HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 12/22/1980a 4
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MINUTES
December 22, 1980
Board Present: Alan Apt, John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn
Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner
Staff Present: Curt Smith, Ken Waido, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Susan Epstein
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Ross: ICalled meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Announced that the Planning and Zoning Board now has an alternate member,
Alan Apt, who, in order to avoid tie votes, will vote in the absence or
abstention due to conflict of interest of another member. Noted that
Apt would join in discussion on all items.
Announced that several items had been withdrawn from the agenda, the
latest of which is the Miller -Lake Rezoning request. Stated there
were two board members who had a conflict of interest with Item No. 6
so that item would be withdrawn from the consent agenda. Asked if anyone
wished to remove any other items from consent.
1. Approval of minutes of November 24, 1980
2. #78-80B Golden Meadows Subdivision, Fifth Filing, Final
3. #132-79 The Bridges P.U.D., Final
4. #110-79B South Glen P.U.D.
5. #13-80D Hill Pond P.U.D., Second Filing
7. #132-79A Replat of Replat of Lots 1 & 2, Evergreen Park, Third Filing
Stoner: Moved approval of Items 1 through 5 and 7.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
6. #26-80A The Vineyard P.U.D., Phase I
Ross:
Chianese
A final proposal for 43 residential units on 8.94 acres including 3.84
acres open space, located east of Lemay Avenue and south of Druid Drive,
zoned RLP, Low Density Planned Residential.
Applicant: ZVFK Architects, 218 W. Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Announced that Stoner and Gilfillan would abstain from discussion and
voting on this item.
Gave a brief staff report, recommending approval.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 2
Ross: Asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this item.
Carr Bieker: With ZVFK. Stated that the first phase of this project is in complete
conformance with the preliminary plan approved by City Council.
Requested the Board approve the final plan.
Patty Martinez: Resident of Stonehenge. Said she had called to verify that this is
the exact plan that the Council had approved, and had been told there
would be some changes. Asked for clarification.
Chianese Showed a slide of the approved preliminary. Said the only changes made
were those to conform to street standards, including additional ease-
ments, green space and rights -of -way. Stated the units, types of units,
and clusters were not changed. Said some of the smaller cul-de-sacs had
to be adjusted to meet standards --usually widened. Said the green spaces,
the tennis court and the units were all unchanged.
Clarke: Moved approval of the final of the Vineyard P.U.D.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 5 - 0 - 2, (Gilfillan and.Stoner abstaining)
Ross:
Explained the procedure for public comment.
8. #205-79A
Replat of Evergreen Park, Second Filing, Lots 4649, Block 4, Rezoning
A request to rezone Lots 46-49, Block 4, Replat of Evergreen Park,
Second Filing, from RLP, Low Density Planned Residential, to RLM,
Low Density Multiple Family, located on Conifer Street, east of
Redwood, and consisting of 1.41 acres.
Applicant: Ivan Giroux, c/o Engineering Professionals, Inc., 2020
Airway Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Waido:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Ivan Giroux:
Applicant and owner of the four lots. Said they wished to put duplexes
on the four lots and had not requested more as they did not want to cut
the streets to change the water services, but had noticed since that
in constructing fourplexes across the street the street had been cut up
twice. Noted there would probably be more cuts with the approval of
Item No.7, but said they just want the best use of their land.
Ross:
Asked if anyone had any questions or comments.
Gilfillan:
Moved to recommend approval of this request to City Council.
Haase: Second
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
9. #127-80 Miller -Lake Street Rezoning
Withdrawn.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 3
10. #125-80 Amendment of a Non -Conforming Use - 2105 South Shields Street
A request to amend an existing non -conforming use at 2105 South Shields
Street, presently zoned RP, Planned Residential, on .9 acres to pro-
fessional office use.
Applicant: Frederick Trapp, c/o Lester Kaplan, Planning Consultant,
528 S. Howes, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending approval
Ross: Asked whose expense it would be to put in the curb when the curbcut is
eliminated.
Smith:
Replied the applicant would be responsible for putting in the curb when
access is provided through the adjacent property. Said that when the
street is improved in that area, the applicant could be involved in a
special improvement district.
Les Kaplan:
Stated that approximately 1100 sq. ft. of this building is presently
being used for retail uses, with no qualification as to the nature of
retail activity which can take place. Said his preliminary traffic
impact analysis comparing the existing use with professional uses in
the entire building and with replacement of the existing building with
development at about 11 DU/acre, indicatesthere would be less traffic
with the professional use alternative. Stated that use would generate
about 42 trips per day, retail would generate 55, and residences would
generate between 88 and 110. Therefore, contended the change would
not aggravate the traffic situation on Shields, and that removing the
curbcut would also help.
Stoner:
Asked if the amount of property is .9 acre or 1 acre.
Kaplan:
Replied the .9 acre probably does not include the right-of-way.
Clarke:
Asked if he were correct in understanding that changing this use would
prevent anyone from going back to the present retail use.
Ruggiero:
Replied that is correct --there is no vested right in the use which was
changed --any change in use would have to go through the review process.
Ross:
Asked if anyone wished to comment on the item.
Clarke:
Moved recommendation of approval of the change in non -conforming use.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 7 - 0.
11. #121-80 Revisions to BL, IL, IP and C Zones to Allow Child Care Centers in
These Zones
A revision to the zoning ordinance to add Child Care Centers as a use
by right in the BL, C, IL and IP Zoning Districts.
Applicant: City of Fort Collins
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 4
Waido: Gave staff report, noting that the Board had requested the staff to
notify the affected property owners of the Loop -Miller Rezoning prior
to their hearing and making a recommendation on this item. Stated
the staff had done so, and was again recommending approval of the
ordinance revision.
Haase:
Asked Waido to review the statistical information on the amount of
acreage which would be available for child care centers in the various
zones.
Waido:
Replied that Haase had requested those statistics at the November
meeting. Said the present vacant land in the.four zones totals about
484 acres, approximately 10% of the vacant land in the community,
4,815 acres. Within the specific zones, said there would be a little
over 12.5 acres in BL, over 51 acres in C,.slightly over 164 acres in
IL, and about 256 acres in the IP zone.
Ross:
Asked for public comment.
Noted the staff discussion with respect to fences should be included
in the Board's recommendation.
Clarke:
Noted that in some zones, a P.U.D. would be required for a child care
center, and in others not. Stated that it should be a requirement in
all zones in order to have adequate site review. Asked if that would
be possible.
Waido:
Replied that the Board could make a requirement for a P.U.D. part of
its recommendation. Said that staff had determined that would not be
necessary, in part because in some zones, the child care center would
become the only use requiring a P.U.D. which could be a 'problem, and
also because there might be no P.U.D. ordinance as it presently exists
within a few months.
Napheys:
Asked what particular uses now require a P.U.D.
Waido:
Replied that it varies between the districts, noting there are certain
uses which are allowed by right and others which are allowed in certain
zones only as part of a P.U.D. Said one example was the addition in
November of builders' supply yards to the HB zone under a P.U.D. Said
that in the RP zone, the uses by right are any RL uses, and any other
use allowed in the RM zone, can go in the RP zone if it is in a P.U.D.
Said the BP zone has uses by right those listed for the RM zone, with
all other uses for that zone being required to be under a R.U.D.
Smith:
Stated further that in the C zone, none of the uses is required to be
in a P.U.D.; in the IL zone none of the uses is required to be in a
P.U.D., however, all uses must go through an administrative site plan
review.
Napheys:
Stated that the requirement for a P.U.D. for child care centers would
be treating the child care center as a very unique situation.
Georg:
Stated he felt that child care centers do not conform to the intent of
use in these zones, so some kind of site review either by staff or under
the P.U.D. process would alleviate some of his concern.
i
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 5
Napheys: Noted that for a child care center to go in, there has to be certifi-
cation and licensing by the State of Colorado, probably through the
Larimer County Department of Social Services, so most, if not all, of
the Board's site concerns would be addressed through that process.
Ross: Expressed agreement with Napheys with respect to the. center itself, but
still felt concern about such matters as how well the center fits into
the surrounding neighborhood.
Napheys: Replied that this ordinance amendment is only to commercial -type zones,
so there should be no problem with fitting into a residential neigh-
borhood. Asked how a child care center is qualitatively different
from other uses allowed in these zones.
Clarke: Said that the location of child care centers had often been a contro-
versial issue, so the P.U.D. requirement would give the Board the kind
of review necessary to avoid the concerns Ross referred to.
Stoner: Pointed out that the P.U.D. ordinance may soon be replaced by the Land
Development Guidance System which would take into consideration all the
factors with which the Board might have concern. Asked if the change
in fence height was recommended for all child care centers, or only for
the ones in the commercial zones.
Waido: Replied that change would be to the supplementary regulations, so would
apply to all child care centers.
Clarke: Said that reviewing child care centers under the Land Development
Guidance System would provide adequate safeguards.
Arthur March: Representing the applicants who proposed the Loop -Miller Rezoning and
said they were prepared to discuss the appropriateness of child care
centers in commercial zones.
Napheys: Said he would like to hear it and asked if March meant C-Commercial,
or simply generally commercial zones.
March: Replied he meant business zones. Said he had been involved in many
disputes regarding the locations of child care centers, and that they
had invariably come about due to a lack of compatibility with residential
use. Noted that residents complain about potential traffic congestion,
noise, and so forth, and therefore regulations limiting the number of
centers in a given area has come about. Said that child care centers
are in fact businesses, and also must comply with state regulations, but
their.impacts are those of business which are expected in business zones.
Contended that residences converted into centers would be neither as
safe or as appropriate for child care as buildings built for commercial
use, notably with respect to fire safety.
Napheys: Asked March if he saw any difference in the appropriateness of the
four proposed zoning districts for child care centers.
March: Replied his concern is with the BL zone and it is very appropriate there.
Stated the C-commercial zone, given its history, may not be appropriate
for anything. Said the IL and IP Zones are either going to be developed
into office parks or relatively clean, quiet industrial areas, therefore
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 6
they would be appropriate. Said in today's world, it is to no one's
benefit to travel in a car to drop off children at a center, then go
on to their job, then back to the center and back home. Contended
it makes much more sense to have the facilities close to where people
will be working.
Napheys:
Asked if he would recommend excluding the C-Commercial zone.
March:
Agreed that would probably be preferable, noting that is not an area
where there is a high volume of people coming to work and so the
facilities would be less needed there.
Bill Rogers:
Representing Little People's Development, which is .interested in the
location of child care centers. Noted he had mentioned at the Loop -
Miller Rezoning hearing why they felt that small strip shopping centers
are the desirable type of location for child care centers. Discussed
the locations of other of their centers in shopping areas in Colorado
Springs, Montrose, and Aurora. Contended that child care centers
should naturally be in commercial areas for the sake of convenience to
the parents, greater safety of arterial streets during snowy weather,
and lesser impact on the surrounding uses. Said the appropriateness
of child care centers in industrial zones would be dependent on.the
kind of industry in the area. Noted that the City of Denver is planning
a child care center right downtown because there is such a need for
child care centers. With respect to the location of the center they
propose for the Loop -Miller shopping area, said the developers probably
prefer the child care center to other uses due to the lesser traffic
impact --the greatest times of traffic being between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m.
and after 5:00 p.m. Pointed out that their centers are not just for
child care, but are also educational and their time is structured.
Ross: Asked what the age range would be.
Rogers: Replied it would.be a minimum of 22 years as requirements forfacilities
for younger are different, up to generally 5 years except for some after
school care. Stated the state law says from 22 to 12 years.
Ross: Expressed concern for children travelling from school on foot to a center
in an industrial zone with respect to crossing heavily travelled streets.
Rogers: Replied that social service regulations require that children must be
brought to the facility by his parents and picked up by them. Said that
after -school children are picked up by a van owned by the company.
Stated that their proposed center on Lemay would probably be limited
to 22 to 5 year olds.
Ross: Asked if picking the children up at the school is a company policy or
a license requirement.
Rogers: Replied it is a company policy.
Apt: Asked who determines the amount of play area.
Waido: Replied there is a regulation in the zoning ordinance which covers
that.
P & Z Board Hearing •
12/22/80
Page 7
Smith: Noted that the City's requirements in this case are more restrictive
than the state regulations, and require more play area per child.
Napheys: Asked staff. for comments on March's statement that C-Commercial might
be inappropriate.
Waido: Replied that the City Council had requested staff to draw up an
ordinance change to encourage location of child care centers in major
employment nodes in the community. With respect to the C zone, and
Mr. Rogers' comment about the center in downtown Denver, pointed out
that part of downtown Fort Collins is zoned C.
Napheys: Asked if child care centers would be added to the lists of permitted
uses in the BL and C zones. Also noted there are two sections for the
IL zone and asked under which one the child care centers would go.
Waido: Replied staff was recommending the second subsection, making the
centers subject to site plan review.
Smith: Noted that both sections require site plan review.
Napheys: Asked if it is correct that site plan review would also be required in
the IP zone.
Smith: Replied that in IP it states that the uses permitted shall be those
set forth in the IL zone.
Napheys: Said that in the IL and IP there will be site plan approval which
should address the Board's concerns. Asked if it were correct that
in the BL and C zones there would be no site plan review.
Clarke: Said those zones would be the ones about which he would have the most
concern about site plan review due to the existing development in those
areas, also noting that a child care center in the IP and IL would
probably be a part of another development.
Smith: Suggested the Board give staff direction as to whether they wished the
centers to have P.U.D. review or administrative review, and they could
draw up the ordinance revision appropriately.
Napheys: Asked March to comment on the site plan review issue in the BL and
C zones.
March: Stated that it does seem difficult to require a P.U.D. for only one use,
and said he had no particular preference as to the type of review. Said
he questioned the necessity for special review as child care centers
are much more regulated than other business uses (except possibly
liquor).
Napheys: Asked the difference between site plan review and P.U.D. review.
Smith: Replied that site plan review is done by the staff and administration
to address specific concerns in the IL zone and takes only two weeks
as opposed to about seven weeks to go through the P & Z Board. Noted
there is the right of appeal. Stated the site plan would have to comply
with all the requirements of the zoning code while those could be varied
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 8
under a P.U.D.
Napheys: Asked if there was any precedence for listing child care centers with
site plan review under the BL and the C, and whether it would be
possible.
Smith: Replied there was no precedent but that it is possible.
Napheys: Moved recommendation of approval for adding child care centers to IL
and IP zoning districts as a use by right, and for changing the
Supplementary Regulations with respect to the minimum fence requirement
from four feet to six feet.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 1, Georg voting no.
Stoner: Said with respect to BL and C zones, the Board was choosing between
a P.U.D. requirement, or site plan review.
Ross: Stated that from work session and the evening's discussions, a P.U.D.
would be a cumbersome thing to do, so site plan review at the staff
level would be preferable and could handle it.
Napheys: Moved recommendation of approval for revising the zoning ordinance
by adding child care centers, subject to site plan approval, to the
BL and C zones and subject also to the minimum fence requirement of
six feet.
Haase: Second.
Clarke: Said he is willing, due to the efficiencies of the site plan review, to
change his mind with respect to the P.U.D. requirement.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
12. #113-80 Land "Development Guidance System
Review of the Land Development Guidance System
Applicant: City of Fort Collins
Smith: Noted the Board had had considerable review of this item and said it
was their decision whether to open discussion to the public. Said
staff had nothing new to add, but would gladly answer questions. Noted
they had charts to help explain the review process. Said -this system
would make it easier to review projects.
Ross: Asked the pleasure of the Board regarding public comment.
Stoner: Said they had heard many proponents of the system and wanted to have a
chance to hear any opponents.
Apt: Stated that if the opponents are heard, anyone who wishes to be heard
should have the opportunity to speak.
Ross: Invited members of the audience to speak before the Board.
P & Z Board
Minutes • i
12/22/80
Page 9
Kurt Reed:
Said that in discussions he had had on the proposed system, some
questions had come up. Said he had heard that several proposals
had been evaluated under the system and had not done very well, and
that he found that shocking. Asked for clarification from the staff.
Ross:
Said the Board had also asked that question of staff, but the problem
is that some of the qualities which the system is designed to
stimulate are usually not in existing proposals because they were not
planned according to the proposed system.
Smith:
Agreed that is the problem, and stated that 50 to 60% passed very well;
the remainder could have passed with minor changes and recognition of
certain criteria which had not been addressed in particular projects.
Reed:
Asked if indeed several projects had not passed, whether the staff was
saying that projects which had been approved in the past were not valid.
Asked if the new system was meant to correct errors in the past. Said
that a lot of the additional minor items which might be required to
make a project pass might be items which fall to the developer's
expense.
Took exception to the criterion which gives either 0 or 10 points for
1/6 contiguity to existing development. Said this is a strong
restriction to place on landowners, developers, and planners. Said
that without those 10 points, the expense of making them up elsewhere
would probably make the property too expensive to develop. Said this
would devaluate a lot of property which is on the fringe of the city.
Contended that the Urban Growth Area boundary is the only tool needed
to hold density in the city. Said if a proposed P.U.D. or subdivision
is within two blocks or a mile of existing development, if the developer
is willing to put out the expense to extend the necessary utilities and
services to the site, he should have that right. Stated that this
proposal would probably delete that right.
Napheys: Asked if he was suggesting that that criterion be given less than 10
points, or whether the definition of contiguity should be amended.
Reed: Replied he would like to see the criterion eliminated altogether, but
as a compromise, a sliding scale rather than either 0 or 10 points would
be acceptable. Stated that proximity to a rapidly -expanding area should
give a property a plus even if it is not contiguous, possibly 7 or 8
points. Said he could think of several examples of properties which
are very well suited for development but which are not contiguous to
existing development for 1/6 of their boundary. Emphasized that he
considers this a major item which should be thoroughly examined.
Smith: Responded by saying that that item is in the guidance system in
response to a City policy to phase development. Stated that the
definition of existing development is taken directly from the Urban
Growth Area Agreement which requires development in the unincorporated
portion of the UGA to have 1/6 contiguity to existing development. Said
it was the consensus of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Board that such an absolute requirement would not be appropriate in the
City, but that it should be done through a strong encouragement or incen-
tive, which is the nature of the criterion in the guidance system.
Agreed that some of the impacts of that requirement will be significant.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 10
Pointed out that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 platted lots in
the City which are not developed and much land contiguous to them.
Stated there has been a lot of planning and development in areas which
would require the City to spend money to extend improvements such as
streets which developers are required to build only on their own
property, and that these costs are significant. Disagreed that the
Urban Growth Area Agreement is in itself a phasing program, noting that
the UGA outside the City could accommodate from 250,000 to 350,000
people, so if any property in that area were allowed to develop, it.
would take quite some time to fill in. As a result the Urban Growth
Area requirements do not incorporate adequate phasing, and the Land
Development Guidance System has been designed to incorporate phasing
requirements from the City's perspective. Suggested to the Board that
they could discuss relaxing the requirement, but if they are comfortable
with it, they could proceed.
Apt:
Stated this issue should be looked at historically as well. Stated that
over a year ago, developers, businessmen and other people in the commu-
nity including those who wanted no growth, had worked together to form
a compromise which was the Urban Growth Area. The trade-off was that
there be phasing to prevent sprawl which is what the particular criterion
under discussion speaks to. Without this criterion, the Urban Growth
Area Agreement becomes useless in many ways, because the criterion is
the main phasing criterion. Stated there is plenty of land which is
contiguous which can be developed. Contended that relaxing this
requirement would be a betrayal to the public trust, noting how many
people had worked hard for a long time to come up with a satisfactory
compromise.
Clarke:
Said he had been concerned since he had become a member of the Planning
and Zoning Board about how phasing was to take place, and that he was
pleased with the way the guidance system handled it. Said that a
developer might have to wait to develop a property to maximize its useage
in terms of density, but that increase in density will also mean an
increase in dollars, so this requirement, it is hoped, will make waiting
to develop an investment for the property owner. Said he feels the
guidance system addresses this issue very fairly and equitably, and he
is totally in support of that part of it.
Reed:
Contended there is more than one concept of phasing, and there can be
different types and patterns of growth, so this requirement locks the
City into a certain kind of phasing. Also stated there are areas within
the City which probably could not comply with the contiguity requirement.
Clarke:
Stated the important thing is that this system has the flexibility for
the Board to recognize such situations and allow it to approve a project
if it is lacking in points because it cannot meet a certain requirement.
Reed:
Said that he and his staff were accustomed to working with the City
staff to work out the problems with projects, and expressed concern that
there would be disagreement about the number of points which should be
awarded and that that could become a difficult issue, making this ordi-
nance more difficult to deal with than the current one.
Bill Bartran: Said he is a home -builder who works with the public, the people who pay
the tab, noting it is not the developer who pays. Asked how many projects
P & I Board Minutes .
12/22/80
Page 11
had been evaluated under the point system.
Smith: Replied at least 30.
Bartran: Asked if they were relatively recent and how far they go back.
Smith: Replied they.had all been within the last two years.
Bartran: Stated he would be interested, as a builder, to see those evaluations and
have the opportunity to analyze them from his position. Contended that
his position is the user's position because he works with the using
public and knows them better than anyone else.
Smith:
Stated they had been reluctant to provide that review on a variety of
projects to any individual other than those who own a particular
project. Said they would be glad to share any of Bartran'.s projects
which have been evaluated with him, and would also evaluate others
he had done. Said they feel it is inappropriate to make public review
of projects under this system which are in a marketing stage and may or
may not have done as well under this system since this ordinance is not
in effect and would not affect those projects in any case.
Bartran:
Asked to have copies of the reviews of his projects, noting that the
limited access would curtail his ability to gain understanding of this
plan.
Napheys:
Asked if Bartran's concern was that this system would increase costs to
the home buyer.
Bartran:
Said there is a large spectrum of the marketplace which builders have to
satisfy, and the biggest segment is the low income--$30,000 and below --
so if the point system requires so many things that homes become priced
out of the market, many people will not be able to buy. Said the challenge
to builders today is to build a product which will fit a man's income.
Smith:
Replied that the basic element of the proposed system is to let the
market work, to get the City out of the arbitrary review they have been
doing, and to let the developer determine, by the market, the appropriate
amenities to be included, by providing trade-offs.
Bartran:
Noted solar use and access had been addressed very highly in this system,
and stated that the solar field is in such an early stage of development
that current solar equipment may turn out to be uneconomical within a
few years. Pointed out that no credit is given to the individual who
retrofits his home with a new furnace. Contended solar is not the
solution and does not yet really have a place in the marketplace. Asked
that the point system not take away the free enterprise system to the
point that the speculators rather than the users and developers are able
to function in the marketplace.
Napheys:
Noted that the question of added costs had been raised at an earlier
hearing, but no specific examples of such costs had been discussed. Asked
if Bartran could provide such examples.
Bartran:
Said he would like to see the evaluations of his projects and others at
different prices so he could see the effect on the user of the point
system. Said the user is not present and that no one ever speaks for him.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 12
Georg:
Responded that that is one of the reasons for the existence of the
Planning and Zoning Board, noting he did not have Bartran's experience
with buyers, but that he was concerned as a citizen on what impact this
system might have on a home he would buy. Said he had spent much of
his own time and computer resources evaluating this plan and how it
would impact his own home, and that he feels very good about what it
will do for the user. Stated that only by going through examples, can
anyone understand what the guidance system will do, and encouraged
Bartran to do so.
Bartran:
Said he wanted to do that and had asked for access to the evaluations
which had been done, noting he was not speaking for or against the
point system, but that he wished to gain more knowledge.
Georg:
Encouraged him to go through projects with the system himself, rather
than just the ones staff has done, and then compare his evaluations
with staff's.
Bartran:
Said he had already done that on his old subdivisions and would like to
see how that compares with staff's evaluations.
Bill Blackwell: A development engineer working with Engineering Professionals and also
a purchaser of "low-income housing". Said, as a user, he views the list
of optional points as corresponding very closely with things he considers
important in his neighborhood, specifically neighborhood centers and
parks. As a development engineer, said he wanted to make some comments.
Noted that in some instances environmental and traffic reports will be
required, and asked about the guidelines and specifications for those
reports.
Smith:
Replied that Traffic staff is working now on the specifics for the
traffic reports, and that the environmental reports would depend on the
nature of the specific requirement and the nature of the project, and
would have to be determined at the time of review of the project.
Blackwell:
Asked if that would be done at conceptual review.
Smith:
Replied that would be the first time they would go into that process.
Blackwell:
Suggested that the tabulations of each list be done in decreasing order.
of the value of the multiplier so it would be easy to see what the staff
and the Board consider as the most important. Commented on the residen-
tial section, items o and p, which give bonus points for the developer
setting aside money per unit for development of parkland. Pointed out
there could be some difficulty in calculating the amount per unit, due
to the fact that, subsequent to evaluation, he might be able to provide
additional units. Suggested the bonus points be awarded on the base
density rather than the final density to simplify computations.
Smith:
Replied he did not think there would be a problem, because in reality
the whole chart would be gone through before such things are determined.
Said this type of thing is not base density, but a bonus. Stated that
the logical way to plan would be to determine the density at the outset,
then determine what would need to be done to obtain the points neces-
sary to get it.
P & Z Board
Minutes .
12/22/80
Page 13
Carr Bieker:
Said he could not speak for ZVFK as they had been unable to conclude
whether they supported the proposed system or not. Stated that Smith
and his staff had attempted to solicit and obtain as much input as
possible, and apologized for being so late with his comments. Stated
he had several random comments to make as a result of discussions he
had had. Said one important issue is why the City needs to consider
changing the existing ordinance. Suggested that potential problems
could be in the areas of quality, cost, and timing of delivery.
Said there has been good quality development in Fort Collins, and
questioned whether there is sufficient flexibility in the proposed
system to ensure continued high quality, because it is so complicated.
Said they had run some of their projects through the system and had had
difficulty in determining the number of points to award criteria, and
noted there is subjectivity in determining the appropriateness of
criteria and in evaluating criteria. Stated the system would probably
need at least two years of fine tuning. Said that the success of the
system would depend on the people administering it. Stated there were
potentials for legal challenges. Said ZVFK would like a system with
highly desirable flexibility so they can do highly innovative things,
also one which weedsout undesirable, substandard development, and
contended it is difficult to predict how flexible the proposed system
will be. Acknowledged there are certain City standards and policies
which need to be worked toward, but said some things are becoming over -
standardized. Said they like guidelines better than absolute laws, so
cautioned against mandatory or absolute criteria. Predicted that the
system would frustrate out-of-town developers who would decide either
not to come to Fort Collins or to find someone in town who understands
the system. Stated that in the break-in period there would be a
period where there would be additional costs to the developer. Said
he thought there would be an impact on small developers who might have
more difficulty in coming up with front-end money for planning and
design services. Contended there are no serious problems with the
existing ordinance therefore adopting a new one needs to be done
cautiously.
Napheys:
Asked Bieker, if he were to vote on the system, what his vote would be.
Bieker:
Replied he had not been to enough of the hearings and would still like
to have some input into the system, noting they still had to do their
part of the job and provide Smith with the input he had asked for for
the last three months. Said he could not decide how he would vote at
this time.
Smith:
Responded to the question of why change the system. Pointed out that
an extremely controversial rezoning request was tabled earlier in the
meeting, and stated there had been many such controversial requests in
the past. Stated the controversy centers on the impact of a rezoning
on a neighborhood, yet the Board has no design submitted nor could they
act on one which would ensure property owners that they would or would
not have a quality development. Noted that the cost of the rezoning
request is not inexpensive and that cost is added to the cost of
development as well increasing the cost of staff time. Stated this
is only one problem with the existing system which the guidance system
addresses. Pointed out that in terms of timing there had been many
projects which had returned to the Board repeatedly because they had
been planned prematurely, again increasing costs to everyone concerned.
Said this is another problem with the existing system which the guidance
12/22 Byrd Minutes
Page 14
system is designed to respond to. Said both these issues are directly
concerned with reducing front-end costs and therefore costs to the
homeowner..
Bieker:
Said Smith was absolutely right.
Haase:
Asked Bieker with respect to his comment about moving with caution,
whether he had considered any kind of sampling approach.
Bieker:
Stated he had understood that the Industrial sector would be the trial
area for a point system, but since that had been dropped, said he did
not know how sampling could be done.
Apt:
Pointed out that Mitchell had said that it would be unfair to have the
system apply to some people and not others. Said there is a'lot of
flexibility in the system and that it is a guidance system and does
not need to be adhered to absolutely.
Bieker:
Said their concern had more to do with the appropriateness of how
points are allocated --contended none of their staff had felt they
could determine how to weight the various criteria.
Georg:
Pointed out that the system includes the things which are considered
in the Land Use Policies Plan as important environmentally, socially,
economically and physically to the City. Asked whether Bieker felt
that the elements of this system address the concerns outlined speci-
fically in the Land Use Policies Plan.
Bieker:
Said it seemed the system does try to address those concerns, but
that the plan is from 1977.and many of those policies may no longer
be applicable. Noted, for example, the policy to encourage land
development to the north of the City, which seems to have had little
effect. Said there would be development in the north when the popula-
tion thresholds are there.
Smith:
Said there are no policies in the system, but that it is in response
to adopted policies. Therefore, said if changes are needed in policies
then they should be amended in the policy document which, in turn, would
be reflected in the guidance system or other implementation tool.
Pointed out that the City's policy to encourage growth in the north
includes active participation on the part of the City in that regard,
and is not just a statement floating on the wind.
Clarke:
Responding to concerns about subjectivity, pointed out that in review
of P.U.D.'s there is a great deal of subjectivity, but there is little
controversy about staff's recommendations on P.U.D.'s.
Bieker:
Stated it did not used to be that way, and that there is a built-in
incentive to come before the Board without controversy. Said that
since the people will not change, they do not see a great change,
but since this would be a major change, problems should be expected.
Napheys:
Asked what specific incentives a developer has to come before the Board
without controversy.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
12/22/80
Page 15
Bieker: Stated that approvals are extremely important, so it is best to come
before the board without any arguments.
Ross:
Noted there had been a time when rather incomplete P.U.D.'s were
reviewed and approved with several conditions, but City Council had
let it be known that practice should be changed. Therefore, the
board had asked staff to do what they could to improve the situation,
and new procedures had been implemented.
Bieker:
Did not wish to give the impression that he was defending the older
system as it had more delays than the present one.
Pete Delgado:
With Delgado and Mestas, Inc., consulting engineers. Complained that
the Planning Department had failed to solicit input from people in the
field and requested the opportunity to provide input. Contended that
development is always ahead of regulations, and the City is always
behind. Said the City should have a master plan for the roads which
are anticipated on the fringes of the City, as well as the school sites
and zoning. Stated the planner is getting more involved with the
layout and design of the subdivision, rather, than in the over-all
picture of the City. Agreed that costs to development should be lowered,
but disagreed on how to do so. Suggested that development should be
planned so that taxes will later pay for amenities which would then not
increase the cost of the house. Contended that initiative was being
taken away from developers to do innovative work.
Ross:
Replied that streets and streetlights are not really considered amenities,
but necessities. Stated staff had had meetings with the development
industry, and had been soliciting input for a long time. Pointed out
that part of the reason for the proposed system's coming about is that
the City has been behind development in its capability to provide
services. Stated that it does not make sense for tax dollars to pay for
development costs. Also said that the proposed system is an attempt to
answer the mandate from the people of the City for phasing. Asked Smith
to detail staff's efforts to get industry input.
Smith:
Replied letters had been sent out to the design professionals; they had
advertised in the paper, had had two meetings with design professionals
and engineers; the Homebuilders' Association had contacted all the
developers in town and specifically requested staff meet with them; they
had met with the Chamber of Commerce's Growth Management Committee,
and Executive Committee; they had met with a group of appraisers in the
City. Stated they had attempted to get as broad a coverage as possible
and to get as much input as possible.
Delgado:
Said he and others like him had little time to come to meetings such as
this, so said staff should make the effort to meet with people like him
for two or three hours.
Smith:
Replied he and staff would have been glad to meet with Delgado if he
had called them. Stated he had talked with Kaplan and Bieker for many
hours, but that Delgado had not contacted him.
Delgado:
Replied it should not have been left up to him to request that, and
that staff should have gone to more effort to get input.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 16
Gerry Fiorak: Stated he is speaking as a member of the public, and said that one of
the advantages of the proposal is that a non-professional member of
the public can actually see what a proposed development is going to do,
and can see how it relates to the Land Use Policies Plan (passed in
1979, heavily revised from the 1977 plan, really a 1980 document).
Said this point has been lost, but that because of it, the City govern-
ment will be more accountable to the citizens of the City, and it will
be easier for citizens to comment at a public hearing. Stated that
with the present system there is no way for the non-professional to
know how good a P.U.D. is. Contended that there should be concern in
this hearing for the public, not for new home buyers and developers
alone, because the Land Use Policies Plan is for all the citizens.
Said staff had been readily available to him and said he had complimented
staff on trying to get input into this plan. Noted that the idea of
points is not new, that it has been tried in other cities. Contended
the system is relatively simple to understand and would make it easier
for the general public to become involved.
Stoner: Stated the board had had many meetings on the proposed system, and had
had initial problems with it, but had concluded that they still will
have the final say-so, so a subjective approach will be possible
regardless of the point score. Said the system does allow the
developer to look at the criteria and determine what items he will have
to address, and that it will give him more flexibility. Stated that
the only issue brought up at this meeting which he was concerned with
is the weighting for the 1/6 contiguity requirement.
Georg: Said the real question the board must address is whether this plan
addresses the objectives of the Land Use Policies Plan. Noted that one
issue which comes up repeatedly in the Policies Plan is phased develop-
ment, so it is entirely appropriate that the 1/6 contiguity should have
a high weighting, although it is difficult to determine whether it
should be a 4, 5, or 6. Said that the system should be tried, and if
this weighting does not work, then it can be changed. Stated that any
system such as this will evolve, and as it does, weightings may be
changed, criteria may be added or deleted, and other changes made.
Moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the Land Development
Guidance System as a replacement for the current P.U.D. ordinances,
specifically that revision of the system as reviewed December 19.
Clarke: Second.
Napheys: Stated the board's vote should be explained to the public. Said it is
unfortunate that the words "point system" are so convenient as a catch -
phrase for the system, because that misses the essence of it. Said
the combination of mandatory and optional criteria for evaluation of
a proposal by the City planning staff, City Council, the Planning and
Zoning Board and the public should promote greater quality proposals.
Noted it will also allow greater densities than may presently be
allowed. Stated it is an attempt to compare the qualities of proposals
despite the problems with measuring quality, but it still comes down to
the judgement of staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the applicants.
Noted the language used at the hearings will change as everyone will
have access to the checklists. Stated the public should realize there
is no magic number of points, and that there is a great deal of subjec-
tivity. Noted the document may have to be amended. Stated he had
P & Z Board Minutes • •
12/22/80
Page 17
had reservations about the system, but has become convinced that it is
worth a try.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
13. #145-79A Columbia Savings and Loan, Revised P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal to construct a full service branch bank
consisting of two floors and covering 11,620 square feet, located as
Lot 2 and the east 34.07 feet of Lot 1, Mourning Subdivision, at the
northwest corner of Foothills Parkway and South College Avenue. The
preliminary P.U.D. is zoned HB, Highway Business.
Applicant: Columbia Savings and Loan, c/o Earl Decker, Architect,
17th and Broadway, Denver, CO 80202
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Ross: Asked if Columbia Savings and Loan would be required to participate in
the island construction if that is done eventually.
Smith: Replied only indirectly through the street over -sizing fee, which would
be about $2200/acre for commercial development.
Dave McCarry: With Columbia Savings. Said he would answer questions.
Georg: Asked how many employees would be at the site.
McCarry: Replied fourteen, including part-time, up to 20 to 22 at full capacity.
Napheys: Asked what would happen to the downtown facility.
McCarry: Replied it would stay open.
Stoner: Asked if they would be using both floors.
McCarry: Replied there would be three floors and the Loan Department would be on
the top, the savings on the second, and the first floor, the drive -up
facilities and safe deposit boxes.
Ross: Asked if anyone would like to speak on this project.
Stoner: Moved approval of the Columbia Savings P.U.D.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
14. #103-80 2005 South College, Preliminary P.U.D.
Withdrawn
15. #118-80 Amendment to Lemay Medical Park P.U.D., Final
A request to expand building area of Lot 5 by 2,683 sq. ft. and Lot 11
by 750 sq. ft. of the Lemay Medical Park P.U.D., Final, located west of
Robertson Street and north of Garfield Street, zoned BP, PRanned Business.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 18
Applicant: Gefroh'Associates, Inc., One Drake Park, Suite 23, 333.
West Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Napheys:
Excused himself from the discussion and vote on this item.
Ross:
Asked Apt to participate in the vote.
Albertson -Clark:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Gilfillan:
Asked if there were need for additional parking.
Albertson -Clark:
Stated no additional parking is required as it is as previously
approved.
Gilfillan:
Asked if the owners of Lots 5 and 7 were the same as the applicant.
Albertson -Clark: Replied she did not believe they were the same.
Clarke:
Asked what the parking ratio is.
Jim Gefroh:
Representing the applicant. Replied that the parking ratio is 1:150.
Stated the increased square footage of 750 sq. ft. would bring it up
to 1:17.2. Pointed out that, with respect to Lot 5, the 3600 sq. ft.
would be divided into two types of space, only 1800 sq. ft. of which
would be on or above -grade. Said the remaining 1800 sq. ft. would be
in a basement or lower level. Said the original Lot 5 as originally
approved was to carry 1492 sq. ft. without a basement, so the request
is essentially for what was approved in 1972, with an extra 300 sq. ft.
to bring it up to 1800 sq. ft., with the addition of the basement area.
Said both Lot 11 and Lot 5 are owned by the same group of people, and
they have asked for a 375 sq. ft. first level addition with a full
basement onto their building on Lot 11. Stated they intend to sell Lot
5 to Dr. Bill Jones, a psychiatrist, and that he is also representing
Jones. Read a letter from Dr. Jones stating that the best interests of
the adjacent P.U.D. property owners is served with the 3600 sq. ft.
apportioned to include 2300 sq. ft. for unrestricted use within the
building, and the 1300 sq. ft. on the lower level to be used only for
storage, library, and possibly a second stairway for the life of the
building. Said they would restrict the lower level so that only 500
sq. ft. in the future could be devoted to office space, leaving 1300
sq. ft. for non -patient, non -office use. Said he would answer questions.
Ross:
Asked if anyone would like to comment on the proposal.
James Hites:
One of the present owners of the Lemay Medical Association P.U.D.
Discussed at length three meetings of the present owners on the proposed
amendment, saying there was considerable confusion about this proposal.
Expressed concern that the space for patient use be limited, and discussed
the possibility of architectural review by the P.U.D. owners for that
purpose. Stated that would seem inadequate, so he had prepared an
amendment to the original proposal in order to limit the space. Discussed
in detail the various proposals which had been suggested. Read a letter
from another owner stating that none of the owners had any problem with
restoring the square footage to the amount originally platted , and they
did not want the basement used for office space or patient care. Stated
that all other buildings in the P.U.D. are one story with the exception -of
P & Z Board Minutes •
121221So
Page 19
one 12 story building.
Gefroh: Stated that with respect to the Architectural Control Committee, they
had agreed to submit elevations of the exterior of the building, but
they had not anticipated that Committee would have any say over the
interior of the building which would be used for another man's practice.
Stated he wished to submit the letter he had read regarding the uses
of the lower level and to let it stand.
Clarke: Asked for clarification of the amount of storage.
Hites: Stated the limitation to storage and library was extremely lenient, and
was proposed because the patient density of a psychiatric practice is
low. Stated the library could be used for group therapy sessions,
and that the majority of other owners would agree to that. Said that
if the building were to be used by other medical professionals, there
could be a much higher density, such as a clinic, which would put
stress on the parking situation. Said he agrees that the Architectural
Committee does not have jurisdiction over the interior of the building
which was why he was proposing the limitation be part of the P.U.D.
Amendment.
Clarke: Asked that if the P & Z Board approved limiting the use of 1500 sq.
ft. on the lower level to non -patient uses, which the applicant would
accept, Dr. Hites and the other owners would accept that.
Hites: Replied he and the majority voted no on the proposal as presented.
Said the majority said they would accept one of either of two other
proposals. Gave copies of these to Albertson -Clark. Gave the dimen-
sions of Dr. Preble's building for comparison. Discussed how the
various owners had voted on the three proposals.
Stoner: Asked if he had any objection to the increase of square footage on Lot
11.
Hites: Replied he had no opposition to that increase.
Stoner: Asked who over -built so that only 750 sq. ft. were left for Lot 5.
Hites: Replied the last two lots were 2 and 5 which once belonged to one
owner who put a speculative building on 2 with a basement which took
some of the square footage which was allotted to 5. Noted the
basement was put below the sewer level. Said the owners of lots
4 and 6 were present and wished to speak.
Georg: Stated the proposed amendment is for a change in square footage of
the total building area and does not have to do with covenants or
deed restrictions. Asked if Hites objected to the total addition
or to particular uses if the proposed addition is allowed.
Hites: Stated he objected to the total amount of 3600 sq. ft., but under-
stood it would be foolish to limit it to the original 1400+ sq. ft.
if the user could use some extra storage or library space where
patient density is not a problem.
Parker Preble: Said he objects to the increased density, regardless of the use.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 20
Ross:
Asked if the Architectural Review Committee could restrict the use of
the addition or its size.
Preble:
Replied he thought they could limit only the exterior use, but that
he was not familiar with the legal status of the committee.
Ross:
Stated the committee might be able to hold down the amount of addi-
tional space.
Preble:
Said they would like to see a building there and would also like
to have Dr. Jones, but they would like to see restrictions put on
what they view as an application for a variance. Requested the
Board not to approve of the variance.
Smith:
Stated both parties are near agreement and suggested continuing the
item so that they could work out a solution.
Gefroh:
Replied he would not request a continuance as they are not asking
anything unjustified and seem to be quibbling about 100 sq. ft. on a
basement level whether it should be patient or non -patient use. Stated
the time and money to wait would be high, noting they had had three
meetings with the owners' group. Asked the Board to act. Stated the
Architectural Review Committee was not required by the P.U.D, cove-
nants.
Preble:
Said they are not quibbling about 100 sq. ft., but are objecting to
the difference between 900 sq. ft. and 3600 sq. ft.
Clarke:
Noted there seemed to be no consensus among the P.U.D. owners.
Hites:
Said that everyone who has built there has had their plans approved
by the other owners for aesthetic compliance, not for square footage.
Stoner:
Asked the size of the lot.
Gefroh:
Replied it is a little over 5000 sq. ft.
Stoner:
Asked if that is the average size of the lots there.
Bruce Porter:
Pointed out the sizes of various lots in the area. Stated his property
is adjacent to the subject property on Lot 6. Said he has no objec-
tion to Dr. Jones, but that 3600 sq. ft. would dwarf his building.
Noted there is plenty of space for landscaping around the other
buildings and that also should be considered along with the size of
the building.
Apt:
Asked whether the issue is the 100 sq. ft. of storage or the density.
Porter:
Replied the 100 sq. ft. is not the issue. Said they would like to
see 1800 sq. ft. in a one-story building with storage underneath.
Apt:
Asked if he was in favor of 3600 sq. ft.
Porter:
Replied it is too much.
Clarke:
Suggested a compromise of 2400 sq. ft. with 1300 or 1400 sq. ft. of
storage.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 21
0
Gefroh:
Stated they were asking for 3600 sq. ft. in a gross building area, of
which the common areas--non-storage, non -library, non -patient use --
will amount to 1000 sq. ft., including two stairways, which leaves a
net square footage, including storage, of about 2600 sq. ft. Said
that he was not optimistic of obtaining agreement among all the owners
in another meeting.
Clarke:
Asked if plans had been drawn for the proposed building.
Gefroh:
Replied they were not, but they wanted the option for an 1800 sq.
ft. basement, 1300 of which would be for storage or library use.
Stoner:
Stated there was approximately 98,000 sq. ft. of land there in
the entire P.U.D., of which 22,000 sq. ft. is presently used for the
building pads, therefore there is 1 sq. ft. of building for every
4.2 sq. ft. of land.
Gefroh:
Said that most of the buildings there are one story with no basement,
but they wanted the option of a basement. Pointed out that 1800 sq.
ft. is not much more than the originally approved 1492 sq. ft. for
the main floor.
Ross: Asked who sold the property with the over -built basement.
Preble: Replied it was built by Everitt Enterprises which owned the P.U.D.
Gilfillan: Moved to recommend denialof the amendment for both lots, saying the
expansion to 3600 sq. ft. was too great.
Haase: Second.
Clarke: Said his inclination to table was changing to denial so that the
differences can be worked out. Suggested that an amendment in the
range of 2600 to 2800 sq. ft. would be more appropriate.
Apt: Asked Hites for clarification.
Hites: Stated the first proposal which they had reviewed was for a two-
story, all above -ground, 3600 sq. ft. building. Said they called a
meeting because that seemed to be way out of proportion to the rest
of the buildings. Stated as a result, the proposal was amended by a
letter, dated 12/5 , which would change the building to one-story with
basement or 12 story with basement limited to 1800 sq. ft. above
ground. Said that most of the owners agreed to that amendment, based
upon the assumption that the Architectural Committee would have to
approve it. Stated that since he was on that committee and felt the
problems should be resolved prior to P & Z Board approval rather than
before the Architectural Committee, he had called more meetings and
proposed other alternatives. Said the letter from the applicant which
was read earlier was his third proposal.
Apt: Asked Hites about the original approval of the owners of the 3600 sq. ft.
Hites: Pointed out that they had signed and agreed to that proposal with the
understanding that the Architectural Review Committee would be able to
limit the amount of non -patient use area. Said he doubted the autho-
rity of that committee to make any limitations after approval by the
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 22
Planning and Zoning Board.
Vote: Gilfillan: yes; Georg: yes; Ross: no; Stoner: no; Clarke: yes; Haase:
yes; Apt: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 2.
16. #122-80 Northeast 1/4 Section 34 Master Plan
A Master Plan proposal for approximately 110 acres located south of
Horsetooth Road, between Imperial Estates and Skyline Acres. The
Master Plan provides 3 general areas, combining townhomes, condo-
miniums, and patio homes; a 1.5 acre non -retail commercial area and
a 14 acre public park. The entire area is zoned RLP, Low Density
Planned Residential.
Applicant: Lester M. Kaplan, Planning Consultant, 528 S. Howes, Fort
Collins, CO 80521
Frank:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Kaplan:
Representing the applicant. Stated the master plan and the preli-
minary P.U.D. proposal to follow together are an example of cons-
tructive conflict resolution between the applicant and the staff. Said
that to go over the whole process would only indicate the extent of
the work which was done. Said that Milt Alsum of Brothers 3 was present
and that he is the applicant and the developer. Stated that Jim
Gefroh and Tony Hughes had collaborated with them on the site design.
Said Dennis Reinke, the architect for the first phase, and Harry Cornill,
the engineer for the first phase, and Bob Rasmussen from the Imperial
Estates Homeowners' Association were all present and would be avail-
able to answer questions.
Ross:
Asked for questions.
Greg Griffin:
Resident on Richmond Drive. Asked if Richmond Drive would be a
through street on this plan.
Kaplan:
Replied the only street being shown as a through street is in the 30-
acre section to the north. Stated that Richmond Drive is being shown
as a potential connection because the City is requiring a second point
of access into the third phase of the project, but said it was not
imminent and would not be done until after replats had been submitted
for some of Skyline Acres. Said it would not be forced on the people
on Richmond Drive. Said that for Phase 3 they would have a 100 unit
building limitation until a second point of access could be achieved.
Stated that Troutman Drive, Richmond Drive, or a bridge connection to
the northwest collector street are all possibilities.
Frank:
Stated it was a traffic engineer's comment that there should be the
potential for access into that property, particularly if there were
redevelopment activity in Skyline Acres.
Kaplan:
Stated it preserves a long-range potential for access to the north, but
it is not necessary for the development of Phase 3.
Smith:
Stated that the City's reason for the access is in the event that
P & Z Board Minutes • •
12/22/80
Page 23
Skyline Acres redevelops.
Ross: Stated it appears that the applicant does not have the right-of-way.
Kaplan: Agreed, noting there is a lot at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Griffin: Asked if the two areas in the north of Phase 3 were both condominiums.
Kaplan: Replied they were, that they were putting the higher densities closest
to Michie Drive. Noted the specifics would be presented with the
submittal of the Phase 3 preliminary and that input would be solicited
from affected property owners at that time.
Griffin: Asked how the land east of the irrigation ditch and west of Skyline
Acres would drain.
Kaplan: Replied it would drain to the east, but none would go into the ditch.
Griffin: Asked if the ditch is fenced.
Kaplan: Replied it is not.
Griffin: Asked how they would provide for safety without a fence.
Kaplan: Replied he would address the details of that phase of the master plan,
Stockbridge P.U.D., when it comes up on the agenda.
Griffin: Stated he is opposed to any development because it would cost him as
a taxpayer too much. Said it would violate their views to the south
and west, would increase traffic and necessitate widening the street
which take property from them and give it to the rest of the people to
use. Said he also understood he could do nothing about it, but asked
the board to vote against the proposal for the sake of the people who
have to pay the bills locally.
Napheys: Asked what he would suggest in the way of development for the area.
Griffin: Said he thought the condominiums should be in the middle of the
development rather than around the perimeter where there is existing
development, and try to maintain the open view space as much as
possible.
Ross: Asked for further comment.
Haase: Asked for clarification on the capacity of the day care center.
Kaplan: Replied it would accommodate sixty-five children.
Haase: Asked if the statement "acknowledged" in his letter meant that the
applicant concurs with the staff comments.
Kaplan: Replied it does.
Haase: Asked if fencing would be sufficient buffering for the child care
center.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 24
Kaplan:
Replied he could continue to answer these concerns, but that they
actually pertain to the next item, the Stockbridge P.U.D.
Smith:
Noted that the comments were sent together on both items.
Stoner:
Asked why the condominiums were located next to the two -acre parcel.
Kaplan:
Replied that the property is zoned at 6 DU/acre and that is what is
being submitted. Said that it is probably zoned so low because of
the low density development nearby. Stated the property is a mile
and a half from the Foothills Fashion Mall and directly across the
street from a 12 acre regional recreational center (proposed). Said
the condominiums are close to the arterial street so the residents
would not have to travel through the development to get to Shields
Street. Instead the lower density development residents would be
travelling through the higher density area. Said the phasing order
is not definite, but it will probably be done with the areas close
to Shields Street with a minimum amount of street extension first.
Stated that the fact they will be building near a low density area will
be taken into account.
Haase:
Asked about the water problem.
Kaplan:
Replied that the City is assuring them that they will provide water to
the site, a right associated with annexation. Noted, however, that the
City had not anticipated such an early annexation, so the long-range
planning had not been done. Stated that Mr. Hibbard had indicated there
would be no difficulty in providing water, particularly to the quarter
section under consideration. Said the options in the letter in the
packet are all realistic.
Apt:
Asked if the staff knows what these various items will cost the City at
this point.
Smith:
Replied that at this stage they are looking at the various possibilities
and how they would be funded and what they would cost, but said the City
had committed to providing water service and the final decision would be
brought before the Planning and Zoning Board for approval with the final.
Apt:
Asked if the City would then pay the entire cost of providing water.
Smith:
Replied not at all; the solution may involve the developer paying part
of the cost. Said that if they go to the pumping station option, the
City would allocate to the developer the share of the cost according to
his benefit.
Apt:
Expressed concern that approval might be premature.
Smith:
Replied not on a preliminary basis, because the detailed designs are not
being considered.
Apt:
Replied his difficulty is with not knowing the costs to the taxpayers.
Smith:
Pointed out that at the preliminary stage the engineering options are not
known sufficiently to provide cost information, but that could come out
with specific engineering solutions.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 25
U
Kaplan:
Stated this could be a savings to the City because there is a ready,
willing and able developer for the first phase and it is within his
interests to resolve the water situation. Secondly, said the rest of
the area's developers would also be willing to participate in the cost
of providing water. Contended that so-called system improvements
which the City usually pays for will be shared by developers so that
will save the City money.
Napheys:
Asked for a description of the character of the Skyline Acres area.
Smith:
Replied it is single-family units on 2 to 5 acre lots, eighteen of the
twenty being built on.
Napheys:
Agreed with Griffin's concern about the placement of the condominiums.
Kaplan:
Replied there is a similar situation with the Stockbridge P.U.D. and
Imperial Estates and they had had a homeowners' meeting with Imperial
Estates residents to which Skyline Acres people were also invited, and
an acceptable solution was worked out. Noted that the interfacing of
two land uses would be a frequent problem in the future, and it would
be more a matter of design than of what the contiguous uses are.
Ross:
Asked what the distance would be from the property line to the nearest
Skyline Acres houses.
?
Skyline Acres resident. Stated he owns two lots, and his house is
about 128' from the property line.
Kaplan:
Reminded the board that they had approved a 22,000 sq. ft. neighborhood
convenience center across the street from Skyline Acres. Stated it is
obvious that the premise is that is that Skyline Acres is not going to
stay the same indefinitely.
Napheys:
Asked if the board was being asked to approve the condominiums next to
Skyline Acres with this master plan.
Kaplan:
Replied that was correct, and that that is the most logical location for
high density in this project. Stated that high density in this project
would be considered moderate density elsewhere, with a maximum of 6DU/acre.
Smith: Stated the condominium area would be 6.8 DU/acre.
Kaplan: Pointed out that it had not yet been decided if the area would be condo-
miniums or apartments, but that in any case the Skyline Acres residents
would be asked for input.
Griffin: Asked how high the buildings might be.
Kaplan: Replied no design work had been done at all, but the City maximum height
allowance is 40'.
Griffin:
Stated that he objects to
the
word "condominium".
Kaplan:
Said that another reason
for
the location of the condominium area is that
it is most accessible to
the
neighborhood convenience center.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 26
Gilfillan: Asked about school planning fora master plan of this size.
Smith: Stated that this information is submitted to the school district, and
when it gets to the preliminary stage, they will designate the school
district of which the area will be a part. Said that generally, if
the nearest school district is over -crowded, the children will be bused
to a school with excess capacity, so new residents will know immediately
that their children will not be going to a neighborhood school. Said
that the school district presently projects needing one additional
elementary school by 1990 for the entire city.
Stoner: Stated that the adjacent property owners could be effectively protected
at the time of consideration of preliminary phase proposals.
Moved approval of.the Master Plan of the NE 1/4 of Section 34.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Napheys: no, saying that the purpose of master plans should be to
indicate the appropriate densities and the condominiums are improperly
placed; Gilfillan: yes; Georg: yes; Ross: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes;
Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 6 - L
17. #122-80A Stockbridge P.U.D., Preliminary
A preliminary proposal for a residential P.U.D., located west of _
Shields on Horsetooth Road in an area zoned RLP, Low Density Planned
Residential. The proposed P.U.D. consists of 180 townhomes and patio
homes on a 30-acre site.
Frank:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Napheys:
Asked what is between this P.U.D. and Skyline Acres.
Frank:
Replied it is an 11-acre parcel, also zoned rlp, but not part of the
master plan submittal, and presently vacant. Stated that eventual access
across the ditch had been provided for by a place for a vehicle bridge
and also for a pedestrian bridge.
Kaplan:
Stated the Board had background information on this proposal and that it
had been gone over extensively with City staff, so said he would answer
questions and could show building elevations.
Apt:
Asked to see the design of the four-plexes.
Kaplan:
Showed the slides, stating there is considerable variety.
Stoner:
Asked what the price range would be.
Kaplan:
Replied in the upper middle range.
Ross:
Asked for public comment.
Bob Rasmussen: Representing the Imperial Estates Homeowners' Association.
P Z Board Minutes .
12/22/80
Page 27
Stated they had gone over this proposal with the applicants and that his
neighbors had agreed that fencing would be a great improvement, noting
that their property would back up to a single family area and animals
are kept on their property. Expressed the concern that this might make
them offensive to the new residents. Stated they had no major problems
with the plan. Asked if the City plans to extend Westfield Drive which
goes east -west through Imperial Estates. Expressed concern about the
eventual improvement of the Horsetooth-Shields intersection and the
costs to those whose properties border on Horsetooth, particularly since
one side of the street is in the City and the other is in the County.
Said they agree that development in that area is inevitable and they
like the buffering which is built into it. Noted there is a proposal
for fourteen acres for a park which would back up to Imperial Estates and
that if the City would purchase that land, it would help to buffer the
two lifestyles.
Napheys: Asked if it was correct that the City had contemplated annexing Imperial
Estates before, but that Imperial Estates did not want annexation.
Rasmussen: Stated that most of the residents accept the fact that someday Imperial
Estates will be within the City boundaries.
Napheys: Questioned his concern about payment for street improvements.
Rasmussen: Stated that if the people who live along Horsetooth Road are required to
participate in the improvement of Horsetooth, that would include only
six homeowners in Imperial Estates as the long side of the lots borders
the arterial.
Smith: Responded to the question about Westfield Drive, saying it would be
extended into the property, and will be a connection to the collector
street to increase fire access. Said it would run along the northern
boundary of the park site and would not be developed with this phase.
With respect to Horsetooth and Shields, stated that if that area had to
be improved prior to annexation, the City would probably condemn the
necessary right-of-way and finance the improvements in some manner which
would probably not include the participation of bordering property owners
as it is unlikely that the City would have that authority. Also said
that even if the property were in the City, the owners would probably
not be required to participate since the improvements would not give any
of them direct access to Horsetooth. Stated that in the long run, the
street improvement costs would be borne by the City and development in
the area, but that specifics on how that would be done are not presently
known.
Georg: Moved approval of the Stockbridge P.U.D., Preliminary, with the condition
that the final be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board on the
discussion agenda.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 28
21. #133-80 Terry Ridge Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone 40.14 acres from FA-1, Farming, to A-2, Residential,
located one-half mile east of Interstate 25, south of Highway 14.
Applicant: Larry McCrery, 1719 East Mulberry, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Albertson -Clark: Staff report, recommending approval subject to the following
conditions: 1. That all Urban Growth Area application criteria be met
prior to any development of the site; 2. The site be developed as a
P.U.D. with a maximum density of 5 DU/acre; 3. The P.U.D. site plan be
designed to City standards and be reviewed by City staff.
Pete Delgado: Representing the applicant. Said he would answer questions.
Stoner: Asked if he had any problem meeting the Urban Growth Area criteria.
Delgado:
Replied they had no problem.
Stoner:
Asked how he would meet the 1/6 contiguity requirement.
Delgado:
Stated they could not meet that requirement.
Apt:
Asked if they were planning to improve the streets to four lanes.
Delgado:
Replied the road is a state highway and the state is in the process of
improving that road.
Apt:
Asked staff if that would meet the Urban Growth Area requirement.
Smith:
Replied he had not seen the plans and did not know.
Ross:
Stated it appears there is over -lapping authority there.
Smith:
Replied it is the same with Highway 287, and the state may determine that
two lanes are sufficient for the present, but ultimately there will be
need for more. The requirement is dependent on the ultimate street plan.
Ross:
Asked, if all other requirements were met, whether that requirement would
hold up this type of development.
Smith:
Replied that under the letter of the agreement, if it is not built to
City standards as designated on the master street plan, then it would
hold up the development. Noted that is an item the County is going to
ask the Council to discuss in January.
Stoner:
Asked if this isn't a weird way of denying development.
Smith:
Replied it is a way of phasing the project. Stated the five or six
criteria were put in the agreement to assure that if any development
occurred away from areas where facilities presently exist, those
facilities would be provided at no cost to people other than the ulti-
mate developer and owner of that property. Pointed out that the 1/6
contiguity requirement is the only one which can be waived.
Delgado: Stated that would be the only requirement which they would need to have
waived, because they would have services, and the street is being improved.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
12/22/80
Page 29
Apt: Stated that City standards have to be defined. Said he did not under-
stand how they could meet the Urban Growth Area criteria with the state
road improvements. Said that due to the contiguity problem it seems
silly to rezone this property.
Delgado: Asked how they could say the street does not meet City standards when
the City has no jurisdiction over the state highway.
Apt: Replied that according to the Intergovernmental Agreement, the street
has to be improved to City standards. Suggested that staff elaborate.
Smith: Stated that it is up to the City or County, whichever works with the
state to determine the specific design standards, the critical details
being curb, gutter, sidewalks and so on. Said that City standards would
call for at least curbs and gutters, with sidewalks put in with develop-
ment. Pointed out that the difference between rezoning and development
needs to be clearly distinguished in the Urban Growth Area. Stated that
the zoning is a kind of predetermination, a planning designation, of
what the ultimate use of the area could be. Specific development is
covered by the Intergovernmental Agreement and the County subdivision
regulations, while the zoning is not. Said, therefore, that rezoning
could be done without going through the subdivision regulations which
were adopted for the Urban Growth Area, and any subsequent development
would have to go by the subdivision regulations. Stated that the
staff condition that the development should meet the Urban Growth Area
criteria is actually more a matter of information for the applicant than
a necessary legality, as the criteria have to be met prior to development.
Delgado: Asked if the rezoning were approved if he would still have to come back
to the City with their development plans.
Smith: Replied that before a plan could be submitted, it would have to be shown
how the requirements would be met.
Ross: Asked for public comment.
Delgado: Said their original submission was for two ten -acre tracts facing Highway
14 with a twenty -acre tract on the back, but it was refused because of
too low a density for the Urban Growth Area.
Georg: Moved recommendation of approval of the Terry Ridge Rezoning subject to
the staff conditions.
Napheys: Second.
Apt: Said he still had reservations due to the possibility they eight be
setting a precedent which they might later regret.
Georg: Stated they were only being asked to make recommendations based on the
zoning. Said the applicant's only option is to request a waiver on the
contiguity. Stated the phasing of development was not what was being
considered with this request.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 1 - 1, (Apt: no; Clarke: abstained).
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 30
22. #134-80 Willox Exemption (County Referral)
A two -lot exemption request on 40 acres zoned 0-Open, located northeast
of the intersection of Shields Street and Willox Lane.
Applicant: Charles and John Willox, 1804 North Shields Street, Fort
Collins, CO 80521
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report recommending approval with the condition that an
additional 20' of R.O.W. be dedicated along the property on Shields
Street and Willox Lane.
John Willox: Applicant. Stated the property does not adjoin Willox Lane, but is
about 500 yards north and adjoins Shields Street --that is the 3-acre
exemption. The remainder of the 40 acres does adjoin Willox Lane.
Stated that his home is on the.three acres and his father wants to give
him that three acres and retain ownership of the remainder.
Napheys: Napheys moved to recommend approval with the condition that an addi-
tional 20' of R.O.W. by dedicated along Shields Street.
Clarke: Second.
Ross: Asked.if it is necessary to dedicate the R.0.11:. now when it may not be
necessary for 20 years.
Smith: Replied there are two ways to deal with it: one is to dedicate it now and
one is to reserve it for dedication in the future, and it is just cleaner
to have it done and save additional steps. Said the dedication would not
preclude the owners from using the property at all until the improvements
were made.
Willox: Asked if the R.O.W. condition applied only to the three acre parcel or
to all of it.
Smith: Said the staff recommendation was for the entire forty acres along both
Shields and Willox.
Georg: Said it might be cleaner to dedicate the R.O.W. along both streets at this
time.
Ross: Said it might avoid condemnations at a future date.
Clarke: Asked Willox how he felt about dedicating that much land.
Charles Willox: Replied it amounts to about two acres of land, so he does not like it.
Said the expressway would come through there anyway so it wouldn't do
the City any good to have 20' along Willox Lane because it wouldn't be
there. Pointed out the last proposed route of the expressway.
General discussion ensued on the location of the property and the expressway.
Napheys: Stated he wished his motion to state that the condition applies to
Tract A only.
Vote: Motion carried, 5 - 2, Ross: no, saying dedication should be required
along the entire parcel; Georg: no, agreeing with Ross.
P & Z Board Minutes •
12/22/80
Page 31
23. #135-80 Day -Peters Exemption (County Referral)
A two -lot exemption request on 38.6 acres zoned M and M-1, Multiple
Family and T-Tourist, located one mile south of Fort Collins on the west
side of Highway 287.
Applicant: U.S. 287, Ltd., 201 North Link Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Albertson -Clark:
Gave staff report, recommending denial.
Dave Shupe:
With Hogan and Olhausen in Loveland, representing Day -Peters in this
matter. Said they are aware that neither the City nor the state
highway department wants another access to the southerly parcel onto
the state highway. Said, therefore, a contingency in the sales contract
states that access will be provided to the southern parcel through the
northern parcel by means of an extension coming from the present fron-
tage road. Said the location is not specified, as an extension of the
frontage road is not what is required. Said they understood that this
could be handled as staff has suggested by requiring both parties of
the sale to be co-submitters of the subdivision plat for the entire
property, however suggested the staff has not taken into account the
financial ramifications of that alternative. Said there are fourteen
to sixteen actual investors, so it would be cumbersome to ask them to
go through that process. Stated their proposal would simplify the whole
submittal process, and stated they could provide the Board with a copy
of the sale contract.
Apt:
Asked staff what elements of control would be lost by granting this
exemption.
Smith:
Replied potential street improvements which would be part of the subdi-
vision --granted there is a contract provision for the access but the
question of who builds the street remains --but stated that the question
is as much a philosophical one as a legal one. Said that the exemption
is really not a development process and what is intended for these
properties is ultimate development and subdivision, therefore the appro-
priate process is subdivision. Said an appropriate use of the exemption
process is the previous exemption, the Willox.
Apt:
Said this is typical of the exemptionswhich have been granted too often
in the County. Stated that the subdivision review process is a good one,
especially as this property is on Highway 28� which is a major conside-
ration.
Gilfillan:
Asked if the County T-Tourist zone would allow extension of Cameron Park.
Smith:
Replied he was not sure.
Shupe:
Stated it would allow for extension of Cameron Park.
Apt:
Pointed out that/thescumulative effect of exemptions which is important
as much as the individual request. Stated that exemptions are intended
for families who wish to divide their property, not for investors.
Shupe:
Stated he agrees philosophically that the exemption process has been
vastly over -used, but doesn't believe this violates the Board's concerns
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 32
that development be done properly. Stated the area is entirely within
the Urban Growth Area and the controls on it are sufficient to ensure
that development is done properly, regardless of whether the parcel
to the north is a subdivided portion of a total subdivision or is an
exemption parcel.
Smith:
Stated that in their conceptual technical review they had told the
applicant they do not want access taken off the frontage road at all,
but taken farther from the west, internal from Cameron Park. Said
therefore, that the condition of the sale is not consistent with their
recommendation.
Shupe:
Stated those comments had not come back to him as they had been made to
the developer of the southern parcel rather than to Day -Peters. Said
there is no way to get access through Cameron Park First Filing.
Smith:
Replied it could be tied into a street from the second filing and would
come down directly into the intersection, rather than to a T as
originally proposed. Stated that with the number of units which are
proposed there a T to the frontage road would be a disaster.
Shupe:
Said it is questionable to them whether one access on either place is
enough, but said it is a point they can work out, depending on what the
City wants. Stated he mentioned the contract only to assure the Board
that both parties are aware that access is needed elsewhere than 287.
Haase:
Moved to recommend denial of the Day -Peters exemption request.
Gilfillan: Second.
Shupe: Asked that the reason for denial be stated for the client.
Haase: Said the reason is indicated in the discussion and the motion stands.
Pointed out that they had had discussion on this item at work session and
that they had background information also prior to the meeting.
Smith: Replied that in their letter to the County, the staff would outline the
rationale for the denial.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
12/22/80
Page 33
24. #136-80 Summers 1/6 Contiguity Waiver Request (County Referral)
A request to waive the 1/6 contiguity requirement of the Urban Growth
Area's development application criteria for a 2.7 acre site located one
mile east of Fort Collins, south of Highway 14, zoned C-Commercial.
Applicant: Richard A. Rutherford, 214 North Howes, Fort Collins, CO
80521
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending denial.
Stoner:
Referred to staff's comment with respect to the requirements for deve-
lopment in the Urban Growth Area, No. 5, "At least 1/6 of proposed
development's boundary must be contiguous to existing development or
situated between existing development and a municipality and must be
served by either water or sewer utilities from said municipality."
Said the subject property is situated between Countryside Homes . . . .
Smith:
Stated the requirement also states --and provided service by the city.
Stoner:
Said it has water and sewer service.
Smith:
Replied it is provided by a district, not a municipality.
Stoner:
Said that is a technicality.
Smith:
Replied that may be, but that that language was put in the agreement by
the city of Loveland because they have some line extensions that go outside
their city limits, so they are agreeable to having development on their
lines. Said that Fort Collins did not envision the districts' meeting
that requirement, but that it is a point.
Stoner:
Said it seems greedy on the part of the city. Pointed out that with the
exception of 1, lots on the south of this property, all the surrounding
land is developed. Asked the difference between this request and the
Willox Exemption which was just approved, noting they did not have 1/6
contiguity.
Smith:
Pointed out that exemptions are not subject to subdivision regulations
which are the basis for implementing the application criteria for the
Urban Growth Area. Said they are "exempted" from those regulations, and
therefore, also from the requirements for the Urban Growth Area. Said
this item could have come through as an exemption, but the County preferred
to have it as a subdivision, because exemptions are not designed for
development, and the ultimate use for this property is development.
Noted there are numerous "catch-22's" on this item, and if the Board
can come to some policy direction it would help the staff in dealing with
it. Agreed that the property should be subdivided and said the question
is the technicality of how it is to be done, and on what basis they can
say the waiver is appropriate.
Stoner:
Pointed out that this item would create two lots with two buildings, while
the previous item will have multiple buildings and development and will
need to go through subdivision anyway.
Smith:
Stated that this proposal was being done because the applicants wanted to
P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80
Page 34
submit a subdivision request which would be subject to subdivision
regulations, and consequently they had to agree to meet all the criteria.
Jerry Summers: Owner and operator of Summers Auto Repair, and applicant. Stated
they are now located in Fort Collins Old Town on Linden Street and they
had realized that their business was no longer suitable for the downtown
area a year ago. As a result, they had traded their place on Linden
Street for this property, noting one reason they had picked this site
is because there seemed to be more demand for their type of business on
the north side of town than on the south where the car dealerships are.
Said they only need half the property and they want to sell the other
half to get the money to build their new garage. With respect to the
contiguity issue, said he was willing to change his request to an
exemption if it would help. Noted the property is right next to Pepsi,
Highway 14, the whole north side of which is developed, so it seemed
there was more than 50% contiguity.
Napheys: Moved to recommend approval of the waiver request.
Noted he had driven the area and it certainly was developed. Said they
could rely on the language pointed out by Stoner, that the property is
located between existing development and a municipality.
Clarke:
Second.
Ross:
Agreed that the sense of the Board is probably to approve the request,
but said there has got to be some way to notify the County why in this
particular case they are doing so. Asked Smith if he knew of a way.
Smith:
Replied the staff could certainly make an attempt, noting he is not in
disagreement with the Board, but that the staff was without a policy to
make a recommendation for approval.
Apt:
Said that the reason for recommending approval is that it is good in -fill
development and an exception to the rule for that reason.
Ross:
Said to Summers that the Board's problem is not with his request, but
their desire not to open the door to someone to waive the requirements
who has property three miles out on Highway 14.
Smith:
Suggested language to the effect of the following: Due to the fact that
the area, although it is not officially subdivided,is effectively deve-
loped with improvements, structures, etc.
Vote:
Motion carried, 7 - O.
Ross:
Adjourned meeting at 11:55 p.m.
.P & Z Board Minutes
12/22/80 •
Page 35
0
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WORK SESSIONS
Date: December 1, 1980
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers
Agenda: Land Development Guidance System Public Hearing
Board Present: Carolyn Haase, John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan,
Ed Stoner, Alan Apt
Date: December 4, 1980
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Place: Council Information Center, New City Hall
Agenda: Land Development Guidance System
Ben Napheys,
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys,
Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Alan Apt
Date: December 19, 1980
Time: 12:00 noon
Place: Council Information Center, New City Hall
Agenda: Work Session for regular P & Z meeting of December 22
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys,
Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Alan Apt
c,
1021 Robertson Street-V-r� --' -'--
T123 City of Ft. Collins Ft. Collins, CO 80524 •
Ft. Collins, Colorado
Attention: Planning Division
Re: I,omay Medical Park PUD, Ft.'Collins, Colorado
Dear Planning Commission Members:
At the last of th eo meetings of the adjacent property owners regarding a
proposed amendment to the Lemay Medical Park PUD the need to revise the amendment as
presented earlier was agreed upon. An emending letter, dated 12-5-80, was submitted one
day after the last msetine. A copy of this amending letter was circulated for signa-
tures of the other (ransre in the PUD on 12-11-80. At that time, I first becams aware
of the fact that no mention of space distribution between patient -use area and a
storage area was made in the letter (a concept discussed at groat length at the three
meetings held earlier.) A number of the signors of the emending letter dated 12-5-60,
have since stated to cos that they eignod that copy of the amending letter because they
felt that paragraph three of that letter was adequate to accomplish the spirit and
general concensus that would limit the apace distribution for patient use to a number
well below the 3600 square foot which appears without modification in the loiter dated
12-5-80. Paragraph three of that letter requires that elevation plans be submitted to
an architectural control committee mado up of throo of the ownors for review of those
plans prior to building construction.
The present owners of the I.emay I.lsdical Park PUD have been surveyed in, order to
establish a majority opinion as to how to modify the final paragraph in the letter dated
12-5-80 in order to express the spirit and conconsus of the three meetings that were held.
Three proposals were submitted to theso ounore and the following modification of that
last paragraph best expresses the views of the owners based upon that survey.
Proposal #1: The amendment to increase the total building area on lot #5 remains
a total of 3600 square feet with distribution of space as that 1400
square feet would be used only for storage or library during the life
of the building.
Proposal #2: The amendment to increase the total building area on lotJ5 remain a total
of 3600 square feet with distribution of space so that 2400 square feet
would be for patient usage and any other space would be considered stor-
age -type space.
Proposal #3: In letter dated 12-21-80 by Dr. Un. Jones.
Proposals number one and number two are acceptable to the majority of the owners; proposal
number three is not. Sincerely,
December 222 1980
Dear Lemay Piedical Pork 0emorss
The following two changes in the last paragraph, of the letter to the City of
Pt. Collins Planning Division dated 12-5-80 rogarding an amendment to a variance for
lot #5 in the Lemay Madical Park PUD have been suggested. A majority of you had
approved verbally the first proposal. One of the owners has suggested a second proposal..
and it is new submitted in addition to the first for your reconsideration and re -vote.
In addition to these two proposals there has been a third proposal submitted by Dr. Will-
iam Jones who has asked that I obtain a veto on his proposal as well. fie asks that in
coasidering his proposal that I ask 'LI•lould any of th3 owners be against this proposal?"
be the wording in which it is considered.
Proposal #ls The e-mondrant to increase the total building area on lot %5 remains
a. total of 3600 square feet with distribution of space so that 1400 sq.
foot of apace would be used only fo storago or library during the
/ life of_Mn b
-.T•
z _ Yes S. Ct/L�c, �YIYJ No
Proposal #2
M33' µ-.`lei-rto increaoo the total building area on lot 7#5 remain a
total of 3600 square feet with distribution of space so that 2400 sq.
feet of that space would be for patient usage and any other space would
be considered atorago-typ3 space.
Yes
Proposal #3- See ai
by Dr. Jones.
Would you be against this proposal?
Yea
I
No
No
Sincorely'
James D. fiites. M.D.. i
PSYCHIATRY • HOURS BY APPOINTMENT
William c 1Yones, T. 9.
SECOND FLOOR EAST SUITE
1025 LEMAY AVENUE
FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80521
TELEPHONE (303) 493.3040
December 21, 1980
City of Fort Collins
300'La Porte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Attn: Sheri.
Re: LeMay Medical Park P.U.D.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Sheri:
This its an addendum to the letter from James A. Gefroh
to you dated December 5, 1980. The interest of the adjacent
P.U.D. property owners is best served with the 3,600 square
feet in the building apportioned to include 2,300 square
feet for unrestricted use within the confines of the covenant,
and the remaining 1,300 square feet to be used for only the
following purposes for the life of the building: storage,
library, and possible second stairway.
If less than 30600 square feet total is built, the
aforementioned limited use area would be decreased first.
Sincerely,
s, M.D.
} K GW e d oh Associates Inc.
Architects/ Planners � o v d -�
c� V
a� $ N
P
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
300 LA PORTE AVE. Z
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 •V
ATTN: SHERI
RE: LEMAY MEDICAL PARK, P.U.D. L
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DEAR SHERI: 91
DECEMBER 5, 1980
3 �
James A. Gefroh
Kurt D. Reed
Fredric J. Hallman
2 ti• d06.
Q h ZT
44
� p_ S 01 • V%
o���-Z
ENCLOSED ARE 6 COPIES OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LEMAY MEDICAL
PARK P.U.D.
AFTER MEETING WITH THE ADJACENT P.U.D. PROPERTY OWNERS IT WAS DECIDED
TO CHANGE FROM A TWO STORY BUILDING TO A BUILDING WITH THE FLEXIBILITY
TO HAVE EITHER A SINGLE STORY BUILDING OF 1800 SF ON THE GRADE LEVEL WITH
A FULL 1800 SF BASEMENT SPACE OR A COMBINATION STORY AND 1j STORY WITH
1800 SF ON OR ABOVE GRADE AND 1800 SF BELOW GRADE LEVEL.
IT IS ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT 1f.E
OWNER OF LOT 5 SUBMIT ELEVATION PLANS TO THE LEMAY MEDICAL PARK ARCHI-
TECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
THE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA OF LOT 5 REMINS
A TOTAL OF 3600 SF WITH DISTRI��SG�EFINED ABOVE.
RESPECTFULLY, / /4:7.r
(le 12
AMES A. GEFR
PRESIDENT L`rlfOrc,/4ti (1033(7 fiery,
J MG
ENC.
`�
Fort Collins Office — One Drake Park, Suite
Steamboat Office — P.O. Box 5114, Steamboat Square, Steamboat Springs, Colorado-I1303)879.4545
LM
December 22, 1980
VOTED
Proposal #1: YES 8 NO p
Proposal #2: YES 7 NO 1
Proposal #3: YES(against) Sz NO(for) 3i
One owner declined to vote at all.
One Omer declined to vote yes or no regarding Proposals
9-1 and ,#2, but voted on Proposal #3.
s
PSYCHIATRY . �. HOURS BY APPOINTMENT
William a. pones, jl. g.
SECOND FLOOR EAST SUITE
1025 LEMAY AVENUE
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521
TELEPHONE (303) 493-3040
December 21, 1980
City of Fort Collins
300t.La Porte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Attn: Sheri
Re: LeMay Medical Park P.U.D.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Sheri:
This is an addendum to the letter from James A. Gefroh
to you dated December 5, 1980. The interest of the adjacent
P.U.D. property owners is best served with the 3,600 square
feet in the building apportioned to include 2,300 square
feet for unrestricted use within the confines of the covenant,
and the remaining 11300 square feet to be used for only the
following purposes for the life of the building: storage,
library, and possible second stairway.
If less than 39600 square feet total is built, the
aforementioned limited use area would be decreased first.
Sincerely,
Willa . es, M.D.