HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/23/1981PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
I, DEC'_ 1981
MINUTES .- —�
November 23, 1981
Board Present: Barbara Purvis, Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner,
Tim Dow, Jon Crews, Ingrid Simpson
Staff Present: Ken Waido, John Dewhirst, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark
Linda Gula
Legal Representative: Paul Eckman
Called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Gilfillan: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 1 and 2.
1. Approval of minutes of October 26, 1981
2. #169-78B University Mall PUD Phase One - Final
Stoner: Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
Ross:
Announced that Ingrid Simpson the alternate member of the P & Z Board was
present and would be taking part in the discussion.
3. #87-81
Lindenwood Fourth PUD - County Referral
A request for 95 single-family and townhome units on 38.06 acres,
located at the northwest corner of Lindenmeier Lake, zoned R-Residential
Applicant: Willard E. Holz, 1812 Elm Court, Ft. Collins, CO 80526
Ross:
Announced that he had a conflict of interest and that Ingrid Simpson
would be participating in the discussion and vote.
Sherry Albertson
-Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Les Kaplan:
Representative for the applicant. Explained that there was some misun-
derstanding about the application. Stated that it is not a rezoning, the
application is for a PUD consistent with the existing R-Residential
District. Addressed questions about density and open space; explained the
type of homes that would be built; and stated that annexation of this
property is not feasible.
Mel Schamberger:
Resident of Lindenwood. Expressed opposition to the proposal. Expressed
concerns about density, quality of life, legal problems, the invalidity
of the petition, violations of the Lindenwood covenants, and problems
with the principles of good planning. Felt that the people of Lindenwood
had not been properly notified.
rage c
11/23/81
Simpson:
Expressed concerns about the effects of additional students on Tavelli
Elementary School and also stated concerns about future plans for widen-
ing Lemay Avenue.
Dow:
Questioned the requirements as far as the petition was concerned.
Eckman:
Stated that the P & Z Board was not the body that should determine
the propriety of the petition. The question of the correctness of the
petition should be addressed by the County Commission. Suggested that the
P & Z Board role is to consider the planning aspects of the application.
Note:
General discussion ensued between Board members concerning the covenants
of Lindenwood, possible breach of covenants, discussion of the best use
for the area, questions concerning the ditch, the possibility of an
illegal plat, possible design changes, and maximum capacities of the
recreational facilities.
Yank Banowetz:
Lindenwood Resident. Expressed opposition to the project. Stated that any
change in the plat must have the approval of Lindenwood residents. Felt
insulted because the people in Lindenwood had not been notified of this
meeting. Suggested that this item be tabled.
Ken Teumer:
Lindenwood Resident. Expressed opposition. Stated that he would like to
see the area stay basically the same. Felt that the homeowners had
been misrepresented.
Kaplan:
Felt that some of the information that had been presented by the
residents had been incorrect. Stated that there is much concern in this
area and expressed a willingness to work with the Homeowner's Associa-
tion. Addressed questions about improvements to Lemay Avenue; densities;
incompatibility; and building types. Suggested that this be tabled until
the problems could be worked out.
Gilfillan:
Questioned what the sequence of events would be if this were tabled.
Waido:
Stated that the applicant would also request that the County Commission
table the item. Essentially the process would be reinitiated to come
back for the December meeting.
Eckman:
Commented that tabling action could be exceeding the P & Z Board's auth-
ority by ruling upon the propriety of these covenants. Stated that the
Board could not swear witnesses and receive exhibits into evidence and
determine their authenticity. Stated that if the applicant was willing
to table the matter, the City would be willing to sit down with the
applicant and any objectors and try to reach some kind of mutual agree-
ment.
Craig Dick:
Lindenwood Resident. Questioned the validity of the petition and who
could rule on the petition.
Waido:
Stated that the Planning staff assumes that the application is valid
since it should have been screened by the County Planning staff before
being submitted to the City.
Page 3
11/23/81 •
Meg Parmer: Lindenwood Resident. Expressed some concern about t
he interpretation of Lindenwood, which had three filings, as one
subdivision.
Eckman:
Stated that he did not know how it would
be
interpretted.
Stated that
the interpretation of what a subdivision
is
would be up to
the County
more than the City. Stated that the City
is
not the final
authority in
this case. The City is asked to consider
this
in terms of
its planning
aspects in relation to the City goals.
Gilfillan:
Suggested that the question of the validity
of
the petition be
brought to
the attention of the County by the Lindenwood
residents.
Stoner:
Moved to table action on Lindenwood Fourth
PUD
until December
21, 1981.
Dow:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
4. #90-81 Hopkins Rezoning - County Referral
Request to rezone 1.5 acres from T-Tourist to B-Business, located in
Pleasant Acres Subdivision, south of Highway 14, east of Summit View
Drive.
Applicant: Richard C. Hopkins, 3013 East Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO
80524
Sherry Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to all
Urban Growth Area application criteria being met and that the site be developed as a PUD.
Dick Hopkins: Applicant. Would be available to answer questions.
Ross: Questioned if the applicant had any problems with the conditions and the
requirements that staff had recommended.
Hopkins: Responded that he did not.
Georg: Moved to recommend to the County approval of the Hopkins Rezoning request
subject to all Urban Growth Area application criteria being met and that
the site be developed as a PUD.
Crews: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
5. #82-81 218 Peterson R-H Conversion
Request for R-H conversion of a residential land use to an office use,
located at 218 Peterson Street, zoned R-H, High Density Residential.
Applicant: Wayne Carpenter & Donald Fish, c/o Bob Komives, 324 East
Plum, Fort Collins, CO.
John Dewhirst: Gave a staff report with an Addendum to the original packet (See Attach-
ment A) listing the goals that this application conforms with.
0 ATTACHMENT A 0
ADDENDUM TO PLANNING STAFF REPORT ON R-H CONVERSION AT 218 PETERSON
CASE No. 82-81
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- November 23, 1981
MAJOR ISSUES
Compatibility of Request With Goals
Goals and Policies
Neighborhood Identification
Encourage the preservation and development- of uniqu-2 qualities and characteristic!
of all neighborhoods.
3. Preserve historical or unique buildings or houses in older neighborhoods.
4. Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business activ
ities which have a signficant negative impact upon predominantly residentia
areas.
Promote the preservation and maintenance of older houses and buildings which, whit(
not of a degree of significance to merit official designation, make an important
contribution to the character and historical development of the City.
1. Encourage the conversion of older buildings to new uses when such is compat-
ible with the needs of the community and can be done without irreparabl3
damaging or destroying the unique qualities of, the building.
Land Use Compatibility
Encourage the development of a future land use plan which promotes maximum compat-
ibility between land uses.
1. Protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against
intrusive and disruptive surrounding development.
2. Locate retail and service facilities so as to be easily accessible to residen-
tial neighborhoods.
3. Encourage neighborhood commercial facilities which blend with the residential
character of the area.
6. Protect older residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses which may
impair the viability of the residential neighborhood.
Encourage the protection and preservation of architecturally or his-orically signi-
ficant buildings.
11/23/81
Recommended approval based on the following:
1. The request generally conforms to the adopted goals and policies.
2. The request will have an impact upon the neighborhood but due to the
low intensity of the use, the impact will be minimal.
3. The retention of the existing structure, landscaping, entrance,
etc. without substantial alterations will make the request
physically compatible with the residential neighborhood.
Note:
Discussion followed by Board members concerning the square footage of the
building and the residential/office breakdown; parking availability; the
maintaining of the character of the building; and potential fire hazards.
Don Fish:
Applicant. Would be available to answer questions.
Georg:
Expressed some concern about establishing another node of R-H conversion.
Ross:
Commented that he liked the mixed use of residential/office and is sup-
portive of the proposal.
Simpson:
Felt that the positive aspect is to retain the character of a building
like this. Pointed out that this application does not create traffic
problems.
Stoner:
Moved to approve the 218 Peterson R-H Conversion based upon the three
recommendations submitted by staff.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 6-1 (Georg voting no.)
Georg:
Felt that the Board should look more closely at "spreading conversions".
Felt that the long-term development the
of downtown area had not been
considered.
Gilfillan:
Commented that the applicant should be concerned with the potential fire
hazards.
82-78A
Amendment to The Wharf PUD
Request to amend The Wharf PUD to include a day-care center, located on
Landings Drive, south of Horsetooth Road, zoned R-P, Planned Residential.
Applicant: Osprey, Inc., 1113 Stony Hill Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Ross:
Indicated that Ed Stoner had a coiflict of interest on this item and
Ingrid Simpson would be participating in the discussion and vote.
Cathy Chianese:
Gave a staff report recommending approval with the condition that the
sign for the building meet the City of Fort Collins Sign Code.
Responded to questions from Board members concerning the building mater-
ials to be used; age group of people living in the Landings; traffic
flows
and stacking at peak hours.
« � uvaru mIn ULeS
Page 5
11/23/81 •
Reid Rosenthal: Applicant. Discussed the history of the project; the introduction of a
day-care center into this buffer zone; the increase in traffic; parking
lot problems; and noise pollution.
Ross: Stated his biggest concern as being the possibility of the continuation
of change all the way down that strip. Also expressed concern about ade-
quate parking for employees of the day-care center.
Gilfillan: Questioned the number of cars going in and out and also expressed some
concern about the detention pond agreement. Felt uncomfortable with the
location.
Dennis Rosengarten: Representative from the day-care center. Gave a history of the
day-care business. Discussed their "good neighbor" policy, the location,
how the van would be utilized, and how their other day-care facilities
worked successfuly.
Randy Larsen:
Resident of the area. Stated point by point his opposition to the day-
care center. (See Attachment B.) Also stated that he was a member of
the Architectural Control Committee in the Landings and was opposed to
the architecture of the building. Felt that this request for an
amendment was a reaction to economic times.
Russ Butler:
Resident in the area. Expressed opposition for the project. Stated his
concerns as being with the land use and compatibility; noise impacts; and
the absence of screening in the parking area. Felt that all of these
problem areas needed to be addressed before approving this project.
Jerry Taylor:
Resident of the area. Expressed opposition to the project. Felt that
the developer had misled them. Expressed concern about traffic problems
and property values and thought that there must be a better location to
put this day-care center.
Georg:
Stated that the main issue seems to be the further development going
south on Landings Drive and the setting of a precedent in amending the
amendment which established that area in a piecemeal way.
Gilfillan:
Felt discomfort with the potential of the transitional zoning and potent-
ial traffic problems.
Ross:
Stated he did not have a problem with the day-care center itself, but
with the domino effect it might provide.
Dow:
Felt that there are some traffic problems with this project. Stated that
he was not happy with the site plan and landscaping that went into it.
Felt that this use in this particular area is not a compatible and an
appropriate proposal at this time.
Gilfillan:
Moved to deny the Amendment to the Wharf PUD.
Simpson:
Second.
Georg:
Felt that the area would support a day-care center but felt that they
needed to look at the entire buffer area. Encouraged the applicant to
• ATTACHMENT B .
RANDALL E. LARSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
November 18, 1981
RECEIVED'
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins NOV 19 1981
Re: Case 1182-78A Panning
Amendment to The Wharf P.U.D. Department
Dear Members of the Board:
Since receiving notice from the Planning Staff of the"proposed amendment
to The Wharf P.U.D., I have met with staff and analyzed the information
concerning this amendment. I strongly oppose this proposed change.
The amendment as proposed appears to me to have no valid planning basis.
On the contrary, it seems to be a whimsical change proposed by the develop-
er for reasons other than good planning within the P.U.D.
To best explain my objections to this proposal, I have divided my analysis
into an assessment of first, the conceptual problems and then the technical
problems. As concerns the conceptual problems, I would offer the following
comments:
1. The history of The Wharf P.U.D. has been one of change. This is at
least the third planning scheme proposed for this area. When origi-
nally platted The Wharf was planned as a total multi -family complex
of townhouses and apartments to include Lots 1, 2 and 3. Two or three
years ago, this was changed so that Lots 2 and 3 received a commercial
zoning. In exchange for this zoning, the multi -family townhouse con-
cept was extended along the west side of Landings Drive to create more
of a buffer for the entire subdivision between the single family usages
to the east of Landings Drive and the commercial uses to the west.
Therefore the concept since the beginning has been that The Wharf
townhouse project would be the buffer for the rest of The Landings
P.U.D. This buffer played a major role in my decision as to whether
or not to purchase my property in such close proximity to major com-
mercial development.
The introduction of a day care center into this buffer zone, replacing
six townhouse units, is diametrically opposed to the concept of a buf-
fer. A day care center, while allowed in an RLP zone, is very much a
commercial business. To replace a multi -family buffer area with this
type of commercial usage is quite inappropriate.
MAIN FLOOR. SAVINGS BUILDING 125SOUTHHOWES FORT COLLINS, COLORADO B0521 (303)484-0126
Planning and
November 18,
Page Two
Zoni*Board
1981
ATTACHMENT B (cont.)
•
3. The allowance of day care centers within an RLP zone is predicated on
the fact that they be processed as a part of a P.U.D. This is a con-
cept with which I agree. The proposed amendment to The Wharf P.U.D.,
however, does not follow good planning practices. Instead, it proposes
to supplant previous residential units with a commercial usage. It
basically has been shoe horned into an area not previously intended
to contain its use and I would therefore submit that conceptually, it
does not belong in the proposed location. It also has many technical
problems with this location.
In addition to the above conceptual problems with the amendment, there are
many technical problems. Some of them are as follows:
1. The increase in local traffic in such a close proximity to a major
intersection does not show good planning or engineering practices.
Horsetooth Road is a major arterial in Fort Collins and Landings
Drive will be a major collector. The curb cut proposed for the use
of the parking lot and drop off area for the day care center is located
only 170' off of the curb of Horsetooth Road, but more importantly only
45' past the point of tangency in Landings Drive as it turns off Horse -
tooth Road. In the currently approved plan for the area, this curb cut
was projected to handle the traffic generated by three dwelling units.
Within the proposed amendment, the load of this curb cut directly oppo-
site the intersection of Landings Drive and Mariner Lane will need to
accommodate the cars needed to deliver and pick up approximately the
ninety-five children projected for the enrollment at the day care center,
as well as the staff required. This is a major increase in traffic at
a most inappropriate location.
2. The parking lot as proposed has a couple of problems. First of all, if
the day care center is to handle ninety-five children with the assumption
that a majority of those children will arrive and depart at approximately
the same time of day, the proposed turn around will allow a stack space
for only two to three cars without infringing on the working of the
parking tot. I would propose that this would be most inadequate for
the peak time periods of day. In addition, the parking lot as shown
extends into the detention area to the north, which I believe has already
been engineered for Lot 3. The impacts of that change, to my knowledge,
have not been assessed.
3. Noise pollution is an item which is currently addressed by the City in
the Land Development Guidance System. The addition of the day care
center will have a marked impact on the noise pollution of this immediate
neighborhood in The Landings. Rather than having six townhomes in the
area, it is proposed that the day care center have a play lot that would
accommodate the projected ninety-five child enrollment. I would submit
that this will have a definite noise effect on the neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT B (cont.)
Planning and Zonil*Board
November 18, 1981
Page Three
4. In addition to noise levels of the play lot area, there is always the
possibility that a child might find himself out of the confines of the
play area or building. In this case, I feel the location at the inter-
section of a major arterial and collector is quite inappropriate to
child safety.
5. This item is a point of question in that the previous site plan for
The Wharf shows an open space strip between Lot 1 and Lots 2 and 3
to replace the open space previously provided on Lot 2 of Phase I of
The Wharf. I would question what has happened to that strip of open
space.
In conclusion, I would like to state that I am not opposed to day care centers
being located in the City of Fort Collins or even The Landings P.U,D. Day
care centers are needed and will be needed much more in the future. However,
I feel that the location of those day care centers must be made within good
planning and engineering guidelines with much thoughtful care. They must not
infringe upon previously promised land uses and should not be located whimsi-
cally. The location proposed for this day care center is quite inappropriate
and I would submit to the Planning and Zoning Board that the requested amend-
ment should be denied.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this matter. Barring any unfore-
seen circumstances, I will be present at the meeting of November 23 to offer
additional input as required.
,
Randall E. Larsen, A.I.A.
312 Starboard Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
REL: jrb
P & Z Board Minutes
,Page_6 •
11/23/81
come back with a plan that shows the whole area.
Purvis:
Echoed Dennis Georg's feelings and also felt that the applicant should
come back with a plan for the whole area.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
7. #157-79B
Amendment to Creger Plaza (Albertsons PUD)
Request approval of an amendment to a final PUD for the addition of a
Fotomat outlet located at Cottonwood Plaza on the southwest corner of
College Avenue and Horsetooth Road, zoned H-B, Highway Business.
Applicant: Fotomat Corporation, 3700 Havana St., Denver, CO.
Cathy Chianese:
Gave a staff report recommending approval with sign for the structure
meet the City of Fort Collins Sign Code.
Barry New
Applicant. Would be available to answer questions.
Stated that they had made variations in the signs in other towns and sees
no problem in conforming with the Ft. Collins Sign Code.
Georg:
Moved to approve the Amendment to Creger Plaza (Albertsons PUD) subject
to the condition that their sign meet the City Sign Code.
Gilfillan: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Waido: Announced that for the record the Board had decided that it's policy
would be for the alternate to be able to vote if another Board member
were absent and in the event of a conflict of interest by a Board member.
It would not matter if there were an odd or even number of members.
Meeting adjourned 10:40 p.m.
•
Date:
Time:
Place:
Agenda:
Board Present
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WORK SESSION
November 20, 1981
12:00 Noon
CIC Room - New City Hall
Work Session for regular P
Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Dave
Purvis, Don Crews, Tim Dow,
& Z meeting of November 23, 1981
Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Barbara
Ingrid Simpson