Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 01/26/1981PLANNING A14D ZONING BOARD MINUTES January 26, 1981 Board Present: Alan Apt, John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner Staff Present: Curt Smith, Ken Naido, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Linda Gula Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero Ross: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Announced that we would be using sign-up sheets at each microphone. Explained the consent agenda and discussion agenda. Asked for a motion from the Board for consent on items 1 & 2. 1. Approval of minutes of December 22, 1980. 2. #14-80A Coachlight Plaza P.U.U. - Final Haase: Amended the December 22,1980,-minutes to include Sherry Albertson - Clark. Commented on meetings attended in January. Stated City Council tabled until Feb. 3, an ordinance regulating Group Homes so that other ordinances giving the City P & Z Board final authority on Group Home Proposals could be prepared. Stated she has been appointed to the Colorado Municipal League Urban Growth and Services Committee; meeting held November 13, 1980, regarding proposed legislation. Recommended that County Referral items be included on Agenda Information Map for the Coloradoan. Clarke: Moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the corrections to the minutes as submitted. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0. 3. #141-80 City Park Plaza Rezoning A request to rezone approximately .71 acres located at the northwest portion of the intersection of Bryan Street and '•lest Mulberry Street (1700 and 1720 blest Mulberry Street) from the R-L, Low Density Resident- ial District to the B-L, Limited Business District. Applicant: City of Fort Collins P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 2 Waido: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Ross: Any questions of staff. Napheys: Are there any legal problems? Pete Ruggiero: If you are referring to spot zoning, we don't have a problem because the property has already been developed, this isn't a situation where we are being requested to change zoning in response to a proposal to develop it. Due to interpretations in the past with respect to our ordinances and the expansion of the non -conforming nature of the situ- -ation, the property more or less has been .de_facto, rezoned_ through _ those actions So, I don't think this is illegal on the basis of soot zoning. Clarke: Do you foresee any undesirable uses that could come into that area as a result.of the change that might be precluded by leaving it as a non- conforming use? Waido: Essentially, it is a change in process. Any non -conforming property when it changes to another use, has to come before the Board. The B-L zone would not create any non -conforming uses on the property. It would eliminate the process of coming to the Board, they could go right to Building Inspection and get their permits. We don't foresee any problems. Ross: Asked if any wished to comment on the item. Clarke: Moved to recommend to City Council the rezoning as requested. Haase: Second. Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0 . 4. #50-80A Vine -LaPorte -Taft Annexation A request for annexation of 69.6 acres at the northwest corner of West LaPorte and Taft Hill Road. Applicant: Jerry Nix, Mountain States Properties, Inc., Suite 100, Rocky Mountain Bank Building, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Napheys: If we choose to vote against annexation, what are the prospects for the undeveloped property to be developed ---being in the County. Smith: Under the present agreement, the County cannot approve development on the property if it was eligible to annex and the City would agree to annex it. They would be in kind of a box, in that if the County abided by the agreement, they could not develop the property; and the City's abiding by it would be to annex it. Clarke: Is the area at the corner of Taft and LaPorte presently in the City or is it out of the City. The area that is not included in the annexation request. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 3 Chianese: This area is within the City limits. Napheys: Is there any legal 'problem on the timing of this further request for annexation since there has been a request within a year. Ruggiero: State Statute provides that if an annexation election is held, then you cannot initiate proceedings within 12 .months. In this case, the matter got to City Council but it was terminated before an election was actually held. In essence, there has been no final action, therefore, there is no violation or restriction as far as reconsidering this matter. Ross: Explains that Stoner has a conflict of interest and will not participate in the discussion or vote. Alan Apt, the alternate, will fill in. Is there anyone who would like to speak out for the request. Jerry Nix: With Mountain States Properties stated that they had submitted the first annexation request and were requested by the City to bring in the undeveloped rural area and to follow some practical planning rules, in that the County doesn't like to maintain City roads and the City doesn't like to maintain County roads. There are City utilities in that area at this time and it makes sense to co-ordinate and plan the serviceability of those utilities. It's important to plan as much area as you can. To respond to those in opposition to the previously submitted petition we have cut back this request to exclude them. In regard to planning of the extension of Cherry Street which you see deadends on our west annexation request boundary, which is eventually going to have to intersect with Taft Hill Road in order to give us that street planning capability, we have included Mr. Ball's property. That brings us to our current status, the property is zoned R-2 in the County which calls for 6 units per acre which is equivocal to the R-L-P desig- nation. This is in the north area of town and the City has been striving to get growth to go north and fill in some of the gaps in the north community versus expanding wildly to the south. It is within the Urban Growth Area. It was approved at the County level with the stipu- lation that because it did have City utilities and was within the Urban Growth Area it would be annexed if pursued by the City. I'm here primarily to give you some past history and to answer questions. Ross: In discussions with you and the City Utility Department in regard to the improvement of streets, water service, the existing septic system, and the like, is there any problem with those? Nix: Some people are on City water and sewer and the "fountain View Sanitation District which is administrated by the City furnishes the rest of the service in the area. We have a majority of over 51' of the landowners in the area by number, and 51% of the landownership by mass. Even based on the new State Annexation laws we still qualify under all criteria. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 4 Ross: I really wasn't talking about if you qualify or not, I was talking about if you can live with the requirements that have been recommended by the Engineering Department. The items with regard to the sewer, the raw water requirements, parkland fees, and things of this sort. Nix: We understand that we are going to have to meet all the City of Fort Collins building codes and pay all the park fees and raw water require- ments. - ----Smith: A point of clarification, those stipulations will only apply to the exist- ------- ing developed lots; lots.that have houses on them and have no apolication to any of the undeveloped land. My general understanding is that Jerry represents most of the undeveloped property rather than the developed areas. Ross: That answers why we are not on the same wave length. Nix: We have all the undeveloped Portion. Some of the people on west LaPorte Avenue have failed septic systems and need the sewer service. The extension of the sewer lines need to be made in that area by the City. That's why we have included some of the smaller resident homes. Georg: Will you show on the map which portion of that property that you will be developing. Nix: Matkin, Loyd, and Ball are in opposition. The reason we have assembled a lot of this property into this annexation is to give some congruity to street flow between Vine Drive and LaPorte Avenue. Irish School and Poudre High School are close by and future residents of this area are going to have to have access to schools. Ross: Asked if anyone else would like to speak for or against this item. Jerry Bucher: I have been here opposing the same request several times. By manipu- lation they can get more than 51% of the people that will be annexed to agree with them. The opposition is still there, changing the zoning boundaries isn't going to change that. Lives outside the City and opposes more housing and more traffic. Doesn't think City should give owner profit on his land. Should be concerned with what is best for the City. This request with all the loopholes in one corner looks like you are catering to the developer rather than being concerned with what is best for the City. It looks like manipulation. John Ball: The developers are not concerned with the people who live in this area, they only want to make money. Doesn't think it is a fair exchange. Napheys: How will being annexed to the City adversely affect the people who own homes already in this property. Ball: Some people in this area have businesses. The City has certain restrict- ions that we don't have. Retired people are making a living in these businesses and don't want that living taken away. • P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 5 Ball:(Cont.) City is requesting wider streets.They said it would cost $37.50 a running foot for the people that live there. People can't afford expense. There are probably more things that the people would oppose. Hope I have answered your question. Apt: What kind of businesses do the residents have. Ball: Carpenter trade, welding, boat repair, auto repair and so forth, run on spare time or retirement. Haase: A point of clarification. In our notes relative to street improvement it states at the time of annexation the City does not intend to make improvements to the local street system in the developed areas. Improve- ments will be made only on a request of property owners. Ball: They.didn't tell us that the last time.They led us to believe that it would cost $37.50 a running foot. Chianese: The confusion is that deals with local streets and Mr. Ball is talking about an arterial street. Haase: Your concern is not with the local streets. Chianese: This concern is with an arterial. Haase: I have a question regarding these small businesses. These businesses would then have a non -conforming use status when they are in the City. Smith: Not necessarily true. It depends on the business. Immediately they would be non -conforming uses. If they requested and met the requirements for home occupations they could get a home occupation permit. As a non- conforming use they could continue to operate as long as they maintained their present size and nature of activity. If they wanted to expand they could request expansion and it would be reviewed by the City. Ross: Any other public comment. John Matkin: Seems to be a differentiation in mans. Said that some people in this area would like to be on the sewer line but don't want to be annexed to City. Doesn't want value to go up and does not want to pay for City services. He's on a fixed income and can't afford these increases. Ross: Is there a discrepancy in the legal description in the letter that went out. Comment on requirements on City power hook-ups and those types of items. Chianese: Let me address notification. The copy of the map sent out is the same as the one here. Sent notification to those included in annexation and to those excluded in annexation. Basically, sewer service is the only one that requires a hook-up charge. Sewer service is not required on annexation. We've made it clear that no one will be forced on the City sewer when they are annexed. In terms of water and electric, residents are exempt from the hook-up charges and basically pay the rates. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 6 Ross: Asks if a normal pumping of a septic system constitutes a failure, and having to be hooked up to the system at that time. Chianese: No. The Health Department must certify that it has failed. Clarke: It's my understanding that City electric rates are approximately 10% lower than that of Public Service, is that true. Chianese: All rates are comparable. = Ross: Any other public comment. Charles West: Asks what the advantages will be that the City offers to the property owners in rural areas.Owners want to play a part in the growth of Fort Collins but don't like how the City approaches it. Would like people to have a vote. Clarke: What is status of development in your area. West: Small acreages, some in-house type businesses. Feels that they should have the opportunity to use the resources that they currently own. Clarke: Answers as to the advantages of being in the City. Response time by police is much faster by City than County. City is securing water supplies for the future. This is a great deal of land. Developers are answering a demand. Planning is needed but the City has much to offer. West: Wishes the Planning Department had worked with the people and had been more sensitive to the people. Elvera Matkin: Concerned about the traffic. The development will just increase the percentage of traffic in that area. Ross: Board, I think we should deal with this item. Apt: On improvement of arterial streets, when will that occur and who will pay for it. Smith: The question of when is the most difficult. A lot depends on when the property develops,and we have no idea when the particular property will develop. On terms of who pays for the street, the property owners who have frontage on the street will pay a portion of the cost of widening the street. They will not pay the full cost of widening the street. Apt: What would be the cost in today's dollars. Smith: About $36.00 a linear foot. Apt: What do the investors that will be developing in the interior area pay for. Smith: They pay for the full cost of all local streets serving the property within their boundary of development and for the local share of any frontage on arterial streets. The City pays the difference. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 7 Smith: (cont.) They also will be required to pay a fee for every building permit that is issued that goes into a fund to offset the cost of building the difference between local, and a collector,and an arterial street. Apt: Comments on the Mulberry improvements. Property owners incurred extreme costs for improving the streets. Thinks it is time for the City to start looking at a way for more costs to be covered for those people living on frontage. Through a matter of chance people are being billed for the improvements to our streets. Smith: The philosophy of the City is that every property owner should be obligated to pay their share of a local street that provides them frontage. The City does have mechanisms to defray the costs for low income people. Apt: The people in the interior of a development are paying for their share of a local street, as are the People on a frontage, it's just that people on the frontage end up paying more. Smith: That would be true. Someone with a larger lot and frontage would pay more. Ball: Estimates that it will cost him $5000.They will take approximately 18' off of his land, who will pay the damages. Clarke: On a quick calculation, it will cost Mr. Ball $38,000. Apt: Regardless of the benefits in terms of timing in annexing this property, it seems the boundaries have been gerrymandered in such a way as to exclude people who should have a voice in the development of this area. How will these people who have been gerrymandered out of a vote be given a voice in the development. Chianese: Answers that they would be notified the same as a City resident --- anyone within 500'. They would have an opportunity to attend a public hearing and comment on the project. Apt: In essence, they will be in the County and, therefore, can't really speak as City residents as these things develop. Napheys: If they are annexed to the City they would have an opportunity to vote for the City Councilmen who appoint the members of this Board. Haase: What are the legal statutes relative to an election on an annexation requested by property owners? What is the percentage requirement on ownership to complete the petition for an annexation election. Ruggiero: That is a question that is up in the air. There is a question whether the Governor has signed the Bill for the amendment that has been passed. Knowing if he has signed or not would determine what the requirements for the election would be. It's important to note that the people who are outside the area being annexed would not have standing to protest the annexation. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 8 Napheys: Moved to recommend to City Council that the Vine -LaPorte -Taft Annexation be approved with the agreements that are mentioned in the discussion section of the staff's presentation. Clarke: Second. With a comment that he's concerned about the street costs that may occur to the owner of the property. Ross: Has seen some districts where square footage was looked at rather than front footage. It's something that could be looked at.Some of these larger pieces of property would be a tremendous burden on some people. Vote: Carried 7 - 0 with comments from Haase and Apt. - Haase: Agrees with Clarke's comment on the advantages of being in the City. Concern with the small businesses in the City can be alleviated with the non -conforming use ordinance. Recognizes hardship with the improve- ment of arterial streets. Underscores comments made by Smith, Apt, and Ross. Perhaps through the mechanisms of deferred payments and other mechanisms for low income people, there would be alleviation of this hardship. City Council needs to take a hard look at the problem, looking at it on a long-term basis. Apt: Same qualifications that it's time that City Council looked at square footage rather than frontage in terms of determining how arterials are paid for. Smith: This item will be heard by City Council on February 17. Ross: Comments that when one or two large landowners are annexing a piece of property to the City, they are spreading the cost of the arterial streets over the entire project. They probably do base it out on a square foot cost. Those that are already developed are caught in the crunch. This is a problem that we are going to have as we continue to in -fill and to expand in this northern portion of Fort Collins. This type of hardship needs to be addressed. Perhaps look at it in an entirely different manner than we would on some of the large annexations. Napheys: The problem is not so much arterial streets but local streets. It's not just the difference between arterial and local, the problem is what seems fair at first glance,that persons on a local street pay for the cost of that local street. Seems like the system is fair for arterials, that is borne by the City. Need to look at not the improvement of the arterial street but the improvement of the local street. Smith: Taft Hill is designated as an arterial street on the Master Street Plan. -When it is improved it will be improved as an arterial street. The policy of charging on linear front footage is just a policy. The Ordinance and the Charter enable the City to establish any mechanism that the Council feels is fair and equitable to distribute the cost; including for the City to pick up the entire cost. It is up to the City Council prior to any street improvement district being imposed the City Council goes through formal public hearings, notification of property owners. P &.Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 9 5. #50-80A Vine -LaPorte -Taft Zoning A request for zoning 69.6 acres at the northwest corner of West LaPorte Avenue and Taft Hill Road to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Jerry Nix, Mountain States Properties, Inc., Suite 100, Rocky Mountain Bank Building, Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Chianese: Gave a brief report, recommending approval. Haase: What is the zoning in the southeastern corner and just south of LaPorte. Chianese: for the portion in the City it appears that it is R-M, but will check for sure. Boundaries are covered over by tape. Jerry Nix: The R-L-P designation corresponds almost identically with the R-2 designation in the County; they both allow for six units an acre. Clarke: Isn't the comment on staff's part that the property is developed as a P.U.D. subject to that development a little bit redundant with R-L-P zoning. Chianese: The owner always has the right to develop as a straight R-L. Haase: Moves to recommend approval of the Vine -LaPorte -Taft Zoning to R-L-P subject to the property being developed as a P.U.D. Gilfillan: Seconds. Napheys: Why have the subject to being developed as a P.U.D. What advantage does that have to the landowners in the area. Ross: Even though it carries a designation of R-L-P it could be subdivided into a straight R-L subdivision by ordinance, which does not call for greenbelts, open areas, and the like that we would normally look atin some of our PUD's. It gives a better site plan review by this Board. Clarke: Another point is that it will come under the Guidance System eventually. Vote: Carried 7 - 0. 6. #73-80 Village Grove Annexation A request to annex approximately 55 acres, located south of the proposed Huntington Mews Annexation. Applicant: Lawrence Odau, D.O.L.L. Development, c/o Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Ft. Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Gilfillan: Asked if there was an access problem. Is the property landlocked. Chianese: Until we see a development proposal, the actual access questions have not been answered. The applicant will address certain agreements made between himself and the County dealing with improvements on Lynn Drive. Ross: Basically, the property does have access to a public street and is not landlocked, is that true. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 10 Chianese: No, it is not landlocked. Les Kaplan: This item similar to previous item. This annexation consists of property that is owned 100% by the applicant.The owner is annexing this property because he is within the Urban Growth Area and he is eligible for annexation. As a result of annexation, the property will be subject to the City development review regulations. The County is not set up to review urban density development. Developers would rather work with the City. Development is not imminent on this property. The annexation is not taking place as a prelude to development. there is a likelihood that this ---_.-- property could be combined in some way with the P.U.D. that is presently being worked on to the north of it, Huntington Mews. Access into this -- + site will be decided more specifically at the time that a development proposal is submitted. Generally, the property does have access by Lynn Drive which the County has established as a street improvement district. The property owner will be assessed approximately 30% of that improvement district cost. This property is bounded on the north by a street that will probably be a collector street entrance into the Huntington Mews P.U.D. The City, County, and the State Highway Department would prefer that that road to the north be used as a main entrance to Huntington Mews as opposed to another street which is located just north of this street --Saturn Drive. Ann McSay: Is opposed on general principles. What is being done about police protec- tion. Doesn't believe that response time will be 3-5 minutes. Concerned about maintenance of streets. Concerned about who is going to pay for that maintenance. Questions the drainage problem and how it will affect her property. Concerned about how the City is dealing with the water district and REA. When will Transfort system get to this area. Is generally opposed to this annexation. Theron McSay: Concerned about the sewer.His sewer line goes directly through Village Grove and he is concerned about damage to the sewer line. Also concerned with drainage problems. Kaplan: On the drainage concerns, before any development were to take place on that property there would have to be a detailed engineering analysis and some soil tests. The findings of those would be reflected in what - the preliminary drainage plan would be. Assuming there is a major drainage problem, that will be a major determinant in what takes place on that property. Ross: If the County agrees to maintain the roads how does the City work with those agreements. Smith: When the City annexes any public street, it takes over the responsibility for maintaining that street. If the street is left in the County it would be maintained under that agreement. Ann McSay: Comments on how County maintains that road. Road is snowplowed every time it snows. Doesn't think City will do that. Is concerned about the frontage she owns and how much she will have to pay for improvements. P &; Z Board Minutes • 1/26/81 Page 11 Napheys: Development does not seem to be imminent. We seem to be working at cross-purposes. In the Land Use Policies Plan we are to encourage growth to the north. Historically, we have been trying to keep space between Fort Collins and Loveland. Worried about annexation at this time so fast, and so far to the south. Inevitable that this property will be annexed, but why now. Georg: It's the Urban Growth Area Agreement that guides and affects this item. Just because the Land Use Policy says we should encourage growth to the north does not mean that we look askance at other elements of the Land Use Policy or that we discourage growth to the south. Stoner: The policy of the City has been that we have to annex those that voluntarily want to and who meet the criteria. If we don't, what do those people do. They have to know what they are going to be able to plan on. It's a very uncomfortable position not to have the Plannina Commision to work with you on that property. Gilfillan: This is in the planning stage and I think that is why we are here. Apt: In terms of annexing all of this land to the south, what is the City obligating themselves to in terms of utilities and roads. When is the City obligated to put these things in and when is the developer obligated to front-end the cost of this. Smith: The City is obligated to provide service to the property. In certain cases and in many of the areas south of Harmony Road, service may be provided by the special districts that are out there. Developers would be responsible in either the City or the district to extend any service lines and provide the cost of putting the water/sewer facilities into those properties. Developers are responsible for all on -site street improvements. At this stage, the City does not have any plans to improve or upgrade the other streets. Council is looking at how some of the potential street extensions in that area need to be made. Apt: Are we obligated to annex this? Smith: The policy established in the Intergovernmental Agreement indicates that the City annex the property. Specifically, in the legal language we are not obligated to annex, we are obligated to consider it with a policy that is adopted that said we would annex. Haase! Moves to recommend approval to the City Council of the Village Grove Annexation. Georg: Second, Napheys: Because of the reasons stated earlier and the questions about the City police response time, I don't think this is the time to annex this property. Voting no. Vote: Carried 6-1. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 12 7. #73-80 Village Grove Zoning Chianese: Kaplan: Chianese A request to zone approximately 55 acres, located south of the proposed Huntington Mews Annexation to R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential District. Applicant: Lawrence Odau, D.O.L.L. Development, c/o Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Ft. Collins, CO 80521. Gave a staff report recommending zoning property R-L-P with the condition that the property be developed as a unified P.U.D. Asks if there is an error in the report regarding the 296+ acres._ Yes. Obviously, it's the 55 acres known as the Village Grove Zoning. Kaplan: Annexation is a vehicle for control in the City. Development can be influenced north and south. Asking for R-L-P zoning on the property. Through City's review, final say as to what extent the maximum density is realized and where density is shifted.It's a zoning that gives a great deal of flexibility in reviewing it and gives the developer a great deal of flexibility in planning it when the appropriate time comes for the Master Plan of the property. Ann McSay: Concerned about the six units per acre. Concerned about the Humane Society being located in that area. Thinks the Humane Society will have to move. Haase: Notice that density south is considerable. How far does density extend east of Highway 287 and south of 34? Ann McSay: Only the mobile home park and Trilby Heights. Trilby Heights is probably three or four houses per acre. Everything north of County Road 34 is at the lower density. Theron McSay: Still concerned about drainage. Costs will be impossible. Thinks a park should be put on the property. Ross: There may be engineering problems that keep this property from ever being developed ---- but we don't know that. The Board will look at these problems. Stoner: Moves to recommend approval to City Council for R-L-P zoning. Haase: Second. Apt: If there is a lot of wildlife out there and if it is a swamp, maybe consider it as a valuable land for a wildlife preservation. Zoning should not influence that possibility. Vote: Carried 6-1. Napheys: Voting no. Thinks there are too many areas zoned R-L-P down there. Thinks it is premature to be annexing this property in the first place. P &-Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 13 8. #137-80 Arbor Commercial Annexation A request for annexation of approximately 23 acres at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Harmony Road. Applicant: Paul Heffron, c/o Les Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 South Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Ross: How far west does this go. Albertson -Clark: It is adjacent and east of the C & S railroad tracks, it adjoins Harmony Road on the north and College Avenue on the east. Kaplan: The owner has been waiting about nine years to do something with this property. He now feels that the development potential of the property has been realized. Presently working on a P.U.D. for the property consistent with the Highway Business zoning district. Thinks it is a key intersection in Fort Collins and that it is important for the City to have control over it. Napheys: Moves for approval of this annexation. Clarke: Second. It may be noted that if we could annex that area north -- the lumberyard --we could pick up 2% sales tax. Vote: Carried 7-0. 9. #137-80 Arbor Commercial Zoning A request to zone approximately 23 acres at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Harmony Road to conditional H-B, Highway Business. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report, recommending approval with the condition that the site be developed as a unified P.U.D. Kaplan: Owner would like the opportunity of having more latitude for retail uses than he initially envisioned. We understand that the City will require that Mason Street be extended south through this property. Additionally, for access off of College Avenue, there will have to be a public street intersection with College Avenue. We will have one collector street and one local street on the property, and the property will be bounded on two sides by arterial streets. We feel that the additional right-of-way and the useage of land is justification for more retail uses than initially envisioned. Presently redoing plan to reflect that. Apt: Concerned about the nature of the use. His understanding of Highway Business is more a service type of business rather than a major retail facility. Seems that we are foisting onto the property owner the attitude that this should be a major retail facility. We should address the scope of the retail use. P//81 &6Z Board Minutes Page 14 Clarke: It allows uses in R-M, B-L, and B-G; which is a fairly open business zone. Feels it is a good zoning. Apt: The general feeling is that if a major retail facility wished to locate there, we should entertain that as being a positive occurence given the kind of pressure it would put on south College Avenue. Doesn't think we should mislead the property owner. Kaplan: Approving a Highway Business zoning district does not imply Planning and Zoning Board acceptance of all the uses. Attitudes can be refined on uses at the time that you see the way in which those uses can be defended based upon a design proposal. Doesn't think that regional ,shop_ping..is appropriate down there. Gilfillan: Moves that the Arbor Commercial Zoning be approved with the condition that the site be developed as a unified P.U.D. Haase: Second. Clarke: Asks if requiring a P.U.D. for development will cause any problem when we change over to the Guidance System in terms of making these applicable. Ruggiero: Not at all. Whenever the property is developed it would be the P.U.D. ordinance which is in effect at the time. I see no legal difficulty with it. Vote: Carried 7-0. 10. #209-79C Collindale Master Plan A review of the Collindale Development Plan consisting of 103.1 total acres with single family homes, patio homes, townhouses, condominiums, commercial and open space, located at Horsetooth and Lemay, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. Applicant: Bartran Homes, c/o ZVFK.Architects & Planners, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, CO -80521. Chianese: Gave a brief staff report, recommending approval. Ross: Asks for discussion. Applicant no comment. Clarke: Moves to accept the Collindale Master Plan as proposed. Haase: Second. Vote: Carried 7-0. 11. #209-791) Collindale P.U.D., Phase IV Preliminary approval of a 9.5 acre subdivision, zoned R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, with 104 one and two bedroom dwelling units in the vicinity of Lochwood Drive. Applicant: Bartran Homes, c/o ZVFK Architects and Planners, 218 Ilest Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Chianese: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. P &'Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 15 Chianese: (Cont.) There is one unresolved problem. This problem involves the set -back or back-up space frori garages to the street. Some of the set -backs provided are 8', staff feels that 19' is a required set -back. Staff is recommending that 19' be provided on all garages on the major accessway. Ross: I would like the reasoning for the set -back requirements. Chianese: The major circulation route, as outlined, is 24'. This 24' provides access for emergency vehicles; it also provides access for major traffic circulation and sometimes carries pedestrian circulation. In terms of the garage set -backs, 19' is a typical parking space length, 8' to 9' is a typical width. The 19', being a typical parking space dinension, allows a car to park in that 19' without intruding on to the accessway. With a 19' set -back a car is able to park in front of the garage without intruding on to the street. Where 8' is provided and a person chooses to park in front of his garage, the car would be in the major accessway. For this reason, we feel that 19' is important. A 24' accessway is the absolute minimum, it's what is required for the emergency vehicles to get through the area. Ross: This will not be a public street, it will be a private street? Chianese: That's correct. Ross: I assume that there is no parking on a 24' wide street. Chianese: No, there isn't. The extra parking besides the garages are provided outside of that 24'. Ross: Since it is a private street, if a car were parked there, could it be ticketed by the Police Department. Chianese: No, it cannot. Haase: Please point out a few examples of the 8' set -back. Chianese: Two are located almost on a curb as the accessway curves around. There is a three -car garage with approximately 15' provided . The overhang is taken care of in the accessway. There are a number of 8' backup spaces provided on these minor accessways. Staff didn't have a problem with that% The applicant has committed to providing garage door openers in that location. Ross: Is there going to be a sidewalk along the street. Chianese: The only sidewalk is provided along the collector street which is Lochwood. Ross: If a car were to be parked there and extended into the street, it wouldn't be blocking a sidewalk. Chianese: It might be blocking a pedestrianway, not a defined sidewalk. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 16 Gilfillan: A point of clarification; the 31,000 square feet is an active recreation area. If the developer uses that as a major drainage, then that recreation area would not be available. Chianese: After making that comment, we clarified exactly what that piece of property would be used for. The area will be traversed by a drain pan if it is a major drainage facility. The applicant has agreed to subtract the amount of property that will be included from the calculation of the active open space. They do meet the requirement, and the subtraction of this small amount of property isn't going to hurt the percentage. r--Ross What is the construction on a drain pan? Maurie Rupel: It would be concrete. Ross: Wondering if concrete is necessary. Rupel: We like to have concrete for a trickle pan. We have a steady trickle of water coming down from garden watering and lawn watering and that sort of thing. If you don't have a concrete pan there you can't main- tain it. You can't get in to mow because it is always'wet. One way of solving it is a trickle pan, another way is with an underground drain of some sort. Ross: Rupel How wide is it? I think this one is 4' Comments on the cars parking out onto the street. The Fire Code requires 20' of clear unobstructed passage for the fire trucks to get through. Cars could conceivably be parking in the street approximately 8' which would leave 16' for fire trucks to get through, and they couldn't do it. Napheys: What assistance does the developer's putting garage door openers in have to - do with it. It sounds, to me, that it is off the subject. Chianese: We viewed it as being a mechanism to allow him to have that smaller distance, if that accessway was not going to be used for emergency vehicles. Where that accessway was used for emergency vehicles and major traffic circulation, the 8' was not a solution that we wanted to live with. Bill Bartran: If I took the garages off the project, it would be in complete compliance. I choose not to take the garages off. The garage is important in this project, in this location. The garages are staggered to break up the straight-line effect. The garage door openers are used not to satisfy City requirements, they are used because they enhance the quality of the project. Garage doors closed make for a much more attractive area than garage doors open. Have not had any vehicle problems with any of the residents in other projects. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 17 Bartran: (Cont.) Thinks his project is functional, it will work, it has worked in the past, and it will continue to work in the future. Asks for approval as is submitted. Napheys: If we were to accept staff's recommendation that the 19' be required, what would you do with the five garages in question? Bartran: I would have the choice of eliminating the garages and leaving everything as it is, or I'd have the choice of pushing the buildings on out into the open space farther to provide tandem parking. There are five out of seventeen buildings that do not meet the 19' requirement. Napheys: If you moved back into the open space,would you still have more than enough percentage open space. Eldon Ward: It would be pushing it. Bartran: When we push those garages back to meet the building code, we also push the whole structure back. It's a little different story when you get into the Uniform Building Code. Napheys: Does the garage have to be a certain number of feet away from the building? Bartran: That is correct. Napheys: It can't be attached? Bartran: I'm fighting a shake problem too. The building code in a project like this is very restrictive. To do the project like we want to do it we could not attach the garages. Clarke: Does everyone have their own garage? Bartran: They have their own garage, their own garage door opener, and that is their space. There is one garage per dwelling unit. Feels that the garage is very important. The garages are oversized to provide storage space. If storage is not provided, the balconies become storage areas and become unsightly. Apt: When you say oversize, how much space are you talking about? Bartran: We're trying to do a 24' garage. With today's cars at 14' to 15', we're trying to accomodate lots of storage. People need lots of storage. The garage is important to the buyer in the market place. Napheys: Where did the 19' figure come from? Chianese: 19' is the typical dimension used for typical parking space. The only requirement is the 20' free and clear access. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 18 Georg: I would like a succinct definition of a flat, since this is the first I've seen this term used. Bartran: A flat is a one level unit. It is just a term i have used. Nothing formal. Clarke: To clarify for the record, this will be a condominium project with a Homeowners Association. Bartran: That is correct. Notes that the population figures are not over -populated with children. _ ;;,Haase: A safety factor is tied in here with the shorter driveways. Apparently most people in these developments do not have children. Bartran: The units are not designed for families. Stoner: In driving through other areas, did you go through Hillpond? With some of these people with short parking areas, were they parked with the rear part - of their cars out into the street? Bartran: Hillpond is a little different situation. The parking ratios are consider- ably different between Hillpond and this project. There are no large bulk open parking areas in Hillpond. Ross: I have friends who live in a similar area except they do have a center parking that is cut into the green area. They don't seem to have a problem there. Stoner: These particular units in questions do not have adjacent off-street parking. You are not providing immediate parking. Bartran: No. Our parking spaces are not always located next to every two car garage. It varies all through the project. Stoner: It would have been nice to have put the additional parking where you have a problem, rather than adjacent to where you do not have the problem. Bartran: I haven't admitted there is a problem. Stoner: What if a fire truck tries to go through there, I think that is the main concern. Bartran: There is the access there. We are making the assumption that everyone is is always going to park behind and into the street. I haven't seen that happen in Collindale Phase II which I have walked through probably 30 times - Georg: I would encourage you to walk througa it on Saturday or Sunday morning, which I have a chance to jog every day. I see this occuring on both days. Our purpose is to prevent safetyproblems in these areas. Bartran: In Collindale II, I have never seen a situation that a fire truck could not get through. P & Z Board Minutes • 1/26/81 Page 19 Ross: It seems ridiculous to me to say that we can't do it if we put four walls over it and a door in front of it but if we have a concrete slab for a parking place it's OK. Clarke: I can see this being controlled through the Homeowners Association. They can have rules that say you cannot park your car in the street because the fire trucks cannot get through. Napheys: Move to recommend approval of Collindale Phase IV, Preliminary, subject to the engineering items being addressed on the final plat, numbers 1 through 4 and 6.(Intends to have a 2nd motion for item #5.) _ Stoner: Second. Vote: Carried 7-0. Napheys: Moves that the 19' setbacks be maintained on garages in the major circulatio, lane. Ross: Second. Ross: Asks if this is an absolute criteria ---the 20'. hlaurie Rupel: It is part of the fire code that has been adopted by the Council. You can't just ignore it. Ross: Asks of Eldon Ward if he has talked to the Fire Department. Eldon Ward: Haven't talked with the Fire Department on this specific project. Have done this approach on a number of projects in the past. Smith: A point of clarification. The applicant is correct. They are not legally in non-compliance with the fire code. They have not designated parking spaces inside the 20' accessway. The problem is one of how the potential area could be used, rather than how it is specifically designated on a plan. Technically, they are in compliance with the fire code. Ross: Aren't we inviting problems ---abandonment of cars for instance. Smith: That's right, anyone could abandon a car in the middle of the street. When you are down to a 20' accessway it becomes a lot tighter. You have a potential problem. The question was raised on the difference between a carport, an open space, and a garage. One of the key aspects of the garage is that it provides storage. As storage space is overrun, it becomes easier to park in front. It creates a potential problem. Ross: I have seen policemen in private parking lots. Is there a way that if there is a violation it could be ticketed. Ruggiero: No. There is no enforcement. Apt: It seems that the only way that this can be worked out is at the design level. The buck stops here. We can't expect the Homeowners Association or the Police Department to deal with a problem that rests in this venue. p & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 20 Vote: Defeated 4-3. Georg, Ross, Haase, and Clarke voting no. Ross: Questions if we have to do something with a new motion. Smith: If you approve the site plan the way it is, you maintain how the site plan is laid out. 12. #138-80 Dick's Datsun P.U.D. - Preliminary approval of a commercial P.U.D. on 3.06 acres, located on -,_ the west side of College Avenue, between Horsetooth-and Harmony Road, ------ ----- zoned H-B, Highway Business. Proposal is for a new office -display facility. Applicant: Richard Brown, c/o Robert Sutter Architects/Planners, Drake Office Center, 333 West Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526. Frank: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Richard Brown: Noted a correction on the agenda. Brown works for Robert Sutter Architects/Planners. They are submitting this on behalf of Dick Fuqua. Dick Fuqua should be noted as the applicant. The property owner is feeling a growth pinch. A lot of growth is anticipated. Feels the best way to address the growth problem is in a new showroom -display facility. The existing facility will be converted into a parts and service facility. Discusses access roads. Haase: Moves to approve Dick's Datsun P.U.D. Clarke: Second. Vote: Carried 7 - 0 . Georg: Before we continue, I wonder if I am out of order returning to item number 11. Smith: You can ask the Board to reconsider the item. By the vote of the Board or a motion they can vote to do so. Georg: I guess I would like to reconsider the item just from the point of view of being an engineer and having seen other kinds of development. I don't believe that it is our job to look at acceptable development. I believe it is our job to look at good development. My intention in voting no on that item was not that I felt that the requirement of the garages in the five locations was acceptable. I was waiting to make a subsequent motion to require that all garages have the 19' setback. I find in general that just because we have been lucky in the past with doing something that is minimally acceptable that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to do something that would be better. I would like to reconsider that item. Napheys: As the mover of that motion, I wanted it just for those particular for the five or six spaces. I would have felt that if somebody was have voted for that and then had a subsequent whole thing they could motion that not only those spaces be required to be back 19' but all the rest be back 19'. I think I would have voted against that one. • P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 21 Smith: I think the appropriate procedure would be for one of the Board members to formally move that the item be reconsidered, and then to put a new motion on the table if the item is accepted for reconsideration by the Board. Georg: Moves to reconsider the item. Napheys: Second. Vote: Motion defeated 4 - 3, Ross, Haase, Clarke, Stoner voting no. 13. #126-80 The Shores P.U.D. Master Plan Revision A proposal to amend the Shores Master Plan, located on the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and JFK Parkway, zoned B-P, Planned Business District. The request is to amend Phase B of the Master Plan to include additional square footage and to rearrange the buildings on the site. Applicant: Peter E. Heinz, Junge/Associates/AIA, 3405 Penrose Place, Boulder, CO 80301. Frank: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Ross: Could you give me a definition of professional office space. Frank: It is defined in the Zoning Ordinance specifically. I think it is medical offices, attorneys offices, real estate offices, and banking facilities and financial institutions. Georg: I have a question on what the parking guidelines were for the City. It seemed that for the change in square footage that this now falls significantly behind the City guidelines. Frank: The guidelines have to do with the type of use for a professional office. In the next part of the P.U.D. there will be discussion on parking ratios. The applicants are asking for revision to the plan you are looking at tonight, to delete the drive -up windows as part of the savings. They have realized that they have a parking problem. Georg: I had difficulty in finding which category the guidelines applied. It appears that the parking is at the outer reaches. Stoner: Is Phase A and Phase B the same as combined Site A and Site B. Why don't the combined totals add up. Frank: These were figures that I had put together using the two Piaster Plans. They didn't quite add up. Georg: The parking is based on gross floor area. Frank: Yes. Jim Junge: Planner for project and agent for the applicant. We can address most of the issues of the P.U.D. nature on the next item. As far as the revision of the Phase B site plan, we are here tonight to offer a revised Master Plan of just the Phase B. Phase A, the bank property, remains the same. The change that we are asking for is simply to allow us an increase in P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 22 Junge (cont.) square footage on Phase B. The parking will be addressed on the next issue, in lieu of having the restaurant facility on the site. We feel strongly that as a transitional property between the higher density bank property and the residential Landings area, the restaurant use was inappropriate. The traffic generated in a 24 hour type facility really does not lend itself to the site. In order to justify the change on both a land use basis and an economic basis, an increase in size of the office was necessary. Georg: These are somewhat difficult to consider separately. -Junge: I'll address that, and not bore you with two presentations, but just one. __..- As the model depicts, what we have done is primarily change the location of the buildings just slightly. In the previous plan, the restaurant had been placed against Horsetooth Road, by itself, with the office buildings clustered to the south. In our analysis of the site, a better site use plan would be to take advantage of the entire site; space the parking in a more linear effect along the back side of the property, Use two story garden office buildings as a buffer, between the commercial buildings on the extreme corner and to the residential along Landings Drive. This provided us a natural shape of buildings facing the street, having a continuous amount of landscape, and deleting the restaurant use which would-be on a continuous 7-day a week operation, and probably offensive to the neighborhood on a continuous basis. We believe that in professional office use, the use is only from 8 to 5 allowing freedom from use on weekends and evenings. That combined with low residential character of the project, allows for a true architectural as well as a use transition from the commercial space to the residential. So far as the traffic and it's circulation through the site, it remains fundamentally unchanged. The comment that we have received from staff that we were at the outer fringes of our parking ratio as recommended, was recognized by us. The drive -up facility created some internal traffic that might be detrimental to the property; and it took away some valuable parking places that would help the parking ratio. We are not asking for the drive -up facility. This adds about 15 spaces for parking and allows the parking ratio to become more in keeping with that of professional offices.There is no significant change in the overall P.U.D. Simply that of increasing the square footage slightly and elimination of the restaurant. This trade-off for our amended P.U.D., adds to the value of the property, adds to the P.U.D.'s intent, and lessens the traffic use on the site. Ross: We will consider first the Revised Master Plan and then we will look at the other. Reid Rosenthal: Are you going to address drainage? Junge: We have proposed to take the corner of the residential property and combine our drainage efforts. Mostly the land is on his property, a portion of it is on ours. In our preliminary studies with the City, they said that if that was acceptable to our neighbor, that would be acceptable to the City. In that regard, Reid has not formally responded , he said he would take it under advisement. Should he desire that we not use any of his property, it probably would entail in our final drainage efforts, to slightly move our building back southwest a little bit. 0 P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 23 Junge:(cont.) We have presented it to Reid Rosenthal on the basis of sharing drainage, but if not, we will absolutely contain it on our own property. Rosenthal: I think that is an accurate summation of the discussion that we had on the drainage. Since we saw the proposal first today, we have not had a great deal of time to study it. There are other concerns that we have come up with. There is a concern that a different type of drainage arrangement than what was originally agreed upon, might affect the ground water on the units closest to the parking areas the way they have been redesigned. The proximity of the office buildings to the townhomes has been changed considerably. Junge: The corner building questioned, is in fact a great deal closer to his property, but it is actually closest to his impondment area or the garages that serve these corner buildings. Ross: Are you questioning, complaining, or what, Reid, I don't know where you stand on this. Rosenthal: Unfortunately, I'm put in a position where I would like to ask the Planning and Zoning Board to table this matter so that it can be worked out between the two developers. Haase: Is there a drainage problem with the bank and office development on the other side. Rosenthal: Part of the problem is that we saw the project about 9 hours ago. The project is well designed, on the other hand we have to protect our interests. This is a change ---one of our major problems is that drainage. Georg: You don't have any problems with the change in the square footage, you just have problems with not having time to consume the design and under- stand it's impact on your property? Rosenthal: I think that's the best summation. In the change in square footage they are switching uses from a restaurant to an office. It does affect the parking, it most certainly affects the views of units closest to the office building, and it most certainly affects drainage. Gilfillan: On the drainage situation, does it call for a joint easement? Smith: Definitely. To address that kind of drainage on someone else`s property to meet the standards would require some kind of commitment on both parties to that effect. That would normally be looked at between the time of preliminary and final approval. The project would not be brought back for final approval if that agreement had not been reached. If for some reason the agreement wasn't reached and a change would have to be made in the plan, that would come back to the Board to evaluate. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 24 Frank: This came up about 2 weeks ago with the applicant, concerning the drainage basin on Reid's property. At the time, we discussed options for putting it in the parking lot. It appeared by our drainage engineers that it could be done. They felt they could give it a conditional approval. based upon seeing final utility drawings. Rosenthal: Where would the outlet for that drainage be? Frank: I think, at that meeting, it was determined that they had sufficient area in the parking lots to hold it. -Rosenthal: I think it is determined by historical rate of flow at the point of outlet in the basin. If approval could be granted on the project with the stipulation that final approval would not be granted unless some of these items were worked out, I would withdraw any objection I had at this point. Georg: Right now we are just looking at the preliminary. One of the options that we could take is to insist on looking at the final on other than a Consent Agenda so that we re -address these issues. Rosenthal: That would be satisfactory to the Landings if you wanted to do that. Junge: Just to address Reid's points, we are very much in cooperation with his motives and his directions. I concur with staff that there is a normal 45 day period between this action tonight and to where we have final engineering to submit for the drainage solution. We're anxious to have you move on this tonight and move forward so that we can move forward. Georg: Moves that we approve the Shores P.U.D. Master Plan Revision subject to the revisions proposed by the applicant. Ross: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7 - 0. 14. #126-80A The Shores Preliminary P.U.D. A preliminary proposal for a 4.6 acre office park with 5 professional office buildings for a total floor area of 54,400 square feet, located approximately 250 ft. east of JFK Parkway and south of Horsetooth Road, zoned B-P, Planned Business. Applicant: Peter E. Heinz, Junge/Associates/AIA, 3405 Penrose Place, Boulder, CO 80301. Ross: Staff do you have any additional comments. Frank: We are recommending approval. P & Z Board Minutes • 1/26/81 Page 25 Stoner: What does garden professional mean. Junge: Garden, by our definition, includes courtyards, balconies and so forth. It is two stories. The "garden" means that it has landscaped areas that you can come from the building out into a garden area. Haase: Moves to recommend approval of Shores Preliminary P.U.D. with a four - lane drive -up bank facility eliminated. Clarke: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7 - 0 . 15. #139-80 Edora Acres P.U.D. Preliminary approval for a residential P.U.D., located at East Prospect and Edora Road with 38 dwelling units in three and four-plexes, zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple Family, covering 2.69 acres. Applicant: Nordic Construction, c/o Mark Wernimont, 309 W. Harmony Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report, recommending approval of the amendment to Edora Acres P.U.D. Mark Wernimont: We are basically increasing units and keeping the size down. The buildings were reduced from three bedroom units down to all two bedroom units which gave us the ability to keep the buildings in basic same location as the original P.U.D.,plus increasing the open area. We did increase the parking to better facilitate the individual buildings on the site. We will be keeping with the existing elevations. Brad Bishoff: Resident and owner of a four-plex in the area. Is it down -sizing in square footage or is it down -sizing from three bedroom to two bedroom. Wernimont: There is one three bedroom unit along with three two bedroom units.The original P.U.D. was set up basically along the same lines where you would have a mix of the three bedrooms to the two bedrooms. The actual square footage size of the two bedrooms in the existing building is larger than what we will be doing at this time. The square footage in the new buildings will be 992 square feet and the existing building is 1104 square feet. So we are actually down -sizing the units themselves. Bishoff: Will these be owner occupied? Wernimont: These will be non owner occupied. Bishoff: The maintenance in the past has been very sub -standard. If that is to continue, then I would voice strong opposition. Wernimont: We are total owners of the building now, and as of last week we took over maintenance of the building and you will see marked improvement. Victor Santini: Owns two lots on the east side of the acreage. Wonders if that area has been rezoned recently. Ross: It was originally approved for eight 4-plexes before. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 26 Santini: Was I notified when that happened.This area was supposed to be low density zoned and now we are getting this higher density. Ross: Asks staff if they have any kind of historical background as to the rezoning of this property. Albertson -Clark: I don't have any historical information on the rezoning. The existing approved site plan was approved in 1978 with 32 units. 12oss: So it has been zoned this since October, 1978 Santini: Why if it was zoned for 32, do we now have 38? -` - Smith: The R-L-M zone does not have a specific density. It's based on square footage. The proposed project is within the parameters of that particular requirement. - Santini: In my lot, could I build more. Ross: If you could approach the Board with some sort of revision to the P.U.D. that had adequate parking and things of that sort, there is a chance that the recommendation would be favorable. Haase: Moves to recommend approval of the amendment to the Edora Acres P.U.D. Clarke: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7 - 0. 16. #124-80 Spring Court Storage P.U.D. A preliminary proposal to construct 29,900 square feet of storage space in total of five buildings, located on Johnson Drive, west of College Avenue in the Spring Court Subdivision, and zoned H-B, Highway Business. Applicant: Randall E. Larsen and Associates, P.C., Main Floor, Savings Building, Oak and Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report, recommending approval. Ross: What is the width of Johnson Drive? Maurie Rupel: I believe it is 32'. Ross: In your opinion, that is wide enough for large trucks, with some parking on the street. Or will that be a no parking area. Rupel: There will be no parking on Johnson Drive. Leonard Szopinski: I'm open for questions, staff presented the P.U.D. proposal fine. Ross: I have a question pertaining to lighting. Concerned about lighting the back end of those duplexes. Is there a way you can do the appropriate lighting and not be detrimental to those. � a P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 27 Szopinski: The lighting now is very low to the buildings themselves. It's not 20' in the air it is probably 10' or 15'.There is a solid wood fence between the residential property and the P.U.D. Ross: Questions storage and mini -storage. Szopinski: Responds that this one is directed at some of the commercial buildings on College, as an additional storage for their stock. We only see the stock being delivered ---it could be once every three weeks, it could be once every two months. Ross: Dock trade also means forklifts. Szopinski: Not necessarily because there won't be a facility there to store a forklift. Stoner: Who is the owner of the storage? Szopinski: Mel Johnson. Stoner: Who owns those lots back behind adjacent to the duplexes? Szopinski: Lot 16 is owned by Johnson right now. He is planning on using part of that duplex for the manager's quarters. Lot 13 and 14 are owned by relatives of Johnson's, and I believe lot 15 is also. Stoner: Johnson would be the one to suffer if that was to interfere with the rentability. I assume that they are all rented. Szopinski: Right, they are. Haase: Would you comment on the potential for a drainage problem there. I would like to hear fron the Engineering Department also. The south is an extremely steep slope and the area is depressed. What is the report on your drainage? Szopinski: One of the reasons that the dock -height storage was placed where it was, was to provide the ability to compensate for the drainage from the property. The open driveway area for the trucks is within the flood plain of Spring Creek, everything else is outside the flood plain fringe. Haase: Is the Engineering Department satisfied with all aspects. Szopinski: Yes, we have worked very closely with them. Georg: How would a tractor -trailer rig negotiate on and off of Johnson Drive? Szopinski: By the design of the street ---the street is wide enough for them to get from College on to Johnson. Georg: As far as backing up and loading and things like that. Szopinski: Between the main space and the buildings it is actually 70' between the fence line and building, which is an adequate amount for the truck to back right up to the door. There shouldn't be a maneuvering problem. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 28 Tape inaudible. Apt: Concerned about the people living in the duplexes. Concerned about possibly a diesel truck having to sit at the storage unit for six hours to unload. Szopinski: The manager is going to be in close proximity. He is going to live in Lot 16. The manager will be in close access. Ross: Asks of Maurie Rupel which side of Johnson is the bike path on? Rupel: On the north side Ross: I think your historical data with regard to a mini -warehouse and having it very infrequently utilized is probably true for a normal mini -warehouse who has the normal boat or over -surplus ---but by your own statements this is primarily being put there to take the pressure off of the College Avenue commercial places. Szopinski: We are talking about just one facility for the commercial. Ross: I think you will be surprised then on the number of commercial people who will rent those other spots. Szopinski: We're talking about an overstock situation, we are not talking about an everyday type stocking thing. Stoner: Moves to recommend approval the Spring Creek Storage P.U.U. Gilfillan: Second. Vote: Motion carried 6 - 1. Georg voting no. Ross: Votes yes, however there were some comments on lighting and things of that sort, hopes that the applicant will. take that into consideration. Napheys: Votes yes, but echoes Mr. Ross' comments. 17. #146-80 Eastman Exemption (County Referral) A three -lot exemption request on 8.8 acres, zoned FA-1, Farming, located 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road and 1/2 mile west of I-25. Applicant: Paul Eastman, 5101 South County Road 7, Fort Collins, Co 80525. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report, recommending denial of the exemption request based on the fact that it is not consistent with the type of development intended for the rural non -farm development area; and that it does not meet the guidelines of the exemption process. P & Z Board Minutes • • 1/26/81 Page 29 Napheys: What would staff's recommendation have been had this been submitted as a P.U.D.? Albertson -Clark: If it had been submitted as a P.U.D. it would meet the density requirements for the rural non -farm development area which would be a minimum of 2.29 acres. Napheys: Then we would have specific design controls if it were submitted as a P.U.D.---or the County would. Albertson -Clark: That is correct. Napheys: Moves that we recommend to the County denial of the exemption request. If it were presented as a P.U.D. it might be appropriate for us to look at the specifics with the density that is submitted. An exemption is an inappropriate way to go about seeking their overall goal. Georg: Second. Vote: Motion carried 7 - 0. Haase: Encouraged them to come back with a P.U.D. 18. #3-81 Modern Fuels Rezoning (County Referral) A request to rezone 114 acres from FA-1, Farming, to I -Industrial, located on the south side of Co. Rd. 50 on the west side of I-25. Applicant: Modern Fuels, Inc., 813 S. St. Louis Ave., Loveland, Co 80537. Albertson -Clark: Gave a staff report, recommending denial. Jon Lowry: Management Consultant for Modern Fuels, Inc. We have made this request in order to build an ethanol plan. We have requested a change on one parcel which is 114 acres. We have a two-phase construction process. Number one is going to be approximately a one to two million gallon per year plant. The second phase is going to be a forty million gallon per year plant, which would come up in about five years. For our larger plant, we are going to need approximately 100 acres. That is why we have selected this particular size parcel. Basically, all we are going to be doing is producing the ethanol from farm products that we purchase here in Colorado. We will not be blending the ethanol with gasoline to make gasohol. That will be done in Denver. We will just be producing the ethanol and also another by-product DIGS --dry distillers grains and solubles. When we make ethanol, we don't use any of the protein or nutrient that is in the farm product. We just take the starch and ferment that and distill it and create ethanol. There is a by-product that contains all the nutrients and proteins that will be used by feed -lots. It is hoped in the future that we can develop a feed -lot as an auxiliary operation. I think this is very much an agri-business. The Colorado Legislature has seen that if ethanol is produced in Colorado and used in gasohol, there is a tax credit. It enables gasohol to be a comDetitive product. The Legislature specifically required the use of Colorado farm product. It is very closely related to agriculture in Colorado. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 30 Lowry: (cont.) I did submit an application with a cover letter that outlined the reasons we felt this was a particularly good parcel and why we need this type of industry here in Larimer County. There are three wells on the property that can provide us with the necessary water for our production facilities. It also has the necassary power lines ---three phase power. I-25 access is only a couple of miles away. One of the big things about this partic- ular property is that the railroad runs right by it. In the future with our larger plant, we will have to be using rail for bringing in the raw materials and the shipping out of the ethanol. Notice that it is -- immediately adjacent to the Box Elder Cluster and the Urban Growth Area.I talked with the Planning Department about the Box Elder Cluster and what had been recommended as an industrial area. I understand that part of that industrial area may indeed lie outside of the Urban Growth Area. It seems that some precedent has been set. In summary, we are looking at a capital intensive industry. We are building a plant that is going to take a lot of money. We are in the middle of the financing phase of trying to raise the necessary dollars in order to do this. One of the reasons that we are involved in this particular parcel is that the owners are willing to take the risk with us and to work with us on this project. Also, the Box Elder Cluster is something that was created in 1978, it's obvious that a lot of Fort Collins is moving towards the east, towards I-25; and because of our proximity to the Urban Growth Area and the Box Elder Cluster, I feel that it wouldn't be too far out of line to approve this rezoning request. Clarke: When this product is complete, do you ship it out in a truck or do you have a pipeline? Lowry: A truck. Later on we will probably use rail and it will go to Commerce city. Ross: That has the most miserable access to I-25 that you could find. You have to cross the Interstate, run down the frontage road, and turn across Highway 14, in order to pick up the road going to Denver. Lowry: It would be nice if we had an access right there, but we don't. That's the way we would have to go. Ross: Also, if you should have a problem with a fire, that is the same way the fire truck would have to come. I think it is a terrible site. Georg: How many employees will you have? Lowry: Approximately in the first plant, about 12. It is not very labor intensive. It will be highly automated. Georg: Are there State Statutes in Colorado that govern the requirements for fire protection for your type of facility? P &-Z Board Minutes • 1/26/81 Page 31 Lowry: Not that I know of right now. Napheys: What would be the fire protection controls required by either the County or the appropriate people who have to service this district. Lowry: Basically, we have been working on design. The president of the company is also the engineer. I feel that he could answer those questions a lot better than I could. Marvin Bowles: President of Modern Fuels, Inc. In answer to that question, this is considered as any other refinery product. However, we will provide practically all of our own fire fighting equipment on site. The reason is that we will produce carbon dioxide gas in the process ---some 250,000 cubic feet a year. The carbon dioxide gas is the type used in fire exting- uishers and dry ice and so on. This we will store in compressed form and use on the plant site for our own fire fighting protection. The three water wells are an auxiliary type of fire fighting equipment ---or source of water anyway. We would be looking towards carbon dioxide extinguishers, which will be compressed and piped around the plant. Napheys: What certificates do you have to get ---or what approvals? Bowles: On fire fighting it would apply as any gasoline plant. That is, all of the electrical parts would be in rigid conduit or explosion proof equipment. We would have explosion proof motors. Napheys: Does a plant like this give off noxious odors. Bowles: No, it does not. The only thing that we will give off is carbon dioxide gas. Carbon dioxide gas is non-flammable. In a larger plant it would probably be compressed and bottled into dry ice or into beverage carbon dioxide containers, into welding equipment and so on. In the smaller plant, it probably is not economical to do that. We would use it just as our own. However, the carbon dioxide gas is scrubbed before it is released out into the atmosphere. Napheys: Is there any greater danger in trucking these products than other type products. Bowles: No probably less danger. There is less danger from explosion of alcohol than there is from gasoline. The co -product is distiller dried grains, which is a dry cattle feed. Napheys: The Planning Staff's comments indicate that this is not an agri-business. What is your comment to that? Bowles: As a non-agricultural business, we would be buying corn in Larimer and Weld counties; principally in a 40 mile radius, of 2.7 million dollars a year. We would be producing a cattle feed valued at about 1 million dollars a year. These are principle products that we would buy and sell. The alcohol that we would produce, used for fuel, would be valued right at 4 million dollars a year. There is a lot of money changing hands. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 32 That, of course, means a lot as far as the cash flow in relation to employees and taxes and so on. In Larimer County in 1978, the automobiles used about 80 million gallons of gasoline. In Weld County about 76 million gallons of gasoline. This is a total of 156 million gallons of gasoline. According to the National Gasohol Association, that would amount to 31 million dollars going out of just these two counties to OPEC. We hope to bring a little bit of that money into circulation in this country and in this county, instead of going outside of the country. Napheys: Are there other plants such as this in 11 Colorado? Bowles: There are no other plants in operation at this time. Several are planned.- Napheys: What is the status of that? Bowles: I think that they are all pretty much in the planning stage. There is one plant that should be in operation by this summer. There is one at Campa, there is one at Walsh, there is one planned for Monte Vista. :- Napheys: Where are these plants in relation to urbanized areas? Lowry: Most of them are actually in the rural areas of the State. There is one plant that is planned near Longmont, also one near Commerce City, and one near Greeley. Right now gasohol is being sold in the State. Napheys: Where is it being produced? Lowry: Decatur, Illinois. It is being shipped all the way .from Illinois. There . is no other facility that can provide ethanol in any kind of quantity any closer to the State. Napheys: What is the Colorado Statute that encourages such plants in the State of Colorado? What are the particular encouragements? Bowles: The State has a five cent rebate on gasoline. This amounts to fifty cents a gallon for the alcohol. That, of course, would make the price of gasohol come down to what the present price of gasoline is now. At the present time, they are running at about ten cents a gallon higher, because of the freight involved and the fact that they don't get the nickle a gallon rebate. There is a Federal tax incentive also, amounting to four cents a gallon for gasohol. There is a State tax incentive as far as building alcohol plants within the State that may amount to between 15% and 20% of the State Tax Incentive Program for building alcohol plants. The State is strongly behind the gasohol program. Napheys: Is there a State level agency that is behind it? • P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 33 Bowles: The Agricultural Commission has control of the Gasohol Commission ---I should say they work together as part of the State Agricultural Commission. That's the Colorado Gasohol Commission in Denver. They consider us very closely related. Ross: When operating at full capacity, how many trucks are we going to be looking at a day or a week? Bowles: The incoming corn would be approximately 21,000 tons a year. Most of the delivery trucks for corn would be in the neighborhood of five or six tons. You would be looking at something like ten trucks a day average. Ross: I was actually interested in the out -going. Bowles: The out -going trucks would be about one transport load of fuel a day, and would amount to about three truckloads of cattle feed a day. Ross: This would be in your second phase? Bowles: No, this is the first phase. This is the two million gallon plant. When we get into the larger plant we hope to use the rail system. Ross: Which goes through Fort Collins. Bowles: Yes, which goes through Fort Collins. Apt: I would like to know why you picked land that was outside of the Urban Growth Area, it's not in any industrially designated areas, there is plenty of land that is designated for industrial development; yet you have chosen an area that really is not going to be subject to much review by either City or County governments. Bowles: Partly because the land has good water rights on it. It has, with an overpass, at least access directly onto I-25. It has rail and it is in an area that is almost direct access to the corn growing area. The principals that own the land are also willing to cooperate with us as far as this is concerned as a large capital -intensive enterprise. Apt: Have you studied any other land that is already designated for industrial development in that area? Bowles: We did look at some area down near the airport; decided that is was not very feasible for several reasons. One is the fact that we will use towers. We have towers that are over 60' tall. It didn't seem very appropriate to put a fuel plant close to an airport. Ross: There is always an emphasis on Fort Collins. Bowles: I wouldn't want to get it up much closer. There is an industrial area right there by the Holiday Inn, but I don't really think they would like to have that much traffic or flammable fluids stored there. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 34 Stoner: I have a question of staff. On our County Referrals, do we send out notification to the adjacent property owners or does the County do that for their hearing? Albertson -Clark: Ile don't do that but the County does when this rezoning request is heard by their Planning Commission. They notify all property owners within 500'. Stoner: So we aren't getting any input from the property owners. Bowles: There is one ranch house just to the west of the property on East 50.. The other property is either farming to the north, farming to the west, farming to the south, and to the east is an equipment and a metal building fabricator, and also the Wildlife Commission has offices and property there. Georg: I think there is no doubt that looking at fuel alternatives is a good idea. However, what we are looking at is any impact on the City of Fort Collins. In this particular instance, this proposal should be reviewed against the Larimer County Land Use Plan for it's impact. Have you negotiated with the County on variances to this Land Use Plan or do you feel that your plan is in conformance with this Land Use Plan? Bowles: We really haven't negotiated with them. We feel like it is mostly in conformance as a type of agri-business. Lowry: I carry on quite a bit of conversation with the Planning Department, and I haven't gotten a lot of negativism about it. They have been receptive in terms of providing me information, looking at the plat, and assistance in making the application. Their initial reaction, I wouldn't say was negative. I'm sure if you look hard enough there is always a better solution and a better situation, but you start getting down to dollars and time and then you have to make some decisions. This is a decision that we have made, and this is what we are going with --- that is why we are here this evening. Haase: Did you mention that there is an ethanol plant planned for Weld County near Greeley also? Bowles: Yes, it is near Eaton, where the old sugar plant is. We have tentative contracts to sell them alcohol as soon as we can produce it. We have a tentative contract to sell all of the alcohol and cattle feed that we can produce. I don't think that the co-op is going to build their plant for three or four years down the line. There are several reasons for that. There is a changing technology at this point. That is the reason we wanted to go with the smaller plant first. This would allow us to have the smaller plant over in one corner of the property and be able to build a bigger plant and the storage facilities for a large amount of corn and grain. P & Z Board Minutes 1/2-6/81 • • Page 35 Napheys: What environmental controls are you subject to? Bowles: We are subject to all of the environmental controls of the State. However, this has been designated, by the State, as a very low impact environmental type of plant. We are subject to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau. We have a commercial license already in hand, which not very many people in Colorado have, even though they have said that they were going to build plants. We have tentative contracts to sell all that we produce. In fact, this Commercial Distilling License for Fuel Alcohol is a rather important and lengthy thing to go through and we have that already in hand. Napheys: For this site? Bowles: Not for this particular site. It is in general the County ---actually in the whole state. It is not site specific, it is company specific. Napheys: Maybe I wasn't listening close enough, what kind of plant is scheduled to go in at Eaton ---a gasohol plant or a competitor to you? Bowles: An alcohol plant. Napheys: You produce ethanol. Bowles: Yes, ethanol is one of the fifty types of alcohols. It would be a competitor. All of the alcohol used commercially for gasohol, is ethanol --- produced from farm product. The reason is that it is a renewable resource. Methanol is a non-renewable type of alcohol. It has higher toxic effects, it has some other disadvantages. Methanol is generally produced from oas or gasoline refining plants. It can be produced from coal also---but- coal gas. We're talking about something that is reproduced as a crop every 12 months instead of waiting to grow dinosaurs every 12 million years or so. Apt: I have a question of staff, which would be a more thorough review process; having this rezoned industrial in the County, or moving the Urban Growth Area boundary so that it is included in the Urban Growth Area. Albertson -Clark: There would be a difference. If the site is rezoned to I -Industrial, then the only process the applicant needs to go through is obtaining a County building permit to construct the structure. Unless the Commissioners might attach some sort of conditions to the rezoning. If this site were within the Urban Growth Area, then we would review it to our design standards. Clarke: Many times we have heard that the Urban Growth Area boundaries need to be flexible. It is something that we need to see expand when the need arises and this may be one. Napheys: What time frame are we looking at to expand the Urban Growth Area versus making a recommendation to change the zoning? Smith: The procedure to expand the Urban Growth Area has never been done yet, it has to go through a formal rezoning by the County, including a hearing and approval by the City Council, assuming with a recommendation from this Board prior to that. It's a relatively lengthy process to amend the Urban Growth Area. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 36 Napheys: It seems to me, that this is as close to an agri-business as you can get. Yet in your discussion, you say it is not agri-business and it seems to me that it blantantly is agri-business. Which means that it should not be in the Urban Growth Area. Or, I guess it could be or it could be out or maybe it's being on the fringes is exactly what we are talking about. Smith: I think it is obviously a question of interpretation of what agri- business is. Due to the magnitude of the project the implication of the potential development of the whole site goes beyond an agri-business. Generally, an agri-business tends to support an immediate economy in an immediate area. If I multiply ten times twenty, I get 200 trucks a day - coming in to the facility. That's a fairly major industrial activity. That was our basis for our evaluation. Bowles: The rail facilities. That is one of the reasons that we particularly wanted this site. Smith: I think that there are ample sites within the Growth Area that have adequate access to the rail system. Bowles: You mean closer to town? Smith: In different parts of the Growth Area and different areas that are not an immediate entrance area to the City but are in more overall industrial developed areas that the rail system exists. The land value is probably higher because of some of the development value there, but I'm sure that there are sites that have adequate rail systems from two or three different rail companies. Several may not require that trains go right through the center of town either. Apt: My only concern is that something of this nature, which is going to go to 40 million gallons, is going to have a very large and significant impact eventually. I would like to see it get reviewed as thoroughly as possible. Much as I hate to contemplate moving the Growth Area, I think it is more appropriate for these people to locate somewhere in the Growth Area, as staff has suggested. Napheys: What alternative is there to recommend this to the County should we so choose to recommend that there be further controls on it? What mechanisms are available? Smith: You could recommend a condition that it be done as a P.U.D. I don't know what that provides in terms of the County ---their P.U.D. ordinance has some design standards ---it's not our P.U.D. ordinance, it's not our level of review, so it's a different approach. It's an option for the Board. P & Z Board Minutes • 1/26/81 Page 37 Stoner: I feel that this is a FA-1 zoning, sticking FA-1 zones. If I were upset about it. 0 spot zoning situation. We're not going from a this right in the middle of a bunch of other an adjacent property owner, I would be a little Moves to recommend denial of this zoning request. Haase: Second. Napheys: Let me go through this again. Is everything that surrounds this zoned FA-l? Lowry: Yes it is. On the southern end you'll see where the Weld County Canal is, that is the southern boundary of the property. Then down to the Urban Growth Area line ---that's FA-1. Immediately below that it's called the Box Elder Cluster and while I don't think all of it has been zoned industrial yet, according to the Box Elder Cluster clan, it is to be zoned industrial eventually. Apt: I agree with Stoner. You can call it agri-business but it is an industrial plant. It is an industrial facility being stuck in the middle of a farming area. The impacts of that can be significant. I think that it should be studied a little bit more before we leap ahead. Just because it is called an agri-business, it is still an industrial facility. Lowry: We are not really worried about the Larimer County Plan. An FA-1 does allow for an alcohol fuels plant associated with a livestock feeding operation ---with special review. What we propose is building a plant, we are going to be producing livestock feed. It is not for our own feedlot on premises. We have talked with some of the people who are interested in developing a feedlot immediately adjacent to our plant. We're almost in a double bind situation here. I talked to the County Planners about what it means. to have an alcohol fuels plant associated with a livestock feeding operation. I was ondering which came first. Ross: There was a feedlot proposed and was turned down by the County. We never even looked at it. I think you have a tough nut. Lowry: Well, if you don't try, you never succeed. Bowles: There is a fairly sizeable feedlot nearby. Ross: That feedlot is small potatoes when you are talking about feedlots. Smith: I think also a key difference pointed out is that it is allowed by special review. In the industrial zone it is allowed by right and there is no further review other than a building permit. That is a strong concern to the staff and to the City ---the aesthetic impact as well as the environmental and visual impact. Right now in the industrial zone we have had no review of that. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 38 Haase: Call for the question Vote: Napheys - No - Perhaps I -Industrial but with proper review, this would be a proper use for this land located where it is. The applicant indicated economic, water rights, and access to railroad as reasons, although Mr. Ross indicated some difficulty in the access to I-25; still it is not on the other side of town. From the presentation by the applicant, I think that this is a business that's fuel conscious for today's problems. _ It appears to me that we're in the situation of it's a nice idea but let's put it somewhere else. The applicant has indicated that it is encouraged by the State of Colorado through various means and that the environmental impact is minimal. There may be some concern having to do " with fire. I think those can be overcome. It appears to me that it is agri-business, in one important sense, and it is industrial in another important sense. The location is probably as close as you can get to an accommodation between the two. Gilfillan - No - It is very agri-business related. I think adjacent communities like Lucerne, Commerce City, and Eaton, show a potential for these kinds of industry. Georg - Yes - I am also voting yes, however, on the merits of the proposal. I think there are significant problems both with fire and transportation. Particularly the impact of that transportation on the City of Fort Collins, which I feel we are representing. I feel there are problems in putting an industry of this type at that location. Furthermore, I think that it is not consistent with Larimer County Land Use Plan. Ross - Yes - I don't think it belongs there. There is ample property further away that has rail and water and that is east that would not put the additional trainload through downtown Fort Collins. I think the aesthetics ---the 60' towers are something that we need not have in our location. Perhaps they do lie somewhat north of a mythical line but they are also lying well over a mile north of any development other than one farmhouse. I certainly recommend that his discussion be made available to the City Council. Haase - Yes - I feel that this is one of the most challenging and interestini County Referrals that we have received in many years. I vote for denial because of the safety issue and access for emergency vehicles, but do agree that the technology is needed. This site has significant problems as far as our Land Use Policy Plan and Urban Growth Area Policy. There is no site plan review in getting the building permit. The rail transit of materials near the City is a critical issue. I would like dialogue from experts that have been very concerned with the rail transit problems here. I agree with Apt, that this needs much review. I would encourage further investigation of other sites within Larimer County. 'P &-Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 39 Clarke - No - I echo all of the comments that Napheys and Gilfillan have. I really believe that what we are looking at here is not an entrance to the City of Fort Collins. If it were on Mulberry, if it were on Harmony, those are entrances. I-25 is simply a major highway that happens to lie many miles to the east of our City. The exit north of Mulberry I don't consider a major area in terms of impact to the environment. It is not a place that you see considerable traffic. Aslo these towers, if you are going to put them somewhere, that particular spot does not block the view of any residential areas. There are many areas where you could put this thing where you would block the view and, in my opinion, pollute the view of many people who already have homes built. We already see in thal area north of Mulberry on'I-25, the Marathon Metallic Building and other implement manufacturers. I think this fits in beautifully there. Stoner - Yes - Being on the Board is to protect the entrance aesthetics to our City, and I believe that this is an entrance to the City. Having made the motion and previous comments I still vote yes for the motion. Vote: Motion carries 4-3. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. P & Z Board Minutes 1/26/81 Page 40 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORK SESSIONS Date: January 13, 1981 Time: 12:00 Noon Place: Council Chambers- New City Hall _Agenda: Land Development Guidance System - Work Session with City Council Board Present: All members of the Board present - - - Date: Time: Place: Agenda: Board Present Date: Time: Place: Agenda: Board Present January 14, 1981 12:00 Noon Larimer County Auditorium - Fort Collins Work Session with Larimer County Planning Commission -Urban Growth Area All members of the Board present January 23, 1981 12:00 Noon Council Chambers - New City Hall\ Work Session for regular P & Z meeting of January 26. John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross, Alan Apt.