HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 05/27/1980, r 0
j% LAC. 1 c
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
May 27, 1980
Board Present: Paul Eckman, Robert Evans, Carolyn Haase, Gary Spahr,
Ed Van Driel, Phyllis Wells
Staff Present: Curt Smith, Paul Deibel, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark,
Susan Epstein, John Dewhirst
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Explained the advisory function
of the board and the procedures to be followed during the meeting.
Stated that the board had reviewed the items previously during a work
session and that they each had a packet prepared by staff giving
background and technical information on the items. Said the board's
decisions would be made on the basis of this information, public
input, and the city's Land Use Policies Plan. Introduced Planning
Division staff. Explained the procedure for the Limited Discussion
Agenda. Stated Items 5 and 12 had been continued or tabled.
1. Minutes of April 28, 1980 meeting.
Van Driel: Moved approval of the minutes.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
2. #49-80 Wolf Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 1.6 acres from 0-Open to I-1, Indus-
trial, located south of Lincoln Avenue and west of Link Lane.
Applicant: Harry Wolf, 900 Greenfield Court, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Smith: Read description of the item, noting that staff recommended approval.
Wells: Stated that board members wished discussion on the item.
Spahr: Asked for an explanation of the conditions for development included in
the staff packet.
Smith: Replied that those six items do not have to be met before the County
approves the zoning, but before it can consider a development request.
Stated the zoning is in compliance with the policies of the Urban Growth
Area.
Wells: Stated that zoning seems to be the first phase of development. Said
that from her understanding of the Intergovernmental Agreement, phasing
of development is desirable as evidenced by the six items before -
mentioned, and zoning sets the stage for such development. Stated
that as there is considerable industrial zoning closer to the city
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 2
which is not being utilized, it does not meet the goals of the Urban
Growth Area Agreement to approve industrial zoning as proposed,
especially as this area is not ready for development. Said that
closer development would more efficiently use services on available
land.
Van Driel:
Questioned whether the proposal could meet condition no. 5, although
there is some development beyond it.
Wells:
Stated the main issue is in the interpretation of the Urban Growth
Area Plan --whether development is considered approval of the building
permit, or approval of a zoning which makes a much more intense use
very likely.
Spahr:
Stated the proposal seemed to be counter to concentrated land -use
policy.
Haase:
Asked if the County Planning Commission had reviewed this request.
Smith:
Replied they had not.
Wells:
Stated they were just beginning to implement these policies and that
this is a time for interpretation. Stated she disagreed with the
interpretation that zoning be approved before the conditions for
development have been met.
Eckman:
Said it seemed to him that this property is not that far from existing
industrial uses and is in the Boxelder Cluster for industrial uses so
a Limited Industrial zoning would be appropriate.
Moved recommendation of approval of the rezoning.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Eckman: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: no, to express the need to have this
interpretation cl.arified--whether an area which does not meet the
development criteria should be rezoned; Evans: yes; Van Driel: yes,
although sharing Wells' concerns; Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 1.
3. #55-80
MacDonald Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 160 acres from O-Open to I -Industrial,
located h mile west of I-25, on the south side of Vine Drive.
Applicant: Norman MacDonald, c/o Les Kaplan, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521.
Smith:
Described item, recommending approval.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Les Kaplan:
Representing applicant. Stated he wished to address in advance some
of the concerns expressed during discussion on the previous item.
Stated that the criteria mentioned are for phasing of development, not
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 3
for land -use designation. Stated the zoning is being requested due
to the fact that the property is surrounded on three sides by indus-
trial zoning, and any other use would be highly unlikely. Said there
is ample residential zoning adjacent to the north in the Country Club
area with Vine Drive providing a clear delineation between the two
types of uses. Pointed out that the property is near the airport and
I-25.
Harold Fisher: Representing the purchaser of the property. In support of the Indus-
trial zoning, pointed out the diagonal route of the Colorado and
Southern Railroad from northwest to southeast across the property.
Stated the developer was planning on immediate development of the
property.
Wells: Stated she had some of the same concerns on this item as on the previous
one, and that they were more emphatic due to the greater distance from
urban services. Said the area could not be serviced by public transpor-
tion in the foreseeable future; access is not to urban standards; many
closer -in areas with industrial zoning have not been developed; probably
many of the development criteria have not been met. Noted that in Fort
Collins' Policy Plan there are specific comments about evaluation of
industrial development according to a point system to be established
six months after the adoption of the Policy Plan (August, 1979) which
would address positive and negative economic, social and environmental
impacts; availability of needed resources; and would allow development
only if development will have an over-all positive impact on the area.
Quoted further from the plan that this would include incentives for
industry to adjust to all publicly desired and adopted goals and
objectives such as contiguity; strengthening of the core area; allevia-
tion of air pollution, local unemployment, congestion; conserving water
and energy. Noted there is no point system yet, but felt this location
would not rate very high on the point system and said that approving
rezoning at this time at this location would not be phasing development
from the core area outwards or promoting in -fill.
Van Driel: Asked how the area would be serviced with water and sewer.
Fisher: Replied services would be provided by the districts. Described the
location of available services and also the plans for access.
Van Driel: Asked if the southern access would be off Redwood.
Fisher: Replied it would be off Highway 14.
Smith: Asked how they were planning on meeting the Urban Growth Area criteria
of access to an improved arterial street.
Fisher: Replied their access would go to Highway 14.
Van Driel: Asked if that road would be west of the Sale Barn.
Fisher: Replied it would be the first cross -over on Highway 14 west of the
Holiday Inn by about 3/4 mile, approximately half -way between Summitview
and I-25. Said some access to the north is needed in that area anyway.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 4
Kaplan:
Discussed the probable plans for the surrounding area. Pointed out
that between this property and the Pickett Annexation there are three
other annexations in the works. Stated that one way of meeting the
phasing criteria is that they intend to have this area annexed. Said
they recognize the phasing plan which they see as distinct from the
land -use issue. Pointed out that the property is adjacent to a bur-
geoning residential area to the north with excellent buffering; has
proximity to arterial streets and potentially to mass transportation;
has proximity to the airport and the railroad. Emphasized they were
not intending to develop the property prematurely, and that if necessary,
they would likely pursue annexation.
Eckman:
Asked if the industrial zoning were on the west, south and east, what
the zoning to the north is.
Kaplan:
Replied it is FA-1, a good transition between the industrial area and
the residential area. Pointed out that the owners of the property
along Vine Drive to the north and northwest were presently forming
agreements which would eventually result in annexation. Noted that
the city is looking for annexation to the north--job-producing indus-
try, residential activity --to alleviate some of the growth pressure
to the south. Contended that this is in -fill zoning as it is surrounded
by an intense urban zoning district.
Eckman:
Stated that while the area is not ready for development, if considering
only land -use, it seemed industrial use would be appropriate.
Wells:
Pointed out that future needs are getting more and more difficult to
predict. Stressed the large amount of this kind of zoning within and
close to the city limits, and stated she felt cautious about making a
land -use designation change which is basically irreversible, especially
to a lower -intensity use. Contended the decision should be postponed
until the facilities and services are there.
Haase:
Moved recommendation of approval of the rezoning.
Eckman:
Second.
Vote:
Haase: yes, stating it is appropriate zoning, applicable to the surroun-
ding area at the present time, and aptly described as "in -fill zoning";
Van Driel: yes, reluctantly, stating that it is premature as it cannot
possibly meet the criteria for development at the present due to lack
of contiguity with existing development; Evans: no, agreeing with Wells'
comments; Wells: no, for previously stated concerns, because zoning is.
premature, and because development of the site will be very costly to
the community in terms of air pollution, service provision costs espe-
cially once the area is annexed, and finally because this seems not to
be land -use planning but reaction to an individual request without
consideration of the total picture; Spahr: yes, with concern that an
unbroken band of industrial use is being created a mile wide north to
south which emphasizes the barrier to development to the north already
presented by the railroad and the river; Eckman: yes, also with concern
about the amount of industrial zoning.
Motion carried, 4 - 2.
P & Z Minutes • •
5/27/80
Page 5
Smith:
4. #40-80
Stated he would try to come up with some clarification concerning
development in the Urban Growth Area.
New Hampshire Preliminary Subdivision
A proposal for a preliminary subdivision of four lots on 37 acres,
located west of Timberline Road and north of Danfield Court, zoned
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential and R-H, High Density Residen-
tial.
Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, 3000 W. College Avenue, Fort Collins,
CO 80525.
Smith:
Gave item description, stating staff recommends approval.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished discussion.
Haase:
Asked for information from the applicant on Item II, 3, of the staff
comments with respect to drainage.
Gary Haxton:
With Everitt Enterprises. Stated that the whole lot to the north will
be a detention pond until the storm drainage is worked out, but that
eventually it will be townhouses surrounding a smaller pond. Pointed
out that this area is adjacent to NCR.
Van Driel:
Asked if this was part of the area which drains into Bath Landscaping.
Haxton:
Replied it is not. Stated it drains across the road through a series
of pipes onto CSU property and some work will have to be done on it.
Haase:
Asked Mauri Ruple of the city engineering staff to comment on the
drainage.
Ruple:
Confirmed that the area is under storm drainage study now.
Van Driel:
Asked staff or counsel if it were appropriate for the board to recommend
approval of the proposal with that issue unresolved, with the statement
that it would have to be resolved prior to final approval.
Smith:
Replied that that is the normal procedure, that preliminary drainage
submittals are submitted with the preliminary and a final detailed
submittal comes in at the time of final, so such approval would be
appropriate.
Spahr:
Moved recommendation of approval of the proposal.
Haase:
Second.
Evans: Asked whether the proposal would come back to the P & Z Board.
Smith: Replied that the initial development would not, but would be done under
a building permit as a subdivision as provided for in the R-H ordinance.
Stated that subsequent development would probably come back as a P.U.D.
Evans: Stated he was reluctant to approve such a large parcel without seeing
the plan before it is built, especially the north half.
Minutes
wZ
7/80
Page 6
Smith:
Stated the R-L-P would have to come back unless they did something
with single-family homes. Said the only area anticipated to develop
is one of the R-H lots as an office building which will meet the
restrictive requirements of the new R-H ordinance. Suggested bringing
a site plan before the P & Z Board so they could see how development
will be done under the new ordinance without a P.U.D. Pointed out
that the Board would probably be seeing more P.U.D.'s in the R-H zone
to address alternate ways of handling the R-H requirements.
Evans:
Amended the motion to require that the site plan be reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Board.
Spahr:
Accepted the amendment.
Haase:
Accepted the amendment.
Smith:
Asked if the board was requiring the site plan only, not that a P.U.D.
be submitted.
Evans: Asked if they would not see the P.U.D. anyway.
Smith: Replied that under the code, a P.U.D. is not required in the R-H zone,
but only a site plan and a building permit application.
Evans: Stated he wished to see the site plan regardless of the method they
use.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
Haxton:
Asked for clarification of what the motion had done.
Wells:
Replied the board had recommended approval but would like to see the
site plan prior to development.
Haxton:
Stated they had a site plan they could show the board for that one lot
with them.
Wells:
Said their concern was about the impact of the development of such a
large lot as a single lot on the surrounding area, noting that they
have no input except on P.U.D.'s.
Haxton:
Stated they will be developing one four -acre site and the remainder
will not be developed for some time.
Van Driel:
Stated he would prefer to see the site plan in June rather than at the
present, so he could have a chance to study it.
Wells:
Asked Ruggiero what perogatives the board has in this situation.
Ruggiero:
Replied that Mr. Van Driel's suggestion could be accomplished.
Smith:
Stated that the legal problem is that a subdivision cannot be conditioned
on a site plan. The board can see it, and comment on it, but if it
meets all the requirements of the R-H zone and the subdivision is
approved, the city would have to approve it; the board would have no
formal review.
P & Z Minutes S
5/27/80
Page 7
Wells
Smith:
Stated then that the final of the subdivision plan would not address
site -specific things, and there is no way the board can require that
kind of detail.
Concurred.
Eckman: Stated that if the board cannot require that they see it, then they
should see the site plan tonight or go on to the next item rather
than asking the applicant to come back.
Smith: As an example, stated that the site plan had been informally submitted
to the staff and the zoning officer had reviewed it for compliance with
the R-H zone requirements and said it was in compliance.
Van Driel: Said review tonight would be moot unless the vote were retracted if
the board disliked the site plan.
Smith: Suggested the board reconsider its action as it is not legally binding
on the applicant.
Eckman: Moved retraction of the original motion and recommendation of approval
of the subdivision as proposed.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
Van Driel: Suggested staff consider creation of another zone between R-H and
Business zones which would be exclusively for office use due to the
extensive use of R-H for business.
Smith: Replied that there has been a lot of discussion on that issue, but that
staff had concentrated its effort on developing the whole new review
system which should address that issue. Said the new system should be
ready for review in about a month, and once reviewed, if the board
would still see a need for a new zone, it could be developed.
Wells: Suggested that even though the board does not review subdivision site
plans, it would be helpful for them to see a couple of submissions under
the new R-H criteria at a work session. Also said it might be helpful
if some developers could come and present what they would do with the
site.
Smith: Stated they would bring this site plan back to the next work session and
show what would be done with it.
5. #69-78A Greenbriar Condominiums Preliminary P.U.D.
Continued.to June 23.
6. #194-79B The Villa Preliminary P.U.D.
A proposal for a preliminary Commercial P.U.D. on four acres, consisting
of 72,000 squ e feet of retail and office uses, located on South College
Avenue, south oothills Parkway, zoned H-B, Highway Business.
Applicant: Leo Palmer, Suite 2, 1400 Folsom Street, Boulder, CO 80303.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 8
Smith:
Described the proposal, recommending approval.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Evans:
Asked about the status of a bridge across the canal.
Smith:
Replied they had worked out a solution for access which would come
off College along the south side of the canal. Stated this one-way,
right -turn -in -only access to the frontage road might alleviate some
of the problems at Foothills Parkway, according to the Traffic
Division. Said they had a commitment from the applicant that they
would participate in the construction of a bridge connecting the two
frontage roads if it became necessary.
Van Driel:
Moved to recommend approval subject to solution of the afore -mentioned
traffic problems.
Spahr:
Second.
Wells:
Asked to see elevations of the rear of the building.
Jack Cornils:
With Keith James & Associates, Architects, representing the applicant.
Stated the back had not yet been designed, but that it would have some
of the same character as the front.
Wells:
Asked how tall the building would be.
Cornils:
Replied the tallest part would be 35'.
Wells:
Asked if they had considered orienting the building to the south
instead of the north.
Cornils:
Replied that the site slopes downward from the south which would have
required a lot of land change and that the owner wanted the northern
exposure to attract people driving south.
Wells:
Pointed out the potential for ice -covered parking lots in the winter.
Cornils:
Replied that Mr. Palmer had said he had no problems with his other
shopping center which is also oriented to the north.
Wells:
Stated there were policies in the Policies Plan for conserving energy,
and said that this particular design, with the northern exposure, seemed
designed to use energy.
Cornils:
Replied there would be windows on the south.
Wells:
Said it was difficult to judge without seeing an elevation, and noted
that many buildings have solid back walls.
Eckman:
Asked if there would be just concrete block walls with windows or if
there would be real access.
Cornils:
Replied there would be service access at the rear and second story
windows. Said there would be wood trim and stucco and brick like the
front.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 9
Eckman:
Asked what the slope of the land is there.
Cornils:
Replied it is 5 to 6 feet, and pointed out the direction of the slope.
Spahr:
Amended the motion to recommend approval subject to final review by
the Planning and Zoning Board, especially with respect to the treatment
of the rear of the building.
Van Driel:
Accepted the amendment.
Smith:
Asked what specific conditions they wished to have addressed as this
has been submitted as a preliminary and final and all the drawings
have been completed, so it would return as a final just as it is without
more specific directions.
Wells:
Stated there is concern about the appearance of the rear of the building,
and its capacity for solar exposure.
Smith:
Asked if.they would like to see elevations of the rear side of the
building.
Wells:
Replied they would.
Vote: Haase: yes, with support for Wells' concerns about the north orientation
of a wide expanse of retail space; Van Driel: yes; Evans: yes; Wells: no;
Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes, although with concern about the northern expo-
sure.
Motion carried, 5 - 1.
7. #112-79B Four Seasons Master Plan (formerly Chism P.U.D.)
A master plan proposal on 155.96 acres consisting of 935 residential
dwelling units, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Residential, located on the
southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street.
Applicant: Chism Homes, Inc., 4730 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins,
CO 80525.
Smith: Described the proposal, recommending approval.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Van Driel: Asked if he were correct in understanding that there are no major changes
from the master plan as previously approved, and building had begun.
Smith: Replied that was correct. Stated they have approved P.U.D.'s, but that
approval of a formal master plan would give them more flexibility.
Van Driel: Asked if the other phases would be seen before construction begins.
Smith: Replied that under the master plan all phases would be seen as prelimi-
naries before any development occurs on them.
Eckman: Moved recommendation of approval of the proposal.
Evans: Second.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 10
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
8. #22-80 Riverbend Annexation
A request to annex approximately 13 acres located south of Colorado
Highway 14 and east of the Cache La Poudre River.
Applicant: City of Fort Collins and Danny Bailey, c/o Art March, Jr.,
110 East Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Smith: Described the annexation request, recommending approval.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
James Brennan: Property owner on 2200 block of East Mulberry, within 500' of the
proposed annexation. Stated he emphatically opposes the annexation
as he sees no advantage in it and this annexation would be the first
step to annexing the whole area. Said they have their own water and
sewer facilities and do not need the city.
Harvey Johnson: Owner of properties on the 2200 block of East Mulberry. Expressed
opposition, saying the city has nothing close to it, and it seems
contrary to city policy.
Clair McMillan: Owns property in 1600 block of East Mulberry, the Edge-o-Town
Motel. Opposed any annexation in that area for historical reasons.
Stated the area had been developed by those who wanted businesses
which were historically unacceptable to the city of Fort Collins,
particularly liquor businesses which had built that part of the county.
Due to this conflict, these business people had built their own water
and sewer systems. Said they do not need the city or the "big brother"
which comes with it --the building code, police protection, or fire
protection. Claimed the only thing accomplished by the annexation would
be the bringing of that tax base into the city, which they did not
want before it became lucrative.
Harold Fisher: Chairman of the Boxelder Sanitation District. Stated one of the criteria
of the Intergovernmental Agreement on -the Urban Growth Area is to
determine who is going to provide the utilities in an area before it is
annexed,.but that he had not heard any discussion on this issue at all.
Smith:
Stated the staff report says, "The City's Water and Sewer Division staff
feels that city services could not readily be available to the site
in the short run, and would recommend that if the property were annexed,
that it continue to be serviced by the existing utilities."
Fisher:
Asked why the sanitation district did not get that report.
Smith:
Replied it is only the staff report on the item for the board.
Fisher:
Said he hoped this would not be like the situation at Fairway Estates
explaining that the landowner is not going to have to keep paying the
mill levy for the districts.
Smith:
Said he never said they could.
Spahr:
Asked staff to trace current city limits.
P & Z Minutes
. •
5/27/80
Page 11
Frank:
Indicated the city boundary.
Wells:
Asked staff to outline their reasons for recommending approval.
Frank:
Replied they were recommending the annexation because it is in the
Urban Growth Area; because it is contiguous to existing development;
because it is developed as industrial uses; the use is appropriate;
and because it meets those criteria according to the Urban Growth Area
Plan, it is eligible for annexation.
Wells:
Asked if they used any of the policies from the city's Policies Plan
to back up their recommendation.
Frank:
Replied they used the city's Policies Plan to support the I-L zoning
request.
Smith:
Stated the annexation criteria were laid out more in the Urban Growth
Area agreements with the county than in the Policies Plan. Said that
the county agreed not to approve any development on property that was
eligible for annexation, and in turn, the city agreed to consider for
annexation such property prior to its development. Stated that was
the main criterion used to determine whether this property should be
annexed.
Fritz Schoenberg:
Owns property adjacent to the north. Stated he objects very
strongly to the annexation for the reasons previously mentioned.
Pointed out that it would increase the traffic across his property
which they are already using for access and which he intended to stop.
Van Driel:
Asked if there were not a public access road goi.ng down the east side
of the property.
Schoenberg:
Replied that access does exist, but they are not using it.
Spahr:
Asked if that were the road which goes to the Country Gardens Nursery,
and how far back it goes.
Frank:
Replied it is and showed where it goes.
Wells:
Pointed out that the Police Department felt that this annexation would
erode their ability to serve the remainder of the city. Said she
does not feel the annexation is justified in terms of the long-term
goals of the city which should be addressed since the city is joining
in the application. Stated the Policy Plan states the city will
establish annexation criteria, including an inventory of undeveloped
land within the city, necessity of the area for a logical growth pattern,
ability of the city to provide services to the area, service provision
cost tax revenue analysis for the area. Contended that the annexation
does not promote the goals of the city, and that there are service
implications for the city which it cannot meet. Also expressed concern
as the area was being recommended for annexation under the Urban Growth
Area Plan which means that this area is supposed to be prime for urban
development and ready to be served in an urban manner. Pointed out that
the development criteria should also be applied to development within
the city to be fair.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 12
Art March: Represents the owners of the privately owned land who are requesting
annexation. Pointed out that the surrounding properties were not
included in this annexation after deliberate thought. Said there
was no doubt this area would develop at an urban density. Stated
there is on the property a mini -warehouse storage facility which was
built in contemplation of annexation. Said the property is capable
of receiving urban services except possibly for police protection,
for which there will be a very minimal need.
Van Driel: Asked what further development is planned.
March:
Replied that further development would be the same.
Evans:
Expressed reservations about the developability of the site due to
its location on the floodway and the floodfringe and the bend
of the river, and said it seemed it couldn't be developed much further
than it already is. Stated that in that case it didn't make sense
to consider whether development is appropriate since it has already
taken place.
March:
Stated that according to the flood plain maps the property is develop-
able. Said the structures may have to be raised in the flood fringe.
Eckman:
Asked if the river did not go through the southwest corner.
March:
Replied it does and is in the open space which belongs to the city.
Fisher:
Stated he thought it very likely that that area was in the floodplain.
Schoenberg:
Stated that in order to build on his property to the north of the
proposed annexation he had had to put in four feet of fill dirt. Said
the warehouse had had to put in four to five feet of fill, and the
rest is considerably lower. Noted there is no sewer or water, only
electricity on the site.
Johnson:
Said the city has been rip -rapping to keep the water from going over
one of the lower points there. Said they had requested the city to
service water in the '50's and been refused.
Van Driel:
Moved recommendation of denial in view of the fact that the criteria
for development and annexation apparently have not been met in that
services cannot be easily provided.
Evans:
Second.
Wells:
Stated that when the city sponsors an application such as this, the
recommendation should include issues found in the city Policy Plan
which meet the city's goals and objectives. Stated that areas annexed
to the city should also have to meet the development standards required
for property in the Urban Growth Area in the county. Said this should
be done to be fair, to meet the goals of the Urban Growth Area Plan
for phasing development as it is economically feasible and as it is
needed.
Spahr:
Asked counsel if the agreement with the Riverbend Committee obligated
P & Z Minutes
• •
5/27/80
Page 13
the city to pursue annexation of the land.
Ruggiero:
Stated that his understanding was that the Riverbend Committee agreed
with the result of the city purchasing the property that if the city
requested they annex, they would consent to it, but that there was no
reciprocal agreement.
Vote:
Eckman: no, stating that the land is probably eligible for annexation
and the city is obligated to pursue it by the Intergovernmental Agree-
ment, and that the city's criteria probably could have been met had they
been considered; Spahr: yes, stating that the city has not shown that the
annexation meets any of the policies of the Land Use Plan; Wells: yes;
Evans: yes, in light of the fact that the annexation would not be
possible without the city's participation and that the city has not
complied with its own goals; Van Driel: yes, for the reasons stated in
his motion; Haase: yes, concurring with the other members of the board
and with surrounding property owners' observations that the area is in
the floodplain fringe which presents some serious problems.
Motion carried, 5 - 1, (for denial).
#22-80
Riverbend Zoning
A request to zone the Riverbend Annexation to I-L, Limited Industrial
District.
Applicant: City of Fort Collins and Danny Bailey, c/o Art March, Jr.,
110 East Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Wells:
Questioned whether this item should be considered.
Smith:
Stated that the applicant would take this item on to the council, so the
board should make a recommendation on the zoning in the event council
approves the annexation. Described the proposal.
Wells:
Asked for discussion on the item.
Audience: Commented the area is already zoned industrial in the county.
Spahr: Moved recommendation of approval of the I-L zoning contingent upon
annexation.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
9. #28-80 Mail Creek Preliminary P.U.D.
A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for 144 units on 14.5 acres, zoned
R-P, Planned Residential, located on the northeast corner of Harmony
Road and Larkbunting Drive.
Applicant: ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins,
CO 80521.
Wells: Asked for any discussion on the item.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 14
Spahr:
Stated the site is 15.5 acres, half of which is used for residences,
giving 144 homes on 7 - 8 acres which seems a heavy density; asked for
a comparison with other areas of similar density.
Eldon Ward:
From ZVFK. Stated the density of this area was pre -determined with the
annexation and subdivision of the Larkborough area. Said it was known
by all parties involved, including the owners and city staff, that with
the configuration of the subdivision putting the detention area for the
bulk of the square mile in this area would mean that the only way it
could be developed would be with the density in the lower end. Stated
the over-all density would be about 9 DU/acre. To develop at a lower
density would indicate it should have been zoned R-L-P rather than R-P.
Said there is a similar project in the Mission Hills Condominiums across
Lemay from Parkwood. Stated they had done a great deal to mitigate the
substantial constraints on the site.
Van Driel:
Asked if one of the P.U.D.'s considered on West Propsect wasn't similar.
Smith:
Replied that was the Bridges P.U.D. which was very similar with similar
density.
Eckman:
Moved recommendation of approval of the proposal.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Haase: yes; Van Driel: yes: Evans: yes; Wells: yes, noting there had
been substantial effort to cushion this area of high density from the
low -density area to the west; Spahr: yes; Eckman: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
10. #38-80 Pickett Annexation
A request to annex approximately 36 acres located at the northeast
corner of Willox Lane and Redwood Street.
Applicant: David R. Pickett, 7985 Vance Drive, Suite 107, Arvada,
CO 80003.
Smith: Described the request, recommending approval.
Wells: Asked for discussion.
Spahr: Asked staff to trace the city limits.
Albertson -Clark: Indicated the city limits on the map.
Van Driel: Moved recommendation of approval, in view of the city's policy to
encourage development to the northeast and the fact that the area meets
the requirements of the Urban Growth Area.
Evans: Second.
Vote: Eckman: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: yes, stating that this annexation seems
to meet some of the criteria of the Policies Plan and will, hopefully,
promote close -in residential development to the north and a good transpor-
P & Z Board Minutes •
5/27/80
Page 15
tation plan for the area; Evans: yes; Van Driel: yes; Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
#38-80 Pickett Zoning
A request to zone the Pickett Annexation to conditional R-P, Planned
Residential zoning.
Applicant: David R. Pickett, 7985 Vance Drive, Suite 107, Arvada,
CO 80003.
Smith: Described the request, recommending approval without condition.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished discussion.
Kaplan: Stated the petitioner had no problems with the removal of the condition.
Van Driel: Moved to recommend approval of R-P zoning without conditions, noting
any limitation of density could be done by the developer.
Spahr: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
11. #39-80 Cunningham Corner Preliminary P.U.D. Amendment
A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for a residential and commercial P.U.D.
on 39 acres, located on the northeast corner of Horsetooth Road and
Shields Street, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, and Conditional H-B,
Highway Business.
Applicant: Randall E. Larsen & Associates, P.C., Main Floor, Savings
Building, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Smith:
Described the proposal, recommending approval.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Eric Fellers:
Expressed opposition without further information.
Albertson -Clark:
Gave staff report.
Fellers:
Asked if a fence were to be built along the north side of the development.
Randy Larsen:
Replied there were no plans at present for a fence.
Kay Case:
Resident north of the proposed amendment. Asked how wide the green
space and jogging path along the north boundary would be, what the
traffic flow would be, and whether the apartments would be owner -occupied,
if they would be converted to condominiums and whether there would be any
pride of ownership there.
Larsen:
Replied the green space is approximately 30' wide, basically the same
as was previously approved. Stated five lots had been deleted mostly
along Windmill Drive in the detention area to provide for the tennis courts.
Said Windmill Drive was in the same location except for a shift to the
east which makes a good division between Cunningham Corner and the area
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 16
to the east. Stated it had not been decided whether the apartments
would be rentals or condominiums.
Mary Dietrich:
Resident on Gunnison Drive. Asked what the "out -area" is.
Albertson -Clark: Stated that area is up for annexation.
Smith:
Said the "out" means that it is out of the city limits. Said the area
is being planned for annexation and development, but that staff had not
yet seen any plans for it.
Dietrich:
Asked for an explanation of the tern "detention area".
Smith:
Replied that a detention area is an area set aside to hold flood run-off,
usually a grassy, landscaped area which is sometimes dry, sometimes
filled with water, depending on weather.
Dietrich:
Asked if this was because there was inadequate storm drainage.
Smith:
Replied that was not the case, but that it was a city drainage requirement
to detain storm run-off on the site before it is discharged from the
property.
Dietrich:
Stated there was already a mosquito problem in the area and asked what
the city planned to do about it.
Smith:
Replied the city determines from year to year whether or not to spray for
mosquitos according to the magnitude of the problem.
Dietrich:
Recommended that Windmill Road not cut through into Woodwest. Asked when
construction would begin.
Larsen:
Replied they hoped to commence construction on the bowling alley and
patio homes at the earliest in July or August.
Dietrich:
Asked the reasoning for increasing the number of apartment -condominiums.
Larsen:
Replied they decreased the town -home and patio -home units and increased
the apartments as a result of a change in concept and configuration for
the whole site.
Dietrich:
Stated that the majority of the project is well -planned and not high
density and that the apartments seem out -of -line. Said it was unfortunate
that the preliminary approval for the area was given before Woodwest was
occupied, and that development should be so delayed in the future.
Wells:
Asked staff to address the issue of the planning of Windmill Drive.
Deibel:
Stated the road configuration was originally planned to provide adequate
access to the area.
Dietrich:
Stated that Windmill Drive was an energy -inefficient route for access to
Woodwest.
Case:
Asked whose responsibility it is to keep children out of detention areas.
P & Z Minutes • •
5/27/8p
Page 17
Wells:
Replied that city-wide it is parental responsibility to keep children
out of irrigation ditches, creeks, ponds and detention areas.
Eckman:
Stated he appreciated concerns about safety and mosquitos, and noted
the city is faced with the question of what to do with the water.
Said it could be discharged into the creeks, or it could be detained
in an attempt to keep control of the flood situation, the latter having
been chosen as the lesser of two evils.
Case:
Stated whether or not the apartments would be condominiums was important
as it would affect the property values of the Medema homes in Woodwest.
Wells:
Said the board has no jurisdiction over ownership, but only over such
issues as density, landscaping and traffic flow.
Case:
Stated this should be considered in the future.
Wells:
Replied their position has been that this was an issue to be resolved
in the marketplace.
Case:
Expressed opposition to the amendment due to the density of units in
the apartment area.
Evans:
Asked what the original number of dwelling units on the parcel was.
Albertson -Clark: Replied it was originally 191, and is now 293, giving an original
over-all density of 7.2 and a proposed density of 11.47 DU/acre.
Randy Brink:
Stated that area schools are full and that that should be a concern.
Wells:
Pointed out that there is a school impact assessment in their background
packet.
Van Driel: Read the figures from the packet.
Wells:
Stated the district's response is usually that they will find space for
the new students in the district, but that there is no guarantee they
will go to adjacent schools. Stated there is capacity within the
district for new students.
Krishan Wahi:
Resident of Woodwest. Asked for justification for the H-B zoning,
saying there is enough shopping existing on College.
Wells:
Replied that the H-B zone was approved some time ago, and that at this
site the zone is limited to a regional recreational center, so there
will be no large retail center there. Pointed out the small neighbor-
hood convenience center location in the R-P zone.
Fellers:
Expressed concern about the detention pond in that outside the subject
property the land continues to slope downward to the north and east so
that some homes appear to be below the level of the pond and might be
susceptible to basement water problems as a result.
Larsen:
Stated the drainage is basically the same as on the original plat, with
the same discharge rate and direction.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 18
Evans:
Asked if the commercial area had been increased because of the increased
density.
Smith:
Replied it had been increased from 99,400 to 103,000, about a 4,000
square foot increase in the commercial allotment, but not in the H-B
area. The increase is in the convenience center.
Bob Bakken:
Resident on Gunnison Drive. Expressed opposition to Windmill Drive
connecting to Gunnison and stated it was not needed for access by the
proposal. Stated property to the east of Cunningham Corners would also
need a road. Also complained that the tennis courts, which would
probably be lighted, were too close to the houses behind them in Woodwest
and could create an annoyance for residents.
Smith:
Stated staff had suggested the realignment of the road to provide access
to the undeveloped area on the east from Windmill Drive, removing the
necessity for another curbcut on Horsetooth.
Bakken:
Asked how access would be gained to the area east of the open space and
detention area, suggesting another road would be necessary, connecting
in a Y-intersection with Windmill Drive.
Smith:
Replied that would be open space and undeveloped and access would be by
foot. Stated that otherwise as no site plans had been submitted, staff
did not know how the roads would go in that area.
Bakken:
Presented his notion of how the roads would have to go, especially to
the east of the tennis courts, reinforcing his contention that Windmill
Drive should be a dead end.
Van Driel:
Asked what the proposed zoning is for the out -parcel.
Smith:
Replied, it is R-P.
Van Driel:
Stated that would be compatible with the higher -density area in the
subject proposal.
Ward:
Stated he was working on the plans for the out -parcel and that the site
plan would be on the July agenda. Pointed out that the location of
Windmill Drive on the east property line solved several problems in terms
of traffic and development. Stated that the proposal would be for two-
story, owner -occupied, townhouse structures which would provide a very
orderly, textbook buffer between the R-P in Cunningham Corners and the
single-family zone to the east. Stated access would be worked out with
private parking areas coming off Windmill Drive.
Wells:
Stated the major change proposed by this amendment is the increase in
density which is near the maximum allowed in the zone, noting that that
maximum is not automatically approved. Said some of the neighboring
residents' concerns might be addressed by a lesser increase in density.
Jerry Bogard:
Resident on Gunnison Drive. Disagreed with the notion that Windmill Drive
would provide needed access for Woodwest residents and said they did not
want the additional traffic which would be generated.
4 40
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 19
Deibel:
Stated that the Woodwest street pattern was laid out to preclude through
traffic, and that it was not expected that traffic would go through
Woodwest from south to north as an alternative route to Shields Street.
Pointed out that the only way out from the Gunnison Drive area is to
the north or farther east, and that Windmill would provide additional
access. Said that emergency access problems could be created by
eliminating it.
Van Driel:
Noted that for any residents of Woodwest who worked at H-P or elsewhere
south of Horsetooth, Windmill Drive would be the logical way to go.
Case:
Said the number of units planned for the out -area should be taken into
consideration now for planning access. Asked about a vacant lot which
she had been told at the time she purchased her home would be an access
to Shields, saying that would definitely impact the traffic pattern.
Eckman:
Said his main concern is with the density; stated that the street pattern
did not seem to present a real problem. Pointed out that the proposed
apartments had proximity to Horsetooth and to the recreational H-B
zone, that the out -area would provide buffering to the east and the
townhouses would provide a buffer to the Woodwest area, that the area
is close to shopping, all arguments in favor of a high -density develop-
ment in this area. Stated the amendment was recommendable.
Evans:
Asked the developer why the tennis court was so located and whether it
could be relocated to the south.
Larsen:
Stated they were located so they would be built with Phase I. Said
they would be phasing the construction of the courts, and that at
present there were no plans for lights.
Evans:
Stated they would be more logically located further south.
Larsen:
Stated that another reason for density is economy of services for an area.
Said they viewed the traffic as moving out to the south and west with very
little exiting to the north. Stated the total open space had stayed
about the same, and that the active open space had increased for the
subdivision as a whole, while the building coverage in the residential
area had decreased. Stated they had re -done the plan to accommodate
the increased density in several ways.
Bakken:
Suggested the out -area should be considered for development along with
this one. Questioned the term, "classic textbook buffer", saying the
only good buffer is a lot of green space.
Wells:
Stated the board had seen many changes in this plan since its beginning
and that it had been much improved, especially in terms of traffic flow,
access to open space, and consideration of the surrounding area, particu-
larly with respect to the access to the out -area to the east. Stated
that the out -area would have to go through the same review procedure as
any other site and would not receive automatic approval as a "classic
textbook buffer". With reference to the suggestion that the developnent
should have been reviewed by all the neighborhood residents prior to
approval, stated the board would also have liked that, but that if they
waited for all the people in an area to move in before development was
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 20
reviewed, no development would ever take place. Stated the city does
its best to review each project as it is submitted and does its best
to notify the community as a whole so they may have an opportunity to
comment.
Fellers:
Stated it was unfair to the residents north of the tennis courts to have
to endure the lights which would probably eventually go in there. Also
contended that the new residents of Cunningham Corners would not appre-
ciate the Woodwest traffic through their neighborhood any more than the
Woodwest people would like their traffic. Again protested having Wind-
mill Drive going up into Woodwest.
Wells:
Suggested there is room to put into the recommendation a further
recommendation on the tennis courts.
Eckman:
Stated the choice was between the old plan and the new plan and that
the new plan appears to be the better due to the clustering of the
buildings, the increased active open space in the center, the relocation
of Windmill Drive, the appropriate location for high density develop-
ment. Questioned whether the future residents would use Windmill Drive
into Woodwest very much, but stated it would probably be of value to
Woodwest residents, especially for traffic going to the east, enabling
it to avoid the Shields/Horsetooth intersection.
Moved recommendation of approval of the amendment with the requirement
that the applicant reconsider moving the tennis courts so that they
would not impinge upon the privacy of the residents to the north.
Evans:
Second.
Van Driel:
Asked Larsen if the tennis courts could be moved further south.
Larsen:
Replied it could be done, but would put more water closer to Woodwest.
Stated they were willing to look at it, keeping in mind that tennis
courts should have a north -south orientation.
Vote:
Eckman: yes; Spahr: no, saying the amended design is superior due to
traffic flow and clustering of units around open space, but the increase
of density by 60% is inappropriate; Wells: yes; Evans: yes; Van Driel: yes,
also with concern for the density, but saying it is allowable by the
zoning; Haase: no, in agreement with Spahr's remarks, and saying that
Windmill Drive should dead-end to avoid potential traffic flow problems,
the tennis courts should be re -located, the density increase is too
great and should not be greater than 10 to 20%.
Motion carried, 4 - 2.
Smith:
For information, stated this item would be heard by City Council on
June 17.
13. n41-80
Expansion of Non -Conforming Use: Bobby Lynn Day Care Center
A request to expand an existing non -conforming day care center by
1,484 square feet, located on Prospect Street and Fuqua Drive, zoned
R-L, Low Density Residential.
Applicant: Maxine Wiedeman, 2430 W. Prospect Street, Fort Collins,
CO 80524.
P & Z Minutes • •
5/27/80
Page 21
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Eldon Ward: Representing the owner. Stated the staff report had covered the item
well. Said three points should be kept in mind: the proposal will not
expand the building; a curbcut onto Prospect St. will be eliminated;
and the site plan has been done to allow for future dedication of right-
of-way on Prospect St.
Spahr: Asked if the parking places on the northeast corner were being deleted.
Ward: Replied that is about a 35' existing concrete pad, part of which is and
will continue to be used for bicycle parking, and part of which will
be used for two parking spaces. Said the other four spaces would be
provided for in the lower portion of the site.
Wells: Asked if there any further discussion or questions.
James Erdmann: Asked what the expansion would mean in terms of clients; stated the
place was currently well -run.
Ward:
Replied the exact number would be determined at building inspection
review, but that at present the center is licensed for 52, and the
increase would go to about 90, the number being used to determine the
parking need. Stated that there are sometimes more than 52 students
per day due to part-time students. Said the amount of cars coming
and going would probably not increase proportionately and would be
spread out through the day due to differing schedules.
Van Driel:
Stated that with R-H conversions, parking is required to be at the rear.
Noting that this is not in the R-H zone, nor a conversion, asked staff
to comment on the parking being in front.
Smith:
Replied it would be nice to have it in the rear, but that the rear is
all play -area, so it would not work. Said there was no such requirement
in this zone, but the fact that the center is located on the corner of
Prospect probably mitigates the front parking somewhat as well as the
fact that the parking is presently at the front.
Wells:
Stated that the plan for handling the traffic at the center seemed
superior to most others which have been reviewed and minimizes the impact
on the surrounding area.
Van Driel:
Agreed, also noting favorably the additional parking provided on the
property.
Moved recommendation of approval, noting there was no opposition from
the neighborhood.
Haase: Second.
Spahr: With respect to procedure, noted the ordinance states the board should
make a finding whether the expansion is likely to affect adversely the
surrounding area, and asked whether that should be a part of the motion.
Smith: Replied that would be appropriate.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 22
Van Driel: Amended the motion to include the board's finding that there would be
no adverse affect upon the neighborhood by an expansion of the
existing non -conforming use.
Vote: Haase: yes; Van Driel: yes; Evans: yes; Wells: yes; Spahr: yes; Eckman:
yes, agreeing that the expansion would not adversely affect the
surrounding property, but expressing reservations with respect to the
criterion concerning degree of increase of use.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
14. n45-80
R-H Conversion at 1318 South College
A request for a conversion from a residential land use to an office
building at 1318 S. College in an R-H zoning district.
Applicant: Larry McCrery, 1719 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Dewhirst:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Wells:
Pointed out that the conversions in the 1400 block had been all in
existing buildings, and expressed concern about this proposal where
the building would be replaced, asking whether this would accomplish
the same thing.
Dewhirst:
Replied he thought it would, especially when the second part of the
application was considered (Item No. 15). Pointed out that the building
itself could not be saved and that it was a log veneer, not a real log
structure. Stated the intent is the same --to keep a low impact and
minimize the traffic conflict in and out from College Avenue as much as
possible. Stated that under the R-H ordinance parking in front of the
building is precluded, a five-foot buffer is required on the sides, and
where adjacent to residences, six-foot screening is required. Pointed
out that these provisions were not available when the 1400 block was
developed.
Mike Murrah:
Representing the applicant. Stated he would answer any questions.
Bob Neel:
Resident on Remington behind the proposed conversion. Stated he had
discussed the proposal extensively with the other residents on the block,
and was representing Mrs. Dorothy McComb, Miss Mary Scott, and Mr.
Benjamin Gardner who could not be there. Said they had had a long-
standing concern for the area and desired to maintain the residential
character of the neighborhood. Expressed concern about the type and
quality of the business to be carried out at the subject site, noting
that the school environment of Fort Collins High could be jeopardized
when a business activity encroaches upon it. Said they were proposing
a new covenant covering all the property owners, excluding the subject
property, specifying business and professional offices on College Ave.,
with limited traffic in and out. Stated they supported a similar
restriction on the proposed conversion.
Dewhirst:
Stated the applicant was requesting an office use which would permit
any office use allowed in the R-H zone, including most professional
and general offices.
Eckman:
Stated that was all Neel seemed to be asking, was business and
P & Z Minutes ! •
5/27/80
Page 23
professional offices.
Dewhirst: Said he thought perhaps Neel was asking for a limit to professional
offices only.
Neel: Stated he was unfamiliar with the ordinance, but that they wanted to
see business and professional offices only with no personal service
shops, day care centers, or other businesses which would generate
high traffic.
Wells: Stated that a conversion must be to a specific use which is what the
P & Z board reviews.
Dewhirst: Stated the request is for strictly office use, and explained the
distinction between professional and general office uses.
Neel: Stated they supported the conversion as long as there is some limitation
on the type of business permitted.
Van Driel: Asked if some use limitations had been placed upon the property at the
time of the rezoning agreement.
Dewhirst: Replied that a copy of that agreement is in the packet under the next
item and that no limitation was placed on use. Said there was a mention
that the use would be intensified, and due to that, there were some
limiting factors.
Eckman: In light of finally having found a solution to the problem of the log
cabin, and in light of having satisfied the concerns of the neighboring
residents,
moved recommendation of approval of the R-H conversion to office use
as defined in the R-H zone ordinance.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
15. #193-77 Landscape Change at 1318 South College
A request for a change in the rezoning agreement regulating the
landscaping at 1318 S. College Avenue.
Applicant: Larry McCrery, 1719 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Dewhirst: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to bonding for
improvements.
Wells: Asked how far back there was landscaping from College.
Dewhirst: Replied the new building would be closer to the street and there would
be 15' of landscaping.
Wells: Asked where the parking would be on the north.
Dewhirst: Described the parking lots and the access to each.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 24
Pointed out that while it would be advantageous to work with the owner
of the neighboring property on landscaping and traffic flow, that
individual was not yet ready to do anything.
Wells:
Asked if the applicant had anything to add. Asked if anyone wished
to comment on the item.
Neel:
Emphasized the neighborhood's concerns for maintaining the high quality
of their residential area. Stated they were also concerned about safety
in the alley, noting that it is already used excessively by students who
use Buckeye for access, and expressing the belief that business traffic
would only aggravate a bad situation. Pointed out that there are many
children in the neighborhood, and that many use the alley for pedestrian
and bicycle access to the park. Stated that the alley is wide enough
for only one car. Said that if access were allowed from the proposed
parking lots to the alley, it would be possible for cars to drive from
College Ave. through the lots, across the alley, and through his driveway
to Remington St., an irresistible temptation for some high school students.
Stated people were already using his driveway for a thoroughfare which he
was trying to limit. Stated the alley should only be used for a service
access, and effort must be made to discourage use of the alley as a
thoroughfare for pedestrians, bicycles, or automobiles. Requested the
board to deny direct access from the parking lots to the alley, and to
restrict the use of the alley for service access only.
Eckman:
Asked for clarification of the access from College.
Neel:
Pointed out where it was planned. Suggested that the two parking lots
be connected with access only to College. Stated that the landscape
plan is very good, and that with the exception of access to the alley,
they were very supportive of the proposed conversion.
Wells:
Asked for staff response to residents' concerns about the alley.
Smith:
Replied the city had no plans for the alley at this time.
Larry McCrery: Stated that when he purchased the property it was bound by an agreement
made when it was zoned limiting the property to one curb cut, to access
from the alley, and to the retention of certain trees. Said they planned
a nice building there, and that the use would probably have less traffic
than a boarding house.
Eckman:
Asked if it were correct that the only way out of the north parking lot
is through the alley.
McCrery:
Replied that was correct.
Eckman:
Asked if the only way in and out of the south lot is through the alley
or Buckeye.
McCrery: Assented.
Smith: Proposed closing the alley access for the north lot, allowing access only
from College. Stated that would cut the potential for through traffic,
and at the same time retain the property owner's right to alley access
P & Z Minutes • i
5/27/80
Page 25
which the city cannot deny.
McCrery: Stated the College Ave. access is governed by the old agreement, and
that the alley access is governed by the trees which must be kept.
Stated that cutting access through from one lot to the other would
eliminate parking, and that the curbcut to College was only one-way
width.
Smith: Asked if that would be the case with a combined curbcut.
McCrery: Replied his neighbor doesn't plan to do anything right now.
Smith: Suggested an agreement that when a combined curbcut is possible the
alley access would be closed.
McCrery: Stated there would be several problems when that property to the north
is converted, and said there could be difficulties making it work.
Evans: Asked which trees were to be retained.
Dewhirst: Pointed them out.
Evans: Suggested moving one of the proposed shade trees to the northeast corner
of the property, allowing a cut from the north lot to the south, with
egress onto Buckeye.
Dewhirst: Stated four to six parking spaces would be lost, depending on how many
could be gained in the northeast corner.
Wells: Asked why it is necessary to have twenty-one spaces.
Dewhirst: Replied that with the city guidelines, twenty-one spaces would accommo-
date about eighteen employees which would be expected for the building,
with some additional for customer use.
Wells: Stated perhaps the building is too large for the site.
Neel: Pointed out that the 1978 proposal which was denied proposed 37 parking
spaces, but didn't cut into the alley. Contended adequate parking could
be provided by creative use of the property without cutting into the
alleyway. Opposed any cuts onto the alley.
Eckman: Expressed understanding of the problem and suggested some rearrangement
should be considered.
Evans: Stated they had two options: to deny the proposal or request it be
resubmitted as the board did not seem ready to approve it as proposed.
Suggested the applicant express his preference.
McCrery: Insisted he is governed by old agreements with respect to trees, and the
new law prohibits parking in front of the building which make rearrange-
ment difficult.
Wells: Pointed out that some of the large trees on the landscape plan have not
even been planted yet and could be moved.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 26
McCrery: Pointed out setback problems.
Evans: Agreed that perhaps the building is too large for the site if that is
the case, and stated that all possibilities had not been explored.
Spahr: Suggested a parking configuration which would allow twenty spaces and
stated that some kind of a rearrangement could be done.
Neel: Pointed out that probably the largest cottonwood in the city is at the
northeast corner of that property, so the corner is not tree -deficient.
Evans: Moved recommendation of denial with the request to see a revised site
plan closing off the north alley access, rearranging the parking,
increasing the landscaping on the northeast corner to close off the
alley, and if necessary, a reduction in the size of the building.
Van Driel: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
16. #57-80 Bromley Hall R-H Conversion
A request to convert Bromley Hall at 601 S. Howes St. from a residential
land use to an office complex in an R-H zoning district.
Applicant: Colorado State University Research Foundation, P.O. Box 483,
Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Dewhirst:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Van Driel:
Expressed skepticism that there would be sufficient demand for office
space that that whole area would convert to office space if this proposal
were approved.
Dewhirst:
Stated that one of the problems which had come up with conversions is
the expectations of property owners. Said that if this conversion were
approved, it would raise the expectations of all the property owners in
the area that office use could go on their property in one form or
another. Contended that that expectation erodes the residential environ-
ment faster than the physical conversions.
Wells:
Asked for a statement by the applicant.
Ron Kaiser:
Treasurer of the CSU Research Foundation. Showed slides portraying the
appearance of Bromley Hall as a dormitory Stated CSU had requested
CSURF to assist in the acquisition of administrative and research
facilities due to a growing lack of space on campus. Said that Bromley
Hall was acquired to accommodate the growing need for research space
for four reasons: size, cost of the building, ease of conversion to offices,
and proximity to the main CSU campus. Discussed the size of the research
activities at CSU and the amount of financial benefit brought to the city.
by this research. Stated the conversion would also benefit the core area
of the city. Said Bromley Hall was acquired at an attractive cost for
two reasons: because of the educational and research utilization of the
remodeled building and because of its financial history. Described the
financial problems with the building due to low occupancy rates. Said
the building could easily be remodeled into offices, but that it does
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 27
not lend itself to conversion to larger apartment or condominium units.
Pointed out the transportation advantages of the proximity of Bromley
Hall to the CSU campus and the fact that public transportation could be
used. Stated the conversion would be compatible with the area in that
many other university -related organizations are already located there.
Stated housing would be available for the 155 displaced students else-
where in the area as the CSU Housing Office had quoted a 94.3% occupancy
rate, or an availability of about 500 beds for student use. Noted that
the building is presently somewhat in a state of disrepair, but that
once remodeled, it would be an attractive, professional facility, while
retaining a residential appearance. Stated landscaping would be retained
and increased. Introduced Cynthia Hanson, president of CSURF; Bob Burnham,
Director of University Planning and Budgets for CSU; Dick Canard, Director
of Facilities Construction for CSU; Ron Baker, also with Facilities
Construction; and Bill Dilatush, architect for the project, saying they
were available to anwer questions.
Eckman:
Asked if the swimming pool would be retained.
Kaiser:
Replied it would probably be made into a garden.
Ruth Sykes:
Owner of property across the street from the proposed conversion. Said
they have rented to college students, but the house is in need of repair.
Stated there is commercial use across the alley, they don't want to put
more money into it as a rental, and it is difficult to sell as it is not
zoned for office use, so they don't know what to do with it. Asked the
board to consider what the zoning would be for her side of Howes St.
Wells:
Stated the board could not consider that zoning item at this time, but
suggested Mrs. Sykes talk to the planning staff about alternatives for
her property.
Sykes:
Stated she supports the conversion request.
Les Kaplan:
Owner of 612 and 620 South Howes St. Stated he had no objections to the
conversion, but suggested the board set a date for review of a conversion
plan for the other side of the street, noting that the conversion process
for the 1400 block of South College had taken a year and a half. Stated
that guidelines for the east side of Howes St. are needed as soon as
possible. Discussed the situation with respect to curbcuts, alley access,
landscaping, and so on, saying guidelines would help the property owners.
Stated that in considering the subject conversion, the board should
think of it not as an extension of the university, but as a full office
conversion, noting there was no condition to limit the uses of the offices
to the university.
Wells:
Stated that with respect to the traffic plan, some sort of area plan
should be done prior to its implementation. Suggested this area receive
top priority in terms of developing neighborhood plans.
Eckman:
Expressed agreement with Wells, saying it is important to preserve the
residential character of this section of Howes and the landscaping as
well. Stated he saw no problems with the proposed use for Bromley Hall.
P & Z Minutes
5/27/80
Page 28
Spahr:
Said the petitioners' request states they would like to convert to an
office facility for Colorado State University affiliated organizations,
and that he had no problem with reading that into a recommendation for
approval to the city council.
Evans:
Asked what the time frame would be for staff in terms of preparing a
neighborhood plan.
Smith:
Replied that it is not a high -priority area, but that a stop -gap plan
could be put together in six months or less to address the concerns
about design factors, depending on the amount of active participation
desired by the residents of the area.
Van Driel:
Stated that something needs to be done.
Wells:
Agreed to Smith's suggestion, noting there were not many vocal residents
committed to retaining the neighborhood as residential, although that
may not turn out to be the case. Said that a plan would help the property
owners in the area.
Smith:
Stated the key is in defining the area: if only Howes St. is considered,
it would probably work, but one block west, it is critical to maintain
residential use.
Evans:
Moved recommendation of approval of the R-H conversion to university -
related activities and office activities, including in the mgtion a
directive to staff to prepare an area plan for Howes St. between Laurel
and Mulberry as soon as possible.
Eckman: Second.
Vote: Eckman: yes; Spahr: yes; Wells: yes; Evans: yes; Van Driel: yes; Haase:
yes, with delight for encouragement for development of the downtown and
core area and the benefits that will accrue for the downtown area.
Wells: Adjourned meeting at 11:00 p.m