Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/13/1978March 13, 1978 Board Members Present: Bob Burnham, Robert Evans, Gary Ross, Phyllis Wells, Ed VanDriel, Gary Spahr. Staff Members Present- Les Kaplan, Paul Deibel, Eldon Ward, Sue Cilley and, Ken Waido Legal Representation: Lucia Liley Bob Burnham called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. The minutes from the March 6, 1978 Board meeting were not ready for approval at the time of the meeting. 1. #30-78 Fletcher - N. College Rezoning. Description: Proposal to rezone 7 acres located west of North College Avenue and north of Hibdon Court from M-M, Medium Density Mobile Hone District, to H-B, Highway Business District. Applicant: L.W. Fletcher, 1801 Falls Court, Loveland, Colorado, 80537. Bob Burnham: Explained the rezoning hearing procedure and the four criteria used by the Board. Asked for the petitioners statement. Is Mr. Fletcher present? Mr. Fletcher(Petitioner): Stated that he has owned the property since the 1950's and had annexed even though other properties in the area didn't. The City has assigned HB, Highway Business District 1/4 mile deep on parcels in the area. HB, Highway Business District would make the subject property more compatible with the adjacent zoning. Explained access via Hibdon Court and the College Avenue Frontage. It could be to the City's benefit to have business developement here. Les Kaplan: Explained staffs position of applying the 10 criteria used in the North Fort Collins General Land Use Plan to the item. Evaluated the potential impact upon downtown and the proposed Evergreen Park Shopping Center, and reviewed the Board's actions in the rezonings and zoning districts assigned in the North Fort Collins annexations. Staff had at first recommended approval of this request, although there are reservations about further limiting the City's inventory of mobil home zoned ground. Staff feels it would be most appropriate to wait until the Land Use Plan is complete. Staff will however, recommnd approval of the petition. Gary Spahr: Asked about existing zoning pattern. Les Kaplan: Said the site was rezoned from Industrial to MPS, Medium Density Mobile Home zone in 1970. Planning and Zoni•Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 3 proposed. This is an 18.5% deficiency. 2. The site plan should not indicate a direct curbcut onto S. College Avenue. The City Council considered a preliminary plan for this site in late 1974 and ruled that there would be no curbcuts onto College at this location and that access from the north would be by frontage road only. Moreover, allowing a curbcut onto College as proposed would obviate the need for installation of the frontage road and bridge. which would connect the site with Monroe Drive to the north as specified by the City Council. 3. Approval of the Larimer Co. #2 Canal should be obtained prior to final approval of any. plan for this site. The ditch has indicated to us that the preliminary plan does not appear to provide adequately for ditch maintenance. Peripheral treatment along the ditchbank should be specified on the preliminary plan. 4. Drainage from this site presents problems which should be addressed in conjunction with the preliminary plan. The applicant should not assume that the irrigation ditch or S. College Avenue can be used to carry storm runoff. 5. Internal traffic circulation should be improved at the rear of the existing building. 6. Development of this site will necessitate improvement of the adjacent bridge on Horsetooth Road. It should also be noted by the applicant that as traffic volumes increase on Horsetooth Road, it will become necessary in the future to limit traffic exiting the site onto Horsetooth to right turns only. 7. Landscape plan should provide for additional trees along S. College Ave. Planter island at south end of main parking area should be enlarged to allow for a tree. (This can be addressed on the final landscape plan.) 8. Other details to be addressed on final plans include: a) installation of 12" water main along S. College Avenue; b) dedication of 50' from centerline standard arterial street R.O.W. along Horsetooth Road. Showed slides of the site and the proposed plan. The only area not resolved is the direct curb cut onto College Avenue. Council reviewed a similar request in 1974 and ruled against the curb cut. Recommended approval with additional comment that all frontage road improvements (both phase I and II) be implemented with the construction of Phase I. Jerry Nix (Representing applicant): Concept is unchanged since 1974. All problems with the City are resolved except the curb cut which is a part of a nnis,designed_frontage:_road:=system. We have 4 existing curb cuts and want to retain one. In Plarnsing and Zones Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 s page 4 January the Board said the city should have more input from the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Rice didn't see problem with an entrance only. Mr. Bingman at one time saw no problem with an exit only. We then redesigned the Frontage road; by then Roy Bingman and Joe Rice had changed their minds and said no curb cuts would be ally ed. We've worked with the City and there are so many limits with this site we should get the curb cut. Owner will not pursue this project with out the curb cut. Roy Bingman: Joe Rice and I have been quoted out of context. We've tried to explore every option. We feel the City should keep an open mind and if traffic volume warrants it the curb cut could be opened later. Gary Ross: If Matterhorn was still there and burned down tonight could the City close the existing curb cuts? Lucia Liley: We do have that power. Gary Ross: Does he really have 4 cuts. Lucia Liley: There are 4 now, but we could close them, regardless of the development proposed. Jerry Nix: The City won't give us a cut later regardless of future traffic. We'd have to get permission fran the State Highway Department. Tan Metcalf: You have an obligation to provide reasonable access. This process is too long to lose the curb cut now, then try to get one back from the State when problems arise. This would not establish a precedent as this is an irregular site. Lucia Liley: The State does not have absolute power to veto curb cuts on College. Gary Ross: We've been looking at this site for seven years. I feel we should take away 3 curb cuts and leave one. I can't believe the Fontage Road will be adequate to serve the site. Moved for approval subject to staff oamients except that the curb cut indicated should be allowed. The City can close it later if necessary. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Robert Evans - NO Ed. VanDriel - YES Gary Ross - YES Phyllis Wells - NO, too many traffic problems in area; should be controlled now and can be reconsidered in the future. Gary Spahr - YES Bob Burnham - NO Planning and Board Minutes March 13, 1978 Wr page 5 The vote ended with a tie(3-3). The motion failed. 3. #46-78 Lot�3:;Bankoenter Square P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for a commercial P.U.D. on 3.02 acres zone H-B, Highway Business District, located west of College Avenue north of the Century Mall. Applicant: Earl Wilkinson, Wilkinson Construction Conpany, 412 S. Howes, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the following staff comments: 1. Parking. Parking appears to be adequate for the service shops, even if they were to convert to retail use, and the warehouse uses, unless they convert to a more intensive use. The site plan, however, specifies all uses including the warehouses which should prevent such conversions over time. The 5,000 sq. ft. retail/5,000 sq. ft. storage use at the east end of the site, however, would be required to have 38 spaces if it were not part of a P.U.D., whereas only 21 spaces are shown on the proposed plan in the immediate vicinity of this use. This may not be a problem at this location considering other parking on the site as well as the possibility for shared parking within the Bankoenter Square P.U.D. as a whole. This question should, however, be addressed by the applicants. 2. Landscaping. Landscape plan for proposed uses on lot 3 is good. However, landscaping shown on the original Bankoenter Square P.U.D. for Lot 2 (where the "Pop Shoppe" is currently located) has evidently never been installed. The staff would suggest that remedial landscaping be pursued on Lot 2 in conjunction with this amendment of the P.U.D.., if possible. 3. Mason Street R.O.W. The warehouse buildings appear to conflict with "dedications by deed" of Mason Street R.O.W. and an adjacent utility easement shown on the original Bankcenter Square P.U.D. at west end of the site. The "Mason Street Policy" does not call for improvement of Mason Street through this area. The R.O.W. and easement should be vacated where necessary. 4. Other Details: a. Discrepancies between landscape plan and site plan should be eliminated; b. Conflict among parking, planter island and loading area at northwest corner of site should be resolved; c. Parking in front of service shops (at south) will probably work better as shown on landscape plan rather than as on site plan (dimensions of parking spaces in this area should be indicated); d. Walkway or curb should be extended to the north in front of the retail building (facing east) so as to define parking space #12 in this area; Planning and ZAg Board Minutes Match 13, 1978 page 6 e. Proposed water and sewer service to smaller warehouse building should be shown; f. An additional 10, utility easement for electrical lines should be provided between warehouse buildings; g. Calculations for storm runoff detention and probisions for discharge should be submitted. Said staff recommended conditional approval. Bob Burnham: Pointed out possible discrepancy with CSU owned ground. C. Bawling: Mr. Wilkinson and I will answer questions concerning ownership discrepancy with CSU as it is being worked out. Explained history of the site and problems with enforcing landscaping requirements. Optomistic about geeting landscaping done, because the bulk of the Shopping Center has been bought by a Colorado investment group. We can provide more parking with out using the banks, but we would rather see the lot area used for landscaping than parking. Explained rationale behind proposed warehouses rather than heavy retail uses; i.e. problems with exposure and access. Gary Ross: Will you be using the railroad tracks. Bawling: No, the cost would be prohibitive. Ed VanDriel: Moved for approval subject to staff comments. Ownership being ascertained and shared parking with the bank being utilized. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Asked about any possible future conversion of use. C. Bawling: Vie couldn't change without amending the plan. Vote: Notion carried unaniumusly. Following the preoeedint item, Gary Ross left the meeting. 4. #26-78 Aspen Knolls Subdivision, Preliminary plat. Description: Proposal for 62 single family lots on 17.1 acres zoned R-L, law Density Residential District located on South Taft Hill Road north of Stuart Street. Applicant: Taft Hill Development Corporation, c% John and Marc Middel, P.O. Box 1481, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Explained that this item was tabled by the Board at its February 6 meeting due to the number of problems and uncertainties, especially concerning the projects inter- relationship with Village West 9th Filing. The two projects have been jointly redesigned by the developer of Village West. Planning and Zone Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 7 - - Specific staff concerns were: 1.Traffic Circulation. The major concerns from the February meeting have been resolved by the redesigned street pattern. The disposition of the 17' x 176' parcel between the R.O.W. and the church property will be worked out between the church and the developer. It will not remain as an outlot as currently shown. 2.Rights-of-Way Improvements. A seven -foot pedestrian/ bikepath will be required along Taft Hill Road. The curb and gutter on Taft Hill Road adjacent to the Emmanuel Christian Reformed Church has been constructed too far to the east. It will be properly relocated at the City's expense. The developer of Aspen Knolls should coordinate the placement of street improvements with this relocation; The applicant has indicated only 50' R.O.W. for local streets. The subdivision ordinance requires 601. There is however, room to show 60' R.O.W. without making the lots unbuildable except perhaps one triangular shaped lot. 3 2xisting adjacent utilites and easements are not shown. The developer should indicate proposed routing of sanitary sewer since an easement may have to be obtained through existing development to the north. Water mains should be looped; The detention pond should discharge into the Spring Creek drainage system rather than into the New Mercer Canal. The drainage problem is a historic one which will have to be worked out between the developers and staff. Marc Middel(Taft Hill Development Corporation): Suggested that since this item and #47-78 were designed and presented together that staff comments on Village West 9th be heard before further discussion on Aspen Knolls. Bob Burnham: Agreed that this could be done, but specified that any motions made on the two item be separate. 5. #47-78 Village West Subdivision 9th Filing, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 76 single family lots on 19.6 acres zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located on Stuart Street east of South Taft Hill Road. Applicant: Nortran Joint Venture, 1700 Valley Forge Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented the following staff comments and recommendations: This proposal represents a major redesign of the controversial plan reviewed by the Board last April. The "T" cul-de-sacs have been replaced by loop streets and Stuart Street has been relocated to be offset from its extension west of Taft Hill Road. The staff feels the traffic circulation pattern and general design of the plan work very well. Specific comments are: 1. The applicant has indicated only 50' rights -of -way for Planning and Zcn* Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 9 She indicated that hardships had to be related to the topography and layout of the property itself. Bill Bartran(Nortran): Recapped the history of the project over the last year. Explained how it had been decided to develop the entire area of Village West 9th and Aspen Knolls together. Pointed out the change in Stuart Street location. Mentioned how Nortran bad worked with the neighbors in the area on the present plan. He saw the 50' R.O.W. and 36' pavement as part of the same plan as of a year ago and as preceeding the study group/ task force to change the subdivision ordinance. He gouted from a memo of 7/77 from Paul Lanspery to Les Kaplan on the 50' variance granted on the original plat of 3/10/77. 50' R.O.W. on present plat was merely conforming with what was originally granted by council. He addressed the problem of 121' lots backing onto Taft Hill Road. Was doing so to meet neighborhood requirements and also economics of the situation as well as the good of the City. Explained that since ordinance does not prohibit the builder from constructing within 15' of the rear of the lot and that since the front setback requirement had recently been changed from 20' to 10' that there would only be a 9' net difference between the 121' proposal and requirements. He added that the developer would be installing 6' privacy wooden fencing along the perimeter of the development. As for drainage for the site, he already has agreements with the New Mercer for the 7th filing and saw no problem in getting same for this project. Phyllis Wells: Asked for clarification on the 9' figure. Robert Evans: Added that his figuring showed a 21' difference. Bill Bartran: Went through it again; figure amended to 21' difference rather than 9'. Phyllis Wells: Asked staff for Planning and Zoning Board recommendations on the original plat. Les Kaplan: Explained that the Planning and Zoning Board viewed the original plat as a justification for changes to the sub- division ordinance rather than specifically as a preliminary plat. The Board did recomrend narrower street widths as a change to the ordinance. M. Dressel joined the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Phyllis Wells: Asked wasn't that as access to no more than ten lots? Planning and �g Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 10 Les Kaplan: Clarified the description of a!street place_.as.,ttio minded by the Board. Added that a presentation by the Task Force Design Committee on their reamuendations would be made to the Board in April and to Council in May. Phyllis Wells: Asked if that study was addressing lot depths to arterials. Les Kaplan: Said the Task Force was looking at them but that it will be much longer before reoomtendations are made on them. Bob Burnham: Said 30' will have to be made up to make to 60' R.O.W. Asked if it would be possible to "slide" the whole project over. Bill Bartran: Said it would be possible but cited neighborhood opposition to smaller lots. J. Tragenkaaski(?)(Resident 2001 Ridgewood Road): Stated that concerns of residents at meeting with Mr. Bartran were not in opposition to losing one of the cul's; residents were upset by the large quantity of houses proposed in t:7e original plan for such a small area; felt that this revised plat was much better than the original plat; was in favor of the proposed realignment of Stuart Street; had no obejctions at all to larger lots which would result from 60' R.O.W requirement; mentioned that water pressure in the area was inadequate and expressed concern with water for these two subdivisions coming off the same mains; was also concerned with electrical service to the area as had been told by city electric that there was already overtaxing of the facilities in that area. Bob Burnham: Assured Mr. Tragenkowski that the engineering for the project would address the technical questions to ac=a odate all users. Ed VanDriel: Pointed out that the density was less than the allowable. Phyllis Wells: Asked Marc Middel if the outlot problem had been resolved. Marc Middel: Said yes, we are negotiating with the church and the outlot will be donated to them. Bob Burnham: Pemarked he had no problem with 36' pavement on 50' R.O.W. But, that he was uncomfortable with the 120' lot depth. Lucia Liley: Explained again the Board's=abili:*y':to :recomrt+rid the variances. Phyllis Wells: Said she felt uncomfortable in making variance recommendations without a basis in hardship. Felt it didn't seem fair to those who comply with the regulations. Felt that since revisions to the ordinance are fairly close the developer should comply as there did not seem to be obvious hardships. If it were not possible to comply the developer should either do a P.U.D. or wait. She then moved that the Board reconmend Planning and Z�g Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 11 approval of Aspen Knolls preliminary plat subject to staff comments including that the 17' outlot be eliminated; the pedestrian/bikepath be installed along Taft Hill Road; that the problem of the detention pond be worked out in writing; and that the variance on the R.O.W. requirement be denied. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Robert Evans - YES, although saw no problem with a 50' R.O.W. Ed VanDriel - YES Wm. Dressel - Abstained, requested abstention since was not present for entire discussion Phyllis Wells - YES Gary Spahr - YES Bob Burnham - NO, in favor of a 50' R.O.W. Motion carried 4-1 with 1 abstention, Gary Ross absent. Les Kaplan: Stated that the 50' R.O.W. would be allowed in the changes as they were currently recommended. Invited the audience to participate when the item came up in hearing before the Board. Phyllis Wells: Asked if change to 50' R.O.W. should go through would developer have to bring the plat back to the Board. Lucia Liley: Said the developer would not have an approved plan, but if that were the only condidtion unmet and that condition changed then it would become a moot point. Bill Bartran: Addressed Mr. Tragenkowskis'concerns. Phyllis Wells: Remarked that she thought this plat was an improvement over the last plat submitted for this area. Still felt however that if changes were warranted they should be made to the ordinance; that it was not the time now to be granting variances, as the process was approaching a conclusion. Moved approval of the plat, for Village West 9th, but denial of the variances as hardship was not demonstrated. Bob Burnham: Pointed out that changes required by denial of the variances would require major changes to the plat. Motion died for lack of a second. No other motion was offered. Lucia Liley: Suggested that the plat; could go on to Council without a recommendation from the Board. Ed VanDriel: Asked if lots in Aspen Knolls were larger than those in Village West 9th. Eldon Ward: Said yes. Planning and Z0ng Board Minutes . March 13, 1978 page 12 Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval of the plat of Village West 9th and recommend that the variance on lot depth requirement from 150' to 121' on Taft Hill and variance for a 50' street R.O.W. be approved. Lucia Liley: Suggested that the Board should state the hardship relied on as a basis for granting the variances. Ed VanDriel: Asked whether smaller lot size would be sufficient. Lucia Liley: Felt that that was a design consideration by choice. Les Kaplan: Suggested that lot depth variance might be tied to recent change in front setback requirements. Previous motion was not seconded. Ed VanDriel: Withdrew motion to amend as follows: recommend approval of the plat of Village West 9th as submitted and recommend approval of lot depth requirement variance to 121' for those lots on Taft Hill and denial of 50' street R.O.W. variance. This motion died for lack of a second. Lucia Liley: Pointed out the inability to act was in effect a denial. Phyllis Wells: Felt the Board's actions had been consistent with its previous position. Les Kaplan: Suggested the Board might wish to combine the 2 schools of thought which had been expressed in terms of the feelings that (1) the items requested as variances may in themselves be reasonable, but not as variances and `(.2J the problem that the $oard faced with having to apply what was in the ordinance simply because it was in the ordinance. Suggested that the Board might come up with a motion to express those concerns to Council. Phyllis Wells: Felt that was in the first motion. Wm. Dressel: Felt they were not justifiable in going beyond the purpose of the Board. 6. #48-78 Landings, Phase IV, P.U.D. Description: Proposal for 152 dwelling units on 25 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, located north of Harmony Road and west of Harmony Reservoir. Applicant: The Landings, Ltd., c/o Reid Rosenthal and ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the following staff comments: 1. Access. Development of the site should not proceed until it has two points of public street access. Planning and Zag Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 13 2. Street widths. Twenty foot street widths are inadequate. The P.U.D. ordinance requires a street serving more than 100 dwelling units to be 36' wide with sidewalks on both sides. The street connecting Landings and Breakwater Driver is proposed as 20' wide and serves 104 units, and should be revised so as to meet the ordinance requirements. Also, perpendicular parking bays along this street should be replaced by parallel on -street parking. The ordinance requires a street serving more than 10 units to be 28' wide with a sidewalk on at least one side. The 20' wide cul-de-sac in the "Estate Townhouse" area serves 14 units and thus should also be revised. 3. Private Street. Interior private street through the condominium area should be 28' wide so as to comply with current P.U.D. ordinance standards and provide for additional over- flow parking and pedestrian circulation. Overflow parking at 1 space for every 2 units in addition to required parking should be specified for this area. Traffic lanes and sight distance should be more clearly defined at some locations. All garages with solid side walls should be adequately recessed from traffic lanes (e.g. 8'). Applicant should also specify how the maintenance of this private street will be financed over time. 4. Parking. The plan should specify off street parking for all dwelling units. 5. Sidewalks. Sidewalks should be provided along both sides of all public streets. 6. Data. The preliminary plan should specify: a) existing trees on the site; b) that cumulative building coverage meets R-L-P requirements;_ c) building elevations or perspectives. 7. Other details. The final plan should specify: a) system of graphics for easy identification of dwelling units; b) security lighting; c) required legal documents constituting homeowners association which guarantee private street and driveway maintenance as well as landscape maintenance; d) utility plans which include detailed engineering design of private street and bridges, as well as verification that drainage way through site to Harmony Reservoir is sufficient to adequately carry off -site drainage. Also, water line must be looped through garden courts between lots 22 and 27 with sufficient easement for 10 feet of separation between water line and sewer line.. Water line should be looped through street close to lots 1-11 and throught estate twon homes 4-14. The water system should be tied into the Landings Third Filing; e) lots should specify maximum floor area as well as two offstreet spaces per dwelling unit. Planning and Zang Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 14 8. R.O.W. for street access from Breakwater Drive should be provided through "Estate Townhomes" area to vacant ground adjacent to the north. Reid Rosenthal:Agreed with the need for two points of access and with providing 28' dedicated street, but not with the staff's comments on the private street. Thinks sidewalks on 1 side of street are adequate. Stated he had no problem with the rest of the staff comments, except the provision of Right of Way for street access to the north property under other ownership. Wm. Dressel: Asked about higher density and the subsequent need for more sidewalks. R. Rosenthal: We have more open space. Wm. Dressel: With more people walking thru to the lake it seems that there would be a demand for more walkways. R. Rosenthal: We have more open space. Ed VanDriel: Will you enlarge the streetwidths as per staff recommendations. R. Rosenthal: Yes. Bob Burnham: Asked for opposition. None. Phyllis Wells: Can the "one side" parking be required to be signed? Paul Deibel: That can be required. Explained staff rationale to require walks on both sides of dedicated streets. Robert Evans: Asked about commercial uses in the Landings. R. Rosenthal: Explained where commercial allotment will be located. Ed VanDriel: Asked about access to the parcel to the North. Wm. Dressel: He would have access to other streets. Phyllis Wells: Walks on both sides seem to be necessary on through streets, but not necessarily on cul-de-sacs. Robert Evans: Agreed. Wm. Dressel: Moved for approval subject to staff comments except concerning sidewalks and the provision of access to north. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 7. #49-78 Cimarron Square P.U.D., Revised Preliminary Plan. Planning and Zo*g Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 15 Description: Proposal for 152 multi -family units on 13.2 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located at the southeast corner of South Shields Street and West Drake Road. Applicant: T.D. Murphy, c/o Robert Sutter, 3000 W. Drake Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave the following staff comments: In general distribution of open space and compatibility with adjacent single family uses is good. Buildings located adjacent to neighboring single family lots do not exceed two stories or four units, and a 30' or greater near yard setback is also provided. We do, however, see some problems with respect to internal circulation. 1. Shortcut speedway. The proposed design of the internal public street lends itself to use as a speedway short-cut by-pass of the signalized intersection at Shield and Drake. 2. Curbcuts and parking lot access. The proposal entails too many curbcuts onto the arterial streets. If the two parking lot driveway entrances nearest the intersection are eliminated, however, then other problems arise: the parking area along Shields then entails a large number of units (53) and parking spaces (97) with only one entrance off the interior public street at the south; also the parking area along Drake would then provide reduced emergency access (although this problem could probably be eliminated with a fire lane designed as part of the walkway system.) 3. Width of Public Street. The P.U.D. ordinance requires a street serving more than 100 dwelling units to be 36' wide with parking and sidewalks on both sides. The proposed 28' internal loop street would serve 152 units without the two parking lot arterial curbcuts discussed above or 93 units with these curbcuts (assuming they would provide primary access for as many as 59 units concentrated in the northwest corner of the site.) 4. Open space and lots. All of the buildings within this P.U.D. are on individually deeded lots. Active recreational area is consolidated at the core of the site with generally good accessibility by most units - assuming common pedestrian circulation across individually deeded lots as is the applicants intent. It is also intended that the property owner's associa- tion maintain landscaping on these lots as well as in common areas. The legal instruments which accompany the final plans should clearly specify common access to lots within the project as well as any other limitations of property rights commonly associated with individually deeded lots. 5. Data. The preliminary plan should also include: a) verification of parking space distribution with respect to number of bedrooms; Planning and Zang Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 16 b) verification that total floor area will not exceed 1/3 of net area, as per R-P zone; c) verification that impervious surfaces cover less than 10% of open space; d) differentiation of common open space vs. open space in lots; e) elevation or character study of 21� story buildings. 6. Other details. The final plan should include: a) system of graphics for easy identification of dwelling units; b) security lighting; c) minor sewer realignment to provide service to clubhouse; d) building enveldpes should specify max. floor areas as well as parking spaces in garages. Gave recommendation for approval based upon revisions submitted by the applicant subject to further staff review. John Dingler(Bob Sutter's Office): Stated that he didn't feel staffs arguments were especially valid. The staff reversed its earlier comments to us on curb cuts. We do not feel the street needs to be 36' wide. Other than that we will work with the staff. Bob Burnham: Why is this better than the old plan? John Dingler: The marketplace made the old plan unworkable. Wally Shold(Woodwest homeowner): This is not compatible with the rest of the area. The density is too high. The schools are over crowded now. Phyllis Wells: Are neighbors aware that the zoning has been therefor a long while? They should contact the planning office and gain understanding of the zoning and what is allowed. Bob Burnham: Agreed with staff comments. There are too many options being presented here. I would rather see a new plan. Ed VanDri.el: Recommended denial and suggested alternative similar to the revision already submitted be presented. Les Kaplan: Tabling may be a better option. John Dingler: We will go to second council meeting in April anyway. Ed VanDriel: Moved the item be tabled until April. Wm. Dressel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 8. #35-78 Miller - South Overland Trail Rezoning. Description: Proposal to rezone 2.77 acres located on Overland Planning and Z90g Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 17 Trail south of Prospect Street from B-L, Limited Business District', to R-M, Medium Density Residential District. Applicant: Rex S. Miller, 1300 Glen Haven Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Rex Miller(applicant): Explained changes in the situation on the West side of Overland Trail since the B-L, Limited Business zoning occurred; i.e. government agencies have been buying land, there are water pressure problems, and changes in B-L zone concerning allowed uses have occurred.. Les Kaplan: Gave staff comments and agreed with the petitioner. Recommended approval of the request. Ed VanDriel: Moved for approval. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Wm. Dressel abstained. 9. #50-78 Elliott -Miller Foothills West Subdivision, 16th Filing, Preliminary and Final Plat. Description: Proposal for a one lot subdivision on 2.77 acres zoned B-L, Limited Business District, (requested R-M Medium Density Residential District) located on South Overland Trail south of West Prospect Street. Applicant: Rex S. Miller, 1300 Glen Haven Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented the following staff comments; The major problem here: is not with the proposal, but with the zoning ordinance. The definition of a lot is now "A parcel of land having at least thirty (30) feet of frontage on a public street, occupied or designed to be occupied by one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, together with such open areas as are required by this chapter." Because building permits are issued on the basis of property lines rather than platted lot lines developers may disregard interior lot lines or plat properties or blocks as one large lot and divide them by meets and bounds descriptions. Staff comments specific to this plan are: 1. Utility easements, drainage and detention should be addressed; 2. The sidewalk on Overland Trail should be oversized to seven feet. (The existing walks in the area will eventually be increased to seven feet by the City to accommodate bikes'.) Planning and Zt*g Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 18 Staff recommendation was for approval subject to the comments. Rex Miller(Developer): Indicated that the plat plan would be reviewed by Building Inspection which would allow City control. Asked for'.clarification on the easement problem. Eldon Ward: Indicated that easements would have to be shown for utilities before the plat could be filed. Rex Miller: Saw no problem with that. Was already working with staff on that point. Questioned the 7' sidewalk requirement. Said he was not opposed to putting it in, but did want to be sure it would be functional. Eldon Ward: Indicated that both the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council had approved the Bikeway Master Plan and that this section would be a part of that plan. Said that it may not appear functional at first, but that it will be eventually. Felt it was better to install now rather than to have to come back and do it later. Bikeway/pedestrian walk is being required on Overland Trail Subdivision to the north. R. Miller: Suggested it might be easier to construct Class I. bike path on the opposite side of the street. Eldon Ward: Suggested that the matter be considered for inclusion in the Utility Plans. Phyllis Wells: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the preliminary and final plats subject to utility, drainage and detention easement as worked out by staff and the sidewalk problem resolved by staff and the developer. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Ed VanDriel: Requested a 5 minute recess. Bob Burnham: Asked the Board's pleasure and recessed the meeting until 9:50 p.m. Bob Burnham: Called the meeting to order at 9:50 p.m. 10. #51-78 Replat of Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Maxwell Subdivision. . Description: Proposal to replat three lots into a single lot on .76 acres zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple -family District, located on Impala Drive north of West Mulberry Street. Applicant: Larry Jones, c/o M 6 I Engineering, 4710 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented the following staff comments and concerns: Planning and Zo g Board Minutes March 13, 1978 • page 19 1. Because building permits are issued according to ownership and not platted lot lines, and because the City Zoning Ordinance defines a lot as : "A parcel of land having at least thirty (30) feet of frontage on a public street, occupied of designed to be occupied by one (1) or more buildings, structures or uses, together with such open areas as are required by this chapter", with or without the proposed replat, the property owner could parcel his land into any configuration he chooses and receive building permits for up to three four-plexes and one duplex on the site in question. The staff sees this as a problem with the ordinance rather than with the proposed subdivision. 2. It is difficult to tell from the plat submitted how drainage, detention, or utility easements will need to be handled. 3. The existing R.O.W. dedication for Impala Drive should be shown on the Final Plat, as should the lot size. Staff recommendation was for approval subject to comments 2 and 3. Larry Jones(Petitioner/Developer): Was requesting removal of lot lines on the advice of his lawyer; his lawyer had indicated to him that he could not build on lot lines and have a building on two lots; since the lots are narrow and hard to build on he was requesting the replat. Phyllis Wells: Moved that the Board'recommend approval of the replat subject to staff comments. Wm. Dressel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 11. #52-78 Trailside Subdivision, Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 29 multi -family lots on 10.8 acres zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple -Family District, located on West Elizabeth Street at Overland Trail. Applicant: Scavo-Dougherty Builders, 220 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave the following comments: A similar subdivision plat for this site was submitted in 1972 and reviewed as a preliminary under the title "Scavo West" That plan was never submitted for final review. The proposal at hand has been revised in an attempt to better conform to the City's current street and traffic circulation requirements. Two of the lots are developed with single family residences. Planning and Zo Board Minutes . March 13, 1978 page 20 1. Utilities. Water lines should be looped through the subdivision to Elizabeth Street and to the existing 42" water main on Overland Trail through an easement between lots 12 and 13. A 12" water line will be required on West Elizabeth Street across the frontage of the development; 2. On -site Detention. Storm water should be drained to the large detention pond on the Minatta property to the southeast rather than into the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. The canal itself should be dedicated to the City as right-of-way rather than as a easement; 3. Street Names. Tierra Land and Cielo Court should be given a single street name and will be numbered consecutively; 4. Bike and Pedestrian Access. A standard seven foot walk/ bike path and standard low maintenance landscaping will be required within the Overland Trail right-of-way. Ten foot bike and pedestrian easements should be provided in conjunction with the utility easements between lots 12 and 13, and between lots 20 and 21 for access to Overland Trail and the proposed City Park respectively; 5. Existing Development. An improvement survey verifying that the homes on lots 28 and 29 would not violate set -back requirements should be submitted; 6. Driveways. The Traffic Engineer has requested that lots 1 and 7 (and lots 28 and 29 if redeveloped) take their drive- way access from the local streets rather than West Elizabeth. 7. Urban Service Area. The Steering Committee has recommended this item be tabled because the site is in the Water District. There is therefore some doubt about who will serve the project if the City provides water, there may be a legal oblication to compensate the district. The Urban Service Area Steering Committee recommended tabling of the item and staff supports their recommendation. Bob Burnham: Questioned the lot depth for lot 12. Eldon Ward: Said that would be changed to the required 150'. Les Kaplan: Suggested that the Board should make a recommendation on the plat; that the City Council was looking for Planning and Zoning input as well with respect to details of the plat and that they would receive the Urban Service Area Steering Committee's recommendation separately. Dick Rutherford(James Stewart and Associates representing the pettioner): Indicated that they had agreed to staff comments; wondered if the Urban Services Committee had complete information on services available to the site. Suggested that the plat could go on with utility plans left open as to who , Planning and Zoo* Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 21 would serve with utilities. Pipe sizes, etc. would remain the same regardless. Suggested that if district was to provide water there might well be some problem with developer having to install 12" water line along the frontage of the development. Phyllis Wells: Asked if there was any problem with the lots and driveways close to the intersection. Eldon Ward: Explained Joe Rice, Traffic Engineer, had seen no problem. The private driveway approach was seen as unfeasible. Phyllis Wells: Asked whether turn around space could be required so that it would not be necessary to back out onto W. Elizabeth. Eldon Ward: Suggested the curbcut straddle the lot lines; or a common circular drive could be required and engineered. Bob Burnham: Shared Phyllis Wells's concerns; disagreed with Joe Rice's assessment; felt that the Board should recommend alternative treatment to two separate driveways. Ed VanDriel: Asked if there was a problem with lot depth. Dick Rutherford: Not with the change in setback requirements. Phyllis Wells: Moved the Board recommend approval of the plat subject to staff comments, that the lot depth of lot 12 be increased to 150' to conform with ordinance requirements, and that development of the corner lots be done so that backing out onto West Elizabeth would not be necessary and that this recommendation for approval be subject to the recommendation of the Urban Service Area Steering Committee's recommendations. Les Kaplan: Asked if this subdivision could be served buy either the city or the district. D. Rutherford: Yes, but could see the developer balking at installing connecting city water lines if served by the district. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 12. #53-78 Cobblestone Shores Subdivision, Preliminary. Description: Proposal for 12 single family lots on 8.1 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located on Parklake Drive east of Lake Sherwood. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 3000 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented the following staff comments: During the past two years the Board has reviewed two other Planning and Z*g Board Minutes March 13, 1978 page 22 plans for this site, a multi -family P.U.D. former. • a large lot single family subdivision and The proposal at hand is similar to the Although the staff feels this approach represents under - utilization of R-P zoned ground, the plan generally works well. Specific comments are: 1. The staff sees no problem with the street pattern as proposed. However, it appears it would function better if not restricted to "one way" traffic; 2. The tract "island" within the turn around area should be enlarged to include the perpendicular parking; 3. The water line should be looped from the entrance around the center island and out to the water line in Parklake Drive between lots 10 and 11 with provision of a 10' easement; 4. The spillway should be sized and channelized to discharge along the railroad R.O.W. in conjunction with drainage in the Parkwood East area. Staff recommendation was for approval subject to the comments. Glen Larson(Everitt Enterprises): Agreed with staff that this project was probably under utilization of the land, but that they had experienced considerable oppostion from the neighborhood on their previous plan for 44 units on this ground. Agreed with staff comments on the one-way traffic proposal. Agreed to widen the street from 28' to 32'. The spillway problem is being worked on jointly by the City, CSU, and Everitt Enterprises. Eldon Ward: Noted that there are technically several double frontage lots as platted. Requested a note or plat that these lots wouldn't get driveway access from Parklake Drive. Noted that staff felt a 28' street width was sufficient. Ed VanDriel: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the plat subject to staff comments and the resolution of the spillway problems. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 13. #54-78 Amendment of South College Commercial P.U.D. Description: Proposed amendment of a commercial P.U.D. on 8.37 acres zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on College. Avenue north of Harvard Street. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 3000 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Presented the following staff comments and concerns. This is a plan for additional commercial development:.of2tb'e= Planning and Zoo Board Minutes . March 13, 1978 page 23 Everitt Home Center site which differs from the plan reviewed by the Board and approved by the Council last year. The previous plan involved a 50% expansion of the existing building's floor area.on the site with a new building for a row of shops along the south end of the site. The primary concerns of the Board which were addressed by the plan approved last year included provisions for landscaping, pedestrian circulation, Mason Street, internal traffic circulation, peripheral treatment along the southern boundary, and parking. In general, the revised preliminary plan also includes these provisions. Specific comments are as follows: 1. The plan should address the potential conflict between driveway access to parking and loading/unloading, trash container and other service activity in the long drive at the rear of the building along the south end of the site. 2. Other details: a) sidewalks in front of and behind new building should be extended out to frontage road sidewalk. b) shade tree species should be mixed to prevent Honey Locust monoculture (half of the Honey Locusts proposed should be changed for other desirable•. shade tree species). c) planting in College Avenue median should be revised as per City specifications for this area (eliminate shrubs, add several shade trees for consistency with treatment planned to the south). d) inset "detail B" is no longer relevant and should be removed from the plan. e) plan should provide for installation of sidewalk along the east side of Mason Street. Staff recommendation was for approval subject to comments. Glen Larson(Everitt Enterprises): Pointed out that parking on the south side of the building was designated as strictly employee parking. Indicated would prefer to keep the line there straight for delivery ease. Felt that the developer would be able to work with staff and that problem wasn't major. Wm. Dressel: Asked if this area could be designated (signed) as employee parking only. Lucia Liley: Thought possible. Phyllis Wells: Asked how wide the area in question was. Paul Deibel: Replied approximately 24'. Indicated that it would be. difficult to back up while a truck was there. Planning and Zo g Board Minutes March 13, 1978 page 24 Wm. Dressel: Saw the possibility of customers driving through the area as a way to exit. Asked about access to South. Paul Deibel: Replied that frontage road and South Mason Street would provide good access to the site. Indicated that there would be no direct access to Harvard Subdivision. Wm. Dressel: Asked if this was a parking and loading zone problem. Paul Deibel: Replied seemed to be more of a conflict of parking with loading than of loading with parking. Suggested angle parking might be a possibility. Indicated that another problem which should be addressed was dumpsters and their location. Wm. Dressel: Moved that the Board approve the plat subject to staff comments. Phyllis Wells: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 14. #40-78 Boxberger Business Center. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for a commercial subdivision on 49.9 acres zoned C, Commercial, and I, Industrial, located northeast of the intersection of I-25 and Colorado 14. Applicant: John Boxberger, 5100 E. County Road 50, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented background and staff comments: This is a proposal for 83 small (15,000 square feet) Commercial lots to be located immediately south of the Marathon Metalic Building Company at the I-25 and Colorado Highway 14 interchange. The plan as proposed is laid out like a typical residential subdivision with curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs. It is somewhat difficult to imagine commercial development taking place on this type of a lot by lot basis. Specific staff concerns are as follows: 1. There is no apparent need for up to 83 small business at this location. Although the County Land Use Plan prescribes' commercial uses for every I-25 interchange in the county it should be assumed that such uses would be small scale highway service facilities, not a conglomeration of:: over 80 business that would require a large and immediate residential population. 2. The City and County are currently negotiating an agreement to coordinate rather than duplicate urban services. When and if such an agreement is entered into, it is logical to assume that the east Highway 14 urban area would receive Planning and Zo* Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 25 city protection although not a part of the incorporated area. The City Police and Fire Departments have indicated that it would be unfair to ask them to serve a poorly designed development such as this one with narrow streets, blind cul- de-sacs, inadequate access, etc. ... In short the ontinued ap- proval of sophomoric development plans may well pre-empt the possibility for coordinated City/County emergency services. 3. Regardless of the location, no development of this inten- sity should be approved with awkward intersections, 50 lots served by a single point of access, no curb, gutter, side- walks or streetlighting, etc... If County is going to continue to allow intense urban development, urban improvements must be included. 4. The plan has apparently been drawn up for ease of marketing multiple lots rather than defining the intended number and configuration of businesses. 5. It would seem preferable for such an intense commercial development to take place as a P.U.D. rather than with all the uncertainties of the proposal at hand. Staff recommendation was for denial. Gary Ross returned to the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Pete Delgado(Delgado and Associates representing Boxberger): Indicated that since the owner wanted this type of set up and felt that it would sell that was a good indication that the need was/ would be there. Indicated that the owner wanted the flexibility to combine lots as industries/businesses located. Explained how the County Engineer had recommended realigning the curvi- linear streets and explained how extensive landscaping would be utilized. Phyllis Wells: Asked what the average lot size was. P. Delgado: Approximately 15,000 square feet. Ed VanDriel: Asked if the northern cul-de-sac could be extended to the street on the west. P. Delgado: Saw no problem. Robert Evans: Thought the proposal premature considering the undeveloped space between the interchange and the City. Moved that the Board stongly recommend to the County that the plat be denied. Bob Burnham: Eldon Ward: Asked whether this piece of property fell within the Urban Service Area. Replied that it probably was but that the Staff didn't know the recommendation of this month's County items. Planning and Zooa Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 26 Wm. Dressel: Indicated that although he agreed with Robert Evans, he also was concerned with the technical problems of the plat as well, and felt that closer attention should be paid to the design as well. Seconded the motion made by Robert Evans. P. Delgado: Asked Robert Evans what made him feel the timing of the project was not right. Robert Evans: Indicated that he felt that the area could be more easily served by services if it were closer in. P. Delgado: Disagreed. Vote: The motion to strongly recommend the plat be disapproved passed unanimously. 15. #41-78 Jackson Heights Subdivision. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 14 single family lots on 34.9 acres zoned FA-1, Farming, located on Colorado Highway 14 east of County Road 5. Applicant: Larry McCrery, 1520 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. 16. #42-78 Mote Vista Estates Subdivision. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 32 single family lots on 80.5 acres zoned FA-1, Farming, located on County Road 5 north of County Road 44. Applicant: Steve Jenkins, 110 W. Harvard, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. 17. #43-78 Timnath Valley Estates. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 40 single family lots on 56.4 acres zoned E-1, Estate, located on County Road 5 south of County Road 44 Applicant: Clinton Schwartz, 2009 Meadowaire Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented staff comments and recommendations: These are proposals for large lot fringe density (.5 d.u. per acre) subdivisions comprising 86 single family lots on 171.8 acres within a corridor along County Road 5 between Colorado 14 and Timnath. The Staff has the following concerns on the proposed plats: 1. Approval would be inconsistent with the County Land Use Plan. 2. Jackson Heights and Monte Vista Estates have only single points of access: The one into Jackson Heights is in a dangerous location due to inadequate sight distance Planning and Zone Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 27 with the high speed traffic on Highway 14. 3. The plans have been drawn with more regard to geometric symmetry than in response to the topography of the site or functional traffic circulation. 4. There are apparently problems with a high water table in the area which may make the proposed on -site sewage systems impractical. 5. The larger problem may be that the County's "Farming Zones" allow scattered subdivision development to occur at .5 - 2 d.u./acre. Making a "Farming Zone" more profit- able to develop as a residential subdivision than to use for agricultural purposes. Recommended denial of the three proposed plans. P. Delgado(Delgado and Associates): Spoke to item #41-78, Jackson Heights first. Explained how some design changes had been made in the plat, notably how had worked with the State Highway Department to change entrance to correct sight problems. Felt that the Land Use Plan was not to be put into effect until all the elements were completed. Felt that the area was adequately served by districts, -and felt that -cutting off future development unfair to them and would stifle their growth. Protested the combination of consideration of items #41-78, #42-78 and #43-78 at one time. Placed emphasis on the economic constraints of development. Indicated that soil tests had been run and the entire area passed. Robert Evans: Asked when the soil testing was done. P. Delgado: Replied in January, but that inspection of the layers showed no indication of problems at high water. Ed VanDriel: Asked how, if the plan was for septic systems in this area, how this would benefit the sanitation districts. P. Delgado: Replied would be difficult to service this area since bounded by the ditch. Items #42-78, #43-78 would be served by the sewer district. Ed VanDriel: Moved that the Board strongly recommend to the County that Jackson Subdivision be denied on the basis that it was contrary to the County Land Use Plan, and other reasons as stated. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Robert Evans: Mentioned that there might well be potential pollution problems with septic systems and tle ditch. Wm. Dressel: Pointed out that the State Highway Department was just trying to do the best they could with a given situation rather than Planning and Zon4p Board Minutes • March 13, 1978 page 28 deciding on the merits of the project as a whole. Agreed with the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Discussion on #42-78 - Monte Vista Estates. Eldon Ward: Reaffirmed staff concerns including access problem. P. Delgado(Degado & Associates): Pointed out that the County requests a minimum number of accesses and the City reqires more. Felt this was hard to deal with. Gary Ross: Suggested that if there were more development around the area proposed, that the second point of access would be easier to obtain. Felt that every piece of ground was not subdividable and that these 3 pieces were prime examples. Wm. Dressel: Agreed that development of this property at this time was definitely not proper though later that may change. P. Delgado: Argued for property owner's rights. Ed VanDriel: Felt that development was not in the best interests of the public at this time. Gary Ross: Explained how endorsement of the County Land Use Plan was necessary because of the work which had gone into it and the widespread effort it represented regardless of whether or not all elements were yet completed. Wm. Dressel: Moved that the: Board strongly recommend denial of the plat for reasons as enumerated in comments above. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Discussion on #43-78 Timnath Valley Estates. Phyllis Wells: Asked what "E-l" zone meant. Eldon Ward: Explained basically that the minimum lot size was one acre. P. Delgado: Gary Ross: Wm. Dressel: Eldon Ward: Indicated he had no comment to make. Felt this plat was different from the other two in that there is already a fair amount of development across the street. Ascertained that there were two points of access. Indicated that other than the street widths there were no other real technical, problems with the layout. The problem basically was inconsistency with the County Land Use Plan. Planning and Lon# board mnutes • March 13, 1978 page 29 Wm. Dressel: Moved that the Board recommend denial of the plat as inconsistent with the County Land Use Plan, but that if the street width problems could be worked out then there were no other technical problems with the subdivision except for the Land Use Plan. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 18. #44-78 Village Grove Subdivision. (County Referral) Description: Rpoposal for 175 single family lots on 53.9 acres zoned R-1, Residential, located east of U.S. 287 and north of Trilby Road. Applicant: Guadalupe P. Delgado, 742 Cottonwood, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented background and staff comments. In August of 1977, the Board considered a rezoning request for these 53.9 acres from FA, Farming and FA-1, Farming, to R2, Residential. The applicant eventually received Rl, Residential zoning, in spite of the strong objections of the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council. The site is a portion of the 140 acre Lynn Acres Subdivision immediately south of the Fossil Creek Meadows P.U.D. The con- figuration has been determined by the lot owners who did not agree with the change in zoning. Other than the larger issues, this subdivision raises of conformance to the County Land Use Plan, competition among utilities, environmental impacts, jurisdictional problems, and costs of sprawl, staff concerns on the proposed plan itself are: 1. The applicant does not intend to provide on site detention, curb and gutter, sidewalks or other improvements usually considered necessary for a subdivision of this magnitude; 2. The current residents would be saddled with greatly increased traffic and storm water run-off; 3. Although the streets within the Village Grove Sub- division would be paved, the extensions of the streets to Trilby Road and U.S. 287 would apparently remain gravel; 4. The applicant is proposing 30 foot "collector" and 24 foot local pavement widths. The on -street parking that would have to be anticipated for the proposed density and lot configuration would make the streets virtually impassible, especially for fire and service vehicles. Staff recommendation was for denial. P. Delgado(Delgado & Associates): Indicated he had no comment to make. Planning and Zo Board Minutes March 13, 1978 W • ' page 30 Gary Ross: Felt that the comments as to road widths were very valid. Pointed out that there was a tremendous amount of elevation change within the subdivision and that it was mandatory for runoff to be addressed. Also, felt that the roads coming into the subdivision must be paved. Wm. Dressel: Agreed with Gary Ross. Felt that the Board was giving the pet- itioner a fair hearing. Phyllis Wells: Moved that the Board recommend to the county that the plat be denied for the reasons specifically stated in comments, which points should be addressed by the petitioner. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 19. #45-78 Crestview Subdivision, Third Filing. (County Referral) Description: Proposal for 6 single family lots on 2.4 acres zoned R, Residential, located on N. Lemay Avenue and north of Country Club Road. Applicant: Irvin Bartling, 2812 Country Club Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Presented staff comments and recommendation for approval. This is a proposal for six lots at the northwest corner of Country Club Road and Gregory Road. The lots would be served by an access frontage drive with a single driveway onto Gregory Road. Although the staff generally recommends against lots fronting on major (100' R.O.W.) streets, in this case, however, with the configuration of lots in the Second Crestview Subdivision, there seems to be little choice. The applicant appears to have done as much as possible to coordinate traffic access onto Gregory Road. Wm. Dressel: Felt terrain problems had been well addressed. Gary Ross: Recommended that the County address the road name problem there at this time. The change of name on the same road is confusing, and felt the problem ought to be considered now. P. Delgado(Delgado & Associates): Agreed that this configuration seemed to be the only one possible. Wm. Dressel: Asked if the frontage road was going in. P. Delgado: Replied, yes to allow for future widening of the pavement, but that it didn't tie in over the hill. Wm. Dressel: Asked if there were any provisions for a sidewalk to tie to Country_ Club Road. Suggested that a walk be addressed since density was increasing there, and there should be an attempt to get pedestrian traffic especially kids off Planning and Zo* Board Minutes March 13, 1978 ` page 31 Country Club Road. Gary Ross: Suggested such a walk may not even need to be paved; felt hard packed gravel would do as well as pavement. Ed VanDriel: Asked if frontage road would be far enough from Gregory Road to allow for road widening. P. Delgado: Yes. Eldon Ward: Mentioned area bikeway plan being worked on with the county. Wm. Dressel: Moved that the Board recommend approval of the plat subject to working out pedestr.tan access along the frontage road and that the street name change be implemented. Gary Spahr: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. There being no other business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.