HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 06/23/1980w
Board Present:
Staff Present:
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
June 23, 1980
Gary Ross, Paul Eckman, Gary Spahr, Phyllis Wells,
Ed Van Driel, Carolyn Haase
Curt Smith, Paul Deibel, Ken Waido, Joe Frank, John Dewhirst,
Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Linda Hopkins,
Louise Grove
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Wells:
Called meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Explained the advisory function
of the Board to review Planning and Zoning items and make a recommenda-
tion to City Council, and stated that City Council makes a final
decision on all items. Invited public comment on all items and
encouraged citizen input, and explained the procedure for speaking
before the Board. Asked that any speaker sign one of the sheets
on the podium so we can get the name correctly.
Noted that the agenda is divided into two sections, Limited Discussion
and Discussion and explained how the Limited Discussion is handled.
Announced that the group home regulations would be discussed on
Thursday night.
Smith:
Asked that the Board consider adding the Gefroh request as an end item
to the agenda, either during Limited Discussion, or at the very end.
Wells:
Asked to have that item explained.
Smith:
Explained a request from Gefroh and Associates Architectures and
Planners to extend the existing deadline for expiration of a P.U.D.
on Prospect and Lemay. The request for extension is so that they
can proceed with further work on it.
Wells:
Made that Item number 13. Explained that Item number 6, an Amendment
to Raintree P.U.D., had been withdrawn.
1. Minutes
of the May 27, 1980 meeting.
Wells:
Asked for corrections or additions to the minutes of May 27.
Van Driel:
Moved approval of the minutes.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 4-0, Ross and Wells abstaining with respect to the
May 27 minutes due to their absence at that meeting.
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 2
Haase: Made a correction to the April 28 meeting minutes, page 15, middle of
page, that the statement following Smith's comment starting with
"Suggested preliminary approval" was made by Gary Ross, not Rosenthal.
Wells. Interrupted agenda schedule to introduce Planning staff members present.
2. #63-80 Fox Meadows II Rezoning
A request to rezone approximately 15.27 acres currently in the T,
Transitional Zoning District, to R-M-P, Medium Density Planned
Residential District, located at the southeastern corner of Timberline
Road and Horsetooth Road.
Applicant: Bill Tiley, P.O. Box 471, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Wells:
Asked
for further discussion or
questions.
Spahr:
Moved
recommendation of approval
of the rezoning.
Ross: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
3. #61-80 Twin Spruce Farm Subdivision
A one -lot preliminary subdivision plat request on 2.27 acres located
south of Mulberry Street, and 165 feet west of Taft Hill Road, zoned
M-L, Low Density Mobile Home District.
Applicant: Anderson/Frick & Associates, 422 E. Oak St., Fort Collins,
CO 80524.
Wells: Asked for further discussion.
Eckman: Moved recommendation of approval for this item.
Ross: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
4. #27-80 Dixon Creek Zoning
A request to zone 58.7 acres located south of Drake Road and east of
Overland Trail extended to conditional R-P, Planned Residential
zoning.
Applicant: Miller Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West
Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Frank: Gave staff report, stating that this is a petition for R-P zoning with
the condition that the maximum density be 8 dwelling units per acre.
Wells: Asked if petitioner was present.
Carr Bieker: With ZVFK, had advised owners of property that item would be on at
7 p.m., and owners might not make it. Explained that they had
'P & Z Minutes •
6/23/80
Page 3
submitted additional background information relating to the issue of
R-P zoning in the city in general. Stated a limitation of 8 DU/acre
is acceptable to the petitioners. Said they had planned to the extent
that they knew they wanted a mix of patio homes, townhouses and apart-
ment buildings which could be done in three alternative zonings: the
requested zoning would be 58+ acres of R-P with a condition limiting the
density to 8 DU/acre; the second alternative would be 47 acres of R-L-P
with 12 acres of R-M-P; the third would be almost 39 acres of R-L-P,
with 20 acres of R-P at 12 DU/acre. Stated any of the three would work,
but their request is more flexible. Said they had analyzed the impli-
cations of developing large pieces of property in town at an over-all
density of 5 DU/acre and that such development would require that between
1/4 and 1/3 of all future residential land would have to be zoned between
9 and 12 DU/acre in order to achieve compact development and to continue
an over-all 5 DU/acre density for Fort Collins. Said he would be happy
to answer any questions.
Van Driel: Asked whether anyone had done any study on pollution impact since this
area is close to the hills.
Bieker: Replied they had not done any.
Van Driel: Said that in connection with development proposed north of this site there
had been discussion on the possible adverse effects building too close
to the foothills would have.
Waido: Stated that to the knowledge of staff there had never been a study which
had documented the effects of this density in that proximity.
Bieker: Said they had available preliminary sketches showing the intent of their
plans.
Eckman: Asked the location of the Urban Growth Area boundary.
Smith: Replied it runs right down Overland Trail in that area.
Haase: Pointed out that the Brown Farm Commercial Center proposal on the June
26 agenda, if built, would help to meet Policy 80, a, noted on Page 4
of the staff comments packet.
Bieker: Agreed, noting that their figures indicate that it would provide a
valid , to 1% of the city employment factor and would be significant.
Stated it also brings neighborhood shopping in close proximity. Also
pointed out that a neighborhood park is planned for the center of this
section and that public transit should develop as the property develops.
Frank: Stated staff had reviewed both the positive and the negative impacts of
the development and feels that the R-P zone with the 8 DU/acre limitation
is an appropriate density for the site. Pointed out that the city would
have site plan review in this zone to ensure compatibility with the
existing large lot single-family residences which border it on two
sides, and with the single-family residences in the Brown Farm. Said
the proposed zone would also give the developers flexibility and would
give the city the opportunity to ensure that the development would be
compatible with and would integrate into the future neighborhood in this
section. Said he was prepared to go through the city policies and
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 4
discuss the extent
to which they are addressed
by the proposal.
Stated that staff
recommended approval of
the zoning request.
Eckman:
Stated that growth
to the west of the town
is one of the goals of the
city, and that the
location on Drake Road,
a major arterial, and near
the proposed Brown
Farm Commercial Center
also meet city policies.
Moved recommendation
of approval.
Haase: Second.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished to comment on the proposal.
Asked staff if the site were within the Urban Growth Area, but not in
the city, whether the site would meet all the criteria for development.
Smith: Replied that it appears to as it has more than 1/6 contiguity to Brown
Farm, has access to an arterial street system at both Drake and Overland
Trail, has availability of water and sewer.
Wells: Asked if the development to the north would be considered "development".
Smith: Replied affirmatively.
Wells: Asked if the street and sewer capacity costs would be borne by the
developer.
Smith: Replied they would be.
Van Driel: Asked whether density shifting would be necessary due to the fact that
part of the site cannot be built on.
Bieker: Replied there is one significant swale and another which would be an
unlikely place to build, both of which would be used as open space and
for drainage. Stated it would probably not exceed the 15 - 20% P.U.D.
requirement for open space.
Vote: Haase: yes, with appreciation for the excellent assessment of residential
zoning needs of Fort Collins and the county, provided by the architectural
firm, noting that further discussion about the statistical information
is desirable, and that the assessment obviously took a great deal of
work and study and was very helpful to the Board; Van Driel: yes; Wells:
yes, with concerns related to the Land Use Plan, specifically the state-
ment that the City will develop a phased expansion plan for facilities
and services including utility extensions, noting that the implications
for this area are great and it would be nice to know if it really is in
the phased expansion plan, and also that there is no transportation plan
for this area, nor is there an item in the budget for the extension of
Overland Trail, possibly not a feasible project considering the state of
the economy; Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes; Ross: commenting that while the
Land Use Plan stipulates development should be near the core area and
the hospital, this proposal stands on its own merit and the issues have
been adequately addressed, and also noting that utility extension costs
would be borne by the developer and would not be significant burden to
the City.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
'P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 5
5. #193-77 Landscape Change at 1318 South College
Description: A request for a change in the rezoning agreement
regulating the landscaping at 1318 South College Avenue.
Applicant: Larry McCrery, 1719 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dewhirst:
Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to bonding requirements.
Ruggiero:
Clarified the City Attorney's position on this item, pointing out that
at the previous hearing on it, the discussion had deviated from the
landscaping issue to one of access, but that the Board could only review
the landscaping issue as that is and was the item before it.
Wells:
Asked if the alley and access could be considered.
Ruggiero:
Replied that it could not, because it is site -specific and not a
legitimate basis for accepting or denying the change in landscaping.
The landscaping issue should be the question.
Van Driel:
Stated the two are tied together, because the currently proposed land-
scaping effectively blocks the access to the alley previously proposed.
Ruggiero:
Agreed there is a point where they coalesce, but that a distinction
should be.made.
Spahr: Stated they could consider the point of access on the alley though.
Ruggiero: Said it could be considered, but not in terms of denying access entirely.
Eckman: ^sked for clarification of the location of the log cabin.
Dewhirst: Pointed it out.
Eckman: Asked what the agreement stipulated with regard to access.
Dewhirst: Replied that the agreement states that there shall be one point of
access for Lots 3 and 4 and Lots 5 and 6.
Jim Martell: Representing the applicant. Briefly summarized the history of the
property: it had originally been zoned R-L, Low Density Residential, and
was rezoned to R-H, High Density Residential in 1977. The petitioner
had requested a business zoning, but the City had thought that R-L was
inappropriate for the site, as it was almost the only R-L on South
College Avenue, but that Business zoning was also inappropriate. As a
result, the applicant agreed to withdraw his request for Business
zoning, and submit a request for R-H zoning, at the same time agreeing
to the landscape regulations on the site. The reason for the agreement
was that the City was concerned that some high density uses might not be
appropriate for the site because of the high school and the surrounding
residential neighborhood, therefore the purpose of the agreement was to
buffer potential uses by limiting access from College Avenue to one
access, and by stipulating there should be no change to the landscaping
e::ept for the removal of diseased trees, unless such change were
ap,oloved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Pointed out then, that the
issue is not even the landscaping in general, but only whether specific
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 6
pieces of landscaping can be removed. Stated that due to the objections
of neighborhood residents over the alley accesses, the applicant had
dropped his appeal of the previous decision and had submitted a revision
which shows only one access to the alley on the south end of the site,
close to Buckeye Street. Stated this arrangement would make driving
through the property much more difficult. Pointed out that landscaping
and not access is at issue and that the developer had met all the
conditions of the agreement, including retention of most of the landsca-
ping. Said the developer had agreed to provide a fence along the alley
to further block any adverse impact on the residences to the east.
Noted that the City had indicated the property was unsuitable for
residential use and said the developer had done a great deal to make the
project fit into the neighborhood, including limiting the use to general
offices. Asked that the Board recommend the project for approval to
City Council
Wells: Asked for speakers on the issue.
Robert Neel: Resident on Remington Street, behind the property in question. Stated
that he and other residents had supported the R-H conversion, but were
frustrated in trying to deal with the situation. Noted that the
rezoning to R-H had taken place in 1978, but that none of the residents
in the area was notified of that action and they first learned about it
only recently. Stated that in reviewing R-H conversions, the primary
purpose is to consider the impact upon existing residential uses in
the immediate area and that the residents on Remington Street are
strongly trying to protect their neighborhood. Said they had objected
to the previous landscape plan because they felt it would have a serious
adverse impact on the residential quality of the neighborhood. Stated
it was possible they should have fought the R-H conversion, because
they were not so concerned about the location of trees and shrubs as
about the possible destruction of the alley.and the impact on Buckeye,
a very narrow street when high school students' cars are parked on both
sides. Contended that high school students would find a way to zig-zag
through the street, alley and lot and that this new proposal does not
in any way ameliorate the situation in the opinion of the residents.
Presented to the Board two possible sketches of solutions to the parking
and access problem, neither of which utilize the alley. Appealed to the
Board to take into consideration their concerns whether or not they are
appropriate to the landscaping issue. (Sketches appended at end of Minutes
Wells: Asked Ruggiero to comment on whether the Board could consider their
concerns at this time.
Ruggiero: Reminded the Board that they were considering the landscape agreement and
that that is the sole issue for a basis of a decision on the landscape
change.
Wells: Clarified the term, R-H conversion, noting there is a review process for
such conversions, but that this proposal is not an R-H conversion.
Smith: Affirmed that statement, noting that at the last meeting, the same plan
was presented in two steps: the R-H conversion and the landscape plan.
Stated the conversion has not yet gone to City Council, pending resolution
of this issue.
+P & Z Minutes �.
6/23/80
Page 7
Wells:
Asked if there were further comments. Asked for comments by the Board.
Ross:
Asked petitioners how the landscaping along the alley would be watered.
Martell:
Replied that had not been considered, but that underground sprinklers
would probably be installed.
Ross:
Asked if the over-all plan would be subject to performance bonds.
Martell:
Replied in the affirmative.
Ross:
Asked what the treatment would be along the northern boundary.
Dewhirst:
Pointed out what was planned there, noting that a joint curbcut with the
property to the north is planned when that property develops.
Ross:
Asked if there would be any special treatment across the driveways with
respect to the sidewalks.
Dewhirst:
Replied thereno special plans, but that the sidewalk would be on City
property and would be the usual standard and is in fact already in place.
Ross:
Moved recommendation of approval to City Council.
Eckman:
Second.
Smith:
Pointed out that the P & Z Board has the final decision on this matter
unless it is appealed to City Council by the applicant, therefore it
is not a recommendation.
Ross: Amended his motion accordingly. Also amended the motion to include the
provision that approval be subject to bonding requirements.
Eckman: Stated the objecting residents should know his reasoning for seconding
the motion.
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 8
7. #194-79B The Villa Final
A proposal for a final Commercial P.U.D. on 4 acres, consisting of
72,000 square feet of retail and office uses, located on South College
Avenue, south of Foothills Parkway, zoned H-B, Highway Business.
Applicant: Leo Palmer, Suite 2, 1400 Folsom Street,Boulder, CO 80303.
Frank:
Gave staff report, pointing out that the Planning and Zoning Board
had approved the Villa, Preliminary, at the May 27 meeting subject
to several conditions: 1) solution to the access and frontage road
problem along College Avenue and 2) that the Planning and Zoning
Board have an opportunity toreview the final plan, especially with
respect to treatment of the rear of the building. The Board was also
concerned about the building's orientation to the north and its capacity
for passive solar use. Explained that staff felt that applicant had
successfully addressed the P & Z Board concerns, and recommended
approval.
Ross:
Asked for review of plot plan showing landscaping.
Frank:
Explained that approximately 26% of site was devoted to landscaping.
Wells:
Asked if further questions from staff. Asked if applicant would like
to address the Board.
Keith Ames:
Representing Leo Palmer, as one of the architects on the project.
Explained he had been before the Board last year on a smaller
development and felt the basic problem had been solved and was
open to questions.
Eckman:
Stated his main concern last time was the back side and whether
Reynolds Olds would have to look at a solid blank wall, and felt
that had been adequately addressed.
Ross:
Asked if there would be a fence along Larimer County Ditch 2.
Ames:
Explained they would like to hold that open because it is a concrete
ditch now.To leave the north side open could be very pleasant, and
they would rather not fence it.
rr
Ross:
Replied that canals have been used in other places nicely, and
knows it can be done, but did not know what their plan was and
how it would be addressed.
Ames:
Answered that landscaping shrubs are proposed for the south side
of the canal and details of the plan include evergreens and low
maintenance shrubbery.
Wells:
Asked for other questions to the applicant.
Haase:
Expressed continued concern with the siting of this building in
reference to the Land Use Policies 46: "Conservation of resources
and energy shall be addressed by land use, site planning, and
d.sign criteria. and also, #47: The City should encourage by
suitable incentives, the use of non-polluting alternative
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 9
energy sources in all types of development." Stated the explanation
of 47 was applicable to this situation where, on page 41, it makes
reference to "envelope zoning for solar protection" and "lot
orientation." Tied it to page 2 of staff notes: "The use is
located adjacent to similar uses which may promote trip consolidation.
Long axis of buildings is on north -south orientation. However,
entrances will face cold winter winds. No provision for active or
passive solar use or energy efficient building design." Referred
to present example in Fort Collins of Target building on South
College Avenuewith a north orientation. Asked if any serious
consideration regarding this.
Ames: Replied affirmative. Explained the owners had discussed this
thoroughly, and realize the southern exposure would be preferred.
There are valid reasons for this concern, one being exposure.
If the building were put on the north side of the property,
southbound traffic on College Avenue would have minimal exposure
to the building. The other factor is that the grade slopes down
approximately 4 feet, and would create water run-off toward the building.
It becomes a case of economics for the retailer as to the exposure.
The solution was to basically put the building on the south side
of the property. Had a piece of property under option further
south. If the building were on the north side of the property,
the parking would be further away from the building. Walkways
would be provided from the south parking lot into the building,
and would be elevated to provide a first floor effect from both
sides. This was the justification for north exposure. As to
the solar use, the architects have discussed this. With the
present economics so terrible, the payback period -could not
Justify the expense. The building would be wood frame, and they
would use maximum insulation and energy saving devices where
possible.
Wells: Commented she could understand that it was beyond economics on
solar, but was concerned with safety aspects of having a sheet
of ice across the parking lot, especially with a two-story
building.
Ames: Replied the heating system would also help.
Eckman: Remarked different factors are valid for expressed concerns of
northern exposure, but the reasons are there and they are valid.
Wells: Asked for further comments and then Board recommendation.
Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval of the final plat of the Villa P.U.D.
Eckman: Second.
Vote: Haase: Abstained, stating reason for this being recorded as a negative
vote is to alert City Council to this problem of the siting which is
duplicated by various examples in our community. Appreciated all the
reasons, economic factors mentioned, but wished to go on record with
significant concern and alert to City Council members about siting
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 10
of large retail commercial buildings north/south; Van Driel: yes,
reluctantly and shares Mrs. Haase's concern and wished they could
have given some solar treatment to the rear elevation even if they
couldn't turn the building around; Wells: stated she had voted no
on this originally for the reasons discussed tonight, and will vote
no again; Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes; Ross: yes.
Motion carried, 4-1 with 1 absention.
#30-80 Tiley-Chandler Rezoning
Description: A request to rezone approximately 69.2 acres currently
zoned R-P, Planned Residential District to I-P, Industrial Park
District, located on Timberline Road, south of Horsetooth Road.
Applicant: Bill Tiley & Thomas Chandler, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners,
218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Waido:
Described location of site.
Ed Zdenek:
With ZVFK Architects, representing applicant. Discussed the changes
in conditions in the area since the previous zoning, including changes
from R-H to the north, approval of B-P zoning for Greenfield Village,
the development of National Cash Register, Timberline Road having
been designated as a major.arterial, new utilities having been brought
into the area, and the establishment of the Urban Growth Area. Pointed.
out that it is a unique parcel, located near both the railroad and the
highway, and separated from the residential area to the south by 400'
of buffering which would be used as a detention area. Noted the market
demands for jobs in the southeast area, along with Everitt's I-P zoning
to the south, the Platte River Power Authority, NCR and New Hampshire
Life. Stated they had marketing information available.
Wells:
Stated one of their considerations is the current amount of undeveloped
land of the requested zoning and the staff packet states there is 211.5
acres of unsubdivided land in I-P within the city limits. Asked if
the applicant had any comments with respect to justifying further
I-P zoning.
Zdenek:
Replied that there exist both high-technology and low -technology types
of I-P development, the southeast area being high-tech. and the I-P to
the north being low -tech., more oriented to warehousing and distribution.
Stated that according to their analyses 44 acres of this zoning could
be absorbed by the City per year in the southeast, so that with the
current growth rate of the City, there really is not an excessive amount
of I-P zoning.
Spahr:
Noted the petitioner's statement that due to the noise from the railroad
and the six -lane Timberline Road arterial the area is not suitable for
residences. Asked how they reconciled this with the fact that Meadows
East is to the north in the same general area, R-L-P exists immediately
to the west of the subject property and Low Density Residential exists
in the Lake Sherwood properties all through the area.
Zdenek:
Pointed out that neither the railroad nor Timberline Road presently carry
P & Z Minutes • •
6/23/80
Page 11
much traffic, but there is potential for significantly greater amounts.
Ross: Noted that a project with which he is familiar in Wellington was turned
down by FHA due to its proximity to railroad tracks, but that it was
approved by VA, so some confusion does exist. Asked if a rail spur were
provided, whether it could be adequately buffered or screened from the
back.
Zdenek:
Replied that screening could be put in on the west side and that the
train needs to get to the east side of the building, noting also that the
railroad has certain requirements. Stated they would certainly indicate
to the Board how that would be handled prior to development.
Waido:
Gave staff report, recommending approval of the rezoning request.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished to comment on the proposal.
Bill Slimak:
Resident south of the proposal. Expressed concern that the planned
widening of the roads in that area had not taken place and that there
were safety problems because of it, noting that there were some corners
that trucks could not negotiate.
Waido:
Referred to the staff report which states that Timberline will be
improved when the adjacent properties develop.
Eckman:
Asked what the timetable would be for the improvement for the whole
stretch of Timberline from Horsetooth to Harmony.
Waido:
Said the west section of Timberline from Horsetooth to Drake would be
done this year and that it should not be long before other portions of
it would be improved. Noted there was question about what would happen
with the CSU property on the east side of Timberline.
Wells:
Asked if that meant that as long as the CSU property is undeveloped, that
side of the street will not be improved.
Waido:
Replied he could not say that, but that their plans are unknown.
Smith: Stated discussions had been entered into with CSURF so that the whole
street could be improved at once, but that there had been no resolution.
Van Driel: Stated that if he were looking for a home site, he would probably not
pick one between a railroad and a six -lane road, thus an industrial zone
would be appropriate here.
Moved recommendation of approval.
Haase: Second.
Vnte: Ross: yes; Eckman: yes, although it would tend to discourage development
of the Boxelder Cluster to the north, as it is an appropriate use of the
land by virtue of its location and the surrounding uses, noting also that
development is inappropriate until the road is improved; Spahr: yes, with
the hope that future Boards will hold out for a very high quality industrial
park development; Wells: yes, with concern about the large amounts of
existing industrial land in the city, but stated this area is appropriate
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 12
for this type of use; Van Driel: yes, concurring with Spahr's statement
and stating that the road should be developed all at once and not piece-
meal; Haase: yes, stating this appears to be an advantageous addition.to
a new employment corridor in that part of town and to offer a very high
caliber of industrial planning.
Ross: Asked how accurate the figures on existing zoning are with respect to
their potential for development.
Waido: Replied that the figures include all the area in a particular zoning,
pointing out that altho gh a zone may be in a flood fringe or flood
plain, that does not preclude some kind of a development other than a
building, such as parking lots, certain kinds of storage, or, in the
flood fringe, flood -proofed buildings.
Ross: Stated there are areas which cannot be used at the present time but
which are still in the inventory.
Waido: Agreed.
Ross: Said, that therefore the numbers are inaccurate, and asked if there was
any way of knowing which was which.
Waido: Replied he could provide those figures at the next meeting.
Ross: Asked if whether or not the land was buildable was considered in compiling
the figures being used in discussing this item.
Waido:
Replied in the negative.
Haase:
Asked when the Industrial Development Point Assessment System is expected
to be completed.
Waido:
Replied it would be forthcoming in the next few months. Noted that it
was originally in two systems, one for industrial, and one for all other
types of development, but that the two had been combined into a single
system.
Smith:
Stated a draft should be ready by the end of July for public review.
Haase:
Asked if this is the system addressed in Policies 19 and 18•
Smith:
Replied it is and that other elements have also been incorporated.
9. #62-80
Keenland Annexation
Description: A request to annex approximately 617.6 acres, located
south of Harmony Road and east of College Avenue. The requested zoning
is B-P, Planned Business, R-P, Planned Residential, I-P, Industrial Park,
and T, Transition.
Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, P.O. Box 2125, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Chianese:
Gave a description of the site and its location and staff report,
recommending approval of the annexation.
Wells:
Said that it seemed the Urban Growth Area was being used as a criteria
P & Z Minutes . •
6/23/80
Page 13
for evaluating the annexation request. Pointed out that the City's Land
Use Policies Plan states that the following criteria be addressed in
evaluating an annexation petition: an inventory of undeveloped land within
the City, the necessity of the area for a logical growth pattern of the
City, the ability of the City to eventually provide services and facilities
to the area, and a service provision cost/tax revenue analysis for the
area. Expressed doubt that the Urban Growth Area provides for that kind
of thing.
Chianese:
Replied that the Urban Growth Area established the annexation criteria
and that the criterion which says the City will consider for annexation
any area that is eligible under the statutes is the present policy for
annexation.
Wells:
Asked if the Urban Growth Area Agreement does not also state that develop-
ment within the Urban Growth Area within the City will be developed
according to the City Land Use Plan.
Smith:
Replied that the Urban Growth Area states that it will be developed
according to City design standards, but does not specify the Land Use
Plan. Said the Urban Growth Area Agreement established a policy for
annexation and made some formal commitments toward annexation. Noted
the policy states that the City would agree to annex all property within
the unincorporated area of the Urban Growth Area as soon as said
property becomes eligible for annexation. Said their interpretation was
that the Council established this agreement as providing the criteria
for annexation, even though the Land Use Plan called for different
types of criteria.
Eckman:
Asked then what the criteria are which make a property eligible for
annexation.
Smith:
Replied there are a series of state statutory requirements, depending on
the nature of the annexation petition. In terms of a voluntary petition,
said the basic requirement is that 1/6 of the boundary of the annexation
be contiguous to the city limits.
Eckman:
Asked if it was staff's interpretation that the Land Use Plan criteria
were superseded by the Urban Growth Area Agreement and the only criteria
now to be considered are the 1/6 contiguity and the voluntary nature of
the petition.
Smith:
Agreed.
Wells:
Stated this interpretation puts an uncomfortable burden on the Planning
and Zoning Board, pointing out all the work and public hearing that was
put into the Land Use Plan and the faith that people had that it would
be enforced. Said she thought it was not being enforced in this area.
Van Driel:
Stated it seemed to put less of a burden on the Board because sections of
the Urban Growth Area Agreement supersedes and voids certain sections of
the Land Use Plan and the Board has no real choice; the item could as well
be on the Limited Discussion Agenda because, if eligible, it is a foregone
conclusion that it must be approved.
Wells:
Asked the applicant to speak•
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 14
Bob Everitt: Applicant. Stated he would hold his comments for now as the staff had
addressed the annexation issues well.
Wells: Asked for public comment.
Bill Slimak: Asked whether the provision for water and sewer services is considered in
an annexation and whether the City or the South Fort Collins District
would provide such services.
Smith:
Stated that question had been considered in the Growth Area. Said the
commitment upon annexation is that the City will provide the services.
The technical means, whether through contracts with the District if that
is more effective, will be discussed based on engineering studies and
City policies that the most effective entity should provide the services.
Ross:
Asked if with this commitment there has also been some work done to show
that provision of services is possible.
Smith:
Replied there had.
Les Kaplan:
Stated the proposed annexation is consistent with the Urban Growth Area
Agreement which is intended to be a more detailed planning element to
the City Land Use Plan. Also stated that he represents six property
owners who will be proposing annexations south of Harmony Road and that
he wanted the Board to know the extent of these proposals: Huntington
Mews, 295 acres; Lynn Acres, 60 acres; Dick Fuqua's property, 160 acres;
Melvin Kroepel's property, 160 acres; Stan Blehm's property, 160 acres;
and Halcyon Properties, 410 acres; a total of 1245 acres. Noted all
these proposed annexations are voluntary.
Van Driel:
Asked for the locations of those properties.
Kaplan:
Stated he was speaking primarily in support of the Urban Growth Area and
to let the Board know the extent of possible annexations south of Harmony
Road. Pointed out the locations of the various properties.
Wells:
Asked if it would go all the way to County Road 32.
Kaplan:
Replied it would. -
Wells:
Asked why only the undeveloped portions were being requested for annexation.
Kaplan:
Replied that in the case of Fossil Creek Meadows, the owner of the undeve-
loped portion is different from the owner of the developed portion and
wished to disassociate himself from it; in the case of Lynn Acres, the
owners of the developed and undeveloped areas are also different and the
owners of the undeveloped area have their own ideas about developing it;
the remaining properties would probably petition jointly except for
Huntington Mews which had already been submitted. Stated he understood
that the City for the present did not want to pursue annexations of
developed areas where there is potential opposition as in Imperial Estates
and the Harmony -West Horsetooth Annexation.
Wells:
Asked what their incentive for annexation is.
P & Z Minutes . •
6/23/80
Page 15
Kaplan,
Replied the major reason is to remove some of the uncertainty as to what
the rules of the game will be for the future. Stated that knowing the
kinds of land use which will be allowed and the off -site improvements
which will be required will enable the owners to do some long-range
master -planning. Stated that if there were concern that this might lead
to premature development that he did not believe that would be the case,
but that annexation would lend predictability and certainty as to future
development.
Haase:
Asked if there legislative aspects which impact the situation at the
present time.
Kaplan:
Replied in the affirmative.
Gerald Dusbabek: Owner of a small farm just east of the proposed annexation. Stated
that the sooner those blocks are annexed, the sooner the City would have
control of the area. Said that people had asked to buy his property and
were interested in doing so prior to annexation so that they could
develop it at lower standards than would be required by the City. Said
it would improve the value of his property to have City services available
and that he supported the subject annexation.
Wells:
Asked for further comments.
Van Driel:
Stated that he understood that the Keenland property is presently an
active farm and asked what would happen to it in terms of farm animals
and so forth upon annexation.
Smith:
Replied that the annexation would do nothing, but that the zoning could
create some non -conforming uses. Said the zoning would depend on what the
people in the area wanted.
Eckman:
Stated that if it is true that the only criteria for annexation are those
set forth in the Urban Growth Area Agreement, then in a very short time
the City would be annexing the entire southern portion of the Urban Growth
Area. Noted that would not necessarily be bad as it would give the City
the opportunity to plan for its future growth in large blocks and it
fulfills the purpose of the Urban Growth Area. Noted that the staff
referred to the Urban Growth Area boundary as the "present boundary" and
asked what views staff holds as to the permanence of the boundary.
Smith:
Replied that would depend on which part of the boundary was being considered.
Stated that Cqunty Road 32 would be very difficult to change, but that in
other areas it would be a matter of looking at the character of the area,
the amount of development, and addressing the criteria stated in the
Agreement for changing the boundary. Whether the boundary would need to
be changed will depend on future development.
Eckman:
Stated one of the purposes of the Urban Growth Area is to attempt to limit
the growth of the City to the south and to direct some growth in other areas.
Stated he had no objection to filling up the UGA, but was disturbed about
capriciously changing the boundaries in the future and stated he supports
keeping the boundaries firm. Said he supports the subject proposal.
Moved recommendation of approval of the Keenland Annexation.
Haase and Van
Driel: Second.
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 16
Wells: Noted that if the entire UGA were built out with a density average of
about 8 DU/acre in the residentially zoned areas, Fort Collins would have
a population of 220,000, something to keep in mind. Stated the Board is
put in a difficult position, and that she felt uncomfortable making a
recommendation without having heard whether it is a logical growth
pattern, if the City is able to provide services and at what cost, and
a service provision cost/tax revenue analysis for the area. Stated it
is a staggering amount of area to serve at a far-out location, but that
it seems logical to have it within the City for urban -style development.
Considering that only contiguity can be considered, stated they will vote
yes, but expressed dismay that they had been assured three or four years
ago that sprawl would be no problem and that Harmony Road would be the
limit of expansion.
Ross: Stated they could refuse to annex it, but it would still be developed.
Wells: Agreed.
Ross: Said that development would probably not occur to the north until the
south is filled up, due to market demands.
Wells: Stated she was not saying that all development should be to the north,
but that development at this site is sprawl due to the large amount
of undeveloped land north of Harmony Road.
Ross: Called for the question.
Vote: Haase: yes, stating it is essential to annex the Keenland at this time and
land south of that as explained by Mr. Kaplan; Van Driel: yes; Wells: yes;
Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes; Ross: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
10. #64-80 Fox Ridge Annexation
A request to annex approximately 241 acres located one mile south of
Harmony Road and east of Lemay Avenue.
Applicant:; Bill Tiley, P.O. Box 471, Fort Collins, CO 80522
Chianese: Described the site and its location, stating that staff recommended
approval of the annexation.
Ross: Noted that one development leads to the next. Asked, assuming that both
properties are annexed, if there were some kind of an emergency there,
with no access from City streets, what kind of liability the City might
be assuming.
Ruggiero: Asked if there were any access at all.
Smith: Replied that Lemay does extend down there, partly paved and partly not,
along the section line.
Spahr: Asked what the status is of the small triangular parcel which is not
included in either of these annexations.
Chianese: Replied it is included, but was just mis-colored.
P & Z Minutes •
6/23/80
Page 17
Wells: Asked if this item were considered by the county today if it would meet
all the criteria for development.
Chianese: Replied it would not.
Van Driel: Asked if that were because it is not adjacent to other development.
Chianese: Replied that would be the only reason.
Van Driel: Asked if water and sewer and other services were available.
Chianese: Replied they are planned.
Wells: Stated they are not presently available; that the developer would have to
provide them. Asked if there were further questions. Asked the applicant
to address the Board.
Ed Zdenek: Of ZVFK, representing the applicant. Stated he would be glad to answer
any questions.
Spahr: Asked the reason for the small parcel and what its status is.
Zdenek: Stated there is an existing residence there, the owner of which may be
present.
Chianese: Stated staff had been contacted by that owner earlier in the day and he
had expressed interest either in joining this annexation or submitting
a separate one later.
Bob Navin: Stated he is that owner.. Stated that the parcel of land which looks
dark is Gaycrest Stables which he had purchased last August and on which
he presently stables horses --about 24--and they hoped to build from there.
Said there is also a day-care center there. Noted that his property would
be annexed after three years if he held out, but wanted to know what kind
of a situation he would be in as far as his stables are concerned.
Smith: Responded that there was a similar problem with the Werner Annexation and
that that was resolved by a change in the T, Transition Zone, allowing
maintenance of the operation and providing the opportunity for the owner
to submit an expansion plan for the operation which the Council can
consider and which, if approved, would allow for a T zoning with provision
for expansion as approved. Any change in use would then require a change
in zoning. Stated that if it were left out of the City, it could be
annexed pursuant to the three-year requirement and being surrounded by
the City when the City felt it was needed.
Navin: Asked whether it was an automatic annexation after three years.
Smith: Replied it is not, but would have to be initiated by the City.or the
property owner.
Navin: Asked, if after three years, he decided to petition for annexation and asked
for a certain zoning, if he would then come before the Planning Board and
the City Council.
Smith: Replied in the affirmative.
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 18
Wells: Asked if anyone else wished to speak on the proposal.
Van Driel: Moved recommendation of approval of the annexation in light of the
discussion with respect to the Urban Growth Area on the previous item.
Haase: Second.
Wells: Asked that since this site does not meet the criteria for development
in the county, whether it would have to meet those crtieria for development
in the City.
Chianese: Replied it would not.
Wells: Stated that therein lies the incentive for annexation.
Van Driel: Suggested that perhaps he should amend his motion to state "contingent
upon approval of the Keenland Annexation," where it gets its contiguity.
Wells: Stated that as long as the City maintains this position, the whole Urban
Growth Area will be annexed, and the proposed purpose of the UGA--to
phase urban growth into the areas that are ready for it --is not going
to be accomplished. Said it is a gross injustice to those who counted on
this plan to prevent this very thing.
Vote: Ross: yes, but with agreement that this annexation is stretching out
beyond developable property for the first time and that.he struggles with
it; Eckman: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: no, because the last item meets the
criteria for development, but this one does not, and until the City
resolves the policy question of whether it is going to apply the same
criteria within the City as it does without, stated she would vote "no"
or abstain on such items as don't meet the development criteria outside
the City limits; Van Driel: yes; Haase: yes.
Wells: Stated she hoped to meet with City Council soon on the issue.
11. #62-80 Keenland Zoning
A request to zone approximately 617.6 acres; located south of Harmony
Road and east of College Avenue. The requested zoning is B-P, Planned
Business, R-P, Planned Residential, I-P, Industrial Park, and T, Transition.
Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, P.O. Box 2125, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
12. #64-80 Fox Ridge Zoning
A request to zone approximately 241 acres, located one mile south of
Harmony Road and east of Lemay Avenue to B-P, Planned Business, and
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Bill Tiley, P.O. Box 471, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Wells: Stated that these two items would be discussed together and then would
be considered and voted upon separately.
Chianese: Pointed out that the land area being considered is quite large, over 600
acres in one and 240 acres in the other. Explained the proposed zoning.
Bob Everitt: Applicant for the Keenl.and Zoning, and president of Everitt Enterprises.
P & Z Minutes • •
6/23/80
Page 19
Gave two letters each to the Planning and Zoning Board members, one of
which has to do with the concept they are trying to accomplish with their
total plan south of Harmony Road. Read that letter (attached at the end
of these Minutes). Pointed out their concept plan indicating where they
planned to put different uses. Asked how the Board wished to proceed.
Wells:
Stated they would like to hear the Fox Ridge presentation next. Said
also that the Board would be looking for Land Use Policy Plan justifica-
tion for the proposed zoning.
Ed Zdenek:
With ZVFK Architects/Planners, representing the applicant. Said he
would point out the proposed uses for their property and indicated they
were in agreement with most of the proposed uses for the Keenland Annexa-
tion except for the neighborhood shopping center internalized. Pointed
out the location of the B-P zone in Golden Meadows north of Harmony which
is to be a neighborhood center which they feel would be in direct conflict
with the proposed neighborhood center. Discussed their reasons for the
designation of their proposed neighborhood center in preference to the
one in Keenland. Also expressed concern that the proposed B-P for the
convention center is almost identical in scale to the Arena proposal which
they had brought before the Board several months ago. Stated that area
should also be restricted from neighborhood commercial uses.
Wells:
Asked for any questions.
Dick Rule:
Currently owns and resides on the central portion of property, zoned T.
Stated that the T zoning had come about after several discussions with
the Everitt people when it seemed unclear what they were going to do.
Stated it had always been his intent to go along with the annexation and
that his hope had been to get a B-P zoning limited to an office park of
20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. Said he had not presented anything but verbal
discussions to the staff, but asked the Board to consider changing the
T zone to B-P or limit it to office uses.
Van Driel:
Asked how the property was currently being used.
Rule:
Stated it is the old Nesbitt homestead farm and has a farmhouse, barn and
several outbuildings. Said they bought it five years previously and have
resided there since.
Wells: Asked whether he wanted to be a part of this zoning or if he just wanted to
get some feedback and come back later with his own.petition.
Rule: Replied that his�� qns had been clear since a year ago when he had
first looked at t��,�prWal and that he would like the Board to consider
the property as B-P.
Wells: Stated it would take a formal request and staff evaluation in order for the
Board to consider it, but that he could get important information as to
how the Board is considering the surrounding property from this hearing.
Rule: Replied that would be acceptable.
Chianese: Gave staff report and recommendation, relating the proposal to the Land Use
Plan. Stated staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning with three
conditions:
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 20
1. that the
site be
developed
under a unified master plan;
2. that the
commercial allotment
for the residential area be waived in
light of
the two
B-P sites
proposed;
3. that the
site be
limited to
8 DU/acre on the R-P ground.
Wells:
Asked if the
8 DU/acre limit is
in conformance with the applicant's
proposal.
Chianese:
Stated that
from the
applicant's
displayed master plan, it would be more
than adequate.
Gave staff report on the Fox Ridge Annexation, recommending approval subject
to the condition that development occur under a unified master plan.
Ross: Asked if staff were recommending approval of all proposed B-P.
Chianese: Replied in the affirmative.
Wells: Asked whether staff would recommend approval of that much B-P if it had
been all one proposal.
Chianese: Replied that in terms of the spatial requirements of a neighborhood center,
probably one of the centers meets the criteria better than the other, but
there are attributes to the sites as proposed.
Ross: Asked Everitt if they had a unit per acre plan on the display.
Everitt: Replied that there is a designated density on each of the parcels.
Ross: Asked for the over-all average.
Everitt: Stated it ranges from about 5 to 7.2.
Ross: Said that a limit of 8 would not then cause problems.
Everitt: Replied it would not. Introduced Ron Hoisington, their planner; who would
speak on their business plan for the neighborhood center.
Ron Hoisington: Planning consultant for THK, located in Denver. Quoted statistics
which he felt should be considered with respect to locating neighborhood
shopping centers: 3000 dwelling units proposed in the Harmony Farms
development, at 3 persons per unit would yield 9000 population. Including
Fairway Estates and some of Fossil Creek, there would be about 9800
population, 80% of the need for a neighborhood shopping center. Stated
that while locational criteria must be considered, it is inconceivable that
they are responsible to the City in bringing forth a development that would
yield 80% of the need for a neighborhood shopping center and not providing
for one. Said it is also inconceivable that even though another center
has been approved north of Harmony Road, that it would be proper to bring
50% of the population he had been discussing across Harmony Road to shop.
Stated they should be kept in the bounds of the area to the south. Stated
they had no problems with restricting the 22 acres of B-P east of Lemay
and south of Harmony to a non -supermarket area as requested by Mr. Zdenek,
and that they had no objections to their B-P area, but felt it would be
inadequate for the 3000 households they were planning.
P & Z Minutes • •
6/23/80
Paqe 21
Eckman: Asked their timetable for beginning and completing this development.
Everitt: Replied that due to the planning process for utilities and so forth, they
would not be able to begin for at least a year, and that it would probably
take ten years to develop.
Ross: Asked if they would need a 70% build -out before they could support the
smaller B-P.
Everitt:
Replied it would probably be between 50% and 70%. Stated that merchants
understand they will have to fulfill the need before it is 100% in order to
get into the marketplace.
Van Driel:
Stated they may have some lean times at first.
Everitt:
Replied that that happens.
Eckman:
Asked Zdenek when his client anticipates starting development.
Zdenek:
Replied their starting date will depend on the schedule of development of
the Everitt property, probably 5 to 7 years in the future.
Van Driel:
Stated fossil Creek Parkway needs considerable upgrading to make it a
collector street and asked if separate ownership would cause problems.
Zdenek:
Replied that was correct and that city staff is currently looking at the
realignment and upgrading of the street probably to current City standards
for collector streets.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished to comment on the proposed zoning.
Bill Slimak:
Stated he liked the idea of the hotel, but thought it might be better
planning to have it at the intersection of Timberline and Harmony.
Van Driel:
Asked Everitt to respond to that suggestion.
Everitt:
Stated he did not think that a travelling man would want a hotel at the
busiest intersection in town, and that its location on a major east -west
street is a good one and near the industrial and office development in the
area. Stated that as the area grows there will probably be a need for more
than one hotel complex.
Ross:
Said there will be more hotel/motel building on Highway 14 and some on
Harmony and Timberline and could see no reason why one should be done before
another.
Eckman:
Stated the complex before them now is on Lemay and Harmony and they don't
have the option of suggesting one on Timberline. Asked Everitt to discuss
what the I-P zone would contain.
Everitt: Replied it has a railroad track on the east boundary, so there would be a
limited amount of warehouse space, also office complexes nearer the hotel/
motel complex, and industries similar to NCR.
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 22
Ross: Asked staff to clarify the reasons for suggesting the 22 acre hotel/
restaurant area be limited to that use.
Smith: Suggested one option one would be simply to exclude the neighborhood
grocer/drug store type of use, or to condition approval on the types of
uses discussed in the Everitt letter, either way limiting the use to
a hotel/restaurant type of development.
Everitt: Said they have no problem at all with excluding a grocery store there,
but did not think they would want to limit it to just the things on the
list in the letter.
Ross:
With respect to the conflict over B-P zoning, stated the marketplace should
determine which one is most appropriate.
Wells:
Stated she was disturbed because in the discussion on the Golden Meadows
B-P north of Harmony, the fact that it would serve the area to the south
figured very strongly.
Ross:
Stated it would serve that area until it is built up enough to support
another center.
Van Driel:
Pointed out that at that time they were considering Harmony Road as the
south boundary of the City.
Haase:
Asked for a quick review and description of the Golden Meadows facility.
Bill Tiley:
20% partner in Golden Meadows. Briefly reviewed the Board's concerns
about the location of the B-P zoning in Golden Meadows, noting that they
are the reason the B-P exists where it presently is. Said that they
had considered Harmony to be the City limits at one time, but that when
a property becomes developable, it will develop. Stated that 22 acres is
a large hotel/motel site, probably 70,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. of shopping,
which could be competitive with the Golden Meadows. Said that restrictions
placed north of Harmony should also be placed on development south of
Harmony. Stated he felt some conflict as he had formerly been partners
with Everitt, but that he knew each of them would build good developments.
Said that the hotel/restaurant complex is needed by the City and would be
a good one.
Everitt:
Stated they did not envision the complex as only a hotel site, but also
a site for recreation, entertainment and restaurants which will serve not
only the hotel but also the industry/office complex in the area. Said that
as far as their development is concerned this neighborhood center is in the
middle of their population and is in the right location to serve their
development and Fairway Estates as well.
Van Driel:
Asked if by recreational facilities he meant bowling alleys and possibly a
skating rink.
Everitt:
Agreed, adding that they would also consider indoor tennis, racquetball
and handball courts.
Van Driel:
Stated such facilities take a great deal of square footage.
Smith:
Responding to Ross's earlier question, stated that if they wanted to
P & Z Minutes • •
6/23/80
Page 23
condition the zoning he would suggest eliminating the grocery store
use listed in the B-P zone which would circumvent any neighborhood -
type facility.
Van Driel: Stated there may be other inappropriate B-P uses.
Spahr: Asked, to help judge the scale, how big the Foothills Fashion Mall is.
Everitt: Replied it is about 60 acres, including the development north of Foothills
Parkway.
Eckman: Stated the suggested zonings seem to be appropriate.
Moved recommendation of approval of the Keenland Zoning, subject to the
conditions suggested by staff and the condition that the large B-P zone be
conditioned by the prohibition of grocery stores.
Haase: Second.
Wells: Stated that it is difficult to discuss the zoning as it is hard to see into
the future. Pointed out that there are parts of town which were recently
doing well which are now blighted, but that it is still more attractive
to build new than to rehabilitate the older areas.
Ross: Stated those older areas would eventually see a change of use.
Called for the question.
Vote: Haase: yes, commenting that market factors will dictate the build -out of
this project and that rezoning would be a possibility if necessary, and
expressing appreciation for the very complete plan brought in on Harmony
Farms development; Van Driel: yes, noting that he would prefer not to
see the lower B-P area, but that the marketplace would determine its
success; Wells: yes; Spahr: no, commenting he was uncomfortable with the
large amount of B-P, but that the developers had done a good conceptual
plan; Eckman: yes, noting that it is a large area, but that these
applicants would probably develop it well; Ross: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 1.
Ross: Moved approval of the Fox Ridge Zoning, subject to staff conditions.
Eckman: Second.
Vote: Ross: yes; Eckman: yes; Spahr: no; Wells: no, for the reasons expressed
about the annexation; Van Driel: yes; Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 4 - 2.
13. 12 Month Extension to existing Prospect/Lemay Office Park P.U.D.
requested by Gefroh Associates
Smith: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Ross: Moved approvel of the request.
Haase: Second.
Wells: Asked for comments.
P & Z Minutes
6/23/80
Page 24
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
Wells: Adjourned meeting at 10:15 p.m.
• rR '/-W
r
everitt enterprises 3000 South College Avenue; P.O. Box 21251Ft. Collins, Colorado 50522/Telephone 303-226-15W
June 23, 1980
To the Planning and Zoning Board
and Fort Collins City Staff:
HARMONY FARMS
The Concept Plan for Harmony Farms is intended to provide a strong, cohesive
development of mixed use and business opportunity, with careful attention
to the physical qualities of the land. Harmony Farms reflects the strong
market trends on the Harmony Road corridor toward employment -oriented land
uses such as office -industrial and retail commercial. The Motel/Hotel
Center, the Office -Industrial Park, and the Neighborhood Shopping Center
have been positioned so as to strengthen the business, technic-'l and in-
dustrial community now growing in this area of South Fort Collins. The
planned residential community will provide quality living environments
proximate to the employment center, and featuring a variety of life styles,
housing types; and recreational amenities.
Overall planning objectives utilized in the development of this land use
plan include:
1. Adherence to economic data and market feasibility
2. Appropriate land use decisions relative to topography, drainage
protection, views, and other site features, and respect for
existing land uses adjacent to the property.
3. Provision of amenities for the residential community, including
neighborhood shopping, an elementary school, public parks and
open space, and private recreation facilities.
4. Convenient, controlled vehicular access and a distinct pedestrian
circulation system to the above -mentioned amenities, as well as
the availability to walk to work.
June 23, 1980
Harmony Farms
Page Two
5. Recognition of Harmony Road as a major entrance to the City of
Fort Collins. Land uses adjacent to Harmony Road provide
opportunities for interesting and aesthetically appealing
architectural and landscape treatments.
The Office -Industrial Park shown will include both corporate office
facilities and light industrial uses, enhanced by rail service capability
from the -Union Pacific tracks along the eastern boundary of the site.
The development will feature a hotel -motel complex, restaurants and
specialty shopping overlooking a man-made lake which will act as a visual
hub for the business areas.
The residential community will offer a broad range of housing types,
from Tow density single family detached to cluster and patio homes, town -
homes, and apartments. In addition to the full package of facilities
and services, the residential area also will feature two man-made lakes
with the opportunity for water -oriented living and associated recreation.
Our feeling is that Harmony Road will be a major entrance into Fort Collins
and we plan to be very sensitive to the treatment of the entire frontage
along Harmony Road. Bill Tiley and Hewlett-Packard have done an excellent
job in starting to set the tone on the north side of Harmony Road. .
Our plan is to cooperate with the City in a plan for an early improve-
ment of Lemay Avenue south of Harmony Road. We feel this is a very necessary
addition to the entire north -south planning of movement of traffic between
Loveland and Fort Collins.
Our Neighborhood Center has been placed more in the center of the resi-
dential population so there will be a minimum of necessity to cross busy
streets to reach the facility. The center has been placed at the corner
of an arterial and a collector which will be signalized for those who
cannot reach it from the wed. Zae;
The Motel/Hotel Complex with all the auxiliary facilities around it such
as the recreation complexes, specialty shopping, many different restaurant
types and price ranges will be made very accessible by the improvement
of Lemay Avenue as well as acceleration and deceleration lanes on Harmony
Road. Traffic patterns leading to both the hotel complex and the neighbor-
hood center from within the development have also been addressed to keep
the flow internally rather than have to use Harmony Road.
June 23, 1980
Harmony Farms
Page Three
We feel that this development will meet or exceed the general criteria
which is outlined in the Corridor Study and the Urban Growth Plan. Our
goal is to provide the City of Fort Collins with the very best planned
development that will be a credit to the entire area. We respectfully
ask your passage of the first step in this process by annexation and
zoning of the property.
Respectfully submitted,
EVERITT ENTERPRISES, INC.
Robert S. Everitt, President
RSE:kw
4
everltt enterprises 3000 Sot.;r, Colleye AvcoUe P.O. Box 2125, Ft. Collins. Colorado 805221Telephone 303 226-1x 0
June 23, 1980
To the Planning and Zoning Board
and Fort Collins City Staff:
HARMONY FARMS
The schematic drawings and art work submitted to you in this
presentation are designed to show you in as descriptive manner as
possible what we envision for this development. Our presentation this
evening is a result of 1 1/2 years of study and is in no way an effort
to indicate final design or final placement of buildings.
The presentation does, however, indicate our development plans for the
various areas. Our presentation is a result of a complete market study
done by a professional economic research company.
Our plans are to provide all recreational and commercial activities in
and around the hotel/motel complex. These activities and uses would
include:
1. Many different restaurant types and price ranges
2. Health clubs and recreational activities of all types .
3. Theaters - multi -screen
4. High -end specialty center to capture retail sales now going
to Denver
5. Small boutique shops
6. Gift shops
7. Pet shops
8. Small auto repair and parts to support cars in both hotel and
surrounding residential as well as office and industrial
area.
9. City sub -stations
In the Neighborhood Center on the west side of Lemay we would plan for
the fol owing:
1. Large grocery store - full line
2. Large drug store - full line
June 23, 1980
Harmony Farms
Page Two
3. Other auxiliary uses:
a. Doughnut shop
b. Shoe repair
c. Office supply
d. Fabric store
e. Hair stylist
f. Post Office
9. Laundromat
h. Cleaning and pressing
i. Dental and medical offices
j. Real estate and insurance offices
We have been sensitive to the low density area to the west of us
(Fairway Estates) and have planned for increasingly low density as we go
from east to west on our entire parcel. KEM Homes will be building in
this area and most of you are familiar with the quality of their Mission
Hills development as well as their present Parkwood East development
plans.
Very high density will be grouped around the hotel complex and office and
industrial areas. We plan to make it very easy to walk to work and also
have recreational facilities easily accessible as well as shopping
within walking distance from the entire development.
Our plans are to offer every conceivable price range of living units
from the large residential lots to the patio home and condominium units
for the first time buyer.
Respectfully submitted,
EVERITT ENTERPRISES, INC.
Robert44& S. Everitt, Presi en� tt
RSE:kw