Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/22/19820 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1982 Board Present: Barbara Purvis, Gary Ross, Don Crews, Tim Dow, Ed Stoner, Ingrid Simpson Board Absent: Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark Curt Smith, Linda Gula Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Meeting called to order 6:30 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW: 3. #31-82A Minerva Business Park PUD Phase One - Final - Continued to 12/20/82 4. #20-82A Harbor Walk Subdivision - Final - Continued to 12/20/82 8. #57-82A Amendment to Building Height Review Criteria - Continued to 12/20/82 15. #30-82A Miller Townhomes II R-M Site Plan Review - Continued to 12/20/82 16. #72-82 Willox Corner PUD - Preliminary - Continued to 12/20/82 CONSENT AGENDA 1• Approval of Minutes of October 25, 1982 2. #52-82B Southside Service Center Phase One - Final Stoner: Moved to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #2. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 4-0. (Ross abstaining, Simpson not present). Note: Mrs. Simpson arrived at 6:40. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL 5. #70-82 811 East Elizabeth Expansion of a (Von -Conforming Use E • Request for approval of an expansion of a non -conforming use on 0.70-ac located at 811 East Elizabeth, proposed medical offices, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. Applicant: Harry V. Unfug, M.D., c/o Robb and Brenner, P.O. Box 251, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Note: Mr. Dow withdrew from the discussion and vote because of a conflict of interest. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: Discussion ensued between staff and the Board concerning the stipulations of the Non -Conforming Use Ordinance, the "unique- ness of the site", the possibility of setting a precedent for developing commercial along East Elizabeth, the number of employees on site, and traffic concerns. Bill Brenner: Applicant, Robb and Brenner. Stated his understanding of Ord- inance #118-84 to mean that the non -conforming use was re- stricted to the existing type of use. Stated that they had conducted a neighborhood meeting and had encountered some opposition and some people in favor of the proposal. Sum- marized the major concerns as being traffic and safety, prop- erty values, the increase in commercial use, and neighborhood support. Mr -Sanford Kern: 804 East Elizabeth. Stated that there was no need for expans- ion at present and that there was no hardship upon Dr. Unfug-- he could, in fact, use the building as is. Felt that the granting of this request would be a de facto change in zoning. Stated that the building presently was zoned R-L and that it would be in the realm of the possible that it could revert to R-L but once it becomes doubly the size there is no way it could be maintained except as commercial property. Felt that there was great pressure to go commercial on the block and that the neighborhood feared the "dominoe effect". Felt that 11r. Unfug was in effect asking for a favor from the City, this will give an increase to the value of his property. Asked the Board to help maintain the neighborhood quality in the area. Submitted a petition of people in opposition to the project (Exhibit A). Michael Ehler: Real Estate Appraiser. Stated that he was hired by the neigh- borhood to analyze the effect of the proposal on property valuations. Stated that the problem of traffic should be reviewed again, the more intensive office use could negatively effect residential property values, and that the expansion could stimulate the transition of the neighborhood to office use. -2- • Joseph Carroll: 805 East Elizabeth. Submitted a letter from Mr. Ehler. (Ex- hibit B). Felt that this was in essence a spot -zoning. Stated that he would like the property to return back to single- family. Stated that the general anticipation of the neighbor- hood was not the doubling of the office space footage. Expressed concerns about the children's crosswalk and possible danger to the children because of increased traffic. Submitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Rust (Exhibit C). Stated that the proposal represented a deterioration of the neighbor- hood and property values. Ruggiero: Clarified the City's position that this was not a spot -zoning or rezoning, but that it was merely the expansion of a build- ing containing a non -conforming use. Reed Mitchell: 809 East Elizabeth. Stated that they did not want the direct- ion of the neighborhood to change. Stated that he lives next door to the site and was quite uneasy about expanding a non -conforming use. Charles Unfug: Stated that the people that had spoken were not opposed to the effects of the expansion, they were opposed to to the existing use. Stated that the issue was whether the enlargement would adversely effect the neighborhood. Stated that the plan would make the site more residential and would enhance '-he quality of the neighborhood. Dr. Harry Unfug: Stated that he planned to move into the building. Felt that medical buildings are a little different than other buildings in that once they are set up for a particular type of medical practice, that that is pretty well what it is going to stay. Stated that they felt that the plans they had developed and shown will be much to the advantage of the neighborhood. Stoner: Commented that the Board was not there to decide if this is a hardship on Dr. Unfug. He felt that the improvements would add visual harmony to the area. However, to approve an expansion of something that is not already desired seems to be off base. If the use was desired he could see the expansion. Ross: Commented that the Board had made a commitment to Elizabeth Street and felt that it was critical that they continue with that commitment. Moved to recommend denial of the 811 East Elizabeth Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use. -3- EXHIBIT A TO: Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board ;c:Loers DATE: Novemlber 13, 1982 ,de, the undersigned property owners, are o_3posed to the applica- tion of Dr. Harry Unfug for expanding the existing non -conforming use at 811 E. Elizabeth Street. The request will deteriorate the quality of our neighborhood - a fine, old single-family area. In our opinion, expanding the physical size of this business use, with its planned business operation expansion, will have a detrimental impact on our homes and t-ie surrounding neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Name Address r1 ------- gone +r---•-.�-�..r....�.�-a-�.'4.�y�.-�Lr '�i''-:�e_Y_-�'L•K.,6 �� e�t� S�.lft p//!�/ �/rJ` -G�Co/b iK. i < t 7--___2 TO: Fort Collins Planning and 7,oning Board '•.'Ders DATE: November 13, 1982 We, the undersigned property o:;ners, are opposed to the applica- tion of Dr. Harry Unfug for expanding the existing non -conforming use at 811 E. Elizabeth Street. The request will deteriorate the quality of our neighborhood - a fine, old single-family area. In our opinion, expanding the physical size of this business use, with its planned business operation expansion, will have a detrimental impact on our homes and the surrounding neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Nam�eJ� Address Phone i y V 3F90 -- oN 2 / -S 37S_ _ /c0 vsora" 7 4.521 9 0 EXHIBIT B 0 APPRAISALS INVESTMENT ANALYSIS KEEFE, LAVENDER & EHLER, LTD. MARKET STUDIES FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS REAL ESTATE CONSULTANTS SUITE 207 425 WEST MULBERRY STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 303/221-0300 November 22, 1982 Joseph T. Carroll, Jr. 110 E. Oak Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Mr. Carroll: Upon your instructions, I have investigated the impact to your neighborhood that might result from the requested expansion of 811 East Elizabeth Street. As the plans for the expansion are of public record, I will confine my remarks to the problem rather than descriptive narrative. It is recognized that the introduction of an incompatible use in a residential neighborhood can have a negative influence on property values. The basis of this lies within the definition of a neighborhood, which is described by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers as, "A portion of a larger community, or an entire community, in which there is a homogenous grouping of inhabitants, buildings or business enterprises." Two principles of economics address this issue: 1. Anticipation - value is created by the expectation of benefits to be derived in the future. For residential property, these benefits include the basic element of shelter plus the personal rewards of pride in ownership and the provision of a family home. 2. Conformity - maximum value is realized where there is a reasonable degree of architectural homogeneity and compatible land use. By identifying inharmonious land uses, potential homeowners recognize those neighborhoods that do not protect the assets (i.e. benefits) of the residents. The practical result can be a decrease of property values, appreciation rates lower than other comparable areas, longer periods for sale, or transition of the neighborhood into other uses. The City of Fort Collins has also acknowledged this through - MICHAEL J. KEEFE. RM KENNETH E. CAVENDER, SRA MICHAEL L. EHLER. MAI, SRA Joseph Carroll Page 2 November 22, 1982 Goals and Objectives Neighborhood Identification: 1. Encourage those design characteristics which lend clarity and identity to neighborhoods in all City neighborhoods. 2. Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business activities which have a significant negative impact upon predominantly residential areas. 3. Restrict extraneous motorized traffic from residential areas. Land Use Compatibility: 6. Protect older residential areas from encroachment by industrial and commercial uses which may impair the viability of the residential neighborhood. Study of Area, 1976 Problems and Planning Objectives: Preserve the stability of the established residential neighborhood that borders the study area. The City's concern for protecting residential areas is also shown in the preface to the Land Development Guidance System and in the zoning ordinance concerning Nonconforming Uses and Buildings. For 811 East Elizabeth, it is fact that the use is nonconforming. From the operation of economics, which is recognized by law, this incompatibility may adversely affect its neighbors. The question remaining is whether the expansion will disrupt or cause a change in perception of the area (either by current residents or buyers) to a degree as to affect values or future use. In reviewing the proposed plan and the City's comments, the influence on traffic use requires further study. According to the planning staff's comments, current usage is 6,000 vehicles per day. In checking with Transportation Services, the most recent counts were in April, 1980; in an area east of Remington, 3,616 vehicles were surveyed. The west bound flow onto College Avenue was 1,100 in May of 1981. It is also known that on West Elizabeth, one-half block west of City Park Avenue, the traffic count was 5,803 on August 6, 1982. As West Elizabeth is a major collector, 6,000 for East Elizabeth appears excessive. KEEFE. LAVENDER & EHLER. LTD. 0 Joseph Carroll Page 3 November 22, 1982 A second point is the increased vehicle use of the specific property. According to the current tenant, Dr. Cowel, visits to the property vary from zero to 10 per day with four to five being an average. With the three occupants, Dr. Cowel and two other, the number of vehicles entering or leaving the property is moderate. Conversely, the expansion will house two doctors, four full time employees and two part time employees. At a minimum, the ingress —egress is projected at 100 per day and whether this includes visits by salespeople and deliveries (from five to seven per week) is not known. The increase in traffic may be of greater impact than originally thought. The second concern is future use. It is stated by the City that this expansion will not set a precedent for rezonings or conversions. While the expansion may not set a precedent in law, it is my opinion it will stimulate the economic forces already present for further changes of uses in the neighborhood. Presently, medical office space in proximity to the hospital totals nearly 211,000 square feet. Three to four buildings are now under construction or planned. With this new supply, vacancy rates will still remain low and further demand will be caused by expansion of the hospital. The new construction is on Riverside Avenue as this is the last undeveloped area adjacent to the medical office neighborhood. There are other projects under consideration but these are some distance to Poudre Valley. Proximity to the hospital has been a major desire of the medical community. The current and potential demand for medical space will put increased pressure on the East Elizabeth neighborhood for redevelopment. This potential is very real when it is observed that the area is somewhat closer to the hospital than Riverside Avenue. By allowing the expansion of 811 East Elizabeth, a "permanent" anchor and boundary may be created; because of economic pressure it will be more difficult to limit transition. In conclusion, I offer the following points. (1) Traffic may increase more than projected as perhaps will the impact upon existing street capacity. (2) The more intense office use could negatively affect residential property values because of the change in perception of the neighborhood and its character. (3) It is probable that the expansion will stimulate the transition of the neighborhood to office use. This may be through conver— sion or redevelopment. The City's expressed desire to limit such a transition will be difficult to enforce when such a decision is counter to market economics. KEEFE, LAVENDER & EHLER. LTD. • Joseph Carroll Page 4 November 22, 1982 These opinions are based upon my knowledge of the market and some limited additional research. Interviews were also made of doctors regarding space utilization, patient loads, personnel requirements and traffic frequency. Please advise if further information is required. RespieQctfully yours, Michael L. Ehler, MAI,SRA KEEFE. LAVENDER & EHLER. LTD. • EXHIBIT C t November 21, 1982 r. and I,rs. Kenneth R. Rust 803 East Elizabeth :street fort Collins, Culor4do 80524 Planning and Zoning Board City of Fort Collins r'ort Collin_., Colorado 80521 Dear iembers: Since writing a letter on Iuovember 8, 1982 concerning the property at 811 East Elizabeth we have had a change of opinion. At that time we said we did not object to the establish— ment of an office by Dr. Harry Dnfug and the remodeling plans. Vie still do not object to him having an office in the present building but are not in favor of the expansion of the building to include an expansion of his practice to an associate. The additional activity would be an added traffic hazard to school children and the large volume of pedestrian traffic on Elizabeth Street. `ore have great respect for Dr. Dnfug; our concern is with the posible trend towards more changes away from the residential character of the neighborhood. His plan is attractive but perhaps too ambitious for a residential neighborhood at this time. We love our home and the neighborhood the way it has been the 23 years we have lived on Elizabeth Street. Sincerely, Kenrieth R. Rust Doris i . Rust 0 • Simpson: Second. Purvis: Stated that the expansion as a commercial use is the most influential factor that would be considered in granting,, any new commercial proposals or conversions that might want to come into the area. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Dow abstaining). 6. #67-82 Mobile Premix Prospect Road Annexation An annexation request for 154-ac located north of the inter- section of Prospect and Timberline. Applicant: Mobile Premix„ Inc., 110 Riverside Ave., Fort Colins, CO 80524. Note: Mr. Ross announced that he would not be taking part in the discussion or vote because of a conflict of interest. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Rick Mattingly: Applicant. Stated that he would be available to answer ques- tions. Stoner: Moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Mobile Premix Prospect Road Annexation. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Ross abstaining). 7. #67-824 Mobile Premix Prospect Road Zoning A zoning request for 154-ac located north of the intersection of Prospect and Timberline, I-G, General Industrial, zoning requested. Applicant: Mobile Premix, Inc., 110 Riverside Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to the site being developed as a PUD. Dow: Stated that he assumed we would not be restricting the use by the zoning designation since the PUD requirement was attached to it. Stoner: Questioned why the general industrial designation was recom- mended. -4- 0 Albertson -Clark: Stated that general industrial was requested by the applicant and that it was staff's feeling that with the PUD condition, uses in the district could be dealt with adequately. Stoner: Moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Mobile Premix Prospect Road Zoning subject to the site being develop- ed as a PUD. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Ross abstaining) 9. #85-82 Revision to the Planning and Zoning Board Appeal Process Proposal to change ordinances pertaining to the requirements for appeals of Planning and Zoning Board decisions to the City Council. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Curt Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Dow: Moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Revision to the Planning and Zoning Board Appeal Process. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA: 10. #180-78G South College Properties Superblocks 5 and 6 Request for approval of a Superblock plan on approximately 31.5-ac located at South College Avenue, Boardwalk Drive and Landings Drive, zoned H-B, Highway Business, and R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Note: Mr. Stoner withdrew from discussion and the vote because of a conflict of interest. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Steve Standring: Owner of Mountain Armory, 3842 So. College. Stated that the City's plan for access and curbcuts was livable. Stated that the way in which the Superblock was to be funded was in no way fair, in terms of how the improvements were allocated and how the expenses for paying for the allocations were made. Stated that none of the improvements were actually contiguous to his property. Felt that everything presented by the design group only stood to make him feel that he was paying for im- provements that were going in to the south that should have been paid for by those individuals. Stated that they were not resistant to the Superblock concept but did not want to pay for other people's improvements. -5- • Joe Pease: Pease Home Improvements. Expressed concerns about the access and curbcut into his property. Stated that he would like some assurance that the curbcut would remain on his property. Dow: Stated that approval of this recommendation as proposed would not prohibit him from selling the property to a subsequent owner for development under circumstances such that that sec- ond owner could not still have that curbcut. In other words, he would have to come in with a PUD and would be subject to all of the requirements of the PUD, among those would be the option to require the closing of that curbcut. Frank: Stated that the City could not close curbcuts unless there is reasonable access provided. Carr Bieker: Applicant. ZVFK Archictects/Planners. Stated that his inter- pretation about discussions with Mr. Pease was that the curbcut was acceptable as long as his building was in place and functions as it does today. If a proposal to change this piece of property and redevelop it with a new building were to take place, then perhaps it may be more appropriate to move this curbcut further to the north. Willard Anderson: 134 Muddy Road. Expressed concerns about the funding of the improvements. Note: Much discussion followed concerning the granting of Special Improvement Districts. Clyde Masters: Area resident. Expressed concern about access to his property. Rupel: Stated that as long as Mr. Master owns that property he has access to that road. Crews: Moved to approve the South College Properties Superblocks 5 and 6. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Stoner abstaining). 10 11. #28-80B Rangeview PUD - Preliminary (Amendment to Mail Creek PUD) Request for a preliminary plan amendment to an existing PUD for 78 units on 7.43-ac located at West Harmony and Larkbunting Drive, zoned R-P, Planned Residential. Applicant: ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Carr Bieker: Applicant, ZVFK Architects/Planners. Stated that they were trying to develop a project that is unique to Fort Collins, in that they are trying to provide an alternative to retired individuals. Ross: Expressed concern about the buffering to be provided from the railroad and ditch to provide a more quiet environment for the retired persons. He also brought up the possibility of providing bus service to the area. Commented that this seemed to be a good attempt to satisfy a need in the community. Simpson: Commented that she was pleased to see that this was more com- patible with the surrounding area and the densities lowered. Stated that she thought it was a very well done plan. Stoner: Moved to approve Rangeview PUD - Preliminary. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. 12. #58-82A Grant Townhomes R-M Site Plan Review Request for an 8-unit residential complex located at 635 S. Grant, zoned R-M, Medium Density Residential. Applicant: Lee Fetters, 620 N. 7th Street, Grand Junction, CO. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Note: Ed Stoner announced that he had a conflict of interest and would be abstaining from discussion and the vote. Joan Fetters: Applicant. Stated that she felt that this was a residential use and that the zoning does allow other uses that do not have to go through this procedure. The uses stated were child-care centers, churches, public recreational centers and group homes. Stated that they were meeting much of criteria stated in the Land Use Policies Plan. She also addressed concerns about par ing 1n t e area. -7- Wanda "less: 619 So. Loomis. Stated that she was against this proposal. Expressed her concerns as being the increase in density in the area, the increase in traffic, and noise levels. Stated that she would like to encourage and maintain a residential flavor to the neiahborhood. Carolyn Sperline: 813 W. MyrtIe. Stated that her concern was still the increased density, the problems of an absentee owner, and additional noise problems. Stated that they would like to keep it single-family or duplexes. Dean Wallace: 622 So. Grant. Felt that this project does not blend with the neighborhood. Expressed concerns about property values, parking problems. Felt that duplexes would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Sperline: 813 1-1. Myrtle. Felt that since this project had been denied in October that his arguments should stand. Stated that there is no need for additional housing ---he noted that he had checked with the University and had been told that there was available housing through the University. Felt that this proposal could only result in the deterioration of the neighborhood. Note: A letter from Mrs. Agnes Lilley was submitted for the record. (Exhibit D). Ross: Discussed the size of the units and the numbers of persons that they were intended to house. Dow: Questioned the number of rental units versus the number of units that are owner occupied. Chianese: Stated that they did not have specific numbers but that in walking the neighborhood it appeared that most of the houses had retained their single-family character. Crews: Commented that he felt very uncomfortable with the proposal. Stated that the applicant had met all the requirements for the zone but he still felt very uncomfortable with it. Dow: Commented that the applicant had come back with a little bet- ter proposal than was presented last month, however, the over- riding issue is not whether enough parking spaces are provided the overall question is one of neighborhood compatibility and the intensity of the use. in No Text ! 0 Simpson: Stated that if there are still student rentals available on camupus perhaps the students feel it is cheaper to live off campus, but that is not the Board's problem. Felt that there are a lot of rentals on Laurel but if ,you go back off of Laurel, they do become more single-family. She would like to see that character of that neighborhood maintained. Dort: Moved to deny Grant Townhomes R-M Site Plan Review. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Stoner abstaining). 13. #81-82 525 loth Street PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a residential and office duplex, located at 525 10th Street. Applicant: The Resource Assistance Center for Nonprofits, Inc., c/o Mrs. Lou Stitzel, Administrative Director, P.O. Box 1104, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Lou Stitzel: Applicant. Gave a lengthy presentation on the background of the proposal. Stated that the the church cannot add on to it's present property and that this proposal represents one of the more workable solutions as to how they can solve their problems for the congregation plus making it economically feasible without making it a hardship. Santiago Alarid: Representative of the area neighborhood. Stated that he thought there was only one lot, not two, to build the duolex on. Stated that the people of., the neighborhood had agreed that a single-family residence would be appropriate in the neighborhood, but not a duplex. He felt that building one duplex would set a precedent in the neighborhood for tearing down single-family homes to build duplexes. Stated that he was afraid that the minister would use the duplexes for other uses than what was intended. Chianese: Stated that the site plan ties the duplex to two specific uses ---one is for a residence, and one is for office use, defined by the City as office space for the church and acces- sory uses for the church sponsored by the church. There is no way that any other office mould be permitted in that unit. sea Steve Barbier: Director of Neighbor to Neighbor Inc. Felt that the project was well-intentioned, but was simply misplaced. Felt that the quality and stability of the neighborhood should be main- tained. Stated that any change in the neighborhood represent- ed increased uncertainty for the entire area. Stated that the people in the area want to see single-family development ---it is their way of life. The concept of a duplex is not consistent with the existing neighborhood. Clarita Alarid: Area resident. Stated that most of the membership of the church was not from the immediate area. Stated that the prop- erty was solely bought for the purpose of having housing for the Reverend to live there. Ruggiero: Admonished the members of the Board to restrict their dis- cussion to the land use issues and not some of the emotional and religious issues that had been discussed. Stoner: Commented that regardless of church function, this is still being used as an office and it is in an R-L zone. Moved to deny 525 loth Street PUD - Preliminary. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-1. (Dow voting no). 14. #105-79B Silverplume PUD - Amended Final Request to amend the final site plan to add 10 units, located at the northeast corner of Swallow and Dunbar, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, and B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: D. Jensen Enterprises, c/o ZVFK Architects/Plan- ners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Eldon Ward: Applicant, ZVFK Architects/Planners. Stated he would be avail- able to answer questions. Stated that where the four garages used to be was being redesigned into additional units and they were providing detached garages which were being positioned to help with the screening to the high school property and the back of the stands at French Field. Ross: Moved to approval Silverplume PUD - Amended Final. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0 -10- 17. #71-82 Varsity Court Addition R-H Site Plan Review Request for R-H site plan review for 24 multi -family units on 63,698 sf, located at 228 W. Prospect, zoned R-H, High Density Residential, and B-L, Limited Business. Applicant: Bob Emch, The Associates, Inc., 1324 Webster Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Stoner: Expressed concerns about the storm drainage system. Rupel: Assured him that it was there. Bob Emch: Applicant. Stated he would be available for questions. Richard Anderson: Questioned what the parking variance entailed. Albertson -Clark: Stated that there was a variance granted by the ZBA for reduc- ing a setback from the property line. Stated that as a result of this site plan review, the applicant is required to to bring the existing parking lot up to Code. Stoner Moved to approve Varsity Court Addition R-H Site Plan Review. Simpson: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. 18. #73-82 Provincetown PUD !Taster Plan A master plan request for a mixed -use PUD including resident- ial, commercial, and industrial uses, located on East Trilby Road, zoned R-L-P, Low Density=Planned Residential, and B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: Dueck Developments, Inc., c/o Lester M. Kaplan, 4N West Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Les Kaplan: Applicant. Stated that the master plan was consistent with Land Use Policies. He responded to concerns about buildout time and p asing of the project, the neighborhood impact, and possible school impacts, Dan Nelson: Resident of Victoria Estates. Expressed concern about provid- ing equestrian trails and the type of industrial use planned. He also stated that most of the residents of Victoria Estates had not been notified of this proposal. -11- Kaplan: Stated that there are a lot of concerns that need to be ad- dressed and that they would be addressed by the Planning proc- ess itself. Richard Noffsinger: Resident of Victoria Estates. Expressed concern about the industrial use on site. Stated that he did not feel that enough of the residents at Victoria Estates had been notified. Sal Steele: Victoria Estates resident. Stated that he was shocked by the plan ---this was the first he had heard of it. Stoner: Commented that this meeting provided notice to the applicant that the industrial portion of the site was the biggest area of concern. Simpson: Encouraged the developer and owner to work closely with Vic- toria Estates. Stoner: Moved to approve the Provincetown PUD Master Plan. Dow: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. 19. #73-825 Brittany Park PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 20.52-ac PUD for 120 mobile homes, located south of Trilby Road 1/2-mile east of College, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Dueck Developments, Inc., c/o Lester M. Kaplan, 425 West Mulberry, Fort Collins, Co 80521 Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending approval. Jim Gefroh: Applicant, Gefroh Associates. Stated that he felt that this proposal was unique in that it was the first mobile home dev- elopment that had been brought in as a PUD. Stated that the mobile home is a rigid type to work with and that they had tried to address the problem by clustering units to achieve a flow of space. Addressed questions concerning land ownership, landscaping, and possible interference in moving the mobile holies in and out. Ross: Expressed concerns about the effects on school districts and possible telephone exchange problems. -12- Note: General discussion ensued between the Board, staff, and the applicant concerning land ownership within the mobile home park and the possibility of potential problems. Richard 11offsinger: Victoria Estates resident. Stated that this raas the first time that he had heard about the mobile horde park and felt that many residents of the area did not know what was propos- ed. Stoner: Moved to approve Brittany Park PUD - Preliminary with the condition that when it comes back for final that it not be placed on the Consent Agenda. Data: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-1. (Ross voting no.) Ross: Commented that he did not have any trouble with the plan, but that he did have trouble with the fact that there wer= so many unanswerec things with regard to schools and utilities. 20. #112-79C Extension of Preliminary Approval for Four Seasons PUD Phase 4 A, preliminary PUD proposal for 248 residential units on 24-ac located southeast of Horsetooth Road and South Shields Street, zoned R-L-P, and part of the approved Four Seasons Master Plan. Applicant: Chism Homes, Inc., 937 Arbor Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525. Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending denial. Note: The applicant was not present. Stoner: Moved to deny the Extension of :Preliminary Approval for Four Seasons PUD Phase 4. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. Stoner: Commented that you have to play by the rules and if they can't justify the new density under the LOGS then they should not proceed to develop. COUNTY REFERRALS: 21. #86-82 Rogers Special Review - County Referral -13- • 0 Request for special review approval to permit an indoor rifle range in the C-Commerical zone, located 6204 South College. Applicant: James Rogers, 6204 S. College, Ft. Collins, CO 80525. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval. James Rogers: Applicant, would be available to answer questions. Crews: Moved to recommend to the County approval of the Rogers Spec- ial Review. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6-0. 22. #47-82A Elder Reservoir Estates Revised - County Referral Request to +revise a 4-lot preliminary subdivision, zoned 0-Open, located south of Elder Reservoir on the west side of County Road 11. Applicant: Keith Dixon, c/o Stewart and Associates, P.O. Box 429, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending denial. - Dow: - Moved to recommend to the County denial of the E1derReservoir Estates Revised plans. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion carried 5-1. (Simpson voting no). Stoner: Commented that the reason that he voted for denial was that he did not like the plan . Meeting adjourned 12:30 a.m. -14-