HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 04/30/1981PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
APRIL 30, 1981
Board,Present: Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn Haase, Dennis Georg, Ben Napheys, Gary
Ross, Ed Stoner, Alan Apt.
Staff Present: Curt Smith, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Linda Hopkins,
Mauri Rupel, Linda Gula.
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Ross: Called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
Smith: Reported that Item #4 North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing Replat-
Final would be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Ross: Explained the procedure for the Consent Agenda. Asked if anyone wished
to have discussion on any of the items on the Consent Agenda.
Noted that John Clarke was out of town and that alternate Board member,
Alan Apt, would take part in discussion and voting.
Georg: Moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, & 5.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
4. #19-81 North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing Replat - Final
Final approval of a 22-lot subdivision, located west of Ninth Street
(Lemay) and north of East Lincoln Avenue, zoned I-L, Limited Industrial.
Applicant: Ed Zdenek & LBP, a Limited Partnership, c/o James H. Stewart
& Associates, 214 N. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Gilfillan:
Questions
the ingress
and
egress
of
Section #9, #10, & #11.
Smith:
Discusses
dimensions
and
access
to
that area.
Ed Zdenek: Applicant. Answers additional questions about access, utility easements,
and water lines.
Haase: Moves to recommend approval of North Lemay Subdivision, Second Filing
Replat - Final.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Please note: Several sections of this tape were inaudible. I've tried to summarize
where possible.
P & Z Board Meeting
4/30/81
Page 2
6. #27-81 Harbor Walk Annexation
A request to annex 9.9 acres, located at the southeast corner of Warren
Lake, zoned FA-1, Farming in the County.
Applicant: Osprey Homes, Inc., 1113 Druid Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525.
Ross: Explained that Ed Stoner would not be taking part in the discussion or
voting because of a conflict of interest and Alan Apt would not vote
to maintain an odd number of voting members.
Smith: Gave a combined staff report for annexation and zoning.
Napheys: Questions the zoning surrounding Warren Lake and who has jurisdiction
on the lake. Questions if boats are allowed.
Smith:
Responds that
boats are allowed
on the lake.
Georg:
Questions the
dimensions, it seems
quite narrow.
Smith:
Responds that
it is 175' wide.
Sam McClean:
Resident 1200
Standish Court.
Questions the future improvement of
Lemay in the
area.
Smith:
Responds that
improvements are
planned.
Dennis Donovan:
Applicant. Comments
that he is
available to answer questions.
Georg: Moves to recommend to City Council approval of Harbor Walk Annexation.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Stoner, Apt not voting.)
7. #27-81 Harbor Walk Zoning
A request to zone 9.9 acres located at the southeast corner of Warren
Lake, R-M-P, Medium Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Osprey Homes, Inc., 1113 Druid Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525
Haase: Asks to have the zoning pointed out on the map.
Smith: Shows the zoning on the map and noted the existing R-M-P.
Haase: Points out that the vast majority of the area to the east is low density.
Gilfillan: Moves to recommend approval to City Council of Harbor Walk Zoning.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0. (Stoner, Apt not voting.)
P & Z Board Meeting
4/30/81
Page 3
8. #13-81 Mathews Street PUD - Preliminary (also know as Dartsmouth Manor)
A request for preliminary approval of a 3.4-acre PUD with 120 residential
units and 35,000 sf of office/recreation uses, located between Remington
and Mathews, south of Spring Park Drive, zoned B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant: Gefroh Associates, Inc., One Drake Park, Suite 23, 333 W.
Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending a conditional approval.
Ross: Questions the traffic impact of this project.
Smith: Responds that traffic studies have been done and no light is planned
for this area at this time.
Les Kaplan:
Applicant. Gives a lengthy presentation and slide show pointing out
various Land Use Policies.
Jime Gefroh:
Applicant. Addresses the office building height, the health club
membership, and parking questions.
Ross:
Ouestions the feasibility of a health club. Has had experience with
how many members it takes to make a health club profitable.
Gefroh:
Explains that the membership will be 200-250 on -site members, and that
they will be looking for approximately 200 off -site members.
Bob Leigh:
Transportation Planning Consultant - Denver. Presented a traffic impact
analysis slide program. The overall project on a 24 hour basis would
generate something between 900 and 1000 vehicle trips per day. Overall
generation of traffic is rather low and would be less than any commercial
project. The major impact is on Spring Park Drive just to the north of
the project. Overall, the impact of the project is relatively minor. The
street system is well developed in the area.
Haase: Would you quote that statistic again on Spring Park. Did you say 350?
Leigh: 350 vehicles a day.
Haase: That seems very conservative.
Leigh: That is the highest impact. Because of the project's central location,
the distribution of travel is relatively uniform in all quadrants, the
heaviest being to the north and to the south.
Ross: I think that most of the traffic flow will be on College Avenue.
Leigh: College Avenue is heavily used but it also has the greatest amount of
capacity.
Haase: Have you taken into consideration the traffic by off -site users of the
health club.
Leigh: Yes.
4(30%gBoard Meeting
Page 4
Napheys:
How many members does the health club have.
Leigh:
We assume that during the evening peak hours the health club would
The travel to and from the club
generate about nine vehicle trips.
by vehicle would not be during the peak period.
Apt:
What is the peak hour considered to be.
Leigh:
4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Apt:
The signal there now is set up so that it delays on College minimally,
the amount of
and delays traffic getting onto College maximally, given
to that signal won't the
extra traffic that is going to be coming on
timing have to be changed.
Leigh:
The primary use of the Spring Park Drive intersection will be for the
Spring Park Drive. We have estimate
southbound travelers left turning onto
hour that amount would be about 18 vehicles
that during the evening peak
in an hour.
Smith:
The signal is not individually cycled. The signal is part of a computerizE
the trip
system. The signal reads and adjusts based on generation.
Apt:
I assume that the staff agrees with the figures that we are getting.
Smith:
Yes.
Ralph Kotich:
Resident 212 Dartmouth.This site has been controversial.Living in the
by it's development, we
neighborhood adjacent to the site and affected
have a strong commitment to maintaining the integrity of the area.
This plan, although it has variances and impacts with which we have
development attributes. We feel
concerns about, at least has positive
recreation and residential uses on this site are good
that mixing office,
and that they lower impact in the neighborhood. We do have concerns in
height
relationship to the establishment of a trend to alter the current
impact study.
variations on other sites in the City without intensive site
height impact study shown on earlier slides illus-
We do not feel that the
trates the true impact of the building mass. Our major concern is with
have
the integrity of the development of the site. What assurances do we
that this is what will be developed.
Napheys:
Is the bottom line of your statement that you are opposed.
Kotich:
We are not opposed to all aspects of this, we have reservation about the
that they design the impact into our area.
height limitation and the way
Napheys:
Have you analyzed the flood plain ---none of this is in a floodway.
Kaplan: None is in a floodway.
Smith: The flood plain is broken down into a flood fringe and a floodway. The
floodway is the area of the highest hazard and is the area closest to the
river. The flood fringe is an area where the water will only rise about
a foot and a half. Some of the site is in the flood fringe, none of it
is in the designated floodway.
P & Z Board Meeting
4/30/81
Page 5
Rupel:
The floodway in this particular area is 120' in width. The distance from
the northern most building to the center of Spring Creek is 135'.
Ross:
Concerns about future changes in the plan and future assurances should be
addressed.
Smith:
What is before the Board tonight is a specific proposal for a project.
It is a preliminary proposal. No changes would be made to the plan withou
it being reviewed by the Board and at a full public hearing or at least
approved by the Board.
Chuck Turner:
Resident 412 Dartmouth Trail. This project is a major improvement over
the highrise proposed in the past. We believe that the current proposal
has many of the ingredients needed for high quality in -fill projects in
the neighborhood. We conditionally support the project with certain
reservations. Our reservations include: changes to the approved PUD,
visual and congestion impacts, and precedents being set for approval of
other PUD proposals with heights in excess of the benchmark criteria.
Bob Lucas:
I have found this to be, because of the uses that are entailed here, one
of the most pleasing projects that I have seen presented. I think it
should be recommended for approval.
Ray Frisbee:
Resident 120 Rutgers Street. There is a continual stream of cars for a
long period of time each day on Mathews Street. With 120 condominiums
besides a health club, it can't help but cause more intensive traffic
problems.
Napheys::
It seems that both of the condo buildings are against the City View Imoaci
Policy.
Ross:
There are other strong points that do offset this. There will have to
be some trade-offs.
Smith:
In this area we graded the project with a "B" because the project does
impinge on the view, but through certain mitigation measures such as
reorienting the building stairstepping and coming down off of all the
buildings being the same height, we feel that they have mitigated those
impacts.
Georg:
Would buildings that meet the benchmark criteria for this space satisfy
the view criteria.
Smith:
If you took buildings of benchmark height and analyzed them from the far
eastern edge of the park, it would drop the impact down but would probabl.
still break the view of the ridgeline. A lot of it depends on the orient
ation of the buildings. In this case you can see through the buildings.
Georg:
I would like to know some of the details on how these pictures were taken
Camera, camera angle, height of camera, and lens.
P & Z Baord Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 6
Joe Roesser: JCR Engineering. Monitored the picture taking and the surveying.
A normal lens was used to mitigate any perspective problems you might
have. Normal surveying equipment was used.
Kaplan:
No wide angle lens was used.
Georg:
What was the height of the camera.
Roesser:
Between 5' and 6'. off the ground.
Gefroh:
There is concern that e going have their ws
p62'le �height. The n the park rbenchmark obeing 55' would
obstructed because of the
impact as the 62' height.
have the same
the housing of the mechanical apparatus for these
Stoner:
Have you addressed
buildings.
Gefroh:
No, that has not been addressed as yet.
Napheys:
Is there any other place in Fort Collins where this project could be
of the mountains.
put where it does not impinge on the view
Ross:
Every site will affect some individuals.
Isn't one of these buildings designed to be 88' tall ---which is about
Frisbee:
30' over the 55' criteria.
Napheys:
Yes, that is correct.
Georg:
Overall I have some very serious concerns, on the other hand the project
has a lot of positive benefits too.
looks like it is very exciting and
Moves to recommend approval of Mathews Street PUD-Preliminary with
including architectural elevat
the staff condition that final site plans,
the three buildings and landscaping
addressing color, texture, etc. of
the Planning and Zoning Board at a public hearing.
plan, be reviewed by
Haase:
Second.
this project. We do need
Apt:
There are a lot of positive aspects concerning
development ---the alternatives are very unattractive
high density in -fill
have to consider the people who live around these
At the same time, we
kinds of developments. I would like to know how the 55' height limit
was established ---was there public comment.
Smith:
to high-rise
When the height ordinance was drafted it wasinresponse ally over
projects that we had no way of reviewing.
es
PUD and be reviewed through the criteria. The
40' must go through a
height districts themselves were developed by the staff and presented
Zoning Board and the
at public hearing in front of both the Planning and
height ordinance itself.
City Council as part of the
Stoner:
ld be h more ous for
the uup being ca three-storyr condomin
callyifsit
thedevelopment---especiended
in the whole area instead of using the variety
project that just -filled
and imagination that has been presented.
P & Z Board Meeting • •
April 30, 1981
Page 7
Georg: I think the height review criteria is to establish a framework for
discretionary review. It seems to me that a 40' building or a 55'
building in this case will have the same impact on the park.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
9. #23-81 Russell/Shaw Condominium PUD-Preliminary
A request for preliminary approval of a 16-story residential building
with 45 units on 0.64-acres, located at the northeast corner of Remington
and Olive Streets, zoned B-G, General Business.
Applicant: Sink/Combs and Associates, 3003 E. Third Avenue, Denver, CO
80206.
Smith:
Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Jack Russell:
Applicant - available for questioning.
Gilfillan:
Expressed concern for the parking in the area, especially for the
employees of Vipont Labs.
Russell:
The employees of Vipont are not using that parking lot at all. The Viponl
Building has plenty of parking because of the construction of the City
parking lot across the street. Whether or not the Vipont Building has
adequate parking, I do not see as our problem as long as we furnish the
necessary parking for our project.
Gilfillan:
I feel very strongly that I can't approve your request unless there is
some amenable way that you can work out with the City to address that
parking problem.
Russell:
What is my responsibility to my neighbor's parking problem.
Ruggiero:
One of the problems might arise from the new parking ordinance which has
different requirements for the amount of parking that you need. Take
an instance where a building is a non -conforming use. Since becoming a nc
conforming use the parking ordinance has been changed to reduce the actua'
number of parking spaces required, that building could go ahead and exist
with a lesser amount of parking provided it met the current ordinance.
In other words, if the old ordinance required.more parking, by reducing
the ordinance requirements the building could divest itself of some the
parking ---provided we didn't create a situation where we had less parking
than the current ordinance provides.
Ross:
What happens down the road if the Vipont Building is sold to someone else
Smith:
I think what you have is a market decision. No one is going to buy the
Vipont Building if they don't have enough parking. This area does have
fairly extensive parking.
Haase:
Is the stucco house on the corner going to be retained.
Russell: Everything will be demolished.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 8
Haase:
Moves to approve the Russell/Shaw Condominium PUD-Preliminary subject
final PUD
to architectural elevations being submitted at the time of
review
Napheys:
Second.
Ross:
I would like staff to go back through and see if we can do it. Vipont
may not be able to sell off these buildings. .
Smith:
Wb will check that.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
Haase:
Comments that this project is certainly an asset for our downtown area
and for providing residential opportunities for that area.
10. #11-81B
Huntington Mews PUD - Final
Final approval for a residential PUD, located one mile south of Harmony
Road, east of College Avenue, with 106 single-family lots on 43.3-acres,
zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
Olt, Resource Consultants, P.O. Box Q, Fort Collins,
Applicant: Stephen
CO 80522.
Smith:
Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Gilfillan:
On the access off of College, could you go over those particular problems
again.
Smith:
The final access is planned to be taken off of an extension of Skyline
ultimately be a
Drive on the southern end of the property. That will
the entire area between there and Lemay
collector street that will serve
Avenue. Due to some ownership problems, some failures to plat, and a
variety of things, there is no right-of-way between this property and
The City
College Avenue. It's designated on the plat as a service road.
the right-of-way, ultimately to make
will be looking at ways to acquire
the connection into this area. Until that is done we are granting a
temporary access and a temporary curb -cut to College Avenue as an extensi
in this and the
of Saturn Drive. There is a dedicated right-of-way area
At time as the connecti
street will be extending out at that point. such
that curb -cut to College Avenue will be closed and
is made to the south,
the access into the Huntington Mews property will be a cul-de-sac and
into this
terminated so there will not be access from that road particulz
project.
Gilfillan:
What kind of time element are you looking at.
Smith:
Realistically, probably in the range of 2 to 3 years.
Gilfillan:
Has the State Highway Department looked at that temporary curb -cut.
Smith:
They have looked at it and agreed with it. They are very adamant that
Saturn Drive is.
the major cut should be down at Skyline not up where
Apt:
Does the City bear the full cost of that right-of-way and access.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 9
Smith: Initially, the developer had agreed to construct much of the street
in that area. It is very likely that the City will have to proceed
through Court actions to gain the right-of-way. In discussions with
the property owners they don't appear to be willing to grant the land
They may be willing to negotiate a sale of the land. The participation
of the developer is something that we could negotiate down the road.
We haven't started the negotiations to determine cost.
Apt: I think it is a very important issue. I still think this is premature
development. I don't think it is fair for the citizens of this community
to be asked to bear the cost.
Smith:
This developer is quite unique. The developer has granted a lot of value
to the City---17 acres of parkland, a lake, and agreed to pay all of the
park fees. —I think in terms of negotiation they will be willing to talk
about cost sharing of building that street. We will negotiate with the
developer at the time we get closer to getting that street done. We woul
take any direction the Board would like to give us in terms of those
negotiations.
Apt:
The donation of the lake and the land is very admirable, but I would
say that were I a developer in that area, I certainly would try to
build in some incentives into the development --to make it more attractive
to the City given the fact that it is premature. We should not take
these donations in lieu of the fact that the access is going to be at
great expense to the City.It should not be a trade-off.
Haase:
Hasn't this been a long-time development. There is quite a history
going back for about four or five years.
Smith:
Gives a brief history of the project.
Napheys:
How many approved but not started PUD's are there between here and
northwards towards the City.
Smith:
Finally approved and not started PUD's between here and Harmony Road ---
none. There is some County development in that area that has not been
fully finished out.
Apt:
Aren't there a lot of subdivided lots between Harmony Road and Trilby
Road that have not been developed in that area.
Smith:
I wouldn't say there are a lot. There could be some large lots. There
no extensive subdivision activity in this area. The land in the City
along the extension of Lemay is not subdivided.
Apt:
When are we going to draw the line ---how do we send out the message that
because we annex land, it doesn't mean we want it developed tomorrow.
I hope this is not a precedent.
William Dunn:
Developer. Will answer questions. Concerning the road development alom
the south property line, when it becomes a point we are more than happy
to do that because we agree with the City staff on the future traffic
pattern. We do wish to participate. At this time, it's difficult to
make a commitment because we don't know what the timing or cost will be.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 10
Napheys: Moves for denial of the project.
Apt: Second.
Vote: Motion defeated 5-2.
Gilfillan: Moves to approve Huntington Mews PUD - Final.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-2. (Napheys, Apt voting no.)
11. #54-80B Brown Farm Commercial Center PUD - Revised Preliminary
A request rrevision h
PUD, located at thenorthwestcorneroofdDrake�andary 4 Taft Hill Roads, zonedl
B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant: ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO
80521.
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Haase: Moves to approve the Brown Farm Commercial Center PUD-Revised Preliminary
with the following conditions: 1.) Submittal of elevations of all buildin
specifically in regard to treatment of the back of the main building,
Building D as it faces Drake Road, and the stack -up areas of Buildings
B and C. 2.) Administrative review of the design of the alternate land
uses proposed on the plan.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
12. #13-80F Wilderland Townhomes
A preliminary PUD proposal on 7.49 acres consisting of 12 townhome units,
one existing single-family residence and a 4.91-acre recreational area,
located south of Spring Creek, north of Hill Pond Road, and east of the
existing Hill Pond townhome area, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Reside
ial zoning district.
Applicant: Steve Van Lear, c/o Gefroh Associates, Inc., One Drake Park,
Suite 23, 333 W. Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
Joe Frank: Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Haase: What was the traffic problem.
Frank: I think it had to do with the street design of the cul-de-sac with the
radius and width of the street. They requested some variances from the
standard and they were granted by the Engineering Services Division.
P & Z Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 11
Haase: It was nothing that would affect other phases.
Frank: No. It had strictly to do the cul-de-sac itself.
Georg: I recall that this particular project had some kind of problem with
an undersized sewer line.
Frank:
The Public Works Department is working out some problems with the locatioi
of some existing utilities. These problems should be worked out before
the final.
Georg:"
Is the applicant responsible for the replacement.
Frank:
That is one of the items for discussion.We have a letter from the
applicant, they have agreed to work with the City.
Stoner:
The existing single-family house ---the white one ---I thought that was
going to be a recreation center.
Steve Van Lear:
Applicant. Back in 1973 it was designed to be a recreational center.
In our master plan we proposed that it become a 5,000 sf office building.
Upon further assessment of the area we decided that the best use would
be as a single family residehce.The reason that we did not convert it
to a recreational area was because of the size of the area and the size
of the building. One of the problems is the overall maintenance costs
of a building of that kind related to the number of people using it.
Haase:
Moves to recommend approval of Wilderland Townhomes Preliminary plan.
Apt:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
13. #28-81
Aspen Heights PUD - Preliminary
Preliminary approval for a residential PUD of 152 single and multiple -
family units on 14-acres, located north of Somerville Drive, 1,200 feet
south of Prospect Road, 400-feet east of Pecan Street, and west of the
Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal irrigation canal, zoned R-P, Planned
Residential, and R-L, Low Density Residential.
Applicant: Aspen Heights Partnership, c/o Gefroh Associates, One Drake
Park, Suite 23, 333 W. Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
Frank: Gave a staff report , recommending approval.
Haase
Frank
Haase
Frank
In our notes it was stated that the preliminary storm water drainage
plans appear to meet City standards.
That is correct.
Another question on this project is the access to it. Would you trace
that and the impact on Brown Farm Filings.
Points out access on the map.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 12
John Dengler:
Represents Gefroh. At the time of conceptual on this project, the
only comment that we got back of major concern was an engineering
comment. That had to do with the irrigation ditch that runs on the
east side of the property which was going to be a combination irrigation
ditch/City storm drainage ditch. The problem was the fact that as it
swung around to the south of our property it was going to be infringing
quite a bit on our piece of property which gave us much less useable
land. After working with a City engineer and our engineer, we came
up with a solution that became a much more efficient use of the ditch
and the drainage easement for the City, as well'as giving us quite
a bit more useable area on the project. The developer didn't go and
add any more units or anything to the developable area. As a result,
we now have 58% open space --- 27% of that which is active open space.
We feel that this will be a real amenity to the project.
Apt:
Will all of these units have fireplaces.
Dengler:
We really haven't gotten that far yet.
Apt:
I have actually had people in that area complain about the fact that
because of the number of condominiums in the area with fireplaces the
air quality is pretty bad. This problem is something that the City
should start thinking about.
Haase:
Moves to recommend approval of Aspen Heights PUD-Preliminary.
Stoner:
Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
14. #25-81 The Villages of Harmony West Master Plan
Master Plan approval for 93.6-acres with townhomes, patio homes, single-
family homes, apartment/condominiums, day care center, and non -retail
commercial,located on the north side of Harmony Road, one-half mile west
of Shields, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan,.Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521.
Frank: Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Kaplan: Applicant. Available for questioning.
Haase: Would you comment on the low ratio of single family homes in this
master plan.
Kaplan: Actually the patio homes and townhomes are also single family except
they are not single family detached. The shifts in the market demand
and the economics of development as a result of financing and inflation
have been reflected over the last 36 months in the nature of projects
you've had submitted to you.
Apt: What kind of provision has been made for pedestrian or bicycle trans-
portation within the project.
P & Z Board Meeting •
April 30, 1981
Page 13
Kaplan: The wavy lines that you see on the map are the conceptual trail system.
Bob Rasmussen: Imperial Estates Homeowner's Association. Where you connect with us,
the impression is that there is a street going through there is that
correct.
Smith: That is just a property line. That is the City limit not a designated
street.
Rasmussen: Being a County resident, I would like to recommend to the Planning
Board that the Imperial Estates Homeowner's Association goes along
with this project.
Haase: Moves to recommend approval The Villages of Harmony West Master Plan.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
15. #25-81A Plattsville PUD - Preliminary
Preliminary approval of first phase of The Villages of Harmony West with
154 townhome units on 19.5-acres, located on the northwest corner of
Harmony Road and Regency Drive, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residenti
Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultatn, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521.
Frank:
Gave a
staff report,
recommending approval.
Gilfillan:
Why isn't
this being
considered under the Guidance System.
Frank: All PUD's submitted before March 13, which was the adoption date, would
go under the old system. Plans submitted after that date will go under
the Point System.
Ross: Could you discuss the access.
Frank: Access is the exact reason why they developed this project first.
It is the only phase, except for the commercial, which does have access
to Harmony Road. At this time, they will be constructing Regency Drive
which is a collector street ---they have access at that point; and they
will also be constructing that part of Seneca ---they will have access at
that point.
Ross: You are comfortable with fire protection.
Frank: The Fire Department doesn't have a problem with one access point as long
as it is off of a collector street.
Smith: Especially in this case, because they will be responding from the fire
station on Harmony Road and coming in from that direction for their
primary call.
Georg: Moves to recommend approval of the Plattsville PUD - Preliminary.
Haase: Second.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 14
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
16. #137-80A Arbor Commercial PUD - Preliminary
Preliminary approval for a commercial PUD on 20.2 acres, located at the
southwest corner of Harmony Road and College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway
Business.
Applicant: Arbor Properties, c/o Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant,
528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Smith:
Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Kurt Reid:
Gefroh. Discusses the determining factors of the project. This area
was designed as a mixed use ---office use, retail, restaurant. These
areas were subdivided by such design determinants as Mason Street, Mail
Creek, and Clubhouse Drive.Parking ratios are related to the different
uses. Some of the positive aspects of the project are that it preserves
the Mail Creek area; it attempts to use the natural area as an amenity
to the site; trails have been provided; and the project works well with
the City street plan. The project has an open space area of 24% on a tota
of 20 acres. We feel that this is not a typical strip -type of development
Ross:
I'm glad to see the use of the Mail Creek amenities.Is the site being
developed loose enough with regard to the railroad tracks for potential
siding if one of those warehouses wanted it.
Reid:
That is part of the thinking behind the location of the office/warehouse.
Tape inaudible.
Retail use discussed.
Napheys:
I'm concerned about development to the south, but I am more concerned
that it is right on College.
Ross:
What would you propose that they do with the ground from this site back
to Fort Collins if they don't develop some sort of commercial aspect.
Napheys:
I think many people had envisioned that before we got to this we
would be going north, east, and west.
Ross:
If economics were possible to do what would normally be done on this site.
you would be looking at a mall/ shopping center. The economics have kept
this to a fairly low density type of commercial development.
Apt:
Harmony is good access but we are going to destroy some of that good acre!
by allowing a lot of growth down there ---it is going to create more con-
gestion. I don't understand why we haven't done some studies of the
traffic situation. I just don't think that this has been studied well
enough. I would like to ask staff what kind of study has been done on
the traffic impact these kinds of projects are going to have south College'
What kind of air quality impacts are we going to have?
Smith:
Specific impacts we have not analyzed or identified for this project.
Apt:
Those impacts are too important to put aside.
Georg.
The fact that this is a preliminary PUD encourages me to approve it,
because of the fact that we can review it at the time of final.
P & Z Board Meeting • 0
April 30, 1981
Page 15
Apt: I agree with that on one hand, but the developer has incurred a lot of
expense going from here to the final.
Georg: That is the developer's risk.
Smith: I stated that no specific numbers have been generated. On the other hand.
the City and the Highway Department have worked very closely in identifyir
reasonable access areas taking into recognition the nature of development
that has gone on. This is not an area that has none unstudied. Our
feeling is on two 6-lane streets; we have the hest access and canarity
in the Citv.
Apt: That information is very useful. At the same time, I would still feel
more comfortable with more specific data. These sorts of decisions
have the cumulative effect of changing general policy.
Ross: This has been annexed to the City, it's been zoned, the streets have
been laid out ---you say it needs to be studied?
Napheys: Five or six months ago, I was told when we annexed Huntington Mews
not to worry it will be seven or eight years before we are considering
development. Well, it was seven or eight weeks. We are being told
one thing by one applicant, and we are being told another thing by
another applicant later. I have the feeling that we have drifted item
to item.
Haase: When we compare the development in the south/southeast/southwest with
the north part of our City. We are seeing in our Fort Collins Policy
Plan some direction to encourage development on the northern part of
our City and yet we are being deluged with commercial and business
developments in the south. I share this uneasiness ---yet legally there
is every right for approval here.
Apt: We have to consider the cumulative effect.
Georg: I think we are missing the point. What we are asked to do here is
evaluate the quality impact of this preliminary PUD. I think that the
growth north is not an issue here. The City Policy states that City
is to encourage growth to the north ---it does not state that the City is
to discourage growth to the south.
Ross: You are right when you say that we are to stimulate the growth to the
north but you don't do that by stifling the growth to the south.
Gilfillan: Moves to recommend preliminary approval of the Arbor Commercial PUD.
This is not a condition but I would like to recommend to the applicant
that upon coming back in for final approval that they attempt to make
some kind of a landscaping maintenance agreement.
Georg: Second.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 16
Vote: Motion carried 6-1.(Apt voting no.)
Discussion between Board members about setting up a Policy meeting. It was decided
to set up the time and date at the end of the this meeting so as not to detain the
progress of this meeting any longer.
17. #175-79A Glenwood Commons Office Condominiums PUD - Preliminary and Final
Preliminary and final approval of a commercial PUD on 1.8-acres
consisting of 18,528 sf of office building area, located on the north-
east corner of James Court and Shields Street, zoned R-H, High Density
Residential.
Applicant: CRM Architects/Planners, 109 Cameron Drive, Fort Collins,
CO 80525.
Frank:
Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Georg:
What is the problem with extending Pitkin.
Frank:
We would like to see Pitkin go through but the University has different
plans for it.
Smith:
Pitkin is not a City street, it is under campus jurisdiction and ownership
Stoner:
Do you have that second building listed as an office use also.
Frank:
They are both being used for professional office use.
Chuck Mayhugh:
Available to answer any questions.
Ross:
Is the access going to be off of James Court.
Frank:
Hopefully, the primary access to the site is going to be off of James
Court.
Haase:
Moves to approve Glenwood Commons Office Condominiums PUD - Preliminary
and Final and a variance to the 2.0 acre area requirement.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
18. #26-81
Enterprise Commercial PUD - Preliminary
Preliminary approval for a 5.8 acre commercial PUD, located at the
northwest corner of Harmony Road and College Avenue, zoned H-B, Highway
Business.
Applicant: Enterprise Properties, c/o Lester M. Kaplan, Planning
Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
•
P & Z Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 17
Kurt Reid:
Applicant. This property is under the same ownership as the property
to the south which you looked at titled Arbor Commercial The design
and development of this property is intended as a complementary use.
In designing it there were existing features on the site that were
design determinants. The major two are the College/Harmony streets and
that intersection, also Mason Street or McClellan Street which was alread
slotted to come on further down to Harmony Road. In addition to that,
this project was affected in its design by street criteria and also by
the corner intersection. The use that is being proposed in this plan
includes retail and restaurant space. The public parking has been locates
in the center of all of the various buildings. Pedestrian access has
been provided in and out of the parking lot. More than adequate land-
scaping has been provided.The open space on this site is 19%. Some of
the positive aspects of this plan are that it works with the City street
plan, it respects the College/Harmony intersection, and it is also
placed at a convenient node within the City.
Gilfillan:
Does building C meet the setback requirements concerning the visual
effects on southbound traffic.
Reid:
I believe that the setback is 15'.
Smith:
We looked at that. There is no specific requirement, it is a matter
of the visual impact of the building We think that it can be addressec
by landscaping in the area.
Reid:
There was some thought put into the project with regard to that question.
Rather than seeing an ocean of parking, we felt it might be advantageous
to have building/parking, building/parking.
Gilfillan:
I have some concerns on when the final comes back through, can we see
some elevations and designs along that line.
Napheys:
At work session., we had some concerns about driver visibility off of
College and Harmony.
Smith:
I can guarantee you that that was closely looked at by the traffic
engineers.
Apt:
Is the plan for Harmony as a six -lane highway going to be limited acces!
or is there going to be signalization at Mason ---what is the plan.
Smith:
All of the specific areas have not been designated. The Mason/Harmony
Road interchange will be signalized. We are anticipating a major flow
of traffic using Mason Street coming in there and extending south.
Apt:
Harmony Road is eventually looked upon as being one of the major,entrana
to the City.
Smith: That is correct.
Apt: I'm concerned about the impact that this is going to have in terms of
traffic flowing onto Harmony. You are going to have two signals very
close together, you are going to have a lot of congestion on that six -
lane highway.
Smith: Again, those signals would be closely timed so that traffic would not be
stuck between two red lights. They would be phased so that you could go
P & Z Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 18
Smith: (cont.) through them. That would be done through the computer system.
Stoner:
What do you feel is the appropriate ratio for parking for retail use.
Reid:
An appropriate ratio ranges anywhere from 1 to 200, to 1 to 280.
Stoner:
Why did you make the ratio here different from the one across the street.
Reid:
We feel that one of the things that is a little different here is we
have shown a higher ratio for the restaurant uses
We feel that there is a potential for
complementary parking. This project on an average is slightly higher
for the restaurant.
Apt:
Initially, we were talking about the other project and the fact that
our decision on that shouldn't bias our decision on this one. Yet, these
are being talked about as being complementary. If you look at the combine
square footage of these you're talking about 927,000 square feet total.
I'm much less comfortable with the mix on this ---it is almost all retail.
The traffic congestion still concerns me.
Reid:
There are only 275,000 square feet between the two properties.
Smith:
You are looking at gross site area numbers (Apt) rather than square
footage of the buildings.
Napheys:
According to the shopping center definition what does that make this
equal to.
Smith:
A community type center. Century Mall might be an example. Normal
neighborhood centers are about 150,000-170,000 square feet.
Napheys:
I would think that the Downtown Development Authority might want to
have some comment on this. What we put in here is not helping the
Downtown Development.
Haase:
Excellent point. The two properties are giving us another major
shopping center.
Apt:
I just think that this is a decision significant enough to be delayed
until we have a policy meeting.
Apt:
Moves to table this project until the July 27 Planning and Zoning Meeting,
Haase:
Second.
Reid:
My comments would be that the lack of a policy in this area seems some-
what nebulous. The type of use that is being proposed here is basically
what will occur here.
Kaplan:
The owner of this property is very much aware of the interplay between thr
downtown and this property. The owner is investing in downtown developmer
and he believes in the downtown. This is not competitive with downtown,
it is a completely different identity.
Gilfillan: I think what the applicant has brought into the City and shown on this
particular design is very admirable.
P & Z Board Meeting •
April 30, 1981
Page 19
4-3
Vote: Motion defeated. (Napheys, Haase, & Apt voting yes.)
Gilfillan: Moves to approve the Enterprise Commercial PUD-Preliminary.
Georg: Second.
Apt: I think that this kind of action is not planning, it is reaction.
It is unfortunate.
Vote: Motion carried 4-3. (Napheys, Haase, & Apt voting no.)
Napheys: There are some good features in the plan, but with the overall considerat
I think it is important to go on record as stating that we have gotten
the"cart before the horse."
Kaplan: What is meant by "cart before the horse" in the context of denial of thi
plan so that we have some basis for being able to explain this.
Haase: Refer to letter from Ben Napheys.
19. #22-81 Parkwood East Townhomes - Preliminary
A request for preliminary approval of a 51-unit townhome PUD, on 8.4
acres, located north of Drake Road on the south side of Kirkwood Drive,
zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: Robb & Brenner, Inc., Suite 1080 Savings Building, Oak at
Howes, P. 0. Box 251, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending approval.
Gary Haxton:
Representing Everitt Enterprises. This project is part of a 115-acre
project that was annexed and zoned in late 1978, early 1979. The traffil
patterns, the zoning, and the sensitivity to the areas around it have
not changed since it was started. I will be glad to answer questions.
Haase:
Could we see on the map the major traffic patterns -egress and ingress.
Smith:
Access could be gained to the project off of Stewart Street, eventually
down Creekwood Drive, it can also be gained off of Lemay through Kirk-
wood Drive. Points out access on the map. The principal access will
be using the Stewart area coming in and out.
Haase:
It is possible that Creekwood also could be used going south as an
alternate route to Eastwood Drive.
Smith:
That is correct.
Dick Thomas:
President, Parkwood Homeowners' Association. The major concern of the
group is the first planning objective which states that the development
should serve as a transition economically and density -wise between the
Parkwood East Condominiums on the north, and the single-family detached
units south of the site. Why did not the planning objective also
provide for transition to the west, toward existing Parkwood homes.
Presents a slide program pointing out the Homewoners' Association
concerns.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 20
Thomas: (cont.) There is no transition zone to the west. There can be an immediate drop
in value by at least 50% from one home to the next. That is our first
concern ---no buffer to the west.
Our second concern is quality and appearance. We hope that the quality
of the workmanship will be high. But economics tempts developers to treat
items like shake -shingle roofs as options rather than standard features.
These units have black asbestos shingles. We believe that cost is no
excuse for aesthetic incompatibility. We want those homes adjacent to
Parkwood to be aesthetically in harmony with Parkwood homes. In
reference to the PUD townhomes, we are very pleased that the Board has
required that, the PUD require heavily on solar use. However, we see
no reason that the architect's concept should have such a sterile,
unimaginative, and repetitive exterior ---especially with exposed wood -
stove pipes.
Our third concern is traffic. We believe that working couples will move
into these condominiums. There will be a lot of people driving to work
out of these 51 townhomes and 200 condominiums. We believe that the
corner of Kirkwood and Rollingwood will become a major intersection ---
only a few of the condominiums will feed onto Stewart Street, and then
only if they wish to go north or northwest. Little was done to insure
a logical traffic pattern in and out of this PUD area.
To summarize our concerns are: no buffer for Parkwood, maintenance of
quality and value ---aesthetics, and traffic.
Gilfillan:
On the plat,are the three single-family lots being included in this
as conversion to townhomes or are they going to be retained as single
family lots.
Smith:
They would be replatted into the townhome area.
Ruggiero:
There has been a great deal of discussion as to the costs and selling
prices of homes. Admittedly, that is intertwined with the land use
decision, but I would like to admonish the Board that we are dealing
with a land use issue in this case.
Thomas:
Our first recommendation is that the the three single dwelling units
on the west end of the proposed PUD---lots 156,157 & 158 --- be retained
and not be a part of the PUD. Construction of $60,000 to $80,000
homes on these lots an an economic transition and buffer to the west
is acceptable.
Our second recommendation is that the elevation of the townhouses be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board for approval.We want to
see what those buildings will look like before they are approved for
construction.
Our third recommendation is that the Parkwood East single dwelling lots
adjacent to Parkwood and Stonehenge homes on Rollingwood be reserved
for only the five model homes being built at the south entrance of
Parkwood East. That the reservation be for 18 months from today.
This would provide a more reasonable economic transition from Parkwood
East to the west.
P & Z Board Meeting • •
April 30, 1981
Page 21
Thomas:(Cont.) Our fourth recommendation is that if after the 18 months the lots
referred to above are not developed and the decision is to revert to
the less expensive homes, that the developers erect and maintain a
quality 6' cedar fence along the western boundary of Parkwood East
subdivision from Kirkwood south to provide at least a visual idea of
separation.
Our fifth recommendation is that within 90 days of final approval
of the PUD, that a 6' cedar fence be erected and maintained by the
developer along the western boundary of Parkwood East from Kirkwood
north to Stewart Street. The fence is required for a buffer for those
homeowners whose transition zone is directly in to the condominiums.
The sixth recommendation is that the Parkwood Homeowners' Association
be given 1/3 representation on the Parkwood East architectural committee,
and that the joint participation be in good faith by both parties.
Our seventh recommendation is that the Planning and Zoning Board carefully
study the traffic patterns generated by these high density units and do
all they can to insure intelligent traffic flow.
I would like to leave you with one thought, Parkwood East is not associated
in any way with Parkwood. A lot of Parkwood owners would like for this
new development to have some other name. Nevertheless, the name Parkwood
East was selected as a marketing tool and I suspect that there is consider-
able "blue sky" attached to it. I believe that there is a moral obligation
to Parkwood from the developer for that reason alone.
I have one last question, when was the request to replat the three lots.
Smith:
I'm not specifically sure of the time but it has been in and with the
engineers with the preliminary plat for the site, so I'm assuming that
we have had it at least 4 weeks. It is not something that we had picked
up, it was submitted with engineering information and was not highlighted
on the site plan but it was formally submitted.
Thomas:
I thought it was always there, I didn't see any change.
Smith:
It has not changed. It has always been part of the plan. What I'm
indicating is that when it was initially submitted our Planning staff
didn't pick up that that replat existed.
Thomas:
Should we have been notified on our letter that there was a replat action.
Smith:
Probably, yes. Legally the question of notification is not an issue but
it would have been appropriate for us to have notified you of the replat
as well as the site plan.
Haase:
We need to have legal counsel interpretation on several of these
recommendations.
Ruggiero:
I can give the Board some general guidelines. Several of the recornnendatioi
relate to developments which are not for the Board, and of course, the
Board would have no power in this case to oppose any conditions. Those
that relate to this specific development, the Board might consider.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 22
Ruggiero: (cont.)
To those that do not relate to this proposal, you certainly wouldn't
have any authority to impose those conditions.
Georg:
Based on the fact that we can only look at land use, it seems to me
that the only two of the proposals which relate to land use are
Item 2 and Item 7.
Gilfillan:
On Item 2 and Item 7, would they not be reviewed coming back in for
the final.
Smith:
In terms of the traffic, that was reviewed with the whole layout of the
Parkwood East area. The traffic circulation system that is designated
on your maps has been planned and approved for some time in the Parkwood
East area.i I think that the question of the layout of the traffic
pattern had been looked at by the City at the time that the rest of
the property in the area was laid out.
In terms of Item 2 you have preliminary elevations in front of you.
As those are finalized and brought forth they would come back with the
final plan.
Stoner:
Mr. Thomas, how do you react to the question that the $200,000 homes
on Parkwood Drive wouldn't have wanted your $100,000 homes where
you are at.
Thomas:
There is quite a gradual change there.
Stoner:
The transition is still pretty drastic right across the street. I'm
just saying that the same thing prevails in Parkwood now where you go
from $300,000 - $400,000 homes to $100,000 to condominiums.
Thomas:
I don't think there is a correlation.
Gilfillan:
In the changes that we see here with the three single-family lots
adjacent to the west, why was there a particular reason to bring those
in to the townhouse plat.
Haxton:
Just because the entire PUD works out so much better to have the street
on the east because those three lots are almost fully landscaped.
Smith:
If the opinion of the Board is that those three lots ought to be retained,
I think some action toward tabling this is in order because the street
circulation system goes right through one of those lots. If you do not
replat those lots and incorporate them in the project they have a circulat
problem in how to design it.
Haase:
In inspecting the property, I noticed that there were quite a few town -
homes being developed to the northeast. Is that part of a project
with another developer.
Smith:
Those are Parkwood East Condominiums that were approved some time ago.
Haase:
This is not the same developer.
Smith:
It is the same developer but not the same project.
3
P & Z Board Meeting • •
April 30, 1981
Page 23
Haase: I notice an abrupt change in values there. It certainly is notable
that they are not in agreement in general value range with other homes
built in that immediate area. How many of these lesser value homes
are in that immediate area.
Thomas: We were told that if those are the homes that sell, they will all be
that value home.
Stoner: I would like some comment on the naked stacks and the composition .shingle
Haxton: That is a very preliminary plan. We have talked to the architect about
enclosing that stack if at all possible. Solar projects have severe
architectural limitations. Shake shingles sell for $75 a square. We
plan to use a shingle that is a cross between an asphalt shingle and a
shake shingle. Shake shingles are going to be a thing of the past
because of the fire danger.
Stoner: How did you react to the rest of the recommendations.
Haxton: There are three different owners. Everitt Enterprises is the developer.
There is no way that we could agree to those things because there are
other owners besides ourselves.
Stoner: Are there any fences planned.
Haxton: Some people don't want fences. We would not put a fence in if someone
doesn't want one.
Bill Brenner: Robb & Brenner. We are as interested as Everitt Enterprises with
having a good-looking project. The units are designed around solar.
That does provide some limitations. We believe that the buildings can
be attractive. We hope that we can meet with the Parkwood people
and show them that they don't have anything to be afraid of as far as
how the units will look.
Stoner: What do you think the range of square footage of those units will be.
Brenner: They will be about 1,100 square feet for 2-bedroom and about 1,300-1,4C
square feet for 3 -bedroom homes.The basement would be over and above
that.
Stoner: Mr. Haxton, what do you think about Item 6 as far as the Parkwood Associ-
ation being given 1/3 membership on the architectural committee.
Haxton: There is no way that could ever happen. The Parkwood Homeowners' Associ-
ation does not control the architectural control committee of Parkwood
let alone an area outside of Parkwood.
Tape inaudible. Traffic discussed once again.
Georg: There is reason for concern . The number of people here is evidence
for that reason of concern.
Moves to approve Parkwood East Townhomes - Preliminary but that we
review it when it comes back in as a final on other than a Consent
Agenda item, with a review of the elevations at that time.
Gilfillan: Second.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 24
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
Apt: The fact that those lots are going to be landscaped is one reason to
vote yes, the other is that I know people in Boulder that bought solar
townhomes and they increased in value at far faster a rate than normal
townhomes.
20. #25-81 Fort Collins Airpark Industries, Ltd. 1/6 Contiguity Waiver
A request to waive the 1/6 contiguity requirement for development in
the Urban Growth Area for property located north of the Community Airpark.
Applicant: ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO
80521.
Ross:
Noted that Gilfillan would not be participating because of a conflict
of interest and Apt would not be voting to maintain an odd number of
voting members.
Smith:
Gave a staff report. Explained that staff is recommending approval but
there are other application criteria, particularly access criteria in
the Growth Area, that would be required to be met before proceeding with
development.
Carr Bieker:
Applicant. Will be available for questioning.
Georg:
At work session, a question was brought up about where the expressway
was going and whether that would impact this.
Bieker:
We have had meetings with the City Traffic Engineers, the State Highway
Department in Greeley, and there is a memo to the file that in summary
says that the solution may be years away. About all we can do since it's
timing and it's being a reality versus another alignment which would
be an extended Vine Drive, is to prepare for it as a contingency. That
is essentially how we would plan it. We will prepare a plan that will
work either way.
Napheys:
Moves to recommend to City Council that they waive the 1/6 contiguity
requirement.
Haase
Vote:
21. #43-81
Second.
Motion carried 5-0. (Gilfillan and Apt not voting.)
Cameron Park Third --Fossil Creek Highlands PUD Master Plan
A Master Plan for 20 commercial lots (Cameron Park Third) on 12.07-acres,
zoned T-Tourist and 208 condominium units (Fossil Creek Highlands) on
24.7-acres, zoned M and M-1, Multiple Family, located 1/2-mile south of
Harmony Road on the west side of Highway 287.
Applicant: Day/Peters Co., c/o Jon Gregory, 201 Link Lane, Fort Collins,
CO 80524.
n n � n_-Ma Min+inn . •
April 30, 1981
Page 25
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. There are some specific
design features that will have to be addressed when they come in with
more specific preliminary plans.
Ross: Will they agree to annex.
Smith: We looked at it as part of the Urban Growth Area Agreement of whether
we could condition projects on that, and it is questionable whether
or not the County can do that.
Jon Gregory: Applicant, Will be available for questioning.
Haase: Moves to recommend to the County approval of Cameron Park Third ---Fossil
Creek Highlands PUD Master Plan.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
22. #44-81 Interchange Subdivision
A request to subdivide 7.3-acres into three lots, zoned C-Commercial,
located on the south side of Highway 14, 1/2 mile west of Interstate-25
Applicant: Hvoll Boll -Johnson Co., c/o Stewart & Associates, Inc.,
P.O. Box 429, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending approval subject to conditions.
Dick Rutherford: Applicant. Right now Rutger and Co. owns the property. They are the
parent company of Thrifty Scot Motels. They bought the whole piece of
land, they would like to end up with the one piece that the motel is on.
Hvoll Boll -Johnson would be buying the other two lots from Rutger.
Georg: Do you agree with the four conditions.
Rutherford: The only one that might be a problem is concerning access to the motel
off of Canal Drive. North access is already constructed. All of the
site work is being done ---the motel is almost ready to open.
Rupel:
Napheys:
Ruggiero:
Ross:
Rupel:
Comments on the entrances.
Can we go ahead and make the recommendation and add that if already
constructed, our recommendation does not hinge on that condition.
I think you could certainly make that recommendation.
Would it be helpful if that access was "in" only.
The way this is designed, the problem is people coming in, slowing down,
and stopping traffic.
Gilfillan: A question on #3 of the conditions. On the joint curbcuts on lots 1 and
3, if that one curbcut is already in there for the Thrifty -Scot Motel
how can we impose this.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 26
Rutherford: Responds by pointing out accesses on the map.
Napheys: Moves to recommend to the County approval of the Interchange Subdivision
subject to staff conditions #1 and #2, and as to #3 that we recommend the
joint curbcuts if at all possible, and as to #4 if the curbcut is already
in place that our recommended condition is not a prerequisite, we would
recommend approval anyway.
Gilfillan: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
The conditions for the Interchange Subdivision are:
Frontage road be 28' flowline-to-flowline with curb and gutter along
both sides of the street.
No Parking signs be provided on the frontage road according to City
standards.
Joint curb cuts rather than individual cuts for Lots 1 and 3 and
Lots 1 and 2 be provided.
1
2
3
4. Northernmost curbcut on Canal Drive must be set back a minimum of
50' from the frontage road flowline.
23. #45-81
High Country Estates Subdivision
A request to subdivide 41.5-acres into four lots, zoned 0-Open, located
of County Road 11.
2-1/2 miles north of Fort Collins, on the west side
3416 Loch Lomond Ct., LaPorte, CO 80535.
Applicant: Keith & Randi Dixon,
Smith:
Gave a staff report, recommending denial. Based on the response to the
from the Planning Commission
letter that this Board sent to the County
development is inconsistent
and their County Commissioners, this type of
interpreted as being rural development and, therefore,
with what they have
we are recommending denial.
Dick Rutherford:
Applicant. Discusses the history of the site. The ditch company has
bridge. What we are proposing now
reservations about having another
the west side of the ditch so that there would not be
is to stay on
another new ditch crossing. One thought, it is in north Fort Collins
this is one way
and if we are trying to get growth to go to the north
to do it.
Gilfillan:
On the northeast corner how can you get access.
Rutherford.
Points out access on the map. It is the same way that the farmer gets
access to it now.
Apt:
This is the sort of development that used to be in a planning gap and
Rural development has been well
it no longer is in a planning gap.
defined. The County has done an inventory of how many lots are
It is
available for this kind of development--- it was over 10,000.
development is not necessary. Given our agree-
obvious that this sort of
ment with the County, I think it would be out of line for us to recommenc
approval for this kind of development.
P & Z Board Meeting •
April 30, 1981
Page 27
Gilfillan: I wouldn't necessarily agree. The ingress and egress to this is somewhat
like a frontage road from the west side of that County road, is that righi
Rutherford: The improved part of the road would turn left off of the County road,
on the south side of where the ditch crosses the County road. That way
there would be no ditch crossing for this access road.
Gilfillan: How wide is that road.
Rutherford: 601.
Apt: Moves to recommend denial of High Country Estates Subdivision because
it is not consistent with the criteria established with defining rural
development.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-2. (Haase and Gilfillan voting no.)
24. #3-81A Modern Fuels Rezoning
A request to rezone 15-acres from FA-1, Farming to I -Industrial, located
1/2 mile north of Vine Drive, west of Interstate 25.
Applicant: Modern Fuels, Inca, 813 S. St. Louis Avenue, Loveland, CO
80537.
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending denial.
Napheys: What was the history of this proposal at the County level.
Smith: The item went to the County Planning Commission. The Commission was
concerned with the size of the project and recommended denial of the
project to the County Commissioners. The County Commissioners considered
the item, at that point there was discussion of scaling the project down
in size to the present proposal. The Commissioners ended up asking
that the scaled down version be referred back to the City and the County
Planning Commission for comments before they made a decision.
Jon Lowry: Consultant for Modern Fuels. There are problems that need to be addresse
Alcohol production is an age-old process, but very few people have attemp
to construct a modern, efficient, fuels plant like we propose. Our
rezoning issue is one of several issues that must be resolved before
construction even begins on our plant. Basically, we have the same reque
with one different aspect. We have dropped our plans for a larger 40
million gallon per year plan. Our encounters with this rezoning process
indicates that many reservations about this project centered around our
40 million gallon per year proposal. As a result, we have decided to dre
this aspect of our rezoning proposal and request that 15 of the 114 acre
be rezoned industrial for the purposes of constructing and operating a
2 million gallon per year plan. The 99 additional acres will be used for
crop experimentation.
Responds to the three basic issues of fire protection, access, and locati
outside the Urban Growth Area brought up when they came before the Board
in January.
P & Z Board Minutes
April 30, 1981
Page 28
Ross: Are you indicating that you will permanently leave the balance of the
farm in agricultural use.
Lowry: For our 2 million gallon plant. If we ever entertain the idea of a larger
plant we would have to start from ground zero.
Napheys: How many employees would you have.
Lowry: Approximately 20-25.
Stoner: What is the height of your highest structure.
Lowry: The distillation structure would be the highest structure of approximately
60'-75'.
Stoner:
How
many
would you have.
Lowry:
Four.
The other buildings would have a height of about 35'.
Stoner:
How
many
square feet are you talking about.
Lowry:
The
buildings should probably cover about 2 acres.
Ross:
How
many
acres would the larger plant have to have.
Lowry: About 100 acres.
Stoner: How did you handle the visibility problem that I brought up last time.
Lowry: I assume that the industrial area is going to be coming up in that area.
Our building is not going to be taking up a lot of territory.
Apt: Is there still the issue of site review.
Smith: Yes, unless for some reason the item were conditioned on being done
as a PUD.
Ross: Address the access problem.
Lowry: Is 2 miles so far.away from an interchange. We are talking about roads
that are already used by agricultural and industrial uses.
Smith: Just to remind the Board, you are looking at a zoning request. You are
not looking at the application. There are a variety of things that
potentially could go in an I -industrial use if for some reason Modern
Fuels decides to sell the property. It would be difficult to condition
it to a specific use.
Apt: I think that there are better locations. I don't see that anything has
substantially changed since the last time, except for the scale of the
plant ---which it sounds like to me is somewhat in doubt as well.
Ross: It seems to me that if you get it working you are going to come back
in and want to do a bigger project.
Lowry: It doesn't necessarily mean it would be with this parcel.
• P & Z Board Meeting • •
April 30, 1981
Page 29
Marvin Bowles: President of Modern Fuels. Discusses why this parcel was chosen and
access to corn production.
Smith:
Discusses the fact that the City owns a farm in the middle of the Urban
Growth Area. It might make sense to try and work out something like this
in that area because it would tie into some other uses in that area.
We have methane production from the sewage plant in that area, so we
have that type of use already in that area.
Georg:
The primary issue is a consistency with the uses that we have outlined
by the County for rural development. The zoning in the County is
related to use, the zoning that you are requesting is not consistent
with the uses that the County has listed for rural development.
Lowry:
One thing that the Land Use Plan says is that agriculture related
industries can be located in rural development areas. The present
County zoning regulations allow an alcohol fuels plant in a FA-1
agriculture zoned area if it is associated with a livestock feeding
operation.
Gilfillan:
Haven't there been additional requests for ethanol plants in Weld County
What size of plant are they proposing.
Lowry:
Has far as I know the largest in Colorado is about 10 million gallons.
Ross:
The biggest problem we have is if we zone it and you can't get the
project operational, it is zoned forever.
Lowry:
In a sense that is a double bind situation because if we don't get it
zoned, we can't go to our finance people and say we have some land. We
are not getting anywhere either.
Apt:
Moves to recommend denial of Modern Fuels Rezoning because it is not
consistent with uses outlined by the County for rural development areas.
Georg: Second.
Napheys: Along with the statements that I made the last time around, I plan to
vote against the motion which would be for zoning. I still think even
with the redefinition that this fits into agri-business as much as you
are going to be able to fit it in. I will go along with the stipulation
that the zoning be tied to the ethanol plant use.
Vote: Motion carried 5-2. (Gilfillan and Napheys voting no.)
25. #47-81 Murray Exemption
An exemption request for two lots on 7.3-acres, zoned FA -Farming,
located 3/4-miles west of Overland Trail, on the north side of Bingham
Hill Road.
Applicant: James Murray, 4130 Bingham Hill Road, Fort Collins, CO 8052
Smith: Gave a staff report, recommending denial.
Napheys: Is this property that we received a water right on.
Smith: Yes.
P & Z Board Meeting
April 30, 1981
Page 30
Dick Rutherford:
Applicant. Jim Murray would like to divide the property into two parcels.
It is not agricultural land by any means. This is an area that is an
urban neighborhood.
Ross:
What is process difference to actually subdivide this.
Rutherford:
The County has a new process that will restrict exemptions to two lots.
Under the new exemption process
They have to be single residences only.
this would fit.
Smith:
The biggest difference is the improvement requirements.
Stoner:
I was at a meeting with the County Commissioners and discussed what their
fears were on the exemptions. One of the things that was brought up was
the fear of losing control and also not getting the access and utilities
squared away.
Moves to recommend denial of the Murray Exemption.
Haase:
Second.
Napheys:
I'm not so convinced that the land ought not be subdivided.
Vote:
Motion carried 7-0.
26. #49-81
Cobb Exemption
An exemption request for two lots on 20.2 acres, zoned FA-1, Farming,
Trilby Road,
located on the west side of Shields Street, 3/4-mile south of
& Helen Cobb, 7325 S. Shields, Fort Collins, CO 8052!
Applicant: Raymond
Smith:
Gave a staff report, recommending denial.
Ray Cobb:
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I don't want to subdivide,
afford
I just want to record an exemption.I have no intention, and can't
to develop this property.
Don Schubert:
I would like to make a point. Due north of there, there are eight 5-acre
lot. I don't
lots. Just south of that property there is one 20-acre
is is changing what is happending in the area.
see that what he asking
Napheys:
What would your recommendation have been if the Urban Growth Area line
had been up a half mile.
Smith:
We wouldn't have had a problem with the definition if the line had been
non -farm developmf
up a half a mile because it would have been in a rural
We would still have had a problem with the exemption process to
area.
create the lots versus the subdivision process.
Napheys:
Moves to recommend to the County denial of the Cobb Exemption.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 6-1. (Haase voting no.)
Meeting adjourned 1:20 a.m.
P & Z Board Meeting •
April 30, 1981
Page 31
Planning and Zoning Board
Work Sessions
Date: April 24, 1981
Time: 12:00 Non
Place: CIC Room - New City Hall
Agenda: Work Session for regular P & Z meeting of April 30, 1981.
Board Present: Gilfillan, Haase, Georg, Napheys, Ross, Stoner