -family residences and
clustering of single-family units."
And on the same page concerning "neighborhoods":
"l. Encourage the diversity which allow a mixture of
income levels in all neighborhoods."
The above goals and objectives are helped by retention of the R-M
Many cases that have struck down restrictive zoning in neighborhoods
and upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court have legally demonstrated that the
residential character of a neighborhood is not destroyed by less restrictive
zoning.
-1 �I-
ARGUMENT v
SPOT ZONING OF A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IN A
MANNER DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY
MAY RE 11,1.ECAL
The possibility of excluding the Kelger Park property and the 10 acres
to the west of the ditch was discussed at the 1' and Hoard meeting on
March 6, 1978. If a specific vhangv in •zoning is made for the purpose of
relieving particular properties from the restrictions of the zoning
regulations, such change may constitute illegal spot zoning. See Clark v.
of Boulder, 146 Colo. SZb, 162 11.2d 160 (1901).
Until the permits for the buildinj, are actually issued, the property
is subject to the zoning, which may exi>:t on the date for the issuance.
ARGUMENT VI
ALTHOUGH ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE
OF THE SUBJECT DOWN-'LONINC, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN THE ABSENCE OF OVERRIDING PROOF OF MISTAKE OR
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
There is no substantial foundation for the belief that the stability
of this neighborhood has been Seriously impaired because of the multi-
family uses which have occurred under the R-M zoning since 1965 and the "B"
zoned area from 1929 to 1965. Side -by -side multifamily housing is, in
essence, separate 1-family units. It is not uncommon for side -by -side
housing to be assigned separate lots and owned by two different persons.
Townhouses, also called "row" houses, are frequently owned as condominiums
or by separate owners. The fact that they are rented partially or wholly
should not be conclusive as to choir deleterious effect.
It should be recalled that three person:., not related to each other,
are allowed to live in a ono -family residential. unit. Most people would
probably prefer to live next door to a duplex rented to two separate
families than to a ono -family unit rented to three unrelated persona.
-16-
•
0
The up and down two-family houses, as several are found in the
subject area, externally resemble d single-family dwelling.
Should not an owner be allowed the right to utilize a basement or
upper floor unused space, after his family size has contracted because
the children have moved away, to supplement his income in his advanced
years by renting out such space without the necessity of selling the
house in order to move to less expensive quarters.
IM
Substantially all of the organizers and signers of the petition
live in the subject area and presumably bought their houses with the
knowledge that they were going to live in an R-M zone ( or its "U"
zone equivalent), and thaL such R-M zone permitted various uses which
are not permiLted in an R-I /one. Why did they nut huy ,r hUUSC in an
R-L zone? Would it have been cheaper'? or more expensive? lsn't it
Ilkley that they bought because they found a house in an essentially
desirable residential area, not too far from the downtown district
and CSU. The basic reasons for moving into the area have not changed
to the present time. Any foreseeable changes in the fuLure should
not have an appreciable adverseaffect on these reasons either.
Those who considered the R-M zone to be desirable when they bought
their property should not be deprived of its benefits by Petitioners,
who were aware, or should have been aware, of the R-M zoning.
-17-
E
CONCLUSION
It appears that the petition to down -zone the subject area was filed
in response to the application of Kelger Park to build several duplexes on
the only significant large vacant plot in the area. Since there are no
Cart of fhe dtc b)
other sizable vacant parcels in the areal, any future multifamily development
would be of a gradual, piecemeal nature which can be easily accommodated by
the existing urban services in the area. Such development would be
preferable to the urban sprawl generated by extensions into outlying areas
which create traffic and pollution problems.
Petitioners have not established that there is a substantial change in
the neighborhood surrounding the property sufficient to justify the
down -zoning request. Nor have they established that there was mistake in
the zoning established in 1929 and in 1965.
The petition to down -zone the subject area should be denied.
Dated: May 5, 1978
-16-
Respectfully submitted,
,Joseph SLeni, ReJ,. No. 7803
Attorney for Committee to
Retain the R-M Zone on
Mountain Avenue
1221 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Telephone: 482-6351
i I � !1d��13 y' ! t• t�•� A �
�=
t
r N
i
¢ 2 N N N
N N N p p
J
s J
V U 2
Z
Z
J
I
r
L
ZV
U 0 0 N
•�
W W W O V
C U 0 W li
r
U
mQJ
I
INFORMATION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR REZONING
Due to the large number of inquoins the Planning Department Icceives tutinformation regarding changes to the
zoning ordinance, the following infwmatiun and guidelines have been prepared to aid citizens. Included are the
steps a citizen should take to secure necessary information and an outline of the responsibilities that a citizen as
a petitioner must assume in the orderly processing of a rezoning request.
Step One
1. A citizen wanting to know the permitted uses and requirements within a zuninq district should contact the
Ciry's Zoning Administrator in the Building Inspection Division. The pnxedure for petitioning for a variance
on specific requirements within a zone (e.g., minirnurn lot width, minimum oft -street parking, etc.) can be
explained by the Zoning Administrator. If you think you may be interested in changing the zoning on a
property in order to provide for other permitted uses, then you should contact the Planning Department.
2. The staff of the Planning Department is available to discuss the zoning pattern of the entire City and to ex.
plain the procedure for petitioning the City for a change to the zoning ordinance. The general criteria for
such a change can be discussed with the Planning staff. Copies of the City's zoning map and the zoning or-
dinance are available for a minimal fee. Both offices are located on the second floor of the Municipal Build-
ing, 300 LaPorte Avenue.
Building Inspection Division 484-4220. ext. 227 or 228
Planning Deparneml 484-4220, ext. 224, 225 or 226
Step Two
Once you know what uses and limitations exist in the existing zone and what criteria the City uses in determining
the need for a change in the zoning ordinance, you can determine whether or not to address your situation by
petitioning the City for a change in the tuning urrlinancr•. hi unler I'll file City lu lavorebly act upon such a pe-
tition, it must be determined that the change ism the be%t interest of the community as a whole, and not simply
in the best interest of the pclihonm w d spccilrc group. When the Planning Sla1I JIIJIyII•S and evaluates petitionsto change the zoning ordinance, the lulluwing issues and criteria are among those considered:
1. Has there been substantial change of conditions in the vicinity of the property in question? Have time and
experience demonstrated that the existing zone is unwise or in need of change?
2. Are there adequate transportation, recreation, educational, utility and other facilities to accomodate the uses
permitted in the requested zone?
3. What is the need in the vicinity and/or in the community as a whole for the addition of the requested zone?
Where are there existing undeveloped parcels of this requested or similar zones?
4. What might be the impact of this rezoning upon the immediate neighborhood, district and the City as a whole?
Step Three
Rezoning petition and application forms are available at the Planning Department. These petitions are presented
to the Planning and Zoning Board in March, June, September and December of each year. Applications and pe-
titions must be received by the Planning Department with the $50.00 filing fee by the 15th day of the month
previous to Planning and Zoning Board consideration (February, May, August and November, respectively). All
information required on the petition must be completed by the date of application. The Planning staff and other
appointed and elected officials will make every effort to analyze and evaluate your request fairly. However, the
initial "burden of proof" for establishing the need for a change to the zoning ordinance rests with the petitioner.
Step Four
After the Planning and Zoning Board has made a recommendation for either approval or denial of the petition,
the item is considered at the earliest meeting of the City Council for official action. At the City Council meeting,
the Planning staff will present the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation to the City Council, accompanied
by a recommendation from the City Administration.
If you have any questions, please emoted the Pl;anrm, i
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REZONING PETITION
Petitioner:
Name Address
(See attached petition containing 178 signatures.)
Submitted February 15, 1978•
Owner:
Name Address
(See attached listing of 200 owners.)
Submitted February 15, 1978..
To the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
I (We), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully petition and request that
the City Council amend the zoning ordinance of the City of Fort Collins by
changing the zoning of the hereinafter described parcel, containing 74
acres, more or less from RM zoning district to RL
zon n districd l de cripti n
�ion.�as Map aachspar ofpeti
Including :
All of the following subdivisions of the City of Fort Collins:
1. Babbitt Addition.
2. Frey Subdivision.
3. Van Slyke Swetts Addition.
4. Sylvan Block.
5. Hensel Addition.
Including :
Portions of the following subdivisions:
1. Grandview Addition: All with the exception of lots 1 through
4, Block A (Those lots zoned DL).
2. Scott Sherwood Addition: Only the following lots
Block 1, lots 1 through 8.
Block 2, lots 1 through 8.
Block 3, lots 1 through 11.
Block 4, lots 1 through 11.
Block 5, lots 1 through 26.
Exhibit "'Cu
nnzvuLng rerition
Reason for Request: (Please attach additional sheets if more space is needed.)
(See attached reason for request.)
Submitted February 15, 1978.
Please attach listing of names and addresses of all persons owning land (as
per Larimer County Assessor's office op date of request) within 500' of
any portion of the area under petition' for rezoning.
Respectfully submitted,
State of Colorado )
'88.
County of Larimer )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23rd day of February,1978
BY Phyllis J Wells
for the pu poses therein set forth.
My commission, expires My Commiss?on E pins January 11 1981
Notary Public
Note: Fill g,A a petition to rezone requires a deposit of $50.00 (fifty)
with the City Clerk to defray the cost of the amendment.
Please return to the Planning Department - City of Fort Collins -
REZONING PETITION
w
We, the above listed petitioners, who reside within or near the,pruperty
described above are requesting a rezoning, of the described property based on
considerations of current uses within the Parcel, changes in the character of
the parcel and character of the City as a whole and upon the historical
significance of the parcel.
Since the major portion of this neighborhood was changed from low -density
(zone A) to the current RPl zoning in 1965, there has been a substantial change
of conditions. The official 1965 rezoning records have been lost. Research
of newspaper articles shows that rezoning was based on the anticipation that
the neighborhood would become predominantly multi -family, assuming a need for
student housing, accompanying, Colorado State University's rapid growth. At the
time of this rezoning, virtually all lots in this neighborhood had been developed
with single-family residences. Two years later, in 1907, the Plan for Progress,
approved by both the I'lann.ing and '.onini, Board and the City Council, specifically
reconueudud that this area be low density residential. The current zoning of
the areas surroundiug this pare '. on 3 sides is low density residential, further
emphasizing our argument that IN is inappropriate for this neighborhood. At
present, after more than a decade of 101 _oning, the neighborhood includes only
150. multi -family units. Our research also indicates that there has been a strong
trend of reconverting. multi -family homes back to single family units. It is our
contention that the anticipated trend to multi -funnily has not happened, and that
the character of this neighborhood has remained single-family. This demonstrates
that the existing zone is unwise and in aced of change.
The City of Port Collins Existing Land Use keuort states that there are two
major types of problems which undermine the stability of residential neighborhoods.
These problems are mixed or conflicting land uses and it land use change from low
to high density. large portions of the older residential neighborhoods which
were originally developed (and still remain, for the most part) single family
neighborhoods have been zoned for medium or high density residential use. As
an example of the adverse impact of higher density residential zoning in a once
predominately single family neighborhood, the Land Use Report cites the area near
the University. Here, older homes have been converted into multifamily housing
or have been torn down to make way for new apartment complexes. Increased traffic
congestion, restricted privacy and lack of recreational areas are only a few of
the problems that have resulted.
Exhibit "D`
Despite the fact that Our neighborhood has remained single family in
character, because of its current Rh1 classification there are outside pressures
to increase the housing density to its maximum allowable level and these pressures
are threatening to alter the unique qualities of the neighborhood. The consequences
of intensified development include increased automobile traffic and parking
problems. At present, this neighborhood is subjected to high traffic loads due
to its proximity to City Park. Numerous activites at the park (Parks and
Recreation classes, swimvning, baseball, golf, etc.) and use of City facilities
(Parks and Recreation maintenance garage, lluman Resources Building, cemetery, etc.)
lead to significant traffic volume. In addition, two day care centers, one
preschool, one supermarket, a variety of hems occupations, and nonconforming uses
contribute to increased traffic. Official city traffic counts show that traffic
volume on Shields Street and on LaPorte Avenue bordering our neighborhood have
increased by 39% and 30%, respectively, during the past four years. Clearly,
increased development within the neighborhood as currently permitted would
compound the existing traffic and parking problems. Furthermore, the City Land
Use Report states that current higher density zones extend too far from the
University and central business district into single family neighborhoods. The
report recommends that the areas covered by •Jium and high density residental
zoning districts in older residential neighborhoods be reduced.
Since 196U, the area of Fort Collins has more than tripled. The majority
of the land added since 1960 is zoned to allow all uses permitted in the Rhi
zone. Unlike the RM classification, thesv Idanned unit tunes arc specifically
designed to accomodate mixed uses. Thus, in contrast to the limited availability
Of RM in 1965, zoning which ;allows milti-family dwellingn is now widely available.
In fact, the Existing Land Use Report states that more than 20% of the undeveloped
land (over b80 acres) is zoned for higher residential desnities. Furthermore, the
anticipated increase in demand for student housing necessitating RM zoning has
already occurred and only a small increase in Colorado State University student
population will occur in the future. The majority of off -campus students are
finding housing in other locations. Therefore, there is no nee, for zoning to
allow additional student housing in this area.
The City of Fort Collins adopted goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan (August, 1977) which pertained to this request. In support of our petition,
we quote the following goals and objectives:
1. To encourage the preservation and development of unique qualities and
characteristics of all neighborhoods.
2. To preserve historical or unique buildings or houses in older neighborhoods.
3. To restrict extraneous motorized traffic from residential areas.
4. To discourage the conversion to higher density of older single family
neighborhoods where supporting services and facilities would not be
sufficient.
S. To identify those areas of the City which are suitable for redevelopment
of high intensity residential uses and those areas which are not, particularly
noting availability of services, access to public transportation, recreational
facilities and services, and land uses in adjacent areas.
6. To promote the preservation and maintenance of older houses and buildings
which, while not of a degree of si.pnjfica nce to merit u m cial designation,
make an important contribution to the character and historical development
of the City.
"This rezoning request is compatible with the above goals and objectives.
The impact of this rezoning, will be to preserve this neighborhood and the diversity
of the values and lifestyles that often cannot be seen in many of the newer
subdivisions. In addition, the tree -lined :streets and various architectural
modes of this neighborhood create an atmosphere which itself can be said to
make a contribution to the character and sense of community which gives
Port Collins its own identity.
March 4, 1978, Vol. 5, o. 61
D 677
Fcc:i
•
CG IWORu" r r"11
h vyl�iP 10
By Eric Lucas
staff Writer
Dorummning.
It's a word — not often heard in Fort Col lm.. before -- with
implications that vary from bad to goes) depending on at
individual's philosophy.
To an aspiring developer, or a landowner with plans for his
or her pro--:•rty, it's a radical idea, changing an area's desig-
nation buck to a more restrictive use.
To a large group of Fort Col lins huntcowuers, it's what lhov
feel is necessary to preserve the cliararlcr tit their older resi-
dential neighborhood.
And when they ask the city's planning and zoning board
Monday night to change the neighborhood's designation from
medium lRM l to low -density residential lltl, t, it will to ;m
interesting first test of art idea almost ecrtam to crop up lit
local land use issues more frequently rrl the ncV few veal s
The group — 178 homeowners in an area of about M acres
north of City Park all signed a politiou lit .1;owl :y request
ing the zoning change, and submitted a Iorued request to the
city on Feb. 15.
"A zoning classification should .sahsly hxo criteria." ex.
plains Phyllis Wells, one of the petition's organizers.
"First, it should reflect the area's present use. Second, it
should match what the city thinks the use should be." Their
request, says Wells, is valid on both points.
In the first place, she says, the area's present character is
still largely single family residential. Despite the city's deci-
sion back in 1965 to zone the area medium - density and alluw
for an expected influx of CSU students needing off - campus
housing, less than 15 percent of the neighborhood's properties
are devoted to uses that need the RM designation — duplexes.
apartments, day care centers and the like.
Secondly, the rezoning requested would fit in with an av-
owed city objective. returning some of Fort Collins' older
neighborhoods to the more restrictive RI. category it, protect
their viability as single - family residential sections.
Alyce :Milton. another petitioner, explains it thus
"Our idea isn't to change the neighborhood to something it
isn't. But if it remains RM, we can see down the road the
possibility for very disruptive changes.
"What we're trying to do is close the barn door before the
horse gels out," Milton says.
! olh Wells and Ed Van Dricl, another px•lition signer, :ere
also members of the planning and zoning board - and thus
will not participate in the board's discussion or decision Mon-
day.
But so far, although the downzoning idea nn v be ( ontnrverr
sial, this particular, instance has aroused no substmtial up
position and little dissent, even frean those in the area whose
properly uses oil I nu longer conform should it, o,mng rhange
be adopted.
According to Wells, the 178 signatures tin the petition rep
resent about 180 of the area's property ow nvrshi ps, 70 percent.
more or less. And, says Stilton, by no means all of th" uoncou-
forming users ary against it -some, in I:at. signed the iteti
❑tin themselve,.
This is ❑u doubt, at least partially, because thosewhose uses
will become nonconforming will nevertheless be allowed to
continue as before. Their properties, says assistant city attor-
ney Lucia Liley, will be "ler '. nonconforming uses" and may
remain so, under the law, as long as the use involved is con-
tinued with no interruption longer than two years.
',And, says Liley, although duwnzoning may be something
new to Fort Collins, it is not so in Colorado.
-Generally, in Colorado," she says, "downzoning has been
upheld by the courts.
"The one problem that usually arises is when a downzoning
petition is provoked by opposition to a particular project or
development -- but that's not the case in this instance," says
Liley.
The legal questions that remain, she explains, regard what
"findings of fact" the agency involved (in this case, the city)
must make. These are:
— What is the area's present use?
-. W hat is the xoni rig i n sui-ruundi rig areas? (I n this case, the
petitioners are bordered on three sides by the more restrictive
I(l, designation. )
- What land use plan or adopted -planning guals apply to the
request?
' In other words," says Liley, "the city must find that the
present zoning is inappropriate because of 'x, y and z' —and
indicate lire specific reasons."
Those specifics have been analyzed by Ken Waido, a city
comprehensive planner, iu comments that will be presented to
the planning and zoning board when it considers the issue.
Waido agrees, largely, will) the petitioners' contentions.
"Obviously, the original anticipation that a medium density
designation was needed to handle the student housing problems j
never panned out," says Waido. "The multi - family conver-
sions that have occurred in the area have been due more to
individual economic interests than tuany general pressure for
them." -
Because of that, he says, the city land use plan presently in
preparation would undoubtedly have recommended the area
be downzuned.
"We feel there is enough documented evidence of the prob-
lems with older neighborhoods to back up this request, even if
the land use plan isn't dune," says Waido.
The one problem with lire request —and potentially a pretty
small one —involves a recently approved subdivision contain-
ing several duplexes that falls within the area. If the downzon-
ing is approved, it would not become a nonconforming use
because construction permits have not yet been issued to the
developers.
Attorney Kelsey Smith, who represents the latter, hopes a
compromise can be reached by simply excluding their land
from the rezoning.
"We are not in opposition to the petition as a whole, just as it
pertains tour,"explains Sntilh. "Obviously, it would becalas-
truphrc for us to be downzuned so soon after our plat was
approved"
Waido says he "kind of expects" the subdivision will be
excluded, and Wells says she thinks her group wou id be wi Iling
to accept that compromise. _
Whatever the outcome, though, it seems likely 'dowmztn
ing" will be a ward heard more often in Fort Collins' future.
"I think there will be more and more pressure," says Liley,
"to rezune some of the older residential areas in town."
And, says Milton, that should be the case. "We're caught in a
rapid growth situation that has most people worried about
what's happening at the edge of town.
* "Phe older part of town tends to be forgotten. But if we don't
p;ry attention to those older sections. they'll pose the special
rhararlet, Ihev have."
Ci,(,I � �UP,
THE OTHER request for
downzoning involves sx
acres south of Shields Street
and centering on West
Mountain Avenue to
Grandview Cemetery near
City Park.
A total of 178 property
owners have signed a
petition asking for the
downzoning from medium.
density to low -density
residential zoning.
"It's a Case of conflict
between occupant -owners
who see.their neighborhood
deteriorating and non.
occupant owners who
pruchased income
Properties in good faith,"
said Paul Deibel of the cily's
planning office.
He explained that some
single-family' residences
now owned by non.
occupants have been
converted to duplexes and
apartments, which "begins
to affect the stability of the
neighborhood."
_ Phyllis Wells, one of the
applicants for the rezoning,
said most of the residences
are still owner -occupied,
however, and rezoning now
could preclude further
erosion of the. neighborhood.
As many as 50 property
owners from: each
neighborhood are expected
to attend the planning
meeting Monday night,
which is in the Council
Chamber at the Municipal
Building. "X Laporte Ave. It
starts at 6.Aw
Exhlbit "m"
i � r ?aC�ra
P. 0. Box 580
Collins, Colorado 80522
K.B. Riffe
116 Lyons
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Exhibit "a -IN
Iowa
P. 0. Box 580
�.:t�
!lint, Colorado 50522
C.E. ANthony -- -
I 41%9 LaPorte
Fort Collins CO 80521
Exhibit %-26
P. O. Box 580 .i
ollins, Colorado 80522 •Y.?`"
C.E• �'tootte co 80521Vort I
"Collins"
Exhibit r6-5•
Page 4 - 28 Marc 78 ( P and ? 8oerd Report, dd�Maroh 28, 19780 from
%29-78/Hells, et. - West Mountain Rezoning Las Kaplan
1. Has there been rubstautial change of coneitions in the vicinity
Of the property in qucsti.on?
The area under cons.icleration :is one of the older neighborhoods in the
City. It originally developed as a single family neighborhood and
represented one of the more gracious neighborhoods in the City.
In the mi.d-19601s, when Colorado ;taste University was experiencing
rapid expansion, the Mountain Avenue neighborhood was included with other
large sections of the older City to he zoned R-fi, High Density Residential
Zone, and K-M, Medium Density Residential Zone, in anticipation of the
Private sector's aiding :in the student housing problem. however, the
Mountain Avenue nei,;hborhood was further removed from the CSU campus and
the iiapactof couVer:;i('":: dill nnL uccur al. a rate which ',Ce11lS Lo ,justify
the initial rezoning. At. the present time only 15% of the units in
the area are multi -family units, which when extended over a twelve year
period does not consti.tuLe ;i "subr.[;wtial. change."
2. have time and experience demonstrated that the existing zone is
unwise or in need of change?
T'he F,xisting_Land Use F.rport indicates there are two major types of problems
which help undermine the stability of residential neighborhoods. These
problems are mixed or conflicting land uses and a land use change from
low to high density. Normally, a zoning ordinance is established to
eventually eliminate, or prevent the occurrance of, the noted land use
prohlrm.;. Thr• Priu,u't nl::o :;Int, e: Ihnt Ill,- mn-jnr prohlrm with the Pit
and R-tl zoning disl.ric" i.:: .in the ;u'c•a ezt.ont of the zoncse• Clearly,
the zones; are need, cl in the it- p; :Horn I Luca( iun::, hnaa+vrr, the -r•oucs
extend roo fnr into rJ nf;l c-fruni l y nr i t;hhorhoods. The Pi -port_ recommends
a reduction in size of the areas covered by the R-11 and R-ft zoning districts.
The lde:a Mouu Fain «cil;hhurhu,,d clerrly can bc: inclu+lr,l n:; part of Lhe
over-extcndnd IL-M zoning di:;Ir irL in an older srrt i.nn of the City.
Multi-I.m:Lly conversi.on:: in the area aree prob:tb.ly more clue to economic
interests of scattered individual property owners than to heavy pressures
for student housing. It is exactly thLs type of individual decision which
zonini; ordinances are used to control and help maintain residential
neighborhood stability. Thus, time and experience seem to demonstrate
that tlse anticipations of the previous rezoning were not fulfilled and
the existing zoning should be changed.
3. Arc there adequate transportation, recreation, educational,
utility and other facilities to :,ccomodntc the uses in the requested
zone?
This proposal is to rezone an area from the R-M, Medium Density residential
Zone, to the R-L, Low Rec;i.dcntiai zone. This: :is commonly referred
to a.,; a "clown zonin;." in Lh;LL Lhe new zone allows a less :inLen:;e use of
Pro pi-rty than the previous; -none. In essence, the new zone will have,
nt first, a stabil.izi.ng effect on ne-i£;hborhood demands for urban services.
Over a period of tinio, tlu'se demands will probably decrense as present
multi. -family rc'„nvrrr rn .rill„lr-frnnily homes and thr introduction
on ncW mul t:i-family unit: :is prohibited.
Exhibit 'H"
Pale G - 28 Naa.1978
'2'1-7 S Lis, et. al. - lust Mountain Rezoning
5. What might. be the impact of this rezoning upon the immediate
neighborhood, district and LIC City as a wlole?
The immediate impact on the neighborhood will he the placement of all
existing uses which are not allowed Jul Lhc It--L, Low lun;;iLy Residential
Zone, into a legal nonconforming use category. The R-1, zone limits it-
sel f to only single-family dwe•11 iri•••s, Schools, Public and- non profit
quasi -public recreational uses, and essential Public utility and service
installations. Thus, any non single-family dwelling or land uses not
included in the R-L zone became legal nonconforming uses.
Nonconforming uses are allowed to continue their present use indefinately
unless one of the two following conditions occur:
1. If a nonconforming use is abandoned for a continuous period of
two years, the new use of the property shall be :in conformance
with the new -none.
2. A nonconforming 05V mug he clrinpud to any conforming or permitted
use in any dLstri.ct With n Proceeding letter as the districts
are listed in the City of Port Collins Zoning Ordinance. This
means that any nonconforming use in the rezoned area may change
to any uric allowed .in the h-L-P1, Low Donsit.y Multiple -family
District, the R-L-P, Low 11.•usity Planuod I:e.r..i.dontial District,
or, of coureo, 11W R-1., Low Mu:ily Rcsiden Lial. I11JLrle L.
Nonc•.ouformhi,; uses are tl::o al Mod to he re::tored if damaged by fire
or uthor cauno::, v"l1vn,d or uxiondad n!r to 24Z of original sizv tntcl MUM
or strengthened to weeL appropriaLv code:;.
This is probably the firstattempt by a group of neighborhood residents
to rezone such a large area to e•1.iminalr• condit.iunq which they perceive
as undermining the single..family rc::id"ntial characLer of We area in
which they live. During tfe implvmcal.atLon process of a Future Land Use
element of the Coniprehensive flan of the City of fort Collins, it is likely
similar "clown zoning" rezoni.nys willbe recnmmended. Public awareness of
the Plan and support of :its goals and policies are also a.very ingurtant
imp.lementaLlon tool. This rezoning rcquost cony caul: other neighborhood
groups to sord: rozo"in, or in which Ihey live•. Any add.iti.oaaj.
rcquosLs can only be a plus, for Cho Planning ellorie of the City of
Fort Coll Las as the Pull ic. hecom,, ❑ure auAre of and attempts to deal
with laud use prohlcm:: of the City.
Staff Recomm ndwt ion
Approval of th, tcq,vst.. Staff rev;it: of thy• ComPrrOhNn"IM Plan elcctent.s,
}'. n �..•� ocnrl_ I:cpoi_t , Coal.. ir;� UI'_7 r. :'t w-., ant! 10 int inp� 1 aid l'r_ 1'•'n`�r[ have
led to the conclusion thrt this noighburhoud would have been recommended
for a "down zouiop" girt of n g, n.. r:tl ruatro"Q"g of the existing zoning
ordinance to .ir"10.MYOL a 'uture lore' U::o t•!ecr,nt. The staff does: not
feel this rezun Inn will und'"'w nc nrrsont Enid use planning effor Ls nor
canine problems: in the future after the City is subjected to more detailed
%WSLigat ion and :n aly_,i s, 110 Staff also finds: it difficult to under-
stand th, ratio"al behind the initial rezoning since the ,,, is furthest
reruvrd from the CenLral Itus:irrosr. Dis!rict and Colorado SLnte University
and th,.•re exists are.n in closer pr"ximily with R-L zoning.
Page 7 - 2e, Narcl%3 i
�ld'29-7ti�l ls, ct. 'I - lA,st dlountaiu l:czoniug
•ihe 311:nurinB llepartio,+nt. u::ecl the coca, utc•r.izo.d Land Use Inventory to
g;encr,It.c the how;i.n,; unit :,t at.icCic:; refcrrt•dto i.n the analy:;is. The staff
also ur.ed the lia_c_kl_ruund. E,:Por[, Uu Gun L•; and Objectives, and the
H;: i:.t iu�, 1 ml U';c_ 1 p,ir_I c I,•mr•nt:: of the comprebenr.ive Plan which the
Planning; and %onin� hoard has copi,.:, of. Public v:inw to the Inventory and
cniric - of tli c. Nall elcmieritr. are ava il.::blc to the public from
the I'i:cnn itt^, lh•p: n-Unrnl.
1'1 ni;n iii'• and_ Znnin� li, vi:_d l:,r„rnn: •itd:�i I,111: Approval
Atit:: i�,trcb 6, 1()73 ta,•ct iug•, tI,,• Ito, Id v„ird 3-2 to reconua,:nd approval of
t it il; ci. t. izrn-in it ialr,i rr>:, I,i n; B,.n-,i ia:v;bors Pl tyll i. f, lJcl is aTie,
I'd V'an Uriol ab::taiu,•,I fi,na Ili,- clin( and voting.
The ai tachnd minute';: of liw mccl irip, hit;hligllr the major discuss:
ion
items niid coiicornr: of ill,- Plaiiniup, and zonillP. Cn;ird atthis tunct.iitl;.
One letter opposing; t-1Le rezoning; and auotiier supporting i-L were received
prior to the Board rr.:etin;;.
'Mc, two dos;centin;; vote.~ held that the area west of Bryan Avenue should
he or.cluded from the area of Lhc ri• nuin;;, but Lhai Llw remaini.ug area
should he rezoned. Tiic Boru-d wa:; e.plit- on Lhc ir,;ue of including the
i:clp,: r Park Subrlivir.-inn -in the rrznn-inp. While several members felt that
not inrludin}3 this snbdivi.:;ion would or,Lablish a precedent for other
other wci..il,•r:: felt. that KCl g••rr Parl, was unique to Lhc rezoning
(Sec attached lett,•r frnm Kelr.ry Srai(h) and that including it was not
n r•ce::c:ny -in furibrranr r• of tb:• of lbe rr;:nniny,.
1 yel::cy Smith to:;co
2. maps
3. minute:;
P E T I T 1 0 N
TO RETAIN THE R-M ZONE IN THE AREA LOCATED
WEST OF SHIELDS STREET ON MOUNTAIN AVENUE,
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
The undersigned owners of property in an 88-acre area located West of
Shields Street on Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado,
respectfully request that this area retain its R-M,zone, Medium
Density, Residential District, which it has had since 1965, and that
it not be rezoned to R-L, Low Density Residential District.
Name Address Phone No. Date
l✓1/L/! . n ..,� / 3 ,j)
J 1-, AI
;
4 a L —l- 3 j 1
3/,V 1 7,
/
�7 /7r
7V-Ile,
3/zC
J
P E T I T I O N
TO RETAIN THE R-M ZONE IN THE AREA LOCATED
WEST OF SHIELDS STREET ON MOUNTAIN AVENUE,
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
The undersigned owner* of property in an 88-acre area located West of
Shields Street on Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado,
respectfully request that this area retain its R-M,zone, Medium
Density, Residential District, which it has had since 1965, and that
It not be rezoned to R-L, Low Density Residential District.
ame7 Address Phone No. Date
//G JL eN i Si p
t
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER)
I HEREBY CERTIFY That all of the persons whose signatures
appear on the attached Petition are over the age of 18 years and,
after having first read the Petition, signed the same in my presence.
1978.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /;G day of
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
My Commission expires: My commission expires : ept 4, 1978
Notary Public
J
•
PETITION
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, are owners of property in the Frey Subdivision
being a part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4, Section 10, T7N, R 69 W of the
6th P.M., in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colo-
rado, which property is currently zoned Medium Density Residential (R-M),
and is located within an approximate ten -acre area bounded on the north
by LaPorte Avenue, on the east by the center line of Larimer County
Canal No. 2, on the south by Mountain Avenue, and on the west by Grandview
We respectfully request that the referred to area be excepted from
the rezoning action before City Council, which action is known as the West
Mountain Rezoning action, and request that said property remain zoned as
R-M rather than being reWned to Low Density Residential (R-L).
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER)
I HEREBY CERTIFY That all of the persons whose signatures
appear on the attached Petition are over the age of 18 years and,
after having first read the Petition, signed the same in my presence.
1978. Subscribed and sworn to before me this c- r! day of �.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
My Commission expires: My commission expires Sept 4, 1978
,()Notary Public
G
0
PETITION
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, are owners of property in the Frey Subdivision
being a part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4, Section 10, T7N, R 69 W of the
6th P.M., in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colo-
rado, which property is currently zoned Medium Density Residential (R-M),
and is located within an approximate ten -acre area bounded on the north
by LaPorte Avenue, on the east by the center line of Larimer County
Canal No. 2, on the south by Mountain Avenue, and on the west by Grandview.
We respectfully request that the referred to area be excepted from
the rezoning action before City Council, which action is known as the West
Mountain Rezoning action, and request that said property remain zoned as
R-M rather than being rezoned to Low Density Residential (R-L).
. = i
i
AV PT rIDl/TT
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER)
I HEREBY CERTIFY That all of the persons whose signatures
appear on the attached Petition are over the age of 18 years and,
after having first read the Petition, signed the same in my presence.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
1978.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
My Commission expires: ` MyCcrnm;ss;cl expires lept 4. 19 &
Notary Public
0 •
PETITION
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, are owners of property in the Frey Subdivision
being a part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4, Section 10, T7N, R 69 W of the
6th P.M., in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colo-
rado, which property is currently zoned Medium Density Residential (R-M),
and is located within an approximate ten -acre area bounded on the north
by LaPorte Avenue, on the east by the center line of Larimer County
Canal No. 2, on the south by Mountain Avenue, and on the west by Grandview.
We respectfully request that the referred to area be excepted from
the rezoning action before City Council, which action is known as the West
,fountain Rezoning action, and request that said property remain zoned as
R-M rather than being rezoned to Low Density Residential (R-L).
-7 >
LPPTnR17TIV
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF LARIMER)
I HEREBY CERTIFY That all of the persons whose signatures
appear on the attached Petition are over the age of 18 years and,
after having first read the Petition, signed the same in my presence.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31it day of //��l✓ ,
1978.'
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
My Commission expires: MyccrnmiS3:on expires Copt 4, 1978
Notary Public
8
PETITION
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, are owners of
being a part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4,
6th P.M., in the City of Fort Collins,
ratio, which property is currently zone
property in the Frey Subdivision
Section 10, T7N, R 69 W of the
County of Larimer, State of Colo-
d Medium Density Residential (R-M)
and is located within an approximate ten -acre area bounded on the north
by LaPorte Avenue, on the east by the center line of Larimer County
Canal No. 2, on the south by Mountain Avenue, and on the west by Grandview.
we respectfully request that the referred to area be
the rezoning action before City Council, which action is
Mountain Rezoning action, and request that said property
R-M rather than being rezoned to Low Density Residential
i
excepted from
known as the West
remain zoned as
(R-L).
/7zo &; 72� e--t •
/70� ��,%� •it'. five
i
January 17, 1978
Dear Neighbor:
Some of us who live in our neighborhood feel it is important for the welfare
of our neighborhood to request a zoning change from the present RM zone (Medium
Density Residential) to the RL zone (Low Density Residential).
The area for which we are asking a zoning change from RM to RL is described
below:
The following comparison shows the differences in those things allowed in
the two zoning districts we are discussing:
RL (zone we are requesting) -
Allows:
1 family dwellings
No Children's Centers
Minimum lot size is 3
total floor area, not
6,000 sq. ft.
RM zone we have had since 1965
Allows:
1 family dwellings
2 family dwellings
Multiple family dwellings
Children's Centers
times the Minimum lot size 2 times the floor
less than area, not less than 6,000 sq. ft. for
both single and 2 family, not less
than 9,000 for multi -family
Front yard minimum 30 ft. Front yard minimum 15 ft.
If your building or the use of your building is allowed under the current
zoining but not allowed under the proposed RL zoning, you will probably be
interested in how the zoning change would affect your property:
You or the person to whom you sell your property may continue to use your building
as you are now for as long as you wish, unless:
1. you stop using your property for the current uses during a continuous
period of 2 years, or
2. you enlarge your building by more than 25% of its total floor area for
a use not allowed under the RL zone.
The purpose of this zoning change request is not to deprive anyone of his or
her property. Rather, the purpose is to preserve this neighborhood. Its pre-
dominantly single-family character, tree -lined street, various architectural modes,
and diversity of values and life styles make an important contribution to the
character and sense of community which gives Fort Collins its own identity.
Currently, about 15% of the dwellings in our neighborhood are classified
as multiple family dwellings or have uses not allowed under RL zoning. We feel
that the current density in our neighborhood is the maximum that should be allowed
without significantly increasing traffic congestion, restricting privacy, and
drastically changing the character of the neighborhood.
We hope you will join us in this effort by signing the petition to rezone
before our deadline, February 12. We anticipate that our re -zoning request will
be considered at the March 6 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you would like more information, please call me at
or at
You are invited to an informal informational meeting regarding this
rezoning request to be held on Thursday, February 2, at 7:30 PM at 1300
West Mountain Avenue. Please come if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
A PETITION
We, the undersigned, support the efforts of the residents in the area indicated
on the following map, to change the zoning of their property from the current
RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district to the RL (Low Density Residential)
zoning district.
NAME
I l����.
2 1, f �
11
9
lC
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LAPORTE AVE.
0
Uj
m
M
WEST MOUNTAIN AVE. l Beavers
y Market
ADDRESS
TU
1rdfWow
O4 A
/3 15� a /w
/ 3 30 �U. Qji�
&)
! 3 U.'�
��� 6
��-
- J V � 12/ 112 w, D � s-5�
t
A PETITION
We, the undersigned, support the efforts of the residents in the area indicated
on the following map, to change the zoning of their property from the current
RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district to the RL (Low Density Residential)
zoning district.
LAPORTE AVE.
h
0
N
2
h
WEST MOUNTAIN AVE. l Beavers
"']Market
_.._. _.___% l OAK STREET
ADDRESS
8
9
lc
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
r • 0
A PETITION
We, the undersigned, support the efforts of the residents in the area indicated
on the following map, to change the zoning of their property from the current
RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district to the RL (Low Density Residential)
zoning district.
VgTW
1 �
2
3
F
4 n
6
7
V,
— _i
10 iTTr• r
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LAPORTE AVE.
WEST MOUNTAIN AVE.
ADDRESS
/Z,/ C1r•.
v
1336
U ,�
13
0
J
LV
2
h
Beavers
—1 Market
A PETITION
We, the undersigned, support the efforts of the residents in the area indicated
on the following map, to change the zoning of their property from the current
RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district to the RL (Low Density Residential)
zoning district.
LAPORTE AVE.
m
WEST MOUNTAIN AVE. I Beavers
--I Market
OAK STREET
NAME ADDRESS
1
3 _ / //�jo Z'q P,PTE
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
C
r /Z/
A PETITION
We, the undersigned, support the efforts of the residents in the area indicated
on the following map, to change the zoning of their property from the current
RM (Medium Density Residential) zoning district to the RL (Low Density Residential)
zoning district.
Z
Q
a
m
NAME
1 _ /, L c
2
3
4
5
6
10 /%�lj ?t �7''Ile L/i7xa 7--
11
12
13
14
is
20
21
22 Jt 0 41,
23 ��C �2iCchot:r_
4 . l mil; ,l/..tj"�.•�/7.� �ti
LAPORTE AVE.
WEST MOUNTAIN AVE.
OAK STREET
ADDRESS
- r I •
f-Z
�a� �a • loo,�cio
a
L z
0
J
L'.7
H
L
Beavers
�j Market