HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/25/1980E
14::
CORRECTIONS
TO THE
AUGUST 25, 1980 MINUTES
OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Page 1, Item la, Housekeeping Items: Haase: "specifically" should read
"including"
Page 23, comments by Randolph Starr, should include his reference to the
Loveland City Council and its agreement with the Poudre Valley
Electric Association.
Comment by Randolph Starr, center of page, "appoint a committee
to discuss with the PVREA board solutions to these matters" should
be amended by the addition of the phrase, "similar to Loveland".
ra
• •
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
August 25, 1980
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys,
Gary Ross, Ed Stoner
Staff Present: Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Susan Epstein
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Ross: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Described function of the Planning and Zoning Board and procedures
for the meeting.
1. Approval of minutes of July 28, 1980.
Ross: Asked for additions or corrections to the minutes.
Georg: Moved approval of the minutes.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 4 - 0 - 1, Napheys abstaining, Clarke not yet present.
la. Housekeeping Items
Haase: Moved to include the date, time and place and attendance of Board
members at regular work sessions as an addendum to the regular minutes,
specifically the last meeting of August 22.
Ross: Asked Haase to state the members present at the August 22 meeting for
the record.
Haase: Stated that Ben Napheys, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross, John Clarke and Carolyn
Haase were present; Phyllis Wells and Ed Stoner were absent.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
Haase: Stated that it should be noted in the minutes that addenda and up -dating
of the by-laws will be presented for recommendation and adoption at the
September regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Moved that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mr. Paul Eckman, former
member of the Planning and Zoning Board, who has resigned because of his
new position as Assistant City Attorney.
Smith: Stated that letters of appreciation had already been sent.
Haase: Withdrew the motion, but asked that it be noted in the minutes that the
P & Z Minutes
8/25/80
Page 2
letters had been sent.
Ross:
Stated that copies of the P & Z Board's by-laws could be obtained from
staff upon request.
2. #94-80
Trujillo Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 10.1 acres from 0-Open, to C-Commercial,
located northwest of Fort Collins, south of Highway 287, east of Shields
Street.
Applicant: Patrick H. Trujillo, 2918 Rocky Mountain Court, Fort Collins,
CO 80526
Smith:
Gave description of the item, stating staff recommends approval with the
condition that all the Urban Growth Area application criteria be met
prior to obtaining a building permit.
Ross:
Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Patrick Trujillo: Petitioner. Asked what type of conditions would have to be met
before a zoning change could be made.
Smith:
Replied the conditions were not on the zoning change but on permission
to develop. Listed the criteria as in the Urban Growth Area agreement.
Trujillo:
Asked, if these criteria were met, then the city would have no objection
to the proposal.
Smith:
Replied that is generally the case, noting that the specific proposal
may come before the P & Z Board, but stated that the condition is put
on the recommendation in the event that development proceeded without
going through a subdivision or planned unit development.
Stoner:
Moved recommendation of approval to the county.
Georg:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
3. #95-80
East Vine Properties Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 133 acres from FA-1, Farming, to R-1,
Residential, located one-half mile east of Lindenmeier (North Lemay)
on the north side of Vine Drive.
Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521
Smith:
Gave description and staff recommendation for approval, subject to the
site being developed as a planned unit development.
Ross:
Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Les Kaplan:
Stated he was available to answer any questions.
Haase:
Asked Kaplan and staff what the county R-1 zone density allowance is.
Albertson -Clark: Stated that if developed as a subdivision, the maximum density allowed
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 3
would be 3 DU/acre; if developed as a P.U.D., 5 DU/acre would be permitted.
Haase: Asked what the next level of density would be, allowing a mixture of
residential and multiple.
Albertson -Clark: Replied the next density would be R-2, also residential, allowing
for a maximum of about 10 DU/acre.
Haase:
Stated that directly south of the site is industrial zoning; Andersonville,
which is residential, is located not far away; and the railroad is adjacent
to the property on the south side of Vine. Expressed uneasiness with a
low residential zoning which, in the city, would be viewed with apprehension
due to the proximity of a large amount of industrial zoning and the railroad.
Kaplan:
Stated that was a very far-sighted observation about the area, noting that
their long-range objectives for the property would include annexation to
the city prior to development proposal submission. Said that by the time
contiguity could be achieved to allow annexation, changes could take place
which would justify a higher -density zoning, but at the present the
requested 5 DU/acre designation seems a conservative request in the county.
Stated that upon annexation, they were considering requesting a conditional
R-P for the property.
Haase:
Stated she agreed this would be a good R-P zoning area.
Kaplan:
Stated they were not adverse to having their long-range strategy shortened
and would not object if the Board wished to recommend a higher density.
Clarke:
Moved recommendation of approval to the county, with the realization that
the request would probably be for a higher density when the property comes
up for annexation.
Stoner:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0, Haase commenting that the Board would forecast a
higher density upon annexation.
4. #96-80
Summit View Properties Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 140 acres from FA-1, Farming, to R-1,
Residential, located one mile east of Lindenmeier (North Lemay) on
the north side of Vine Drive.
Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521
Smith: Gave description and staff recommendation for approval subject to the site
being developed as a planned unit development.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
Kaplan: Stated his comments were the same as for the previous item.
Georg: Moved approval of the recommendation.
Clarke: Second.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 4
Vote: ns
regardingrindustrial zoning conmthe �south ng aside eofeVine aand projected her r tedthat
the zoning would be changed to a higher density when annexed to the city.
45. #97-80 Cominco American, Inc. Rezoning and Special Review (County Referral)
A request to rezone approximately 35.5 acres from FA -Farming, to 0-Open,
with use by special review to permit an ore sampling operation, located
east of Taft Hill Road, north of Sterling Sand and Gravel.
Applicant: Cominco American, Inc., West 818 Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
Smith: Gave description of the site, stating staff recommends denial due to lack
of information with respect to disposal of tailings. Stated a represen-
tative of the petitioner was present who could probably address these
concerns.
Steve Schermerhorn: President of Impact Environmental Consultants, environmental and
licensing consultants to Cominco for this project. Apologized for not
having met with the city staff on this item.
Albertson -Clark: Stated staff is concerned with the storage and disposal of tailings
from this operation.
ill: a
ather
Schermerhorn: heavydsandytwoktailing whichinds of ngs is inuld factewashedesand,mandeamrlighterparticulate
which will be in a liquid effluent and will go to a settling pond. Said
the sand is amenable to use in concrete and may be purchased by Sterling,
depending on the properties of the sand in each sample, noting that if
clay content makes the sand unsuitable for concrete use, it can be used
for roadbeds. Stated the sands are totally inert with no. toxic content
at all. Said the fine particulates will be taken to two settling ponds and
are also totally inert silt particles derived from the clay content of the
samples. Stated the water would be re -used and that the silt also would
be useable as a binder in roadbed material or to reclaim the large pond in
the center of the site, preferably the former.
Napheys: Asked what permits by the state or county would be required.
Schermerhorn: ihelcountythee
ranwairouldbthree: the zoning emissions permit from then stateand
forefugitiveidustrwhich
would be far below the prevention of significant deterioration level, and
building permits for sanitary structures.
Napheys: Asked what controls there are to address staff's concerns.
ly
on
Schermerhorn: Relid theesolidewaster
isaaecertificate ofadesignation whichre of, that thnapplieslto�dealing wit
nonhe is hazardous
wastes only, and historically has not been applied to gravel operations
in Larimer County.
Ross: Asked about the extension of Willox Lane.
Schermerhorn: Pointed out the access road, which would be on an easement fromSterling
Sand and Gravel's asphalt equipment storage area, an existing private
road coming off North Taft Hill Road. Stated the easement would be used
for utilities also.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 5
Ross: Said that he had concerns about traffic if access had been from Shields,
but that there is a light on Taft Hill Road, so there would be no
problem.
Stoner: Asked about staff's comment about the extension of Willox.
Albertson -Clark: Stated that on the draft functional street plan, there is a proposal
to extend Willox Lane west between Shields and Taft Hill and it would
run through the subject property.
Stoner: Asked if easements had been obtained for this or if property would be
condemned.
Smith: Said that at this point no easements had been obtained and the plan has
not yet been adopted, but staff wanted the property owners to be aware
of the possibility of the street extension.
Schermerhorn: Stated he understood that the county is planning to rezone this area on
a single use basis, so that at the end of the operation, the 0 zoning
with special review would revert to FA zoning. Said long-range plans
probably would not be affected by this project as the scheduled life of
the project is approximately five years, depending on the ore quality
found in the various prospecting endeavors.
Smith: Stated the city would not build Willox Lane through there within five years.
Schermerhorn: Requested the Board to vote favorably on this item.
Georg: Asked for a description of the engineering solution for control of the dust.
Schermerhorn: Replied the solution is simple: water. Described the manner in which the
material is processed: it arrives in 2500-ton batches and is about 12%
moist and is then stored in bins from which there will only be dust from
the top in extremely high winds of greater than 30 mph. The materials are
moved from the bins to the primary crusher by a front-end loader and
crushed in a dry process. If, however, a dusting problem occurs, sprays
will be used in the primary crusher as stipulated by the state health
department. The second and third stages both use added water, and the
third stage is enclosed as well. The material which comes out in these
stages is 20% to 30% moist, and if any visible dusting occurs, tailings
will be wetted as will be the roads if necessary. Stated the total dust
load for the project will be under two tons per year, and the state health
department considers a very minor source as up to 25 tons per year. Noted
that this is for dusting without controls and they have agreed to controls
where required. Pointed out there will be less than one truck operation
per day.
Ross: Asked if staff had additional comments.
Smith: Replied that it would have helped staff if they had seen some of the
specifics in terms of the special review permit, and it may be possible to
include. the conditions of tailings storage and disposal in the special
use permit, noting that he did not know if this would be included in the
permit, but that it was not in the material staff had reviewed.
Ross: Asked what the safeguards would be if a problem did develop.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 6
Smith: Stated that conditions in the special review permit would add another
level of control over the project in addition to that of the health
department through the county commissioners and their land use permit.
Clarke: Stated that if the operation takes place as outlined, his concerns are
taken care of. Suggested approving the operation with the understanding
that the tailings not be left around and leaving to the county to take
care of that stipulation in their special use permit.
Moved approval as above.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
6. #69-78A Greenbriar Condominiums (Continued from July 28, 1980), continued to
September 22, 1980
7. #75-80
Motnyk P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal for a 24 unit P.U.D. located on 3.6 acres, located
on West Mulberry, zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple Family Residential.
Applicant: M. George Motnyk, c/o Dennis Pack, 701 South Taft Hill Road,
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Smith:
Described the proposal, giving staff's recommendation for approval.
Ross:
Asked if anyone wished to have discussion on the item.
Dennis Pack:
Representing the applicant. Stated he would answer questions.
Haase:
Asked, on Item 11 in the letter from the applicant to the Planning Division
regarding the preliminary proposal, what their intention was concerning
the landscaping.
Pack:
Replied the intention is to go with passive solar, but that they do not yet
have solar easements.
Haase:
Asked, on Item 14, what the city's response is.
Pack:
Replied they had had no response from the city on that point.
Frank:
Stated the street was designed as a private street, and that staff had
suggested a pedestrian access from the property to the north, presently
undeveloped, to Mulberry Street, but the city did not want to maintain it.
Pack:
Stated their intent is to cooperate with the city in the matter.
Haase:
Asked, on Item 15, what their plan is with respect to the shade trees.
Pack:
Stated the final plan will have trees on the entrance -way, but they are
not presently certain which trees they can save.
Haase:
Asked about the issue of fencing.
Pack: Stated fencing is not planned for individual units, only for the perimeter.
P & Z Board Minutes .
8/25/80
Page 7
Said there is an existing barbed wire fence around the property.
Ross:
Asked if the fence were located on their property or the neighbors'.
Pack:
Replied that it varies as it had not been surveyed since 1894 until they
had it done, and that the fence line varies by as much as five feet.
Ross:
Asked if there were stock on the other side of the fences.
Pack:
Replied there is.
Ross:
Asked, if the fence is not in the right location, might it be torn down
creating a problem with stock.
Pack:
Replied that they will leave the fence unless the city requires otherwise.
Stated they would also be doing extensive green fencing as well.
Ross:
Asked if there were further discussion.
Doug Weitzel:
Owner of property immediately to the west. Stated there is livestock
on all sides of the subject property and that on his side, the fence is
on his property. Stated they do have problems with stock, and recommended
they do provide fencing around the units.
Ross:
Asked what kind of fence could be provided in place of barbed wire, which
is not encouraged in the city, which could keep horses contained.
Weitzel:
Replied it would probably have to be something like chain link fence.
Karen Kippers:
Owner of property in the middle of the proposal. Expressed concern about
the re-routing of the irrigation lateral which would affect many people.
Presented letters objecting to the re-routing (appended to the minutes).
Stated that a closed ditch, if open above, would silt up at the right
angles. Indicated the present and proposed ditch lines on the site plan.
Noted the ditch users should have considerable say on any change in the
ditch. Discussed fencing, requesting a privacy fence for her property to
protect her property and livestock. Pointed out the potential difficulties
with the private drive and snow as the snow drifts badly there. Said that
if the city does not maintain that street, there will be many cars parked
on Mulberry Street when it snows. Asked where the snow would go if it is
plowed. Asked about the sufficiency of active open space, especially as
the detention area on the north is a year -around slough which collects all
the run-off and irrigation water. Pointed out that this P.U.D. has no
recreational facilities comparable to other P.U.D.'s in town which have
tennis courts or other facilities. Stated that with 3-bedroom apartments
there would be many children who would need a play area other than the
slough. Expressed skepticism about a green fence where horses are involved.
Stoner:
Asked what kind of fencing she recommended.
Kippers:
Replied a wood fence would be suitable, that she was concerned about a
green fence.
Stoner:
Asked if horses wouldn't eat a wood fence as well.
Kippers:
Replied horses would not be near the privacy fence she is requesting.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 8
Stated that a privacy fence would not be needed around the perimeter of
the property, but only around her property.
Dorothy Goff:
Resident in that vicinity. Asked what kind of units would be built there.
Smith:
Replied they would be two-story condominium townhouses.
Mrs. Goff:
Stated the proposed construction would destroy their privacy and their
view, their reasons for buying land there. Objected to the city's annexing
the subject area of land without notifying neighboring residents. Expressed
concern about the quality of the proposed apartments as many west of
College Avenue are unattractive. Stated they had been subjected to pilfering
and looting on their property ever since low-income housing went into their
area, and said apartments in the area would not improve the situation.
Asked the Board to take her point of view into consideration.
Pack:
Stated the estimated cost of the units would be in excess of $70,000,
definitely up -grading the neighborhood.
Dr. David Goff: Resident at 2536 West Mulberry, adjoining the subject property at the
southeast side. Asked if the irrigation ditch would be covered or open.
Expressed concern that he would have water problems if a covered ditch
became silted up causing drainage into his property.
Pack:
Stated they had no final engineering solution, but that the run-off would
be superior to the way it is now. Said it would most likely be covered
and would run at a better rate than presently.
Dr. Goff:
Stated he realized he cannot stop development, but asked that the size or
amount of buildings be limited, stating that the developer's rights stop
where his property begins. Also emphasized the need for a children's play
area, and recommended a tennis court or park in the southeast section of
the proposal.
Robert Jones:
Asked for more information on the irrigation ditch, suggesting that a culvert
going under the subject property with no angles would be preferable to
having any 900 angles. Stated thirty-three people had water rights on that
ditch.
Ross: Asked the size of the ditch.
Jones: Replied it takes at least 12" culvert tile to carry the water. Said the
school district used a 14" tile. Noted that 900 angles in this type of
ditch just cause trouble, and asked who would maintain it.
Stoner: Asked what ditch company is involved.
Jones: Replied it is the Highline Ditch, and it is the Maxwell Lateral.
Smith: Commented that the applicant had not completed their engineering and that
the proposal would not be brought to final until the ditch companies
give their approval to it.
Dave Jehu: Resident at 2609 West Mulberry, directly south of the proposal. Read list
of names of those who could not attend the meeting: Cecil and Marge Niswen-
der, Leo and Jessie Bond, Wayne and Thelma Jessen, Phyllis Metz, Virginia
Rogers. Those with interests in the irrigation water are the Heinrichs,
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 9
Robert Jones, Mildred and Buck Jones, and Poudre High School. Asked those
who did attend the meeting to stand. Stated their concerns were as follows:
1) Water pressure in the area, still inadequate despite a new city water
main.
2) Property value. Stated the units, at $70,000 each, were low-income
housing and would impact the value of existing homes in the area which,
for the most part, are on minimum one -acre lots, while the proposed
units would be 24 on 3.6 acres. Said there is also concern about
crowding.
3) Maintenance of the private road, particularly with respect to snow
removal.
4) Noise pollution. The potential population of 100 people, combined
with the possibility of college students and occasional loud parties,
will create excessive noise.
5) Police calls, which would increase due to the low-income housing and
the creation of family disturbances. Stated it is a recorded fact
that family disturbances occur in low-income housing and in mobile
home parks.
6) Road size. Said the road is 24', but the fire department says it
needs at least 20' to get a regular -sized fire truck in there, and
larger trucks would not be able to get in, or more trucks if other
vehicles were parked there. Said, in any case, the water pressure
would be inadequate.
7) Non -notification of the annexation of this property. Stated no one
in the area was notified of the annexation. Also said that not all
the families within 500' of the proposal were notified of the P.U.D.
8) Stated that one of the proposed structures would block sunlight from
Karen Kippers' home, rendering solar heat infeasible.
9) 900 angles in the irrigation lateral. Stated they are extremely
difficult to maintain.
10) Said the P & Z Board and the Council should not approve this project
without some kind of guarantee that the developers would do what they
say.
11) Problems with stock and a green fence.
12) Conflicting'surveys on the parcel.
Ross: Asked staff to address the annexation procedure, the issue of water
pressure, the driveway with respect to fire vehicles, and the procedure
with respect to preliminary and final submission.
Smith: Stated the property was annexed prior to his employment with the city, and
he did not know what procedure was followed with respect to notification
about that annexation. Stated that at the present time, the applicant
is required to submit a list of the affected property owners within 500'
- which is generally taken from the county tax records. Noted that when the
planning staff collected those names, they were frequently inaccurate also,
and there seems to be no way to have an assured process. Stated the staff
notifies the owners on the affected property owners' list as well as
erecting signs in the area. Pointed out that the turnout at this meeting
indicates that, in some manner, the majority of people in the area were
notified even though not everyone received a formal letter.
Discussed the procedure for the preliminary and final submission of a P.U.D.
noting that details are provided for final submission.
Stated that water pressure is part of the utility plan which is done at the
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 10
time of final documentation. If the water pressure and location of fire
hydrants is inadequate, development cannot proceed.
Napheys: Asked how many units could be approved under the RLM zoning.
Smith: Replied that that zoning district does not have a specific density, but
that it is based on a floor area ratio depending on the amount of land,
the number and size of the units, and usually falls between 6 and 10 DU/acre.
Stoner: Stated three times the floor area is allowed for the lot which comes to
about 144,000 sq. ft. and they have 158,000 sq. ft.
Clarke:
Said it is important to note that that would be in a subdivision where
there are dedicated streets and access points, but that in this case the
total lot is being considered and streets and parking still have to be
provided. Noted that due to the configuration of the property, a consi-
derable amount of land is used for access, so perhaps the density is a
little high.
Napheys:
Questioned the adequacy of the open space on the north side of the
property due to the steep slope. Asked the direction of the slope.
Frank:
Described the open space and the detention area.
Napheys:
Asked how a detention area could be claimed as open space.
Frank:
Replied that under the regulations, partial credit may be given for areas
encumbered by flowage and storm detention as long as certain criteria are
met, i.e., the area is designed for recreational purposes such as ball
games and is also designed as a drainage facility. Stated that in this
instance because of the good circulation system of pathways, the landscaping,
and the open space, and an expected careful review of the final engineering,
the staff felt it was worthy of credit.
Napheys:
Asked if it would be possible to put units in the area.
Frank:
Stated that the topography prohibited putting units any further north.
Pointed out that the units would be step-down units, 35' in height, with
the lower floor opening to the north into the open space area which also
provided a basis for open space credit. Stated the other open space would
serve as a good buffer to the neighboring area. Stated all units are
setting 40' away from the nearest property line. Said he had discussed
with Karen Kippers the possibility of moving the one building to the east
of her home a little farther east and had indicated the privacy fence was
a good idea. With respect to shading, stated the building is 27' high,
her property is 15' away, so there probably would not be much shading
except at an early hour, unless a ground -mounted solar collector was planned.
Stated that a number of reviews of this project with respect to access had
been done with the fire department and they felt very good about the final
plan. Said the parking aisles were 24' wide and that it might be good to
sign them for no parking. Stated that more than 2 spaces per unit were
being provided. Said a homeowners' association will maintain the
open space and private streets.
Leo Bond:
Resident across the street from the proposal. Stated that the proposal
is on the bed of Dixon Creek which was dammed off by Horsetooth Reservoir
P & Z Board Minutes •
8/25/80
Page 11
and that's why there is a slough there. Stated that more people are not
needed out there as their telephone lines, streets, water lines, gas lines,
electric lines are all over -loaded. Said that if the dam ever broke, it
would take everything out. Stated there is already a parking problem on
Mulberry Street.
Dick Stephan: Resident at 125 S. Taft Hill Road. Primarily concerned about the irrigation
water. Stated that when he first began, he had sufficient water, but that
now it is insufficient, probably because so much of it has been put under-
ground. Expressed the apprehension that if more was put underground, they
would be cut off. Asked who would maintain it if it were underground, as
they could not afford to. Stated he is with the fire department and
doubted that it could get the aerial or the snorkel into the proposed P.U.D.
Clarke: Pointed out that no city department had indicated in staff comments that
there was any problem with the proposal, yet there had been testimony
that there were problems.
Smith: Described the staff review process, noting that a representative from each
department had signed off on this project, indicating its acceptability at
the preliminary stage.
Clarke: Expressed concern about the density of the proposal, and suggested turning
the four-plex in the southeast corner into a duplex, thus solving the
ditch problem and reducing the over-all density.
Kippers: Asked that the entire fourplex be removed.
Ross: Stated that if a motion for approval of this item were made, it would
include restraints regarding the useability of the open space, and
most probably be required to return to the P & Z Board as a final.
Kippers: Asked what other times citizens could comment.
Ross: Replied public comment could be made at City Council when the proposal
goes as both preliminary and final, and also at final consideration by
the P & Z Board.
Kippers: Pointed out that at the time of the annexation of this property, the
P & Z Board had recommended aenial, yet the City Council had approved
it, with no notification of affected property owners.
Smith: Stated that at the present there is no notification procedure other than
formal legal notices in the newspaper about rezonings and annexations
before the Council. Said this item would go to Council on September 16,
depending on the Board's action. Pointed out that in the case of the
annexation of this property, the City Council apparently over -turned the
P & Z Board's recommendation. Stated that if this item is required to
come back to the P & Z Board, notification letters will be sent out
prior to that hearing, but not for the City Council hearings.
Ross: Stated the Board has grave difficulties with the present proposal, and that
most of the problems could be addressed, therefore a recommendation for
approval could contain so many conditions that the developer would not
want to take it on to Council. Suggested, since there are so many unresolved
issues, that the applicant withdraw the proposal and resubmit it for
P & Z Board
8/25/80
Page 12
September after working with staff and neighbors to improve it.
Pack: Stated he wished to continue with the item and not withdraw it.
Said he understood people's problems with growth due to his experience
in southern California. Stated they were willing to work with staff to
solve problems, but that sociological problems are out of his bailiwick.
Said the project would be dealt with in terns of city requirements.
Contended the project would up -grade the area as apartments will rent at
$500 per month and homes will sell at $70,000 which compares with a
range in the neighborhood of $45,000 to $100,000. Said they are willing
to work with people in the area, but that they have a zoning and have
a right to develop as allowed in that zone.
Napheys: Asked what options the Board has.
Ross: Replied that they could recommend denial, approval with conditions,
or approval as it is, but that they had no authority to table.
Smith: Stated the applicant could continue the item, but that no motion by the
Board would be necessary.
Georg: Stated he had many problems with the present proposal and appreciates the
concerns of the neighborhood citizens.
Moved approval of the proposal contingent upon the following conditions:
1) That the preliminary be re -reviewed by the city in terms of fire,
utilities, water and those areas of concern raised during the meeting;
2) That consideration be given to straightening of the ditch;
3) That a fence be installed which will mitigate problems with livestock;
4) That density be related to the amount of active open space that is
genuinely useful as determined by staff upon re -review.
Haase:
Second.
Smith:
Suggested requesting the Board see the final.
Georg:
Agreed.
Haase:
Concurred.
Ross:
Stated it was his understanding that this would be developed
as a P.U.D. with
the normal bonding required for the landscaping, and so on.
Explained the
purpose of bonding.
Stoner:
Asked if it was Georg's intent that the density be decreased
if there is
less active open space than is being claimed.
Georg:
Agreed, stating that if the active open space is acceptable
as is, that
then the density may also be acceptable.
Ross:
Discussed the type of detention pond which could be used as
active open
space, noting it must either drain within a short time or be
always full
and used as an amenity. Stated that the developer would have
to address
all these issues on the final. Asked if staff could provide
slides in the
future of the site.
P-& Z Board Minutes .
8/25/80
Page 13
Frank: Showed a slide of the site and indicated the location of the slope.
Napheys: Stated he thought there were so many problems with the plan that it would
be preferable to deny it and start all over.
Vote: Napheys: no, based on his previous comments; Georg: yes; Ross: no, in
agreement with Napheys; Stoner: yes, although there are definite problems
they can be worked out, noting that he agreed with the fourth condition,
but that the developer has a zoning to which he has rights; Clarke: yes,
with the belief that these items can be addressed; Haase: yes, with a very
strong recommendation that there be meticulous, detailed review to solve
all the problems which have been brought up by the citizens at this
meeting.
Motion carried, 4 - 2.
8. #77-80 Rockwillow P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal for a 52 unit residential P.U.D. including 2200
sq. ft. of office space, located at the northeast corner of Lemay Avenue
and East Stuart Street, zoned R-P, Planned Residential District.
Applicant: Gefroh Associates Inc., One Drake Park, Suite 23, 333 West
Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Smith: Announced that the previous item would be heard by Council on September 16.
Chianese: Announced that Item #73-80, the Village Grove Annexation, would not be
heard tonight.
Smith: Gave description of the proposal, with staff's recommendation for approval,
with the understanding that the office area would be used only for
professional offices as defined in the zoning ordinance.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished discussion on the item.
John Dengler: Representing Gefroh Associates. Stated they had no problem with staff's
recommendation and he would be glad to answer any questions.
Napheys: Moved recommendation of approval, subject to staff's condition.
Haase: Second.
Clarke: Asked what the price range of the units would be.
Dengler: Replied it would be a medium range, from $60,000 to $80,000.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
Ross: Pointed out to the audience that the P & Z Board members had had a thorough
briefing on the agenda items the previous Friday, so if it appeared they
were hurrying items through, that was not the case.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 14
#66-80 Park West P.U.D. (Continued from July 28, 1980)
A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for 96 units on 10 acres located
east of Cunningham Corner at Windmill Drive and Horsetooth Road, zoned
R-P, Planned Residential.
Applicant: Court Square, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners,.218 W. Mountain,
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Smith: Gave description of the site, along with staff's recommendation for
approval subject to the following engineering items being addressed on
the final plan:
1) Owner shall provide the city with an easement agreement between them-
selves and Cunningham Corners;
2) Horsetooth Road shall be improved at the
or Four Seasons improves Horsetooth;
3) Drainage outfall and section shall match
4) If constructed before Cunningham Corners,
in full by Park West developers.
same time as Cunningham Corners
that of Cunningham Corners;
Windmill Drive is to be built
Eldon Ward: With ZVFK. Stated he would answer any questions.
Haase: Asked their reaction to the requirement, numbered 4 above, with respect
to Windmill Drive.
Ward: Replied that Court Square is in agreement with Cunningham Corners about
the street and an over -sized water line as well so that the costs will be
equitably shared; therefore there is no problem.
Mike Wilson: Resident to the northeast of the proposal. Stated he had concerns about the
developer as he had developed other land adjacent to his property and the
process had been quite lengthy, noisy, dusty and slow to remove trash.
Asked for assurances these problems would be taken care of. Questioned
the useability of two of the active open areas. Asked whether the tennis
courts would actually be put in.
Ward: Stated he had met previously with Wilson and thought he had satisfied his
concerns at that time. Said the tennis court is part of Cunningham Corners
and was illustrated here to show the coordinated effort on Windmill Drive
and also to show there is green space on that side of the project. Said
he was sure it would be built with the rest of Cunningham Corners. Discussed
the green spaces provided, saying several were in excess of 6,000 sq. ft.,
the size of a vacant lot, and noting that the ordinance requires dimensional
open space, not functional open space. Stated that the open space on
Horsetooth Road is being used to provide buffering for the residents nearby;
the open space on the east side is also a buffer to the single-family area
which is something that single-family residents usually request. Said that
there is further buffering between the single-family area and the back yard
areas of the units. Pointed out that the density of the area is planned
as a transition between the single-family area and the high density area of
Cunningham Corners. Said that responsibility for trash removal is with the
contractor, but that in the specifications by the architects for the project
there usually is a clause demanding that the site be kept in an orderly
appearance and that debris be removed.
Wilson: Asked how to determine who is responsible for the trash.
P & Z Board Minutes . •
8/25/80
Page 15
Smith: Replied that the first thing to do would be to contact the construction
supervisor; if that is not successful, then contact the Engineering Services
Department of the city; and as a last resort, contact the Police Department.
Wilson: Reiterated his desire to have the problem taken care of properly.
Eric Fellers: Stated that Woodwest, exclusively single-family, has been a very nice
neighborhood in which to live, in contrast to the P.U.D. on the corner
of Drake and Shields which is a disaster and will probably be a slum in
a few years. Discussed the density finally approved for Cunningham
Corners, stating that it is high and questioning that the condominium
units would be owner -occupied. Asked the P & Z Board to give the Woodwest
residents a break, and if they felt the Park West density was high, to
limit it.
Stoner: Responded that this proposal is a medium density level which should be
preferable to single-family area residents to a higher or commercial
density.
Fellers: Stated he does not consider this proposal to be medium density.
Ward: Stated he had done a study a few months ago for the city about this area
to achieve an over-all density of 5 DU/acre. Said that this particular
section is developing at a lower than normal density and said he would
be glad to discuss it further for the benefit of new board members.
Haase: Said Ward was referring to a study submitted to the Board on June 17, 1980
in which the statement is made that future multiple -family development
should average 9 - 12 DU/acre, based on extensive statistical study of
present development.
Ward: Replied they had taken the city section by section and determined the
balance of acreage and the relative densities to achieve an over-all
city density of 5 DU/acre, as below that, the cost of extending services
per unit is not effective to the city as a whole.
Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval with the staff conditions.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Haase: yes, calling attention to Poudre R-1 School District and Mr. Agee
regarding the school population projections which indicate that Beatty
Elementary and Boltz Junior High have no reserve capacity as of Fall,
1980 and more development continues to impact those schools; Clarke: yes;
Stoner: yes; Ross: yes; Georg: yes; Napheys: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
10. #13-80B Hill Pond P.U.D. Filing II, Single Family Area (Cont'd. from July 28, 1980)
Continued to September 22, 1980.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 16
11. #92-80
Markley Motors P.U.D. Amendment
This is an amendment proposal to
the Markley Motors P.U.D. consisting
of a 5592 sq. ft. addition to the
existing building.
The site is
zoned H-B, Highway Business and is
located at 3401 S.
College Ave.
Applicant: Gene Markley, 3401 S.
College Avenue, Ft.
Collins, CO 80525
Smith:
Described the proposal, and gave
staff recommendation
for approval.
Ross:
Asked if anyone wished discussion
on the item.
Gene Markley:
Stated he would be glad to answer
any questions.
Haase:
Moved recommendation of approval
of the Markley Motors Amendment to the
existing P.U.D.
Stoner:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
12. #87-80 R-H Conversion at 402 West Mountain
This is a request at 402 West Mountain Avenue, the Edwards House, for a
conversion from a residential to a non-residential land use.
Applicant: Resource Consultants, 105 S. Meldrum, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Ross: Stated he had received a letter signed by three property owners in the
area supporting the conversion.
Smith: Described the proposal, giving staff's recommendation for approval.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished discussion.
Dave Frick: Stated he would answer any questions.
Georg: Asked if this proposal would be used as a justification for additional
conversions of this nature in the area.
Frick: With Resource Consultants. Stated they were proposing to use the property
solely for the offices of Resource Consultants. Said they had no intentions
for additional purchases of land or conversions in the area.
Smith: Stated that if the letter from the neighboring property owners is read, it
states that they are intending to come in with requests in the immediate
area for conversions, each of which will have to be reviewed on its own
merit, rather than being based on the approval of any other project.
Margaret Grant: Resident in the area. Stated she would not like to see the area go to
non-residential due to the increase in traffic problems and criminal acti-
vity caused by lack of occupation of buildings in the evening and night
hours.
Ethel Taylor: Resident at 113 North Sherwood. Stated she is interested in maintaining
a very fine residential area, but feels she is in conflict with people who
wish to use the area for non-residential purposes. Asked why people who
want non-residential buildings d o not use empty downtown buildings.
P & Z Board Minutes •
8/25/80
Page 17
Stated this very fine residential area is close to downtown and an asset
to the whole town. Asked the P & Z Board to consider the residents in
the area.
Frick:
Pointed out the non-residential uses currently in the area around the
subject property. Stated that the allowable use for the house would be
as a multi -family type dwelling, but that by using the building as an
office, the historic character of the building can be maintained. Said
the building would be maintained better than as a multi -family dwelling.
Doug Parker:
With Cox -Parker, working with Resource Consultants. Said one of their
concerns is that only very minor structural changes are being done except
for the addition of one room. Stated they did not wish to change this
house so much that it could never be used as a residence again and that
the outside will not be changed. Pointed out that when converted to
multi -family use, these houses cannot revert to single-family use.
Clarke:
Because of the surrounding property and the appropriateness of the
conversion of this house,
Moved recommendation of approval of the conversion request.
Haase:
Second.
Stated their background paper indicates that only 10% of the firm's
business will be local, so that most of the traffic and parking generated
will be by employees, suggesting that this might alleviate the concerns
expressed by Ms. Grant.
Ross:
Pointed out that this applies only to the present owner, but that there is
adequate parking there.
Taylor:
Asked where the parking would be.
Frick:
Indicated on the site plan where the parking would be.
Clarke:
Stated his experience is that the only way to save these older homes is to
see a use change; otherwise they will go to multi -family rentals and
deteriorate to the point that they will have to be scrapped.
Vote:
Haase: yes, supporting Clarke's remarks; Clarke: yes; Stoner: yes; Ross:
yes; Georg: yes; Napheys: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
13. #102-80
Change of the City's Land Use Policies Plan Definition of Neighborhood
Shopping Center and Regional/Community Shopping Center
Waido: Gave staff report, describing the requested change, and recommending
approval.
Haase: Asked for the reason for the re-classification of highway -oriented uses
from a use by right status in the neighborhood centers to an associated
use.
Waido: Replied that if the definition that is currently in the document
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 18
is read literally, it seems that any type of highway -oriented use auto-
matically has a right to be approved in a neighborhood service center.
Stated the city would like to encourage uses which are currently locating
along arterial streets to locate in neighborhood service centers, but the
function of those uses in the center needs to be addressed through
appropriate design, and not just placed in the center as a use by right.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to speak on this item from the audience.
Clarke: Moved to recommend adoption of this change.
Haase: Commented that a "A shopping and service center, approximately 15 acres in
size, designed to meet consumer demands from an adjacent neighborhood"
should probably read, "from adjacent neighborhoods".
Waido: Agreed, noting that neighborhood is extremely difficult to define.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
14. #99-79A Prospect-Lemay Revised P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal for a two -office buildings P.U.D. (47,500 total
square feet) located at the northeast corner of Lemay and Prospect, zoned
R-H, High Density Residential.
Applicant: Gefroh Associates Inc., One Drake Park, Suite 23, 333 West
Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Clarke: Asked, with respect to paragraph 4 in the staff comments discussion, if
the buffering mentioned is the same, or represents a change from the
previously approved P.U.D.
Albertson -Clark: Replied the buffering is as was originally planned, as is the
parking configuration.
Haase: Asked that the access be pointed out from Lemay and Prospect.
Albertson -Clark: Pointed out the planned access points on the site plan.
Haase: Asked if thereiaeslide showing the neighborhood, the access points, the
recently -approved project south of Prospect, and at least a block of
Lemay, so that the traffic pattern, access and total parking situation
could be looked at.
Albertson -Clark: Stated they did not have such a slide.
Ross: Stated that a great deal of work had been done on the traffic and parking
in the past on this project by previous boards, but that it could be
reviewed again by staff if the present board so desired.
Haase: Stated she has real concern about a left -turn access off Lemay into this
project causing traffic congestion at peak traffic hours along with the
left -turn traffic from Lemay onto Prospect, and from Prospect, eastbound,
into the project.
8/25/8Ooard Minutes .
Page 19
Stoner: Questioned the figures on parking under Land Use Data, F.
Albertson -Clark: Replied the total figures are correct.
Georg:
Questioned the adequacy of the
parking, stating that the amount is at
least at the low end of the adequate
range as defined in staff comments.
Curt Reed:
Representing Gefroh Associates.
Discussed the access question, and the
considerable work which had been
done with city planning and traffic
staff, resulting in the curbcuts
being placed at least 300' from the
intersection. With respect to
the parking, stated they had done
considerable research in other
front range cities, and discovered parking
was provided in a range from one
space per 200 to 400 square feet.
Said they were comfortable with
their ratio of one space per 262 square
feet. Pointed out that lenders
are satisfied with this ratio.
Ross:
Asked if the projects surveyed
in other cities were located near other
projects where parking could be
shared. Pointed out that this area is
pretty well isolated from other
parking.
Reed:
Replied that their research did
not take that into consideration. Said
he understood there could be no
parking on the street, and that insufficient
parking could be detrimental to
the project, so they had been very cautious
in the matter.
Haase: Asked if it was correct that the traffic studies were done in the Spring
of 1979.
Reed: Replied that was correct.
Haase: Stated that subsequently, Scotch Pines is near completion, another
neighborhood -type shopping center has been approved with office space
in the vicinity, a small center has been completed just north on Lemay
on the west side of the street, and there has been considerable development
since the traffic study was done. Expressed very deep concern for the
potential for a significant traffic bottleneck turning left from Lemay into
the proposed center. With respect to safety, suggested that staff and the
petitioner re -study the traffic, based on the current development situation
within a four to five block area, with emphasis on Lemay.
Reed: Responded that in the feasibility study prior to planning of the project,
there was a traffic count and analysis of the Prospect-Lemay, taking into
account the Lemay extension and the expected increase in traffic volume
on Lemay over the next ten or twelve years. Said that this study is still
applicable at the present. Expressed understanding for the left -turn
situation, and said he was willing to work with the traffic engineers to
mitigate the situation.
Haase: Pointed out that the topography is not flat, which impacts the situation
along with increased population and retail uses projected for the 1980's.
Stated there is a similar situation at Elizabeth and Taft Hill Road.
Encouraged the petitioner to go to the area of his proposal during peak
traffic hours and attempt to make the proposed left turns.
Stoner: Asked how the neighbors had reacted to this revision.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 20
Reed: Replied that the neighbors had been informed of the revision by the
planning staff, and that their attorney, Art March, had been made aware
of all the changes and indicated there was little objection.
Clarke: Stated there had been a comment at the outset that in order to approve the
change, the project should be at least as good or better than the
previous. Said he had gone over each point of the discussion to determine
the merits of it: 1) The increase in floor area, in terms of its impact
on traffic and parking is not an improvement; 2) The greater setbacks are
an improvement; 3) The original roof lines have not changed; 4) The
buffering is evidently not a change; 5) The parking has changed from
1:200 to 1:262 which is not better; 6) The lighting scheme is no change.
Said the score is not -betters 2, betters 1; so it was difficult to see
how the proposed changes are as good as or better than the oriainal plan.
Reed: Stated that they had strived in up -grading this P.U.D. not to eliminate
any open space, and it had been reduced by only 2%, but at a total of
45% open space it is still a plus for the project. Said their reason for
returning to P & Z with this project was that the original plan had been
tied very strictly to the parking regulations at the time, which seemed
excessive and limited the building area to approximately 34,500 sq. ft.
The required parking ratio on that small a piece of land made the
project infeasible. Stated there were several projects in Fort Collins which
don't even have. a 1:265 ratio, and none of them is over -crowded.
Pointed out that Drake Park has set a ratio of 1:280.
Ross: Pointed out that at Drake Park the parking is shared among a variety of
uses.
Georg:
Asked if there were an estimate of the number of offices or employees
projected for this site.
Reed:
Stated that for a high estimate, if it were to go all medical, the
average occupies 1,000 to 1250 sq. ft., which divided into 47,000 sq. ft.
yields about 40 doctors, each of whom normally employs two to three people.
In this kind of a situation, many of these employees may be shared.
Georg:
Stated that a city report recommends two parking spaces for every three
employees, and with 150 potential employees, there would be 100 parking
spots just for employees, leaving 81 for clients. Stated there would be
an economic impact on the doctors' offices, or it will spill off into
parking in the neighborhood.
Haase:
Agreed, saying the spill -over would probably go into the development to
the south on Prospect.
Les Kaplan:
Stated that when the property was up for rezoning, he had done a fairly
detailed market analysis of the undefined medical district in Fort Collins,
which concluded that more land would be needed for medical offices in that
area. Pointed out that the study was based on medical and medical -related
uses, including labs, X-ray areas, or clinics, which can be very conservative
in terms of their parking needs per square footage. Said it was extremely
unlikely that the whole project would be occupied by doctors. Stated that
in terms of parking on the site, it was split so that the access would not
be concentrated at one curb cut. Said the criteria for determining the
acceptability of this revision should not be whether it is better, but
whether it would be acceptable if it were being seen for the first time.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 21
Stated, however, that it is at least as good as the original proposal
because it is a much better land utilization which is important in terms
of in -fill development and efficient land use. Said that 45% open space
is probably three times what the city requires. Pointed out that in
terms of parking, the project is within a 2 - 2-� minute walk to the
hospital along a 4' sidewalk, so many doctors and patients may walk from
the hospital to the project. Stated that a 1:6 ratio of floor area to
land is extremely inefficient. Said that staff is very knowledgeable
about parking and he puts a tremendous amount of credence into their
ability to evaluate the acceptability of the proposed amount of parking.
Clarke: Stated that by the year 2000, the building could be full of doctors and
associated uses could have moved out. Said he believed this revision
was precipitated by the city's change of parking regulations and that to
approve it would be counter -productive to what the city is trying to do
in making the parking requirements more realistic.
Mrs. Jerry Lyon: Resident near the proposal. Stated they are very pleased with the
proposed parking situation.
Mrs. Cochran: Resident near Mrs. Lyon. Said that they were among the neighbors who
had approved of this plan last year, and said that at that time nothing
was said about a six-foot fence. Stated they already had a chain fence
along with about three other homes, and that if they had wanted a six-
foot fence, they would have built it, but that they liked to sit�in their
back yard and watch the traffic go by. Asked if they had to accept the
six-foot fence, and if so, asked who would cut the grass and weeds which
would grow between it and their fence.
Ross: Replied that such fences are usually put in to protect residents from
headlights shining in their windows at night.
Reed: Stated they were not locked into any particular type of fence, but they
would like to have a fence to prevent circulation from the residential
area into the proposed facility to protect both sides.
Ross: Stated he had a mixed reaction to the whole proposal, having doubts about
the adequacy of parking, but also noting the city's goal of locating areas
of employment and shopping in the proximity of residential areas to
de-emphasize the necessity of the automobile. Noted the intersection is
a busy one, but pointed out that there is also a great deal of residential
development in the area. Said that approval of this proposal could
result in difficulties for the applicant, including vacancies in the
building, but said they needed to give the new parking ordinance a chance
to work, and the surrounding residential areas could mean less necessity
for parking if employees located nearby.
Cochran: Pointed out that Cable TV had put in their cable right beside their fence.
Ross: Stated he assumed that would have to be located on an easement so nothing
could be built on it anyway.
Napheys: Moved recommendation of approval of the proposed revision.
Said the change in gross floor area appears to be neutral, staff considers
the parking to be adequate, with respect to Clarke's comments the proposal
seems to be as good as the previous one, and it appeared the concerns about
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 22
the traffic are no different from those with the existing P.U.D.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Napheys: yes; Georg: no, saying that as the project cannot share parking
the parking is inadequate even though it is within the city's guidelines
and over-all the plan has degenerated; Ross: yes: Stoner: yes; Clarke:
no, due to the increase of floor area and its impacts; Haase: yes, with
concern for the parking and Georg's and Clarke's comments, and with
encouragement for investigation of potential traffic problems, and with
concern about the size of the building, but also considering the history
of the project, design, land utilization, landscaping and the need for
in -fill at that location.
Motion carried, 4 - 2.
15. #74-80 Kroepel Annexation
A request to annex 143 acres, located north of County Road 34 and east of
County Road 13 (Lemay Avenue extended).
16. #98-80 Blehm Annexation
A request to annex 143 acres, located south of County Road 34 and east of
County Road 13.
17. #99-80 Fuqua Annexation
A request to annex 129 acres located north of County Road 34 and west of
County Road 13.
18. #100-80 Halcyon Annexation
A request to annex 408± acres, generally located between County Road 34
and County Road 32, east of U. S. Highway 287 to the Union Pacific
railroad tracks.
Applicant for items 15 - 18: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant,
528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Smith:
Suggested consideration of Items 15 through 18 simultaneously as they are
closely related, followed by individual Board action on each one.
Chianese:
Gave staff report, recommending approval of each.
Kaplan:
Representing the applicants. Stated he had written a letter to the Board
members outlining the objectives of the petitioners, and, in deference
to time, assuming the letter had been read, stated he would answer any
questions. Said the question of annexation is addressed in the Urban
Growth Area Plan and stated the proposed annexations are consistent with
recent city policy and the Urban Growth Area agreement with the county.
Napheys:
Asked the status of the Fox Ridge Annexation.
Smith:
Stated it is scheduled for the City Council meeting of September 2 for
second reading. Said it had been tabled only so that it would meet the
contiguity requirements, dependent on the Keenland Annexation,by the time
P & Z Board Minutes . •
8/25/80
Page 23
of second reading.
Napheys: Asked, if approved, when it would take effect.
Smith: Replied, within ten days of approval on second reading.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to speak on the proposal from the audience.
Randolph Starr: Attorney representing PoudreValley Rural Electric Association, Inc.
Stated they were affected because their headquarters were nearby, and
also because they provide electric service to the entire area proposed
for annexation. Discussed the potential problems with the City of Fort
Collins and the PVREA with respect to the provision of electric service
and outlined his recent efforts to resolve the problem. Asked the P & Z
Board to use its influence to get the city to enter into negotiations with
PVREA on the matter.
Haase: Asked when PVREA entered into an agreement with the Loveland City Council.
Starr: Replied sometime in February, 1980.
Napheys: Asked if it were PVREA's position that the annexations should not be
recommended for approval.
Starr: Replied they are opposed only due to their position on electric service.
Further discussed the nature of the problem with respect to facilities.
Clarke: Said it was apparent that the solution is some kind of financial remune-
ration from the City of Fort Collins, and asked just how the P & Z Board
could help.
Starr:
Stated he was requesting that the Council appoint a committee to discuss
with the PVREA board solutions to these matters. Said the City Council
had taken the matter under advisement last Tuesday, but said that to
his knowledge there had been no resolution. Said there were practical
problems, and that it was not just a matter of money.
Ross:
Stated the Board is aware of the problems Starr brought up, but that Starr
is also aware the Board has no way to solve them. Stated that negotiations
were beginning soon and the annexations would help force the issue.
Starr:
Disagreed that the Board could do nothing, suggesting that their recommen-
dation take into account PVREA's facilities and what they have requested
in terms of protecting its rights.
Haase:
Asked if members of the Loveland Planning Commission participated in this
high-level committee.
Starr:
Replied Planning members were not involved in the negotiations. Said he
was trying to prevent the litigation that occurred in Loveland.
Ross:
Asked counsel what the P & Z Board could do.
Ruggiero: Replied it would be best to leave the matter to staff and to examine the
matters before the Board from a planning and zoning standpoint. Said that
Council is also aware of the matter and that it is being dealt with at
another level.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 24
Ann McSay: Owner of acreage west of the Fuqua properties. Asked why she was the
only one in the neighborhood who got a notice, particularly the Humane
Society. Asked if they would eventually be forced into the city.
Ross: Said that within three years after her property has been adjacent
to the city limits, the city could initiate an annexation procedure,
which if she objected, could be a forced annexation.
McSay: Stated that in talking with a Planning staff member, he had been unable
to list any advantages to her of annexation. Stated he had said her
taxes would go up. Said she had bought property there to get away from
the city and asked if sif RR acre were approved if she would have to
build a six-foot security iY� keep other people out. Asked what would
happen to the school districts as the proposed annexations are in the
Loveland school district. Asked how the city would supply water and
sewer when there is already a water district there. Pointed out that
most of her neighbors had animals and asked what the city policy would
be with respect to them.
Ross: Replied that there is a non -conforming use provision allowing the
continuance of any non -conforming use, such as the keeping of animals.
Stated there is also the R-E zone which was created to accommodate such
large lots and animal husbandry. Asked staff to address the issue
of school district boundaries.
Smith: Stated that that is something that will be pursued with the school districts,
and that the best solution might be to amend the boundaries, but that exactly
what will be done is not yet known.
Clarke: Pointed out that it is not the government of the City of Fort Collins which
is trying to take over new areas, but the new people who want to move to
this part of the country to live. Stated that the Urban Growth Area and
all that's involved is to try to make this place a better place for people
who already live here when someone moves in next door. Said the P & Z
Board is here to serve the citizens and try to mitigate the impacts of
growth.
McSay: Said that she understood that, but that the county has rules for subdivisions
and asked why not leave the land in the county, noting that 600 acres had
been annexed just last week which should be allowed to develop before more
land is annexed.
Ross: Replied that the county has said to the city that that area should not be
developed as rural area. Some day it will be a part of the city of Fort
Collins, and it's better to have it developed according to city standards.
Pointed out the problems when developments done to county standards have
been annexed, and have had to be up -graded to city standards at considerable
cost.
McSay: Said she understood that, but that she still stands opposed to these
annexations based on all she has said. Asked again why some people did
not get notices. Asked what would be done as far as gaining access to
Highway 287 when this area develops as it is already difficult.
Stoner: Replied these were reasons why there is a planning process --so that such
P & Z Board Minutes .
8/25/80
Page 25
problems may be addressed.
Ross: Asked staff about the notification of affected property owners.
Smith: Replied the list is in the office and staff would be glad to go over it.
McSay: Stated that the Humane Society had moved out to that area to be out of the
city and not cause problems in a more heavily developed area. Said the
Society had not been notified of these annexations.
Stoner: Stated that annexation does not necessarily mean development, but that
when development does take place, it will have to plan around any existing
non -conforming use such as the Humane Society.
Charles Vickers: With the South Fort Collins Sanitation District. Asked where the water
and sewer would come from for all these proposed annexations. Asked about
police protection for the annexations. Pointed out that if these areas
were later rezoned to higher densities, there was potential for 7872 units
on the 823 acres; 7872 multiplied by 3 would give some idea of the popula-
tion potential. Said he is a resident of Fairway Estates which would be
annexed one way or another in the near future. Asked why developers were
required to improve roads along their projects, but the city does not do
so along the golf course and other city properties.
Smith:
Replied it is not yet known who will provide water and sewer service to
the area, and there will be further negotiations between the city and the
districts to determine ultimate provision of service. Said police protec-
tion will initially be provided at the level it is now provided by the
county. As properties develop, increased levels of protection will be
provided. Stated that with respect to density, any rezoning would have to
come before the P & Z Board and City Council, but that urban density, not
rural density would occur. The question would be providing the housing
units with the services in the most efficient manner which may or may not
lead to higher densities in the future, depending on the requests by the
property owner and city review. Said the city is required to improve the
streets along its own property, and that it is a matter of timing, and
they are all in the process of design and improvement and will meet the
same standards required of developers.
Vickers:
Asked if that would be as soon as the city develops?
Smith:
Replied that in the past the city has not improved at the same level of
timing as has been required of developers, but that the city is endeavoring
to catch up and provide the same level of timing as developers in the future.
Haase:
Moved recommendation of approval of the Kroepel Annexation.
Clarke:
Second.
Napheys: Stated he would vote against approval of all four of the annexations. Said
they are putting the cart before the horse by presuming the approval of
the Fox Ridge Annexation upon which the Kroepel Annexation depends. Stated
that if the Fox Ridge proposal is approved, then it would be appropriate to
reconsider the Kroepel Annexation. Said the same applies to the other
annexations, each of which is dependent upon its predecessor. Stated he
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 26
had reviewed the City of Fort Collins' Land Use Policies Plan and that
none of them encourage growth to the south. Said that Nos. 35 through 38
all encourage the development of the Core Area; Nos. 39 through 42 encourage
residential and other development to the north and northeast; No. 3
encourages maximum land use within the city; Nos. 23 through 27 all concern
coordinating utility and other service availability. Stated No. 17
indicates the city will establish annexation criteria by which it will
consider annexation proposals, noting that there is an agreement in the
Urban Growth Area Agreement with the county that it will be Fort Collins'
policy to annex any undeveloped land eligible for annexation in accordance
with the state statutes. Pointed out that from Mr. Starr's presentation
it is obvious there are serious problems with provision of utilities.
Noted McSay's observation that there are conflicts with the school district
boundaries. Pointed out that it had been a policy of the city in the past
to discourage development along Highway 287 and so-called strip development
which would connect Fort Collins and Loveland. Stated the Board has
conflicting policies plans to deal with, but by his analysis there is only
one policy in favor of the annexation, the Urban Growth Area Agreement, but
there are several against it.
Ruggiero: Addressed the contiguity question, noting that the Board is acting in an
advisory capacity to the City Council, so that despite the lack of present
contiguity, any recommendation of approval is contingent upon favorable
action by the Council. Said, therefore, that legal staff does not see any
legal problems with considering the annexations at this meeting.
Napheys: Replied that while the objection may seem to be a technical one from his
point of view, in the staff comments it is clear that actual development
of these annexations is a long way in the future, so it appears there is
a rush here for which there is no necessity. Stated it is clear the land
will eventually be annexed and developed,, but the question is whether it
will happen before or after the downtown is redeveloped, the north and
northeast are developed, and whether the time period is five, ten, or
fifteen years.
Ross: Agreed they would like to see in -fill development in the city and develop-
ment to the north, but that a market cannot be created where it does not
exist. Suggested that each motion for approval of the four annexations
include the statement that they are contingent upon obtaining the necessary
contiguity. Pointed out that while there are policies supporting in -fill
development and development to the north, there is nothing saying that this
should be done by curtailing growth in any other direction. Stated it is
totally inappropriate to tell a property owner on the south end of town
that he cannot develop because the city would rather see development to
the north this year. Said the technical problems with the utilities have
got to be addressed and noted there is language in the Land Use Policies
Plan to deal with such problems. Stated that the agreement wit the
county involved a long process with many hearings and meetings and the city
cannot turn its back on it.
Haase: Asked if it is necessary to amend the motion to include the contingency of
contiguity.
Smith: Replied it is not as it cannot go to Council unless it does have contiguity.
Ruggiero: Stated the contiguity is taken for granted as it is required statutorily.
P & Z Board Minutes . •
8/25/80
Page 27
Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 1, Stoner commenting that the utilities are a serious
problem, but that annexation would force the question to be resolved.
(Napheys: no)
Clarke: Moved recommendation of approval of the Blehm Annexation.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 1, Napheys voting no.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of the Fuqua Annexation.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 1, Napheys voting no.
Clarke: Moved recommendation of approval of the Halcyon Annexation.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 1, Napheys voting no.
19. #74-80 Kroepel Zoning
A request to zone 143 acres, located north of County Road 34 and east
of County Road 13. Requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned
Residential.
20. #98-80 Blehm Zoning
A request to zone 143 acres, located south of County Road 34 and east of
County Road 13. Requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
21. #99-80 Fuqua Zoning
A request to zone 129 acres, located north of County Road 34 and west of
County Road 13. Requested zoning is R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
22. #100-80 Halcyon Zoning
A request to zone 408± acres, generally located between County Road 34 and
County Road 32, east of U.S. Highway 287 to the Union Pacific railroad
tracks. Requested zoning is 389 acres of R-L-P, Low Density Planned
Residential, and 19 acres of B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant for Items 19 through 22: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant,
528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval, with the condition that each
annexation be developed under a unified master plan. Also recommended
that the commercial allotment be waived for the Halcyon Annexation.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to speak on the zonings.
Kaplan: Stated he had no problems with the staff conditions; that in fact that was
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 28
one of the reasons for the annexation --to be able to take advantage of
the interplay of the over-all consideration of the planning issues for
these properties. Stated, with respect to waiver of the Halcyon commercial
allotment, that he had calculated roughly that if it were utilized the
square footage would be about 146,000 sq. ft. and using a 1:4 ratio, the
gross floor area would translate to 14 to 15 acres of neighborhood conveni-
ence type uses; therefore, the business zoning which is being requested is
not much more than what would be allowed by the commercial allotment. The
advantage is in that it will not have to be dispersed throughout the prop-
erty, but can be concentrated, with the proper master planning, so that it
will be truly a convenience for the entire Halcyon property.
Ross: Stated the concern was probably that the petitioner not have the B-P
zoning and the commercial allotment as well.
Kaplan: Replied that was no problem at all. Said that with the size of the
property the 18 acres of business could be centrally located and anchored
with a supermarket, providing convenient shopping to the surrounding
' residences as intended by the P.U.D. ordinance with respect to commercial
allotments. Pointed out that would be far in the future.
Replying to Napheys' concerns about the annexations, stated that the
petitioners view the annexations not as a prelude to development, but more
as an application for citizenship. Said they wanted the jurisdictional
question to be resolved so that the many issues, such as utility service,
impact on neighbors, and so on, can be addressed. With respect to growth
to the north, suggested the city encourage it by granting higher densities,
going ahead with capital improvement programs, by the allocation of points
on a merit system. Stated that the Halcyon property is eligible for
development in the county at present, but that annexation would facilitate
coordination with the properties to the north.
Ross: Asked if staff also recommended that the commercial allotments on the
first three annexations be waived.
Chianese: Replied no, only for the Halcyon.
Ross: Asked how big the commercial allotment would be on the Kroepel property.
Chianese: Replied about 35,000 to 40,000 sq. ft.
Georg: Expressed concern about the size of a potential neighborhood center in
that area, noting the Golden Meadows neighborhood center would be considered
in September and that the number of homes required to support a neighborhood
center may not exist in that part of town, given the duplication of such
centers in a similar locality.
Kaplan: Stated that when the households exist, the center would be justified.
Said that that might not happen for fifteen years, but that for the
over-all planning, it would be beneficial to know where a center is planned.
Contended there would be an adequate trade area for each planned business
area.
Chianese: Stated this is a two -square -mile area to serve a neighborhood center, and
about 12,000 people. Pointed out that the bottom two sections around that
neighborhood center even at the low density of R-L-P, would support the
P & Z Board Minutes • .
8/25/80
Page 29
center. Stated the neighborhood center would not be compatible or allowed
outside the Urban Growth Area, so the center would draw from an area south
and east of the Growth Area in which there are county developments.
Haase: Moved to recommend zoning of the Kroepel property to R-L-P, Low Density
Residential, subject to the property being developed under a unified
P.U.D.
Clarke: Second.
Voiced a concern that in the future it may be advantageous to up -grade the
zoning, doubting that it would stay R-L-P forever, and saying he would not
be against changing it at a later date.
Ross: Stated the city has actually initiated rezonings itself, so it certainly
is a possibility.
Kaplan: Stated the property owners also acknowledge that, noting that Mr. Kroepel
had submitted a letter with the annexation petition indicating that he
might ask for a rezoning in the future.
Vote: Napheys: abstained, based on his earlier comments that the annexation should
not take place; Georg: yes; Ross: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes; Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 0 - 1.
Clarke Moved recommendation of approval of the Blehm zoning to R-L-P, subject
to development under a unified P.U.D.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Napheys: abstained, noting that Mr. Clarke's comment about the potential
rezoning indicates the annexations are precipitous; all others: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 0 - 1.
Georg: Moved recommendation of approval of the Fuqua zoning to R-L-P, subject
to development as a unified P.U.D.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 0 - 1, Napheys abstaining.
��
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of yntsyon zoning subject to the
entire site being developed under a unified master plan, and with a
waiver of the commercial allotment.
Clarke: Second.
Vote:
Motion
carried,
5 - 0 -
1, Napheys abstaining.
23. #76-80
Fairway
Estates
Business
Annexation
A request to znnex 30f acres located at the southeast corner of Harmony
Road and South College Avenue.
Applicant: Loren Dilsaver, 110 Palmer, Fort Collins, CO 80525.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 30
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval with the accompanying Annexation
Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding.
Ross: Said the question of utilities is in this case being handled by an
agreement as the utilities are already in place and in use and asked if
that was correct.
Chianese: Replied that if the agreement is read, it says that properties that are
being developed are being served by certain districts and the city will
not require the present owners to switch over to city service. At the
present it is not known whether it will be the city or the district who
will serve the area.
Ross: Asked staff to point out the water district building.
Chianese: Indicated the lot.
Ross: Asked what would happen to the 1/6 contiguity if that lot were not
included.
Smith: Stated the water district is not signing the petition but it is also not
opposed to it, therefore they are being annexed as part of a non -voluntary
annexation by which 51% voluntary owners can take the other 49% in with
them.
Ross:
Asked why that wasn't done with the other annexations.
Smith:
Replied that could have been done, but it was a matter of the individual
properties, dealing with the subdivided areas, and deciding that at the
present the more appropriate areas to annex were the undeveloped ones,
rather than forcing in the developed areas. Indicated that past experience
has shown there are difficulties in dealing with owners in developed areas,
and the city is still in the process of deciding what concessions should
be made with respect to their voluntary vs. their involuntary participation.
Ross:
Asked counsel if there were any problem with the contiguity.
Ruggiero:
Replied there was no problem.
Ross:
Asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Loren Dilsaver: Developer of Fairway Estates. Stated he still owned only a small part
of the annexation, but that the thirteen or fourteen owners agreed it
was to their benefit to participate in the annexation, recognizing that it
is inevitable. Stated they would like to see the development continue along
the same lines and that that could be done with the requested zoning in
the city. Stated he is on the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District board
and while they would not vote for voluntary annexation, they had said they
would not in any way oppose it. Their concern was that due to some liti-
gation currently going on with the city, they should not volunteer for
annexation. Stated he felt, however, that the annexation would be a small
step toward solving some of the difficulties with utilities.
Ross:
Asked if the undeveloped lots would be able to be serviced adequately by
utilities.
P & Z Board Minutes `
8/25/80
Page 31
Dilsaver: Replied they would, that lines already exist on the properties.
Smith:
Stated the city does have an agreement with Public Service Co. on how to
take over property.
Greg Hurst:
Representing the owners of a parcel of 4.5 acres in the northern area of
the annexation. Stated the county -has approved a master plan on the
parcel which had been reviewed by the city about four months ago. Stated
they had initiated the planning process prior to the time that that Urban
Growth Area agreement was completed. Showed a site plan of the area to
the Board and stated that it had been planned according to city standards.
Stated that as a condition of the annexation, they would like their plan
to become an approved preliminary plat in the city.
Ross:
Asked staff the legal steps involved.
Smith:
Replied that in order to be an approved plan, it would have to be approved
by the city, so the question would be one of timing. Said that if the
Board agreed, Hurst could submit the item and it could be taken within
two weeks of annexation to the City Council as a preliminary P.U.D. Stated
he saw no problem with it as he was familiar with the plan and the P & Z
Board had reviewed it.
Ross:
Stated he was concerned as only three P & Z Board members had been present
when the plan was reviewed.
Georg:
Asked if the Board would have another chance to look at it if it went on
through as a preliminary.
Smith:
Replied the Board could ask for the final to come back or for the preliminary
to come before the Board, which would take a little more time for the
applicant.
Ross: Asked if there were a vested interest involved.
Smith: Replied he doubted that would be the case.
Ruggiero: Stated that in the absence of actually securing a building permit and
beginning construction a vested interest would not apply.
Clarke: Stated Haase had indicated to him that this is a good project. Asked if
there were a rush on it.
Hurst: Replied the major consideration is that they have gone through a major
planning effort and they do not wish to begin the process again.
Ross: Stated this item is not formally on the agenda and there may be people
not present who wished to argue about it.
Smith: Suggested putting it on the September agenda of the P & Z Board, as a
preliminary.
Hurst: Agreed that would be fine, adding that it had been through the public
review process before.
Ross: Stated it is too easy to miss someone and the process should be done
properly.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 32
Haase: Suggested that the minutes for this discussion of Harmony East P.U.D.
several months ago be given to all new members and alternates so they
can review the comments that were made.
Moved recommendation of approval of the Fairway Estates Business Annexation
with the accompanying Annexation Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Napheys: yes, commenting that the proposal is appropriate to be annexed
and that it was being approached in the correct manner; Georg: yes;
Ross: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes; Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - 0.
24. #76-80 Fairway Estates Business Zoning
A request to zone 301 acres located at the southeast corner of Harmony
Road and South College Avenue to B-L, Limited Business.
Applicant: Loren Dilsaver, 110 Palmer, Fort Collins, CO 80525
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Ross: Asked if the applicant cared to comment.
Dilsaver: Stated they liked the B-L zoning particularly due to the required landscaping
plan, and because it would be compatible with what exists on the property.
Ross: Stated he understood that headlight screening might be required between
the B-L zoning and adjacent residences.
Dilsaver: Stated they had no objection to it, but that some residents might consider
a fence to be a hindrance to their view, so it might have to be waived.
Smith: Stated staff had suggested they go before the ZBA and request a variance
with support by the people whom they were supposed to be protecting. Said
that process would be more appropriate than a waiver at this point.
Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval of B-L zoning for the Fairway Estates
Business Annexation.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
25. #68-80 Ordinance Establishing the Planning and Zoning Board As Final Authority
on P.U.D.'s and Subdivisions.
Smith: Pointed out that the Board has a choice between two different versions of
the ordinance, one of which was more of an appeal on the record similar
to the way the Zoning Board of Appeals and other boards' items are
appealed. Stated the Planning Department's recommendation is for the
other one which does not have appeal on the record. Said the Board should
decide on the one they think is appropriate and pass on its recommendation
to the Board.
P "& Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 33
Ruggiero: Stated that the alternative labelled No. 2 provides that only the record
goes to Council and then new evidence only may be submitted in addition.
Napheys: Asked if the distinction was between a review by record and a trial de novo.
Ruggiero: Agreed. Stated a de novo hearing is one as if the item had never been
presented; it would be all new. A review on the record would consist of
reading of the transcript of the P & Z proceedings and considering only
new evidence not previously available, a more limited procedure.
Napheys: Asked what the difference in cost to the applicant would be.
Smith: Stated the difference in cost might be more significant to the public.
Said that at present there is no fee for this appeal built into the
ordinance, but there would be the cost of doing verbatim transcripts
over the normal paraphrased minutes.
Ruggiero: Stated that the appeal procedure with the record has a fee of $25. which
would not cover the costs.
Smith: Said their concern with the fee was not to make it too difficult for an
affected property owner to appeal the process, so that it became a burden
or an impossibility.
Clarke:
Asked if ZBA had a fee for appeal.
Smith:
Replied he thought it was $10.
Clarke:
Stated an appeal is almost a right that people should have. Asked what
petitioners have to pay to start with.
Smith:
Replied that most items carry a $50. application fee.
Napheys:
Said that if Council wants P & Z to have real hearing authority, there
should be incentives to make it a substantive matter to appeal it to
Council, such as doing it on the record and having the applicant pay the
approximate cost of perfecting an appeal, generally what is done in civil
and criminal cases. Suggested there could be a provision for anyone who
could not afford it so that they could have their rights.
Clarke:
Based on his experience with ZBA, said that the existence of a fee will
not have that effect, but that the closeness of the Board's vote will.
Said he felt it is important to make appeal available to everybody.
Georg:
Said he has a problem with the second draft in the sense of the differen-
tiation of the process. Said that in making a decision, the Council would
have the choice between a simplistic, straight -forward manner, more easily
understood by the public, and another of a higher judicial quality. Stated
he was uncertain that the latter would pay benefits. Said it seemed the
whole idea of giving the Planning and Zoning Board this additional authority
is to give the Board greater incentive to make decisions on these areas and
perhaps become involved to a greater extent. Stated the level of review
City Council gives an appeal will probably not affect the appeal, nor will
it impact the kind of review the P & Z Board would give. Said he preferred
the more straightforward approach of the first draft, being more workable,
less expensive, having a higher cost -benefit ratio.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 34
Clarke: Stated many City Council members are concerned with delegating this
particular area of authority to anyone as they are the elected officials
and should make the decisions. Said that the second alternative was
probably proposed as a means of having complete information about the
proceedings before the P & Z Board before they make a decision.
Napheys: Said he understood from Council members that they wanted to delegate
power in this area to the P & Z Board. Noted that he had had experience
professionally with appeals done both ways and knew that some attorneys
felt that with a de novo proceeding not so much work would have to be
done with the first hearing, and if it is denied, they just start all over
again. On the other hand, if appeal is on the record, the work all has
to be done the first time. Pointed out that the second draft does have
the provision that new evidence can be submitted, therefore if the P & Z
Board is to have real authority, the second draft is preferable.
Smith: Said that Napheys' comments might well be applicable to the petitioner,
but that he was more concerned that the neighbor affected property owner
understand the appeal process. Pointed out that at ZBA appeals, the
comment is often, "If you don't have anything new to say, then sit down",
and such a position might be detrimental to a property owner who may
not always understand what the procedures are. Said they are not always
dealing with professionals, but with concerned, emotional people, who,
if they are going to appeal, have a good reason. Stated that a re -hearing
will give them more credibility, or the feel of it, that the item can be
heard in a more open forum.
Ross: Asked what would keep that process from being used by people who are just
acting emotionally against an issue which has been well thought out and
well done.
Smith: Replied there was nothing to prevent that, but that after a time the
Council will establish a record of supporting or rejecting appeals, and
presently the Council's record is to support its boards 95 to 99% of the
time which tends to reduce the number of appeals.
Clarke:
Stated his experience with appeals is that they are meaningful only if
something is brought out that was not brought out in the hearing. Said
therefore he supports Napheys' comments, and the second draft.
Ross:
Asked how the two procedures would differ in terms of the meetings.
Ruggiero:
Replied that with the second a verbatim transcript would be required which
could be certified, therefore it would be required that people speak
clearly, provide their names and addresses, and so on.
Haase:
Quoted the second draft, Section 2-13, "provisions of this ordinance
provided that the Council, by a majority vote of a quorum of its members,
shall have the power to overrule such decisions." Stated that a quorum
of City Council would be four, and therefore a majority would be three,
the smallest number of Council members necessary to make a ruling on an
appeal.
Ross:
Asked if a decision on this matter could be postponed.
Smith: Replied that they were under quite a bit of pressure from Council to get
P & Z Board Minutes •
8/25/80
Page 35
this ordinance to them, therefore it would help if the Planning and Zoning
Board could make a recommendation on the matter at this meeting.
Napheys: Asked if the board could make a decision concerning whether they want the
authority as that is the main point to which both drafts are addressed.
Said the method of perfecting an appeal is a lesser issue.
Moved that Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, identical in both drafts, be recommended
for approval and have a second discussion on the issue of appeal.
Clarke:
Second.
Asked if it would not be possible to simply approve the motion and leave
the issue of appeal up to Council.
Smith:
Replied there would be no problem with that, especially if the Board has
mixed responses on the issue.
Haase:
Quoted Section 2-14 of the draft, the qualifications for a person to
appeal, "an owner of property located within five hundred feet (500')
of the proposed planned unit development or subdivision." For example,
stated that a proposed P.U.D. in the Urban Growth Area could be surrounded
primarily by undeveloped land, and asked if the ordinance would prevent
anybody who is not within 500' of the proposal from being involved in the
hearing process. Suggested there might be groups such as environmentalist
groups, business interests, or others not within 500' who would wish to
appeal a P & Z Board decision. Said she is uncomfortable with the 500'
restriction.
Napheys:
Asked, according to the present ordinance, to whom notice is given.
Smith:
Replied that notice is given to property owners within 500'.
Napheys:
Stated that the ordinance is not changing the theory, therefore if the
theory should be changed, that would be a separate subject.
Haase:
Said she understood that, but that it could be challenged by some
citizenry, so she wished to alert the Board to the possibility.
Ross:
Said he could not think of many examples where that might be the case.
Haase:
Suggested an example could be a business development proposed too close
to an existing business development.
Napheys:
Asked what the source of the 500' is --possibly a state statute.
Smith:
Replied that has been city policy that that is the area most affected by
a project. Said there are problems both ways with the ordinance: if it
is opened up to anyone in the city, every item could be appealed just for
the sake of appeal.
Napheys:
Suggested that particular issue should be addressed as a separate subject.
Ross:
Stated there is no limit on who may speak on an item at a hearing.
P & Z Board Minutes
8/25/80
Page 36
Clarke:
Contended that someone who really wants to appeal who is not eligible will
find someone who is eligible to work through.
Ruggiero:
Stated this discussion is on the question of standing as to who has a
property or other interest which should be protected by appeal. Said
that someone within 500' of the project would be more directly impacted
by it than someone across town, and that it is a policy decision.
Ross:
Stated that something has to be done on the problem of notification as
there had been so many complaints by people who say they have not been
properly notified.
Smith:
Said he welcomed any suggestions.
Ross:
Said that with the developers providing the lists, they could provide
self-serving lists --certainly not the case --but also a possibility;
however, putting the burden back on the Planning Division would almost
be like requiring the hiring of two more people.
Smith:
Replied also that that would probably be no improvement, as staff would
be using the same sources. Stated the problem is with county records which
are not up-to-date and, for some reason, not accurate with respect
to ownership patterns. Pointed out that they could not go door-to-door
as they had nearly been cited with a postal violation when they had
tried that in Fairway Estates.
Georg:
Said he had lived in other cities which had tried other methods, but that
with any method, some people will not get covered. Suggested, however, that
some other methods be tried as it is embarassing to have people complain
about not getting notified in meetings.
Smith:
Stated his flip reaction to that is that if they are here, they were
notified, one way or another.
Stoner:
Asked if the property is posted.
Smith:
Replied yes, that the property is posted, and that if people are at the
meeting they have been notified, even if through a neighbor, and that is
the purpose of notification.
Stoner: Stated he is in favor of Napheys' recommendation and the second draft as
well even though it may be a lot more work for the staff.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0, Haase recommending that the language of Section
2 - 14 with respect to the 500' limitation be reconsidered so that appeal
can be opened to citizens who are not within the 500' limit.
Stoner: Suggested that appeal be made by people outside the 500' limit who have
prior approval of the P & Z Board that they have a bona fide interest in
the property.
Haase: Concurred, saying that is an excellent recommendation.
Ross: PointedVat an individual could have a 30-year lease and not be eligible
to appeal.
P & Z Board Minutes . •
8/25/80
Page 37
Ruggiero: Asked if the board would like to see the language changed to read, "developer,
owner, or resident of the property."
Ross: Nodded assent.
Georg: Asked if notification by certified mail is really necessary.
Smith: Replied that would depend on the appeal process, assuming that if appeal
were on the record, certified mail would be required. If not, it probably
would not be necessary.
Napheys: Moved to recommend to City Council adoption of Sections 5, 6 and 7 as
they appear on the second draft.
Clarke: Second.
Georg: Stated he did not think it would save time or reduce appeals, but would
make the job more expensive, and that cost -benefit ratio should be considered
on something of this magnitude.
Ross: Asked if, in Section 7, it is correct that City Council should prepare
a transcript.
Ruggiero: Replied that was a typographical error and should read "City Clerk".
Vote: Napheys: yes; Georg: no; Ross: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes; Haase: no,
concurring with staff's comments respecting a more open-door policy for
the ordinary citizen, and supporting the first draft.
Motion carried, 4 - 2.
Haase: Suggested an evaluation after the period of a year could indicate whether
there is the necessity for the appeal on the record.
Ross: Adjourned meeting at 12:05 a.m.
rIrlC��
We, Cecil M. and Marge M. Niswender, residents at 2620 West
Mulberry Street, oppose the addition of the proposed 24
townhouse units adjacent to our property. We are unable to attend
the meeting tonight, but wish our concern and objection to this
proposition be known.
In this neighborhood we are all people who have worked hard
to have nice homes to raise our families and enjoy our retire-
ment. The thought of the congestion, air pollution, noise
pollution, and invasion of privacy that would be brought on
by the follow through of this development on 3.6 acres would
be ridiculous if it weren't so frightening. We STRONGLY
OPPOSE such a plan!!
SIGNED: c� 'J�ll-til"t%t�CCI Z,
August 25, 1980
as' i�(F•
Zaz
-7% vktqL &OU*,64
Y
((fjJ
i r
August 25, 1980
Curt Smith, Planning Director
Department of Planning and Development
City Hall
Fort Collins, CO
RE: Office Conversion of
402 W. Mountain
Dear Mr. Smith:
As owners of 420, 424 and 430 W. Mountain Avenue, we
would like to present our comments on the proposed office
conversion of the Edwards House at 402 W. Mountain Avenue to
a professional office building, including a potential addition.
In our opinion the historic characteristics of this
building and its location with respect to the Downtown financial -
government center make the Edwards House highly suitable for
professional office conversion. Also, the property is adjacent
to 408 and 412 W. Mountain Avenue which are presently occupied
as office buildings, although, as we understand, without complying
with city zoning or building codes.
It is the intent of each of us, comprising the ownership
of the west half of the block, to someday also petition the
city for the office conversion of our respective properties.
We would like this intent to be known at this time and to be
of record. Certainly the introduction of the Edwards House as
a City -approved office use would alter the residential image
along this block and contribute to the market pressure for
completing the professional office conversion of this block.
At this time, we would like to support the conversion
request of 402 W. Mountain Avenue to a professional office
use and to indicate our expectations to submit similar requests
sometime in the future.
Very truly yours,
E f beth ann , 420 W. Mountain
Michael Keefe,, 424 W. Mountain
Lester M. Kaplan, 430 W. Mountain
Jos IYz7
r, 4y^ Planning
i.estel Consultant
mt. 1<,aplan
RECEIVED
AUG 2 0 1980
Ffanning
Department
August 21, 1980
Curt Smith, Planning Director
Department of Planning and Development
City Hall
Fort Collins, CO
RE: Fuqua, Kroepel, Blehm,
Halcyon Annexations
Dear Curt:
As the representative for the Fuqua Annexation, Kroepel
Annexation, Blehm Annexation and Halcyon Annexation, which are
scheduled for the August 25 meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Board, I would like to present information concerning the
annexation objectives of the respective ownerships.
While these four tracts of land are owned separately
with no formal agreements between the owners, they have agreed
to cooperate in the simultaneous petition for annexation. The
attitude of the ownerships is that the City would prefer to
consider a larger area of contiguous properties than a series
of piecemeal annexations.
The incentive to annex centers around a desire by each
property owner to remove the uncertainty and confusion con-
cerning public land use policy relating to his respective
property. While the Urban Growth Area Plan recognizes the
appropriateness of these properties for urban land uses, the
property owners do not feel that simply being within the UGA
provides adequate governmental assurances to begin the invest-
ment of time and money for general master planning and coor-
dination with the planning of other parcels, particularly to
the north.
While none of the owners of these four parcels envi-
sions beginning development for at least several years, nor
528 S.Howes Fort Collins. Colorado 80524 (303) 482-3322
Page Two
Curt Smith
August 21, 1980
would this be physically possible or supportable by the market-
place, each is farsighted enough to want to begin conceptual
site planning for his respective properties on a unified,
coordinated basis.
Certainly, a major part of any site planning would
be negotiations with the city and between property owners
concerning section line road improvements. Additionally,
beginning overall site planning would assist tremendously in
reducing the uncertainty concerning the locating and sizing of
water and sanitary sewer improvements.
The UGA Plan has brought about the opportunity for pro-
perty owners in outlying areas to know in advance the permitted
land use parameters of their properties, to better coordinate
overall planning with adjacent property owners, and to work
more closely with the city to achieve more farsighted approaches
to street and utility improvements. Unlike the pre-UGA Plan
period, annexation is not necessarily a prelude to development;
however, it is a necessary step toward more harmonious and
constructive relations among property owners and between them
and the city and county.
I hope this helps clarifies the annexation objectives of
the property owners of approved -mentioned annexations.
Very truly yours,
Lester M. Kaplan
LMK/jt
cc: Richard Fuqua
Stanley Blehm
Melvin Kroepel
John McWilliams
Phyllis Mattingly
• • t- — -,
77
l�
r.�runnn �nnu C i3 (
TO: Planning and Zoning Board Members and City Staff
FROM: Susan Epstein, Planning Division Secretary
DATE: July 29, 1980
SUBJECT: Minutes of June 23 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
Attached please find a revised Page 7, completing the minutes for Item
No. 5, #193-77, Landscape Change at 1318 S. College.
Phyllis Wells
John Clarke
Paul Eckman
Dennis Georg
Carolyn Haase
Gary Ross
Ed Stoner
Chuck Mabry
Curt Smith
Ben Napheys
City Clerk
Library
Legal Staff - 2