HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/20/1982PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
SPECIAL HEARING
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
Board Present: Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Tim
Dow, Ingrid Simpson, Barbara Purvis
Board Absent: Don Crews
Staff Present: Mauri Rupel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Fran Ramsey
Legal Representative: Paul Eckman
Meeting called to order at 6:32 p.m.
AGENDA REVIEW:
Ross: Announced that Item #2, Minerva Business Park PUD Phase
One - Final (Case #31-82A) had been tabled to Oct-
ober 25, 1982 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Approval of minutes of September 20, 1982.
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
3. #43-82 Holiday Inn PUD Master Plan
Request for master plan approval of a 28.5-ac site for a
270,000 sf hotel/convention center, and 235,000 sf of
retail/office space located at the northeast corner of
Harmony Road and College Avenue, zoned b-p, Planned
Business.
Applicant: William Strickfadden, c/o ZVFK Archi-
tects/Planners, 218 West ;Mountain, Ft Collins, CO.
4. #43-82A Holiday Inn PUD Phase One - Preliminary
Request for preliminary approval of a 270,000 sf
hotel/convention center on 10.1-ac located north of
Harmony Road between College and proposed JFK Parkway,
zoned b-p, Planned Business.
P&Z Board
Minutes, 9/20/82
Applicant: William Strickfadden, c/o ZVFK Archi-
tects/Planners, 218 West Mountain, Ft Collins, CO.
Note: For purposes of contiguity, discussion of Item 3 and Item 4 was handled
simultaneously. Action on the two items was handled separately.
Frank: Gave staff report recommending approval of both items.
Stated were in conformance with objectives of Land
Development Guidance System and met all applicable point
chart criteria.
Gilfillan: Questioned number of square footage of proposal and
zoning.
Frank: Square footage shown on master plan is incorrect. Cor-
rect square footage for preliminary plan is 209,000 sf.
Correct zoning of the area is H-B, Highway Business.
Staff memo is incorrect.
Georg: Questioned if auto sales use in proposed master plan
could include auto parts sales.
Frank: Auto parts sales would be included under retail uses.
Dow: Requested clarification of availability of utilities and
formation of Special Improvement Districts.
Frank: Utilities available in vicinity. Would be combination of
City utilities and Special Improvements Districts.
Purvis: Memo states that facility would not exclude downtown
facility but would be supportive of such a facility.
Requested clarification.
Carr Biecker: Project Architect, ZVFK Architects/Planners. Planned
Phase One facility is hotel/conference center. Conven-
tion center includes uses such as an exhibit hall. Hotel
is proposed to have 8-stories and 250 rooms. Large
amount of existing need in Fort Collins for quality
overnight hotel rooms. Is also potential advantage of
"marrying" that with a conference center. Gave overview
of activity occurring in South College area. Is a
distinct district consisting of 6 Superblock areas. One
Special Improvement District in area is undergoing
approval process by City Council and second SID is in
process of formation. Huge amount of developmental
energy occurring in South College Properties area.
Stated that Height District concept is matter of opin-
ion. City is made up of six districts: downtown; CSU;
- 2 -
P&Z Board Minutes • •
9/20/82
airport/Mulberry; University Plaza; and South College
district. Gave definitions of corridor, nodes of activ-
ity, magnets/generators, landmark, edge, sequence of
accents, and modulation of form and function. As applied
to Fort Collins, Harmony and College is a statement of
the City's entrance. Is a potential edge occurring along
East Harmony due to existing development halting highway
"strip" development. Impact on view is dependant on
surrounding development. While the first structure to be
built may impact view, over the long-term that impact
may become less of an issue due to continuing develop-
ment of the area. There are existing cottonwood trees
that are equal in height to the proposed structure. Are
proposing a hotel with a conference center attached. Are
trying to create facility with prestige and image, not
3-story motel.
William Strickfadden: Applicant, Managing General Partner of Fort Collins
Assemblies, Ltd. Property was annexed and zoned in 1979.
Property currently under use as Pioneer Mobile Home
Park. Park is older design and cannot accommodate new
larger mobile homes. Due to age and obsolescence, the
park is only marginally lucrative financially. Manage-
ment controls approximately 10% of the mobile homes and
space rentals themselves. There are no long term leases
in the park and leases are on a month -to -month basis.
Also have lower standards for mobile homes than other
parks in the area. Park was at near capacity in June
1982. Lately have mobile population due to large amounts
of move -ins and move -outs. Was contacted by Mr. Hammonds
in June 1982 about possibility of hotel/conference
center on approximately 8 or 9-ac. Feels that City
considers Harmony and College to be major entrance to
City so has not considered less desirable uses for
property such as drive-in restaurants, automobile
dealerships, etc. Feels that hotel/conference center is
a needed facility in the City and will add "class" to
City entryway, and be an anchor to the south end of the
Superblock concept. JFK will provide •relief for high
traffic burden on College, and along with Harmony, will
provide an entrance into the hotel/conference center.
Proposed facility will employ 200 people. Tax base of
the proposal will be approximately 20 times existing
revenue from mobile home park. Conference center is
designed to accommodate a number of small meetings
simultaneously, and will enhance downtown convention
center by supplying housing. Proposed facility will
attract service/support businesses. Facility will
require use of 70 existing mobile home spaces, or
- 3 -
P&Z Board
Minutes, 9/20/82
approximately 8-ac out of 30-ac. Phasing of sequence of
construction will give mobile home residents time to
relocate. Project is scheduled for spring construction
providing 6-months until residents need to move.
Residents understand that eventually mobile home park
will be phased out but requested additional time to
relocate. Have offered to relocate anyone within park at
applicant's expense to any other area within park where
they will not be displaced. The park will still have
approximately 130 spaces. Have allowed pro -ration of
rent on a day-to-day basis. Have also allowed residents
to remove personal items such as trees, shrubs,
perennials, etc. around their space. No eviction notices
have been given to -date, and it seems that problem is
resolving itself. A survey of mobile home parks made by
the applicant on August 17, 1982 showed 115 available
spaces. Harmony Park will eventually be a 480 space park
and is in the same general location. Final impact of
height as the area develops will be minor. New timing of
project and some of the concessions being made are news
to mobile home residents attending the meeting since
this information has not been announced before. Feels
positively about the project and that it will provide a
"window" to the south. Had public relations firm
circulate petition to see public reaction to facility.
Six hundred business people signed the petition.
Stoner: Questioned future of area east of proposed JFK Parkway.
Strickfadden: Stated area will continue to be used as a mobile home
park indefinitely, but is unsure of number of spaces
that will be available.
Stoner: Questioned how JFK Parkway and College Avenue will share
traffic usage.
Biecker: Capacity of College Avenue is 30,000. JFK could relieve
traffic on College and carry 12,000-15,000 total trips.
Stoner: Questioned if JFK is needed for the community.
Strickfadden: Believes that as area develops JFK will be necessary.
Has not signed agreement to participate in JFK SID, but
has attended all meetings.
Stoner: Inquired if Mr. Strickfadden planned to participate in
SID if this proposal was not approved.
Strickfadden: Stated that he would not like to make that commitment at
P&Z Board •
Minutes, 9/20/82
•
this time, feeling that if this proposal was not
approved the area might stay as a mobile home park, and
then JFK would not serve particular purpose.
Purvis:
Wished more clarification of difference between conven-
tion center and conference center and maximum number of
seating avaiable.
Strickfadden:
Conference center is designed to accommodate a number of
small groups simultaneously, but which can accommodate
one large group. Convention center uses include
exhibits, product displays and very large group meet-
ings. Proposed facility would accommodate 900 people
using all available rooms.
Ruth Glenn:
Assistant to Mr. Strickfadden. Stated the Mayor's Blue
Ribbon Committee on Hotel/Convention Centers has defined
conference centers as having 40,000 sf, and convention
center as having 80,000 sf and up.
Dow:
questioned proposed timing of building and possible
effect of availability of Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds on building of Phase One.
Strickfadden:
Stated that building will start in early spring. Re-
ferred IDR3 question to Mr. Heaberlin.
Ross:
Wanted clarification if "edge" is JFK and College or JFK
and railroad tracks.
Biecker: Stated that pure edge is Harmony for at least the next
10 years due to pre-existing development and could
possibly make proposed facility, at least conceptually,
an in -fill development.
Ross: Assumes that some support retail will be necessary in
the area for conference attendees. Questioned if
facility itself would cause sprawl development.
Biecker: Views proposed facility as a generator of development
and that such uses fulfill intent of zoning of remaining
approximately 60-ac. Proposal will definitely create
demand for other uses and master plan does show other
office/retail uses. Stated that zoning and the Super -
block concept have been reinforced allowing the market-
place to establish the appropriateness of the location
for business uses. Location of proposed facility was
determined by marketplace conditions. Feels that timing
of this proposal is not premature. Feels that small risk
- 5 -
P&ZBoard Min •
Minutes, 9/20/82
is involved in proposal being built.
Ross:
Feels that conceptually is a conflict between idea of
single hotel being built and overall development of the
area being proposed. Doesn't see entire area being
developed yet. Has problem with approving height being
seen as a stimulus to other proposed buildings in the
area. Feels that questions of height for this building
have been answered but is concerned regarding setting a
precedent for the area.
Biecker:
Responded that this was a specific proposal for one
project.
Georg:
Stated that one of the objectives of the LDGS on Page 1
is "to protect existing neighborhoods from harmful
encroachment from intrusive or disruptive development."
Seems that there is a currently existing neighborhood
and that proposal could be considered encroachment on
that neighborhood.
Biecker:
Responded that existing residents might be considered a
neighborhood because of length of their residency.
Doesn't feel that objective was major focus of the LDGS.
Attempts are being made to deal with that issue by
Mr. Strickfadden.
Strickfadden: Surrounding area is zoned b-p so intense development
would be appropriate. Proposed hotel would create a
demand for retail uses. Location for facility was chosen
due to proximity to existing retail uses. Looking to
downtown area and Foothills area as being the retail
center of the City and do not plan to duplicate those
types of intensive use.
Ross: Realizes that area will not be a duplication of
Foothills area but is concerned about existing busi-
nesses in area from Horsetooth to Mountain.
Strickfadden: Feels that is an acceptance of risk by the private
sector. Realize that current marketplace is not the best
but need to take long-term viewpoint.
Jim Heaberlin: Employee of Mr. Hammonds, applicant. Stated that will
reapply for IDRB's if proposal is approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board. If IDRB's are not approved by
the City Council, are still financially prepared to
proceed with the project.
- 6 -
P&Z Board
Minutes, 9/20/82
Martin West: Adjacent property owner (NorMar Meadows, Inc.) Is in
basic favor of the plan. Has some concerns regarding
street proposed to border his property, specifically the
financing and street alignment throughout the property.
Have not signed the master plan as yet, but feels that
problems could be worked out. Is concerned that he would
be assessed cost of the street at the time he develops
his property.
P,upel: Stated that first developer would be required to
construct the entire street. When the adjoining property
is developed, he would be required to repay the original
developer.
West: Above requirements are acceptable to him. Alignment of
proposed JFK Parkway would probably be worked out. Is
concerned with JFK being too close to existing College
Inn Motel.
Rupel: Stated that this is a preliminary plan and that some
adjustments could still be made. A full -turn intersec-
tion would not be allowed at that point, but would
restrict it to right -turn in and out regardless if it
was north or south of the point indicated on the master
plan. Intersection has been agreed on by City, County
and State Engineers. Ultimate plan for College is to
have a median down the center precluding left turns.
Daniel W. Dean: Attorney for Pioneer Mobile Home residents. Stated his
purpose was to speak against the approval of the master
plan and PUD. Feels that issue of displacement should be
of concern to the Board.
Note: Approximately 25-30 residents of Pioneer Mobile Home Park stood and
identified themselves at this point.
Dean: Stated that residents' concern was primarily selfish and
that residents had no opinion concerning issue of
"Gateway to the City." Issues of convention vs.
conference center being built and issue of long-range
timing of structure was not motivation for residents.
Stated that key issue was conversion of existing
community. Disagreed that existing mobile home tenants
were transient group except as present owners have
chosen to make them so by encouraging residents with
concern over the development to leave. Questioned idea
of mobility of homes, stating that an existing neighbor-
hood was in place. Agreed that was inevitable that piece
of ground would be developed, but that the question was
- 7 -
P&L board
Minutes, 9/20/82 . •
when, why, and under what circumstances. While is not
questioning that the convention center would be of
benefit to the community, City is on record with land
use policies promoting low-income housing. Fostering
low-income housing, in his opinion, is consistent for
the time being, with preserving the mobile home park.
Stated that alternative locations exist for a hotel/con-
vention center without disrupting existing low-income
housing. In his opinion, Mr. Strickfadden's concessions
are not concessions, have not been accepted by the
residents, and have been minimally publicized. Moving
units, even in the phased building plan, would destroy
the sense of community in the park. Is impractical to
believe that mobile home park can exist surrounding a
construction area. Mobile home spaces said to be
available at the Harmony Road Park have been reserved
for commercial mobile home buyers for new mobile homes
and none are available for pre-existing units. City
Council reviewed a proposal by Curt Smith, Director of
Planning and Development, on August 25, 1982 requesting
CDBG monies to foster the creation of more mobile home
parks. Survey given to City Council indicated that of
3,000 spaces located in Fort Collins and immediate
Larimer County vicinity, 85 spaces were available at
that date. More than 85 units would be displaced in
Pioneer Mobile Home Park. Existing mobile homes also
represent a tax base although not as substantial as the
proposal. Quoted from following policies in the Land Use
Policies Plan: #19, 21, 22, 38, 69, 71, 72, 76, a�
Disagreed with points awarded under Business Service
Uses category of the LDGS. Questioned Category C, "Part
of Center;" and Category H, "Contiguity." Claimed that
current proposal was based on economic considerations
and contrasted that with non -economic investments mobile
home residents have made. Felt that proposal was not a
natural progression of development and that other
locations were available for convention center.
Ross: Asked if mobile home residents would be any more able to
make conversion 2 or 3-years from now, since all parties
seem to agree that conversion is inevitable.
Dean: Answered that situation would not improve until market-
place fostered development of more spaces, or the City
sponsored more spaces.
Stoner: Stated that seems to be a conflict in Mr. Dean's testi-
mony between allowing free marketplace to determine
development and asking Board to dictate what a property-
P&Z Board •
Minutes, 9/20/82
owner may do with his property and asking City to become
actively involved in providing spaces.
Dean: Stated that he is proposing alternatives to alleviate
problems of mobile home tenants. Believes that City will
be induced politically to act in favor of moble home
tenants.
Dow: Understood that all tenants were on 30-day leases.
Sought confirmation that owner of property could have
required tenants to leave prior to submittal of item to
Planning and Zoning Board. Questioned if next spring
would be sufficient lead time to allow tenants to make
other arrangements.
Dean: Paraphased landlord -tenant law in regards to mobile
homes. Stated that tenancy in mobile home park regard-
less of duration, may not be terminated for any reason
other that (1) nonpayment of rent; (2) failure to abide
by rules and regulations; or (3) a change of use in the
park. Submitted that a change of use means either that
park owner must obtain a building permit if change of
use does not require review by Planning and Zoning
Board, or must have obtained Planning and Zoning Board
approval of his new use. Considered Board meeting to be
first stepping -stone in eviction of tenants. Stated that
practically, next spring would probably be adequate, but
as a policy statement, appropriate lead time would not
be less than 2-years due to existing neighborhood
community and lack of alternative spaces.
Gene Mitchell: Mitchell and Company and General Partner of The Arena
Associates. Stated that allowing marketplace to influ-
ence land use decisions was always a mixed -bag. Stated
that prior action of the Board had been to approve The
Arena site as a hotel/convention center use. Reminded
Board that The Arena site had generated more "points"
than the proposal currently under consideration. Stated
that intent of Superblocks had been for development to
grow from north end of JFK Parkway south, and that JFK
Parkway had been intended to be completely in place
prior to intense development to the south taking place.
Suggested that Board make completion of JFK Parkway a
condition of approval of the current proposal. Asked
permission of Board Chairman to ask Mr. Heaberlin some
questions. Inquired what Mr. Heaberlin's office was with
Mr. Hammonds.
Heaberlin: Responded that he is Vice President of Finance for John
- 9 -
PZZ Board
Minutes, 9/20/82 •
•
Q. Ham:aonds Industries.
Mitchell: Asked what role Mr. Heaberlin had played in connection
with preparation of development materials, such as the
petitions, and calling City staff concerning applica-
tion.
Heaberlin:
Stated that he had signed petition and had contacted
City staff.
Ross:
Questioned bearing of questions to land use consider-
ations under review.
Mitchell:
Summarized that similar site had been approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board previously and that project is
being actively pursued. Reiterated that financing for
both sites was of great competitive and economic impact.
Views current proposal as undermining approval that
Board gave to The Arena site.
Gilfillan:
Stated that Board was charged with separating emotional
vs. land use decisions.
Heaberlin:
Stated that problem had existed with The Arena site in
that hotel/conference center needed minimum of 8.5-ac
and only 5-ac were available at The Arena site and
financing could not be arranged. Reiterated that
financing could be arranged for proposed site.
Gilfillan:
Concerned about improvement of streets around Phase One
and Phase Two.
Heaberlin:
Stated that JFK was advantage of proposed site.
Completion of JFK is strong point for proposing hotel
there.
Gilfillan:
Questioned what conditions are for improvement of the
roads in Phase One.
Frank:
Responded that with Phase One, interior roads and
partial improvement of JFK would take place. Further
improvements of JFK were unnecessary at this time until
adjoining property develops. Discussed general circula-
tion pattern of the project and proposed intersections.
George Holter:
Owner, College Inn Motel. Stated that is in process of
designing addition to the College Inn Motel. Believes
that land will develop from north to south and due to
problems with utilities, land in the middle will be last
- 10 -
P&Z Board
Minutes, 9/20/82 w
•
to develop. Feels that access to west onto College Inn
property can be worked out.
Les Kaplan:
Planning Consultant for Harmony East PUD and proposed
mobile home park. Believes that projects coming in later
do better under the LOGS than do pioneering projects.
Feels easier to adjust new development to a tall
building than to place tall building in area already
developed. Fee structure has been problem in development
proposals for new mobile home parks. Views entire City
as being host to a conference center. In his opinion,
stability and security of mobile home park was under-
mined at the time of rezoning.
Herb Baird:
Former resident of Pioneer Mobile Home Park. Stated that
concept of mobile homes being mobile was incorrect.
Moving mobile home is an economic hardship for persons
on limited income.
Stoner:
Feels that marketplace is dictating where hotel can go
and is an advocate for property rights of owners. Feels
that 6 months is sifficient lead time for mobile home
residents. Stated that property was not going to be a
mobile home park since time of rezoning in 1979.
Georg:
Stated that issue was matter of land use of considering
another node of height district. Has no problem with
having clusters of high buildings, but can be carried to
extreme. Feels that view of mountains is important.
Questioned if 8-story hotel was appropriate landmark for
entranceway to the City. Feels that compatibility
problem does exist with current neighborhood. Is con-
cerned about encouraging retail sprawl area.
Simpson-
Concerned about need to recognize owner's property
rights. Concerned about solar accessibility and view
orientation. Compatibility with residents of Fairway
Estates in terms of traffic impact is an issue. Would
like to see project proposed closer to Foothills area.
Purvis:
Feels that plan is appropriate for location but has
concern regarding proposed height.
Gilfillan:
Concerned with traffic and proposed height in Phase One.
Dow:
Feels that key issue is proposal's compatibility with
approved plans and policies of the City with regard to
growth in the southern area. Feels is overall consistent
with overall policies.
P&ZBoard 9/2 •
9/20/82
Note: General discussion occurred what appropriate height for
area under review would be. Board requested further
staff study.
Dow: Requested clarification on question of improvement of
JFK to the north.
Eckman:
Stated questions of adequacy of access, impact of traf-
fic flow were appropriate for Board consideration, but
requiring applicant to make offsite improvements out of
his control is not appropriate. Stated that provision
requiring street improvements to be made to nearest
arterial is not applicable here.
Rupel:
Stated that City traffic engineers have no problem with
site access to Harmony Road, College or Boardwalk.
Dow:
Feels that continuation of JFK would relieve pressure on
College.
Rupel:
Stated that detailed traffic study is usually done at
time of final submission and that more information would
be available at that point.
Frank:
Suggested that Board might want to place condition on
approval that a detailed traffic study be submitted at
time of final plan review.
Gilfillan:
Stated that felt more comfortable regarding the height
issue than the street access and percentage of square
footage being used in Phase One. Moved for approval of
the Holiday Inn PUD Phase One Preliminary conditional on
surrounding street access being completed upon final
application submittal. Specifically, wants JFK developed
to north boundary of proposed master plan and extension
of road westerly to College.
Dow:
Second.
Vote:
potion was defeated on a vote of 3-4 with Purvis, Georg,
Ross and Simpson voting no.
Rupel:
Stated that petitioner would like to table further
consideration of the Holiday Inn PUD Phase One Prelimin-
ary until the October 25, 1982 Planning and Zoning Board
meeting.
Gilfillan:
Made motion that Holiday Inn PUD Phase One Preliminary
be tabled until the October 25, 1982 Board meeting.
- 13 -
P&Z Board
Minutes, 9/20/82 •
•
Ross:
Vote:
Rupel:
Second.
Motion was approved on a vote of 7 -0.
Announced that Board meeting is scheduled for Decem-
ber 20, 1982 due to Christmas holiday season.
Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Note: This is a summary of the minutes for the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting. Tapes of the meeting are available
to the public. Upon request, copies of the tapes can be
made.
- 15 -