Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/02/1968MINUTES OF MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD January 2, 1968 Call to Order: Chairman Don Stuart called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. on January 2, 1968. • Members Present: Chairman Don Stuart, Lynn Anduss, Ken Pastor, Charles Rhoades, Mrs. Wood, Planning Director, Gene Allen, Assistant Planning Director, Bob Engelke, and City Manager, Tom Coffey. Item #1 Consider Parkwood Subdivision Fifth Filing involving 7.3 acres with R-P, Planned Residential Zoning; eight lots and one church site. Gene Allen: This item was not ready for presentation. Item #2 #53-67 Consider Lemay Medical Park Unit Development Plat with B-P, Planned Business Zoning:,on 2.053 acres. Gene Allen: gave presentation. He explained the provision of holding two lots vacant to insure adequate parking and the need for reviewing utility easements. Tom Coffey: So moved. Motion Seconded: All Ayes. • Item #3 #59-67 Consider rezoning petition involving 9 acres from R-L, Low Density Residential to R-M, Medium Density Residential Zoning. Charles Rhoades: Excused himself from the meeting. Gene Allen: gave presentation. Located and described zoning, especially of drive-in. Sam Marshall: Question of drive-in land at south end. Art March and Gene Allen: Explained 25 percent expansion of a nonconforming use and the nonconforming use aspects of the Zoning Ordinance. Charles Eagan: How can this theater go R-L? Answer: By discontinuance. Bill Wyatt: Attorney for developers described the area. 1. Mentioned role of Stuart Street. 2. Discussed Park to south. 3. Relationship to College. 4. Discussed drive-in zoning. Don Stuart: Requested clarification of nonconforming use. Answer: Twenty-five percent of existing use. Orm Sherwood: Introduced associates and discussed other subs: 1. Need and trend to town houses planned for people over 45 and under 30. 2. Stated Fort Collins lags behind in town house market. 3. Site selection. A. Growth - SE and SW B. Shopping C. Employment D. Natural atributes of site E. Access PLANNING AND ZONING BOD - MINUTES 2 • January 2, 1968 F. Improve Site • G. Hired competent help H. Proper density I. Set back Mr. Marvin Hatami: Explained planning the development, attempting to develop an attractive unit from all sides. Bill Wyatt: Summary - 1. Land use considerations • 2. As much as 180 foot set back 3. Open space 4. Near center of city as developing. Mrs. Wood: Has the flood report been considered? Bill Wyatt: Yes, primary and secondary flood plans are provided for. Lynn Anduss: Is this to be done in phases? Bill Wyatt: Yes, from five to seven years. Units range from 920 to 2000 square feet. Ken Pastor: What about parking? Bill Wyatt: Three hundred thirty spaces including garages. Lynn Anduss: External material? Mr. Hatami: Brick, wood and pre -cast concrete. Private aspect for residents. Bill Wyatt: Compared development to other apartments, and especially the high rise. John Kochenburger: Attorney for opposition (Deines) • Legal grounds: 1. Character of neighborhood. A. Must change B. Old zone "A" Residential. C. 1965 became R-L. D. Shown in Plan for Progress as R-L. E. Past case - In 1964 request for B zone on Deines land. Motion of Planning and Zoning Board was read. Deines also advised by Gene Allen that rezoning was not likely. 2. Need for stability in zoning "Colorado Supreme Court". Sears and Roebuck approach to zoning. 3. Density of surrounding area in terms of units per acre. 4. Issue of park. A. A. Newton: Attorney for others opposed. 1. A good plan. 2. Effect upon neighborhood and community. 3. Need for change prior to change in zoning. 4. Issue of park and openness. 5. Townhouse not residential. 6. School age children. 7. Issue of park again. 8. Kids will play in park. 9. No play area in development. 10. Parking and traffic. 11. Townhouses belong downtown or out in the country, let ' the town grow to the development. 12. Must follow the Plan for Progress. 13. Presented petitions. 14. Asked that those opposed stand - most did. PLANNING & ZONING BOA*- MINUTES 3 • January 2, 1968 Bryan Williams: Orm Sherwood forgot neighborhood. Not • necessarily good for the area. If they were for sale rather than rent it would be good. J.V.K. Wagar: January 2, 1968 • To: The Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board From: J.V.K. Wagar (Address and landownership- 415 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins, Colorado). Subject: Proposed rezoning of low -density -residential areas adjacent to Spring Creek Park and construc- tion of a 227 unit apartment complex therein. That I may speak with optimum brevity, I have written and shall read my remarks: 1. Plans of developers concerned to take advantage of amenities available in a small public park for the benefit and enjoyment of apartment residents are understandable if not subject to unanimous approval. 2. To heap so may residents, as planned, upon a relatively small park, provided at public expense to serve a more scattered populace, suggests an element of unfairness that may be resented for many years. • 3. Some concern and even resentment results from failure to provide more park area along Spring Creek in accor- dance with A PARK & RECREATION PLAN FOR FORT COLLINS by S.R. DeBoer & Co. (1962-63) and the 1964 plan submitted by the Creek and Riverbed Subcommittee of the Citizen's Advisory Planning Committee. (Such planning followed nationally recognized trends --not local whims.) 4. Further resentment and concern relates to the instability of zoning and city planning in Fort Collins. THE PLAN FOR PROGRESS, dated November 9, 1967, is scarcely well circulated before this major attack upon it occurs. 5. Admittedly, as cities grow, zoning of low -density residential areas evolves toward high -density occupancy -- with the growing exception of streamside flood -plain areas most assuredly and beneficially zoned for recreational use. 6. If proposed builders of the Spring Creek apartment complex would buy other park lands within the Spring Creek Drainage --with proper recognition of natural and potential sabotage -caused floods --and would thus add to • the city's park areas, gratitude rather than resentment should result. 7. Finally, it seems unfair to place so many people below a major dam and reservoir in these perilous times. Growing world tensions and bombing potential within hostile .PLANNING & ZONING BOO- MINUTES 4 • January 2, 1968 • • • countries remind us of dams blasted in Eurpoe in World War II. New danger exists in current riots and threatened insurrections. To date these have resulted chiefly in burned buildings. Plots to blast public structures have so far been foiled. But if plotters decide to destroy dams instead of setting buildings afire, we in this room may all regret permitting concentrated residency along the stream course below Spring Creek Dam. Sam Marshall: Flood aspect? Mr. Hatami: Considered, plans are not final. Sam Marshall: Height of buildings is what? Mr. Hatami: Sixty feet. Sam Marshall: Plan for Progress. Don Stuart: We appreciate your liking the Plan for Progress, which when it was passed we weren't sure of its acceptance. Dr. Naomi Patterson: Park Issue. L. Daugherty: Opposed- Traffic and parking. Al McChestney: Opposed - area. Fred Taylor: Opposed - Traffic. Dean Duncan: Opposed - Traffic at College and Stuart. Richard Anderson: Opposed - Park issue. Maurice Deines: Disagreed with plan as to ownership of east end and street issue. Bill Wyatt: Legal question of - 1. What is the neighborhood? 2. Change in neighborhood. 3. Change in Fort Collins. 4. Density in Cotton Wood and other apartment areas. 5. Need for stability and Plan for Progress is only a guide. 6. Schools and school kids. There are 300 school kids in Shelly Subdivision on 12 acres. 7. Public park, not private! 8. Townhouse is taxable. 9. Height relative to area. 10. Woodward Governor as related to Parkwood. 11. Better sites --where? 12. Zoning should be practical and economical. 13. De Boer Report and Park, nice but won't work. 14. We all want growth in our own area and must recog- nize it. H. A. Carper: Give land to City for park and use as a tax deduction. Question of children in 2 or 3 bedroom apartments. FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS Don Stuart: Call for a motion. Mrs. Wood: Stated she liked the concept of a planned development, referred to Plan for Progress and moved • to recommend R-P, for area. Don Stuart: Seconded the motion. Motion passed three to two - Lynn Anduss and Ken Pastor opposed. PLANNING AND ZONING BOD - MINUTES 5 • January 2, 1968 Charles Rhoades rejoined board meeting. • Item #4 #58-67 Consider Revised Preliminary Plat of South Meadow Lark Heights Subdivision with R-L, Low Density Residential Zoning; 237 lots, one school site, one church site, and one park site. Gene Allen: Presented, stated details to follow. • Don Stuart: Changes? Maurice Deines: Ditch, park land and pond. Mr. Coffey: Do you plan to donate the park? Maurice Deines: Not exactly. Gene Allen: A park is shown on the Plan for Progress. Board: Accepted. Item #5 #60-67 Consider rezoning petition (County Referral) involving 12.5 acres from F-A, Farming District to M-1, Multiple Family District, permitting Trailer Courts. Gene Allen: Presented. County zoning permits Mobile Homes, water and sewer nearby. A. A. Newson: Attorney for Aronson,presented zoning request. Mr. Aronson: Presented Plan of Mobile Home Park involving 11 acres, 78 spaces 45 feet and 50 feet by 80 feet. Recreation room and off-street parking. Don Stuart: Comments or questions? Bill Thomas: I was not contacted. If this park will • be as nice as shown then ok. Gene Allen: Asked Mr. Aronson if he would cooperate with the City regulations especially M-L Density. Mr. Aronson: Yes. He stated he planned to use City water. Art March: We could use water agreement to insure City regulations. Mr. Coffey: Moved we recommend County subject to six units per acre and City standards as per water agreement. Motion Seconded. All Ayes. Item #6 #61-67 Consider rezoning petition involving 2.64 acres from R-M, Medium Density Residential Zoning to R-H, High Density Residential Zoning. Gene Allen: Presented. Described zoning and located. He related to Plan for Progress. Mr. Kiefer: Discussed plans and area. Showed a possible plan. Don Stuart: Asked for motion. Ken Pastor: Moved approval. Tom Coffey: Seconded the motion. All Ayes. Item #7 #37-67 Unit Development Plat, Fahrenbruch, Leisure Village, Third Filing with R-P, Planned Residential and R-H, High Density Residential Zoning - 168 living units, 1 clubhouse and beauty salon, and 1 personal care nursing facility. • PLANNING AND ZONING BOD - MINUTES 6 • January 2, 1968 • 0 ROE/skd • r1 U Gene Allen: Presented and mentioned the following: 1. Utility easements. 2. Right of access for emergency equipment. 3. Cul de sac island should be a part of tract "A" 4. Developer to maintain private access roads. 5. Pointed out vacated easement on earlier filing. Items 1 through 5 to be shown on plat. Lynn Anduss: So moved. Don Stuart: Seconded the motion. All Ayes. Respectfully submitted, Robert 0. Engelke Assistant Secretary