HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 08/24/1981Board Present
Staff Present
• � fir_ ,
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
�1
MINUTES
AUGUST 24, 1981
Barbara Purvis, Dave Gilfillan, Dennis Georg, Gary Ross,
Carolyn Haase, Ed Stoner, Alan Apt, Tim Dow
Curt Smith, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry Albertson -Clark
Mauri Rupel, Linda Gula
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Agenda Review: 3. #143-80B Springcreek Manor PUD-Final Continued until 9/28/81
8. #53-81B National Car Rental System PUD Phase I -Final Continued
until 9/28/81
17. #70-81 Resthaven Memory Gardens Rezoning Continued until 9/28/81
Correction to #82-79B Heritage Lakes PUD Amendment -Preliminary & Final
19,292-acre SHOULD BE 19.29-acre
Other Business: The Resolution recommending approval of the Plan of
Development for the Downtown Development Authority
Ross: Introduced Tim Dow and Don Crews. Tim Dow will be the alternate
P & Z Board member. Explained that Alan Apt will be moving in a
few months, when he leaves the Board Tim Dow will replace him and
at that time Don Crews will move into the alternate Board position.
Gilfillan: Requested that Item #10 Prospect Industrial Park Replat -`Final
be pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion,
Moved to table Item #1 Approval of minutes of June 22, 1981 and
Item #2 Approval of minutes of July 27, 1981 until September 28, 1981
P & Z Meeting.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Georg: Moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 4,5,6,7,& 9.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board Outes .
Page 2
8/24/81
10. #71-81 Prospect Industrial Park Replat - Final
Request for final approval of a replat of Lots 33, 34, and Tract A of
Prospect Industrial Park into 4-lots, located at the intersection of
Midpoint Drive and Sharp Point Drive, zoned I-G, General Industrial.
Applicant: Riverbend Committee, c/o Dan Bailey and Charles Bowling,
412 S. Howes, Ft. Collins, CO 80521
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Gilfillan: Expressed concerns about Lot 34 having sufficient square footage to
be able to build on that lot with the easement.
Smith: Explained that the user has looked at the lot and plans to use the two
sides of the easement and have the right to go under the utility lines.
The user is aware of the problems and have sized the building to fit
onto that lot.
Gilfillan: Questioned how access to the four lots would be provided.
Smith: Explained that access easement goes right to the edge of Lot 36, that
gives them an access easement across all of the other properties to get
back to their property. The utility easements are the smaller easements
that run around the edges of the property.
Gilfillan: Questioned what kind of drainage easement will be used.
Smith: Responded that an open type drainage facility would be used.
Gilfillan: Moved to approve the Prospect Industrial Park Replat- Final.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
11. #33-79B Sunchase PUD (amendement to Les Chatelets PUD) - Preliminary
Request for preliminary approval of an amended plan for 105 multi
family units and a 22-unit elderly housing project located west of
Taft Hill Road on Orchard Place and Plum Street, zoned R-M-P, Medium
Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Shade Tree Ventures & Ft. Collins Housing Authority, c/o
ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Ft. Collins. CO 80521.
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Planning & Zoning Board Stes
Page 3
8/24/81
Ross:
Expressed concerns about the bike path and whose responsibility it
would be when the temporary bike path was put back into landscaping.
Smith:
Explained that a temporary bike facility runs along the northern
property boundary. Ultimately, the facility would be on Orchard Place.
Until Orchard Place is connected the temporary facility would be main-
tained. Stated it would probably be the City's responsibility to
put the bike path back into landscaping since they have the easement
across the property.
Stoner:
Expressed concerns about the shared parking.
Smith:
Explained that because of the nature of use in the elderly housing, there
doesn't seem to be a problem with a reduced number of spaces in the
elderly housing project due to the area proximity and the nature of
cars that have been in other projects.
Haase:
Concerned about access to Overland Trail Park and also the amount of
credit given on the density chart.
Smith:
Explained the access would be back to Taft Hill, down Elizabeth, and to
the park. Explained how the density was calculated.
Georg:
Questioned whether the 22 elderly housing units would be higher than
a three to four story building.
Smith:
Explained it would be maintained as a two to three story building.
Jim Woods:
Applicant. Director of Housing Authority. Commented that the joint
applicant Dave Benjamin had no problem with moving the building to the fa
north 10' or so. Also explained that the building is planned to be
2-1/2 stories high which would not be exceeding the height restriction
for that zone.
Patricia Hoffman:
Major stockholder of Skyline Mobile Home Park. Expressed opposition
to the higher density. Suggested that instead of moving the building
south 101, to just take it out, thereby reducing the density to
a level closer to what was originally planned. Expressed concerns
about the landscaping on the north border. Some of the trees had
been taken out ---suggested they be put back. Stated also that they
would like verification on the condition that was in the first PUD
that there be no windows on the north side of those buildings.
Charles Hoffman:
Suggested that the elderly housing units be moved to the north edge,
creating a buffer between this site and the mobile home park. This
would also create a more desirable neighborhood atmosphere for the
elderly people.
Jim Woods:
Explained reasoning of why the southeast site works well. 1) It is
within easy walking distance to shopping areas; 2) There is access to
a bus stop; 3) There is excellent southern orientation for solar
plans in the future. Stated that the major thing to be gained from
this Amendment would be the possibility of allowing the Housing
Authority to do this complex on that site.
Planning & Zoning Board 6tes •
Page 4
8/24/81
Stoner:
Indicated that the elderly project building does have windows planned
on the north side and could create problems if moved to the north of
property.
Freeman Smith:
Questioned what the original number of units was on the first plan.
Smith:
Responded that it was 114 units.
Apt:
Questioned how the compatibility of this project with surrounding
property had been determined.
Frank:
The criteria looked at included architecture, neighborhood identity,
landscaping, and setbacks. Asked Haase to elaborate on her concerns
about giving credit for neighborhood parks on Density Chart.
Haase:
Explained that weighting of density has occurred. Stated that if
approval is given, a precedence is being set.
Woods:
Explained reason for variance request.
Chuck Hoffman:
Felt that moving the unit would be a better transition as far as the
neighborhood is concerned. Stated he wouldn't be concerned about the
higher density as long as a buffer is provided.
Haase: Agreed that the elderly person would put a preference for peace and
quiet in the immediate environment over access to some minimal shopping.
Gilfillan: Felt that the 22 units where planned is one of the best spots on the
land. Shared concerns about the buffer zone between this site
and the Hoffman's property.
Moved approval of Sunchase PUD (amendment to Les Chatelets PUD)-
Preliminary but with encouragement to the applicant that when they
come back in for final that they show the elevation of that particular
building and a landscaping in between the mobile home park and this
area in fine detail.
Georg: Second.
Ross: Expressed concerns that with two different owners the buildout time
would not be at the same time.
Smith: Explained that methods to assure that if building was started they
would maintain and apply the necessary landscaping. In terms of street
improvements, indications are that they will all be put in at once with
all of the utilities as a concerted effort. If phasing were to occur,
we would assure that there were adequate streets to any units before
granting either building permits or certificates of occupancy.
Different stages of improvement are required at those two catch points.
Ross: Stated that the City through its involvement with the Housing Authority
is somewhat involved. The City could be putting itself in a position
to "look the other way" if there were some difficulties.
Planning & Zoning Board otes
Page 5
8/24/81
Smith:
Explained that approximately a year ago the City Manager established a
policy for the City that any City project would be done as a PUD and.
meet the requirements of any private project. This project has been
reviewed in design as a private project would be reviewed. Stated
that one of his responsibilities is to make sure that all City
projects comply with the same standards as would be applied to a
private developer.
Vote:
Motion carried 4-3. (Haase, Stoner, Apt voting no).
Stoner:
Felt that motion should include moving that one unit back 10'- 15'
with more stress being put on the landscaping buffer.
Apt:
Felt the citizens were concerned about the landscape buffering and that
it should be included with the preliminary plan.
Haase:
Agreed that landscape buffering should be provided and felt that
the 22 unit elderly housing should be closer to the mobile home park
providing a quieter environment for the senior citizens.
12. #13-81A
Dartsmith PUD Phase A - Final
Request for final approval of Phase A of Dartsmith PUD, a 3-story,
25,200 sf office building on 1.27-acres, located at Remington Street
- and Spring Creek Drive, zoned B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant: SRB Investments Ltd., c/o Gefroh Associates, Inc., One
Drake Park, Suite 23, 333 W. Drake Rd., Ft. Collins, CO 80526.
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Jim Gefroh: Applicant. Would be available for questioning. Provided a sample
of "Skin Material" used on the building. Showed some slides of
the building.
Apt. Questioned if the "Skin Material" was the light or dark side.
Gefroh: Explained it was the darker side ---actually a warm brown color. The
dark striping being a continuous band of windows.
Haase: Moved to give final approval to the Dartsmith PUD Phase A.
Gilfillan: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board M es •
Page 6
8/24/81
13. #173-77B Foothills Square Second Amendment
A request to amend the height limit from 90-feet to 175-feet for
Envelope 3 of Foothills Square PUD located at the northeast corner
of College Avenue and Horsetooth Road, zoned B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant: Mitchell & Co., c/o Michael Barber & Assoc., 837 Sherman
St., Denver, CO.
Chianese: Gave a staff report recommending denial.
Michael Barber: Applicant. Discussed the problem of designing a building of 55,000
gross square feet on the existing available envelope for the site
with the current height limitation of 90-feet. Felt that consolidating
the space onto a smaller floor -plate, bringing the building u in
height, accomplished 1) a landscape, setting for the site; 2g
provided larger triangles of landscape space; and 3) allowed the sun-
light to get on all four faces of the building which would prevent
snow and ice buildup. Presented slides of the proposed buildings.
Ross: Felt that this was an unfair presentation because it was being shown
as to how it tied in with the applicant's model, but not as to how
it tied into the surrounding area.
Steven Thorson: President of the Landings Community Association. Expressed opposition
to the proposal, feeling that the building is totally inconsistent
with the architecture of south Ft. Collins. A letter from the
Landings Community Association is included in the file.
Haase
Thorson
David Morris:
Apt:
Morris
Questioned -what height and style would be pleasing to the Landings
Community Association.
Stated that something that fits with the architecture of the surrounding
buildings. Something within the scale of what is already there.
Consultant with Mitchell
representing 80% of the
Stated that as a retail
Felt that the 55,000 sqi
aesthetically pleasing n
been explored and this i
they were striving for.
& Co. Considered this to be a commercial area
retail sales tax base for the City.
area it generates a demand for office space.
are foot mass cannot be dealt with in an
anner. Explained that many possibilities had
s the building that provided the character
Questioned the elimination of the underground parking garage and the
possibility of putting some of that building mass underground.
Questioned why 1) the building had to be 55,000 square feet; and
2) why it had to go straight up in the air.
Explained that the land is owned by a partnership and there is a
responsibility to the partnership that the project make economic
sense ---even at 55,000 square feet, it is not a strong financial
package.
Planning & Zoning Board M'tes •
Page 7
8/24/81
Morris (cont.) Explained that concerning underground development there is a water
table problem throughout that area.
Ross: Stated that the P & Z Board shouldn't have to be responsible
for the economic woes of the developer.
Smith:
Clarified that under the present approval there still would be
if this
architectural review of the building. Explained that proposal
is approved, there is a new building and a new building envelope;
if denied there is still the existing 90' building with controls
and review.
Morris:
Explained that in dealing with a 55,000 square foot mass there are
deal with it ---it will still have a tendency to
only so many ways you can
take up that same amount of mass.
Ross:
Felt the problem had not been examined from the point of view that
the mass may be too much for the envelope.
Ray Chamberlain:
Mitchell & Co. staff member. Assured that the desire of Mitchell &
Co. was to give to the community a building that is architecturally
attractive and pleasing. Suggested that the height issue be the
sole issue that should be dealt with at this meeting.
Robert Hiller:
Landings Homeowner Association. Felt that variation from the building
height review criteria is not justified. Felt that the variation was
not justified and would set a dangerous precedent.
Georg:
Expressed concern about the magnitude of height variance requests;
the growth in that area; neighborhood impacts; and the credibility
of an organization that would propose that such a building would
blend with the area.
Apt:
Felt that the larger issue was that this should not be granted unless
the benchmark height is changed for that area and felt that that is
not necessary. Downtown is appropriately designated as the highrise
area.
Purvis:
Stated that the proposed building exceeded the height ordinance and
that the intent behind the height districts was to lend compatibility
to the area. Believed that the building should be more internally
located and that it was too obtusive for the site.
Apt:
Moved denial to the Foothills Square Second Amendment.
Georg:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
Apt:
Commented that he has a great deal of admiration for Mitchell & Co.,
but not a great deal of admiration for this project.
Haase:
Expressed hesitation to set a precedent on a piece -meal basis.
Planning & Zoning Board Ietes •
Page 8
8/24/81
14. #67-81 649 Remington R-H Conversion
Request for conversion from single-family residential to office use,
located at the northwest corner of Laurel and Remington Streets,
zoned R-H, High Density Residential.
Applicant: Bonnie & Terry Shetler, c/o Joe Vansant, P.O. Box 98,
Ft. Collins, CO 80522.
Albertson -Clark:
Gave a staff report stating the issues concerning the site plan
as follows:
1. The proposed fence along the north property line must, by Zoning
Ordinance, Parking Section, run the length of the property,
excluding the front yard.
2. The parking areas shown as gravel should be paved.
3. If the existing fence is to be removed, it must be indicated
on the site plan.
Recommended approval to the final site plan addressing the above
issues being submitted. The recommendation for approval was 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 along
Remington Street.
Ross:
Announced that because Ed Stoner had a conflict of interest on this
item, Tim Dow would be participating in the discussion and vote.
Bonnie Shetler:
Applicant. Stated that the location of the house was undesirable for
single-family occupancy. Explained that the house did not lend
itself well for conversion to smaller apartments, therefore, the only
realistic residential use of the property was to rent it to a group
of unrelated people. Felt that parking, traffic, and noise problems
would be minimal with the proposed site plans.
Joe Vansant:
Applicant. Stated that because of budget limitations the paving could
not be done now. Parking would be used mainly by staff. Stated that
precautions were being taken so that walking would of be difficult for
the elderly.
Dean Rud:
Resident. Presented for the record a document and supporting signatures
calling for an area plan to be developed for the historical neighborhoods
Explained how the document was developed and the recent formation of
the citizen's'organization called CAN - Core Area Neighborhoods.
Stressed the concern of the group for conversion projects on Remington
Street. (See Attachment A,document submitted with 159 signatures.)
Planning & Zoning
Board M" utes •
Page 9
8/24/ 81
Fred Fuller:
CAN member. Stated the four things proposed to City Council: 1.)
A residential maintenance code be adopted for the City of Ft. Collins;
2.) The acceptance of $6,000 supplement to the request for the Tree
Planting Budget be passed; 3.) That two demonstration projects be done;
4.) That the City adopt the Quality Transfort proposal presented to
them by John Arnold.
Georg:
Questioned how the 649 Remington project fits into the scope from the
perspective of the CAN organization.
Rud:
Felt that response had been positive. Explained their main intent was
to get an area plan developed.
Smith:
Explained the position of the City, at this point, was to provide a
method to provide site by site discretionary_ review over any conversion.
Felt that doing an area plan, at this time, may be premature. Felt that
history was needed indicating what the real issues are.
Apt:
Suggested that this issue be discussed at a work session at greater lengt
Gilfillan:
Suggested that the information provided by this organization be passed
on to staff to provide an opportunity to review it, and possibly being
able to make a recommendation at work session.
Rud:
Requested that they be given an opportunity to provide some input at
this work session.
Fred Fuller:
Expressed concerns about the quality of the area and the quality of
life in this area.
Bill Kuenning:
Concerned about the character of the neighborhood and the lifestyle of
the elderly. Stated that citizen input in this neighborhood was very
important.
Haase:
Moved for approval of the 649 Remington Street R-H Conversion to non-
residential subject to a final site plan addressing the following:
1. The proposed fence along the north property line must, by Zoning
Ordinance, Parking Section, run the length of the property,
excluding the front yard.
2. The parking areas shown as gravel should beypaved.
3. If the existing fence is to be removed, it must be indicated on
the site plan.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0. (Stoner conflict of interest, Dow voting.)
15. #82-79B
Heritage Lakes PUD Amendment - Preliminary and Final
Request for preliminary and final approval of an amendment to the 19.29
acre residential PUD (formerly known as Victoria Lakes), consisting of
184 multiple -family units, located on the southeast corner of Heatheridg
Road and Prospect Street, zoned R-P, Planned Residential.
Applicant: Prospect II Corporation, c/o Bernie Cain, Poudre Corp,
P. 0. Box 7, Ft. Collins, CO 80522.
Planning & Zoning Board Minutes
Page 10
• •
8/24/8181
Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Bernie Cain: Applicant. Explained that their intent was to keep the nature of the
project as it was originally approved. The clustering concept and the
breaking up of parking lots, as well as, trying to orient all of the
buildings around an open feeling was well done originally. The parking
lots were redone to provide the additional parking that was necessary.
Addressed the questions of a homeowners' association, landscaping,
open garden space, and potential drainage problems on the site.
Haase: Questioned how the project will impact traffic problems on Prospect
and the impact of increased densities related to traffic issues.
Cain: Explained that as long as in -fill area projects are encouraged to be
finished, those particular areas will bring those streets up to
major arterial standards which will handle the traffic ---the end
result being a four lane street through Prospect.
Ruth Francis: Resident. Expressed major concerns as being the traffic problems in
this area, the higher densities, the influx of student/transient
population into this area creating more noise and a higher crime rate,
and the safety of the children having to walk close to busy intersections.
Felt that the widening of Prospect would just create a better carrier
of more cars creating still more traffic in that area. Suggested a
lowering of density in this area.
Haase: Questioned the long-term plans for the four -lane improvement of Prospect.
Rupel: Explained that the intersection of Prospect/Shields is not on the 5-year
program. Prospect from Shields to Taft Hill is scheduled within the
5-year program.
Mel Chubb: Resident. Expressed concerns for the children going to Bennett and
Blevins. No sidewalks are provided. Expressed opposition for the
higher density in the area until the streets and sidewalks are
improved.
Barbara Doehring: Resident. Expressed concerns about the the amount and the density
going on in this area. Concerned about the total impact on the
area and the impact on the quality of life. Supported lowering
the density in this area. Felt the P & Z Board had not considered the
total picture of what is going on in this area ---more planning is
needed.
Ross: Pointed out that these are not zoning changes, these parcels have been
subject to this kind of density for a reasonably long time.
Georg: Suggested that citizens look at The Existing Land Use Report for
Ft. Collins. Stated that City has invested wisely in preparing such
reports and having utilized these reports in evaluations.
Planning &'Zoning Board Moes
Page 11
8/24/81
Charles Ralph:
Resident. Suggested a regional concept be developed for this area
addressing all public facilities as needed by high density. Expressed
concerns about this massive area of land to be developed for
this particular kind. of density and the total impact to the area
especially if approved and developed on a piece -meal basis.
Martha Denney:
Resident. Concerned about the general quality of life. Questioned the
terms "neighborhood character", "neighborhood identity", and "neighborhood
compatibility". Would appreciate a definition in writing at a later
time on these terms. Concerned about what criteria is used to evaluate
what is compatible and what is not compatible.
Smith:
Suggested that citizens express concerns on compatibility to the Board
so that the Board can understand how the citizens feel the project
is or is not compatible with the neighborhood. This can be done
in writing or verbally.
Apt:
Stated that the larger issue is that with the quantity of people
moving into this area (Ft. Collins), the quality of life is going
to be affected regardless of the quality of growth. Stated that
high -density in -fill development cuts down urban sprawl. Residents
in in -fill areas are impacted by the growth rate in this area.
Haase:
Suggested that this neighborhood seems to be ripe for study to address
the issues mentioned.
Byron Miller:
Resident. Expressed concerns about traffic impaction, quality of life,
and the transience of the area, plus the added noise in the area.
Freeman Smith:
Resident. Questioned the location of -the importation canal for
Heritage Lakes.
Rupel:
Stated it goes through the lakes. Stated that the vertical offset
problem and that water main will be lowered with one of the Hillpond
Subdivisions.
Freeman Smith:
Questioned where the number "184" units cam from.
Smith:
Responded that that number came from the applicant.
Freeman Smith:
Stated that that would be approximately a 50% increase in density
based on market. Stated it appeared that that is going to be
the proposed number that comes in with any of the PUD's. Suggested
that perhaps this is pushing the system too hard.
Ruggiero:
Commented that the Board is evaluating these projects only from a
land -use perspective and admonished the Board to restrict their
discussion to that.
Planning & Zoning Board Motes •
Page 12
8/24/81
Haase:
Mentioned that this application and Landmark PUD, currently on appeal
to the City Council, address mutual issues of concern. Questioned
whether there was any consideration by staff in speaking to the
applicant about only a preliminary request for this project at this
time rather than preliminary and final.
Cain:
Stated that the reasoning for the preliminary and final was that
all the utilities were in place for the project so there would be
no reason to phase.
Haase:
Questioned if the Board could recommend only preliminary approval.
Smith:
Stated the options as being: 1) The Board could approve a preliminary
and table the final; 2) The Board could approve one and deny the
other; 3) The Board could continue it. Stated that when approving a
preliminary you are basically giving the applicant approval of the
character, the design, the intensity of the project. Stated that
when approving a preliminary you are not holding open the doors for
re-evaluation of those kinds of questions. Stated if there are serious
concerns with the nature of the project to look at tabling the
preliminary approval so that the applicant isn't given some undue
indication that you have authorized a project in concept and intent.
Explained that it is important to understand the nature of an appeal.
An appeal of any final plan is restricted solely to the question of
consistency.
Apt:
Questiond how to give the people the ability to address this as a
policy question to City Council. Felt the people are deserving of
due process.
Smith:
Stated they have the full right of appealing a preliminary which
considers all of the issues in front of them.
Apt.
Felt that maybe they could go before Council and say this is a general
policy issue. Maybe an opinion from Council is needed before deciding
another individual project in this area.
Smith:
Addressed the concept of neighborhood plans and what would or would not
be accomplished with a neighborhood plan. Stated that neighborhood
plans are not always the answer. Stated that the better answer is
to look at what is coming into a neighborhood and at the specific
design of a project and deal with it. It is then up to the Board
and ultimately City Council to decide the appropriateness of the
project.
Freeman Smith:
Expressed concerns about street improvements. Wished. clarification
if development brings the improvement with it physically.
Ates
Planning & Zoning
Board
Page 13
8/24/81
Smith:
Stated that the project will approve the streets ontheir site and
In the project will contribute
adjacent to their property. addition,
to the street oversizing fund approximately $52,000 that will be used
for improving other streets in the area and any arterial and collector
streets that need to be built above the initial area. This project
will not be improving the intersection, it will be improving Prospect
Street in front of their property. They will be doing the improvements
themselves and it has to be accepted by the City.
Lloyd Walker:
Resident. Felt that this is a unique situation that perhaps does
is than just
necessitate a neighborhood plan or something that more
is so much density that
site specific. Stated that that area getting
Felt there is a need to look at the broader
it does merit some study.
picture.
Haase:
Encouraged tabling this project because of the Landmark PUD currently
on appeal dealing with the same problems faced with this project.
Georg:
Felt that tabling might be inappropriate. Felt that a neighborhood
plan was an avenue that could be explored. Felt that the LDGS was
addressing the issues. Felt that the Board had been given respons-
ibility by City Council to evaluate plans on site specific basis and
to encourage high quality design. Indicated the LDGS is the plan and
tabling is not appropriate.
Purvis:
Commented that City Council actions concerning Landmark would not
be
be determinitive of this project because they would have to
evaluated on their own merits. Felt this project should be dealt
with at this meeting.
Freeman Smith:
Questioned where their voice will be heard. Felt that they could
be dealt with
not get a resolution of the questions that should
in the Planning & Zoning Board decisions.
Haase:
Moved that Heritage Lakes PUD Amendment -Preliminary and Final be
tabled to 9/28/81.
Apt:
Vote:
Gilfillan
Second.
Motion defeated 5-2. (Apt, Haase voting yes.)
Felt that sufficient information had been provided to study and to
obtain facts for reviewing the project.
Moved to approve Heritage Lakes PUD Amendment -Preliminary and Final.
Georg: Second.
Georg: Commented to Freeman Smith that there is recourse. Explained that
through the appeal process the public can take advantage of the
process that the City has set up which is a check and balance on
the P & Z Board.
Vote: Motion carried 5-2 (Haase,Apt voting no.)
Board comments continued on page 14.
Planning & Zoning Board Motes •
Page 14
8/24/81
Georg: Commented that the concept of a neighborhood plan should be discussed
in work session,•*and how that might work with the LOGS.
Haase: Voted no, consistent with the vote on Landmark PUD. Felt also that
there was a need for resolution of,questions that impact both Heritage
Lakes and Landmark, and also information that will be garnered from
the Landmark appeal to City Council.
Apt: Voted no,for the reason that we need to send a message to City Council
that this is something that should be looked at very carefully.
16. #69-81 University Square PUD - Preliminary
Request for preliminary approval of a 7.83-acre mixed -use PUD
with 48 multi -family units and 75,000sf of office space located
on the northwest corner of College Avenue and Lake Street, zoned
B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant: Harold Miller, Robb & Brenner, Inc., P.O. Box 251,
Ft. Collins, CO 80522.
Frank: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Georg::: Felt action should be taken to close the curbcut on College.
Smith: Stated that to close an existing curbcut Council would have to take
action.
Stoner:
Expressed concerns about the total density of the area.
Georg:
Expressed concerns about the parking space and the lack of green space.
Apt:
Raised questions about the open space provided.
Frank:
Pointed out that they do not have active open space but they
are adjacent to City Park and CSU.
Ross:
Expressed concern about the noise problem with the railroad and potential
water drainage problems.
Rupel:
Explained that the drainage would be taken out by pipe underneath
Lake Street and on across Prospect Street.
Bill Brenner:
Applicant. Addressed open space questions. Felt that privacy is
important, but that the intimate spaces can be much nicer than wide
open spaces. Reminded that this is a mixed use project. Stated that
more landscaping is planned as a noise buffer from the railroad.
Ross:
Questioned the status of Pitkin Street.
Smith:
Responded that it is a private CSU street.
Planning & Zoning Board M'tes .
Page 15
8/24/81
Haase: Moved to approve the University Square PUD-Preliminary.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-2.. (Gilfillan, Georg voting no.)
Gilfillan: Felt that the total design is not compatible and was not in favor of
the curbcut on College.
Georg: Felt it is time to "get tough" in the areas of compatibility and also
in the area of curbcuts.
18. #75-81
Hoffman Rezoning
Request to rezone 287 acres from FA-1 Farming to R-2 Residential,
located north of the Country Club and west of County Road 11.
Applicant: Max R. Hoffman, 116. S. Blueridge Ct., Ft. Collins, CO
Smith:
Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to the site
being developed as a PUD with a maximum density of 5 DU/acre.
Roger Prenzlow:
Applicant. Pointed out that they are merely petitioning to zone this
in accordance with the requirements of the UGA. Explained that the
density being requested fell within the capacity of the roads as
they exist.
Georg:
Questioned if that meant they would not want to go along with UGA
clauses in terms of maintaining City street standards.
Prenzlow:
Explained that within the concepts of the meetings that took place
between the City Council and the County Commissioners that they
do support those terms.
Georg:
Stated that the UGA is very specific with regard to the provision of
arterial streets and no revisions to the UGA have come before the
Board, so this kind of plan can only be evaluated with regard to UGA
as we know it.
Smith:
Explained that City Council and the County Commissioners have had
discussions about some potential variance procedures. Presently,
the UGA stands as it has been interpretted and explained.
Max Hoffman:
Applicant. Felt that, at this time, the rezoning be addressed. At the
time of the PUD, the street and density problems will be addressed.
Ross:
Questioned if Hoffman recognized the fact that this problem is not yet
resolved.
Hoffman:
Stated that he did not know that the problem had not been resolved.
Planning & Zoning Board Moes •
Page 16
8/24/81
Apt: Moved to recommend approval of the Hoffman Rezoning as requested
subject to the site being developed as a PUD with reinforcement
that the Board believes that the UGA area application criteria
should be addressed.
Vote:
OTHER BUSINESS:
Smith:
Stoner
Haase:
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FORT COLLINS
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Read the resolution into the record.
Moved to approve the Resolution.
Second.
Motion carried 7-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 12;30 a.m.
(See Attachment :B).
Note: This is a summary of the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting. Tapes of the meeting are available to the public. Upon
request, copies of the tapes can be made.
Planning & Zoning Board MAes
Page-17
8/24/81
C�
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WORK SESSIONS
Date: August 21, 1981
Time: 12:00 Noon
Place: CIC Room - New City Hall
Agenda: Work Session for regular P &
Board Present: Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan,
Gary Ross, Carolyn Haase, Tim
Board Absent: Alan Apt
Z meeting of August 24, 1981.
Barbara Purvis, Ed Stoner,
Dow
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMEPJT A
t
We the undersigned are concerned regarding conversion from
residential to commercial usage in the historical neighborhoods.
Our concern focuses on the development of an area plan. We
feel this is a relevant necessity for our community and suggest
the following points as requisite and representative items for
an interim portion of the area plan:
1. No existing residential structure to be removed or
altered in such a way to significantly alter the
exterior historic character of the structure without
first going through a formal review process.
2. Signs to be restricted to those attached to the
building that have no internal lighting and that
use material compatible with the structure.
3. For commercial conversions, existing driveways
will be used for one-way access off of the street
exiting onto the alley.
4. Parking to be provided on the alley -side of the
structure.
5. 'All conversion approvals to apply only as long as
the approved site plan and existing structure are
maintained.
We the undersigned are concerned about the conversions of
core area neighborhoods and support the attached document.
18
20
21
22
23.
24
25
We the undersigned
are concerned about the
conversions of
core
area neighborhoods
and support the attached,
document.
—�iiAli ill
- -
iiDD3 ji
PHONE
T
X/Oc e/— 3 2 f�A
4
32 ?
r�4,"L
`��Y-3zY
-5
(,J,
�r
3
6
5.2
:22
7
30 7
i% sT
ki
15
16
17
1s
is
20
21
.22
23.
24
25
rage z oi e
We the undersigned are concerned about the conversions of
v
7
8
core area neighborhoods and support the attached document.
itDDiiri5 ----- ---------- PHC
. VU
DD sa7
zlI-Jy
We the undersigned are concerned about the conversions of
core area neighborhoods and support the attached document.
NAAE ADDHz S3 PHONE
►I
'XIO
15
//0/ 4AY1
0 gall ti,
—I — So
482
Page 2 Page
.We the undersigned are concerned about the conversions of
core area neighborhoods and support the attached document.
-- _------ - - -------- -- - -- ----- -----
iJ,un ^ ADD:inSS PHONE
1
2Z= 'E� 14.,M/
6Z
e�
10A
11
.. -,- 96.2 41doy—C7-71;
15
16, z
l
Page 2 of 2
We the undersigned are concerned about the conversions of
core area neighborhoods and support the attached document.
No Text
PAge`2 of 2
We the undersigned are concerned about the conversions of
core area neighborhoods and support the attacheddocument.
----:_._-_ - - ---_ �nnu---------- PHONE---
1
f )
3
_
J
i�% t
7
�/I wwr.�a �
�a.��
�o . � arc a� ��1, o • � �'
�..�. y --.ems%
10
3/4 ayo
11
15
17
18
18
20
22
23
24
25
No Text
ATTACHMENT B
. RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE FORT COLLINS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Land Use Policies Plan called for the
development of a core area plan; and
WHEREAS, the residents, land owners and businessmen in the downtown
area voted to form a Downtown Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins appointed a Downtown
Development Authority Board with the responsibility of developing a Plan
of Development; and
WHEREAS the Plan of Development prepared by the Downtown Development
Authority staff has been recommended for approval by the Downtown Development
Authority; and
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1981 the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of
Fort Collins held a Public Hearing on the Plan of Development and
unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Plan to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Plan of Development of the Downtown Development
Authority provides important direction for the future development of the
downtown area, the Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of this
Plan and fully supports its intents and purposes.
Passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Board of the City of Fort Collins, held this 24th day of August, 1981.
Chairman Gary osS
ATTEST: