Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/09/1978Planning and Zoning Board Minutes January 9, 1978 Board Members Present: Bob Burnham, Robert Evans, Ed VanDriel, Gary Ross, Phyllis Wells, Wm. Dressel. Staff Members Present: Les Kaplan, Paul Deibel, Eldon Ward, Robert Steiner. Legal Representative: Lucia Liley. Poudre R-1 District Representative: Dick Graef Bob Burnham called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed Dick Graef, new representative for the Poudre R-1 School District. 1) Approval of the December 12, 1977 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes. Ed VanDriel: Moved to approve the minutes as recorded. Wm. Dressel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Phyllis Wells: Complimented staff member Eldon Ward on an exceptional job of expressing the Board's recommendation in the County Letter re. Rossil Creek Meadows. 2) #8-78 Eldon Ward: Prospect Springs P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 22 multifamily units on 2.6 acres zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, located on East Prospect Street, west of Lemay Avenue. Applicant: Ole Olson, 943 E. Prospect, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521 Gave staff presentation and recommended approval subject to the following comments: 1. Traffic circulation in the larger area. This site is one of a group of large deep lots fronting Prospect Street between Lemay Avenue and Barton Elementary School. Although the entire area is zoned R-P, Planned Residential District, there is presently no multi -family development north of Spring Creek. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 2 January 9, 1978 .._ El •r o 77 r V wOo� G Oa I I I [AATON I ]OMOOL I I v I - Figure 1 -- Existing Street Pattern DEN- �®a' The lots in this area are characterized by single family homes fronting on Prospect Street with large undeveloped rear areas, if other lots in this block redeveloped (probably at 8-12 units/acre) they would continue to have no access except from East Prospect. Thus the resulting development pattern would consist of a row of cul-de-sate off the arterial unless a local street is provided at the rears of the lots in question. However, the fragmented ownership pattern, existing development, and the configuration of the Spring Creek Flood Plain seem to make any such local street in- feasible for lots 2 through 5 of the East Acres Subdivision (Prospect Springs P.U.D. is proposed for lot 4). However, the potential does seem to exist for the provision of a local street extension of Parker Street to an intersection with Prospect Street near where Robertson meets Prospect. Planning and Zonle Board Minutes page 3 January 9, 1978 Figure 2 -- Suggested Future Street Pattern After much discussion the staff has concluded that while cul-de-sacs off arterial streets are undesirable, expecially in multiple numbers serving high density development, there does not seem to be a viable alternative for the area of and adjacent to the proposed P.U.D. The staff does feel that if redevelopment is pursued for the area west of lot 2 of East Acres an interior local street should be provided. 2. Interior Traffic Circulation. The applicant is proposing that his site be served by a private cul-de-sac with perpendicular parking adjacent to building envelopes. The city staff is not generally in favor of private streets when dedicated right-of-way could be provided. In this case though, the street design seems to function well. The proposed parking configuration is better suited to a private drive than a dedicated street. In addition, because this would be a private street, the intersection with East Prospect may be constructed as a driveway curb -cut rather than a full street intersection which could cause confusion to motorists on Prospect Street seeking a through local street. To meet the requirements of the P.U.D. ordinance the pro- posed drive must be widened to 28 feet or the applicant must seek a variance to the 26 feet he has requested. Planning and ZoniBoard Minutes page 4 January 9, 1978 Also the four parking spaces nearest Prospect Street should be eliminated to avoid conflicts with cars turning off the arterial. 3. The applicant should contact the Light and Power Department concerning the existing overhead electric line; the line should be relocated and put underground. 4. Lighting should be indicated on the final plans. Provision for future maintenance of the lighting should be included with the landscape maintenance covenants submitted with final plan. 5. The water line should be looped to Lemay Avenue and stubbed to the west boundary of the site. 6. The proposed commercial space should be strictly oriented away from Prospect Street. The facility should serve the residents of the P.U.D. and not become a destination for motorists on Prospect Street. 7. The final plans should clarify: a. disposition of existing trees, b. improvements on Prospect R.O.W. such as sidewalks, c. private utility tie-ins, d. disposition of the existing residence in the north- east corner of the site. If it is not a part of the P.U.D., a replat of East Acres will be necessary, e, topography and evaluation of any conflict with the Spring Creek Flood Plain. Bob Burnham: Asked about maintenace on the private drive to insure ease of emergency access. Eldon Ward: Said there was a perpetual maintenance agreement. The city simple does not maintain it. Noted a private drive would mean a smaller curb cut onto -East Prospect. Phyllis Wells: Asked about pedestrian circulation. Eldon Ward: Said a walk would be required on Prospect but the site was too small to require an extensive interior circulation system. Noted that access to green areas was adequate and that the site was adjacent to the proposed Spring Creek bikepath. Gary Ross: Asked if a R.O.W. existed for looping the water line to Lemay. Eldon Ward: Explained a 30 foot easement existed along the south lot line. Phyllis Wells: Asked the developer if he had any problems limiting the commercial area to RH uses. Ole Olson (applicant): Had no problems with that. Planning and Zon] Board Minutes page 5 January 9, 1978 Ed VanDriel: Suggested extending Parker Street to Lemay. Eldon Ward: Explained that the ownership of lots was too fragmented in the area and that there was a reluctance to put Roads in the Spring Creek floodplain. Also suggested such a street might serve as a shortcut. Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments and that the commercial site be restricted to RH- High Density Residential uses. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Les Kaplan: Noted the RH- High Density Residential zone permitted restaurants. Phyllis Wells: Amended her motion to exclude restaurants. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 3. #9-78 Cedar Village Second Filing, P.U.D., Preliminary Plan. Description: Proposal for 24 multi -family units on 5.32 acres zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District, located on West Drake Road east of South Taft Hill Road. C Applicant: Bruce E. Miller, c/o Miller Properties, Inc., 2600 Hanover Drive, Fort Collins, Co., 80521. The item was officially withdrawn from consideration by the applicant. 4. #10-78 Palmer Plaza P.U.D., Preliminary and Final Plans. Description: Proposal for a commercial shopping center on 2.05 acres zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on South College Avenue, south of Harvard Street. Applicant: Spiro Palmer, 261 S. College, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff presentation and recommended approval subject to the following comments: 1. Provisions for on -site detention must be coordinated with the Engineering Department; 2. Unless a common driveway with the property to the north can be provided, the northern curbcut on this site should be moved 15 - 20 feet south to increase the separation between it and the Firestone Dealership's adjacent driveway; 3. A landscape maintenance guarantee must be approved by the City Attorney before final Council approval; Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page January 9, 1978 11 4. Utility tie-ins should be shown on the site plan. Phyllis Wells: Asked.how the front of the proposed building lined up pith the buildings to the North and South. Eldon Ward: Explained it was located in a staggered position vis-a-vis the other two buildings. Phyllis Wells: Asked where the rear lot line was. Eldon Ward: Said it did not extend to the C & S Railroad right of way. Paul Deibel: Said it was only about half way to the tracks. Phyllis Wells: Asked if the City would enforce usage regulations of the strip between the Frontage Road and College Avenue. Paul Deibel: Said that upon dedication, usage regulations would be enforced. Lucia Liley: Noted the issue was complicated since some property owners had legal parking rights on the strip. John Denesha (architect, representing the applicant): Had no problems with staff comments. Wm. Dressel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 5. #11-78 South College Square P.U.D., Preliminary Plans. Description: Proposal for a commercial planned unit development on 1.82 acres zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on the northwest corner of South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road. Applicant: South College Square Partnership, 7301 S.W. Frontage Road, I-25, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave staff comments and recommended the Board approve the P.U.D. only if the developer agreed to specify a maximum floor area of 17,500 square feet for the main building (to insure a proper parking ratio), to secure an agreement with the ditch company, and to the following other conditions: 1. 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, allcwing 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. Planning and Zon Board Minutes page 7 January 9, 1978 2. 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. 3. Internal traffic circulation should be improved at the rear of the existing building. 4. 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. 5. 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 lanscape plan.) 6. 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. Bob Burnham: Asked if an agreement were not reached with the ditch company the concurrant loss of parking would require a further reduction in square footage of the main building. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Bob Burnham: Thought the Southern exit onto Horsetooth Road was too close to the intersection with S. College Avenue. Paul Deibel: Agreed it was not an optimal situation, but it was the only means of access from the South. Phyllis Wells: Asked about treatment along the ditch. Paul Deibel: Said it should be shown but had no specific recommendations. Ed VanDriel: Asked if Creger Plaza developers would share in the cost of improving the bridge on Horsetooth. Paul Deibel: Said four property owners and the city would be involved with covering the cost. Jerry Nix (Representing the applicant): Asked the Board to consider a 5 percent variance on the square footage — parking ratio. Said uses planned for the building would split peak parking demands Specifically asked for 18,000 square feet for the main building . Noted that in the future, demolition of the existing building on the corner was planned and that better utilization of the site would be planned. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 8 January 9, 1978 Explained that an agreement with the ditch company had J been reached regarding parking and maintenance access. Said also the ditch company agreed to handle the runoff drainage. Said he would provide a letter so stating. Had no objections to other staff comments except for the elimination of the curb cut onto College. Suggested that access routes using the Frontage Road would be inefficient and inadequate, especially at intersections. Objected to limiting the site to one access. Noted that four curb cuts now existed from the site onto College. Tom Metcalf (Attorney representing): Pointed out the property was unique in that it was almost surrounded by the irrigation ditch. Felt effective access could be provided only from College Avenue. Said the ditch agreement would be provided with the final plan. Bob Burnham: Asked the real intent of phase two. Metcalf: Said the site was under a long term lease and that only the present use could be shown. Bob Burnham: Suggested addressing just phase one. Metcalf: Agreed to that. Paul Deibel: Explained the whole site was shown because it showed access to the southern property and that any change to the plan would require an amendment. Phyllis Wells: Asked if any other alternatives for handling traffic had been considered. Suggested a deceleration lane. Jerry Nix: Said Joe Rice, City Traffic Engineer was agreeable to a deceleration lane for ingress only and that Roy Bingman, Director of Engineering Services, was agreeable to an acceleration lane for egress only. Robert Evans: Asked what effect a frontage road would have on parking. Paul Deibel: Said more parking was available without frontage road dedication. Phyllis Wells: A§ked about pedestrian circulation. Paul Deibel: Explained. Ed VanDriel: Asked if staff felt the requested five percent variance was justified. Paul Deibel: Felt it was if uses for the site were listed on the plat. Wm. Dressel: Thought there were some valid arguments for a curb cut onto College. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 9 January 9, 08 • Gary Ross: Agreed. Thought requirements should be relaxed a bit to encourage redevelopment of the site. Bob Burnham: Said Board appeared unsatisfied with both staff and applicants positions. Suggested other options were needed. Gary Ross: Asked if access from west was possible. Nix: Said it had been tried but was impossible. 14m. Dressel: Suggested having Joe Rice address the Board about the traffic stivation. Paul Deibel: Said staff position on the curb cut issue was built around the existing city policy for a frontage road on College. Gary Ross: Said problems had changed since the policy was adopted and thought additional information was needed. Wm. Dressel: Moved to table the item and to obtain further input from both city and applicants engineers on the traffic flow problem. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Bob Burnham: Said area of study should extend from Mason Street to Johnsmith Street. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 6. #12-78 Amendment of Foothills Shopping Center P.U.D. Description: Proposed amendment of an existing commercial shopping center on 34.06 acres zoned H-B, Highway Business District, located on Foothills Parkway east of South College Avenue. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 3000 S. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave staff comments and recommended approval subject to the following comments: 1. Pedestrian Circulation a) the City should address the problem of providing a way for pedestrians to safely cross S. College Avenue at Foothills Parkway; b) sidewalks should be installed not only along Stanford as proposed, but also along the south side of Foothills Parkway and the north side of E. Monroe Drive (east of Plaza Drive entrance to Fashion Mall) so as to provide facilities for "through" pedestrian traffic along what will eventually be very busy streets. Our research indicates that these sidewalks were required as a condition of approval when the original Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 10 January 9, 48 plan was approved in 1972. These walks could be installed next to the inside curb of landscaped areas along these streets so as not to disrupt existing landscaping; c) sidewalks through the parking lot should be used to define pedestrian access to the proposed mall expansion from the north and south; d) a sidewalk connection should be provided at the southwest boundary of the site to connect with the pedestrian bridge across the Larimer Co. #2 Canal in Foothills Square. (This will entail the loss of one parking space in this area.) 2. Internal Circulation. Sears expansion and relocation of loading docks as proposed would disrupt internal circulation at the south end of the Sears store and the adjacent main entrance to the mall. Circulation in this area should be reworked. Also, proposed loading dock at east end of proposed new department store appears to conflict with traffic lane. 3. Landscaping. Area for peripheral landscape treatment appears to be good. However, landscaped islands for trees should be introduced into large parking areas so as to provide visual relief with vertical land- scape treatment and physical relief with seasonal shading. 4. Parking appears to be adequate. The number of parking spaces proposed is 3.4% less than the standard H-B zone parking requirement.l The significant efficiencies of scale that can be realized in a parking area as large as this one should justify the parking ratio pro- posed. 5. A traffic signal should be installed at the intersection of Monroe Drive and the main south entrance to the mall. 6. Details to be addressed on final plan: a) proposed expansion will necessitate relocation of utility lines and upgrading of electrical system; b) a drain should be installed in new landscaped area along Foothills Parkway. Phyllis Wells: Expressed concern about loading dock design for the expansion. Paul Deibel: Said it was not as serious as the problem at Sears. Gary Haxton(architect, representing the applicant): Explained plans for revising the loading dock circulation and said all required sidewalks would be installed. Phyllis Wells: Asked about pedestrian access to Foothills Plaza. 3 Planning and Zon Board Minutes . page 11 January 9, 1978 Haxton: Said he had just recently heard of that but thought Sears had worked it out. Bob Burham: Said parking facilities were less than normally required. Haxton: Explained that most current thinking indicated the present parking requirements were excessive. Also, noted that the parking ratio was based on total square footage of the building, not the gross leasable, or assignable, area. Bob Burnham: Suggested the city study revising its parking requirements. James Stewart (developer of Foothills Square and Foothills Plaza): (following is a complete transcription of Mr. Stewart's comments, recorded at his request): "Mr. Burnham, before you go ahead, I'm not speaking in oppostion - that's why I let that time go by. I'm strongly in favor of this project moving forward at its optimum level and am satisfied with the P.U.D. process. You do whatever you're going to do and don't take what I'm saying negative -wise. What I want to do specifically on the record is to reserve a right with dinity to present the possibility to have variant views at City Council or some other time later in the process. I just don't want to be precluded or thought not to know what's going on. I believ e I have some personal things - personal rights - that I want to work out with some parties. But, again, the emphasis is to reserve those, not to be deemed by anyone to acquiesce, but to urge the receipt of the preliminary subject to a variety of things - I'll contain my own reservations. I'm favorable to it proceeding." Phyllis Wells: Asked if staff was comfortable with internal circulation. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Phyllis Wells: Asked if staff was comfortable without having pedestrian access across the ditch being shown. Paul Deibel: Said it appeared to have been addressed but noted it should be indicated on the plat. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Phyllis Wells: Asked that the motion carry emphasis on the importance of City Council addressing the problem of pedestrian crossing at College Avenue and Foothills Parkway - i.e, item 1-a in the staff comments. Wm. Dressel: Noted the applicant had displayed a revised plan. Thought the Board should indicate if it was satisfactory. Paul Deibel: Suggested the motion be conditional upon staff anaylsis of the revised proposal. Thought it appeared to address specific problems satisfactorily. Planning and ZonBoard Minutes page 12 January 9, 1978 Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 7. #13-78 Amendment of Thunderbird Estates Sixth Filing, P.U.D. Description: Proposed amendment of an existing commercial planned unit development on 2.5 acres located on S. College Avenue south of East Drake Road. Applicants: Doug Hickman, c/o ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521, and - K. Bill Tiley, 3220 Michelle Lane, Fort Collins, Co. 80521. Paul Deibel: Gave staff position and recommended approval subject to staff comments: 1. Building envelope not exceed existing 30' setback from S. College Avenue R.O.W. 2. The existing 30' wide Frontage Road R.O.W. on lots 5 and 6 should be extended to the north property line of lot 4 (i.e., to the north end of site). 3. Minor revisions to the amendment plan including: a) designation of existing 10' easement along east property line; b) provision of adequate backup space for angle parking; c) provision of landscape maintenance legal instrument. Bob Burnham: Asked how close the building addition would come to the staff recommended extension of the Frontage Road. Paul Deibel: Said very close. Wm. Dressel: Asked if the landscaping would have to be eliminated if the road were extended. Paul Deibel: Said yes. Ed Zdenek(architect representing the applicant): Had no problems with staff comments except for the extension of the Frontage Road. Said the building expansion would have a four foot roof overhang into the Frontage Road R.O.W. Doug Hickman(applicant): Requested he not be required to dedicate the entire strip to the gas station for Frontage Road R.O.W. Wm. Dressel: Asked if he would agree to an extension of the Frontage Road to the northern edge of the motel curb cut. Hickman: Agreed to that. Noted any further extension would require him to eliminate two units. Bob Burnham: Noted this was the same problem but in reverse from the one at South College Square P.U.D. Paul Deibel: Said staff was trying to do a little planning by anticipating future redevelopment of the corner lot. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 13 . January 9, 08 I Bill Tiley(applicant and part owner): Noted a traffic problem already existed through the gas station and opening up the corner lot with the Frontage Road would only aggravate the problem. Noted this was a good example of an "old problem" when the developer wanted asphalt, the city wanted landscaping; when the developer wanted landscaping, the city wanted asphalt. Gary Ross: Asked why the Board was reviewing the item at all. Paul Deibel: Explained that the problem was dedication of the Frontage Road strip., Otherwise, the amendment could be approved administratively. Added that no actual development of a frontage road would be required until the corner lot redeveloped, and that the corner lot redevelopers would finance its installation. Wm. Dressel: Said the city had good reasons for extending the Frontage Road but the applicants plan also had integrity. Moved to recommend approval subject to the Frontage Road extending only to the northern edge of the curbcut. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Robert Evans - NO Ed Vandriel - YES Gary Ross YES Wm. Dressel - YES Phyllis Wells - YES Bob Burnham - YES 8. #14-78 Case Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat. Description: Proposal for two single family lots on .99 acres zoned R-L, Low Density Residential District, located on West Prospect Street, east of Cedarwood Drive. Applicant: Gregory S. Case, 2756 Leisure Drive, #16, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff postion and recommended approval subject to the following comments: 1. The survey was taken from legal description and not physically staked. The site cannot be subdivided without actually being surveyed. 2. When a valid plat is provided, it should indicate that only one curbcut will be allowed from this site onto West Prospect Street. This will probably involve provision of a common access easement along the lot line between the lots; 3. The increased dedication of R.O.W. for Prospect Street is improperly shown; 4. Water will have to be extended from Cedarwood Drive to serve the site; I Planning and zoning Board Minutes page 14 January 9,0078 5. The applicant should enter into an agreement to participate in the eventual improvement of Prospect Street; 6. An attorney's statement must be included on the plat. Don Toronto(representing the applicant): Had no problems with staff comments. Phyllis Wells: Moved to recommend approval subject to the above staff comments. Wm. Dressel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 9. #15-78 Glendal Subdivision, Preliminary and Final Plat. Description: Proposal for a single commercial lot on 1.2 acres zoned C-Commercial District, located on Wood Street adjacent to the City's Service Center. Applicant: Albert M. Freeman, 1006 Brookwood Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff recommendation for approval subject to the following comments: 1. In order to receive City sewer service the applicant must do a service survey; 2. The applicant should enter into an agreement for the future improvements along Wood Street. Bob Burnham: Asked if the site would have to be tied into the City sewage system. Albert Freeman(applicant): Said existing house was tied into the city sewer system. Said he was planning to build a shop which would produce next to no sewage and would be tied into an existing septic system. Wm. Dressel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff comments. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. The board took a 10 minute recess at 9:00 p.m. 10 #16-78 Norton - North U.S. 287 Rezoning. (County Referral) Eldon Ward: Description: Proposal to rezone 1.1 acres located on U.S. Highway 287 1/2 mile east of North Shields Street from 0-Open to C-Commercial. Applicant: Glen Norton, 705 N. Highway #287, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Gave staff recommendation for denial based upon the following rational. Planning an008 oning Board Minutes • page 15 January 9, This is yet another request to rezone a single lot on Highway 287 between Fort Collins and La Porte from 0 - Open to C - Commercial. The proposal is prompted by a desire to convert an existing egg production business to small warehouse storage facilities. Considering the traffic proble�as on U.S. 287 and the consistant negative recommendations by the Board on similar rezoning requests in the area, the staff can see no clear rationale for granting this rezoning. Ed VanDriel: Moved to recommend denial based upon the staff rationale. Robert Evans: Seconded the motion. Wm. Dressel: Noted the new use might not generate more traffic, but the use could change in the future given the requested C-Commercial zoning. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 11. #17-78 Park South P.U.D., Phase I. (county referral) Description: Proposal for 215 dwelling units on 44 acres zoned R-1, Residential, and M, Multiple Family located south of Horsetooth Road and West of the C&S Railroad tracks. Applicant: Park South Company, 303 Diamond Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Gave staff position and the following recommendation: The staff recommends that the site be annexed before development takes place. In the event that annexation is not required by the County and the project is approved; the staff feels that it is most important that adequate street improvements such as sidewalk and curb and gutter be required. Horsetooth Road should receive full City arterial street improvements. The City may be able to participate in the cost of the pavement oversizing and the Class I Bikepath. Noted that because of the polarized County and City positions on this item, it epitomized the need for an urban service area. Suggested the Board make a recommendation to the Urban Service Steering Committee. Phyllis Wells: Felt it was not the Board's prerogative to recommend who would provide utility service to the site. Rather, she saw the Board's job to be to address density and design characteristics. Eldon Ward: Said it was a little late to make such recommendations since the plan was based on and met the requirements of an Planning and ZoniBoard Minutes • page 16 January 9, 1978 R approved masterplan. Phyllis Wells: Reiterated her position. Wm. Dressel: Agreed with Phyllis Wells. Loren Dilsaver(Developer): Agreed with Phyllis Wells that utilities should not be under discussion. Showed the Board a letter dated December 12, 1977 detailing an agreement whereby the City would serve Creger Plaza with utilities and the District would serve Park South. Les Kaplan: Said the letter did not represent the position of City Council or the Water Board. Lusia Liley: Said the City Utility Department was only expressing one option in the letter. Suggested tabling the item until the Urban Service Steering Committee could review the item. Phyllis Wells: Agreed. Ed VanDriel: Thought street pattern was bad and objected to so many similar street names. Eldon Ward: Restated staff concerns: 1)One point of access 2)1ack of open space 3)Long blind cul-de-sacs 4)Need for standard city improvements Wm. Dressel: Said this was the most ill-conceived design he had ever seen. Thought all city standards should be required including up- grading Horsetooth Road and installing a Class I Bikeway and providing a second point of access and tabling the item until the Urban Service Steering Committee reviewed it. Gary Ross: Noted the masterplan had already been approved and upheld in the courts. Phyllis Wells: Thought Board should recommend the Urban Service Steering Committee table the item, as well as the County, until the Urban Service Policy was adopted. Wm. Dressel: Moved to recommend to the County it table the item until review by the Urban Service Steering Committee. If the County approved the item, then the recommendation was to require city standards including lighting, curbs, gutter, walks and the improvement of Horsetooth to arterial standards and the installation of a class I Bikeway. Added to the motion that this was an illconceived plan as far as traffic flow and circulation and density. Recommended further that more consideration be given to street name duplication and the lack of open space. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 17 January 9, 08 Phyllis Wells: Amended the motion to recommend the item appear before City Council and that the County should recommend to the Urban Service Steering Committee that it table the item until the Urban Service policy was set. Wm. Dressel: Agreed to the amendment and added that City Council should consider future service and annexation of the site. Vote: Robert Evans - YES Ed VanDriel - YES Gary Ross - YES Wm. Dressel - YES Phyllis Wells - YES Bob Burnham - Abstained. Agreed with motion but felt responsible design could not be conducted in a state of limbo and that the item had to be considered within the scope of the entire area. Wm. Dressel: Agreed the item should be considered in conjunction with the whole area. Phyllis Wells: Asked Dick Graef to express his opinion on the school impact assessment. Graef: Said a new elementary school was to be built on Horsetooth. Phyllis Wells: Said the assessments often left the impression the situation was not as bad as it really was - Noted especially the amount of bussing. Graef: Said bussing helped level out usage of available schools. Wm. Dressel: Noted the City had never reached the point where it could not handle increased school capacity. 12. #18-78 Serramonte Highlands Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. (County Refferal) Description: Proposed for 31 single family lots on 80.25 acres zoned FA-1. Farming located on County Road 11 south of County Road 54. Applicants: John Maher & Thomas Haynie, 3223 N. County Road 11, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Gary Ross: Abstained from discussion and voting. Eldon Ward: Recommended approval subject to a second point of accesse, being provided. Wm. Dressel: Asked applicant if he had objections to a second point of access. Dave Shub(representing the applicant): Thought people often preferred only one access route for privacy. I Planning and Zoning Board Minutes page 18 January 9, 408 • Wm. Dressel: Moved to recommend approval but not subject to a second point of access. Ed VanDriel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. (Gary Ross abstaining) 13. #19-78 Pleasant Valley Estates, Preliminar - Plat. (County Refferal) Description: Proposal for 15 single family lots on 40.3 acres zoned FA-l. Farming located 1/4 mile south of Horsetooth Road, and west of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Applicants: Frank Camera and Karl Hansen, P.O. Box 738, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522. Eldon Ward: Recommended approval subject to the resolution of drainage and engineering problems. Wm. Dressel: Moved to recommend approval subject to staff conditions. Gary Ross: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 14. #20-78 Replat of Lot 1 of the Replat of Green Acres Subdivision. (County Refferal) Description: Proposal to divide a platted lot into two lots zoned FA, Farming located on Impala Drive south of West Vine Drive. Applicant: Olen Dunlap, 309 N. Impala, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. Eldon Ward: Recommended approval. Gary Ross: Moved to recommend approval. Wm. Dressel: Seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Wm. Dressel: Referred back to South College Square P.U.D. and suggested contacting the State Highway Department for their input vis-a-vis the Board's concerns about the traffic flow at the site. Other Business: 1. Consider out -of -City utility service request at Harmony Road west of the C&S Railroad tracks. Les Kaplan: Explained this problem was referred to the Urban Service Steering Committee by City Council and was going back to the Council via the Planning and 'Zoning Board. Planning and Zon Board Minutes page 19 January 9, 1978 Bob Burnham: Asked specifically what the Board was to be considering. Les Kaplan: Should consider it from land use desirability. Said if City utilities were granted it would be an indication for annexing. Phyllis Wells: Saw this as the prerogative of the Urban Service Steering Committee. Bob Burnham: Suggested studying it in the context of the entire area along with the annexations to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 2. Consider alternative methods of scheduling items for Planning and Zoning Board meetings. Wm. Dressel: Suggested agenda compilation duty be left to Planning Director only. Les Kaplan: Preferred to leave it to a joint decision between the Planning Director and the chairman of the Board. Noted every effort would be made to consider all items submitted by deadline. Wm. Dressel: Thought it would not be too harmful for occasional three— month delays in light of the way the city was growing. Les Kaplan: Suggested adding a resubmittal deadline for items not meeting all requirements in the original form. Lucia Liley: Questioned the language "appeal of particular significance.' Thought the procedure should be based on a "first come" basis. Noted items of "particular significance" would tend to be "big money" development. Added that anyone could appeal to City Council. Wm. Dressel: Items should be lumped together when logical relationships existed. 3. Subdivision Ordinance Review. Bob Burnham: Asked Les Kaplan what progress was being made. Les Kaplan: Said he would have a written report in about two weeks. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.