HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/25/1991•
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
February 25,1991
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board
members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell,
Lloyd Walker, Joe Carroll, and Margaret Gorman.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -
Clark, Steve Olt, Kirsten Whetstone, Mike Herzig, Kerrie Ashbeck, Joe Frank, Ken Waido,
Linda Ripley, Georgiana Taylor.
Board Members present at the February 22, 1991 worksession included: Chairman Jim
Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, Margaret Gorman. Members Collier and
Walker absent.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since
none signed in.
AGENDA REVIEW
Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent
Agenda included: Item 1 -Minutes of the January 28, and February 4, 1991 meetings; Item 2 -
Amendments to Chapter 29-526of the Code, "Zoning, Annexation, and Development of Land",
• #7-91; Item 3 - USDA Annexation and Zoning, #1-91.
Member O'Dell moved to approve consent items 1, 2, 3.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
ITEMS RELATING TO THE HARMONY CORRIDOR PLAN 029-90
Linda Ripley, Senior Planner stated the board was being asked tonight to consider several
resolutions pertaining to the Harmony Corridor Planning Effort.
Ms. Ripley stated approximately 18 months ago was when the planning process began. The
impetus to do a corridor plan really came from City Council. The Harmony Corridor which
extends from approximately I-25 to College Avenue is a major gateway into Fort Collins and
also a growing employment center. For many years property owners, developers, citizens, as
well as city staff have been concerned about the future of this area. One thing that all of these
various interest groups agreed on was that planning for the future of this area was necessary
if it was to realize its full potential in terms of land use, environmental quality, public services,
and urban design. The corridor is already half developed and another quarter of it has been
master planned, so it was important that the planning process not be delayed any longer if the
City was going to do it. For these reasons, Council authorized the Harmony Corridor Planning
Effort in August of 1989. After that the planning process involved two parallel efforts, one
was a technical planning process and the other was an extensive citizen participation process.
Fourteen months after it started, staff presented to the Board, the Harmony Corridor Plan
which included a land use element, an urban design element, and a special portion of the plan
was dedicated specifically to the gateway area which was deemed to be environmentally
sensitive, near the Poudre River. In addition to that, staff had also developed urban design
guidelines, which establish an urban design framework for the streetscape along Harmony
Road and also developed a new zoning district for the Harmony Corridor entitled, Employment
Park Zoning District. The Harmony Corridor Plan was adopted by the Planning and Zoning
Board and the Planning and Zoning Board also recommended approval of the other items to
City Council in October of last year. Since that time City Council had reviewed those
documents, conducted a public hearing and held two worksessions. The result of those
worksessions, were to recommend to staff some substantive changes of the Harmony Corridor
Plan as well as the implementation documents.
The changes to the plan were organized under specific issues, the first issue that Council dealt
with was alternative transportation. The Council direction under that topic was to define
recreational and commuter bicycle systems for the Harmony Corridor including system
location, cost and funding. The response to that direction is on page 4-10 of the plan, as part
of the urban design plan where the scope of implementation number 2, regarding recreation
trails and commuter bicycle systems, was expanded to include cost -benefit analysis and the
development of funding mechanisms for trail systems in the corridor.
The second topic was economic development. Council's direction was to delete references to
economic development as a primary objective of the plan. They also recommended to the staff
that the street oversizing incentive should be removed from the EP zoning district and the
administrative review should also be taken out of the EP zoning district. These changes have
been made to the plan and the page references noted in their packet.
Under Urban Design issues, Council had a concern that the 80 foot setback recommended in
the plan may be too restrictive and requested the they would like to hear from property owners
concerning that 80 foot setback, especially in light of the fact that the street oversizing fee
incentive and the administrative review incentive were being taken out of the plan. Staff did
send out letters to everyone who had been involved in the planning process as well as anyone
living in the corridor area itself, and recommended that those people should give their concerns
to both the Planning and Zoning Board and to Council. We had not made any changes in our
original recommendation which was to mandate the 80 foot setback.
There was a concern about developers being able to plant oak trees and whether or not the
Harmony Oaks concept was in fact a xeriscape concept. The Harmony Oaks concept is a
xeriscape concept and Staff added language to the plan that helped make that more explicit in
the plan itself. In addition to that Staff prepared a fact sheet to provide both the Planning and
Zoning Board and Council with more background information as to how the Harmony Oaks
concept and xeriscape are related.
Council wanted to make it clear that the 80 foot setback referred only to Harmony Road and
not necessarily to 1-25 and the frontage roads. That clarification was made in the Design
Standards and Guidelines.
Council also requested that all references that pertain to signing be taken out of the plan and
Design Standards and Guidelines and that the City should rely on the existing sign codes and
existing procedures to establish appropriate signing for Harmony Road.
Street lighting was another issue brought up by City Council as well as other citizens. City
Council decided to go with the recommendation in the plan, which was to light Harmony Road
according to City Standards, however, they did request that the City Manager discuss this
matter further with Council to determine whether or not the City is using appropriate
standards in lighting streets throughout the City. That would be done as a separate project
unrelated to the Harmony Corridor.
any more discussions with Timnath. Staff has been concentrating on moving the plan through
our own bureaucracy and then will continue after that.
Mr. Harold Worth, 1501 S. Shields , representing Citizen Planners stated that their position on
the Harmony Corridor Plan was presented in considerable detail at earlier meetings and
hearings and in writing. They strongly support the concept of individual plan for land use and
development along Harmony Road. While such development is not entirely consistent with the
City's goal of containing urban sprawl, they recognize that development will occur and without
a more specific vision and plan, Harmony Road will attract and permit the kind of strip
development that had blighted College Avenue and East Mulberry Street. The Land
Development Guidance System, the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Urban Growth Area
Agreement alone would not prevent this kind of unwelcome development.
The Harmony Corridor Plan presents a unique opportunity to implement land use and
environmental policies adopted a decade ago by the City which has only been weakly applied
in intervening development. While some of these policies have been considered and debated
in the plans evolution, only modest progress has been made in realizing the established goals.
Changes that have been put forth by the City Council reassert a few of these policies but still
leave much to be done in protecting the community and the environment from uncontrolled
aspects of development.
A weakness of the Plan has been addressed but not resolved was the lack of enforceable
standards for transitions between uses of varying intensities. Nominal provisions for achieving
such compatibility had not been uniformly affective under the LDGS. It can be expected that
the Harmony Corridor would suffer the same problem without further reinforcement. The City
Staff should be instructed to accelerate its efforts to define such compatibility and objective
measurable terms. It is lamentable that so little attention was given to transportation issues
preparing the Harmony Corridor Plan. If development reaches expectations in the Corridor,
there will be obviously a very major impact on Harmony Roads vehicular traffic. Considering
the number of controlled intersections anticipated in the City/County agreement with the State
Highway Department, it can be foreseen that Harmony Road will become as congested and slow
moving as South College Avenue. This places a special premium on planning for alternative
modes of transportation in the Corridor. It also suggests that Harmony Road maybe lost as the
City's most convenient access to I-25 and therefore lose its role as the intended "Gateway" to
the City. They believe that much more comprehensive thought needs to be given to
transportation alternatives through and within the Corridor. Long term implications in terms
of traffic congestion, user convenience and air quality require slot more mature consideration
that if received in the plan as now drafted.
They were fully in accord with the Councils direction to include bicycle transportation systems
in the plan, however the plan should be further expanded to precisely define pedestrian
facilities and to insure that provision be made for internal transportation that minimizes access
to Harmony Road. To insure consistency and contiguity, these features should be a part of the
City's Master Plan and not solely dependent on the Design Standards and Guidelines of the
Harmony Corridor Plan.
They concur with Councils direction to delete economic development as a primary objective
of the plan and to eliminate the street oversizing waiver as an incentive. Evidence suggests
that this would not be an effective incentive and would raise serious equity questions.
They also applaud deletion of an administrative review as a basis of final approval in the EP
zone. Final approval has been characterized as only a technical review and actual practice and
•
they consider the transfer of this jurisdiction from the Planning and Zoning Board to the
. Planning Director an abridgement of due process and concur with the Councils direction.
The proposed 80 foot setback is minimal if the aesthetic objectives of the Plan are to be
modestly realized. Using the recently completed ESAB plant as an example, even if an 80 foot
set back is used it does not assure that the corridor will avoid the look of a tunnel of industrial
facilities unless greater sensitivity is displayed with respect to the relation to the buildings
mass to its distance to the road. It appears to be certain as development occurs that most of the
setback will be required for utility, bicycle path and sidewalk easement. Under these
conditions, there would seem to be very little additional burden on property owners in
complying with the 80 foot requirement. They urge the board to recommend to Council that
this standard be retained or increased.
They have no serious objections to the Harmony Oaks Plan, they agree that landscape
contiguity along the corridor is desirable and only question whether the slow growing Oak
species are the best choice of trees to provide this contiguity. Virtually any tree species planted
in the overall environment of the corridor will require some irrigation to survive, but a
landscape without trees other than those along water courses would be barren and
uninteresting. The critical feature of the plan was effective emphasis on water conservation.
Xeriscaping was a good way to achieve this and should be required as part of all development
proposals in the corridor.
In their opinion Council went too far in eliminating all special standards and guidelines for
Harmony Corridor signs. While they agree with the sign industry that there should be room for
innovation and differentiation in signs for the corridors industries and businesses, some
commonality among all signs would enhance the identity of the corridor as a special place.
They urge the Board and the Council to find a compromise on the sign issue.
Careful study should be given to the issue of street lighting. After the specified review of the
City's general policies and standards, the minimum acceptable level for lighting for public
safety should be adopted for the Harmony Corridor. Existing and future residential areas must
be protected from intrusive highway lighting. Extreme contrast in lighting levels from one
area to another should be avoided in the interest of traffic safety. The new lighting on Speer
Blvd. in Denver may be an example of the level appropriate for Harmony Road.
He had already discussed their support of xeriscaping and low water usage in general in
connection with the Harmony Oaks discussion and would like to urge in addition that a
standard for an acceptable degree of water conservation be included in the Design Standards
and Guidelines.
Harold Swope, 4925 Hogan Drive stated their had been some improvements made in the process
as its involved in the Harmony Corridor planning but had two particular interests that he had
been harping on for some time now and was surprised to see that the Council questioned the
80 foot set back was too restrictive because there had been quite a bit of discussion to the
effect, as Mr. Worth just said, that is not very much. He wondered if they were going to be
stuck with the 80 foot set back if they could perhaps talk about putting something between the
building and the setback, that was the driveways, the parking lots, smaller buildings requiring
something of that nature. It had already been mentioned that the ESAB building was a pretty
poor example if that was what Harmony Corridor was going to look like, we were going to have
just a wall that we drive between. He thought somehow if they were going to give the illusion
of space, which the primary thrust of this whole plan has been, that they were somehow going
• to have to get the main buildings back more than 80 foot off of Harmony Corridor.
The other thing he has been quite outspoken about was the street lighting. He asked just what
was the City Plan and what it consisted of.
Ms. Ripley replied that the existing City standard for Harmony Corridor after the first
evaluation was to place street lights on 30 foot poles, 175 feet on center and resulting in a foot
candle level of one foot candle or less. That was significantly down from the original
recommendation which was to light Harmony Corridor similar to College Avenue, more like
3 foot candles. The Light and Power Department did move it down. That was the minimum
standard for lighting the street itself, however they did tell Council that it would also be
acceptable from their standpoint and still be safe to only light the intersections, however,
Council did not want to make that change without looking into it more thoroughly and they
simply said that they did not see Harmony Road to be different than the rest of the City as far
as lighting levels were determined. They wanted to let the recommendation to light the street
at a minimal level stand, however, they want to look into the issue City wide. That standard
may change and if it does then the lighting standard on Harmony Road would change.
Mr. Swope stated he would just put in a plea for a minimum light standard and he thought we
give alot of lip service to energy conservation but when we have an opportunity to really
address it, we do very little about it and this was certainly an opportunity to address energy
conservation also alot of light is certainly unsightly if we were interested in aesthetics he
thought this was very important to cut down on the lighting. We could address safety and
security in other ways other than putting those tall standards along Harmony Road.
Mr. Bill Tiley, Managing Partner for Golden Meadows Business Park on Harmony Road stated
they were the first ones out there in 1979. They created the 80 foot setback at that time on the
north side and they feel it is very adequate. It was certainly alot wider that any other street
in the City and he thought it has served very well. The Hewlett Packard Area was another spot
with the 80 foot corridor, looks fine. They zoned 230 acres all at once, residential, multiple
unit, industrial park, business, planning for the future. The last item that comes up in a zoning
was the retail. You have to have the homes there first and then a neighborhood center. They
were concerned that somewhere down the line within a year or two when they come into do a
neighborhood center, such as a Toddy's they will run into some obstacles that maybe would not
have occurred before the Harmony Corridor. He wanted to go on record today as saying they
did plan a Planned Unit Development in there and they did not want any of their rights taken
away that they zoned in 1979. They think they had done a good job, the multiple unit at the
corner of Harmony and Lemay looks fine in his opinion and down the road with their
neighborhood center, they wanted to make sure that when that comes up that they were
protected. A few things in their scare them a little bit and their attorney's advised them to
come here tonight and make their feelings known.
Mr. Tom Smith, 2229 Iriquoi, managing partner of Harmony East Office Park, just east of
College Avenue off of Harmony. They had gone on record last spring with their Architectural
Group, Vaught Frye, to the Planning and Zoning office supporting the concept of Harmony,
what it tries to do for Fort Collins and for the commercial development and the residents in
the area. They were very much in favor of the overall concept and all the work that has gone
into bringing it to this stage. Their major concern was this and felt they should reiterate it
tonight. If in fact they were to have an 80 foot set back on their property, which has had a
commercial designation for about 15 years. It would eliminate 25% of the usable commercial
square footage on their property and they think that would be economically disastrous to them,
therefore, they wanted to make sure they look very carefully at all the set back requirements.
They do realize and the Staff has told them their particular site, which is closer to College, sits
•
in a different location than some of the larger ones that were being developed and they
• understand that and they appreciate that. They thought it was important to go on record that
in fact here publicly that it did have an important negative impact for their property that they
purchased on a state highway for commercial use.
Chairman Klataske asked if Mr. Smith had the 80 foot setback on his property.
Ms. Ripley replied that his property was unique in a couple of different ways that provides him
a little security in the area of the set back. First of all the plan was very specific about those
properties west of Boardwalk saying that they were in a different situation, there were smaller
properties located in that area. There was less right of way along Harmony Road so it was
going to be difficult to get 80 foot setbacks in that area and may prove impossible. The Plan
and the Design Standards and Guidelines did not mandate an 80 foot setback in that area. The
Plan simply says that they should consider wide setbacks, however the requirement would be
determined on a case by case basis. The second was that Mr. Smith has zoning which allows
several land uses as use by right, so he would not have to develop as a PUD. The Design
Standards and Guidelines would only apply to projects developed as PUD's and projects that
are in the EP zone.
Member Walker asked about the idea of the relationship of setback to size of buildings and
possibly some transition of setback and buildings.
Ms. Ripley replied Staff did consider developing some kind of ratio between building height
and how far it should be set back, however for every set of circumstances that could be defined
there was always that one instance where it would be O.K. to have a taller building so her
reasoning was that they would establish the 80 foot as the minimum and then go from there.
• Some projects will probably have buildings setback further. The purpose of the setback was
to create a certain landscape effect in the setback zone, to create a meandering sidewalk
system, to create the berms, to create the same landscape continuity along the streetscape, 80
foot is what it takes to establish that.
Member Gorman stated she shared the concern of the Citizen Planners about the sign issue and
the lighting issue and were they to assume that they would have an opportunity to change these
policies City wide so that they don't set separate standards for Harmony Corridor.
Mr. Peterson replied that Council's direction to the Light and Power department was going to
be looked at City wide and over the next period of time there would be some decisions made
about what was acceptable. He did not see anything in the work programs that we have or the
direction that they had been given by Council that would focus a project to change the sign
code. Council had just finished deliberation on billboard and a trailer mounted sign ordinance
so those questions are for the time being resolved. Staff at the Boards recommendation has
been working on a program to develop some new regulations for retail signs in residential areas
and that should be coming to the Board for recommendation to Council. Overall there was no
overall consideration going on at this point.
Member Strom asked how much IP ground was left in the area.
Mr. Peterson replied that there were only two pieces of IP zoning that have administrative
review conditions that were attached to them. The first was the Oakridge Industrial Park and
a portion of that had some IP attached to it with administrative review and the Golden
Meadows Business Park directly north of that has the same type of administrative review
• conditions attached to that. It was his understanding that those conditions were negotiated at
the time the property annexed in or came in and requested zoning a number of years ago. The
most recent IP ground that has come in has been east of the Union Pacific tracks and east of
Timberline Road and the conditions on those parcels was to come in through the whole PUD
process. It has been the policy of the City in recent years that any annexation that occurs that
a condition would be attached to it that all development would go through a PUD process.
Member Walker moved to repeal PZ90-9, 11, 12, 13, and the motion of October 22, 1990.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Walker stated that the things that were a concern to him at this point in time were first
of all that they seem to be with the revisions that Council brought before them, he was not in
complete agreement with them. He could not support the deletion of the Design Standards and
Guidelines related to signing. He believe that what they were trying to accomplish in the plan
was something unique to the area, they were certainly doing that with the oak trees and the
plantings that they were trying to create some sort of unified image and he saw no problem
with continuing that to signage. He did not feel that what they had originally passed was
unreasonable and he thought it certainly allows signing to take place just perhaps sets a
standard unique to the area to try and again put forth a unified effort. His feeling would be
to return their original recommendation to Council with regard to the standards for signage.
He would like to see that replaced for what is now currently mentioned which basically says
use the City standards. He felt that the other issues like water conservation has been dealt with
in the Plan. He also has a concern with what they had done with the Gateway presentation in
here. Basically bowing to certain political aspects. They had created the vision of the Gateway
as being defined by the politics rather than the lay of the land. He believed that in the
introduction that they were saying essentially that I-25 was the boundary when that was truly
an artificial creation and also if we are going to have a Gateway lets be realistic that all four
quadrants of that intersection of Harmony and 1-25 will affect people as far as visual image.
He understands that perhaps they overreached their political ability because it is outside the
Urban Growth Area, but his feeling was that he would like to see perhaps a better definition
of the fact that the lay of the land there suggests the River Corridor as a somewhat of a natural
boundary that unifies the area, then make some recognition of the fact that politically speaking
that land is in the County. I would like to see a stronger statement that says that they should
recognize that both for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County they should have a more
cooperative working relationship as partners and also the Town of Timnath. In a way they
were ignoring everything east of I-25 and he thought it was unrealistic and they should
recognize the land area east of I-25 should be addressed but in a different context than
originally proposed and give some recognition that there has to be some communication
between all political entities that are involved out there. For those particular reasons what
they have presented before them he was not satisfied with.
Member Strom agreed with Member Walker about the Design Standards regarding signage. He
thought the idea of developing a special set of signage guidelines for the Corridor was a really
important part of the Design Guidelines for the Plan. As to the Gateway, it seemed to him that
they could be pretty explicit and still take in more than what is in the Urban Growth Area.
Obviously they have no ability to plan for or control areas outside their jurisdiction but
political jurisdiction usually is artificial and have no real relationship to the lay of the land
in that area and so he would certainly support something to the effect that they recognize the
Gateway was pretty much as drawn and they explicitly recognize that they have no jurisdiction
outside the Urban Growth Area but they intend to move forward with as much effort as they
can to cooperate with the County and the Town of Timnath to proceed with a specific plan for
the entire Gateway, not just the west half of it.
0
Member O'Dell stated she would hate to send this back to the City Council and just say fine,
• what ever you say is all right with us because they worked long and hard on this and they came
up with some compromises and they came up with what they thought was a legitimate and
reasonable design for the Harmony Corridor. She agreed with both Bernie and Lloyd on the
signage.
Member Cottier stated she agreed with what was said by other Board members and felt that
Council's input at this point has kind of watered down what they had attempted to do there
and she was sorry to see that and specifically they would very strongly stand by their 80 foot
recommendation and also the signage and the Design Guidelines as a whole, the Harmony Oaks
concept because without doing something like that you are completely giving up the
opportunity we have to do something like an overall comprehensive plan here and create a
different image. With respect to the Gateway, she supports the boundary being changed
because of the political realities, she could support a stronger statement to the effect that they
would like to be able to accomplish something in there that would affect the property to the
east but would add a statement about working with Larimer County and Timnath and also
include the property owners in that area who may not feel directly represented by the County
and may be outside Timnath city limits. She was disappointed that Council won't go with a
minimum lighting standard that the City department agreed to and hope that what ever is
necessary to get that project underway so that the lighting that actually does get put in the
Harmony Corridor can be the minimum standard. She hoped Planning could do what they
could to move that on.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Harmony Corridor Plan
and that they incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan of the City and to include the private
sector signage design standards and guidelines and the references to those within the Plan.
• Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell added to her motion that the City of Fort Collins pursue cooperation with the
Town of Timnath and Larimer County and any other concerned party members including
homeowners or landowners in the area to pursue a unified Gateway to the City of Fort Collins.
Member Strom accepted that and suggested that they make some statement to the effect that
they recognize that the Gateway goes east beyond the I-25even though they may draw the line
at I-25 he did not care where the line is drawn as long as they explicitly recognize that the
Gateway is really broader than that.
Member O'Dell accepted that.
Motion passed 7-0.
Member Walker suggested that as they did with the first resolution they should bring back in
the signage standards as they were previously.
Member Walker moved that they adopt resolution PZ91-5 which recommends the adoption of
Harmony Corridor Design Standards with the change noted that they reintroduce the signage
guidelines as previously stated.
Member Cottter seconded the motion.
• Motion passed 7-0.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend to City Council adoption of the EP Employment Park
Zoning District and that they rezone approximately 465 acres of land to the Employment Park
Zoning District as described In the Plan.
Member Cottier seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
EAST SIDE/WEST SIDE REZONINGS 037-90
Member Cottier abstained from this item due to an ownership interest affected by the rezoning.
Ken Waido gave the staff report stating the project included the creation of 3 new zoning
districts; the rezoning of the Riverside Shopping Center from C-Commercial and I-G, to the
General Business District Zone with two additional conditions; amendments to two existing
residential zoning districts, the R-M,Medium Density Residential District and the R-H,High
Density Residential District; amendments to two existing business zoning districts, the B-L,
Limited Business District and the B-G, General Business District; the placement of zoning
conditions on a portion of Riverside Avenue zoned C-Commercial within the East Side
Neighborhood planning boundary area; expanded coverage of the RC, River Corridor District;
and the elimination from the neighborhoods of five existing zoning districts, the I-G,General
Industrial district, the BP, Planned Business district, C, Commercial, M-M,Medium Density
Mobile home, T, Transition.
The Planning and Zoning Board essentially has several options related to this particular
proposal this evening. The Board could adopt the total package including all the seven
components just stated. Secondly, the Board could modify the package each of the components
or several of the components and recommend adoption to the City Council of the amended
package, or third, the Board could delete components within the entire package, one component
or several components, and forward the remaining components to the City Council for
adoption.
Mr. Waido stated that Staff believed that this project would have the following effects within
the neighborhood. First, it would classify the areas within the neighborhood into new zoning
districts in order to be consistent with the adopted neighborhood plans which Staff believed
define the areas of the neighborhoods according to their sensitivity to change. Second the
establishment of the new zoning regulations were designed to protect the neighborhood areas
from incompatible multi -family redevelopment and non residential conversions by first of all,
listing appropriate uses by right which are compatible within each area within the
neighborhood, second, establishing review processes based on intensity of use to evaluate
proposed changes within the neighborhood.
Mr. Waido stated, as indicated, the rezonings that are being proposed were intended to
implement land use policies of the East and West Side Neighborhood Plans. Again, Staff
believes these plans essentially classify portions of the neighborhood according to their
sensitivity to change. There are essentially areas that are almost exclusively single family
houses in nature. Within these neighborhoods, these areas would be extremely sensitive to
change, any change. Then there are areas within the neighborhoods that are predominantly
single family in nature but over the years have seen some re -development activity. Most of the
re -development in these areas have been of a moderate density conversion, homes being
converted into duplexes, tri-plexes or four-plexes, although there are other portions of the
neighborhood within these areas that have seen some significant higher density housing,
apartment buildings in 24 unit to 32 unit ranges. Then there are areas within the neighborhood
a
that have seen significant changes over the past several decades. These not only include
conversions from single family to multi -family housing, but also from residential to non-
residential uses. Staff feels that these areas are the least sensitive to change.
In summary, the major goals of the neighborhood plans were to, first preserve the existing
residential character of the neighborhoods. Secondly, to protect the neighborhood from
incompatible land uses that could locate internally to the neighborhoods and undermine the
residential stability. Thirdly, to protect the neighborhoods from incompatible land uses which
could located along the periphery of the neighborhood and have negative impacts or influences
within the neighborhood areas. This rezoning process has been going on since last June. A
series of public open houses and public forums were he►d to distribute and discuss the initial
set of proposed zonings. The Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on
September 26, 1990 to solicit public input on the initial set of proposed zonings. We have
obviously changed some of the recommendations and characteristics, regulations within the
zones. We held another public information forum on January 9, 1991 in the City Council
Chambers to present those new changes of the revised zones to the general public.
Staff feels that the following major issues still need to be addressed in this process. First is the
LDGS. The initial set of proposed zoning regulations had eliminated the possibility of using
the LDGS to propose changes within the neighborhoods. The current revisions to the N-C-L,
N-C-M,and N-C-Ball include the LDGS. Staff at the January 9th meeting made it quite clear
that this was a major change at the general public information session. Second major issue to
be address was Riverside Avenue. The initial proposed change in zoning was from C-
Commercial to Limited Business. Property owners at the September 26th Planning and Zoning
Board Meeting expressed extreme concern with the proposed zoning change to BL because the
BL zone would of created a significant number of non -conforming uses and also the BL zone
would have created significant economic and physiological impacts within the area, the loss
of the commercial zoning designation for the area.
Staff has considered alot of the public input and was proposing what we consider a compromise
position that the Riverside Avenue remain in the C-Commercial zone, but a PUD condition be
placed on the area to regulate land use changes. Staff feels by maintaing the C zone, the City
is recognizing the commercial nature' of the street. This should help reduce the physiological
trauma but would probable not help the economic situation. Staff is also recommending that
the existing uses be defined as legal uses under the PUD zoning condition that Staff was
suggesting. Staff was doing this in an attempt to eliminate the creation of non -conforming uses
so that existing uses would be allowed to expand. We did want to make it clear that what we
were recommending could be construed and was probable more restrictive that the initial
recommendation to the BL zoning. Again, zoning the property BL would have created a
significant number of non -conforming uses but the BL zone would of also listed a number of
uses by right that conversions could have been changed to. The C zone with a PUD condition
would mean that any significant change of use would have to go through the Planned Unit
Development code. The third issue is West Oak Street. The Board has received several letters
from property owners in the 400 Block of West Oak who are expressing concern on the
recommended change from R-H, High Density Residential to N-C-M, Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density. The property owners concern is that in the R-H zone, there
process which allowed a conversion from a residential to a service office, low scale, non -retail
commercial use. The original N-C-Mzone did not contain the PUD option and limited uses to
residential only. The current N-C-Mzone allows the LDGS as a process, so conversions from
residential to non-residential uses in the N-C-Mzone could be proposed through the PUD
process. Staff was recommending that no boundary change be made in this specific area and
• would look to the Board's direction if they feel a change should be made.
A minor issue would be the West Laurel Street issue where the inconsistency between the map
and the West Side Plan and the policy in the West Side Plan dealt with the boundary as to where
the boundary should be between the N-C-Band the N-C-Mzones. Staff is recommending that
the Board follow the written policy and use the alley between the two streets.
The final major issue was that the Board and Staff have received several letters recommending
delay in the decision on buffer zones until the completion of the Downtown Plan rezonings.
Staff believes that the N-C-B area should be rezoned as part of the overall neighborhood
rezonings and not be delayed until the Downtown rezonings were considered. The buffer area
within the Downtown Plan were consistent in terms of boundaries and proposed uses with the
buffer areas as delineated in the East Side and West Side Neighborhood Plans. Because of the
policy consistency, Staff sees no reason for delaying rezoning action on these particular areas.
Staff tends to believe that the N-C-L, N-C-M,and the N-C-B zones should be considered a
package, that the zones represent a coordinated approach to implementing both the Downtown
Plan and the Neighborhood Plans and are recommending that the N-C-Bareas proceed.
The creation of the three new zoning districts and modifications to several existing zones, Staff
feels will have the following effects within the neighborhoods. First, there will be a reduction
of the areas within the neighborhoods that would allow multi -family residential development
and non-residential conversions as uses by right, however, new review processes would be
established for these types of uses and those processes would be used to determine the
appropriateness of those changes of other sections of the neighborhood. Residential densities
will also be limited to four-plexes as uses -by -right within areas open for redevelopment but
again special review processes including the PUD option would be available to propose higher
density housing within the neighborhoods. Thirdly, commercial and business activities would
also be with limited within and along the edges of the neighborhood, however, special review
processes including the PUD option are available to propose use changes within those parts of
the neighborhoods.
The final significant issue to be addressed was that of non -conforming uses. Due to the nature
of the initial zoning changes, many existing uses would have become non -conforming. The
proposed zoning changes that they were making did not require the elimination of any use that
currently exists. Many residents and property owners were under the impression that zoning
changes would require non -conforming uses to be eliminated from the neighborhoods. That
was not the case. At the September Planning and Zoning Board hearing, many comments made
concerning the establishment of non -conforming uses. Staff is currently suggesting that all
legal existing uses continue to be considered legal uses in all three new zoning districts as well
as the C-Commercial zone along Riverside Avenue and the BG zone for the Riverside Shopping
Center area. Expansion to these uses would thus be regulated according to the existing zoning
districts and would not require a public hearing on to the change to a non -conforming use.
Changes to existing uses would be regulated and reviewed under the PUD option.
Mr. Waido went over each zoning district on the map and explained its purpose and the location
of each zoning district and the streets affected and with what plan it was designated.
The significant changes to regulations in the new proposed zones are first the N-C-Land there
was an omission in the packet of information presented to the Board. Unu r uses permitted in
both the N-C-L,N-C-hand N-C-Bthe first allowable use should read "Any existing legal use
which existed on the piece of property at the time of the application of this section". Again
this is important in an attempt to not create any non -conforming uses in the new zoning
districts. The N-C-Lessentially limits development to existing uses and single family dwellings.
It establishes a new Planning and Zoning Board site plan review for uses such as group homes,
churches, schools and recreation facilities. The next change in the N-C-Lzone was the addition
Side Neighborhood Plan and the West Side Neighborhood Plan. Those Plans have officially
been adopted by the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board. The existing zoning
districts for the areas covered in the East and West Side Plan were established in 1965. Staff
believes there have been a considerable change of conditions within the City of Fort Collins
over the last 25 years. The City has grown from a population of approximately 34,000 to almost
89,000 today. The nature of the downtown central business district has changed losing its
predominance in the community as a retail center to become more of a service/office, financial
and governmental center. The existing zoning districts have undergone some incremental
changes since 1965 and in an attempt to reflect regulatory techniques consistent with more
current marketing demands and neighborhood resident attitudes. However, time and
experience have demonstrated that the existing zoning is unwise and in need of change.
Staff believes that there is adequate transportation, recreation, education, utilities and other
facilities in the areas to accommodate the uses permitted in the new zones, in fact in some
instances the reduction of densities and intensities of allowed uses will ease the burden existing
services and facilities.
The East and West Side Plan, along with the Downtown Plan have designated certain areas
within the neighborhood for higher density residential and non-residential uses. These uses
are needed to implement City wide policies, designed to maintain the vitality of the downtown
commercial center business district. The new zones are designated to encourage uses in the
appropriate areas within the neighborhoods.
Member O'Dell asked if adding fast food restaurants to the B-G zone could possibly cause a
problem else where in the City where it is zoned B-G.
Mr. Waido replied that was one of the considerations. There is a need to differentiate between
a fast food restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant. A fast food restaurant is essentially a
restaurant like McDonald's or Burger King and could typically be located in a General Business
Zone in a downtown area. The reason for the differentiation between fast food and drive thru
was because they were not recommending that drive-thru restaurants be added to the B-Grone.
A drive-thru restaurant or a restaurant with a drive thru window would still have to go
through the PUD process in the General Business Zone. Essentially the BG zone is only located
in about 3 locations. The bulk of the downtown area, the area they were proposing to be
rezoned at Riverside Shopping Center and a small portion on North College Avenue.
Ron Steinbach of the City Park Neighborhood Association stated he represented approximately
150 homeowners in the area bordering from Shields to Taft Hill, from LaPorte to Mulberry.
He stated he could not speak with any confidence about the problem that the owner's along
Riverside have, but it seemed to him that the plan tonight was a significant compromise from
what was proposed in September. He stated that he would like to focus on the parts of the plan
that directly affect the older neighborhoods.
In general they prefer the proposal that was put forward in September, but after reviewing this
plan they feel that this was a good compromise and it pretty well represented their concerns
as residents of older neighborhoods. First it is important that they are an asset to the
community and the small businesses that are located in their area and on the west side of
College are definitely assets to the area. However there has been alot of discussion of
preserving the value when they sell their business. Their concern was that the obligation to the
community continues through the sale that as a business owners obligation to provide a best
effort to make sure the sale does not negatively impart the neighborhood. The impacts can
range from the type of business to a change in traffic patterns. The best example he has was
the Conoco station that was put in at the corner of Mountain and Shields. This was at one time
a service station, generally a 12 hour operation. Now although it is technically classified as a
0
gas station, it has been changed to a convenience store open 24 hours a day. They have not
determined yet whether there has been any negative impacts, but they have had a tremendous
change in the operation of a property that they had no input into. They would like that not
to happen again. They believe the PUD process as proposed was a good method for achieving
their goals. Although he had talked with one business owner here tonight who had expressed
concern that they would be driven out of the area and somehow it was up to the Board to find
some kind of a balance that would preserve the neighborhood needs and also retain the value
and the quality of the businesses that we have in the area. The developers who he had talked
to over the last year or so have expressed conflicting opinions. On one hand they support
neighborhood preservation but on the other they express really wide latitude for changes in the
area. They were concerned that this was based on the assumption that development, by
definition, was good for the community. Again, they felt that it really related to the intensity
and the impacts to making sure there was a positive impact. They were not against changing
businesses in the area but would definitely hope that any change would lower the intensity of
the traffic in the area.
Don Richmond, 420 West Oak, stated his neighbors and himself had previously delivered to the
Board a package of petitions and letters requesting that they relocated some boundaries of the
West Side Neighborhood Plan. In fact the map indicates that every owner in the proposed
neighborhood has signed petitions requesting the change. There is no owner that has supported
the proposal of the West Side Neighborhood Plan. They were here to testify of the impact of
the West Side Neighborhood Plan on their neighborhood. The neighborhood they were
referring to was the square block west of Home Federal Savings and Loan and Steeles Market.
The map that was passed our diagrams their neighborhood and points out their concerns. The
concerns were as follows:
1. The West Side Neighborhood Plan was in error in the designation of proposed and existing
• land uses in their neighborhood. The now proposed N-C-Bbuffer district zone, designates 100%
of the land use east of the alley as non -conforming use. He did not care if the terminology now
has been changed so it would be declared legal, that by land use is considered a non -conforming
use now by the West Side Neighborhood Plan. This one-half block pay taxes to the Downtown
Development Authority tax district. They propose they leave this portion of the block as
central business district. The West Side Neighborhood Plan designates the west 1/2 block as a
neighborhood medium density conservation district, the N-C-Mdistrict. Thus removing a
substantial amount of uses of use by right in a high density residential zone, which is the
current zoning. This creates about 50% of the uses as non -conforming uses on the west part of
the alley. They believe this would cause significant loss of economic value in that portion of
the block. An example, Louis Fryes home is directly adjacent to the Larimer County Youth
Services building. She is the oldest neighbor and had been there since 1945. Her home was
basically not marketable as a single family residence. That was what was being proposed it
must be in the new zone. The concern for loss of economic value was expressed by all elderly
residents of the neighborhood. These property owners appreciate substantially, their location
to the central business district. The professional business owners enjoy operating offices in a
residential structures and enjoy the residential character. The face of the neighborhood is
toward the downtown. The West Side Neighborhood boundaries did not make sense to him as
a land use planner. If he were to propose a parking lot to the Board as a buffer zone, he would
be ridiculed. The West Sides Neighborhood Plan designates that a buffer zone be low intensity,
professional offices in single family structures. This was on page 314 of the West Side Plan
which defines a east side buffer area. If you read the definitions in the West Side
Neighborhood Plan they did not apply at all to what was being proposed in the Plan. They
propose that they move the buffer line only 1/2 block west, this now describes properly all
conditions of the West Side Neighborhood Plan in their neighborhood. This gets the business
0
district land back to the business district. In closing he would like to stress they had basic
unanimous support in their block for the above positions. The entire neighborhood wants to
retain historic and present ties with the central business district. The boundary change they
propose complies and supports goals in the West Side Neighborhood Plans.
Member Walker asked how many of these were businesses now versus residential.
Mr. Richmond replied that on the east side of the alley basically 2/3 of the block was parking
lot for Home Federal Savings, an automobile repair, a bank and Uhlrichs printing building.
That was basically solid business and the West Side Neighborhood Plan proposes that as a
buffer zone, the buffer zone is described as professional offices in residential structures.
There are no residential structures in that block. The West Side Neighborhood Plan is
proposing a parking lot as a buffer zone. They say that the buffer zone ought to be the zone
on the west side of the alley which is already basically three professional offices plus Larimer
County Youth Center which is basically a solid business type parking use. Every owner in that
block supports the use of the properties as professional office space and they feel that they are
going to loose significant value if that use is taken away from them.
Dan George, 425 West Mountain stated he would like to point out a slight technical problem
with the West Side Neighborhood Plan. In response to the presentation of the plan last year,
himself and other neighbors living on the 400 block of Mountain and Oak sent letters to the
Board opposing the present form of the plan in the first week of November. In those letters
it was pointed out that the house numbers of the 400 block of Mountain did not correspond to
the zoning designations which split the block. The numbers run from 400-418 are listed as NC-
B and the house numbers listed from 419-499 are also listed as N-C-B,.however the actual
zoning map shows Mountain Avenue House numbers from 419-499 as N-C-M.It was hoped that
the error would have been corrected and recognized but on January 9th, the Planning
Department presented the same set of errors. He was not sure if the Planning Department read
the letters or what but they would hope they would at least correct that minor problem. The
second point was the mismatch between the N-C-Bcriteria and the actual zoning on the 400
block. If N-C-B is to be a buffer zone between business and residential districts yet be
residential in character, then why is a parking lot park of the N-C-Bzone. He hardly considers
a parking lot residential in character. More reasonable buffer zone which has residential
character yet a transition zone between business and homes would be to move the N-C-B
boundary to Sherwood. He hoped the Planning Board would recognize this approach and move
the N-C-Bboundary to Sherwood, if not just leave it as a high density zone.
Frank Ulrich, owner of the Ulrich building at t 11 S. Meldrum. He stated they have the Ulrich
Blueprint in the building now, it is a family owned business and the family owns the building.
He felt that they should not be in the buffer zone because they do have to pay the development
tax for the Downtown and they are in the Downtown area. When they did the planning down
there they came down the middle of Meldrum and jogged out around them and took them into
it. He thought they should stay in that area. He thought the whole half block, the parking lot,
the garage on the corner was not anything that should be in the buffer zone. He thought it
should be out of the buffer zone.
Jerry King, 203 West Mulberry stated he was a little unhappy with the plan because it reduces
the uses of the property which would decrease the value of the property and would also like
to say that the PUD process, which he had just been through two is very costly, time consuming
which is costing money to them and very difficult for little business people to go through.
Gerald Benson, 835 Riverside stated that the last time they were notified of a meeting was
November 12th. He was told at the last meeting in January by Mr. Waido that he would see to
it that everyone on Riverside would be notified and no body was for this meeting tonight. He
has two very large problems with this PUD. It poses a very big financial burden upon business
• owners that if they want to try and improve a property they were just about to put a stop to
it because of the PUD. If you have rental property in the Riverside area it was very badly
restricting them in any way, shape or form to change from one business to another when a lease
runs out. It is not a workable condition at all for rental property.
Barry Kennedy, 214 Fishback stated his family owns Kennedy Automatic Transmission at 428
Maple and also owns the building that Fort Collins Foreign Car rents from them. He stated
when you look at the whole plan on the west side, its specifically zeros out the two C-
Commercial properties. It says that those two properties accent the whole neighborhood. What
they were doing was getting rid of those two C-Commercial properties. They were down zoning
his particular property from commercial to N-C-M. With that type of zoning going to N-C-M,
granted he would have a use by right, but to paint a little scenario to them on how it will
devalue the property. Right now he is a mechanic and has a comprehensive accounting degree.
His brother has an engineering degree. Because it is N-C-M,lets say 10 years from now he
wanted to open a CPA firm, he would not be able to unless he goes through the PUD process.
In 10 years it will be bought and paid for and in order for him to open a practice, he will have
to spend $20,000 - $30,000 to open a CPA practice. He did not think that was right. His
proposal would be to leave it C-Commercial and also the area along Riverside.
Larry Kennedy, stated they own Kennedy Automatic Transmission Service and have met once
with Ken and their attorney. Ken has also met several times with their attorney discussing the
commercial property. It was going to be the worst down zoning in the history of the City on
one piece of property when you go from commercial all the way to residential, it literally will
render that property as far as sales value goes to anybody else probable to nothing. It will cost
alot to remove the buildings, just to build a residential home on it. With the down zoning the
way it is, the bank had testified to the Board earlier that there will be no loans made to
• properties that are down zoned that way and no way to keep them up, as far as borrowing
money. If the buildings are not kept rented or there is not an auto repair service in them. If
they are there for a year and cannot get someone in there to at least rent them, the properties
will be literally useless. There will be no way to keep them up and there will be no way to
maintain the buildings. Under the PUD, the stories they are hearing to try to get things
changed, the harassment that the PUD puts people through, the amount of money that it takes
to get things changed. He doubted that the way things are going right now, that the property
would definitely end up being a slum area. Those properties were originally bought as
commercial with the intent of being a retirement for him and something he could pass on to
his children. There was a tremendous threat there, especially to them. They asked Ken Waido
if he would get the revised version to them in enough time to enable them to sit down and
study it through. His attorney called him and the soonest he could get a copy was last Friday.
His attorney was upset because she could not get it quick enough to do a good study for herself
to be able to advise them on it because of the shortage of time. He would like to ask the Board
two questions, one, when did they receive there copy, and the other was did they read it, do
they understand themselves.
Chairman Klataske replied that they received their copies on Thursday before worksession on
Friday. He read it and understands the implications of it.
Mr, Kennedy stated he proposed that they postpone this long enough for people to look at this
and be able to make some intelligent decisions. At least where he could make a further
argument for himself, this was very important to them. They are not hurting that
neighborhood at all. In fact the neighborhood wants them. His recommendation was to
. postpone this until they could all make an intelligent argument about it.
Thomas Hanes, stated he just moved here from Chicago and was in the process of purchasing
property at 264 North College. Friday was the first he got of any rezoning and this was the
first meeting he has been to. He would like to direct their attention to the burgundy section
of Riverside and what alot of people aren't aware of. He was told at Friday's meeting that the
reason for the rezoning was the concerns of residents in the area of changes. He stated that
they were putting a freeze on the zoning to cut down the changes, or modifications of the area.
What they were doing on Riverside was changes. He never has dealt with the PUD but $20,000
- $25,000 to get a modification. He would not pay it, he called the seller of his building and
told them he was holding off purchasing until he hears what was going to go on with Riverside.
Also what was not brought up at the meeting but Craig Hau pointed out was the fact that when
you say PUD, underneath this, the City has the power to take 40 feet off the south side of
Riverside. He was in process of purchasing 264 North College, putting $15,000 in improvements
and adding an entrance on Riverside. He wanted to dress up the north side of Fort Collins.
He was not going to put in $15,000 and ten years from now because he decides to modify it, the
City comes in and puts a 40 foot easement in to widen Riverside and take down 20 feet off the
back of his building and not pay for it. No one has mentioned that here tonight that they could
do that with PUD going up and down Riverside.
Chris Zell, here as a broker of Remax First, representing several of his clients who have
property on Riverside. The concerns of the expense of the PUD and the comment on
harassment were very real threats to people. He thought the biggest thing was the potential loss
of investment and value on those properties by making them commercial and then adding a
change that every time you change the existing use of the building you have to go through the
PUD process to do it. To give them an idea of what that might entail, lets say we changed it
from an office/retail use and not change any of the outside of the building whatsoever, and
really did not impact the traffic, someone could end up paying a ton of money to just get that
done. That in itself was a serious impact all the way around. Not much has been said about
the 40 foot right of way requirements, but as one business owner on Riverside found out, when
he went to do his property, the City demanded as a condition of that PUD that he dedicate the
40 feet. That was nothing short of highway robbery. If the use on the property at Riverside,
Oak and Whedbee, if that kind of change were ever done, most of the lot would be wiped out.
This was something that these guys are saying they would do as part of the PUD, but they are
not going to give anybody any value. They were not going to exercise the right of
condemnation, which they have to do as a police state or power for the state and they would
not be compensated for that., They were saying that they were going to grant them the PUD
and they have the compensation in that. Lets say they decide to widen Riverside in two or
three years and then where is the compensation. The other thing he suspects is happening with
the changes in zoning was that some people have come in and said that they need to clean up
this area and they want to see the aesthetics made better and they could accomplish this by
using the PUD process. But the aesthetics themselves, that has been a business area and what
these people have contemplated and suggested may sound very simple but it was going to cost
someone millions of bucks in either the PUD fees and improvements or lost value.
Member O'Dell asked Attorney Eckman about the dedications of right-of-way and the
references made to the City stealing or highway robbery and what rights does the this City or
any other City have regarding dedications of right of way.
Mr. Eckman replied that municipal governments not only in Colorado but in the United States
generally because of Supreme Courts decisions have a right to require dedication of right of
way and require street construction also in connection with that to the extent that the
additional right of way or the additional construction of streets is connected, it has a nexus
with the traffic impacts imposed by that development. So if the development imposes traffic
impacts which require widening of the street, then that connection can be made and the
dedication requirement can be imposed. In the absence of an impact, by the development that
would justify the dedication of the street construction, the City could not require and would
• have to go through the condemnation process to purchase it.
Member O'Dell asked on a street as busy as Riverside and lots that are fairly small along
Riverside, what kind of increased impact would have to be made in order to demand that
dedication of right of way.
Mr. Eckman replied that there she was getting into traffic engineering formulas and he could
not tell her how they calculate the impact of a given development. He did know that there
were ways to calculate the impact and how much additional street and they have some street
standards that have been accepted by the Board as being legitimate to justify additional
dedication. To say that there is a blanket requirement of 40 feet no matter what, frankly he
doubted that it would be a permissible requirement because each development has different
traffic impacts and therefore you could not come up with the same width on every
development. It was also mentioned that a dedication requirement that would consume the
better part of a lot, he questioned that it could be done as well because such a requirement
would be really confiscatory or the entire property. That would require condemnation, and if
you are going to take someone's property and all of its economic value.
Richard Munioz, 901 Riverside, stated that he wanted to add they are going from College
Avenue to Lemay and he could not understand why they were not going on to Prospect if in
fact they were going to do this, other than the fact that the Doctors and whatever go beyond
Lemay there. He also wanted to add what purpose would it serve to change the zoning other
than to make people go through the PUD. By taking 40 feet off of Riverside, from his
particular property, and sewer and drainage system, to take 40 feet off of the east side which
they were proposing right now, he would be down to nil. Why did not the City buy the
• properties because basically everybody they take 40 feet from will eliminate the houses all
along Riverside and the car wash and the real estate office and everything else that runs along
Riverside, 40 feet will basically take almost 3/4 of their property. He just did not know what
purpose it would serve to change the zoning.
Marguritta Munioz, property owner at 901 Riverside stated they have had their house up for
sale for about a year and a half. They have had problems of anybody being interested in the
property and as time goes along they are hearing about taking 40 feet easement. They have 12
of them that has to split up this property and if the City goes in there and takes what they
want, there was not going to be much value there and its was like they have nothing and
mother worked for nothing. She wanted to say that she backed up the rest of the East Side
Neighborhood and she really wished and hoped they took all this into consideration.
Tom Myland, owner of property at 407 Riverside stated that the Board knew what is feeling
has been in the past and that has not changed since the last meeting they had. Thomas
Jefferson said once that the only thing government can do for the people is what the people
can't do for themselves and he thought that probably had a large impact on what they were
talking about this evening. They have not been given the opportunity to do for themselves.
As you go through the minutes of the last meetings they had with their group when this whole
thing came up to pass was there was very little communication. They have had very little
communications. They have went to the meetings since last May and was suppose to be give
and take meetings. There has been more give than take. There was a show of hands at the first
meeting and there was 90 people in the room and when asked who was in favor of this change
one person raised his hand, there were 89 people opposed to it. Why was that communication
conveyed back to somebody. This has been in the offing for almost a year now and last Friday
• night was really the first time they had been able to sit down and have a give and take session
with the Planning Staff. It has been ridiculous, and if you go back and look at your minutes
from 1985-1996, everyone of the articles in those minutes refer back to community input.
Everytime they have had a meeting and everytime they have made a decision, they have gone
back to the Planning Staff and asked for more community input. They just have not had the
input into this thing. Ken talks about the rezoning, he never talks about the downzoning of
property and what effects you have heard from bankers and financial people that this was
going to be devastating to them and one fellow out on Riverside right now that the realtors
have told him, give it back to the bank because your property is going to be value less. It was
not even going to be worth the amount owed on the mortgage so give it back now rather than
wait a year and bail out. Take a look at the people in the audience, these folks are all hard
working people. What they have acquired on Riverside has come right out of their backs and
you want to take that away from them. You want to place restrictions on their properties. If
it is good enough for Riverside, why is it not good enough for all of Fort Collins. If you can't
put the PUD requirement on all commercial properties in Fort Collins, then don't have a dual
set of standards and go down to those folks down below on Riverside and put that standard on
them. It just is not fair. I'm sure everyone down there believes in the planning process and
good planning but good planning ought to be good for everyone. Don't plan those folks into
bankruptcy. If you will go back and research your minutes again, it says in there "do all of
downtown or don't do any of it". Rezone all of downtown or don't do any of it. This comes
right out of the minutes of the meetings you had. Just think about the hardship that you would
be placing on these folks in that area and think about what this does to them. Lets postpone
this thing until we can have some more input, lets find out where we are. Lets see if we can
resolve the problem and bring it back to the Board in some form that they could do something
with it. He thought if you look at the way this whole thing started and the goals and objectives
of good planning was back in 1985 and if they could recognize the plan that was presented at
first to what it was now it sure did not look like it to him that it was anywhere close to the
same sort of plan. There was nothing in there that resembled a rezoning of Riverside or
mention of rezoning Riverside. It mentioned taking the phone company building on Olive and
turning it into a senior center, why happened to that plan.. What happened to the plan of the
park that they were going to put out there. He urged them to do some real serious thinking
about what they were about to do and felt that the people on Riverside should be included as
part of the downtown people. They are part of the entry way into the City of Fort Collins and
would like to maintain their property and would like to do some things that would be
aesthetically pleasing to the community and they could like a committee to do some work and
show them what a committee could do.
Chairman Klataske asked Mr. Peterson to clarify that on parcels of this size, when they come
into for a PUD requirement, what kind of time frame were we looking at and what kind of cost
were we looking at.
Mr. Peterson replied that the usual time and cost for a PUD is 14 weeks. On smaller parcels
with smaller consideration could go as quickly as 7, and in complex cases it gets up to 21 weeks
in terms of the time frame. In terms of cost, it really seemed to him that having looked at
about 400 PUD's in the last couple of years, it really depends on the nature and extent .
Smaller PUD's for a small place it was a range of several thousand, larger PUD's, it can get
quite complex and expensive. One of the reasons for the expense was that they were asking
people in the PUD process to do planning at the beginning. All too frequently in the
development process we have people who seem to want to think about what they are doing after
they have made a decision to go but rather to think and then go. There was alot of up front
money. They cost involved in the PUD was a small cost to administration and the major cost
was for essentially having professional people, architects and planners work on a scheme. We
find most plats are prepared by licensed architects and engineers. To do it, you are paying the
prevailing rates for that kind of expertise.
Chairman Klataske asked if it was possible to do a submission without having qualifications
of an architect to be able to do it as a lay person.
•
Mr. Peterson replied yes, there have been a number of instances throughout the years where
literally things have been done on the back of butcher paper as submittals. Especially for
relatively minor PUD's.
Member Gorman stated that it was being implied that they were putting a dual standard on the
people of Riverside and was it not true that other businesses have to go through the PUD
process to change.
Mr. Peterson replied for the most part yes. Most of the development that occurs in this
community in recent years have gone through a PUD process. There are several areas that
really don't get involved in the PUD process. They are Riverside Drive because it has the C-
commercial with not condition zone attached to it. The other is the GI district which there are
a number around especially in the north of Prospect Road that are similar circumstance, but
almost every type of new development or redevelopment that we see and that is south of
Prospect Road for the most part comes in through the PUD process or the administrative review
process.
Jim Wade owns a commercial building at the corner of Jefferson and College. He was also in
the act of purchasing another property in the downtown area. For five years he has looked for
commercial property in this town. He has looked at every building on North College. He did
not buy on North College specifically because of the PUD problem, it's outrageous. It is
destroying the economy for many investors. He had partners from Denver and when they did
buy, they bought into this building but they were looking at several properties. Why would
anyone want to buy them. This City puts so many hurdles in front of small businesses it is very
difficult to do business in this town. He was not just talking about a few developments. They
were looking to spend about $500,000 to 600,000 on small properties and putting small
• businesses in there that they were going to own and operate. They can't do it, it is just
ridiculous. This building he has is zoned commercial, fortunately he can do what he wants to
the building. He is four blocks from Riverside. He did not know if in 10 years if he will be
able to do that. That really concerns him. If this is an idea to get the people into downtown,
to fix a problem that they helped create. He has been in this town 29 years and remembers
when they could park on College Avenue. He can hardly park on College Avenue, they had to
beautify it for one which took away 20% of the parking places and then the City had to take
some of the parking places right next to his building and just walked in and took about 10
parking places and did not tell them about it or ask them about it or did not send them a notice
to dedicate them to the new City building because they bought a new City building and they
did not have any parking for that building. The building on the corner of Riverside and
College. There is no place for these people to park so they stole parking, he bought that
building with the understanding that he would have that parking. He did not like that. He was
there to support these individuals on Riverside. This was just a little plot to try to eventually
over the years change this from the zoning it is now, people will not be able to change the
zoning, they will not be able to sell their properties. These businesses will die out and
disappear it will move them downtown. That was a hell of a way to fill the downtown area.
The thing he could say to the Board was that he has owned businesses in five or six counties
in this area, in the State of Colorado, outside of Aurora this is the toughest town to do business
in of any town he has ever been in and they should be more friendly to business and more
friendly to investments. People are willing to invest in this town if you give them a break. He
was not talking about the gigantic things everyone looks at, he was pension and profit programs
of Doctors and Lawyers. They would come into this town, they like this town but you can't put
the hurdles they have to jump. He would not tell any of his friends or the people that he deals
with in business to buy one of these properties if they do these changes.
• Craig Hau, resident of Fort Collins and real estate broker and property owner. He does not
own any property on Riverside Avenue but does have a residential property on Wood Street in
could not afford to do a PUD. The owner did not want to spend that sort of money that is
• required and the obstacles that are put in front of the people that want to put a business up
there was so great that they are not there today and they are not going to be there tomorrow.
We have other problems in town that could be cured by zoning and it was not by making it
more restrictive it was by making it better. The PUD process is great, look down at Harmony
Road but that is big pieces of ground that the development they could control. We were talking
about little pieces downtown. He encouraged them to table this thing until the downtown plan
is ready and he would surely encourage them to leave the commercial zoning on Riverside
alone. He thinks that they were going to cause those people a great financial hardship and loss
of their investments if this goes through and he would encourage them to look at not what this
means tonight but what it is going to mean 10 to 15 years from now. The result of why they
were looking at was going to be evident down the road and he thought they should shine up
their crystal balls and take a hard look at what this means to all these properties.
Mr. Hau asked Mr. Eckman if a PUD was proposed on Riverside was it not going to be an
arterial in the Master Street Plan and was it not 40 feet less wide than it was supposed to be
and won't that 40 feet be required if someone does a PUD on this street.
Mr. Eckman replied that Riverside was an arterial street.
Mr. Hau asked if it was wide enough currently.
Mr. Eckman replied he did not know
Mr. Waido replied he did know what the width of Riverside was today. The standard for an
arterial street was to have 100 feet of right of way for a 70 foot flow line to flow line street.
• That was the standard.
Mr. Hau stated that there was 40 feet to be dedicated off of Mr. Houska's property. The
Flatiron property next to Albertsons, someone started a PUD on it and 40 feet either got
dedicated or was required by the people that proposed it and the people who own it lost the sale
because of it. It was brought out Friday at the meeting. He would encourage them to look into
that and obviously the answers are not here tonight. He knew for sure that it was part of the
Master Street Plan. He reviewed it and asked the staff. There has been some comments that
maybe they will get it from the Railroad, well the railroad was there first and they have dealt
with the railroad and he was sure that the railroad was not going to give them the street and
it would be a cold day when it comes off of the north side of Riverside and he had the
opportunity to play tag with the City's PUD's and if the street needs widened and if it is an
arterial and if it is in fact in the Master Street Plan, he could guarantee from his experience
that PUD will not be approved unless that owner agrees to dedicate the right of way.
Member O'Dell replied that the opinion that someone would have to dedicate 40 feet of right
of way and thus make the property unusable and would not be compensated, was incorrect.
They would need to be compensated under the law. The other comment she had for him was
that she was a partial owner of a small business right across the street from that immediate area
and she understands how difficult it is to get going and how difficult it is and what an obstacle
it would have been for them to have to go through a PUD process if they are just renting a
piece of property. She was sympathetic to the people who live there and was frustrated by the
fact that she thought that people are mis-speaking, are scared and aren't listening and are so
emotional that it was very difficult for them to listen. She thought people needed to listen to
what Mr. Eckman says and listen to what the staff says and the motivation behind these plans
• was not to fill up the Downtown and was not to obtain right of way for Riverside. It was to
protect the neighborhoods. She thought that in lots of Cities, and if you have ever lived
anywhere else that neighborhoods near downtown tend to deteriorate so terribly that it
adversely affects downtown and that was the motivation behind this plan and that people need
to understand that. They were not going to make people sacrifice everything for that but that
there were ways to compromise.
Mr. Han stated that Mountain Avenue, Elizabeth, Oak Streets were beautiful residential
neighborhoods. Mountain Avenue did not run behind the commercial properties on Riverside.
There was not much there to be protected. Those properties would probable change, if left
alone, to commercial rather than commercial residential. No one wants to live on Riverside.
Even half a block away you can't even stand the truck tire noise. To think that by changing
the commercial property and making it more restrictive and putting it through the PUD process
was going to protect the residential properties behind it was rather hard to accept. The other
thing was that the PUD process, was if the City needs additional right of way and you can have
a PUD approved you are going to have to dedicate that and he did not think he ever heard of
a PUD approved with a dedication where the City compensated anyone.
Member O'Dell replied that if it was a situation where the property was made unusable as a
result of a dedication of right of way, if the property was useless then it was her understanding
that the law says that those people need to be paid.
Mr. Hau stated that if the PUD was not approved then the property would not be dedicated and
they won't be harmed. It was a real catch 22 and he would encourage them as a board to look
into that because it was one thing to condemn a property and buy it and another to make it a
requirement in the PUD even though the requirement may make it unusable it won't be
approved, they can still use it like they wanted to and the City was not going to buy it. It was
a real grey area that he would encourage them to look into and would hope they would table
this until the Downtown Plan was ready, take a hard look at what this was going to do to our
community and it did create a double set of standards. There are other pieces of property in
the City of Fort Collins zoned commercial that does not have that requirement.
Mr. Peterson stated that yes one of the first things looked at in a PUD was dedication and he
could tell them that there are situations where there was no rational nexus to require
dedication or we have not required dedications. Simply the street is in existence, its there and
because of the compensation question, when you take more than makes sense the law is very
clear that you have to compensate them. We have not required right of ways in certain
instances. One of the frustrating things he has listening to the dialogue about Riverside
Avenue was that right now we are guided by Master Streets Plan which classifies Riverside
Drive as a certain type of arterial and there was a certain dedication requirement that they
look at. He would hope that as we are in the middle of the Transportation Plan which is going
to revise the Master Street Plan that was one of the issues that was taken into consideration was
that personally and professionally did not see a requirement on the south side of Riverside
Drive to be looking for more dedication with the property ownership as it sets there. He was
bound as staff by what was on the books now and until that changes, that was one of the first
things they will look at.
Ed Zdenek, who has property under contract on Riverside, near the corner of Lemay and they
also represent the client in the similar zone on the corner of Pennock Drive. He stated that
there concern tonight was that they have been working with the City since last spring on one
in the commercial zone and one in the I-G zone that have certain requirements. They have
proceeded with these and one of them was going to be submitted for permit next week and they
expect the others over the next six to nine months will be coming through the City. Their
concern there was that they were permitted to continue the process that they began. They also
thought the commercial zone which it now is would be appropriate. The I-G zone would be
inappropriate for the uses they have in mind and they certainly would not object to a C-zone.
They do object to the PUD at this time because of the timing they are involved with and would
suggest a commercial without any additional constraints would be appropriate zoning. If
• indeed they were to go through with the by zone, they would suggest additional uses be added
to it to allow for the type of uses they deemed appropriate. It was important to understand that
there were two or three different issues. Properties they were involved with were very much
an internal part of the shopping center. The B-G zone did not allow as a use by right, drive in
restaurants, nor did it allow gas stations or things that might work with the shopping center.
They might be inappropriate for some other zones where you are talking bg zone but here they
think that some additional zoning might be appropriate. Their recommendation would be
commercial, from I-G to commercial.
JB Foster 825, 827 and 829 Riverside Avenue stated he and his wife bought the property and
he is a licensed real estate broker, a designated appraiser. They thought that it was something
that was kind of shiny and looked like something they would like to own. They bought it in
1972 and it was zoned commercial. He found that there were a lot of ropes to skip and this and
that before he could even place his building there. Finally they got a place. He was held up
three months by the City with how he should place his building on the lots. After three months
they had gone out of fall and into 30 below zero and Reid Burton had to make a special
building to make their cement panels to go into that building. He thought this was all worth
and he won't have any problems down the road. He had already leased a portion of the
building to a real estate school. He thought they had it all ready to move into but the inspector
said that you know that you are in number one fire zone. They want V of sheet rock. Here
the building was all out of cement. Even the roof was t-beams like bridges are made out of,
cement. He said O.K. and pulled the panelling off and put on that quarter inch. He thought
they were making something that they could look back and say one of these days we'll take a
little rest, we'll retire, they were still at it. He says this because this •has been a terrible
disappointment that the fact that he built his building to the quarter inch of sheet rock and
• now they are talking about taking half of his building. We thought it was at location that has
availability, exposure, they were real proud of it. You bring someone in now and try to lease
half of it and they say the grapevine is that one of these days that you are going to have half
of your building taken off. Lets see you try to rent it to that man. East of them is a railroad
track and he knows that you don't take railroad property for nothing and he did not expect
them to take his for nothing. Lets go east and leave his curb alone. Lets knock the curbing off
the railroad property and move it over 40 feet and we'll have an arterial road. He thinks his
building is kind of nice there. Its a good location.
Linda Hopkins, stated that she was involved in real estate development in Fort Collins. She
stated that the fears were very real and shouldn't be discounted when you hear the staff debate
even yet tonight whether Riverside was justified, the anxiety elevates and the concerns are
valid. She had to complement the process, the process itself has been valuable, in fact the
introductory material that they have acknowledge that a number of important questions and
issues have been raised throughout the public process. With that contribution in mind she
would like to see as others have requested that process to be extended. Extended for the
opportunity to allow time for discussion on the specific language of the zoning. While there
has been alot of discussion this evening and throughout this long process, on the concepts and
on the issues and that continues even tonight. She agrees with Mr. Kennedy that there has not
been adequate time to discuss and digest the language. The specificity of the language was
critical to the true application of the rezoning. The informational meetings that they had to
discuss concepts were very generous but they were being a bit miserly with this opportunity
to discuss language as the key final step in the process. She has personally made a concerted
effort to stay well informed yet she was startled by the language as it has resulted from their
discussion on issues. The exact language and zoning changes were available to the public
• Friday or at best Wednesday. Consequently, she thought there were a number of concerns over
that specific language and she would ask for more time to be able to discuss it with Staff.
Mr. Ryan stated he did not understand. Ms. O'Dell stated that there were too many emotions
getting involved here and he did not see how you could not have your emotions involved. He
has spent most of his life in this town. He came back 19 years ago after the service and started
a business. He has spent all these years trying to grow and build a business. He sees the special
things that are handed to businesses on South College and Harmony, well how about this area
of town. You have to build business before you can build your house. He was talking about
his business at 602 South College, he was in the negotiation stage to buy it now. It has been a
commercial property since Fort Collins started. His particular property has been in the
automotive business for 40 years. Sure they were saying he could continue that endeavor but
what happens down the road, what happens if he gets sick or the place is closed down for a
year. What was the cost for someone to come in and continue his kind of business, an
automotive business. Knowing the direction of this town that was going to be impossible. He
knows that just by the track record that limited business property was valued at 15 to 20% less
than commercial valuation. His game plan in business was to expand in 8 to 10 years, what
happens if it is zoned limited business. Set backs come into play, he has two buildings on his
property. What was going to happen to his ability to have two buildings to expand, a building
he could use. He is limited in square footage. If they change it to limited business it was going
to limit them a whole bunch. It scares him the direction this town has taken, from caring about
business, particularly small business, to caring more about quality of life, which was important
to all of us, but it you have the business to support that quality of life, you don't have
anything.
Rae Todd, representing the Landmark Preservation Commission stated that Mr. Ken Waido of
the Planning Department met on two occasions with the Landmark Committee to discuss the
proposed zoning plans for both the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. The LPC appreciates
the effort of staff, particularly Ken Waido, for undertaking this important project. They also
appreciate the opportunity to comment to Planning and Zoning and believe a strong association
with the Planning and Zoning Board and City Staff was an important part of achieving
Historic Preservation goals. The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods are composed of homes
and businesses that develop from the community's earliest days and contain most of the areas
remaining historic resources. The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods include the Laurel
School National historic district and the Avery House historic district. In addition the
neighborhood include 9 buildings which have been individually designated as local or national
landmarks. There was an extremely large percentage of structures that were contributing to
the historic quality of the neighborhood offset by only a few markedly intrusive buildings.
They believe there are many more structures in the neighborhood that are eligible for local
historic designation. However, some important structures have been lost to demolition in the
past years. Additional protection is needed for these important areas. Both the Eastside and
Westside Neighborhood Plans are directed toward conserving and improving the overall historic
character of the neighborhoods. They believe that the rezoning proposal developed by Staff
was a positive step toward achieving these policies and rectifying the conflict between the
existing zoning in the neighborhood and the recently adopted policies for the neighborhood.
For however urgent the community feels that historic preservation is, if the underlying zoning
permits conflicting uses of higher intensity and in the long run preservation would lose out.
Conversely, if preservation objectives and zoning are coordinated, they can work together to
promote the beneficial use of historic resources. However well we support in general the
zoning plan, they believe that the proposed new zoning districts could be improved upon in
terms upon promoting historic preservation and values as follows:
1. Require historic survey of buildings over 50 years in age be submitted as part of the
development application. This information would be useful to the Planning and Zoning Board
and the City Staff in negotiations with developers. The survey information is not difficult to
assemble and would not pose a significant additional cost to the applicant. A similar
• recommendation was accepted by the City Council as part of the recent LDGS audit report for
inclusion in the submission requirements for all PUD's.
2. Require that as a condition of approval of any plan, administrative or by the Planning and
Zoning Board, that the project meet All Development Criteria of the LDGS, particularly those
criteria that relates to preserving historic structures and assuring compatibility with the
historical identity of the neighborhood.
In addition, they would like to be informed of any new development or redevelopment projects
in these neighborhoods. Particularly those involving buildings over 50 years old. They
understand this could be accomplished administratively by the Planning Department Staff and
did not need to be formerly part of the zoning action considered by the Planning and Zoning
Board. Again, the LPC appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
Don Spangler, local resident here in town stated that one of the areas he would like to address
that he had not heard much talk about was pollution, sprawl and traffic. This community is
concerned about increased traffic, pollution and sprawl. By downzoning they would be
increasing traffic, pollution and sprawl by the following:
1. By downzoning they will force many people to rent away from the downtown area and away
from the CSU campus area causing more sprawl and more traffic and more pollution.
2. By changing the zonings on the Riverside businesses and the businesses in the westside and
the eastside area, they were systematically encouraging businesses to move out of the downtown
area or not move into the downtown area. Consequently, if you force a lot of businesses out
• of the downtown area you will force people that need that type of services to go where ever
those services will be. Whether it will be in the airpark or out on east Highway 14 or farther
out on South College Avenue. As it is not there are several auto related businesses on Riverside
but currently there are only a handful of emission stations downtown, places that do licensed
auto emissions. Consequently, if people in the downtown area cannot get into one of those
licensed areas they are forced to drive further out or further south again, creating more
pollution, more traffic problems and more sprawl.
He thinks the conscious or unconscious systematic system of forcing businesses out of the
downtown area was only hurting the downtown area, not helping it. He would like them to
consider the seriousness of pollution, sprawl and traffic problems that we have in this City and
think about how this downzoning will affect it.
Jim Martel, chairman of the Downtown Development Authority stated that the last time this
matter was before them they requested that they at least table that portion of the Eastside and
Westside rezoning that immediately surrounds the downtown until the downtown rezoning had
been completed. Since that time it was determined that the City was not clear as to what the
priority of the downtown zoning would be, particularly as it relates to their funding request.
So the Downtown Development Authority authorized the money to have the rezoning done,
rather than wait for the City to do it. They have already sent out requests for proposals and
have the proposals back. Most of the proposals indicate that the rezoning and the rezoning
study would be completed within 12 weeks and the maximum 6 months. If you agree with Mr.
Petersons analysis that a PUD may take anywhere from a minimum of seven to a maximum of
21 weeks. All that they were requesting was that that area being considered be tabled for the
same period of time that a person submitting a PUD would have to go through the processes.
• He thought that it was appropriate that at least those areas be considered at the same time as
the entire downtown is rezoned. It seemed to him to be consistent and to be more logical to
work from the inside out rather to rezone and then try to decide what to do with the center of
that and it seemed to him tonight most of the discussion has centered around those very areas,
a substantial amount along Riverside and the business areas surrounding the downtown. There
really has been no opposition at all to the neighborhood areas further out to the west and east
which are the low density residential and maybe even the medium density residential. It
seemed to him that was what you really were talking about when you are talking about
preserving neighborhoods was to preserve the low density residential areas. Preserving the
neighborhoods did not necessarily mean that we need to downzone the area immediately around
the downtown, until they have zoned the downtown and decided what those uses ought to be.
It didn't seem to him to be inappropriate to wait that short period of time for the zoning
around the downtown area. It was important to separate the emotions of it and realize that
there are very significant issues involved tonight. While the discussion has been going on, he
has been reading through the proposed rezoning ordinances and it seemed to him there were
some very significant items there that if there were more time to explain exactly how each one
of these zoning ordinances is going to apply to these peoples property there may be less anxiety
about the rezoning that has been proposed or there may be greater realization as to what affect
these ordinances will have. He requested that it be tabled.
Member O'Dell asked if it would be Mr. Martel's suggestion that whoever received the contract
for the rezoning of the downtown would also look at these areas.
Mr. Martel replied that since the Downtown Development Authority is the one funding this
project, he thought the rezoning would be limited to the area included within the Downtown
Authority. He did not think the DDA could spend money to rezone property outside although
when that rezoning is accomplished, it may make a difference to the City Planning Staff as to
how the area surrounding is zoned. The City is now zoning the surrounding area without any
knowledge of what the zoning will be of the downtown area. It would be his thought that some
consistency in that zoning would be helpful.
Member O'Dell asked rather that having the downtown area and the other areas surrounding
the downtown area done at the same time, he would prefer to see the downtown area done first.
Mr. Martel replied, to be considered at the same time. If you had the entire package. Right
now there is a big hole right in the middle and you don't know what it is and don't know what
it is going to look like. It seemed to him if you looked at the entire thing at once and could see
it maybe the planners would decide that it should remain as it was being proposed tonight but
maybe they won't. When they see the rezoning for the downtown maybe they would say well
this buffer area should be a little different, maybe it should go out further, maybe it should
come in closer. The more knowledge they have of the subject, the better off they are. If they
were going to rezone, the last time was 1965, if that was how infrequent things like this are
considered, waiting another 6 months was not that long for that particular area.
Mr. Bob Black, owns the building at 501 Riverside stated that he really did not feel that the
notice of what was going on here was adequate. He found out through other property owners.
He did not see the purpose of the PUD requirement. He was a general contractor and has dealt
with the PUD's and they are expensive. There was talk about emotionalism, well money is a
emotional subject. It is very serious. They have not had this building very long and this was
his retirement plan and what was happening here, there was a real possibility that the City take
it.
Mr. Bob Breckenridge, 317 Stover Street stated he also runs his business out of there. This was
the first thing he has heard of this. He learned about this about two weeks ago. This would
directly impact his business and his living arrangements and everything else. He bought this
property with all the money he had. If he put $80,000 into this piece of property in the last
year and a half and if this goes through, it is basically useless. He did not think there had not
been any where near enough time or notice given on this subject for them to go ahead and pass
• it through. He was asking for more time.
Member Walker stated that the comment being heard was not enough time and what he was
looking at was the reason for this whole process was that the Eastside Plan was developed and
went through a public hearing process and was very long and evolving. One of the things that
came out of it was recommendation of what we were dealing with today. Some sort of
different zoning on Riverside. Its a little difficult for him when he hears people say that they
did not know about it and did not hear about it. This thing has been going on for 4 or 5 years.
He really questions how they did not get in on the process. As far as emotionalism is
concerned, money is an emotional issue. He has not seen any facts tonight on how much it costs
for a PUD so it was very difficult for him to separate when he hears comments PUD's are
costly, they cost $25,000, this will have millions of dollars of effect in the area. All he has
heard is figures unsubstantiated. He wanted the Staff to comment on what practically speaking
in a PUD are we dealing with on small properties like this, PUD's generally we think of the
larger shopping center types of properties. He would like to hear from Staff a little bit of
discussion on when you are dealing with a small PUD like this what are the kinds of things the
City is looking for in developing a PUD.
Mr. Peterson replied that for small PUD's of the community we usually end up looking for two
things. The first is landscaping because usually with many of the PUD's as they come in for
change of uses, there really was not adequate landscaping done in the beginning. The second,
in the areas of town like North College where we have a traffic safety reaction, we look at
narrowing the access points to property rather than having to have continuous access on a
major arterial road like College Avenue. Those are really the two things they start looking at
in small PUD's and it usually doesn't go beyond that very much.
• Member Walker asked when a PUD is developed, the implication is that every time there is a
change in tenant there would be a requirement for a PUD, and could Staff comment on a
procedure relative to that.
Mr. Waido replied first of all that they were recommending that the existing uses in these zones
be recognized as the legal use of the property. Those legal uses in zoning terms were in more
generic categories. They are not Mr. Kennedy's transmission shop as the existing use. The use
in zoning terms was an auto repair business. A change of use is somewhat flexible yet
somewhat limited in that an auto repair business can change to another use that classifies or
qualifies as an auto repair use without requiring a Planned Unit Development. The auto repair
business changing to a fast food restaurant would be a change of use and that would be the
type of thing that would kick in the PUD. As Staff and Board discussed on Friday and as he
had mentioned to the property owners and business individuals on Friday night. If a PUD
were required, it would be Staffs recommendation, if the uses were to change in these areas,
that a listing of uses of similar impact be approved with the PUD package so that we would
not have a change from an automotive use to a fast food restaurant use. If a fast food
restaurant use were the one being proposed they would also ask to enumerate on the PUD like
uses with an impact to a fast food restaurant. Anything that had that kind of use would be
listed on the PUD so additional change of uses would not be required to come back through the
PUD. That was one of the ways that they were thinking that they could further expand what
they were attempting to do with the concern as expressed in the neighborhood plan about uses
that could locate on the periphery of these neighborhoods or along major arterial streets that
dissect these neighborhoods and have minimized the impact of those use changes on the
residential stability of those neighborhood.
• Mr. Waido added to what Mr. Peterson made in his general comments on a PUD. In practically
every case here say for a few vacant parcels at the north end of the Riverside Shopping Center,
they were basically dealing with properties that have existing structures on them. When we
look at a PUD with a vacant piece of ground, they were looking at architectural elevations and
building placement and all that needs to be designed and all that needs to be paid for in the
design. When we are given an existing situation of property boundaries and existing building,
those things are locked in and there was no need to spend alot of money to discuss. It was just
a matter of putting the dimensions on a piece of paper as to where the building is and the
Board obviously understands that we were dealing with an existing development property that
we were just changing the use and how is it best accommodated on that piece of property given
the existing circumstances of building placement.
Member Walker stated that there was a concern about protecting rights by changing the zoning
from I-Gto B-Gand to him there was a misguided statement there. By the I-Grone, Albertson
could be changed to a machine shop and he was sure that there would be some concern with the
other property owners. He thought that they have almost by private sector decisions they have
something more like a B-Groning than an I-Groning and that in that particular place the plan
is just following what the circumstances in the area are as much as some of residential changes
that were being proposed.
Chairman Klastaske stated that the subject was brought up of the N-C-B line where the
properties that are down there are office buildings and the appropriateness of where the line
is drawn now versus it being a buffer and could Mr. Waido address that.
Mr. Waido replied that the area in question again was the 400 block of West Oak. The
boundaries that delineate these colors were taken directly from the West Side Neighborhood
Plan. Mr. Richmond was incorrect in many of the statements made to the Board. The orange
area here is zoned R-H and although offices, medical and dental clinics and personal service
shops were uses permitted in that zone. The conversion of an existing residential structure to
those uses was not a use -by -right as Mr. Richmond stated. Those have to go through a special
use conversion hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Board could make
a decision as to approve that or not to approve that. In many cases it depends on the site plan
that is brought in to justify the way that use was being put on there. They were actually
upzoning portions of the N-C-Bzone because in the proposed zone those uses just mentioned
would be allowed in structures where no external change was being contemplated. The
conversion of a single family house or duplex to a professional office would be allowable as
a use by right. The only review would be on the parking lot and that would not be a public
hearing review it would just be a review by staff to insure that the parking lot conforms to the
City's parking code. In a sense, he heard downzoning mentioned, the reason he did not use
downzoning in his presentation was that in many cases, while generally speaking we were
probably doing certain limitations on uses but in other areas we were increasing what was
allowable or what could happen in those zones. It is basically common planning practice to
break uses along an alley and not along a street frontage so that you have uses which are
different in nature backing up to each other and not fronting against each other on a street.
The specific area here was you have a parking lot here, that was an existing situation. We were
not proposing, it just happened to be there, in fact all these uses happen to be there. The
character of this area from a planning concept was that it was absorbing and is acting as a
buffer between the predominantly commercial areas and the predominantly residential areas
to the west. That is the line, that is where the plan drew the line and that is why we drew the
line there. There could be some argument as there have been some conversions to non-
residential use. There needs to be care in not just loping off an area because the property
owners would like that. He was not suggesting that the area may not be appropriate for
conversion offices, what they were suggesting was that such a conversion go through a certain
process and that process that they were suggesting was the PUD process and lets look at it on
an individual case by case basis and if it warrants a minimal impact on the nature and the
stability of the area then the Staff would recommend approval and the Board would probably
go and approve the land use change. We are setting up a process based on the guidance that this
• Board and the Council gave to staff through the adopted plans.
Chairman Klataske asked about the discrepancy in the numbers that Mr. George had brought
up.
Mr. Waido replied that the map they had shows the area on Mountain east of the alley to have
addresses 402, 408 and 412. In the south part of Mountain there are two addresses 401 and 417.
West of the alley on the north side it is 420 on up and on the south side it is 419 on up. He
would have to check but he thought he wrote the breaking point that says 419 West Mountain
to 499 West Mountain is currently R-H and was proposed to be changed to N-C-M. Anything
from 402 to 412 Mountain would be R-H to N-C-Band 401-417 would be General Business to
N-C-B.
Member Walker asked about the whole issue of the 40 foot right of way and practically
speaking if we were talking about a neighborhood plan that was somewhat preservation minded
in character including Riverside it seemed to him that what we were lacking in the plan was
some statement that there should be no relocation of the roadway into the property on
Riverside. Driving down Riverside you look at the west side of the street and he thought it had
been well pointed out that you could not go anywhere with 40 feet there and on the other side
you have the railroad and was this something that given the nature or trying to accomplish in
a neighborhood plan like this, was this an appropriate place to include something like that and
also would like more clarification on the issue on what the City requirements are and what had
to be done to change the process given the realities of what Riverside is on the west side right
now.
. Mr. Waido replied that he did not know if he could add anymore on the dedication discussion
than what Mr. Eckman and Mr. Peterson had already said.
Mr. Peterson replied that what he really was asking was a process question and it seemed to him
that there was two basic choices. The first was it may be appropriate to amend the Eastside
Plan. His gut reaction was that the Board wait a little until the Transportation Plan was
further along so that the ramifications of that could be understood. He did not think that there
was any prohibition that he was aware of that would stop the Board from suggesting an
amendment to the Plan and put that type of issue to bed rather quickly.
Mr. Eckman replied as far as law was concerned there was nothing magical about 40 feet.
Whats magical was what is the impact of the development and what could that justify in the
way of dedication. He did not know where the 40 foot terminology was coming from, unless
it was a practical matter instead of a legal matter.
Member Walker stated that one of the reasons for this consideration for the rezoning of
Riverside was the fact that the Eastside Plan made a recommendation to that effect and could
they get some statement out of the Plan as to exactly what brought this about.
Mr. Waido replied that one of the pieces of information that he brought to the meeting with the
Riverside business and property owners was the section out of the Eastside Plan. This
information was also passed on to the Planning and Zoning Board in a staff report. On page
22C of the plan was a map that shows some proposed zoning districts that were designed to
implement the Land Use Policies contained within the Plan. There was alot of verbiage in the
plan that talks about preservation of uses and preservation of residential character, limitation
• of uses, what uses may be appropriate, what uses may be inappropriate. Then there was the
map that shows the boundaries of certain zoning districts. This map in the plan clearly shows
Riverside Avenue to be rezoned to Limited Business as suggested implementation to for the
policies in the plan. That was why during last summer and in September of last year the first
Staff recommendation to the Board was to rezone Riverside Avenue from commercial to
limited business in conformance with the plan. Then based on the concerns that they had heard
at the meetings and open houses, particularly the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing
they went back and Staff attempted to find what they considered as a compromise position
from what they were hearing from the property owners perspective. At the present time the
LDGS is Staffs best tool, we believe, in which to evaluate a change of use throughout the
community. We made the revisions that we presented to the Board this evening as to what Staff
thought was going to be a compromise position between the concerns they were hearing. They
probably did not achieve that goal but that was clearly the intent.
Member Walker stated a number of speakers talked about postponement but he was not sure in
some cases what postponing was going to accomplish. However, one comment relating to
postponement to the Downtown rezoning and would Staff comment on the linkage of rezoning
Downtown first before proceeding with this plan.
Mr. Waido replied as he had indicated in the staff report and as he indicated in his
presentation, that they knew this was an issue and it had to be looked at. Staff would agree
that we perhaps we should bring the rezoning project together if we did not have a Downtown
Plan. We do have an adopted Downtown Plan that has certain policies in that Plan and
purposely when the Downtown Plan was being developed, there was an overlap. It overlapped
the area with the Eastside Plan and it overlapped an area with the Westside Plan. These were
the areas that eventually became designated as buffer in all three plans. There is a one to one
correspondence, complete consistency between the boundaries of the buffer areas as depicted
in the East and Westside Neighborhood Plans and the buffer areas in the Downtown Plan.
Consistency not only in terms of the boundaries but consistency in terms of the uses that are
deemed appropriate within those areas. If we did not have that policy guidance, Staff would
be saying yes, lets delay looking at those buffer until we have a Downtown Plan. Because we
have a Downtown Plan and the policies are consistent we did not see a need to delay decisions,
particularly on the buffer areas until the downtown rezoning is done. What is a downtown plan
going to dictate differently for those buffer areas than what it already dictates in terms of
policy.
Member Strom stated they had heard some comments from the LPC, had he had some
discussions with them and did he have some thoughts on their suggestions.
Mr. Waido replied that he had met a couple of times with the LPC itself. Its question of how
far did they want to apply the type of criteria that they were asking be applied. In each of the
site plan review sections we indicate that in addition to section A of the LDGS, any design
guidelines that are adopted for the neighborhood and neighborhood plans, the Staff and the
Planning and Zoning Board would also apply any guidelines for any applicable historic district
structure. That lists certain uses that fall under that site planning. He thinks we need to
recognize that there are other uses that are by right uses that do not require either a site plan
review by Staff or the Planning and Zoning Board where we are suggesting application. Those
are the uses that the plan deems as being appropriate uses within the neighborhoods. In the N-
C-L for instance it is only single family houses. In the N-C-Mit is single family houses and
duplexes. In the N-C-Bit does get into some of the non residential business type uses. If the
Board would provide them direction, we know that if you say a single family house is allowed
in all these zones, someone could take a building over 50 years old, tear that building down and
replace it with a new single family house and there would be no review of historic preservation
on that action. The question was how far down the line do we go in controlling uses or looking
at uses and interject this historic review criteria. One of the things that they had thought
about was interjecting in a demolition permit. That when someone comes in with a demolition
permit that would then also require the historic report or some type of historic evaluation if
the building is over 50 years old. That's not within the zoning code it would be more or less
• in the building code. We think the zones here help encourage the reutilization of existing
structures or put them through a review where historic criteria needs to be looked at through
the site plan review by the Staff or the Planning and Zoning Board.
Member Strom replied that he thought the thought of including that in a demolition permit
would be an excellent idea. He did not see the connection with the zoning and thinks that they
have gone down the road fairly well in terms of protecting the historic uses. He encouraged
the people of Riverside Drive to get involved in the planning of the Transportation Plan. He
stated there was alot of concern and fear about what PUD means. There was a lot more heat
that light in many cases tonight. Speaking as a Board member that has review dozens of PUD
he wanted to make a point that they are interested in their individual properties and their
concerns of their individual properties. Their charge was to be concerned with the City in
general. What they look at in terms of a PUD more than anything was what affect was their
property going to have on the surrounding properties. That was something he did not hear
much of tonight, he heard alot of concern about individual properties from individual property
owners and users. He understands and has a great deal of sympathy for small business
operators and people who are struggling to make a go with the economy as it is today. Many
of them on the Board are in the same situation. Effectively what he was saying was that this
PUD process was designed to review changes in use and the effect they have on surrounding
properties. Issues of legitimate public concern, public health, safety and welfare issues. The
idea was not to come to a property owner that was coming to the Board and ask how much they
can get from them, the idea was that if you are going to change the use, what affect are you
going to have on your neighbors, how much traffic are you going to generate, is it going to be
more that they had been generating. If so, they should do something to help out. The question
was raised that if it was good enough for Riverside then it should be good enough for Fort
• Collins. The reality was that the PUD condition applies to more land than not in Fort Collins
in terms of commercial development. He thinks that you would find that most development
that occurs in the City quantitatively happens under a PUD condition. Its not something that
was cooked up to rip off 40 feet from your property.
Member O'Dell stated she had a concern with putting C-Commercial with a PUD condition on
the properties along Riverside. She thought that alot of businesses that may locate in those type
of properties tend to be start up types of businesses, not with alot of money, not with alot of
time, not with alot of expertise. She thought it would be an undue hardship on those people
and on the property owners to have to go through the PUD process everytime the piece of
property was rented to a new tenant. She did not know what the solution was, she just knew
that there might be another solution and she was not sure this was the time or place to come
up with that. She certainly would not support the proposal as it stands right now. She thought
it was unreasonable and she thought there was a need for these kinds of businesses and these
kinds of opportunities and these kinds of properties that allow small businesses to start and
flourish. She thought to put to many restrictions on them would put the property owners out
of business.
Member Strom stated that in the case of Riverside Drive it may be that some of the language
is of concern. It may beyond that, he was not sure that they had a good solution for Riverside.
He would like to suggest that they postpone consideration of Riverside Drive and get onto
consideration of the rest of the zoning proposal.
Member Carroll stated he was perplexed about the issues as it relates to Riverside Drive. First
as far as the 40 foot easement goes, that was something that he did not accept. PUD's are
approved or disapproved by the Planning and Zoning Board an¢ the 7 of them are not City
people. People bring in proposals and they listen to them, they reject them, they accept them,
they modify them. If one simply views in their mind, Riverside from Mountain down to
Mulberry, to wait for the City to wait until all of those property owners to come into and do
PUD's and required 40 foot easements would probably take 40 to 50 years before they would
acquire enough of that to put a road in. This 40 foot easement makes no sense. On the other
had the City at any point can come in and condemn property for what they consider as a use
for public use. He discounted the 40 foot easement. As far as the PUD concept, the PUD
concept in Fort Collins has been around for a long time and as Mr. Strom said it is for the
protection of all of Fort Collins and was not simply to force on property owners things that
they don't wand to give. You have to put in a sidewalk or a curb, you have to dedicate 10 feet,
you have to allow us to put utility lines in. That was not the purpose. Previously we had a
straight zoning system. It was zoned and it could go in by right. For what ever reason City
Council some years ago decided that was not a preferable way for Fort Collins to develop and
we could develop in a much more attractive healthy type of City that we would all like
throughout the PUD process. He for one thought that it has worked rather well. As far as it
applies to Riverside, if the PUD process always costs $15,000 or more he would consider the
comments to be extremely legitimate. He himself is a small business owner and did recognize
these costs, however, having seen PUD's for existing structures, one does not have to hire the
same architects that designed the expansion to the mall. The cost for a PUD for a small one or
two lot business was not going to change the structure was minimal. He has seen cases where
people have done it themselves. He was also concerned with how it affects neighbors. Right
now we talk about property values, any person along there however could put in a use and it
could be very derogatory to its neighbors. Where someone has a property they are saving for
retirement that is worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars, suddenly the nice business next
door is gone and in comes a business that no one really likes and suddenly this $200,000
business, the neighbor turns into a $75,000 business because no body wants to buy something
next to whatever it happens to be. One the other hand he certainly did not want to put
significant impediments on people. He was struggling with the whole concept. He did not
really see that any particular interest was going to be defeated or ruined, except for more Staff
time and more of their time in postponing this a couple of months. He was not aware of any
horrible type of use that was planned in the particular area. As far as the rest of the plan he
was pleased, he certainly would not call this spot zoning, when what he would consider a
tremendous section of Fort Collins, was being rezoned and he was very pleased that they had
not seen anyone coming in on other parts of the plan.
Member Walker stated that his feeling was that one thing they had gotten out of this process
was that they had gotten everyones attention. He felt that they were not under any time
imperative and regardless of the past history of what went on and why this issue did not come
up before now was irrelevant at this point. His feeling was that there was a plan that has been
approved, the Eastside Neighborhood Plan and they were in the implementation stage and that's
what all this changing of zoning is about. He felt that while there was two parcels, the
Kennedy parcel and the Riverside Corridor he felt that within the policies established by the
Eastside Plan, perhaps there ought to be a task force to further look into this. What he was
suggesting was that he heard alot of people say lets keep the status quo and he believed that
by the policies of the Eastside Plan, the policy of the City was different than that. He believed
that there was an impetus for something to happen here and he would certainly like to see how
this could work. We have heard alot of what this was going to do to me and my property and
yet as was mentioned, whats someone elses property going to do to you, we have this process
and he thought this was why these neighborhood plans are being developed on a systematic
basis throughout the City. There was recognition that this process is within the policy of the
City to continue to make this a community that we are all happy with and feel that it
maintains the qualities that we appreciate and that includes the Riverside Corridor and who
better to work this around was the people that are directly involved. He think that now they
have a framework in which to perhaps lead discussion, he would like to see a process take place
•
•
0
so that there could be people whos direct interest is involved understand that there is more
going on here than just trying to create some sort of harassment or hardship. That was not the
goal. He did agree with the rezoning of the I-G zone and the Oak Street rezoning.
Chairman Klataske felt that the area on West Oak and the zoning in the alley was appropriate
for planning purposes to split that use down the alley so you have compatible uses facing on
the streets. He was still not comfortable with the Riverside issue and would support the PUD
concept for Riverside, however he thought there was some language that needed to be resolved.
If we were talking 25 years since the last rezoning of the City, whats another month to clear
up the language and to work with the owners in that area and that it was done to the benefit
of the property owners individually and the City as a whole. As far as Mr. Kennedy property,
the same thing in that area with it being zoned commercial, you have some clarification of
some language or how that c-commercial zone could be incorporated into that area and not be
a detriment if the property were sold in another use come in.
Member Walker moved to create the new zoning districts N-C-L,N-C-M-and N-C-Bas shown
on the enclosed map and exclude Mr. Kennedy's property for further discussion with the
Riverside matter.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
Member Walker moved to rezone the Riverside
BG with the following conditions. The existing
uses conform to BG regulations or approved a
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Shopping Center from C-Commercial and IG to
legal uses be continued as use by right and new
s a PUD.
Member Walker stated there was some issue in that parcel that some work in progress and would
like guidance from the Staff and what would the impact on what was just proposed.
Mr. Waido replied that Staff was aware of two projects that are in process on vacant properties
in the area to be rezoned. If it is approved tonight those uses would not be uses -by -right that
would not be allowed in the zone any more and would require them to come through the PUD
process. As we know they are in process and in order to get a vested right they would have to
pull a building permit. If it is the Boards desire to allow a grace period of time to allow uses
that are currently in the process and adequate amount of time to complete that process under
current regulations, the Staffs suggestion would be to delay the effective date of the rezoning
to that period of time which is deemed appropriate. So that they make a recommendation to
the Council and could say that six months be given before the effective date of the BG zone
kicks in, that being sufficient time for work in process to conclude to the building permit stage.
Member Walker replied that was a reasonable consideration, and he did not feel that they
should unfairly create problems for people that have started the process in one mode and get
the ground rules changed in mid stream and would like to add an effective date of sixth months
after second reading of the ordinance if Council adopts it.
Member O'Dell replied it was acceptable to the second.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend amendments to two existing residential zoning districts,
R-M, Medium Density Residential and R-H, High Density Residential and amendments to two
existing business zoning districts, B-L, Limited Business and B-G, General Business.
Member Carroll seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Carroll moved to table the amendments that apply to Riverside Avenue.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Mr. Waido replied that Staff had no problem with the tabling, first of all there needs to be a
date to table it to and then their comment would be that we would like to have sufficient time
to work with the property owners in trying to come up with something that would acceptable
to everybody concerned.
Member Carroll moved to continue the amendments that apply to Riverside Avenue until the
April 1991 meeting.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion to continue was approved 7-0.
Member Strom moved to approve the expanded coverage of the RC - River Corridor as shown
on the enclosed map.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM FOR ENERGY
CONSERVATION POINTS. 06-91,
Sherry Albertson -Clark stated that this project was intended to provide clear standards to use
to evaluate and award energy conservation points for non-residential PUIYs in the City of Fort
Collins. The project did have that very narrow scope and was not intended to mandate or
address broader community wide issues of energy conservation.
They began the project in November and through a fairly lengthy process including several
opportunities for public input, were before the Board tonight to recommend a series of
ordinance changes that we would ask they recommend approval to City Council. These
ordinance changes specifically recommend two methods for evaluating and awarding points.
The methods are based on meeting the Model Energy Code as the minimum threshold for any
project and then there were specific levels or standards that were set above the Model Energy
Code which one must commit to providing various energy conservation measures in new
structures. They were also proposing to continue to retain energy conservation as an incentive
in the Guidance System and not require or mandate that every project uses energy conservation
points. We have found through our data collection on this project that of approximately 125
projects done over 5 years between 1985 and 1990, approximately 1/3 of the projects were using
energy conservation points. We felt that it was important to retain this as an incentive, and
also feel that the adoption of the methods that were proposed by Staff would provide and
perhaps encourage more people to use this criterion in the future.
Part of the recommendations are asking that the Energy Conservation Criterion be addressed
• at preliminary PUD stage and that also at the Board's suggestion, that we incorporate an
evaluation of monoriting of the program and bring the results back to the Board within one
year of the adoption of the methodology. Finally, at the Board's request, Staff had also drafted
a resolution that they have before them this evening that would need a separate motion. This
resolution essentially asks City Staff to evaluate and review the future versions of the Model
Energy Code and evaluate that code with respect to future adoption. At the present time we
have adopted the 1986 edition of that code and the Model Energy Code is revised and
publicized on a three year basis.
Member Walker stated that we have adopted an energy conservation element in the LDGS and
first of all it hasn't been used very much and secondly, he had trouble with the concept that
because when you are trying to do a review process that looks at land use issues and then adds
in an energy conservation element, it seems like it was really mixing things up. The implication
was that if you can't make the points you need on the development chart by land use issues,
then you could always toss in an energy conservation element and it seemed to him that if you
can't make the points on land use then getting there through energy conservation was just not
ringing true to him. His preference was that if we want to have impact on an energy
conservation program in the City, it would make a lot more sense for the Council to adopt
standards such as what was proposed here as part of the requirements for all non-residential
buildings, not just adding them in the PUD process and then getting the strange bed fellow
situation. However, he could still feel comfortable with the way this worked although it
seemed like an odd approach to Land Development Guidance System.
Member O'Dell disagreed. She thought several things on the point charts were energy related,
particularly whether a development is near a transit route. That certainly was trying to cut
• down the amount of energy and pollution to allow people to use the bus. Contiguity to existing
neighborhoods certainly cuts down on the amount of energy use to provide services across vast
vacant parcels of land. She thought it made a lot of sense.
Member O'Dell moved to recommend the Amendment to Chapter 29-526 Land Development
Guidance System to adopt standards for evaluating and awarding energy conservation points
for non-residential Planned Unit Developments and that the success of this be evaluated after
a year.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
Member Cottier moved for adoption of resolution PZ91-7with the following change, that in the
"NOW THEREFORE" paragraph, that we say "that the adopted Model Energy Code be reviewed
and evaluated in terms of the minimum level of energy conservation that should be required by
the City with the expectation of the Board that that level would be something in excess of
standard industry practices and that it would be in the City's best interest that higher
standards be established .
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Motion passed 7-0.
•
OTHER BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO PAVILION FORT COLLINS RETAIL CENTER P D
BUILDING "G". 050-85A.
Ted Shepard stated this was a referral of administrative change to the Planning and Zoning
Board to add a third wall sign of approximately 99 square feet to tenant space G4.
Member Walker asked to see the slides.
Mr. Shepard showed slides showing the frontage on College Avenue and the south face
elevation on Pavilion and the north face being interior to the shopping center, and other
tenant's existing signs within the Pavilion.
Member Walker asked if there were any other signs on the south elevation at this point.
Mr. Shepard replied that there were no other signs on the south elevation.
Fred Franz of Adcon signs stated that the first information the Board received stated that the
request on the signage to be 133 square feet per sign. On or about February 18th, Checker Auto
amended that drawing to be 89.1 square feet, which was the information that was in front of
the Board now.
Mr. Franz continued, the present sign code, as well as the criteria of the shopping center
through the P.U.D. process, would allow 198 square feet on the north and south sides of the
building. Their request was to increase the number of signs to three but decrease the size to
the 89.1 which would give them a net of 267.3 square feet, and they feel that the granting of
this would be preferential to two larger signs given the fact that at no point can you see more
that two of the facias at one time. Part of their request does deal with the pad sites of Black
Eyed Pea and Sound Warehouse. He realized that back when Sound Warehouse came in there
was discussion about the awning r,rA he did not think that in this particular case that was
necessarily an item that needed to be discussed this evening. The fact being that those two
particular situations on that property do have three signs and if you look at the property in
general, space G4 would appear as though it was about the same situation along the street and
again we would only see two sign at any one given time.
Mr. Franz further believed that this request did not conflict with the LDGS as to size and
placement of the signage and again they cite the two pad sites.
Member Walker asked Mr. Franz to elaborate on why Checker Auto Parts wants three signs.
The PUD was established as two and what reason could he give them.
Mr. Franz replied that was true, the original intent was two signs. In fact, originally the signs
were to be on the north and south sides of the building. There was a prior tenant in that spot
that had a sign on the north and on the west side. In their letter from staff, it had been
decided that the second sign could be put on the west side. Quite frankly, its simply a situation
where this tenant has the opportunity to reach potential clients up and down College Avenue
and from the west, hence, the request for the third sign.
Member Carroll asked to see a West View of the building.
Member Walker asked Mr. Shepard to point out approximately where the signs would be located.
Mr. Shepard showed some slides of the existing signs in the center and where they were placed.
Under Land Use Policies and Zoning issues, Council directed Staff to maintain the Land Use
Policies and Zoning recommendations in the plan, but to delete economic development as a
primary goal. Those references have been deleted from the Plan.
The next topic was Transitional Land Uses. Council directed Staff to maintain the
recommendations in the Plan especially in light of the fact that Staff already has a work
program to do neighborhood compatibility design guidelines this summer, a project to begin in
1991 and to be complete by January 1992. The results of these design guidelines then would
apply to the Harmony Corridor.
Water Conservation, Council asked for more information about xeriscape and the Harmony
Oaks concept and those facts were put together and provided to Council.
Gateway enhancement and preservation, Council maintained the recommendations in the plan,
however, they did not feel comfortable defining the planning area boundary all the way to the
Poudre River east of I-25 and asked staff to redefine the boundary to coincide with the Urban
Growth Area Boundary but to continue to work with Larimer County and the Town of
Timnath in a cooperative effort to plan for the future of the area in between the UGA
boundary and the Poudre River. The response was that the boundary had been revised in the
Plan they had tonight to coincide with the UGA boundary.
Ms. Ripley went over the 4 resolutions for tonight and in addition the Board was being asked
to recommend to Council the rezoning of 465 acres.
Member Strom asked if there was any consideration given to taking these changes that the
Council suggested to the committees who spent the last year and a half working on them.
Ms. Ripley replied that their direction from Council was to get it back to them as quickly as
possible. They had even asked it to return to Council in February and Staff said they would
not be able to turn it around that fast, so the first meeting in March was set as a deadline.
However, we did send out over 900 letters notifying people of this hearing. That mailing
included the information that she had gone over with them tonight. Alot of people in the
community should be aware of the changes made to the plan if they read their mail.
Mr. Jack Swets, 4735 S. County Road 5, a property owner in the southeast intersection of I-25
and Harmony Road, stated he was curious as to the exact status of the so called Gateway area.
Why was this included in the Harmony Plan, there is property there, his in particular, that was
approximately I mile away from the intersection of I-25 and Harmony Road. It would not do
alot of good as far as the beautification program was concerned. Secondly, he was wondering
if there had been any upgrading in communication with the Timnath area. The first
conference that was held with the Timnath Town Board was approximately two weeks after
Planning and Zoning approved this plan. He was wondering if there had been any upgrading
in working with the people of this area.
Ms. Ripley replied that it seemed logical to Staff that we should look at the area in a holistic
way, its a geographic area that includes the whole flood plain of the Poudre River and that was
why it was put on as the boundary line. The Staff always recognized that we did not have
jurisdiction over that area and stated that in the Plan. We only recommended a cooperative
planning effort in regard to that area. However, if Mr. Swets did not understand, she would
like to clarify that it had been changed in the plan. The boundary line had been moved so that
it coincides with the Urban Growth Area boundary line. Officially the planning boundary had
• changed, however, Planners from the County or the City may still be working with Timnath
and the County together on that area. The City is not presuming they could plan that area
because it is out of the UGA. As far as updating working with Timnath, no there had not been
! 0
that any land use located on a Planned Unit Development could also located in the N-C-Lzone.
Within the N-C-M,we have added that certain uses would be allowed by right and that would
include duplexes and also established two new site planning review processes, first being Staff
site plan review which would allow multi -family dwellings up to four units provided that no
structural additions or exterior alterations are made to existing buildings. Recreational uses
and group homes were also being asked to be subjected to Staff review. The N-C-Mdistrict also
establishes a Planning and Zoning Board site plan review for multi -family dwellings up to four
units that proposed structural changes to the existing building and public and private schools
also would be Planning and Zoning Board. Again the N-C-Madds the LDGS as a review
process. Related to the site plan review processes that he had just eluded to in the N-C-Land
the N-C-Mzone, the section indicates that in conducting the review and making a decision, the
Director of Planning or the Planning and Zoning Board would determine whether the proposed
development conforms to Section A, the All Development Criteria of the LDGS, the Design
Guidelines for the neighborhood planning area, the intent of the neighborhood plan as
applicable and any guidelines for any applicable historic district or structure. If the proposed
development conforms, it shall be approved. If the proposed development does not conform,
it shall be denied. Under the N-C-Bzone in terms of uses permitted, one of the significant
changes was to allow four plexes as a use -by -right provided that no structural additions or
exterior changes are made to the existing building. Also to allow medical, dental clinics and
professional offices and personal service shops as a use -by -right, again provided not structural
alterations or exterior additions made to the building. We established a site planning review
that would include multi -family dwellings up to four plexes that would propose structural
changes. Multi -family dwelling units more than four units and up to 24 units per acre, parking
lots and parking garages and public and non-public quasi recreational uses would be subjected
to the Staff site plan review. Planning and Zoning Board site plan review would include public
and private schools, colleges and universities, multi -family units greater that four units and
• greater than 24 units per acre, fraternity and sorority houses and medical, dental clinics,
professional offices and personal services shops which propose structural alterations to existing
buildings and undertaking establishments. The final use in the N-C-Bzone was any land use
located on a PUD.
Both the R-Mand the R-Hzone, the amendments in those zones deal with conversions and there
was a set of criteria there to encourage the reuse of existing structures, a much easier process
to get a use approved by using the existing structure. The B-L zone was being amended, Staff
was recommending the deletion of a review by the Planning Director be made to Child Care
Centers and that Child Care Center should be allowed as a use by right. Staff was also adding
R-M uses as uses by right in the B-L zone as well as printing and copying services.
Amendments to the B-Grone, Staff was recommending that fast food restaurants be added as
a use by right in the zone and also that shopping centers be allowed in the zone as a PUD.
Staff recommendations is that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council of
all the specific actions, including the creation of the three new zoning districts, the rezoning
of the Riverside Shopping Center area with the two conditions that legal uses would be allowed
to continue as uses by right and new uses must either conform to B-G regulations or be
approved as a PUD, including the amendments to the R-Mand the R-H residential zones as he
had eluded to, amendments to the B-L and B-G zones as he had eluded to. The placement of
a PUD zoning condition on the Riverside Avenue, C-Commercial area with the condition that
existing legal uses be able to continue as uses by right. Recommending expanded coverage of
the RC district and elimination from the neighborhood districts.
Staffs recommendation for approval is based on the following findings, first, that the primary
• criteria for evaluating rezoning requests is the requests compliance with officially adopted
elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning regulations, zoning district
boundaries and amendments are based specifically on the policies contained within the East
the West Side Plan. He has been in the real estate business since 1976 and have had the
opportunity to work with the City and was reasonable familiar with the process. Riverside
Avenue in the master street plan is designated as an arterial. It is not currently a wide enough
right of way for that. In the PUD process, in order to get a PUD approved, if the City needs
additional right of way or other municipalities or entities need things, as an owner you have
to provide those as a dedication or an easement in order to get your PUD approved. Riverside
Avenue, first of all.the whole thing in itself might constitute a reasonable area to do a PUD.
If you look at the properties, and he has done an analysis of these. If you put a PUD
requirement on them, first of all the PUD system in the LDGS did not address the individual
properties. Not one of these properties probably 90% by the way the system is written would
meet the points system to be approved, they all take variances. The other thing was if you take
a look at the 40 feet which he believes is a reality and unless the master street plan changes,
that was going to be a requirement. If you take 40 feet off of those properties, in their analysis
50% of them, the buildings are the 40 feet, the parking lots are on the 40 feet. They are not the
depth where you could dedicate it and go on doing business. It will literally destroy the uses
that are existed there. One of the things that he was familiar with was why people in Fort
Collins buy commercial property. He owns some property on North College individually. They
bought it specifically because there were some 35 plus uses you could put in those properties
and rent to people who utilize them in that fashion. If you down zone it to limited business
you eliminate some 20 of those. If you put a PUD restriction on it, it a individual owns a
garage on Riverside Avenue and its a gas station and someone wants to come in and do an
automotive repair, put a transmission store in or tire store they would not make it through the
PUD process for approval, it was not going to work. If this gets approved and they put those
restrictions on them it is going to be foreclosure row. He would like to address the whole plan,
its the finest example of spot zoning that he has ever seen. This lady asked if there was going
to be a difference between commercial zoning on Riverside and other places in the City. The
answer to that is yes not no. He owns a piece of property on North College that is zoned
commercial and he could change tenants in the garage and do other things, there are uses by
rights and there was no PUD restriction yet. Part of the reason he was there tonight was that
he hoped there would not be in the future. He wanted to commend the people who originated
the plans, the residents, the single family owners who were concerned about their property
rights, their concern about the preservation of their neighborhoods and their concern about
protecting the value that they have spent to obtain their properties. He thinks over the years
the plan has taken a different turn and sometimes it seems like a wish list for the City and for
the Planning Department and he thinks that one he would recommend that they consider with
the Downtown Plan, the center of the whole area is the Fort Collins downtown and that is the
center, the core of the Fort Collins downtown. They were not ever talking about that, they
were working from the outside in. It doesn't make sense. He would recommend that it be
tabled until at least the Downtown Plan is ready. He would recommend that they eliminate
Riverside Drive from any zoning change and leave it zoned commercial. Those properties were
bought by people, their money invested because of what they were zoned and the thing about
the right of way and the PUD and the width of Riverside. If the City of Fort Collins wishes
to gain additional property on Riverside, they have the right eminent domain and
condemnation. To accomplish the City's goals and their desire to control that property through
a zoning changes was not above board and the right way to proceed. If we are going to reduce
the zoning in Fort Collins, lets reduce the zoning in Fort Collins, we have a whole City to deal
with, not just individual spots and neighborhoods. He has not had a chance to review all the
changes and his recommendation tonight was to leave Riverside zoned commercial, forget the
PUD requirement, he did not think it was fair or it was right. If they wanted to obtain things
from peoples properties and control them then they have other sources to do it. Small business
and private industry is what supports this country, it is what pays the taxes. Government does
not support private industry, private industry supports the government. He wanted to make
another recommendation to them and a challenge to zone North College Avenue commercial.
Make it an enterprise zone. He has lost business after business after business because they
Member Walker asked if on the north side, would the sign be in conformance with that line of
signage ?
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct.
Mr. Walker asked about the west and the south side.
Mr. Shepard replied that there were some indentations on the building wall in the elevation
that outline the area and it would be between those lines.
Member Cottier asked if the original PUD allowed each tenant to have two signs or where was
it coming from that this particular tenant was allowed two signs.
Mr. Shepard replied that the only location in the center that allows two signs were those tenant
spaces that have frontage on Pavilion, with Pavilion being the south elevation. There was no
allowance for two signs for those tenants with frontage on Troutman. The exception being the
pad sites which were done individually as P.U.D.'s a couple of years after the center was
approved. Only those tenants with frontage on Pavilion would be allowed two signs, and so far
they had not elected to put signage on Pavilion.
Chairman Klataske stated the fact that by allowing a sign on each fascia you would at one
point only see two signs was actually doubling the amount of signage by only adding one sign.
Member Strom moved for denial of the third sign for the Administrative Change request.
• Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
Member Cottier asked if that allowed the second sign to be on the west.
Member Strom left it up to Staff as far working out where it goes.
Member Carroll stated he would support the motion. Unlike some cases he was not upset or
perturbed about the applicant coming in and requesting this change. He thought it was a
legitimate request to make and could understand why the applicant would want three signs but
when we have an adopted PUD and they looked at the Pavilion Center all at one time it was
not quite the same as when this project was coming to them to begin with. He had to be
persuaded that there should be a change to the PUD and in this particular case he was not.
Member Strom stated that he was following the executive summary recommendation from the
Staff regarding All Development Criteria *2, 33, 46 in section 25? of the LDGS. Also he did
not see a compelling reason for changing the approved signage there. It was not clear to him
that there was a place where the public could be close enough to read a sign on the building
where they could not see at least one face with two signs on the building and did not see the
justification for three.
Motion for denial passed 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.