Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 10/25/19820 Board Present Board Absent: Staff Present: Legal Representative PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1982 Dave Gilfillan, Barbara Purvis, Gary Ross, Dennis George, Ed Stoner, Don Crews, Tim Dow, Ingrid Simpson none Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson - Clark, Linda Gula, Gail Ault Paul Eckman Meeting called to order at 6:33 p.m. AGENDA REVIEW: iillfi1 a CONSENT AGENDA: o�— 4. #33-82A Announced Consent Agenda Item 2, Harbor Walk Subdivision - Final (Case #20-82A) and Item 3, Minerva Business Park PUD Phase One - Final (Case #31-82A), as well as Discussion Agenda Item 10, Dalco PUD Master Plan (Case #76-82) and Item 11, Dalco PUD Preliminary and Final (Case #76-82A), had been tabled to November 22, 1982, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Requested Asamera PUD - Final be pulled from the Consent Agenda. Approval of minutes of September 27, 1982. Asamera PUD - Final Request for final approval of a 0.4-ac PUD for a gas station and convenience store located at the northwest corner of Mason Street and Horsetooth Road, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicants: Asamera Oil, Inc., c/o Architecture Plus, 318 East Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave staff report stating preliminary plan was approved 8/23/82 subject to condition parking area be landscaped according to plan. Staff recommends approval. Dana Lochwood: Project Architect, Architecture Plus. Stated staff re- quests had been complied with and additional requested landscaping for parking area and area separating parking have been added. Crews: Still concerned about placement of driveway relative to P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 main arterial. Also questioned general policy concerning this type of use in this type location. Frank: Indicated three variances were requested; two for setback of curbcut from an intersection from required 150 ft to 75 ft and from 150 ft to 50 ft. The third request asked for a setback of parking spaces from the intersection. Staff review revealed no problems with variances since in third instance parking spaces would be allocated to employees. Crews: Asked if there would be a median on Horsetooth providing a right turn exit only. Frank: Answered in the affirmative. Median is currently being installed. Dow: Will there be a traffic light? Frank: Not anticipated now. Added if future use warranted a light one would be put in. Ross: Curious about signage on building and if they would conform to sign code. Frank: Signage is not reviewed at time of PUD approval but at time of building permit issuance. There will be signs at corner and on building but they will conform to code. Dow: With respect to high vehicular use policy on main arter- ials, asked for review of policy. Frank: Stated the Land Development Guidance System contains the criteria used to judge the appropriateness of a highway business use. The necessary percentage points were not quite achieved but staff felt they had done the best job possible. While highway businesses are not always most desireable along a main arterial, in this case, with control of the median and location of curbcuts plus the fine job of landscaping and energy conservation, staff felt it addressed the policies of the City of Fort Collins and recommends approval of variance request. George: Moved to approve Asamera PUD - Final since applicant clearly met requirements implied in preliminary discussion. Purvis: Second. Vote: Motion was approved on a vote of 5-2 with Crews and Dow voting no. -2- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 5. #66-82 Carpenter/McAleer Annexation Request to annex 101.6-ac located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive. Applicant: Carpenter and McAleer Associates, 1600 Broad- way, Suite 660, Denver, CO 80202. NOTE: Board member Gary Ross will abstain from Items #5 and 6. Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating property meets 1/6 Contiguity Requirement, and policies relative to growth, development, and annexation of property to the north and northeast of the city limits. This is a voluntary annexation which means 100% of property owners of the entire parcel are agreeing to annex. Staff recommends approval. Don Parsons: Consulting Engineer representing applicant. Stated he was available to answer any questions. Gilfillan: Asked intentions and timetables for the property involved. Parsons: Stated intent was for a mobile home park and the timing would be as quickly as possible, considering Lemay Exten- sion, proposed parkway through north part of Fort Collins, etc.; therefore, timing is indefinite. Stoner: Questioned why small parcel to south was not annexed. Parsons: Stated rectangular parcel to south next to Vine Drive was under different ownership; however, discussions are taking place to include it. Stoner: Asked if owners were previously approached. Parsons: No. They are not a part of proposed annexation. James P. Johnson: Attorney for an area resident. Indicated the two items were inseparable and must be considered together as it leaves those opposed to Item 2, Zoning, in an exposed position for Item 2 if they don't oppose Item 1. Gilfillan: Stated by design and policy items must be looked at separately. While there undoubtedly will be some cross- references they will be entertained separately as designed. Stoner: Asked if Johnson opposed annexation. Johnson: Commented that without knowing what Item 6 entailed he could not fully answer the question. -3- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Stoner: Explained only after annexation can a zone be defined. Proposed zoning can only be accepted or rejected after annexation. Johnson: Understood but since proposal is a lump presentation the two should be considered together. George Thornton: Area resident, 1304 Lindenwood Drive. Believed items intertwined and points to be made were relevant to both items. Stated he was making preliminary statement for several people. At least 15-20 people have met on at least two occasions in past couple weeks as well as numerous smaller groups. Most people are representatives of respective neighborhoods and the concensus is considerable opposition to annexation, zoning, and anticipated develop- ment by Carpenter in this area. The opposition is wide- spread and deep, not a knee-jerk opposition to mobile homes, as shown by the number of people present or represented by petition here. We have signed petitions in opposition to these actions by over 478 individuals which will be given the Board this evening. Also I would like individuals from the areas to identify themselves. North of this area is Moondrift Farm and the Bakers are here. Immediately north of that area is Lindenmeier Estates, there are approximately 16 individuals in that small area that have signed the petition. Lindenwood, immediately north of that area, has 141 individuals who have signed the petition. From the area around Tavelli School, there are 37 individuals. Going to the south, we have 37 individuals who have signed the petition from Alta Vista immediately east of the proposed area including Alta Vista and the Andersonville area. Other signatures include Nedra Acres and Adriel Hills which are further to the north and we con- sider particularly important. It was understood the M-M designation would allow 8 mobile homes per acre on the land and with a PUD as many as 12 could be placed on an acre, nearly double the total number of mobile homes in the Fort Collins area. Realized not that many would go in, (actual density may be close to 5 or 6, which would still allows 500-600 mobile homes in this area or a 44% increase in number of mobile home spaces in the entire city of Fort Collins.) There are several reasons why the annexation, zoning, and development by Carpenter are opposed. 1. Most Fort Collins mobile home parks are in the north half of the city. Fully 60% of the mobile home spaces lie in north half (area resident showed on zoning maps the location of mobile home parks). With the elimination of the -4- • s P&Z Board .Minutes, 10/25/82 Pioneer Park Mobile Home Court and addition of this proposed park fully 70% of all the mobile homes in Fort Collins would be on the north side of Fort Collins. This does not serve the general pattern of usage in Fort Collins and does not serve those individuals who would desire space south of town. 2. There is considerable confusion over planning for this immediate area and its environs. City should promote active annexation in north and northeast if annexations are orderly. There is anything but an orUerly development pattern emerging within this area of Fort Collins. The area is quite unsettled. What is happening with land on west side of Lemay, approximately 1300-1800 blocks, north of Conifer and south of the ditch? It's a mess. Where is Anheuser-Busch going to be located? What size is the industrial park in that area going to be and where will the access roads be? Where is the expressway, the route 14 bypass from College east? Where is the Lemay bypass going after it skirts Andersonville on the east and connects with Conifer on the north? How will the Lemay bypass go over the railroad tracks? How will the interchanges be laid out between the expressway, how will they connect the east - west, north -south streets which exist in there? When questioned no one in city or county has been able to resolve these matters. These should be resolved first, before land is annexed and zoned. 3. Question the quality of the development. Evergreen Park has not been a shining success. We are not against mobile home parks in general, but are extremely wary of this proposal because of the history of other projects by the developer. 4. Proposed use does not fit existing scheme in area which is single-family dwellings on south, west, and north. The land to the east is zoned residential. A mobile home park would adversely affect the value of these homes and more importantly would seriously add to the traffic problem, noise, burden on schools in area, etc. It will damage integrity of Andersonville and Alta Vista. Alternatives would be to delay action on this until expressway and bypass are located. Encourage expansion of existing mobile home parks. Also encourage location of a mobile home park south of Fort Collins in land not adjacent to currently established single-family residiential areas. The city is interested in promoting growth on the north side of Fort Collins but this action will discourage, not encourage quality growth. Both zoning and annexation should be rejected as it will lead to an imbalance of -5- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 mobile home availability and, more importantly, a project of this size is really incompatible with the existing scheme of single-family dwellings in this area. Gilfillan: Board shares interests and concerns and stated it is difficult to separate these two items; however, the Intergovernmental Agreement which we work with makes it difficult. Asked specifically what parcel on the west side of Lemay was being referred to. Rupel: Stated it was Greenbriar PUD and Evergreen Park Second Filing. The developer is a California firm who has stopped development at this point due to economic conditions but has added several thousand dollars worth of utilities in that area. Gilfillan: Asked staff to share future plans reference the Anheuser- Busch access and what it might mean reference this site, the expressway and the Lemay bypass. Rupel: Council has pretty well decided there will be a Lemay bypass in alignment to our present arterial standards. A portion of this property will be affected by it. As far as the north bypass, that alignment has been set approximately 1000 feet east of College Avenue and would tie together and one of the routes considered would run a portion of it through this property somewhere. These items have been discussed with the developer and he is aware he may have some design problems but would still like to have it annexed. As far as Anheuser-Busch is concerned there is no known effect by this property on the location of the Anheuser-Busch site. As far as aiding in annexation, it could possibly help but there are other means if Anheuser- Busch so desires. Stoner: Asked if the zoning request were RLP would Thornton be opposed to annexation. Thornton: I think it would be more acceptable. Stoner: Questioned Thornton's opinion of best land use, besides vacant. Thornton: Stated single family dwellings would be acceptable. Simpson: Doesn't RLP and PUD provide a mixed use of multi -family and single family. What other kind of zoning would be available in that area if it were annexed? Stoner: Stated with the present guidance system regardless how zoned, any use could be applied for. am P&Z Board • Minutes, 10/25/82 Thornton: Said he didn't understand that whole process but understood what was being said. Simpson: Regarding this annexation and how it relates to Anheuser- Busch asked if it was correct that this was the first step. Rupel: Not known to be a fact, but possible it could help it. Simpson: In a meeting with Mr. Arnold last week asked point blank how necessary the annnexation would be and he stated it would be very helpful. Asked for an explanation as to how this would help. Rupel: Anything leading toward the 1/6 Contiguity is a help to someone outside that area. Simpson: Asked how the ground directly north of this property was zoned. Rupel: FA-1 County George: Asked of that 100 acres, after floodways and road develop- ments, how many acres would really be developable. Rupel: 70 to 80 percent. Mr. Parsons is saying approximately 70 percent would be developable. Purvis: Questioned the wording on the petition and asked if it would be admitted to the board. Thornton: Stated yes. The wording at the top says petition in oppo- sition to Case #66-82, City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning Board. The undersigned are opposed to the action requested by this peition and it was meant to express an opinion about annexation and zoning. George: Asked what percentage of the people signing the petition lived in the City of Fort Collins. Thornton: Quickly estimated about 160. Dow: Asked existing city boundaries. Albertson -Clark: Defined city limits from map. Stated under Inter- governmental Agreement this property must be annexed before any development can occur on it because it is eligible for annexation. Dow: Repeated everything to the west is city, to the north and east is not. The only thing to the south is the thin RL zone. -7- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Crew: Was having difficulty separating the two also but stated we must and asked the speakers to address the annexation question as closely as possible and talk about the zoning later. Don Schlagel: Area resident owning parcel of land to the west. Attended meetings for many years on the Fort Collins parkway and Lemay bypass. Believed he had the most current drawing, The Fort Collins Urban Growth Master Street Plan, September 1982, showing the parcel in question being bisected by expressway or Fort Collins Parkway pretty much through the center. The Lemay bypass will come around the east. Wondered what the quality of life would be with a four -lane expressway through your neighborhood. Secondly, understood another purpose was to place some of the people at Harmony Park but stated if he lived on the southside of Fort Collins he would have a problem with being relocated to the north side of Fort Collins. Also understood at the City had a major interest in it as a joint ownership situation or being involved in the development. Was told the City had $300,000+ they were prepared to pay down and were interested in the property he owns. Didn't know if he had a problem with the mobile home development but did have a problem with a governmental agency getting in the develop- ing business. Also heard there was a parcel of land on Trilby Road earmarked specifically for a mobile home park and wondered about that. Rupel: Stated it was in the preliminary stage and believed it was on next month's agenda, but the City has no financial interest in it, it is a private investor. Schlagle: Indicated personally he would prefer to see that property develop into some type of commercial development similar to the Airpark Industrial Park for several reasons: 1) the expressway and Lemay bypass; 2) parcel is in the flight alignment and planes do fall into that field. Stoner: Asked if opposed to the annexation? Schlagle: Yes, I am. Raymond Nauta: Area resident. Interested in the little area that's all white on the map because property belongs to him. Wondered if adjacent property is annexed into the City, how soon will his be annexed in. Will he be forced in? What benefits will there be from it, or won't there be any benefits? P&Z Board .Minutes, 10/25/82 Legal Representative: Stated if he became surrounded, an enclave totally surrounded by the City, and remained so for three years, you could be forcibly annexed. It appears you would not be totally surrounded at the present time at least unless something across from Vine Drive were to be annexed also. Gilfillan: Asked if opposed to the proposed annexation as it is now. Nauta: Stated not if it didn't force hardship on him. It's used as a family dwelling and business - truck terminal, initially their own business but now leased out. James Alarid: Area resident representing three neighborhoods on north part of town. Expressed their concerns about population growth without good roads and questioned where the traffic from this property go. Gilfillan: Indicated that was difficult to answer at this time. Alarid: Noted after annexation it would be too late. Can't handle the traffic now. Need to think about it now. Gilfillan: Shared his traffic concerns but need to do the planning as the traffic patterns occur. Daniel W. Dean: Attorney representing residents of Pioneer Mobile Home Park. Opposed to annexation if it is being offered as relief or replacement living. Gilfillan: Stated Board not aware this is not being presented as offering any replacement. Tom J. Boardnan: Area Resident north of proposed area. Since the informa- tion received from Planning & Zoning indicated this was Case #66-82, it should be clear why the issues are addressed together. Regarding the airpark, knew of planes going down and this issue needs to be addressed since the number of planes taking off will create problems and the fields are needed. Veronica L. Lindeman: Area resident. Delivered petitions to all but about 7 homes in Evergreen Park and all but about two people were opposed to the annexation. Felt it would depreciate property value. It also disrupts lifestyle of those mobile home owners on the southside who move this far north, and if their trailers won't meet the requirements of newer parks what good would this new mobile home park do? The proposed roads make it difficult to place families with children along this major thoroughfare --will there be playgrounds and supervision? Or will there be recreational facilities provided for the older people? moz P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Karen E. Morris: Pueblo Vista Club Estates Area Resident. Of those homes she surveyed all were in opposition to the zoning in particular. Area has coped with the Lemay intersection being torn up. Now concerned with the quality of our school (Tavelli) deteriorating. If 800 mobile homes moved in what would they do for shopping? Residents elected to drive the three miles but these people may not have a choice. The interchanges should be issued first before annexation of the property. Bill Hansen: Consulting Engineer. Pointed out on Thursday an applica- tion is being submitted to Larimer County for expansion of Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park. This expansion has been in owner's mind for some time and will provide an additional 200 or so mobile home spaces available sometime next year, probably sooner than any other mobile home spaces. Jim Titcomb: Area Resident. Recommended deferring annexation until a complete study is made of proposed expressway and bypass, the school facilities available, traffic pattern, sewage, etc. This ground should not be annexed til these problems solved. Opposes zoning for mobile homes. Deloris Williams: Country Club Estates Area Resident. Speaking to both annexation and zoning. Stated if Anheuser-Busch comes they want their own exit off I-25 north of the Mulberry exit. Seemed to be an ideal location to move the expressway making it a true bypass of Fort Collins. The proposed expressway is inappropriate by cutting out town in half, making the expressway cross 287 two times. It is inappro- priate for this developer to make plans when you haven't decided what is going to happen to Anheuser-Busch because it costs money to make plans. Zoning and annexation should wait until the Anheuser-Busch cutoff is determined. Gilfillan: Indicated concerns and requests accurate and these same comments will be passed along to council. Karen Wagner: Lindenwood Area Resident. Became aware of Mr. Carpenter being the developer of the Evergreen Park area by seeing his name on delinquent tax notices. Current status unknown but perhaps Denver Developers coming to Fort Collins to force their ideas on us might complete those developments before initiating new developments. Opposesd the annexa- tion if it is just a link to the strip annexation to Anheuser-Busch. Gilfillan: Closed the discussion for the applicant's annexation and opened it up for zoning. -10- P&Z Board • Minutes, 10/25/82 Stoner: Asked where we would stand with the Intergovernmental Agreement if we refused annexation. Legal Representative: Believed we'd be in violation of the Intergovernmental Agree- ment. George: Asked about timing to update master street plan if this were to be annexed. Rupel: Indicated latest is currently September, probably at the earliest it could go to Council in December. Dow: Asked if there has been discussion/encouragement for City to provide a quick fix for the Pioneer situation. Rupel: Indicated for the benefit of the audience and the Board that Mr. Carpenter approached Planning and Zoning on this project long before anything was going on with the Holiday Inn. Mr. Carpenter had an accident slowing him up for probably 3 months but this had nothing to do with Pioneer Park or the Holiday Inn. Stoner: Questioned this being a partial strip for the eventual annexation of the Anheuser-Busch. Rupel: Indicated property north and east and so is Anheuser-Busch location, but beyond that point unaware of any link. Simpson: Only meant it would make the process of annexation easier in that it would be a natural transition. Stoner: Interjected that if we do annex it we are just agreeing to the annexation. Gilfillan: Indicated also this is not a final decision as it will go on to City Council. Simpson: Questioned annexation process. Because of the 1/6th contiguity and since it is voluntary must we annex this? Gilfillan: Indicated with the Intergovernmental Agreement, it is a high indication the City would proceed with annexation. Stoner: Stated it is a catch 22 for the owner. He cannot develop in the County if he has the contiguity to the City, so he must annex to develop. Legal Representative: Concurred. George: Offered a motion. Much irrelevant discussion; i.e., Holiday Inn and relief for mobile home owners. What's relevant is whether this land is in conformance with the county and the Intergovernmental Agreement and whether it is annexable into -11- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 the City and whether it should be annexed. Since no new evidence was presented stating it should not be annexed, moved to recommend to City Council approval of the annexation of the Carpenter -McAleer property. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion was approved on a vote of 6-1 with Simpson voting no. 6. #66-82A Carpenter -McAleer Zoning Request to zone 101.6-ac M-M, Medium Density Mobile Home, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and Vine Drive. Applicant: Carpenter and McAleer Associates, 1600 Broadway, Suite 660, Denver, CO 80202 Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating it would permit 8 units per acre or 12 mobile home units per acre if developed as a PUD. The Fort Collins Expressway, Lemay Avenue Extension, potential impacts from Dry Creek Floodway are all items not dealt with at time of annexation, they are reviewed at time of development review of a site. The City's land use policy 80 indicates higher density areas should be located near the core area. Staf recommends zoning, subject to a condition the site develop as a PUD. This would mean future development must be evaluated under the Land Development Guidance System. Development would not be limited solely to mobile home development. PUD review would mitigate any potential conflicts between proposed land uses. Stoner: Asked if zoning not acceptable to us can we designate an appropriate zone or must the developer agree? Legal Representative: Board may make any recommendation of appropriate land use they feel acceptable. Gilfillan: Asked if applicant agreeable to bringing this in under a PUD? Albertson -Clark: Stated he was. He requested M-M zoning district because applicant should be requesting zoning district similar to what land uses he would propose, if at some later date we are not operating under the Land Development Guidance System but under traditional zoning. Legal Representative: As a matter of procedure, appropriate for Board to deny the mobile home recommendation and make some other recommendation which the applicant may wish to appeal. Simpson: Asked the difference between RLP zoning and RL zoning. Albertson -Clark: Stated under a PUD there is essentially no difference. The RL zoning district traditionally stands for low density -12- P&Z Board • .Minu'tes, 10/25/82 single-family residential. In RL district, without going through the PUD, the only use you can have is single-family residential. RLP is low density planned residential where you must go through the PUD system. It permits single-family residences. Under the PUD system you can propose any land use. Don Parsons: Indicated he was available to answer any questions. Dow: Asked if zoning really makes any difference. Parsons: Indicated PUD would not be a problem for them so they're ammenable to listening to the proposal of the board. Coming in under a PUD would not deter them from proposing a development for the site. Dow: Asked if it would make any difference in arranging financing or any other aspects. Parsons: Stated no, he didn't believe so. Jim Johnson: Reemphasized a couple important points. 1) The traffic problems currently are bad. Add another 800 mobile home units and you have a chaotic situation rivaling anything anywhere in the country. 2) The school system should be taken into account, with another 600 family units in there, there has been no planning. 3) My clients live in the Moondrift Farm, which will become the buffer between the proposed 600 or more mobile homes and the very expensive units north. What will happen to the farm later on? Their investment is entitled to be considered. 4) Finally, a road may or may not go through this property. It should cost the taxpayers less to condemn the property as it presently exists than when it has mobile homes. Urged consideration of not granting proposed zoning. Gilfillan: Asked what zoning he suggested. Johnson: Couldn't answer. Certainly not want houses in an air space. Vacant is best. Betty Broadhurst: Adriel Hills area resident. Waited 20 minutes tonight to cross train track. Wondered what planning has been done for the tracks as 800 families will materially affect the pattern of transit in that area. Rupel: Stated there will be an on -grade crossing, at the same level as the tracks, or as it is now. Kenneth G. Hall: Collinsair Mobile Home Park, 401 N. Summitview Road, resident. Urged zoning be approved. There is a critical shortage of mobile home spaces in the Loveland/Fort Collins area with a vacancy rate of 5% or less. The owners of mobile home parks are indiscriminatly and outrageously increasing -13- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 the rent. Collinsair Park has 328 spaces with about the same area as here. The people opposed to the zoning feel people living in mobile home parks are second class citizens, they don't want them next to them. Further, House Bill 1594 effective January 1983 prohibits discrimination in the loca- tion of mobile homes or manufactured units. Loren R. Maxey: Representing Community Airpark Association, Board of Direc- tors. The Board opposes the rezoning for mobile home parks, or any residential use. The end of the runway is not far from this property. The prime accident zone is just off the end of either runway. Commercial property is very much compatible, with the railroad, the arterial street, with Dry Creek and the flood plain. Any type of residential development is not compatible. Don't think it will detract from the property value, just that it's not the proper type to take place. Irene Dougherty: Area Resident. Former California resident claimed fire bombers in California flying over mobile homes never affected them. If Lemay traffic is bad, try College Avenue. A mobile home is just as much a castle as a Country Club Estates residence. Daniel W. Dean: Indicated this isn't an appropriate location for a mobile home park considering the air traffic and the board should not endorse this zoning. Compared this to residents of Pioneer Park mobile home park with property being annexed and zoned before the residents knew it. When the City and State comes through to condemn these lots the residents will be displaced once again. Dow: Asked Parsons if approval gained for project what would plan be with regard to expressway, roadway, etc. Would it be developed or wait until other plans are finalized? Parsons: Stated the parkway has been under consideration for 10-15 years, so can't wait. Proposed alternatives for the roadways, possibly setting aside alignment for those routes would be discussed, and the proposal would consider those impacts. Dow: Asked if answer is to go ahead before plans were finalized. Parsons: Talked about construction plans for Lemay Avenue or the expressway being years away. In fact Lemay Avenue extension is not proposed until developments such as this come through. Dow: Expressed concern about people moving in and in five years being hammered with the expressway. -14- P&Z Board • Minutes, 10/25/82 Parsons: Pointed out Mr. Carpenter is at this time setting aside land in Evergreen Park for the expressway and plans to do so here too. He's cooperative. Regarding the total number of units, there has been almost no planning for density, but if you project 70% of land being usable at 5-6 units per acre, it results in 350-400 units or approximately half what has been discussed. This is an attempt to meet the general need of housing at a reasonable cost. As far as a buffer to the property to the north, the 300 foot path for the expressway would probably be on the northern half of the property. Economically we feel this meets the need for both City and developer. Simpson: Asked what was being addressed for "near community shopping center." Albertson -Clark: Noted the most pertinent area is the core area, the downtown area, which is a mile within the site. Dow: Asked what zoning options available. Albertson -Clark: Stated any zoning district with PUG condition could allow developer to propose mobile home units on the site or others uses as he feels appropriate. Dow: Questioned if more specifically that was RL or RLP, etc. Albertson -Clark: Indicated most areas annexed in past years have been RLP and that would be most appropriate but not necessarily mean that use would be single-family residences. Gilfillan: Pointed out that even with the M-M zone they can also put in single-family residences. Albertson -Clark: Agreed. Indicated any proposal through the guidance system must go through the residential density chart we have now. Based on criteria relative to the site it appears it will be about 5 units per acre. Gilfillan: Noted this is just a zoning request and will be forwarded on to Council for recommendation. Asked when it might appear on Council agenda? Rupel: December, if that early. Simpson: Questioned the way this land be developed --must it be a PUD or can they go with straight RL. Albertson -Clark: They can pursue that option but staff recommendation would be a PUD because we have greater review of landscaping, location and siting of buildings, street design standards. -15- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Purvis: Questioned whether it was appropriate to consider the costs of condemnation in relation to the zoning recommendation. Legal Representative: Board should consider most appropriate land use. M-M zoning is not a planned type of zone, and staff recommends zone come through as PUD. Finally make clear to applicant whether his request is approved or denied. Dow: Moved to deny requested M-M zoning to City Council for this piece of property because this zoning creates unrealistic expectations for the property. Secondly, the applicant indicates it really makes little difference to him if it is approved. Stoner: Second. Stoner: Pointed out with development on three sides it becomes diffi- cult to buffer for or against uses for high density, so he'd like to see it buffered between all three low residential areas. Simpson: Concerned about the position of the Airpark in relation to this and also about roadways. Feels we need to address some of the extensions. Perhaps if Anheuser-Busch project takes off, roadways will get attention. Vote: Motion was approved on a vote of 5-2 with Gilfillan and George voting no. Gilfillan felt the City's tools would provide for proper utilization, and mobile homes are also single-family dwellings. George felt it was deceiving to appliciant since he has been so up -front with us. Stoner: Expressed many complications with this area and we need to pick a zone and work with the problems when it comes in as a plan. Legal Representative: Agreed Board needs to pick a zone. Stoner: Asked Albertson -Clark opinion of RMP zone and the difference in the commercial allocation between this and RLP. Albertson -Clark: Said there no longer is a commercial allocation under the present system. Dow: Asked if staff would recommend RLP as an initial zoning for the property? Albertson -Clark: Believed so. Stoner: Moved to recommend to City Council designation of RLP zone on this property. Dow: Second. -16- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Parsons: Applicant would prefer RP or RMP for the proposed zoning. Albertson -Clark: Stated all three would require applicant to come in with PUD. Gilfillan: Requested action on the motion from the board. Vote: Motion was approved on a vote of 6-1 with Simpson voting no. Note: Ross returned and George abstained from #7 and 8. P . #69-89 Harmony #5 Annexation Request for annexation of 11.2-ac located north of Harmony Road at the northeast corner of the Hewlett-Packard site. Applicant: Petersen Construction, 3136 S. Lemay Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80525 Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating meets 1/6th contiguitiy require- ment and staff recommends approval. Lynn Hammond Representing Hewlett-Packard and applicant. Explained land which is between Hewlett-Packard facilities and Fossil Creek ditch would have no use separate and apart from facilities out there now. There would be no access road constructed to is. There are no construction plans anticipated at present possibly will be used for additional parking. Requested zoning will be for light industrial. Ross: Questioned if the ditch provided a natural break. Hammond: Answered in the affirmative. Gilfillan: Asked if there would be any utility problems, etc. Hammond: Stated no. Discussions concerning the discharge of storm drainage have begun, but no problems are anticipated. Purvis: Asked if discussions with Mr. Hill regarding maintenace of inlet ditch had occurred. Hammond: Stated currently they have right-of-way, supplied by H-P, and H-P will extend right-of-way giving them same use of facility from west side of ditch as they currently have south of that area. Ross: Asked if access to parcel was denied, except through owner's existing ground, would this be done now or with zoning process. Legal Representative: Believed that is a dedicated right-of-way. -17- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Hammond: Indicated one property owner expressed concerned about a road being put in. County road to north will remain and believed the Company will make some improvements to that road even though they don't use it. Ross: Moved to recommend approval of the annexation. Stoner: Second. Vote: Motion was approved on a vote of 7-0. #8. #69-82A Harmony #5 Zoning Request to zone 11.2-ac I-L, Limited Industrial, located north of Harmony Road at the northeast corner of the Hewlett- Packard site. Applicant: Petersen Construction, 3136 S. Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525. Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating zoning consistant with that of current Hewlett-Packard site. Staff recommends approval with no PUD condition since site plan review is required by Director of Planning and Development for any use. Gilfillan: Questioned having site included in site plan with existing site. Albertson -Clark: Agreed it should be developed with the rest of the site and not as an item of itself, but site plan review by staff would adequately cover this. Dow: Expressed concern in approving as outlined without PUD condi- tion, and move we approve the requested zoning subject to the PUD requirement for any development on it. Ross: Second. Stoner: Questioned if a parking lot must come in as a PUD. Albertson -Clark: Stated yes. We could expand also to include existing facilities on site or as 11-ac parcel. Legal Representative: Clarified Dow's motion to deny requested zoning and suggest and I-L zoning with a PUD. Hammond: Questioned if on PUD more extensive engineering work would be required. Albertson -Clark: Level of detail and submittal content essentially the same but PUD requires coming back to Board when final site plan is reviewed. Hammond: Had no strong feelings either way. Only so much engineering you can do to a parking lot. It may delay them down the road but hopefully will make council more secure, but not delay annexation. -18- P&Z Board • • Minutes, 10/25/82 Ross: Concerned with setting a precident for firms of less stature than Hewlett-Packard and not asking for the same would be an error on Board's part. Not trying to be destructive to the procedure. Gilfillan: Clarified Dow's motion for this specific site as recommending zoning of I-L with the PUD condition. Hammond: Questioned if there would be a problem if approved and there is not an I-L zone. Would applicant return back prior to the time a building permit is taken out? Albertson -Clark: Indicated following normal submittal procedure and coming back to Planning and Zoning Board prior to obtaining a build- ing permit. Vote: Motion approved on a vote of 7-0. DISCUSSION AGENDA 9. - Holiday Inn PUD Phase One - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 209,000-sf hotel/con- ference center on 10.1-ac located north of Harmony Road between College and proposed JFK Parkway, zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: William Strickfaden, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Frank: Gave staff report indicating reason tabled dealt with need for further information of 85 foot height and additional evidence on the vehicular circulation on the site. Gilfillan: Regarding access to College Avenue, asked partiicular re- quirements. Frank: Deferred answer to traffic engineer. Jim Heaberlin: Vice President of Finance, John Q. Hammonds Industries. Stated he felt a proposed hotel conference center should be looked at for the following reasons: 1) Builder perfor- mance. John Q. Hammonds has 25 years experience in building hotels, primarily Holiday Inns, and has build over 75 of them. He is considered by many to be the finest entrepeneur in the country. 2) Economics. Cost of between 10 and 12 million dollars is significant for any developer. Hammonds has a strong finanancial statement necessary for a project of this type. We have studied this project for approximate- ly 2 years and anticipate room rates of that average between $42-$48, with 220 rooms, and a breakeven point of about three years with room occupancy of 65% or less the first year. We probably will not hit 75% occupancy until sometime in the third year and, therefore, will suffer losses in the _19- p&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 neighborhood of lz million dollars over the first three years of the operation. 3) Quality. Mr. Hammonds record shows two hotels in Denver,and the Northglenn property has been selected by Holiday Inns International as one of the top 10 new hotels in their approximately 1700 chain. After two years of working we are still here trying to get approval. We have looked at 5-6 other sites but have chosen the Harmony and College site because 1) high visibility from north, west, and south. 2) Harmony Road is certainly a major entryway into Fort Collins. 3) Sufficient land was available at the right time and price. Regarding height, will compromise and lower height from 7 to 5 stories, or 100 feet to 65 feet, of which 45 would be used for the hotel itself and remaining 16 feet for the penthouse or mechanical controls which in many cities does not count as part of the actual hotel height. This will require some minor changes but will still include a 1000-seat sit down to dinner convention center. The number of rooms will decline from 253 to 220, but the remainder of configuration will be essentially the same. We will still have in excess of 500 parking spaces. Regarding the traffic issue, we have hired Lee, Scott, and Cleary, from Denver to work on the traffic study and they have met with the City staff and come to the conclusion there will be no traffic problem created by the hotel itself on College or Harmony Avenues during the first phase of this project. Carr Bieker: Architect, ZVKF Architects/Planners. Stated height had been changed by two floors, atrium concept would remain. At this time Phase One needs approval. A traffic analysis assuming a 90 percent occupancy (and we would probably be looking at only a 70 percent occupancy) gives you 2,270 cars per day using 253 rooms, so for purposes of discussion we used approximately 2,000 automobile trips per day. Peak hours demand of city street system is considered to be 0730 am to 0830 am and we will have less than 125 cars entering in the morning between 0800 am to 0900 am. In the afternoon we have 80 and 80. Regarding distribution, considering how the cars flow through the existing and proposed street system, 22% are north and southbound on College to Harmony, 28% are on Harmony from College east, 29% are south of Harmony on College, and 12% on the proposed JFK. Basically 2000 cars per day will have to get on and off Harmony road. Now there are approximately 12,000 per day on Harmony Road, we are adding 2,000 which can be viewed as a 16% increase, but Harmony is designed for a capacity of 30,000 (this volumes are now being experienced on College Avenue). Taking direction into consideration, east oriented traffic would -20- P&Z Board • Minutes, 10/25/82 have a 4% impact, west oriented traffic a 12.5% impact, but in terms of traffic capacity east oriented traffic would have 1.67% and west oriented traffic about 5%. Net conclusion is the street system is more than adequate. A hotel convention center is an in -the -middle type use as commercial development generates somewhere in the range of 2-3 times as much traffic per square foot and office use generates less traffic. Stated improvements to happen before summer of 1984 hotel opening include a new signal at Harmony and College sophisticated enough to respond to the unusual characteristics that might be generated at that point; and secondly the Lemay improvements should be completed between Horsetooth and Harmony. There is also a good possibility JFK could be under construction but this particular developer has no control over that. Initially an 85 foot structure was anticipated but we can drop this to a 62 foot height including mechanical equipment which would drop below the tree -line of existing cottonwood trees. Ross: Questioned how removing two floors so few rooms (23) could be lost. Heaberlin: Since each floor is not identical and rooms are not identi- cal, and because perhaps the square footage will increase, we have lost only 33 rooms. What the exact footprint change will be and the exact square footage change is, I don't know. Bieker: Yes the footprint is affected, but so is the parking with number of cars taken down proportionately. The integrity of plan stays the same. Ross: Concerned with the unknown, questioned if it would be shorter and fatter. Bieker: Substantially shorter and only a little bit fatter. Rupel: I understand from Mr. Stickfadden we are talking about 22 feet wider, which is a figure quoted over the telephone. Bieker: Stated it will be substantially the same and Planning and Zoning has the ability to control it. Ross: Stated while 22 feet probably was not significant, 50 feet would possibly be significant. Heaberlin: Stated changes would be in the tower, not the pool or the convention center. Simpson: Questioned width of penthouse structure in relation to the rest of the building. -21- PR Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Oland: ZVFK Architects. Showed on the map what portion of the tower had penthouse on it. Gilfillan: Questioned what part of JFK would be improved. Bieker: Showed on the nap improvements proposed. George: Asked about signage plans. Heaberlin: Stated signs would conform to City code, but no specifics yet. Gilfillan: Asked about JFK development by this developer. Rupel: Stated developer won't be asked to extend beyond his limits unless traffic generated by Phase Two requires additional extension of JFK. Daniel lJ. Dean: Attorney representing residents of Pioneer Mobile Home Park. Stated since Master Plan approval had not been received and is being appealed to the City Council, Board should not be reviewing the PUD. Gilfillan: Stated Board dealt with this question at their working session and the appeal does not stall review of the item. Dean: Stated Land Use Policy Plan directs Board to consider social implications of developments it reviews. We are not contesting the development of a hotel convention center but of location since we believe the land use policies plan precludes conversion except in the core area defined as downtown Fort Collins. Since this residential use is already in place this would be a conversion and not allowed. This Board needs to take social impact and conversion of residential for some other use, or these residents should band together to present a referendum to the City voters precluding this type of conversions. This ordinance would be consistent with Land Use Policies Plan. This could read: No real property presently used for residential purposes, whether owner occupied or tenant occupied, including mobile home courts or parks, shall be converted to a non-residen- tial use or a residential use of a lower density unless there is less than two percent of the land area within the city boundaries undeveloped at the time of the approval of the new use. Variances would have to be precluded unless, as part of the conversion plan, the applicant or developer creates at least an equivalent residential area for these displaced residents to move to or obtains the consent of all the •residents displaced. This would be akin to anti -growth ordinance in Boulder and would probably be upheld as constitutional. Concerned Board was overlooking policies discouraging loss of low-income housing, prohibiting conver- sion of residential use except in core area. Challenged application on several distinct and procedural grounds, -22- P&Z Board • • Minutes, 10/25/82 development has not earned discretionary points necessary under the criteria of business services uses. Project earned 26 of 50 points, just one point over required half. If analysis of criteria or award of points fails in any respect the project will fall short of earning the approval of this board. Went on to state project falls short in two areas - contiguity with urban development to extent of 1/6th because this project shares no boundary with any urban growth and secondly project is at this point not a part of a neighborhood center. Only definition it would fit would be if it had more than 100 full time employees during an 8-hour shift and applicant anticipates 50 per shift. If this project has met the criteria of being near a neighborhood center it has done so only marginally and falls short of those points necessary to win approval of the Planning and Zoning Board. A month ago it was stated Mr. Strickfadden was offering certain concessions to the park mobile home owners were being made, and we had not heard of them. No communications have occurred yet. Restated the unavailability of mobile home spaces in area, applicants will suffer 1.2 million dollar loss if displacement occurs. Presented statistics complied back in August for the City Council relating to a industrial revenue bond application. Since July the following information relative to school shows 42 children going to O'Dea School which has a 517 population. These 42 children can move nowhere else in the City of Fort Collins and attend O'Dea, therefore, 7% of O'Dea's population will be lost. A significant impact on O'Dea school as well as a social impact on the children moving from friends. Applicant's statement about existing trees higher than proposed hotel being preserved can hardly be compared to displacement of the existing people's lives not being preserved. Now is not the time for approval of the PUD. Stoner: Stated no option of awarding one point instead of two. Also under mixed use hotel received no credit and could be awarded 6 points for that. Dean: I disagree that it would not be a mixed use because it is run by same entity. Stoner: Since points were not major determining factor subject was dropped but Dean was questioned as to appropriate time for conversion of the property. Dean: 1) When mobile home park development has been encouraged further. 2) when northern development grows toward the south bounding this property, and 3) when City has adopted policy precluding conversions of residential uses when there is no consideration for the residents. -23- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 GiIfiIIan: Stated there was three years notification of change in zoning. Dean: Because residents are not real property owners they did not receive notification. Frank: Stated criteria being challenged are h - contiguity, and contiguity achieved by existing subdivision to the south across Harmony Road and the Land Development Guidance System does not preclude contiguity to this property. Being apart of a regional center is achieved by being in the South College Superblock #l, being in a part of the South College Properties. Stated initial analysis was done before total information had been received and staff believed points should be awarded to mixed use as well as points for energy conservation since further information indicates they will be doing at least an adequate job on that. Also the 50% figure is not a criteria for a project passing Heaberlin: Stated Holiday Inn will employee 175-200 people total but might have only 50-60 people on premises per shift. Lorrie Wolf: Larimer County Human Development. Stated quality of life for park residents would be affected, plus fear had been instilled in the residents through runors of conversion of other mobile home parks to commercial. Stated these residents are frequently on fixed incomes, over 50%, and their needs for moderate cost housing cannot be met and there will be a significant impact in all phases of this project. Ross: Stated easier to condemn large developer, rights involved belong to mobile home owners but to developer as well. Wolf: Stated a precident in other parts of the state had develop - providing for the impact through purchase of the resident or providing a living allowance to the people involved. These residents, who have the least amount of resource for dealing with this change, need to be given some help. They need some assurances. Crews: Questioned if approval was denied, would landowner then not ask people to leave. Wolf: Rumors are that land will go commercial at any rate. Ruth Glenn: Representative for William Strickfadden. Stated in the last month Pioneer Mobile Home park residents have vacated to such a degree that there is sufficient vacancy to begin Phase One of construction for the Holiday Inn. Park tenants will be moved at no expense to them to other areas of the park as has been stated to them all along. -24- • • P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Ross: Restated offer to relocate within the park presently but relocation to some other location would be at owner's expense and two moves would be required. Glenn: Stated whether Holiday Inn is approved or not within three to five years property will go commercial. Ross: Questioned how offer was communicated. Glenn: Stated there was a meeting at the park and also a neighbor- hood meeting with members of the Planning Staff present. Dow: Asked how many have vacated as a result of this. Glenn: 181 spaces plus some transient spaces with 45 completely vacant, 5 have given notice to vacate, and 16 spaces owned by park (some of which are vacant). There are 66 units of 181 which are available now for some other use. Francis Ek: Park tenant. Stated Glenn's figures are accurate but many have left out of fear. Stated there were two meetings with Mr. Strickfadden after the announcement had appeared in the paper but no alternatives were ever given. He offered possibly 2 year leases and other alternatives other than just moving residents from one space to another but 37 partners needed to be contacted. He professed he was not actually a partner in this effort, but he is indeed. Also asked about Vine and Lemay proposed mobile home park because she believed Strickfadden was involved also in this instance. Rupel: Stated owners were Carpenter and McAleer. Ek: Claimed it was unfair the way this situation has been pushed on the residents. Consumer rights in a retail store allows a way to retaliate with store owner but what can mobile home tenants do. Gilfillan: Asked if Cloverleaf Park was of any interest. Ek: Stated her interests were in the southern portion of town. Stated by precident developers have help share costs. Mr. Hammonds has the money and should help the people out who can't afford to move. Dow: Asked what reasonable compensation might be. Ek: Said it had been stated earlier as a quarter of a million dollars. It costs approximately $1,200 to move a single wide and $3-4000 to move a double wide. The actual cost of move is minimal but other costs are what mount up. -25- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Dow: Reiterated Board does consider social impact as well as impact upon neighborhood, regardless of vote. George: Since neighborhood and community impact discussed at previous meeting and since pleased with comments tonight on traffiic and height, move to approve Holiday Inn Phase One - Preliminary and Inn Phase One - Preliminary but will approve total package again as well as signage in particular on final. Simpson: Reiterated pleasure over height reduction but voiced concern over utilities on top of the building being unsightly. Ross: Discussed feelings regarding short notice to tenants, but because zoning item was a good number of years ago and advertised in the paper feels adequate notice was given. Stated his decision to vote yes was arrived at with great difficulty because of the problems it would cause. Stoner: Noted there was no negative or positive feedback from surrounding property owners. Vote: Motion was approved on a vote of 7-0. Note: It was necessary for alternate board member to leave at this time. 12. #59-82 Sherwood North PUD - Preliminary Request for preliminary approval of a 1.2-ac PUD with 56 multi -family units located in the 100 block of North Sherwood, zoned R-H, High Density Residential. Applicant: Colorado/Wyoming Investments, Inc., c/o Glaser Associates, 136 S. Lincoln, Loveland, CO 80537. Chianese: Gave staff report indicating underground parking would be provided as well as some existing landscaping, and archi- tectural character of the building would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Applicant meets criteria of Land Development Guidance System and staff recommends approval since it does meet criteria of providing residential units in the downtown area. Also indicated neighborhood meeting was held and although there was a small turnout, no significantly negative com- ments were received. Allen Maier: Architect, Glaser and Associates. Commented there would be impact on residential neighborhood, but minimized as much as possible through architectural integration and preservation of trees. Gilfillan: Asked if timing of project and financing had been arranged. -26- P&Z Board • • Minutes, 10/25/82 Maier: Stated financing was being worked on and time element depended on financing and development input with no firm timetable established. Chiianese: Pointed out this was only a preliminary review. Jake Streeter: Area resident. Stated trees were dutch elm and probably wouldn't be around long, unanticipated costs would probably effect actual appearance of structures, and also residents did not receive notice. Questioned vehicle circulation, and how approximately 100 cars would flow. Stoner: Asked how long Streeter had lived there and how long he intended to live there. Streeter: Lived there about lz years, stay maybe a couple more years. Ed VanDriel: Member Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus, directly across the alley from this property. Stated no notice was received by Knights of Columbus. Their concerns are about the traffic, particularly Building C which accesses onto the alley. Also drainage of concern since their building has a sump pump already. Since 60some percent of the area would be covered by buildings what affect will that have. Neighboring apartments also might have drainage problems. Ross: Asked if drainage problem a result of runoff water or ground water. VanDriel: Stated it was runoff water, with problem occuring only in heavier rains. Ross: Questioned if it was a soil water problem, or if there were leaks in the building. VanDriel: Stated it came through the walls. Gilfillan: Asked staff to respond to drainage problem. Chianese: Stated preliminary drainage report was required, and the developer will be required to upgrade the alley. Also stated notices were sent. VanDriel: Indicated receipt of notice of this meeting, but not neigh- borhood meeting. Questioned if alley improvement would be at developer's expense or shared with adjacent property owners. Rupel: Anticipate developer will handle cost of improvements to alley to the limits of his property.This includes surfacing and 20 feet of pavement. -27- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Ross: Referring to Mr. Streeter's question, how will the traffic flow? Chianese: Stated 28 cars will access off the alley and the remaining cars will be in the underground garage. Utilities and traffic are two important problems, but access to both Mountain and LaPorte, underground parking, and such factors limit the traffic flow. The alley is 20 feet, or two way. The right of way on Sherwood is 100 feet, and wider than a street being built today. Scott Hansen: Area resident, 129 N. Sherwood. Concerned over population increase, parking congestion. Street is main artery to Martinez Park. Concerned with leaving neighborhood nice for neighbors and hopes planning board is concerned with the property owners, not how much revenue can be gained for the City. Gilfillan: Indicated Board appreciated the meaningful comments. Gwen Squire: Apartment owner, Swancrest Apartments. Expressed concern with traffic through alley, alley width. Questioned if one-way traffic could be required in alley. Wanted assuran- ces the developer would improve the alley. Rupel: Noted the developer would be required to sign an agreement to improve alley. Squire: Questioned if other property owners would be required to pay for improvement. Rupel: Stated if developed, same type of agreement would be required and possibly property owners would have to share in expense of improving rest of alley. Ross: Moved to recommend approval of proposal as submitted. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion approved on a vote of 7-0. 13. #58-82 Grant Townhomes R-M Site Plan Review Request for a 10-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: Preliminary and final proposal with staff recommending approval. Property includes house to be rehabilitated and 9 units to be added, with adequate parking provided. Project conforms to all R-M zoning requirements dealing with setbacks, parking, landscaping, and height of buildings. It -28- P&Z Board • .Minutes, 10/25/82 10 is not a rezoning. Three letters were received by staff, one regarding rezoning, and two regarding adequacy of sewer. Water and Sewer Department is aware problems had existed in the area and sewer is to be upgraded by the developer. Ross: Concerned with nighttime headlights interferring with houses in rear. Chianese: Applicant must show evidence he is sufficiently screening property and after viewing property felt vegetation was more aesthetic. Lee Fetters: Stated if there was any problem he would fence property. Carolyn Sperline: Area resident, 813 W. Myrtle. Expressed concern over traffic, dust in alley, and questioned meaning of medium density. Ross: Explained meaning of R-M. Fetters: Explained lots are 190 ft by 94 ft or approximately 9000 sq ft allowing a 7500 sq ft building. Mauri: Traffic engineers opinion of alley traffic use is that it would not be excessive. City would like to see an improvement district formed on this alley in the near future, and this might help generate this district. Appli- cant has agreed to participate should it be required. Chianese: Explained previously project heavily used alley and staff review asked applicant for limited use of alley. There were no variances needed but because of the new R-M procedure multi -family requests in R-M and R-H require submission to staff and Board. Fetters: Stated he would like very much for the alley to be paved. Joan Fritz: Area resident, 641 S. Loomis. Expressed her concerns over the traffic congestion. How does a neighborhood protect their properties? Couldn't understand how adequate parking could be provided. Gilfillan: Expressed fact that as ownership changes, change may occur on the surrounding properties, but can't be foretold. Wanda Ness: Area resident, 619 S. Loomis. Concerned that area will not remain residential. Expressed concern over dangers to children, noise levels, and parking problems. Further expressed concern over this being the final reading and neighbors not being aware of this action. -29- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Chianese: Explained notification mailed September 29 explaining project and proposal. An update was sent out September 30. Blanche Marcotte: Area resident, 619 S. Grant. Most upset about proposed change in area property. Expressed concern over traffic, the alleyway, townhouses being built, and the sewer. Does not want neighborhood changed. Ross: Asked if City review Protective Covenants? Chianese: City reviewed subdivision agreement pertaining to improve- ments and the landscape maintenance guaranty. Nothing relating to covenants. Rupel: Noted it might possibly show up in a title search. Stoner: questioned if this was the Westlawn subdivision and then abstained from participating any further in discussion. Dean Wallace Area resident, 622 S. Grant. Stated his main concern was with parking and traffic with estimated four students per unit. Current parking is taken by students living in the dorm who have no parking facilities, or people working on campus. Noise is also a concern since so many students enjoy loud stereos. M. E. Sperline Area resident, 813 W. Myrtle. Concerned with keeping a residential area, residential. The area can not handle the additional parking and traffic that will be generated by this project. Chianese: Stated the alley adjacent, just west of this property forms the zoning district line for the R-M Zoning District. Everything to the east is zoned R-M or R-H, west of Grant and the alley the area becomes R-L. Zoned R-M and R-H because of proximity to campus and the downtown area, with high density an expectation in those areas. Sperline: Suggested a good use for the two lots would be a parking lot for Colorado State University or the City. Dow: Wondered if sewer problem would become worse with this project, concerned about area west of alley being zoned low -density residential with high -density residential adja- cent. Ross: Stated he had lived on 300 block of West Loomis and traffic in the area and parking are a major concern. The congestion and additional load on the area make it impossible for him to support proposal. Purvis: Moved to deny proposal because of narrow lots, parking problems, traffic flow. -30- P&Z Qoard • • Minutes, 10/25/82 Ross: Second. George: Briefly stated Board would be putting traffic problem upon the developer and it should be upon the City; also, not certain the addition of this project would make a worse situation that much worse. Felt assurances relating to sewer problem and developer's cooperation are positive reasons for the proposal. Ross: Stated property one-half block from Mans Addition which is probably one of the more stable, older, residential, quality -built homes, and this is a step toward that area as well. Also feels the area is covered by protective covenants. Expressed concern over safety in exiting alley, being one-half block from a grade school, and the traffic density already too high. Gilfillan: Felt applicant's use compatible. Vote: Motion to deny was approved by a vote of 4-2 with Gilfillan and George voting against denial. 14. #74-82 Silver Spruce Inn PUD - Preliminary and Final Request for a preliminary and final PUD on .42-ac consisting of an existing structure which will be converted to an overnight "bed and breakfast" country inn, with limited lunch facilities, zoned R-H, High Density Residential. Applicant: Harry McCabe, 1508 Buckeye, Fort Collins, CO. Frank: Gave staff report on 10-12 bedroom owner -occupied inn. Staff recommends approval. Gilfillan: Asked if curbcuts would be changed. Frank: Indicated elimination of one curbcut, possibly enclosing of another curbcut. Parking arrangements are satisfactory. George: Questioned who would review if at a later date a third story is added. Frank: Applicant has indicated they might like to add a third story and have put a condition it would be architecturally in character with exisiting building and staff would review it. Ross: Questioned parking with the additional story. Frank: When and if they added the story parking would be reviewed also. H. L. McCabe Stated he would answer any questions. Stoner: Questioned if he had ever done something like this before. -31- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 McCabe: Stated he and his wife restored and saved the old Lamba Chi Alpha Fraternity House at 1325 S. College. Many beautiful Fort Collins homes have been lost in expansion of the City and this is an attempt to preserve College Avenue a little. Stoner: Asked what kind of sign was being proposed. McCabe: Stated at least initially the current sign would be used. Ross: Moved to approve Preliminary and Final proposal. Purvis: Second. Vote: Motion approved by a vote of 7-0. 15. #187-72A Amendment to the Everitt Enterprises Office Building PUD Request to amend the PUD to delete Lote 2, Block 3, from the Everitt Enterprises Office Building PUD, thus recreating Lot 2, Block 3, of the Thunderbird Estates 9th Filing. Lot is presently a seldom -used parking lot which is located on the southwest corner of Swallow Road and Remington Street. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, PO Box 1547, Fort Collins, CO. Rupel: Gave staff report recommending staff approval. Ross: Questioned size of lot. Gary Haxton: Representative, Everitt Enterprises. Stated approximate lot size 12,000 feet. George: Moved to approve amendment to Everitt Enterprises Office Building PUD. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion approved by a vote of 7-0. 16. #195-79 Amendment to the Parkway PUD Request to extend the final approval period due to lapse for a proposed 11,000-sf addition to the existing Foothills East Shopping Center, located north of Foothills Parkway, east of Mathews and attached to the west end of the existing center. Applicant: Everitt Enterprises, PO Box 1547, Fort Collins, CO. Rupel: Gave staff report indicating proposal being brought before the Board because applicant's time expired in July. Staff -32- P&Z Board • • Minutes, 10/25/82 recommends approval to October 31, 1983. Dow: Moved to approve PUD extension request. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion approved by a vote of 7-0. COUNTY REFERRALS: Miller Exemption Request to amend a 4-lot exemption located west of Westgate Subdivision, zoned FA-1, Farming. Applicant: Alvin Miller, 4017 Spruce drive, Fort Collins, CO Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report stating applicant is reconstructing site to permit one more single-family residence. Staff recom- mends approval. Stoner: Moved to recommend to the county approval of Miller Exemp- tion Request. George: Second. Vote: Motion approved by a vote of 7-0. 18. #78-82 Fort Collins Christian Center Special Review Request for special review to permit a school in the FA-1 zone, located west of Westgate Subdivision. Applicant: Fort Collins Christian Center, 516 Crestmore Place, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating site located beyond the Urban Growth Area and a school for up to 100 students does not fall within the ranges of use for the Rural -Non -Farm area. Ross: Questioned if a school wasn't a use by right in any area. John Dubler: Pastor. Indicated school would be an asset to the location, and approval of the school is a right of the Church as an integral park of the church ministry. George: Asked for an example of another school in a Rural-Non-Fram location. Dubler: Fort Collins Baptist Temple on South Shields. Albertson -Clark: Stated she believed it would be in Urban Growth Area. Stoner: Asked if applicant understood why staff was recommending denial. -33- Dubler: Stated he could not understand why denial would be recom- mended. Albertson -Clark: Explained Urban Growth Area as designed for urban uses in and around the City. The area around the Urban Growth Area is generally classified Rural -Non -Farm and is designed to maintain a field of open space where there is low resi- dential density. A school is considered very intensive and, therefore, belongs in the Urban Growth Area. Stoner: Questioned if Alvin Miller requested to be outside Urban Growth Area. Albertson -Clark: Possibly 6-8 months ago Miller's property was amended involved in an Urban Growth Area amendment and subsequently he pursued an amendment resulting in the designation of Rural -Non -Farm. Stated he was not interested in coming into the city limits, but didn't know at this time about Urban Growth Area. Dubler: The primary use of property is for church and we are asking for approval of the secondary use which would be school. To deny the use of the building for a christian school would be limiting/deninq a legitimate church function. Pointed out that regarding density, on both sides of the property there are condominiums and not more than 25 yards from the current end of Azalea Street. Dow: Questioned the days of operation of the school. Dubler: Indicated it would be in operation five days per week. Dick Anderson: Architect, Anderson -Frick Associates. Stated they would entertain possibility of annexation of property into City of Fort Collins since they will be using city water and sewer probably. ' Indicated they were before the Board to receive approval for the school since church approval not necessary. School currently has 35 students. Ross: Expressed concern being outside of the services area. Ancerson: =e t there was no problem with location as it is so close to ci':y I ;::i%S. Yl 114r;: ;�ueS LioileG Si Z'_' C"1 _L:i iding. Anderson: Responded they were dreaming in the lines of 8,000 educa- tional area, 5,000 sf sanctuary, gymnasium, on the 7 acre site. Crews: Asked if church felt City would answer a fire call. Anderson: Stated if annexation was required they would do that. -34- -P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Ross: Stated possibily the City wouldn't want to annex the proper- ty. Anderson: Stated City wanted annexation, Alvin Miller didn't want it. Water and Sewer's W. Jones indicated Water and Sewer would have no problem with the property being annexed. Stoner: Asked if church use required approval. Legal representative: I have not researched this but constitutional provision requiring government not inact a regulation limiting the free exercise of religion might apply. Albertson -Clark: Clarified there was one fire protection authority to serve city and county. Under Intergovernmental Agreement we cannot consider property for annexation if outside Urban Growth Area. Since it was recently placed in Rural -Edon -Farm Area it may not be approved at this point. Regarding utility services, a review to serve 13 single-family residences was made for sewer for Alvin Miller. A commitment to annexation at time of service request was necessary. Since it was looked at for single-family residences it would have to be reviewed again with this school use. Gilfillan: Stated if they came back with a request to be in Urban Growth Area, it would be a long process but might stand a pretty good chance of going through. George: Should be considered first modification to Urban Growth Area, then annexation, then zoning, then planning. We must work with the county on Urban Growth Area boundaries and must recognize our agreement with them. Dubler: Stated cannot deny church's right to operate this school as an integral part of their ministry. This use constitu- tionally cannot be denied us. We've addressed fire protec- tion, access to property, water and sewer, and feel there should be no reason for denial. Gilfillan: Stated this does not conform to recommendations for usage of land under criteria we have now. Legal Representative: Based on information that school is open only to school church members, no difficulty with recommendation for denial because it is only recommendation to county, but advise county you have not looked into constitutional questions of whether this can be prohibited. Dow: Felt under existing regulations use is clearly improper, and the claim of constitutional right need be reviewed by a board of competent jurisdiction. -35- P&Z Board Minutes, 10/25/82 Dow: Motion to recommend denial to county. Crews: Second. If a court wants to overrule us that is their option; however, this proposal does not meet the standards. Vote: Motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 19. #79-82 Larsen and Associates Rezoning. Request to rezone .77-ac from FA-1, Farming, to R-2, Resi- dential, located on the east side of Overland Trail north of Magnolia. Applicant: Randall Larsen & Associates, 125 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report indicating site in Urban Growth Area but not eligible for annexation and property does not have 1/6 contiguity. Staff recommends approval upon condi- tion site be a PUD. George: Questioned if off -site street improvements would be exten- sive. Albertson -Clark: Stated would probably involve improving Magnolia and Over- land Trail from there to Mulberry, improving Mulberry in the City Limits. Randy Larsen: Applicant. Stated property owned by owner of Walnut Grove PUD and there are existing structures on the property. County recommended rezoning. Off -site improvements are being discussed with county and we are looking into a waiver -type procedure. Parcels of land in this area are small, engineering problems are large, many unresolved items. George: Concerned about additional taxpayer burden if improvements not covered now. Larsen: Suggested payment in lieu of, putting monies into a fund separate from taxes now, to spread the cost around. Gilfillan: Asked if the condition of a PUD was acceptable. Larsen: Yes. Ross: Motion to recommend approval to the county subject to staff comments for PUD. Crews: Second. Vote: Motion approved 6-1 with George voting no. Gilfillan: Queried Board on moving meeting to 15 November since several members could not make 22 November meeting. Rupel: Will check on this matter. Meeting adjourned at 1:10 a.m.