HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/22/1980PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD*
Board Present:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
September 22, 1980
John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys,
Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Phyllis Wells
Curt Smith, Cathy Chianese, Joe Frank, Ken Waido, Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Susan Epstein
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Wells: Called meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
Announced that Items 1 and 3 on the agenda would be considered at the end
of the meeting, following Item 17. Explained the procedures to be
followed during the meeting. Suggested that interested persons contact
city planning staff to ascertain when a planning item will be heard by
city council. Introduced city staff members.
1. Approval of minutes of August 25, 1980.
Wells: Asked for additions or corrections.
Haase: Submitted addition and correction.
Stoner: Moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Haase: Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0 -
1, Wells abstaining due
to
absence.
4. #69-78A
Greenbriar Condominiums
(Continued from August
25,
1980)
A proposal for a preliminary residential P.U.D. for 240 units on 12 acres,
located at Willox Lane and Redwood Street, zoned R-L-P, Low Density
Planned Residential..
Applicant: CRM Architecture, 4836 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins,
CO 80525.
Smith:
Described
the proposal,
giving staff recommendation for approval.
Wells:
Asked if
anyone wished
discussion.
Ross: Moved recommendation of approval to city council.
Clarke: Second.
Vote:
Motion
carried, 7 -
0.
5. #110-80
Stute
Special Review
(County Referral)
A request for special review to permit sand and gravel extraction in the
FA-1, Farming Zoning District, located south of Harmony Road, west of
Interstate 25.
Applicant: John Stute „ 6025 South Shields, Fort Collins, CO 80526
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 2
Smith: Gave description of the site, and staff recommendation for approval.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished discussion on the matter.
Georg: Asked what controls the city has regarding reclamation of this area
following the gravel extraction.
Smith: Replied the city has no control as this is a county item, but that the
county requires a reclamation plan be submitted with the special review
request.
Clarke: Moved recommendation of approval to the county.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
6. #109-80 Stute Rezoning (County Referral)
A request to rezone 9.78 acres zoned FA-1 Farming to C - Commercial,
located south of Harmony Road, west of County Road 7.
Applicant: John Stute, 6025 S. Shields, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the following
conditions: 1. That the Urban Growth Area criteria be met prior to any
development on the site; 2. The site be developed as a commercial P.U.D.;
3. The P.U.D. site plan be designed to city standards and be reviewed
by city staff in terms of access, circulation, and landscaping as per
the Administrative Guidelines for Site/Landscape Plans for Commercial
Uses.
Haase: Asked what development exists in that general area.
Albertson -Clark: Pointed out Hewlett-Packard, a single-family home, and commercial
development.
Clarke:
Pointed out that the 1/6 contiguity requirement for development is not
met, but that staff would recommend a condition that Urban Growth Area
criteria be met prior to development, thus putting the property in a
situation where nothing could be done until development happens around
it. Asked if that is correct.
Smith:
Replied that that is the one Urban Growth Area development criterion which
can be waived, for that very reason. Such waiver would require a public
hearing and approval by the city council and the county commissioners, so
that the property would not be zoned into an undevelopable status with
that condition. Noted that all other criteria could be met by improve-
ments. Said the applicant has that course of action to take a request
through the process for waiver.
Wells:
Noted the development criteria require sewer capacity. Asked if the
developer wished to develop in a way which would not require that
capacity if he could do so.
Smith:
Replied that would be only reasonable, but said he was not exactly sure
•P & i Board Meeting •
9/22/80
Page 3
how it would be done.
Wells: Noted there had been some discussion about the county changing its zoning
and subdivision regulations to come into compliance with city ordinances.
Asked whether that had been done so that there would be a zone requiring
a P.U.D. at this time.
Smith:
Replied in the negative.
Wells:
Asked if such changes were in process.
Smith:
Replied not to his knowledge.
Wells:
Stated that the county had made recommendations that parcels not be
zoned until they are annexed if in the path of development. Asked if this
property would not be subject to such a recommendation.
Smith:
Stated he thought the only parcels to which that has happened are those
eligible for annexation, but that this one is not presently eligible.
Napheys:
Asked if there were any other zoning designation in the county which would
permit a warehouse facility.
Albertson -Clark: Replied that C - Commercial is the only zone permitting a warehouse
facility.
Wells:
Asked if the applicant were present, or his representative. (No reply)
Asked if anyone wished to comment on the proposal.
Stoner:
Stated the proposal would not be visible to the homes to the west and only
to one to.the south, but along the entrance to the city, no matter how
much landscaping and planting is done, it would look terrible. Said he
is opposed to it.
Haase:
Expressed agreement, saying she had viewed it from several angles, and that
with the gravel extraction, it does not appear to be a pleasing use of the
land. Stated she has very serious qualms about approving this proposal.
Wells:
Stated she agreed with Stoner's and Haase's concerns and that she is also
concerned about the precedent which could be set for the Urban Growth
Area. Said there could be a great deal of pressure to by-pass the Urban
Growth Area development criteria with respect to sewer capacity and
adjacency to prior development. Pointed out there is more than adequate
C - Commercial property in the county which is not developed at this
time, so it would be premature to rezone this property at this time.
Stoner:
Moved to recommend denial of the rezoning to the county.
Haase:
Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Ross abstaining.
Smith: Asked if the board wished the staff to formally present its recommendation
to the county, given the nature of the item and the comments which were
made, so that the county will understand what the concerns are.
P & Z Board Minutes
9122/80
Page 4
Wells: Stated she would appreciate that and felt the rest of the board would
concur.
7. #88-80 Giddings Rezoning
A request to rezone .8 acres currently in the R-L, Low Density Residential
District, to R-P, Planned Residential District, located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of West Elizabeth and Overland Trail.
Applicant: Mrs. Jeanne Giddings, 1532 Adriel Court, Fort Collins,
CO 80524
Waido: Gave description of the proposed rezoning.
Jeanne Giddings: Stated she was requesting the rezoning because the adjoining land has
been rezoned to R-P, leaving her parcel an R-L island. Said the primary
criterion for evaluating a rezoning request is compliance with the city's
Comprehensive Plan, and this rezoning would bring the subject into such
compliance. Said that transportation, education, recreation and other
facilities to accommodate the R-P zoning have already been considered
in the rezoning request for the Scenic Views property. Stated it is her
desire to include her property in the Scenic Views planned unit develop-
ment and that can only be done if the requested rezoning is approved.
Waido: Gave staff report, recommending approval subject to the same conditions
placed on the Scenic Views Rezoning: 1) That the property be developed
to no greater density than 8.5 dwelling units per acre as the term "dwel-
ling unit" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fort Collins;
2) That the property be developed as a Planned Unit Development as the
term "P.U.D." is defined in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Fort
Collins; and 3) That the 40 square foot per dwelling unit commercial
allotment permitted in Planned Unit Developments not be utilized.
Wells: Asked if anyone wished to comment on the proposal.
Les Kaplan: Planning consultant for the Scenic Views property, the P.U.D. for which
would be considered later in the meeting. Stated they were pleased with
Mrs. Giddings' rezoning request and indicated their support for it.
Georg: Moved recommendation of approval of the rezoning, subject to the
conditions suggested by staff.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
8. #89-80 Loop -Miller Enterprises Rezoning
A request to rezone Lot 2, Lemay Subdivision, 2nd Filing, currently in
the B-L, Limited Business District, to B-P, Planned Business District,
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lemay Avenue and
Garfield Street.
Applicant: Loop -Miller Enterprises, 5895 E. Evans, Denver, CO 80222
Waido: Described the requested rezoning.
Kaplan: Representing the applicant. Introduced Mr. Bill Rogers, the intended
- P & 7 Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 5
user of a portion of the site, who would like to speak after Kaplan.
Stated Rogers is president of Little People's Development, Inc. which
has developed over 60 day-care facilities over 40 states, and which
would like to use a portion of the existing shoppette for a day-care
facility, precipitating this rezoning request. Stated the existing
B-L zone does not allow day-care facilities, so B-P is being requested
to expand the permitted uses on the site to include the day-care facility.
Pointed out that when the shoppette was developed by Loop -Miller they
understood that day-care facilities would be permitted, and that the site
had been designed to provide for both office and possible day-care use.
Their understanding was based on an existing agreement,which came with
the purchase of the property, between Lemay Inc. and the City of Fort
Collins, dated February 25, 1965. Stated this agreement was recorded in
the county and goes with the property. Said the agreement listed 35
uses which would be permitted on the site, including nursery schools,
and further stipulated that the property would become part of such zone
as permitted those uses when the city's comprehensive zoning was completed.
Stated that in 1965 the term nursery school was not mentioned anywhere
in the Zoning Ordinance, although day-care facilities would have been
allowed in the R-H zone as private schools. The B-L zone would have
allowed elementary schools, but no mention was made of nursery schools.
Said that it is becoming more and more common to place day-care centers
in business areas rather than residential areas so that the children
could be nearer a parent's place of employment.
Discussed several points made in the staff report. Pointed out that
staff agreed that there is a need for day care in this area. Said that
the point about potential design problems is not relevant to the rezoning
discussion, but would have to be addressed at the time of P.U.D. review.
Disagreed with the contention that rezoning would create non -conforming
uses of all the existing uses, saying that they would be non -conforming
only if a P.U.D. were not submitted for the site. Stated they do intend
to submit a P.U.D.and it is part of their objectives for the rezoning
request. Disagreed with the statement that there are sufficient areas
available for day care in the area, saying they do not have the proximity
or convenience to the hospital that this site has. Disagreed with the
notion that putting a day-care facility on this site would be a retro-fit,
but noted that most existing day-care centers are retro-fits into existing
single-family houses. Also disagreed that this would be a spot zoning,
saying the day-care center would benefit many people, not just the owner.
Pointed out that staff seemed to have a philosophical preference to having
day-care centers in residential areas, but that all the sites in the area
staff recommends for day-care are commercially zoned. Asked that the
property be rezoned as there have been substantial changes in the area,and
the owner has built a facility in reliance on an existing agreement with
the city. Stated they would like the opportunity to show how a day-care
center could be fit into this area.
Ruggiero: Stated that his legal viewpoint would be that no vested rights had accrued
to the applicant subsequent to the signing of the agreement, therefore the
applicant is not guaranteed the zoning would remain the same, so the
rezoning should be considered on the same basis as any other rezoning.
Wells: Asked if he meant that the February 25 agreement should have no bearing
on the rezoning.
Ruggiero: Agreed, saying they feel that the rezoning which occurred later supersedes
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 6
the agreement. Noted there is a difference of opinion on that issue.
Wells: Asked then if the normal criteria for rezoning should be met.
Ruggiero: Replied that is legal staff's opinion.
Kaplan: Pointed out that the agreement was not made without awareness of the
city's comprehensive rezoning plan, but states that "at such time as
the rezoning ordinances of the city have been amended, the above -described
property shall become a part of such zone as includes the uses above
listed".
Wells: Asked how many other uses were listed.
Kaplan: Replied, listing the uses in the agreement.
Wells: Asked if it is correct that the final ordinance. did not mention nursery
schools.
Kaplan: Replied in the affirmative.
Napheys: Asked what the different arguments were in respect to the legal opinion of
the standing of the agreement.
Ruggiero: Replied that from the applicant's standpoint, the agreement was made in
anticipation of the rezoning and therefore should supersede the present
zoning. Stated that the city's opinion is that even though it was done
in anticipation of the comprehensive rezoning, no development had occurred
and there was no vested right; furthermore, said that the agreement would
seek to zone the property in perpetuity, but the law states that no one is
guaranteed a specific zone for any length of time, but that due to changes
in conditions, rezonings can occur.
Napheys: Asked if the legal opinion was influenced by the fact that one of the
whereas clauses in the agreement indicated that development was contemplated,
but that development did not occur between February, 1965 until recently.
Ruggiero: Replied that his response would be the comment regarding zoning in perpetuity.
Said that a rule of reason should be used in terms of development, as
conceivably, a developer in the year 2000 could come in and begin develop-
ment regardless of conditions. Stated further, that if the applicant was
adamant in terms of this agreement being the basis for his being able to
develop on the property, there would be no need to appear for a rezoning.
Kaplan: Stated the crux of the argument for the rezoning is not the legal standing
of the agreement, but the owner's understanding that day-care uses would be
allowed led him to design a building with the adaptability for such a
facility, and refusing him the rezoning would be to refuse him the right
to show the board how he could accommodate a day-care facility. Said they
also felt that the ordinance was not intended to exclude day-care centers.
Ross: Asked if this is an existing building on the site.
Kaplan: Replied it is.
Ross: Asked if one of the tenants is a liquor store.
P &,Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 7
Kaplan: Replied there is a liquor store and also a dance studio for children right
across from the liquor store, which would be the neighbor to the day-care
facility.
Wells:
Reminded everyone that the subject before the board is a rezoning request,
and that design criteria were not being considered.
Napheys:
Asked if Mr. Rogers would address the point of the necessity for various
governmental certificates for a day-care center.
Kaplan:
Replied he could do so.
Bill Rogers:
Stated that the licensing would be done by the city and by the state social
services which actually has the final say on the location of the center.
Napheys:
Asked if there were any requirements with respect to liquor establishments.
Rogers:
Replied there are none. Stated the danger of a liquor store next to a day-
care facility is probably less than a neighboring residence in a residential
neighborhood, noting the liquor store would have a great deal of control on
it. Stated that it is not unusual to put child care centers in commercial
developments. Cited other of his centers in Montrose and elsewhere which
are in shopping centers. Said it is advantageous to have these centers in
a commercial service environment, because that is what they are.
Napheys:
Asked what is the exact area under discussion and the zoning of the adjacent
lot to the west.
Waido: Indicated the subject area and stated the lot to the west is B-L.
Napheys: Asked if day-care centers would be allowed in the area to the immediate
south.
Waido: Replied they would not be allowed in the R-L zone.
Stoner: Asked how far away this proposal is from the United Day Care Center.
Clarke: Stated it would be about a half mile.
Haase: Asked if there had been problems with parking and drop-off traffic in
shopping centers.
Rogers: Replied they had not had such problems. Stated that a free-standing buil-
ding would probably require fourteen parking spaces. Pointed out that
drop-offs and pick-ups were brief parking periods stretched over a two-
hour period. Stated that in their plan they had eliminated two spaces in
order to provide two extra -wide spaces.
Stoner: Asked how many children were anticipated for this center.
Rogers: Replied probably close to 70.
Stoner: Asked how much outdoor space they would have.
Rogers: Replied that the Fort Collins regulations are exactly the sane as those of
the state, except that there is no mention of the phrase "at one time" with
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 8
respect to the number of children using the playground.
Stoner: Asked if he was talking about having the children use the outdoor space
in shifts.
Rogers: Replied he was, noting that this would be a pre-school and the children
would be busy in classes, naps, eating, and other in -door activities much
of the time, so the need for outdoor activity would be minimal. Contended
that most day-care centers are now going toward an educational -type program
and had less need for elaborate outdoor equipment.
Stoner: Pointed out there is considerable difference between a nursery and a day-
care center.
Rogers: Agreed, noting that such differences were not apparent in 1965.
Stoner: Asked if he would concede that that was not what they were talking about in
1965.
Rogers: Replied he would, noting there was only one more child-care facility in the
city now than in 1957.
Ruggiero: Reiterated Wells' point that the issue is one of rezoning, so the criterion
to be addressed is one of changed conditions.
Wells: Asked to hear the staff recommendation.
Waido:
Gave staff report, recommending denial.
Ruggiero:
Addressed the spot -zoning issue, saying that in Colorado spot -zoning would
be not in the interest of furthering the Comprehensive Plan, and also would
be done in the interest of relieving a particular parcel of property from
zoning restrictions.
Ross:
Stated it seemed inappropriate for the staff to state there could be design
problems, then to prohibit discussion on design. Pointed out also that the
applicant was unclear as to whether this facility would be a day-care center
or a nursery school, and that there is some rule about the proximity of
liquor stores to schools.
Ruggiero:
Agreed that there are some restrictions with respect to liquor licenses and
said he would consult the Liquor Code to see if mention was made of day-
care facilities.
Wells:
Asked for public comment.
Russ Conway:
Resident on Robertson, next to the shopping center. Asked if this rezoning
were approved to General Business, what would prevent a bar from moving in
right down from the street from it. Stated there would be traffic safety
problems with children in such a heavily travelled area.
Wells:
Stated that the zoning requested is B-P, Planned Business, which allows by
right only those uses allowed in the R-M zone, and any other uses would be
allowed only as part of a P.U.D.; therefore practically any use they
requested would be subject to Planning Board and City Council review.
P & Z Board Minutes •
9/22/80
Page 9
Bob Weakley:
Landowner to the west on Lot 1. Said the area is more congested than most
people realize, noting that when he left his office there was not one parking
space on the whole west side in front of their western -most building. Said
there would have to be green area for the children and it would be in the
parking area in front of his place, right by his front door. Said he had
tried to develop his property as a P.U.D. but city council had backed down
on it and that neither Loop -Miller nor the previous owners had shown any
cooperation on it. Contended the additional 40 to 50 cars each day would
definitely impact the traffic and the parking. Said he had not been
notified of the liquor license and only found out about the zoning when the
sign went up, and as the neighboring land -owner, he should have been
notified. Also stated that the proximity of a liquor store was not good.
Said they probably wanted the rezoning because the property had not been
rented for the last six months. Contended it would indeed be spot -zoning.
Stated there were other day-care centers in the area.
Ruggiero:
Stated the Colorado liquor code sets locational criteria for liquor licenses
with respect to proximity to schools which already exist. Stated the code
does not allude to any type of nursery school or day-care center.
Haase:
Pointed out that recently approved day-care centers are in such areas as
Silver Plume, Raintree, and Children's World, all in residential areas.
Clarke:
Asked what the inside square footage would be.
Rogers:
Replied it would be 4000 sq. ft.
Clarke:
Asked what the parking ratio of the square footage to parking spaces is.
Rogers:
Stated it was probably designed at 1:200, but child care centers are
usually listed at 1:400 because there is not the need.
Wells:
Stated the parking requirement is irrelevant to this discussion, both as
the parking requirement has been changed, and as the petitioner has taken
spaces away to provide for wider spaces.
Rogers:
Said only about four or five spaces were eliminated in the whole center and
they were in the back.
Clarke:
Said he had asked that question to ascertain if there were a problem in this
shopping center in general as his experience was that day-care centers do
not require a large amount of parking.
Wells:
Said the main problem with day-care centers has been the flow of traffic
rather than the parking space.
Napheys:
Asked if there were any other means of allowing a day-care center on this
site without a rezoning.
Smith:
Replied the only other means would be to amend the B-L zone to list day-care
center as an allowable use.
Clarke:
Stated there are problems with day-care centers in residential areas,
particularly with neighboring residents, so he sympathizes with the idea of
placing day-care facilities in commercial zones. Said, however, there is a
definite problem with the potential of a spot -zoning situation, and the best
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 10
solution would probably be an ordinance amendment. Said he is not
convinced that it is not just an oversight that day-care centers are not
allowed in the B-L zone, especially as they are allowed in R-M, R-H, and
B-P zones. Said the B-L does not differ substantially from a B-P. Said
he is not opposed to a day-care center in that building.
Ross:
Stated there is a substantial difference between Limited Business, General
Business, and Planned Business as the latter requires a P.U.D. and the
others do not, so there are controls with respect to adjacent buildings
and uses which the others do not have.
Clarke:
Said he understood that, and that if day-care were allowed in B-L, it
would be true that there would be no review by the city, but he still
thought perhaps it should be allowed.
Wells:
Said Ross's point was that day-care centers being the type of use they are
pretty much require a P.U.D.
Clarke:
Replied that review is not required in R-M or R-H, so if review is always
desirable, day-care centers should only be allowed in planned zoning
districts.
Wells:
Stated that in R-H and R-M, they would not be in conjunction with liquor
stores and other traffic -producing uses.
Clarke:
Said the problems with day-care centers is that they are butinesses and
as such cause problems in residential districts.
Conway:
Pointed out that the area down the street from the proposed center is all
residential.
Clarke:
Stated that is his point; that a center could be put into that residential
neighborhood without review.
Napheys:
Said he had understood earlier that that could not be done; that a day-care
center could not be put in an R-L zone.
Smith:
Stated that was correct, noting that day-care centers are allowed in
the R-M zone and in R-L-P,s6ch as the ones Haase pointed out, in P.U.D.'s.
Stoner:
Stated that there are many good day-care centers in shopping centers, but
that they have been planned from the beginning as part of the center. Said
he felt there were too many problems with the site as a day-care center,
even though design problems were not supposed to be at issue. Also
pointed out there is no buffering for the residential area.
Clarke:
Pointed out that the R-H area to the northwest would allow a day-care use
without question.
Haase:
Moved to recommend denial of the rezoning request.
Stoner: Second.
Wells: Asked for a comment on the record about the criteria for rezoning not being
met.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
9/22/80
Page 11
Haase: Reviewed the criteria for rezoning, saying that if elements of the city's
Comprehensive Plan lack specific guidance for the rezoning request, the
request must be justified through the following general welfare considerations:
1) Has there been substantial change of conditions in the vicinity of the
property in question? Said she would reply no.
2) Have time and experience demonstrated that the existing zoning is unwise
or in need of change? Replied in the negative.
3) Are there adequate transportation, recreation, educational, utility and
other facilities to accommodate the uses permitted in the requested zone?
Said this has been discussed and there are mixed feelings. Stated she feels
there is inadequate recreational space and an unsuitable location due to the
proximity of the liquor store.
4) What is the need in the vicinity and/or the community as a vihole for the
addition of the requested zone? Said there are other areas in the area which
could be utilized as had been discussed.
5) Where are there existing undeveloped parcels of this requested or similar
zone? Said these had been pointed out by staff.
6) What might be the impact of this rezoning on the immediate neighborhood,
district, and the city as a whole? Noted that several citizens and a busi-
nessman had testified there would be significant negative impact.
Stated these criteria would lead to a recommendation of denial.
Napheys: Said this is a difficult issue, but that certain of staff's comments need
to be refuted. Stated the design problem issue should not have been brought
up; said it was not necessarily so that existing uses would become non -con-
forming; said that other appropriately zoned areas are not as close to being
developed. Agreed that a day-care facility in that area would provide a
much -needed service. Said that staff's fourth comment was just a rehash of
the second and third, and the spot -zoning issue was in question as this
particular spot was no smaller than other nearby spots. Asked to hear
the comments of other members of the board.
Georg: Pointed out that none of the rezoning criteria have been addressed or met,
and that is the primary issue. Agreed with Napheys' comment abut the
staff report.
Wells: Said the other source for rezoning justification is the Land Use Plan,
noting that many sections address conflicting uses, safe traffic flow, and
other issues with which this proposal is not in compliance.
Ross: Called for the question.
Vote: Napheys: yes; Georg: yes; Ross: yes, although not with reliance on the city's
position with respect to the agreement; Wells: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke:
yes, commenting that rezoning is not appropriate, design factors should
not be considered, and day-care centers should be allowed in tiw B-L zone;
Haase: yes, commenting that she agreed there is a need for the facility in
that area and encouraged the petitioner to seek another site, and expressing
appreciation for the comprehensive submittal which reflected considerable
work and research, and also expressing concern that this could set a prece-
dent for other similar requests. Napheys added to his vote that he supported
Ross's comments.
Motion carried for denial, 7 - 0.
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 12
9. #90-80 Tiahrt Rezoning
A request to rezone .75 acres currently in the R-L, Low Density Residential
District, to B-P, Planned Business District, located at 2204 W. Elizabeth.
Applicant: Maurice Tiahrt, 920 S. Taft Hill, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Waido: Gave site description.
Wells: Asked if the applicant or his representative wished to speak. (No reply.)
Asked for staff's recommendation.
Waido:
Gave staff report, recommending denial.
Wells:
Asked again for the applicant. (No reply.) Asked if anyone
else wished
to comment.
Patricia A.
Hoffman: Resident on West Mulberry and major stockholders of
Skyline Mobile
Park. Said she agreed with staff's recommendation and that
they had given
all the reasons why she was against the rezoning. Said the
area is largely
undeveloped and that if business zoning began to encroach to
the west,
there could be problems, noted the rezoning criteria had not
been met, and
that there was undeveloped business zoning in the area.
Ross:
Moved recommendation of denial of the rezoning request.
Stated the petitioner's reasons for requesting the change do
not meet the
criteria and the parcel is not ready to be rezoned.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried for denial, 7 - 0.
10. #78-80 Golden Meadows Rezoning (Ross abstaining, due to conflict of interest)
A request to rezone 54 acres currently zoned b-p, Conditional Planned
Business, R-P, Planned Residential, R-M-P, Medium Density Planned
Residential, R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential, to B-P, R-P, and
R-M-P, located north of Harmony Road between Lemay Avenue and McMurray
Avenue.
Applicant: K. Bill Tiley, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West
Mountain, Fort Collins, CO 80521
Waido: Described the rezoning request.
Ed Zdenek: With ZVFK, representing the applicant. Asked if the board understood the
requested change.
Wells: Said she understood there is no change in the amount of acreage of each
zone.
Zdenek: Said there is a very slight change. Pointed out on the site map the changes
and the reasons for them, primarily the alignment of roads and the rezoning
to place all of a particular zoning on one side of the road, rather than
leaving a sliver of a zone on the other side. Said he does not have the
exact amount of the increases and decreases, but that there would be a slight
decrease in the B-P. Spoke to the elimination of the condition on the B-P,
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 13
noting that there had been considerable change in conditions. Said the
limitation of the condition was based on the urban services area study being
done at that time. Stated that since then the Urban Growth Area has
been expanded and their marketing area has been expanded as a result to the
south and east. Said their current plans are consistent with city policies.
Noted their P.U.D. plan would be presented later in the meeting.
Wells: Asked for public comment. Noted it is essentially a change in zoning
boundaries without a substantial change in acreage allowed in any one zone.
Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval of the rezoning.
Napheys: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1. (Ross abstained.)
11. #93-80 Rule Property Initial Zoning
A request to zone 3.7 acres currently not zoned to B-P, Planned Business,
located on Lemay Avenue directly east of the B-P tract in the Keenland
Annexation.
Applicant: Richard and Dianne Rule, 4824 S. County Road #13, Fort Collins,
CO 80525.
Chianese: Gave staff report, recommending approval, subject to the following conditions:
1) Uses be limited to professional office uses as defined in the City of
Fort Collins zoning ordinance;
2) The property be developed under a unified master plan and be planned in
conjunction with the Keenland property.
Stoner: Asked if Keenland has to accept this property.
Chianese: Stated that is what is being said in Condition #2, and noted that the
letter that goes with the property states that that agreement has in fact
occurred. Suggested the applicant could be asked about this issue.
Dick Rule: Applicant. Stated that on the August 5 county meeting, Mr. Everitt did
state that he was aware of Rule's proposal, had reviewed it, and had
recommended that it be done in conjunction with all his master planning.
Stated it is his intention to do so. Said he would be glad to answer any
other questions.
Wells: Asked if there were any questions from the audience.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of the Rule zoning subject to the
conditions suggested by staff.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0, Wells commenting that she still has misgivings about
the zoning of the whole area at this point as it is premature and may be
setting up many future rezonings in the area to accommodate this kind and
amount of business zoning. Noted this particular item is a small parcel
which is just filling in.
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 14
12. #193-79A Amendment to First Christian Church Preliminary P.U.D.
A proposal to amend the First Phase of the approved First Christian Church
P.U.D. The proposal expands the approved Phase I, approximately 50,000
sq. ft. including a multi -purpose and education area, to approximately
54,000 sq. ft.
Applicant: Glaser Associates Architects, 136 S. Lincoln, Loveland, CO
80536.
Frank: Noted that letters submitted from neighboring homeowners had been distri-
buted to the Planning and Zoning Board in addition to those in the packet.
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Wells: For the benefit of the audience, summarized the conditions of the original
P.U.D.: the developers will be required to improve both Drake and Lemay
to arterial standards along the entire property; sewer, water and electrical
services are available at the periphery of the site; and other technical
and lengthy conditions. Asked if the applicant wished to address the board.
Carl Glaser: With Glaser and Associates Architects of Loveland. Stated they had no
additional information or comments at this time, but wished to reserve
comment at the close of the review.
Napheys: Asked if staff had comments in response to the homeowners' letter.
Wells: Stated there were six items mentioned in the letter, and asked Glaser if
he was familiar with them.
Glaser:
Stated he did not have the letter, but that he had some idea from staff of
what they were.
Wells:
Said No. 1 is the buffer zone.
Glaser:
Stated they had designed a 20' buffer zone on the east and south property
lines.
Wells:
Said the second point was that the road next to the buffer zone would be
preferable to the parking lot next to the buffer.
Glaser:
Replied that they felt their design would provide more completely for their
privacy, and provides more safety for the users of the site. Pointed out
that this item will not be something to contend with for some time as it
is in a later phase. Stated that if there is not the need for parking that
is projected in the future, they would be happy to eliminate some of the
future parking areas.
Wells:
Said the third item is the safety of the east boundary Drake access, due
to poor visibility to the west where there is a hill and a curve, and to
the east where there is a privacy fence.
Glaser:
Stated the curb cut would be put in when Drake Road is improved to save
having to put it in later at additional expense. Said he had field -checked
the site that evening to ascertain the safety of the location and that he
had a very clear view in both directions.
Wells:
Stated the next concern is the site drainage.
P & i Board Minutes •
9/22/80
Page 15
Glaser: Stated they had retained a professional civil engineer who has performed
site drainage designs which are being submitted with the final P.U.D., and
arrangements have been made with Parkwood and Sherwood Subdivision for
proper retention and drainage of storm water off the site.
Wells:
Said the fifth concern is about property maintenance, particularly with
reference to the holding pond and weeds.
Glaser:
Stated the present retention pond to the southeast is not on their
property, but they would be adding on to it. Said they had no responsibi-
lity for maintaining the pond off their property, but that the First
Christian Church has a long history of doing exemplary maintenance, so
adjoining property owners could be assured that the retention ponds would
be well maintained.
Wells:
Asked if they would have a maintenance agreement along with the landscape
agreement on the property.
Glaser:
Stated they would.
Wells:
Said the sixth concern was about stripping of the entire site during
construction; that the homeowners would prefer this not be done all at
once to prevent serious dust problems.
Glaser:
Stated they had considered not grading some portions of the site at this
time to save costs now; however, after consideration of the drainage
engineering, Cornell Engineering has strongly advised them to rough -grade
the entire site for proper drainage which would meet the homeowners'
concerns about drainage. Said he understood their concerns about dust
and had consulted their landscape architect. Stated they would begin
construction in November when nothing could be planted, but the ground
would freeze which might hold down dust. Said they were open to suggestions
and would take any reasonable step to minimize the dust.
Ross:
Asked what could be done after the winter.
Glaser:
Replied the site had been used for farming, so options would be to sow
oats or barley which would have a good root system and would retain the
soil for the balance of the construction period. Upon completion, and the
installation of the irrigation system, a drought -tolerant grass would be
planted on this portion of the site. Stated they were planning a soccer -
field sized recreation field to be planted with bluegrass which will be
about 100' from the neighboring homeowners' property and that they would
be welcome, in accordance with church policy, to use church facilities.
Also mentioned the possibility of using this'area for a nursery to grow
plantings for future use on the project.
Wells:
Asked if anyone wished to speak on the item.
Gordon Warrington:
Property owner on Dorado Court, to the east of the project. Pointed
out that they are not opposed to the church project, but that they have
concern about the six items just discussed. Said there is a link between
the two phases of the construction which would be amplified upon by others
who would speak.
Gary Pfaezing: Resident on Dorado Court to the east of the property where the privacy
fence is. Expressed concern about the curb cut due to visibility._
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 16
Stated the road improvement would move Drake to the south and unless the
hill were cut down, there would be problems. Said that although the
road would be on church property, it would be a public street and would
possibly have more than just church traffic on it. Said they would like
to have the street paved to cut down on dust during construction, noting
that a dry winter could mean a lot of dustdespite freezing temperatures.
Suggested delaying the curb cut until the road is completed and the safest
location can be ascertained, possibly even with a demand light far safety
purposes. Said they wanted to have the street moved as it would be a public
street with constant traffic while the church parking would be gore compa-
tible in terms of hours of activity with the activities of people in the
neighborhood. Also stated they felt the church members would be more
considerate than street users as far as trash collecting along the street
is concerned. Asked that the parking lighting be diffused so it would not
be much of a disturbance.
Wells:
Asked staff to comment on the street situation and the Drake curbcut.
Smith:
Replied that all the circulation on the street would be private, with no
public streets with traffic going through there,aside from church traffic.
Said that the development engineer, Maurice Rupel, could address the
specifics with respect to the curb cut and Drake Road. Said the present
hill would be cut down somewhat to improve visibility.
Wells:
Stated .that the Traffic Engineering Department is one of many which
review site plans. Stated that on this plan all the interior circulation
is private and that there are no destinations on those streets other
than the church.
Pfaezing:
Said they had understood that it would be a through street, designed for
30 mph traffic, but if the plans had changed, they would look at them
again. Contended that if the street does go through, some way would
have to be found to keep people off it.
Smith:
Replied that it would indeed be possible to travel through the property
on the street, but that the movement required to go from Drake to Lemay
would include two 900 turns, possibly three, so few people would opt
to go through the parking lot rather than through a signalized inter-
section which would be smoother and faster.
Pfaezing:
Said that is a change from the original plans presented last year, so
that answers one of their concerns.
Clarke:
Asked if Pfaezing had lived in the same house when the original P.U.D.
was proposed.
Pfaezing:
Replied he had.
Clarke:
Asked if he had made those same comments.
Pfaezing:
Replied he had, and that they also had set a meeting with the architects
which the architects had moved back to October, so they had not had the
opportunity to discuss their concerns recently except with city staff.
Clarke:
Said he wished to be sensitive to the homeowners' concerns about the
parking and noted that having the parking lot further west as it is now
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 17
0
proposed would also remove the lighting further west away from their
homes which should be to their benefit.
Pfaezing: Replied their concerns were related to the street being a major
thoroughfare, but if it is not, they would wish to reconsider their
position on the parking lot.
Cheryl Ravenschlag: Resident on Dorado Court, east of the church site. Stated they
were also concerned about the landscaping on the buffer zone --what size
the plantings would be, when they would be put in, if the road location
were changed, how that would affect the buffer. Also expressed concern
with the scheduling of the construction activities and the dust.
Stated they understood that it would be against city regulations to strip
more than forty acres at a time without reseeding it before going on to
the next portion of a site. Asked what "stripping" means --how deep it
goes -wand also "rough -grading". Said freezing temperatures will not
hold down all the dust, and noted that several residents have allergies
which would be aggravated by excessive dust in addition to maintenance
problems in their homes. With respect to Mr. Glaser's contention that
visibility is adequate at the curb cut, stated that it is good now
because the weeds have been cut.
Wells: Asked Glaser to comment on the buffer zone and the grading.
Glaser: Stated they also were concerned about preventing through traffic on the
site. Said they cannot pave the driveways prior to construction as it
would only be broken up by the heavy equipment used on the site. Said
they would be maintaining the property so weeds would not be a visibility
problem. Agreed that the lighting could be better controlled on the
parking lots farther from the property line and said that the street
lighting could be done with low bollards which would shine only down on
the street. Said the buffer zone would be implemented with the installa-
tion of the driveway, and the size of the trees would be limited by the
size which could be transplanted, again noting their nursery could
provide larger trees. Said the stripping would involve removing all the
topsoil and stockpiling it, rough -grading the entire site for proper
drainage, replacing topsoil when the vegetation could be planted. Stated
he would be happy to discuss these issues further with the property owners
at their meeting.
Dan Grider: Resident on Brookwood Drive. Stated they were proud of the area and
happy to have the church and that what most concerns the property owners
is what will happen between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Said he felt the
stripping would cause dust problems and that stockpiling the topsoil
would be a losing proposition because it has a short life span as an
active medium when piled up. Suggested leaving as much as possible of
the land undisturbed until Phase 2.
Ross: Said this discussion is about construction management of a project to
which he is sympathetic, but which is beyond the purview of this board.
Smith: Asked Maurice Ruple to explain the level of city involvement at the
utility plan stage.
Ruple: Said there is a subdivision agreement between the developer and the city
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 18
wherein items such as construction phasing and dust control can be
addressed.
Clarke: Asked if Ruple would be the person to see if a problem developed.
Ruple: Replied he is one of the people.
Clarke: Said he understood that the topsoil would be replaced and seeded as
soon as possible in the spring, so the major problem would be during
the winter.
Ruple: Stated that the soil can be put in rows much as a farmer would to help
control the dust.
Ross: Said his department then would be the place to go if citizens had
complaints.
Ruple: Agreed.
Clarke: Said the important point is that there are ways of controlling the dust
short of planting.
Ruple: Agreed. Stated he is the Assistant City Engineer for Development.
Stoner: Pointed out the importance of the grading for drainage so that the
asphalt would not be draining into neighboring homes' back yards.
Martin Wing: With Woodward Governor. Asked to be invited to the meeting with the
architects and homeowners and for a copy of the architect's proposal.
Wells: Suggested he meet with Glaser after the hearing.
Georg: Stated he also lived somewhat in the same neighborhood as the concerned
citizens and that he also would like to see development as soon as
possible to get rid of an eyesore. Pointed out that their purpose is
to evaluate the amendment to the P.U.D.
Moved recommendation of approval of the amendment.
Napheys: Second.
Clarke: Said the problem they have seen tonight has a lot to do with communica-
tion between the church and the property owners, and that these -issues
could have been addressed prior to this meeting.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
13. #13-80B Hill Pond Filing II, Single Family Area (Cont'd. from August 25, 1980)
A preliminary proposal for a 42 single family detached lots P.U.D. on
25.95 acres including 12.93 acres open space, located south of Sheeley
Drive, zoned R-L, Low Density Residential, and R-P, Planned Residential.
Applicant: Victoria Ltd., P.O. Box 1882, Fort Collins, CO 80522
Frank: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
P & Z Board Minutes a
9/22/80
Page 19
John Dengler: With Gefroh and Associates, representing applicant. Said they had had
a meeting with residents of the Sheeley Subdivision to the north of the
proposal and resolved questions and issues they had. Stated he would be
happy to answer questions.
Michael O'Griffith: Attorney for the developer. Stated city staff had two concerns
dealing with legal aspects on the plat. The first deals with an access
road which was never done and part of which was later vacated, and a
small parcel of land north of it which disappeared off later plats. Said
he had contacted the owners of that property and they had agreed to
dedicate it so that a street could go through there. Stated the second
concern was the fence line which came down south of the property line
and crosses several of the platted lots. Said nine of the ten Sheeley
homeowners were at the meeting, and most of them were in agreement to
allow the fence line to come out and to work with the developer to
create a buffer between their properties and the Hill Pond properties.
Said another concern of the homeowners was a dirt road which provides
access to garages of homes on the west side of the Sheeley Subdivision
and that and that it had been worked out so that their access would be
on a utility easement and they could continue to have that access.
Stated, therefore, that these two problems were in the process of being
resolved.
Wells: Asked for comments on the project
Dorothy Miller: Resident on the corner of Sheeley and Juniper Lane. Asked that the
i extensive landscaping which they had put in on a right-of-way be
retained.
Frank: Stated that one of the conditions of the June 26, 1980 memo states the
staff recommends that Farmtree Road pavement width be reduced to 28'
to save as much existing vegetation as possible, so staff is very aware
of the desirability of maintaining the vegetation there.
Forrest H11: Resident on Sheeley Drive. Stated he had talked with the architect,
Mr. Dengler, earlier and wanted to know the time schedule for extending
Whitcomb down into the pasture. Asked if it is correct that development
would start at the Shields street side and work towards the Whitcomb St.
area.
Dengler: i Replied that the road would go in in one shot next spring or early
summer, but that he had no idea when the homes would be built.
Hull: I Said he understood that as the lots would be built on individually after
they are sold. Asked how wide the flood control improvement along Spring
creek would be.
Dengler: I Replied it is 200' and it will be developed as the development goes for
Hill Pond.
Clarke: Asked if staff felt confident that there would be no swamp along the
creek which could happen if it was dug too deep when the floodway is
put in.
Frank: Replied that staff had reviewed the plan and discussed it in detail with
p & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 20
the applicant, and that the city engineering staff was satisfied with
the level of detail they have now that the proposed plan will work.
Clarke:
Stated that storm drainage engineers are interested in moving storm
the habitat between floods. Said
water, but not so much in maintaining
that the level of the stream has to be two to three feet above ground
water.
Smith:
Stated that this is also one of the key links in the city's bike system
the
which is being planned jointly with the developer to make sure area
is viable and attractive, so that type of problem is not likely to occur.
Napheys:
Moved recommendation of approval.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 7 - 0.
14. #4-80A
Scenic Views Preliminary P.U.D.
A preliminary P.U.D. proposal for 194 (48 four-plex units and one
located West Elizabeth
duplex unit) residential units on 22.8 acres, on
and Overland Trail, zoned R-P, Planned Residential District.
528 S. Howes, Fort Collins,
Applicant: Les Kaplan, Planning Consultant,
CO 80521
Albertson -Clark:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Ross:
Asked what the water pressure situation is now.
Albertson -Clark:
Replied that Jim Hibbard of the Water and Sewer Department had
is a therefore fire protection
indicated that water volume not problem,
not be a problem. The lack of water pressure creates problems
would
with running dishwashers and so on. Stated possible solutions to this
Subdivision.
situation would also benefit the Overland Trail West
Ross:
Asked for a better answer.
Smith:
Said the Water Department has said they would approve the project and
desirable level of
could provide service, but it would not be the most
there might be problems providing water to the upper
service because
levels of houses. Said the applicant is aware of this and is working
with the city to resolve this problem so their future owners will not
is that when
have those inconveniences. The Water Department's response
basis for recommending
adequate fire protection is available, they have no
the project not be approved.
Wells:
Said it is unfair to future residents of the area to approve the project
ded prior
be rof�the
without the board.to
the eresponsiblitiesr pressure
dthat ntadequate
development and thatisoneaof
Georg:
Asked if it was true that details have not been worked out as the Water
if the details
Department's letter seems to say they have no objection
can be worked out.
Smith:
Replied they have talked in specific solutions, but they have not made
P & Z Board Minutes •
9/22/80
Page 21
engineering answers for each solution. Said the basic solution is an
extension of the pumping capacity in the pressure system that was put in
on the western side of the city to improve pressure. Stated the details
are concerned with who will pay for the improvements and who will be
involved in participating in the improvements.
Wells:
Said the problem is that in this kind of situation, it is possible they
will get to the building permit stage and everyone will say that someone
else was to solve the problem, and the development proceeds and the new
owners come back and complain about the lack of water pressure. Said
the board could take the stand that the P.U.D. should not be approved
until there is adequate water pressure.
Smith:
Said that a condition to that effect is probably in order.
Wells:
Asked the applicant to speak.
Kaplan:
Representing the applicant. Stated they would have no problem with
a condition as improving the water pressure would actually decrease the
cost of development. Said that with the present water pressure the
tap sizes would be larger and the tap charges greater than if the water
pressure were increased. Stated they had met with the city to revise
the approved utility plans for Overland Trail to provide for the
extension of the force main from Brown Farm and from Overland Trail it
would be an easy extension to Scenic Views.
Wells:
Asked if anyone else wished to comment.
Jeff McKinley:
Property owner on West Elizabeth next to the proposal. Stated he had
not been sent a notice about this hearing, but that he had found out by
word of mouth. Said he is concerned about what is going in next door
to him. Expressed disappointment that the developers had not contacted
him about their plans and shown some concern for the people around their
property. Stated he wanted to be able to retain his view of the mountains.
Wells:
Asked how wide the buffer zone will be next to his property and how tall
the buildings would be and how far away.
Albertson -Clark: Pointed out the closest condominium would be at least 50' from the
property line. Said there would be some landscaping, but that would be
done more completely at the final stages. Asked the applicant to address
the building height as elevations had not been submitted.
McKinley:
Stated he hoped there would not be another condominium eyesore like that
near the stadium.
Kaplan:
Stated the units would be one and two-story units, and suggested that
they could do a height analysis at that corner of the project in order
to minimize the impact on the views of the residents located immediately
to the north. Said he felt it would not be a serious problem due to the
setbacks they have. Pointed out the project has over 57% open space.
Said they had contacted Mrs. Sierra Bagwell who owns the property on
Overland Trail and she has indicated the proposal would not negatively
impact her. Stated Mrs. Giddings and Scavo-Dougherty developers who
own the subdivision directly to the south, so they had tried to contact
the immediately surrounding property owners. Said notification had been
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 22
sent to all property owners within 500' at the time of rezoning. Said
the landscaping and setback details with which Mr. McKinley is concerned
can be addressed on the final site plan and they would be glad to get
together with him on the details. Noted that the subdivision develop-
ments to which McKinley objects were done without site plan review or
detailed landscape plans which are required for this property.
Wells: Asked if no building elevations had been submitted.
Albertson -Clark: Replied that applicants have the choice of submitting elevations
at either the preliminary or final stage, and that if submitted at the
preliminary stage, they would be binding, more.or less.
Napheys: Asked how the Giddings property would fit in with the Scenic Views
proposal.
Smith: Said they anticipated that the Giddings property would be incorporated
as an amendment to this P.U.D. when it is developed. Stated the access
would come from the interior cul-de-sac, not from Elizabeth or Overland
Trail.
Stoner:
Suggested Mr. McKinley return at the time of final approval.
Wells:
Suggested McKinley take Mr. Kaplan's invitation to meet with him and
get a more precise description of the plans. Pointed out that this is
a preliminary P.U.D. and that at this stage the location of the buildings
can be changed, so McKinley's input is what they are looking for.
Ross:
Asked if the buildings indicated are the actual buildings or the envelopes.
Kaplan:
Replied they are approximate building sizes, but that adjustments could
be made in that area in terms of building height and landscaping. Said
it might be good to go to the property with McKinley and explore their
options.
Wells:
Stated she assumed the Giddings property would be included in the final.
Said that could be a requirement from the board.
Smith:
Said it could not be a requirement at this stage as it is dealing with
separate property ownership.
Kaplan:
Stated Scenic Views had encouraged Mrs. Giddings to submit her rezoning,
as they would like to include her property, but it would have to have
a similar zoning for them to do so. Said they would be negotiating with
her to purchase her property, and that a condition for inclusion of her
property would seriously handicap their negotiations.
Smith:
Said there was no way they could condition Scenic Views upon the inclusion
of another piece of property. Noted the P.U.D. condition on the Giddings
property, so the best way would be to amend the Scenic Views P.U.D. to
include it.
Clarke:
Pointed out that the 2-acre requirement would take care of it.
Wells:
Suggested there be some communication between the developer and the
P &.Z Board Minutes
9/22/80 . .
Page 23
property owner to resolve their concerns and have the final brought
back to the board to ensure that the problems have been resolved.
Sharon McKinley: Resident on West Elizabeth. Said that when they first purchased the
property it was with the understanding that the zoning was about 2DU/acre,
but the increased density is objectionable due to the increased population,
traffic, and congestion. Said they are fairly new residents and love
being near the foothills, and are disappointed about not being consulted
about the rezoning or development.
Wells: Stated the rezoning took place on May 20, 1980, so a certain density is
allowed at this point. Said that at present they are reviewing the site
plan to assure that it fits as well as possible into the area. Stated
the McKinleys' problems are fairly specific and suggested they meet with
the developer regarding them. Said the board is glad to hear any of their
concrete problems with the development, and would be willing to hear
more if their problems are not resolved prior to final submittal.
Georg: Expressed concern about the superficial level of engineering at both
preliminary and final stages of submittal, saying that there is a genuine
problem here with water pressure and it seems that a solution should be
required now. Questioned their considering this proposal at all.
Ross: Stated they could make a motion on this, but that a building permit or
occupancy permit should not be granted until the water pressure is
adequate. If it is not, the developers would not be able to develop.
Said the board could look at the plan, and if it is an engineering
problem, they can make a motion with the condition that the problem be
solved prior to occupancy.
Georg: Said he still thinks the engineering problems need to be solved before
the board reviews the plans as they spend so much time on these issues.
Ross: Stated he assumed that private capital is going to be in large part
responsible for bringing the water supply up to standard as well as for
the engineering studies for doing so and private capital would not wish
to spendlarge sums of money on a study unless they have preliminary
approval on something they can work with that makes it reasonable to
invest the capital to solve the problem. Agreed they should not approve
something that can't be built correctly, but that they could look at it
and decide whether it is or is not a workable plan. If so, then they
can require the problems be solved and the plan reviewed again.
Smith: Stated the whole idea of a preliminary plan was done to provide the kind
of initial approval to let a developer know whether a development is
considered appropriate by the city. It was specifically to exclude the
detailed engineering that normally addresses many of the board's
concerns, engineering which is some of the most costly of front-end
development. Stated that since the system was begun, the city has
continually increased the level of engineering requirements at the
preliminary stage to get the assurance that what has been submitted can
work, not that all details have been worked out. Said that this question
of water is one of those types of problems, and the Water Department has
indicated they are willing to go forward in solving it if the plan is
approved. Said that a condition that the problem be resolved prior to
final fits with the context of preliminary and final review. Noted
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 24
that preliminary drainage and utility reports are now required with
preliminary plans.
Georg:
Said that Hibbard's comment with respect to details is raising a red
forward
flag saying that he wants to see the details before he goes
with it. Said those details should not be taken lightly.
Napheys:
Asked staff to point out the active and inactive open space.
Albertson -Clark: Pointed out the large parcel north of the canal and the smaller
spaces throughout the project.
Napheys:
Asked what the north parcel would be.
Wells:
Stated it would be a drainage retention area which will be landscaped for
use as open space.
Smith:
Stated that administrative guidelines state criteria for use of a detention
area as open space, such as prohibition of constant standing water,
limitation
maintenance of the area as a useable landscaped active open space,
of the slope, so that the area can accommodate excess drainage from a rain
storm, but will drain out and be useable as open space at all other times.
Kaplan:
Stated there is a design innovation in this project which provides for most
of the parking perpendicular to the right-of-way and part of an easement,
and to be maintained by the homeowners' association. Said that using the
right-of-way to replace what a driving lane would be to a parking lot,
minimizes the amount of asphalt in the project and creates pockets of
open space which surround the residential areas. Pointed out that the
design creates little neighborhoods clustered about an open space area,
noting that practically every unit is bounded by open space on three
sides which qualifies as open space. Said that the detention area would
have to be engineered for use as active open space and would also serve
as a buffer for the residential area to the east. Said they also kept it
as open space to avoid building a vehicular bridge to it, but that if it
were eliminated, there would still be in excess of 15% active open space
as required by the P.U.D. ordinance.
Haase:
hat water pressure
on of pthe afinal hbehtba
problemebemsolved�and that brought ktto theeP&ZBoard.
Clarke:
Second.
Stoner:
Asked if the water pressure would have to be solved prior to final or if
it would be a condition of final approval.
Haase:
Amended the motion to state that the water pressure problem will be solved
final submittal
to the satisfaction of the engineering department prior to
to the P & Z Board.
Vote:
Napheys: yes, with concerns with respect to Georg's statement regarding
as
engineering "details", but saying that the problem had been resolved
with Napheys; Ross:
well as possible at this point; Georg: yes, agreeing
Haase: with support for
yes; Wells: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes; yes,
and the responsibility for
the comments on the water pressure problem
solutions being determined prior to preliminary review --supporting Napheys'
and Georg's comments.
Motion carried, 7 - 0.
P & Z Board Minutes •
9/22/80
Page 25
40
15. #78-80A Golden Meadows. 5th Filing, Neighborhood Center Preliminary P.U.D.
A proposal for a preliminary P.U.D. for a neighborhood shopping center
of approximately 150,000 sq. ft. on 32.51 acres, and an apartment
project of 124 units. The P.U.D. is located north of Harmony Road, west
of McMurray Avenue, east of Wheaton Drive and south of Golden Meadows
4th Filing. The zoning (proposed) is R-P, Planned Residential, and
B-P, Planned Business.
Applicant: K. Bill Tiley, c/o ZVFK Architects/Planners, 218 West Mountain,
Fort Collins, CO 80521.
Wells: Stated Ross would abstain from the discussion due to conflict of interest.
Chianese: Gave staff report on the commercial area.
Stoner: Asked the reason for.the encroachment on the buffer of Building D.
Chianese: Said there really is no reason except that the applicant wished to do it
that way, noting that the 50' was made up for elsewhere. Stated they did
not feel it was detrimental to the buffer, and since the site is under one
ownership, it is not giving anyone a competitive advantage.
Stoner: Asked if they wouldn't be selling those pads off.
Chianese: Replied they would, but noted that the situation was objectionable before
along College Avenue where there were separate owners and an encroachment
on the buffer there was definitely a detriment to other businesses. Stated
that Golden Meadows was being done as a unified plan, so there was little
likelihood of that kind of situation.
Gave staff report on the residential area, recommending approval for the
entire project with the condition that elevations be received for final
submission.
Georg: Asked if Chianese had recommended the board stipulate a maximum square
footage of the commercial buildings.
Chianese: Replied she was not sure if they would want to add that, but they should
be aware that there is some variation in the amounts of square footage and
the types of uses.
Smith: Said that approval would mean approval of a range from the minimum to the
maximum, allowing development to take place anywhere within that range.
Noted that going above the maximum would require another hearing.
Clarke: With respect to the high density residential criteria, noted that they
require proximity to the core area, regional community shopping center,
main campus, or hospital, and asked how that would apply to this project.
Also asked how this area would allow for easy access to employment centers.
Chianese: Replied that the answer depended on the definition of easy access, but
noted that with Hewlett-Packard, Keenland, and Golden Meadows industrial
area, there is a tremendously developing employment area. Said it would
be possible to walk, and is appropriate for high density residential use.
Ed Zdenek: With ZVFK Architects/Planners, representing the applicant. With respect
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 26
to the encroachment of Pad D onto the easement, pointed out that the
landscaped buffer is 80' which includes a major swale which undulates
through the buffer. The building would penetrate over that Swale which
would act as an amenity within that building envelope. Stated the reasons
for this include aesthetics (said they would be happy to supply an
equivalent amount of green space elsewhere), and supplying a break in the
expanse of the buffer to provide a sense of scale.
Wells: Asked where the bicycle/pedestrian path would be along Harmony and
Wheaton.
Zdenek: Indicated where such paths were planned, saying there were not planned
along Harmony and Wheaton.
Wells: Stated there would be increasing bike/pedestrian traffic in that area
and expressed concern for its safety.
Smith: Said that the city had not put together a specific improvement design
for Harmony Road yet, even though they had commitments from various people
along the street to improve the street according to the ultimate design.
Stated they anticipated there would be a separate bike path along
Harmony, and that the bike facilities on Wheaton, being a collector street,
would be on the street.
Wells: Stated that when these plans have not been included in the past in other
parts of town, it becomes very difficult to have them added and carried
out later. Stated the future commuters should be provided for.
Smith: Stated he would pass on her concerns to the appropriate people to get the
design for Harmony Road sped up.
Zdenek: Responding to Clarke's comments about the employment center, said this
would be a very important employment center and that he would be happy to
describe it in detail if the board so desired.
Clarke: Replied that would not be necessary.
Wells: Stated there were no elevations, but asked if the maximum height of these
buildings would be about 40'.
Zdenek: Stated they would not exceed 40'.
Haase: Commented about the density, saying it was heartening to see 9.17 DU/acre,
and related this to comments by Ken Waido, Planner, in #78-80, on B-P
zoning, indicating that proliferation of B-P exists in this area so
residential densities will need to be increased over present plans. Said
that it could be speculated they would be working toward an optimum
density for the area bounded by Timberline, College, Horsetooth and the
UGA boundary.
Zdenek: Stated they were involved with some of the developments in this area and
that there is a fair amount of density planned for those areas. Agreed
that if the entire area were developed as single family, there might be
an excess B-P site in the southern portion. Said, however, they were
doing their best to bring in higher densities, and that Everitts were
looking at 6 to 8 DU/acre on their 600 acres. Stated that if development
-P & f Board Minutes • •
9/22/80
Page 27
continues in thi.s.vein, there probably would not be an over -abundance in
the long run of B-P, although there may be in the short run.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval subject to elevations being submitted
for the final.
Stoner: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0.
17. #108-80 Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
Smith: Stated he would answer any questions rather than go through all the
proposed changes.
Stoner: Stated he is opposed to the elimination proposed in Section 11, stating
it would increase the number of appeals to the ZBA.
Smith: Agreed it would probably increase the number of appeals to the ZBA, but
said it would put the variance on the strict grounds of whether it is
applicable. Said one of the problems has been what the city has seen as
an abuse to that particular requirement, in terms of putting a far more
intense use on an older lot than would ever be approved today, and
getting that approval without going through the ZBA or the city based,
in effect, on a grandfathered-in variance. Stated they feel a more
appropriate approach would be to come in and request a variance to the
present code, and if it stands on its own before the ZBA, it would be
granted; if not, then it should be denied. Said projects should not
be granted an up -front variance which can be varied again just because it
is an older lot.
Stoner: Said his impression is that the ZBA looks at the percentage of variance
that is being requested. Said, for instance, that he owns a few 50'
lots in a B-L zone and has an automatic variance of 50' from 75' or
1/3 off. Noted these lots were purchased with the idea that existing
structures could be torn down and replaced by something else, but that
if he were to ask for a 33% variance, the ZBA would look at it differently
than the person going in with a 45' lot, compared to a 50' which he has
automatically already. Said that with a 45' lot in a B-L zone, a person
would really be asking for a 5' variance, with the grandfather situation
there, compared to close to a 40% variance, and the ZBA might not approve
that.
Smith: Stated he had stated exactly why they wanted the ZBA to look at the variance
as it stands rather than as a pre -determined granted variance as the clause
now stands. Said an individual could say he was asking for only a 10%
variance, when in reality, in comparison to the specific code, if that lot
was platted subsequent to this date, he would be asking for a 40% variance.
Stated it is confusing the board and the staff, noting the staff has
tremendous problems determining when this clause is applicable which have
resulted in contradictory decisions, and in just getting the situation
resolved, to the point that situations have changed in the middle of
proceedings which are very difficult to track and maintain. Said the
main reason for deleting the section is that the ZBA is a very fair board
and when a variance stands on its own and the conditions of the lot are
such that it creates a hardship, the ZBA will grant the variance, and if the
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 28
request is done in a manner which does not create a hardship, there
should not be a lot of problems. Reiterated that the city should not
be giving up -front variances that tend to confuse and create administra-
tive problems for the city.
Clarke:
Agreed that once in awhile there is a problem, but said that is to be
expected. Said his experience on ZBA has shown that it is a legitimate
variance to grant across the board for the original reason it was
granted --because these lots are already plotted and are small, and if
in -fill building is to be encouraged, all the red tape involved for a
variance before the ZBA cannot be required. Stated this section should
not be deleted.
Wells:
Pointed out there has been a lot of abuse of that section, that things
have been built on those lots which have infringed on the rights of the
people who live close by and which have changed the nature of the
neighborhoods to the extent that it has caused more rapid deterioration
of the rest of the neighborhood due to the unsuitability of residences
next door to the lots granted variances. Said this needs to be addressed
because there will be no more viable districts in the whole older part of
town unless people are living there, and some of the past variances have
created situations where it is no longer viable for residential use.
Contended elimination of this section would alleviate that problem.
Clarke:
Said he was not aware of so many cases where those problems had occurred,
but noted that in most cases the people who have a problem have more than
one problem, and when they come in to the ZBA they say they have not only
a problem with total area, but with setbacks and so on, so the ZBA makes
a variance for side yard, front yard, total area, and so on. Said the
proposed deletion would make a slight reduction from what is already
established as the third reduction they automatically get, but stated
that the ordinance as it stands actually will encourage the up -grading of
those properties. Said that for every detrimental situation, he could
point out some that were a positive influence on the neighborhood as old
fire -hazards had been removed and replaced by duplexes or single-family
dwellings.
Smith:
Said that in those cases where the variance would be a benefit, the board
would grant it, and agreed that it generally would come with additional
variance requests. Contended, however, in those cases where the variance
would be a detriment the board should have the ability and the purview to
refuse it, and not be limited by a previously -granted condition which
would not allow them to refuse it.
Clarke:
Said there would come a day when the ZBA would forget that it used to
grant 1/3 off in recognition of the small size of these lots, and that
then the ZBA would change, and instead of saying they realize it is a
small lot, they would start clamping down. Stated that having this
section in the code gives them a place to start.
Wells:
Asked if Clarke did not have confidence that the ZBA would have a reason
for clamping down, for denying a variance.
Napheys:
Moved recommendation of approval for Sections 1 through and including 9,
13, and 14.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
9/22/80
Page 29
Noted that these items did not seem controversial, so they could be voted
upon separately.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
Napheys: Moved recommendation of adoption of Sections 12, 15, and 16.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
Stoner: Moved to recommend retaining the code as is, not as proposed in Section 11.
Clarke: Second.
Said that when a person comes before the ZBA and has a use that is
obviously his right because he is a property owner and the neighbors have
suddenly gone against him, the deletion of this section would give them
more ammunition to use --to say what a great reduction this is --without
the initial recognition that these lots are small. Stated special
consideration should be given those lots over and above any other spot
in the city. Said he had heard many stories when on the ZBA about the
situations these property owners have and that the 1/3 reduction is
extremely important in putting the thing in perspective.
Ruggiero:
Pointed out he also sits on the ZBA and has been aware of the questions
that arise concerning when this provision applies and when it does not.
Says it does cause confusion, and that Clarke would have to admit that
when a variance first comes before the board, it is said just what the
facts and figures are for that property, so the board still would be
aware of the magnitude of the variance. Stated also that there can be
significant problems where these small lots are in the R-M district and
two lots which would qualify for a single-family home under current
standards would be considered for up to two duplexes on each lot.
Said, therefore, the Planning Department is concern e d about the situa-
tions where too much is permitted. Contended this would not result in
a multitude of single-family lots which are inordinately narrow and long
with no development. Said that an owner might apply for a duplex, but
by virtue of the fact that they would be denied any use, the city would
probably allow them a single-family home. Contended the property owners
do not have to be guaranteed the highest, most profitable use of the land.
Clarke:
Referred to Section 8, saying that refutes the argument that a two-family
home is more detrimental than a single-family home.
Ruggiero:
Said his experience has been different as he has had to interpret a lot
of situations where people asked what they could do.
Clarke:
Said his point is that it is important to have somewhere stated that the
as the ZBA looks at it, or anybody else, it is automatically reduced to
66 2/3.
Ruggiero:
Asked if it would make any difference if the applicant said the lot was
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 30
platted in 1920 and provides 50' wide and both homes on adjacent properties
are occupied, so they cannot acquire more property and that is their
hardship.
Clarke: Agreed there is a point there, but said they were still not recognizing
that is already a hardship in terms of the code. Said leaving it up to
the ZBA would mean that they would forget it someday.
Georg: Said that it seemed to him what is really needed is a guideline here, not
necessarily an item in the code, and the guideline is that flexibility is
desirable and the ZBA should be able to use that guideline as they have in
the past. Stated on the other hand it did not seem a good idea to have
in effect a blanket variance. Said each variance should be reviewed.
Napheys: Asked if it were really appropriate for this board to make the recommenda-
tion at all. Suggested the ZBA should make the recommendation.
Wells: Replied that this really affects the over-all city and the over-all
planning for the city which responsibility the ZBA does not have.
Napheys: Said he wonders what the present ZBA thinks about this issue.
Haase: Stated that Napheys had raised a very good point and that the ZBA should
at least review these two sections and make some kind of recommendation.
Clarke: Said he would like to hear the ZBA's recommendation, and commented that
Wells' comments were excellent with respect to P & Z's larger purview.
Napheys: Noted that some of the more non -controversial items referred to the
same point, so it might be best to get some input from the ZBA.
Wells: Stated they could also recommend to the council that they get a recommen-
dation from ZBA before their decision.
Stoner:
With reference to staff's discussion on this section, asked how two
duplexes could be built on a 40' lot.
Smith:
Replied two 16' wide townhomes, two stories high, over-under duplexes
could be built. Said that 16' wide townhomes exist in different parts of
the city now and it is an up-and-coming type of project. Said two could
be built back-to-back and up-and-down.
Stoner:
Asked if there were any now.
Smith:
Replied not at present, but it is a possibility.
Vote:
Haase: yes; Clarke: yes; Stoner: yes; Wells: no; Ross: no; Georg: no;
Napheys: yes. Motion carried, 4 - 3.
Ross:
Asked for clarification of Section 10.
Clarke:
Stated the ZBA had had several problems where in considering variances,
people would come in and ask how there could be houses with seven or more
people, usually students, in a single-family neighborhood, when there is
supposed to be a limit of three un-related persons in a single-family
house. Said that by allowing more residents as a home occupation problems
P & Z Board Minutes •
9/22/80
Page 31
had been caused. Stated that this re i io
particularyi wise as it would protect
many people in single-family areas from having group -occupied houses in
their neighborhoods which tend to foster unkempt yards and houses.
Moved recommendation of adoption of Section 10.
Haase: Second.
Stoner: Said he is in favor of the revision.
Frank: Pointed out that the three -person limit has been circumvented by means of
the home occupation ordinance.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
Summary: Sections 1 - 10, and 12 - 16 approved, 7 - 0; Section 11 disapproved, 4 - 3.
3. Consideration of Changes to the By-laws of the Planning and Zoning Board.
Wells: Summarized the proposed changes.
Stoner: Suggested that the change to Article IV, Section 2 should be amended to
allow for changing the date of the work session.
Napheys: Suggested the amendment read: "The regularly monthly work session shall be
held during the week (on Friday unless otherwise scheduled) preceding the
fourth Monday of the month."
Moved adoption of the amendment to Article I, Section 1; adoption of the
amendment to Article II, Section 5; adoption of the amendment to Article IV,
Section 2 (including the suggested change by Napheys above), Section 3, and
Section 12.
Clarke: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
Wells: With reference to Article II, Section 2, stated she supported this change.
Napheys: Said he had reservations about that, pointing out that the present make-up
of the board included only three people who had served more than two
months, so it could be possible to have only two by September, therefore
it might be important not to limit the board as to who can be the chair-
man or vice-chairman.
Ross: Pointed out that this is not the kind of board where the chair sets
policy or controls the meeting, and noted they haven't had an ad hoc
committee at least in the last five years. Pointed out that this is an
unusual board with so many new people at once.
Haase: Commented that this is a very common provision in many by-laws of boards
and organizations and the objective is to provide revolving leadership
and opportunity for development of leadership in the board. Noted that
the P & Z board has a heavy responsibility in number of meetings, organi-
zation, direction, planning of the agenda, so it would seem common sense
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 32
that anyone serving as chairman for more than two years would be
accepting an unusual challenge. Said also that the former Boards and
Commissions Manual did have comment that there was encouragement for
developing leadership and providing opportunity for revolving chairmanship
in the board, and said this is directly related to the election of the
mayor and city council where there has always been a policy of having
the mayor serve for just one year, thus giving opportunity for people
who represent different interest groups, philosophies, experience,
vocational background, to serve in the leadership role. Stated she
took this recommendation directly from Roberts' Rules of Order, Revised.
Napheys: Asked if the policy of rotating the mayor is written anywhere.
Haase: Moved recommendation of approval of Article II, Section 2 amendment.
Ross: Second.
Vote: Napheys: no, saying this might be wise to follow as policy, but it should
not be in the by-laws as it would be unwise to so bind the board; Georg:
yes; Ross: no, agreeing with Napheys; Wells: yes; Stoner: yes; Clarke: yes;
Haase: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 2.
Napheys:
Said he did not understand the reference to
the words "orientation infor-
mation planning provided."
Ross:
Pointed out that the orientation given the
new members was the first.
Napheys:
Stated it seemed there is an extra word there.
Clarke:
Suggested "orientation program."
Haase:
Explained there has been need expressed on
this board and others as well
for increased orientation information, and
with the planning coming from
an experienced member of the board, such as
the vice phairman , the new
members would get a practical viewpoint and
practical recommendations
for assistance. Stated that as the P & Z Board vice chairman had not had
any specific responsibilities in the past,
that was the motivation for
this inclusion, and also as assistance for
the staff as well, to have
the citizen advisory viewpoint in the orientation
process.
Clarke:
Moved recommendation of approval of Article
III, Section 2, subject to
the following change in wording: The Vice
Chairman, with the Chairman
and staff assistance is responsible for an
orientation program provided
new Planning and Zoning Board members."
Stoner:
Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
1. Election of Officers.'
Wells: Expressed her feelings of appreciation for her experience on the board
and for the help she had been given from the board and the staff. Said
e
^ P & Z Board Minutes • •
9/22/80
Page 33
this would be her last meeting as she was resigning from the board.
Opened nominations for chairman.
Stoner: Nominated Gary Ross for chairman.
Clarke and Haase: Second.
Napheys: Moved nominations be closed.
Clarke: Second.
Ross: Stated he had been criticized in the past for serving on the board while
residing outside the city limits.
Napheys: Stated he did not think there were any legal restrictions on that point.
Smith: Stated there was no specific restriction or the membership would also be
in question.
Napheys: Said he had served as chairman of a board although not residing within
the city limits at the time.
Ruggiero: Stated the charter makes no mention of the residency of P & Z Board members.
Ross: Said he also has many conflicts as he is associated with Bill Tiley,
although not as many as previously. Added he prefers not to have the
office, but would accept it.
Vote: Ross elected chairman, 7 - 0.
Wells: Congratulated Ross. Opened nominations for vice chairman.
Napheys: Nominated Carolyn Haase.
Clarke: Second.
Georg: Moved nominations be closed.
Vote: Haase elected vice chairman, 7 - 0.
Other Business
Haase: Said there is a memo from the City Attorney, dated September 11, on the
Vine -LaPorte -Taft Annexation and the whole annexation issue which the
P & Z Board should have and asked staff to supply copies of it.
Wells: Announced there would be a meeting on the point system Wednesday night.
Haase: Stated the hearing on the budget recommendation for the P & Z Board would
be coming up. Asked Smith if the board should vote on supporting this.
Smith: Said that would be appropriate and said it would be good for one of the
board members to take it to council.
Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval of the budget request.
Ross: Second.
P & Z Board Minutes
9/22/80
Page 34
Vote: Motion carried, 7 - 0.
Smith: Stated the next budget hearing would be October 7, 1980.
Haase: Asked that a letter of appreciation be sent to Wells.
Wells: Adjourned meeting at 11:45 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WORK SESSION - September 17, 1980
Board Present: John Clarke,PhylIis Wells, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross
Time: 12:00 Noon
Place: Council Information Center, City Hall
Agenda: September 22, 1980 P & Z Board meeting agenda