HomeMy WebLinkAboutOAK/COTTONWOOD FARM AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 54-87AL - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSi
•
ITEM NO. lg
� �� METTING DATI 3�2�97
STAFF Mike Ludwig ___
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
Oak Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL.
SecurCare Self Storage, Inc.
6551 S Revere Parkway, #225
Englewood, CO 80111
OWNER: Sharon K. Nordic
309 W. Harmony Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to amend the land uses permitted on Parcel V(5.27 acres of uses allowed
in the R-L, Low Density Residential District) of the existing Oak/Cottonwood Farm Overall
Development Plan. The applicant proposes to divide the existing Parcel V into a new
Parcel V(4.73 acres of mini-storage units and accessory dwelling unit) and new Parcel W
(0.54 acres of office use). The property is located on the west side of Boardwalk Drive at
the intersection of Boardwalk and Oakridge Drive; and is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor on
the City Plan zoning map.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In the Revised Statement of Planning Objectives, the applicant states that the land uses
proposed with this amendment are consistent with Land Use Compatibility Objective #2
(p.17) and Peripheral Growth Objective # 2(p.14) of the 1977 Goals and Objectives
document and Policies #3a and #74 of the 1979 Land Use Policies Plan. In addition, the
applicant's request is supported by the Fairway Estates Homeowners' Association.
However, Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request on the basis that it is not
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: Neighborhood
Identification #4 (p.4); Guiding Growth #1 (p.15); Land Use Compatibility #1 (p. 17); and
Land Use Compatibility Objective # 2(p.17) of the 1977 Goals and Objectives
Document; Policies #3a and #74 of the 1979 Land Use Policies Plan; and Land Use
Policy 4 of the Harmony Corridor Plan. The existing Oak/Cottonwood Farm Second
Amended Overall Development Plan and it's predecessor, were very specific as to the
transition which is to occur between the Fairway Estates residential subdivision (west of
�OMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. Colle�;e Ave. PO Box 5fi0 P�rt Ct�llins, CO 80522-�O:iflO (970) 22',
�'LP.I�'NING LEl'Ai'";'�7LNT
� J
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 2
�
this property) and the Harmony Market Community Regional Shopping Center on Parcel
R(northeast of this property across Boardwalk Drive). Approximately 86% of the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP is developed (in accordance with the existing,
approved ODP). Previous land use decisions were made based upon these parcels
providing a transition. Staff feels that an amendment which allows storage units on the
existing Parcel V would violate the intent of that transition.
•
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 3
COMMENTS
Background:
•
The surrounding zoning and land uses on the new CityPlan zoning map are as follows:
N: H-C; vacant (Oak/Cottonwood Parcels T and U); church(Front Range
Baptist Church); approved bank (Bank 1 and office building);
Harmony Road.
S: R-L; existing single-family residential (Upper Meadow at Miramont).
E: H-C; Boardwalk Drive; existing commercial (Harmony Market Community
Regional Shopping Center).
MMN; existing multi-family (Oak Hill Apartments).
W: F-A (County);existing single-family residential (Fairway Estates)
The 271 acre Oak/Cottonwood Farm parcel was annexed and zoned into the City on June
23, 1980, as part of a larger property known as the Keenland Annexation. The original
Oak/Cottonwood Overall Development Plan was approved on October 26, 1987.
When the Oak/Cottonwood Farm parcel was annexed and zoned in 1980, Ordinance #112-
80 stipulated the following conditions:
A. The zoning is conditioned that development occur under a master plan in
accordance with the zoning ordinance of the City relating to master planning
in effect at the time of such development.
B. Residential development in the R-P, Planned Residential District, be limited
to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per acre.
On April 24, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a request to amend the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan to designate "Community Regional
Shopping Center" as an allowable land use on then Parcel 1-B (now Parcel R). This parcel
is known as the Harmony Market PUD. This same amendment also included designating
detailed, specific land uses on then Parcels 1-G and 1-H in order to provide transitional
buffering along the western edge.
Three filings were approved based upon the 1989 Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall
Development Plan:
Harmony Market 1 st Filing (Pace Warehouse- now Sam's Club) - April 24, 1989
Harmony Market 2nd Filing (Builders Square) - July 23, 1990
Harmony Market 3rd Filing (Steele's Market) - September 24, 1990
.
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 4
�
On June 29, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a request to amend the 1989
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan. The approval included the
redesignation of potential land uses and proposed residential densities. Parcel V(5.6
acres) was designated for land uses allowed in the R-L Zoning District as of June 29, 1992.
Minutes of the June 29, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board meeting are attached.
Twenty-eight (28)filings have been approved based upon the 1992 Oak/Cottonwood Farm
Amended Overall Development Plan:
Upper Meadows at Miramont First Filing - July 27, 1992
Harmony Market 4th Filing (First Bank) - November 16, 1992
Upper Meadows at Miramont Second Filing - March 22, 1993
Harmony Market 5th Filing (Auto-lubrication & Car-wash) - April 26, 1993
Miramont PUD Entry Subdivision - July 20, 1993
Miramont PUD Second Filing (Castle Ridge) - July 26, 1993
Courtyards at Miramont First Filing - May 23, 1994
Miramont PUD Third Filing - May 23, 1994
Harmony Market 2nd Filing (Builders Square Expansion) - May 23, 1994
Harmony Market 5th Filing Minor Subdivision - May 24, 1994
Harmony Market 6th Filing (Red Robin) - June 6, 1994
Courtyards at Miramont Second Filing - June 27, 1994
Oak Hill Apartments - June 27, 1994
Harmony Market 9th Filing (Tyco Oil C-store & Total Petroleum) - August 22, 1994
Harmony Market 7th Filing (Golden Corral) - August 22, 1994
Harmony Market 3rd Filing (Steele's Expansion) - August 22, 1994
Bank One at Harmony Market - September 26, 1994
Miramont Fitness and Tennis Center - September 26, 1994
Harmony Market 8th Filing (Outback Steakhouse) - September 26, 1994
Harmony Market 10th Filing (Lee's Cyclery) - October 24, 1994
Cottages at Miramont - June 26, 1995
Harmony Market 11th Filing (retail building) - August 21, 1995
Hamlets at Miramont - November 20, 1995
The Ramparts at Miramont - January 22, 1996
Miramont PUD Replat Minor Subdivision - March 12, 1996
Harmony Market 12th Filing - April 22, 1996
Miramont Village PUD - May 20, 1996
Miramont Valley PUD - May 20, 1996
Nearly 86% of the Oak Cottonwood Farm has been developed in accordance with the
existing 1992 Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan. Only five
parcels (a total of 36.9 acres) of the existing 1992 Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP remain
undeveloped. Those parcels and designated land uses are as follows:
s
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P 8� Z Meeting
Page 5
Parcel Acres Land Uses
•
N 9.4 Multi-family and/or Business Services
P 13.0 multi-family or business services; a portion is a
City owned but undeveloped park site.
T 3.8 Uses allowed in the R-L-M Zoning District
(alternative: residential scale office or day care).
U 4.8 Uses allowed in the R-L Zoning District.
V 5.6 Uses allowed in the R-L Zoning District.
2. Land Use:
This is a request to amend the land uses permitted on Parcel V(5.27 acres of uses
allowed in the R-L, Low Density Residential District) to allow a new Parcel V(4.73 acres
of mini-storage units and accessory dwelling unit) and new Parcel W(.54 acres of office
use).
Section 29-526 F(3c) of the City Code states: "The overall development plan will not be
reviewed on the basis of the specific design standards and criteria contained in this section
(the LDGS), but rather on the basis of conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan."
3. Comprehensive Plan:
A. Applicant's Request
In the Revised Statement of Planning Objectives which were submitted (see attached), the
applicant states that the land uses proposed with this Amendment are consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan based on statements from the 1977 Goals and Objectives
document and the 1979 Land Use Policies Plan.
The applicant stated the following from the 1977 Goals and Objectives document:
Land Use Compatibility Objective # 2(p.17�:
"Locate retail and seivice facilities so as to be easily accessible to residential
neighborhoods"; and
Peripheral Growth Ob.�ective # 2 (p.14):
"Urban development in the urtian service area should be consistent with fhe
provision of utilities, schools, parks, and other public services and preferably
contiguous fo existing development "
�
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 6
•
The applicant stated the following from the 1979 Land Use Policies Plan:
Policy 3a- The City shall promote maximum utilization of land within the city.
Policy 74- Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other urban
design elements) should be provided between residential
neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the
concept of a mixture of land uses.
The applicant notes that "a properly designed self storage facility is a good transitional use
due to its quiet, low traffic generating and screening nature. This proposal is also a
commercial development which does not have direct access to College Avenue or another
major arterial." The applicant also suggests that the building heights, materials, colors,
landscaping, minimal traffic generation, and hours of operation qualify it as a transitional
use.
The applicant's request is supported by the Fairway Estates Homeowners' Association.
B. Staff s Response
Parcel V on the existing Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan allows
only uses that are permitted in the R-L, Low Density Residential Zoning District. Mini-
storage and offices are not allowed in the R-L zoning district. The limitation of uses on
Parcel V was a direct result of neighborhood concerns regarding the proximity of the
Harmony Market Community Regional Shopping Center to Fai►way Estates. Since Parcel
V is directly adjacent to single-family residential on the south and west sides, Parcel V was
restricted the most.
During consideration of the existing Amended Overall Development Plan in 1992, the
Planning and Zoning Board denied the applicant's request for 2.9 acres of auto-related and
roadside commercial uses on Parcel S. The Board determined that auto-related and
roadside commercial uses on the west side of Boardwalk did not provide an adequate
transition and buffer between the Harmony Market Shopping Center and Fairway Estates.
In response to the concerns of the Fairway Estates Homeowner's Association, the Board
limited Parcel S to office/retail uses as stated on the 1989 Amended ODP.
Since the Planning and Zoning Board has already determined that Auto-Related and
Roadside Commercial uses (such as mini-storage) were inappropriate on Parcel S, a
parcel on the west side of Boardwalk that is the furthest from Fairway Estates, Staff is
unable to support such uses on a parcel of land on the west side of Boardwalk that is
directly adjacent to existing single-family residential. Staff feels that the proposed
amendment is not consistent with the intent of the existing Oak/Cottonwood Farm
Amended Overall Development Plan.
�
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 7
•
While the proposal may be consistent with certain portions of the Goals and Objectives and
the LUPP, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
based on the following:
Goals and Objectives Document:
Neighborhood Identification #4 (p.4�:
"Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business
activities which have a significanf negative impact upon predominantly
residential areas."
As determined by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1992, auto-related and
roadside commercial uses (such as mini-storage) on the west side of
Boardwalk in the Oak/Cottonwood Farm is incompatible and would have a
significant negative impact upon the residential area.
Guiding Growth #1 (p.15�:
"Develop a land use plan which will indicate preferred locations for the
various types of economic activities within the City and urban service area."
The existing Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan
clearly states what uses are preferred at this location. Mini-storage is not
permitted in the R-L zoning district.
Land Use Compatibility #1 (p. 17�:
"Protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against
intrusive and disruptive surrounding development."
The Planning and Zoning Board did this in 1992 when considering the
existing overall development plan. As a result, they limited the uses allowed
on the west side of Boardwalk Drive in the Oak/Cotton Wood Farm Amended
Overall Development Plan.
Staff recommends that these policies outweigh those that are consistent with the proposal,
especially when coupled with the development of the ODP with only minor changes.
Staff questions the applicant's use of Land Use Compatibility Ob1ective #2 (p.17� as
support for the requested amendment. Mini-storage is an auto-related and roadside
commercial land use, not a business service or retail use.
�
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 8
Land Use Policies Plan
�
Staff questions the applicanYs use of Land Use Polices #3a and #74 as support for the
requested amendment. No documentation was provided which demonstrates that mini-
storage units are a maximum utilization of this land. The Planning and Zoning Board
determined in 1992 that auto-related and roadside commercial uses (such as mini-storage)
were not an appropriate land use transition on the west side of Boardwalk on the Oak-
Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan.
Harmony Corridor Plan
The subject property located within a Mixed-Use Activity Center as designated on Map 10
of the Harmony Corridor Plan. Pursuant to Land Use Policy 4 of the Harmony Corridor
Plan, the Mixed-Use Activity Center permits in addition to uses listed in the "Basic Industrial
and Non-retail Employment Activity Center", a range of retail and commercial uses to occur
in shopping centers. Mini storage uses are not listed as a"Basic Industrial and Non-retail
Employment Activity Center Use". The site is not located within a shopping center. As
stated previously, the area west of Boardwalk is to be a transition between the Harmony
Market Community Regional Shopping Center and the existing residential to the west. This
request is inconsistent with the Harmony Corridor Plan and therefore, is inconsistent with
City's Comprehensive Plan.
4. Neighborhood Compatibilit,�:
A neighborhood meeting was held on October 2, 1996 regarding this amendment request.
Minutes of this meeting are attached. The Fairway Estates Homeowners' Association
supports the proposed request. However, the Planning and Zoning Board determined in
1992 that Auto-Related and Roadside Commercial Uses (such as mini-storage) are an
inappropriate and incompatible on the west side of Boardwalk Drive on the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan. Staff recommends that this
is still true today.
5. Transportation:
Vehicular access to the mini-storage and office uses are proposed individually from
Boardwalk Drive. The traffic study indicates that the proposed mini-storage use on the new
Parcel V and the office use on the new Parcel W will generate approximately 441 average
weekday vehcicle trips. Approximately 50% of these trips would be to and from the north
on Boardwalk Drive; 20% to and from the south on Boardwalk Drive; and 30% to and from
the east on Oakridge Drive. The Transportation Department has determined that all
applicable intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service.
�
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP, #54-87AL
March 24, 1997 P& Z Meeting
Page 9
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
•
The Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan, #54-87AL is
consistent with Peripheral Growth Obiective # 2(p.14� of the 1977 Goals and
Objectives Document.
2. The Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan, #54-87L is not
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon the following elements
of the 1977 Goals and Objectives Document:
Neighborhood Identification #4 (p.4�
Guiding Growth #1 (p.15�;
Land Use Compatibility #1 (p. 17�; and
Land Use Compatibility Objective # 2(p.17�.
3. The Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan, #54-87L is not
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon its failure to satisfy
Policies #3a and #74 of the 1979 Land Use Policies Plan.
4. The Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan, #54-87L is not
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as the proposed mini-storage use
is inconsistent with Land Use Policy 4 of the Harmony Corridor Plan.
5. As previously determined by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1992, auto-related
and roadside commercial uses (such as mini-storage) on the west side of
Boardwalk Drive on the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development Plan
are not compatible with surrounding land uses and are inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended Overall Development
Plan, #54-87AL.
•1!\:ILfI�I � [�l ►� 1►��L�I�I �
•l�
' �
#54-87AL OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM "
Amended ODP
1"= 300'
VICINITY MAP 12/10/96
� ���p O�
- �.�_ �y� --- ���� �
-� —_ T —
— �... -�� �o��= � � r ��.�� ..r�
E.,s.,.�
� <o�.E� ��« :.ow� �a�`o aP �o��o A�P ,� ,� 1� I I ' w�o 40- M I
>.a.
� �o��o a� � Eo
- — - -- - -
�:a.�om --- - - ------
-- VICINITY MAP
? _ _ _ __ � _ - __ ���..��"�_ - �� ' `� �
o r - � : }"J.. i�.0 l.?
� eo o. � � i � '�� � I' �• � .+r
ScL - — . _ -� � ' �I .."� �'�fj
�� � F�� �� �� � � � � - � � _o�_, �� �L_�. 4w..osJ6a � �' f_'
ii zo � _\1������ e�oo��� I��`� �� I��� c �� � I SU,E "
1 ��
� . , o o � _, _ .� .� ,I
. o o e . � �•��
-0f j�
�1
�
i , I �
�� q � � � I � / .I' li I I a "' 'k . ,
x uw - .__ � '---
� 1 .
a o � II � ,�T I - �' ; 1 � ;,.. Cy �� �_ ;
� e R�« �I t ��- � � i � � � :
�Z =
�
�
-
� ' U � o.w<« I _ + � vnecE� �� �1 1�- -- I � _ . � �,y, '.
' T f:: R �, - r �
� � —" — = �
� � ; �
; — — � ;;, :
�_
:�� �
j� 50 GFv:SAC E� _ ' '- - I �..� � . I '
I OMMUNIiV i F IONAL SH f N .,.. 1 f,✓� �T;., �'\:�
a
� _ _ _ _ o.� cr �I � �r. . . �,..,
- 'I & � yNE5S-5CF+�ES � ✓/ �� `� �E.�'
� . ..� ' ._ .. - '� e � � _
_ _ - ,� �_' -,
� ~ J � /'
♦
r[�"-.� ' � � _ . - _� . , � .. , � •-
� � �
� � � -�. - - / / _ _ _ .
. . i _ � �, � �t . �
vw,'e: �'" /' ''` _
_ _ [ � DnnFiDGEI - - - -
�a nwss.w �/ .�, � . DRIVE . � . . uo
e.�., a W --. _ 1 [ wssw� ��ycc oc
t
_ .. ; . . �. vcA�.
- _ _ � ... � � x�vv� s) ....
' 4G ��Kc.o� k �, - . . I -�. � LEGAL4ESS�fifP1LOM
� c
s � ,v. �a_ - -' ` -- . ,
1 L ,1 1 LE r.r .__
� � ' . PhRCEL 1 C.��.'l - _ ._ �.. _�. - .... ....,...�...
i �
i 1 '�
PAkCEL .' �j � II
� ' ..�
� �'+ � �`, 3C,] GRCSS ACr'.ES- � - � ^ - '
r-� y
� �� eu�wEss s�avic[s �����_. � f
� � � , 17-.- �, ' ` nNo/oa I � O � �T- � , ' ` -�
� ' '. 20.9 GROS$ AC'nCS._ • t MULTI �AMILV � ._ .> � .
' ' 1� ��� LOW GENSITY � �. R�n1�Di0M1Lo ' � '4 I
I I I . RESI�ENTIAL �. . . .......� ......... .....-. .,......�..�. ...�»... .
Y� DETACHED PATD MOM6 L � '_
J '� � BOARDWALK' Rff .v� ev P+Z, • �`" � . �.' I � � � v � �. .
I�- � }�r � I O�IVE _ i EA. XC (` O �
R
i\ I � �''C. .- � R ti�a6�19'�4 �� {^� � I� , ; � .�.�.�.�..���. ' �.......�..._,�. .._.... �. '
I C � ; �....�. =. ....� � .�Y>.`v � .-��.......-` �.
�RO�y ,
� � � "'�, � F� -_._.__...._.......,...._ __...� I
i� � ��� / ; � , r , � ..,v__....m.._,.... , ...._.�_....-. "' ' �
un�w .r'�•.� ' _
�
�
co� :
f� c� �. � �_ _ '
> � - - __
� E I � �._:- `�.:."�
_
_. _' _ ` i _ _ �t, . �.�- _ _ -. � . . no .. .
1 __ PARCE� PARCEL � I I
,}_.` � F � . P _�.�.__ o___..__.._...�_�_..
� FARf�L
� N �i �
���' 11.2 GRO55 ACkES_ ��:` 13.0 GROSS ACRES} oc c
�\. LOW DENSITY POSSIBLE CITY PARK '-p '�' .-
oLTERNATIVE: ry�
RESIDENTIA� ��' 9.7 GRO �hf
�
�'� �� � � pf, �. BUSINE:,S SERVICES MUA'I I F � " µ - �yENE
_ MULTI-FAMILY OR �A ;� o� I
. ri. - BuSirvEsS EFY�tEs�� ,, � RAL_NOTES I
- � PARCEL . `�C �'��' ' . I . -
. �
J :.-� � ,��� F4 (Y,�„ .__' .. . . ...�.� �._.��~._.,.�•.v �.��..�..e..,�....�...,""
l4.➢ GRO55 dCRES- `. ` � - - �
. .
� . ,. �� I
LOVl.0EN51TK J��r'?`� _ I �� - . ' � ^—"-�'--_�-••_
RESI�ENTIAL . J -`� E .k-.- •iCJ,� C ._ . ...�..�....-.._....._._.�
� -' ' - _ -. - ......_._._�
�..a.M .�_
. r �.: . , � � _ '-_ ._. . s�..-_..�,._ �
� ' -` 12d GRO S ACRI S:
..._ .
\ .� _". . h,... . \ LOW AND/OR ME IVM ' __ _ �� _ . . "'.__"...Y....».._.._.._
� � . 'r. OENSIfY
` `- li \ \ ♦Qi ;\I�ENTIAL 'il i --' _.�.�.�.
r — � ,�
,
�� �:oow"f _ 4 � � II
c�l.uu4�� - - .. \J ; a. . .. F-�
coudrr � � , � ' . . ' ;���f��� � �
� � Faace� ... _ rnacE� .� o r a ��
a�� ' ..
ELsu Mp
—_� � '�L �� ��I C ��—� I
ao L , �
s� �.,ti \D `\� � II 8.4 GROSS ACRES+� _ \.. ,__" (
.e..
�.�8.6 GRQSS ACRfSry � � I.CW DENSITY �
x r . �� "_ ""..._
W
� j I �' � I � ��..IOW DENSITY `� RESIOENTIAL ' ' ....__......� ••._•••�•�••••••�•.�_ I
/
�a� � �'��_Z � �! � i � E I�,HtiAL \'� //� � -' -_� . ._„_.'_'__"_ .
�y -,.i onono a�l.-.i: � � __, _...o .. Y I - - ..:-...._�_�..--_. I
� [ /
i �R� �
'I �` ..� , "� ' PARCEL _ .
I� (PARCEL �R %-S _ � R _. „ i ��[5 :"..>.._.:k.�..:._
� ' � ' L `"� . - �..i :�,';.'uc r
� , � � � -�_�_. �. - ._ ,b'.L ��gs ��R�S� � _ . ��� ._ , ,
CD
, � . _
JJJ,(J � !� -r� 1{�.8 GR'J55 ACRES� � ' � .. `- -��. Z�SiDENTIAL '- ^�^`'--" --
I
�/'.� v� � � LOW DENSITY � � . «^ ... -.. . _ ::�__�."'"" - . . .._ ..
/ �., \RESI NTIAL PARCEL _ �� _-
i� 1= _ , .... _. ..::.'�': -. = ._.� :._ _.:'�.�_
� / � / . � �� � ._ � . � S i2 Yw. �.iv�n..ii� .,,.�..!'o,,.(i)•
� T __ 13.9 GRO55 ACFES± _: .e P�,k � �... �k � sa;.y',`:;�;�,y1 q .rK ...,,,.y., or
I.. LO'M AN�/OR MEDIUM � � __
a FA _ �ENSITY RESi[2EN7icL 4/� ��.E�+ar �
� ..� . _ _ '.., � ENUE �
� I �. � '
��� ���55 A���Es�
' / 9.5 Gk0 5 aCRES_ '� 1 ll- _ r� �f
'FIL� /�7��,.,,�.,
���� � Low oensil_ '_' -- � - . .�� _'., �. _ ��« _o �V"/lC�j Q � �
RESIDENTIAL \ � U NJ
\ i�ra I.1•G�A(FIS- - _ _ _ _._._ ..,.
R 5*F[[i coHu[tiox ro,.,t cx[[K
� PIE�s[ SE[ wa*[ ii :ouuiv*v rexx �• °"`. �"°.
K�-� ���R�_��K OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM II
. -
._.. -..�.. - -.o,,.,. o-.�_.. d.._
. ._._ ,,, __
. ,_,_.._._. :.. . . _ ', .._ .��_'_ ,......,_..__.... �,,,.__..._..._.__..,...... AMENDED OVERALL LEVELOPMENT PLAN
.. �,. __ .. . . _ ,. _. ....._._._.__.__..,,._._.._ ,..,,..,..__..______.._
. -_.. ,.. _ .. ._ ... .._ . ..�_....._..._._._."__. A[n� :r�E�. -
-- - �L1 N0. t]3
_ - 5/�m. x N.✓2x �CnLE�. 1 -^0'J'
. - 3C? n .. /b
- - .<. , 'O C0 25
. ._.�_.�„_.. . . .. _ ..� .._ �._ _
y..
i ..........�_. . . .. ..� ,n ... �'"
. .�.�...� �� � . � . .� _.. ..ns'r.��..��....�.�......� ...............��.. _ .... R,�..�...��� _ _
. .�.�.._ ., - ... .._ .... ... .� _... II �� MiE �� attEv�W.nCn: 5 04 92
e � ..._ �� _ ,.. ... ... .._ i..� . �....�._.��.-..�. �� RENSiONS.a�n.,.x n
. n. _ . .m . .,. ..� . _ KEY
.__,. _ �
. .....,. ,. _ . _. . ... ..� -.. -.,. �-_,,.. ,.
. .' .. -. �. _ ••. � ._ -,- � cwuciwmm � ocnraxroxo ,.��� ._. Y��6�,w.r�rvl,viwwn.�we�x.nc
,-..�.. v! u[/sr�cmu.� J �' — a _
vr .N . r v�. OSI e�/ �. I;9]5 .p..i.: � n�[(� conxr.rnon � ��u i��_-�_ �..^ d P:
Ol�.cem•• .�. O d../ - ���� nocmuw wr.r �p y
!OA[9 2�.�•� N9...�. �503�¢.�e� VD �+�tirv�[ ✓E[Lw��ENT%[o.vSU[l<N�
Mw�n�xeop `�
655/ 5. e.e.� ..�y S�.Ie 225
L..._ _ _ ___ _. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _ . Jy�.wee_c0 M//i (.�109) N'1-.9952
— -- �� � �� � a .���� �Pfi� — .� — — �� — � - i . �. . —; — — �
��, o�
,_ _ _,
�x�,�:
�.�.� ��� � � �.a. .� .
`o��, � P '� - - — — _- _ _ _ ' _ � 40- M
� _ .� :ow�o M _-- - — - v�ir�v_�__ I
�_ _ — - �—
�-- __�--�� ..=-�� �- „� �`�
�---- — — ��e`�_ ' V
_ � � � _ i� i
P.a E� � � � � • � �_
� � ��
S ,^°--
,._ �
`�- — ` � � _, - -� `� ��� .�b � � �� I
� �--� o. �.�
_�. _
_ , �
�� � i .t �� �� o '� � _ �, �r�.. , �-
'� -������1e°o�o i��� ��r��� � �� �. -����� � �
� � - o°o5 o��J ''��� � �!, � , � I� - :���'
�� I - � ' 3,� i,
�
_ — �:I. �'
i � li
�/
�
Rv I
I 5 -. � T ` I � ,. � .
� _� — �I ������� �e i�� o '����� ! �' � I�� ' 1 N,: ��} ������_.
�� �,w e _ f � � — — ` � — � F ' i�� � ►— . t� � i ; �I
�PAR . � .
raxc CEl �' i- . - . „ ....... ,
. _ � �I � . � �. .
f — � _.
I neu�[� I, 1� P �
��N.. '�� _ , s
_ ...
, ,
�- U _ . ,
1 � � - , ��
!� �E, R � �n� __� ���
., �oo=s .�a�=: � �
�,�_ .«o.� ,
; J . .w� , r— . ,
w�:axx� so Icaa;�a[Rrs , . ...,. � ; - I ,
� I s -
I i
;.K�, M ` . �: � ' �
� � J MUNIP' FC ICNkL $I 7V I � f I II �� I
� k� I � t __Y� i
�� �E� � .F� � � T �I F�. . � r: I
� . _ ' � ��. / ,. . . � ' �:
�IJ �-%� W� J t.—'`�� �_ _ ,�� /� �� II I II
TJ
�I�w = 1 G �Hi�GC��_- _ _ � _-.. _ .
G
l A� _. ` . OR E J ,. �rvLu o0
Q �
'" _ ' ... �l - -� � � r. i
� E T, 4. '1 . `1 �sai��p�$s�i�rTION I
� � I ��EN� - . .._ __ _ .e _ _
i
� E I
—1 I— a< _ -
._ � / / � ` ' E Y I
C '� PARCEL � �'� •'-'
� �,
i i
i i
'r �— � PARCEL I..' �j J . , . .� I
�� -._� .. r` .._
50.7 GRO55 AGRES� --�j-��+�� -- '
-.� . BUSINANDSORVICES � �a--..- � . .
� � . _ �". ' . "
i
'' ' 20.9 GRO55 r,C�c`' - � MULTI �nMILY � �� r � I
i
� i � - � i RESIDENT AL � - �`� ( �' ' '
- LOW DcN51iY � � � � �•---
y � RESIpENTIAL " PND/OM1 ` �� - � ' "----•
I I I : .� \'_ DriACHED PATD NOMES I. . . y '' ' ' . -�:
� _ J POARDWALN' R ( v[o eY P+Z . N ��. , .. ' ' ..._.....__ ._.�.'._._...�......
Rft �a6� i'MY � _...•..•-•.•• .•
�
� O _ � [ � �..
v�Ce`fP. _ -._ � E � l ' ' . '�.`_�'�. ,....� �.�..........�.�.... ._�..........�.
a` DP vE
I \ : I Wt �I � ....." `_' _"'
\ � , � � �� ' �...,�... ...�.�. "".......... _�`"�..._��,..�
Fa
�i�Lll y �. .. , �I� � �.�.�� .�.m. s...� ��..�"_�"
�
w
f' a i;, • , ___,.. _. ....... _..._. _,._...
�Y � ___
'• . . f , �_' _ � � � n.....�'
ZO � �. � . ,n� / ,� .i / — , .� '.
I �w � , , � ���: � � , , _ _� _.__...vm__ _._--- -
, , ,
,� J �. - � ' PARCEL ' - - -_ - -
.....,."..`._. ..
._�._.`..`
I -� :7^:` � . _ - _ _ _ PABCEL �„� . . . .� � _ .. _ � _ . _ .:.' »7m' � __ ..__ ........._ _...__
-_ . � F � p �a�«� � n__.__..�. --..
� � � ^' �
� '�,{ #i '� �3.o ceass ncacst o I� o�
11.2 GROSS ACkES- k�� POSSIBLE CITY PARK ' V �LC F�l�
��� LOw DENS�'Y ALiERNATIVE: '
�` RESIDENT�AL � � 9.7 GROS CRF . E �
MULTI-FAMILY OR MULTI AMI� /r' �r�'V
��� . �'}:. � HUSINESS SERVICES AND/OP � � � �� �
I J `3 ' BUSiNE55 F+IN' s '::� �ENE�R�I._NOSES
�.�-� PARCEL � \�.. �� •
I� ? s � Y� � � � � � .. ._._ .� _� _= �_:._ =`�_� = ��"=�"_,:
, �. _.
I � �4.� �R�55 4�RE5_ ��� � � �.. . .._ . --=-.�..._. •.___. ._._....
� -i LOW DENSITT _'..� � � } � � ` � - - ���.` -- .. . .__,.._� .«.._.Y-.��......_.._ __ ��
. RESI�ENTIAL �� +� "-�- ��. .` _ _ _ _ _
,. `
12.4 GRO�� ACRri�
� .
� � -�� � � �'� � LOW AND�OR MEDIUM - -
... ' �. ..; D_NSITY `
.,
\ ..a i � 7 ���� RESIDENrIAL � �
I f0 5 L CPC[ ' � .. �- �� � � ^�
' c.00ws � � . � -. '
� �'°`
�.
..,. •
s r�4t[�ut�k ,� _ .:, � �_ �' _ � _ - "
� '� �� . \` d. �.. -
� "'
L[x�e"Ec p � � _ �-
ouNrr ��
i ;� ~ y�y.*a �1�. � � _ PARCEL .� _ .
E��w H y�r , PARCEL �
, iw scHoo��� � _y �- ` � • -
�
�..,�,� sc - .
ox ...
L�� _ \ I� \ _ '
_� = � �D � l C ��
� `� � � 8.4 �ROSS ACRES� '
" ° U8.6 GRQS� ACRfSt LOW DENSITY "'-'-'^
W \ I
� JR � �� � �� LOW DENSITY �� // RESI�CNTIAL '
�al � \t \ �° � I I � RESiDENT�AL � /� ' ' ___' - ' � _ �_�.�_'��._.� _'_"_
, 7 .
..�_ _
-swoo ' �\ ` � '�—
.`-r 'i � _ - _
a �' � ' ' `_�� - ..�.�__'"^"'...
on.o �\ '- 3�-{,L` • il �
�`� � � ' ��� � ` j - - , —_ _ �..,.,.m�.��...a�
` PARCR I
V
I PARCEL ���// - J \ g - � qst.r[S ,�.�__...._� ._
�>
� _
4 '. '�_� '\ ' _.�_......._.�._�
OL
� � J �._. , 76�CRR4S-ACBES� � I --ou[�plP`._ �..
RESI �ENTIAL �
.
; / \ �I � / � � f � LOW DENSITY � I -- " _� _ _
i p/ �� - 1 8 GR SS nCREStc ` � �� .-� RESIDENTIAL
� i .: F /� �f - .- - - .' , - _ — �.._.
� '•, o�/////a ' �_ .. . . . ".: �._`�..-
\/ o i'
'y/�/% � ' PARCEL . � " __._
r _
> - ��_... t3.9 y _ '.':..�� :_: �
. / / • �� -_-1 \ .... _ =.�_ =':_`_' �'_._ "'
� I'L j, //��/,)
�. ,. _, .... i i: . e� v .ive�i/ee.,s;.� �lo..C��,.
��' ;' . "' .., _.._ - GROSS ACRES � —_.. �. . .. „9 � k. e« v�^�y °J sn. �,.a..y� ar
LOW dN�/OR ME�IUM � ''AR� �. wi� sa..g. -.e,i.7
PA ".� � DENSITY FC.a1DENL4L_ � �4MaY
� _ � _ �'�� � .,�A— �� �����E � �
.ti ,
` �� � 103 GROSS ACRES��
` \�� 9.5 GROSS /+CRE51 � •� � � AULTI FAMILY N,o F� �i
� ' i LOw DEr+SITY ` E �ocNs -[ . f/(�p�y,,� �� -�
`\ '�RESIDEN'IAL __— �' �u'/\\� Q O �
^ - L� NJ
. .., __a . , ...
• . _,
\ rass� cnaK ,�., -. � i.i ce .. .r . ... . t _ � ,o..
�k rox srAcn coN�cc,ox cowuuxrr r.x� __ `..
_-. _ ...,� ... �.
n��sc sEc xo.c i io�co .a ,
�:"r..
�9�,��R�KoowN S��NAT�RE�o�K_ _—__ OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM
._.� .�_ m..�. �,�_.. d... os�.
. _,_ ,, . . _ .., __ -._
• -- --� •• - - - � • -- -•- �-•--�--•---• AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
� ._�,..�. .. . . _. ,_ __ _.- ----- -- — ..............._�._.___
, _ _,_.�.. �,. . . _.. ... _' ' _ .....-._.�.'_'_"^'__ nuo ri�e: �inui I
" - vaodccr Ho. �i�.t
_ � _ Sn.m. � wNe S:ALE: 1��=0'J'
-' _ i�C�;�e�C^?0525
. - ., _ ... ,... �... .._ .� _ ..n_s�. ..�.`-.-�.-...�.�<.......�.`__.� .-_ __— C/�Ir� ` 5-04-92
V a'E J PGEG�RAiIpN ___
� . .._ .. . ... ._ .� ... ..� - _ .—�.-....�.....:. FEVi5oN5'....���,.x er
. ... _. . .� . � ..e . _ KEY - -
• •• •• • • •� ••� ••� �•• • ' � caue�n fmn o[nxrox rwro Y�C94 fnace�.m....nrn. ce Pdic Mw[
. . .. . . n� . � ?!�p /hlT%/r.�iv/4Mrfi..iw iIT+
v . S�e� I.]3�e. w RT/.L/n. ]/,9R y.R.: � mrzn eoxx�rnox `%' ��u �[/sin[me.r[ �I� � r — PM• ���
O/'Ace :. .. Od./ . iO.ctlOvq.Hr ���� rtocsnw..r 4 MMiv.s 6:
TO AG9 P)/]x. C(9...�r. BSl.9>S.Q.rI! � [vm rtnrv�[ �fvELCWhiCN> I!
6'J5l S. Rw�ca� . SA� P!9
L _ �qw.f' ^^✓,[0 1109)142-lflP
� �
OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM AMEI�IDED ODP
TO ACCOMMODATE 117IRAMONT SELF STORAGE PUD
REVISED STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
JANUARY 7, 1996
This amendment concerns the existing 5.6 acre Area "V" of the Oak/cottonwood Farm ODP as last
amended June 29,1996. The amendment requests changes from RL uses on the entire 5.6 acres to self
storage on 4.7 acres and office on 0.9 acres. Parcel "V" has been designated as the self storage parcel and
Parcel "W" has been designated the office parcel.
As established with other findings at Harmony market, Auto Related or Roadside Commercial uses such as
self storage are appropriate at this location and consistent with the City of Fort Collins' "Goals and
Objectives" and "Land Use Policies" documents. This proposal is consistent with goals that would
locate retail and service facilities easily accessible to residential neighborhoods ("Land Use Compatibility
No. 2") and promote development of land that is contiguous to existing development ("Peripheral Growth
No. 2"). This proposal is consistent with policies that promote maximum utilization of land within the city
("Policy No. 3") and promote development of transitional uses between residential neighborhoods and
commercial uses ("Policy No. 74"). A properly designed self storage facility is a good "transitional use"
due to its quiet, low traf�'ic generating and screening nature. This proposal is also a commercial
development which does not have direct access to College Avenue or another major arterial.
The proposal is also compatible with the Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP in that this parcel of land was
specifically intended as a buffer or transition from the Harmony Market uses to the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Following are items which qualify this proposal as a good buffer and "transitional use"
from the adjacent residential and commercial uses:
• Both the self storage and office buildings will have a residential style architecture.
• Materials and colors will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and roofs will be pitched.
• The self storage buildings have been placed in a way as to screen roll-up doors from the residences.
• Landscaping is heavily oriented to the adjacent residences.
• The self storage buildings will be one story with the exception of the manager's residence.
• The office building will be two story.
•. Traffic generation will be minimized on this parcel, especially at night.
• Self storage office hours will be 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM and access will be from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM.
Development of the self storage parcel is scheduled for spring of 1997 with full development of both
parcels to be completed between 1998 arid 1999.
• •
PLANIVING AND Z01�1ING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 22, 1992
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Staff Support Liaison
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present
included: Chairman Bernie Strom, Jim Klataske, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene
Cl�ements-Cooney. Member Walker was absent. _
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman,
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Kirsten Whetstone, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard, Joe Frank and
Georgiana Taylor.
Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none
signed in.
AGENDA REVTEW
Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1-
Minutes of the May 18, 1992 Meeting; Item 2- Little Caesars PUD - Preliminary, #28-92; Item 3-
Potts PUD - Fnal, �{6-92A; Item 4- Best Buy PUD - Preliminary, lt29-92; Item 5-Hampshire
Square II - Preliminary Subdivision, #31-92; Item 6- Silverberg PUD - Overatl Development Plan,
lf12-92; Item 7- Prospect/Overland PUD - Fnal, 1�5-84D; Item 8- Resolution PZ92-8 Vacation of
Utility Easement (Continued until July 27, 1992); Item 9- Resolution PZ92-9 Vacation of
Temporary Easements for Access, Drainage and Utilities; Item 10 - Dakota Heights Subdivision -
County Referral, �/32-92; Item 11- Woody Creek Subdivision - County Referral, �i33-92; Discussion
Agenda - Item 12 - Amendment to the Sign Code for Neighborhood Commercial Areas; Item 13 -
Southside Service Center - Amended Overall Development Plan, !/52-82D; Item 14 - Southside
Service Center PUD, Phase III - Site Plan Advisory Review, �/52-82E; The following items continued
until June 27, 1992 - Item 15 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended Overalt Development Plan, �54-
87F; Item 16 - Oak/Cottonwood Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont - Preliminary PUD, f�54-87G;
Item 17 - Stoneridge PUD - Overall Development Plan, !/21-92B; Item 18 - Stoneridge PUD, lst
Fling - Preliminary PUD, #21-92C; Item 19 - Dakota Ridge PUD, lst Fting - Preliminary PUD,
' #i6(}-91D.
Item 2, was pulled for discussion by the applicant.
Item 4, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll.
Item 5, was pulled for discussion by Member Carroll.
Item 6, was pulTed by a member of the public.
Member Klataske stated he had a conflict with item 7.
Member Carroll moved for approval of items 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Member Clements-Cooney
seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. -
• •
PLANNING AND ZOtVING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 29, 1992
Gerry Horak, Council Liaison
Tom Peterson, Sta#'f Support Liaison
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado: Board members present
included: Vice Chairman Lloyd Walker, Jan Cottier, Joe Carroll, Laurie O'Dell and Rene Clements-
Cooney. Chairman Strom and Member Klataske were absent.
Staff members present included Planning Director Tom Peterson, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman,
Kerrie Ashbeck, Ted Shepard and Georgiana Taylor. .
(Identification of citizen participants is from verbal statements and not necessarily correct since none
signed in.)
AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda. The Discussion Agenda included: Item 1-
Oak/Cottonwood Farm - Amended .Overall Development Plan, #54-87F; Item 2- Oak/Cottonwood
Farm, Upper Meadows at Miramont --Preliminary PUD, #{54-87G; Item 3- Stoneridge PUD -
Overall Development Plan, #i21-92B; Item 4- Stoneridge PUD, lst Fling - Preliminary PUD, /t21-
92C; Item 5- Dakota Ridge PUD, lst Fling - Preliminary PUD, #60-91D.
OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM - AMENDED OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #54-87F
OAK/COTTONWOOD FARM. UPPER MEADOWS AT MIRAMONT - PRELIMINARY PUD
#5487G
Mr. Shepard gave the Staff Report on the Overall Development Plan recommending approval with the
condition that if the development of Parcel S results in evaluation by the Auto Related and Roadside
Commercial Point Chart of the Land Development Guidance System, then the design guidelines found
in the NeiQhborhood Convenience Shopping Center: Desi�n Guidelines Policies and Criteria (an element
of the City's Comprehensive Plan) shall be the pertinent valuative criteria in order to promote the desire�
level of site, landscape, and architectural quality.
Mr. Shepard also gave the Staff RepoR on the Upper Meadows at Miramont, Preliminary, recommending
approval with the condition that, at the time of Final, for only 14 lots necessary to reach 65�
compliance, the applicant shall provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Solar
Orientation Ordinance. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, maximizing glazing on the
southern exposure, placing garages on the north side of the structure, or siting the structure on the lot
so that the home itself is within 30 degrees of a true east-west line. Such techniques shall be
demonstrated on the Final P.U.D.
Mr. Jim Knight, a resident of Fossil Creek Meadows immediately adjacent to the property, asked about
the change in density being proposed.
Mr. Shepard replied there were a variety of pazcels that had some subtle changes in density. Overall in
the entire 271 acres there was an approximate reduction of 242 dwelling units from the 1989 plan which
was the plan of record. There was about a 66 acre differentiat in multi-family and that amount of multi-
family was being reduced out of the 1992 amendment. The applicant was here tonight and could give
�
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutea
Page 2
�J
a presentation on those actual parcels and which parcels have changed in density. Overall in the basic
271 acre master plan there was a reduction of about 242 units. �
Mr. Knight asked if it would be possible at sometime to see the 1989 plan.
Mr. Shepard replied that all the plans were available at the Planning Department and� that he would be
happy to make some prints. �
Chairman Walker asked if we had slides of them.
Mr. Shepard replied that the applicant had prepared a presentation.
Vice Chairman Walker asked if the variance that the Board was granting was to the 3 units per acre on
the preliminary plan.
Mr. Shepard replied that was on the Miramont project.
Vice Chairman Walker explained that what they were considering as a variance was the fact that 3 units
per acre is the minimum number of dwelling units and this project proposed to have a lesser density than
that so they had to get a variance.
Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, stated he thought a good place to start would be the question that
came up about how densities had changed in the plan of record. As the plan evolved over the last five
years and have gotten into more detail with both changes in the market place and changes in the planning
standard, a whole variety of things have come up with a number of variations as Te� had said. The Oak
Cottonwood area has generally evolved into four different planning areas. The Harmony Market
commercial area, which they were a1� familiar with, which is parcel R, and parcel S, which is also
commercial fronting on Harmony Road and with the proposed development of Miramont Residential Area
which is basically parcels A through L, generally everything south and west of Boardwalk up to a point
there. Parcels T, U, and V were a transitional area between the existing Fairway Estates neighborhood
to the west and the more intense uses at Harmony Market and Oakridge to the east. There have been
restrictions placed on the master plan for uses in that area and also some private agreements between the
property owners. The central area between Boardwalk and Lemay which forms a transition between the
residential neighborhood and the more intense uses to the north and east. Many of the changes in this
were somewhat subtle although they have accomplished a lot of things from a planning standpoint.
They have a street system that no longer creates a major thoroughfare between Southridge Greens
Boulevard through Southridge Greens directly over to Fossil Creek Parkway and up to College Avenue.
They had made some other changes that would be able to keep the smaller residential neighborhood
clusters a little more self contained in terms of circulation and not need as many connections to the Fossil
Creek Meadows neighborhood to the west. One of the ongoing traffic discussions over the past years
had been access to Werner School, while they could not do anything about where Werner's parking lot
and their main vehicular access was, they have proposed a drop off area on the east of the school which
should reduce a lot of the day to day trips and be able to keep a lot of that drop off traffic to this school
making this loop through rather than everybody going over to Mail Creek Lane.
�
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
Page 3
•
The density was generally lower as they looked at more of the realities of what the market would support
these days and the other changes which they understood had gotten a lot of discussion was the label on
parcel S between Boardwalk and the Fr.ont Range Baptist Church.
When the original master plan was done in 1987, land use labels on master plans were a little more
general in nature and we weren't yet doing what we do now. We typically label land uses according to
land uses in the Land Development Guidance System so that in the current Master Plan the parcel was
labeled retail.offce which was not an LDGS category and there were lengthy notes describing non-
residential uses that might be proposed in different areas. Included in that description it stated that auto-
related and �roadside commercial uses would be considered on this map on parcel lA and 1B only which
was essentially parcels R and S. So with general notations that were put on the old Master Plan in 1989,
it was part of that determination that those were the parcels where auto-related and roadside uses could
be considered. As they were preparing the new Overall Development Plan, there was and still is an
active use looking at that pazcel. As they looked at this narrow piece at its location, fronting on
Harmony, with a really limited east/west dimension, they felt that it was most likely that the uses that
would work there were typically found in the auto-related and roadside commercial area. �
Vice Chairman Walker asked Mr. Ward to point out where the Upper Meadows at Miramont was on the
Overall Plan.
Mr. Ward pointed out first phase of the Miramont project and that the preliminary was parcels F& G
which would be the first two filings. The first final was essentially parcel G which was on track to be
at the July board meeting.
Member Cottier asked on proposed amended ODP what was the overall density of all residential parcels
together.
Mr.Ward replied that all residential parcels together were about 5.5 units per acre. He had to be a little
vague there because it was hard to give a good answer because parcels N& Q were proposed for business
services, multi family or a mix of both. In their statistics for land use breakdown they made an
assumption of a mix so it was a little fuzzy there. If they looked at the Miramont residential area, Parcel
A through L, they were currently planned right now at right around 4 units per acre.
Member Cottier asked about the designation of Parcel S, the old lA and what exactly did the note on the
old Master Plan say with respect to auto-related and roadside commercial.
Mr. Ward replied there was a list of non-residential uses to be allowed at the Oak Cottonwood Master
Plan. The exact wording is that "auto-related and roadside commercial uses would be considered on
parcels lA and 1B only."
Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Ward if the school drop off site accommodates school buses as well as passenger
vehicles.
Mr. Ward replied it wasn't designed to do that right now. They have had some preliminary discussions
with the school district and at the time they were still looking queuing their school buses azound at the
front of-the school: It was more of a parent drop off area. It was for parent drop off and pick up, which
was the real tra�c congestion problem as the parents lining up there at noon and 3:00 p.m. to pick up
their kids.
•
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minu[es
Page 4
•
Member Carroll asked they have a one mile walk in radius before bus service is provided.
Mr. Ward replied that the student population within the one mile radius will go up and that will mean
less busing in general. A higher percentage of students would be walking in and less of a demand for
parents to be driving over here. They were not opposed to facilitating bus movement there, but had not
gotten to that level of detail yet.
Vice-Chairman Walker asked if Mr. Ward Cou(d discuss what the changes for Boardwalk and the area
south and west of there and were there any appreciable changes on the other side of Boardwalk. Could
he characterize how this was different from the existing plan.
Mr. Ward replied the two or three things that dictated changes here. Boardwalk had made a subtle
change to slightly more to the east than on the old plan where it was much closer to the Mail Creek Ditch
and much more parallel. They wanted to make that change both to get more area to work with between
Boardwalk and the ditch and to make that less of a race track through there. Where they have enough
of a curve that you can't see for 3,000 feet as you're coming into that. They pulled the anticipated
neighborhood pazk out as per the Land Use Policy Plan to have access from a collector and not be buried
back in the section so much which has led to a little bit more of a straight forward arrangement of
business service, multi-family pieces. The connector street had been realigned to cross the ditch at a
better location, to provide the ability to make the drop off work. They had the ability for a much more
remote pedestrian walk-way in the past and it also let them create parcels which could be somewhat self-
contained. For example parcel H could be serve� with cul-de-sacs, whereas under the old plan in order
to make two points of access in this area, they would have had to have had at least one street connection
going through to Fossil Creek Meadows. Also from a neighborhood planning sfandpoint and a phasing
standpoint, they were seeing parcel sizes that were doable in the 15 to 20 acre range and finding that you
can create something of a contained neighborhood cluster in areas of this type as opposed to more of the
old fashioned streets and lots for miles and miles. The bigger parcels were a little more restrictive and
maybe a little bit more monotonous in terms of planning the low density neighhorhoods. Those things
and then the third element gets in to some details of how sanitary sewer service works. Boardwalk and
the northerly part of the site above the Mail Creek Ditch is served by Fort Collins the lower part is
serveti by the district. There is a sewer over towards Southridge Greens that is needed to serve an area
here. There was an existing in sewer in the Mail Creek Lane that is neede� to serve this and this
particular circulation route lends itself to sewer service a little bit more. So, at a glance, the changes
were not substantial, but it was the ability to do some good things from a planing standpoint. They were
significantly better in their opinion.
PUBLIC INPUT
Harold Swope, president of the Fairway Estates Property Owners Association, stated that it was good new
and bad news as far as they were concerned. Overall, they were very much in favor of the plan. They
highly supported the Miramont development. They were very pleased with the changes that were made
in the Boardwalk configuration. Also, they were very pleased to see that there was going to be a park
in the neighborhood. They did have vigorous opposition, however, to the 2.9 acres. They were very
disappointed in that frankly. I thought most of them were on the board at the time that the Harmony
Market was approved and you know the whole discussion at that time. There was a great deal of
discussion. There was the transition, the buffering between Harmony Market and Fairway Estates. That
was a very crucial issue, in fact, it was so crucial that this is a copy of the written agreement that they
have with the City, with GT Land, with the church, Front Range Baptist Church, which is right adjacent
u
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutea
Page 5
C�
to this 2.9 acres and Fairway Property Owners Association and this restricts development in that area
adjacent to Fairway Estates to single family housing.
What they were doing was addressing that land they were promised that the land west of Boardwalk
would be a buffer and transition between Harmony Market and Fair�vay Estates. Now they were a little
bit shocked, although, he would certainly acknowledge that this did not included this 2.9 acres. Legally
this was not included in this agreement but ethically it certainly was. There was never a mention of any
auto-related businesses going in there at all. As he said, and he emphasized, this was to be a transition
and buffering area, everything west of Boardwalk. To come in and ask for a more intense use in the
buffered azea, even than was allowed in. the Harmony Market really disappoints him personally and he
thought as a Board in the Fairway Estates Homeawners area with the Land Developers there. He was
really surprised and disappointed that they would come in with aufo-related. lfiey highly object. This
was as he said, a buffering area and they certainly object with this continuous drive-through traffic that
you get from automotive. There was already so much tra�c over there the noise pollution had certainly
increased considerably and this was considerably closer to Fairway Estates than Harmony Market. They
also object to the highly volatile fuels that would be placed there, likely it would be a 24 hour station.
T'hat was something they wouldn't know until later on, but there would be cazs in and out all day and
all night. There was a portion of that, he knew they said; well the church is between us and Fairway
Estates, the church did� come between Fairway Estates and this proposed 2.9 acres, however, this area
extends far south of the church and they did have residences that look right into this same area that they
were talking about. So they certainly do, he thought if this was approved, he would get the message that
it sends them, don't trust anything that you are told, be sure to read all of the fine print. When you get
a written agreement, get an agreement on every little area and make sure all the i's are dotted and the
t's are crossed.
Mark Thomas, who also lives in Fairway Estates, stated he had a couple issues, first that he was directly
adjacent to the proposed development Miramont and they were pleasantly surprised with the proposal that
Mr. Nordick brought them and they were very pleased. There probably wasn't anybody in town that did
a higher quality development than him and so the good and bad news of it was, he wished they did not
have to address these two issues together because they were not relate�. They would like the opportunity,
he is on the board as well, and he did talk with several of the neighbors that were going to be adjacent
to this proposed amendment on parcel S. He would like to do this in a manner that sounds more
technical than anything. It was hard not to be emotional about this issue because this was not the
representation that was made to them during the Pace procedure. It has been a couple of years ago, but
business service was the related issue and he thought they could look on the original 1989 master plan
and it did not make any mention in the overall representation of auto-related. If that was true, they
wouldn't be here today asking for an amendment, this would just be a preliminary site plan for some
applicant, but that was not the case. There was not even an applicant so it could not even be discussed.
If the Board amends the plan, then when it was time for the applicant to come, the issues they would like
to raise would not be able to be addressed because it would already be zoned commercial and the Board
would refer back to that issue that happened previously. He thought it was very important for the Board
to understand that he was not new to the process. For several years they have worked with this.
He has spoke with the PFA on the issues of underground hydrocarbon storage. He came to tell them
tonight that there are glaring problems with this issue. If the Board approves this, then the LDGS as it
stands today was not going to work. This was a site that did not nee� to have this intense of a use
placed on it and that was not the representation. _
�
June 29, 1992 P&r.Z Board Meecing Minutea
Page 6
•
When the Overall Plan was changed to accept the high density development of Pace, Builders Square and
now Steele's Market, it should have locked in various other uses. 'Ihe logic is that at that point, the
business related services that were designed for parcel S should have been locked in. That was the
transition, that was the only buffer they expected. That's how it was represented. They should not have
to come back two years later and defend the very decision that.: was made that night. He felt
uncomfortable. He understood the system, but he did not like the logic.
There are four criteria in neighborhood compatibility. He worked on the workshop this year with Sherry
Albertson-Clark and he knew how confusing these issues are and he knew how tough they were to
answer, but he thought there were some glaring answers in this one that wouid not work.
In social compatibility, he had a hard time defining that. He was not sure anyone knows what that meant,
but under that particulaz compatibility he would like to refer that to criteria number 3 and use that to
address the church issue.
Under physical compatibility, He was not sure how to define that in relation to this request, but as we
move on down to Criteria 3 and 4 some very interesting things did come up. Criteria number 3 Land
Use Conflicts, he would like to ask the Board's help in this.if he has misinterpreted this.
Under land use conflict, the church was exactly ten feet away. This was a Bible school. There are
students of a young age there on a daily basis, basically 24 hours a day when the dormitories were
finished and various classroo�ns were there. Under auto-related uses he wanted to read to them the
particular things that could be done 10 feet away from the church. This would include adult book stores,
eating places with adult amusement or entertainment, adult photos, adult theaters and ariy such intended
use to provide adult amusement. Under that very criteria on page 19 of the LDGS, it says, if the project
contains any uses as intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment did it meet the following
requirements. He knew what they thought, that it was going to be a Pit Stop, that's what came in on the -
original application to the public hearing that we all went to. They now seem to have vanished, but he
thought they were in the wings waiting for this to be approved. They would sell pornographic magazines
and beer. Your are exactly 50 feet away from a church. He felt an auto-relate� use that close to that
church was unacceptable. They had to answer yes then to paragraph A, where it says, was the use
established to operate or maintain no less than S00 feet from a residential neighborhood, church or school
meeting. No it is not. Was the use established to operate or maintain no less than 1000 feet from
another similar use. No it was not, it is 200 feet from a 7-11. He has a problem, it says in the book
that you have to answer yes to every one of these criteria. You cannot answer yes to those unless he was
missing something. 'I'hat was why in the original Master Plan it was business services.
The next issue in criteria was traffic. He thought there was no question that an auto-related use on this
parcel was going to change the tra�c pattern. On Saturday and Sunday he would like to see the traffic
studies today for this auto-related use. He thought it is only fair that they provide them now with the
current traffic count that Pace, Builders Square and Steele's was providing to that intersection at
Boazdwalk and Harmony. On Saturday and Sunday it was impossible to make a left hand turn there.
He goes there and he could tell you first hand you have to stay clear back in the parking lot in front of
Pace, you were not even allowed to get on the frontage road at Boardwalk because there were so many
cars lined up in the left hand ]ane. It won't work. An auto-related use in the front of that whole problem
will simply complicate that already unbelievable complicated traffic pattern. And, when you finally
connect Boardwalk on over to Lemay you will have that tra�c to add to the Harmony cut-off. You have
no applicant here tonight that was wanting to have it as auto-related. They were told it was businesses
• �
•
June 29, 1992 P&Z Boani hieeting Minutea
Page 7
services which was a various assortment of, look at the point chart of retail o�ce uses, . which sounds
considerably less intensive than auto-related. So, the traffc issue and the land conflict so close to the
church to me raised great issues of why do we want to create another problem for ourselves. Tonighf
we can put a stop to all of that by simply saying it was not auto-related, it was business services, it makes
all of that go away.
The other issues that he wanted raise just from a public point of view was the safety �of storing of
hydrocarbons underground. He has not gotten any good answers on this issue and he has to tell you it
was disturbing because you can say to yourself that there are people who are qualified to make this
decision that have been involved in this process already and have helped them to decide that this was a
safe place to put gasoline underground. T'hat was not true. He has already asked those questions. Have
they seen a copy of the soil test? Well, he did not have to bring up the issue because there was great
documented evidence of the water sand problem between the pierre shale and the very shallow 4. to 10
foot depth water sand in that neighborhood. That specific neighborhood has a tremendous water problem.
From basements which run water, as his did, to various surface problems which Mr. Nordic has run into
with his development. All of the houses in parcel G that you pointed out here, would have sub surface
drains under the foundation, in Mr. Nordic's deyelopment, there was so much water present there. Well,
this was just up the road from that and what they were going to do there was the drainage at Harmony
breaks to the north and to the south at the road and he would read to them from the Harmony Corridor
Plan where it discussed the run off issue in this particular location of parcel S. It says, " Harmony Road
to Lemay Avenue south side of Harmony this area is called the McClellan basin and it drains to the south
and the southeast. On site detention is required with a dual release rate of allowable range of a ten year
storm." He did not need to read any further because this particular parcel did not have enough area to
have a detention pond. There was no way to put a Pit Stop with an auto-lube and a little convenience
store that sells gasoline and a detention pond which was required because of the drainage issue in this
area. There was going to be 2 acres of asphalt with gasoline dripping off cars, it was a related use, we
know the issues, and they were going to run off into this basin. That is just the surface problem, now
we were going to add that to the already complicated issues of drainage, containment and detention of
the area. Do they want to put hydrocarbons into the detention ponds over there that Pace and Builders
Square Built. He did not think they did.
On the underground issue, this was the part that amazes him. He worked , on. the workshop for
neighborhood compatibility and they all raised [his issue. He had to tell them they would be amazed how
little data was actually out there. Mr. Shepard has not had to deal with this issue. It was not part of his
job, it was passed off to the Poudre Fire Authority. That seemetl fair in a way, except he was the man
that had to make the decision and he did not have the technical data on what was going to happen on this
under ground hydrocarbon storage, he did not have it. It was maintained on the following basis. When
and after those tanlcs have been buried by the supervision of the PFA under the latest high tech
development of double lined epoxy resin tanks, they would then have a system that they believe is safe.
The point was that you won't know that it has failed until a neighbor, that has a basement, and all those
properties do along Fairway Estates where there was already a known water sand problem, has got
gasoline in a sump pump. Now that's a considerably dangerous situation to be in. The owner of the
property would not have to notify the landowner of that problem until the land owner himself has
determined it exists. Even if he had to monitor the property, he would not be requested to provide any
leak data to those neighbors until they had discovered the problem themselves. 'That was the current state
statute. He would not know that there had been a gasoline leak until it got into his basement, even
Ehough there had been monitor wells that had been placed on that property, even though the private
individual who own that gas station knows that there was gasoline missing. That could not be right. It
�
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
Page .8
•
was illogical, but true. The double lined epoxy resin tanks, well they have connections. Where they
come in and out of the tank were standard fittings. The fittings leak. There was no system today that
will totally confine hydrocarbon. The data was out, and it was available for all of us to read. Every
truck that comes ug and fills those tanks would have to drain the hydrocarbon in the hoses. It did not
sound like muct�, but every hose, every truck, every week, day in and day out was drained into a catch
basin for that product. That product was directly adjacent to the water sand. It was not in the double
lined epoxy resin tank. It was available in the water sand in the gravel network called the catch basin.
Over a period of ten years, that was a lot of gasoline. Gasoline was permeable, it liked to go everywhere
water does only ten times faster. He spoke from experience on that because he is an engineer for an oil
company and he was telling you this was no place to put a gas station. But, that data had not been
supplied yet, even to the Ciry Planners themselves. They would not know that until one of the neighbors
hired an attorney and sued the gas station.
That brought up an issue, who would that be? Well, the first applicant would be the Pit Stop, a small
independently run company from Nebraska. It's not Conoco, it's not Texaco, it's not anybody, it's just
a small independent. The point was when it came time to settle on all the homes that had been damaged
by this use, he was not the kind of Company that was able to settle that kind of financial problem. They
did not look at that as the issue, but they should be looking at the fact that they were now going to bring
one of the most toxic fluids that we come into contact with on a daily basis, into a residential
neighborhood, in an already known water sand problem area. All of that was true, and yet none of that
had been considered in the recommendation tonight to amend this to an auto-related use. That was a flaw
in the system but he though that was something they had to decide because now they were [he ones that
were faced with the ultimate decision. In summary, right now they were going to use a business service
point chart to evaluate property S, he did not see any problem with that, that's what they were told, that's
what they expect. This jargon tonight about it being all auto-related, he was sorry, that was not what was
said. Now, there were a lot of people present and was all on tape. They had all looked at the Pace
appeal and it was all there because that was when it was discussed. There was never any mention of the
auto-related use there. Even if there was, why were they amending it then? If this was the time to stop
that this was the best time in the world to do that. They really nee� the help. They implore the facts
were there, everything stands against this as an auto-related area. It was too small. It was going to
create tra�c problems, It was going to add additional issues to the development of a small pazcel that
they did not need to address. Why? He thought there was only one reason for why it was being
addressed tonight. First of all, it was attached to a very respectable request to build a great residential
area in Fort collins. It would not stand on it's own, that was why it was here tonight. The other issue
was of economics. It was obviously to the developers point of view, it made more sense on the return
of the dollar. It was not their responsibility to do that. When they accepted the plan with Pace in the
heart of their development they also knew that they intended to put business services on this parcel so
they shouldn't have to address that issue for them. Let them find somebody to use that. They knew that
at the time. Thank you very much.
William Knight, resident of Fossil Creek Meadows, immediately adjacent to the proposed development
spoke. He noted he was also on the Board of Directors for Citizen Planners and he was on the Storm
Drainage Boazd for the City of Fort Collins. As such, he would like to point out that the City had listed
in its Natural Areas Plan that Fossil Creek and Mail Creek were both sensitive areas that should be
protected. They had already sustained a fair amount of stability erosion type problems along both of
those drainage areas in their neighborhood. He did not see any provision for catching additional drainage
and run off to minimize this prob}em he only saw the problem accelerating as a function of the planned
development. He thought a serious look needed to be taken of that. About a year ago, the City had
�
7une 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
Page 9
�
commissioned _some erigineers and some gea-technical people to come down and look at the problem,
they have done that and made. some recommendations, to date nothing had been done. He could only
see the problecn increasing and he would like to see that addressed before this plan was given any further
consideration. Because it was a sensitive natural area there were a great number of wildlife species that
they had come to love and appreciate down there: They have Great Blue Heron, they have foxes, we
have Red Tail Hawks. They have a lot of wildlife that provides pleasure to themselves and a habitat for
tliose organisms. He would like to see them be considered in the Overall Development Plan. Any impact�
on Fossil Creek and Mail Creek could be expected to impact those things as well. If the quality of the
drainage water diminished Mail Creek or Fossil Creek water quality any further, the aquatic life in those
areas would be further threatened. He would like to see that whole issue addressed.
The second thing was, he had some questions, comments having to do with the Solar Orientation
Ordinance. He would like to know if a full 70°b of the homes proposed were going to meet the Solar
Orientation Ordinance. It was tough for him to see in some of the higher density areas, how that was
going to be accomplished. If it was not, what good was the ordinance.
He also wanted to reiterate what the gentlemen had to say very eloquently and forcefully about the change
in the plan having to do with the Pit Stop type of an arrangement.
Ms. Lindy Conrad, resident of Oakridge, addressed parcel N. They bought their residence in Oakridge
in 1988. They did not come down and look at any Master Plans, so they were naive to that, but at the
time they were told that the land behind Lemay, Parcel N, was all to be single family homes. In 1989,
it was rezoned for business services, they had seen some really nice development with business services.
At the same time, there were neighbors who were told there was a height restriction on the hospital there
and the height restriction was that it would not go over one story. That is not the case, as the building
is standing two stories with the gym over there. Now, in 1992, it looked as though it was going to be
rezoned as business service, multi-family, but as a resident of OakRidge, neighborhood cohesion was not
there. Putting these higher level buildings in as multi-family could mean apaztment buildings. She saw
that they were not helping carry the property values that had been established within the Oakridge
develo.pment. The people that do have views of the mountains and fields across would be lost if they go
in with higher buildings again. She preferred to see that pazcel N stay as business services. Granted,
there were quite a few uses that they could anticipate for that area, but Q seems like a large enough area
to accommodate it all.
Ms. Laurie Pesetto, also a resident at Oakridge, asked about the actual connection from Mail Creek Lane
to the road that connects with Boardwalk.
Mr. Shepard replied no, there was a former proposal that was brought to the neighborhood information
meeting that did show a local street connection to bring vehiculaz traffic to the front of Werner School
via Mail Creek Lane. That local street connection had been deleted off the Master Plan.
Ms. Pesetto suggested that if they did not connect it might be beneficial to add a parking area in addition
to the drop off area for programs that occur at the school for all of those that attend from the eastern
side. She also asked about the neighborhood park and how much of an area surrounding the park was
it intended to serve.
Mr. Shepard replied that neighborhood parks were intended to serve the square mile section in which they
were located. In this area, this particular park was situated that it would serve Oakridge, Fairway
�
June 29, 1942 P&Z Board Mecting Minutea
Page 10
�
Estates, Miramont and possibly Fossil Creek Meadows. The reason being was that there were not any
park sites. The available park site in Oakridge was a�privately maintained detention pond that did not
have the type of facilities that were anticipated for this park. That was one of the reasons Parks and
Recreation would like to locate this park on a eollector street so there would be easy access from both
sides of Lemay Avenue.
Ms. Pesetto asked if that meant it would �have a higher density use than most neighborhood parks?
Mr. Shepard replied the uses that were going in the park had not yet been determined. The park had not
yet been acquired although negotiations were procee�ing. There had to be a few years that go by so
enough development occurs to generate the parkland fee to design and construct the park. After that
period, Parks and Recreation has neighborhood meetings and they take input from the citizens as to what
type of facilities would go into the park.
Ms. Pesetto commented it was her understanding that each lot sold in Oakridge contributed part of the
money to purchase this land and she just wanted to be assured that when the time came to develop this
park, that Oakridge had a voice into how the park was developed and what equipment goes into the park.
She would also favor a closer location to Lemay for this park so that it would provide better access to
the families off Lemay in Oakridge. The kids that live in Oakridge would be crossing a major artery,
which would be Lemay, which was not as large as any of the roads on the other sides of the park and
that would also help to ensure that property values were not affected as highly as the business and
residential multi-family use would give. She also wanted to know what the total overall unit number
would be for the entire development.
Mr. Shepard replied tlie land use breakdown on the ODP that you have before you tonight was listing
a total of 848 units recognizing that several of the parcels had dual designations, that parcels N, parcels
Q and A could go in a vaziety of densities and they caution folks at the ODP stage the Master Plans did
not guarantee any densities. No veste� rights are vested at this stage. Depending on how these parcels
develop out, that 848 could change quite significantly. What we do was we try to get an accurate
snapshot at this time as to what the proposed land uses could be and try to plan accordingly. So, we have
an 848 on the ODP and recognize that this did not guarantee any kind of density and it could change over
time.
Ms. Pesetto asketl if when they say significant number changes, did they mean it could go down or up?
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct.
Ms. Pesetto asked if it could be 1200 instead of 800?
Mr. Shepard replied that was di�cult to answer.
Ms. Pesetto went on to say, if Oakridge moved back to Werner this year she saw that with this much
development they wou(d need another school within the time period that this development was completed.
She believed that it would be wise to designate or save an area that might possibly be the site for this
school. She also asked what the white section was that
had no designation. .
Mr. Shepard replied that was the psychiatric hospital.
�
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutea
Page 11
Ms Pesetto replie� no, south.
•
Mr. Shepard replied that was a private out parcel that was being held by a private owner.
Ms. Pesetto asked if there was a plan to attempt to purchase this land.
Mr. Shepard replie� he did not know, that would be a question for the applicant.
Ms. Pesetto asked if the land was purchase�, would they be notified for a zoning change for that
property?
Mr. Shepard replied that for that parcel to be brought in to the ODP, it would have to go through an
amende� ODP process such as they were having this evening.
Vice Chairman Walker also replied that if there were a PUD development on that, they would go through
a similar process as we are doing now, and at this time that particular parcel was not part of their
deliberation.
Member CarroIl asked about Mr. Knight's question concerning storm drainage into Fossil Creek and into
Mail Creek, and was it addressed at the time of the Overall Development Plan.
Mr. Shepard replied that the ODP did not specifically address drainage issues. That was determined at
the time of the site plan review whether it is determined through a PUD, use by right through our
drainage criteria, through the erosion control plan, which we did have requirements for, and for the
drainage and grading plans that were required. These were generally reviewed by the Storm Drainage
Department, the Engineering Department, and the Department of Natural Resources.
Member Carroll asked about the concern that was raised about the redesignation of what is now shown
as parcel N from business service to multi-family or business service and. he thought the concern, if he
remembered it correctly, was that the new designation would allow a greater height than just business
service or if that would be something that they would address on a preliminary review.
Mr. Shepard replied that the ODP level did not grant a vested right. There were no assumptions of
density in terms of what could actually be proposed in terms of a site plan review and height would be
one of the issues that would be addressed at the time of a PUD application for a multi-family project.
Member Carroll asked that by allowing multi-family, the applicant was not automatically entitled to a
height of X number of feet to where there was nothing they could do about that.
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct, that would be part of a site specific PUD submittal. .
Member O'Dell asked if there was a wetland area on parcel N and had there been any thought to putting
the park onto the wetland area.
Mr. Ward replied that was an anticipated detention area as opposed to a wetland. It had been discussed,
but the Parks Depaztment, as they have done consistently in other sections, was fairly adamant against
purchasing neighborhood parks with arterial frontage. Both because of the safety factor, and they have
�
June 29, 1942 P&Z Board Meeting Minutes
Page 12
�
higher development costs because they have to do the Developer's share of the arterial street
improvements.
Member O'Dell asked if they were interested in locating the park there so that the City would have to
develop Lemay or did they have some other motivation as well.
Mr. Wazd replied they were not particularly motivated, they just wanted to have the options that they
talked about. It was unusual that it was serving Oakridge on the other side of the arterial. They looked
at a central azea that would be combined with the large open space in the unoccupied psychiatric hospital,
and they looked at several different configurations in terms of utilities, drainage, patterns and alt of that.
Again, one of the objections that the Parks Department had was that for the basin above the Mail Creek
Ditch, storm water exits the site into the large drainage swale into Oakridge at that point and the Parks
Department had specifically not wanted to combined parks with detention ponds if they could avoid it.
So they had no particular motivation for N versus P versus part of Q there were just a number of
alternatives that they had talked about.
Member O'Dell stated it seemed like it would take care of several of the concerns of the neighbors
concerning the view and the accessibility to the park. She could understand the safety concern. She
thought there was probably some solution to that and she would hope that there could be some creative
solutions to who could pay for the development improvements to Lemay. She thought that it would not
make a difference to them whether they were building multi-family there or if they were building multi-
family somewhere else to have to improve Lemay and she did not know if anything was ever creatively
done with the Parks Department or the City in terms .of development and who pays for the development
or the improvements to the arterial.
Mr Shepard replied the Parks Department was considered the Developer if they owned land adjacent to
an arterial. As development pays its own way so shall Parks pay for their arterial frontage. That was
why they sought internal frontage off collector streets. The corner of Boardwalk and Lemay would be
signalized as warrants generate the tra�c so it would be a safe crossing to get to it but, they just did not
want that arterial frontage.
Member 0'Dell still hoped that they could talk about this again with the Parks Department. It certainly
seemed that if the Developer was willing to chip in with the development along Lemay that may be a
possibility.
Mr. Peterson added we would be happy to raise the issue again with the Parks Department because this
was one of the more difficuit square miles because the location of the elementary school had already been
chosen and he thought that the Board realized that their cooperative arrangements with the School District
these days was to try to locate elementary schools and neighborhood parks together. He thought Mr.
Shepard touched on some of the things about how the Parks Department views neighborhood parks in
terms of the costs. One of the things that he had to teli them was that the $625.00 per unit for parkland
fees was rapidly getting to the point of not being su�cient for both the acquisition and development of
neighborhood park sites. He would urge the people that were concerne� however, because this was a
very similar situation to what they had in Clarendon Hills to open a dialogue with the Parks and
Recreation Commission and Park Department about the location of the park. It was going to have a
major impact on the neightiorhood. Quite frankly, having the neighborhood express interest was a good
way to bring the issue to a head as they go through the acquisition. They had not committed to this point
•
June 29, 1992 P&Z Boand Meeting Minutes
Page 13 _
�
to what they were going to acquire. They had been in negotiations a considerable amount of time with
the land owner.
Member O'Dell encouraged the neighbors to talk to the Parks Department too because they could not
make:that decision. The Board could make a recommendation but certainly no decision. Another issue,
She sort of painfully remembered all of the Pace discussions and she very clearly remembered the
discussion about the buffering between Fairway Estates and the Pace development, Harmon� Market.
She was opposed to any kind of change up there in the designated use. She thought to change it without
an applicant was irresponsible on the Board's part and going back on something they assured the
neighbors. She would not support that change to the Master Plan. She thought the changes in terms of
density and the realignment of Boardwalk made sense. She also clarified that the Solar Orientation
Ordinance called for 65� of the lots to be solar oriented rather than 80%.
Vice Chairman Walker asked why there was no neighborhood park in Oakridge.
Mr. Shepard replied no he could not, he did not know the background. He did know that the detention
pond was developed as a mini park site, but he believed it was maintained by the Oakridge Homeowners
Association and they were paying for the irrigation. Perhaps the applicant could expand on that.
Mr. Wazd replied there was not a neighborhood pazk on the City Parks Master Plan and they were not
interested in pursuing a park site as Oakridge developed. There was an attempt by the Oakridge
developer to try to do something jointly with the large detention pond. He did not know if they had been
by there, but they planned it with a number of recreational facilities, not as extensively as the City would
have typically done in a neighborhood park. But because of the dual purpose of the detention pond, the
Parks Department wasn't interested in getting involverl in the ownership or maintenance of it. He thought
part of the complication dealt with Southridge and the Southridge Golf Course being more of a
community recreational area in that section. With the railroad tracks and the extensive industrial business
park in Oakridge, the number of units to generate the figure to do a neighborhood park did not appear
to be there for the section east of Lemay on its own and he believed, that their decision was that they
could generate parkland fees in order to do a better park in this section with the existing lower density
county subdivision than to try to do two very small parks on either side of Lemay by sizing the parks and
facilities around the parkland fees generated. It was discussed intermittendy as the Oakridge filings came
into the City, but that was always the conclusion that Oakridge on its own would not generate enough
fees to justify a neighborhood park and the Parks Department was not interested in joint venturing or
getting involved in the detention area recreation area.
Mr. Peterson added that because he thought there were a couple of other reasons that needed to come out.
He thought they had a number of large lot county subdivisions occur a number of years ago so there were
no fees collected there. Also, the City had acquired 60 - 70 acres around Portner Reservoir for not a
neighborhood park, but a community park which was south of the property that they were talking about.
There had never been any funds appropriated for development, but the acquisition had been accomplished.
The thought of the Parks Department at that time was that some of those neighborhood park features that
you would see would be built in that Portner Reservoir Park and since that had not come to fruition they
had been looking to the north. He thought most of them remembered Paragon Point which was the
development south of the Southridge development. The Parks Department was looking at another smaller
scale park to service two square mile area. -
•
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Mecting Minutes
Page 14
•
Member Clements-Cooney asked about t�e potential for a bike path or a trail system along Mail Creek,
do you know if the Park Department is pursing that.
Mr. Shepard replied no, that would be a Homeowner's Association path. That was not part of the Fossil
Creek bike path that was being funded out of the lottery funding. The Fossil Creek bike path would go
to the park that Tom just referred to, Fossil Creek Community Park. But, along Mail Creek that was
more of a little neighborhood connection, not part of the Parks Master Plan. -
Member Clements-Cooney added that Parkland Fees were not adequate to throw road improvements into
the equation. Although, if the neighborhood would like to pursue that, she thought the Parks &
Recreation Department would be open to discussing those options so feel free to pursue that. Also, a
comment regarding parcel S, she would also not be supporting the change of pazcel S to auto-related
roadside commercial and would like to agree with what Member O'Dell said and just second what she
said.
Member Cottier talked further about the buffering issue and the discussion they had with Pace. Her
recollection was that they made some �ery strong commitments to Fairway Estates, but she couldn't
remember exactly if they applied to the new parcel designate� S or just to the residential parcels south.
She went back looking at the minutes and it did not tell her the answer to those questions. From their
discussion tonight, she was disappointed to hear that there was a note on the Master Plan to hear that
auto-related and roadside commerc.ial were acceptable here because that was not her recollection.
Another point she would like to make in going back and looking at the minutes from this meeting, in
1989 when the then Master Plan was approvefl she had asked about the restrictions on the then parcel G
& H. The minutes said that G would be zone� RL and H would be treated as though zoned RLM and
that they were giving up the right to come back later and amend the Master Plan but reserved the right
to seek things such as a day care center and residential scale offce buildings on H. She did not
remember anything about that, but with that right in the minutes she was kind of wondering was there
any kind of a commitment that the Master Plan would not be amended. That aside, apart from parce(
S, she thought no one was objecting to the other amendment because they did reflect improved treatment
of the. specific situation out there. She also was opposed to changing the designation on parcel S, and
would be opposed to an auto roadside use on that parcel even though she realized that, that particular
location was acceptable. She would be oppose� to it based on what she thought were the Board's
commitments at the time when they were trying to compromise on Pace. With respect to parcel N and
the designation or changed designation there, she thought multi-family could be appropriate, but she
would suggest that they might add a height restriction if they wanted to say multi-family or business
services there.
Vice Chairman Walker commented on parcel S and by making this proposed change it seemed like they
were closing out a number of options and they saw no point in doing so this time. He believed that Mr.
Thomas made the point very well, that the business service designation was it now stands we have quite
a number of options that could potentially be looked at and I see no reason why we need to foreclose
those options by changing that designation at this point in time.
Member O'Dell asked about the drop off lane on the east side of Werner Elementary School. Someone
tonight in the public input part suggested there be a parking area there and there were lots of times that
parents go to the school and stay for extended periods of time rather than just dropping of their kids. She
was sitting trying to figure out how could they use that in a way to serve the school and serve tfie needs
of the parents on those occasions when they would go there, and maybe it could be designated as an
I�
L./
June 29, 1992 P&Z Board Meeting Minutca
Pagc 15
�
overflow parking for special event kinds of things and the rest of the times i[ could be a basketball court
and roped off so that cars could not pazk there. Had there been any discussion with the School District
to put any kind of parking area there and any kind of creative ideas of what else it could be.
Mr. Ward replied he talked to the School District about their parking needs and they admitted that in the
elementary schools they were building now they did build more parking. There were also limits to how
many of the School District problems that the private Developer could afford to solve here. The school
did recognize that they were short on parking. He did not hear any firm plans on the School District's
part to add any parking. In addition to the things that they talked about before with certainly the ability
for evening users to walk in from a, practical standpoint, that did not happen a great deal. Their main
circulation streets, although, not needed to be designed as city colleetor streets, were intende� to be done
with predominantly, if not, entirely side yards with houses that would front and take their access off of
local streets that come off of that and there would at least be a fair amount of on-street parking available
that wouldn't be diminished by people's driveways and a little bit less of a burden on a neighborhood than
when you get on street parking up and down the local streets that were also houses. That may not
address it as well as a nice new parking lot, but it was something that is available that the School District
has talked about.
Mr. Shepard added that they were very interested in controlling the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in
front of the school and isolating it to just one location. That way the back playground area was free from
vehicular conflicts as much as possible. That was why they had a separate bus lane in the front and a
sepazate parking lane. That was where they figured all the conflict was and that was where they wanted
to control it and not add another area of conflict on the east.
Vice Chairman Walker stated he thought as he recalled this discussion and again he thought the School
District was the one that had very strong ideas on that. Mixing pedestrians, particularly short
pedestrians, and cars was not a good idea.
Member O'Dell commented she wasn't suggesting that the Developer build a parking lot, she was hoping
that the school would see that as a possible solution that they could get involved in.
Mr. Ward replied they had talke� about that, if the best solution in this area requires more room than we
can provide, given the street geometric and grades out there that he saw some willingness from the School
District that this existing fence was not an immovable barrier, that if they needed some more room to
make the right solution happen that they could get some cooperation from the School District both in
terms of encroaching into their area and possibly picking up some of the expenses. He felt like the
meetings they had, had been with a cooperative spirit.
Member Carroll moved the approval of Oak Cottonwood Farm, Amended Overall Development
Plan with the exception that Parcel S remain as shown as the same use as this parcel lA previously
which I believe is oftice retail.
Member Clements-Cooney seconded the motion.
Member Cottier commented that since other Board Members did not seem to be particularly interested
in any sort of a height restriction on parcel N, that they certainly would consider that whenever a PUD
did come in on that parcel.
C�
June 29, 1992 PBtZ Boatd Mecting Minutea
Page 16
•
Member Carroll replied he wouldn't say he wasn't interested, he would say it slipped by him. He
thought, the way he understood his response was there was no particular height restriction with either
business services or multi-family; so whatever ends up there they would address at that time. He was
very concerned that by allowing the additional multi-family, they were somehow approving a higher
height, but that having answered by concern he did not mean that they were not interested.
Vice Chairman Walker commented that was that he� thought that if that was an issue of concern, that it
would probably be more appropriately addressed at a preliminary plan that they might see on that site and
it might be considered in that context.
Mr. Shepard commented for the benefit of the citizens, that might not be aware, there was a building
height cap in the entire city of Fort Collins, the forty foot height limitation. No building could exceed
that unless they went through a special approval process that had to come before this Board.
The motion was approved 5-0.
UPPER MEADOW AT MIRAMONT. PRELIMINARY, �f5487G
Mr. Shepard gave the Staff report recommending approval with the following condition:
1. At the time of Final, for only 14 lots necessary to reach 654'o compliance, the applicant shall
provide additional techniques to accomplish the intent of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Such
techniques may include. but were not l.imited to, maximizing glazing on the southern exposure,
placing garages on the north side of the structure, or siting the structure on the lot so that the
home itself is within 30 degrees of a true east-west line. Such techniques shall be demonstrated
on the Final PUD.
Member Cottier asked if they have had that same condition on previous solar variances.
Mr. Ward had a brief handout regarding their position on the extra conditions on the solar access for the
Boazd to look at. He would briefly say that this was a plan that they thought had been very well thought
out in terms of a number of goals that they had and as far as achieving things like c}uality streetscaping
along Boardwalk, having to meet the on site detention requirements, but also to do it in a pleasing
aesthetic manner, as opposing to designing around to a more efficient but less attractive squarish detention
pond attempt to come close to the city minimum of 3 units per acre, but still have lot sizes that they felt
were necessary here and they felt were more'compatible to the existing large lot subdivision to the west.
He thought, unless there were other questions, the real focus of the discussion was probably towards the
extraordinary condition on the Solar Orientation Ordinance.
Those of them that were involved in the formulation of the Solar Orientation Ordinance, the question
came up repeatedly that if there were sight conditions or if it would tequire to dilute the quality of the
plan to force a solar orientation, were they going to require solar orientation regardless of other valid
planing concepts, or was it one of many criteria in planning and they were repeatedly told that was why
there was a variance procedure. If they had conditions like an existing drainage way, from Mail Creek
Ditch, predetermined street alignments, drainage patterns that, particularly because of the flafiess of the
site, needed to do certain things, those were exactly the reasons why there was a variance process.
Jan-22-97 08:47A
� JAN-Z9-97 1'IOIY I L� L7 Y�GtL.GKrKCNL � T
61-20-1997 01�02F'M FROM NORDIC F�S
Ms Gven Beil, Chair�?erson
Pza�nning � 2oRi�ng 6onrd
CiLy of Fcrt Coilins
P.O. Box 58a
Fort Coliins,
Dear Ms Bell:
Co�orado 80522-0580
JAN � 1 REC'D
This will refer tc the p�oject known as Oalc/Cottonvood Farm-
J��ended Overall Development Plan, �54-8�AL (mini-stozage
units) vhich is on yvur discussion agen3a January 2?.
we ih Fairvay Estates are very atroagly in favor of thia pro-
ject. UnfartunatelY the annual meeting ef the Fairvay Estatsa
Property Oxners �ssociation is 5cheduled for January 27, so I
vili be unable to attend that P b Z meeting to expregs support.
_ P_02
Z have just revieved a legal document titled, "oAx FARM - A�end-
ed and Restated D�claration ot protective Coven�nts��. This l990
aQreement betveen the City and affected prep�rty QvnCYS piaced
restrictiv� covenar�ts on t�►o parcels of land east of Fairvay
Estates. A portion of the sfte currently under discassion (#54-
e7AL) is covpred by tRfs 1990 agrsement. The agreemertt =estricte
u�ces on t?tis land, but provides t?1at these uses may be amended
wfth the consent ot the praperty owners and the Board of Directors
of Pairxar Estates.
A mini-storage bullding vas tentatively proposed for this 91te
in 1994. The FSPO� Board carefuily looked at Lhe proposal at
that time and agreed it vould be a welcome altarnative to single
family ho�nes, or an office park. Aii Fairvay Estat�s praperty
oxners affected by the mirii-storage buildinq proposai have been
contacted and are in accord that L�125 vould be a desirabie us�.
A neiQhborhood laformation meetinq staa held on October 2, 1996.
Not oniy c11Q Fairvay Estiate residents support this projQct, but
a�lso Miramont rnaidents spoke in iavor of it_
We v0u2d noL support t?�e usual stark, �netal bufl8ing normally
aSsoCiated yith mini-storage units, but the plans for ebis bni2d-
ing are very attra�tive and tit veil into a residantiai neiqhbar-
hood_ I do hot knov hov lreqnently peopie visit their storage
units, bnt even if they did sa each Week the zesuit vould be a
very loW uae intensity. Ne weZcome this project Decause it vill
provide a needed buifer from the very intense use along Soardvalk_
With all �the hiqh �ensity dv�lling units a2ready approved in this
area (plus the Harmony MarkeL bedla�r►) thQ City shouid be seeking
qulet, low traftic geaeratinQ projecta such as this ane.
F'17
W�-EELER P.Oa
Janu3ry 18, 1997
v � �vv�av
We urge your 3pproval of this project_
9�
xarol� ��.Presid nt,
Fairxay Estatas Pzoperty Ovners I►ssociation
storage units... majority are commercial accounts
open 7:00 am- 9:00 pm seven days a week
no electricity in the storage units
1 handicapped bathroom in the office building
will have a pass code to enter the main gate
resident manager on site/ husband and wife
well lit... 70% turned off when closed
color of buildings will match area
low signage
less than 40 cars per day
very quiet
serves as a buffer between commercial to east (Harmony Market) and residential
to west (Fairway Estates).
•
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MINUTES
PROJECT:
DATE:
APPLICANT:
STAFF:
�
SecurCare Mini-Sforage at Oak/Coftonwood Farm
October 2, 1996
John King
Michael Ludwig, City Planner
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
1.
A.
2.
A.
QUESTIONS / CONCERNS / COMMENTS
What kind of fencing are you using?
The backs of the storage buildings serve as fencing. Regular fencing is proposed
along Lot 2(office uses). It will be black vinyl coated.
I live on Blue Stem. I would like to see a lot of trees along the outside.
The perimeter will be well landscaped.
• �
3. You mentioned lighting and when they would go out at night. Where are they at?
A. Along the boundaries of the property.
4. Will it be light aimed at the building?
A. Yes.
5. It's sounding like all of the lights will be on the building. Are there any on poles?
A. No. All of the lights will be on the building. They are made to cast light downward.
6. Is the office portion in 2 stories?
A. Yes, it will have a residential character.
7. How many units are there total?
A. There will be 650 storage units.
8. How many can there be in a commercial development?
A. The market determines that.
9. I've been following the plans as they've progressed. I'm very much in favor of this
project. I think it would act as a buffer to the existing commercial to the northeast.
As long as it meets the approval of the Planning and Zoning Board, we (Fairway
Estates) will support it.
10. I would like to see a lot of trees. I like trees.
A. We've spent a lot of time developing a landscape plan to meet all of the City's
requirements. We have $35,000 budgeted for landscaping.
11. I'm pleased to see no fence around it. Most of the units you see around town do.
Is there a problem with theft?
A. When we built our first place in 1972, there were problems. Things have changed
over the years. However, the tenants buy locks from us, use them, and then throw
them away. We have a very low rate of entry.
12. I have a question about Lot 2. What is the zoning there?
A. The property is zoned Planned Residential with a PUD condition. The PUD
condition requires the development to be submitted as a Planned Unit Development
� �
subject to the requirements of the Land Development Guidance System and review
by the Planning and Zoning Board. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Board
must also review a request to amend the land uses permitted on the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm Overall Development Plan to allow storage units.
13. An office building is proposed for Lot 2. I'm concerned about the traffic it will
generate.
A. About a year and a half ago, the neighborhood reviewed another plan which had 10
office buildings. This plan will generate far less traffic than that plan.
14. When I look at this whole lot (Lots 1 and 2) with a bite taken out of it (Lot 2), I figure,
why not do it all? I'm also concerned about the property values in the north part of
Miramont. If we get anything else in there, it will look like College Avenue.
A. Most customers come from "close by", within a 2 mile radius.
15. Could you speak a little bit about the elevation of the development?
A. The maximum height is 13 to 14 feet.
16. When they build a house... they excavate the basement... the first floor is 5 feet
up.... With these we can still see the sky. This makes the property owners happy.
I really support
this development.
17. Is this a proposal... a done deal... already breaking ground?
A. It is not a done deal. Approval could take until March (likely later). Then there
would be 5 months of construction.
18. You could expand this later if the market is "right"?
A. Yes.
19. Which way does the water drain?
A. It drains out to the east into the large green area (detention pond). Then it's piped
to the street.
20. How much can you rent the units for?
A. The units are 10' x 10' and will rent for $65-70 per month.
�
•
�����, �12t ���
Mr. Mike Ludwig
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
� —, �
730 Meadow Run Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
March 21, 1997
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
We received your notice of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting scheduled for Monday,
March 24 at which meeting an appeal will be heard to amend land uses on Parcel V of the
Oak/Cottonwood Farm ODP to allow the construction and operation of mini-storage units. My
wife and I would very much like to attend this meeting but, unfortunately, we will be out of town.
We write to tell you we are strongly opposed to amending land uses on Parcel V to
permit the proposed development. We believe the developers are well meaning folks and have tried
to make the proposed mini-storage unit development as inoffensive as possible, but we do nat
believe the proposed amendmem to�e in �ur �est iirt�ests as Miramont ho�neawners or in the best
interest of our fellow Miramont residents.
Our reasorxs for s��vsi�g tk�e amendiraer�t a�e as �ollows:
• 1. No matter how tasteful the design, mini-storage units will still look like
sheds and will degrade t�e attractiveraess flf the neighboriiood.
2. Residents at the north end of the Miramont subdivision will have an
unattractive second �loor view o� sheds and asphalt.
3. Accepted urban planning would dictate that transition from a single
family residential neighborhood to a commercial area be accomplished with:
a) townhomes / patio homes
b) duplexes
c) apartments and/or
d) low-rise office buildings.
4. Mini-storage units would seem more appropriate for an
industrial/warehouse area rather than a residentiaUcommercial area.
We wou�d very mucfi appreciate ti�e Board taking our objectians into co�ideration in
reaching its de�cision.
Thank you!
•
Very truly yours,
Donald R. Koessel
�-�-��.
�a�.rt�i.�, � - � \ ctP�2c' �
� �� Jeannine C. Koessel
! r�t-�4-s7 nou �
14,44
,�--.
March 24, 1997
M I CR;��LOGY
Mike Ludwi�
City 1'lanner
Planning and Zoning Board
uf the City of Forr Collins
Foz� Collins, Co[orado
FAX N0. 970��1815
Pe: Qak/Cottonwnod F�rxn, Amended Overall Development PIan, #54-87AL
C7ak/Cottoi�woc�d Farm, Miramont Self Storage PCTD, Prelinv.nary,#54-
87A1VI.
Dear 1V1r. Ludwib/Planning and Zoxting Board:
I am writing in response to the nolice fu� the application for the land
use of I'arcel V c�f the Qak/Cottonwood Farm Qb�' to allow mini-storage
units• I azxi �ppc>sed to the use of this Iand f�r mini-storage units for the
following reasu��.
First, the construction of mini-st�rage units across from the ,Miramont
apartments will �ncourage Iong-term use of these apartzneni;s and will not
encourage individuals to seek az�d purchase homes, sizt�e convenient storagc
facilities will bc available. Z am not at all opp��ec� t� apaztments or mini-
storage units. In fact, I pxeviously x�ented an apdz�tment and used mini-sto.ra�e
units on South Coll�ge for appro.cimately 9 months prior to purchasing a
ho�7tN in Fort C�llins_ �-iowever, Y do believe that apartznents should
represent temp�rary housing.
In additxan, my family just moved into the residential area juxtaposed
to this parcel of land and al�zx�st every fatx�ily in this �r�a has children which
play in the area_ A�acility for mini-storage units would increase traffic in this
area, which is already somewhat cangested and wQuld increase the Iikelihood
�f accidents to pedestrians and ehildren.
fiir1dlly, my family and z moved into this area s�ince we thought it
would be a nice, r�latively quiet neighborhovd that would be enjoyed during
after work and evenin.g hours. I believe that a�nini-storage facility would
in�rease both noise pollution due to individezals moving i�n and out of the
uruts and incrcase exhaust £umes clue to the use �f �anuving vehicles.
P. 02
MAR-24-97 MOH 14;45 MIC�OLOGY FAX N0. 970�1815 P,03
'Titank you for allowing me to voice my o inion via fiAX since X am �
unable to attend the meeting. p
Sincerely,
��� � ��
Claudia Gentry-Wee •
•
•
Jan-24-97 02:52P
•
•
SecurCare Self Storage, Inc.
6551 Sauth Revere Parkw�v
Englewood, Colorado 80111
(303) 792-9952 FAX (303) 792-2166
January 24, 1997, 3:10 PM
City af Fort Coilins
281 North Callege Avenue
Fort Collins, Coiorado 80522
Re. Oak/Cattanwood Farm
ODP Amendment
Attn: Mr. Rtike Ludwig
Dear'_�iike.
We still desire to postpone the ODP amendment to the next Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
Thank you for your help and concern today.
Should have any questions or need further inform�tien, please call me at the aba��e number or on
my pager at (3U>) 83E>-3332,
Sincere(y,
_, i /
� ,r; ' �-> .� �
�� John H. King III
P_O1
cc• Fred Croci
Jan-24-97 IO:OlA
January 24, 1997
�
�
�ecur�ar� Setf Storage, Inc.
655I South Rev�ere Parkway
Englewood, ColQrado 80111
(303) 792-94�2 FAX (303) 792-2166
City of Fort Collins
281 :�`otth C�Ilege Rver,ue
Fort Coliins, Colorado 80522
Re: �JaUCettonwood Farr�
ODP Amendment
Attn: Mr. 14iike Ludwig
Dear Mike:
P_O1
�� ���.
,ti. �:
Vi�'e are requestin� that the OaklCo�tonwood farm ODP rlmendment oe pastpon�d to the
FebruarY 24, l997 Pla:�ning and Zoning B�oard meeting.
At the February 24 rnee*ing we aiso request that che nDP amendment, Prcleimiary/Fina� PUD� and
the PreliminarylFinal Plat be heard concurrently as one agenda item.
This postponement reQuest is based upan the a�sumpticn that it wLl not affe�t cr delay us under
the city's Plan 2000 or the current "moratorium". Should this one month postgonement cause us
to be affected by Plan 2000, please call, since we ��ouid no longer desire to postpone the C)DP
amendment. -
Should have any questions or need further informotion, plcase call me at the above num5er or or
my pager at (303} 836-3332.
Sincerely,
Jonn H. King III
cc: Fred Croci