HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 03/23/19810 •
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
MARCH 23, 1981
Board Present: John Clarke, Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary
Ross, Ed Stoner.
Staff Present: Curt Smith, Paul Deibel, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Linda Hopkins, Elaine Kleckner, Maurie Rupel,
Linda Gula.
Legal Representative: Paul Eckman
Ross: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Smith: Reported that Item #8 on the Consent Agenda will be continued to April.
Item #19 has been requested to table the action. They will be making a
brief statement. Item #22 and #25 have been requested to be continued.
Explained that tabling and continuing are basically the same action.
Ross: Explained the procedure for the consent agenda. Asked if anyone wished
to have discussion on any of the items on the consent agenda.
Gilfillan: Pointed out an error in Item #2. It should be an 8-acre parcel not a
13.1-acre parcel.
Smith: Explained that it was a typographical error.
Haase: Submitted the corrections to the minutes for the February 23, 1981 meeting.
Requested to remove Item #7 Scenic Views PUD from the consent agenda.
Clarke: Moves to approve the consent agenda 1-6 and the modifications to the minutE
as stated.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
7. #4-80B Scenic Views PUD - Final
A request for final approval of a 192-unit residential PUD, zoned R-P,
Planned Residential, located at the intersection of West Elizabeth and
Overland Trail.
Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521.
Smith: Gave a brief staff report recommending approval.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 2
Haase: For the record, we should bring out the background information that
indicates that the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval
September 22, 1980, with the condition that the water pressure problem
be solved prior to final submittal. City Council approved the preliminary
site plan with this condition on October 21, 1980. At the time of
preliminary approval it was assumed that the developer would be respons-
ible for solving the water pressure problems. However, now the Water and
Sewer Department has taken on the responsibility to solve these problems
in this area of the City which also effects several other developments
in the area. I have a letter from Jim Hibbard indicating information
as of March 16. I would like a summary from a representative of the
Engineering Department on the official record.
Also, in the work session there was an Engineering problem which has been
solved but, nevertheless, was under serious consideration regarding the
cul-de-sac and the radius curves there which needed to be 20'and the hazard
that might have occurred if this had not been corrected.
Maurie Rupel: Reads as follows: "Engineering plans are not complete for the extension
of Zone 3 (high pressure) water service to the area between Mulberry and
Elizabeth, east of Overland Trail. We are presently acquiring easements
with construction scheduled this spring. This will solve some existing
low pressure problems in this area as well as eliminate any water service
problems for the proposed Scenic View PUD. Should the City for any
reason not complete these improvements as planned, they will have to be
completed by Scenic Views prior to issuance of any building permits."
Haase: Thank you for the information, which may effect other developments in the
future.
Rupel: As far as the cul-de-sac is concerned, that was worked out this afternoon.
We do have a 20' radius on the inside of the cul-de-sac. We will be able
to service that area with fire trucks. We did do a test last week with
two fire trucks in this proposed cul-de-sac as it was designed. We found
we were unable to get the two fire trucks past each other as is required
by the code. Consequently, it did require redesign on the interior radius
of the cul-de-sac.
Haase: Moves to recommend approval of Scenic Views P.U.U. Final.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
Smith: Explains that items #9 through #18 will be presented as one item since they
are under one ownership and are submitted as one package.
9. #6-81 Trilby Heights, First Annexation
A request to annex 24.47-acres located south of Trilby Road, on the west
side of U.S. 287.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 3
10. #6-81 Trilby Heights, First Zoning
A request to zone 24.47 acres, R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential,
located south of Trilby Road, on the west side of U.S. 287.
11. #7-81 Trilby Heights, Second Annexation
A request to annex 295.95-acres, located south of Trilby Road, on the
west side of U.S. 287.
12. #7-81 Trilby Heights Second Zoning
A request to zone 295.95-acres R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential,
located south of Trilby Road, on the west side of U.S. 287.
13. #8-81 Trilby Heights Third Annexation
A request to annex 239.37-acres located south of Trilby Road, on the
west side of U.S. 287.
14. #8-81 Trilby Heights Third Zoning
A request to zone 239.37-acres R-L-P, located south of Trilby Road, on
the west side of U.S. 287.
15. #9-81 Trilby Heights Fourth Annexation
A request to annex 162.68-acres located south of Trilby Road on the west
side of U.S. 287.
16. #9-81 Trilby Heights Fourth Zoning
A request to zone 162.68-acres R-L-P, located south of Trilby Road on
the west side of U.S. 287.
17. #10-81 Trilby Heights Fifth Annexation
A request to annex 81.06 acres, located south of Trilby Road, on the west
side of U.S. 287.
18. #10-81 Trilby Heights Fifth Zoning
A request to zone 81.06 acres R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential,
located south of Trilby Road, on the west side of U.S. 287.
Applicant for all: Harry Deines, 1707 Country Club Road, Fort Collins,
CO 80524.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 4
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending aoproval. Also explained that we could
take just two motions, one on the annexation and one on the zoning.
Harry Deines: Deines Agriculture and Livestock Company. Believes that the petition
merits approval for the following reasons: 1.) This land now meets the
requirements for developing unincorporated land within the Urban Growth
Area at urban densities and City design standards. 2.) This undeveloped
land is now eligible under State law governing the contiguity with the
City limits for voluntary annexation to the City. 3.) According to the
Intergovernmental Agreement, " The County agrees not to approve any
rezoning or development of any undeveloped land which is eligible for
voluntary annexation to the City." 4.) As a basis for the Intergovern-
mental Agreement the City and County agreed as a matter of policy , "That
the City would agree to annex all property within the Urban Growth Area
as soon as said property became eligible for annexation."
For more than eleven years we have been preparing this land for development.
We have invested a considerable amount of money for sanitation district
inclusion fees and mill levies, water district mill levies, and land
easements for water ,and aas mains and telephone lines. The IRS appraised
this land for estate taxes at four times it's value as a farm. The State
of Colorado concurred with IRS and we have since paid estate taxes and
interest in a total amount considerably more than the value of the land
as farm land. Now it is the objective of the Deines family partners to
sell this land. :le intend to sell to one or more fairly large financially
responsible developers in parcels large enough for P.U.D.'s that will
assure it's conversion to a creditable revenue producing portion of this
rapidly growing City.
As our written statements on the record at public hearings will show, the
Deines family partnership has supported the Urban Growth Area plan and
Intergovernmental Agreement, and we support the recently adopted Land
Development Guidance System. We have lobbied for no favors beyond a clearly
stated agreement between the City and County that would enable a property -
owner to know what he can do to put his land in the Ft. Collins/Loveland
corridor to a higher and better use than a continuation of red ink farming.
Haase: Could we have pointed out how the contiguity is established ---the location
of the contiguity.
Lloyd McLaughlin: Engineer-M & I Consulting Engineers. Points out how contiguity is
established on the map.
Napheys: If any one of the annexations were to fall the next annexation would be
ineligible pursuant to the 1/6 contiguity rule.
McLaughlin: That is correct.
Napheys: What is the natural division of the tracts other than the contiguity require
ment. What physically sets each tract apart.
McClaughlin: There is no physical separation.
P'& Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page b
Napheys: If the first did not go, there is no way for the second, the third, or
the fourth to go.
McLaughlin: No.
Haase: You do not have ownership then of the SE corner west of Shields Street;
the southeastern half.
McLaughlin: The east half of the SE corner. That is owned by eight separate owners
in that area. That is because of an estate division.
Napheys: What is the status of the land to the east of the third and north of the
first.
McLaughlin: That is the present location of the Hermitage and some other commercial
businesses.
Napheys: And that is not in the City.
McLaughlin: No it is not.
Napheys: Why aren't we asked to consider the first annexation this time and the
second a month from now and so forth.
Smith: Because this was under one property ownership (the applicant), we felt
it was more reasonable to bring the Board in line with all of the property
that would be considered at one time -since it would be coming and showing
the Board the project in one swoop. In terms of the Council's action, the
items will be formally annexed one at a time. We felt the Board should be
looking at the total policy and picture of annexing the entire area, and
could make a recommendation on the entire area at one time.
Napheys: What is intended to be the actual development sequence of these various
tracts.
Deines: Points out sequence on the map.
Haase: Do you use that ridge as a natural breaking point on the western side of
the third.
Deines: Yes.
Charlie Solomon: Almost a year ago I purchased a 5-acre parcel in that peninsula between
the fifth and the second annexation. For the development of the fourth
and fifth annexation would it be necessary for the adjacent areas to be
developed first. Or, are you able to develop first, second, third, etc.,
in that sequence without any surrounding development.
Smith: The question of the first, second, third, etc., as designated on the
annexation petition really has no relationship to how the property could
be developed. It will be developed based on adequate provision of service
In all cases, sewer lines and water lines will have to be provided to the
area. That will begin to dictate how the property will be developed. I
don't think at this point there is any development schedule. What is beinc_
considered tonight is an annexation and zoning of the property. This is
not a development request.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 6
Solomon: The requests for development are a separate action.
Smith: That is correct. They would be separate actions that would come back
before the Planning and Zoning Board as specific project proposals as per
the condition of the rezoning that says that all the area will be developed
ultimately as a P.U.D.
Merle Blais: Landowner. I live just east of the second addition. Right now that area
is serviced by Poudre Valley REA. I assume that if it is annexed that
it will be serviced by the City.
Smith: Under the present policy it would be serviced by the City. We are working
on a negotiation right now with Poudre Valley REA to the transfer of
district area boundaries between the City and the district.
Blais: The same is true of water and sanitation.
Smith: No, the property will be served by the South Fort Collins Sanitation Distric
and the Loveland/Fort Collins Water District.
Blais: Trilby Road, as I understand it, is the division line between the Thompson
School District and Poudre Valley. How would that be affected.
Smith: At this point in time, development would be taken to Thompson Valley
School District. I would think that the school districts will be pursuing
some discussions on potentially seeking a boundary change. Various growth
management programs in the area have leaned toward that definition.
Phillip Collins: Landowner. I own land next to the first annexation. What strip are
they talking about that has this 1/6 contiguity.
Ross: To actually get enough total measurement to go around the square, they
had to include a strip along the northern side of the first.so that there
was perimeter on the north, on the west,as well as on the south giving
1/6 contiguity to that piece.
Collins: How long do you feel it will be before the City of Fort Collins takes over
the South Fort Collins Sanitation and Water District. I cannot afford to
pay the City what it will cost to irrigate my pastures.
Smith: The City is negotiating with the water and sanitation district for consider
ation of how to consolidate their operation. At this point there aren't
any agreements between the City or the district as to how those mergers,
consolidations, joint operations, should continue. Consequently, as the
City is annexing in areas where the district is providing the service
the City is following a policy it adopted in it's Land Use Policies Plan
that says that either the City or the district that can more effectively
provide service to the property will do so.
In terms of REA I really don't have an answer. It was discussed at the
City Council meeting. The staff's feeling is that the negotiations are
going fairly well. We are not looking to take over all of REA, it is a
very. -large area, but to work on a procedure whereby REA land would become
serviced by the City. I don't know a time frame it will depend on the
negotiations.
P & Z Board Meeting •
3/2, •/81
Page 7
Collins: Would it make a difference because I live north of the first.
Smith:
As long as you are outside of the City, you would be in REA. We do not
serve outside of the City limits with our power.
Collins:
I don't understand how you can jump when those lines run right in front
of our property.
Smith:
I'm not technically sure how it will all be served. It may be through an
arrangement to provide service off of those lines that we pay for. There
are a variety of techniques with electricity that can be used. It will
ultimately be decided when the development occurs and we get into specific
proposal for it.
Collins:
Do you plan to bring the sewer line all the way in.
Deines:
The sewer line that most of one, two, and three will use is on the
corner going east of two. That can be tied into.
Collins:
One other thing that concerns us is our view of the mountains. If there
would be four-plexes or highrises our view would be gone. Does that come
later.
Ross:
We will go into the overall zoning of the entire package with the next item
Assuming we designate a zoning to this parcel, we may not look at any plans
for two years, or they could be back in the next meeting. That is the time
when it will be addressed. You would be notified if you live within 500'.
Smith:
For the record, I did get a phone call from Katherine Silvrants who owns
property at 310 Regina Drive in Victoria Estates. She was opposed to the
annexation and zoning based on concerns over the utilities in the area.
Napheys:
It seems to me that the letter of the Interqovernmental Aoreement has been
taken advantage of and stretched beyond complete reason. We are asked
to annex 800 and some acres. I'm quite concerned about the types of service
to be provided. No mention was made here of the Police service. The
Ft. Collins Police Department would have to cross County roads and property
to adequately provide service. I have consistently voted against these
annexations to the south. We will next be asked to consider zoning 800
acres as one zone for P.U.D.'s. There will obviously need to be commercial
and other sorts of zones in this area. If we just had to deal with the
School District boundary line being one mile north, we could overcome that.
The police service problem ---if that was the only problem we could overcome
that. This whole thing seems to be completely out of line.
Haase:
One thing we have failed to point out here is the development that does
exist. Please point out what developments do exist.
Albertson -Clark:
The existing development is in the form of platted County subdivisions.
Victoria Estates lies to the east of the second annexation, Skyview
and Mountain Valley Acres are also included. There is some development
east of the third annexation that has not occurred through platting.
P & Z-Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 8
Clarke: Would not the second annexation now be available for development in the
County because of the proximity to Victoria Estates.
Smith: That is correct. As well as a portion of the third annexation.
Clarke: I think it is important to note that that could now happen in the County.
The City has tried to be quite aggressive in it's annexation to bring
land under control of the City, so to speak, so that development can be
planned and done in a proper manner. With the second area and part of
the third now eligible for development in the County it would not be long
until the fourth, fifth, and the rest of it could be developed with no
control whatsoever. Because of those particular reasons, I think that
annexation makes a lot of sense.
Napheys: I think more and more the issue is going to be the cost of providing the
services to the residents or the owners of the property within the City.
The costs and the problems associated with those costs are growing more
and more.
Clarke: It seems that one of the biggest problems in this area would be police
protection. We see that the utilities seem to be working things out ---
other utilities stand ready to serve. We have an interlocking agreement
with the Poudre Valley Fire District. This leaves concerns about police
protection that have not been answered. What is being done in that area.
Smith: The Police Department is providing service to all the annexed areas.
However, everything that we have annexed south of Harmony Road at this
point has basically been undeveloped. They don't patrol in that area,
there is no demand at that level for patrol service. They do respond
to calls as needed and required. That would be the same level of service
that would be provided in this area until it does become developed. The
costs will be handled through our five year planning and ultimate budget
process every year as to the allocation of dollars for police protection
services.
Clarke: Has this type of service caused an undo problem to the Police Department
or excessive cost, to your knowledge.
Smith: Not to my knowledge. It did cause some initial concern by the Department
in providing patrol districts. At that point, they looked at the option
that they really don't need to be patrolling it but more of being able
to respond to potential calls in those areas.
Stoner: Moves to recommend approval to City Council for Trilby Heights First
through Fifth Annexations.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-1. (Napheys voting no.)
P & Z Board
Minutes • •
3/23/81
Page 9
Smith:
Gave a brief report explaining the zoning requested. Recommended
approval of the zoning requests.
Ross:
The Deines' have stated that they do not have any real concrete plans
for this property at this time. I wonder if it might not be better to put
this in a transitional type zoning until some ideas have been formulated,
rather than arbitrarily sticking on something that will require density
shifts and rezonings down the line.
Smith:
Under the Guidance System, you do not need to rezone to increase the
density over 6 units/acre. You do not need to rezone to provide industria
or commercial use ---you simply need to go through the system. The questio
of T-zoning. At the applicant's request the City must rezone the property
to a developable zone within 60 days. If the applicant agreed with T-zoni
now, we would still be faced with a rezoning whenever they requested it.
Ile feel that the R-L-P with the P.U.D. condition is an appropriate zone
since we then have the Guidance System to review any use and all the
density requests that would come in.
Napheys:
Certainly in 800 acres there will be areas that will not be appropriate
for P.U.D. development. This points up the problem of going too far, too
fast.
Stoner: You can have an industrial P.U.D.
Napheys:
I think it is quite reasonable that it would be appropriate to have just
a plain subdivision without going through a P.U.D.
Ross:
But, that flexibility still exists in the Guidance System.
Smith:
A key point here. The P.U.D. condition requires them to meet whatever
phasing criteria are included within the Guidance System. If we didn't
put the condition on it, they could proceed with development of a standard
subdivision without meeting any of the phasing criteria. That is one
of the reasons that we felt this property particularly was necessary to
be developed as a P.U.U. so that those phasing criteria are addressed in
any development.
Deines:
I'm sorry, Mr. Napheys, that you feel the way you do. The Deines family
has been cooperating and intends to continue to cooperate with the County
and the City of Fort Collins.
Napheys:
I certainly have no animosity towards the Deines family. I am just
trying to be objective in analyzing this.
Stoner:
Moves to recommend approval of Trilby Heights First through Fifth
zoned R-L-P with the condition that it be developed as a P.U.D.
Clarke:
Second.
Vote
Ross
Motion carried 5-1. (Napheys voting no.)
Explains again that Item #19 was tabled but that Les Kaplan would like
to make a brief statement.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 10
Les Kaplan: I would just like to explain to some of the residents who might have
come to the meeting this evening why we have requested a tabling.
We had a meeting with the neighborhood on the 12th of this month, and
at that time there were some very probing questions asked about the
impact the project would have on the ridgeline of the mountains. Those
questions and some additional questions presented by staff which
did include height analysis prompted the applicant to order a survey
to be done in regard to where the tallest building would be with respect
to the ridgeline. Scheduling problems with the survey is what has
prompted this request for tabling. We feel that we will have a clearer
and more understandable presentation on height impacts next month.
20. #40-79A Second Replat of Landings 4th - Final
A request for final approval of a revision to a 33.11-acre PUD located
between Boardwalk Drive, Breakwater Drive and West Shore Way, zoned
R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: The Landings Ltd., c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W.
Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Smith:
Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Ross:
Explains that Ed Stoner will not be participating in this discussion.
Napheys:
What has been done to meet our concerns.
Chianese:
Specifically, one lot was removed which added a lot of separation between
the buildings. Also driveways were combined. Common driveways were intro-
duced which allowed more green space and parking space between the units.
Clarke:
Was there an addition of another duplex unit at Breakwater Court or is
that just as it was.
Chianese:
The other section has been left as it has been approved.
Reid Rosenthal:
Landings representative. Will answer any questions.
No questions of Mr. Rosenthal.
Steve Thorson:
Elected representative of the homeowners of the Landings. You have in
your packet a letter that I wrote today basically supporting this. You
may know that we had written the Planning Department a couple of weeks ago
expressing our concern about not being aware of what the specifics of this
plan were. We met with Mr. Rosenthal last week and our specific questions
were answered. Basically, we support the proposed changes that he has.
His reasons for those changes are rational and appropriate. We have no
objections to offer as the people who live nearest the areas in question.
Ross:
I understand that the Advisory Board has been made part of the mailing list
Thorson:
That is correct.
Napheys: Moves to approve the Second Replat of Landings 4th — Final. All the
concerns of the Board have been adequately met.
Gilfillan: Second.
P & Z Board M7.nutes
3/23j81
Page 11
Clarke:
I am still concerned about the one corner area and how tiaht it is. On
what appears to be a short area of frontage on the cul-de-sac there are
basically five units that are all sharing that same frontage into the
street. I'm concerned about traffic and the lack of the ability to park
off-street. We don't see the same quality of work that we see if we
proceed up Breakwater.
Rosenthal:
We have tried to compensate by providing extra parking. _A single-family
residence will not have as much vehicular traffic that a duplex would.
Originally we had planned this area for a duplex, but for the same
reasons that you expressed we changed it to single-family.
Vote:
Motion carried 4-1. (Clarke voting no, Stoner not voting.)
Clarke:
For the record, my vote is based on the fact that I am still not comfort-
able with the design of the cul-de-sac.
21. # 54-80A
Brown Farm Commercial Center PUD Revised - Preliminary
A preliminary request to revise a 4.6-acre portion of the Brown Farm
Commercial PUD, located at Taft Hill Road and Drake Road, zoned B-P,
Planned Business and R-P, Planned Residential.
Applicant: Wheeler Realty, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W. Mountain,
Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Smith:
Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Napheys:
Please explain what the difference is between this request and the
original request.
Chianese:
The request this time is just to revise the residential area. The
commercial area that was approved in the preliminary is not being
included. The project changes in terms of density and also dwelling
types. Originally we had approved 2-1/2 story garden type apartment
project with 52 units. That was at the maximum that the zoning allowed---
12 units per acre. This project changes the dwellings to 2 story town-
houses with 32 units. The density has dropped from 12 units per acre
to 7 units per acre.
Carr Bieker: ZVFK Architects/Planners. There has been a substantial reduction in the
number of units, primarily because the specific details of the project hav(
been better defined. 20 units have been essentially dropped. We are
attempting to do some interesting site planning and we are trying to be
sensitive to the neighbors to the north.
Joe Unzicker: 2131 Ayrshire. I'm curious as to how far the closest unit is to the
property line now. When it was originally proposed the parking lot was
about 101away, we were adamantly opposed to it. I can see that you have
backed off the parking, how close is the closest unit.
Bieker: We don't get any closer than 20' from the unit to the property line.
We have a continuous 20' buffer. We have turned the units specifically
so that the impact is lessened.
Unzicker: Was there any plan for a fence along the back of that property.
Bieker: We would like to treat it with landscaping.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 12
Haase: Will these be rental units.
Bieker: They are conceived as condominiums.
Haase: You mentioned the uniqueness of the parking.
Bieker: Essentially the two parking courts have trees planted interspersed between
cars. They break up the automobile impact and create a "landscaped parking
court instead of a hard surface parking treatment that you usually find.
Stoner: Moves to approve the Brown Farm Commercial PUD Revised - Preliminary.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 6-0.
23. #14-81
1420 North College PUD - Preliminary and Final
A request for preliminary and final approval of a 0.5-acre commercial
PUD of a three -bay carwash, located east of College Avenue, south of
Bristlecone Drive, zoned H-B, Highway Business.
Applicant: Poudre Corp., Bernie Cain, President, P.O. Box 7, Fort
Collins, CO 80522.
Smith:
Gave a staff report recommending approval of both the PUD and the variance
to the two acre minimum lot size.
Haase:
At work session we discussed the problem with the alley and the improve-
ment district. Would you summarize that.
Smith:
The property will exit onto an unimproved alley. The property -owner
in the subdivision agreement for this area has agreed to participate in
any improvement district that the City forms to improve that alley. At
the same time, the City went on record in that agreement stating that
we will not at City expense go in and improve that alley at the property -
owner's request.
Bernie Cain:
Poudre Corporation. I think the plan is fairly explanatory. I will be
glad to answer questions.
No questions.
Clarke:
Moves to approve the Preliminary and Final PUD for 1420 North College
and also to approve the variance from the two acre requirement for
development as a PUD.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
P & Z Board Minutes ! •
3/23/81
Page 13
24. #15-81 Special Review of Larico Group Home
A request to change the maximum authorized number of residents from six
to eight at the existing Larico Youth Group Home located at 640 West
Prospect Street, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential.
Applicant: Larico Youth Homes, Inc., 614 S. Mathews Street, Fort Collins
80524.
Deibel:
Gave a staff report recommending approval. We did recieve one letter fror
a property owner that is supportive of the request.
Art Bavoso:
Executive Director of the Program: We have two facilities in Fort Collins
One is located at 614 So. Mathews. That falls in the R-H zone so does
not apply to the criteria that was set by the City Council. About
a year ago we were approached by the local County Department of Social
Services to expand this particular facility to be able to accommodate
residents on a short term basis. This is our short term facility. We
have residents who come and stay from one to three months. The need was
to be able to accommodate more kids in this particular area.
Stoner:
Have you ever gone over the limit.
Bavoso:
No. What we have had to do is prematurely, if need be, transfer a resider
over to our Mathew Street program.
Haase:
I would like to compliment you on your excellent letter of March 2, that
you sent to the fellow homeowners in the neighborhood, previewing what you
were going to request to the Planning and Zoning Board and explaining your
reasoning. It was a very outstanding letter.
Stoner:
Moves to recommend approval of this request to provide for up to eight
residents at the Larico Prospect Street group home.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 6-0.
26. #144-80
Dixon Creek PUD - Preliminary
Preliminary approval of a 58.7-acre residential PUD at Overland Trail and
Drake Road, zoned R-P, Planned Residential, with 409 patio homes, townhome
and flats.
Applicant: D. Jenson Enterprises, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 W.
Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Smith:
Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Eldon Ward:
There are some fairly unique things going on here. We have a site that
has not been farmed, it has natural vegetation ---native grasses and some
cottonwood trees. The site has Dixon Creek running through it. We are
dealing with a site that is not that common in town. We are looking very
strongly at making sure that all of the patio homes have good solar access.
We are looking into a lot of energy conservation methods. We have a mix
of housing types which we think lead to a lot of variety. We are going
to preserve as much bf the indigenous environment as we can.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 14
Haase: What is the width of Seccomb Court.
Ward: It is proposed as a 28' street on a 40' right-of-way. It is one of the
streets in the new Engineering Standards for a minor local street in a
PUD.
Haase:
What is the parking situation for people using the clubhouse -pool -tennis
complex.
Ward:
That street allows parking on one side. That whole stretch of that road
from Dixon Creek Road to the intersection of the next local street has
only five lots, of which two of them will get their access off of the
cul-de-sac. We felt that there was probably adequate on -street parking
without invading that green area.
Haase:
Will there be parking on both sides of Dixon Creek Road.
Ward:
At the moment, I think that parking is allowed. Although I think that
the City is moving towards not allowing parking on those types of collector
streets. We do not have any units that access directly on to Dixon Creek
Road.
Haase:
Again with the parking issue, noted here is that the condominium townhomes
require 237 spaces for parking. Yet 233 are provided. One realizes that
you have an excess with the condominium flats. When you total it up, you
have 17 extra parking places for the entire development including the patio
homes. Why the deficiency with the condominium townhomes.
Ward:
We are going to be looking at the parking distribution again in the final.
The condominium townhomes are situated in places where there is ample on -
street parking available. We have tried to situate our parking and garages
with those unit types to provide some courtyard areas. We have tried to
control how our parking is laid out to avoid the negative impact in those
areas. If the Board feels strongly about that we can certainly manipulate
the parking to find those extra four spaces.
Stoner:
Since you have lined up Yorkshire with Dixon, isn't there going to be a
conflict there. Aren't you going to have to call that Yorkshire.
Ward: We hope not.
Smith: Yes you will.
Ward: That street serves as the main entryway to this project. We would like
to arrive at some way that we can keep some identity with that street.
There is very little desire for cross traffic. Both streets serve as
a method of getting residents of the respective sections out on to the
arterial. If there is going to be a break ,that is certainly a good place
for it. We would like to keep the street name for project identity.
Haase: What do you estimate as the build -out time for this project.
Ward: We are looking at probably 7-10 years.
P.& Z Board Minutes
3/23/81 •
Page 15
Clarke: Moves to approve the request for the preliminary PUD subject to the
naming of that street.
Haase:
Second.
Napheys: Who is responsible for naming streets.
Smith: The applicant is responsible for providing street names. The City staff
reviews them prior to assigning the street names at a final point to make
sure that there are no duplicate names and to make sure that the various
streets that line up are consistently named. It is done at the time of a
final plan approval rather than the preliminary.
Napheys: At the time that this is submitted for final approval there would be one
name for that particular street.
Smith: We would require that as part of the staff condition.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
Haase: I would like to comment about the good solar application in the use of
passive solar here and a very attractive site. Also a notation to
Poudre P,-1 School District, please note the population projections and
effect on Blevins Junior High School with the reserve capacity at zero.
27. #11-81 Huntington Mews PUD Master Plan
A master plan for 296-acres, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential,
located one -mile south of Harmony Road, east of College Avenue.
Applicant: Stephen Olt, Resource Consultants, Inc., P.O. Box Q, Fort
Collins, CO 80522.
Smith: Gave a staff report stressing the proposed dedication of parkland.
Steve Olt: I think the project can stand on it's own. It reflects a somewhat
rural atmosphere south and east of Fort Collins. Fossil Creek running
through the northern portion of the master plan creates great potential
for recreational development. The potential dedication of excessive
parklands to the City, we feel, would be a tremendous amenity to both
the City and the project.
Stoner: Who does the water in the reservoir belong to.
Olt:
Napheys:
Smith:
Napheys:
Smith:
That belongs to the owner. The water would be dedicated with the reservoir
itself.
What is the nearest neighborhood service center.
There is a proposed retail center east of the area. It is a property that
is zoned B-P. We have not seen a specific proposal on it.
Would that take care of the population in accordance with the formulas that
you have.
Definitely. There is also in that area another one about 3/4 mile north
of that site and one approximately 1 mile to the south.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 16
Napheys: Are those on south College.
Smith: No, those are both on Lemay Avenue.
Napheys:
Proposed or acutal.
Smith:
They are proposed facilities on properties zoned B-P.
Napheys:
If this were being considered as a P.U.D. according to the Guidance
System, where is the contiguity.
Smith:
In terms of specific development, there is none. They would not meet that
criteria. Again, under the Guidance System, the master plan versus the
preliminary plan would not go through the specific criteria but is
reviewed on it's own merits based on Land Use Policies. That is only
because the detail is not there in a master plan to review all of the
specific criteria.
Napheys:
Assuming we approve this master plan and they come in with Phase One,
would that be under the new system.
Smith:
Phase One is before you tonight as a final plan and it is approved
under the old system.
Napheys:
What about Phase Two.
Smith:
Phase Two would definitely come under the new system.
Napheys:
Phase One is not anywhere near anything that is developed now is it.
Olt.:
It's about one quarter of a mile south of Fossil Creek Meadows which is
about 60% built.
Smith:
It is also due east of the Kel-Mar Strip Commercial area where existing
development structures already exist.
Clarke:
The reservoir appears to be filled by an inlet ditch and not Fossil Creek.
Olt:
It is diverted out of Fossil Creek into Fossil Creek Meadows to the north
and west of the master plan. There is a diversion structure just east of
Highway 287.
Clarke:
Therefore, there is no outlet to Portner Reservoir --water does not go
through Portner Reservoir and on to the east.
Olt:
There is an outlet but it is non-functional. We intend to improve that.
Actually lower the dam and fill the area below the dam at some point.
It would be necessary to make the parklands functional.
Clarke:
So what you are saying is that as part of the master plan you are showing
that reservoir with no outlet. It's there but you are not going to use it.
Olt:
No, we intend to use it. It will probably be piped underground from the
dam to the east.
Clarke:
The water that comes into that particular reservoir --is there a guarantee
or any kind of way that we can know that there will be a supply of water
to that reservoir in the future.
P & Z Board Minutes i •
3/23/81
Page 17
Olt: I am not totally versed on the water rights associated with it, but they
are there. The water rights to keep the reservoir filled to a level
that we intend to designate are attached to the property.
Clarke:
That would be conferred onto the City in terms of their ability to keep
the reservoir at a reasonable level. I guess my concern is that we don't
end up with a dry mudhole.
Olt:
The potential of that is nil. The water rights are there with the reservo
and with the property.
Clarke:
There is quite a bit of land in this project that is in the flood plain
area, what kind of treatment do you intend to offer in that area.
Olt:
Basically, that will be developed as a trail system. We have no immediate
plans to develop any amenities such as a ball .park or anything like that.
Stoner:
Let me get this right. You are planning on improving the dam so that it
drains correctly and you will dedicate that to the City plus you are plann
on dedicating the water rights to the City.
Olt:
That's right.
Stoner:
You are not going to use the water rights to allocate toward your being
able to buy taps.
Olt.:
No.
Stoner:
Do you know how many acre feet are being dedicated. Is it enough to keep
the lake full.
Olt:
Yes, definitely.
Smith:
The staff is looking at that in terms of making sure that we don't get a
dry mudhole.
Ann McSay:
I have some questions on the exits on Saturn Drive. I am concerned about
how wide the street is supposed to be ---I don't think there is enough acce<_
through there.
Smith:
At this point, there is a 30' accessway through that area. 30' is obviousl
not enough for a collector street but it is enough for immediate access.
We need to be working as a City in improving that access to wider areas.
We feel that for a temporary solution that the 30' accessway will provide
enough area to provide travel lanes into the project.We will be working wit
the Kel-Mar Strip area in improving to meet the City street standards and
ultimately developing a road through that area.
McSay:
Can you explain what the area to the south is.
Albertson -Clark:
There is a drainageway being developed with Phase Three and Phase Six.
McSay:
I would like some clarification on that. I'm wondering where that drain-
age is coming from and what the influence will be.
Olt:
The drainage is coming from the west and continues through Village Grove.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 18
Olt: (cont.) This will be addressed in Phase Three and Phase Six. We are just in
the initial stages.
McSay: I'm to the southeast of Village Grove. I'm wondering if that would back
up water onto my property or if he is going to improve the natural
drainage.
Olt: We recognize the fact that there is a natural drainage running the
south line of Huntington Mews. When we submit Phase Three and Six we
will address the drainage problem.
Ross: Could the work that you do in the earlier phases in itself create problems
in the latter phases.
Olt: No, because we are handling that in the detention areas in the earlier
phases. I can't speak for what will happen in Village Grove, we are
addressing the detention problem within the first phase of Huntington
Mews.
McSay: Right now I don't see any local access streets going to the south. I'm
wondering if there is any estimated amount of traffic that this master
plan would have on Kyle Avenue and Lynn Drive. Also, could I have an
estimated time for development for Phase One and the entire master plan.
Olt: At this point we don't show any streets penetrating to the south. At one
point we had two dedicated streets in Lynn Acres coming off of Skyview
Drive. We really don't know what the disposition of those are.
In terms of the build out time of the project, we are anticipating the
first phase to be developed between April and August of 1981. Depending
on the economy the project will be built out in 10-12 years.
Paul Eckman: I recall some discussion and concern on the part of the Board about the
water rights in connection with the reservoir. If the Board is concerned
and considering the Portner Reservoir as an important aspect of its
recommendation, you might want to consider also the adequacy of the water
rights to fill the reservoir. In your recommendation include a condition
that the City review these water rights as to that adequacy.
Hasse: We should acknowledge the communication from Alan Apt who was unable to
be here this evening because of illness. The statement from Apt basically
stated that approval of this development is very immature. This develop-
ment is in a newly annexed fringe area and should not be encouraged when
so much land remains to be in -filled. This development will have the
undesirable effect of being the domino that gives contiguity for more
fringe, untimely, unphased development. It is time to stop encouraging
rapid sprawl development to the south when so much undeveloped land exists
close in. Approving this development sets a very poor precedent.
Stoner: Wasn't this kind of a unique deal between the Guidance System and the old
way.
'P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 19
Smith:
I'll try to give a brief summary of what has happened with this
project.
The first phase of this project was brought before the Board over a year
ago. The Board recommended approval of the plan to the County as a
County Referral. At that point the County went ahead and considered it
up to the County Commissioners at about which time the Intergovernmental
Agreement was signed. The County Commissioners tabled the item until
the item became eligible for annexation. It would have been processed
relatively rapidly, however, there was some disagreement between the
owners as to timing. So, it took them quite awhile to get exactly who
owned the property to sign all of the plats necessary for annexation.
The master plan has been amended to be in compliance with the existing
zoning in the City. The density has been increased from what was
initally shown on that site.
Ross:
What is your opinion as to the statements in Apt's letter.
Smith:
In terms of using this item to meet future contiguity, he is correct.In
terms of it being premature the Board did recommend approval and the City
did recommend approval of the development as a County Referral. I think,
as staff, we concur that it is not Premature at this stage. It is in
a developing area of the City as the City continues to grow.
Wapheys:
I find myself in a position to echo Mr. Apt's comments generally.
William Dunn:
Developer. I think that we got involved in a Catch 22 situation. We had
received previous approval of the subdivision. The master plan has been
changed from what was a very suburban or rural type design to one to matcl
criteria that the City is striving for. I think that we are achieving thai
The fact that we are on the south edge instead of some of the closer in
property, I think is an advantage to the City. We do offer some of the
other advantages that the City is looking for, such as the reservoir and
the parks. As to the water question, we do intend to deed enough water
shares to the City so that it stays full.
Smiths:
The basic Urban Growth Area line was drawn as a phasing line. A very long-
term phasing line. There has been a lot of discussion that we have to draw
the line here , or have to draw the line at this project. In formulating
the Urban Growth Area Agreement one of the ideas was that can't draw
,you
it too close to the City because there is already a lot of development
that is just outside of the City. It was agreed that we had to look at
a much longer term phasing line that dealt with an ultimate urbanized area -
at least a very long-term urbanized area. If we could begin at that timE
by drawing some lines and defining a very large area, but one that we woul<
hold to, that would be the area that we would expect to be urbanized in
the future. We're talking about as many as 300,000 people living within
the Urban Growth Area. I think by drawing that line we are talking about
a phasing boundary for the City in a longer term and in -filling that area.
Granted there will be some areas that do jump ---the market will determine
where those areas tend to be. There have been a lot of problems that have
been created by the rapid growth in Fort Collins between 1965 and 1979.
Hopefully, we can preclude those problems from getting worse and start now
in -filling the urbanizing areas.
Gilfillan:
In the development of Phases Two, Three, or Four, what would be the
ingress and egress of traffic off of College through Fossil Creek going
into your subdivision. I would strongly recommend consideration of the
development of the access off of Lemay.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 20
Dunn: I think that is a legitimate concern. The City has come up with a new
general traffic pattern. Our old master plan di.dn't account for the major
development along our north property line to Lemay. We have revised the
master plan to match the City's long term planning for the traffic.
Napheys: It appears that this Huntington Mews is too far south, too soon. We have
too much available to develop north.
Haase: Moves to approve the Huntington Mews P.U.D. Master Plan with the condition
that the City review the water rights as offered to us and as exist at
present.
Stoner
Second.
Vote: Motion carried 5-1 (Napheys voting no.)
Haase: I would like to second Curt's remarks that the Urban Growth Area phasing
line is indeed that of a long-term plan and not something 2-5 years in limi
From the viewpoint of a Board member, I support this master plan with the
idea that the phasing and the development is indeed long-term and that
the market will guide us. I also would like to commend the developer for
his interest in donating Portner Reservoir for a park site and the water
rights. It is a very commendable gesture.
28. #11-81A Huntington Mews PUD Phase I, Preliminary
Preliminary approval of a 43.4-acre PUD with 106 single-family units,
zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, located one -mile south of
Harmony Road, east of College Avenue.
Applicant: Stephen Olt, Resource Consultants, Inc., P.O. Box Q,
Fort Collins, CO 80522.
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Olt: I would just point out that this first phase is entirely a single-family
development. We have retained the original density.
Haase: Is this in the Poudre R-1 School District.
Olt: Yes.
Clarke: Moves to approve the preliminary PUD for Huntington Mews Phase I.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried
5-1.
(Napheys voting
no.)
Haase:
I'm concerned
this
is relative also
to the master plan with the enroll-
ment impact on
the
Poudre R-1 School
District. Please note the impact
particularly on
the
Junior High and
Senior High level.
29. #31-81
Summers Subdivision
A request to subdivide 2.76-acres into two lots, zoned C-Commercial,
located one mile east of Fort Collins, on the south side of Highway 14.
Applicant: Jerry and Patricia Summers, 261 Linden, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
P & Z Board Minutes • .
3/23/81
Page' 21
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to three conditions.
1.) That the access be a maximum of 35' in width. 2.) That curb and
gutter be provided along both sides of the frontage road, 28' flowline-
to-flowline be provided. 3.) That "no parking" signs be provided on the
frontage road.
Napheys:
What is the applicant's position concerning your conditions.
Smith:
I don't think they are here. On County Referrals we don't get into
active discussion with the applicant. The items generally go on to
the County and at that point they are discussed between the County
Commissioners or the County Planning and Zoning Board and the applicant.
A lot of these come in very late and we just don't have time to discuss
all of them with the applicant. We don't know their response. These
are items that have come up with both the City staff and the Highway
Department.
Napheys:
What is the approximate cost of complying with the conditions.
Smith:
Basically, they are pretty standard improvement costs for any urban
development within the City. I don't know the specific costs but they
are nothing that are out of ordinary or out of line with standard urban
development.
Stoner:
How much frontage does he have on the frontage road.
Albertson -Clark:
Applicant has about 300' of frontage on the frontage road.
Stoner:
I'll bring up the same thing that I brought up Friday. In doing the
north side of the street we will end up with curb and gutter on one side
and then the lot will be vacant for a long time. Someone, for sure,
will run into that curb sticking out there by itself.
Smith:
That same question was raised and discussed by the Engineers. Perhaps
that department could respond.
Maurie Rupel:
The main reason we had for this is that we do need the curb and gutter
for drainage control eventually. Admittedly we will have some areas that
we will have curb and gutter and then nothing. But, this can be protectec
by proper grading and proper signing or whatever is necessary. We don't
have to leave it with a sharp edge if it looks like it is something that
will cause a problem.
Stoner:
Can't this just be agreed to that the owner would do it at the time of
development.
Rupel:
I don't think that we are saying that it has to be done at this time, I
think that we are asking the developer to commit himself to do it when
it is asked for. We have to have some kind of commitment that it be done
when it is required.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 22
Ross: What if the developer sells it to someone else and no longer is involved
with it.
Rupel: It goes with the land.
Ross: Does it become like a deed restriction --a person shouldn't be able to
buy it without knowing.
Rupel: That is correct. It would be basically a lien against the property.
Smith: I'm not that familiar with the County Subdivision Regulations to know
how it would work. They do have an improvements agreement that generally
have to be complied with in two years. Then they are either renewed or
denied.
Ross: Assuming we approve this, could you address this in your letter.
Smith: Yes. If we are feeling that we don't need it built we can talk about
having to commit to build it sometime down the road. We can address that
and work that out along those lines.
Napheys: Moves to recommend to the County approval of the Summers Subdivision
subject to the three conditions: 1.) The combined access be a maximum
of 35' wide. 2.) Curb and gutter be provided along both sides of the
frontage road 28' flowline-to-flowline. 3.) "No Parking" signs be
provided on the frontage road.
Haase:
Second.
Stoner:
Does that mean that immediately that has to be provided.
Hapheys:
I don't know the timing of it.
Smith:
In this kind of situation, it probably (if agreeable with the Engineer)coi
be done with the rest of the area or at the time that it is needed.
Mr. Stoner's point is well taken, sometimes you put in a curb out in the
middle of no place and it doesn't do a lot of good. We will need to get
back with the Engineer to make sure that that is a full understanding.
I don't think we need it built tomorrow.
Rupel:
I was party to that meeting with the State. The State is requesting that
we get this started somewhere along the frontage roads because the State
ends up putting them in if it isn't required of the developer. Some
commitment has to be made by the developer to get this done.
Smith:
I think you will find that this will be tied down --probably no more than
a two year period because that is their normal subdivision agreement.
Vote:
Motion carried 6-0.
30. #20-81
Robbins Exemption
A two -lot exemption request on 87.4-acres, zoned FA-1, Farming, located
one mile south of Harmony Road, on the west side of Shields Stree.
Applicant: James H. Robbins, 5817 S. Shields Street, Fort Collins,
Co 80526.
P & Z Board Minutes .
3/23/81
Page 23
Sriith: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to an additional 20'
right-of-way along Shields Street on both tracts being dedicated to the
County.
Haase: We understand that the reason here is that the owner wishes to deed the
property to his son, is that correct.
Smith: That is my understanding.
John Kochenburger: Attorney for the Robbins. There is a park fee that is collected by
the County for the purpose of building a park. We would ask that the Cit;
would recommend that the park fee not be deemed necessary in this instant'(
The Robbins wish to deed 5 acres off to their son so that he can build a
house on it. It is not a development, he just wants a tract for his son.
The City has recommended an additional 20' for the road. We're asking to
be exempted from the subdivision regulation ---we do not want to be include
as a subdivision.By taking the 20' for the road, he will probably be
required to give up what is equivalent to 15 to 20 percent of the land
that it's going to take for his son's lot. I don't think it is fair to
impose on him the additional 20' just so that he can have his son build a
house.
Haase:
This relates to the 20' right-of-way. What does the new Master Street
Plan say about South Shields and that area.
Smith:
It is an arterial street designated with 100' right-of-way.
Kochenburger:
We would agree not to build in that area. He has to give to the City
a fifth as much as he is going to give to his son.
Ross:
I think it has to do with the fact that you are asking for something that
the County is not obligated to do. This way they will not have to condemr
and pay for that right-of-way in the future.You give a little and you get
a little. I'm unfamiliar with the park fee situation.
Kochenburger:
In the Intergovernmental Agreement they are required to assess a fee for
parklands.
Smith:
As part of the agreement the County agreed to collect a park fee equivaler
to the City's park fee for all development approved after the Intergovern-
mental Agreement was signed. I think the staff is concerned and would not
support a recommendation to waive it. The park fee is designed for develop
ment and we feel that any development should be contributing to the ultin
park system in the area.
Napheys:
We're just talking about an exemption now. When they do ask for a
building permit we won't even be involved.
Smith:
I think that is why they are trying to get it cleared up now.
Napheys:
Wouldn't we be overstepping our bounds even to get into that.
Smith:
Possibly. Again, it's an item that just came up today. We don't ever
waive the park fee in the City so I can't imagine that we would agree to
waive it anyplace else.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 24
Kochenburger: It seems incredible to me that a man spends half his life building up
a farm and then he wants to give a little piece to his son and he has
to donate park fees and roads.
Napheys: We faced a similar situation before and we did consider that requiring
20' right -or -way was unreasonable.
Ross: What did the County do with that, it was over off of Willox Lane and
Shields.
Smith: I don't know.
Napheys: As to the park fees, this is 1981 and we do have park fees now which we
didn't have in the olden days. I do think we should look a little closer
at whether we should recommend the 20' dedication.
Kochenburger: Would the Board consider just the 20' on the piece that is being split
off and leave the rest of the farm alone.
Stoner: On the Willox Exemption we took the 20' on both sides.
Clarke: No we didn't,we backed off.
Ross: I think it is a little premature to have to give it up now but I think tha
an agreement to give it up when the road is widened is a different situa-
tion.
Smith:
I recall that on the Willox Exemption that we requested that the right-
of-way be dedicated on the parcel that was being exempted off ---not on the
whole area. I don't know what the County did with that.
Haase:
There is some information that probably should be shared at this point.
A hearing is scheduled April 6 with the County Planning Commission regardi
review and change of the Exemption Regulations in the County. I passed
out the draft copy of March 17 to members,received this evening. It
indicates on Page 2, Item I, "Dedication of additional right-of-way has,
per the Larimer County Functional Classification Study.... within the Urban
Growth Area of Fort Collins or Loveland, the dedication of additional
right-of-way shall be as required by the affected City."
Napheys:
Moves to recommend to the County approval of the exemption subject to
20' right-of-way along Shields Street on the 5.4 acre tract being
dedicated to the County for the right-of-way purpose.
Clarke:
Second.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
P•& Z Board Minutes
3/23/81 • .
Page. 25
31. 7421-81 Moody Exemption
A two -lot exemption request on 40. 3-acres zoned FA-1, Farming,. I ocated
one-half mile east of I-25, on the south side of Highway 14.
Applicant: Jay Moody 1719 E. Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending denial of this exemption because the
development proposed is not consistent with the intent of the Urban Growti
Area.
Pete Delgado: The existing farmhouse is sitting on this piece of property. Mr. Moody
would like to keep the farmhouse with that small tract and the remainder
would remain intact and come in as a PUD.
Stoner: Why can't he bring it in as a PUD altogether.
Delgado: He would like to keep that and break that off and he may sell the
remainder.
Smith: It seems to me that he could sell the remainder based on a contract
coming in with the proposal that would include that ---tract it off as
a lot and sell it like that.
Gilfillan: On the property due south of this, has the County approved those two
requests.
Smith: They denied both of those projects.
Delgado: We could still go ahead and sell it with the exemption that we are
asking for and still leave that remainder attached. That still has
to come before you. That is going to have to be consistent with the
zoning that was given on the other 40 acres.
Napheys: Was that request to the south that you indicated that the County had
denied was that denied before or after the expansion of the County Board.
Smith: After, and it was denied unaimously.
Stoner: What is the present use of those 40 acres.
Delgado: Farming.
Stoner: I argued this point at work session that I didn't see much difference
between this one and the last one as far as the exemption process.
Moves to recommend to the County to approve the exemption .
Haase: Second.
Smith: We were ready that if this came up the State Highway Department has
asked right-of-way dedication in this case of about 35' on Highway 14.
Stoner: Is that the only request.
Smith: Yes.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page- 26
Stoner: Amended Motion- Moves to recommend to the County to approve the exemption
and to include the 35' right-of-way required by the State Highway Depart-
ment as part of the exemption.
Haase
Second.
Napheys: Again, what are the differences between this request and the Robbins
Exemption.
Smith: Again, the difference that staff is pointing out is the fact the Robbins
Exemption is in an area that has existing large -lot development in the
immediate vicinity. This particular area does not have that same condition
and will ultimately all be developed, more than likely, as an urban
density and one 5-acre tract will probably find it very incompatible to
be in an area surrounded by that type of development. The Robbins
Exemption will have other development of the same nature in the immediate
area.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
32. #29-81 Bisceglia Special Review
A request for Special Review approval to permit a driving range in the
C-Commercial zoning district, located one mile east of Fort Collins,
on the south side of Highway 14.
Applicant: Jack Bisceglia, 4640 E. County Road 66, Wellington, CO 80549.
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval subject to 1.) The Poudre River
floodplain be delineated on the site plan. 2.) Existing and proposed
curb cuts on the Frontage Road be delineated on the site plan. 3.) The
applicant agrees to participate in future Frontage Road improvements.
Roy Whittstruck: The frontage area (the small neck area) is not owned by Mr. Bisceglia.
There is an easement that attaches to that land there, but the land is
owned by someone else.Our easement allows us ingress and egress to the
property but I don't think we could agree to cooperate regarding any
curb -cuts or anything else there because we don't own title to the land.
Ross: Are you buying the ground or leasing it from the people who do own the
land.
Whittstruck: The land was purchased from the Adams -Schneider estate. When the property
was divided up the easement was attached.
Ross: Schneider kept the easement original.
Whittstruck: Yes.
Stoner: How does that work.
Eckman: I don't see any way, in the absence of the participation of the owner of
that property, that Mr. Bisceglia could commit that owner to curb -cuts.
Stoner: Obviously, we could make it contingent upon them making that agreement.
Eckman: We could do that and the inclusion of that property owner in the applicatic
P & L Board Minutes •
3/23/81
Page 27
Ross: I think we have to be realistic. I don't think Panama Red's is going
to agree to anything like that.
Napheys: I don't know that that is necessarily so. It may just be so many words,
but we could recommend approval on the conditon that the applicant use
his best efforts to obtain the curb -cuts.
Smith: Again, I think the idea is to show where they are existing and ultimately
where they would be when it got done. We are looking at trying to tie
down some curb -cuts in that area.
Napheys: When the staff made the recommendations with the conditions did the staff
know that this was merely an easement.
Smith: No.
Whittstruck: We really have no control over what the owners of Panama Red's will want
to do. We have a legal right to ingress and egress to the property, but
in terms of what they want to do in terms of curb -cuts we would have no
say.
Napheys: Do you have any right to determine how that access is affected.
Whittstruck: I think as a legal matter we could not be placed in an unreasonable
position in the event that.the City later determined the curb -cut
elsewhere than it is now .
Napheys: In terms of your easement, are you required to maintain it.
Whittstruck: No.
Tape inaudible.
Stoner:
Can you hit the golf balls as far as a normal golf ball.
Jack Bisceglia:
Yes.
Napheys:
It seems to me that pursuant to some legal agreement they can require
Panama Red's to dovetail on to their agreement.
Eckman:
In analyzing that distinction, it seems to me, that if you are considerinc
the question of curb -cuts on the frontage road you are considering a
question which effects the property -owner who is not a party to this.
Where you are considering the question of participating in frontage road
improvement you are not involving that property owner ---you are just
involving this property owner and the City.
Napheys:
What is the value of requiring that.
Smith:
Ultimately,they don't have to come in and force them to participate in
an improvement district or that when the area is done that we have their
voluntary cooperation in building that street.
Napheys:
What sort of money are we talking about.
Rupel:
Curb and gutter run about $5/ft. Sidewalk will run also about $546 /ft.
Your street, if there is nothing there now, will run about $20/ft.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 28
Tape inaudible - paving discussed to some extent.
Clarke: I can't imagine you coming and telling Panama Red's that you will pave
a driveway to keep the dust down and that they would turn you down.
I'm a little skeptical of this lack of ability to work with Panama Red's.
Whittstruck: I'm sorry,I don't mean to create the impression that we can't work with
Panama Red's. What I'm saying is that as they have been using that properi
as a parking area, to come in and pave it as a road may not fit with their
use.
Clarke: It makes your easement a little tenuous. I can't imagine you sinking the
money into this without having it nailed down a little better.
Napheys: Can we require them to pave this easement.
Smith: If the Board is concerned about making a pavement, they could make a
recommendation, you are not making the final decision. The County can
decide whether it is legal or not legal to make that requirement.
Ross: Is it going to be necessary for you to put up a fence.
Bisceglia: So far we don't intend to.
Ross: I don't know that you can since it is a floodway. If you were worried
about people coming to your area, I don't know that you can fence it.
I frankly think that you shouldn't have come the the P & Z meeting not
knowing what you could do with that easement.
Haase: Moves to recommend to the Larimer County Planning Commission approval of
the Bisceglia Special Review to permit a golf driving range subject to thi
conditions ].)The Poudre River floodplain be delineated on the site plan.
2.) The applicant agrees to participate in future frontage road improvdmen
3.) That there be encouragement of our recommendation as discussed here
at this meeting of paving the easement.
Napheys: Second.
Bisceglia: Points out that the spelling of his name on the map is incorrect.
Vote Motion carried 6-0.
33. #32-81 Ridgeline Hills North and South Subdivisions
A request to subdivide 10.5 acres into 4-lots and 43.1-acres into 6-lots,
located at County Roads 42C and 23C, near Horsetooth Reservoir, zoned
FA-1, Farming
Applicant: Joseph Roesser, Jr., 211 W. Mirtle, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
3/23(81
Page 29
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending denial.
Walter Brown: The impact altogether in terms of number of lots is very minimal. We
are proposing a number of covenants. We would not produce the project
unless those covenants were part of the land. The general concensus of
the people who live in that area is that they are in favor of our project.
One of the covenants would state that no home could break a ridgeline.
The teeth of our covenants would be a building envelope that would be
approved and recorded. This would site the house, it would also put it
in a location that would provide minimal earth -moving. The important
thing is the quality of the homes in terms of materials. There would be
strict covenants that would require that homes be built out of "natural"
"non -reflective" materials. Another covenant that will be required is
the Pure -Cycle System, the self-contained waste disposal water purificatic
package plan. One of the advantages of this system is that it requires
less earth -moving and disturbing of the natural soils. Pure -Cycle is
approved in the County and the State ---it is not an experimental system.
This system recycles wastewater and has never had a failure.
I'd like to comment on the geology. In a County study it has been stated
that the area is geologically safe to persons and property. Also, there
is the dam in that area. I suspect that the Corps of Engineers had a
pretty good idea that the land was fairly stable before they hung all
of that water over Fort Collins.
To reiterate, the homes would drop back into the hill and be made of
natural material. The silhouette would not be abrasive, sticking
up on
that eastern slope. We only have 2 home sites on the southern
part. They
would be very little driveway work just off that ridge through
the
eastern slope.
Napheys:
Frankly, I don't understand what we are being asked to approve.
You
indicated at first that there were 8 existing lots.
Brown:
The whole area has 34 lots already approved.
Napheys:
You are asking for how many more.
Brown:
There are 34 total and right now there are actually 11 lots on
the
eastern face. Three of them are included in our property. We
are
requesting that 53 some odd acres be divided into 10 lots. We
do already
have 3 legal lots there.
Ross: What about fire protection.
Brown: The interior area that we were talking about has a sprinkler system that
has been vastly improved in the past years. It has a separate power
and storage system. This system was tested by the City of Fort Collins
Fire Department.
Gilfillan: [lave you found lenders receptive to these kinds of conditions ---locally.
Brown: Yes we have.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 30
Joe Roesser: I drew the engineering plans for the plan and I own half of the land. We
have been working on this for about a year to put the technical issues
in the proper perspective.
As for the sprinkler system it is approved by the National Fire Writers
Association. The insurance companies have seen fit to reduce rates 20%-
25% for a home that would be spri,nklered. As far as the package plant
(Pure -Cycle) we propose to use one package plant per home. This is
a completely enclosed system that shelves into the garage. It has been
approved by the State Health and Larimer County. It is maintained by
the same company that produces the system.
Ross: Is that a local company here in town.
Roesser: They produce that system in Boul.der.
Smith: I agree that they are in operation, but has the County Health Department
approved the use of Pure Cycle for your project. What have their comments
been.
Roesser: The comment that they have is that the system is experimental. They
approve the concept of installing Pure -Cycle on our project.
Haase: Is there a successful operation of Pure -Cycle here in Larimer County.
Roesser: Yes. It is in the southern part of Larimer County. There are many in
the Boulder area.
We would hope
that you would make a recommendation conditional upon what
we say we are
going to do and not what we hope to do. We don't intend
to put any sort
of development up there at all without the things that
we are talking
about.
Stoner:
Why should we
as a Board approve 10 lots when one of things in the Land
Use Policy is
to protect the vistas of the Fort Collins community.
Brown:
By doing that
we will have more control and more say, both the City and
County, than we do now. I think in producing 10 lots it is very in-keepim
with the current
area. I know that we will be taking care of the land in
that area.
Roesser:
Most of those
lots are not anywhere near the east face of that ridge.
They will not
be visible from the Fort Collins side.
Napheys:
What would be
the price range for these homes.
Roesser: That is a little tough to say at this point. The one -acre lots in that
area are selling for $35,000 to $40,000.
Stoner: Getting to the geological hazard, I'm sure that you are aware of what
is happening to Hughes Stadium.
• •
P & Z Board
Minutes
3/23%81
Page 31
Roesser:
The engineering geologist who did the original study has looked at the
potential sites and is more than willing to sign off on the existing
building envelopes that we have proposed.
Ross:
Do you have a problem with the drilling or tapping of additional wells.
Roesser:
No, we don't need them. Pure -Cycle is a self-contained system with
1500 gallons. In addition, we would not be allowing the planting of
lawns or any planting that puts water back into the soil. There will be
no water taps on the outside of the homes. 1500 gallons is recycled
continually.
Haase:
I have a few questions for you on the water supply and waste disposal.
Is this a closed cycle or open.
Roesser:
It's closed.
Haase: How about electrical power failure.
Roesser: It has a back-up battery system or it can have a back-up air pressure
system.
Haase: What is the system recovery time.
Roesser: It can recycle 400 to 500 gallons every 12 hours.
Haase: Are there any contaminants not removed on restart.
Roesser: Absolutely not, the characteristic of the water Produced is far in
excess of the City water system.
Haase: Is there any non -reversible damage to filtering elements.
Roesser: No.
Haase: What is the maximum outage time for which the system can be restarted
without overhaul.
Roesser: There is no limit to that, it can sit indefinitely if it is in a state
of disrepair and be repaired and functioning again.
Haase: Do you have fail-safe controls.
Roesser: They have never produced contaminated water.
Haase: When has this technology first been applied successfully in residences
in Colorado.
Roesser: Some five years ago ---they have been monitored ever since.
Haase: Are you on a data transmission link.
Roesser: Yes we are.
P & Z Board Minutes -
3/23/81
Page 32
Haase: Why is an E-P-R-O-M on a fully developed board ---more than one control
sequence.
Roesser: You got me. The company is more than willing to answer questions.
Ross: What water will be used for the fire protection.
Roesser: The water that is used for the sprinkler system is a completely self-
contained separate system from the domestic system. The Pure -Cycle
system would back that up if necessary. The sprinkler system for the home
would only use 50-100 gallons to put a.fire out.
Stoner: I find this interesting, but I think our point is whether we want to
have 10 lots up there instead of 3 lots.
Roesser: I think it is important to reiterate that those lots are not on the easteri
face. We feel that by being able to control that area completely we can
improve it.
Ross: Do you own it now.
Roesser: Yes.
Ross: So you can control it regardless.
Tape inaudible. Mikes not being used or not working. Discussion on
roads, paving and building materials.
Stoner: Of the 34 lots that are up there are any of those combined now under
single ownership.
Roesser: Some are, but very few. The ones that do exist under combined ownership
are very small lots.
Napheys: Staff has heard all these comments, do any of the comments adequately
address the staff's concerns in their comments.
Smith: Technical issues probably can be addressed. We haven't seen any documen-
tation, we haven't seen commitments by the County Health Department, we
haven't seen signed reports, we haven't seen the specifics that could be
coming. Very likely they can be addressed. I don't think that those
issues will address the question of whether we should add 7 more lots in
the area ---that has been our major issue on this project. We are giving
the Board a policy recommendation that we shouldn't increase the allowed
development up in that area.
P & Z Board Minutes •
3/23/81
Page 33
Napheys:
Moves to recommend approval of the request to subdivide these 10.5
acres into 4 lots and 43.1 acres into 6 lots; 10 lots subject to
the approval by the. appropriate County and State regulating agencies
concerning the Pure -Cycle system; the fire protection system.. that
covenants concerning the building envelopes be recorded and that those
building envelopes not break the ridgeline; that any houses built contain
non -reflective materials; that any buildings be approved by an approp-
riate geologist; that no water be added to the soil; that only indigenous
plants be used; that rooflines not only don't break the ridgeline but
also fit into the ridgeline; that a homeowner's association be set up;
and further that there be compliance with the Open Space Plan-1974,
primarily to the appearance.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Clarke:
I feel that I must say this. As I look at this project I have a horrible
feeling in the pit of my stomach. I am definitely opposed to the use
of this area for residential purposes, for building and for anything
but letting it sit there so that my kids and my grandkids can look
at it. I have watched for a long time the purchasing of land by the City
of Fort Collins. I was led to believe that we had secured enough land
so that we would see no further development in the ridge area of Horse -
tooth. When I saw this map and suddenly realized this is subdivided
land and can built on tomorrow (with the right criteria met) I was appalls
I think that the City should pursue with the County the purchase of this
land, to set it aside so that it cannot be used for residential purposes.
I think the City Council and the County Commissioners should take a
cold, hard look at this situation. I get a spirtual lift out of the
mountains and out of what happens just to the west of here. There is
absolutely no way that I could support this.
Haase:
For the record, Alan Apt has written a memo on Ridgeline Hills and he
also opposes approval of it.
Vote:
Motion defeated 4-2. (Napheys, Gilfillan voting yes)
Haase:
The City's Open Space Plan does identify the foothills area as
one of those three areas which should be "preserved so that the scenic
qualities they possess are not destroyed, but also that the vistas
they provide should not be unduly diminished." This location of the
residential structures on the eastern side of the ridge would create
major visual impacts to the scenic quality to the foothills as a
backdrop to Fort Collins. l would like to encourage these very creative
developers with their ideas and application of new technology in construe
tion to look at other opportunities in Fort Collins. We appreciate many_
of the good ideas and suggestions that you have incorporated in this
development and have brought to our attention in our discussion.
Smith:
For the record it probably would be appropriate to have a motion giving
the action. You technically did not take an action.
Clarke:
Moves that this request be denied.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried 4-2. (Napheys, Gilfillan voting no.)
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81 _
Page 34
Napheys: Requests that minutes of the Ridgeline discussion be sent on to the
County.
34. #33-81 Stegner Exemption
An exemption request to divide 68.5 acres into 3-lots, zoned C-Commercial
and FA -farming, located one-half mile west of Shields Street, on the
South side of U.S. 287.
Applicant: Ray and Ken Stegner, 1901 U.S. 287, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Smith:. Gave a staff report recommending denial of the exemption request.
Ray Stegner: On the two lots that we are trying to exempt off of the farm, we do have
existing farms on them ---one is mine and one is my brothers. The basic
reason we are trying to do this is that we have our personal money tied
up in the homes. All we are trying to do is to get title to that ground
so that we don't lose the investment that we already have. We did go
before the Variance Board and got approval on the smaller lot size.
The farming operation is intended to stay as it is.
Stoner: I guess I don't understand your motivation.
Stegner: We want clear title to our houses.
Ross: The other thing is that they can't get a loan on it. Basically, the loan
company cannot foreclose on a lot that is not a legal lot.
Ken Stegner: We don't have any security. We are just trying to clear up some lose
ends on our personal investments.
Stoner: Where is the by-pass going to hit your property if it goes through.
Stegner: It goes just east of us, between the animal hospital and the first
dairy farm.
Clarke: You have owned that property for quite awhile haven't you.
Stegner: Since 1951.
Clarke: I think thatlis an important thing for us to consider. I don't think
their motives need be questioned.
Napheys: When were these homes built.
Stegner: The one on tract B was the original farm home, and there has been a home
on tract A since 1969.
Clarke: How did you get building permits.
Stegner: I had the existing trailerhouse on tract A. I had to go and get a variance
to replace the trailerhome with my present home. That was granted by the
Variance Board.
Gilfillan: Is there a requirement for the highway easement.
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 35
Smith: It's a 100' right-of-way. 50' each side. Right now there is a 30'
right-of-way according to the plat and I think what we would be after is
an additional 20' for the ultimate 100' right-of-way.
Stegner: When I. built the home they granted a variance on the house. Part of the
house is within 79' of the highway. At that time the Highway Department
did write a letter that said that there could be a chance that they would
want additional right-of-way. We were told that there could be a
restriction put on the property that if it was ever sold it would have
to come back before the Board. This would be just to make sure that
a commercial operation would not go in and increase the traffic on
287.
Gilfillan: Would you be receptive to putting a voluntary restriction on it for non-
commercial useage.
Stegner: In the case that it was sold.
Gilfillan: Well, you could also lease it.
Stegner: Well, I wouldn't lease where I am living.
Clarke: My thought about this is the fact that if there wasn't commercial strip
along there we wouldn't have a problem.
Clarke: Moves to recommend to the County approval of this request for subdivisior
exemption subject to a specific stipulation that the two residences
involved in Tract A and Tract B be limited to residential use with a
clear-cut understanding that in a future time it may be necessary for the
County or whomever is in jurisdiction at that time to review it. Also
included in the motion to include 20' right-of-way across the front
of Tract A and Tract B.
Napheys: Second.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
35. #35-81 Moore Special Review
A request for Special Review approval to permit a dog kennel in the FA-1,
Farming zoning district, located one-half mile south of County Road 36,
on the west side of I-25.
Applicant: John B. Moore, DVM, 2601 S. Lemay Avenue, #8, Fort Collins,
Co 80525.
Smith: Gave a staff report recommending approval.
Stoner: Moves to approve this request.
Gilfillan: Second.
Smith: There is a house in the northeast corner of the property.
Stoner: We discussed this in our work session and there wasn't anything negative
that we could see against it. I don't see any reason to discuss it.
Vote: Motion carried 6-0.
MoPtina adiournPd at 11:35 n.m_
P & Z Board Minutes
3/23/81
Page 36
Date:
Time:
Place:
Agenda:
Board Present
Planning and Zoning Board
Work Sessions
March 20, 1981
12:00 Noon
Council Chambers - New City Hall
Work Session for regular P & P meeting of March 23, 1981.
Alan Apt, Carolyn Haase, Ed Stoner
CORRECTIONS
TO THE
FEBRUARY 23, 1981 MINUTES
OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Page 1, mid -page, should read "Feels that Consent Agenda items and County Referrals
should be included for thorough and fair public notification."